From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:12:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.021654.4599@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>
>>>	Libertarians don't want pollution, or lax safety, or anything else like
>>>that.  It's a common fallacy among statists to believe than anyone who wants
>>>less government likes pollution, etc.
>> 
>> And, it's a common falacy among (some) libertarians to refer
>> to holders of contrary opinions as statists, specifically
>> whim-worshipping statists.  The only group who would be justified
>> in attaching the opprobrium "statist" to their opponents
>> would be anarchists; nearly all members of the Libertarian Party
>> are quick to distinguish themselves from anarchists.
>
>	People who advocate more state intervention are indeed statists.
>
>	Next?

My point is that the meaning of the word
"statist" when used in anarcho-capitalist literature
is useful as a contrasting philosophy to anarchy.  When an
anarchist refers to someone as a "statist", I know what
he means.  When someone who believes in the legitamacy
of specific government functions, and supports candidates
who intend to become legislators/executives in the 
government, uses the term "statist", I'm confused.
Is the LP definition = statist: someone who believes
in a larger government than I do?

>>>	However, the Libertarians believe that the individual, and the market,
>>>are strong enough to keep these things under control.
>>>
>>>	As long as government isn't interfering and allowing companies to
>>>pollute and have unsafe work conditions.
>> 
>> I'm not sure that I read this correctly:  are you saying that the
>> government should allow companies to pollute and have unsafe
>> working conditions, or not.  If not, then the LP have come
>> quite a distance since I left it.
>
>	Not should, they *do*, under the guise of regulation and "let the
>government take care of it".
>
>	Libs would let the market, and individuals, punish polluters. 
>Litigation and informed consumers shut down many polluters/unsafe operations.

I am THOROUGHLY aware of what libertarians believe.  I know that 
"litigation" has been used to shut down polluters.  One of the
reasons that I left the LP is that it makes more sense to
me to use effective government regulation to enforce environmental
and safety standards in the first place, then to wait until
the damage is done and then "punish" the polluters.

>>>
>>>	Which government agency was supposed to inspect that Carolina chicken
>>>factory?
>> 
>> I heard that is was an agency which had a staff of two people
>> who were responsible for inspections of thousands of businesses
>> in North Carolina.  No red tape here!
>
>	You just don't get it, do you?  The assertion is that government is
>taking care of it.  Oops?  People burn?  Why, obviously *more* government is
>needed!

I GET IT!  I just don't accept the sarcasm.  To me, this is a clear
example of why better enforcement of existing laws is called for.

>	Government *isn't* doing the job.

Frequently, this is correct.  You and I draw rather different
conclusions from that fact.

>Brett                                                      


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc