From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Libertarian freedom quiz Was: Re: Libertarians
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:42:29 GMT

In article <ARCHER.825.727473060@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T.
Archer) writes:

|>In article <C1419u.CzK@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill
|>Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>>|> You may have missed the point of my posting. I was providing an example 
|>of>|>a socialist workers compensation fallacy.
|>>
|>>The Socialist Workers is a political party of roughly four times the size of
|>the
|>>US Libs and about as politicaly credible. Although they ascribe to Castro
|>style
|>>equal compensation regardless of effort few other Socialists consider it a
|>>sensible idea.
|>
|>Where?  The Libs are the third largest party in the US, behind the Dems and 
|>the Republicans.  Fourth is the New Alliance.  

Are US Libertarians incapable of recognising that the US is not the only country
in the world?

Apart from the old communist block they don't seem to know of any other
political systems.

The Socilist Workers party I was refering to was the UK party. They dont stand
in elections unless they are sure that their vote won't affect the Labour party,
which they prefer to the Tory party. Despite this they spend the entire time
outside the election period attacking the Labour party for not being Socialist
enough.


|>>|>What is to prevent socialist workers from slowing down their productivity.
|>>|>This
|>>|>is the slowdown which Castro acknowledged exists. Are you trying to say
|>that
|>>|>the slowdown is only occuring because of Fidel Castro.
|>>
|>>Given that I have imense difficulty beleiving anything Castro says I don't
|>>actualy accept the original quote as necessarily true. For some reasons
|>Steve
|>>beleives Castro does he always do this, if so there is yet another point of
|>>similarity between Free Market Libs and Trotts.
|>
|>"Another point" is debatable.  You have yet to substatiate any of you 
|>previous allegations, so if you have a point here, it is your first.  

Nope, I have made several essays of comparison and posted them recently. The
main points of comparison is that both parties prefer theoretical, untested and
untestable ideological policies to anything pragmatic. Both groups have no
concept of political feasibility. They both insist that only total
implementation of their policies is the only basis on which comparison can be
based and dismiss any comparison with existing approximations to their policies
on the basis of insufficiency. Both groups attract the same type of person.

|>But 
|>whether Steve believes Castro on a regular basis does not imply that all 
|>Libs do, nor that a majority of them do.  You have to, get this, check the 
|>platform, or treat them as individuals.  Me, I give Castro all the 
|>credibility that I give any other socialist.

Nope, not so, unless the "Libertarians" on the net are willing to disown Steve
you can all hang together. The point of comparison in this case was that some of
their number were gulible enough to give credence to the sayings of Castro at
face value.

|>>|>Are you going to deny the 'slow' workers equal compensation, or are you
|>going
|>>|>to reward work with pay based on the productivity of that work ?
|>>|> I will admit that the only difference between the socialist ideal state
|>and
|>>|>the socialist/fascist structure we have in the usa, may be the size of the
|>>|>statist whip.
|>>
|>>I think the above little tantrum refering to the US as being a
|>socialist/fascist
|>>structure shows the political credibility of Libertarian Philosophy quite
|>well.
|>
|>How?

As with all the democracies, the US has been strongly influenced by socialist
thought and has many socialist elements in its constitution such as universal
suffrage, prohibhition of slavery etc which were all fought for by the
socialists in Europe. Indeed they were an essential part of what David Owen, the
father of Socialism wanted to achieve. However to describe the USA as a fascist
state is to utterly trivialise the memory of one of the most abhorent periods of
human history. The USA is not founded on the concept of maintaining ethnic
purity through eugenics and mass murder, nor is the assertion of racial
superiority in any way acceptable in either society or government.

The casualness with which "Libertarians" can throw words about demonstrates one
reason why they have so little public credibility. The hijacking of the word
`Libertarian' itself and the rewriting of Libertarian philosophy to suit their
own pre-ordained conclusions demonstrates their mendacity. Like Chomsky says, if
you give a name to an idea, even if the name means something completely
different you can fool people into thinking that the idea and name are related
through constant repetition. By repeatedly calling themselves "Libertarian" they
think that they can fool us into beleiving that they are Libertarians when they
are no such thing,



|>>Perhaps if the "Libertarian" Party spent a little more time arguing against
|>the
|>>encroachment of government on established rights a bit more and pushed their
|>>ecconomic Utopia a little less the term would be accurate.
|>
|>Alas, you don't challenge them on those issues, so you never get to see 
|>them.  As a result, the only thing that you will see in this forum is the 
|>effort for Libs to keep what they have earned instead of consigning it to 
|>the state for "redistribution."

But there is no shortage of platitudes which they can produce to order on such a
theme regardless of whether their commitment is real or pretended. If the
Libertarian party members were in any way concerned with liberty they would make
it their business to find out about the many abuses of political liberty that
occur in the US and elsewhere and raise them themselves. A Libertarian is
someone who is active in the defense of liberty, not someone who merely accepts
the government line on everything but dosen't like paying taxes.

O.K. then since the "Libertarians" have asked for a quiz perhaps they could
defend US involvement in third world regimes which oppress human rights. What is
the "Libertarian" position on the air strikes in Iraq? Specificaly is the UN
entitled to determine the borders of countries and is the movement of the
Kewaiti border 1/2 Km into former Iraqui territory valid in terms of property
rights? If the answer is yes is it nevertheless a good idea to do something
which may be used as casum belli in the future?

Easier topics, is the US govt entitled to tap the phones of its citizens within
its borders? Is it entitled to tap the phones of it's citizens in other
countries? If not is there any circumstance in which it is permissible for the
government to tap a phone?


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69121 misc.legal:23079