From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party will wreck the US ?Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Summary: No theory needed--Inquire Within
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:54:35 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

Our news crashed so this response is even later than usual:

Mike Polen wrote:

>Al Date) writes:
>|> 
[but, of course, I didnt say this:]
>|> >
>|> >Regardless of the policies they propose a group like the libertarians
>|> >will cause a disaster. Any group that thinks that the only way to save
>|> >the ecconomy is to apply a theory regardless of the effect it has will
>|> >cause a disaster.
>|> >
>|> 

[I said this:]

>|> Oh, you must be referring to the current borrow-and-spend regime.
>|> You're right, it will cause a disaster.
                     unless Ed Ipser is right, of course. (8-)
>|> The Libertarians want govt to live within its means, just like
>|> everyone else has to do.  We have seen that the only way
>			      	      ^^^^
>|> to get democratic govt to do that is to structurally limit its scope.  
>|> Otherwise, the special interests conspire to raid the Treasury. 
>|> 

>Where have you *seen* this?  

Washington DC.

>Where in the world is your model of a
>structurally limited democracy?  

Structurally limited democracy is called a Republic.  That is
the basis of our nation.  It is about liberty delimiting democracy.
The distinguishing feature of liberty is that it establishes
individual sovereignty as opposed to either dictatorship of the majority
or the minority.  Under liberty, majority rule is confined to the
selection of representatives.  Supermajorities are required to change
the rules.  Outside this realm, individuals are free to live their
lives as they see fit.

>How about in the last 50 years?  The
>world is much different that in was 200 years ago, why do you think
>a 200 year old model would work today?

Well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that in most
cases where the govt has legally busted through its
constitutional bounds, it has led to economic disaster, on the one hand,
or oppression, on the other.  (This list is too long to enumerate,
but we could start with IRS abuses, civil forfeitures, 
banking regulation, agriculture subsidies, FRB, FDA, DEA, CIA...)
  
I might add that the current $4 trillion national debt is
ample testimony that insufficiently restrained govt institutions
are often more dangerous to the prosperity of the people than are a 
nation's foreign enemies.  

The fact that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were warning Americans 
of this 200 years ago adds more credence to the idea that the
system of *limited govt* which they established was a valid idea--just as
appropriate today as it was then.  If only Jefferson had succeeded in
restricting the power of the govt to borrow...

Anyway, the size of a minimal govt of today will be larger and somewhat
different in shape now that it was 200 years ago, but the concept of
"minimal govt" as opposed to open-ended socially activist govt is crucial.

Further, if we analyze our phenomenal economic success as a nation/culture, 
we find such values as the respect for individual rights (including
property), the preservation of a market economy, a belief in individual 
striving/reward, et al, as the social values which have elevated us 
to the unprecedented standards of living which we now take for granted--
none of which requires the size of govt we now have.  It should be noted
that it is only by the great wealth of this nation that
income redistribution and all manner of largesse and deficit spending 
are even possible.

Unfortunately, the burden of the public sector 
is now slowly killing the Golden Goose, a situation which is not
without historical precedent.  The solution is obvious: reduce
the public sector back down to some minimal level, and let our 
creative energies and social values carry us forward. 

This view, which I share with many libertarians, is not based so much
on an adherence to an "a priori" theory, but on an interpretation of history, 
commonly referred to as a classical liberal view.  It is expressed in such
sayings as "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," "the govt which governs least
governs best," et al.

If you disagree with the classical liberal interpretation of history, then at 
least we can discuss it rationally, and examine each historical assumption. 
There is no need to argue about "self-evident" theory at all.


--Al Date
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc