From: chen@informatics.wustl.edu (The Chenster)
Subject: Libertarian discussion.
Keywords: libertarian
Organization: Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri USA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:33:35 GMT

I have been following this interesting discussion.  I have also done
some reasing on my own. Some conclusions:

1) Someone [i forget whom] pointed out that even though the Socialist 
   Party has never won an election in the U.S., every one of their 
   planks were enacted into law.  So maybe in 20 years even though 
   no libertarian will win, they will have succeeded in overturning 
   all of this legislation.  

2) Much of the deregulation the libertaarians are proposing appear to
   be similar to the conditions present at the end of the 19th century
   in America.  There, large coorporations and "robber barons" made 
   huge profits while their workers lived in miserable conditions.  
   Remember, "as much as the trafffic can bear?" [Or something similar.]
   It seemed that "market forces" did not drive the cooporations to 
   better treat their workers. In fact, just the opposite happened. 
   To maximize their profits, they tried paying their workers as 
   little as possible while still getting work  out of them. 
   A few workers might have died, but that that was just part of the
   cost of operating.  Now, did the workers have "personal freedom"
   because they could have chosen to starve instead? I mean there is 
   some point where pesonal freedom ends. If I threaten you with a gun,
   do you still have "personal freedom" because you can choose not to 
   do what I tell you?  
   It seems that if a cooperation is making a huge profit, some of 
   the "reward" should go to the employees.  It seems that conditions
   improved when child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and the maximum 
   workweek were implemented.  This seemed to be the case for the 
   California citrus growers, who used "okkies" displaced from their homes 
   by the Dust Bowl. Of course the citrus growers COULD afford to pay their
   workers more, but had agreed with each other not to.  Any grower 
   who did not go along with this would suffer because of actions
   by the other growers (flooding of markets, etc.)   In fact 
   many hired their own "private security force."  When anti-trust 
   laws were passed to prevent this type of collaboration, and 
   other workers' laws  did conditions improve.

3) The philosophy about allowing people "freedom" unless it directly
   inhibit's another's "freedom" is genarally an admirable one, but 
   seem otherwise when you try to apply it to all cases.  Then, I 
   argue, people should be allowed to drive when they are drunk until they
   endanger someone else.  This seems to be the philosphy behind 
   legalizing all drugs.  Even with legal drugs, there is always a trade-off
   between my freedom and the user's freedom.  The second-hand 
   smoke of cigaretts indirectly reduces my "freedom" because it 
   increases my likelyhood of cancer.  However, in this case we determine
   [and I agree] that the smoker's freedom is more important.  The case 
   could be made or individual drugs such as marijuana, etc.  However
   to do away with all regulation is ridiculous.  

4) Many govermental functions such as funding scientific research, 
   setting eveironmental policy, and space exploration seem difficult 
   under "private contributions."  For example people do believe that 
   research should be funded, but how difficult will it be for 
   inidividuals to make an infomed decision as to which 
   project in what area is worth funding?  It seems the individual will
   have to have a pretty in depth understanding of all areas of science
   to make this decision.  WHat about regulating cooporations so that 
   they do not do things that interfere with things that we enjoy 
   like clean air and sunlight without too much UV radiation? 
   There should be some regulation shouldn't there? 

5) If we take away public education, health care,,and the minimum
   wage law (not even affording them subsistance), then the 
   promise of "liberty" to those born into the most unfortunate
   conditions seem but a hollow one.  This is why I've decided 
   against the libertarian party even though their ideals seemed
   promising at first.