From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Ledger)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Summary: Not bad
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Try again
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:07:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.134646.18018@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, 
colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes...

>In article <7JAN199322151858@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Libertrix) writes:

>> Can't speak for the libertarians, who are a typically idealistic and
>> rabidly rigid form of anarchist. But as just a plain old anarchist, 
>> I think you're a little off, marc. 
>> 
>> In article <1993Jan7.182028.29969@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, 
>> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes...
>> 
>> >As for the "too many governments" idea of Somalia, I think you're
>> >twisting the facts around.  The "warlords" of Somalia are nothing
>> >like the governments that Libertarians are constantly arguing
>> >against. They were not chosen by some of the people with authority
>> >over all of them. They are truly the Libertarian ideal.  They 
>> >have used their money to buy weapons to be totally independent
>> >of any law or society. 
>> 
>> Which is like saying that the elitists in the US congress are true
>> democrats. Try looking at all of the society.
>> 
> 
>The elitists in the US Congress were elected by their consituents.
>True many of them are jugheads, but at least they were elected 
>and when they lose - they are out.  Who elected the warlords?

Well who elected the US warlords?? Specifically, I'd like to know
who is =directly= responsible. I know who isn't. 

(1st.) The US "free election" myth. Doesn't jive with:

	a. 45% of eligible voters did not, in the '92 election
	b. local elections generally having a 10-20% turn out
	c. 5 constitutional amendments liberalizing the vote
	   (no such fiddling around with other issues)
	d. single day voting, held on work days
	e. extra registration requirements rather than simply
	   using social security numbers
	f. children, tax paying alien residents, and convicts
	   all restricted from voting

In a nation that claims equality for all, (...and who have made the 
concession that *all* have a right to be heard as evidenced by the
trend of constitutional voting amendments), there is still oppression 
by the democratic and republican partisans, largely arising from 
intellectual elitism, which proves that free elections *do not* 
exist in the US.

* Every American citizen deserves the right to vote without restriction. *

* Voting should be as simple as mailing in a postcard.                   *

{ With a verification number obtained earlier -- which should be published 
  with voting results to ascertain that one's vote was actually handled 
  correctly. The precedents such as "absentee voting and early voting" are 
  the exceptions which establish the feasibility. }

(2nd.) A simple question: 

	What better description than "warlords" can be applied
	to the rulers of the most powerful military nation in 
	history?

(3rd.) A not so simple question:

	What makes you think our military rulers will give up power?


>> >Yes, they are violating the rule you
>> >think Libertarians should obey, to not take advantage of other
>> >people, but that is your mistake not theirs.  By what logic
>> >do you think that in the absence of a central government, people
>> >will naturally respect each other?
>> 
>> The US central government seems pretty disrespectful of people
>> to me. Ditto for the CommuKapitalist Chinese. 
> 
>That is true, but we can vote them out.  Who votes out the warlords?

Exactly -- including in the US. But who did you mean by "we?"
Surely not the people constituting the military/industrial complex.

And regarding the "Red/Green" Chinese... 
(You likely overlooked this second part, but if you have a way 
 to `vote them out' -- that would be interesting. ;-)

>> >A government with police powers may not be perfect but they make
>> >an attempt to control the bad people.  
>> 
>> Can you make this statement in terms of a dictatorship? 
> 
>Sure, a dictatorship is the bad people in charge and running
>roughshod over everyone else.  You also can't vote them out.

Because they use the methods of `police powers.' Which is why we
have a second amendment. (Not that I think it's needed, since any 
generic form of violence will counter the generally legal form, 
ie guns.)

>> >In a Libertarian society
>> >the good people will use their money to build up their businesses
>> >and compete with other good people.  The bad people will buy guns
>> >and take things from the good people.  
>> 
>> Really, let's try it and find out. Not that I'd want Libertarian
>> societies running amok either.
> 
>How will you prevent it?  What are the checks and balances?  I've
>seen none that make any sense in any Libertarian posting.  The
>only thing I've seen is "It won't happen that way?"

Ok. As a "Perotian Prototype," We hereby declare Montana, a Libertarian
territory for the next 10 years. Those wanting to move in please make
arrangements with those wanting to move out. Reports and social monitoring 
will be required from everybody there. To be reviewed when the experiment 
is over.

( And there will be a test at the end of the period. <groucho smilie here> )

If the R/G Chinese can play around with Kapitalism regionally -- what stops us?
(This is not a rhetorical question.)

>> >The good people will
>> >eventually have to buy guns to protect themselves, draining money
>> >from their enterprises. The bad people will have no such burden.
>> 
>> Chemistry is easier and cheaper than guns.
> 
>Okay you got me there.  I haven't any idea what you are trying to
>say.  Can you clarify this?  

Sure. {Do not try this at home.} Gasoline is one of the most available
and explosive chemicals around. It makes a great fuel air explosive
with very little effort. Fortunately, most people in the world aren't
willing to resort to mayhem -- including the "bad ones." Even organized
crime depends on maintaining the wealth producing sector of society.

The argument can be extended to poisoning food and water supplies, and
a host of other insanities -- which don't occur, I believe, because of 
GOD's care. Except where a society challenges the care-taking of GOD,
asserting they collectively can do better. 

An aside:
If you're hung up on living, it would be best to flee from such a 
society -- who'll likely get plenty of opportunity to try saving the
nation, the world, or the race on their own, without GOD. 

However, if you love GOD, (especially if more than life), then it's
likely you won't leave a group of people who are ignoring GOD. Even if 
it means the annihilation of 6 million individuals including your self
and family. 

The Jewish people, as has always been, stand largely apart from secular
authorities. Long ago they should have (according to worldly logic) been
assimilated or destroyed by the Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, Romans,
and such. Except for the promise of GOD. Which is more important; the
acts (or non-acts) of those individuals in the Holocaust, or the spiritual 
survival of the people of Israel? 

{Only my beliefs sure; which might be curious to others only in so far 
as they explain what motivates me, and those similarly minded -- regard-
less of human logic.}

Not that the Jews should feel too special, the children of Ishmael haven't
done too badly in this regard.

{ If true for the physical community, how much more true then shall it be 
  for the spiritual community of believers. <Psalm 116> }

>> >I think that in an evolutionary sense - the bad people would always
>> >win such a fight, or convert the good people to their idea. 
>> 
>> No faith in GOD, eh. Or even in aliens. Or even in evolution. 
> 
>No, only faith in pure power.  The bad people will show the good
>people that they are chumps to work so someone who spent all his
>cash on guns can take it away.  So they will spend all their
>money on guns and take it back.  Not much productivity there.

"Pure power" huh. Sounds to me like you've quoted the media analysis 
of Somalia. 

Let's extend the evolutionary argument. Accordingly we should all
be thugs by now. If you acknowledge being one of the "bad" then
why bother with the discussion -- you and your kind inevitably must
"win," to your thinking? {Disregarding predator-prey phenomena of 
course.}

>> >The solutions to a problem like Somalia are varied.  You could
>> >institute a government with police powers and make it against
>> >the law to terrorize other people. 

"Good" people no doubt.

>> >Or you could tell every
>> >Somali that they have the same right to have weapons - which
>> >right now they can't afford.  You could hand out weapons and
>> >ammo to poor, starving, frightened individuals and hope this
>> >helps them against well organized groups of highly motivated
>> >thugs, but I don't think they would have much of a chance.
>> 
>> 12 & 14 year old (agewise) "organized groups of highly motivated thugs." 
> 
>What has their age got to do with it.  A 12 year old with a gun
>can kill you just as easily as an adult.

"Can kill =you=" in the general sense of the dwellers in the center of
society who haven't learned to defend themselves. Or =you= in the sense
of those who would rather take a chance on being killed rather than
raise violence against children. There are other cases. 

My point though, was that the "Somali thugs -- are hardly "well organized 
or highly motivated." Continuing with your alternative "libertarian"
analysis....

>> >Each person would minimize their own risk and let their neighbor
>> >take the chances.  Ironically, the good leaders would be all
>> >on the other side.  If a strong leader came up to unite the
>> >people, he'd have to be a saint not to set up his own kingdom
>> >once hundreds of armed people were obeying his every command.
>> 
>> You've got a knack for expressing strong opinions marc. You 
>> might want to back 'em up a little, please.
> 
>Okay, try this - in the recent election, Marrou got 300,000 votes.
>He complained afterward that he could have done better but ran
>out of money.  The dems and repubs ran $1000 a plate dinners and
>packed them in.  The Libertarians ran a $100 dinner and no one
>showed up.  Libertarians will sit back and let other people do
>the work and take the risks.  

I have my criticisms of the Libertarians too. But that doesn't mean
that the only thing they have to overcome is funds raising -- access
to the media most notably. The US system is stacked against all 3rd
parties -- strictly an exercise in political power. I won't put it 
above the Libertarians to use free market methods (contributions-for-
representation, much like lobbies), but they still have to overcome
other oppression -- which the democrats and republicans wield -- and
which =make= the constitution and rational-government both lies. 

As to the previous point; one person (your "Leader") does not make a
party, no matter how "good" or charismatic or compelling. There are
always similarly minded people who share in the exercise of power (such
as with local communist party groups in the xssr). 

The "king's-will-prevails" myth is bunk and always has been. The king
doesn't get to be king, without bowing to the will of the current power
clique, thus becoming a puppet. Hitler, S.Hussein, Bush, Clinton...
all were or are, only convenient scapegoats. 

Back to your supposed Libertarian(?) analysis....

>[libertarians...] In a dangerous situation like
>Somalia, give everyone a gun and the warlords will make the
>first move while most people sit at home and hope their neighbors
>get killed instead of them. There is no motivation to take risks.
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Your only motive is to stay alive and you accomplish that by
>staying home, not by risking your life opposing the warlords.

Again, sounds like another media summary of Somalia. The analysis
excludes other motives. And is simply reductionist, handy for a ten
second "news" sound byte. Or "discussions" over commercials during a
football game. Libertarians (despite their stubbornly ideological and
impersonal tendencies to spout party rhetoric) are complex people too. 

Even in Libertarian heaven, there are many other "motives" people act 
on -- in addition to the preservation-of-self. Others are: Truth, Life,
Love, Freedom, etc. etc. etc. The strongest are personal relationships.
Which is why "self-preservation" stands out. But by no means is it the
be-all-end-all of the analysis for libertarians (who despite their
cold heartless facades are only human -- especially to neighbors).

So you'll agree I think that you've parodied the pro-gun arguments 
of that faction of the Libertarians. But by far the strongest motives
arise from a direct individual relation with GOD. Not even excluded
as a motive for individuals by Randians.

Such personal motives by the way, was moving people to help in Somalia, 
regardless of US government interests. And will continue to, regardless. 

>> >Somalia may not be what the Libertarians think would happen,
>> >but it is a very clear example of what keeps happening.
>> > 
>> >marc colten
>> 
>> And if everyone would leave the country alone, the libertarian
>> solution of auto-genocide might solve the problem forever. Maybe.
>> Then again GOD might step in. Guess we'll never know. As long as
>> the american elites want to play GOD that is.
> 
>If you are depending on God to save anyone - he hasn't yet.  I'm
>Jewish and he let 6,000,000 of us die.  Don't hold your breath.

GOD has "let" about 100 million people die. Pretty good confirmation
that some dynamic more important than life is going on.

I used to wonder why, knowing they were going to die, that the
victims of the Holocaust didn't gang up against the Nazis guards
and die fighting -- since we all die anyway. The opportunity to make 
a statement was there, and the costly possiblity of breaking free. 
But the statement they made (Psalm 73) was much more powerful than 
what I'd considered back then.

>And if you are hoping that genocide solves the problem, you
>are mighty sick.

I only echoed worldly logic marc. It is sick yes, because it
assumes that humanity comprehends some measurable portion of 
reality. Our progeny will consider us tribal many generations 
from know; and most certainly as regards the advance of science 
and logic. Assuming reality last that long.

Beyond so called (human) reason there is much to learn. Even 
rhetoric takes a lifetime. So we're stuck, unable to grasp
even the essentials -- unless some external agent assist us.
(No better proof than a baby.)

And "you" who willfully ignore GOD, who idolize life or power 
as if such could sustain you, all the while trying to preoccupy 
your thoughts in distractions, drunkeness and lust, as if the 
terror of your self-chosen desolation at death could long be 
kept from your mind.... 

God loves you, even when you turn away.

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen   
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66117 soc.motss:54686 alt.sex:40853