From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:36:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.110504.28326@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>
>>* Listed the points in the Libertarian platform (I didn't get every
>>  point; some of these are discussed further below)
>>	* Abolish IRS and personal income tax (1/3 of government
>>	  revenue), reinvigorating the economy by putting $hundreds
>>	  of billions into the hands of consumers, savers, and
>>	  investors.
>>        * Reduce national government size 7-10% per year, by attrition of
>>	  federal employees; no layoffs needed.
>
>Would these two be coordinated?  Can't tell from the above, but you can't cut
>revenue faster than spending.  Also, how does Marrou plan to deal with the
>debt?
>

Yes, they would.  Note that reducing the Federal debt through the sale of
federally held resources (e.g., land) will facilitate this.

>>	* Charitize welfare
>
>What does that mean?
>
>>* King challenged him on civil rights.  Marrou emphasized that the right to

It means to replace government-based programs for dealing with the problems of
the poor ("welfare") with privately-based programs for dealing with them.

Note that private programs have distinct advantages:

   o They tend to respond more quickly to change.
   o Their funding source is more sensitive to the quality of solutions (i.e.,
     if they are not doing any good, the money will dry up).
   o Their multiplicity gives those they serve greater alternatives in seeking
     help.  These people can be treated individually, not as warm bodies.

>>* King challenged him on civil rights.  Marrou emphasized that the right to
>>  vote is fundamental, but there is no right to demand service from
>>  private owners; he asked King if people should have a right to go on 
>>  his show or if King has the right to choose who goes on his show;
>>  King ducked the question.
>
>If I'm reading this correctly, Marrou/the Libs have no problem with businesses
>restricting their clientele by race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.  Seems
>kinda looney fringish to me.

"No problem" is not accurate.  Some would argue that forcing a set of rules on
businesses, however well intended, gives far too much power to the government
to be trusted.  Others would argue that businesses might decide to restrict
their clientele, but that they will be at a competetive disadvantage; enough
so that this will not occur in practice very often or for very long.  A few
others would say, "Yeah!  serves those <group members> right!"

I argue the first two, but I give you fair warning that the LP tolerates those
who believe the third, inasmuch as we won't force them to leave.

By the way, we are consistent; we would, for example, not force business to
deal with (or hire) "drug" users; although we advocate the repeal of drug
prohibition.  Arguments can certainly be made on both sides about hiring
drug users, but we believe in letting people try any solution, and let the
"winner(s)" show themselves.

It is not "looney fringish" to suggest we try and learn; and once success is
seen, people will naturally tend to adopt those solutions.

>>* He said that much of the national debt could be paid off by
>>  selling government property that has high real estate value but is 
>>  going to waste, including the Presidio and Camp Pendelton.
>
>That's it?  He plans to dump trillions of dollars of prime real estate onto the
>market to pay off the debt.  Why don't we cut out the middle man and trade our
>land to our debtors directly?

Fair response, and one that could certainly be implemented.  Not to mention
returning some land to Native Americans, opening up some for homesteading,
etc.

My view is that Andre did not mean this to be the complete solution, but
rather to show that the orders of magnitude of Federal holdings were sufficient
to meet the deficit.

>>* Marrou said he is strongly pro-choice, noted that abortion was
>>  legal when the U.S. was founded.  He suggested four ways
>>  that abortions could be reduced, including reducing FDA interference
>>  that prevents use of effective birth control like Norplant and 
>>  RU-440.  
>
>Norplant is legal, approved, and in use.  And I think it's RU-486, not RU-440.
>And RU-486 doesn't reduce abortions, it induces them.

Norplant is legal, but regulated, making it harder to obtain.  RU-486 (not 440)
is correct; however I understood that rather than inducing abortion in the
traditional sense, it prevents the fertilized ovum from embedding itself in
the uterus.

>>* A caller asked Marrou how he would tackle the homeless problem.
>>  Marrou said the problem was caused by zoning, restrictive 
>>  electric/plumbing codes, and other regulations that are designed for 
>>  the middle class and drive up the cost of housing beyond what the poor
>>  can afford.  If home builders were free from regulation, they 
>>  could build affordable housing and homelessness would be greatly 
>>  reduced.
>
>Sounds like snake oil, to me.  Those pesky codes aren't designed to drive up
>the cost of housing, they're there to ensure safety.  Should people be allowed
>to live in unsafe housing just because they can't afford safety features?  The
>homeless problem isn't lack of affordable housing, it's an excess of jobless,
>poor, addicted, and mentally or physically ill people.  Shaving 10, 20, or even
>30% off the cost of construction won't solve the homeless problem.

Not so; the codes are often "sold" to ensure safety, but their real purpose is
to drive up costs, and hence profits of those who meet state licensure.

As for the costs, they could be reduced by far more than 30%; an extreme example
would be along the lines of some inexpensive Japanese hotels, where a "room"
is 4'x8', and 4' high.  Cramped?  Yes.  Better than living on a steam grate,
in a refrigerator box, or in an open shelter?  Definitely!

As for being jobless, Libertarians would eliminate the laws and regulations that
block the lowest rungs on the economic ladder.  We would restore the ability to
be poor with dignity, and provide a society where it is possible to work your
way up from the very bottom.  We would remove the criminal stigma and
prohibitive economic costs of addiction, bringing these people back into
society and giving them the opportunity to seek help when needed.  We would
eliminate the heavy regulation of medicine, allowing for cost-effective
treatment for the poor.

>
>-- 
>Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
>Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
>Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham

                                            James Parker
                                            jap@cb1focus.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:302 talk.politics.misc:36651