From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Date: 6 Apr 92 08:41:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: noose.1992Apr6.084106.7684
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr5.235704.1@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, f67709317@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:

|> You're (since you refer to the LP in the first person, I feel comfortable
|> using the second person) close to being nihilist radicals.

Hmmmnnn...the unix "webster" online dictionary returns several meanings for
nihilist, the one I assume you refer to here is:

   "a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so 
    bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any 
    constructive program."

We are percieved that way mainly because we have either been emphasizing-or
people have been hearing-too much of our anti-government message and not
enough of our pro-personal action message.  

"Radical" is a relative term.  We try to be self-consistent in our ideas, 
and when you take some of the ideas to their logical extremes, they do
kick many sacred cows.  For example:  the legalization of drugs.  If its
OK for Senetor Kennedy to drink, why isn't it OK for my earstwhile roomies
to puff their pot in piece?  Watching some roomates of mine on both drugs I
can attest that I never saw them fight when on pot, but broke bottles over
each other's heads when on the whisky.  Legalization of drugs sounds radical
to some, and when you extend it to what are now prescription drugs it sounds
radical to nearly everyone, but its all part of the same idea that people own
their bodies and should be allowed to put into them whatever they want.

|>  Turning back 
|> the clock on a social safety net,

I just atteneded a house blessing for a house constructed by Habitat for
Humanity (I'm not affiliated with them).  Basically businesses donate 
materials and people donate labor to help the homeless build houses.  The
only word for that sort of activity is "LOVE" in all caps.  People really
are very generous--which is why most democracies have social programs.

Libertarians too understand that sometimes people need a helping hand.
From the Libertarians which I know, I would say that the average Libertarian
is no less generous than the average American.  The key difference is this:
We think that we could help more people if we decided who we gave our money
too than if we let the government decide.  I've heard figures which say
that if the poor were getting all the money which the goverment spends for
social programs, it would amount to $70K per year for a family of four.

|> no regulations on corporations' activities,

In a Libertarian society corporations would face the same limits that
people do--they couldn't initiate force against other people.  All 
transactions would be voluntary--and no voluntary transaction would be
illegal.  Sound like total chaos?  Well, there _is_ a regulating hand...

The regulating hand in a Libertarian society would be strict accountablilty--
for example now, if someone gets cancer, say from living next to a polluting
factory, they can't sue the factory for damages if the factory was complying
with EPA regulations.  This is just plain unjust.  In a Libertarian society,
corporations would be liable for any damage they caused.  This would provide
a very powerful incentive for corporations to watch out for the environment,
to not sell dangerous cars, or sell ineffective and harmful drugs.

|> no funding for expensive but necessary projects (e.g., infrastructure, basic
|> research in universities, elementary school education, space)

There have been many persuasive arguments made in favor of privitizing all of
these--I won't repeat them here.  But I will say this:

	THE ENDS _NEVER_ JUSTIFY THE MEANS.  PERIOD.

|> this would entail a huge change in our nation, and would, 
|> IMHO, irreparably harm it.

There is no doubt that it would make a huge change in our nation.  However,
I most ernestly ask you, please, please consider the posibility that our 
current policies already are causing irreperable harm to our nation.  I 
can't say it any better than former Senetor Warren Rudman said it
(yes, of "Gramm-Rudman-Hollings" fame.)

 "We are literally ignoring our single most pressing problem--the deficit,
   which is going to destroy the country and cause the financial markets 
   at some point to collapse, the currency to be devalued; all that people
   have saved will be worthless unless we do something about it.  We are 
   reaching the thin edge, and every economist knows it.  You're talking 
   about a national debt that will equal the annual GNP by 1999.  And with 
   that going on, we just passed a bill which gives tax breaks to people.  
   That's really smart."

Libertarians radical?  Yes perhaps, but this country needs a _radical_ change.
Libertarians nihilistic?  NO! What's nihilistic are the policies we have now.


|> The purpose of an election is to elect, period.  When I go to McDonald's, I 
|> choose either Chicken McNuggets or a Big Mac.  My purpose is not to whine,
|> "Oh, but a nice heart-healthy diet would be so much better!" as the Libs
|> do.  I don't try to find the best possible food in the world, at that time. 
|> I'm hungry, so I choose either the McNuggets or the Big Mac.  Most Americans,
|> you may be surprised to know, make political decisions that way.

Which is _exactly_ why we only have greasy, fast-food candidates offering us 
fare which tastes good in the short run but over the long run has so
clogged the arteries of the nation that we've feeling the pains of an impending
heart-attack.  "Quad-bypass open heart surgery" sounds pretty radical to
the patient--but there many doctors agree that this is the only way to
save her life.

[OK, I've pushed the metaphor too far.  But you get the picture. :-)]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections