From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform (Was: Oh, never mind)
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:31:43 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

In article <1992Nov06.045948.4964@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
> That's the first time in a while that I've seen the Liberatarian
> platform spelled out.  It contains a lot of government activities
> you want to get rid of, but I'm not sure what you want to keep.

> If the Liberatarians had control, what types of government spending,
> taxes and regulations would there be?  This should be a pretty short
> list, right?

Mostly defense, possibly National Institute of Health (for cures to epidemic
diseases), the justice department, foreign affairs. Given a party as large
and diverse as the Big Two, a Libertarian controlled government still
probably wouldn't look like Libertaria.

This is mostly an opinion piece, don't take this as representative of what
the party itself might profess. I consider myself a libertarian-leaning
independent. I don't mind paying a small income tax (5%, as opposed to 20%+15%
for social insecurity). I don't find it the major social injustice that seems
to be espoused here. The constitution mentions representative and direct taxes
being apportioned among the states and then mentions that it is within the
Congress' power to collect said taxes.

A few quotes from there:
      Section 8. The Congress shall have power
      To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the
   debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of
   the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be
   uniform throughout the United States;
   ...
      To establish post offices and post roads;
      To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
   for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
   their respective writings and discoveries;
   ...
      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,
   and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
   service of the United States, reserving to the States
   respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority
   of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by
   Congress; (note that this fits the definition of the National Guard)
-----

The first part quoted mentions the "general welfare of the United States."
This can be interpreted as part of "common defense and--", but the language
in the second part I quoted from Section 8 defines specific functions.
In the case of post offices and post roads, this suggests infrastructure.
In the next line it mentions the power to "promote the progress of science
and useful arts" a system of copyrights and patents can be created. The strict
interpretation is that the Congress is empowered to protect the rights of
authors/inventors. The loose interpretation is that Congress is empowered
to promote the progress of science and useful arts. 

My personal opinion is that funding should fall somewhere in the middle.
NASA discovers new properties of aerodynamics and materials that saves
industry a lot of money that can be spent on other development. The party
seems to believe that if it is in the best interests of all involved, the
companies would make their own group to do what NASA does, but that group
would still be limited, either in how long it might take to build the
necessary infrastructure (which NASA has) or in general not having the
equipment NASA has (again, mostly already paid for). This isn't the only
case where a government agency already has material and manpower invested
in productive projects. 

On the flip-side there is a lot of waste in bureaucracy. The Department of
Education has 100,000(?) or so workers. None of their primary jobs is in
educating. The Department of Agriculture is larger than it needs to be.
These are only obvious examples. The government can be vastly downsized
in terms of work that still needs to be done, but just slashing 200,000
jobs will just increase unemployment and not necessarily make the economy
any better. Perhaps the party program should be more specific on who it
will cut and how it will protect them. Or does that make it more 'coldly
logical' than it is now?
--
It's not debate, prose nor thesis, just opinions. Let's hear yours.
Mitch Gold, sundance@rpi.edu