From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party will wreck the US ?Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:49:58 GMT

In article <Bs2ICJ.82u@acsu.buffalo.edu> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:
>From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
>Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party will wreck the US ?Re: Perot drops out!!!!
>Date: 27 Jul 92 21:57:53 GMT


>I'm not sure I got the attributions right guys, but here goes...

>(Michael Polen) writes:
>>|>>>I am not a Libertarian, but I have a whole lot more respect for
>>|>them.

>(Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>>|>>Unfortunately, by the time they're finished, there won't be anything
>>|>left of
>>|>>the United States to govern.

>Danger writes:
>>|>I'm very interested in why you think that this is so.  I'm fairly
>>|>certain many people are interested in your reasoning.  Please
>>|>tell me, us, why you think that The Libertarian Party will wreck
>>|>the US?

>hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>Regardless of the policies they propose a group like the libertarians
>>will cause a disaster. Any group that thinks that the only way to save
>>the ecconomy is to apply a theory regardless of the effect it has will
>>cause a disaster.

>The Libertarians aren't applying a theory to our economy, they're trying
>to re-enact the freedom of trade that made our country prior to 1930's.
>Consider, since the 1930's the US has gradually legislated the entire
>Socialist Platform of that era.  "Red Scare" and all aside, socialism
>seems to consistently run a country into poverty.  There are many very
>good, precise areas that the government should continue to run, but most
>of what they do today can be done more cheaply and more efficiently by
>private industries.  Some things, such as the postal system's parcel
>services are already being done competitively.  Libertarians would
>apply that find and experience to other areas currently under government
>control.

>>Political theory is merely an abstraction of a certain set of observed
>>data. Within that data there must inevitably be systematic biases. Any
>>proposal to replace the system under which the data was collected and
>>replace it completeley with another constructed from the theory will
>>fail as the systematic biases reveal areas which the theory does not
>>account for.

>This particular political theory has been well-thought out and tested.
>It has been discussed as the foundation of our "new" political party in
>the 20th Century and it was discussed as the foundation of our nation
>in the 18th Century.  It served us well until gradual changes were made
>to it a few decades ago some time around Eisenhower and JFK.  Since then
>time and tecnology have given seemingly good cause to make the changes
>we are experiencing today.  They don't work.  

>>The only way to change an ecconomy is slowly through trial and
>>experiment, the Lib party judge the worth of an experiment by the extent
>>the results concur with their theory. Statistics should be used to
>>formulate policy, not to defend a preconcieved policy.

>I don't think that the Libertarian party is proposing an abrupt
>change in the economy.  All of their policies and platform planks
>will take time and all of them will be done gradually.  If we could
>get more air-time such as Bush, Clinton and even Perot has had, you
>would understand how these policies will be put into effect.  THEN
>you could tell us that we are full of sh*t and also tell us why.

>>The Deregulation of the Bush era (eg S&L) almost destroyed the US
>>ecconomy, yet the Libs consider that the only problem was that the
>>policies were not tried hard enough. 

>Nonsense, most people recognize that the S&L crisis was brought about
>by increasing incentive for risky ventures without eliminating or 
>restricting the insurance that had up until then been for relatively
>safe capital ventures.  That isn't "The Libertarian Way" by any means.

>>Compare and contrast this with the
>>fall of the 1974-79 British Labour government due to industrial disputes
>>and the analysis of the hard left that the problem was that socialism
>>had not been tried hard enough. I would trust the Libs to run an
>>ecconomy no more than I would trust militant.

>If you think that Bush was really the "de-regulation" President, I suggest
>that you look again at many of his policies.  He regulated as much if not
>more than he de-regulated.  

>We are a country in debt, many welfare policies such as social security
>and the Fed have put us here.  We can get ourselves out...if we are
>allowed to that is.

>-- 
>************************************************************************
>Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
># Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
>Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.

If libertarians were proposing to, say, abolish the entire welfare state in 
one fell swoop, or jerk entitlements from people will-nilly, etc., then of 
course that would be a bad thing. The slow road back to good govt, if 
possible at all, will eventually require such measures, but so far as I 
know, no responsible libertarians advocates such abrupt, wholesale changes 
in the near future. The reigning climate of opinion in this country is 
leftist and socialist, and the battle, even to get people to see the road, 
is intellectual. Mere political quibbling is not enough; there will have to 
be a full-scale philosophical nuclear war. A Mind War!   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush