From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Interesting Revelation (WAS Re: Libertarian Platform)
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:28:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <92090@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <11411@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Classical liberalism, as stated by thinkers such as Adam Smith,
> >John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, were skeptical of concentrations
> >of power because it led to destruction of individual rights of
> >conscience, and economic self-determination.  The fundamental
> >roots of these ideas are Judeo-Christian tradition that human
> >beings are intrinsically sinful, and left to their own devices,
> >will abuse power, unless restrained by competition, government,
> >or naked force.
> 
> Yeah, people are always a bit upset that one of the founding fathers
> of our country rejected the Judaeo-Christian tradition. I know that

Which one?  A lot of 19th century Deists tried to claim Jefferson
as one of their own, but my own reading of Jefferson's writings
suggests that Jefferson was primarily a liberal thinker within
the Protestant tradition.

> I wonder how many people know that Abraham Lincoln, widely considered
> to be the liberator of the black race, was actually a segregationist
> who once proposed sending back all of the liberated slaves to Africa?
> Of course, that was considered a liberal attitude.

It was certainly more liberal than maintaining slavery.  Jefferson,
for example, thought that the history of slaveowners abusing slaves,
and the fear that the slaveowners felt because of it, made it
impossible for abolition to make it possible for both to live in the
same country.

Keep in mind that Lincoln was attempting to hold together a coalition
that included those who felt blacks were inferior, but should be
freed anyway, and those who felt that blacks should be accorded full
legal and social equality with whites.  What he personally felt, and
what he advocated in public, may not have been the same thing.

> >There is no theory of conservatism, other than to slow the rate
> >of change so that it can be adjusted to with minimum pain.
> 
> This guy Marvin Liebman I alluded to before (correct me if I got
> his surname wrong), the self-outed homosexual compatriot of William
> Buckley, has said that his theory of conservatism espoused many
> of the same values you attribute to classical liberalism. Which is

He sounds reluctant to abandon the label conservative, and in 
truth, many "conservatives" in the U.S. have some libertarian/
classical liberal ideas: free markets, minimal government,
freedom of speech, private property, limitations on majority will.

> to say, that the word liberalism has taken such a bashing in the
> media in the last decade that some classical liberals now take to
> calling themselves conservatives.

"Liberal" has taken a beating from liberals.  Ed Nilges is pretty
typical.

> >Libertarianism is an attempt to come up with a scheme of
> >government that does not require a government, and does not
> >require an ideology of governmental coercion that will be
> >later expanded.  Classical liberalism recognized that some
> >forms of coercion increased the common good without being a 
> >major burden on individuals
> 
> Since you define yourself as a classical liberal, what forms of
> coercion do you find increase the common good?

A prior restraint pollution law, where the technical difficulties
make it difficult for individual lawsuits to do the job.  An example
is automobile exhaust.  A counterexample is a large power plant.

A law requiring a permit to carry a gun, PROVIDED that such permits
were issued to any law-abiding adult, and the cost was either 
minimal or zero.

A law licensing driving on public roads.

A law regulating maximum speed limits on public roads, within reason.
(55 mph wasn't reasonable).

> Why not anti-discrimination legislation? Are the discriminators
> really hurt as you complain?
> 
> kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

They certainly are hurt, because their right of conscience is denied.
Fortunately, we have a Constitution that includes a protection of
freedom of religion, and that would protect those who refused to
hire homosexuals based on religious beliefs.
<


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc