From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:58:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.204210.11462@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>  And they had objectives for the Japanese provoking a fight with
>us as well. So what's your point? In 1942 we had a good deal to
>fear about Germany for our *own* security, and I'm sure that
>distinction was not lost on the Germans. The fact that they
>conned the Japanese into a Komakazi mission with us is testament
>of that. 

There was just a good post in soc.history refuting this, so I'll defer
to that post.

>> >Also, they were putting a good deal our ships to the
>> >bottom of the ocean at the time too. 
>> 
>> Because we were supplying the enemy.  Under a Lib States, the government
>> wouldn't be selling arms.
>
>  Wrong. I'm sure the distinction would have been blurred on the
>Germans had "supplying of the enemy" been in an official
>capacity of the US government or just by private transactions
>of our population -- it made little differnce from their
>perspective.

But the English would have been sinking private ships selling to
the Germans.  Why do you think the Libs would've taken sides if 
both sides were sinking ships?

>  This is not news to me, Ted. Japan certainly was a high priority
>as well. Had the Japanese left us alone though, I doubt seriously
>we would have screwed with them at all, which was my point.

As another post pointed out, the Japanese only attacked because of
(1) the oil embargo, and (2) fear that the US wouldn't have stood
for an invasion of Indonesia.  Neither of these concerns would've
existed if the US were controlled by Libertarians.

>  It's been about 10 years since I read this, and I have forgot the
>source. Sorry. Even if you dismiss this point though

and I will.

>, it is not
>fair to call the 1920's and Hoover laissez-faire capitalists. The
>Sherman anti-trust laws and all kinds of other things had been passed
>by this point. 

You're telling me the fifteen fines imposed in the 1920's for antitrust
cases (average size: $98,000) caused the Great Depression?  Please.

From 1920 to 1939, there were a grand total of 131 civil antitrust suits
brought by the Justice Department -- less than half that brought during
the 1960's, which didn't seem to suffer from Depression.

We'll even leave aside the argument that the Sherman Act had a positive
effect on the economy in its first forty years. 

>Government meddling into the ecomony was the rule of
>the day, and I don't think you can dispute that there was a big effort
>at the time to "smooth" the business cycle from the panics and 
>recessions which plauged the late 1800's. 

Sure I can.  I'm under the impression that "smoothing" the business
cycle originated with Keynes.  Hoover attempted the exact opposite
by trying to balance the budget (and we all know what Libs think about
budget deficits).
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,talk.rumors,alt.activism