From: kywilson@apollo.davidson.edu (Kyle Wilson)
Subject: Re: Libertarian myths.
Organization: Davidson College, Davidson, NC
Reply-To: kywilson@apollo.davidson.edu
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:00:39 GMT
X-Posted-From: apollo.davidson.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Mike Huben writes:
>You don't sign a contract when you enter a restaurant and consume a meal.
>Yet you are expected to pay for services rendered.  Even if you don't like
>the meal.  Go ahead, try to persuade us that you really didn't know you
>were expected to pay taxes.  I'm already inclined to think you're that stupid.
>
>My parents explicitly signed this social contract when they immigrated to
>this country.
>
>It is the nature of a contract that BOTH parties are responsible to
>uphold their ends.  It is a typical libertarian misrepresentation to
>pretend that we owe nothing to the government by ignoring the services
>that we receive and the government is responsible for.
>
No, typical libertarians complain about having to pay for services they didn't
desire in the first place, thanks to those who vote or run for office only in
their own self-interest.  No doubt a good number of libertarians do the same,
but I'm more inclined to trust someone without his hand in my wallet.

You seem to see the citizen-government relationship as one of superior
(government) and inferior (citizen).  I disagree.  A government exists to
provide for such needs of its citizens as can be met no other way (IMHO).  I
believe a more apt metaphor than government-as-landlord would be
government-as-houseservant, for governments exist only by the will, and for the
service of, the citizenry.  I continue to keep the same "servant" because I
have found none better, but that does not mean I will refrain from trying to
keep it from taking liberties with property I believe rightfully mine.

>Even after taxes, we live the richest, most luxurious life humans have ever
>known, but you want to whine because you want to pay less for it.
>Poor baby.  I would be happy to pay higher taxes to achieve certain social
>goals that other nations have demonstrated are not only possible, but can
>coexist with strong economic growth.
>
I see no reason why we should rest on our laurels, or squander our wealth just
because we have it.  If you favor certain social goals, you are free to support
them as much as you desire in a libertarian society.  The fact that you see
taxation as the only means of doing so indicates that you are more bent on
forcing those who do NOT endorse such progressive goals to contribute as well. 
I believe this is wrong.

>The government enforces the contract that you agree to by residence.
>Hey, if I don't like how Adoplh Coors spends his money, does that mean I
>don't have to pay for his beer, that I can just take it?  Or that if I
>don't think his product is in my best interests I can just take it?
>
No, but it means you don't have to buy the product, and are free to brew your
own if you desire... or could if it weren't for government liquor laws, anyway. 
The metaphor doesn't stand.

>Sorry, but this country belongs to more people than just you.  The government
>is how we negotiate and decide what we want: it is not soem reified enemy
>entity.  This is where libertarianism displays its religious nature: the
>government is the great satan of libertarian theology.
>
Consider this:  it is as possible (albeit less likely) for a democracy to be as
much of a tyranny as a dictatorship.  It only takes fifty percent plus one of
the populace to decide that they want the other forty-nine-odd percent stripped
naked and turned out on the streets for it to happen.  Unfortunately, such
things tend to be less dramatic in real life, and those who complain are easily
drowned out by the voices calling them communists, or facists, or
nigger-lovers, or Republicans, or whatever the villan of the day may be.

>It amazes me how libertarianism seems to color all the perceptions of its
>adherents.  In that respect, it's almost exactly like fundamentalist
>Christians and Marxists.  The same selective perception, the same rote
>repetition of arguments from sacred texts, the same demonization of
>"enemies", and the same brand of "logic" by assertion.
>
It is possible for someone with a different set of priorities to look at the
exact same set of circumstances which you see and draw an entirely different
set of conclusions.  This does not mean the person is exercising "selective
perception" or is "stupid" or is completely blind.  There are people who, not
because of greed, or stupidity, or blindness, but because of the value they
place on liberty, or security, or nationality, will choose to live in a system
completely different from your ideal.  I think when you realize that, the world
will make a little more sense.  I hope I haven't been too offensive.  I stand
ready to be vilified.

					Respectfully,
					Kyle Wilson