From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 14:07:40 GMT

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
: 
: From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
: >I want a theory that does not ignore erratic human behavior also.  Other
: >than an impossible Utopia, libertarianism comes closest to acknowledging
: >this fact.
: 
: How do you know this? You mean based on your own simulation of the
: future of history in your head? At the very least you can put some
: uncertainty in your words like that you hope this is the case. You
: certainly have nothing substantive to base this belief on other than
: it seems to make sense to you.

There are many examples of how the ideas of libertarianism have worked.
The U.N. study mentioned in my sig.  The history of the U.S.  The current
world history.  The experiences of the pilgrims who tried communism when
they first arrived and quickly abandoned it for a free market system
"created by God in his infinite wisdom," as William Bradford put it.
Logic also works.  The theories make sense.  In fact, Objectivism, a
relative of libertarianism, is a philisophical idea that relies only on
objective proof.  Many Objectivists are libertarian.
: 
: How does this differ than those folks in 1917 who thought communism
: seemed to make sense to them for the future of history? I know,
: because you're right and they were wrong.

Steven Covey, in his book "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People"
talks about the idea of "paradigm shift."  He talks about a paradigm
shift in the way we view our personal lives.  But he warns that not all
paradigm shifts are good.  And uses the example that you mention.  To
turn his observation around, not all paradigm shifts are bad.  
From a song from the rock band Rush, "If you choose not to choose, you
still have made a choice."  If we choose communism, the status quo, or
libertarianism, we are making a choice.  I personally am glad our
forefathers chose against the status quo of a monarchy.  I am glad the
abolistionists chose something better than slavery.  I hope I am right 
and think that these ideas will benefit you, me, the poor and 
disadvantaged, and everyone in this country and world by creating peace 
and plenty instead of war and poverty.  But I don't want ANYONE to take 
my word for it.  I want people to challenge the idea and think it 
through.  I want people to understand the idea and to either reject it 
on a full understanding or accept it.  The Advocates for Self-
Government, a non-profit educational organization, has a program for 
those that really want to examine these ideas.  The can be reached at 
1-800-932-1776.  An $8 donation will get you some material including a 
very good hardback book.
: 
: Well, I suspect you're wrong also. And just as the communists never
: quite succeeded in putting bread on every table and creating economic
: equality I suspect your plans are just as likely doomed to a similar
: failure as bullies and thugs arise to betray your ideals. It's not
: always exactly irrational behavior that is at issue, sometimes it is
: also completely rational behavior (perhaps only rational within a
: particular, selfish context) that is a problem. Some guy who made a
: few million dumping toxic waste or raided people's savings etc may not
: have done his planet any good, but he's living it up somewhere on the
: money and probably thinks it all worked out pretty well! No doubt such
: evility would be a huge fan of libertarianism, these guys slip thru
: the currently regulated environment.

I do not want a world where people can dump toxic waste or people can
have their savings stolen.  "Healing Our World" by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
explains these problems much better than I could.  (It can be ordered
from the Advocates.)  She points out that the current system does not
keep people from doing these things but actually encourages them.  Her
solution (which she calls "the other piece of the puzzle") is to make a
paradigm shift that criminals should be required to make their victims
whole rather than put them in prison as an act of revenge.  This will 
keep crime from paying.  The guy who dumps toxic waste will be forced 
to pay for a cleanup.  Those that steal a persons savings will be 
forced to repay the victim including court costs and police costs and 
any inconvenience.  Currently the prisons are full.  A criminal may 
serve some time but is never required to make things right.  This 
leads to the situation where crime pays, even if one is caught.  The 
libertarian ideas would make sure that crime did not pay!  Those that 
participated in such evility would NOT be fans of libertarianism.
: 
: >And it is this
: >recognition of erratic behavior that sets it apart from authoritarians,
: >who think that those in power will defy the human nature by acting
: >rationally for the best interest of the governed instead of
: >"irrationally".  Libertarianism is the best theory for acknowledging
: >this about human nature.
: 
: Other than when the electorate acts "irrationally" and imposes taxes
: on themselves soas to pay for the common weal.
: 
: At that point libertarians want to stop them dead in their tracks.
: 
: I think in the end all you can affect is the process, not the results,
: at least not much. If you let people vote etc then the process is fair
: and we try to live with the results. Libertarianism sort of believes
: the process is fair, it's not clear since they immediately revert to
: ignoring the democratic process and talking about the govt as if they
: were a dictatorship when it suits them, but the results of the process
: don't seem to suit their personal tastes. Well, lah-dee-dah, welcome
: to politics in a democratic society, win some, lose some, but that's
: all you can really say in the end.

The democratic system is the best system that I know of, although it is
flawed.  The majority may or may not pick what is just or moral.  The
abolitionists of the last century had the same problem.  They wanted to
make slavery illegal and worked decades with a minority of people.  They
finally won and I am glad of it.  They brought a profound change from
the status quo that one person could own another, to the idea that
ownership of people is morally repugnant.  The libertarian movement is
likewise questioning the status quo.  Does the individual belong to the
majority?  Currently we are partial "slaves" because we are forced to
hand over fruits of our labor to a group called government or not do 
certain things because the majority says it is wrong.  I want to end 
this slavery because I think it is not just, moral and necessary to
live in a healthy productive society.  In fact, I think this change in
ideas will have a profound impact on the well being of everyone in
society, leading to peace and plenty, and away from poverty and war.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism