Subject: Re: libercommunism the new quick fix 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 14:17:09 +0000

In article <C0yuz8.D5A@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

>Since Communism owes a good deal to Utilitarianism "to each according to his
>needs" etc. there are some close similarities. Also the type of person

Libertarianism does *not* say 'to each according to his needs'.  It's
almost the reverse (if you take the hard line) - "To each according to
what he can grab, irrespective of what his 'needs' are".  On a more
moderate level, it still says that a person should receive what he
earns, or what other people *choose* to give him.

> attracted
>is the same. They want a pure dogma which offers quik fixes and instant
>solutions, which requires little inteligence to grasp but can be applied to
>justify any situation.

Not true as a generalisation.  I can think of some on this newsgroup to
whom that *would* seem to apply, but most of us want something that
works, not just a 'quick fix'.

>If you allow the big corporations to combine together into a single corporate
>state then it is difficult to distinguish between that and communism.

*If* you allow them to do that, and force their will on others.  But
libertarianism would oppose them forcing the smaller companies to "join
or die" in the first place.  That would be an infringement of the
liberty of the individuals concerned.

>If you ignore the looney-tune US libertarian party and look at the situation in
>the US, the Tory Libertarian faction have more in common with the radical left
     ^^
Do you mean the UK?  Since you go on to talk about 'Tory' ideas, I
assume so, as I've never heard an American use this term about their
government.

And I'm not certain why you brand US libertarianism as 'looney-tune'.

>than with the rest of their own party. The left are quite keen to grab onto
> some
>of the anti-state ideas to get away from the traditional nationalisation
>shiboleth which is an electoral incubus second only to the "tarif reform"
>nonsense which kept the Tories divided in the early years of this century.

Fascinating imagery, here.  We have a 'shibboleth' and an 'incubus' (the
idea of an 'electoral incubus' is rather disconcerting - are you *sure*
you mean this?).

>Co-operativisim and empowerment of investment capital are the current agenda of
>the Social Libertarians. The big division comes over social policy. The left
>want to expand the ecconomy to fund the elimination of poverty wheras the right
>seem unable to explain why it is so desirable that it surpasses all other
>objectives.

Er, big division in what?  In the Social Libertarians?  I fail to see
how 'funding the elimination of poverty' is to be achieved without
taxing the non-poor, which is a policy definitely against the spirit of
libertarianism.  And the 'right' - what is the 'it' that they think is
so desirable?

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian