Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
From: f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:38:49 MST
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67709317

In article <1992Apr6.084106.7684@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
> In article <1992Apr5.235704.1@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, f67709317@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
> 
> |> You're (since you refer to the LP in the first person, I feel comfortable
> |> using the second person) close to being nihilist radicals.
> We are percieved that way mainly because we have either been emphasizing-or
> people have been hearing-too much of our anti-government message and not
> enough of our pro-personal action message.  

"Personal action"?  *Bush* is in favor of personal action.  How does the
libertarian "personal action" differ from the thousand points of light,
which GHWB uses to deflect attention from the fact that he is neither an
educational or environmental president?  It's not really something you
can fight on like pro-gov. vs anti-gov.  I mean, who is gutsy enough to
be anti-personal action?

In this case, I see the LP primarily as advocating absolute minimalist 
government.  Not quite nihilism, but close enough.

[comments on drug legalization, which I agree with, deleted]

> |>  Turning back 
> |> the clock on a social safety net,
> 
> I just atteneded a house blessing for a house constructed by Habitat for
> Humanity (I'm not affiliated with them).  Basically businesses donate 
> materials and people donate labor to help the homeless build houses.  The
> only word for that sort of activity is "LOVE" in all caps.  People really
> are very generous--which is why most democracies have social programs.

Using this anecdote to imply that a private-sector solution in lieu of
government can provide a social safety net is wrongheaded, IMHO.  Business-
men are not in their business to garner love.  They are in it to make $
for themselves .... and their shareholders, if they're a publicly traded
corporation.  That is their reason for existence.

Having seen a host of "virtuous" CEOs and little shopkeepers do nice things
for their community, I know that they are really hoping for tax breaks,
good PR, and free word-of-mouth advertising by doing good.  If the market
isn't there (as with gays and minorities), the private sector won't help.
When the government was neglecting AIDS in the early 1980s, where was the
support from corporations?  How about the Americans with Disabilities Act?
I know that businesses fought tooth-and-nail against that one.

> Libertarians too understand that sometimes people need a helping hand.
> From the Libertarians which I know, I would say that the average Libertarian
> is no less generous than the average American.  The key difference is this:
> We think that we could help more people if we decided who we gave our money
> too than if we let the government decide.  I've heard figures which say
> that if the poor were getting all the money which the goverment spends for
> social programs, it would amount to $70K per year for a family of four.

Independent figures would be nice to buttress this statistic.  If we decide
who we give our money to (instead of the government deciding), how are we
to be sure that everyone gets equal treatment?  If an "untouchable" class
such as exists in India and Japan existed in the U.S., how much support
could they be expected to receive?  My guess: Little or none.

> |> no regulations on corporations' activities,
> 
> In a Libertarian society corporations would face the same limits that
> people do--they couldn't initiate force against other people.  All 
> transactions would be voluntary--and no voluntary transaction would be
> illegal.  Sound like total chaos?  Well, there _is_ a regulating hand...

What about scams, pyramid schemes, savings-and-loan debacles?  All of
these are carried out by people who convince other people to go along
with them in, say, speculating in this piece of real estate.  Would the
Libertarian response to Keatingesque fraud be simply, "So what if you
lost your retirement savings--you should have looked before you leaped!"?

> The regulating hand in a Libertarian society would be strict accountablilty--
> for example now, if someone gets cancer, say from living next to a polluting
> factory, they can't sue the factory for damages if the factory was complying
> with EPA regulations.  This is just plain unjust.  In a Libertarian society,
> corporations would be liable for any damage they caused.  This would provide
> a very powerful incentive for corporations to watch out for the environment,
> to not sell dangerous cars, or sell ineffective and harmful drugs.

This was tried in the late 1800s and early 1900s with the company towns to
which David Nieporent (go O's!) refers.  Basically, the corporation exposed
its workers to high levels of toxins, and by the time the effects showed up
(years after the initial exposures), the company pulled up stakes, closed
the mines or whatever, and left the town for scrap.  Indeed, the problem
of strip mining (in an era of laissez-faire economic theory) did little to
convince anyone that corporations could watch out for the environment w/o
a watchdog group higher up.

> |> no funding for expensive but necessary projects (e.g., infrastructure, basic
> |> research in universities, elementary school education, space)
> 
> There have been many persuasive arguments made in favor of privitizing all of
> these--I won't repeat them here.  But I will say this:
> 
> 	THE ENDS _NEVER_ JUSTIFY THE MEANS.  PERIOD.

I fail to see how this old saw applies.  Elementary school education, for
example, costs a lot and doesn't give results for a long time.  So the
private sector would never support it completely.  Same goes for basic
research--do you think all the innovations in our military would
have been accomplished by high-salaried aerospace workers instead of the
hordes of low-paid grad students at state universities?

If it's a necessity like decent roads, all I demand is that it be built.
I don't care who builds it.

> |> The purpose of an election is to elect, period.  When I go to McDonald's, I 
> |> choose either Chicken McNuggets or a Big Mac.  My purpose is not to whine,
> |> "Oh, but a nice heart-healthy diet would be so much better!" as the Libs
> |> do.  I don't try to find the best possible food in the world, at that time. 
> |> I'm hungry, so I choose either the McNuggets or the Big Mac.  Most Americans,
> |> you may be surprised to know, make political decisions that way.
> 
> Which is _exactly_ why we only have greasy, fast-food candidates offering us 
> fare which tastes good in the short run but over the long run has so
> clogged the arteries of the nation that we've feeling the pains of an impending
> heart-attack.  "Quad-bypass open heart surgery" sounds pretty radical to
> the patient--but there many doctors agree that this is the only way to
> save her life.
> 
> [OK, I've pushed the metaphor too far.  But you get the picture. :-)]

But the genius of our political system is this:  In the real world, you
could set up a health-food restaurant that draws a regular clientele sick
of fattening food, grease, etc.  And you'd get a revenue stream coming
in, and you might actually prod McDonald's to add broiled chicken, 
cholesterol-free fries, and so on to its menu.

But in the political world, where money is king and special interests
are queen, your restaurant would never be built.  The golden arches
would tower over every street corner, and double and triple coupons
for Quarter Pounders would be in everybody's mailbox.  You'd have
trouble paying workers to work in the restaurant, you'd have to pay
protection money to the Ronald McDonald Hit Men, and you'd never
get a supply of actual food.  Your efforts will bear no fruit.

In short, the Lib's are not *NOW* performing radical bypass surgery to
fix the system.  They are saying that if you vote them in via
the existing system, *then* they will perform radical bypass surgery.
The people in the system as it stands today will never let that
happen.  (Which is why the system is fucked!)

The insider campaign that Brown is waging (burrowing from within?)
is going to have much more effect on the system than the LP will,
because he has a base (people who call themselves Democrats) to
work from.  He's getting damn close to the operating table, while
the LP is still being interrogated by the 1st-floor hospital 
receptionist.  If I want to fix the system, I have to tag along with 
Brown.  That's how I rate it.
-- 
Greg Franklin                             "Death is everywhere,
f67709317@ccit.arizona.edu          there are fries on the windscreen."