Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activ
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
From: rick.beckham@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Rick Beckham) 
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:15:00 GMT
Reply-To: rick.beckham@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Rick Beckham) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:54:54 GMT

In article <BZS.93Jan8034450@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writ
>
>From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
>>>From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
>>>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 seem to have enormous difficulty seeing how someone can make a few
>>million dumping toxic waste (unless citizens do not sue that person
>>for ruining theirp property -- hardly likely).
>
>Well, for starters there's the Exxon Valdez...I hear Exxon makes quite
>a bit of money. But one can quibble that I suppose, so how about the

 Exxon made millions by dumping? Did they dump on purpose? Who paid them
 the millions to dump? On the other hand the Fed govt still to this day
 have not released documents detailing the extent of the damage.

>organized crime types who were picking up toxic waste and dumping it
>off on road sides when no one was looking? I hear they made millions

 You've defined them as criminal types. Dumping on land other than their
 own would be criminal even under a lib society.

>posing as legitimate toxic waste removal services.
>
>>Or how someone can
>>make a few million raiding people's savings, when a crucial point of
>>libertarianism is that one's property cannot be taken without one's
>>consent, whatever the circumstance.
>
>I assume you missed the recent Savings and Loans scandal that's
>costing the US around $500B?
>
 This has been covered time and again. The govt removed regulations on
 S&L's, but continued to insure. At that point, people with money in
 the S&L's should've inquired about the type of investments being made
 with their money. Or do you believe that everyone who takes a risk
 should be reimbursed by the govt if the risk doesn't pan out and they
 lose their money? Get real.

>Or is the plan that under libertarianism there will be no one pushing
>the envelope of what they can get away with? A lot of the folks who
>made money off the S&L crisis technically didn't break a law, perhaps
>they used "poor judgement" or caused others to do that by loaning on
>property of questionable value, but hey, all the way to (or is it
>from?) the bank...
>
>You are talking about idealized behavior.

 Non-libs has a propensity for making this statement

> Enormous amounts of what you
>see around you in terms of laws and regulations is because there seems
>to always be a certain ruthless type of human being who insists on
>living right at the edge of what is absolutely forbidden and what is
>questionably legal. So you have to firm up that edge lest they prey on

 Two things: what happens if these ruthless people migrate to the govt?
 Where's your protection. Second, if there are always people living on
 the edge, what's your solution? Outlaw everything, so no one can walk
 the edge?

>people who run their lives based on reasonable common sense. You can't
>posit a world based on reasonable and honest people, reasonable and
>honest people rarely go near the edge.
>
 So you propose a big brother govt to protect you? Is this govt made up
 of reasonable people?

>>Perhaps you are assuming that
>>people are stupid and cannot be counted upon to protect what is
>>theirs.  It's a rather malevolent notion.
>
>Yes, so stupid as to hand their money over to banks for deposit who
>then go belly-up after loaning all the deposit money to their
>brothers-in-law. You must have an amazingly naive notion about
>punishment and accountability. Even if these scum are caught do you
>think they ever have the money? Do you think victims get paid back? Do
>you think punishing them pays people back?
>
>>>Other than when the electorate acts "irrationally" and imposes taxes
>>>on themselves soas to pay for the common weal.
>>
>>What is ``the electorate''?  What gives ``the electorate'' (i.e.,
>>other people) the right to decide if I should be held at gunpoint to
>>pay my taxes?
>
>I assume "what is the electorate" to be a rhetorical question since
>you seem, by the next sentence, to know who they are.
>
>What gives ``the electorate'' the right to decide if you murder, rape
>or steal that you can be held in a cage at gunpoint?
>
>It's the same "right".
>
 Sorry, not even close. The first situation is that a gang (the govt) is
 stealing from you, but is declared legal by a majority. (or is it? what
 if a vote tomorrow showed that the majority of the people didn't believe
 they should pay taxes? would the govt recind taxes based on the majorities
 wishes?) The second situation, murder, rape, or steal, all three are
 violating someone's person or property. So in the first case you claim
 it is okay for the govt to steal if the majority wishes it, in the second
 claim that it is okay to lock someone up who stole. Which is it?

>>The whole problem with a democratic society is that at any time, 50.1%
>>of the society can vote to wreck the livelihoods of the remaining
>>49.9%.  Do you consider this good government?  Does sound quite
>>dictatorial to me...
>
>You will never escape the will of the mob, about the best anyone has
>ever figured out to do is herd them into voting booths. That's hardly
>an opinion.
>
>In the end that's the pathos, it's impossible to understand who
>libertarians are appealing (complaining) to? Is your point that people
>should democratically vote what you assert they will not? Or are you
>going to force them into libertarianism at gunpoint, or what? (And
>don't repeat the catechism about coercion to me, what are your plans?)
>
 We should return to being a constitutional based republic. Where govt
 protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

>I suppose that is why they are so pugnacious, anyone who doubts them
>is at least something to push against. It must be frustrating shouting
>at the air most of the time.
>
 Believe me, it is

>--
>        -Barry Shein
>
>Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
---

RBBS-UTI v3.0.:
 * The Royal Flush BBS - 703-361-4872 - Manassas, VA
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  FLUSH (#988) : RelayNet(tm)
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3450 comp.org.eff.talk:8646 alt.amateur-comp:580 soc.culture.usa:9746 alt.activism:20501