From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 04:10:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.171218.21678@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
Me>Suspending civil rights and closing off "bad" neighborhoods, searching
Me>from house to house for guns, drugs, and fugitives (and, with the "civil "
Me>seizure "laws" what they are, looking for good stuff to steal) is a pretty
Me>pragmatic idea, and one a lot of Americans would approve of, apparently.
Greg>No, none of those seemed pragmatic.  They were all done or advocated
Greg>by people who had "religion" against drug use.  The pragmatic way

Has Perot got that religion?  He suggested it in Texas in '88, and lots
of people like it.

Me>Taking central control of the banking system, the money supply, and creating
Me>income taxes is certainly pragmatic thinking.  To many people, the idea of
Me>a centrally-administered economy sure makes sense.  So much easier to
Me>control, and if you have it run by "experts", it's gotta be good, right?
Greg>Yes, that is pragmatic thinking.  I do not know if it is correct
Greg>thinking.  I certainly wouldn't describe our economy as "centrally-
Greg>administered".  There are some components that are centrally
Greg>controlled, and some that are not - that sounds like the correct
Greg>approach to me.  As to whether we currently have the correct

The Fed took the people's gold and centrally controlled the money supply,
and a depression pretty quickly followed.  A depression blamed on the
vagaries of the free-market, and "fixed" by even more government control.
The Fed controls the interest rates, the banking system, and the food
supply.  That's way too much central control for me.  Why is the proveably
inneficient approach the correct one?

American protectionism, basically, makes it a federal crime for any company
to charge their American customers anything but the highest prices in the
world.  It's centrally controlled, all right, if you look hard enough.

>I might see some value in ensuring (a) a relatively stable price for grain
>and (b) a relatively stable supply of grain; these are important for social
>stability and national security.

You seem to think that if American grain production came up short, we'd be
short of grain.  A lot of countries would LOVE to sell us grain.  The gov
won't let them and spends billions trying to keep the supply down and the
price up.  They claim "Stable prices", they mean "uneccesarily high prices".

Example:  We pay something like three times the world price for sugar.  Since
almost everything contains sugar, think what that does to your grocery bill.
Consumers are forced to pay millions to ensure that U.S. sugar farmers make
money.  How many sugar farmers are there?  A lousy 12,000!

The Cato Institute estimates that since 1980, it has cost us $2mil for each
of those farmers.  That's a LOT of money that consumers should be free to
spend on things they value - thereby ensuring that resources are allocated
to producers that produce something usefull, and do it efficiently.

In the mean time, we give Carribean nations millions per year in economic
assistance, when all they really need is to sell American consumers lots of
cheap grain and LOTS of cheap sugar.  We're being ripped off frontwards and
backwards "protecting" our grain supply - from growing too large!

Me>A big example of such pragmatic thinking is, oh, Eastern Germany or the
Me>Soviet Union.
Greg>You've lost me there - Communism was clearly religion gone amuck (and

Sorry.  I wasn't thinking of their political systems, exactly, but of
examples of how abysmally centrally controlled economies perform.  And it's
a model we're quickly approaching.  Remember - the Repubs and Demos have
enacted into law almost every programmatic plank on economic policy in the
1928 national platform of the Socialist Party.

Me>It's time for analysis, direction, and goal setting.  From where I stand,
Me>the phrase "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" supports *my*
Me>view.  In my humble opionion, of course.
Greg>Only if you want to go to hell! :-)

What do you mean?  Sorry, you lost me.

By the way, I guess I'm being "pragmatic" myself.  I'm not sure I believe
in "Libertaria".  But I see a desperate need for LOTS of the ideas of the
LP.  I'm not really working toward Libertaria - but I'd like to see 25% -
50% of the congress made up of Libertarians.  

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick