From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:15:50 GMT

In article <1ihiguINN57b@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>I partly agree with you.  But let's talk about claims, beliefs and
>understanding for a moment.  "Demopublicans" only have (roughly) 200 years
>of real world example of functioning government here in the USA with which
>to evaluate claims.  Libertarians have science fiction novels and their own
>cult literature.
>

Have you ever wondered why Libertarianism started cropping up in the
first place (and no, it wasn't because the tractor pull was cancelled
one weekend :-)?  I perceive the reason is that the two major parties
abandoned the "libertarian" ideals. Basically, at one point in this
country politics *was* in large part (and at least in spirit)
what the Libertarian party advocates. Certainly, up until the Civil War,
things were fairly LP friendly. The Civil War cut into it by putting
some teeth behind the strong central govenment concept. Then, the 
income tax, then finally, the New Deal drastically moved the major parties
away from LP ideals. Recent traumatic events would include some of the
reforms attributed to Johnson and the current "War On Drugs" (tm).

Actually, a quite strong argument could be made that the bulk of the
history of the US embodies Libretarian ideals and that the behavior
of the two major parties in recent decades is aberational.
I think that it is important to realize that in large part, 
Libretarianism seems to be a *reactionary* movement.

>If we were actually to adopt libertarian programs, the change would probably
>be at least as wrenching as it has been for East Germany and the former
>Soviet Union.  Except they at least knew more or less what they were trying
>to transform to, because there are plenty of capitalistic nations that have
>travelled in similar directions.  There has never been a minarchist or
>anarchist libertaria, and I don't believe anyone knows where the chips will
>fall if one is instituted.
>

Agreed, but even if folks started electing LP candidates for US
Congress next election, having a significant number would take a long
time and the road would be paved with compromises. Perhaps, the
most important effect of electing LP members would be the impact it
would have on the two major part platform. It might just "drift"
them back to a more nearly pro-individual rights position.

>
>Yup.  And with 200 years of experience to judge them by, we can probably
>guess better about those claims than we can about claims made about
>non-existent libertarias.
>

Nope, it appears to me that a lot of the trouble really started
brewing when the two major parties decided to start writing fiction
of their own.

>
>Unfortunately, libertarians seem to be fostering the idea that government
>control is always a BAD thing.  Like the sheep in "Animal Farm", many of them
>bleat "Private goooood, government baaaaaad."
>

Look at it this way. If the Libertarian party was to have an infusion
of frustrated former Demopublicans in large quantities, it would almost
certainly influence the party to a more moderate stance. 

I guess I do have to agree with the LP, though, that most of the laws passed
in the past few decades seemed to be more concerned with
arbitrary control of things and people than in actually solving
any problems. Look at the fiasco of the WOD which both parties
now seem to embrace firmly. Look at the trend that if some piece
of legislation fails to solve the problem (by treating the
symptoms), then the next (il)logical step seems to be to pass
even *more* restrictive legislation, ad naseum.

I liken it the the "leech" theory of medicine. 

Symptom:   Cut finger
Treatment: One leech
Result:    No improvement in patients general condition 
 	   (and fat leech).
Prognosis: Patient needs more effective treatment.
Treatment: Add another leech
Result:    Slight deterioration of patients general condition
	   (two *very* fat leeches).
Prognosis: Uh oh, this is becoming serious, better treat this fast!
Treatment: Add three "jumbo" leeches (named Howie, Teddy, and Little Joe :-).
Result:    Marked deterioration of patients general condition
	   (five leeches now the size of soft balls).
Prognosis: This person just doesn't have a will to live! We'll have
  	   to use every available means to save them.
Treatment: Pour a bucket full of leeches on the patient.
Result:	   Patient dies (leeches are now malnourished and wandering
           away looking for new "patients").
Prognosis: The cut finger problem has been solved! (in that the
           cut finger no longer matters).

This is a ridiculous scenario, I suspect, even for a medical practitioner
of days past. Yet, our government passes laws based on this kind of
"thinking" on a regular basis. Can some LPs in Congress or the
Executive Branch be any less rational? I doubt it.

-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism