cliff@unmvax.UUCP (10/26/84)
> I've never met a starving libertarian. Have you met *any* starving U.S. citizen? (no? Me neither.) > In fact all the libertarians I've met > have been well educated (usually thru public education), Are you objecting to people that have been well educated, or trying to point out that public education is a big win? What about people who don't get decent public education? Gee, just think of all the people that have gone to P.S. #nnnn in the depths of <big city> that have not been well educated (through public education.) The real point is quality education, not public education. I don't claim the two are necessarily related. > well fed (as a > result of said education), and in general "have it made". Having found > themselves in such a situation, and seeing the dire poverty surrounding > them, (in the US and rest of world), they invented a philosophy which > justifies their priveleged status by idealizing relationships between > people as mutually informed rational transactions. Maybe you should add: ... as opposed to the illiterate starved proponents of alternative economic/political systems: Keynes, Marx, Mao ... > They tend to be very > theoretical in their politics, using unrealistic analogies to make > questionable points. People see what they want to see. When I had more time, I subscribed to "The Progressive", "The New Republic", "The American Spectator", and "Reason" so that I would get a broader set of views on any given issue. I have kept my subscriptions to "The New Republic" and "Reason." Occasionally I pick up one or the other for laughs but... In them I have seen theoretical and concrete examples of various philosophies. If you are only seeing unrealistic analogies, then you might not be looking too hard for substantive articles. Where is this source of questionable points? Netnews posters? (Netnews is fun, but let's not take it too seriously, eh?). Since you want a real world problem with a brief of the libertarian viewpoint, I will scrawl one quickly (I am pressed for time, I might do a better job at a later date): Unemployment vs. the Minimum Wage: In a nutshell it is simple to see how the minimum wage prevents people from working. The libertarian solution is simple; abolish the minimum wage. For those of you that think this is a horrid thought, consider the day when machines will be able to do some jobs for less than the $3.00+ per hour floor. Should the use of such machines be outlawed? If you say no, then you are willing to take jobs away from people and you might as well abolish the minimum wage right now. If you say yes, then things get stickier, but I am willing to bet that there are many people on the net who are pro-minimum wage and are anti-robotics regulation and I would like them to consider the dichotomy. > But, when you come right down to it, > libertarianism is simply a matter of greed. "I've got mine, and just > try to take it away from me." Sounds more like a quote from a corporation that relies on regulation, or a quote from a government employee that enjoys the tax dollars that pay his salary (not that people in each of those two positions might not be libertarians; I am one temporarily). The only libertarians that would be able to not have their money taken from them are the few that are totally self-sufficient and there really haven't been that many succesful communes in recent times... > Of course they will take it away from you. Either thru taxes, as in the > present case, or expropriation, after the inevitable revolution which > will take place if the mediating influence of social programs > dissapears. Take your pick libertarians, but first wake up and smell > the coffee. I don't buy it. Most of the people dependant on the social programs are not going to revolt when they go away... The sixties couldn't bring about U.S. revolution, and the issues then were significantly more threatening then the loss of food stamps, welfare, etc. After all, during a similar length of time in a future without social programs do you really anticipate a causalty rate comparable to the number of lives thrown away in Vietnam? BTW, libertarians object to conscription and really do differ from conservatives. More later...I've a plane to catch. > larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A dirty job, but someone has to do it. Thanks, friend. --Cliff [Matthews] {lbl-csam, purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (10/28/84)
>> (me) > (cliff@unmvax) >> I've never met a starving libertarian. >Have you met *any* starving U.S. citizen? (no? Me neither.) Well, I used "starving" in sentence to mean generally living in dire poverty, and there are millions living in such. There IS a severe mal-nutrition problem in most ghettos, I don't know if you call that "starving". >> In fact all the libertarians I've met >> have been well educated (usually thru public education), >Are you objecting to people that have been well educated, or trying to point >out that public education is a big win? What about people who don't get decent >public education? I'm objecting to the fact that the people who complain the most about "big government" are the very ones who gain the most out of it. Some things that probably would not exist without big government: USENET (exists because of corporations and universities which tend to have huge govt. contracts, while allow phone bills to dissapear in the accounting (no flames from the few exceptions)) U. New Mexico (you even admit you are a govt. employee (getting yours while its still available eh?)) National Parks: The mineral resources are always going to be worth more than "scenic value", only if a non-economicly motivated entity (US govt.) can buy land will it remain virgin. That plane you were about to catch: FCC is a govt. agency, with an excellent safety record. I'm really glad that airlines don't have to consider the economic tradeoffs when deciding on the level of my safety. -- larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk ARPA: lkk@mit-mc
mwm@ea.UUCP (10/30/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / mit-eddi!lkk / 6:19 pm Oct 28, 1984 */
I'm objecting to the fact that the people who complain the most about
"big government" are the very ones who gain the most out of it.
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
/* ---------- */
You can say that, and *still* maintain that libertarians are driven by
greed? Or have you changed your views on what motivates us recently?
<mikenrh@inmet.UUCP (11/01/84)
#R:unmvax:-47100:inmet:7800150:000:3375 inmet!nrh Oct 30 14:03:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / mit-eddi!lkk / 12:03 pm Oct 28, 1984 >>> (lkk) >> (cliff@unmvax) > (lkk) (nrh) > >>Are you objecting to people that have been well educated, or trying to point >>out that public education is a big win? What about people who don't get decent >>public education? > >I'm objecting to the fact that the people who complain the most about >"big government" are the very ones who gain the most out of it. Gosh, Larry, it sure is nice of you to have the best interests of us libertarians at heart. Don't worry though -- we'll object to big government EVEN IF YOU THINK WE BENEFIT FROM IT. Okay. >Some things that probably would not exist without big government: >USENET (exists because of corporations and universities which tend to >have huge govt. contracts, while allow phone bills to dissapear in the >accounting (no flames from the few exceptions)) Back this up, please. Particularly as regards private time-sharing systems such as The Source, and private BBoards. Of course, government contracts exist, and of course, with enough government participation in the economy, there's no escaping working for it (directly or indirectly), or being taxed by it. On the other hand, just as mass-transit moguls used to build amusement parks so that people would use the transit system on weekends, the phone companies probably would have developed something like usenet anyhow. >U. New Mexico (you even admit you are a govt. employee (getting yours >while its still available eh?)) Of course, Larry isn't mentioning the private universities that might exist in New Mexico if they weren't rendered unprofitable by heavily subsidized competition. > >National Parks: The mineral resources are always going to be worth more >than "scenic value", only if a non-economicly motivated entity (US >govt.) can buy land will it remain virgin. Ever hear of Robert Redford? He buys up large sections of land out west for this very reason. Of course, I suppose he has to pay taxes on it, which limits the amount of land he can add to such a trust. On the other hand, if land were NOT taxed, this probably would have come about natrually. >That plane you were about to catch: FCC is a govt. agency, with an >excellent safety record. I'm really glad that airlines don't have to >consider the economic tradeoffs when deciding on the level of my safety. For someone who's inviting libertarians to wake up and smell the coffee, you sure seem to have popped some 'ludes -- People Express had a big fight with the union over their decision (for economic vs. safety reasons) to fly with a two-man cockpit crew rather than the traditional three man crew. American airlines (I'm told by a United airlines rep) will fly in weather that United airlines will not. Of course there are regulations that apply to all of these, but whether they're enforced by a federal agency (is it really the FCC?) or whether they're enforced by union management give-and-take, or by insurance certification makes a big difference. In the last two cases, unreasonable and expensive safety mechanisms (the 3 man crew) can be eliminated, and low-income people can fly (of course, they won't if they're scared). In the first, low-income people, who might have chosen differently, are not allowed to fly -- because the economics of heavily-regulated flight are against them.
ted@usceast.UUCP (Ted Nolan) (11/02/84)
In article <3006@mit-eddie.UUCP> lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) writes: > >That plane you were about to catch: FCC is a govt. agency, with an >excellent safety record. I'm really glad that airlines don't have to >consider the economic tradeoffs when deciding on the level of my safety. > >larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) > <please buckle your seat belts> Actually I can't imagine that an airline with a really poor safety record would stay in business long. Safety is good business practice. Ridden any zepplins lately..? Ted Nolan ..usceast!ted -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Nolan ...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!ncrcae!usceast!ted 6536 Brookside Circle ...akgua!usceast!ted Columbia, SC 29206 ("Deep space is my dwelling place, the stars my destination") -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/02/84)
Larry, if you look around the United States you are actually going to find something closer to starving if you examine libertarians. It is a truism that it is ``impossible to starve in North America''. For the most part this is correct, but you come closer to it if you are unemployed and feel morally obligated to not accept welfare or unemployment assistance. There *are* extremely poor libertarians. Presumably you have not found them. The question is -- how would you have identified them? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (11/02/84)
Our netnews feed is pretty flakey. I frequently find myself posting
things and seeing replies to replies, but not the original replies.
In the future I will try to remember to ask people to mail me a copy
of their reply as well as post it to the net (mail appears to be more
reliable).
--Cliff [Matthews]
{lbl-csam, purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff
{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (11/06/84)
As there are people who, for religious reasons, refuse medical treatment, I can see how there might be some poor libertarians who starve for their principles, too. Unless others who have not made such a decision are involved, I'd say it is within their rights to do so. But this doesn't mean that I feel either of these actions wouldn't be stupid. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall