keller@uicsl.UUCP (10/11/84)
Perhaps the most common question put to Libertarian Party (LP) candidates is: "What is libertarianism?" Or, "what does the LP stand for?" Because the LP bases all of its platform positions on the political philosophy called "libertarianism," there is no more important question for the American voting public. First, let's avoid some common errors and confusion by stating what libertarianism is not. It is not some variant of liberalism or conservatism. It is not a combination of left and right positions. It does not fit on the traditional political spectrum. That spectrum does not admit the idea that all people have the right to control their own lives, in all respects, and the obligation to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions. Liberals and conservatives agree that the rest of us are evil and/or incompetent and must therefore be controlled by government. They differ only on which aspects of our lives should be controlled most. By contrast, Libertarians hold that each person has the absolute right of self-ownership over his/her life, body, speech, action and honestly acquired property. Each has the obligation to respect those same rights in each other person. The proper way for people to deal with each other is by mutual respect for each other's right of self-ownership. Anything that is peaceful, voluntary and honest violates no rights and thus is not a proper subject for governmental intervention. Government's only proper function is to assist us in defending our rights. The only proper laws are those which penalize such conduct as murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, arson, trespass and fraud because such conduct necessarily violates someone's rights. On a national scale, the government's proper function is to provide security within America against the risk of foreign attack--and no more. Libertarianism is the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. Most people, most of the time, deal with each other on the libertarian basis of mutual respect. Two groups don't: criminals and government. Libertarians challenge the notion that government can legitimately coerce the rest of us through taxation, regulation, conscription and criminal penalties imposed upon peaceful, voluntary conduct. We demand that government be limited to its proper functions and that government personnel be held to the same standard of respect for our rights that the rest of us follow. The LP is for all people who do not want to be controlled and who do not want to control others. On all issues we will support increased personal liberty and reduced government control. We know that a free society is possible and that it is practical. We are committed to work for as long as it may take to achieve it. From the Bergland for President press kit. -Shaun
grunwald@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/12/84)
Who is to be the final arbitrater of non-interference? How does one judge "honestly obtained" property? If I "own" land and a stream runs through it, do I own the stream? The entire stream? Through-out time? Can I dump my PCB's in it? What if this affects my neighbour? I'm not touching his stream, I'm just touching mine. From this example, it should be obvious that in a peaches and cream kind of world where everyone smiles a lot, Libertanism would work just fine. But in the world of checmical waste dumps, stream pollution, air pollution, etc, some central regulation and legislation is required. This regulation and legislation is not the action of "government," it is the action of the people of which this country is composed. Certainly, not every- one agrees with all regulatory decisions, but I think that almost everyone can see the advantage in an objective, non-paritisian judge. Who pays for this arbitration? Service fees? Charged against all stream owners? Or everyone? The world is not as simple as all that. Dirk Grunwald University of Illinois
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/12/84)
> > Libertarianism is the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and the > American Revolution. Most people, most of the time, deal with each other on > the libertarian basis of mutual respect. Two groups don't: criminals and > government. Libertarians challenge the notion that government can > legitimately coerce the rest of us through taxation, regulation, > conscription and criminal penalties imposed upon peaceful, voluntary conduct. > > -Shaun This is a common way in which Conservatives (which Libertarians basically are whether they admit it or not) have expropriated the American Revolution for their own ideological purposes. People leading the American Revolution did NOT believe that there should be no government or that the only legitimate government was one which only dealt with crimes such as murder. Rather they believed in a "Commonwealth"--one will note that many states are still known as "Commonwealths",e.g. the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts". In fact they were very innovative in putting this idea into practice- Benjamin Franklin, for example, founded the first Fire Dept., and also was instrumental in establishing the U.S. Post Office. The Northwest Ordinance Act of 1787 was very innovative in establishing the basis for the first public educational system in the world--for every parcel of acres of a certain size (I think it was 320 acres?) land had to be set aside for a school. This was done to encourage an educated and enlightened citizenry--I think that most people would agree that, for all its failings, the American educational system has been very effective in promoting a basic literacy rate ,helping assimilate vast numbers of immigrants, and providing access to valuable skills and training for ALL Americans. The economist, Dennison, has estimated that a major portion of economic growth in the past has been due to increased education and training- MORE than increases simply in the amount of physical capital. That is preciously what advanced technology is about--doing things more intelligently increases productivity and efficiency. To do things more intelligently requires more intelligent people to do them. The leaders of the American Revolution also engaged in numerous public works projects--building canals and roads to encourage trade. The justification was the ideal of the Commonwealth--while people should be free and elect their own leaders they realized that some goals required collective effort and cooperation. It is simply wrong to claim that the leaders of the American Revolution were Libertarians. Whether Libertarianism is right or not, please do not try to claim the mantle and mystique of the Founding Fathers to justify it. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/17/84)
I get the impression, from some of the Libertarian postings on this group, that there are some of you out there actually actively involved with the "official" Libertarian presidential campaign. If this is so, would one of you please post a net address to which those of us on the net can send mail containing one or more names and US Mail addresses, so that these names and addresses can be added to the Libertarian Party mailing list, and so that those named people will receive Libertarian literature PRIOR to election day? The only sign of Libertarian activity I've seen here in Missouri was a petition drive some months back to get Bergland on the ballot. I signed and got a handout. I don't know if the drive was successful or not, and, even though the petitioners had my name and mailing address, I've never received any Libertarian literature in the mail. I know a couple people who might be persuaded to vote Libertarian if they got some literature explaining it to them; I'd like to get them and myself on the appropriate mailing lists. I'd also, as anyone with net access can understand, prefer to request it electronically instead of via US Mail. So, is there a way? Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
bruce@godot.UUCP (Bruce Nemnich) (10/20/84)
Tim,
You must not understand at least one of the two doctrines (libertarian
and conservative); they are not at all the same. I am a libertarian,
but I disagree with most conservative doctrine. If I had to choose
between the major-party presidential tickets, I would vote for Mondale;
but I don't, and I shall vote my conscience.
Re the leaders of the American Revolution, I paritally agree with what
you say. There was a tremendous amount of powerful and original
political thinking going on in revolutionary America, though, and many
libertarian ideas have their roots therein. A quick example from by
far the most influential political writing of the time:
"Some writers have so confounded society with government as to
leave little or no distinction between them, whereas they are not only
different but have different origins. Society is produced by our
wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our
happiness *positively* by uniting our affections, the latter
*negatively* by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse,
the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a
punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best
state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one;
for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries *by a
government* which we might expect in a country *without government*,
our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by
which we suffer....
Here then is the origin and rise of government, namely, a mode rendered
necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here
too is the design and end of government, viz., freedom and security."
--Thomas Paine, *Common Sense*, 1775
--
--Bruce Nemnich, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
{astrovax,cca,harvard,ihnp4,ima,mit-eddie,...}!godot!bruce, BJN@MIT-MC.ARPAmwm@ea.UUCP (11/01/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 6:14 pm Oct 12, 1984 */
This is a common way in which Conservatives (which Libertarians basically are
whether they admit it or not)
Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
/* ---------- */
I suspect that this statement is based on the warped view of libertarianism
presented in net.{politics,philosophy}. The discussion tends to concentrate
on property "rights" and organized extortion (taxation). However, I also
hold the following views, and don't think there are any libertarians out
there who would disagree with me (please speak up if you do!):
1) All drugs should be legalized.
2) Abortion should be the mothers option.
3) Pornography should be legal.
4) Prostitution should be legal.
5) Adultery should be legal.
I think you get the idea: anything that is currently illegal, but is
considered a victimless crime, should be legalized. There are *many* more
of these: some of the laws have support from the left statists, some have
support from the right statists. Dealing with those four, though, would
someone like to show how those can be reconciled with the traditional
"conservative" viewpoint?
<mike