plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (08/01/84)
[] A Libertarian taking his creed too seriously responds thusly to T.C. Wheeler's list of typical regulations and local ordinances that are pretty commonplace these days: (I condense to make the point) > >1. A regulation which prohibits the use of an unvented kerosene > > stove in an apartment or house. > > ..you could sue someone for operation of a kerosene stove.. > ..None of your business unless you can convice a court.. > > >4. A regulation which prohibits you from taking clams from designated > > waters. > > ..you can sue me.. > > >5. A rule which prohibts you from using your front or back yard > > to store junk automobiles. > > ..then [neighbors] have the right to sue you. > > >7. A law which prohibits door-to-door salesmen unless they have > > a license from the town. > > ..I can shoot him.. > > >9. A law that prohibits the use of fireworks. > > ..I could get a restraining order, sue, etc. > -- And so it goes. The Libertarian solution to permanent government regulation is: the court, or in the cases where a court cannot be accessed quickly, a gun. In the Libertarian Society everyone, therefore, will be a lawyer, (those unfortunate few failing the bar exam will take up gun dealerships), courts of law will be more common-place than post-boxes, and judgeships will be deemed the most boring job on earth ("Oh no! This is the fiftieth kerosene lamp case today! And it's only 10 A.M.!"). But I don't want to offend the Libertarian enthusiast: Your theories are interesting, and you are no doubt a great influence to counter the lunatics to the left. But that's all; don't ever think that a Libertarian Society would ever work in practice. It would be as big a failure as Bolshevism. -- Scott Plunkett, ..{umcp-cs,allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (08/02/84)
Libertarian position on medical regulation: if you go to a quack and his surgery results in you losing a leg, you'll know not to go back to him again. If his surgery results in your death, that's OK: you can sue. Disclaimer: I am not a libertarian. Mike Kelly
ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (08/08/84)
All that discussion of suing suggests one more question for libertarians. Should motorists be legally required to purchase liability insurance? Kenneth Almquist
faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Christopher) (08/14/84)
Much of the argument in favor of less government and more personal freedom people have been giving makes sense, but "private courts"? This is something I can't understand. Say I have some gripe against you and decide to sue you. Who gets to decide which court we will go to? Say you have been burning tires in your front yard, and it just happens that the judge who sits in the court of your choice also burns tires in his spare time. Hardly fair, I would say, but I have no more power to force you to to a different court than you have to force me to go to this one. Now, with government-run courts, this problem doesn't occur... Or say that I win a decision against you, but you decide that you want to continue burning tires anyway. So I call the police and tell them that you aren't obeying the court. What are they supposed to do, enforce the decisions of every private court that decides to call itself that? Or maybe the police force should be private also, or perhaps every private court should have its own police force to enforce its decisions. I think it's obvious where this leads. I think that the problem with most Libertarian thinking is that it assumes that without government, people will be resonably civilized and cooperative. This is absurd -- without a big powerful government keeping order, within a few months everybody would be at each other's throats and it wouldn't be long before society would degenerate into a bunch of armed feudal states... Wayne
heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (08/15/84)
A lot of nonlibertarians out there in net land are confusing Libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarians go along with the slogan "That government rules best that rules least" not "That goverenment rules best that rules not at all". I'm sure that you could start a long argument between Libertarians as to just how much government is desireable, but I don't think any of them believe that society could function without any government at all. If they did, then they would be anarchists. I've noticed a lot of nonlibertarians argueing along the lines that if we woke up tomorrow with a libertarian society, we would all be going around killing each other. This is undoubtably true, but very unlikely. If this country is ever going to have a libertarian society, it will be a gradual process not an overnight occurance. Personaly, I vote libertarian because their political philosophy comes closer to my own than do the philosophies of other parties. I think that goverenment is instituted to protect the rights of the goverened not to restrict them, and should therefore interfere as little as possible with individual decissions that only affect the individual (e.g., wearing seat belts). I also believe that people must take responsibility for there own life, not expect goverenment to take care of them from womb to tomb. Well that should give the flame throwers plenty of fule for awhile so I'll go get out the asbestos 3-piece. Is my tie on straight? Give me Libreum or give me Meth! DW @ ...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd