mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/10/85)
In article <28200030@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: [I'm only going to reply to part of this article because I'm tired of talking about streets.] >>>This Alger Hiss mentality is not what libertarianism is about, at least for >>>me. As I see it, libertarianism is about letting people do what they want >>>so long as they don't violate rights of others. If what one want is to >>>become a millionaire, one is free to pursue such dreams. Libertarianism >>>does not require such aspirations or even encourage them per se. >>{It's Horatio Alger, not Alger Hiss.] Isn't letting people do what they >>want without violating the rights of others the state aim of the current >>government? >That's nice. It does not, of course, matter what the "aim" of the >government is, merely what it does, what laws it passes, and so forth. >That I prefer a hypothetical government that explicitly limits its >intrusion into my life to a real one one that does not (and will not) is >not, I think, unreasonable, particularly given that the real one began >with fairly strict limits on what rights the government had with respect >to people and that states. And my position is that the hypothetical government will do the same, or will simply give up the abuse of power to another group. >>It all depends on what rights you choose, and how you resolve >>conflicts between them. Mike seems rather consistent in his assertion that >>the right to unrestricted liberty in the use of private property is supreme >>above all other rights. I maintain that human beings are too prone to evil >>to be trusted with such a right. The abuses of economic power by the likes >>of the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and Goulds is sufficient evidence for me. >>Mike has proposed nothing which would check their power, and indeed, he is >>quite adamant they have the right to such abuses. I suggest that it is no >>wonder that Mike's views are not held by working people, but by professors, >>bankers, and businessmen. >So? A viewpoint's validity is determined in some way by what business >the holders are in? As for checking the abuses of millionaires, you'll >find that the very worst ones are state-supported. Gee, all that good rhetoric wasted! :-) My point with the last phrase was that Libertarianism is a political system for the rich, because only those who can afford to acquire property (and better still, those who have the economic clout to outlast their opponents) stand to benefit. The waitress who lives from paycheck to paycheck in a rented flat has little to gain; indeed, her lack of property and assets makes her as vulnerable as can be. (By state-supported millionaires, I must assume you mean defense contractors.) I will not for one moment argue that what we have now is the best of all possible systems. But its potential for abuse is much lower; its regard for the rights of ALL individuals (not just those with economic clout) is much higher. Charley Wingate