orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/25/85)
> From Clayton Cramer: > Mr. Sevener: funding for the libertarian movement has, with a few notable > exceptions, not come from companies and industrialists, most of whom are > scared spitless by a libertarian society, where they are responsible for > their actions. The major exception to the rule I just mentioned is David > Koch, who contributed over two million dollars to the 1980 LP Presidential > campaign. What's is industry? Air pollution control equipment. Mr. > Koch must either be ignoring his short-term interests, or figures that > a libertarian society will need more air pollution control equipment > than the current one (which is not a bad assumption). Well how do you define "Libertarian"? I realize there are a small minority (which represents the vast majority of those calling themselves "Libertarian" on this Network) who are ideologically pure Libertarians. While I very much disagree with those Libertarians I admire your consistency. Such Libertarians are at least consistent in opposing the bloated military establishment and record of intervention in other countries affairs as they oppose social spending. However the exact same free-market rhetoric is used by others with very different ends and interests. I would hardly call William Simon a pauper for instance, yet he spouts the same free market rhetoric as Libertarians. At the same time he has no intention of disrupting his own economic clout or that of the military industrial complex by calling for an end to the biggest governmental waste of money ever invented: namely the arms race. J. Peter Grace has launched an expensive political campaign to demolish social spending in the name of the deficit and "efficiency". He questions the efficacy of welfare programs and suggests many might be abolished as "neutral reform". Of course he also gives the mandatory nod to the problem of military waste - procurement should simply be more efficient. Yet does he ever question the need to spend $1.6 trillion for the military over 6 years of Reagan's Administration? If welfare programs are not efficacious then how about MX missiles? What is the *point* of all this incredible expense? Are we any safer or more secure after spending $1.6 trillion? I am not particularly concerned about the miniscule vocal minority of avowed Libertarians so active on this Net. However I am *very* concerned that there are very real financial interests who love the promotion of free-market rhetoric to shield their own activities. They will eat up the Libertarian argument that government should get out of pollution control and totally ignore the argument that citizens should be allowed to file class action suits instead. Just as even Ronald Reagan has recently endorsed the traditionally progressive issue of "tax reform" and wishes to use it to advance his own goal of moving away from a progressive income tax system. Ignored in Reagan's populist tax speeches is the fact that the wealthy's taxes would be reduced by over 10% while the poor gullible middle class gains a cut of only 5%. And when the taxes rise whose cut do you suppose will be eliminated? tim sevener whuxl!orb
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/28/85)
> > From Clayton Cramer: > > Mr. Sevener: funding for the libertarian movement has, with a few notable > > exceptions, not come from companies and industrialists, most of whom are > > scared spitless by a libertarian society, where they are responsible for > > their actions. The major exception to the rule I just mentioned is David > > Koch, who contributed over two million dollars to the 1980 LP Presidential > > campaign. What's is industry? Air pollution control equipment. Mr. > > Koch must either be ignoring his short-term interests, or figures that > > a libertarian society will need more air pollution control equipment > > than the current one (which is not a bad assumption). > > Well how do you define "Libertarian"? I realize there are a small minority > (which represents the vast majority of those calling themselves "Libertarian" > on this Network) who are ideologically pure Libertarians. While I very > much disagree with those Libertarians I admire your consistency. > Such Libertarians are at least consistent in opposing the bloated > military establishment and record of intervention in other countries affairs > as they oppose social spending. The word "Libertarian" (capital L) refers to a political party in which a lot of libertarians have been active; the word "libertarian" (small l) is a political movement that includes some people active in the Republican Party, and a lot of people that have given up on politics. The libertarians who shout the loudest about "ideological purity", in my experience, are not terribly dissimilar in essential *attitude* from the little dictators in every other political or religious movement. > However the exact same free-market rhetoric is used by others with very > different ends and interests. I would hardly call William Simon a pauper > for instance, yet he spouts the same free market rhetoric as Libertarians. > At the same time he has no intention of disrupting his own economic clout > or that of the military industrial complex by calling for an end to the > biggest governmental waste of money ever invented: namely the arms race. Libertarians believe in free markets; not everyone who believes in free markets is a libertarian; not everyone who claims to believe in free markets necessarily believes in them. Concerning the arms race: a lot of libertarians (myself included), are *very* disturbed at the tremendous amount of material and energy wasted on the military industrial complex; at the same time, we recognize that as nice as it would be to not spend all the money, the history of this century suggests that the money needs to be spent to avoid the even greater tragedy of world war. (This is a very uncomfortable situation, somewhat akin to sitting on a kettle filled with boiling sulfur, because we can't figure out any way to get off the kettle lid without being covered with molten sulfur. We take the burn from the kettle lid because it is less painful than the molten sulfur.) > J. Peter Grace has launched an expensive political campaign to demolish > social spending in the name of the deficit and "efficiency". > He questions the efficacy of welfare programs and suggests many might be > abolished as "neutral reform". Of course he also gives the mandatory > nod to the problem of military waste - procurement should simply be more > efficient. Yet does he ever question the need to spend $1.6 trillion > for the military over 6 years of Reagan's Administration? The efficacy of welfare programs has been questioned by a lot of people --- some of them people who are largely supportive of a liberal welfare state. My sister told me tales of working for Los Angeles County Department of Social Services that had a lot to do with my disillusionment with the government being in the welfare business. The Grace Commission report covered the problems of military waste in a lot more detail than you suggest; not only was the issue of military procurement addressed, but also the pork barrel aspects of why so many military bases exist. Finally, remember that the Grace Commission report was intended to find ways to make existing government more efficient --- the goal was not to do an ideological house cleaning. > If welfare programs are not efficacious then how about MX missiles? > What is the *point* of all this incredible expense? The government is a whore, for sale to highest bidder. A lot of money that gets spent on defense (and most everything else that the Federal Government does) is spent to satisfy special interest groups. (That includes the social welfare programs --- someone has to keep all those welfare workers employed.) > Are we any safer or more secure after spending $1.6 trillion? Are the poor better off after the Great Society? Charles Murray's book _Losing_ _Ground_ suggests that the poor are worse for the effort. > I am not particularly concerned about the miniscule vocal minority of > avowed Libertarians so active on this Net. > However I am *very* concerned that there are very real financial interests > who love the promotion of free-market rhetoric to shield their own > activities. They will eat up the Libertarian argument that government > should get out of pollution control and totally ignore the argument > that citizens should be allowed to file class action suits instead. The major beneficiaries of free markets are *not* big corporations. Listen carefully, and you'll notice the special interests that you are talking about are not hostile to government regulation, just "overregulation". Regulation of the economy benefits big corporations and labor unions. A free market benefits everyone else. > > Just as even Ronald Reagan has recently endorsed the traditionally progressive > issue of "tax reform" and wishes to use it to advance his own goal of > moving away from a progressive income tax system. What do you think Reagan is? There were Republican groups in California that used to call him "Red Ronnie". > Ignored in Reagan's populist tax speeches is the fact that the wealthy's > taxes would be reduced by over 10% while the poor gullible middle class > gains a cut of only 5%. And when the taxes rise whose cut do you suppose > will be eliminated? > tim sevener whuxl!orb Of course: the nominal tax rates on high income families are dramatically higher. If you cut everyone's taxes by the same percentage, this will naturally put more money in to high income families. Remember, a 90% tax bracket would gather practically no more money because of tax sheltering. Lower brackets discourage the non-economic investments of tax shelters. You can't win on this one; people with power and influence will always find some way to lower the effective tax rate they pay to a level they feel comfortable with.