egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) (02/21/85)
[tounge in cheek begins] As a confessed libertarian, I don't believe that most socialists are motivated primarily by a desire to increase their personal political power, although this might be the practical effect of socialist policies. Rather, the motivation is to justify the existing order of society, characterized by the relative absense of individual liberties. Removing the power of government to tax is a threat to this social order, since it threatens its basis, the "rights" (really privileges) of society. Hence socialists attempt to establish societal rights as sacred and absolute, and from this it follows that taxation is not a violation of property rights, or "theft." [some lib<=>soc left out] I would describe socialists as well-intentioned but naive. One of the appeals of socialism is that it is basically a simple philosophy, hence ideal for simple minds. Once socialism is accepted, you do not have to think very hard about the tough questions of society and politics. Look at the Socialists Party platform. Whatever the social problem, the solution is the same: the government should start trying to solve it, and everything will be fine. [not tongue in cheek follows] Actually, I'm not a libertarian, but I hate to see pot shots like Richard's. Especially the part about "simple minds". That's going a tad too far, don't you think. BTW, I've heard quite a few libertarians argue that national defense should *not* be one of the functions of government. They seem to quite a diverse group and, by and large, well-informed. Ed Sheppard Bellcore
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/24/85)
In article <35@epsilon.UUCP> egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) writes: >BTW, I've heard quite a few libertarians argue that national defense >should *not* be one of the functions of government. They seem to quite >a diverse group and, by and large, well-informed. Thank you, ed. Did you cross-post to net.jokes? You should have - the paradoy was hilarious. Saying libertarians are a "diverse group" is somewhat of an understatment. The spread of libertarian views on the economy are as (nearly) as broad as the statist views on the economy, encompasing everything from cut-throat capitalism to the government will provide everything to everybody socialism. Given that, is it surprising that some questions occasionally get inconsistent answers? As for well-informed, the libertarians on the net strike me about like any other group: a minority of very careful, very scholarly people, a majority who agree with the philosophy, but haven't the time or energy to chase through all the ramifications of it, and another minority that make you ashamed to associate with the group. <mike