KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (12/16/86)
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
... Libertarians are fixated on the danger of "big government"
affecting our freedom, and that this focus on government serves to
mystify what's really going on?
I am disturbed by all infringement of liberty. Government is the
main offender, but by no means the only one. Some people who call
themselves libertarians really advocate anarchy. They don't seem to
realize that if government is abolished, either another government
would immediately form, or other, smaller, opponents of liberty would
have their way.
The reason I object to the emphasis on government is that public
policy is really not determined by "the government."
Government, at least in relatively free countries, does tend to
reflect the will of the people. The current wars on drugs and
pornography would not occur if the majority did not support them.
My point is that it doesn't matter if 99% of the population does
oppose drugs or pornography. The 1% who wish to use these have
rights too. The fact that the government which violates those
rights represents the will of the majority is not relevant. The
tyranny of the majority may be preferable to the tyranny of the
minority, but no tyranny at all is better.
Chomsky is saying that it's the other way around. The government
is controlled by the political process, a process greatly
influenced by economic interests.
Yes, there is a lot of truth in this. This may surprise those of
you who think I favor big business. I don't. I favor a free market.
This may include big businesses. But many big businesses today are
able to become big and remain big only because government unfairly
takes sides. The import tariffs, which increase the price of consumer
products, are a good example of this, as are the various farm subsidy
programs, which may have been intended as a temporary subsidy to small
farmers but which now go mostly to pay millionaires not to farm for
decades.
I oppose the tariffs and the farm subsidies whether they go to big
or little business. Unlike the liberals, I see nothing inherently
good in small things or anything inherently bad in big things. Unlike
the conservatives, I see nothing inherently good in big things or
anything inherently bad in small things.
Any government program which people think is worthwhile should be
financed entirely by voluntary contributions. Can you honestly see
the farm lobby convince people that they, as individuals, should pay
money to have less food grown and food prices higher? Can you see the
automobile lobbyists going door to door asking people who recently
bought a foreign car to donate several thousand dollars to compensate
for the foreign car's lower price?
Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon) had a similar perspective, urging
"the reintroduction of human ideals into what is now policy formed
mainly by economic considerations." (personal correspondence,
1969)
What does this mean? What are "human ideals" as opposed to
"economic considerations"? There are many human things that are
beyond economics, of course, such as friendship and love. I hope he
is not advocating government involvement in any such individual
concerns.
Accepting this view, the question one should ask is not whether
government is inherently good or bad,
Agreed.
but rather, "Who runs the government?"
I don't think it matters very much so long as they obey the laws.
and "Who does it serve?"
Right. It should serve everyone, but only to the extent of
preventing individual rights from being violated. It should not and
cannot be involved with protecting people from their own economic
misjudgements, or with redistributing wealth, or trying to compensate
for the inequalities of past generations.
...Keith
-------