cowan@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (10/11/86)
Barry, 1) You are right when you say that > left-wing and right-wing views aren't even remotely consistent I was wrong to say that the libertarianism is flawed for because it encompasses views that are both left-wing and right-wing; it simply puts the individual above the state. 2) Then you respond to this: > > The government is > > controlled by the political process, a process greatly influenced > > by economic interests.... > There is doubtless a great deal of truth in this. It makes a > compelling argument for a constitutional amendment forbidding > government from intervening in the economic affairs of its > citizens. The only way that large economic institutions can > create a "public policy" is through the power of government, > which can pass laws and enforce them coercively. Take this away, > and corporations are left only with the power to trade. We partially agree. But I believe you use an unrealistically narrow definition of "public policy." There have to be some laws; there have to be roads for businesses to use. There have to be workweek limits, if you want to avoid slave conditions for labor. There has to be transit, given the way in which factories are concentrated into densely populated cities. Even if there is no governmental body organized by the State, someone has to set some guidelines somehow, or you have chaos. Individuals will be affected by these guidelines. Your plan to leave corporations only with the power to trade must accept the reality that some decisions have to be made. Libertarianism may put the individual above the State, but it still does not put the individual above the Corporate State. 3) Now, I totally agree with your observation: > Government is *always* run by people with power. All governments > benefit those who are politically concentrated and harm those who > are not. There is simply no way to have nice, well-intentioned, > altruistic people run the government so that it serves everyone > and we all live happily every after. Such beliefs are sheer > fantasy. Richard asks "Who runs the government?" with the > implication that other answers are possible besides "the > powerful". He asks "Who does it serve?" with the implication that > other answers are possible besides "the powerful". I believe > he is wrong on both counts. However, you have the implications wrong. Of course, "the powerful" will inevitably control the government. But I don't see any reason why power -- this means wealth, too -- cannot be distributed among greater numbers of hands. This, of course requires that power be taken away from those who currently have it. As far as I can tell, Libertarianism does not suggest any mechanism for doing this, though I may must be naive. Libertarians who support massive military expenditures (you may not be in this category) are merely supporting a disguised form of corporate socialism. Trends would suggest that, if anything, power is becoming more concentrated. An article in last Sunday's New York Times magazine on the distribution of wealth is excellent. Communications technologies, which we might believe have the potential to alleviate many problems of centralization such as overcrowding an poverty in cities, will inevitably be shaped by the political conditions of the society in which they are introduced. They will allow those in power to exert greater control over ever greater numbers of people. To sum up, there are technological and economic limits on the distribution of power that must be overcome before individuals have freedom which will not be reduced by limiting government power. The only way to put the individual above the Corporate State is to reduce the causes of centralized power. New forms of organizing societies, neither completely socialist nor capitalist, which do not create the "forms of life" which traditional systems do, are necessary. This requires small-scale technology, to create sustainable communities. I only glanced at it, but I believe the book "Towards an Ecological Society" by Theodore Bookchin contains some of these ideas. Bookchin is not a Libertarian. He is an anarchist. (But I prefer the term anti-authoritarian.) -rich ------- -------