Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unm-cvax!unmvax!cliff From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Starving Libertarians Message-ID: <471@unmvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Oct-84 14:04:51 EST Article-I.D.: unmvax.471 Posted: Fri Oct 26 14:04:51 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Oct-84 02:41:56 EST References: <1754@inmet.UUCP> <2984@mit-eddie.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 93 > I've never met a starving libertarian. Have you met *any* starving U.S. citizen? (no? Me neither.) > In fact all the libertarians I've met > have been well educated (usually thru public education), Are you objecting to people that have been well educated, or trying to point out that public education is a big win? What about people who don't get decent public education? Gee, just think of all the people that have gone to P.S. #nnnn in the depths of that have not been well educated (through public education.) The real point is quality education, not public education. I don't claim the two are necessarily related. > well fed (as a > result of said education), and in general "have it made". Having found > themselves in such a situation, and seeing the dire poverty surrounding > them, (in the US and rest of world), they invented a philosophy which > justifies their priveleged status by idealizing relationships between > people as mutually informed rational transactions. Maybe you should add: ... as opposed to the illiterate starved proponents of alternative economic/political systems: Keynes, Marx, Mao ... > They tend to be very > theoretical in their politics, using unrealistic analogies to make > questionable points. People see what they want to see. When I had more time, I subscribed to "The Progressive", "The New Republic", "The American Spectator", and "Reason" so that I would get a broader set of views on any given issue. I have kept my subscriptions to "The New Republic" and "Reason." Occasionally I pick up one or the other for laughs but... In them I have seen theoretical and concrete examples of various philosophies. If you are only seeing unrealistic analogies, then you might not be looking too hard for substantive articles. Where is this source of questionable points? Netnews posters? (Netnews is fun, but let's not take it too seriously, eh?). Since you want a real world problem with a brief of the libertarian viewpoint, I will scrawl one quickly (I am pressed for time, I might do a better job at a later date): Unemployment vs. the Minimum Wage: In a nutshell it is simple to see how the minimum wage prevents people from working. The libertarian solution is simple; abolish the minimum wage. For those of you that think this is a horrid thought, consider the day when machines will be able to do some jobs for less than the $3.00+ per hour floor. Should the use of such machines be outlawed? If you say no, then you are willing to take jobs away from people and you might as well abolish the minimum wage right now. If you say yes, then things get stickier, but I am willing to bet that there are many people on the net who are pro-minimum wage and are anti-robotics regulation and I would like them to consider the dichotomy. > But, when you come right down to it, > libertarianism is simply a matter of greed. "I've got mine, and just > try to take it away from me." Sounds more like a quote from a corporation that relies on regulation, or a quote from a government employee that enjoys the tax dollars that pay his salary (not that people in each of those two positions might not be libertarians; I am one temporarily). The only libertarians that would be able to not have their money taken from them are the few that are totally self-sufficient and there really haven't been that many succesful communes in recent times... > Of course they will take it away from you. Either thru taxes, as in the > present case, or expropriation, after the inevitable revolution which > will take place if the mediating influence of social programs > dissapears. Take your pick libertarians, but first wake up and smell > the coffee. I don't buy it. Most of the people dependant on the social programs are not going to revolt when they go away... The sixties couldn't bring about U.S. revolution, and the issues then were significantly more threatening then the loss of food stamps, welfare, etc. After all, during a similar length of time in a future without social programs do you really anticipate a causalty rate comparable to the number of lives thrown away in Vietnam? BTW, libertarians object to conscription and really do differ from conservatives. More later...I've a plane to catch. > larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A dirty job, but someone has to do it. Thanks, friend. --Cliff [Matthews] {lbl-csam, purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143