Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Starving Libertarians - (nf)
Message-ID: <1776@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 01:36:28 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1776
Posted: Thu Nov  1 01:36:28 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 04:03:22 EST
Lines: 72

#R:unmvax:-47100:inmet:7800150:000:3375
inmet!nrh    Oct 30 14:03:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.politics / mit-eddi!lkk / 12:03 pm  Oct 28, 1984
>>> (lkk)
>> (cliff@unmvax)
> (lkk)
(nrh)
>
>>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?
>
>I'm objecting to the fact that the people who complain the most about
>"big government" are the very ones who gain the most out of it.

Gosh, Larry, it sure is nice of you to have the best interests of
us libertarians at heart.  Don't worry though -- we'll object
to big government EVEN IF YOU THINK WE BENEFIT FROM IT.  Okay.

>Some things that probably would not exist without big government:
>USENET (exists because of corporations and universities which tend to
>have huge govt. contracts, while allow phone bills to dissapear in the
>accounting (no flames from the few exceptions))

Back this up, please.  Particularly as regards private time-sharing
systems such as The Source, and private BBoards.  
Of course, government contracts exist, and of course, with enough
government participation in the economy, there's no escaping working
for it (directly or indirectly), or being taxed by it.
On the other hand, just as mass-transit moguls used to build 
amusement parks so that people would use the transit system on
weekends, the phone companies probably would have developed something
like usenet anyhow.  

>U. New Mexico (you even admit you are a govt. employee (getting yours
>while its still available eh?))

Of course, Larry isn't mentioning the private universities that might
exist in New Mexico if they weren't rendered unprofitable by 
heavily subsidized competition.
>
>National Parks:  The mineral resources are always going to be worth more
>than "scenic value", only if a non-economicly motivated entity (US
>govt.) can buy land will it remain virgin.

Ever hear of Robert Redford?  He buys up large sections of land out
west for this very reason.  Of course, I suppose he has to pay taxes
on it, which limits the amount of land he can add to such a trust.
On the other hand, if land were NOT taxed, this probably would have
come about natrually.  

>That plane you were about to catch:  FCC is a govt. agency, with an
>excellent safety record.  I'm really glad that airlines don't have to
>consider the economic tradeoffs when deciding on the level of my safety.

For someone who's inviting libertarians to wake up and smell the coffee,
you sure seem to have popped some 'ludes -- People Express had a big
fight with the union over their decision (for economic vs. safety reasons)
to fly with a two-man cockpit crew rather than the traditional three
man crew.  American airlines (I'm told by a United airlines rep) 
will fly in weather that United airlines will not.

Of course there are regulations that apply to all of these, but 
whether they're enforced by a federal agency (is it really the FCC?)
or whether they're enforced by union management give-and-take, or
by insurance certification makes a big difference.  In the last
two cases, unreasonable and expensive safety mechanisms (the 3 man
crew) can be eliminated, and low-income people can fly (of course,
they won't if they're scared).  In the first, low-income people,
who might have chosen differently, are not allowed to fly -- because
the economics of heavily-regulated flight are against them.