Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm
From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Socialism as ideology
Message-ID: <768@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 23-Feb-85 18:18:21 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.768
Posted: Sat Feb 23 18:18:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 05:26:47 EST
References: <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <35@epsilon.UUCP>
Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 22
Summary: 

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