Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows
Message-ID: <28200317@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 00:50:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200317
Posted: Fri Nov 22 00:50:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 20:58:53 EST
References: <549@qantel.UUCP>
Lines: 47
Nf-ID: #R:qantel:-54900:inmet:28200317:000:2380
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 22 00:50:00 1985


[Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor ]
>1) Democracy

>The attitude of the two camps toward democratic guarantees and institutions
>ranges from indifference to outright contempt.

There are two sides to the Western democratic ideal. One is  per-
sonal  rights,  limited government, division of powers, local au-
thonomy, legal protection etc. ; the other is government by popu-
lar  will  and  for the good of majority ("by the people, for the
people").  You discuss both sides and discover that  libertarians
do not value the second, while the socialists tend to neglect the
first.  You could add that libertarians value the first,  social-
ists  the  second.  Even if this is not enough for you - at least
your thesis about their common ground is undermined.

Your indictement of socialists concentrates on  the  teachings  of
their  classics,  and  they are not really bound by them. This is
unfair. A fairer point  could  be  made  that  they  alternate
between proclaiming to have nothing in common with totalitarian
"socialist" countries *and* extolling  their  presumed  social
achievements.  However, in those moods when their model is Sweden
and not Cuba, you can hardly hold them to  be  antidemocratic.
And the idea of "working-place democracy" (which I don't like for
other reasons) shows that democracy is a value for them.

As for libertarians, their principle is that the government is
best that governs least. You would not ban Thomas Jefferson
from the democratic fold, would you ? There is a certain 
exuberant maximalism among them that justifies your statement
that they take rights for granted  - and, I might add, demand
*more* rights.  But asking for more is only dangerous
for someone in Oliver Twist's position, and then things are
bad anyway. Why not get all the liberty that the market
will bear ? 

This might be a good strategy even for *keeping* existing rights.
There is a natural drift towards *more* power for all branches of
government. New prerogatives are added  every  year,  and  almost
never  given  up.   Libertarianism,  insofar  as  it  is  at  all
widespread, is a good corrective. If it were not for some  liber-
tarian instincts in the populace, we would have had, e.g., inter-
nal passports long ago - and the government would be  more  effi-
cient.  We do not want that, do we ?

[to be continued]		Jan Wasilewsky