Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!ut-sally!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: More Economic Heresy
Message-ID: <3660@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 21:53:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3660
Posted: Thu Oct  2 21:53:08 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:38:15 EDT
References: <1204@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 47

Melissa Silvestre writes:

>We [the libedrtarians] are far more radical than that! We don't wish to
>"meet the needs of society". We wish to redefine how those needs are judged
>so that it's economically impossible NOT to meet those needs.

Since the real meanings of words cannot be defined out of existence, nor the
real names of things be defined out of existence, I can only read this to
mean that the libertarians would prefer anything, even the disintegration of
society, to the acceptance of any social obligations attached to wealth.

>Of course, such redefinitions are based on a completely different idea
>of what it means to be a responsible adult than proponents of the
>current paternalistic system have. And at this point, this discussion
>should probably move to talk.politics.theory.

No, let's stay in reality for a moment.  There is a very deep problem with
this sort of attitude; it is that it is simultaneously a free and a
totalitarian doctrine, and therefore virtually guarantees revolution.  It's
freedom is well-espoused.  It's totalitarian aspect, however, derives from
the fact that demands certain ways of thinking, at the expense of any
dissent.  It therefore is an ideological solution and not a political
solution.  Marxism is essentially the economic argument against this sort of
government; a libertarian government would be therefore uniquely vulnerable
to Marxism, especially since the government would have to refuse to project
the workers against the wealthy.

>>   I repeat my view:  'libertarian' is a euphemism for 'self-centered, self-
>>   satisfied, self-serving, inconsiderate, greedy lout."

>Libertarian is a maltheism for "a responsible adult who wishes to make
>others responsible adults as well."

THat is precisely the problem.  Why economic responsibility should be any
easier to attain than political responsibility is a question which is not
answered-- it cannot be answered, because the historical record is firmly
against it.

One can draw an analogy between homeopathic medicine and laissez-faire
economics.  There is a lot of nice theory behind both.  Both can point to
cases where the explanations hold.  But even the people I know who use
homeopathic remedies know when to consult a doctor; yet the libertarians
canoot make the embarrassing boils of exploitation go away.  Perhaps they
would go away in time; but what populace is willing to wait to find out?


C. Wingate