I'm not sure if I'm beating a "dead horse" on this issue but it probably has
been a long time since this issue was discussed on this board.

For now I have two interests in this inquiry.

The first is regarding the non-inititation of force pledge which is used by
the LP as the "qualification" for joining. My question here is, is this
enough? Might this be a bit too vague and not fundamental enough? Perhaps
this needs a bit more substance? Perhaps with a bit more substance more
proto-libertarians would more easily recognize us as their "political home."
What I had in mind was an additional phrase to the effect that "each person
or
group of persons has and equal right to their own purposes."

I realize that we could say that this is "understood" as the premise for the
non-initiation of force but in today's society I question that. Libertarians
may take it as "understood" that each person's equal right of purpose
supports the non-initiation of force pledge but many others don't. Indeed
most of today's graduates of government need to have things made extremely
plain and simple for them in order for them to be able to cut through the
smoke,
shadows and mirrors of government dogma. We need a nearly universal approach
which will allow most of us to quickly "cut to the chase" and cut down
statist arguments at their roots.

Chris Toto (ChrisToto@aol.com)

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism?
Date: 10/7/97 5:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ChrisToto
Message-id: <19971007210100.RAA10670@ladder01.news.aol.com>

(continued)

(Oops, I ended the previous post too soon due to my clumsy key board hands. )

Continuing on my first point of inquiry, by adding the "equal right of
purpose for all individuals" as a preface to the non-initiation of force
pledge of libertarians, it makes it much easier for us to boil down
government dogma arguments to "THEFT." (Thanks, ChefJeff). By making this
transition, it becomes obvious to most honest people who we are and what we
stand for. It becomes less necessary to educate every potential recruit via
force feeding
him with hudreds of books.

The second point of inquiry is about whether or not there are two distinct
kinds of libertarianism. Lawecon first introduced me to these as type 1 and
type 2 libertarians. I tend to think of type 1 as a "localist" or
"incrementalist" libertarian and type 2 as a "universalist" libertarian.

Below follows Lawecon's description:

Libertarianism 1: The "political" ideology that values individual autonomy as
the supreme social value and, hence, holds that the only acceptable political
structures are those that are the result of ACTUAL CONSENT. This type of
libertarianism is ultimately reducible to what has been traditionally called
"small group anarchy". It says nothing about the substantive
legal/institutional content of the "ideal small group", it says only that
individuals should have REAL choices between alternative institutional
arrangements.

Libertarianism 2: The political ideology that elevates individual freedom to
a position significantly above other political values and defines the "good
state" in terms of the protection of or "maximization of" "individual rights"
[be they "rights" of the British or French sort]. The largest group of
contemporary libertarians that adhere to this view are the Randians [who
largely follow the French pattern], but there are others [like those that
have traditionally congregated around FEE or similar economic based
institutions] who are more in the tradition of British neoclassical
liberalism.

These two types of libertarianism are typically united today for many of the
same reason that libertarians were considered a part of the "conservative
movement" in America up until the late 1970s [a period when the "conservative
movement" was modelled more after the American revolutionary tradition than
European toryism and when the Soviet Union appeared to many to be a truly
historical threat to all freedom] . They have common enemies in
collectivist "liberalism" and in paternalist "conservativism".

Ultimately, however, the two ideologies are quite distinct, both in terms of
goals, fundamental premises and epistemology, and they cannot prepetually
co-exist. As one example of the differences in fundamental premises between
these two ideologies I would offer the following: The Type 1 Libertarian
believes that the state is a structurally preverse and evil institution and
that state-like governance institutions are only tolerable when they are
subject to the REAL ability of individuals to exit from their sovereign
domain with facility. The Type 2 Libertarian believes [like the
conservative] that it is possible to construct a "good state" the function of
which is to "protect rights". [The specifics of just how that is possible
are, however, often left to the realm of "I say it is so, so it is."]

Personally, I am not sure there necessarily must be a conflict between the
two. In fact, both camps may offer solutions which the other lacks. At least,
I don't see why the type 1 localist, small anarchy community can't reside
inside a larger universalist type 2 libertarian society. As long as the
covenants establishing the type 1 community are completely voluntary and the
government of the type 2 society is truly minimalist and more rights and
freedoms are wholesale universally available in the broader t2 society. The
type 1 community could also establish voluntary basis for the establishment
of things like land use zoning, roads, etc. The only rub here for the small
anarchy society might be that some decision made by the broader universalist
society may be exceedingly objectionable to them, eg., a community of
Quakers objecting to the use of their taxes for maintaining a navy.

However, I'm not sure the reverse would work. That is, a type 2 universalist
libertarian community could probably not exist by definition in a type 1
society. Any covenants agreed to outside the smaller community (after the
creation of that community) would be by definition not voluntary for the
smaller type 2 univeralist community.

Obviously, there are echoes here of the the old federal, state and local
division of powers.

Comments?
Chris Toto (ChrisToto@aol.com)

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism?
Date: 10/8/97 12:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971008045900.AAA23294@ladder01.news.aol.com>

kinds of libertarianism. Lawecon first introduced me to these as type 1 and
type 2 libertarians. I tend to think of type 1 as a "localist" or
"incrementalist" libertarian and type 2 as a "universalist" libertarian.

Below follows Lawecon's description:

two. In fact, both camps may offer solutions which the other lacks. At least,
I don't see why the type 1 localist, small anarchy community can't reside
inside a larger universalist type 2 libertarian society. As long as the
covenants establishing the type 1 community are completely voluntary and the
government of the type 2 society is truly minimalist and more rights and
freedoms are wholesale universally available in the broader t2 society. The
type 1 community could also establish voluntary basis for the establishment
of things like land use zoning, roads, etc. The only rub here for the small
anarchy society might be that some decision made by the broader universalist
society may be exceedingly objectionable to them, e.g., a community of
Quakers objecting to the use of their taxes for maintaining a navy.>>

universalist libertarian community could probably not exist by definition in
a type 1 society. Any covenants agreed to outside the smaller community
(after the creation of that community) would be by definition not voluntary
for the smaller type 2 univeralist community.>>

I think that you've got it backwards. I see no reason why some of the Type 1
"burbclaves" or "small groups" could not be libertarian in the Type 2 sense.

However, Type 2 libertarianism assumes certain inalienable rights of man qua
man [to use a pseudo-Randian formulation] that would be too restrictive for a
Type 1 set up.

Again, the fundamental point of Type 1 libertarianism is ACTUAL consent of
the citizenry and ONLY consent. It is equivalent to a demand for unanimity in
collective decisionmaking [albeit achieved through ease of movement between
burbclaves, rather than unanimity of every vote].
The citizenry can agree that all buildings [including private residences] in
the burbclave must be painted luminescent orange and this is still
compatible with freedom since, if you don't like it, you REALLY CAN "leave
it".

What you may be referring to is the rules governing relations between
burbclaves [the "common economic protocols"]. THOSE RULES would closely
approximate Type 2 libertarian rules, as a result of evolution, if nothing
else.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism? [Smith 5]
Date: 10/17/97 8:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971017121801.IAA09328@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Concerning the influence of intellectuals in modern society,
F.A. Hayek writes:
"There is little that the ordinary man of today learns about
events or ideas except through the medium of this [intellectual] class;
and outside our special fields of work we are in this respect almost all
ordinary men, dependent for our information and instruction on those who
make it their job to keep abreast of opinion. It is the intellectuals in
this sense who decide what views and opinions are to reach us, which
facts are important enough to be told to us, and in what form and from
what angle they are to be presented. Whether we shall ever learn of the
results of the work of the expert and the original thinker depends
mainly on their decision." (Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and
Economics, p. 180)
Hayek points out that the vast majority of economists are
opposed to both socialism and protectionism, more so than in any other
academic discipline. Typically, however, it is not the views of this
majority, but the pro-interventionist views of the minority, who receive
a public hearing, even though they may be of doubtful standing in their
own profession. This is because the intellectuals, who transmit ideas to
the general public, filter out ideas they disagree with and publicize
the views of those experts whose opinions coincide with their own. Thus,
regardless of the dominance of free-market views among professional
economists, their ideas will exert little influence politically, since
the public will be largely unaware of them. Such is the all-pervasive
influence of intellectuals in contemporary society. Quoting Hayek:
"Even though [the knowledge of intellectuals] may be often
superficial, and their intelligence limited, this does not alter the
fact that it is their judgment which mainly determines the views on
which society will act in the not too distant future. It is no
exaggeration to say that once the more active part of the intellectuals
have been converted to a set of beliefs, the process by which these
become generally accepted is almost automatic and irresistible. They are
the organs which modern society has developed for spreading knowledge
and ideas, and it is their convictions and opinions which operate as the
sieve through which all new conceptions must pass before they can reach
the masses." (Ibid., p. 182.)
Hayek, it should be noted, does not attribute sinister motives
to these intellectuals, whatever their political beliefs may be. By and
large they are intellectually honest people who follow their
convictions. Like everyone else, their beliefs instill in them a bias
that naturally tends to slant everything according to their theoretical
preconceptions. In this respect Hayek's analysis differs from that, say,
of conservatives who attack what they see as a deliberate and mendacious
bias in the mass media. This kind of bias, according to Hayek, is
natural and inevitable, because we all view the social and political
world through ideological spectacles. Our theories and ideas act as
mental categories, which mold our perceptions of social reality.
As Hayek points out, it is extremely difficult to change the
theoretical beliefs of intellectuals, because they do not, and cannot,
possess first-hand information about every new idea that comes their
way. The intellectual judges a new idea not on its particular merits,
but rather on how neatly that idea fits into his other general notions.
Or, as philosophers of knowledge might say, the intellectual assesses
the truth or validity of a new idea, not according to whether it
corresponds to a fact of reality -- which is something he cannot
possibly know in every case -- but rather on the _coherence_ of that new
idea with the rest of his knowledge, which tends to be generalized and
highly abstract. If the new idea is consistent with his other knowledge,
he accepts it; if not, he rejects it.
The general ideas of the intellectual, therefore, are like the
pieces of an incomplete jigsaw puzzle, and new pieces are accepted or
rejected according to how well they fit into the overall pattern.
Moreover, since the intellectual determines the climate of opinion in
his society, his jigsaw puzzle will tend to be the same as that of
society as a whole. Thus, if the intellectual rejects a piece because it
doesn't fit into his puzzle, then, even though his rejection may be
based on ignorance or error, that piece will never even reach the
general public, who will be deprived of any opportunity to judge it for
themselves.
It is through this process that intellectuals play a crucial
role in determining what in German is called Weltanschauung, or
worldview -- or to what Hayek, following other writers, variously refers
to as the "climate of opinion" or "spirit of the time." This idea, which
today is commonly known as "public opinion," refers to that amorphous
but formidable collection of fundamental beliefs, whether true or false,
about social reality that are held by most members of a given society. A
basic purpose of Hayek's essay is to explain how a worldview is
generated, sustained and reinforced. For Hayek, intellectuals, and
especially philosophers (though not necessarily academic philosophers),
exert a tremendous influence in this area, because their abstract
theories serve as a social filter, trapping some ideas while allowing
others to pass through to the general public.
This is an interesting analysis, because it explains how the
average person can be influenced by philosophical theories without
studying those theories or even being explicitly aware of what they are.
Indeed, as Hayek points out, the theories themselves may have little or
no intrinsic merit; they may be excessively vague or even
self-contradictory, or they may seem so obvious so as not to require any
justification. The expression of a worldview is frequently preceded with
phrases like, "As everybody knows..." or, "It's obvious that...." Such
worldviews tend to be self-reinforcing, because, for the most part, only
those ideas that are consistent with the worldview are allowed to pass
through the filter of the intellectual to the public at large.
Again, it must be stressed that Hayek does not regard this
selective process as a sinister conspiracy of philosophers and
intellectuals. Rather, it arises spontaneously and is necessitated by
the vast number of ideas and bits of knowledge that circulate in a
complex society, only a handful of which can be considered by any
particular person. Accordingly, therefore, those who wish to establish a
free society should focus, not on railing against the evil motives of
their adversaries, but on replacing the erroneous theories of those
adversaries with better ones.
Hayek places great stress on this point. It is not enough
merely to poke holes in an opposing theory or to point out its practical
difficulties, because such problems can always be accounted for, or
explained away, with ad hoc justifications that are consistent with the
theory in question. No -- if a free society is to be achieved, the
prevailing worldview of statism must be replaced by a better set of
theories, namely, the worldview of libertarianism. And this requires not
just the continuous development of libertarian theory -- which, of
course, is crucial -- but also the cultivation of libertarian
philosophers and intellectuals who can undertake the long and arduous
process of reshaping public opinion.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism? [Smith 6]
Date: 10/17/97 8:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971017121900.IAA08478@ladder01.news.aol.com>

CONCLUSION

Every person in this room is an intellectual, though some of
you may not think of yourself in these terms. We are all engaged in
communicating the ideas of liberty, whether to our friends and
colleagues or to a broader audience. I encourage each of you to take
seriously your role as a public intellectual, by developing your
knowledge and cognitive skills. I suggest this, not only because it will
enrich your life, but also because it will vastly improve your
effectiveness as a libertarian activist. It's difficult to put into
words exactly how this happens, but I can assure you from personal
experience that it does. Every so often I sit down and examine my
ideology from scratch, attempting, as honestly as I can, to examine the
ultimate foundations for my libertarian beliefs. Through this critical
reexamination, combined with many years of reading and rereading the
libertarian classics and reflecting on what I have read, I find a
progressive improvement in my ability to communicate ideas and persuade
others.
With this in mind, let's return to the paradox of the good news
and the bad news that exist side by side in our society. However
impressive our intellectual advances have been during the past several
decades, libertarians constitute a minuscule part of the intellectual
class, as Hayek understands that term. Our ideas about liberty, however
logical and rigorous, tend to have little influence on the thinking of
Americans, because the intellectual class prevents those ideas from
filtering down to the general public.
This is especially true in the cultural arena, such as popular
entertainment. Where are the libertarian screenwriters, directors,
producers, actors, and artists? True, there are occasional exceptions.
The movie Legends of the Fall, for example, is a marvelous depiction of
libertarian family values, where an estranged son is reunited with his
father when they share some quality time by bumping off federal agents.
A few actors, such as Kurt Russell, are libertarians, but they are rare
exceptions who, as Russell explained in a recent interview, are shunned
by the Hollywood community. Fortunately, we are better represented in
the realm of imaginative literature, especially in science fiction,
where libertarian themes and values are quite common.
In short, as a movement we are top-heavy with experts, such as
professional economists, but we are sorely lacking in cultural
intellectuals who can popularize and transmit the ideas of our experts
to the general public. Before we can hope to achieve anything like a
free society, we must establish a culture of liberty as its
indispensable foundation.
Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet by which we can bring
this about. We cannot legislate cultural change; we cannot transform the
American worldview merely by replacing our rulers. By this I do not mean
that political change is unimportant; it is something, but it is not
everything.
Meanwhile, Hayek's view of the role of intellectuals, coupled
with my earlier remarks about the relationship between theory and
strategy, allows us to avoid the profound pessimism that can arise by
focusing too much on the "bad news" of political degeneration. The
empirical data of political degeneration can neither prove nor disprove
our strategic theory -- which tells us that freedom will never arise and
prosper without the strength of principles, and that we must display
moral courage in applying those principles consistently, without
compromise, however unpopular this may make us in the short run. History
tells us that radical changes can be effected, that political
degeneration can be arrested and reversed, though no one can say how
long the process will take.
Those Americans who took up arms in 1775 knew that they might
not live to see the freedom they so desperately desired, but many
thousands gave their lives for the ideal of individual rights. The
empirical data was against them; America, with no professional army or
navy, faced the most powerful military machine on the face of the earth,
one that had defeated France just a few years before. A modern political
scientist, with his empirical data and computer simulations, would have
informed the Americans that their rebellion was futile, that they could
not possibly defeat the British. But the resilience of freedom, and its
power to motivate, cannot be quantified, measured, or predicted.
Likewise, we libertarians should disregard the bad empirical
news of political degeneration and not allow it to deflect us from our
principled course of action. Theory cannot tell us whether we will
succeed, but if it is still possible to reclaim the liberty of our
country, then theory, combined with an understanding of history, teaches
us that an inflexible zeal on behalf of the freedom and dignity of the
individual is the only way that we can achieve our goal.
Will those of us here live to see a free society? I sincerely
hope we will. But even if we do not, even if we continue on the slippery
slide to tyranny, we can still lay the intellectual and cultural
foundations of liberty for future generations, for our children and for
our grandchildren.
And that, my friends, is a cause worth fighting for.

George H. Smith is the author of Atheism: The Case Against God and
Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. He is currently working on his
third book, Sovereign State, Sovereign Self. Smith recently wrote the
introduction to a new edition of The State by Franz Oppenheimer.

This article was first delivered as the keynote address at the
Libertarian Party of California's state convention in Sacramento
February 15, 1997 and is reprinted from the International Society for
Individual Liberty's Freedom Network News No. 48 (March 1997).
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism? [Smith 6]
Date: 10/18/97 9:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CheffJeff
Message-id: <19971018134201.JAA08827@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Craig wrote about what Hayek wrote:
<...intellectuals, and
especially philosophers (though not necessarily academic philosophers),
exert a tremendous influence in this area, because their abstract
theories serve as a social filter, trapping some ideas while allowing
others to pass through to the general public...>>

But Craig, don't you think that the forum on which we're all reading
right now negates this process? Isn't cyberspace the final liberator of
honest thinking? If the average wo/man can easily, cheaply, and quickly
input and analyize data, the need for intellectuals' filters are gone. Each
person in cyberspace discovers that s/he must be her/his own discriminator of
data. No one here but you reading this right now, right? Yes, others
critique, but YOU must decide for yourself here in cyberspace. No
intellectuals needed.

Until cyberspace, the intellectual was (perhaps) necessary. I believe
that the only way honest philosophies (including libertarianism, but
certainly not limited to libertarianism) will pervail is when the honest
concept of dumping "higher authorities" (government, intellectuals, gods,
etc.) is discovered by each individual. This discovery and integration is
when each person will recognize and use the true power s/he has to control
his/her own destiny and happiness.

This process is happening faster than we might know. For example, TV
watching is down in prime-time by about the same number of people who are
signed-on to just AOL. This means that 10 million+ people have given up on
the networks for filtering info and are choosing to do it themselves. This
use of power will be the great liberator of the individual. And with web-TV,
etc. coming into homes, the exponential effect of large numbers of
individuals integrating honesty will change the world overnight.

IMHO,
Jeff
PS Thanks for the great and thoughtful posting. I appreciate your analysis.

Now I must think about it for myself.

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism? [Smith 6]
Date: 10/18/97 9:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971019010000.VAA28875@ladder02.news.aol.com>

< But Craig, don't you think that the forum on which we're all reading
right now negates this process? Isn't cyberspace the final liberator of
honest thinking? If the average wo/man can easily, cheaply, and quickly
input and analyize data, the need for intellectuals' filters are gone. Each
person in cyberspace discovers that s/he must be her/his own discriminator of
data. No one here but you reading this right now, right? Yes,
others
critique, but YOU must decide for yourself here in cyberspace. No
intellectuals needed.

Until cyberspace, the intellectual was (perhaps) necessary. I believe
that the only way honest philosophies (including libertarianism, but
certainly not limited to libertarianism) will pervail is when the honest
concept of dumping "higher authorities" (government, intellectuals, gods,
etc.) is discovered by each individual. This discovery and integration is
when each person will recognize and use the true power s/he has to control
his/her own destiny and happiness.>>

Sorry, but I don't agree. The reason I don't agree is simple - the division
of labor. It isn't that most people start out as being unable to think
critically about political theory, philosophy, etc. It is merely that, given
the limited number of hours in a day and days in a lifetime none of us can do
everything. Merely "making a living" takes up a tremendous number of those
hours and days each year [although perhaps that will eventually improve if
libertarianism is ultimately victorious]. Hence, ALL OF US take most of the
things we "know" on authority without testing them out for ourselves or
asking ourselves if they really make sense.

Between making a living, finding a mate and raising a family, getting enough
exercise to keep from dying of obesity, sleeping and occasional
entertainment, most people don't learn much of anything new re political or
economic theory, history, etc. after they graduate from high school,
undergraduate school, or whatever. And, please recall, the government largely
controls these "educational" institutions.

The exceptions to these regularities are those whose life's work is devoted
to being a "second hand dealer in ideas" and those few oddballs, like me and
thee, who like to think and explore these matters as a hobby pursuit
[entertainment]. In this society, the "second hand dealers in ideas" are
generally of one collectivist mind set, for historical reasons that we've
explored before. The internet provides a networking opportunity for the
oddballs,
but no real chance that they will ultimately come to dominate the
value/perception creation process in the society.

The above are exactly the reasons that I ultimately reject Type 2
libertarianism in favor of Type 1 libertarianism. It is unlikely that this
society can be reformed, but it can be fragmented into numerous smaller
societies, some of which will put more emphasis on "learning" and some of
which will simply develop different [and less collectivist] value structures.

But I wouldn't expect 98% of the population of any of these society to spend
their
leisure time discussing philosophy and political theory [as much as I'd like
to believe otherwise].

As to your exact point, however, let me simply offer this observation - how
many people will be active on these [LP] boards vs. how many people will be
active in the literally hundreds of "chat rooms" in AOL tonight? There, I
think, is your answer.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism? [Smith 6]
Date: 10/19/97 9:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CheffJeff
Message-id: <19971019132901.JAA06657@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Craig responds:
many people will be active on these [LP] boards vs. how many people will be
active in the literally hundreds of "chat rooms" in AOL tonight? There, I
think, is your answer.>>

Ah, but I wasn't talking about WHAT these people were choosing, I was talking
about the fact that THEY ARE CHOOSING something for themselves, by
themselves, rather than being spoonfed info filtered through editors, TV
executives, etc. People just taking the necessary action to learn is the
paradigm that will change society, not people choosing the "correct"
philosophy to learn. See what I mean? The change isn't from Rep/Dem to
libertarianism, it's
from NBC/CBS/Public schools/Church/Politicians laying out the ground work to
me/I/you/each individual seeking virtually any knowledge we each choose.

This is a MAJOR shift in thinking that will ultimately force people (throught
competition of ALL ideas) to find the concepts that deliver the most
happiness. And those concepts MUST be honest or the happiness found will not
be happiness at all, but just a fleeting, momentary pleasure, much like most
of the info we've gotten for years, that has been filtered through some
intellectual or "higher" authority, has brought us.

This paradigm shift is happening on every board I visit on AOL. Certain
"leaders" on these boards have tried to stop it with comments such as, "this
isn't the forum to discuss these types of things" (things that may hurt their
unearned power base) or "what you said has nothing to do with this group"
(when, in fact, it has everything to do with the group). Now, instead of
just yelling at the TV, people can respond to the crap spewed by any type of
parasite (not just politicians) and each web surfer is forced to be
responsible for analyizing and integrating this info for him/herself. Again,
this is a MAJOR, civilization changing paradigm shift that happening before
our very eyes in cyberspace.
I'm excited, can you tell?
Jeff

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism? [Smith 6]
Date: 10/19/97 1:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971019172201.NAA22984@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Jeff>>>

Ya, I can tell. And, frankly, I have been excited as well. Many of your
observations make a lot of sense. And, yes, the existence of the internet,
and the increasing diversity of technologies available in association with
the internet, are clearly outrunning the ability of the power structure to
effectively control this medium for those of us who are actively engaged in
it.

If we already had a sizable number of libertarians in the population, the
Type 2 libertarian revolution would simply be a matter of time. And, indeed,
the fragmentation that I expect in lieu of such a Type 2 libertarian
revolution is probably going to be facilitated through this medium. However,
if you have a Prometheus/Stirner/Howard Roark model in mind, where each
individual is going to be transformed into a self-actualized Di Vinci, my
suggestion
is that you have much too exhaulted hopes for the human race at this point
in its cultural development. I would, however, be delighted to be proved
wrong.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism? [Smith 1]
Date: 10/16/97 11:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971016152701.LAA18374@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Note that the title of this thread is "What is Libertarianism?" [with a large
L]. With that excuse in mind I'm going to do something that I seldom try to
get away with - post something from another source. My profferred excuse is
that (1) This speech was given at an LP Convention, (2) I went to
undergraduate school with Smith [we fought like cats and dogs since he was a
Randroid and I was a Misesian] and (3) This piece is )(*& good. Probably the
best
thing Smith has ever written. With those excuses in mind, here it is:

The following is the first of two parts - a speech given by George Smith as
the keynote address to the state convention of the Libertarian Party of
California in Fedruary of 1997. It was first published in Freedom Network
News (newsletter fo the International Society for Individual Liberty)and
more recently in THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE.

glo

PRAGMATISTS vs. IDEOLOGUES

_Achieving A Free Society: Good News and Bad_

By George H. Smith

Special to _The Libertarian Enterprise_

PART ONE

In recent months, at least four major books have appeared by
libertarian writers. The first is a brilliant history of the Civil
War, _Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men_, by the economist and
historian Jeffrey Hummel. The second, _Libertarianism: A Primer_, is
by David Boaz, vice-president of the Cato Institute. Boaz also edited
the third book, _The Libertarian Reader_, a superb anthology of
readings from ancient and modern texts. The fourth book, _What It
Means to be a Libertarian_, is by Charles Murray, co-author of the
controversial best-seller, _The Bell Curve_.

To old-timers like myself, who began our libertarian careers in
the 1960s or before, this contiguous publication of four books by
libertarian writers is at once remarkable and encouraging. As a
college student in the late 60s, I recall how difficult it was even to
find older libertarian books in print, much less new ones. Since
then, however, each decade has witnessed a dramatic increase in the
number of such books, and we may confidently expect this trend to
continue.

My optimism is based not merely on the quantity of libertarian
books, but also on their _quality_. Of course, we have long been
blessed with first rate minds, such as Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek,
Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Thomas Szasz, and Ayn Rand, but
their numbers were few, especially when compared to our adversaries.
During the Sixties and Seventies, the publication of a libertarian
book was a major event, and it was fairly easy to read everything that
came out.

Today, I am happy to say, it is virtually impossible to keep
abreast of libertarian publications, especially if we include -- in
addition to books -- magazines, journal articles, newspaper columns,
and the seemingly omnipresent voice of libertarians on the Internet.
If we add to these the tremendous growth and influence of libertarian
organizations and think-tanks, such as the Libertarian Party, the Cato
Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, the International Society
for Individual Liberty, and so forth, then we have incontrovertible
proof that the libertarian movement has made remarkable progress in
the last two decades.

So much for the good news. The bad news is that America continues
its accelerated march down the road to serfdom, with both Democrats
and Republicans leading the way. I needn't elaborate on our descent
into democratic despotism for this audience. Even a brief listing of
tyrannical trends and political horrors would require far more space
than I have here.

Instead, I want to discuss how it is possible for the good news
and the bad news to coexist simultaneously. How is it that the
quantity and quality of our work has improved so dramatically, while
at the same time the social and political situation is continuing to
deteriorate at an alarming rate?

One explanation is that ideas and principles really don't matter
all that much. According to this view -- which unfortunately is
accepted by a sizable percentage of libertarians today -- we should
descend from the ethereal clouds of abstract arguments and moral
principles to the solid ground of pragmatism. Most people, we are
told, aren't interested in hearing about rights, the proper role of
government, and the like, so we should stop confusing politics with
philosophy and adopt a pragmatic strategy instead, based on the wise
maxim that politics is the art of the possible. Or, to shift
metaphors, we must trim our ideological sails if we are to navigate
successfully through the treacherous waters of politics. Here we have
the perennial debate between ideologues and pragmatists. I say
"perennial," because this debate, in one form or another, has surfaced
in every radical movement -- past and present, religious and secular,
libertarian and socialist. Throughout history various radical
movements, which began with purity of principles, have run into a wall
of indifference and hostility; and, as the frustration builds, some
activists have invariably called for a strategy that is more pragmatic
and less ideological. I don't say that all such pragmatic turns have
proved unsuccessful in the short run. But I do say that any successes
based on pragmatism have tended to be highly vulnerable and
short-lived. A political change for the better, when not based on
general principles, can easily be reversed (and usually is) by its
political opponents within a relatively short period of time.

To understand the reasons for this, we need to explore the
relationship between theory and strategy. Knowledge in this area is
essential if we are to understand the current relationship between the
good news and the bad news, and what we can do to turn our good news
into even more good news.

THEORY AND STRATEGY

Some libertarians vigorously defend their own strategic vision
without bothering to reflect on the theoretical implications of
strategic pronouncements. This can lead to immense confusion, since
there is no way, apart from the use of theory, that conflicting
strategies can be evaluated. How do we know whether or not a
particular strategy has been effective in accomplishing its stated
goals? Given the immense complexity of social causation, what role,
if any, can empirical observation play in the validation of a given
strategy?

Let's suppose for example, that the Libertarian Party presidential
candidate fares poorly in the next election, and let us further
suppose that some libertarian pundits, who work from different
strategic assumptions, offer various explanations for the
disappointing results. Here are some likely possibilities:

# The LP radical: "I told you so; our campaign was too
conservative."

# The LP conservative: "I told you so; our campaign was too
radical."

# The LP ideologue: "I told you so; we don't talk enough about
ideas."

# The LP pragmatist: "I told you so; we talk about ideas too
much."

# The LP sore loser: "We would have done better if my candidate
had been nominated."

# The LP sore winner: "We would have done better if everyone had
united behind our candidate."

# The LP opponent: "We will never do much better, because freedom
cannot be won by political means."

# The LP Jesuit: "We did far better than we should have, if you
consider the demographics."

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism? [Smith 2]
Date: 10/16/97 11:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971016152801.LAA17524@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Two implications of these conflicting accounts are worth
mentioning. First, the empirical fact (the vote total) has no
intrinsic meaning or significance apart from a strategic theory
through which it is interpreted. Second, the strategic theory can
neither be proved nor disproved by referring solely to the empirical
facts, because a different vote total, whether higher or lower, can
always be attributed to other social variables, whether known or
unknown.

The vote total, like all historical data, must be viewed through
theoretical lenses before we can understand its relevance. As Mises
and Hayek have argued, no historical fact can refute or confirm a
social theory, because that fact itself must be interpreted with the
aid of theory before its significance can be determined. Quoting
Mises:

"The epistemological and logical considerations which determine
the correctness or incorrectness of a theory are logically and
temporally antecedent to the elucidation of the historical problem
involved. The historical facts as such neither prove nor disprove any
theory. They need to be interpreted in the light of theoretical
insight." (_Human Action_, 3rd ed., p.622.)

All knowledge of particular social facts is necessarily
historical; such knowledge refers to concrete events that have already
occurred at a determinate time and location. If we follow Mises and
Hayek, therefore, social data can neither verify nor falsify the
theories on which we base our view of long-term strategy. This
relationship between social theory and empirical data marks a
fundamental difference between the social sciences and the physical
sciences (where empirical data can be used to test theories).

Methodological issues should be kept in mind when we formulate
strategic theories and try to evaluate their successes and failures.
By this I do not mean that strategy is, or can be, a science. (At
best, it is an art.) But every strategic theory proceeds, implicitly
or explicitly, from a view of social theory and methodology; and it is
difficult to assess a particular view of strategy without examining
its assumptions and presuppositions. In other words, it always helps
to know what the hell we're talking about.

PRAGMATISTS VERSUS IDEOLOGUES

Perhaps the most dramatic difference in libertarian thinking about
strategy is that between pragmatists and ideologues. I offer these
categories as "ideal types" or "pure forms" (to use the sociological
terms of Max Weber and Georg Simmel). In other words, I have
constructed these ideal types for the purpose of analysis, without
suggesting that real libertarians fall exclusively into one category
or the other. Most of us probably embody some features of both types,
with a disposition to favor one over the other. Moreover,
"pragmatist" and "ideologue" are relative terms; even the most
practical of libertarian pragmatists is regarded as an impractical
ideologue by the general public.

Pragmatists typically pride themselves on their "common sense" and
on their "realistic" view of the political world. Although they do
not altogether deny the importance of theory and ideology, pragmatists
believe that these have little application outside the immediate
circle of hard-core libertarians. Libertarians may enjoy debating the
fine points of theory among themselves, but this intellectual
recreation cannot help us in the rough and tumble world of politics.
The pragmatist sees himself as a problem-solver; he is going to roll
up his sleeves and get something done.

The pragmatist is especially fond of talking about "the real
world" -- a place, he thinks, that ideologues rarely visit and know
little about. The real world is the world of flesh-and-blood human
beings, the domicile of the proverbial "average person," in contrast
to the abstract world of the libertarian theorist. The pragmatist,
however much he may disparage theory, often has a rather elaborate
theory about how to change the world. If he has a background in
business (which he often does), the pragmatist will wax eloquent on
how libertarian ideas can be "packaged" and "sold." The average
person, he tells us, doesn't want to hear about rights and the proper
role of government; he is interested only in his family, his job, and
his bank account. It is the pragmatist who likes to write and read
books with titles like, _How You Can Profit from the Coming Extinction
of the Human Race_.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism? [Smith 3]
Date: 10/16/97 11:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971016152900.LAA17584@ladder01.news.aol.com>

We also have the pragmatic activist who shares the businessman's
disdain for ideologues and believes that he, too, has his finger on
the pulse of people in the real world. Radical ideas and causes,
according to this activist, will alienate our potential supporters,
many of whom are disenchanted by traditional politics. Therefore, we
are cautioned not to focus on unpopular issues, such as drug
legalization.

There are many variations and permutations of pragmatism, some of
which are more sophisticated than the types presented here, but all
share a dislike of abstract arguments and ideologues. When the
libertarian pragmatist speak of "facts" and the "real world," he means
the knowledge gained through experience and observation, knowledge
acquired from specific events and circumstances. He begins with
empirical facts (concrete people, specific actions, etc.) and then
generalizes about strategy, based on what libertarians can
realistically hope to achieve in the near future.

This inductive process is based on the historical method. All
facts appealed to by the pragmatist (assuming they are accurate) fall
within the domain of historical knowledge. History is the study of
past human actions; it is concerned with the unique individual event,
not with a general pattern or theory. These historical events are
what the pragmatists call the "real world" of facts.

Ironically, the pragmatist sometimes places history in the same
category as theory, relegating both to the ethereal world of the
ideologue, scholar and academic. Yet, as Mises and others have
pointed out, all human knowledge falls into one of these two
categories. Knowledge of particular concrete facts is always
knowledge of something that has already taken place; this is
historical knowledge. General knowledge, on the other hand, does not
refer to a specific time and place; this is theoretical
knowledge. All knowledge refers either to specific phenomena that
occurred at a determinate time and place in the past, or to general
propositions that are abstracted from any particular time and
place. The former is the sphere of history; the latter is the sphere
of theory.

The pragmatist commits himself to a strategic method based on
history instead of theory. This is a plausible choice, provided the
pragmatist understands the method he is using, especially its
limitations. But this rarely happens. The pragmatist who disdains
theory fails thereby to reflect on the theoretical premises and
implications of his own method, which remain unacknowledged,
unappreciated, and often ill-treated. I will discuss three aspects of
this problem.

(1) The failure to analyze methodological assumptions is clearly
illustrated by the mole-like historical sight of some pragmatists who,
in their search for empirical data, search no farther than their
immediate range of vision. History, for the mole, is limited to what
he has personally witnessed or at least to events that have occurred
during recent decades. For the mole, history began a decade ago,
possibly two or three, but rarely does the mole regard as relevant any
event that is older than he is. His life and memory, it seems, just
happen to overlap perfectly with the only period of history that he
needs to know. By a convenient coincidence, all relevant facts
pertaining to a free society and how to achieve it are confined to the
same period of time during which the pragmatist has been interested in
libertarianism.

Given his commitment to the real world, the pragmatist should
immerse himself in a study of the real world (i.e., history) and learn
what factors have contributed to freedom over the past 2500
years. Modern libertarians are not the first people to value liberty,
nor are we the most successful. Seventeenth and eighteenth century
libertarians, for example, faced even greater odds than we do, yet
they had spectacular triumphs in some areas, such as religious
freedom. These successes were not accidental. Early libertarians
were acutely aware of strategic issues -- witness the popular appeal
of the Enlightenment _philosophes_ -- yet most would be considered
"ideologues" by the modern pragmatist. Indeed, the very word
"ideologue" was apparently coined by the pragmatic Napoleon, who used
it to smear Benjamin Constant and other French libertarians who
refused to sacrifice principles to expediency.

I agree with the pragmatist that we should be concerned with what
will work in the real world. But this requires that we learn
something about the real world, which is far more complex than the
mole would have us believe. If we want to know what _will work_, we
should find out what _has worked_ in the past. Therefore, the sincere
pragmatist, before he trashes ideologues, should study history for at
least ten years, reflect on what he has read, and then get back to
us.

(2) The most serious error of pragmatism is its lack of
appreciation for the role of ideology in social perception. By
"social perception," is meant how we "perceive" the world of social
wholes (or entities), such as "state," "society," "church," and "the
market." In truth, we do not perceive social entities with our eyes;
rather, we _understand_ them with our minds. Social entities, as
Hayek says, are "constituted" by the mind. They are not physical
things, like rocks and trees and birds, but are mental constructs of
abstract relationships.

This means that how we _think_ about social entities will greatly
influence how we _perceive_ them. We libertarians know this from
experience, having encountered many people who appear to "see"
government differently than we do. Some people don't see government
as essentially coercive; they may even see taxes as "voluntary." These
differences in social perception result from viewing social reality
through different ideological lenses. Ideology is absolutely
essential to the success of the libertarian movement, because it
establishes a common frame of reference. If we fail to convince the
average person, this is often because we see a different social
reality than does the average person. Before we can convince other
people, we must refer to the same social world.

Contrary to the pragmatist, the real world of social interaction
is not a world of objective data and physical entities. It is a
subjective world, one that is filtered through ideological
assumptions, premises, and prejudices. The social world is
constituted by the ideas that people have about it. If libertarians
can change those ideas, they can, in a very literal sense, change the
world.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: What Is Libertarianism? [Smith 4]
Date: 10/16/97 11:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971016153600.LAA18970@ladder02.news.aol.com>

(3) In evaluating any form of pragmatism, we should keep in mind
that the greatest benefits of a free society are often those that
cannot be foreseen or predicted. As Hayek points out, this has
important implications for any pragmatic strategy.

"Since the value of freedom rests on the opportunities it provides
for unforeseen and unpredictable actions, we will rarely know what we
lose through a particular restriction of freedom." (_Law, Legislation,
and Liberty_, Vol.I, p.56)

The direct effects of market intervention will be apparent in many
cases, but we cannot know all the opportunities that have been lost
through such intervention. This means that liberty will tend to lose
out in any cost-benefit analysis -- because the benefits of
intervention can be "seen," while the costs (the unrealized
opportunities) remain largely "unseen." Consequently, whenever policy
decisions are based on expediency instead of principle, "freedom is
bound to be sacrificed in almost every instance." Hayek continues:

"The preservation of a free system is so difficult precisely
because it requires a constant rejection of measures which appear to
be required to secure particular results, on no stronger grounds than
that they conflict with a general rule, and frequently without our
knowing what will be the costs of not observing the rule in the
particular instance. A successful defense of freedom must therefore
be dogmatic and make no concessions to expediency .... Freedom will
prevail only if it is accepted as a general principle whose
application to particular instances requires no justification."
(_Ibid._, p.61.)

INTELLECTUALS AND PUBLIC OPINION

Hayek's essay, "The Intellectuals and Socialism", is a superb
discussion of the role of intellectuals in modern society, the
reasons for their attraction to socialism, and why they have generally
found classical liberal (i.e., libertarian) ideas to be unappealing.
Although some points in this essay may not be as relevant today as
when they were first published in 1949 -- for example, a smaller
percentage of modern intellectuals probably favor outright socialism
than when Hayek was writing, while a greater percentage have embraced
libertarianism -- Hayek's general insights remain highly suggestive
and useful for the modern movement.

"The Intellectuals and Socialism" presents nothing less than a
strategic vision for achieving a free society; it is a compelling case
for the indispensable role of abstract principles and a systematic
theory of liberty. Though Hayek is not usually regarded as a
strategic thinker, this essay demonstrates in theory what his role in
establishing the Mont Pelerin Society demonstrated in practice --
namely, that F.A. Hayek was perhaps the most brilliant and successful
strategist in the modern revival of classical liberalism.

Because the meaning of "intellectual" is rather vague, and because
the word sometimes carries a negative connotation, it is important to
understand at the outset what Hayek means by the word.

For Hayek, an intellectual is a "professional secondhand dealer in
ideas." By this Hayek does not intend to disparage the intelligence,
knowledge, or significance of intellectuals. Intellectuals can be
highly intelligent or rather stupid, wise or foolish, knowledgeable or
ignorant, quick-witted or dull, original or hackneyed. By
"second-hand," Hayek means second in the order of the transmission of
knowledge -- a mediator between the expert and the general public.
Therefore Hayek defines the intellectual in terms of his public
function -- or social role, as sociologists would say -- in the
dissemination of specialized knowledge to a wider audience; he is an
"intermediary in the spreading of ideas."

The intellectual is distinguished by Hayek from the expert -- the
specialist, scholar or original thinker in a particular field of
knowledge. This does not mean that intellectuals cannot be experts,
or vice versa, but insofar as the specialist addresses not just fellow
specialists but the public at large, he is functioning in the dual
roles of expert and intellectual. Though the roles of the expert and
the intellectual are often embodied in different persons, this need
not be the case.

This concept of the intellectual encompasses many professionals,
including journalists, teachers, novelists, ministers, and even
cartoonists and artists who convey ideas through their work. Also
included are various professionals and technicians, such as scientists
and doctors, who, because of the respect they command in their own
areas of expertise, are taken seriously in other fields. Essentially,
therefore, intellectuals are those who deal with ideas that are taken
from other sources; they are secondhanders, in contrast to experts,
who are firsthanders.

[To Be Continued]

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Burbclave Libertarian Effect On Land Ownership, Sans Nation State
Date: 10/20/97 7:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ChrisToto
Message-id: <19971020233701.TAA22738@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Lawecon,

I haven't had a chance to study those books you referred me but something
interesting struck me about the burbclave.

In such a society, wouldn't a more equal distribution of resources be
systemically be encouraged?

If there was no nation state "umbrella" (or shadow) hovering over the
burbclave, wouldn't security incentivize nearly equal participation from the
citizens?

Assuming genuine consent and voluntary participation of citizens in the
interests of the burbclave, equal sharing in security would seem to spring
from somewhat equal values to protect?

Someone who had nothing or very little invested in the burbclave would
probably not feel motivated to risk life and limb protecting it. So low
invested residents might tend to leave the burbclave, wouldn't they? Perhaps
an equilibration of interests might ensue.

Chris Toto (ChrisToto@aol.com)

Subject: Re: Burbclave Libertarian Effect On Land Ownership, Sans Nation
State
Date: 10/21/97 11:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971021154001.LAA19567@ladder01.news.aol.com>

burbclave, wouldn't security incentivize nearly equal participation from the
citizens?

Assuming genuine consent and voluntary participation of citizens in the
interests of the burbclave, equal sharing in security would seem to spring
from somewhat equal values to protect?>>

Why, yes. That is one reason that I argue that this kind of system would tend
to be less inclined to mass violence [war] than is the present nation state
system . In the present system the rulers can order a war and the direct
effects on themselves and their family are
minimal. In general, they won't be shot at, bombed, etc. - that honor goes to
the young and stupid conscripts who believe that "the enemy" and "our great
leaders" are different groups. In the burbclave, however, because of the size
of political unit, you are likely to bear some major direct effects of a war,
regardless of whether or not you're the Grand Pupba. Presumably the great
liklihood that you and your family will personally be bearing such
costs is a disincentive to engage in unnecessary wars.

probably not feel motivated to risk life and limb protecting it. So low
invested residents might tend to leave the burbclave, wouldn't they? Perhaps
an equilibration of interests might ensue.>>

Well, I really hadn't thought this one through. My presumption is that the
burbclave has some minimal "admission standards" [whether they be in terms of
investment of money or skills, or whatever] for "buying into" the
"community". If you have a society of burbclaves, however, it seems that you
either "go it alone" or affiliate with some burbclave - so I'm not sure what
the alternative is for those who "want to be protected" with no personal
risk.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Will Libertarianism lead to chaos?
Date: 3/26/98 1:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: DedleeDave
Message-id: <1998032605153801.AAA09089@ladder03.news.aol.com>

Libertarians believe in undisturbed capitalism. However, some people believe
that the problem is not "big government" but that society is ridden by
powerful forces which profit greatly from *minimizing* choices, and which
will minimize them out of existence if given half a chance.

These people claim that without government-enforced regulations that intrude
on our sacred "right of free association," the marketplace would be dominated
in an instant by monopolistic enterprises that would reduce our choices in
consumer goods, health care, domicile - nearly all areas of our life - to
near zero.

Do Libertarians doubt that without government regulation, General Motors,
Ford and Chrysler would quickly form Megacar, Inc., which would proceed to
underprice all foreign competition until there WAS no foreign competition,
then dispense with all those annoying safety requirements and charge you
whatever it felt like for our automobiles?

Libertarians say that if private businesses deny a qualified person a job
because of race, gender, national origin, religion, and sexual orientation,
it is at the peril of the company because it looses a potentially productive
worker.

But is there really a shortage of people looking for jobs? What about those
who say that Anti-discrimination and equal-opportunity laws exist *precisely*
because employers have demonstrated great enthusiasm for denying qualified
persons jobs - on the basis of sexual orientation, race, color, creed, ethnic
origin, weight and age, among others?

Are libertarian views quite comfortable for Libertarians because they are
mostly members of society's dominant group - white heterosexual males and
therefore are in little danger of experiencing discrimination themselves?

What about those who ask that isn't it precisely the function of courts and
governments to ensure that those decisions do not violate the rights of
*individuals* in the community? Do Libertarians really value the rights of
*individuals*? Or is all this verbiage about "freedom of association" and
"private decisions" a smokescreen for the view that business should be
permitted to do anything it pleases no matter who gets hurt?

What do Libertarians have to say about those who say that it is truly naive
to believe that private enterprises (whose decisions are not subject to
review and repeal by your representatives in government or halls of justice)
are better guardians of our rights than government or the courts?

What do Libertarians have to say about the contention that government
regulation is expected to prevent the most egregious types of injustice and
discrimination?

Libertarians say that in the long run, they believe only free people, with
the power to make their best moral decisions, can create the kind of
tolerant, harmonious society we all want.

What about the kind of "harmonious society" the free people of, say, Alabama
or Georgia or Florida created for blacks in those states in the 1930's, '40s
and '50s? Or the kind of "harmonious society" the free people of the
expanding U.S. created for native Americans in the 1800s? Or the kind of
"harmonious society" the free white people of South Africa created for blacks
in that country during apartheid? Or how about the kind of "harmonious
society" the free Hutu people of Rwanda created for their Tutsi countrymen
several years ago?

Libertarians say they oppose any government attempts to regulate private
discrimination, including choices and preferences, in employment, housing,
and privately owned businesses. They say that the right to trade includes the
right not to trade and the right of association includes the right not to
associate, for exercise of the right depends upon mutual consent.

What about those who say the fact is that if we remove the responsibility of
government to regulate economic activity and to prohibit discrimination in
the crucial areas of employment, housing and use of vital services, we will
have a society in which people will find themselves at the not-so-tender
mercies of organized entities that will eat people up and swallow them whole?

What do Libertarians say that in this scenario, unless one manages to acquire
a skill that is in great demand in the economy *at the time*, he/she will end
up toiling for starvation wages (there won't be a minimum wage, of course)
and living in a hovel, if they have a place at all? And, of course, if
his/her employer decides to stop "freely associating" with him/her the day
before his/her paycheck is due, no one will be able to help him/her?

Exapmle: I have a friend who has a brother who works at a small, family owned
firm where he does computer-assisted architectural design. It's highly
industry-specific, meaning there are very few such jobs around. Well, my
friend's brother has just been informed by the boss, the firm's owner, that
he is to start training a new worker to do his job, the only such job in the
place. The new worker is the boss' son.

What do the Libertarians who post here think the boss has in mind? Do they
think that just maybe, when junior has acquired sufficient skill, Daddy is
going to stop "freely associating" with my friend's brother and start
associating with his boy- and probably at a lower wage? My friend's brother,
BTW, has worked there for about 10 years - a quarter of his life.

Because it is a small firm there is, of course, no union to provide
protection. Nor are there government regulations to cover this situation. My
friend's brother has a wife and two children.

Do Libertarians think this is OK? How would this situation be handled in the
libertarian utopia that Harry Browne and his ilk are promoting? Or is the
libertarian response to such dog-eat-dog injustice, oh well, tough luck, pal,
better luck in the next life?

Subject: Re: Will Libertarianism lead to chaos?
Date: 3/27/98 11:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998032715064801.KAA12784@ladder01.news.aol.com>

The problem with your "analysis" is that assumes two things that aren't
true, i.e., (1) that the "libertarian program" is comprised of merely
removing the various bureaus and agencies that bear the label "government"
without any other changes and (2) that government bureaus and agencies
actually do what they say they are doing [or what Congress commanded them to
do].

The first assumption is wrong because the difference between what we have and
what would exist under libertarianism is comprised both of the absence of the
physical entity called "government" and removal of all of the effects of that
entity.

Just how is it that "megacar" is going to enforce its monopoly [keep
competitors out of the market] without police, courts and jails? [Are you
assuming [against all economic logic] that it pays each new competitor to
submit to the control of the cartel and follow its policies?]

How is it that the prejudiced are going to prevent gays or blacks from being
associated with by those who wish to associate with them without police,
courts and jails? The historical problems in the U.S. was not "prejudice" but
"morals laws" and slavery/segregation. When the government noted that such
laws were becoming unpopular, they did the rational entrepreneurial thing -
they translated a program of abolishing legal barriers to the free
interaction of people into a program of compelling people to interact in ways
in which they didn't care to interact. You see, by becoming the "protector"
of the prejudiced fad of the day, the government always wins.

Is it "bad" that some people will choose not to associate with gays or blacks
if allowed to make that choice for themselves, and should everyone be forced
to interact with everyone else? Gee, I don't know. Is it bad that some people
don't eat citrus fruit? [Probably bad for them, but not particularly a matter
of concern for their neighbors]. Would you give me your residential address
so I can come to your house and continue this lecture? Why not? Are
you discriminating against me?

The second assumption is also notoriously wrong, but "liberals" acknowledge
that fact out of one side of their mouth and continue to spout the fallacy
[or arguments based on the fallacy] out of the other side of their mouth. The
traditional federal regulatory agencies [the ICC, FCC, etc.] are, for
instance, demonstrably no more than cartel agents for the largest firms in
their respective industries although they purportedly exist to assure
competition and to prevent monopoly pricing in those industries. The root of
this fallacy is that it is implicitly assumed that once one becomes a
politician or bureaucrat one is translated into a disinterested superior
being with no private interests who automatically acts "in the public good"
rather than for the good of one's present and future income and wealth
position. It ain't true.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Will Libertarianism lead to chaos?
Date: 3/29/98 2:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998032906545100.BAA27809@ladder03.news.aol.com>

I would like to point out that Craig Bolton's (Lawecon's) comments might lead
some to believe that the libertarian movement in general, or the Libertarian
Party in particular, would do away with police, courts, and jails. This is
not true. Libertarians by and large believe that government, being a
"necessary evil," should be minimized AS an evil, but should not be
eradicated entirely. Most libertarians agree that police, armed forces, and
courts are within the province of a just (and SMALL) government.

Regardless, libertarians would oppose the use of government and its agencies
to institutionalize monopoly or oppression.

-J

Subject: Re: Will Libertarianism lead to chaos?
Date: 3/29/98 2:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998032906485801.BAA24215@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>Libertarians believe in undisturbed capitalism.<< -dedleedave

So long as force/coercion or fraud are not involved, in violation of the
individual rights of consumers, the above is a true statement.

>>>some people believe that the problem is not "big government" but that
society is ridden by powerful forces which profit greatly from *minimizing*
choices, and which will minimize them out of existence if given half a
chance<<

And I must ask, is this a belief like the belief in the law of gravity, or
like a belief in the Devil? Of course, we know that powerful groups have
sought, achieved, and exercised monopoly power over the ages. However, most
of the monopolies we despise the most were built upon a fairly solid bedrock
of cooperation or collusion with local, state, and federal governments.

Could the railroads have been built without rights-of-way that were acquired
by eminent domain when they couldn't be acquired by honest purchase? Could
the auto industry have grown without an infrastructure of well-paved roads
and highways that were built at taxpayer expense? How about the telephone
system?

Understand that a corporation itself is a legal fiction, instantiated and
defended by GOVERNMENT.

Far from being an effective defense against the majority of corporate
misbehavior, government is often an enabler. That being the case, I would
think that the belief in government's protective power is similar to a belief
in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

>>>Do Libertarians doubt that without government regulation, General Motors,
Ford and Chrysler would quickly form Megacar, Inc., which would proceed to
underprice all foreign competition until there WAS no foreign competition,
then dispense with all those annoying safety requirements and charge you
whatever it felt like for our automobiles? <<

Yes and no. I doubt that you would see something like "megacar" (or as I
like to think of it, LDCC -- "Large Detroit Car Company," in homage to
Michael Nesmith who used this concept in a very funny video sketch during the
80s). More likely, you might eventually see something like the American
political system, where "two" dominant parties play a good-cop, bad-cop
scenario, giving the illusion of choice without any real substance.

Also, while there might be a price war as the American "monopoly" LDCC
battles the several foreign "monopolies," there would be a limit to how low
LDCC could go in undercutting the competition. THEN, you would see LDCC
lobbying congress for tariffs and penalties on imported autos and/or assembly
parts. If Libertarians had their way, LDCC would not succeed in such an
effort, which would be as serious an undermining of the free-market system as
eminent-domain seizure of property for railroad rights-of-way, or building of
tax-financed superhighways. More importantly, Libertarians would do whatever
they could to foster true competition in the marketplace, so that more
domestic players could get into the game and enjoy success if their products
were popular.

>>>What about those who say that Anti-discrimination and equal-opportunity
laws exist *precisely* because employers have demonstrated great enthusiasm
for denying qualified persons jobs - on the basis of sexual orientation,
race, color, creed, ethnic origin, weight and age, among others?<<

The libertarian answer is twofold, perhaps manifold: to start, people of
conscience should boycott the offender and/or do business with competitors;
those who can't "join" the offending company should take their qualifications
and go into competition with the offender. As long as there are no
artificial barriers to entry to the industry, people who are truly qualified
for the job should be able to do it just as well for themselves, or for
somebody
else.

>>>Do Libertarians really value the rights of *individuals*? Or is all this
verbiage about "freedom of association" and "private decisions" a smokescreen
for the view that business should be permitted to do anything it pleases no
matter who gets hurt? <<

Demonstrate the hurt, and you may have grounds for an excellent civil
lawsuit.

>>>What do Libertarians have to say about those who say that it is truly
naive to believe that private enterprises ... are better guardians of our
rights than government or the courts?<<

It IS truly naive to believe this. I don't know which libertarians told you
otherwise; I hope none. You can expect private enterprises to look out for
their own best interests, whether or not they deal honorably with their
customers, employees, and business partners. The government and courts EXIST
to secure our rights. But many people think they have a right to take other
people's effort or property without previously having been wronged by the
other people, or having entered into a voluntary arrangement with them that
establishes obligation. Libertarians would deny that such "rights" exist,
and that it is as silly to think that private enterprise would "secure" such
rights, as to think that government and courts would.

>>>What about the kind of "harmonious society" the free people of, say,
Alabama or Georgia or Florida created for blacks in those states in the
1930's, '40s and '50s?<<

Most of this was established via abuse of government to establish segregation
and discrimination in the legal codes. Libertarians would not allow
government to be used in this way. Individual, private discrimination --
e.g., that of a business proprietor to refuse service or employment, or of
the Boy Scouts to refuse membership to those whom they feel do not exemplify
Scout ideals.

>>>Or the kind of "harmonious society" the free people of the expanding U.S.

created for native Americans in the 1800s?<<

Check the Libertarian Party platform, which supports rights of indigenous
peoples, and recommends, at very least, reparations to displaced or injured
aboriginals. We also promote strict adherence to existing (but often
ignored) treaties with Indian nations.

>>>Or the kind of "harmonious society" the free white people of South Africa
created for blacks in that country during apartheid? Or how about the kind
of "harmonious
society" the free Hutu people of Rwanda created for their Tutsi countrymen
several years ago?<<

Again, in most cases, government itself was perverted to institutionalize
oppression. Libertarians do not believe that government can be legitimately
used to do such things, and would oppose any such moves.

>>>What do Libertarians say that in this scenario, unless one manages to
acquire a skill that is in great demand in the economy *at the time*, he/she
will end up toiling for starvation wages (there won't be a minimum wage, of
course) and living in a hovel, if they have a place at all? And, of course,
if his/her employer decides to stop "freely associating" with him/her the day
before his/her paycheck is due, no one will be able to help him/her? <<

Nobody says that workers cannot organize to improve their skills, not to
mention their job conditions and bargaining positions. As far as an employer
attempting to stiff a worker just before payday, libertarians would certainly
uphold the worker's right to be paid what he had earned, not to mention the
employer's responsibility to keep his or her part of the bargain.

>>>Do they think that just maybe, when junior has acquired sufficient skill,
Daddy is going to stop "freely associating" with my friend's brother and
start associating with his boy- and probably at a lower wage? My friend's
brother, BTW, has worked there for about 10 years - a quarter of his life.<<

So I have a question. What did your friend's brother think established his
right to this particular job or its wages untilk retirement? What made him
think, or expect, that he had a lock on the job at a given level of pay? Was
there a contract? An implication of "family consideration" for employees, as
established and observed during his ten-year tenure? The knowledge that his
skills were rare and in reasonably high demand (I doubt this last,
based on your narrative).

Wanting to bring the kids into the business doesn't imply a boss' nefarious
intent. If I were your friend's brother, I would do three things right away:
request a review, attempt to get a contract with the employer that addresses
the issue of job security, and look for alternative employment. I understand
that all of this is easier said and done, but it was a fantasy to believe
that even the government control we now have could protect your
friend's brother in this situation. In a libertarian world, at least the
risk would be well-understood, and people would be trained from the start to
deal with it, instead of relying on government or a government-protected
union to bail them out.

>>>How would this situation be handled in the libertarian utopia<<

You profoundly misunderstand libertarianism if you think that we are
promoting any kind of utopia, or that we expect anyone to BELIEVE such a
thing. No system is perfect. But we have seen great imperfections in all
systems tried so far, and feel that, in the aggregate, maximum benefit will
be achieved with a much smaller level of government intercession than we have
experienced in the last few decades.

-J

Subject: Re: Will Libertarianism lead to chaos?
Date: 3/30/98 3:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998033007080201.CAA25157@ladder03.news.aol.com>

A slight correction to my previous posting:

I wrote:

>>>Individual, private discrimination -- e.g., that of a business proprietor
to refuse service or employment, or of the Boy Scouts to refuse membership to
those whom they feel do not exemplify Scout ideals.<<

This wasn't the full statement I intended, which I include below:

Individual, private discrimination -- e.g., that of a business proprietor to
refuse service or employment, or of the Boy Scouts to refuse membership to
those whom they feel do not exemplify Scout ideals -- is a fundamental right
of people; in a free and economically vigorous society, the inconvenience
encountered by someone who is on the losing end of such discrimination will
be mitigated by the benefit he receives when he ecounters someone who
practices opposite discrimination. As long as the laws don't skew individual
discriminatory decisions in one particular direction, things will even out,
and beneficial change can occur as necessary.

-J

Subject: Confused again
Date: 3/23/98 10:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: VCash29827
Message-id: <1998032314473000.JAA25874@ladder03.news.aol.com>

Hi guys,
I found this on another board and found it rather disturbing:

Subject: Re: Is the Federal government getting to BIG?
Date: Sun, Mar 22, 1998 23:04 EST
From: Am4freedom
Message-id: <1998032304044100.XAA03658@ladder03.news.aol.com>

There are two major groups which are directly responsible for our decline
-Republicans and Democrats.

Libertarians would be a vast improvement on the present socialists running
things.

Ultimately though, they would do away with the Constitution.

I'm for the U. S. Taxpayers Party. Howard Philips for President.

Is this a common misconception of the libertarian agenda?

Thanks for any input,
Vicki

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/23/98 11:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998032403474301.WAA24590@ladder03.news.aol.com>

>>>
"Ultimately though, [libertarians] would do away with the Constitution."

Is this a common misconception of the libertarian agenda?
<<

Yes, along with many other common misconceptions. If anything, Libertarians
would strengthen and broaden constitutional protections for individual
rights.

Since it is almost an effortless thing to do, I hope you invited the person
who posted the misconception to get the straight facts from AOL's own
Libertarian Party Forum. Keyword LIBERTARIAN! It is easy for people to be
(and remain) misinformed when there are physical barriers of time, space, and
expense between them and the truth. It is inexcusable for ignorance to
persist when education is only a mouse-click or a few keystrokes away.

Wouldn't
you agree?

-James Merritt
Libertarian Party Forum Host
AOL News & Politics Channel

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/24/98 9:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998032413343600.IAA07832@ladder03.news.aol.com>

Viki,

Presbyte [as usual] is giving you the reading of "libertarian" that best fits
his belief that the only way to seize power is to appear "respectable". There
are a heck of a lot of libertarians that believe that the adoption of the
constitution was a tremendous mistake [and, it would appear, subsequent
events have proved them correct]. For some details, I suggest that you look
up The Complete Anti-Federalist edited by Strong, the book I mentioned a few
days ago on how the federalists attempted to turn the constitutional order
into a federal dictatorship [American Aurora by Richard N. Rosenfeld] or any
history of the 20th Century.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/24/98 11:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: VCash29827
Message-id: <1998032503591000.WAA23606@ladder01.news.aol.com>

the constitution was a tremendous mistake [and, it would appear, subsequent
events have proved them correct]. For some details, I suggest that you look
up The Complete Anti-Federalist edited by Strong, the book I mentioned a few
days ago on how the federalists attempted to turn the constitutional order
into a federal dictatorship [American
Aurora by Richard N. Rosenfeld] or any history of the 20th Century.>>

Well, my ignorance is showing again:-) and if I don't get kicked off line this post will make it to the boards this time:-) and if it shows up 40 or 50
times, I'm so very sorry.
I did not realize there were Libertarians that felt this way. BTW I did
e-mail this person and ask them where they got this info, what they were
referring to specifically.....but I haven't heard from them. Basically, I
think they were trying to introduce the John Birch Society into the
discussion, they gave the JBS web address, and an address to an impeach
clinton site in another post. I did get an e-mail from them about the history
of Democracy, I
can forward it to you if you'd like to see it.

From what I remember of history from the early 1900's, it screams the "Great
Conspiracy Theory", speaking of JBS:-). I don't much care for the idea of
believing in "ghost stories" so to speak, but look at all the "conicidental"
things that happpened between 1905 and 1930. Seems a bit orchastrated to me,
but by whom and for what purpose? My dad says that giving women the right to
vote start a downhill slide in this country, he's joking I hope, but I
think he got the time period about right.

I'll have to find the book you're referring to,
Vicki

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/25/98 4:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: DLFrost
Message-id: <1998032508140101.DAA27425@ladder03.news.aol.com>

Libertarians can be broadly classed into two groups: classical liberal
"moderates" and neo-anarchist "radicals". The most significant difference
between the two is that the former still believe that the old Jeffersonian
model of Constitutional government is still a workable system for
implementing libertarian principles, while the latter think that all models
of government eventually
collapase into some form of tyranny. (And Bolton's needlessly smarmy reply
about "a lot of libertarians that believe that the adoption of the
constitution was a tremendous mistake" is a reference to that part of the
libertarian movement and its continuing debate with other factions on the
matter.) An excellent source for the radical libertarian view is
The Libertarian Enterprise website (at
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html, just paste it into the Keyword box).

And then there are the people who come into Libertarianism from the left
or the right, are unable to leave all of their statist and techocratic
phliosophical baggage behind, and can be counted upon to insert convoluted
anti-freedom arguments into any libertarian discussion all the while claiming
to be for individual freedom and whatnot.

And then to make matters even more murky, there are those who understand
that libertarianism is an up and coming thing in the world, and so try to
cloak themselves as libertarians to keep their tired, worn-out statist
visions alive. (A particularly annoying current example of which is Bill
Maher, host of The Bill Maher Liberal Friends Network, aka "Politically
Incorrect With Bill Maher".)

Douglas Frost

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/25/98 9:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998032513090901.IAA11835@ladder03.news.aol.com>

Excuse me, Doug, but I've been running around in "libertarian" circles before
there was a decision made to adopt that label, and I afraid that I don't
quite know what you mean by characterizing my post as "smarmy". [Indeed, I
can't even find that term in the dictionary.] The fact of the matter is that
the "Jeffersonians," who you apparently consider as the respectable
moderates of libertarianism opposed the adoption of the Constitution and only
eventually and reluctantly consented when there was a pledge made by Madison
and others to insert an extensive Bill of Rights in the first session of
Congress. Unfortunately, no one realized that the Federalist Party was going
to control the country through multiple Washington and Adams administrations,
and, hence, would have control over the interpretation of this Bill of
Rights and the remainder of the doctrine. As I recall, there have been
numerous persons since then [not all of whom were wide-eyed anarchists] who
have failed to affirm the secular religious faith in the sanctity of the
Constitution.

As for the wide-eyed anarchists, however [and despite Presbyte's intuitions],
polls of libertarians have consistently shown that one third of libertarians
identify themselves as anarchists. I presume that it is axiomatic that
anarchists do not believe in a NATIONAL constitution, and I also presume that
one-third of a growing movement might qualify as "a lot of libertarians".

Have I got that right?

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/30/98 10:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998033102363900.VAA02320@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>As for the wide-eyed anarchists, however [and despite Presbyte's
intuitions], polls of libertarians have consistently shown that one third of
libertarians identify themselves as anarchists.<< -LAWECON

Two quick responses to that:

1. However you look at it, it seems two out of three (or nearly seven out of
ten) self-described libertarians are NOT anarchists.

2. And speaking of statistics, when was the last survey taken, that showed a
33% population of anarchists among self-described libertarians? I remember
the old survey that was bandied about by Liberty magazine in the early 80s.

But a lot of time and water has gone under the bridge since then. I'd
appreciate seeing some more current figures, and I'm sure others here would,
also.

-J

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/30/98 11:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998033103185000.WAA12718@ladder03.news.aol.com>

>>>As for the wide-eyed anarchists, however [and despite Presbyte's
intuitions], polls of libertarians have consistently shown that one third of
libertarians identify themselves as anarchists.<< -LAWECON

<1. However you look at it, it seems two out of three (or nearly seven out
of ten) self-described libertarians are NOT anarchists.>
<2. And speaking of statistics, when was the last survey taken, that showed
a 33% population of anarchists among self-described libertarians? I remember
the old survey that was bandied about by Liberty magazine in the early 80s.

But a lot of time and water has gone under the bridge since then. I'd
appreciate seeing some more current figures, and I'm sure others here would,
also.

-Presbyte>

Well, I'd suggest, then, that you suggest to some group that you consider to
be "disinterested" that such a poll would be helpful. Incidentally, I don't
think that you're right about the date of the Liberty poll. My recollection
is that it has probably been 5-6 years, but not the "early 80s". Perhaps
someone will look it up for us.

I think [and obviously I could be wrong] that Presbyte's perceptions of the
composition of the libertarian movement and my quite different perceptions
are probably based on who we see running around in the movement. My
impression [and I'm certain he'll tell us if this is wrong] is that Presbyte
deals mainly with LP activists and that his reference group is drawn from the
east coast or midwest. There is no disputing that LP activists and those east
of
the Mississippi tend to be more limited government sorts and less anarchists.

On the other hand, those in the Western U.S. [particularly in the Southwest
and California] tend to be mostly anarchists. And those who believe, for
various reasons, that the LP is either a waste of time, counterproductive, or
a haven for those who like the name and slogans of "libertarianism" better
than the ideology tend to be more anarchist in composition.

But, basically, Presbyte is correct. There is no good way to get a
measurement of who is who and where they are other than to conduct a well
designed poll. Certainly, referring to the major net resources [libernet,
the two major libertarian newsgroups, and the major mailing lists] gives one
the impression that the number of anarchists vs. minarchists is about equal
or a bit more anarchist, whereas the discussion on these boards around a
major
election would tend to support the conclusion that there ain't no such thing
as a libertarian anarchist. So there appear to be no good non-poll indicators
to give us an informal estimate.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 4/5/98 3:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998040519143700.PAA17638@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>
My impression [and I'm certain he'll tell us if this is wrong] is that
Presbyte deals mainly with LP activists and that his reference group is drawn
from the east coast or midwest. There is no disputing that LP activists and
those east of
the Mississippi tend to be more limited government sorts and less anarchists.

On the other hand, those in the Western U.S. [particularly in the Southwest
and California] tend to be mostly anarchists.

<< -LAWECON

I'm in California myself, People's Republic of Santa Cruz, to be exact.

Perhaps the Arizona, Nevada, or New Mexico libertarians lean more toward
anarchy. As you say, we need some good surveys to determine the truth on
this. But most libertarian activity I have seen here in the Bear Republic
has admitted the "necessary evil" nature of government.

-J

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 4/5/98 11:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998040603193900.XAA08648@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>

Well, there's the problem. My map of California shows the L.A./San Diego
complex in the South and San Francisco in the North. Never heard of Santa
Cruz. ;-)

anarchy. As you say, we need some good surveys to determine the truth on
this. But most libertarian activity I have seen here in the Bear Republic
has admitted the "necessary evil" nature of government.>>

Well, I think that your first point is correct, but my understanding is that
the libertarian [small "l"] activity in California is very anarchist -
particularly in the S.F. area, but also in L.A. and [to a lesser but still
significant extent] in S.D. I really can't testify first hand since I haven't
lived in California for 20 years, but our permanent or occasional emmigrants
from Babylon [particularly George O'Brien and George Smith] and my contacts
in ISIL and several "lesser" California libertarian groups seem to bear this
out. Perhaps we could continue this discussion through private e-mail, since
I don't really think we have to review the groups we are respectively active
in in public.

-J

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/26/98 12:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998032604130300.XAA25312@ladder01.news.aol.com>

I agree that the Libertarian Enterprise site is a good one, but here is one
that is a bit more "puristic" and a bit more scholarly regarding one
traditional form of "radical libertarianism":

Incidentally, as I mentioned before, there is probably no such thing as a
single sort of "radical libertarianism". Here, for instance, is the URL for
the website of David Friedman [sone of Milton] who, in some respects, is as
"radical" as you can get: < http://www.best.com/~ddfr/index.html>, but who is
also a quite different sort of radical than either the Libertarian Enterprise
or the above "traditional" individualist anarchist site.
In my own opinion, the Institute For Humane Studies, Libertarian Alliance and
Liberty Fund sites are also par excellance "radical," albeit none of these
are avowably anarchist.

On the other hand, if you want something a bit broader based, but still
"radical" in some sense of that term, try the following:

The bottom line is that "radical" typically means nothing more than
"consistent," regardless of what arational social conventions tell you is
"respectable". In that regard, the "moderate" libertarian programs of
abolition of the drug laws, abolition of public schools, and abolition of
the government's monopoly on money production are probably as "radical"
[translate as "kooky"] as is an endorsement of anarchism or the view that the
Constitution
isn't the source of all political good. You see, rationality and consistency
have nothing to do with most peoples' political beliefs. Indeed, I would
suggest that most people have any idea that there can be a "science" of any
social issues.:-)|(

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/30/98 10:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998033102471200.VAA04231@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>The bottom line is that "radical" typically means nothing more than
"consistent,"<< -LAWECON

Of course, its wild, revolutionary connotations aside, "radical" means
"returning to" or "coming from" the "root." (Remember the "radical" sign in
math for square ROOT, and the fact that a RADish is also a root? ;-)

A radical notion or solution proceeds from "root issues" and addresses "root
causes." What makes some "radical notions" also revolutionary are their
divergence from established paths, as well as their necessary antagonism to
the entrenched establishment.

Someone who has pursued a "radical notion" is, unfortunately, obliged to be
somewhat of a zealot in defending it, hence the connotations of wild-eyed
intensity that we usually associate with the term, "radical."

-J

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/30/98 10:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998033102243500.VAA29943@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>Presbyte [as usual] is giving you the reading of "libertarian" that best
fits his belief that the only way to seize power is to appear
"respectable".<< -LAWECON

I'd like to remind Craig and everyone that this is the Libertarian PARTY
Forum, the focus of which is coverage of the activities, platform, and
candidates of the Libertarian Party. We discuss historical libertarian
thought and welcome everyone here, even those of a highly radical
libertarian/anarchist persuasion. However, I am going to try to represent,
as best I can being a volunteer host and no more than a rank-n-file member of
the LP, the
definition of libertarian that is espoused by the Libertarian Party, whether
or not I agree 100% with it. (I will admit that I am more in agreement with
the LP definition than Craig's, a point you may have gathered :-).

Over and over again in party litertature, you see mention that the LP
promotes strict adherence to the constitution, certainly much stricter than
practiced by the Demopublican party. In addition, all members of the LP sign
the non-initiation of force certification, basically affirming their belief
in peaceful methods of social and political change, unless there is no
alternative and the fight comes to them.

Finally, in several years of our mutual jousting on these boards, I have
never ceased to be amused by Craig's ... er ... _colorful_ turns of phrase.

I don't think in terms of "seizing" power, but rather directing, diverting,
channelling, and baffling it. (Perhaps it is the lawyer in Craig, who
projects those kinds of feelings and motivations onto others. :-) The power
of government is the power of the mob -- dangerous and fearsome as that of a
raging river, a roaring wildfire, or a tornado. It is a raw, ugly thing. If
your care is great, and your aims are modest, you can perhaps bleed off some
of that terrible force to do useful work without harming yourself or others.

But that's the best you can hope to achieve, imho; attempting to "seize"
that kind of power is the folly of the sorcerer's apprentice. I remain in
awe of the care, humility, and wisdom shown by the framers of the
Constitution, in their attempt to choreograph a dance with the fire.

-J

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 3/30/98 11:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998033103382800.WAA13764@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>Presbyte [as usual] is giving you the reading of "libertarian" that best
fits his belief that the only way to seize power is to appear
"respectable".<< -LAWECON

Forum, the focus of which is coverage of the activities, platform, and
candidates of the Libertarian Party.> PRESBYTE

And I'd like to remind everyone that AOL has no small-l libertarian forum.

< We discuss historical libertarian thought and welcome everyone here, even
those of a highly radical libertarian/anarchist persuasion. However, I am
going to try to represent, as best I can being a volunteer host and no more
than a rank-n-file member of the LP, the
definition of libertarian that is espoused by the Libertarian Party, whether
or not I agree 100% with it. (I will admit that I am more in agreement with
the LP definition than Craig's, a point you may have gathered :-)>

And I have no problem with you doing so, and am generally appreciative of
your broad minded approach to managing this forum - which won't, of course,
prevent me from taking occasional potshots at a friendly rival. [Have I ever
mentioned that this forum is the only reason I'm still subscribed to AOL?]

promotes strict adherence to the constitution, certainly much stricter than
practiced by the Demopublican party. In addition, all members of the LP sign
the non-initiation of force certification, basically affirming their belief
in peaceful methods of social and political change, unless there is no
alternative and the fight comes to them.>

As to the first point, it is difficult to separate what the LP really
believes and what it says it believes. Sometime ago, for instance, there was
a vote to never use the term "anarchist" in any LP literature, although it is
well known that a significant plurality of libertarians are anarchists and
many of the LPs founders were anarachists. Similarly, it has been claimed by
some of the founders of the LP that the "pledge" was put in place because of
the witchhunting nature of the Nixon era when the LP was formed - as an
assurance to the powers that be that the LP wasn't a dangerous violent group
- rather than as a serious statement of principle.

As for myself, Presbyte, I think that I have several times expressed the
opinion in this forum that the most radical form of direct action is public
well planned passive disobedience, and that violence action or reaction is a
stupid and counterproductive tactic from a purely practical standpoint. [In
fact, I just got publically read out of the libertarian movement by His Royal
Highness Vin Suprynowicz on libernet for arguing this position. Obviously,
I'm greatly concerned.]

never ceased to be amused by Craig's ... er ... _colorful_ turns of phrase.

I don't think in terms of "seizing" power, but rather directing, diverting,
channelling, and baffling it. (Perhaps it is the lawyer in Craig, who
projects those kinds of feelings and motivations onto others. :-)>PRESBYTE

Cute and probably technically correct, but also somewhat misleading. The
fundamental difference, as I understand it, between your tactical views and
mine [and between the LPs and mine] is that: (1) you and the LP believe that
the libertarian "revolution" is going to arise by LP members being elected in
mass to public office; whereas (2) I believe that the libertarian revolution
is going to happen when enough people understand the importance,
practicality and desirability of freedom [libertarianism] and that when that
happens it doesn't matter what party those in office belong to. Hence, I
don't necessarily see any great reason to celebrate a gain in LP votes from
insignificant to barely significant or a net addition of another 20 LP
commisioners nationwide, whereas you guys go into fits of estacy over such
things.

< The power of government is the power of the mob -- dangerous and fearsome
as that of a
raging river, a roaring wildfire, or a tornado. It is a raw, ugly thing. If
your care is great, and your aims are modest, you can perhaps bleed off some
of that terrible force to do useful work without harming yourself or others.

But that's the best you can hope to achieve, imho; attempting to "seize"
that kind of power is the folly of the sorcerer's apprentice. I remain in
awe of the care, humility, and wisdom shown by the framers of the
Constitution, in their attempt to choreograph a dance with the fire.>>

Nice rhetoric, but as I've asked before: what are you doing to assure that
those LP candidates running for office don't do the same things that the
present holders of those offices are doing the day after they are elected?

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 4/5/98 2:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998040518165401.OAA09146@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>
Similarly, it has been claimed by some of the founders of the LP that the
"pledge" was put in place because of
the witchhunting nature of the Nixon era when the LP was formed - as an
assurance to the powers that be that the LP wasn't a dangerous violent group
- rather than as a serious statement of principle.

<< -LAWECON

Actually, I think that the statements I have read (by people such as David
Nolan and others), implied or outright stated that the "certification" was
painstakingly formulated as BOTH a sincere statement of principle AND as
insurance against the Nixon-era witch-hunters. In other words, they wanted
something that would serve as a legal sheield, should the goons pound down
the door, but only if it accurately conveyed the philosophy and intentions of
the LP.

Anything wrong with that?

One thing the certification was NOT, was some kind of loyalty oath or
ideological litmus test. Nevertheless, it was often misinterpreted as being
so by both outsiders and many members of the LP. Use of the word "pledge" to
describe the certification, harkens back to that time and that faction of the
LP.

-J

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 4/5/98 10:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998040602554701.WAA06978@ladder03.news.aol.com>

ideological litmus test. Nevertheless, it was often misinterpreted as being
so by both outsiders and many members of the LP. Use of the word "pledge" to
describe the certification, harkens back to that time and that faction of the
LP.

-J>>

Well, that's an interesting interpretation. In the decades before I reached
my present anarchist orientation I would have gladly joined the LP had the
pledge not been a required part of the application form. I can't recall one
instance during that period when I was told that the pledge wasn't a pledge
or that it was optional. Additionally, as I recall, there have several times
during the past decade when there has been a vicious fight in the LP over
retaining or discarding the pledge. Had AOL not wiped out the previous
folders in this group we would have had some examples of that controversy in
previous posts. [Particularly those around the last Presidential election.]

Since I have long had the same doubts about the Lockian/libertarian theory of
legitimate property I've several times explained on this list, and since I
try to avoid perjuring myself, I could not in good conscience join the LP
when I was forced to swear to something that I believe we all routinely
violate everyday. Apparently I am alone in that problem.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 4/5/98 2:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998040518240500.OAA10160@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>>
As for myself, Presbyte, I think that I have several times expressed the
opinion in this forum that the most radical form of direct action is public
well planned passive disobedience, and that violence action or reaction is a
stupid and counterproductive tactic from a purely practical standpoint. [In
fact, I just got publically read out of the libertarian movement by His Royal
Highness Vin Suprynowicz on libernet for arguing this position. Obviously,
I'm greatly concerned.]
<< -LAWECON

Well, if it is of any comfort, I thank you for arguing your position, and I
actually AM concerned that V.S. may be advocating a more, shall we say,
energetic form of resistance to authoritarianism, to the point of attempting
to eviscerate you for advocating the opposite. How nice that he isn't the
one to say who is or is not a libertarian.

-J

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 4/5/98 11:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998040603112500.XAA09794@ladder03.news.aol.com>

actually AM concerned that V.S. may be advocating a more, shall we say,
energetic form of resistance to authoritarianism, to the point of attempting
to eviscerate you for advocating the opposite. How nice that he isn't the
one to say who is or is not a libertarian.>>

Thank you, you are one of a very few to express that opinion.

Frankly, I'm becoming very concerned about the status of the libertarian
movement in general. You manage to maintain a forum that is remarkably free
of slogans and pseudo-religious ideologizing. Additionally, there are a
number of libertarian publications that allow and encourage debate on
libertarian ideology and strategy. Unfortunately, other than this forum,
there don't appear to be many meeting places for those libertarians who do
not believe
that "libertarianism" is the name of a secular religion.

On most of the libertarian oriented newsgroups and the major mailing lists,
failure to murmer the standard mantras in unison is grounds for immediate
condemnation as a traitor, government agent, skunk, irrational person without
any understanding of "reality," you name it - virtually anything but a
coherent counter-argument.

As you know from the discussions in this forum, my view of libertarianism is
that it is the political expression of critical rationalism, and that its
conclusions about the desirability of freedom and capitalism are just that -
conclusions, not self evident axioms that are obvious to the elect. While I
have nothing per se against cults, I really don't want to continue describing
myself by a label that is publically and generally associated with a
cult. So if one of these days I "disappear" to withdraw and write a book on
all this stuff, don't be too surprised. If so, I hope that you'll continue to
maintain the standard of critical discussion that this forum is famous for.

Thank you for your hard work in maintaining this forum.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Confused again
Date: 4/5/98 3:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998040519074301.PAA19236@ladder03.news.aol.com>

>>>
you and the LP believe that the libertarian "revolution" is going to arise by
LP members being elected in mass to public office
<<

Actually, I believe any "revolution" must necessarily come as a consequence
of severe social and political disfunction -- i.e., the collapse of the
system under its own weight and misdirected momentum. If, at that time,
libertarians are able to act with speed and good sense, the result may be a
leaner government and more libertarian society. Otherwise, I shudder to
consider what might result.

But, I personally believe more in a libertarian "evolution." If libertarians
are ever to be elected en masse, it won't, I think, be because disgusted
voters wake up one election day and say to themselves, "I think I'll vote for
the libertarians today." Instead, I anticipate a long-term cascade of
electoral success, starting with a few wins here and there, and turning into
more as it is seen that libertarians are, by and large, capable of
governance, as well as careful not to upset the applecart while they repair
it. The typical voter won't wake up and decide to "take a chance" on the
Libertarian. Rather, he or she will look at libertarians serving in other
districts or towns, pay careful attention to the libertarian candidates in
his particular area, and make a much more informed decision to break with
politics as usual. In that respect, REelection of libertarians is at least
as
important as election of libertarians. Someday, we may be perceived as an
"overnight success," but only after years of prologue and preparatory effort.

The momentum in the later years will increase at an accelerating rate, so it
may indeed seem like an overnight change, but the snowball will have rolled
down a very long slope, acquiring mass all along the way, before then. The
point is that the "revolution" won't be made in the last few rolls of
the snowball, but in the thousands that came before it on the way down the
hill; by the time the LP appears to be a "blockbuster," libertarianism will
have become -- through evolution -- quite pervasive. But saying that we want
to wait for libertarianism to be pervasive before electing libertarians is, I
feel, putting the cart before the horse. Every elected libertarian, and
every REelected libertarian is the necessary proof that libertarian
government promotes a desirable, American way of life; without that proof,
any third party or ideological movement is doomed to the sidelines.

Fortunately, the LP now has 250 "points of proof," serving in elected and
appointed office today. The number of Libertarians in office has grown with
every election, across the country. How hopeless it must have seemed, when
we had only 25 in office! But we didn't quit. How long will it take before
we have 2500? I believe that this is only a matter of time.

I think that we have to keep one thing in mind: the forces of
authoritarianism, as history shows, have patiently, inexorably moved forward,
whenever and wherever they could. As the saying goes, "rust never sleeps."
If we don't understand that this is a never-ending process, that indeed, the
price of liberty IS _eternal_ vigilence, then we will think too much of our
victories and be too discouraged by our defeats. We will fail to pace
ourselves
for the long haul of not only achieving a libertarian society, but
MAINTAINING it in the presence of ever-encroaching rust. And if that is the
case, I think we will fail, period. We may need to "polish hard" on
occasion, to remove deeply-crusted or persistent rust, but the overall
strategy must be one of deliberate, measured progress and maintenance.

Given the progress of the LP and libertarian movement to date, and barring
global catastrophe that sinks modern society like the iceberg downed Titanic,
I am very encouraged that we will see substantial LP electoral success well
within my lifetime, and that this will help stimulate the revival of a more
libertarian way of life in the US over the same period.

-J

Subject: Re: Confused again Taxpayers Party
Date: 4/20/98 8:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: BethsPath
Message-id: <1998042100512200.UAA21756@ladder01.news.aol.com>

I could never support this party as their views on sexual freedom are to
right wing....

Beth

Subject: Re: Confused again Taxpayers Party
Date: 4/20/98 11:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: TMA68
Message-id: <1998042103184100.XAA14000@ladder01.news.aol.com>

< I could never support this party as their views on sexual freedom
are to right wing....>> -- Bethspath

"Right wing" and "left wing" are meaningless phrases. Neither one
denotes an actual ideology. A more accurate way to describe the
UTP's views is authoritarian. It's not that they oppose having a
police state. They just don't want to have to pay for it out of their
own pockets. Cost-effective tyranny -- what a concept.

Todd

Geolibertarian Home Page
Natural Law and Natural Rights
The Corruption of Economics

Subject: Re: Confused again Taxpayers Party
Date: 4/25/98 1:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: StevenHW
Message-id: <1998042505543900.BAA10566@ladder03.news.aol.com>

The U.S. Taxpayers Party (also known as the American-Independent Party in
some states) are a very right-wing isolationist party.

Yes, Republicans are, for the most part, quite right-wing too but there are
also quite a few squishy moderates and even liberal Republicans.

However, the USTP are more consistently right-wing in their views. In fact,
their 1996 Presidential candidate, Howard Phillips, was a former National
Republican Party operative.

Libertarians might possibly agree with the USTP that there should be lesser
governmental regulations as a whole, but the USTP draws the line when it
comes to most personal freedoms.

On the positive side: they are pro-2nd Amendment, anti-United Nations,
anti-government regulations on domestic business (in most cases),
anti-I.R.S., anti-interventionist foreign policy, anti-affirmative action,
anti-Social Security.

But on the negative side: the USTP are anti-immigration, pro-trade
protectionism, pro-drug war, and favor restrictions of personal and sexual
issues.

If Pat Buchanan wasn't a Republican, he probably would feel right at home
with the USTP.

While they support a school choice voucher system, private and home
schooling, and the abolishment of federalized bureaucracy regarding the
education system, the USTP sometimes talks about "improving the quality of
public education", but not about completely privatizing it (which
Libertarians want).

The USTP seem to be a bit like some Republicans, in the sense that they do
not want to dramatically reduce the size of government (which Libertarians
do), but instead to "make it work better" or to become more "effecient" and
"cost-effective". Which is not even close to what Libertarians believe.

Steven
Sacramento, CA
"Too much of a good thing is wonderful" - Mae West

Subject: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/1/98 9:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Mujah Tusk
Message-id: <1998080201471600.VAA25392@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Is accepting financial aid or a grant from the state to further my education
at a *state* university ethical?
I make a lot of talk about wanting to get the government out of my life and
wanting to decrease its influence, and here I am considering the options the
*state* has allowed for me to go to their convienent state university here in
Atlanta. What are the arguments you might have about this?
This is a serious dilemma for a college fresman who has just discovered
Libertarianism.

Thanks for considering this
Subject......

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/2/98 12:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998080216243400.MAA06202@ladder03.news.aol.com>

education at a *state* university ethical?
I make a lot of talk about wanting to get the government out of my life and
wanting to decrease its influence, and here I am considering the options the
*state* has allowed for me to go to their convienent state university here in
Atlanta. What are the arguments you might have about this?>>

One of the things that you will hopefully discover as you continue with your
studies re libertarianism is that the term covers an extreme diverse group of
people Libertarians are an extension of what was once called "liberalism" or,
later, "classical liberalism". Liberals, like libertarians, had many
different justifications for their CONCLUSIONS. Libertarianism and liberalism
comprise varients of political/economic/sociological views that favor the
realization of an ideal or preferable form of society with certain "family
resemblences" to each other, i.e., they all define "liberty" in more or less
the same way and think that liberty is a very important social value. [I
would claim that the Type 1 and Type 2 libertarian views that we have talked
about in these folders are the end points of the spectrum of such views.]

Such views are not necessarily ethical views. My own views, for instance, are
based simply on an observation about what goals most people, historically and
contemporarily, have sought to achieve and considerable study in the areas of
political, economic and social theory regarding the institutions best suited
to obtain those goals.

My view of accepting state aid is as follows: most every varient of
libertarianism would now concur that the current American state is totally
out of control and tends to put the funds over which it has control to
meaningless or negative uses. Would I prefer that such money be devoted to
financing the education of a libertarian [thus making him more effective in
opposing the state] or would I prefer that it be used in one of the lunatic
and
tyrannical programs that the feds have devised? Guess. Is it "immoral" for
you to accept such money to better your skills and position in opposing the
state or is it morally preferable for you to reject such money and have it
given to a budding state supporter? Guess.

The "morality" of this situation is much like the morality of killing people.

Killing people is a bad thing. Accepting stolen funds is a bad thing. If a
loaded gun is laying on the table between you and a slobbering 300 lb. muscle
bound psychotic who you have good reason to believe is a killer and who you
have good reason to believe will kill you if he gets the gun or if he is
allowed to spend any considerable time looking around for a club, what do
you do? You probably act in a way that, in the abstract, you would morally
prefer not to act.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/6/98 6:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998080622175500.SAA08851@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>Would I prefer that such money be devoted to financing the education of a
libertarian [thus making him more effective in opposing the state] or would I
prefer that it be used in one of the lunatic and
tyrannical programs that the feds have devised? Guess. Is it "immoral" for
you to accept such money to better your skills and position in opposing the
state or is it morally preferable for you to reject such money and have it
given to a budding state supporter? Guess. << -lawecon

Much the same rationale was used in explaining Libertarian candidate Murray
Sabrin's decision to take state matching campaign funds during his recent run
for the NJ governor's office. "We have to live in the world," said Sabrin
supporters. "And if we can use the apparatus of the State to remake the
State, that's good, isn't it?"

By way of contrast, Libertarian candidate Harry Browne, who ran for US
President in 1996, rejected that rationale, claiming that Federal matching
campaign funds amounted to "welfare for politicians," which no true
Libertarian could accept.

In the case of Sabrin, I pretty much agreed with his camp, because the NJ
election laws were written so as to eliminate candidates who didn't qualify
for and take the matching funds, from participation in the officially
sanctioned, televised debates.

When the game is that rigged, you play by the rules or you don't play. For
Sabrin, the matching funds and debate inclusion were equivalent, by law. For
Browne, had he accepted Federal matching funds, he still wouldn't have been
guaranteed a place on the dais at the official debates, AND he would have
seemed less purely Libertarian for taking "welfare for politicians." In
fact, Browne got some mileage out of his principled stance. A press release,
in which Browne called billionare Perot a "welfare queen," for taking
millions in matching campaign funds, was cited in several local newspapers
around the country, including the one in my hometown.

Two men, two different situations, two diametrically different decisions, two
different impacts on the political scene. Of course, neither man won the
office that he sought.

Back to the original question: government schools and collegiate financial
aid are both forms of subsidy -- welfare. You might want to keep a tally of
how much subsidy you receive (base it on the tuition rates charged to
out-of-state students). Then, remember to contribute a similar amount
(inflation-adjusted, with interest) to the institution once you graduate and
are better able to afford such things.

-J

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/7/98 12:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998080704273800.AAA07380@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Sabrin's decision to take state matching campaign funds during his recent run
for the NJ governor's office. "We have to live in the world," said Sabrin
supporters. "And if we can use the apparatus of the State to remake the
State, that's good, isn't it?">>

Ya, I recall the situation and you are, I believe, quite right in pointing
out the parallel. Unfortunately, I don't think that the two situations are
the same. What I am advocating is individual libertarians appropriating state
resources for anti-state purposes. What Sabrin was advocating was that a
public representative of libertarianism should buy into the system.

As you will recall [or maybe not] my view of the Libertarian Party is that it
should be exemplitive and educational. Its sole purpose should be to instruct
people about what libertarianism is about and get them interested in learning
more - it's purpose is not to "seize power". I don't hold that the same is
necessarily true of all private choices that individual libertarians make. To
put the point differently for those who recognize the references -
I am not advocating Leonard Reed's position that libertarianism is a way of
life sort of like Christianity is suppose to be. I understand that position,
and often I find it admirable, but the present topic is one reason why I do
not espouse that view.

President in 1996, rejected that rationale, claiming that Federal matching
campaign funds amounted to "welfare for politicians," which no true
Libertarian could accept.

In the case of Sabrin, I pretty much agreed with his camp, because the NJ
election laws were written so as to eliminate candidates who didn't qualify
for and take the matching funds, from participation in the officially
sanctioned, televised debates.>>

Well, that puts a somewhat different twist on the thing, that I had not
previously known abou
t.

Sabrin, the matching funds and debate inclusion were equivalent, by law. For
Browne, had he accepted Federal matching funds, he still wouldn't have been
guaranteed a place on the dais at the official debates, AND he would have
seemed less purely Libertarian for taking "welfare for politicians." In
fact, Browne got some mileage out of his principled stance. A press
release,
in which Browne called billionare Perot a "welfare queen," for taking
millions in matching campaign funds, was cited in several local newspapers
around the country, including the one in my hometown.

Two men, two different situations, two diametrically different decisions, two
different impacts on the political scene. Of course, neither man won the
office that he sought.>>

And the additional difference that running for office is not life [regardless
of what some people may think].

aid are both forms of subsidy -- welfare. You might want to keep a tally of
how much subsidy you receive (base it on the tuition rates charged to
out-of-state students). Then, remember to contribute a similar amount
(inflation-adjusted, with interest) to the institution once you graduate and
are better able to afford such things.

-J>>

No f.... way. I wouldn't even consider donating 5 cents to the institutions I
graduated from. They were all rather thoroughly collectivist, or, to the
extent they temporarily were not, it was simply due to a temporary glitch in
the system. You seem to forget, Presbyte, that I have seen higher education
from the inside, both as a student as a professor. It is one thing to use
such instrumentalities of evil for what you can get out of them. [The best
way to do that is learn everything they have to teach you and spend your
spare time dissecting the errors in what you have learned. You will then both
"know the enemy" thoroughly and probably know the truth better than you would
have otherwise.] But support such institutions?!!! I'd rather send a donation
to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China - at least they have
a better chance to evolve into something useful.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/8/98 12:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998080816373900.MAA19732@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>No f.... way. I wouldn't even consider donating 5 cents to the
institutions I graduated from. They were all rather thoroughly collectivist,
or, to the extent they temporarily were not, it was simply due to a temporary
glitch in the system.<< -LAWECON

Well, I'm not advocating a "donation" in the strict sense -- rather a
scrupulous repayment for value received, which has to be offered in the form
of a "donation" because of the circumstances. A cold transaction, to keep
one on high moral ground, if conscience is an issue. Rather like the
meticulously computed severance packages that superfluous employees are
sometimes offered as "fair recompense," to mitigate the fact that they are
nevertheless
shown the door. A dollars-and-cents kiss-off, as it were.

C'mon, Craig. Did you not receive anything of value at the institutions you
attended? I went to several public colleges and universities during my
collegiate career, and sometimes using public scholarship and grant money
(early on, before my budding personal libertarianism demanded that I pay my
own way). And I got a great deal of value from the time I spent at those
institutions, whether or not I agreed with what they were teaching or how
they
were teaching it. It is only fair to pay for the value one receives, even if
from an enemy. Ideally, the coin you use to repay such a debt will be of
little or no value to you. Render under Caesar...and all that.

-J

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/11/98 9:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998081113584200.JAA03193@ladder01.news.aol.com>

scrupulous repayment for value received, which has to be offered in the form
of a "donation" because of the circumstances. A cold transaction, to keep
one on high moral ground, if conscience is an issue. Rather like the
meticulously computed severance packages that superfluous employees are
sometimes offered as "fair recompense," to mitigate the fact that they are
nevertheless
shown the door. A dollars-and-cents kiss-off, as it were.>>

Let me make sure I've got this right. Thief A steals some money from B-Z and
builds/operates a "public university" with it. The students that attend this
university obviously benefit from below cost education. Since they are
getting their education below market they also get ample pro-Thief A
propaganda as part of the curriculum. THEREFORE, when they graduate they
should donate to more of Thief A's enterprises as "fair recompense" to Thief
A for
using his ill gotten gain for their benefit rather than in some other way -
as, ah, a "kiss off" of course. [Those of you who understand this reasoning
and would like to kiss me off please send your donations to P.O. Box 3684,
Tucson, Arizona. I even promise to steal something for your benefit if
sufficient funds are received.]

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/8/98 6:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: RLGood
Message-id: <1998080822220100.SAA28189@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>'As you will recall [or maybe not] my view of the Libertarian Party is that
it should be exemplitive and educational. Its sole purpose should be to
instruct people about what libertarianism is about and get them interested in
learning more - it's purpose is not to "seize power".'<

Although I wholeheartedly agree that the Libertarian Party must function as
an educational body for the masses, I fail to see the logic behind your
attack on Libertarians running for office. Some Libertarians may proclaim
that our sole purpose is to educate the general population about their rights
and the ailments of governmental control, but what exactly are they trying to
accomplish in the long run? As the philosophy gains popularity with the
mainstream public, isn't it a logical step to put Libertarians into political
office? Why are these people even associated with a political party in the
first place if they have no interest in "seizing power"? Regardless of the
fact that Libertarian philosophy is based on the return of power to
individual citizens, someone must "seize" power from the bureaucrats who
presently hold office. No matter how many idle idealists agree with one
viewpoint
or another, it takes physical action to truly change anything.

RLGood

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/11/98 10:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998081114223600.KAA05363@ladder01.news.aol.com>

an educational body for the masses, I fail to see the logic behind your
attack on Libertarians running for office. Some Libertarians may proclaim
that our sole purpose is to educate the general population about their rights
and the ailments of governmental control, but what exactly are they trying to
accomplish in the long run? As
the philosophy gains popularity with the
mainstream public, isn't it a logical step to put Libertarians into political
office? Why are these people even associated with a political party in the
first place if they have no interest in "seizing power"? Regardless of the
fact that Libertarian philosophy is based on the return of power to
individual citizens, someone must "seize" power from the bureaucrats who
presently hold office. No matter how many idle idealists agree with one
viewpoint
or another, it takes physical action to truly change anything.

RLGood>>

Let's see if I can put it briefly by giving you my premises and the
conclusion that follows:

(1) "Libertarian" isn't the name of an angelic order. It is the name of an
ideology or political party. Libertarians, once elected to office, will
respond to the incentives surrounding them much like every other politician
[that is, if they want to be re-elected and if they want any power while in
office - i.e., if they want to be "successful politicians"].

(2) "Party building" means that you "support the party". "Supporting the
party" has to do with supporting particular people and a particular
institution, not with supporting an ideology. The two may be in conflict. The
two definitely are in conflict when the party wants to "win offices" and
"take power" but represents the views of only 1-5% of the population. Then
the tendency is to do whatever is necessary to gain power, since "you can't
do good
unless you have the power."

(3) The incentives that parties and candidates/officeholders respond to are
largely determined by the spectrum of views in the public mind and where the
median of that spectrum lies. If the spectrum of views in the public shifts
heavily in the direction of libertarianism, SUCCESSFUL politicians will
become more libertarian, regardless of their party label. If the spectrum
shifts toward more collectivism SUCCESSFUL politicians will become more
collectivist.

(4) The way you change the spectrum of opinions is not to run candidates for
office. The MOST this will do is generate a series of 30 second sound bites,
none of which will change anyone's opinions. The way you change the spectrum
of opinions is by engaging people in
long term programs of re-education. No one I know of has ever engaged in such
a program as a result of hearing a campaign slogan or getting out the vote.

Indeed, most people are never going to engage in such a program - so you next
have to ask how opinions on these issues are formed.

I'm not going into (5) and (6) because I believe we just had that discussion
a few weeks ago and it is somewhere on these boards if you want to do a 3
minute search.

The conclusion of the above is that an LP is only useful if it twiks the
interest of those listening to the speeches of LP candidates and only if the
LP acts effectively as a funnel to those groups better organized to do the
long term re-education. It is a definite liability if it gains power
prematurely and pollutes the "libertarian" label with the necessarily
inappropriate acts of those trying to maintain themselves in power in a
hostile
environment. [It is also somewhat of a liability if its candidates run to win
rather than educate, since winning implies the support of numerous
nonlibertarians, whose votes can only be bought by seeming moderate.]

The optimal policy of the LP is, thus, to twik the interest of the uninformed
and to reorganize itself so that the uninformed who want to become better
informed are directed to the means to do so [rather than fleeced for the next
failed campaign]. In order to "educate" [in this loose sense of that term[ it
should run relatively few very well trained candidates for office with major
budgets. The budgets should be spent not on "vote for" signs or
messages [since that is not the purpose] but on propaganda efforts aimed at
issues and the ideology. "Success" should be measured not in vote totals but
in the number of new hard core libertarians created as a result of the
campaign.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/7/98 7:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CheffJeff
Message-id: <1998080711234900.HAA08567@ladder03.news.aol.com>

Presbyte said:

aid are both forms of subsidy -- welfare. You might want to keep a tally of
how much subsidy you receive (base it on the tuition rates charged to
out-of-state students). Then, remember to contribute a similar amount
(inflation-adjusted, with interest) to the institution once you graduate and
are better able to afford such things.>>

And, meanwhile, some poor WORKING schmuck is out HIS money. Oh, well, gotta
get that piece of paper, don't you?

Producers don't need parasites,
Jeff

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/8/98 12:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998080816580700.MAA28661@ladder03.news.aol.com>

>>>And, meanwhile, some poor WORKING schmuck is out HIS money. Oh, well,
gotta get that piece of paper, don't you? << -CheffJeff

Actually, speaking just for myself, I never got a piece of paper. I have
spent years in college, learning all kinds of things (including things they
probably didn't want or expect to teach me :-), and no degree to show for it.

I was always in it for what I could learn, not for the certificate I could
get. Knowing how things really are, or how to do something worthwhile was,
for me, always the key thing. I have only the greatest contempt for
employers who judge only on reputation and certification. I have always
invited prospective partners to give me a try and see if I had what the job
demanded. If so, we go on together. If not, we part honestly, and with no
hard feelings. I'd rather sweat out an honest audition or tryout, than worry
that someone was going to expose me as a fraud for not being able to live up
to high-priced credentials.

I am pleased to say, however, that at various times in my life, I have had
college graduates working for me, whom I managed and judged based on their
individual abilities to produce, not on their resumes or sheepskins.

As far as the working stiff being out his money (you are aware, are you not,
how vulgar "schmuck" is in Yiddish? See Leo Rosten's "Joy of Yiddish"), the
money is gone, no matter what. The question we have been discussing is
whether there is any moral justification for a libertarian to take advantage
of that plunder for the greater good of self-education and potential
(libertarian?) contribution to society. I think there is definitely an
ethical
problem, which is why, after my first two years of college, and even without
thinking of myself as especially libertarian, I determined never to use
"financial aid" ever again. I conclued that, paying back into the system,
explicitly in consideration of value received, would be the best way to "make
amends" for earlier, inadvertent leeching.

Subsequent manhandling by the Federal and State tax agencies, wherein they
tried (and to a great extent, succeeded) to extract from me not only that to
which they were nominally entitled, but a great deal more, changing the
course of my life in a profound way, pretty well erased the ethical "debt" I
had been carrying around prior to that time. But that's another story. Some
lessons you must learn after college.

-J

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/7/98 8:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: MRenzu1701
Message-id: <1998080800461500.UAA28903@ladder01.news.aol.com>

I think its a BIG mistake for ANY Libertarian candidate for office at any
level to take matching funds. If an LP candidate takes state money to run
his/her campaign then they violate our philosophy. Harry Browne is right,
that public money for political campains is "welfare for politicians" pure
and simple.

Just like voucher schemes are welfare for private schools.

I would not vote for any LP candiate if they accepted the money. It would
make us look hypocritical in the eyes of the public and it would also violate
our party's principles. If Murray Sabrin or any other LP candidate did that
he was wrong and it was hypocritical.

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/8/98 1:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998080817155500.NAA23976@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>>I would not vote for any LP candiate if they accepted the money. It would
make us look hypocritical in the eyes of the public and it would also violate
our party's principles. If Murray Sabrin or any other LP candidate did that
he was wrong and it was hypocritical.<< -mrenzu

Perhaps. But read the NJ election "reform" law and tell me that is not a
rigged system, which, in its 20-year history, had NEVER admitted an
independent or third-party major-office candidate to the "big boys' club" of
televised official debates, prior to Sabrin. Let me be clear about this: To
play on the same stage as the Demo and GOP candidates, Sabrin had no choice.

The law said he had to qualify for matching funds, and court challenges to
his
candidacy required that he had to ACCEPT and USE those funds to be considered
in compliance with the election law.

So, a "principled" LP candidate, by your definition, would always be
relegated to the fringes in NJ, because of the way the system is rigged. As
far as I know, the NJ system is the closest thing we have in the US to a
publically-financed campaign system. There are strict limitations on
campaign contributions, and "legitimate" candidates are EXPECTED and in many
cases REQUIRED to use the public campaign fund. If you do not accept or play
by the
rules of that game, you are simply not a real candidate. You don't get into
the debates. You run your campaign on a shoestring. The media give little
or no coverage to your candidacy. I'm not even sure that you can get a spot
on the ballot.

I don't like that system. But that's the way it is. Are you advocating
that, in any such system, the LP simply should not field candidates? That
would seem to me to be the only way to avoid the hypocrisy you criticize.

Think about that, the next time there is a movement in your area to "reform"
campaigns by limiting contributions and establishing a "public campaign fund"
to "even the playing field" and that candidates MUST use. Surely, it must
have sounded like a good idea to New Jersey voters in the early 1970s, when
the law was passed. But it leads to severe ethical complications for
principled LP candidates.

-J

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/9/98 8:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: MRenzu1701
Message-id: <1998081000213000.UAA03051@ladder03.news.aol.com>

To me its not a matter of "reform". The simple truth is, is that when we
were started, we rail against any kind of public financing of the system and
then a candidate from our party would go ahead and accept it.

If we have candidates that do this, then we are not practicing what we
preach. People are tired of politicians that do this. If NJs campaign reform
system is "rigged" like you say it is, thats not our fault. It doesnt make it
right for Mr Sabrin to accept the money just to "get exposure".

If I was in the NJLP I would find a way to conduct a ballot initiative to
repeal those reforms since it shuts them out. Harry Browne has done a good
job of getting the word out about his campaign and he didnt accept public
money.
Not to mention the kind of things that we are doing that are getting us
press coverage now are done without public money.
I am planning on running in my legislative district for the State House when
I am finished with college. Though I know I will be running on a shoestring
budget, at least I will run with the satisifaction of knowing I:

1) Didnt accept matching funds and didnt cost the taxpayers any money to run
it.

2) Ran on my principles and gave voters a chance to hear what I and the to
say about the issues.

We Libertarians have to practice what we preach when it comes to this. I
think its wrong for us to stray just because a system is corrupt. It doesnt
make us any better than the politicians in office right now. If we stray from
our principles, we abandon libertariansm.

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/10/98 1:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <1998081005301700.BAA09650@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>> We Libertarians have to practice what we preach when it comes to this.

<< -mrenzu

I generally agree with this. But there do seem to be limits. Have you ever
gone to public school? Used the public roads? Used a public bus or subway?
Drank city tapwater? All are subsidized, even when fare, toll, fee, or
tuition are charged. Using them at all means that you take advantage of some
form of "welfare."

The point I was making was not in support of giving in to and going along
with the statist quo, but rather of dealing with our environment as it is
forced upon us. Of course, the NJ LP should do everything it can to repeal
the campaign "reform" law that only changed the rules of the rigged game,
instead of truly reforming it. They should try also to push for private
roads, privately managed water supplies, private-schools, private-sector
coveyances, etc. But until these become common enough to constitute a true
alternative to the existing public infrastructure, do libertarians simply
take their principles and sit things out?

In NJ, they probably would have prohibited ALL private campaign funding if
they could have gotten away with it. Instead, they did the next best thing,
by creating a huge pool of money, to be doled out to "serious" candidates,
and by writing the rules so that this pool became a major, if not the
dominant source of campaign funding in that state. The clear intention of
the reform acts was to force the candidates to be highly dependent on these
funds,
and to cripple campaigns that couldn't or wouldn't opt into the system.

When the government makes it prohibitively expensive or difficult for you to
do the principled libertarian thing (which would, ironically, be the easiest
thing to do without the "helpful intervention" of government), how much shame
is there in doing the best, most libertarian thing you can under the
circumstances, and surviving to do even better tomorrow? If the only park in
town was created and maintained with "stolen money," i.e., taxes, must the
principled libertarian avoid using it as a great site for his libertarian
soapbox?

-J

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/2/98 1:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: BASTIATLAW
Message-id: <1998080217371000.NAA11115@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>Is accepting financial aid or a grant from the state to further my
education at a *state* university ethical?<

Get the education, and then use it to work toward the repeal of all laws that
are repugnant to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. I don't
believe that would be morally offensive. The very fact that you question your
own ethics indicates that you are probably a good person.

Ayn Rand had something to say about your dilemma. I will try to find it and
pass it on to you. / Sam

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/3/98 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: RLGood
Message-id: <1998080304004400.AAA08490@ladder03.news.aol.com>

Even if you support the elimination of government educational aid programs,
the money has already been stolen; the damage has been done. You may as well
take advantage of it before the money is used for some idiotic Federal
program or ends up in some lawyer's pocket. Here's a really weird analogy
that I thought of: Say you are an extremely staunch environmentalist, and
you want to sit down.
Someone offers you a wooden chair. You may be against the whole concept of
the logging industry, and would never sanction cutting down a tree to make
that chair. But the damage is already done; the tree is dead. I say sit
down before somebody else does.

RLGood

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/3/98 10:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Brinkman98
Message-id: <1998080314284000.KAA14614@ladder01.news.aol.com>

"Is accepting financial aid or a grant from the state to further my education
at a *state* university ethical?"

I think one of the things we as libertarians need to question is this:
why is there a need for the government to financially aid students?
Financial Aid is one of the instances where the government has broken your
leg and "helped" you by giving you a crutch.

If we were able to get rid of government accrediation (replaced by
private accredidation), privatize most colleges, and stop stealing money from
people so they could afford to save for college, then government financial
aid would be mostly unneeded. Also, ready availability of financial aid
inflates the cost of education.
I took financial aid when I was a student, even after I had discovered
the Libertarian Party in my Senior Year. I took mostly unsubsidized loans,
but got some grants and subsidized loans.

I rationalized taking the money simply by looking at it like this: I'll
end up paying far more in taxes than I will ever borrow in school. I will
pay into social security without ever seeing any return on it.

You probably have the same types of issues facing you. I would't feel
terribly upset by taking government money. If things were different, you
probably wouldn't have to.

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/4/98 7:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CheffJeff
Message-id: <1998080411324700.HAA05623@ladder03.news.aol.com>

<"Is accepting financial aid or a grant from the state to further my
education at a *state* university ethical?">>

Well, after reading some of the answers, I was wondering if is this the
liberal, big government board or the libertarian board?????????? These are
"answers" to your request? Geeeez! I'm keeping my hand on my wallet if the
Libertarians ever get elected.

Before you rationalize, or listen to others rationalize, about taking others'
money, ask yourself some tough questions. If you take it, the state can
claim that you (we) need them to survive. Do you? Do we? Does this mesh
with your overall goals and philosophy?

I've got a novel idea!...How about working for the money while you attend
school? You'd be surprised at how much better you will be educated when you
understand just how hard it is to earn that much money. And the best part
is, you'll be much more valuable in the marketplace than you would without
the effort.

If you didn't earn it, who did? Do you want someone else working that hard
for YOUR education?

Walk the talk, man.

Jeff

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/4/98 10:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Brinkman98
Message-id: <1998080414551600.KAA21280@ladder03.news.aol.com>

Jeff is right. You shouldn't try to get any of the money that is going
to be stolen from you back. As a matter of fact, rejoice as you work about
the money being stolen from you that you would like to apply toward your
education.

I think the big thing Jeff missed was a part of what I brought up: some
people now are dependent on the government because of what was taken from
them. Unless Jeff can go back in time, give your parents back all the money
that was taken from them by the government, I don't see a problem with you
recouping some of that money in the form of aid.

Certainly, there is a lot to be said for the person who works their way
through school--I did for a portion of it. The financial aid I took ended up
going toward paying off credit card debt I had accumulated due to reckless
living previously.

I suppose I didn't need it, but why should I take it in the ear,
struggling to pay off debts that probably would have never came about had I
been able to keep the money deducted from my pay check.

As far as I'm concerned, your taking financial aid is just a way of
getting back some of the money stolen from your parents--something completely
unnecessary if we could separate school and state & eliminate the income tax
and social security.

And so far as Jeff holding on to his wallet if libertarians get electe,
what does he do now with Democrats and Republicans running the show?

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/4/98 1:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: VCash29827
Message-id: <1998080417101200.NAA00786@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>I think the big thing Jeff missed was a part of what I brought up: some
people now are dependent on the government because of what was taken from
them. Unless Jeff can go back in time, give your parents back all the money
that was taken from them by the government, I don't see a problem with you
recouping some of that money in the form of aid.<

I see alot of this kind of thinking on an Affirmative Action board, evil
white men have discriminated and are discriminating against women and
minorities, so that justifies AA and the inherant discrimination against
white males. I'm sorry, in my little mind 2 wrongs don't make a right. I
think the bottom line in this is whether the person in question thinks it's
morally wrong or not. If they do think it's wrong, all the
justification in the world isn't going to change that. If not then there's no
need for justification. So far my favorite "justification" has been that if
you don't take it, someone less deserving will.......

Vicki

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/4/98 2:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Brinkman98
Message-id: <1998080418313500.OAA16139@ladder03.news.aol.com>

"I see alot of this kind of thinking on an Affirmative Action board, evil
white men have discriminated and are discriminating against women and
minorities, so that justifies AA and the inherant discrimination against
white males. I'm sorry, in my little mind 2 wrongs don't make a right."
vcash29827

I don't see the connection between Affirmative Action and Financial Aid.

If we want to go along with this line of thinking, let's go ahead.

Here's a statement I think most libertarians would agree with: Taxation is
Theft.

If taxation is theft, and theft is wrong, it is wrong to take advantage of
any benefit received as a result of theft.

I wonder if Vicki ever drove on a public road? Public roads are financed by
taxes. We all agree that taxes are theft. Doesn't that mean that using
tax-funded roads is wrong? Or how about public parks and rest stops?

Following some libertarians' line of thinking, you shouldn't even bother
going to this College/University, because it is funded by theft. Yes, even
if you were to pay for your classes, the amount you spend still doesn't cover
the full cost of your attendence. State colleges and universities are
typically subsidized well beyond student financial aid.

I guess your final resort to live a moral life is to stay inside your
house--which you pay property taxes on--and starve to death, because you
can't use a publicly funded road to get to the grocery store.

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/4/98 2:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: BriGuy301
Message-id: <1998080418210300.OAA09488@ladder01.news.aol.com>

<< As far as I'm concerned, your taking financial aid is just a way of

getting back some of the money stolen from your parents . . .

>>>

But he wouldn't be getting that money "back" -- that money is already gone.

Attempting to achieve the kind of restitution that's being suggested would
involve
indiscriminately targeting present and future taxpayers to bear the
responsibility
of the government's crime. That's why Vicki refers to it as two wrongs not
making
a right. It's like saying : "Somebody plundered my purse, so I have a right
to
make SOMEBODY pay."

Except that it isn't, quite. Suppose the government commits some egregious
wrong -- for example, something that results in a wrongful death, and it's an
open and shut case. Obviously, the family of the deceased, who would have
legal standing to sue the government, would feel justified in doing exactly
that.

But we could always turn around and say, "hey, you don't have the right to
sue the city (or whatever governmental entity we're talking about), because
"sueing the city" is just a dishonest abstraction; the city, after all, isn't
an
entity with its own means and resources -- the only resources it can get its
hands on are those it expropriates from its citizens by taxing them. So when
you sue "the city", you're really just suing your neighbors. And they're not
the ones who committed the wrong."

But there seems something incomplete and unfair in that argument. For it
further institutionalizes the government's right to act irresponsibly. And
it
guarantees a situation in which the most honest and incorruptible citizens
are the most vulnerable, their own integrity being a liability. The more
they
choose not to participate in what they see as a process of cannibalism,
the more they abdicate any defense against that process.

And of course this dilemma is heightened by the fact that in an increasingly
statist society, it's no longer accurate to discuss the problem as though
"the
government" and "the citizens" are two separate entities, because more
and more of the people ARE the government. Cross-cannibalism.

So perhaps the young man should take the aid, just as the government
should be sued, and if that seems to constitute aggression, perhaps it's
really retribution for the responsibility we all share in SOME measure for
allowing our institutions to have become what they have.

BriGuy301

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/7/98 12:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998080704331300.AAA08142@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Reading the last several posts I think that we can now see why moralistic
libertarianism is a dead end. Moralistic libertarians are not really
interested in better social, economic and political institutions, they are
merely interested in "being pure". This sort of libertarianism is, hence,
merely a quasi-religious "life philosophy," not a particular view about what
institutions are better than others and why. Presumably such libertarians
would have no problem living under totalitarianism, other than they would
shortly starve - but no matter, they would be pure until they starved.

Personally, I prefer to eat and fight rather than starve and remain pure.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/7/98 7:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CheffJeff
Message-id: <1998080711201800.HAA02159@ladder01.news.aol.com>

lawcon said:

<
Reading the last several posts I think that we can now see why moralistic
libertarianism is a dead end. Moralistic libertarians are not really
interested in better social, economic and political institutions, they are
merely interested in "being pure". >>

Are you talking about my post that suggested working for (instead of
stealing) what you want?

Jeff

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/11/98 10:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998081114281400.KAA14304@ladder03.news.aol.com>

>>Are you talking about my post that suggested working for (instead of
stealing) what you want?

Jeff
<

No, Jeff, I'm talking about your post that suggested that we refrain from
taking any state monies or goods since to do so is IMMORAL, your post that
suggested that it was better that these resources be used to improve the
skills, performance and enjoyment of the state's pet collectivists rather
than those of libertarians, your post that suggested that "true libertarians"
shouldn't, for instance, accept social security payments, public education,
consume most other goods in this society [the producers of almost all of
which receive some subsidy or economic protection, etc.], drive on public
roads or breath the "clean air". You know, your entirely silly post that
suggested it was better that we weaken our position as much as possible and
strengthen the hand of the collectivists as much as possible.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/10/98 10:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Mujah Tusk
Message-id: <1998081102485000.WAA13136@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Dilemma #1
If it is against libertarian principles to accept a state grant or some sort
of assistance with financial aid, then by these very same principles would it
be hypocritical to be attending a state university where an incredible amount
of its funding, including professor's salaries, come from the state's
coffers?
In order to stay "pure" to the principles, could one zealously pursue them
to extremes....or is there no such thing in the pursuit of libertarian
principles? How far do I take it, if the principles do not allow for state
assistance in any way? No matter what, I always, always have a choice...a
choice to not drive on those state funded highways to that state funded
campus...etc.

Is it hypocritical if I WANT state help?

Dilemma #2
Hey, in some way, that money (via taxes, lottery, whatever) is my
money...and dammit, I ought to get it back! And it seems honorable that I
should use it to better myself--possibly to help guide the state, or to use
the state against itself (by getting my money back) and in some way liberate
myself through education from its many tentacle hydra-like grasp.

And yet, some of you argue that it's not my money anymore, and that in some
way I might be participating in the theft from others like myself. It makes
me feel dirty to think that in order to destroy the system in place, I'm
first gonna use it to my advantage, to pursue my self interest, and in some
way perpetuate that which I hate.
But, if I wasn't being taxed....believe me, being married with no children
and not owning a house, I am being taxed and it hurts...if I wasn't being
taxed, would I be in this position?
Am I looking for a sanction here? Maybe.

Being an "A" student, I meet the criteria for such grants and financial aid,
and I'm worthy of that money they're willing to throw in my face. Yet, I
gotta be sure I'm accepting what is rightfully mine instead of betraying a
libertarian idea for thirty pieces of silver....

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/11/98 8:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Brinkman98
Message-id: <1998081112374800.IAA05286@ladder03.news.aol.com>

You know, all of this talk about financial aid has me wondering: how many of
our members are truly living an "non-hypocritical" life? For instance, I
work as an independent contractor with the State of Michigan. I have a
private employee, but most of their money comes from state contracts.

But even more odd is this: What about many of our great libertarian
thinkers? I'm not sure, but it seems to me that Murray Rothbard was a prof.

at Auburn and then Nevada. Or how about David Friedman? I thought I read
somewhere that he teaches in the University of California system. Walter
Williams teaches at George Mason. I might be mistaken, but don't these
universities accept Federal and/or State money? I'd appreciate anybody
setting the
record straight for me if I'm wrong.

Subject: Re: Financial Aid/State Grants & Individualism
Date: 8/11/98 10:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <1998081114371800.KAA06713@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Brinkman, old boy, I know it is almost unimaginable in this age, but
"principles" doesn't necessarily mean "moral principles". There are physical
principles, economic principles, even principles of political organization.

In my humble view, if one thoroughly understands the principles of economics
and politics, one realizes that there isn't really alot of need for moral
preaching. You don't have to tell the person who has just walked off a
cliff that "you ought to fall down now".

Actions have consequences. You can't construct a social system based on
plunder and expect people to work. You can't give people something for
nothing and expect them to value what they get [or expect them not to riot if
you cut off the goodies which are "their right"]. These things have nothing
to do with morality. They only have to do with long established regularities
in human behavior.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

 

 



this website copyright scars publications and design. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.



this page was downloaded to your computer