Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Comments on Libertarianism Message-ID: <22400060@ea.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 21:16:00 EST Article-I.D.: ea.22400060 Posted: Mon Dec 3 21:16:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 03:46:33 EST References: <375@ptsfa.UUCP> Lines: 60 Nf-ID: #R:ptsfa:-37500:ea:22400060:000:3241 Nf-From: ea!mwm Dec 3 20:16:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / ccice2!bwm / 3:58 pm Nov 30, 1984 */ Libertarians do NOT (usually) believe in ZERO government, because there must be an ARBITER and AUTHORITY to enforce, essentially, the bill of rights. The arbiter can often be unassociated with the government, so all that may be needed is a 'supreme' court. There will be degenerates that do not belong in this society, and you need an executive branch to reform them, or kick them out. Finally, you need some body to determine where the lines are between protection of rights, and suspension of rights when it is warranted (as in when someone has violated someone elses rights). Three branchs of government. Sounds a hell of a lot like our very own constitution, doesn't it? THAT'S THE POINT -- THAT'S WHERE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. Brad Miller ...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm /* ---------- */ Well, that's where we are supposed to be, but that isn't where we are. The problem is that most of the government is unconstitutional. For instance, could you show me where the constitution grants the government the power to get involved in welfare, education, pension plans, housing, regulation of various industries (usually for the benefit of the the companies in the industry), etc. For that matter, if we go back to the original constitution and the bill of rights, the governments monopolistic control of the banking industry, income tax, and the enforced discriminatory hiring practices aren't constitutional. In fact, the US constitution (as it was written, not as it is interpreted today) is close enough to the libertarian line that the Libertarian party claims the principles behind it to be their own. However, the fly in the ointment is the fiction that "the will of the majority" is somehow a stamp of moral approval. I'm not sure how to avoid it, but Thomas Macaulay saw the problem back in 1857: The day will come when (in the United States) a multitude of people will choose the legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of a legislature will be chosen? On the one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalism and usurers asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage while thousands of honest people are in want of necessaries. Which of the candidates is likely to be preferred by a workman? . . . When Society has entered on this downward progress, either civilization or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand, or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire in the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and vandals who ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns and vandals will have been engendered within your country, by your own institutions. And no, I don't know of a better way to select the legislative/executive branch than what we are doing now. Maybe a more intelligent method of deciding who shall be enfranchised than being "old enough". Does anybody have any ideas?