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?