Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Survival of Libertaria in competition
Message-ID: <716@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Mar-85 18:38:53 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.716
Posted: Sat Mar  2 18:38:53 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Mar-85 02:15:33 EST
References: <1597@bmcg.UUCP> <233@tilt.FUN> <676@unmvax.UUCP> <240@tilt.FUN>  <1426@dciem.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 70

> In the normal course of social change, Libertaria should have occurred
> by chance, if not by design, and probably more than once.

I don't see any reason why Libertaria would have occurred by chance.  The
country that is most likely to benefit from Libertarian ideology is, in my
opinion, the U.S.  U.S. citizens still seem to have some respect for "freedom"
even if everyone has their own definition.  However, currently we are ruled by
elected (and appointed by elected) officials.  For some period, "Laverne and
Shirley" was the number one ranked television show in this country... I am not
surprised that Libertaria didn't occur by chance in this country, nor that
Libertaria didn't occur in countries where they population is less concerned
with freedom.

> According to
> the libertarian argument, it should then have thrived and grown quickly
> strong, being better than its neighbours on both economic and ethical
> grounds.  We should now see several Libertarias, if not a world full of
> them.  But we see none, and no evidence that any ever existed.

The above paragraph is correct.

> The contradiction can be resolved by eliminating any one of several
> assumptions: (1) No Libertaria has yet existed, and therefore none
> has had the chance to show its quality;

OK, if you think (1) *isn't* the assumption to eliminate, please point to
the time and country that were Libertaria.

> (2) The best does not necessarily
> survive, which implies that the arguments usually proposed in favour
> of Libertaria are faulty;

"The best" is much to vague to allow this assumption to slip by.  If you
are talking about "the best ideas" being presented to a legislative body
that is ruled by special interest groups, then there is no reason for "the
best" ideas to survive (actually I should say be implemented, for ideas
are immortal).  Libertaria's  successful government depends on the inability
to change significant parts of the government without overthrow.  A govern-
ment that might start out very good, but is too easy to modify will not
have the stability that Libertaria would.

> (3) Libertaria would not work the way its
> supporters claim. (2) implies (3), and my personal belief is that
> all 3 statements are true.
>
> If an approach to libertarian principles would make a society stronger
> than a retreat from them, we would expect an inevitable drift toward
> Libertaria, rather than just an expansion of it when it occurred by
> chance.

The approach to libertarian principles that makes a society stronger is
removing certain power that the government has over people/transactions.
There is a big difference between the government not taking someone's land
through eminient domain, and the inability of the government to take anyone's
land through eminent domain.  To approach libertarian ideals, the government
would have to be losing power...this does not happen "by chance."

> This also renders suspect the grandiose claims of the libertarians.

It was nice to see such an unbiased presentation :-)  It is good to see people
make up their minds after rational thought, rather than ignorance and prejudice
:-).

> Martin Taylor
> {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
> {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt

In favor of a tolerant government,

--Cliff