Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Libertarians, Monetarists and the Powers that Be Message-ID: <667@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 09:20:26 EDT Article-I.D.: whuxl.667 Posted: Tue Jun 25 09:20:26 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 06:43:41 EDT References: <408@mmintl.UUCP> <28200013@inmet.UUCP> <651@whuxl.UUCP> <232@kontron.UUCP> <655@whuxl.UUCP> <272@kontron.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 50 > From Clayton Cramer: > Mr. Sevener: funding for the libertarian movement has, with a few notable > exceptions, not come from companies and industrialists, most of whom are > scared spitless by a libertarian society, where they are responsible for > their actions. The major exception to the rule I just mentioned is David > Koch, who contributed over two million dollars to the 1980 LP Presidential > campaign. What's is industry? Air pollution control equipment. Mr. > Koch must either be ignoring his short-term interests, or figures that > a libertarian society will need more air pollution control equipment > than the current one (which is not a bad assumption). Well how do you define "Libertarian"? I realize there are a small minority (which represents the vast majority of those calling themselves "Libertarian" on this Network) who are ideologically pure Libertarians. While I very much disagree with those Libertarians I admire your consistency. Such Libertarians are at least consistent in opposing the bloated military establishment and record of intervention in other countries affairs as they oppose social spending. However the exact same free-market rhetoric is used by others with very different ends and interests. I would hardly call William Simon a pauper for instance, yet he spouts the same free market rhetoric as Libertarians. At the same time he has no intention of disrupting his own economic clout or that of the military industrial complex by calling for an end to the biggest governmental waste of money ever invented: namely the arms race. J. Peter Grace has launched an expensive political campaign to demolish social spending in the name of the deficit and "efficiency". He questions the efficacy of welfare programs and suggests many might be abolished as "neutral reform". Of course he also gives the mandatory nod to the problem of military waste - procurement should simply be more efficient. Yet does he ever question the need to spend $1.6 trillion for the military over 6 years of Reagan's Administration? If welfare programs are not efficacious then how about MX missiles? What is the *point* of all this incredible expense? Are we any safer or more secure after spending $1.6 trillion? I am not particularly concerned about the miniscule vocal minority of avowed Libertarians so active on this Net. However I am *very* concerned that there are very real financial interests who love the promotion of free-market rhetoric to shield their own activities. They will eat up the Libertarian argument that government should get out of pollution control and totally ignore the argument that citizens should be allowed to file class action suits instead. Just as even Ronald Reagan has recently endorsed the traditionally progressive issue of "tax reform" and wishes to use it to advance his own goal of moving away from a progressive income tax system. Ignored in Reagan's populist tax speeches is the fact that the wealthy's taxes would be reduced by over 10% while the poor gullible middle class gains a cut of only 5%. And when the taxes rise whose cut do you suppose will be eliminated? tim sevener whuxl!orb