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