Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site tty3b.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!we13!otuxa!tty3b!mjk From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: subsidies and morality Message-ID: <130@tty3b.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Jun-83 13:57:57 EDT Article-I.D.: tty3b.130 Posted: Fri Jun 17 13:57:57 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jun-83 15:40:32 EDT References: <306@houti.UUCP> Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill Lines: 43 Response to Tom Craver: "I just think any government interference is wrong ... What if I disagree [with government spending priorities] - should I be forced to go along ... ?" All advanced societies have established governments which make policies in what they see as the best interest of the general population. Some of these governments are less able to judge that than others. For example, I happen to believe that democracy is a very good way to judge the common good. People will elect representatives who reflect their views and throw out those who don't. The more closed an electoral system (and I don't believe the U.S. electoral system to be the most open in the world, but that's another discussion), the less the results reflect a general concensus. I know you want direct participatory democracy, but the burden is on you to develop realistic governmental systems, not theoretical pipedreams. I've worked in groups which use concensus decision-making and you can't run an organization of twenty people that way, let alone a nation of 230 million. That's the theory, Mr. Craver. Now the trouble is that you totally reject the notion of a common good. You totally reject the notion of a social contract between people to work for that common good. If I don't unfairly attach a label, you are a Libertarian. The trouble with Libertarians, at least in my experience, is that all their policies inevitably boil down to just this: supporting the "right" of powerful people to impose their will on the non-powerful. Do you really believe that a totally laissez-faire government could result in anything other than a de facto government of economically powerful corporations making policy without any popular input at all? If you don't think that will happen, tell me what will stop it? Don't forget, the entire history of government regulation in the U.S. is one of powerful interests so subjecting the public good to their own private interests as to require an essentially unwilling government to interfere. (Of course, the efficacy of regulation in the U.S. is highly questionable, but that again is another discussion.) The real question which always stops Libertarians dead in their tracks is, How do you prevent monopolies from developing and becoming a de facto (unelected, unrepresentative, unresponsive, self-interested) government? Mike Kelly @ Teletype ...!ihnp4!otuxa!tty3b!mjk ...!mhtsa!tty3b!mjk