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!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is a libertarian go[u]verment?
Message-ID: <645@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 14:10:27 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.645
Posted: Thu Feb  7 14:10:27 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 05:30:16 EST
References: <421@klipper.UUCP> <627@unmvax.UUCP> <303@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 62

> In article <627@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes:
> >  With a sufficiently small
> >kernel as the actual government itself, it would be possible to finance the
> >entire government proper through private donations and user fees (i.e. a
> >convicted criminal can either cough up sufficient money to pay for his trial
> >incarceration, etc. or face deportation)
> >
> 	What is this! You would inflict our crazies, murderers, and
> just plain anti-socials on the rest of the world if they do not have
> enough money to pay for the trial???  This is hardly fair to our
> neighbors!

If another country doesn't want them, then they don't get moved, but what if
for some reason, there were laws in Libertaria that the people in GSR (Generic
Socialist Republic) thought were foolish, and the people in GSR were willing
to accept criminals of that nature.  Ship them over and be rid of them.
Remember, in general, being a convict says very little about your willingness
to comit murder or even be anti-social.  In the USSR (the leader in prison
population per capita) they lock up political dissidents, in South Africa
(number 2 in prison population per capita) they lock up political dissidents
and in the U.S. (We're Number 3!  We're Number 3!) we lock up the poor (through
victimless crime laws)...  There is nothing inherently anti-social about being
a political dissident or being poor.  In general, if there is another country
willing to accept a convict, let him go, with the knowledge that he will never
be allowed to set foot in this country again.

> >Again, this is another point of contention.  There are all sorts of schemes
> >related to land use.  I do not favor the homesteading of land already claimed
> >by the private sector.  I believe that our National Parks should be in private
> >hands, but that would be hard to do if the homesteading laws allowed someone
> >to claim the grand canyon.
> >
> 	Another problem with this is: private individuals will only
> maintainf their private parks as long as it is convient to do so,
> thus in a few generations all our wilderness land will be done
> forever.

Hmm... How long has the Sierra club been around?  Do you anticipate their
demise in a few generations.  If they owned the land do you think it would
be misused.  On the other hand, how many years has Reagan been in office,
as long as he has his handss on the land do you think it will be misused?
Get my point?

> There is already to little of it!

How much is too little?  You might be surprised to find out how much land is
owned by the government.  I don't have the exact numbers at my fingertips so
I will eschew quotes off the top of my head... does anyone have the figures?

> The purpose of *goverment*
> parks is to remove the land from economic considerations and preserve
> it *unconditionally*.

The purpose of the U.S. government is:  "to secure the blessings of liberty,
to ourselves and our posterity", but don't hold your breath.  This is not
kindergarten governments don't get little happy faces for having good intentions
or trying hard.  At any time the land is in the government's hand, Uncle Sam
can decide we have a need for a new Cobolt Testing range.

> 				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

--Cliff