Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxi!mhuxh!mhuxv!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <1941@inmet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Feb-85 02:39:57 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1941 Posted: Wed Feb 6 02:39:57 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 02:10:32 EST Lines: 95 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-45700:inmet:7800292:177600:4865 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Feb 4 20:19:00 1985 >***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 10:18 pm Feb 1, 1985 >> > But it isn't really ignored by the Libertarians, it is a central point of >> > most of their arguments even though they refuse to admit it. The major >> > thing most Libertarians seem to rail about is paying taxes. >> >> Bullsh*t! I rail about conscription! I rave about victimless crimes! I >> shout about censorship! Pretty clever article (summed up as: Libertarians >> only complain about taxes...taxes are only one loss of liberty...libertarians >> don't really care about liberty), too bad you couldn't have made it 99999 lines >> long; you would really have made a great point then. >> >> --Cliff [Matthews] >> {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff >> {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff >> 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143 > >Perhaps I am wrong, but I have noticed a great concern with taxes as >"theft" and so forth by Libertarians. I guess one reason that the >right to tax has been important in my own arguments is that I agree >with removing victimless crimes from the legal code, preventing censorship, >and abolishing draft registration. But I cannot agree with arguments >that there is no justification for taxation, or other such group fees >as union dues. >I also notice that your response totally ignores the major subtance >of my arguments on taxation as some sort of "absolute infringement of >freedom". >Perhaps I am also ignoring the more purist ideology of Libertarians >versus the use the power elite is likely to make of such ideology. My goodness! A socialist concerned with what use the rhetoric of an ideology is to be put. Suppose you put your own house in order first, bub. The socialist rhetoric is much more a threat to people's well-being because it places no explicit limit on the power of the state to enslave. >While it is nice that some Libertarians on the net have admitted that >not *all* property ownership is legitimate or worthy of defense >that is a point that has only been conceded under my own questioning. Hmmm.... Let's not crow about false victories. Please present the quotes so that people may judge for yourself. As the author of some statements you seemed to take as meaning that libertarians do not regard property rights as absolute rights, let me clarify: apparent property rights may conflict: thus it is not possible for apparent property rights to be absolute. A fine shade of meaning, but one worth pondering. >It seems to me that Libertarians have not presented any means for >removing current inequalities of wealth and control of property. Nor have we presented any means for making sure department stores stay open on weekends. One of the failings of the statist philosophy is the emphasis on the need for specific tools to accomplish a given goal, whether any effort need be expended to accomplish that goal or not (a Department of Energy, a Windfall Profit tax on oil). I've quoted from a history on the US something of what happened when this country was young, before we had a great deal of regulation. Now let me suggest some further reading: Take a look at "Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980" by Charles Murray. >Those people who own America just *love* an ideology which they can >use to justify their own control of property and remove any governmental >or other public impediments to their absolute control of such property. Excuse me, but I believe they'd have shit-fits if a libertarian society were put in place. Just to start: what would the people who own GM stock think of free auto trade, hmmmm? What would the Mafia think of unrestricted (to adults) drug availability? What would the AMA think when anyone could call himself "a doctor" (though not an AMA doctor) and advise people? What would corporate polluters think when confronted with massive numbers of law suits regarding their treatment of the air (without a governmental agency to limit their liability?). Again, as a socialist, you have a much harder row to hoe if you want to talk about rhetoric and its usefulness to the ruling class, or haven't you heard about the special stores in Russia where only tourists and party members may go? >One need only look at Weber's "Protestant Ethic" to see how a doctrine >which starts out as primarily religious or spiritual can quickly become >subverted to justify a rising elite. Of course, I will concede that >Marxism has been no different in being used to justify a group's >claim to power. >But it seems to me that Libertarians as a whole are quite naive. That's okay. I've always had a soft spot for socialists -- they mean well, but normally can't IMAGINE the consequences of their own philosophy, no matter how many times it's put into action. > tim sevener whuxl!orb >---------- > Nat Howard