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