On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:38:57 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

--minor (several hundred line) snippage here--

Stu said:
Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you
are
one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you
believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State
governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased
inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future.

Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and
Bush
are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more
extreme,
except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes,
they'd
be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until
the
economy collapsed for good.

Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total
dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the
government. I think you're totally overreacting here.

What I've described is the consequences of the libertarian program, Larry,
and they should be no mystery at this point. Libertarians oppose
government
regulation of business. We've seen what happens in the world of finance
when
regulations are too lax; take the regulations off, and you'll just be
clearing the sea lanes for the financial pirates.

Can you say "Ideals tempered by judgment"? I knew you could. Why
haven't you here? Libertarian policies aren't black and white as you
show them, just as Republican and Democrat policies aren't set in
stone.

When you start to "temper" the libertarian program, you wind up with
something else. Call it "conservatism light." The basic ideas of smaller
government, privatization, free trade and laissez-faire are cornerstones of
intellectual conservatism, Larry. Those folks, too, would say their ideals
should be "tempered by judgment." In fact, if you study their program (a big
job; they've had around 230 years to develop it, because it was founded
contemporaneously with the founding of our country -- although in
contradiction to large parts of it), you'll see that it's something like the
supposed libertarian program run through the wringer of experience.

You're not suggesting that we've achieved perfection after 230 years,
are you, Ed?


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in
detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.


I don't want to start a big exegesis of libertarianism and conservatism. My
point here is a lot simpler: It's that the so-called libertarians of today
are, for the most part, grumblers who don't like one thing or another, or
many things, about the way government is going and their solution is to all
but do away with government. They can only do this because they've jumped to
some conclusions based on wishful thinking and a wilfull belief in markets
that is not supported by history. They do this by ignoring the broader
context and by focusing on selected examples. When you point out some
counterexamples, they hedge their idealist, radical theories with
"temperence." Those are the words of an ideologue who hasn't really thought
through to the consequences of his ideology, but who just knows he doesn't
like the way things are.

grumble, grumble


The bottom line is that, if you were to work out examples of how the
libertarian program would work in practice, issue by issue, and expose it to
the light of history and experience -- issue by issue -- it would come out
about as I've described. It's a bunch of ideas that describe the feelings
and attitudes that drive an important part of politics in the US. As a
program, it's silly and juvenile.

Well 'Neener, Neener' to you, too.


Most adults realize this, which is why the party gets nowhere, and will
never get anywhere. It's useful as an outlet for grumblers who don't want to
get their hands dirty by getting into the real game. Sometimes third parties
have a pernicious effect, when they become spoilers, as the Naderites did in
2000. Otherwise, though, they're a harmless escape valve for discontent.

We almost did it (made REAL changes) in '92. It scared the holy ****
out of both the Reps and Dems, but it didn't scare them into doing
their jobs or out of further criminal activities. It's a damned shame.


Libertarians oppose government ownership of property, and an end to
restrictions on cross-national flows of capital. China needs lumber;
they'll
clear-cut the national forests, and it won't take them more than a few
years
to do it. They've already been exploring the purchase or lease of large
tracts of western timberlands.

Show me one Libertarian who has suggested that. I dare you.

That's the point. Most Libertarians haven't considered the fact that it
would be a likely consequence of their program, should they accidentally get
it enacted. d8-)

How the **** do I argue with that pretzel logic? sigh You're a
master(ful) debater, Ed.


Taken standalone, intact, as law, you're probably close to right. But
that's not how policies are made politically. What libertarians want
is a movement -away- from the authoritarian style and -toward- the
less-regulated libertarian style of government. I haven't heard a
single libertarian candidate who would completely toss the entire
current workings of government, but there's a whole lot which needs
fixing. Jesus, Ed. You're being far to literal on this issue.

I don't know anyone who doesn't think there's "a whole lot which needs
fixing. Jesus..." g But we sure see a lot of categorical dismissal of
government here, by people who describe themselves as libertarians. For
example, Stuart. And you, on a bad day.

Nah, we're just dismissing various entire sectors of gov't each day,
not the whole enchilada.

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine