From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: Response to Paul Schmidt
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 64
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com

In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>: 
>: As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>: is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the 
>: tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>: 
>: Believe it or not, we "liberals" are frequently as opposed to
>: anti-competitive measures as you "conservatives."  We don't believe,
>: however, that competition will necessarily be protected by the actions 
>: of business interests in a "free-market."  After all, in the example
>: you cite, it was not "liberals" that pressed for such regulations, but
>: good staunch conservative businessmen.
>: 
>: As Adam Smith so eloquently demonstrated, the "free-market" is not 
>: something that capitalists seek to protect when they can profit from 
>: its elimination.  The same point was made by Marx -- a point of agreement 
>: between the two theorists that should tell us something.
>
>I do not want the government to become a tool of private interests.
>Limited government cannot insure that private interests will not use
>this government for their own agenda.  

Agreed.  

>But this is not a failure of libertarianism.  It is the fact that 
>"Utopia is not an option."  There is no single system where everything 
>is perfect.  

It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  Just
as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
condition.

>So it is wise to look
>for the best solution.  If you  compare countries to see which ones
>people would rather live in, which ones have less starvation, hunger,
>poverty, and misery, you will find that they have a more limitted
>government than countries with alot of poverty, misery and suffering.
>No, limitted government cannot "insure" anything, but it sure is better
>than the alternative (big government.)

This is a strawman argument and fails on several grounds.  In this case,
"limited" and "big" government are not defined.  I would point out that
Lebanon, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia are by some definitions nations
with "limited" government, while the US, Canada, and nations in Western 
Europe (where "people would rather live") are often pointed out as 
nations with "big government" from a libertarian point of view.  

The argument is not between those who want "limited" government and those
who want "unlimited" government.  It is between those who believe
government regulation in a capitalist economy serves worthwhile ends and
those who believe such regulation is neither desirable on empirical 
grounds nor justifiable on ideological grounds.

jsh
>-- 
>Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826
