From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: More on limiting libertarians
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 100
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com

In article <18APR199320091677@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.174237.11229@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes...
>> 
>
>Okay,  let me try to explain this.
>
>When one votes for such a creature as a Senator or,  worse yet,  a President,
>one votes not for specific policies but for a general package which must cover
>all issues for 4 or 6 years.  As such,  one's influence is highly diluted.
>I might add that,  even if one were free to vote on individual regulations,
>the vast amount of time required for considering a particular regulation,
>combined with the very small chance of one's vote making a difference,  would
>make it unreasonable to expect the voter to make an intelligent decision
>with respect to specific regulations.     

I'm afraid that I've lost the thread here.  I didn't suggest that all 
government regulations be subject to referenda.  So I don't follow the 
comments above.

>> 
>> 
>:Sorry, but it strikes me that it is the only "feasible" approach.  What is
>:not feasible is a wholesale attack on all government regulation and 
>:licensing that treats cutting hair and practicing medicine as equivalent
>:tasks.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "feasible" in this case.  Do you mean that
>[] are impossible in priciple,  or merely that it would be undesirable in
>fact?

I mean that an ideology that treats all government regulation as equally
undesirable and seeks to abolish all regulations is unlikely to draw
support among more than a miniscule portion of the electorate.

Furthermore, I am suggesting that such a plan is not feasible in an
industrial society because the weight of litigation and/or misery it
would produce would effectively crush productive effort.
>
>
>:Actually, the only areas of public spending above that strike me as 
>:generating substantial support among libertarians are police and defense.
>:(It is an interesting aside that as committed as libertarians claim to
>:be to a principle of non-coercion, the only areas of public spending
>:that they frequently support involve hiring people with guns....hmmm...)
>
>You say this as if it were surprising,  yet in fact a necessary consequence
>of libertarian philosophy.  All non-coersive functions should be dealt 
>with privately,  therefore it follows that the only functions remaining to
>the state are the coersive ones.

No, I'm not surprised.  I just think it's interesting that on one hand
libertarians assume a limited government can be decreed, yet on the other
posit an entire government made up of people who carry guns.  (I realize
that many libertarians assume that such a government will be 
counterbalanced by a fully armed citizenry, but it is worth noting that
widespread civilian ownership of guns does not necessarily prevent the
establishment of totalitarian government, e.g. Iraq.)
>
>> 
>:Perhaps you have.  May I suggest that you consider that revolutionaries
>:frequently generate support by acting as protectors of "geezers," 
>:mothers and children.  Governments that ignore such people on the grounds
>:that "we don't have much to fear" from them do so at their own peril.
>
>Much more likely it's drunken teenagers.  The groups in questionare more 
>likely to be worse off during and after a revolution than before.  
>In the unlikely
>event that you missed my earlier sarcasm,  let me say this directly:
>The idea that such programs as Social Security or AFDC should be considered
>"defense" (an idea which has been advanced in ths and other newsgroups) is
>so absurd a lie as to be unworthy of consideration.  Do you seriously
>dispute this?

Yup, sure do.  But since I also support the constitutional requirement
that the government provide for the general welfare (Article I section 8),
I'm willing to justify such programs on that basis.
>
>
>	I don't want to seem patronizing,  but you still seem to be laboring
>under the delusion that under a socialized economic system it is reasonably
>intelligent and honest persons (like yourself) who make the decisions.
>I feel any third party added to a transaction is every bit as likely to be
>ignorant or corrupt as the buyer or seller.  I don't expect you to agree
>with me,  but you explain why you feel I'm wrong?

Well, in the first place, I don't support a "socialized economic system."
I think within limits that capitalism is a fine idea.  But it is not
the case that "any third party...is...as likely to be ignorant or corrupt
as the buyer or seller."  There are multitudes of examples where such a
statement is demonstrably false.  Regulation of stock market transactions
that provide a reasonable basis for buyers to avoid fraud is only one
example.

jsh

>Mr. Grinch
--
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
