It seems that it is impossible to find the delineation between CLinton,
democrats, and republicans. Where are the perty lines these days? Clintno
obviously moving to the center is now endorsing things like schoool prayer, a
position that the democrat never take a poisiotn of. I think that one thing is
clear. In this era of big government, we must stand to protect the rights of
the indvidual and stop impoing taxes and laws that violate the indivdual's
capability of making up his/her own mind.

36 responses total.

You may think that republicans may stand on your side against big gov't but
think agian. It is they who want to impose morality inside our bedrooms and
behind our doors. I may seem impractical , burt I say Libertarianism or
bust!!!!

   I can't quite agree with that.  Any party that denies the right of
public property to exist doesn't quite make it with me.  Other thoughts
of the Libertarians do make sense, and perhaps they'll propagate back to
the big two parties as Libertarians gain more percentage of each election.

Actually, I have to disagree with Davidde, I think there *are*
substantial differences between republicans & democrats.  Not that
either of them is necessarily good; sometimes I think it's a question of
which way would you rather kill yourself: fire or water? Unfortunately,
while I *am* bothered by the size of government, and the taxes, & their
willingness to involve themselves in matters that are none of their
business; I don't think libertarianism is the way to go.  Libertarians
don't seem bothered by the concept of rich powerful selfish individuals,
or of rich powerful corporations; I fear yellowstone national park will
just turn into another outpost of disneyland, while central Detroit will
turn into a feudal empire of petty drug lord kings.  Not that democrats
or republicans are that much better here, of course!

I beleive that Marcus, Steve and I can all can find a middle ground among us.
The word "libertarian" is thrown out and everybody becomes worried. There are
different shades or degrees of libertarianism. Most people begin ot fear it
because people hear these statemnts and are unsure of them. Waht is important
is not that we all joing the libertarian party, but we all recognize  the
values of individual rights and convey that message to our electeds reps.

I worry because I'm convinced libertarians would be no better.  I think
the real danger is from "large organizations" and I don't think it much
matters if it's big government, big business, crazy fundementalists, or
organized crime.  To me, any organization that profits at the expense
of the individual is questionable, at best.

   There is common ground, I hope.  I want to see less government wherever
possible, but there are still areas where government will probably work
best.  Unforunately, one of the more important aspects of this over the
next several decades is going to be pollution control, chief among them
the various radio-active waste dumps and manufacturing sites that made
the weaponary that 'kept America strong' during the Cold War.
   So we get to still have a lot of government.  I'd like to see it be
rather different that what we have today.  Hearing my farmer friends
talk about the Dept. of Agraculture makes me believe their statements
that they'd all be better off without them, and take the few good parts
and graft them onto something else.  Entities like the ICC (Interstate
Commerce Commission) need to simply be phased out.  Others, like the FCC
desperately need to be enlarged to enfore and define new technical
standards such that electromagnetic interference problems can be dealt
with.
   Unforunately, I don't see *any* party having anything close to a
coherent platform.  We quibble over issues like school prayer yet
ignore the large issues.
   I do however believe that overall the Democrats care about people
considerably more than the Republicans, which is one of the main reasons
I still consider myself a Democrat (with strong libertarian-like tendencies).

I think the best results could be obtained by electing a slew of Libertarians
to congress, just enough to scare the hell out of the big party folks, and
stir up the pot a bit, not enough to let the libbies get all their reforms
through.  This would clearly send the message that although we don't 
necessarily want to live under the extreme Libertarian ideal, we are fed up
with what the dems and reps are doing.

I think the big party folks have less control than ever before over who
gets elected, even from within their own self-appointed ranks.  As an
extreme example I'd point out that Senators used to be appointed
(essentially) rather than chosen in general elections.  And there are
already plenty of frightening individuals (from whatever perspective)
floating around Congress, without adding more to the mix just for the sake
of shaking things up. If you like the Liberterians, I'd say vote Lib. 
Like every political party, they start with a broad ideal that is very
appealing.  I happen to think that fear of what would follow in their wake
is more than a mild fear of the unknown.  I think it is pretty easy to
guess what kind of unchecked quasi-governmental institutions would fill the
void created by their de-govermentation of the U.S.A. leaving a most
extreme unlibertarian situation.

   I think the two major parties are already getting scared.  Here in
Michigan, the Libertarian candidate Jon Coon got something like 4.2% of
the vote.  The magic limit is %5, because at that point the Libertarians
would have been considered a "major party" according to michigan elections
laws, and would put them in a much better light, I think.
   Since it didn't happen this election, I wonder what the chances are
that it will happen in the next one?  People are definately getting
pissed.

There are some other parties that I wished I knew more about.  There is
the "green party"; which seems to be an extension of something that is
quite big in europe.  They seem very much in favour of protecting the
environment, which I believe in just as much; but the greens also seem
to have a fear of science/technology, which I don't agree with.

There is also something called the "new party" which seems an extremely
non-descript name.  The few things I heard sound promising, but don't
seem to be very complete: I can't figure out if it's just I haven't run
across the right sources yet, they're trying to hide something I'd like
that might scare other people, or they're trying to hide something that
would scare me.

Is the Citizen's party still around?  Barry Commoner grabbed a lot of
attention as a national candidate for prez in '80, but I think the party
was more grass roots in nature and in fact split or deflated after BC's run.

   The Greens here in the US are doomed if they follow the ideas of the
Greens in Europe.  I remember Petra, and while she had good ideas, they
reminded me of euro-hippes, taking US type hippie values from the 60's
with european flair.  I happened to blunder into a Greens demonstration
in Utrecht once, and even found a willing Dutch Green person to give me
a live translation to English for me so I could get the message too!  But
they definately had a fear of technology, and that doesn't work.
   After recently reading a Green newspaper here, where they were
all joyous about the recent mishap at Fermi, I lost all interest in them.

   Don't think the Citizen's Party exists any more.

Is the New Alliance party going anywhere?  I never could get a good sense
of them, other than that they seemed vaguely wacky.

Libertarians certainly contribute some useful bits of ideas, though some
real wackiness too.  I don't know that I'd say there' *too* much more
frighteningly wacky than any other party.

   As far as I can see, they aren't "whacky".  They just have some
extreme views (like the sell-the-parks idea).

(Who wants to sell the parks, New Alliance or Libs?  I assume you mean
national parks, along with national monuments and national forests and
just about any other federally owned land they could unload except maybe
the Mall?)

Probably the mall 2.  No doubt the gov't would end up renting some 2-bit
ratty back stairs offices owned by some slum lord down on the potomac.

Let there be Greens, Libertarians and Lesbians! But, lets get out of majority
screws all the rest. Everybody has a point of view that works in some part of
the  picture.  Right now, somebody needs to me minding the kids, everybody that
I know that has kids is working so many hours to keep the act together. And
Teens should  not be let be to run amok, This is an area that everybody has
failed to come up with good ideas. I do not want to come off as a Quale knock
off, better life for all is the goal, not 70 inch color TVs.

Here *here*!

The most important thing that can result from the libertarian's party rise is
not to elect them in office but to make america aware of liberties that the
government is constantly denying. The libertarian party seems to be one giant
infommercial with a  very powerfuyl message

Orwell, try hitting return when you get out to column 75 or so, because we
don't have line wrap on Grex, and it makes you post hard to read.

Your post is right on, though. Libertarians are much less likely to get
elected than they are to influence others. 

The libertarians may well think they're concerned about liberties; but I
don't think that's how the politicians have interpreted them.  The
interpretation the politicians have chosen seems to be "less government
and more liberties for the rich and for big corporatins".  When it comes
to other liberties, which I think could better be described as
"personal" liberties, the libertarians have not done a good job of
expressing their views (if they care), and the politicians certainly
don't care.  That covers such issues as TV, sex, drugs, criminal
justice, the environment, etc.--all issues where I think there's a real
danger of not having much in the way of personal liberties, but only big
business.

Marcus, the purpose of liberty is to gn the capability of living life
on your own terms. The "rich" getting "richer" is not a persuasive argument 
for me. In fact it only feeds my assumptions. The only alternative to liberty
is justice. The state of pure liberty necessariliy provides its own system
 
internal checks agianst tyranny. If a rich corporation can get richer,
can it nor afford to expand and thus hire more workers, thus providing
more for the common good? I agree with you on the level that politicians
do not seem to listen to what the true meaning of the libertarian intent,
but it is up to us (society) to tell the politicans that what we want/. 
Polticians dont listen to libertarians, people do. 

Have you ever read _The Grapes of Wrath_?  I think that shows what 
happens when the rich have ultimate liberty....

They will force the poor to endure every other chapter containing nothing but
imagery without any plot development?

I'd think the early industrial era does provide ample evidence to that
effect, of course.  Or have Libertarians decided maybe the government
does have business in not allowing an eight year old to work twelve
hours a day in a factory for fifty cents an hour, even if all parties
involved are consenting?

The feudal era is I think a wonderful example of what happens if you
have a weak or non-existant central government.  For instance, if rich
person (a) provides for the common good by raising his wages slightly,
while person (b) decides instead to cut his prices - then person (b)
wins in the marketplace and makes the most money - so you end up with a
system where most people are becoming poorer and poorer and wealth is
concentrated into the hands of the greedy and mean spirited.  That
happens even if most of the rich and powerful don't want that to happen;
it only takes a few mean spirited persons to force the rest of the rich
people to have to compete.  The 2nd problem is that of bandits - a small
percentage of poor persons decide to exercise their liberty by opting
out of the system and preying on anybody who isn't well protected; and
so people find they have to congregate into armed and walled villages.

Essentially, this is exactly what happened to the roman republic (which
was, in many ways, an admirable example of enlightened and liberal state
in its day).  It is fascinating to see some of the same things already
starting to happen in our own day and age.

Scary thought.  8*@

This is the very first thing I have written (anywhere) on a computer 
interactive mode.  It is not easy, it seems to be taking a long time to get to
the screen. A small comment on libertarians.  They have some appeal to
conservatives such as myself, but I have to back away when I consider the
consequences of complete libertarianism :Anarchy.  We must have some order, or
else whe are barbarians with little protection  for indivicMMi Sorry, got cut
off.  I think I was saying theat with libertarianism, we would essentially have
mob rule.  As Jefferson said, "Governments are  instituted among men to secure
these liberties..."  I do think government is way too big and intrusive in our
econmic and personal lives.  Well, I feel really disjointed by this experience.
 I wonder if it looks like anything at all.  I amm usually slightly more
eloqwuent..

Marcus, your analogy about the middle ages seems to ignore the theory of
market economics. Libertarians, if not anything else, beleive in the pure
market economy. In this system prices would be set through competition.
In this fashion captialists can maximize profit and ensure no oligoploies
are present. The market system provides social harmony. Capitalist=comp.
Compeition for more workers = higher wages. Higher wages= everybody benefits
Libertarians do not bleive in no central gov't Most agree that the gov't should
make sure our food isn't poisoned or htat product companies make are safe
for people to use. Rember, it is the ideal that is important, not the  actual
implementation of this ideal on the rea lgov't.

On the contrary, market forces should ideally determine the safety of the water
supply, and the food.  However, without government to create and enforce
antitrust laws, what's to prevent corporate entities, formerly in competition,
from joining forces under the table to prevent consumer access to a product at
anything less than a rapacious price?

The concept of a perfectly clearing market is a laugh.  There will always
be obstructions and manipulations that have to be regulated around.  

I'm not sure which theory of market economics you think I'm ignoring.
The theories I've heard of generally assume a fairly large number of
fairly small players who all play fair, and make a number of other
important simplifications.  But when you look at the real world, those
are false assumptions, and the forces hidden by those assumptions lead
to other long-term developments that can't be predicted by the model.
For instance - historically, "small players" was in fact a more or less
safe assumption.  When all communications had to be penned out by
scholars, and carried by messengers on the backs of animals or pushed by
the wind, there were definite limits to how large and complex an
organization could grow.  All of that changed with the train, the
telegraph, the typewriter, and the computer.  It is now possible to run
large highly efficient organizations, and shear size usually turns out
to be the dominant factor in determining competitiveness.  So what one
really finds is that, when new markets open up, they are initially
populated by a large number of small players, but that as time goes on,
the small players either merge or are driven out of the market place,
eventually leading to a small number of large players who then typically
stagnate.  This is not at all what the "ideal" model predicts, and the
resulting situation does not typically have very many of the "desirable"
qualities the model promises.

Another factor not usually considered in the classical models is that
real world markets usually exhibit many of the properties of what
mathematicians today are calling "chaotic systems".  Generally, these
systems have some sort of non-linear feedback mechanism in them; and
very often, these systems have some parameter (which we might call the
"temperature") which when varied from its minimum to its maximum, drives
the system through 3 distinct kinds of states: an essentially stable low
energy equilibrium where things smoothly correct themselves, a higher
energy state characterized by one or more kinds of harmonic
oscillations, and a high energy state characterized by irregular and
unpredictable ("random") swings.  Even in the high energy state there
can be very beautiful patterns, which have only recently received
serious mathematical attention.

While in mathematics these chaotic patterns can be works of art, in the
real world, they are generally only considered unacceptable defects.  In
the 19th century, these lead to booms & panics, which didn't really
affect most people because they lived out on farms and could afford to
spend a year out of touch with civilization if the market crashed that
year.  In the 20th century, as people moved into cities, that became
unacceptable, and so we now have an impressive assortment of controls
designed to prevent the repeat of anything like the great depression of
the 30's.  Since most of these controls were invented before anybody
except a few crazy nuts were interested in chaotic math, it's not clear
that we are in fact safe - or future technological or market changes
won't render such controls obselete.  But in any case, it's clear that a
completely free & uncontrolled market is not an acceptable real life
solution - and that there are other considerations that *have* to be
taken into account in analyzing modern capitalism.

Capitalism was only one of the examples that i choose to point out the necessi
ies of free individualism. Economic freedom and personal freedoms are
intertwined, noe cannot exist without the other absolutely. Capitalism
in its pure philosophical state is the freest of economic system. What is
the alternative marcus? Economic philosophy can only exist at a level
where things become oversimplfied. A pure capitalist system (i.e. where
supply and demand set the true price of a service or produuct) is 
very similar ot a democracy. Sure, both systems have aptitudes to create
demagogues, but internal checks in the system will prevent it. Even Adam
Smith admits that the gov't should exist to ensure fair competiton and
relative safety of products in industry. But even this theory goes astray
If you have ever read  Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, then you will understand
what I mean. The "equalization of Opportunity Bill" was passed in that book.
Under the law, a man could not own two busineses, only one, thus ensuring
"fair" competition. Yes, libertarians agree that gov't should exist to oversee,
not manage business (excuse the typos). Marcus, give me an alternative. Keynes?
Marx? Ricardo? Malthus? Laffer? Hobson? Marshall? As a student of economic
histroy, I must go with the market theory.

Atlas S'd is fiction, and a marginal manifesto for the real world.  The
characters are all..  eh... thin.  Liked it when I was 15.

Capitalism in its "purest" form is like radium: it rapidly turns into
something else, and nobody in their right mind would want to be near it.
I read Atlas S'd when I was 15 too--that's just about the right age to
read it.  The 2 things I got out of Atlas S'd, is that logic, by itself,
is NOT sufficient: it's just a tool and cannot be used to decide right &
wrong: and a distinct notion that any system that was willing to write
off a substantial number of persons was inherently flawed.  I'm sure the
latter, especially, was not what Ayn meant to say; but considering that
she managed to write off 98% of humanity in the course of the book, I
felt fairly justified in my conclusion.  Needless to say, I never became
a Randite.

I like some of what Morris has to say.  I don't know that he's really
any more practical than the rest of them, but I think he had a better
sense of what technology was going to do to the world than most people,
then or now.  Another guy I like, who actually has little to do with
economics, is Ralph Waldo Emerson - what I like are his ideas on
realizing human potential.  The reason why *that*'s important is because
when arguing the *virtues* of any economic system, it's not sufficient
to measure how closely it predicts real world behavior; or who practical
it might be to implement: it's also necessary to measure the quality of
the resulting world - and that can only be made in terms of realizing
human potential.

(... I *love* Emerson....)

Me too.  Just recently got around to joining the RWE Society
after all these years.  They publish a newsletter and have
annual meetings in Concord.  I got a nice handwritten letter
of welcome from the Secretary, Wesley Mott.  I had been a
member of the Thoreau Society for about 25 years - even published
in the Thoreau Society Bulletin - but in the past few years
I've grown sick of getting appeals for money from them.  They've
let all the celebs on the Walden Woods Project go to their heads,
in my opinion.  Now they're buying a big house in Lincoln (which
is to Boston as Bloomfield Hills is to Detroit) to house a
"research center."  Henry is spinning in his grave.  RWE is still
reposing peacefully, however, judging from the RWE Society
material I've seen.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss