X-Message-Number: 21894
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:13 +0900 (JST)
From: "Matthew S. Malek" <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #21882 - #21893

*sigh*  This is beginning to become somewhat tiresome.

======>On June 5 2003, Jerry T. Searcy wrote:
> The Libertarian party that advocates the Libertarian philosophy I
> subscribe to was formed in 1971.

I am well aware of that.

At the time time of the party's founding, they took the name of a
political philosophy (Libertarianism) that had been in use for well over a
century and decided to name themselves after it without actually ascribing
to the mode of thought.  This is much what the National Socialists did, as
they as much to do with Socialism as the Libertarian Party has to do with

And to any who feel like invoking "Godwin's Law," I should point out that
I consider the so-called "law" to be childish at best and repressive at
worst.  I certainly do not and never will ascribe to such a thing.

> I have not a clue as to what Libertarian-Socialism means.

This much is clear.

> [In Socialism] the government takes from the producer an "amount". It
> then redistributes that "amount" to someone with no moral claim to it.

You appeal to "morality" is interesting.
Do you assume that everyone holds the same moral values as you do?

Personally, I find it to be morally reprehensible that some possess
billions in assets while forty thousand people die every day of hunger and
curable diseases.

Redistributing wealth in such a world as ours is hardly immoral to me.

> By that definition, Libertarianism (the type promoted by the 32 year
> old...not century or more old that you discuss...Libertarian party is
> in no way socialist!).

This sentence is gibberish, but if I think that I can parse your meaning
from your next sentence:

> The Libertarian party I am affiliated with IS NOT
> Libertarian-Socialism!

I agree with with this statement completely.  The right-Libertarian Party
is definitely not Socialist.  I never claimed that it was.  I simply made
reference to Libertarian Socialism, which you claimed to be oxymoronic.
At which point I corrected you and noted that your problem stemmed from
your vague use of the term "Libertarian."

I would further add to your declaration that:
"The Libertarian party you are affiliated with IS NOT Libertarian!"

> They abhor Socialism for the corrupt and immoral product it has
> produced anywhere it exist. Take a look at Cuba, China, North Korea,

All good examples of the Authoritarian Socialism that spread during the
twentieth century.  Indeed, I should point out that I, and other
Libertarian Socialists, abhor the situations in these countries, too.

> For that matter look at the American experiment in Socialism: Social
> Security Administration, Medicare, H.U.D., H.E.W., the "education"
> department, D.E.A.,B.A.T., F.B.I.,...and on and on. This certainly is
> not what our founding fathers had in mind when they created this
> country.

Do you believe that a country where corporations are accorded the same
rights as people is what the founding fathers had in mind?

> Thanks for the offer of books but I am up to my neck in books and
> magazines. My political philosophy was formed around 1986 after
> reading Atlas Shrugged. Any philosophy that promotes mandatory
> redistribution of wealth and unrestrained government regulation (as
> exist now) I oppose. No need to read long excuses by their supporters
> as to why they consider such tactics "good for me".

My goodness!  How to respond to such a paragraph.
There are so many fallacies contained within it.

To begin with, it is interesting that you dismiss a philosophy that you
clearly know nothing about and then claim that you have no need to read
about it because you have already dismissed it.  This is true circular
logic at work.

Next, I should refer you to everything that I have written in the past few
days, since you seem to think that I have equated Libertarian Socialism
with "unrestrained government regulation."  I have said no such thing.

Finally, I should point out that such unrestrained government regulation
does not exist now, as you claim.  I think that this should be
self-evident and need no further proof to be offered.

=>Best regards,

   Matthew S. Malek        |    "Judging by his outlandish attire, he's
       |     some sort of free-thinking anarchist!"

         "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of
          atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a
          remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

                                              --George Orwell

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21894