X-Message-Number: 21909 From: Subject: message #21900 Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:44:59 +0000 Until now I was unaware of another form of Libertarianism. Any way, If the others are different, then I fail to see how they can be of a type I would support. I believe (as does the Libertarian party...the one formed in 1971!) that one's property belongs to him or her and no one else! If the other "Libertarians" disagree then we part company and, no Matthew, I have no interest in reading a long defense of such an undefensable point of view! Try defending child abuse or murder...both evil according to "my type of morality". Tariffs are only one way to support government. I would prefer a consumer fee to be paid at retail. No business to business transaction would pay any additional fee...only the market price (please don't tell me of another definition of market). As far as citizens possessing w.m.d., I admit not having a clear opinion on this. On the one hand it terrifys me, on the other, to defend oneself against tyrannical government it would seem the citizen should be equally armed. The Libertarian party (cir. 1971) is present in several countries to more or less of a degree and is not nationalistic (as I understand the term). According to the Libertarian publication, the party is having a degree of success in Costa Rica. The examples you give of people voluntarily cooperating for each other's best interest, a monastery for example are (by my definition of moral) themselves moral. No one is coerced to participate. All the examples of socialism I am familiar with have produced at best minimal prosperity (because it did allow a small amount of capitalism) or the horrors of Nazism or Stalinism. Again the other forms of collectively owned property seem to work because everyone was happy with it. When I say "socialism" (pay attention Matthew) I am referring to the kind that is enforced by the socialist government. If America had been as regulated, taxed and "socialized" at its start as it is now, can anyone hold a straight face and say we would possess a shadow of the prosperity we now possess? The prosperity we have is "in spite of", not "because of" government. Capitalist are masters at getting around the meddling of government bureaucrats. No Matthew, capitalism is not perfect, only (as Ayn Rand said) the most moral (there's that word again) system so far created. Mike, perhaps someday we will get an example of my style of Libertarianism although I believe as you seem to, that nanotechnology and other advances will probably arrive first and render such a system unnecessary as we find ourselves free to move away from earth and its stifling governments. As far as the people owning the means of production, I fail to see how we could progress much beyond farmers. To have technological progress individuals must be allowed to express their novel ideas and have access to the "means of production" to transform ideas into products. It is hard for me to imaging a committee of people agreeing on which idea and who should be allowed to do the research. Also there is the human nature factor...most people (I think I can speak for "most people" in this context)want to better themselves and their family. That fact alone is why socialism, as I defined it above, is a failure wherever it is enforced. Enough ranting for now, Jerry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21909