X-Message-Number: 21909
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,

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21909