Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>]

> >  Eh?  What history books have you
> > Libertarians been reading?  The whole reason the social support system
> > came about is because in the absence of "government charity" whole swaths
> > of the public (workers, the impoverished, non-Whites, women, etc.) were
> > being screwed.  They're still being screwed.  Capitalism, by it's very
> > nature, concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a very few, and
> > those few are loathe to give it up.

Those societies were not libertarian in nature, so it's not an apples to
apples comparison.  Capitalism *can* "concenrate wealth and power into 
the hands of a very few," but I disagree with saying that it *must* do 
so.  Very early America, shortly after the Revolution, is probably the 
closest a society has come to purely libertarian ideals, and from what 
history I've read, it doesn't sound like they had it so bad.



> > To wit: Capitalism does not teach one to set a *fair*
> > price for one's goods, rather you should set the price to *fair market
> > value* , which isn't fair at all (notice the coopting of the word 'fair')
> > -- it means set the price to whatever you can get away with.  For 

This is why it's critical to have free-trade and open markets... 
competition keeps the costs of products from becoming artificially high.
And this is why I do support (some) government intervention, in the case
of monopolies.


> Capitalism says that "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder - or 
> buyer.  

Who's eye would you say it should be in?


> Monopolies and unfair trade practices are exception to this rule 
> for some capitalists.

I personally am in favor of anti-trust laws, and government intervention
to prevent abusive monopolies from screwing the consumer.  Capitalistic
systems, like all systems, can get a little out of balance at times,
and there needs to be somebody to give things a nudge in the right 
direction.



> > Now (to bring this around again) if Libertarians think that charity will
> > happen in the absence of government, do they also think that government
> > will happen in the absence of government?  Are Libertarians really
> > Anarchists in disguise?  

Some Libertarians are anarchists.  By no means is it correct to say that
all are.  Really, if you take *any* political ideology to it's extreme,
the results aren't pretty.  Take the Democratic parties platform, 
distort it by pushing it further and further left, and you'll pass 
through socialism and wind up with communism.  Take the Republican 
position, drive it as far right as you can, and you'll wind up at 
fascism.  Take Libertarianism to it's extreme, and you get anarchism.

The interesting thing is, in the case of either communism or fascism,
it seems that when societies slide to those extremes, they inevitably
wind up with some degree of totalitarianism as well.  Personally, given 
a choice between a totalitarian society, or an anarchistic society, I'll 
take my chances with anarchy.  At least I have the freedom to make
my own choices, and am responsible for the outcome of my life.


> > As a test we could, say, do away with speed
> > limits, right?  We'll all self-regulate; everyone knows speeding is
> > dangerous and wastes fuel.  In the absence of speed limits everyone will
> > drive sensibly anyway, right?  (That's an oversimplified example; don't
> > take me too literally.)

Actually you probably could do away with speed limits, although I don't
know many people (Libertarian or otherwise) who seriously advocate that
approach.  After the Federal government dropped their mandate that all 
the states enforce a 55 mph speed limit, one state did go to a policy of
no upper speed limit on their limited access highways, during daylight 
hours.  I don't know if that's still their policy or not, but it
illustrates that the idea of eliminating speed limits is not as 
ridiculous as you apparently believe.

FWIW, speed limits are, as I understand, based on measurements of actual 
traffic speed in a given area, anyway.  Traffic actually is mostly 
self-regulating, and they take the 80th or 85th (I forget which) 
percentile speed, and make that the speed limit.  Of course, there will
always be a few idiots on the highways, but that's the case whether 
there is a speed limit or not.


> > And, just to round it all out and really make this a mess of a 
> > discussion,
> > I'd like to add that I'm all for less Federal Government and more State
> > Government (states' rights), but what I'd very much like to see is for 
> > the
> > real power in the country to be handed down to local or regional
> > governments (getting back to that Anthropological, small-society
> > concept)...

That sounds pretty Libertarian to me.  :-)  Most Libertarians DO
support exactly that, and I certainly do, for one.  It just
makes sense that when the "power" of government is pushed down
to the lower levels, the government becomes more accountable
and responsive, and the people living in a given area have a more
direct ability to alter the government to suit their local preferences.


TTYL,

Phil
--
Vote Badnarik for President 2004
www.badnarik.org

FREE AMERICA
Vote Libertarian
www.lp.org