X-Message-Number: 23106
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:13:45 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Message #23100 (Jerry Searcy)

>Again you use the term "radical" Libertarianism. I don't understand what 
>is radical about the ideas outlined by the Libertarian
>National Committee.

I really used the term too loosely--should have been more careful--but I 
can now see a basis for what seems to be a reasonable definition. A 
"radical" libertarian would advocate a libertarian revolution--a more 
conservative libertarian would advocate a more gradual transition, testing 
the system at lesser levels before jumping to higher ones. (So it appears 
you would qualify as a "radical" whereas I would be a "conservative.")

>I also fail to see how a Libertarian government would decay into anarchy.

Actually, anarchy is one condition that is inherently unstable, I think. 
_No_ system would remain anarchic for long, somebody or group takes over, 
or you can get several contending groups. (Did I ever say otherwise?) The 
libertarian government would not end up this way, but some other way 
perhaps, that was not libertarian.

>...You seem to defend the present system by pointing out that it prevented 
>Josef Stalin from annexing the U.S. That is the
>primary (if not only) function of the federal government. Under the 
>libertarians that would remain the primary function. Again,
>I fail to see that as a reasonable argument against the Libertarian party 
>assuming control over the federal government.

And I wasn't using this to make any case _against the LP_. Instead, this 
example was to show that the federal government deserves (at least) some 
credit for the good features of our system today, though of course it isn't 
perfect and maybe some other system could have done better.

...
>The fact that there
>are several thousand registered libertarians in the U.S. and in other 
>countries, that there exist in Washington the Cato
>institute and a large volume of libertarian literature exist by several 
>different authors should suggest that the "natural way"
>might not be universal.

Not universal, but it's thousands versus millions.


>You say things might not work the way libertarians imagine. This cannot be 
>proved but if Thomas Jefferson, etal were
>returned to life and introduced to our current government, they would 
>probably feel that something went wrong. It could be
>said that government the way they imagined "didn't work" and I would 
>strongly agree!

For one thing, what would Jefferson think of things like the moon landing, 
automatic language translation, the artificial heart, cars, airplanes, and 
so on? Surprise! My feeling is that that might temper his judgment a bit 
about what the government has turned into. As for the income tax, he might 
be rather surprised at how much income (including net income) people were 
making in the first place, as well as some of the things money can now buy 
that it couldn't in his time.

>...
>It is true that Socialism doesn't jibe with human nature, but the system 
>survived in the U.S.S.R. for 70 years and still survives
>to a greater or lesser degree in most countries. Does the fact that it 
>still exist mean that Socialism "works"?

Well, so far it has demonstrated more "workability" than a libertarian 
system which is nonexistent.

>The Federal Government is in your life from the time you lie down on a 
>government approved mattress to the time you
>awake and take a shit on a government mandated toilet.

A lot of people, though, probably see that in a positive light, the 
government "looking out" for them. (Not that I can't see problems here 
myself, but there are some benefits too.)

>The fact that you can send these messages without censorship
>means nothing.

Means something to me. The feds have tried this and that, but not always 
succeeded. Not all of them are single-minded about this either, I suspect. 
The fact that the system as a whole has so far kept this particular 
censorship from happening says something about the government, 
notwithstanding efforts on the part of some officials to clamp down.

>...They would like nothing better than to monitor everyone's e-mail and 
>the "Patriot
>Act" i.e. the Orwellian Act has just made that goal a lot easier!!

I tend to blame bin Laden for that more than anyone else.

>You say if Congress ignores the constitution why people
>and/or the Libertarian party are not filing lawsuits? Lawsuits have been 
>filed...to defend the first and second amendments.

What I think is that the Constitution is interpreted differently by most 
people than by strict libertarians. The latter hold property rights in far 
higher regard than most people, where "property" refers to just about 
anything you reasonably think of as your own. The Constitution speaks of 
"promoting the general welfare" and I suspect that covers a lot of ground 
in many people's minds, including justices of the Supreme Court. In 
particular, many think it acceptable to use taxpayer money ("property") to 
fund projects seen as benefiting the public. Madison had things to say on 
"welfare," but I don't think the concept and scope of it has ever been 
really nailed down.

>Anytime an attack is made on the first amendment the media and lawyers 
>react with a vengeance.

The issues are clearer here in many minds.


>... Have you heard of the Free State Project?

Yes, and I would like to see it succeed just as you would.
One thought is, it should be a great place for a cryonics operation, 
assuming climate and other things were favorable. But realistically, I 
think its chances are slim, though of course I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23106