Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 May 2001 17:12:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
602 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > There is nothing new under the sun. Government has always been
> > bureaucratic and inherently corruptable; it's just that the manifestations
> > of corruption and bureaucracy have not always taken the same forms.
> > Likewise, the means by which government is purchased have not always been
> > the same.
>
> Less government power, less possible avenues of corruption.
>
> Yes, private interests also can be corrupt, but as long as there are no
> barriers to entry, corrupt (and therefore inefficent) companies get
> displaced by honest ones.
>
> ++Lar
Larry:
I'm much persuaded by many of your arguments in favor of Libertarianism. I have,
however, some lingering doubts about Libertarianism on a fundamental level. In
other words, I feel that it is based on a principle (insofar as I understand it)
that is, IMO, flawed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Libertarianism believe that an environment
congenial to personal liberties (i.e., a society in which people are free to act
in their own best interests with freedom from all but the most limited and basic
government restraints) will naturally produce a humane society because its lack
of higly-structured political and economic systems thereby prevents the
development of institutions of graft (because there no longer exists a power
structure which fosters and gives incentives to graft)? In other words,
everyone not only has the freedom to live on their own nickel, but is in effect
*forced* to do so, and therefore, one will not be able to survive at the expense
of others because the structures of formal social government are so loose as to
render unprofitable any attempts to exert excessive economic/political control
over others? In still other words, the networks of authority are too loose to
render graft profitable?
If this is your assertion, then I say that its a fine idea, in theory, but
suspect in practice. What is the Libertarian take on public institutions that
benefit the public good? Can we trust airlines to keep their planes safe
without an FAA? Sure, the market will be sifted when an airline has a crash or
two, but what if airlines conspire to exert monopoly control, and safety
regulations be d****d? What of highway builders? The road is already
laid...why should they care if the curves on their highway can really accomodate
a vehicle at 70 mph? Are there, in fact, certain areas of public interest that
can only be served by a powerful governmental regulatory oversight? Can we in
fact trust those with personal liberty to use it justly when public interest is
at stake, or do we not instead *need* powerful checks on the ability of
corporations/individuals to overwhelmingly act in their own economic self-
interests when the public good (or even public interest in their endeavors) are
at stake?
In a nutshell, it seems to me that Libertarianism has an unrealistic and flawed
optimism in the goodness of humanity. What is your take? I'd like to vote for
a party other than the Demopublicans, but I just don't see a viable option.
james
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
