Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 May 2001 15:28:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1177 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > [T]here's lots of areas of this current debate I've passed on simply because I
> > think the statements of the individuals stand fine and don't need debate
> > even if I find myself in disagreement (the subject of roads, for example,
> > which is nit-picky and I see no need to fault the Libertarian views).
>
> I agree that it's nit-picky when taken on its own, but the mindset is
> symptomatic of an apparent and as yet unresolved shortcoming of the
> Libertarian view--namely that those who are able to afford better conditions
> will become better able to afford better conditions, while those unable to
> afford them will become increasingly unable to afford them. This is
> consistent with just about everything I've read in the various debates,
> specifically as they've pertained to the miltary, schooling, road systems,
> government, and even property itself.
>
> Dave!
Sorry, I wasn't trying to pass judgement on either side. I understand the
point you have been trying to make, I'd just choose different ground to make
it on than the roads. The roads in the poorer parts of SoCal tend to be
broken up, the rich areas are smooth. That's as it stands. Now, the ones
supporting commerce rather than individuals' homes are usually adequate to
the job if not perfect, but the point is the problem already exists. Would
the Libertarian view excaberate it? Possibly - I would think so. But then,
in practice, where are the Libertarian's really wrong? Communities
currently support their local roads through taxes and buy and maintain what
they can afford. What's really different, except the process? They might
put up toll-booths rather than tax gas.
Like you, I feel some level of socialization is a benefit. I think social
mobility is important to a healthy society. Libertarians no doubt agree on
the latter, if not the former. Libetarians are probably of the opinion that
social mobility would be increased in a Libertarian society. In theory, I'm
not sure they are wrong. In practice....let me simply note that
Libertarians are overwhelmingly white males.
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
