Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jan 2000 05:02:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1657 times
|
| |
|
|
<386EFD98.7B4CFC41@pilot.msu.edu> <FnqIsM.4Lo@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John DiRienzo wrote:
> Mr L F Braun wrote in message <386EFD98.7B4CFC41@pilot.msu.edu>...
> > By John's definition, the socialist/anarchist Utopian projects *are* in the • same
> > category as "libertopias". I fail to see how "workable by adaptation" • would
> > make it any different than the other types of idealized "new societies" • I've
> > mentioned (leaving Lysenko aside, please). When you get down to it, even
> > uttering the Panglossian "best of all possible worlds" means you're talking
> > Utopia--because even if you don't intend to reach (or even if you say it's
> > impossible to reach!) what More or Owen or Marx were describing, you're • still
> > talking about changing (or dismantling) the rules of engagement to some • optimal
> > point. That our Utopias are imperfect says more about the age we live in • than
> > about some fundamental difference between the ideas.
>
> In 1907 the Federal government in the US imposed income tax. People
> adapted to that. Whats the problem? Its not a utopian dream. It is a
> system of governing that is superior to any in current use, that can be
> worked towards. It will require change, adaptation, and will take time.
> Time it will certainly take - the only way things change quickly are by war,
> a coup d'etat, or perhaps a natural (or economic) tragedy - and thats not
> how to implement this. To implement this instantly, it would fail (as
> previously discussed). Unlike Socialism, which can not work instantly or by
> evolution, this can, every step of the way, as long the steps are well
> paced. Socialism is ~entirely~ different (study the two set of ideals
> before saying its the same Please!) and has failed in all implementations,
> slow or sudden.
There are a lot of Europeans who would disagree with you that "slow" socialism
has failed. It's alive and well in most of Western Europe, although not in a
form that a Marxist or Owenite would recognize. It's a point in a process,
although there's no "necessary end" to the process that's operating anymore
(regardless of what various Left parties in Europe might say about it).
Please don't think I haven't studied the systems and their implementation--in
fact, it's just about all I do, because it's an integral part of my doctoral
programme. I just made the assumption that you would understand the nature of
my analogy, but perhaps I assumed too much (or you presumed too little of me).
My familiarity with political systems is precisely why I made my statement.
It's the sort of change that's being considered, not the specifics or the
direction (if there is such a thing). I don't for *one second* mean to imply
that Libertarianism = Socialism/socialism/Communism in any of its flavors. On
pragmatic issues, they're diametrically opposed. However, I agree with the
heart of what you're saying.
> > What definition of "libertopia" did you think I was using? I was talking • about
> > a society of rights, where the individual is paramount and governing bodies • did
> > not interfere with any but the basest functions--defense, for example, or • the
> > prosecution of heinous crimes (although that's a grey area to a few people • I
> > know--not here, though--who profess themselves Libertarian). The way it's • come
> > across to me is as the ultimate iteration of Adam Smith's vision of the • ideal
> > state, free individual, and unfettered free trade. Now, if that's not what • you
> > mean, let me know. My original objection to its feasibility *presently*
> > (although not necessarily *for all time*) is unchanged.
>
> Well, thats refreshing! I have never read Adam Smith, I fear him a
> plagiarist. I think you have a better grasp of the idea than most who hear
> the word Libertarian. I don't know the exact definition myself. I agree,
> we are not going to jump into some idealistic fantasy with the next
> election, but by hard work and perseverance, we can see changes within our
> world that are for the better - steps in the right direction. Showing
> people the fundamentals, so they can see what we are hoping to step towards
> is a necessity, and you would be surprised by the number who respond
> positively to it. Arguing that this can happen to the whole world or to a
> whole country at once is nearly pointless, but it can happen...
Unfortunately, this usually results in bloodshed. (Adam Smith a plaigarist?
How so? He wrote _The Wealth of Nations_ [short title] in 1773-76--so most
plaigarize from him, not the other way around. ;) )
> so far gone that discussion is a waste of time, but they rarely stick around
> long... Thus who do listen are something to be grateful for. One down,
> only five billion to go.
The Westerners aren't so difficult to convince--it's people from cultures and
traditions that aren't individually-based who have always been the spanner in
any liberal (I mean in the classical sense, not the modern sense) project.
> > I'm not saying it's impossible--just that it's going to be a long trip, and • you
> > won't likely know how close you are until you're there. It's even truer • with a
> > vision that relies heavily upon individual virtue and not a single • virtuous,
> > visionary leader.
>
> There are a lot of individuals with the needed virtues, and all of those
> people are needed for such a cause. I tend to agree, we, as individuals,
> don't need a leader. I follow no one (I get a lot speeding tickets, too!).
> I think that might be a problem for the LP. Individuals, who like to follow
> their own path, who have the proper citizen's requirement of an inherent
> mistrust of authority, may be hard to recruit as voters, but they, too, will
> see what is right, and pursue it, in time.
I'm a Unitarian by religion. We have the same problem as a religion that
Libertarians have as a political party (and in fact, many of us are
Libertarians). When you profess freedom, those who don't have the
organizational advantage--that's a problem that has plagued liberal movements
since their earliest days.
best,
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
188 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
|
|
|
|
