From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Wed Aug 21 2002 - 00:37:10 MDT
Brian D Williams wrote:
> A whole bunch of people are not interested in achieving a
> libertarian society, Democrats and Republicans being two of the
> largest groups. Most of the groups you named aren't either.
I'm not even all that sure that libertarians are interested in achieving
a libertarian society. Certainly they seem interested in discussing it.
I wonder what the defacto libertarians (as in, those that lived a
libertarian existence due to lack of significant infrastructure exerting
control over their lives, perhaps including americans in the first few
decades of the U.S.'s existance) called themselves.
> Take "greens" for example, it doesn't take a genius to see we are
> screwing up the earth, but the solution is not a return to some
> idolized primitive state.
Well, then, the obvious solution is *not* to approach them and say we
reject their notion of return to some idolized primitive state. What I'm
thinking is that we can approach them and agree to collectively (heh)
help clean up some river. Would the headlines read 'Libertarians Help
Greens Clean River' or 'Greens Help Libertarians Clean River'? The
former makes more sense (since of course the Greens would be expected to
help clean up a river). If more readers know about Greens than know
about Libertarians then some might ask, 'who are these 'Libertarians'
anyway? I'd like more information.' Compartmentalization is the key.
Of course actually cleaning a river is a dirty, hard job, fraught with
danger (rapids, crocodiles, mosquitos), thus perhaps fitting Lee Daniel
Crocker's vision of utopia. (There's nothing more dangerous than a
wounded mosquito). But if we differed as to utopia then we could
probably hire some illegal aliens or whatever to do the actual job of
cleaning the river.
Answering the Libertarian's question of 'What's in it for me, cleaning
this river?' is left as an exercise for the reader.
But the idea of not lending a hand cleaning the river by rejecting the
Green's entire river-cleaning plan due to their misguided views on
return to some idolized primitive state sounds more like laziness to me.
Sometimes a river is just a river.
> Anti-globalists say globalization is wrong, and they have it half
> right, globalization as it is currently often implemented
> (especially by the IMF) sometimes has bad to disasterous
> consequences, yet globalization has also done the human race more
> good than anything since the invention of the free market.
I agree, but also consider that the anti-globalists help (at least in
some small way) to keep the globalists honest, and (maybe) vice-versa.
Purist, it's-all-bad anti-globalists become increasing marginalized if
they decry even widely agreed benefits of globalization. I'm a Shadow,
not a Vorlon.
> Yes, enviromentalism, globalization and even capitalism have
> serious problems, but the solution is to move forward not backward.
I generally agree, but consider this 2-D thinking. We may desire to make
a tactical retreat, or move off the local optima, to gain an advantage
on the morrow. For example, close the schools! Sending all schoolkids
home to be home-schooled would also have the advantage of freeing up
more prison space (ready-made!)
Thanks,
-Mike
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:18 MST