Jeffrey Behrendt wrote:
> >
> >If it did so, it wouldn't be libertarian, now, would it?
>
> Well obviously! Maybe my point was not clear. My point is that you are
> expecting the libertarian government NOT to act rationally in its own
> self-interest. This contradicts what libertarians want -- they want people
> to act rationally in their own self-interest. Why would you expect a
> libertarian government to act altruistically, when you would not expect a
> business to act altruistically?
Because a government has what a business does not have: the power to
enforce its will by itself, it will not be empowered to vote itself free
lunches. This is why we have things today like the 9th amendment. As
I've illustrated various weaknesses in the US constitution that prevent
it from remaining libertarian like it was when it first set out, fixing
weaknesses like these should prevent another similar lapse.
As I've written before, how 'libertarian' a society and it's government
remains is directly due to a) how much 'buy in' every citizen has to the
high trust system, and b) how vigilant they are to maintaining that high
trust system. By expanding the franchise to blacks and women
automatically without mandating that they undergo a proper amount of
'citizenship' training, by castrating the citizenship training that is
required of immigrants, and by not fully accepting on a social level
these new enfranchisees as full citizens, we've diluted the 'trust
rating' in our society of one individual for another, and distorted the
laws as a result.
If you want to make and keep a libertarian society, all that is required
is that you hold closely to (a) and (b). Failure to do so results in
devolution toward tyranny.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:00 MDT