At 05:48 PM 6/6/01 -0700 Kristin A. Ruhle wrote:
>I think you mean Ayn Randism - making a virtue of selfishness. There are
>libertarians and libertarians; Rand has been such a big influence because
>all these socially dysfunctional people read her just as they finished
>Heinlein (some actually credit Heinlein with creating the US libertarian
>movement.) Anybody can be a complete asshole, whining like a spoiled child
>and call him/herself a "libertarian," which is not really a political
>philosophy if used in that sense - it's just being emotionally
>immature. Philosophical libertarians who simly believe in having less
>government do acknowledget hat the social contract must be honored by BOTH
>sides.
I think that what you are trying to hit upon is the difference between
libertarianism and conservatism (and these days, you now have to throw
compassionate conservatism into that mix as well.) The best way to
consider this topic is to think of the general political views of say,
_National Review_ vs. _Reason_ or the views of _Harry Browne_ vs. _Ronald
Reagan._
I'm not aware of any prominent libertarian who would argue that government
has a role in upholding the social contract - i.e. providing transfer
payments to the poor.
Libertarianism, as I understand it, is based upon the fundamental belief of
the inviobility of personal property. Government should be small enough
such that it is supported by voluntary taxes. In other words, if a
governmental service provides value to the citizenry, then there should be
a citizenry that is willing to pay for the value received.
Conservatism, on the other hand, is based primarily on limited government,
and the precept that many of the liberal programs of the past 100 years
simply do not work.
In terms of a social contract, however, only "compassionate conservatism"
would appear to embrace that line of thought - which endorses a federal
role for government in things like education, retirement planning, etc.
>When I was 14 I picked up a car magazine and read long, detailed articles
>giving elaborate justifications as to why the US should get rid of its
>admittedly ridiculously low and un-enforceable 55mph speed limit...but I
>saw right through them: look ,the car buffs who write this stuff aren't
>going to come out and *admit* the real reason they're syaing these things
>is they just like to drive fast!
I fully admit it - I like to drive fast. And given the usual level of
straightness, visibility, and congestion on the Interstate Highway System,
I see little problem with driving fast - so long as I pay for the carbon
emissions emmitted by each gallon of gasoline. America is a big country,
and when taking road trips, driving fast can give your precious additional
hours at your destination.
>on, and our speed limit here is 65mph now, but they actually enforce
>it...
In Colorado, they're a bit more sensible, and have made it 75mph.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Compassionate conservatism is the way to reconcile the two most vital
conservative intellectual traditions: libertarianism & Catholic social
thought."
-Michael Gerson, advisor to George W. Bush
