In a message dated 11/12/00 7:35:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
Paul I wrote:
<>
i don't understand.>>
Poorly worded. What I mean is they are selfish but don't think they are.
<<Libertarians are predomiantly white middle- to upper-class folks who
want to protect what they have.>>
True. But I believe just about *everyone* wants to at least protect what
they have and most want to add to it... whether they be rich, poor or in
the middle somewhere. However I don't believe it is right to employ
force to take from some and arbitrarily give to others and/or use force
to keep people from getting more (whatever the "more" may be for them).>>>
I'm not sure I agree with that. Whatever happened to altruism?
<<What the Libertarians do not understand, in my view, in that their
philosophy of personal responsibility goes against human nature, as
proved 100 years ago by England's "Tragedy of the Commons" experiment with
dairy herders. >>
I am not familiar with the experiment you refer to... can you direct me
to a place where I can check it out?>>
It is well-documented in Sociology textbooks. My books are still boxed up,
so I cannot pull it out, but you shouldn't have any problem finding something
about it in a library.
In a capsule, some groups of English farmers formed a common area where
their herds could graze, thinking it was a better land-use plan. But because
it was a common area with no individual responsible for it, each farmer
allowed his herd to overgraze the area, trying to get as much for himself out
of the deal as he could. In the end, the overgrazing made the commons useless
to anyone for a while until it could recover.
<>
Libertarianism, like Marxism, is a utopian philosophy that, frankly, will
never work on this planet.
The problem with Libertarianism, for the most part, is that many men and
women and most corporations do not care enough about you and me to be
responsible for themselves. Libertarianism does not recognize the fact that
some people are basically evil and out to take whatever they can get. Having
covered more than enough murder trials as a journalist, I can assure you
there are some people for whom the death penalty is not severe enough, but it
is the best we can do as a society to protect ourselves.
Furthermore, the environmental damage that such people and corporations can
cause is often long-term and sometimes irreversible. What would the
Libertarians have done with Saddam Hussein after he invaded, raped and
pillaged Kuwait? And then tried to destroy the oil fields once it became
apparent he would not be allowed to keep them?
There is a need for a government that can regulate and intercede BEFORE the
damage, rather than a lassez-faire approach that is only willing to punish
people AFTER the damage is done.
Sorry, but I regard Libertarians as foggy-thinking fools who do not live in
the real world.
Respectfully but candidly,
Paul I
