from Billy-- While searching for "Radical Centrism" today I came across this gem. It seems as if some Libertarians are using the phrase "Radical Centrist" to describe themselves This has little or nothing to do with Radical Centrism......... here is the site : _Radical Centrist: Libertarian Questions and Answers_ (http://radical-centrist.blogspot.com/2007/02/libertarian-questions-and-answers.html) radical-centrist.blogspot.com/.../libertarian-questions-and-answers.ht..._Ca ched_ (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cp-zaOtHiawJ:radical-centrist.blogspot.com/2007/02/libertarian-questions-and-answers.html+"r adical+centrist"+objectives&cd=36&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) You +1'd this publicly. _Undo_ (http://www.google.com/#) Feb 16, 2007 – Radical Centrist. A Libertarian tries to sell freedom to a population .... is where would they get an objective body of laws to interpret? ...
My comments below in BF 2007-02-16 _Libertarian Questions and Answers _ (http://radical-centrist.blogspot.com/2007/02/libertarian-questions-and-answers.html) 1. Should the federal government protect the environment? Should there be national parks or endangered species laws? The federal (or more likely, state) governments should enforce property rights through the civil courts. If someone has damaged your property through pollution, it is a form or trespass. Trespass is force. So yes, to that extent, government should protect the environment. Also, government should protect the government by selling the national parks to the highest bidder. This idea is pure insanity and shows zero knowledge of what happened to, for example, the Grand Canyon before it became a national park. There were mining operations at various locations, which you can't tell now since all have been closed down. There was a serious plan to run a railroad through the floor of the canyon. There were private homes and businesses along both rims, with plans for developments. Today's public lodges like El Tovar once were commercial hotels, and there were plans for many more. In short, the Grand Canyon under private development would be unrecognizable. The highest bidder, having invested a great deal of money in his new land, is likely to do a MUCH better job of protecting it than the government ever has or will. For example, the Feds sell logging rights in national forests at a fraction of the price that any (sane) owner would require. People will only damage their own land if what they gain by doing so is more valuable than the land itself. 2. Should food companies be required to list the ingredients on the package? If not, should there be a punishment for printing false information on food product packages, or would the only determent be how customers would react if they found out they were lied to. I don't believe there is a need to force food companies to print ingredients on the package. I believe they would do so, because I believe that most people want to know what they're putting in their bodies, and therefore would be more likely to buy food with such information provided. If a company printed false information (intentionally) on packaging (or anything else), that would be an act of fraud. Such fraud could be handled by either criminal or civil courts. This is ridiculously uninformed nonsense. The reason for today's labeling laws is precisely because, in the past, businesses did not provide the information. 3. I’ve gained enough info to understand that libertarians are against federal drug laws, but what about state or city drug laws? Also, are federal drug laws unconstitutional? Libertarians oppose all laws concerning "victimless crime". "Victimless crime" is a contradiction in terms. And yes, the federal drug laws are unconstitutional. When congress passed prohibition, they had to amend the constitution in order to give themselves the power, first. There is no such amendment to justify the "war on drugs" or the existence of the FDA, or mandatory prescriptions. When drugs are legal, I look forward to being able to make my medical decisions with (at my option) the advice of a doctor who knows that I am paying him, not for his privileged position as a prescriber, but because I actually value his advice. I suspect he'll make sure that I continue to value his advice by making it good. While I am sympathetic to opponents of the war on drugs, since marijuana is not the same thing as heroin or methamphetamines, the argument that all drugs are economically or otherwise neutral is absurd. There are social costs associated with addiction, for example, or with overdosing, or with any number of drug related medical conditions Who pays for the treatment when a druggie shows up at an ER ? We all do, if not on the spot, soon enough in the form of higher medical costs passed along to everyone else. The reasoning here is half baked, if that much baked. 4. Should there be a post office? Yes. There are several that would do: FedEx, UPS, and there will be many more when the government is out of the business. BTW, before you assume that we would be paying the prices we pay such companies now, keep in mind that they are currently delivering a much more sophisticated service (rapid delivery) and I think it quite likely that they will end up offering more choice AND lower prices. Uh huh, which is 100 % true for major markets --ONLY. The reason for the PO is because it is in the national interest for all Americans to have access to mail, including people who live in the boondocks, in sparsely populated counties, or in small markets. 5. Should interstate highways even exist? Furthermore, should there be state-funded roads, or should all roads be ran by companies? Companies provide us with electricity we have to pay for, so why don’t companies provide us with roads we have to pay for. Again, they should exist as private entities. This would have been technically difficult (but possible) in 1789, but would not be nearly as hard now. This is about my last priority, though. If, after the revolution, we end up with a government that builds roads and does very little else, it will not break my heart. It's such a simple thing that even they can't screw it up TOO badly. Libertarians really want all of us to drive on nothing but toll roads ? All those who do can go &%#@ themselves. This is ideological horse manure. Not to mention the boon that the interstate system has been to communities and businesses all over the USA. 6. Should there be anti-monopoly laws, or should the market take care of itself? The market should take care of itself. Harmful monopolies can only be created/maintained by government intervention. Pure poop. Untrue, False, the exact opposite of the truth. There are some kinds of monopoly that can exist in a free market (for example a failure monopoly, where if a business builds a railroad to a small town, finds it can't support his debt payments and goes bankrupt, someone else can buy the old railroad at a fraction of the price and run it at a profit. But this sort of monopoly does harm not it's customers, as if they did not do what they did, the town would just have to live without rail service.) That said, there is a possibility of collusion raising prices in the short run. I would like to see one or more non-governmental companies that made a business of finding businesses where this was going on, and either buying or building a new company in those industries to break the cartel. But governmental anti-monopoly practice does far more harm than good. One issue that is open in my mind is copyright and patent. These are monopolies enforced by government. There are good arguments for and against them. Again, I could probably live with just about any solution to these problems a sane (libertarian) society came up with. I think that current copyright law gives too much away. 7. Should any government entity prevent restaurants from serving food or items that are known to be bad for us? A lot of libertarians disagree with the upcoming trans fat ban in NYC, but trans fat is pretty much just bad for us. What if restaurants still served our food on plates with lead paint? It’ s bad, but people could chose not to eat there. No. I like food that is bad for me. I like cheeseburgers, I like McDonalds fries. How much of these things I consume and how much of a price I pay to do so is an intimate decision that I am unwilling to delegate. Completely insane. Costs of bad food decisions can easily be passed along to everyone else in the form of higher insurance premiums, obesity and associated problems ( one example, an 325 pounder on a plane adds to fuel costs that you pay every time you fly ), health problems may also result in lost productivity, and on and on. There simply is no rational justification for granting the foundational premise of libertarianism, that we are all islands and social atoms with no interdependence to one another. The operating premise of libertarianism, in so many words, is a fairy tale, it is false, it cannot be taken seriously. 8. I’ve gathered that libertarians don’t like seatbelt laws, but should there be laws requiring parents to make their children under 18 wear seatbelts? With that said, should it still be illegal for parents to give children alcohol? There is a law requiring that parents take care of their kids. It is the law of evolution. If they do not do a reasonable job, their bloodline will die out. Dammit, what is the problem that libertarians simply cannot see how costs are passed along to other people because of private decisions ? Not to mention the moral indifference in the libertarian position , a view that is anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, etc, and clearly reflects the modern origins of libertarianism as an offshoot of the Counter Culture of the 1960s when various over-the-edge hippies ( not all of them, the hard cases ) wanted absolute freedom to drop acid, say "f**k you to the cops, go naked in public, and 100 other things. Now we have much the same motivation on the part of people who otherwise are middle class. 9. Should there be laws that say where guns are allowed, or should it be up to the owner of the place? It should be up to the owner. Should work well in certain neighborhoods especially :-( And BTW, given the Wild West ideal of many libertarians, just why was it that many towns in the Old West made it a crime to carry forearms in the city limits ? They knew that drunken cowboys might shoot up the place. They demanded the right of peaceful citizens to be safe from harm. Now communities are not to be allowed to organize and pass laws to protect themselves ? I realize that many libertarians would not go this far, but such a viewpoint, to be a purist about it, is consistent with libertarian philosophical principles. 10. Should there be public education systems, or should all schools be private? I’m sure some charity would open free schools, but they wouldn’t be ran by any sort of government. It should be private, and charity and/or financing should be fine for those few would could not afford the (much cheaper) price of education in a libertarian society. Private schools work great because parents know that no rotten kids will be in the same classes as little Suzy or little Tommy. Nor will kids from impoverished families with little education. Nor will special needs children. Sure, sort out all the undesirables and everything works like a charm. I could not agree more. Which was one reason why I liked College so much. What a relief not to need to put up with idiots who don't want to be there. But if you assume, as did our Founding Fathers, that democracy requires a literate and educated citizenry, then the responsibility exists to educate the whole population, not just there creme of the crop. Guess that libertarians don't think much of the Founding Fathers. 11. Should it be illegal for an employer to discriminate by race when hiring? No. That said, it would generally be in the employer's best interest not to discriminate, as if he does so, he is cutting himself off from part of the talent pool, and thereby costing himself money. Not to mention alienation of potential customers. Who wants to deal with a person like that? The history of race bigotry in the United States speaks for itself. It is perhaps the biggest blemish on our history. 12. Libertarians seem to hold private property in high value. Should people be allowed to own airspace? I would say that everything which can be owned should be owned. Otherwise it has to struggle by defended only by an incompetent government. (Is there another kind?) Goddamned right government can be very competent. Is is always ? Of course not, and sometimes it is gosh awful. But, for one, I am sick and tired of constant bashing of all government as if the very idea of government is evil. But this is another legacy of the late 1960s and the Leftist origins of modern libertarianism, the era of the Viet Nam war when, indeed, a lot of people were highly pixxed at the government. 13. If our society were truly libertarian, what type of legislation would congress work on? In a libertarian society, it is very likely that congress would almost never actually meet. Most of the laws could be written very quickly after the founding of the republic and left alone for long periods of time. How can anyone believe in such drivel ? -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
