Re: NWLibs Re: Hammill 1987 speech

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 10:01 PM 1/7/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Mr. Bell: 
>
>if I were to summarize my arguments, they would be that governments
>are the way that they are not so much because they attract certain
>dysfunctional individuals, but rather because they are microcosms
>and macrocosms of human psychology. the problems with government
>that libertarians rant about are problems with human behavior.
>the solution is not to get rid of governments-- this is confusing
>cause and effect, symptom and cause. the solution is to work on
>human behavior. when humans begin to think in a different,
>positive way, their governing systems will automatically reflect the change.

Gobbledygook.  Blaming the problems of the system on the people involved.
It is obvious that you are unwilling to admit that THE SYSTEM could, indeed,
BE the problem.


>my essay was designed to show the negative aspects of governments
>that rabid libertarians are always endlessly ranting about are actually
>embodied in the psychologies of those libertarians themselves. 

More gobbledygook.  Blaming the problem on the observers of the problem.


>therefore,
>while I agree with the libertarian that there are many problems with
>governments, I see no reason to believe that libertarians are proposing
>a workable alternative, based on their own stark biases and prejudices.

Still more gobbledygook.  You don't mention  WHICH "stark biases and
prejudices," for instance.


>in fact it seems quite obvious to me that their own "alternatives" are
>either "vaporware" 

"Vaporware" is generally thought of as programs that have not yet been
implemented.  While it is true that much of what libertarians have proposed
has not yet been implemented, blame for this lies strongly (and primarily)
with NON-libertarians.

>or would be far worse in practice than even the
>dysfunctional systems we have in place today.


You haven't established this, and haven't even attempted to.  Your
argumentation is weak and practically meaningless.


>rabid libertarianism reminds me of Marxism: sounds great in theory,

Lots of things "sound great in theory".   That does not mean that everything
that "sounds great in theory" will NOT be good in practice, if allowed to
operate.  This is ESPECIALLY true that much of libertarianism which "sounds
great in theory" actually sounds PERFECTLY AWFUL to the statists who
currently control things.

> and
>you might even convince large parts of the population or key people in
>power to follow it. but does it truly present an implementable and workable
>alternative? 

First, you tell us:  What are your standards for  this?  Are you never going
to admit that it's "workable" until it's actually working?  In other words,
when those opposing it have finally FAILED?

where are the specifics?

"Specific" what?


>identifying problems with government is quite trivial.

If you admit this is the case, this puts even more blame on those defending
government's flaws (or failure to fix them.)

 >this is destructive
>criticism, 

Please document this silly claim.  You're saying identify problems with
government is "destructive"?  "Destructive" of what, pray tell?!?    If it's
"destructive" of a bad and corrcupt government, I'm HAPPY to hear it.   This
kind of "destructive" we need PLENTY more of!


?analogous to the guerilla warfare of words that rabid libertarians
>love. but criticism is easy compared to construction of something that works.

Oddly, the non-libertarians don't usually want to give libertarians the
opportunity to take enough control to show that what they can do "works."
Gee, I wonder why!  Maybe they're afraid of incipient success.
Privatization of previously publicly-provided services is strongly resisted.


>when you focus your attempts on creating a system that embodies your
>ideals instead of ranting at those that do not (and complaining that
>you cannot because governments prevent you), you will make far more
>progress in developing your ideas and convincing the world to follow you
>than any number of essays can accomplish.

More gobbledygook.  

>if libertarianism is truly workable, shouldn't it be workable on
>small scales? 

It is, and does, work on small scales, WHEN ALLOWED.

>what prevents individuals from actually starting it going
>at a small scale and growing it? 

It's called, "government regulation," "taxes," and such.  If you've been
following the news recently, perhaps you've noticed that there are "peanut
quotas" (to cite just one example) which legally prevent me from deciding to
grow peanuts and sell them freely on the American market.  ___THIS___ is
just one of those things which "prevents individuals from actually starting
it going at a small scale and growing it."

Feeling a bit more foolish, Mr. Nuri?!?

>that is the path that every government
>and nation has taken since the beginning of time, why do you think you
>should be exmempt?

That's EXACTLY why libertarianism ISN'T being allowed to flourish.  It
eliminates control that others worked hard to achieve.


>I don't see that any of your response to my essay detract from this
>basic message so I'm going to pass on a detailed reply.

Typical Nuri wimp-out.