[241] in libertarians
Re: seat belts, practicality, the Constitution party, and Perspective
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Sun Sep 25 16:16:33 1994
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 94 15:56:35 -0400
From: vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu (Vernon Imrich)
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU, mjacknis@MIT.EDU
>Seat Belt Laws:
>
>I realize that seat belt laws are contrary to the philosophy of
>individualism, but I think we have to be REASONABLE and PRACTICAL in
>what we as Libertarians target. I think we should have higher
>priorities than criticizing these laws, since it is difficult to explain
>to the masses why we are against them.
I think you misread this issue. Once before in MA, there was a voter
led repeal of the mandatory seat belt law. There is widespread thinking
that the state has just got to intrusive into people's lives, that
the law will give cops an excuse to hassle you and so on. Being against
seat belt laws is almost like being against parking tickets. It is a
very down to earth, average guy issue, and thus a good way to show
ideas in practice at that level.
Besides, its the citizen campaigners who are constantly saying "why do
we have to go to so much trouble to do this again? Didn't they
understand our vote in 1986?"
>Perspective:
>
>It is interesting that Harvard's "Liberal" monthly, Perspective, has an
>article advocating privatized schooling... p. 18. They also have a paid
>advertisement against drug laws, p. 5.
The Thistle is also now running a series on Cannabis with favor towards
legalization (the first article detailed only the non-recreational uses
of the plant, the oldest known crop grown for non food purposes in
human history).
This points out a problem I have with some libertarians. Many see the
political outlook as liberals = big government, anti-individual, etc.
on one hand, and on the other there are small government types of
conservative or libertarian bents. I think this is a fundamental misreading
of the populace. There are lots of ACLU liberals, "free speech" liberals,
who, though their economic positions may be different, do not favor
government intrusion outwright. They come to their economics many times
through faulty history, or analysis not from a desire to have everything
run by an all powerful government. It's the liberal Barney Frank who
is one of the few to suggest legalizing marijuana in MA, to the
constant scorn of the Limbaugh crowd.
I think the view stems from what one considers important. If economic
activity is seen as the fundamental issue, then everyone who is not
for a free market will seem like a statist -- the liberals. If taxes
don't bother you that much but you value personal expression then
the conservatives seem out to tell you how to run your life.
There is an ongoing debate about whether its easier to divest a liberal
of bad economic theory than a conservative of his intention to set
moral standards for everyone. One thing is certain. If the LP becomes
just a spinter of conservatism it will fail. We need the civil
libertarians who are a bit nervous about private property as much as the
free marketeers who are a bit nervous about drug legalization in order to
make the coalition work. That is, we've got to spilt off votes from
both parties.
Vernon
