[629] in libertarians
Re: Harry Browne for President
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Rose)
Fri Feb 10 01:21:48 1995
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 01:28:47 -0500
To: Vernon Imrich <vimrich@MIT.EDU>
From: Derek Rose <rosed@world.std.com>
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
Vernon,
In general I agree with most of your points
>I agree absolutely that it's a big if. (I'd be shocked beyond belief
>if we garner more than 2%.) My point was that only with such a hugh
>percentage (10-20%) would the Browne candidacy spoil any Gramm race.
Actually, I'd be very surprised if Browne gets more than 1%
>I argue CATO has done more than the LP has ever done.
Yes, definetely. I interned at Cato in the summer of 1992, and most of
them didn't want anything to do with the LP. (hence, they call themselves
"market liberals" rather than libertarians). David Boaz, Cato's exec. VP,
told me that he thought the LP had become a real embarrassment to many of
the people seriously trying to make some progress in Washington, and that
many libertarians there wished it would just shrivel up and evaporate.
>|> Would a Gramm presidency end up like Reagan's? Doubtful. The Congress
>|> will probably remain Republican, giving him an advantage Reagan never had.
>
>I used to buy that argument too, except that it doesn't explain why
>some of Reagan's budgets were for MORE spending that what congress
>finally sent him. It doesn't explain why he didn't just veto all
>the extra spending congress sent him (I don't think they'd have had
>the 2/3 vote to override it). Furthermore, with the amount of damage
>the Drug War has caused, both economic and social, I don't think trading
>lower taxes for all that was worth it. Most of the war on guns is a
>direct result of tactics developed in the drug war (eg. the BATF).
>
Well, Reagan was very much the cold warrior, and he wanted a strong
defense, and he expended a lot of his political power to get it. Also. I
really think he was suffering from Alzheimers for some of his Presidency --
either that, or the man just can't think his way out of a paper bag.
My only other point is the old objectivist one -- the whole intellectual
basis of big government is altruism. Right now most people still buy into
that; only about 6% of people want to abolish one of the most unpopular
programs around, welfare, according to Time. The others would like to see
it made more efficient, and encourage less dependency, but still want to
see it remain in place in some form or another.
Now, if Browne is just running to try and persuade people to become
libertarians, why doesn't he take issue with altruism? The idea you're
going to convert someone by eschewing philosophy and coming up with witty
one-liners is just nonsense. And actually, I would argue Gramm has
probably come closer to criticizing altruism than Browne did in that
message.
----------
Derek Rose rosed@world.std.com
