[760] in libertarians
Re: Zimmerman case
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sethf@MIT.EDU)
Sat Feb 25 02:07:01 1995
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 02:05:48 -0500
To: vimrich@MIT.EDU
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
> Actually, we had a debate on patents a while back. It's definately an
Glad to hear it. But, again, I was talking about how the initial
reaction was framed.
> Also, there are different kinds of libertarians;
Yes, yes, and there are differents kinds liberals
(civil-liberties, state control) and differents kinds of conservatives
(economic, religious). But there are certain priorities and prominent
goals in the Democratic and Republican parties. I want to know what to
expect if the Libertarian Party ever becomes significant.
> NOW screams about Packwood's treatment of women but not Kennedy's. It's
> simple. Kennedy is more likely to give them what they
I've seen this charge a lot, but it really doesn't hold up on
examination. Packwood's been a very supportive Senator for women's
issues, in spite of his party. There's a big difference in the two
cases (and it's not that Kennedy's a Democrat and Packwood's a
Republican :-)): Packwood is accused of nonconsensual groping, while
Kennedy's activities have been presumably mutual. Kennedy's mostly
accused of conduct that's more moral sins to conservatives (bar-hopping,
philandering, having a mistress) than liberals.
But I get the point.
>|> similarly shaky?). The concept of "abuse of private power" is almost
>|> regarded as an oxymoron.
> This is because it so rarely happens no in the true sense. If you want to
> abuse someone today, you go and get the government to do it for you.
??? You mean it's somehow different if the particular tool they
use is government? This does indeed seem to be a common rhetorical
tactic - place the blame on government if there's any connection to it.
And since the justice system counts as government, all abuses of power
can be converted to *government* abuse of power by that reasoning. You
seem to say exactly this in what follows:
> It is because of the age that we live in now that only a certain tendancy
> towards government intrusion is villified. We don't see very often the
> cases of bad big business driving some legal small owner off his property
> without using government. We often do see it with some group that is using
> government.
But "smaller government" doesn't *change* this, it just shifts
the grounds. In fact, Phil Zimmerman might be *worse* off in Libertaria,
because of the liability differences you mentioned.
> One area definately unfriendly to "big business" is libertarians insistance
> on the removal of limited liability laws and cost externalization
I think I'm drifting too much from the specifics of the case (I
got into this discussion because I'm very familiar with electronic civil
rights issues) into my general problems with Libertarianism, so I'll skip
an involved response here. I'll just sketch that I think any such change
would instantly be nullified by adopting measures such as contributory
liability, cost-benefit legal analysis, and/or impossible requirements of proof
(e.g. poisoned by DDT? Prove exactly which company made that particular batch).
|> And don't think of businesses as cheats at all.
>Crystler (in fact, all the auto makers if you consider "free" highway funds)?
I cannot recall ever having seen a Libertarian attack that
bailout with the heartfelt venom heaped upon, say, a welfare mother
(ever hear the folksong "I'm changing my name to Chrysler"?). If you
know of some impassioned example, I'd be interested in seeing it.
> What I was trying to explain was that libertarians generally see laws and
> government, as something that *by nature* are abused. Yelling "someone is
Exactly. So given a public-private abuse, the public part is
seen as somehow intrinsic, while the private part isn't.
> At last years MA LP convention, the ONLY language in the state
> party program that was challenged was the phrase: "we want to help business"
> After some review, and examination of the contex, "we want to help
> small business escape the regulations of..." was allowed.
I find this telling - especially since the program drafters are
likely to be the candidates.
> And I gurantee you, we'd never even THINK of funding a new sports stadium
Noted. But a small compensation.
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
