[829] in libertarians
Re: More from Browne
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Rose)
Mon Mar 20 18:45:54 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 18:42:38 +0001 (EST)
From: Derek Rose <rosed@world.std.com>
Reply-To: Derek Rose <rosed@world.std.com>
To: Raymie Stata <raymie@larch.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9503201503.AA12854@blizzard.lcs.mit.edu>
On Mon, 20 Mar 1995, Raymie Stata wrote:
>
> They finally responded to the post on Phil Gramm.
thanks for posting this - interesting stuff.
>
> Raymie,
>
> (Sorry to be so long in getting back to you.)
>
> I can't speak for Harry, but I don't think I need to. His position is clear
> in origninal article ("Why I Am Running"). But there are some points that I
> must address.
>
> First of all, lets deal with this issue of the 10% flat tax. Did Derek not
> read the part of "Why I Am Running" where Harry says to *repeal* the
> personal income tax. Not scale it back. Repeal it. Harry is not
> soft-balling the message. Any tax proposal is a transistion.
>
Well, at the end of the section on the income tax, yea, he did mention
that in passing: "And it [a flat tax] is a big first step leading to the
eventual abolition of the income tax entirely." But it did seem like his
campaign was going to be emphasizing more a flat tax than a total repeal.
> Next lets deal with the issue of comparing Gramm and Browne on their
> libertarian-ness. Come on. Gramm is, at best a conservate with libertarian
> tendencies and Browne is a hard-core libertarian that will not soft-pedal
> his message. I have read a lot of reports about successful professional
> politicians that are "almost libertarian" and every time it turns out to
> be wishful thinking on the part of some good hearted people.
>
Well, I certainly admit that Browne is much more of a hard-core libertarian
than Gramm. But intelligent people like "Chester Alan Arthur," George
F. Will, and David Frum have all looked at Gramm and concluded that he
is a politician sincerely committed to reducing the size and scope of
government.
> Finally, lets take a look at this issue of "support[ing] the candidate with
> a chance of winning, and of truly changing the debate." Understand that a
> chance of winning and changing the debate are mutually exclusive.
Wait a second... the LP has been running candidates for what, 20+ years?
The debate has certainly changed somewhat, but more because of
institutions like Cato and libertarian writers than because of any great
strides of the party, I'd say.
I think this claim is really extraordinary in light of the last
elections, which propelled the Cato Institute into the status of the
"hottest think tank in Washington" and has led to the reexamination of a
whole lot of issues, such as the hazardous effects of affirmative action,
regulation, etc.
If Gramm
> gets the nomination his only chance of winning is reaching to the middle
> and softening his pitch.
Well, sure. But it's what he does once he is elected that's important.
On the other hand, if Dole gets the nomination,
> then libertarian-leaning people will support Browne. Since Browne is not in
> this because he thinks he has a great chance to win, he won't pull any
> punches and will go after both Clinton and Dole.
>
> I believe that those who support big, sucessful, professional
> politicians are living in a fools near-paradise. They keep thinking
> such politicians are just going to hand them liberty. Wrong! We are
> going to have to fight for it and win the hard way.
Absolutely. But to quote Bill Clinton, insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting the different results. Just because
we've been hard at work collecting signatures and nominating LP
Presidential candidates doesn't mean that this is time well spent;
libertarians have been spending a tremendous amount of time and money to
get ourselves on the ballot and nominate candidates, but don't really
have a lot to show for it (and what we do have seems to shrink every
year; look at the decreasing ballot returns). I think it's foolish to
expect that Browne will be all that different, even if he is quite a
slick talker.
>
> If you would like to be on the campaign mailing list, please send us your
> mailing address.
>
> Thanks for posting Harry's article and letting us know what kind of response
> it got.
>
>
> Jon Kalb, Internet volunteer
>
> For more information contact:
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Harry Browne for President | email> Browne@rahul.net
> 1500 Adams Avenue | voice> (714) 437-7911 / fax> (714) 432-1468
> Suite 105 | url> http://www.rahul.net/browne/
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626 | anon. ftp at /pub/browne on ftp.rahul.net
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
>
