From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 14:21:08 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Hammill 1987 speech
In-Reply-To: <m0tZ9iS-000906C@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <199601080601.WAA09591@netcom4.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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.

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. 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. 
in fact it seems quite obvious to me that their own "alternatives" are
either "vaporware" or would be far worse in practice than even the
dysfunctional systems we have in place today.

rabid libertarianism reminds me of Marxism: sounds great in theory, 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? where are the specifics?

identifying problems with government is quite trivial. this is destructive
criticism, analogous to the guerilla warfare of words that rabid libertarians
love. but criticism is easy compared to construction of something that works.

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.

if libertarianism is truly workable, shouldn't it be workable on
small scales? what prevents individuals from actually starting it going
at a small scale and growing it? that is the path that every government
and nation has taken since the beginning of time, why do you think you
should be exmempt?

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.