re:privleged

Nesim Sisa (nesim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
Tue, 24 Feb 1998 23:40:15 -0800 

 I sent a reply to the message:

Thank you for emailing callib and giving me, nesim sisa, cybersecretary
for the Cal Libertarians, the chance to respond to your criticism. In the
future if you would like to reach a larger audience of libertarians post
to the newsgroup, ucb.org.cal-libertarians. You might also be interested
in our website at http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~callib. We have meetings on
Wednesdays at 6:30. Tomorrow we will have a speech criticizing the
existence of the IMF.

  It is easy to see how one could confuse those who wish to limit
government control of citizens' lives with stinginess and meaness. Welfare
and the food stamps program do provide at least a band aid to extreme
poverty. However you miss the point, most spending is to maintain a large
bureaucracy. 
  But you might argue that bureaucracies are beneficial. They allow for
regulation and without regulation certainly people would be oppressed by
unresponsive greedy corporations. But I would like to ask, why can't
citizens be invested with their rights, which are theirs by naturally? Why
does government have to serve as the great patriarchal protector? 
  Federal Laws prevent citizens from suing and collecting damages for
criminal transgressions and environmental damages. Why is murder a crime
against society as opposed to a crime against an individual, or an
individual's family?  There was no nuclear power industry before a law
limiting liability for nuclear accidents was passed.
   What government agency  is well known in California? The INS! Does it
make any sense that some number cruncher half way across the country gets
to decide who crosses the borders into America. The result is twofold.
Criminals and the wealthy can bypass laws. Common people have to sneak
undercover from dogs and guns. Employers can then take advantage of their
outlaw status. 
   The argument against government social programs is that they use tax
dollars forcibly taken from citizens, percentage wise mostly from the poor
and middle class. Is it necessary to rob your neighbor to feed yourself,
or would you accept that perhaps your neighbor is not unlike you, and ask
him for help. 
   Of course what will happen to the poor and uneducated. Not all
Libertarians agree on abolishing govt welfare. Some say private employment
would take care of the poor. Others suggest that private charity would
replace public spending. Still one could argue that welfare, to
individuals not corporations and farmers, is such a small cost that it
could still be maintained. My feeling is that govt welfare could not be
abolished before private institutions have proven to the public that they
work. 
  One should not forget that communities and businessess have an interest
in healthy communities, people, and workers. Much of the initial impetus
for funding school lunch programs, according to retired  Navy Engineer
Simon, was the high costs of soldiers with malnourished childhoods. This
may in fact be more anecdotal than true, but it does illustrate that
communities have an interest in taking care of one another. 
 You wrote rather sarcastically that colored people should work harder, as
if libertarians were oblivious to racism. In fact, what party did Russel
Means run for president under? The Libertarian Party. Have you read his
autobiography, released about a year ago I believe. He gives his own
arguments for Libertarianism. 

  sincereley
    nesim sisa