Re: privledged
Daniel C. Burton (dan@antispam.autobahn.org)
26 Feb 1998 10:34:19 GMT
Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion with the Cal
Libertarians. Unfortunately, you seem to misrepresent what Libertarians
stand for.
Many of my best friends live in places like the Mission District or East
Oakland, so of all the Cal Libertarians I probably have the most firsthand
knowledge of the conditions in these neighborhoods. I have seen the crack
addicts hanging out on corners and seen the effects of the stress people
are under, and believe me, I know it is real.
However, government has done far more to create these conditions than it
has done to eliminate them. The poor and minorities have reason to feel
oppressed; they are being oppressed -- by the government.
Racist, classist minimum wage laws have denied many of these people the
basic right to work that higher skilled workers enjoy. If they can't do
work woth minimum wage, then they aren't allowed to work at all. However,
this doesn't raise wages -- like any other price, the price of labor is
bound by the laws of supply and demand, and if you raise its price, less of
it will be used. The result is widespread unemployment, and low-skilled
workers actually have less collective income, because fewer of them are
working.
Not only that, but minimum wage laws also create a permanent underclass
with no upward mobility. Someone who is unemployed does not have the
opportunity to learn on the job and eventually earn higher wages. Denied
of this opportunity, they have no way of bettering their situation.
Similarly economic regulations and liscencing harm the poor more than
anyone else. Liscencing and regulations create an artificially high
barrier of entry into the work world. This protects the existing industry
from new competition and most negatively affects the poor who can't pay all
the fees and compliance costs. In New York City, for example, it costs
$75,000 to buy a "medallion" to operate a taxi cab. At these costs, the
rich can easily enter the market, and existing drivers can happily charge
exorbitant fees, but poor people who could otherwise enter the market are
shut out by the arm of the law.
The examples go on and on. Residential zoning laws prevent people in the
inner city from working in home offices. Of course, this does not impact
the wealthy who have capital to rent office space. It does, however,
impact the prospects of poor individuals in starting their own businesses.
The bureaucracy that goes into economic regulations is increadibly costly
as well, and oppression of the poor is the inevitable result of allowing
them at all. As long as people can lobby for economic regulations, those
who benefit by protecting themselves from competition will do so, and with
a fervor far beyond that of their victims.
The plight of the underclass is further worsened by the government's war on
drugs. Just as with the prohibition alcohol, the result of outlawing
something people really want is a vast undergound market, accompanied by
crime. Far too often is the downtrodden who are caught in the crossfire.
Ending the war on drugs, repealing minimum wage laws, and ending economic
regulations would be a good start. It would make our streets safe again,
allow people to work, and give them the opportunity to better their lives.
Cutting government programs and getting rid of taxes would do even more
good, because this money would then go into investments that would create
more jobs and produce more things of value for lower consumer prices.
Even those who cannot help themselves would be better off. In government
welfare programs, 2/3 of the money goes to middle class bureaucrats. In
contrast, in private charities, 2/3 goes directly to the poor. If we let
people keep their own money instead of putting it into welfare, more of it
would go to the poor. The free market would give people far more resources
for their compassion than ineffective, bureaucratic government solutions.
Private charities also have a well-deserved reputation for helping people
become independent better than government welfare programs.
You won't see the Republicans attacking any of the policies I've mentioned,
because when it comes to helping the poor, they aren't for the free market.
They're more than happy to advocate ecnomic interventions as long as they
help white people and business interests. That's why the Libertarian Party
is exactly representative along racial and economic lines, and why the
Republican Party isn't. And as Nesim pointed out, that's why we've had
people like Native American activist Russel Means in our movement. They've
recognized the integral role government power has played in the oppression
of minorities.
> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:33:54 -0800
> From: aztlan@uclink4.berkeley.edu
> To: callib@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: privleged
>
> Dear freedom fighters,
> I'm a student here at cal and I'm proud to be a LIBERTARIAN.
> everyone needs to just get it through their fucken heads that it is their
> behavior that prevents them from becoming rich., I lived in the
innercity,
> and boy thoses people are lazy. Why do people of color continue to
> complain about being oppressed when all they need to do is work hard and
> they'll
> get what they deserve.
> BIG GOVt. is our enemy. Giving out charity to childern in the inner city
> is not rational!!! It just is not rational to give little childern free
> lunches when they have not worked for it!!! Damn it!!!!