From: Richard Webb 
Subject: libertarianism and NFB philosophy
Mike Freeman wrote:
   >This isn't germane to NFB philosophy but I'll make a few comments
   >and leave it at that.
   >RW> As for bread lines, you don't see many
   >RW> libertarians in them, but you
   >RW> see a lot of folks  who are second or
   >RW> third generation standers in
   >RW> said bread lines .  This is real
   >RW> sad, but it's time to break the

   >A few observations:  privatizing things won't help.  There is just
   >as much bureaucracy in the private sector as there is in
   >government.  Else how explain the phenomenal success of Dilbert?
   >(incidentally, I think every Newsline site should have a "Dilbert
   >Channel" wherein each day's Dilbert strip would be described --
   >grin).  If you don't believe me, try calling your bank or mortgage
   >company.  "Press One for This ... Press Two for That ..." and so
   >on ad infinitum.
Amen to that brother.  I think we as a movement do a good job in
dvocating programs which really do the job.  I guess it goesback to
the idea that if you give a man a fish, he'll eat today.  You teach
him how to catch his own, he eats for a lifetime.
   >place.  Were I President, I'd just love to get a bunch of real
   >pinko liberals in a room and say "Okay!  You say we need to use
   >government to relieve poverty and ameliorate the bum conditions in
   >society.  now, tell me how to do that on a shoe-string budget."
   >I'd also like to get all the laissez-faire capitalists and go-it-
   >alone types in a room and say:  "Okay; you'r right; the
   >bureaucracy is stifling initiative.  Now, tell me how you would
   >help the down-and-out?And don't fall back on just saying they
   >don't matter.  I know you probably feel that some deserve to
   >starve but that's not an option.  And don't talk about private
   >charity taking up the slack.  First, it won't work because they
   >don't want to put in the time, effort and resources to help those
   >who *really* need it.  Second, ever been the victim - er -
   >recipient of one of those charities?"
This would be interesting.  There again, I think we do well at working
for programsd that get the job done.  I think, though that it has to
do more with the level of partnership between government and the
private sector.  Our right-wing folks don't think the government
should do it, but aren't willing to take up the slack.  The left,
meanwhile thinks that throwing more money and bureaucracy at the
problem will cause a solution.  Both views are misguided and extremely
shortsighted.  One reason I don't throw my full support behind either
major player.
   >I am very, very uncomfortable with affirmative action.  I would
   >have voted for Prop 209 in California.  yet I am very leary of
   >just yanking affirmative programs because no one has *really*
   >proposed anything to take their place.  I resent to my dying day
   >that I was hired Schedule A.  But I'd much rather have the
   >paycheck than not!
There you go.  Still, I have to go back to an example---the post civil
war south.  Most businesses were happy to serve and deal with the
black man, until the black codes and other laws told them it wasn't
okay to do so.  The businessman wanted your dollars in his coffers, no
matter what pigmentation your skin.  Still, our government needs to be
in the business of helping barriers come down through education and
training, not through a system which just throws you a hunk of bread
and tells you to shut up and go away now.
   >In other words, it's extremely easy to spout simplistic solutions
   >to problems you don't have to solve.  it's damnably difficult to
   >come up with something that actually might work and that doesn't
   >pander to some special interest or other or, rather, which pinches
   >all special interests equally.
   >RW> Javits Wagner ODay and the great
   >RW> society were both bad ideas.
   >Maybe
   >I might agree with you.  But consider: many thought that workshops
   >might make sense when no one else was hiring.  That they paid a
   >pittance was as much a consequence of the contempt in which
   >workers in general were held as to anything else.  Remember Ford
   >Motors with Harry Bennett and his goon squad?  And yes, the Great
   >Society was probably eutopian.  But it can be argued that it would
   >have worked better if President Johnson hadn't been trying to have
   >guns and butter at the same time.  I'm not necessarily disagreeing
   >with you; I'm just saying that things are more complex than most
   >of us would care to admit.
We've still the modern day equivalent of the Ford situation, except
instead of goon squads, we've the replaceable human commodity.  Part
time, no benefits, bring 'em in, use 'em up and discard 'em about like
an ole pair of shoes.  That's what not having good representation of
workers does for you.  Yes, I'm pro union.  Who else is going to
advocate effectively for workers?
The upshot is, my philosophy leans toward Libertarianism, but I hope
is tempered with a degree of reality.  I think those who advocate for
the disadvantaged could tear a page or two out of our book and do
well with it.  Also, our government needs to do more  for real
training and education, which translates in better opportunities for
the disadvantaged.  Mr. local businessman can do his part too, as he
benefits greatly from a better educated and trained work force.
   >RW> Btw, liked your comments on grade 3
   >RW> braille.  I still find it useful
   >RW> today, and am glad I took the time to learn it.
   >RW> Notice I didn't learn it at the school
   >RW> for the blind in preparation
   >RW> for junior high and high school, but
   >Neither did I; I taught myself from a book by Ruth Something-or-
   >other.  I've lost the book but believe I still have Rodenberg's
   >reference book on Grade III.
Have wished I had such a reference on more than one occasion.  Use it
for many things in my day to day life, especially for mixing notes in
the studio.  Don't know how I got through high school without it, but
I did .
73.
Richard, kb0ruu
---
---------------