On 04-22-98 David Martorana wrote to Day Brown... 
 DM>  DB> It is obvious that the LP has raised some good questions.  But I,
 
 DM>  DB> for one, would like some good answers.  Granted, that the GOP and 
 DM>  DB> the Dumbocrats have screwed things up royally; we still need some 
 DM>  DB> good answers, and Harry ain't doing all that well. 
 DM> 
 DM>  DB> Reading his comments here and elsewhere, I detect pandering to an 
 DM>  DB> instinctive American dislike of government; but such pandering is 
 DM>  DB> not going to cut it in a forum like this where these damn details 
 DM>  DB> can be put forward and the debating technique of ignoring them is 
 DM>  DB> just all to obvious.  I wish he, and the LP, could do better. 
 DM> 
 DM>      Since you would vote LP, My inquiry would be "what is the 
 DM>      Libertarian philosophy" that invites you to walk between 
 DM>      state responsibilities and personal freedom; especially 
 DM>      in light of your above mentioned issues? 
BTW: so far, I have no rebuttal from Patrick Sullivan or any LP.. ;} 
 
Plato operated under the assumption that there would be so much 
grunt work, and that such work could only be done by slaves, it 
would be unrealistic to expect them to partake in government. 
 
I see the advance of automated production replacing the grunts. 
One of the questions remaining, is what to do with them.  There 
is also the phenomena of longevity Plato did not imagine, which 
permits, as we see, young careers military, professional mature 
positions, and an active retirement.  In such a progression, an 
individual sees that he will, at one time or another, be a part 
of each of these constituencies in a society. 
 
The Libertarian ideal assumes a literate, rational, electorate. 
Plato assured this with his limits on the franchise; this was a 
reasonable response, given his experiences with the demogoguery 
that lead to the Syracuse war and the ruin of Athens.  To avoid 
demagoguery, we need to limit the franchise to those who choose 
to educate themselves.  We might test voters on knowlege of the 
US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Machiavelli, & Plato.  Any 
additions to this curricula? 
 
Reaching rational *policy* without a rational electorate is, in 
my mind, a moot point.  How to allocate state responsibilities, 
without individual responsibilities seems impossible.  Assuming 
the latter, I see the state responsible to inform the public in 
both the basic education of the above, and their policies which 
are formulated in the name of the voters. 
 
I would limit first ammendment rights to individuals, and limit 
the right of organizations to promote issues, to members of the 
organization in question only- no PACs. 
 
The state does have a responsibility for public welfare, if for 
no other reason than the fact that an immediate cessation would 
create bankruptcies of businesses which have been providing the 
needs of vast masses.  Economic chaos would result. 
 
Our entitlement system is not sustainable; I would seek to have 
all benefits set to some minimum level, and allow investment of 
all other funds now taken by FICA to be private.  To prevent an 
economic disaster, I would cap top benefits, and scale them all 
back to the minimum level over five years. 
 
The state has a mandate to control communicable diseases, which 
so far as I know, no one argues with.  To that end, we might do 
well to provide free nurse practice to identify and treat those 
who exhibit symptoms.  Likewise, emergency rooms shouldn't have 
to identify the health care provider before stabilization takes 
place.  Timely treatment's cheap and effective in both the long 
and the short term.  But for expensive and/or extensive... 
 
The LP idea of maximizing individual liberty by limiting powers 
of government makes sense when it does not create a power void. 
The power of government to counter powers of the trans-national 
corporations may also infringe on individual rights. Balance? 
 
There are efforts to restore and/or conserve culture as well as 
habitat that're running counter to efforts to exploit resources 
demanded by the global economy.  Everyone wants to enjoy all of 
the medical advances in fitness and longevity of the latter and 
preserve all of the former; impossible. 
 
The LP should define just what an *individual* worthy of rights 
*is*.  Does that include a comatose crank addict who will never 
perform another volitional act?  Sound minds capable of passing 
the aforementioned voter test should set the point at which the 
individual without a sound mind should be euthanized; I propose 
we ask the patients, "do you wish to be euthanized?", lacking a 
rational negative response, we should be accomodating. 
 
The LP should recognize that the globe is similar to a zero sum 
game.  Resource management entirely for profit has hidden costs 
that'll be taken out of the pockets of our heirs and retirement 
benefits.  The LP should see that population expansion promoted 
by cultural/religious demagoguery is not sustainable, and these 
impoverished populations breed communicable disease. 
 
The LP policy to disperse powers of government and business can 
mitigate the risk from the above; the home office worker is not 
likely to catch anything while at work. 
 
The LP policy to abolish illegal drug *laws*, does not preclude 
civil liabilty suits over the use of recreational drugs.  While 
we can't stop smuggling, we could make the business, instead of 
the taxpayers, pay for drug rehab programs. 
 
This list is by no means complete.  However, given that the new 
global economy, and repercussions of resource extraction, is an 
evolving complex system, I doubt that voter judgement as it has 
been applied, is up to dealing with it appropriately.  Plato is 
right, you need vision and foresight to run a sustainable state 
for the benefit of all.  Oligarchy based on wisdom, not wealth, 
has never been tried. 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 * Like reading the writing on the wall when you're up against 
it. 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------