[Vision2020] I'm color blind, but even I can see that the herring is red!

[Nick Gier]

Dear Dave,

It was either Ted or Wayne who has already called you on your "red 
herring," the charge that a minority of Charlie Mansons could defy the 
norms.  Let me repeat with the others: marriage is a legal contract, 
whereas, last time I checked, killing and torturing people is not.  The 
difference between the good libertarian and the irresponsible anarchist is 
that the former believes the human liberty must be constrained by a minimal 
legal framework.

Thank the gods and banshees that our legislature is not the final authority 
and that the courts can protect our basic civil rights.

Nick Gier

"When Dave states that we must decide basic issues of human rights by a 
democratic vote, he has left, as far as I'm concerned, the libertarian fold."

>Nick,
>
>  I did not say that we "must" decide basic issues of human rights by 
> democratic vote.  I implied, and I'll say it now, that it is preferable 
> to do just that.  I said "Preferably the law should be changed by 
> democratic process.  In other words, the day will likely come when a law 
> that you favor and is mandated by majority representation will be 
> overturned by judicial fiat.  This is the wrong way to run a democracy or 
> a republic.."
>
>So, let's say that Mill is correct and we need "to protect even a minority 
>of one."  Are there no moral constraints on that "one's" behavior?  Is 
>there no vote on morality that is subject to majority opinion?
>
>As to your questioning my "libertarianism" - As you have taken liberties 
>with my words or at least taken a superficial reading of them (perhaps 
>caused by 31 years of staring at the sophistry of youth) I protest.  As a 
>libertarian I am clearly inside a very small minority of 
>Americans.  Hence, as opposed to being an ideologue I take the pragmatic 
>approach of incrementalism.  That, to which, I also fear the effects of 
>judicial activism insomuch as they have great potential to deny liberty as 
>much as develop it.
>
>Frankly, I care not about animal sodomy, bigamy, or adult incest. But I 
>also understand that efficacy of governance is largely predicated on 
>consensus of the governed.  So I'll remove your words from my mouth so I 
>can re-insert my foot and instruct you to my underlying tenet that since, 
>in our form of government, the legislature is ultimately supreme, one has 
>to fear the unintended consequences of judicial decree on future 
>legislation that will constitutionally deny liberty.  I see nothing 
>inconsistent in that from a pragmatic standpoint. The luxury of pure 
>ideology is only afforded to the ineffectual.
>
>Perhaps I'm not as libertarian as you would have me.  I am, however, on 
>the same side of liberty I think.
>
>db
>
>
>
>
>>Greetings:
>>
>>As I have noted before, I've generally been impressed with David Budge's 
>>intellectual acumen and what at first appeared to be a consistent 
>>libertarian position, as opposed to some phony Christian libertarians 
>>that we know so well.
>>
>>John Stuart Mill's On Liberty has been a classic resource for 
>>contemporary libertarians, and one of the most important points that Mill 
>>makes in his defense of liberty is the protection of minorities.  I 
>>believe this is a direct quote: "Even a minority of one must be 
>>protected."  (This is the reason why we need the ACLU.) When Dave states 
>>that we must decide basic issues of human rights by a democratic vote, he 
>>has left, as far as I'm concerned, the libertarian fold.  We have a 
>>judicial system primarily because we don't want a majority of people in 
>>Mississippi tell its citizens that segregation is OK because that is how 
>>they've always done it.
>>
>>As I have argued elsewhere, in a true libertarian society the role of 
>>government would contract significantly, but the court system would 
>>expand not contract.  For example, the libertarian solution to pollution 
>>is not a clumsy EPA but class action suits against polluters.  The 
>>libertarian solution against unsafe planes is not the FAA but class 
>>action suits against unsafe carriers.  The libertarian argument is that 
>>this is a far more effective way to irresponsible businesses.
>>
>>After teaching undergraduates for 31 years and learning how poorly they 
>>understand basic rights such as equality of opportunity and liberty to do 
>>what one wants within a minimal legal framework, I do not want my fellow 
>>Americans voting on these basic rights.  They are not negotiable and our 
>>courts are there to protect our inalienable rights.  That's why I'm so 
>>fearful of the current administration packing the court system with real 
>>activist judges.
>>
>>Yours for liberty, equality, and community,
>>
>>Nick Gier, Classical Liberal
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050315/6aaf56bd/attachment.htm