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

[David M. Budge]

So show me how I have contradicted what you say here.  You're putting 
words in my mouth.

db


Nick Gier wrote:

> 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
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050315/905f2e2f/attachment.htm