<html>
Greetings:<br><br>
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.<br><br>
John Stuart Mill's <i>On Liberty</i> 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Yours for liberty, equality, and community,<br><br>
Nick Gier, Classical Liberal</html>