<html>
Dear Dave,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Thank the gods and banshees that our legislature is not the final
authority and that the courts can protect our basic civil
rights.<br><br>
Nick Gier<br><br>
"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."<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Nick,<br><br>
I did not say that we "<b>must</b>" 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.."<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
Perhaps I'm not as libertarian as you would have me. I am, however,
on the same side of liberty I think.<br><br>
db<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>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 <br>
<pre>
</blockquote></blockquote></html>