This strikes me as an excessively generous estimation of libertarianism -- unless "respectable" simply means internally logical. I find the whole libertarian outlook solipsistic and creepy. That way lies Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher. Chilling!
Carl Remick
-----Original Message----- From: sawicky at epinet.org [mailto:sawicky at epinet.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 4:42 PM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: RE: Soft privatization
Tom,
>Does the Cato Institute still have General Pinochet's bootlicker on
their
payroll? You know, the guy who hindsteined Chile's privatized pension
system, and now wants to do the same with our social security system. .
.
.>>
I have no idea. We ought to distinguish economic policies, however wacky,from literal repression.
>Maybe, you don't know that prior to the Pinochet coup, Chile had the
longest and most stable democratic tradition in this hemisphere except
for
our own peaceful transitions. If you count our civil war as not being a
peaceful transition, then the gap really narrows.>
Yes I knew, but this or the coup have little to do with Cato. Nor does Herman Kahn, his founding role notwithstanding, have much in common with the Cato of today. Henry Kissinger and Kahn are more to the point in the matter of Chile.
>Libertine, rather than libertarian, would be a good way to describe
their
attitude to social policy and when you really get down to it anarchistic
behavior is the outcome of their policies. If you boil it down, what
you
have left, is a philosophy that says let's carry guns, do drugs and not
pay
taxes.>
You could also describe it as a policy founded on being free in all respects of the very same State which is routinely excoriated in these quarters. I don't happen to share the philosophy, but it is a respectable one.
>Getting back to Chile, you can read about what happened in Newsweek,
The
Nation or any other periodical published at the time of the coup. You
can
read about how the criminal element led by Pinochet confined all of the
democratic leaders of the country in a soccer stadium while they decided
who
they were going to murder.>>
Yeah I do remember something about this. Give me an ounce of credit, please.
As a general matter, and not with particular reference to TL, the habit of mechnically extrapolating moral stances from political ones is common to both left and right.
Such a practice is unwise politics. It reflects the isolation of its practitioners. It alienates those of good moral character who SIMPLY DISAGREE. For this reason, it is also presumptuous and self-righteous, and finally, coming from a tiny political minority, farcical, much like the cartoon depictions of beggars carrying "The end is near" signs.
This approach misstates the political problem or historical development at bottom as one of good people versus bad, or people torn between the paths of virtue and sin.
Bottom line is that people don't buy what you're selling. Part of this entails friendly persuasion, and part objective conditions. Little purpose can be found in moral exhortation per se, though arguments about program need a moral foundation. Most people interpret such ideas through their religion, so an insistence on secularism isn't smart either.
People are usually uninformed. They are not stupid or evil, by and large. Assumptions in the latter spirit conduce to fascism and ultra-ultra left violence. The extra ultra is meant to acknowledge a distinction from anyone on this list, though you can see the fault lines in some posts now and again.
Cheers,
MBS