General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:38 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Jeeze Ed, none of the libertarian platforms I have ever seen- nor have any
of the various tomes written BY libertarians ABOUT libertarianism- have
*ever* classified libertarianism as being "against government" NOR have they
ever claimed any kind of faith at all in anything remotely resembling "the
inherent goodness of man."

Indeed, one of the (admittedly few) *legitimate* roles of government under
libertarianism is a STRONG legal system, with courts and police to enforce
court rulings. This is precisely because libertarians recognize that people
are evil and stupid- but libertarians do NOT choose "Prior Restraint" as a
premise of civil society. You *do* need a strong, enforceable court system
to redress wrongs, however.

One of the major differences between libertariansim and current "Social
Democracies" is that libertarians believe in citizens being made whole only
*after* they are wronged- libertarians do not believe in any kind of
"playing field leveling" so popular under current practicces of prior
restraints.

Sorry about hte diatribe, but you presented a gaping misunderstanding of
libertarianism right off the bat. Couldn't let it go unchallenged. I
suggest (particularly if yoiu are going to be teaching Political Science)
that you read up a,ittle bit more on the alternative political theories,
including libertariansim (which is, after all, the guiding principles upon
which our nation was founded).

My apologies for taking you to task here, especially on your "home turf,"
but your misrepresentation of libertarian philosophy was somewhat notable.

I don't mind being taken to task on any turf. But, the categorization
of libertarianism on the spectrum of political ideologies as
"anti-government" (along with anarchists, nihilists, etc.) is from the
text we use in our Intro to Political Science course, "Understanding
Politics" by Thomas M. Magstadt.

Your characterization of libertarianism is partially correct, but
overlooks some of the basic positions of the Libertarian Party.
Certainly the aspects about reducing taxes, eliminating government
programs that could be done by the private sector and individual
responsibility are reasonable.

But look further into their stance on drug abuse, for example. (Don't
want to get into a drug war discussion here.) They assert that
removing all laws against "victimless crimes" will be effect because
people are inherently wise enough to not do the wrong thing. Certainly
that fits the mold of less laws, but I doubt that it is a prescription
for a better society.

Libertarians defend the right of citizen's to print and distribute
pornographic materials, no matter the level of obscenity or repugnance
to society at large--even beyond the minor restrictions that have been
placed on our First Amendment of things like child porn. The oppose a
draft, assuming in time of national crisis, the good in society would
recognize the need for sacrifice--somehow I doubt that. They oppose
legislation for public safety or aid/security for the elderly.

Clearly, they take free market economics and self-reliance to the next
level. No "compassionate conservatism" for them.

As for libertarianism being a "guiding principles upon which our
nation was founded," I think that Madison, Montesquieu, Locke,
Hamilton, Jay and even the anti-Federalist Jefferson would have
difficulty with that. Even Hobbes "Leviathan" was certainly not
libertarian.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8