 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) I hadn't realized that Libertarians endorsed state-sponsored killing of anyone, which would be the most likely source of this kind of assassination attempt (other than attempts internal to that nation.) In addition, Harry Browne is neither a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes (...) As is the ability to keep tabs with one's home nation in microseconds rather than months. The reason I mention this, and the reason I basically reject the "entangled alliances" caution, is (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) policies (...) and (...) Well, exactly what our national interests are is certainly a matter for debate. I was just saying that whatever we decide they are, it is fine to use force to protect them. But if by economic imperialism, you mean free (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) Somewhat, yes. Largely? Not sure. Certainly the ability to rain defeat on your enemy 12000 miles away in a matter of a few hours is a major difference, though. (...) I don't give deific status to anyone or anything (other than, perhaps, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) But there's a reason that the past is in the past. The world as Jefferson (whose idea of property, by the way, included certain individuals who were not duly compensated for their labor in his service) perceived it is largely irrelevant to the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
