 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) It's the COBOL equivalent (minus the nuances about pre/post incrementation) to ++Lar (increment Lar by 1 in C++) Try this then... 10 SET L = L + 1 (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) The meaning of alliance in 1914 was already different than that in the 1780s. The point in 1914 that caused the war was very simply and plainly--as several recent studies and unearthed documents have confirmed--that the German leadership (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Well, yes and no. While it may be easier to project power now than then, it was already easier in 1914, and I would argue that entangling alliances made WW I flare up worse and faster than if it had been just Austro Hungary (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) Yeah, I was hoping Gorman would get the nomination myself. Assasination is probably not something most Libertarians would agree with, and I'm sure it's not in the platform. I think his idea was to put bounties on people, like, $1 million for (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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, (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) Dan: Permit me to take a guess, both for clarity's sake and also to make sure that I understand what he's saying. He's referring not to the "inalienable" rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but rather the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
