|
|
 | | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| Chris, ( I am jumping in this a day or late, oh well!) (...) sort (...) is (...) same (...) Well, telling which schools to send your kids too is very limiting to parents, and schools do teach a morality of their own, regardless if it is Christian or (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| Chris, (...) on (...) just (...) I wonder what you are truly saying here, Chris. Zealots are on both sides of the abortion issue, both for and against. I don't think murdering people for most reasons is acceptable (outside of capitol punishment or (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| (...) on (...) current (...) so (...) Well, it really depends on what you would consider personal freedom. Should the government be involved in things? No. Look at the census, for example. What time do you go to work and what time d you come back. (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| (...) They (...) these (...) Classic liberalism, yes. Current liberalism, no. The current definition is reflected in the LP quiz, where liberal is on the left, not the right. When I say liberal, it is on the left. When I say classical liberal, I (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| (...) Well I clearly think that a 2d is better than a 1d whether closed form or open... whether more than 2 dimensions are needed is unclear. But libertarians introduced more dimensions precisely because we don't FIT on a 1D... we're not modern (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
