Debate : 10365


Off-Topic / Debate / 10365

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) independent (...) who (...) Whomever wished to..? (...) Independant of what? (...) I'm pretty happy with the private consumer advocacy that I sponsor. (...) The shareholders? (...) think (...) Actually, I know very little about the FAA. I (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) So Joe Smith Toxic Waste Dumping, Inc. can fund a watchdog organization to demonstrate that it's safe to dump industrial sludge into the local reservoir. Is that what you're envisioning? (...) Independent of the interests it purports to (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) I don't think such a company would really last terribly long. If their actions really had a wide impact, they would find quite an array of folks against them. And not all of the money to hire the lawyers to sue them out of existence will come (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Two word rebuttal: Phillip Morris. (...) That really isn't true. Companies have invariably dragged their feet on the "ounce of prevention" angle. The cold truth is, as much as businesses get over-regulated, they invariably brought it on (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Business has never been free to realize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. They have never been actually liable for their damages across the long term. They have never existed in an unrestrained market where the government (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) If they aren't liable, then why do they spend so much effort dodging liablity? I'm not sure what you are basing your claims off of, but I gotta disagree with virtually every sentence above. And I'm also talking about throughout history, not (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) a (...) I mean that business liability as found by a court is virtually always disproportionate with the damages done. They are often fined way too much, and people make jokes about it for years (McDonalds coffee comes to mind), and they are (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Punative damages - the idea being that they'll think twice about pulling the same stunt twice. Everyone knows about the McDonalds thing, but virtually no one realizes it (and virtually every similiar case) had the award slashed drastically (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay, let's say that Joe Smith TWD Inc is sued into bankrupcy and their assets sold. In all likelihood the cost to repair the damage to the environment will greatly exceed the company's worth, so even full liquidation of assets won't fund the (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) Well, the biggest such organization today is.... The United States Federal Government.... Think about it, what makes the government any different than Joe Smith TWD? Actually, there's a really big difference, they've done such a good PR job (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) So you're agreeing that a corporation will not only be just as corrupt, but will likewise take steps to make sure that its corruption is beyond the reach of individual correction? The difference is that the government can be sued, and the (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

I think you have a few nots missing, and a few added where they do not belong (...) c /can/cannot/ in many cases. Nor can government employees. (Libertopian corporations would have no such immunity for their personnel) (...) That is, has the power (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Where does all this c/can/cannot stuff come from? Is it English, or is it some esoteric computerese? FUT OT.Geek? Is that right? The gov't can't be sued for anything? I thought they simply weren't subject to civil suits, but were subject to (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) many cases, not all cases. So no, what you think I said isn't right. (...) Sometimes they are. Steve Jackson Games won a suit against the government I believe... The upside of small corporations is that it's possible to win against them. The (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: But I was serious about the c/can/cannot thing. What does that mean? Dave! (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) delete the slashes and insert the chars in <> c/<hange >can/< to >cannot It's an editor command, or supposed to look like one, anyway. Shows that you are Old Skool IBM with 3l33t VM 3d1t0r sk1llz, I guess. ++Lar (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) That's 'cause the government didn't bother to read the rules to Illuminati: Weird Groups (Gamers) are immune to Government Groups (Secret Service). Fnord. (...) Yeah for Libertopia! These corporate sharks rape the system for all it's worth, (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) away. I'm confused. I expected this to be anti-libertarian and so read sarcasm into it. But I don't think that it's warranted. Are you serious, Bruce? The opinion (sarcastic intent or not) is exactly how I feel. Put the ass of policy makers on (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I've said before I often agree with Libertarian theory - on paper. In practice, I think it has some serious problems - to be fair, what philosophy doesn't? I registered Libertarian to help get them on the California ballot many years ago, if (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) I agree that it's nit-picky when taken on its own, but the mindset is symptomatic of an apparent and as yet unresolved shortcoming of the Libertarian view--namely that those who are able to afford better conditions will become better able to (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Sorry, I wasn't trying to pass judgement on either side. I understand the point you have been trying to make, I'd just choose different ground to make it on than the roads. The roads in the poorer parts of SoCal tend to be broken up, the rich (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you need to demonstrate this is actually the case, though. I don't think it is. Ever heard the saying "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations"? With a few exceptions, the idle rich children tend to dissipate their wealth and the (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, I disagree on both counts, but I'm sure you're not surprised! 8^) I think that, as the proposed alternative to the existing system, Libertopia must provide the burden of proof that its notion of the fully free market won't result in the (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you can start from an unfairer place and move towards a fairer place without having to start completely from scratch. I about 1% of the time think we should throw all property documentation away in NA and start over, negotiating afresh (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think that I think Dave is almost right. It still won't be fair. (If I understand what is meant by fair.) Larry has more marketable skills than I do and I have more marketable skills than the lady who's changing the trash can behind me. Very (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I am not aware of any deregulation of the medical industries, at least not in this country in the last, oh, 70 years or so. Can you elaborate? Or were you meaning deregulation like what California did in the case of the power industry. That (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) No, that's not it. I'll try to track it down for you. I got it from a recent debate about the proposed Patient's Bill of Rights. D (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) First, if they actually were compliant with all the available data, then just like in the current system, we understand it to be a mistake and they do what they can to clean it up. Let's assume though, that there were data suggesting that it (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) These are the types of soundbyte answers I was talking about, since you're giving them as though they're self-evident and sufficient in themselves, when in fact they're neither. Your first byte here underscores that the wealthy will be (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) My attempt was merely to point out that one group is paying more for road improvement and the other group is paying more for delivered goods. It is not at all clear from this which group would be the poor and the rich. Or even, which way of (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Ah, now I see. My reasoning proceeds from the idea that, as roads deteriorate, wealthy communities are able to afford the upkeep without curtailing their spending on food, rent, and clothing. Poorer communities, faced with deteriorating roads, (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

Dave, I don't have a particularly tight rebuttal to your issue with the roads. I do believe that the nature of our world/nation/whatever would change with the coming of Libertopia. Some of the changes are unpredictible. I think that economic (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: I've snipped a good deal because I think we're getting down to our basic and irreconcilable differences, just like the last time you and I went around the table a few months back! 8^) (...) to (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fair enough. Libertopia, though, is more of a thought experiment to examine ways to make changes than a thoroughly serious proposal for (relatively) instantaneous change. Certainly having it happen (all at once) to as large a nation as the US (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) You say this like the two are related? Sure you be more free to work longer hours to pay for basics. But think about the lives of those across the developing world on which the West’s "freedoms" are reliant. (...) If you read around a bit. (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Minerva is but one of many failed attempts. They go to prove Larry's claim that there is an impermiable barrier to entry. Unfortunate. Chris (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Unfortunate indeed. Did Minerva not involve the use of force to take the land of others?? Very libertarian. Scott A (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I guess maybe a few hundred people would probably claim that it did involve the use of force to conquor the area. But the other six billion, when presented with the facts would not. Mike Oliver went to an unused atoll and used dredging (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, then Scott's right; it *did* involve the use of force to conquer an area. Dave! (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I shall have to read the book 1st. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) I know that this isn't what you or Larry meant, but the statement above is indicative of another thing many people see as a problematic quirk of Libertarian philosophy. That is, if a system didn't work, it didn't work: a) because of an (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't have the details on this. But I will say this (despite what Dave! says below...) if it involved the initiation of the use of force against people who were already in lawful possession of the territory, it doesn't sound very libertarian (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) I suppose I didn't phrase my intent very clearly. What I meant was that, although I know you and Chris aren't proposing things in this (non-falsifiable, et al) way, there are those who would do so, thereby damaging the credibility of what (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. And they *are* damaging! Very!!! (...) Right, for example while maybe we can't move to a "zero pollution unless you pay everyone" model, I think that moving to a market for just about every pollutant (where the (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) While I agree in general, Afghanistan did pretty well against Russia. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Sure. And if the public believed that, based on the evidence, and all the massive evidence counter to that organization's claims, then Joe Smith would get rich dumping into the reservoir. Just like today. Only, in Libertopia: a)I think that (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ahhhh, spin control. Phillip Morris' wet-dream scenario! :-) (...) Listen to advertising: "An independent research firm confirms our product is the best..." They don't tell you who paid for the research to be done, which is often the entity (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Hah! Classic 80's Cold War paranoia, with Patrick Swayze to boot! The sad thing is that paranoia helps sell weapons. I have no doubt that our country makes enemies when none are there just to validate military spending. I looked back at one (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Neither, because that's not what the post said. At least not any that I saw, anyway. Feel free to provide the link back to the post to correct me. To reopen. It is my firm belief that a space based weapons platform *can* stop long and even (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: The bottom line of your statement is being in favor of a space based missle defense system for whatever reasons you argued. Those weren't of any particular interest to me since I'm obviously on a (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) Well said on all points! james (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yes, there always will be a bogeyman - 'cause we will make one up if he can't be found. Military-Industrial complex. Or is that a bogeyman....? :-) (...) George the Elder had no problem with tyrants so long as he felt he could do business with (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) The Iran-Iraq War was started by Saddam because of the bad blood between him and Ayatollah, in addition to sheer greed for oil and land. Doesn't change the fact that we backed him, though. Doesn't change the fact that we helped perpetuate the (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Didn't say otherwise, but it seems you are trying to slide the primary blame onto America instead of where it firmly belongs. Believe me, I'm not a big Bush backer. (...) Are you saying that "real" arabs wanted Saddam in control of Kuwait? (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Hmmm, I wouldn't say that it firmly belongs on Saddam, I think the U.S. took the role of the trouble-maker kid on the playground saying "Ooooh, he's talkin' 'bout yo mama." There's a lot of underhanded U.S. stuff that went on, such as the bugs (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) Daniel, I think you need to do a bit more research before you state the above. The upper atmosphere "generally undisturbed"? "Occasional meteor"? Think AGAIN. (...) Combustion of a liquid-fueled rocket (solid fueled are rarely used "that (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Seems like you already did the research, so please enlighten us. As I said, we should approach the matter with caution. Yes, we should research the matter so we don't end up doing more damage to our atmosphere. You got a problem with that? Dan (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Saddam sees confusion in Iran and makes a grab for the oil fields (and not the first time they've fought about that). Unless you subscribe to orbiting-mind-control lasers (fnord!) that's pretty much right as Saddam's feet. You're not really (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) They guy's a greedy thug and a butcher, no problem with that. Invading Kuwait was his fault, no problem with that. But we still supported the bastard throughout the 80's, right? The Kuwaitis still aggravated the issue and America rejected (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Why did the US support Saddam? Why, because he was better than that bloodthirsty, nasty Shi'i Khomeini, that's why! (If you can't detect sarcasm there, you need your brain checked.) We figured that since Saddam was "secular" and willing to (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Hah! My fault, I'm used to the Arabic way of calling it "Saudia" instead of "Saudi Arabia." (...) Good for you! We need more!!! Dan (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler

(...) A few years ago I read in a less-than-scrupulous...researched article that each launching of the space shuttle depletes between 8% and 10% of the ozone layer. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but we've had considerably more than 10 or 12 (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Dang! It's gone! Where's the 200 sun screen? Bruce (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Sure, but it's 8-10% of the current (or remaining) ozone. So the first one stripped away 10% of the original amount, the next one 9%, the next one 8.1%, etc. So we'll always have some left. Or maybe the Ozone Flies just release more. Who (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Oh, wait, it's only 8-10% of the ozone it *passes through*, right? ;) I mean, good Lord, only if we're powering it with sulfur! (...) The solution, of course, is to simply drive our cars around in the stratosphere. (A reference, however (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) Our society tends to be quite liberal with the use of percentage figures to back up a supposed presupposition or argument. Did anyone see that Nova episode about meteors? "We don't know how many [large] meteors there are in the solar system, (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Percents, Per Se —Dave Schuler

(...) That's fabulous! I read an article back in '92 that proclaimed we'd already discovered 90% of the world's oil. Dave! (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Percents, Per Se —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Grin. When in fact we had already discovered 100% of it! At least 100% of that which had been discovered at that time. :-) Aren't the "proven reserves" larger now than they were then? Not that I know what that means, actually, it's just a (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <some snippage of contents has occurred> (...) It is not clear to *me* that I believe America will always have any (significant) enemy. I rather think that as countries become more free, more of the world will become less belligerent. Many (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) What is this "belligerent" stuff? Are you to decide which country is "belligerent"? Belligerent to whom? To us? What, we aren't belligerent? Are they more belligerent? Don't you find this attitude the least bit arrogant? (...) I believe we (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) You're missing the point, Daniel. Why in must "a space based manufacturing infrastructure" be a "business of warfare"? I think the fact that you seem to equate them speaks more about YOU than about Larry or anyone else. I think you're a more (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) I think you're missing the point, Tom. Why should the beginnings of a "space based manufacturing infrastructure" be based on military applications? My whole point is that, all too often in this country, we use "enemies" to justify alarming (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) Because it will get things done faster, because no one (or consortium of) company is willing to pony up the money to do so at this time? (...) Oh, so we shouldn't allow anything to be done if SOME of the people involved are motivated by money (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) What's the big rush? As I said, look what happened in the last century because people rushed into so many things without considering the long term consequences. It is entirely possible that we may end up creating another problem for the next (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Circumspection was urged in this idealised "then" you're talking about too--especially as regards air travel, motor vehicles, and even medicine. And no mistake, you're absolutely right, we made a lot of problems (although I'd argue the balance (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And why do you choose to twist what *I* say? You misquoted and distorted me, without a cite, then had the audacity to say you were "protecting my privacy" by not citing me. That's rich. I use the word belligerent to describe a participant in a (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) I don't need to twist things, I even showed you your own words exactly as you wrote them. (...) That's a distortion and misquote right there! I said I did cite your example indirectly but that I "respected your anonymity" by leaving your name (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And then misinterpreted them. (...) Sorry. You are correct. There is a *tiny* bit of difference between protecting privacy and respecting anonymity. Not enough that you can slip a piece of paper beween them, but a tiny bit. However, it's still (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) I call it as I see it. We don't see things the same way. That much we can agree on. (...) A tactic? What is this discussion to you, a game? (...) Distortion or logical assumption? Why else would AMERICA put a defense system up there unless it (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think his point is not that we would _never_ protect American soil with a space based defense, but that we wouldn't be protecting the homeland from Iraq-launched Scuds. There are numerous reasons to build such a defense including: protecting (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) I understand that and I don't believe, or inferred, that Larry ever meant protecting America exclusively. But he did use the example of Iraqi "Scuds" as not a "created or fictitious need" for this defense system. I agree it may have been a (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

Addendum: (...) <snipped> Sorry, I forgot to do that on the post just before this. Dan (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I asked a vailid one here: (URL)(although it was posed in his own inimitably (...) Ah. That would be because I questioned YOU... and you never like that. (...) That is not very libertarian? I thought the libertarian philosophy was "me! me! (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It is good to see you agreeing with the libertarians on some things. (...) If we were preventing missiles from impacting, regardless of the nation that was being helped, we would be helping the people -- they are mostly good guys. Chris (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, but I do NOT agree with being quoted out of context. (...) Perhaps the bad guys can pay to protect their people against the impacting missiles of the US & their friends? Scott A (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) So anytime I quote you, I must quote every utterance to ever come from your lips? Get real. (...) guys. (...) I would be in favor that arrangement under certain circumstances. It does seem a bit too close to profiteering on death for normal (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Did I say that - No. Do I want that - No. (...) I am very real. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) single question asked of me... I am not going to reopen that particular thread except to say that I am satisfied, based on my life long intake of news, opinion, propaganda and falsehood, rather than based on any particular site, that my (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) :-O (...) But you could not justify it any way! (...) I did not sentance them Larry - you did. (...) This is all out of context. You were asked a question. You came up with possible answers. One of which contradicts your libertarian viewpoint. (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) A "correct" opinion based on lies, falsehoods, generalization, and sheepish acceptance of the Zionist media model. Not a learned, open minded or fact based opinion gleaned from comparative analysis. Thus, in a world ethics perspective, (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) How wrong you are: "Israel has gotten, and continues to get, a raw deal in the world media, I have no idea why." (URL) A (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Dan (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I was being rather sarcastic. Nobody is really wrong - we all have our opinions. Scott A (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) So it's OK for you to quote out of context, then? (...) out of context, I would have chosen this one... (...) Since you never effectively answered it. (although you did post, what, 4 responses to it?... Why so many? Couldn't compose your (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) No, and that is not what I did. (...) I think I did. I _still_ think you are wrong. I do not feel that Israel "administers justice fairly" or respects the "rule of law". Eric Olsen agreed with me on this: (URL) chose to muddy the waters with (...) (24 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)