Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 May 2001 21:23:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
829 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<some snippage of contents has occurred>
> 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 different tanget. It is
> clear to me that you believe America will always have an enemy at some point
> in time.
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 countries that used to be
belligerent have, as they moved toward democratic systems and free market
economies, become quite peaceful. (1)
So I hope over time most of our enemies will fade away in importance and
threat level. For example, China's days as a belligerent are numbered,
unless we screw things up badly. One component of not screwing it up is
ensuring that we cannot be effectively threatened (which implies our
surveillance flights in international airspace need to continue but this
time with fighter escort scrambled and ready to go).
So you must know me better than I know myself I guess, if you know what I
believe when I in fact think I believe the opposite. I'll tell you what *is*
clear to me, though, you're not even reading what I wrote, perhaps because
it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what it is that I think.
Instead you launch into another rant which has little or nothing to do with
my post. Some of which I agree with, but that's irrelevant too. Go back and
reread what I said, if you would.
1 - (semi) Free Market Democracies tend not to start wars. If I had to pick
just one thing to damn the Clinton Administration for (which is hard,
limiting myself to one) I would pick the total squandering of a golden
opportunity to increase stability in Russia and hence world peace. Rather
than fostering the growth of the rule of law and the rise of free markets,
the Clinton Administration oversaw the transfer of lots of cash to
structures that were quickly looted and did nothing to help grow private
enterprise there or to increase stability.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
