 | | 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. (...) (23 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 (23 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 (23 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 (...) (23 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! (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
