 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
