Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:06:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
485 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> There isn't enough to debate around here these days ( grin) so here's some
> fodder.
I imagine Larry getting a new computer peripherial..."The Trouble Stirring
Up USB 2.0 Ladle and Firewire (800MBps) Pot To Stir ™"...he hooks it up and
thinks to himself ..ooOO{Now, where did I put that last LP e-mail?} 8?)
> NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
> What now? Five suggestions to
> prevent the next Timothy McVeigh
>
> WASHINGTON, DC -- Now that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh has
> been executed, there are specific actions the government should
> immediately take to prevent such a horrific act of domestic terrorism
> from ever happening again, Libertarians say.
> (1) Prosecute government officials who commit crimes.
>
> "McVeigh said he blew up the building in Oklahoma City to protest the
> federal government's actions in Waco
> "However, not a single FBI or BATF agent was arrested for their role
> in the fiery deaths of 86 people at the Branch Davidian compound in
> Waco, Texas.
If you do that, you take all of the reason out of having (paying for)
government agencies to police the citizens in the first place. If you think
the government is paralyzed by special-interest groups bitchin'-n-moanin'
about this neekid' mole rat or that rabid squirrel being endangered, wait
until they get to have a say in how this agency can act or how that agency
should have acted...'cause that's who would end up policing the police (even
more than they already do...). Waco was tragic. In a sense. Innocent
children died. Tragic events and the deaths of children happen each and
every day. Was the government to blame? Or were their parents who had
involved them in the first place? Or was Koresh? Doesn't matter now...does
it? McVeigh could have kept his actions peaceful...instead he caused another
tragedy, and tragedy + tragedy = 0. Should he have been executed? It's the
law of the land...he knew that before he started planning the bombing. The
Branch Davidians knew the laws also. They made their choices, and you can't
place the blame for that on anyone but them.
> (2) Embrace an open, vibrant political system.
>
> "People tend to turn to violence only when they feel they have no
> other way to be heard," said Dasbach. "It is the government's
> responsibility, then, to make sure that political discussion is not
> restricted, regulated, or suppressed.
>
> "When Americans feel they have a role in the political system, they
> will work through the political system to make productive changes. When
> that avenue is blocked -- either by restrictive ballot access laws,
> legal curbs on political speech, exclusion from debates, or by
> attempting to discredit unpopular political speech -- the Timothy
> McVeighs of the world turn to violence.
>
> "That's why robust political debate -- especially about the abuse of
> government power -- is a healthy way to change the system. And that's
> why stifling such debate is downright dangerous."
And everyone is able to debate with (extremely) few exceptions...again, the
law of the land. There are other ways of expressing displeasure than killing
and violence. McVeigh and those who act like him are abberations...not the
norm. Should they be tracked, hunted and quashed before they do anything?
That doesn't sound like a free society. Unfortunately, the price of freedom
for all is having to deal with those who choose to use that freedom in ways
that are violent and/or cause death. As human beings (and Americans) all we
can do is deal with them in the best ways we have conceived of and enacted
into law. Period.
> (3) Reject violence on principle.
>
> "Over the past 20 years, the United States government has intervened
> militarily in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Afghanistan, Bosnia,
> Kosovo, and other nations," said Dasbach. "In each case, these
> military actions resulted in innocent civilians being killed, and were
> done without the benefit of a formal declaration of war.
>
> "The message of these actions is simple: It's proper to use violence
> to achieve political goals. That's a message the government should not
> send. Instead, a commitment to nonviolence should start at the top.
>
> "Unless the security of the United States is directly threatened, the
> U.S. government should not bomb, invade, or drop missiles on people in
> other nations. Violence breeds violence, and it's time for our
> government to lead by example and stop the bloodshed."
I actually agree with the above statement. The United States is truly under
no obligation as an official entity to interviene in the affairs of other
countries. I also take that a step further and support the idea that our
resources and money should be solely targeted at our own country, and not
others. There is a difference between rendering humanitarian aid and putting
in place population controls, etc. In a touchy-feely sense, yes, it is nice
to work WITH all of the other countries in the world, but the US stance that
we must police those outside of our reach is a fallacy. Simply put, we have
far too many problems here at home to go out telling others what to do and
how to do it.
> (4) Repeal the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996.
>
> "This legislation, rushed through Congress after the Oklahoma City
> bombing, grants the president arbitrary power to declare individuals
> 'terrorists,' authorizes the use of secret evidence, and reverses the
> presumption of innocence for suspects," said Dasbach. "Repealing this
> law would expand freedom without hindering the ability to catch real
> criminals.
>
> "The freedoms recognized under the Bill of Rights are our strongest
> bulwark against terrorism. Security measures that infringe on those
> freedoms will inevitably lead to abuse, ultimately making us less
> secure in our lives and property."
Eh, whatever. You can sit around all day imagining what someone is going to
do to you sometime and paralzing yourself from living, or you can get on
with life. Terrorism is a buzzword, and folks will support that which acts
on buzzwords. (If only there were an Omnibus Anti-Buzzword Act of 2001...I'd
never have to hear the terms 'paradigm', 'paradigm-shift', 'proactive', etc.
ever again! 8?) )
> (5) Reduce the size and power of the federal government.
>
> "No, we're not saying that the growing power of the federal government
> justifies what Timothy McVeigh did," said Dasbach. "But the fact is,
> millions of Americans view their own government with suspicion and
> distrust.
>
> "Americans see a government that can recklessly seize our property
> under asset forfeiture, eminent domain, or environmental laws; that can
> detain us at roadblocks for not wearing a seatbelt; that forces banks
> to spy on their own customers; that shoots innocent people dead in the
> name of the War on Drugs; that can secretly read our e-mail; that
> allows the IRS to seize our bank accounts; and that can violate our
> civil liberties in a thousand different ways.
>
> "A government that was limited to its Constitutionally defined role
> would be smaller, less intrusive, and less threatening. It would be a
> government that honors fundamental American liberties, instead of
> undermining them. And it would be a government that gives Americans
> little reason to view it with apprehension."
Yes and no. Yes, I support a smaller, less intrusive government. No, I don't
think it will decrease the violence. As we know from our own little
microcosm here at LUGNET-someone will always bitch about something at some
time. Besides, the 'violence' we are talking about in this instance is the
'visible' violence. I want cars to be safer, I want food to be healthier, I
want life to be more affordable. I'm not going to blame the government for
not handing me these things on a silver platter. I'm not going to kill
someone to get my point across or have myself heard. This applies to the
majority of Americans...not the infintesimile pecentage who might actually
do something violent. To blame the government that WE (well, those before
us, and before them, ad nauseum) created/allow to remain in power is
inherently wrong.
> Those five suggestions have something in common, said Dasbach: They
> would all change the political climate in a positive way -- and make
> future Timothy McVeighs less likely.
>
> "We can never bring back the men, women, and children who were killed
> in Oklahoma City," he said. "But by using this tragedy to honor and
> reaffirm our nation's fundamental liberties, we can help make sure that
> the 168 people who died in Oklahoma City did not die in vain. It would
> be America's way of standing up and saying: 'Never again.' "
----------BULL PUCKY!------------
It is no more the LP's right, or anyone elses for that matter, to USE THIS
TRAGEDY! That kind of liberal thinking is what keeps the LP a minor
Democratic offshoot rather than a true political power. No offense to
Libertarians...seriously. In fact, at least by having the LP, you have folks
doing right the things that people who think change can be enacted through
violence do wrong. The way to make your message heard is through evangelism
and sometimes grass-roots efforts (Hmmm...seperation of church and state my
arse! If that doesn't sound like religion, I don't know what does!).
OK...I can't believe I just took place in an political
discussion...especially here at LUGNET. But it feels good to have all of
that typed anyway. Whew!
Matt
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) In a sense? A bunch of people died for no good reason and most Americans don't even care! It is way more than tragic "in a sense." (...) The kids are not the only tragedy. The adults are too. As is the fact that such a miscarriage of justice (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Libertarian Propaganda
|
| There isn't enough to debate around here these days ( grin) so here's some fodder. Rather than excerpting, here it is in its entireity. Note in particular point #3, which I think may be the most significant of the 5, although I'm rather fond of #1 (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 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
|
|
|
|
