 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) Economic imperialism, whatever that might be, surely doesn't fall within *this* libertarian's definition of what an appropriate national interest ought to be. Can you define what you mean a bit more? What I think Mark is getting at is that the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) But there's a reason that the past is in the past. The world as Jefferson (whose idea of property, by the way, included certain individuals who were not duly compensated for their labor in his service) perceived it is largely irrelevant to the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) Somewhat, yes. Largely? Not sure. Certainly the ability to rain defeat on your enemy 12000 miles away in a matter of a few hours is a major difference, though. (...) I don't give deific status to anyone or anything (other than, perhaps, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes (...) As is the ability to keep tabs with one's home nation in microseconds rather than months. The reason I mention this, and the reason I basically reject the "entangled alliances" caution, is (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Well, yes and no. While it may be easier to project power now than then, it was already easier in 1914, and I would argue that entangling alliances made WW I flare up worse and faster than if it had been just Austro Hungary (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) The meaning of alliance in 1914 was already different than that in the 1780s. The point in 1914 that caused the war was very simply and plainly--as several recent studies and unearthed documents have confirmed--that the German leadership (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) It's the COBOL equivalent (minus the nuances about pre/post incrementation) to ++Lar (increment Lar by 1 in C++) Try this then... 10 SET L = L + 1 (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) I thought the BASIC syntax was 10 LET L = L + 1 ???? ROSCO (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) Heh. That reminds me of my favorite footnote... In the introduction to Struggle for Mastery in Europe, AJP Taylor says something about European diplomats of the time being generally honest. Then in the footnote, he says something like, "It is (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) Who said it was BASIC? :-) ++Lar (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) In the good old days it was colonialism and empire building--theft and occupation of other lands and exploitation of the native people and resources. We can't do that anymore today, everybody is watching everybody, so we build an economic (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) I give up. Why? I've never been in favor of it. Or government aid to anyone else except in certain very special situations. ++Lar (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) Yeah, it could be: LAR @ 1 + ? Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
|
(...) Argh! Can't even get that right. LAR @ 1 + . Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
