Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda (was incorrectly referred to as SPAM elsewhere in the thread)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:40:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
503 times
|
| |
|
|
I have been playing too long in other branches of the tree and neglected to
give this post my special once over...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > (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...).]
Let's skip Waco (Chris is dealing with your misconceptions about it just
fine). The general assertion is that government officials ought to be held
personally responsible when they mess up in big ways. Right now, when
government officials mess up, there might be a lawsuit, but that lawsuit is
against the government, not the officials (For example the lawsuits pending
against LA because of the Rampart corruption are against the City of LA
(which actually translates to "its taxpayers" because they get to pay) not
against specific people).
Are you saying that you think it is a bad idea to hold officals personally
responsible and liable?
I think it's a great idea! I want to see it true for both government AND
corporate officials. The system we have now means the taxpayers take it in
the shorts when their government screws up, with no recourse other than to
vote the officials out. So what? Too late by then.
> > (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.
I think you may be missing the point here, what is being alleged is that we
have a duopoly and that the Big Two stifle other parties and stifle open
debate. Do you agree or disagree with that assertion?
> > (3) Reject violence on principle.
<snip>
> 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.
Right on!
> > (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?) )
Not following you here, can you expand this? Do you favor laws that
circumvent the bill of rights like this one does? Or are you opposed to
them? Have things changed (in your view) so much that the bill of rights is
no longer applicable?
You can sit around all day and say "well this hasn't happened to me yet so I
don't have to worry about it" or you can dig in and see that there ARE
jackbooted thugs out there and they DO abuse the bill of rights all the
time. They just haven't come for YOU yet.
> > (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.
These are all documented abuses of power, some of which are extremely
common... whether you agree that the size and scope of government ought to
be reduced is one question, but separate that, do you agree that these
abusive practices ought to be stopped or not? (that is, I'd rather that the
government wasn't in the electric power business, and I'd rather that it
didn't have jackbooted thugs either. I can tolerate the electric power gig
somewhat better than I can the jackbooted thug gig, though)
> > "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.
No, the violence this point is addressing is the violence that government
perpetrates on citizens.
> 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.
I don't think that's the point being made at all. Why do you think it is, I
missed that part.
> > 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!
Not sure I follow you here. If this event raises the level of discussion,
isn't it appropriate to have a viewpoint and share it?
> That kind of liberal thinking is what keeps the LP a minor
> Democratic offshoot rather than a true political power.
I think you might be a bit confused about where the LP fits in the scheme of
things. It's neither an offshoot of the donkeys nor of the elephants.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) 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?) (...) If you do (...) (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
|
|
|
|
