 | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) It hasn't been proven, but hasn't seen its chance yet either. Larry made a very good point last night - Libertarianism is working, despite all the regulation in the world. It can/will work. (...) ideas (...) (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) What he really said was that a watered down version of Libertarianism is spreading. What Larry could be referring to is the reduction of laws and privatisation of services. It's like saying, well the fuel burns, this rocket will take us to (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) up (...) much (...) the (...) lines. (...) concept (...) is (...) Read it again (there is more below). Life affirming is good, definitely not evil, and doesn't relate to lawfulness. Regarding neutral... did (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Bwahahhahahah! That's perfect. If I can engage in some cheap and unnecessary ad hominem commentary: I can't think of any single statement that sums up your approach to these topics than that line right there, John. Thanks for the laugh. -- (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Oki, I got that bit. (...) Neither good or bad, either having no understanding of ones actions, or having no particular alignment to either paradigm. Thats my working definition.. disprove it. (...) Because if you don't know what you are (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
