 | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz
|
| | | I've been out of it for a little while (I've been home sick, and the threading got too complex for me), but here I am back again... (...) One point of note: none of the societies with large numbers of street children are anywhere near Libertarian, (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | (...) Hope you stay well! (...) Brazil has a massive problem too. I think I'd laid off Libertarianism in this one, and I was focussing on the assertion made that children wouldn't suffer because of life-affirmation, that people wouldn't walk past a (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) Larry may not want this, but there are plenty of libertarians who do want exactly that. Jasper (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) One point here: This says that the _United States_ government has no moral authority to intervene. It doesn't say "no government may intervene". It even mentions why: because no existing government has a clean record. (...) Like there aren't (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) this (...) suffer (...) street (...) life-affirming is (...) is (...) other (...) of (...) worry - (...) More silliness, but couldn't the Red Cross hire mercenaries if it thought it was the right thing to (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, if I'm silly then I may as well enjoy it, big nose! (...) Nope, then the Red Cross wouldn't be able to go into war-zones and treat the sick (which is their mission) as then they would be an army too. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) I think this would be a very bad thing for the Red Cross to do. The Red Cross gets a lot of respect because it remains neutral in conflicts. That doesn't mean that other organizations wouldn't do well to do this. Of course current US poilicy (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | Frank Filz wrote in message <387CEFEB.6799@minds...ng.com>... (...) thought (...) thing (...) more (...) Red Cross was a pretty dumb organization to pick, but there are plenty of others, and the idea that "we'd" fight wars for non political reasons (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) That's it. You've just convinced me to oppose libertarianism in the US with every breath, instead of just opposing it _here_. Think about wqhat you're _saying_, man. Non-initiation of force? Jasper (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
