Debate : 6989


Off-Topic / Debate / 6989

From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

Posted in its entirety. Note that I personally do not think it's appropriate to forward this to everyone in your address book as the message advocates, I'm a bit disappointed by that. I only forwarded it to those people that I felt were likely to be (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Ayup! (...) I just returned from the poll. He got at least one vote in district 8 of NJ. My rotten traitorous wife voted for Gore because she doesn't want Roe v. Wade overturned. ;-) (...) Maybe, maybe not. See below. (...) Unless you go far (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) All kidding aside--does the Libertarian party qualify for Federal campaign funding? If so, do they accept it? It seems they've been around for quite some time, and with a fair amount of support, but in my adult life I've never knowingly seen (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Used to, at the general level, although the bar has been raised to 5% of the popular vote. Still does, for the primaries. (...) No. The LP is the Party of Principle. (...) I see it all the time. But then people who drive Volvos see more Volvos (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) D'oh! It's a shame that there isn't an alternative for them, though I applaud their self-reliance. (...) Living in Pittsburgh, I don't see much advertisement locally, but "an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." I see countless (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron

(...) For some of us that IS the issue which overrides everything else in this election! Maggie C. (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) You're absolutely right! Some of us want that law overturned! ;^ Anyway, I'm not trying to start an abortion debate...only making my voice heard. James (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) Yes indeed. It would be a terrible shame if women retained sovereignty over their own bodies. (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) I cringe at the thought of the lengths of a thread encompassing an abortion- debate. I made my abortion comment because I do not want this forum to be a place where "minority" or dissenting viewpoints (such as mine) are not tolerated. For my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) Fair enough. However, I accept the definition of death as the cessation of brain function. That is, life does not exist in a meaningful way where brain function does not exist. Therefore, it follows that life begins with the beginning of brain (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Meaningful way? It sounds like you're defining something other than life. Evidence includes the fact that carrots are alive and never have brain function. (...) I don't get the whole life befins argument. Isn't it obvious that life never (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

Chirs, there are tons of people who don't agree with or understand "rights-based calculus" but we don't exclude them from their rights. "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3v0Fx.GMC@lugnet.com... (...) begin (...) (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) There are tons of sentients (not people) who are excluded from the possesion of rights. When this is justified, the arguments are typically based on the fact that they're dumber than us, religious dictate, or something seemingly undefinable (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3wwz0.M4v@lugnet.com... (...) possesion of (...) fact (...) fetuses? (...) Who's to say plants aren't sentient? (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Anyone with a dictionary and a botany text. Chris (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) Chris: You and I could get back into our whole "meat-is-murder?" debate, if you think it would help clarify this point... 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) <cringe> I know. I was tempted to let it drop for that very reason, but you know me. :-) Chris (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

Thanks James "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message news:G3s19p.7CB@lugnet.com... (...) v. Wade (...) this (...) Anyway, I'm (...) abortion- (...) a (...) degree, (...) Thus (...) does (...) body. If (...) indeed be (...) maturity of (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron

(...) I don't want to add fuel to a debate over the right to choice either since I'm certain no one's viewpoint will be swayed, but I would like some clarification. Are you thanking James for expressing an opinion with which you agree? If that is (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

I too don't want to debate the broad topic of abortion, my own views are unclear to myself at the moment (0). (...) Nope. You certainly did not misinterpret. One of the unofficial slogans of the LP is "we're pro-choice.. on everything!" If you'll (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: I missed this ref, it's even better: (URL) that both of these refs were found by typing "abortion" into the search box at the bottom of the front page of the www.lp.org site...) I'm in the 4.9% (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) I accept abortion is an issue. Most have opinions on it which at times may be hard to convey due to underlying emotions etc. However, I am always amazed at the importance of the issue in the US. Is there a reason for this? I know it is a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) Scott: Perhaps I can answer this, as I am indeed both a political pro-life supporter, and a death penalty advocate as well. Some charge that it is an inconsistent position - that life is life, and indeed killing is killing. To this charge I (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) I see you point of view, but I still feel a life is a life. Personally, I could never take another life in cold blood - no matter what the reason. The only death I can remember agreeing with was this one: (URL) I was not "happy" with that. Is (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) I respect that, and I aknowledge that you may be correct. Personally, I (...) Nor could I, but execution is not in cold blood. Cold blood is murder, which is unjustified and therefore always Wrong. The (...) offered on their behalf, and until (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Hah! I could kill in cold blood. If I was in a rage, or if I simply had to eat, I think I could manage. OTOH, I think the concept that state-sponsored execution is somehow not killing in cold-blood is laugable. Killing when you have a choice (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) That was a good one to bring up. From what I have read of the issue with the siamese twins, I am in fact happy with the decision. I am satisfied that a rights based examination of the situation was made. In the case of abortion, it is equally (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Agreed, but what are they? There is a clear incongruity in the US, in that the father has _no_ say in whether the child is aborted -- it all rests with the mother, and yet the father is financially burdened with no recourse. (...) What about (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

Please note in the following discussion that my own feelings on when if ever abortion is appropriate are very undecided. The following is a thought exercise. Don't assume that just because I make a statement below that it equates to how I really (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A0DB4A3.2F33B6...ing.com... (...) that the (...) the (...) Right, I brought this up here last year, while debating Larry, who was much more steadfast and aware of his stance on the abortion (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Todd Lehman

(...) Humans generally don't, but caterpillars and butterflies do. There is no one particular moment that a caterpillar becomes a butterfly; the transformation happens gradually. Similarly, when a human dies, there's usually not any one paricular (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The organism stays the same species the whole time just like the human does. And do you think that the betterfly really changes more than the human does? I'd say less. There is a little wormy thing with legs and then it grows some wings and (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) This little description brings to mind some thoughts: 1. Yes, male humans are aggressive boogers, even all the way down to how their sperm accomplish their half of the act of conception... 2. the last stanza in a fun little poem (Prehistoric (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I have had people in face to face discussions, refuse to ever talk to me again because I supported ideas like this. (Or that sexual encounters between adults and children are not necessarily unhealthy, or that cannibalism isn't evil.) But the (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —John Neal

(...) Hmm. Interesting, Chris. I'm curious about some things. First, how old is your son? And why would he think that you might "own" him, or that he is your "slave"? (I assume you mean that you don't "own him" in the sense that he is your (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Six (and three months). (...) Are you asking why he would put it in those words? He wouldn't. Or are you asking where he would get the idea that when dad says "go to your room" he must? If the latter, most children get that idea based on the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —John Neal

(...) Got it. (...) Yes. Okay. (...) How about the thinking that "if I don't go to my room when my parents ask, they will be displeased with me and I want them to love me, not be unhappy with me, so I will do it". This is the usual motivation IMO, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) they (...) me, so (...) Well, how about it? I know that that takes place. But what is behind that? What do they know will happen when they are "displeased with me?" And I think it is distinctly unhealthy for kids to grow up in an environment (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —John Neal

(...) Not what I meant. Kids need to know right from the git-go that their parents love them-- that no one in the world will ever love them more than they will. It is an unconditional love. There isn't any "love extortion" going on at all. A child (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You mean there shouldn't be, right? Because I believe it's not too uncommon for exactly that to take place. And even when the parents don't know that that's exactly what they're doing. (...) I can't imagine why you would think that. Do you (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —John Neal

(...) Yes, a parent's love should be unconditional for their children. Even so, I'm not sure one can really turn love on and off for their kids. (...) I tested my theory with my own kids last night. They actually gave me that answer. Maybe I have (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) not (...) I believe that love (real love) can't be turned on and off. It would sometimes be easier if it could. But just because you can't turn your love for your kids on and off, doesn't mean that you can't pretend that you can and abuse them (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —John DiRienzo

Thanks Chris for addressing that which is too rarely looked at. Children no more need a master on Earth than a master in heaven. Most people do not understand the purpose of the mind and have no concept of how to kindle its fire. I think you have (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —John Neal

(...) Uh, we don't know that... (...) And you do? Please enlighten, but first please cite your source of this understanding. (...) I think he's shown how to get your kid to call you by your first name, that's about all. (...) Uh, we don't know (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) This is a deep epistimological issue. Which part don't we know? I don't know that the sun came up this morning (I've been at work since before sunrise) but I don't just 'think' that it has. Actually, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think this is already clear, but just in case, me too. (...) Yup. I agree. (...) Yup. I agree. (...) John's response discusses the implied contract between the mother and father. I agree with him that these contracts should be written and (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3x13L.8HB@lugnet.com... (...) father. (...) the (...) to. We (...) decent (...) it (...) right (...) the (...) exist (...) that (...) I wonder if the human rights abuses of women in (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, that's not exactly what I meant. I was talking about something that women would be against too. (...) Privately Produced Law. Chris (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Some, like me. (...) Absolutely. Society has invested oodles and gobs of resources into the adult, while the fetus costs virtually nothing to lose. (...) This is your second use of "objectively." I think you'll find that it means something (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) Since I received several error messages when trying to open dictionary.com, I will quote you one of the definitions of "objective" from The American Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition: "2) Having actual existence or reality." I meant (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"James Simpson" <mitchjacko@cs.com> wrote in message news:G3vtI2.BtK@lugnet.com... (...) most (...) of (...) help (...) believe (...) What do you mean justice exists? Thats preposterous. Justice doesn't exist. If it did there wouldn't be the words (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) Perhaps I didn't phrase my sentiments clearly. Perhaps I should have said that some actions are inherently just and some are inherently unjust. I believe that Justice is the embodiment of certain moral principles that are objectively true, and (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Christopher L. Weeks

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) From Merriam-Webster's (URL) , the essense of objective is something "having reality independent of the mind." So two rational people examining the evidence, will come to the same conclusion about objective matters. The very fact that I (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) I in fact do believe that certain moral truths operate independently of the mind. Because something is objectively true, it does not follow that the moral truth is imminently and transparently obvious to an observer. You may be right - my (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) protecting (...) soldiers, (...) What if you're protecting your homeland and you're sniping wounded soldiers? Those folks are going to get medical attention and come back with guns. And when they do, they're likely to be mad. So why not kill (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) Reasonable limits have to be set somewhere. One can err by taking "what-if" scenarios too far when considering actions. The idea of killing wounded soldiers just because they *might* become able-bodied seems morally-repugnant. Better to take (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I can respect that. (...) I don't know the tenets of your religion very well, having never agreed with them. But is it your job to mete out that kind of justice according to Christianity? I thought Christ admonished you to turn the other cheek (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) That is indeed a principle tenent of the faith. I won't lie to you that I have questions as to how the balance of mercy/judgment must be applied by the state (whatever political state it might be). I think that the criminal justice system has (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) someone (...) Wow. I don't buy your arguments for many things, but this was good! Really. You basically used the same logic that I use for why it's OK to use lethal force to defend your home. Hmmm. (...) for (...) How (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, I'd hate to think that you'd circumcise the poor guy again! I'm not sure where I come down on the whole snippage issue; the arguments about hygiene and "healthier in the long run" just don't seem that solid. I suppose it *is* mutilation, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I (...) Well, you know, only as punishment. ;-) (...) It sounds below like you have no reason to be unsure. Why would you do it? (...) Me too. I think that's why it's so hard for people to abandon the practice. And honestly, an unmutilated (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

Christopher Weeks wrote: <snippage of er, snippage discussion> (...) How on earth could you make an informed decision on *that*? ;-) John (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You are absolutely correct. I believe the one word answer is 'hypocracy.' The deal, I think, is that people have an easy time getting righteous warm fuzzy feelings in the depths of their mind for protecting babies. It is much harder to get (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

The whole problem of the abortion debate is that it is actually *two* debates intertwined into one. One, whether the government has the right to tell one what one can do with one's body (most would say no), and whether one has the right to take the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) This issue aside, I can't agree with this. Goverment should also protect us from ourselves. If one were to decide to take ones own life, one would expect "government" to get involved. (...) Perhaps. However, a man was democratically executed (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) Government should protect us from ourselves??? This is an absurd statement in my mind (see my statement about avoiding personal responsibility), but I sense a fundamental disagreement here as to the purpose of government and will agree to (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree :) (...) The problem here is what is "unjustified" to you may be OK to me - or vise versa. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one too. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) Well, not what "unjustified" means to *me*, but to what society says. In the case of capital punishment, society may say that *that* is justice; therefore executions are justified in the eyes of that society. If you mean to agree to disagree (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) If a given group of people reach a democratic decision after am informed, educated and objective debate - who am I to argue against they are "wrong"? I may disagree, but I can only respect their opinion. This issue aside, at times (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) case (...) But that doesn't make it right, or actually just. (...) But still evil. (...) Well, if you're a member of said society, and being forced to fund their evil practices, I think you ahve every right to explain that they are wrong. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

Okay, you are responding to opinions of two people mixed below, but I will just cut to the chase, Chris. You say killing mass murderers and repeat child molesters is evil. How would you deal with them? Simply incarcerate them so that they may enjoy (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Powell

(...) just (...) that (...) equipment, (...) How do you deal with the first innocent person you murder??? Does that answer your question? As I stated before, I can think of 2 cases in Canada (and several in the US) off my head that would have lead (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) Well, I never really came out and said that I was pro death penalty. But if I were, I would be *damned* sure that the convicted party was indeed the perp. All I am saying is that our current system leaves a lot to be desired. What I suggested (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) Yes. (...) Yes, assuming they will work, they need to be properly fed so they can perform as much work as possible, now if they chose not to work (or chose to be so uncontrollable that they can not safely be put to work), well, then they (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not sure I'd give them cable OR net access. I don't support the way prisoners are treated in the US (or for that matter, the way prisons are organized and funded)... but don't confuse that with support for putting someone to death in order (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Handling of Prisoners? —Dave Schuler

(...) It is demonstrable that the cost of putting a prisoner to death (after weighing the costs of appeals et al) greatly exceeds the cost of imprisoning that same prisoner for life; the argument that execution saves money is flawed. It is, by the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) just (...) I would search for a way to help them remedy the harm that they caused. If they are mentally broken, I would therapise them (I suppose, by force, even though I'm uncomfortable with that), and if they were too broken, I would (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) What if they were unrepentant? (I'm innocent!) My point was that letting criminals sit around for the rest of their lives in prison with all of their needs provided for and more is hardly justice IMO. Simple incarceration is not enough. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) their (...) So what? I assume that most criminals in today's society are unrepentant. (...) needs (...) Well, that is clearly not what I advocated above, so I'm not sure why you're pointing this out to me. They should be employed in the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) I was referring to criminals *in* prison-- if most assert innocence, I doubt they would be willing to work to make reparations. (...) I think we agree that criminals should *work* to make reparations. All I'm pointing out is that, *in our (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) they (...) Me too. They assert innocence in order to try to get out. They would be willing to work if they were properly incented to. You can shackle people and have them make gravel, but that's not useful. You can not shackle people and have (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

Christopher Weeks wrote: <snip> (...) Yeah, so what the hell are we arguing about? :-) (...) Yeah, I'm sure they do, Chris. But when they get out, they get amnesia or something, because many if not most go back to a life of crime. You explain it. (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) it. They don't know how. Prison _could_ (but does not) teach them how to do it right. (...) pick (...) would (...) Or if they were released with the skills to make it on the outside. And that way we don't have blood on our hands. (...) be (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) This assumes that criminals are caught upon their first infraction. A criminal doesn't become "hardened" simply by spending time in the joint; a life of criminal activity, inside or outside of prison, will harden someone very effectively. (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think that most criminals are first caught during their youth. That aside, I'm sure there are some who live long full lives of crime and never get caught. I still suspect that if someone can be hardened, they can be softened. (...) Yes. And (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

Christopher Weeks wrote: <snip> (...) If a person freely chooses a life of crime, who are you to say that they are lost? I 'spose you'd say that they are "broken", but if that is the case, then I'd venture that by your definition of broken, all (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) An optimistic notion, to be sure, but I don't know that it's consistent with reality. The process by which someone becomes hardened into a life of crime is insidious and *very* long term (or at least potentially so); I cannot imagine, nor has (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I expect that if it takes them a long time to harden, it will take at least as long to soften. And ultimately, I don't know how to do what I'm suggesting. If you can arrange stewardship over a prison and a somewhat increased budget with which (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What about all the prisoners? —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm still not comfortable with this, since it suggests "choose to conform or we'll make you choose to conform to society's ideals" in a way every bit as totalitarian as the Big Brother states of which Libertopia is the antithesis. (I know you (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"John Neal" wrote in message (...) people) (...) liberals (...) sociopaths (...) ever) (...) under the (...) huge (...) Would the Libertarians call this wussy flash? Why would you want to keep the most abused of all drug laws on the books, Mr. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) Not sure I understand the question-- are you asking me why I would still make it a crime to drive a vehicle under the influence of drugs? Because if you are, then you are more obtuse than I thought. -John (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A228CA4.D204CA...est.net... (...) make (...) you (...) Oh I know the answer John, the question was more rhetorical, so I am not really offended nor even surprised by your attack. Hopefully (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Freedoms in Libertopia? (was Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —John Neal

(...) Well, here's my point. I am all for personal freedom, but even in Libertopia we need to draw some lines. Hey, use all the drugs you want; it's your life to ruin. As long as you do it with the understanding that there won't be any free gov (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedoms in Libertopia? (was Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Are there systems that can prevent irresponsible driving that might work even better than what we have now? The US has an alarmingly high amount of DWI. Our system may not be working all that well. Other countries are even worse. I don't have (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedoms in Libertopia? (was Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne) —Frank Filz

(...) Of course such a device does exist, though I'm not sure how accurate it is. (...) So would I. (...) With privitized roads, I don't see any problem with the owner putting any sort of restrictions, including deciding someone looks like a drunk (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:G3tJ8p.446@lugnet.com... (...) "wrong"? (...) at (...) Having read what I just wrote in this forum regarding education and child rearing are you still so selfless to say, "Who am I to argue (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Tom Stangl

(...) Why should we EXPECT government to get involved with a choice over our own lives, if it does not affect others? That's just plain WRONG. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Not this one. Suicide should be a right. Chris (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) So if knew a pesron was about to take their own life, you'd let them on the basis that you consider they should have the right to do so?! I'd tend to try to stop them. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Honestly, I could see it going either way. My grandfather-in-law was really sick and stocked up on poison with which to end his life. I knew that was going to happen. I never once considered intervening. If my son, as an adolescent, seems (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'd agree... Assuming of course that the person is of sound mind, and that the rights of others are not being violated in doing so. Clear cut example, I don't have the right to fill up a truck with explosives and then drive to your house and (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) Sounds selfish to me. I happy to live in a society where, no matter what my circumstances, I have the right to education, healthcare and housing. I also happy that the state meddles in my affairs and invades my privacy to make sure I am giving (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) Wow. And this is probably where the discuss ends, because we in America value *FREEDOM* and *LIBERTY*. It is the basis for our existence, and why further debate is pointless. You welcome government telling you what you can and cannot do. We (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Scott, of course, snipped the subordinate clause I put on there, the clause showing a balance of rights so that all rights are respected. As is his wont. Snip away what might disagree with your point or show that the other side is reasonable. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Scott Arthur

Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion... —Scott Arthur

(...) I was not trying to hide that Larry. And I did alert any readers to that fact - which is what you chose not to answer my questions. That aside, looking at the tone of some of the LP aims, I feel that they do not care too much for the rights of (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) From the definition of "critical" (1) (and I am surprised that I have to explain this to a Doctor, actually. What kind of doctor are you, again?) ... You are "critical" in the sense of 2 a : inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion... —Scott Arthur

(...) PhD ... (...) Yes you are correct. Even though I have a lot of respect for TL, I don't think he is correct all the time. No big deal really. If it were TL could change the T&C. (...) If you mean I don't agree with you, you are correct. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion... —Frank Filz

(...) Scott, think this through, and give an answer: what superior power of decision making does the government (which is a collection of people) have that any other collection of people could have? What makes the legislatures and other government (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion... —Scott Arthur

(...) You or I can only hope to assist our kids in the education path which they choose. They can only make a choice from what is available. Educational planners are there to predict the needs of your country. At a low level, below are the aims of (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You're a scholar (who won't say what his PhD is in, which is what I was asking) or so you claim... read some Hayek. (URL) demonstrates to my satisfaction, that no planning board can outplan the market. No planning board can predict needs, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion... —Scott Arthur

So you accept all the other points I rasied then? And what about all those you snipped in you last reply to me? You are squirming Larry. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion... —Scott Arthur

(...) Ah. A libertarian economist. Just what is your level of "satisfaction"? (...) If this is so, how can a collective of parents do any better? (...) Hardly objective Larry, you can do better than this. Answer all my points. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion... —Scott Arthur

(...) ROFL. This guy came runner-up in the LP man of the century! You using him for justification, is like Lenin using Marx (Not Groucho) to justify communism. You really are a critical thinker Larry, I am in awe. Argue your point with me Larry, be (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) So, exactly how little do you wish to have the right to do as you please? Would you be OK with it if your government decided that sales via online auction houses were illegal because they were funnelling money out of the UK and into the US, (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Tim Courtney

(...) I like this quote from the page: The Libertarian Party should be explicitly, and proudly, pro-life. As Libertarians, we are the party of individual freedom and responsibility. Intelligent Libertarians know that sex is supposed to result in (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) With all due respect to Kyle, whose credentials on the subject of sex's "purpose" I have yet to read, this quote proposes a rather arbitrary view. Who is Kyle to say what "sex is supposed to result" in? Sex is supposed to result in sex, and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) Dave!: I'm curious as to what your presuppostions are in this matter (Curious - not Attacking.) From a purely evolutionary perspective, sex is meant to result in pregnancey and thus the transfer of genetic material to insure species survival. (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) I kind of screwed up my wording, as you and Tim have both correctly pointed out. I addressed my actual meaning in my reply to his post, stating, in essence, that the evolutionary purpose for sex is reproduction, but reproduction can no longer (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yup. (...) So? This does have, and should have, NOTHING to do with our law. From the same reasoning, we evolved for the sole 'purpose' of concentrating resources most effectively. As Neal Stephenson has put it, we are the "ultimate badass." So (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right. And even from an evolutionary argument perspective, to argue that sex is for procreation and procreation only, is to miss how subtle evolution actually is. Humans, and many other higher animals as well, have sex a lot more than is (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Tim Courtney

(...) So you're stating that sex is an end to itself, and pregnancy is an occasional accident? So basically...we accidentally have a population of some 6 billion. I can't agree. Though sex has its own individual merits, the obvious natural purpose (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Powell

(...) Perhaps you should try listening to "Unplugged" by Spirit of the West, for a view of it :) Some of us think that it is NOT up to the government to make a decision on the matter. It is a _personal_ choice, and one that if you are wise, you (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) I didn't state that very clearly, and I apologize. I meant that the sole purpose of sex cannot be identified as reproduction, at least not among species able to choose when they want to copulate. (...) Let me be clear--the fact that it is (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) In general, yes. (...) It has certainly been known to happen. (...) Yes! (...) Why not? It seems rather obvious to me. If not, then what guiding force do you attribute it to? (...) There is no such thing as natural purpose. Intelligences are (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Selçuk Göre

(...) How about thinking about how many child do you want for your entire life, and just compare it with the number of times you supposed to make sex with your partner..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) Nice term "non-sentient tissue structure". Merely because the fetus has yet to develop sentiency doesn't mean that it won't-- aborting it robs it of its right to do so. I think timing is irrelevant. I think that's why IUDs were such a bad (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) Not to mention accurate. (...) So non-sentient tissue has rights, too? Do these rights supercede the rights of the sentient mother? Why? On what grounds? (...) Timing is the essence of the matter. (...) Nonsense. You are stating outright that (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) Your term may indeed be accurate, but I think that it does not do full justice to the inherent and latent qualities of the tissue structure. When confronting the abortion issue from either angle, the issue of potential *cannot* be avoided. My (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

Thanks James "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message news:G3tuoG.CBD@lugnet.com... (...) woman (...) justice (...) confronting (...) intelligence (...) has (...) emergence (...) a (...) base (...) emerges (...) womb (...) matter (...) (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) I know Larry has called for sitting out this one, but I've got an interesting comment here... One does have to be a bit carefull about protecting the "potential" of human life. I read a short story once which took this idea to an extreme. In (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) Yes, this can get a little crazy. When I say potential, I mean the potential of an *already* fertilized egg which has a specific genetic code in place. I think I can safely argue the potentiality of a fertilized egg without having to consider (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Just as a note, in case anyone didn't go look at the ref, this was an unscientific poll, self selected participants, and the quotes were, I suspect, selected to show the diversity of opinions on the issue. Tim chose to pick one quote that he (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Selçuk Göre

(...) So, knowing that there is no 100% sure method other than vastectomy (sp?) or its equivalent for women, then either lay down on operation table, or "if you don't want to have child, do not make sex ever" right? sorry Tim but: Hehehehehehehehe. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Tim Courtney

"Selçuk Göre" <ssgore@superonline.com> wrote in message news:3A0FF811.1D604F...ine.com... (...) There are known methods of having sex and not having it result in pregnancy which can be used. If you don't want to have a child, I would say don't allow (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I have found it uncommon for Republicans to advocate anal sex. But remember it's not 100% in a heterosexual couple. (...) You are nothing but a group of cells. (...) Not in the context of our government. Maybe not ever. (...) They traumatize (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Tim Courtney

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3zBp9.KGB@lugnet.com... (...) pregnancy (...) remember (...) I was not advocating anal sex. I was referring to contraceptives, condoms, and other forms of protection. I do not advocate (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Oh, I thought you meant a way that was sure to avoid conception. The pill and other female-based chemical methods are pretty reliable. The condom is less so, but still pretty good. From there it's down hill. I'm not actually sure where anal (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Tim Courtney

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3zEJ9.74n@lugnet.com... (...) and (...) less (...) sure (...) aren't (...) Yep. (...) Personal and moral reasons. -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) [snip] (...) But my point was that none of those methods are 100% which is what it seemed you were suggesting. That is, it seemed you were simply saying that there were some ways to have sex without having a baby. (...) OK, this could be (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Tim Courtney

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3zJ1o.MKB@lugnet.com... (...) as (...) part (...) act (...) I find it asthetically unpleasing, heterosexual or homosexual, at this point in my life. But, I prefer not to be examined to (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) IMO, an explicit discussion of sexual practices, be they hetero or homosexual might not be in order, considering that Lugnet is a "family forum" and kids might stumble in here. Granted, we might not want young minds to have to tackle the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Tim Courtney

"James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message news:G3zJow.1ux@lugnet.com... (...) might (...) instead (...) is a (...) homosexual (...) kids (...) tackle (...) Agreed. I don't particularly want to engage in that discussion, hence I summarized (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Gad!!! I hadn't thought of that....Whew....I just read the Terms of Use Agreement, and I think I'm on safe ground even if it's a bit risque. I'll go ahead and let it drop for the sake of the kiddies who are made uncomfortable. (...) But I want (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It fits in right....ummmmm....no further comment. (...) I must resist....I must resist... I can't resist. Wouldn't it be near the bottom? :-) Bruce (pushing the boundries of good taste) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Tim Courtney

"Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote in message news:G3zFwF.BMz@lugnet.com... (...) LOL!! (good thing this wasn't xposted to fun) ;-) -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (URL) - Zacktron Alliance (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) I find this whole topic to be a big pain in the... never mind. 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) *I* wouldn't know. ;-) Bruce (OOooooo, more cheap shots!) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Geez! You kids are bad. These posts belong in .pun, don't they? Chris (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) My, my, aren't we anal retentive. Has our humor bottomed out? Or will this continue to be the butt of more jokes? Perhaps we are off-target and the jests are not making a hole-in-one? All these questions and the answer is....? Alimentary, my (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) I think that should have been "and the answer is:" You should have used a colon. (...) I'm afraid I'll need a little time to digest that last bit. Dave! FUT off-topic.pun (at last) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) For both comedic timing and consistency in using question marks, no. And let's not even bring up a semi-colon: I don't like half-assed punctuation. (...) To say nothing of the tapeworm. :-0 Bruce (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Tom Stangl

(...) Most of those forms of protection aren't very reliable. When dealing with the enormous responsibility of having a child, even 99% effectiveness doesn't cut it. Sterilization is the only TRUE 100% effective contraceptive (assuming followup (...) (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Selçuk Göre

(...) As I said in my first pharagraph, there is no methods with 100% relaibility, even when used in combination. Other than some surgical operations of course. So if you don't want to be cut, there is always a possibility to have a babe as a result (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron

(...) So it seems you Libertarians are a microcosm of the rest of our society on this issue! (Well, maybe if the rest of society were polled, there might be substantially more than 8.8% in the indecisive or confusing category! :-) ) I must say I am (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Powell

(...) I'm Pro-Choice, but anti-abortion. How is that for fence sitting? What it means is, that given that my actions could bring a child into the world. I have discussed this with my wife, and said, that given the choice I would choose not to abort (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

Hi Maggie, This is debate, so that's what we'll do. "Maggie Cambron" <mcambron@pacbell.net> wrote in message... (...) I'm (...) clarification. I disagree. I don't believe anyone's viewpoint will be swayed if we all keep our opinions to ourselves. I (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

OK, I am taking on the somewhat daunting task of responding to this huge note. (...) Me too, I guess that's why I read and respond to this stuff. (...) How much damage has to be included in the threat to the woman's body before it's OK for her to (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron

(...) Thank you, John , for a well thought out response to my post. You have swayed my viewpoint, as did Larry's referral to the poll of Libertarians on their opinions on the matter of choice. It was naive of me to assume that because one is a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

Maggie, I don't want to be harsh or insulting, but this basically sounds like what I have been hearing for years from the pro-choice people, and it hasn't put a dent in my way of thinking in all those years. I can empathize with you not wanting (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Powell

(...) I'll take you up on this one John D. Simple. If the child is born at 16 weeks (4 months), it will NOT be viable. Therefore, I see no problem with it. I think that up until around that point (consider premie babies, they die mostly at under 24 (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) There are some interesting things to explore here. I agree that a "viability" test is certainly part of the rights based calculus which should be used to evaluate these things. One way to examine the issue is that the unborn baby only has the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

Thanks James, You kinda scare me when you start off with the word Simple... none of this has seemed simple yet, and if it's so simple to someone else, I question whether they have given it enough thought. However, thats a pretty good point that I (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron

(...) Of course, it was emotional. This is an emotionally charged subject. You'll have to pardon me, this was my first time posting to debate and I did not know that one of the rules was that you must leave your emotions at the door. (...) Actually (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

(...) Maggie: I apologize for jumping on your case. Being in the minority of opinion politically and err...just about everything else...I sometimes like to throw a philosophical wrench into the works when I feel like the forum is about to play (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Selçuk Göre

Maggie Cambron wrote: Thank you Maggie..:-) (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes: [big snip] (...) your (...) I believe the same logic can be applied to any act that we consider crimes. e.g. If someone inconvenienced me, I suspect I would choose to kill them. "I hope never to be (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) I think you have crystallized why the abortion issue is so thorny, because it deals with 2 issues at the same time. Maggie is right that woman should have the right to do what they will with their bodies. But the fact is that a fetus *in* a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron

(...) But (...) granted (...) in (...) in. (...) Well, let's see.... if you want to apply the same logic, you need to choose a comparable crime. So it couldn't be one that either of us would consider a mere inconvenience, could it? (Or am I wrong to (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

Did you not get it on purpose? (...) I did. Murder of an adult and murder of a fetus. You're turning it around wrong. (...) The inconvenience that my scenario runs paralell to is that of bearing a child for nine months in your abdomen. (...) I don't (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) <SNIPPED> Sorry to barge in. I think you could argue, as you do, that both your hypothetical adult & foetus could be considered victims in murder. However, the if a foetus were to cease to exist, society would not notice - there would be no (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Agreed. Absolutely. I personally value most adults more than any fetus. On the other hand, I'm not sure that we want our laws to set the severity of penalty for murder based on the societal importance of the victim. In that case, killing a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, I had thought of that when I drafted my last post. I suppose society has "invested" in your hypothetical 9 year old... but that is not a very strong argument. I suppose my original argument reflects the current trend for the views of (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

Uh, society is not the victim here, dude. When talking about murder, the victim normally is the person who was murdered, but maybe on your planet the purpose of justice in a murder trial is to figure out how the unfortunate slaying of an innocent (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

feticide Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:G42sw2.pM@lugnet.com... (...) around (...) However, (...) in (...) mind, (...) Au contraire. The cases are basically the same. In my country murder is murder... if you kill a postman or a (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron

(...) No, it's just that you and I disagree. To me the "crime", as you would call it, is the violation of the woman's body. I believe a woman is fully within her rights to have an abortion if she wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy as long as (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

Maggie Cambron wrote: I hope it's okay to butt in, but I have a question for you, Maggie (or anyone, really; I guess that I just find women's perspectives more vested on this topic). Should a woman who engages in sexual activity as a willing (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) topic). (...) all (...) I think the problem is that pro-choice people would say that of course she's responsible. Not because of any law or ethic, but because she ends up with the loaf in the oven. And it is her responsibility to have it (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron

(...) Yes, I agree she should be responsible for becoming pregnant or not becoming pregnant if that's her preference. In an ideal world I would say it should jointly be agreed upon with her partner and they should both take responsibility, however (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Previously, you wrote: (...) I took that to mean that you thought that laissez-faire stance was to allow murder. And that you hoped that while murder might make you uncomfortable, you would allow it to remain a personal decision for everyone. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron

(...) The statement you quoted from before had to do with IF I were pro-life and thought that any abortion was murder. In that case, I might vote for people who would put the likes of Thomas and Scalia (sp?) on the Supreme Court in the hope that (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yes, exactly. And your response was that you'd try to keep it a personal decision. Now obviously, that's not what you meant, or how you meant it. Fine. For the sake of the next two points below, I'm assuming that we're defining murder as a (...) (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron

(...) We both agree that is murder. (...) I would convict him as long as I could be sure the sentence he is given is no more than about 2 weeks. (...) Ironically, I think in actual fact I would find it much more than mildly distasteful. (...) That's (...) (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) This stance kind of troubles me. It suggests that not only do you view the death penalty as an appropriate penalty for rape, but you don't even expect that the alleged perpetrator should get a trial. (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Hi Frank, When you say that I approve of "the death pnealty" it sounds like you're talking about a court-ordered penalty. I don't believe that courts should pass out death. Ever. Really! One of my stances is this: Government (at all, I mean as (...) (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) I think there's a big difference between an act of self defense, and chasing someone down after the fact. Vigilante justice should not be tolerated. I know that it is a very fine line, but my feeling is that once a perpetrator is leaving the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I too think that. Self defense doesn't even need to go to court. (...) Your opinion is noted and disagreed with. For two reasons: First, I think there is nothing inherently wrong with vigilante justice, if it is rightly applied. And I'll be (...) (24 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Shiri Dori

(...) IMO, yes. (...) Yes. (...) Well. Now that's a tougher one. My opinion on this is that the number of abortions should be decreased through means of *education* about contraceptives, about sex abstinance, and yes, values. I've been distilled (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) Why should abortions be reduced? (...) Unwanted how? Rape? Carelessness? Would it matter? What would the options be? (...) For what reasons exactly would it be a hard decision? Do they revolve around you or the fetus? (...) *good* values:-) (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Shiri Dori

(...) Because at a certain point, abortion IS murder. By the end of the pregnancy the fetus is all but a baby, and deflating its/his/her skull is not letting it live. The rpoblem is, when exactly is that point; no one can say. The best solution is (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

Note below that in my questions, I'm not arguing, I'm asking for clarification. (...) So what? Do you think that pre-murder abortions should be reduced too? Why? (...) Why can no one say? That point must be based on something. If it's based on (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Shiri Dori

(...) No prob. Thanks for making that clear! (...) See below... (...) Not really. Whatever you decide that point might be (sentential tissue issues were brought up here IIRC?, and the fetus being viable (i.e. can survive outside the womb), etc) it (...) (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) That should be self-evident, and if it is not, then no amount of rational discourse will aid your understanding. (...) My "wisecrack," as you call it, was an appropriately glib response to the original glib post. Dave! (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson

No, thank *YOU*, John. That was an incredibly lucid, well-reasoned and powerful argument. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Did I get side-tracked into lugnet.off-topic.mut...n-society? ;-) Chris (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

Holy Cow! I'm away for a couple days and this happened... (...) OK, so the woman doesn't have the right to destroy another human's body. I understand and generally agree so far. (...) Waitnowholdonaminit! Now it sounds like you're saying that the (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3nsGC.IpB@lugnet.com... (...) Unless you go all the way!! (...) the (...) then (...) constitution (...) While I have often thought you might be right, and with the minimal support of (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) ...and your going to vote for this guy. How bizarre. Scott A (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Which of these patently admirable stances do you think is bizarre? Chris (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Powell

(...) I agree with this one, at least as far as some drugs go. The 1/2 (bumed) war on drugs is a waste of money and effort. (...) Well...you see, I don't _want_ to need a M1A1 Abrams tank to defend my home, thank you very much. Do you really think (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, James, we've already had this argument. You know darn well already that all of these things above are goods, rather than rights. And as I've said before, there is no moral right to free goods. But since you're a communist: (URL) not sure (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Powell

(snipage) (...) True. I however feel that _as a society_ we choose to do some things, and that those things mentioned (and snipped) above are things that are worth doing. Why are they any less worth doing than say, defending the country, or your (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) If you think they're worth doing, by all means, please go ahead. However since they involve transfers of wealth from one person to another, my position is that you ought to do them on your nickel, not mine. I am not my brother's keeper unless (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G3oEv3.H9y@lugnet.com... (...) I've (...) my (...) don't (...) Hmm this sounds very charitable. Personally, I quite happy to be a member of society, and contribute to it passively (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thanks! I agree. It *is* very charitable. (...) So am I. And I think my contributions, allocated by me, are more effective than yours, allocated by bureaucrats. (...) I suspect a typo, I think you meant to say "just not convinced"... because (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

I'm not going to reply to most of this, as I doubt we'd ever really reach a consensus. It really comes down to what your life is about: 1. Being a part of society 2. Or the accumulation of personal wealth. If you with the best way to succeed in life (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

Oddly, I'm with both of you :-) (...) I don't think so. I think your life can be about many things, including both of those. They are in no way mutually exclusive. (...) Great! I, for one, am truely glad that you've hooked up with a system that (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Powell

Chris wrote:(with snippage) (...) how (...) You _are_ doing that (educating the illiterate). You are _paying_ to do it with your time at another job rather than doing it directly. Don't try to say you are _not_ doing it, because you are. It is just (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, in retrospect, it is a little simplistic. (...) No. Things would be too reactive - cute puppies would get all the $$$. Ugly issues like Aids Research etc would be moved town the agenda. (...) That is your perspective, others will differ. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Mike Stanley

(...) That really depends on how much of your money that is taken from you actually gets used to "benefit" people. Do you think that any large percentage of 1/3 of your income actually produces results? If so, I have a couple of bridges you might be (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Isn't what you actually mean "I don't have any refutation"? (...) You're right. I choose being a part of society. What about you? I'd say that if we take a survey of your posts here (not a scientific metric!!!) on Lugnet, you're probably going (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Scott Arthur

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

tut tut Larry, you snipped my message to bits and did not answer my points, who unlike you ;) I like hear you views here: =+= (...) I doubt it. Those at the lower end of society will be further marginalised. =+= and here: =+= (...) "generously" - (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Plowed ground. Every point you marked with "=+=" has already been answered in this very newsgroup, by me or others. I am not going to do your homework for you and provide all the references as I have neither the time nor the interest. Go read (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Plowed Ground —Dave Schuler

(...) Speaking of which, you've mentioned previously that "all rights are property rights" or something to that effect. I won't ask you to rehash it all for me, but do you recall approximately when or in what context that was first discussed here? (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Plowed Ground —John DiRienzo

(URL) Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:G3s0ut.62v@lugnet.com... (...) it (...) was (...) but (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Plowed Ground —Dave Schuler

John: Thanks for the assist, but I got 44044 results from that search! Happily, I've received another pointer as well, and I think I'll find what I'm looking for through that. Thanks anyway! Dave! (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) Wrong. (...) Have you looked at their website? (...) You have shown yourself to be unable to answer any of the points I raised. I would have respected you more if you had not answered, rather than wasting my time with this post. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

Uh oh where'd he go? I can't find this other post, though I disagreed strongly when I read it. "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G3rzwM.3H5@lugnet.com... (...) I could have sworn that was one of the current (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) I see two fundamental understandings of humanity which are the barriers to understanding the Libertarian perspective (and these really are almost a single fundamental understanding): 1. The understanding that humans are basically good. The (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) One must remeber that that when one talks about freedom of choice, it assumes one has a choice. Many in society may not be able to choose a better school for their kids, or heathcare for their family as the lack resourses (not just money) to (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) a (...) lol (...) I doubt it results in an "accumulation of personal wealth". Additionally, I'm not yet at the stage where I'm copyrighting brick combinations ;-) (...) NEED (...) I'm not sure what you point is, so I can't answer Larry. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) Wow, you need to ask for a bigger part of the pie if it really costs that much to employ you! I'm assuming you don't make near that since if you did, I'd bet that you'd be looking to buy TLC and your collection would make Conan's look like a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Powell

(...) :) Well, you know, me and 65K other people too...and our bullets/black Oil&Beans (actually, right now it costs something upwards of $100K (CDN)/year for me, because of being full time student on government $) James (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) I don't know if it's bizarre per se, but I'm a little puzzled by the assertion (which you snipped for some reason) that: (...) That just doesn't make sense to me at face value. Whether Browne's stances are admirable or not, the simple truth is (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The LP is not going for the Ross Perot model of winning elections, in which one takes the top office but nothing else. The LP is working for change at all levels. Therefore if a Libertarian gets elected president, it stands to reason that the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) Easy there, big fella. My point wasn't intended to be as sharp as you're inferring. 8^) And in any case you gain great credibility by going against Perot's model--perhaps Nader has something to learn from you in that regard. What I meant was (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fair enough. (and it's not only in congress that they are entrenched) There are two opposing forces here that shape the LP platform... One force being that there is a need to avoid Libertarian Macho Flash, which causes people who haven't (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) That makes sense; you're taking the long view rather than a get-it-done-now approach, and I think such a plan of attack is therefore more reasonable and likely to succeed. At the same time, you're calling for immediate addressing of the most (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) I'm not convinced that's as big a problem as you might think. Think about it, every consumer protection regulation we have is there because enough people complained that the government addressed the issue. In a Libertopia, with it's free (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) If this came from anyone else, I'd say it stank of arrogance. (...) ROTFL. If only you knew me Larry. (...) It is my job as a parent to protect my family from drugs. Having the police help me is a good thing, in my own opinion. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Steve Bliss

All of the following is written from the assumption that "drugs are Bad, and if you take drugs, you've done a Bad Thing." Debating that assumption should be an entirely different thread. Preferably, one that is threaded over a few beers. Steve (...) (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree. (...) One should respect the law, rather than avoid breaking it. I suppose it is a subtle difference. I choose not to take drugs not only because it is against the law, but because I don't think it is not a good thing to do anyway. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) My responsibility to my kids is to educate them about the drugs, and to educate them about how to avoid law enforcement if they choose to use those drugs. I choose not to take drugs because they make you stuipd. It has absolutely nothing to do (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

Steve Bliss wrote: <snip> (...) Well, I don't know. If you get your kids to adulthood without the chance of having used drugs, then I'd say that's not a complete failure. If, as a responsible adult, one chooses to use drugs, who then is to blame? (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) No one. If they are responsible adults, there is no blame to assign. They are using whatever drugs as they wish. Chris (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) I was hoping for the "no one to blame but themselves" response. "no one" makes it sound like it isn't the individual's responsibility. -John (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A109829.C775CF...est.net... (...) They are (...) makes it (...) The problem, John, is assigning blame. Do you blame yourself for eating dinner? Do you blame yourself (or your parents) for the (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) I think we're talking semantics here. If I blame myself for having eaten dinner, it means I am taking responsibility for the choice to have eaten. "You have no one to blame but yourself" is an expression meaning "You are responsible" -John (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Kevin Bannister

(...) i think it's the negative connotation 'blame' carries with it. (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) ... and what if one does not have the ability to make that choice? What then John? Just leave them to rot? (...) I have choice. I choose to not want guns in my society for example. Every single day of the my life I could choose to be a (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) are (...) makes it (...) From this note and the couple of replies, it sounds like you think that "blame" is somehow synonymous with "responsibility." It isn't. Blame include fault. Fault for doing something wrong. You claim that JohnD's note (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) Well lessee. From Dictionary.com: blame v. tr. blamed, blam·ing, blames. 1.To hold responsible. 2.To find fault with; censure. 3.To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning. n. 1.The state of being responsible (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) Just for clarification, dictionary.com lists: blame (blam) v. tr. blamed, blam·ing, blames. 1. To hold responsible. 2. To find fault with; censure. 3. To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning. (URL) So, while (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) D'oh! John beat me to it! Dave! (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) lol Great minds think alike, eh Dave!?;-) John! (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Can you (or John, or anyone) supply a sentence demonstrating how 'blame' can be used without indicating that something bad has taken place? I'm quick to use the dictionary too, but I don't think that it is perfectly reflective of our use of (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal

(...) "The heavy rains and cool weather were blamed for the high mosquito population." Now, while some humans might consider that a bad thing, I'm sure the swallows, bats, (farmers?), dragon flies, etc, might say otherwise. (...) Looks to me like (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

If you look at www.m-w.com for the verb form of "blame", you will find a dictionary that is not screwed up. "John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A11ED4A.689B2C...est.net... (...) designation of (...) can be (...) population." (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) By which I you mean, I imagine, a dictionary that agrees with your definition. Fair enough, but I think you haven't found such a dictionary yet. Even that "not screwed up" dictionary identifies the verb form of "to blame" as: 2 a : to hold (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

FUT lugnet.off-topic.use...-annoyance "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:G4osvM.Br7@lugnet.com... (...) yet. (...) blame" as: (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) Are we to understand, then, that a posting in disagreement with your view is nothing but an annoyance? If so, then please come out and state it clearly. If not, please explain what you mean, and while you're at it let us know why you're (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Steve Bliss

(...) *A-hem* Please go reread my posting. Especially the first couple lines, before the quoted material. I was *assuming*, not *implying*. Steve (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Tom Stangl

(...) Ah, but who should decide what "drugs" are? I don't think the government should, they've always made a mess of it - deciding what is Prescription only, Scheduled drugs, over-the-counter drugs, "not really drugs" drugs (for example, nicotine in (...) (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) That works if the "drug" user is able to make that determination and if he doesn't subsequently cause harm to others as a result of that drug use, and in any case financial/criminal penalties may simply be too after-the-fact to be of use (...) (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Love is a drug and I need a fix! - Roxy Music (...) Clearly you're not thoroughly Sluggish, or else you'd know that sugar is indeed a drug when ingested by ferrets. :-) ++Lar (who didn't go door busting this year and sort of doesn't miss it!) (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) And what before the fact control keeps your current doctor from taking an unwise hit of LSD in the current system? Ok, LSD isn't easy to get, but I bet your doctor could get it easier than the average person. There certainly isn't anything (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) I understand what you're saying, and as far as deterrent criteria, I agree with the ones you've cited (and which I've snipped). In the current system, an illegal drug carries with it the direct penalty of its use, in addition to whatever (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz

(...) If a person is so adicted as to essentially be incompetant, then there clearly is a problem, however, I don't think Libertopia removes the options of prison or involuntary commitment to a treatment center, but the commitment needs to be based (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:G4p58v.5n8@lugnet.com... (...) Obviously. (...) issue. With or without rehab, recidivism is extremely high, check the numbers. Primarily, because there are laws against the use of drugs, and (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

Plus as what I have heard from Harry Browne concerning this. It is possible for the president to make presidential orders invloving military, criminals, how the White House and various agencies are run. He could and would free (pardon) all (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not fully prepared to defend this stance, since I'm not sure what he means either. However, it might be a reference to the body of evidence that suggests that _everywhere_ that guns become more accesible and free, the armed and violent (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Powell

(...) suggests (...) I'd love to see this body of evidence. I would say that of the 2 countries which are freer with weapons (Swiss and Israel), that it is _training_ that makes the difference. It's not the body of people with guns, it is the fact (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I need to revise my statement above. The everywhere that I meant is limited mostly to the US. So maybe not quite everywhere, but it's good enough data from my POV. :-) If you're serious, start with _The Great American Gun Debate_ by Don B. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —James Powell

(snippage of book suggestion, thanks, but I don't think we would have access to a copy here in Newfoundland) (...) Because, just like the NRA says, guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is as harmless as any other 10 lb object, at least (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) to (...) As a grad student, I had to occasionally request inter-library loans internationally. It is no problem. (...) But virtually everyone over the age of twelve exhibits enough clue or discipline not to shoot people at random, or for petty (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Scott Arthur

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) As an outsider looking in, they read like they will make worse most of the things which I perceive as being problems in the US - Drugs, Gun Ownership and lack of what we in the UK call a welfare state. Further, has anyone asked him how such a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Eric Kingsley

(...) Well I don't find myself agreeing with you often Scott but I do on this one. I was actually considering voting for the Libertarian candidate for Senate in Massachusetts because I can't stand the drunken slob, Ted Kennedy, that is our current (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) (URL) I haven't been able to find independent verification of this article, but it seems pretty clear-cut to me! 8^) Dave! FUT off-topic.fun (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) In what way does it seem to you like any of these things are a problem in the US? I mean that seriously. I suspect that I will disagree completely, but I'm really interested in the vision from outside. (...) I don't know. Really. That would be (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler

(...) Pot shot or not, the comment identifies the problem of the widespread--though not necessarily accurate--perception of the LP as a bunch of far-out right wingers. In my experience, the LP suffers from a vocal minority(?) within its ranks who (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Scott Arthur

(...) I thought that was pretty clear. I think: 1. Too many people are getting shot. 2. Big drugs problem. 3. Poor welfare system. Are these things related - I think so. Will handing out guns & LSD whilst cutting back education and health make it (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I agree. Almost any is too many. But the evidence shows that in places where gun-readiness increases, crime decreases. So I don't agree with your path to improvement. (...) What problem? Some people use them, and they shoot their lives away (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Scott Arthur

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

How do I get on that mailing list, Larry? "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G3n6y6.1DA@lugnet.com... (...) appropriate (...) Harry. (...) here (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Try here: (URL) view the signature block of the original email, reproduced here for your convenience (from the post of mine that you quoted in its entiriety): (...) ++Lar (who is happy that voters approved 6 of 8 anti drug war proposals: (URL) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Harry Browne —John DiRienzo

Sorry Larry, Its been so long since I posted, I forgot my netiqutte. Thanks for the reply. (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)