Debate : 7001


Off-Topic / Debate / 7001

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