Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:12:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
565 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> What I meant was that since the LP by its own assertion lacks sufficient
> numbers and sufficiently electable high-level candidates at this time, such
> sweeping changes as the original post describes are unlikely to garner
> adequate Congressional support to be passed. In the future, who knows? But
> for the immediate future the Democrats and Republicans are firmly entrenched
> in Congress.
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 thought through the implications of the LP
fundamental principle to say "what?? you want to [abolish Social
Security|privatize the national parks|legalise cocaine] <gulp> you guys are
nuts!" ... this is bad because it turns the uncritical thinkers off. Witness
Scott A's reaction, for example. Tons of typing could be devoted to
laboriously explaining and refuting, point by point, but what a waste of
time if you haven't convinced him of first principles first. Not easy to do
when you're dealing with an uncritical thinker or someone who isn't good at
drawing inferences from experiential data. This argues against radical stances.
The other, opposing force, is that gradualism doesn't work. As I've said
before, I think there is a shift toward small l libertarian ideas already
underway, and I will take whatever shift I get. But you don't get government
made signficantly smaller by calling for a minor slowdown in its growth, you
get it by calling for radical surgery.
The principles that the LP operates under say that, for example, that all
drugs should be legal. Calling for just pot to be legalised, except as a
first step, misses the mark of trying to free people to suffer the effects
of their choices instead of relying on the state for protection from their
own actions.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) 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)
|
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
