Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:21:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
322 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:G3nsGC.IpB@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > [email from Harry Browne]
> > You can't go east by moving west. It's a physical
> > impossibility.
>
> Unless you go far enough.
Unless you go all the way!!
> > You can't make government smaller by rewarding
> > those who make government bigger. It's a political
> > impossibility.
>
> No. It isn't. Some of us -- the minarchists of America -- believe that • the
> only way to get where we want is to encourage the bloat while stealing
> everything we can from it until it collapses under it's own weight and • then
> using our money and influence to rebuild a proper government. One with
> stronger safeguards for the future of liberty than our original • constitution
> did.
While I have often thought you might be right, and with the minimal
support of 350,000 votes for Mr. Browne at this election I feel like your
point is reaffirmed. However, I don't think its a great thing to speak
about in a public forum. As this sytem becomes even more bloated, it will
also become more intolerant (look at California or Quebec). The McCarthy
years were nothing. Anyway, I don't think that is the only solution, and
truly not a likely one. I think a preferable solution is for those 350,000
to use their money and influence in another land to build a more proper
government. Or maybe on a big boat.. The US would have to make some
radical changes to compete with something a million times better, then we
could all move back, or stay, either way. I guess you could call that a
difficult to orgnize boycott.
> > Only when you begin asking for what you really
> > want do you have any chance of getting it.
>
> Only when you take what you want, do you get it.
Only schmonly. Are you saying that only by the use of force can you
achieve your desires. Chris Chris Chris...
> As a political comentator, he's brialiant! No, really. And funny too. • But as
> a presidential hopefull? Kookoo, kookoo, kookoo.
Isn't it sad that more people voted for him than Harry Browne.
> > * I want to free you immediately and completely
> > from the Social Security system. I want to sell
> > off government assets to finance private
> > retirement accounts for anyone now dependent on
> > Social Security -- so you and I and every other
> > American can immediately stop paying the 15%
> > Social Security tax.
>
> Without explanation, this statement alone should scare the bejeezus out of • 65%
> of the population.
Uh, in case you haven't figured it out, he wasn't trying to win the
presidency. He says such statements, because thats what he believes,
because he knows a lot of his supporters believe that, and he knows if
people hear that, they might become critical thinkers themselves trying to
figure out why he'd say that. If the voters don't hear it somewhere, they
probably won't think about it. The Libertarian Party has been around for
about 30 years. It may take another 300 years before enough people
understand Libertarianism that a Libertarian (or future equivalent) becomes
president (or future equivalent). The important thing with this guy is
spreading his ideas. Using his money and influence to slowly build a
thinking populace.
> > * I want to end the nightmare of Prohibition by
> > stopping the insane War on Drugs.
>
> While obviously a good idea, only like 20% of us seem to get it.
You are an optimist.
> > Isn't that what _you_ want?
>
> Yes, of course. But it requires lots of explanation, not just these
> one-liners, to get the sheep to agree.
Sheep won't read anything but one-liners, and who cares if they agree.
The men in high places must be the ones who start... to mold a new reality
closer to the heart - the leaders are the ones he needs to reach, the
thinkers... once they are convinced, they will convince the sheep, same as
always. To turn these sheep into Libertarian voters is one thing. To undo
generations of public education, public welfare and general government
dependence, on top of 1000s of years of being trained to follow orders is
quite another.
> > Can I win?
>
> Not this time. But if you'd infiltrate one of the winning parties, such • up as
> much pork gravy as possible and spew a toned down version of all this, • then you
> could. In four years. Unless Ventura runs.
Wrong, Ragnar. Most of his ideas are the right ideas, so they are
immensely unpopular. If he tries to do what you say, he'll be called the
biggest liar of all time, and he won't get any votes, even if he hops in bed
with a party (not like they'd have him). And if he did join a party, he'd
lose his real supporters. I mean if he just wants to be president (if thats
all that is important to him, like Clinton), I guess he can try to do that,
but I don't see it.
> > Even though we Libertarians may not win this year,
> > every vote I get will be an endorsement, a
> > statement, a declaration on behalf of smaller
> > government.
>
> And ultimately that's why I voted for him.
Me too. Or maybe I just voted for him because he said he'd let my
wrongfully-incarcerated non-violent dope-smoking friends out of jail.
> Thanks Larry,
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
