Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:58:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
623 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
If this came from anyone else, I'd say it stank of arrogance.
> 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.
ROTFL. If only you knew me Larry.
>
> 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.
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
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
