| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Snip it all except the quote
>
> If you'd like to define the meaning of *this*
Read :
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7447
My key phrase:
"Show me what the support for LP is. Show me it is a representative cross
section of the US public."
I then clairified:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7452
My key phrase:
"I'm interested in breadth - not depth. Show me that all socio-economic
groups support the LP in a broadly representative manner"
I then summed-up:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7461
I think we have both made our point with this one. I'm happy for you not to
answer the other points I raised yesterday - but do so if you wish. If you
still want to talk to me, and I hope you do, I'd like to move on to mull
over what I raise here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7516
Specifically, about what I term "The illogical extreme". But feel free to
change my terminology to one less loaded. :-)
>
> > Libertarians and their "I've got mine, Jack" philosphy are people who were
> > born on third base and think they've hit life's triple. In America's
> > egalitarian society it should surprise no one this cramped, neo-Victorian
> > philosophy has not caught on.
> > Russell Sadler, commentator, Jefferson Public Radio in Ashland, Oregon
>
> as that the LP (not small l libertarianisn) doesn't have deep, broad,
> election winning support in the US, then I would agree.
>
> However that's rather a smaller point than what I think the author is trying
> to make. I cannot judge intent, of course. Can you? What basis do you have
> for thinking that small point is his actual point rather than the larger,
> more significant one?
>
> If we go by what I think is a reasonable interpretation of his prose (poorly
> written as it is), he's making a much larger point and I've shown that it's
> false. I did so in the part you dismissed as "rabid". Was that because you
> can't refute it?
>
> So you choose. Small point, you're right. Big point, I'm right. Me, I think
> big. Concede that (even while choosing which point you were actually making,
> so that you get to "win") and I'll move on to the next. Tomorrow, probably.
> However if you don't concede that point, we're not done here.
>
> To Dave!'s observation that the world has been moving in a libertarian
> direction since the time of the enlightenment, I would tend to agree.
> However it hasn't been a monotonically increasing function. We had some
> major backsliding eariler this century and about 1980 or so saw a huge
> turning point in which the trend started to reverse and the movement towards
> freedom accelerate again. I'd like to think that the Austrian school, the
> Cato institute, and the LP all are factors in that.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LP POINT 1
|
| Snip it all except the quote If you'd like to define the meaning of *this* (...) as that the LP (not small l libertarianisn) doesn't have deep, broad, election winning support in the US, then I would agree. However that's rather a smaller point than (...) (26 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
