Subject:
|
Re: Genocide and terrorism (Was: SW <-> Russia conspiracy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 May 1999 15:03:23 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@geocities.com=nospam=
|
Viewed:
|
429 times
|
| |
|
|
John DiRienzo wrote:
> Sproaticus wrote in message <3741DAFA.C11A9695@geocities.com>...
> > John DiRienzo wrote:
> Name one thing we are entitled to. We HAVE rights, but that is different
> from entitlements. Where in the Constitution does it say we are entitled to
> welfare, medical insurance, guns? We may have the right to own guns, but it
> is certainly not the governments responsibility to provide one for everyone!
> Do you follow?
Ah, semantics. I get your meaning now, thanks.
I still feel that the government *owes* us something -- wouldn't that
entitle us to what we are owed?
For example, I feel that the government owes us protection from invasion,
protection from criminals, and overpaid taxes back into our pocket. The
details are pretty fuzzy -- e.g. we have yet to see if the government can in
fact protect us from invasion -- but you can probably see what I'm trying to
say here. We are entitled to at least a minimal set of things from our
government.
And if I've still misunderstood what you've said, I'm sorry. Thump me and
I'll go back and read it again.
> > The situation can be roughly described in marketing terms. We have a bad
> > public image; we should try to fix it. It's good for business. It's good
> > for our neighbors who do business with us.
> We have a bad public image? We are showing the world that despite our
> advanced military, economic and technological achievements, we can not
> handle this situation. This is good for our image? If we were to fix the
> problem in a way that actually worked, I might agree.
Sure, what we're doing now in Kosovo is bad for our image. In marketing
terms, we're cutting off our own nuts with a rusty hacksaw soaked in
ebola-flavored lemon juice. I'm saying that there were other image-friendly
ways we could have handled this situation while helping.
> > In that case, I don't think anyone can guarantee peace in that region for
> > quite a few generations, if ever. But, work can be done to stabalize the
> > region, to reduce the level of outward hostility and violence, and to • create
> > a calm playing field for our future generations to work out a peace in.
> Then do it right. Solve the problem. Don't bomb the embassy of your
> most dangerous enemy. Don't call it ethnic cleansing - call it genocide or
> mass murder. Don't pussy foot around; kick ass and take names! Don't lie
> about our objective. That would be good for image, I think.
So we should go in with ground troops and personally clean up the mess we've
created. Two months ago, we would have had the option of not getting more
involved, but we're too committed now.
> You and I basically said the same thing.
Off topic for .debate, then? :-,
Well, I really just wanted to understand Libertarianism, or at least your
view, better. Thanks!
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com>
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/5249/
May the Force be with y'all.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
