Re: OT: Even the greens don't like the warmingsts!

On Jan 10, 9:24 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:31:20 -0500, James Beck wrote:
speffS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:04:25 -0500, James Beck
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian says...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:08:47 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:

You forget that you are also a Libertarian, who labours under the
delusion that if you get rid of "government" you will be "free"
whereas anybody with a more realistic outlook knows that if you get
rid of the government - which is merely the biggest protection racket
in town - the second biggest protection racket will step up to take
its place.

One of the most common misconceptions about us Libertarians is that we
want anarchy.  I get it all the time.

It would be amusing to set up a small Libertarian state somewhere out
of the way and see how many hours they managed to last before the
first fatal neighbour boundary dispute and subsequent trigger happy
vendetta. I suspect provided the population density was *very* low it
might work, but in a city it would be a lost cause.

See meaning #2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

I think you will find that, other than a fringe minority, Libertarians
understand that a government is needed, but it is the SCOPE of its'
power and services that is at issue.  You will note that Rich mentioned
the Constitution, well if he were for true anarchy wouldn't he want to
dispense with such things?  Anyway, thanks for making my point.

Well, the Constitution was agreed to pretty much unanimously, which makes
it OK - that's Freedom at work - and its purpose is to put strict limits
on government.

Roads, Libraries, city hall, street sweepers, sure - but the only people
who should pay for them are the people who use them.

I suppose it is part of our UK Victorian heritage that we still
believe that some things like infra structure, sewage, water, power,
roads, railways (cough sputter they have been screwed to blazes by
wilful Thatcherite privatisation) , museums and libraries are needed
for the public good. Americans don't seem to have any altruistic
tendencies at all. Your motto is "Me now and devil take the hindmost".
Thatcher summed it up nicely "no such thing as society".

OK. Lets play this game...

How would you deal with me wanting to drive my tracked vehicle on the
road. I don't really need roads, and I can choose which side to drive
on too since a Challenger battle tank will work fine on any terrain.
And as for your SUVs and houses I can drive over or through them at
will. If you allow too much individual freedom for me then someone
else has to lose. Or I could decide to keep large carnivores in my
garden or a hundred other crazy things.

Doubtless you would soon have raw sewage running down the centre of
the street too since no-one wants to pay for anything. I have visited
a few US towns and cities too mean to put up street names or mend pot
holes in the road (actually parts of Chicago seem to be in that latter
category).

And how can anyone justify taking money away from the people where the
things need to be done, filter it through Washington DC, where about 90%
of it disappears down the bureaucratic pork trough, and then they
blackmail you with your own money?

You assume that the failings of the US adminstration which famously
has the all best politicians that money can buy is the only way that a
government can work. It isn't helped by the number if states which are
technically "rotten" boroughs - a place where any Republican {or
Democrat} no matter how obviously corrupt or incompetent will always
get elected to office. A few more independents or a third political
party telling the truth would fix that problem. Why don't some of you
Libertarians stand for public office?

In the UK we actually have some (maybe even a majority) politicians
who are trying to do the right thing for their constituents and
administrative civil servants running the country. The latter may not
always be quite as efficient as they could be but they are reasonably
talented and not political appointees. They are not in it for the
money - most of them could earn more outside politics.

Regards,
Martin Brown
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Say You Want A Rev-oo-lu-tion.....well.....
    ... No one needs that kind of revolution again. ... What we have now is an enormous bureaucratic political buffer between the people who control money and the people whom money controls. ... For it's possible that our government isn't incompetent at all; it's likely that the government they're giving us is the government they intend for us. ... Money keeps pouring into the politicians' coffers, ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Business as usual
    ... turning this country into an oligarchy of financial ... of coercing the government just by the threat of creating a financial ... Money is overwhelming power, or it can be, if it isn't regulated. ... government are sons and daughters of politicians. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Say You Want A Rev-oo-lu-tion.....well.....
    ... >> from killing a lover for jealousy or a storekeeper for money. ... No one needs that kind of revolution again. ... >> There is no point in attacking the federal government. ... politicians always follow the money. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: revolution
    ... No one needs that kind of revolution again. ... There is no point in attacking the federal government. ... people who control money and the people whom money controls. ... politicians always follow the money. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • revolution
    ... No one needs that kind of revolution again. ... There is no point in attacking the federal government. ... people who control money and the people whom money controls. ... politicians always follow the money. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
Quantcast