Posted on 12/15/2001 11:36:38 AM PST by jackbob
I really can't agree with you. They seem to buzz around so aimlessly, that they really don't promote anything. They just create noise, which tends to annoy and slightly side track those who do promote freedom.
Part of being a libertarian is recognizing the hypocrisy of the mainstream parties and calling them on it.
It's either the funny hats, or the fact that they weigh the same as ducks...
Mark W.
That is called drones. They are neccesary to fertilize a new queen. In good times they are allowed in any hive. The workers have to feed them.
In the winter they are kicked out and they die.
There are always more hatched in the spring to go to freeload off of other hives.
Yes, we have to have drones, else we would't have bees to pollinate our crops.
Hmm, sounds like feminism to me.
Never mind the sheeple, watch out for the beeple.
Not sandbagging but playing their game. It is a given that any information to Burton's committee will make a bee line to the Washington Post or New York Times "laundry". Bush says no and who puts up the biggest fuss? Barney Frank of all people(a member of Burton's committee)
As you can see the "mainstream press" reported this but has not shown outrage. The reason being if the press screams "outrage", Bush and Ashcroft bring the information out bypassing Burton's committee and making a "spectacle"(i.e a shining light) of the Clinton information. You could say this is a "standoff" at the present moment, but Bush/Ashcroft hold the weapon(the Clinton information).
Clinton and the democrats used Burton's committee, where they would give the misdeeds to Burton, Waxman/Frank faxed the information to the Washington Post and New York Times. The press "launders" the information, and they can say they reported it(from the leaks provided by Waxman/Franks).
You may not like the "game", but Bush/Ashcroft have not let out their best shot and keeping the artillery for when it is needed(i.e 2004).
First and foremost, libertarians believe in the principle of self-ownership. You own your own body and mind; no external power has the right to force you into the service of "society" or "mankind" or any other individual or group for any purpose, however noble. Slavery is wrong, period.
I was hoping that this did in fact cover the pro-life issue, but I believe it could be construed either way. The way you worded your response makes it obvious, as a guardian you would in fact be obligated to protect the life entrusted to you.
As such it should be in the state laws, not the US Government.
It's ok to raise caine when the other party abuses a power, but it's good strategy when 'our' party does it?
Isn't this classic 'ends justify means' tactics?
LOL. Fear the beeple!
Gcruse:As a small 'l' libertarian, I back away from this right away. Taxes are necessary to fund the military for national defense.
I think Nolan basically agrees with you, when he writes:
In an ideal world, there would be no taxation. All services would be paid for on an as-used basis. But in a less-than-ideal world, some services will be force-financed for the foreseeable future.This is gold bug nonsense and has got nothing to do with individual liberty.
He may not like money without backing, but if people want to trade it for goods and services, that's their decision. Yeah, this one is kind of silly as a pillar of libertarianism.
The founders had a fairly decent idea for taxation. They even put it into the Constitution. Tax the states in proportion to their population. How the states collected or assesed the tax would be up to the states. The fed.gov would have nothing to do with each individual taxpayer.
Other than that, not a bad essay.
Uh, 'scuse me. I do cigarettes and beer. They are still a legal way for me to kill myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.