To avoid him, you also need to be clever.
Hey, no problem.
I can do th...oh,
you said, "clever."
Posted on 05/27/2003 10:01:25 AM PDT by gcruse
The question Libertarians and others should be asking themselves is not "how do I form a new party." They should be asking "what is the best strategy for getting my agenda enacted." There have been an awful lot more agendas enacted than new parties formed in our history. I wish I saw more of the third party types seriously explore how this happens without new parties, rather than immediately leaping to utopian new party visions.
Like I said earlier, if you find enacting an agenda within an existing party too daunting, you're not likely to improve your chances by attempting to enact your agenda AND build a new party. The latter is considerably more difficult than the former, and both are means to the same end.
Slavery was the driving factor in the various sectional crises that raged from the beginning of westward expansion. The biggies include the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Clay Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 -- and, of course, Secession and the Civil War.
Just another proof that you're too dense to understand adult conversation.
Hence, we see a Republican Party that holds onto elections by their fingernails using libertarian sounding phrases (smaller government, less regulation, free markets, individual rights) to con the not-quite-as-stupid-as-the-rest-of-them portion of their their voting base, and then once they're in office, they continue making speeches to that effect while signing the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, the Let's Subsidize Ted Turner Farm Bill, the Spend More Money and Increase Federal Control of Schools Education Bill, the Gut the Constitution PATRIOT Act, the "We Don't Need No Congressional Declaration of War" war on Iraq, the Cost More Jobs Steel and Canadian Wood Products Tariffs, and a slew of other things.
The Republicans get away with it because many people feel that it's not as bad to have a Democrat in the White House if he calls himself a Republican, and the Republicans rely heavily on the feeling in the libertarians that they have no place else to go.
Sure, starting a third party is tough. The GOP was the last successful third party in this country's history. But it's really toughest when the third party's natural constituents pretend that another party is better serving their interests, when it's not.
Can we divide up the sea into private areas? Can we allow one person to control access to the entire SF Bay by 'owning' the Golden Gate passage?
People cannot "own" water. It doesn't stay put. One can own an entire lake, by the expedient of owning all land fronting it, but that ownership is still limited if he doesn't control access to the tributary and drainage channels. So, no, the person holding title to the Golden Gate cannot restrict shipping through it. He owns the land, not the water it doesn't even enclose.
Let common sense temper your silly fantacies about private property.
Clearly not a question, response not required.
The 'tragedy of the commons' exist because people abuse their right to use the 'common', -- the parts of the earth that are not, and can not be, within reason, -- privately owned.
You're example doesn't fit this description. A common pasture can, in theory, be owned by a single person. An ocean cannot.
We the people institute governments to administrate our public lands & waters under the restriction of constitutional law.
Again, not a question. But our government was established to protect our freedom, not babysit land.
They do a piss poor job.
Clearly, tpaine's failure to distinguish his reference post from his response serves to emphasize the confusion of his request that this post be answered. Specificity in interrogation is a truly useful technique when specifity in response is desired, right?
Address that instead of fantasizing that all real estate property should be 'private'.
Address why any real estate should be publicly held. BTW, real estate usually means "land", as opposed to your use of the water of the Golden Gate as being subject to ownership.
I hope this satisfies your need for response to post #156. If, in the future, you request "meaningful" response, please post intelligible questions.
The only morally legitimate balance against the exercise of individual rights, is the competing rights of others.
If a particular action violates the rights of others (i.e. initiates force or fraud), then it is not a right.
I agree in broad terms with what you what you are saying here, but a major point of disagreement is that I believe super majorities, not simple majorities should be required for most laws except trivial decisions like which side of the road to drive on.
I don't have the Constitution in front of me, but I don't believe Section 8 gives the federal government a specified power to provide for the general welfare. Rather, the general welfare is an expected result of exercising the powers enumerated in Section 8.
Sure is.
Address the 'tragedy of the commons' post @ 156, that OWK is so cute about avoiding. -- 202
Can we divide up the sea into private areas?
Can we allow one person to control access to the entire SF Bay by 'owning' the Golden Gate passage?
People cannot "own" water. It doesn't stay put. One can own an entire lake, by the expedient of owning all land fronting it, but that ownership is still limited if he doesn't control access to the tributary and drainage channels. So, no, the person holding title to the Golden Gate cannot restrict shipping through it. He owns the land, not the water it doesn't even enclose.
"We the people" own the Golden Gate, SF Bay, and 20 to 200 miles offshore, in reality.
It is a 'commons'.
The 'tragedy of the commons' exist because people abuse their right to use the 'common', -- the parts of the earth that are not, and can not be, within reason, -- privately owned.
You're example doesn't fit this description.
Of course it does, as you can see above. Your sheer denial of common sense fact is bizarre.
A common pasture can, in theory, be owned by a single person. An ocean cannot.
Tell it to OWK.
I was responding to that very premise of his at #156.
We the people institute governments to administrate our public lands & waters under the restriction of constitutional law.
Again, not a question. But our government was established to protect our freedom, not babysit land.
Who said it was a question? In any case your rebuttal is infantile. Part of protecting our freedom is protecting our land..
And..
They've done a piss poor job.
Clearly, tpaine's failure to distinguish his reference post from his response serves to emphasize the confusion of his request that this post be answered. Specificity in interrogation is a truly useful technique when specifity in response is desired, right?
Wrong. - Your effort at sarcasum is gibberish.
-----------------------------
Address that instead of fantasizing that all real estate property should be 'private'.
Address why any real estate should be publicly held. BTW, real estate usually means "land", as opposed to your use of the water of the Golden Gate as being subject to ownership. I hope this satisfies your need for response to post #156. If, in the future, you request "meaningful" response, please post intelligible questions.
I doubt anyone can post what you would see as 'intelligible' questions.
You need proffessional help. .
Can the US arbitrarily start sinking vessels transiting the Golden Gate? No, not unless GW Bush wants yet another unconstitutional war.
Regardless, the Golden Gate and similar geologic formations are not "commons", and won't be until we clone Dolly the Sheep with Jesus and Flipper, and we have farmers herding their water walking sea sheep about the bay grazing on seaweed.
As for the rest, only socialists advocate public stewardship of lands as the best means of maintaining those lands, and no person understanding the meaning of the phrase "tragedy of the commons" can argue that sound economics demands public stewardship.
So, on the one hand, you're a socialist. And on the other, you lack a ground floor understanding of economics....which means you're probably a socialist.
| |
| BEFORE THE LAW stands a doorkeeper. To this doorkeeper there comes a man from the country and prays for admittance to the Law. But the doorkeeper says that he cannot grant admittance at the moment. The man thinks it over and then asks if he will be allowed in later. "It is possible," says the doorkeeper, "but not at the moment." Since the gate stands open, as usual, and the doorkeeper steps to one side, the man stoops to peer through the gateway into the interior. Observing that, the doorkeeper laughs and says: "If you are so drawn to it, 'just try to go in despite my veto. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the least of the doorkeepers. From hall to hall there is one doorkeeper after another, each more powerful than the last. The third doorkeeper is already so terrible that even I cannot bear to look at him." These are difficulties the man from the country has not expected; the Law, he thinks, should surely be accessible at all times and to everyone, but as he now takes a closer look at the doorkeeper in his fur coat, with his big sharp nose and long, thin, black Tartar beard, he decides that it is better to wait until he gets permission to enter. The doorkeeper gives him a stool and lets him sit down at one side of the door. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be admitted, and wearies the doorkeeper by his importunity. The doorkeeper frequently has little interviews with him, asking him questions about his home and many other things, but the questions are put indifferently, as great lords put them, and always finish with the statement that he cannot be let in yet. The man, who has furnished himself with many things for his journey, sacrifices all he has, however valuable, to bribe the doorkeeper. The doorkeeper accepts everything, but always with the remark: "I am only taking it to keep you from thinking you have omitted anything."
|
Are you some type of savant who delights in a flat denial of a common usage of our langauge -- IE - our maritime possessions as a 'commons'? -- And then insists on belaboring obvious geography about them? How strange..
By virtue of controlling the two headlands, the United States does indeed control the entry into SF Bay. How? Well, at one time, the Army had guns there that could sink any vessel attempting unauthorized entry. Can a private citizen "own" a strait in such a manner? No. Such people are deemed "pirates" (or robber barons, or whatever), and are promptly hung.
OWK asserts we should have such private ownership. --
-- I suggest you start by hanging him..
Can the US arbitrarily start sinking vessels transiting the Golden Gate? No, not unless GW Bush wants yet another unconstitutional war.
What does this line mean? Can you explain? - I'll bet not..
Regardless, the Golden Gate and similar geologic formations are not "commons", and won't be until we clone Dolly the Sheep with Jesus and Flipper, and we have farmers herding their water walking sea sheep about the bay grazing on seaweed.
CA Fish and Game 'shepard' these common waters overmuch, and the feds even worse, imo. -- But don't let reality intrude on your fantasy..
As for the rest, only socialists advocate public stewardship of lands as the best means of maintaining those lands, and no person understanding the meaning of the phrase "tragedy of the commons" can argue that sound economics demands public stewardship. So, on the one hand, you're a socialist. And on the other, you lack a ground floor understanding of economics....which means you're probably a socialist.
You must be drunk.
Tomorow, I'll still be a constitutional libertarian. -- You'll still be an sobering ex-drunk with egg on your face.
What you quoted was two sentences. Please pick just one.
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.