Wow, I lay out a day, and I'm 5 pages behind. what a hot disscusion.
...GW, you give an eoquent and thought prooking argument, for disagreeing with me. However, I am humbly basing my argument on results.
..My crowning point is; It is indisputably the lesser of the evils. your crowning point seems to be; It could be better. how does your argument prove me wrong?
Uh oh ... somebody nudge Phoenix ... her needle is stuck.
Hi, Zed. Good to see you here. Grab yourself something off the buffet and start chewin. Feel free to put in a special order if you don't find something on the menu to catch your fancy.
timber
<CLICK>
timber
<CLICK>
timber
LOL ... Ya know, Phoenix, there are probably folks on this forum totally lost by that little "Needle Exchange".
Ahhhhh, youth. Bath Beads and Idealism too soon fade to Ben Gay and Ibuprofen.
timber
Timber,
...I already used that on another topic. I found out later it was the site. I even realized like you shortly thereafter, youngster would be scratching their heads. ("Duh... what's a stuck needle?")
I think you'd find that the stress pathology and the greed for money is centered in the big cities. Unless a country the U.S. is being compared to has the same basic demographic it can destort those statistics. This is admittedly theoretical but it puts questions in my mind about what the statistics are suppose to prove. Too many variables, in other words, to make me change my mind about the workability of libertarianism. It doesn't factor in very well.
Main Entry: lib·er·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: "li-b&r-'ter-E-&n
Function: noun
Date: 1789
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
Main Entry: lib·er·ty
Pronunciation: 'li-b&r-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free -- more at LIBERAL
Date: 14th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : FAMILIARITY b : RISK, CHANCE <took foolish liberties with his health> c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact
4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours
libertarian, (little "l") is free choice.
Booman -- you aren't wrong if one thinks about it idealistically but it gets thrown to the wind when one thinks pragmatically. This would further matter as to how idealistic and how pragmatic you believe all the authors of the Constitution were at the time. How much of it is written by Jefferson would matter, I imagine, but I read about this so long ago I don't remember if the information is available. How much of an eye they all had on the future has been written about extensively but nobody could even imagine how the world would change in just two hundred years. Jefferson's second term was a disaster, in my view because he couldn't match up the idealism with pragmatism. The same goes for slavery. It was pragmatic decision to get all the colony states to sign the Constitution into law and preserve the Union, along with the Bill Of Rights (which is really ironic as they contradict slavery more than anything else written). So what did Lincoln decide to go to war over -- preserving the Union was the first, the Emancipation Proclamation was next logical step only because at that time, there was nothing to lose. You might pick up the book "Bring the Jubilee" (I'd have to look up the author, I read it so many years ago). It's is a novel of a imagined future after the South won the war!
Yes, Welcome to A2K, Zed!
I'm wondering, and I believe that's why this question was asked, how many people who are disgruntled Democrats actually realize what the term means? I think, despite the dictionary definitions, that many distort it to read what they want it to read. Or for want of another movement like the Indepedent Party they just draw straws to decide. I would think most disgruntled Democrats are in the Green Party. I definitely concur that ultra right wing conservatives will call themselves that even though they are registered Republicans, they will call themselves Libertarians. I would think that Libertarians would be against many Republican doctrines if they were following the true spirit of the meaning in the term.
Most libertarians are against many of the items in the standard Republican Party platform. Most are pro-choice, against the war on drugs/pro-legalization, etc.. Many libertarians also share environmental concerns with Green Party members and concerns about Corporations with Democrats.
But.. Your contention that Libertarians are all ultra-right wing conservatives is off the mark IMO. The ultra-right wing is pretty much split between the militia movement (some of whom use the big "L" "Libertarian") and the "religious-right".
The right's equeal to the "disaffected Democrats" was the Reform party under Perrot. Once Buchanan took it over those people fled back to the Republican Party in droves.
No fair turning it around backwards. Didn't mean all ultra-right conservatives call themselves libertarians but the conservatives who do use the libertarian handle are doing it disingenously.
However, where this has gone is that libertarians can be multi-headed creatures indeed. Big L, little l and maybe
LiBertarian
LiberTarian
libertariaN
maybe we should just put them under one umbrella:
Librarian
Catergorize all the politicial affiliations under the Dewy Decimal System? lol
I would have difficulty blanketly accepting and espousing ALL of the tenets of ANY single political party. I attempt to follow a more personally addressive philosophy. From my perspective, all of them get something "Wrong". I would like to think that I am chipping away at my idea of "WRONG" in an effective manner. I do not appreciate the attempts of others to inflict their particular ideas of "RIGHT" on me when I perceive those ideas of "RIGHT" to be "WRONG". I have broad familiarity with The Parties, but I take no particular subscription. I believe my approach to be realistic, pragmatic, and reasoned. I consider myself a staunch, straight-ticket, flag-waving independent.
timber
Maybe the Mildewey Decimal System
I find, in these grumpy post-50 years, that I have little curiosity and even less respect for the vocal partisan, and think her as valuable a community member as a bleach-blonde cheerleader at a country 4H fair shaking her pom poms over a display of her father's carrots.
blatham wrote:Some, too many, even if born with full faculties and potential, are born into social or family situations which disadvantage them profoundly.
I agree. For me the question has never been whether we should try to do something about it, but how. Of course, once we decide to act, I think that whatever we attempt, we should be as sure as is possible that we do not increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in situations such as you describe above, and I believe that some current well-intentioned programs and points-of-view have failed in that regard.
Tress
I have no doubt at all that you as an individual are as compassionate as I. As regards how programs ought to be designed to minimize both present and future social problems, I am frankly far too uneducated to make suggestions. I have never, for example, studied the HeadStart program or any of the data on it's success or lack of success. And there are many many programs from many countries of that sort. I know there is information readily available, but it is just one more of those areas I won't get to in a too short life.
So, I'm left in a pretty weak position. All that seems available to me as a contributor is to point to the insubstantiality of claims by others as poorly educated as myself, to observe that empathy and understanding are not universally shared, and to argue that if we are going to err, we ought to err on the side of compassion. I'm not much help, I confess it.
