Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dave rose who wrote (4686)	2/12/2001 5:56:29 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

No political party can be totally consistent with its policies at the fringes. Not Democrats, not Republicans. Maybe LP members should set up a list of questions to ask Republicrats to see where THEY draw lines. Once they admit that they can't, they will accept that no political party is 100% consistent on the fringes. For example, a simple one: When can a man say :"I love you" to a woman. Sounds simple, eh? It's not. In the workplace it may be okay or may not. In a personal relationship it may be okay or may not. On some college campuses it's okay to say as soon as you meet a girl your are infatuated with, on others that will get you disciplined or expelled. Or another question: What are the limits of the right to bear arms? Even the major politicans within each party disagree among themselves. Why should the LP be any different? Libertarians have basic principles, as the other two parties will claim they do. I think the LP platform is more internally consistent than any other major party (I exclude some fringe parties which have only only a few principles, like "free drug use for all persons for all drugs in the privacy of their or another person's home" or "anybody who eats animal flesh will be staked out in a field to be eaten by coyotes." But there are almost no clarities at the fringes in any human activity.