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: freeus who wrote (52)	6/29/1998 11:37:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Well, that IS an oversimplification...I have NEVER read anywhere that NO TAXES is a Libertarian belief. Libertarians recognize a need for LIMITED government. I'm not saying you are wrong. At heart, I agree with you. Fact is, you can't get there from here. Baby steps... On the other hand, as far as drug use and taxation are concerned, I don't see precisely how this is using other people's money....fact is, abusers would be providing a solid chunk of the future cash they'd be using to get clean. Call it an insurance policy against changed minds... To be fair, drug abuse IS a very complicated matter that often involves clouded thought patterns. Personally, I feel it is in EVERYONE's best interest to provide an out for those who suddenly realize the error of their ways. That is reasonable, and everyone benefits. The relative cost/benefit analysis would overwhelmingly be in favor of this type of relationship. Tax legalized drug use as a means of providing possible future rehab? Beats the hell out of not providing abusers with a way out. The alternative is that abusers, by and large, remain abusers...and a drag on individuals due to their negative impact on society at large. That is hardly conflicting with the Libertarian view. It promotes and enhances CHOICE.

To: freeus who wrote (52)	6/30/1998 2:02:00 PM
From: capitalistbeatnik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

On a political level, women tend to read less and vote more emotionally than men. 92 percent of readers of political magazines, of any stripe from the Nation to National Review, are men. Kate O'Beirne has said that women are lousy voters and their history proves it. They were instrument in the greatest constitutional flop in history, the Volstead Act. The second was electing the corrupt Harding because he was better looking than his opponent. Today, well there are plenty of examples including the logistically incompatible love of Bill Clinton and the absolute intolerance of sexuality in the workplace. The warm and nurturing stereotype has a downside that isn't talked about...they can be brutally unfair if you don't agree with their point of view and consider you of inferior compassion. Just ask a coworker out on a date if you don't believe this is so. Men didn't come up with laws that would lead to people being fired for discussing a Seinfeld episode by the water cooler. Men and women have an obligation to overcome the worst angels of their nature. For men this is belligerence and inattentiveness. For women it is emotional reactivity and maternal smothering. Right now while most college educated men understand the need to work on themselves, I see very few women who seem to even want to bear this responsibility.