SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (144)6/29/1998 6:15:00 PM
From: space cadet  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 13056
 
Good thread, girls and boys. Having reviewed the thread, a few comments:
Threats are definitely forms of violence and thus are in fact criminal. This has been discussed for a long time and generally agreed upon by libertarians. Perhaps someone can find the relevant section in the LP propaganda. In my opinion, stated as nicely as I can, the poeticjustice war on drug's defender is both a moron and an idiot. I see nothing useful emerging from her conversations. She is a hard core fascist who believes in only force to settle every problem. Believe me, I know the type and this type is the very last person on earth who will ever be attracted to the idea of individuals having rights. Better arguing with Khomeni.
Unfortunately having been in the libertarian movement since 1980 I know that what freeus stated is true, that there are very very few women libertarians. And I agree that most women I have met seem to be fascist/socialist types. I believe this is probably in fairly substantial part due to the public schools. I definitely think libertarians will get nowhere until the public schools are destroyed. They are absolutely inimical to individual decision (many even force students to wear uniforms a la Nazi Germany), individual conscience, and individual rights. Along with the mad War on Some Drugs there is no more important task than eradicating the land of public schools. After 18 people can stand up to these brainwashing techniques much better so I see no rush to eradicate colleges and universities, but all schooling below college must be crushed if liberty is to survive.
I am a leading libertarian political philosopher. Feel free to ask me any difficult questions on libertarian thought. Some of my own personal goals in advancing liberty are:

legalizing statutory rape, sexual harassment, racial and religious discrimination, molesting small children, infanticide, and opening the free market system up for suicides. I feel like I could make a lot of money writing quite moving suicide commercials to get people on the fence to "go for it".



To: freeus who wrote (144)6/30/1998 9:55:00 AM
From: MeDroogies  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 13056
 
I agree that the anti-terrorist legislation is frightening...but that is the result of politicians going for the vote and NOT thinking the issue out properly in terms of how to best meet the threat.
I have read several articles by law enforcement officials who consider our anti-terrorist legislation to be dangerous and unconstitutional. In addition, they feel that as effective as the legislation MAY be, it is not as effective as we are led to believe it IS.
I, for one, agree with you with regard to terrorist threats. I don't believe there is much you can do to prevent them without significantly impairing individual rights.
However, taking strides to prevent a terrorist attack WITHOUT infringing on peoples' rights IS possible and desirable. To that end, I feel that preventing drunk driving is that type of activity. It prevents the infringement of others' rights to drive on relatively safe roads. The drunk driver, on the other hand, the minute he gets behind the wheel, HAS knowingly assumed a dangerous and potentially deadly position.
My comparison is this: if a gunman is holding my son hostage, but not harming him, then technically, I can't do anything until some harm is done. Similarly, a drunk driver holds everyone on the road hostage.