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: Liatris Spicata who wrote (479)	7/8/1998 9:27:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 13060

I think the last paragraph of your post matches my thoughts best. The point of that sentence, to which you referred, was to point out that VERY FEW people want to do away with gov't IMMEDIATELY, as an all-or-nothing option. Since I have my degree in Political Science, I have a very strong background in the history of socio-political formations. I recognize the self-ordering nature of supposedly chaotic (read anarchic) situations. However, humans come to expect order as being "imposed". Order, when it is encountered, is usually assumed to be something that someone/thing created. The work of the Santa Fe Institute (Stuart Kauffman, Brian Arthur in particular) clearly points to a "self-ordering" process in nature. I agree with the theoretical and practical process of anarchy, to simply move from a fully "evolved" (yes, they do evolve) gov't to a society WITHOUT one is fraught with impracticalities (use the former Soviet Union as a good example). This process can be accomplished far more practically and with less individual dislocation, if proper steps and measures are accounted for. It is a dangerous and slippery slope, but one that really needs to be followed. After all, if someone employing a gradual approach fails, the lack of change doesn't leave us in an altogether worse position than we're already in.

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (479)	7/8/1998 10:31:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

Convention Notes: Perhaps a few words about the Libertarian Party National Convention, which concluded last Sunday, are in order. Over 500 delegates participated in this year's convention. The two major items of business were the election of a new party chair, which went to David Bergland in a spirited contest. The second major item of business involved the party platform. Numerous small changes were made, while a substantial change to the health care plank was made (specifics upon request). The platform committee recommended (with a minority in disagreement) that the party take no position as a party on abortion. This promised to be the most controversial issue on the agenda, but the clock ran out before it could be addressed. Supporters of the change were bitterly disappointed, within the context of remaining respectful to the decision making process, that the delegates declined to suspend the rules to allow consideration of the abortion plank. I fear some of them will walk. I would characterize the tone of the convention as being upbeat but realistic. Absent were claims of immediate electoral success, but there was an abiding sense that the party and the cause of liberty is moving forward. Speakers included Roy Innis and Peter McWilliams, both of whom joined the Libertarian Party on stage. Innis suggested he may be a candidate for mayor of New York on the LP ticket. McWilliams spoke painfully, but with humor, about the oppression of those using marijuana for medicinal purposes. He observed that the law enforcement officers were mainly well-intentioned, patriotic Americans who, though sadly misinformed, were doing a job they though needed to be done. His real animus was directed toward the likes of Bill Bennett who lead the "Insane War on Drugs", and he cited examples of the suffering caused by Bennett's, and the government's, use of coercive force against adults making their own decisions about how to lead their personal lives. The 1996 LP candidate for president was very much a presence, both as a speaker and as a supporter for Bergland. But the real star of the show was Jacob Hornsberger, president(?) of the Future of Freedom Foundation in Vienna, VA. Mr. Hornsberger is an absolutely spellbinding speaker who delivered several minutes of his address in Spanish. (He grew up in Laredo, TX, and at least part of his family crossed the Rio Grande this century). I can only hope those several minutes are played on Hispanic TV stations in this country. He all but announced his candidacy for President of the United States on the LP ticket in the year 2000. Browne vs. Hornsberger would give the party a choice between two excellent candidates IMO, but I walked away from the convention with a dream of a three way televised debate among presidential candidates: Al Gore, Dan Quayle, and Jacob Hornsberger. Hornsberger would completely eclipse these other gentlemen both intellectually and in terms of stage presence IMO. Larry

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (479)	7/15/1998 9:15:00 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13060

Or, if I decided I'd had enough of MeDroogies and wanted to do him in, well there is no law to stop me. So I may go to Mrs. MeDroogie and ask what she would do if I slew the cad. The reaction might range from she'd bless me and my family for getting rid of the wife beater to saying she'd demand two seal skins to weighing in with a threat of massive retaliation against me and my family and friends (might make you careful about the friends you keep!). I have to weigh the response I get from MeDroogies' kin and circle of friends before I proceed. I have a hypothetical question. What if you do yourself in, and then I ask your friends if it is OK with them? BAWK! (Oh, I forgot you wanted an explanation of my reasons for posting. It is because I found your attempt at homicide humor to be in very poor taste, and not at all amusing.)