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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (36282)	4/29/1999 10:13:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, this is not worth arguing about. But just go back a little, and you will see this discussion(?)began when you responded to my post to Ish, in which I said that "libertarianism IS liberal, if the term liberalism is defined in its original sense." You challenged that statement, saying, I recall, that liberalism and libertarianism have virtually nothing in common, that the former is the faith of good-hearted generous people, while the latter is the faith of nasty selfish people. (Thank God I am not a libertarian! Whew!) In other words, you took a remark about the relationship between libertarianism and historical (classical) liberalism, and challenged it on the grounds that it did not correspond to your perception of the relationship between libertarianism and present-day liberalism in this country. Since I thought you had misunderstood me, I cited the Stanford U. piece on the evolution of liberalism. For your part, you say I misunderstood you. So it goes. The perils of cyberspace communication. Joan Edit: PS: And since I was educated as an historian, I do tend to think that knowing the history of a concept is essential to understanding it in the present. Chalk that up to professional prejudice, if you will. <g>

To: Grainne who wrote (36282)	4/29/1999 10:24:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

OK, Christine. What the hey. You wanna fight? I'm your girl. I was formerly State Secretary of the Louisiana Libertarian Party. Also State Central Committee Member, if you know what that means. They wanted to run me for Governnor. Which tells you a lot about how hard up they were. I said no, for reasons of dignity. Those are my bona fides. I admit I am now a Republican, have served on the local County Central Committee, and have been a delegate to the Gubernatorial and Senatorial Conventions, but not Presidential. You wanna fight about politics? Let's do it. (Rolling up my sleeves). The single, simple dividing line between libertarians and the rest of the world, especially liberals, is the believe that "That government is best which governs least." Which means that there are certain things that government can do, and certain things it can't. No matter how nice it would be. No matter if it would save lives. No matter if it would save the children. It can't be done by government. The reasons, you see, are that government is voluntary, and it is funded by taxes. And if tax money is confiscated from the tax payer it must be for a proper function of government, otherwise it is theft. And theft is wrong. So if you see someone starving to death, it's your job to feed him, if you want to, but it's not mine, if I don't want to. And you should not be able to make me. It's wrong. OK? Simple. Plain. Conceptually perfect. Your turn.