> Cam wrote: > As a rephrasing of the sentence I was commenting on" "Yeah, but you > guys haven't looked into the mouth of hell - or understand it."? >
Ah. Well, I'll try to clarify that. My point was that anyone who's read and understands what's at stake (the complete disintegration of economy) wouldn't be still against government intervention. It's sort of the same concept behind MAD; anyone who understands the power of atom bombs and the consequences of any nation using them against another wouldn't be for them. Now, if you look at, say, MacArthur, he wanted to use nukes against China because he felt there was no substitute for victory. Should we have? I think we were right in not doing it. My point, however, was that I would think most people would agree that sparing the complete destruction of our economy and the resulting mayhem, riots, and chaos would be a good thing even if means government intervention. But now that I'm writing THAT I'm thinking you could still align this with libertarian principles in that even libertarians believe in defense and law and order. The destruction of the economy would certainly mean a loss of law and order, so maybe technically it still works. I dunno. What do you think? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:270544 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
