-Caveat Lector-
MJ:
Criminalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, sodomy ...
encouragement of prayer in the government schools, the
government schools themselves ...
Edward Britton wrote:
"Criminalization of drugs (a wasted effort, apart from
filling the coffers of criminals and politicians),
prostitution, gambling, sodomy..." fall under the rubric
of punishment of/for criminals.
MJ:
It is an effort to CONTROL behaviors based NOT upon freedom
and liberty. [ALL non-property 'crimes' are revenue
generators :) ]
Edward Britton wrote:
How is encouragement of prayer in schools considered
social intervention? I'll need more here to continue
in the vein of social intervention.
MJ:
How does a school prevent a 'religious' person's child from
praying? It is NOT their child they are concerned with, but
everyone else's.
MJ:
How exactly does one who disapproves of the Government
forcibly taking an arbitrary amount of earnings from an
arbitrarily defined group and redistributing this plunder
to another arbitrary group fall within the confines of
'social Darwinism'?
Edward Britton wrote:
Because those who proffer such an argument imply (by the
use of emotives like "theft" and "plunder") that there
is no need for a collection of just revenues for the
maintenance of a society in which "a few (to be arbitrarily
determined :-))" benefit disproportionately. Such arguments
negate the need for a basic provision of services to those
within a society who are incapable of fending for themselves.
Such arguments, therefore, promote, by default, the social
equivalent of the "natural laws" of survival of the fittest.
The social extension of such an argument/philosophy is
social Darwinism or naturalism.
MJ:
You are committing a myriad of logical fallacy here not limited
to strawman. There is nothing in my statement above which
relates no need to fund 'society'. The 'theft and plunder'
relate to unconstitutional efforts of our government which is
operating beyond their mandate (to the tune of at least 85% of
what they do fitting this category).
I certainly believe everyone -- man, woman and child -- should
pay the SAME for services which cannot otherwise be separated
into 'use' categories. Roads/highways (though certainly a good
private ownership candidate) should be paid entirely by gasoline
taxes -- which are managed at the most local level possible.
National Defense on the other hand should be funded equally
by determining the budget and dividing by the population. What
better way to eliminate the 'fluff' and keep the costs to a
minimum?
I also believe in charity -- the REAL kind.
Now, with this additional information, how are my comments in the
gendre you associate them?
MJ:
What you describe (haphazardly) as a Republican is NOT
a Libertarian -- grouping them together is dishonest.
Edward Britton wrote:
Hardly: according to my experience (subjective at best,
but never claimed to have been more than that), there is
no practical difference between the philosophies of
Republicans and Libertarians--apart from the stated
possibility that Libertarians lean more in the direction
of anarchy than fascism. In either case, to make such an
assertion is not dishonest.
from www.lp.org
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge
the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the
rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise
sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right
to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as
they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of
others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated
on the opposite principle, that the State has the right
to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits
of their labor. Even within the United States, all
political parties other than our own grant to government
the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize
the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government
to do these things, and hold that where governments
exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual:
namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support
the prohibition of the initiation of physical force
against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and
action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government
to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as
government censorship in any form; and (3) the right
to property -- accordingly we oppose all government
interference with private property, such as confiscation,
nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the
prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and
misrepresentation.
Libertarians oppose criminalization of drugs, prostitution,
gambling, censorship ... the Republicans favor these.
Essentially Libertarian Ron Paul emulates what a Libertarian in
Congress emulates by ACTION. The Republicans TALK like Libertarians
but Legislate like Democrats. There are DISTINCT differences.
MJ:
Read their (Ls) web page (www.lp.org) and explain what it
is that places them in the confines you attempt. My
reading of the Ls is their desire to end ALL of the
Government waste by restoring this Constitutional Republic
to its plainly written restrictions.
Edward Britton wrote:
I am thoroughly aware of the ideological differences between
the two, and were Libertarian philosophies congruent
"in-practice" with their ideology, I would more than
likely be Libertarian. As it is, however, I still contend
that there is no practical difference between Republicans
and Libertarians.
MJ:
Then Ron Paul's recent PRIVACY legislation will pass both the
Senate AND the House since they hold the majority? I would be
interested in the BASIS for this conclusion you hold.
MJ:
What exactly does one have when an attempt is made to
equate the abolition of theft ... with 'Social Darwinism'?
Edward Britton wrote:
The same that one has when one uses emotives like "theft"
to describe the just collection, distribution and application
of a portion of society's resources in order to maintain
vital social infrastructure. If the left uses psychopolitics,
they learned it from the right :-)
MJ:
At the turn of the Century, ALL Government consumed 1% +/- of an
individual's earnings ... in the 1950s it was less than 10 percent.
Currently the Government STEALS 50% +/- of an individual's earnings
and utilizes these 'just collections' for unconstitutional programs.
How much of these 'just collections' are just?
Wanting to return to the level at the turn of the century makes
one a Social Darwinist ... how?
Regard$,
--MJ
What's *just* has been debated for centuries but let me offer
you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you
keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much
of what I earn *belongs* to you -- and why? --Walter Williams
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
