Urmas's posts reminded me of something Paul, were are not talking about food and poisen, or communists, or catholics and protestants. We are talking politics.
If you want to tell me compromise never works in politics, then explain to me why the more moderate candidate has almost always won the presidential election in US history. I think maybee, it would be better that I tell you rather than ask you to tell me as you might not bother to ponder the question before you answer, as you have claiemd to do before, and spit out a slew of uninteligable rubish that will again side track me from my point... The reason is that compromise works. --- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The reality is gradualism and compromise don't work. They never have > and they never will. > > http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm > > "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can > win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can > profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the > evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube." - Ayn Rand > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > wrote: > > > > There was recently a discussion, not here but some where else, that > > I was able to observe. The difference between Russia and China's > > pogression after the end of the cold war was a topic of this > > discussion. It adressed how the rapid releasing of the reigns of > > power in Russia led to corruption and economic failures, were as > > China's slow, planned and control release is leading to booming > > economic growth. The big lesson, everything all at once is not > > normaly the best way to handle things. > > > > This seems to me a general udnerlying principle of reality, > > something that can be observed in a vast array of arenas. When I was > > in college I had a hobby of programming, and was involved in teh > > development of a web bassed game. From new features to competition > > balancing tweaks, we all learend that to all at once, or to much at > > once time, was a bad idea as unforseen problems always arose. The > > Bolshevik revolution certainly started with a vission far from its > > ultimate end, as to much change brought them unforseen problems at > > every turn. > > > > One source of partial libertarianism that is not agression, is a > > person who udnerstands this reality, and chooses to work twoards > > Liberty in a planned, step by step method, that is constantly re- > > evaluated durring the proccess. This could easily include > > compromises that are not in keeping with a fundementalist > > libertarians ambitions. > > > > Anouther argument for partial libertarians is a philosophical > > question of morality. All things are subjective, and progress often > > can only come with compromise. What is the greater failure, the > > greater sin agaisnt liberty? To compromise on a path to greater > > liberey, or to give not an inch and call for full liberty or no > > deals even if that means there is no movement towards greater > > liberty? For the Libertarian party to have geater influence it needs > > a larger base of support on a national level. The average american > > is a centrist moderate, that is the largest potential group of > > voters. They will not be so inclined to support a Libertarian if > > there is no room for a 'partial libertarian' becasue at best that is > > what they are. I see posts on people leaving Democrats and > > Republicans, of the creation of partys like the Constitution Party, > > and talk of bringing them to the Lib Party, or asking why they > > arne't comming. Its because they do not have the extreem fundemental > > views of the libertarian party, and if there is no willingness to > > compromise with them there will have no intrest in supporting you, > > and in fact, if the liber party ever came to a position to where it > > had any real potential of gaining a foothold on nation wide > > politics, it would push them back to the Dems and Republicans out of > > fear of a party that will not compromise with them and has no regard > > for there desires and wishes to imposse there view of liberty on > > them in an agressive uncompromising manner. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <txliberty@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Aggressors Promote LIMITED 'Libertarianism' > > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/32417 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > If you replied to him with out pondering what he said, you made > > an > > > > uninformed baseless statement... wich I dont beleive you did, as > > > you > > > > clearly pondered what he said, other wise you would be unable to > > > > produce any aplicable response to his ideas. So, I guess I cant > > > > realy in certainy state what you did so I will ahve to give you > > the > > > > benifit of the doubt, a or b, let me know and I will take your > > word > > > > for it on your honor. > > > > > > > > a) You pondered his statement > > > > > > > > b) You did not ponder it, and chose to anunciate from your > > rectum > > > on > > > > a thought that you have not even given consideration to in order > > to > > > > develop a logical opinion > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In my response to him, I didn't ponder anything. I gave him > > > > something > > > > > to ponder. He has dishonestly claimed to be a libertarian or > > used > > > > > false terms to describe other non-libertarians such as > > > > > "neo-libertarian" or "republican libertarian" or "pro- defense > > > > > libertarian (actually he really means "pro-initiation of > > force"), > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > I explained to him that neither he, nor anyone else of his ilk > > are > > > > > libertarians because those who don't agree with and adhere to > > the > > > > > non-aggression principle are not libertarians. > > > > > > > > > > My Christian analogy is apt and perfect for the situation. > > > > > > > > > > As far as the minister in your town goes, he was wrong. By > > > > > definition, ANYONE who believes in and follows the teachings > > of > > > > Jesus > > > > > of Nazareth are considered "Christians" regardless of which > > sect > > > of > > > > > Christianity they happen to follow. > > > > > > > > > > Those who recognize self-ownership/sole-dominion over > > ourselves > > > and > > > > > who consistantly support and adhere to the non-aggression > > > > principle in > > > > > ALL CASES are libertarians. > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter if they put more or less importance on > > social or > > > > > economic freedoms as long as they don't want to use force > > against > > > > > those they disagree with. Some describe themselves as pro- life > > > > > libertarians and I will admit there are some, but the only > > ones > > > who > > > > > are both pro-life and libertarian at the same time are those > > who > > > > would > > > > > not use government force to prevent or punish abortions. They > > > may > > > > be > > > > > disgusted by abortions, and may want government to stop > > funding > > > > them > > > > > (which I agree with), but they won't use government force to > > > > prevent > > > > > people from having them. > > > > > > > > > > There are no libertarians who support the war in Iraq. Being a > > > > > supporter of the war in Iraq excludes you from being a > > follower of > > > > > libertarianism. They are diametrically opposed from each > > other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" > > <uncoolrabbit@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If nothing he said was worth pondering why did you ponder it > > > > long > > > > > > enuff to create more than a one sentance response Paul? > > There > > > is > > > > > > alot worth pondering in his statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your analogy using Christians is mistakenly constructed. To > > > > better > > > > > > illustrate what Eric was saying, using your chosen analogy, > > the > > > > case > > > > > > of the former congregational Minsiter and his family in my > > > > hometown > > > > > > can be considered. > > > > > > > > > > > > They were not what a mainstream congregationalist would call > > a > > > > > > typical congregationalist, the had extreem or radical views > > on > > > > the > > > > > > subject of what it means to be a christian, and becasue of > > > those > > > > > > views they held the opinion that Catholics are not > > christians > > > > and > > > > > > that they are all going to hell. Given this non typical view > > of > > > > what > > > > > > it means to be a congregationalist, and the fact that 90% of > > my > > > > home > > > > > > town is Catholic, he is the former minister. This > > illustrates > > > > what > > > > > > Eric was saying, were as your analogy did not realy aply to > > > what > > > > he > > > > > > was saying, and was clearly a diversion to express your > > > personal > > > > > > opinion... wich ironicaly enuff serves as the perfect > > > supporting > > > > > > case to Eric's expressed ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are pro-life democrats, and gay rights republicans, > > this > > > > is > > > > > > why they are effective parties, they contain both radicals, > > and > > > > > > mainstream, and the leadership works to balance this. If > > there > > > > can > > > > > > not be a balance in the Libertarian side like this, then > > there > > > > is > > > > > > plenty to ponder in Eric's question. Are all true > > libertarians > > > > > > radicals? > > > > > > > > > > > > Had your opening statement been true, that Eric's thoughts > > were > > > > not > > > > > > even worth pondering, would you have been so compelled to > > make > > > a > > > > > > defense argument Paul? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing you say is worthy of pondering. That would mean > > you > > > > > > actually > > > > > > > put some thought into it. There are no "partial" > > > libertarians > > > > > > because > > > > > > > it's a boolean function. It's something you are (like > > me), > > > or > > > > > > aren't > > > > > > > (like you). This doesn't make someone radical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christians are those who believe in Jesus. There are no > > > > partial > > > > > > > Christians. You believe in Jesus or you don't. You're > > > either > > > > a > > > > > > > Christian or you're not. Does this mean Christians > > > > > > are "radicals". > > > > > > > No it doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are no modifiers because it's a black and white > > issue. > > > > You > > > > > > > either adhere to and support the non-aggression principle > > in > > > > all > > > > > > cases > > > > > > > and you're a libertarian, or you don't and you're not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as libertarians being superior, I agree and it's > > not a > > > > > > complex. > > > > > > > It's a fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Eric Dondero > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a question to ponder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The radical, mostly Libertarian Party Libertarians > > love > > > to > > > > > > decry > > > > > > > partial libertarians such as Larry Elder, Neil Boortz, > > David > > > > Drier, > > > > > > > Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Bob Erlich, and > > > others. > > > > They > > > > > > > love to scream out at the top of their lungs "So and so is > > NO > > > > > > GODDAMN > > > > > > > LIBERTARIAN!!!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well if that's the case, then does that mean that all > > > > > > libertarians > > > > > > > are radicals? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there's no such thing as a "partial libertarian," > > than > > > > > > surely > > > > > > > every single libertarian than is by definition a "radical." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are not libertarians also entitled to use modifiers > > like > > > > the > > > > > > > Liberals and Conservatives? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is it that only Libs and Cons get to use modifiers > > in > > > > > > front of > > > > > > > their labels? Isn't there something grossly unfair about > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the truth is the radical libertarians like to > > pretend > > > > that > > > > > > > they are on their high horses getting to decide with a > > magic > > > > wand > > > > > > just > > > > > > > "who is and who is not a libertarian." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guess it's some sort of superiority complex deal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Dondero, Interpreter & ESL Instructor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Author of "Worldwide Multilingual Phrase > > Book," "Vacation > > > > > > Spanish" & > > > > > > > "Ingles Real". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.houstoninterpreter.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
