Uncool,
A.) But not "insufficient information" to demonstrate the fault
of your original position (that unlimited libertarianism is too
all-or-nothing). But I believe TLP countered your position much
better by explaining your confusion between goals and methods of
achieving them.
B.) The reason I am asking you is because it is YOUR position.
"Steve" is a fictional candidate in an analogy. Apparently, you
either missed that or you are intentionally evading it. The rest,
I simply can't read.
C.) (Why do you prefer "demonize", when we only "criticize"? I
don't think I've ever truly "demonized" anyone in my whole life.)
If you are trying to say that you would not want meth or heroine
legalized, or that you would not vote for a candidate who would,
you expose your support for govt aggression. If you are trying to
say that you would rather vote for the OTHER candidate, who
"would work to protect the most basic human rights", you are
exposing your ignorance of the strong similarity between drug
prohibition and the violation of "the most basic human rights".
-Mark
PS: I'll let you "agree to disagree". I'll continue to simply
disagree.
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
> Libertarian mayoral candidate Dave says he has a plan to reduce
> violent crime and aggression "drastically". Dem mayoral
candidate
> Steve says he has a plan to reduce violent crime and aggression
> "a little bit", and criticizes Dave's plan as too
> "all-or-nothing". Question 1: Who should win the election: Dave
> or Steve?
A.) Answer 1: Insufficient information, I would need to actualy
see both
of there plans, evalutate them against real facts, and then find
out
on there position on a vast array of other issues as Crime is not
the only thing in the world that should be adressed.
Incase you were not refering to the morale ideal should, but the
hypothetical... I do not know enuff about the electorate of Dave
and
Steve's constituency to tell wich form of selling yourself will
be
more effective in swaying undecided voters in your direction.
>
> Question 2: How does Steve plan to limit his reduction of
> violence without supporting that which he refuses to reduce?
>
B.) You should ask Steve that, I don't know what Steve's plan
entails,
nor do I know what the criminal situation is in Steve's comunity,
and of course I do not know there financial state either to
comment
on how that might effect the ability to carry out any alternative
plans. Perhaps Steve is honest to a fault, and while Dave is
happy
to lie and embelish reality, Steve went out on a limb and spoke
of
reality in a hope that it would appeal to the voter. If Dave's
plan
is unimplementable, and will result in watered down police
department, it may result in an inability to protect even the
basic
liberties of the average citizen when they realy need it, and
Steve
has placed saftey of life above saftey of tax fraud perhaps.
Perhaps
even, Steven feels that some crimes are plain old inapropriate,
and
does not desire or believe in spending a great deal of money to
fight recreational pot use in his district, wich is of course a
crime. However, Dave, not having the same point of view wants to
apeal to the christian right and pound down hard on those evil
pot
smokers. I realy can't answer on such limited information on
Dave,
Steve and there community now can I.
>
> Since I can't completely decipher your points (remember my
> handicap) about blurbs that assault and judging and demonizing
> the viewpoints of different thinkers, I only THINK I disagree
> and/or plead "not guilty".
>
>
>
> -Mark
>
C.) We can agree to disagree if you like, but I can not demonize
a man
that would for instance, show restraint against the pursuit for
legalizing crystal meth and heroine so that he had a chance to
win,
and work to protect the most basic of human rights. However, if
you
want to demonize such a man, that would be your 'right.'
_____
[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/
