That would be like having a political party who claims its core
value is the golden rule, yet allowing anti-Semitism. I would
redirect the questions to you: How does the Libertarian Party,
whose values are very similar, allow such similar prejudice (as
is drug prohibition)? If the Golden Rule Party decides to remain
consistent, is it fanatical or intolerant of them to not allow
ANY form of prejudice? If it does allow a prejudice, can it
justifiably keep its same name and claim the same
philosophy/values? Of course not.
Libertarianism does not misunderstand things like marijuana
prohibition. In contrast, it understands them better and is often
found explaining and discussing the topics. Like right here.
Paul's parody of your position is very revealing; it obviously
"understands" your position better than your own words - which
basically consist of nothing more than re-hashing the same
hilarity.
-Mark
************
{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.] }
_____
Its rather difficult to imagine why people who favor bigger
government generally would want to join the Libertarian Party.
However, it is easy to imagine that people who favor smaller
government and lower taxes but also think that legalization of
marijuana is a bad idea or who favor intervention in Iraq or any
one
a a multiplicity of particulars that don't generally find favor
in
the party might want to join. And its equally easy to imagine
that
there might be a substantial number of such people, each
differing as
to perhaps one particular issue, that might want to join.
One of the marks of a fanatic is the inability understand that it
is
possible to have such a thing as a small disagreement.
--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey, bigger government, smaller government. Who cares right?
After
> all we're "big tent" libertarians. We should bring in all
people
> whether they agree with statism or libertarianism. We should
welcome
> everyone whether they support the non-aggression principle or
not.
> How else are we going to grow if we don't toss our principles
out
the
> window like the major parties did? After all it's not about
our
> principles, it's all about growth right?
>
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
