--- In [email protected], Vic Cinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hrearden_hr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > Public support should not be at the expense of abandoning principle > > and an unwillingness to defend or stand for liberty. I think this > > gutting of the platform means that the party is continuing to slide > > down the wrong path. THe public should know what libertarianism is. > > I think otherwise the party may attract people who really don't > > accept libertarianism and the party will become like the Republican > > party. I think this is a sad day for the LP. At least Angela Keaton > > was elected to national committe and that is the only hope I can see > > for the party at this point. I am not ashamed or embarased to stand > > for liberty. I don't use subterfuge to convince people to support > > liberty. I will fly the Gadsden tomarrow. > > there is liberty and there is liberty. its important to differentiate > liberty from anarchy, which is what the LP platforms read like. liberty > should not be at any price. > > case in point, floridas accident death rate for motorcyclist has > dramatically increased since the other bush repealed compulsory helmet > laws. there is no compensating decrease in death rate to make up for > this increase. > > the public wants some responsiblity enforced by government. > > the LP has very much stood for liberty at any price, liberty irespective > of the real human cost, which imo has doomed it to irrelavence. > > what the LP seems to be doing, which I fully support is reinventing itself > as a party that actually gives a shit. > > the LP must learn to balance freedom and liberty vs responsiblity. you > cant have one without the other. > > Vic >
Here we are at the slippery slope again. Political parties are entities, that promote a set of governing principles, and it is important that these parties stick to those principles. It was stated that you believe the public wants some responsibility (nice euphemism for control) enforced by government. So , now the question is what controls does the public want? Ban smoking? Alcohol? Those are bad for you, and according to your argument, government could come in and give a shit. Tell me where you draw the line, between government enforce responsibility and liberty? How is a just government to function, in the form of a poll of the day so the public can decide what responsibility the public wants thrust upon them? If that is the case we will have to differentiate between democracy and mob-rule, not liberty and anarchy. Liberty is like pregnancy in that you can't be a little bit of either. Liberty with control isn't liberty at all, and once you get into controlling liberties, you become a watered down Republican or Democrat varied only in the difference and way you wish people controlled and limited. I believe there is a quote the anti-war crowd loves and overuses that is applicable here. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 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/
