Good evening again tonight, Ed! Ed Fischang (aka: Shadow) wrote to Dave Laird...
> Irresponsible, yes. Terrorist? C'mon, Dave, don't insult our intelligence. Well, I spent considerable time tonight trying to define what Dave might be talking about vis-a-vis terrorism. I'll be waiting for his reply, but I too felt he was 'reaching' a great deal here in definitions, and becoming excessively broad with his original definitions as such. At least this gave me a great opportunity of sorts to probably define more precisely how Libertarians define such things as real 'aggression' and how that fits into the context of becoming a victim of aggression, and what we believe might be more appropriate legal remedies as such. Maybe more on point here is that Libertarians really do believe in clean water and air to breathe. We don't support aggression denying our obvious rights to such, and when they are taken away, then we ought to have legal (civil or criminal) recourse to have such remedies that legitimate courts ought to entertain. I also attempted tonight to limit much of Dave's sweeping suggestions on the grounds of environmentalism, which can include almost everything, even those things which obviously are outside of anyone's right to control for everyone else! I guess that was my chief point, that is, in pointing out the matter of real aggression against what rights every property owner ought to have over all such 'personal' resources. I don't really know where this discussion is 'really' going to go! It will be fun to watch and participate, won't it? I suggest too, likely Robert Goodman, and others, will likely show up (tomorrow, or the next day) with their own rendition on property rights, pollution, and a whole host of other matters related to this thread. I believe actually Dave might have started something here that perhaps is a giant of a topic for discussion! He just failed to find a way to qualify some of that. Perhaps I don't see Dave's remarks as particularly 'insulting' anyone. Knowing Dave, he will obviously, as he has already done earlier, clarifying his remarks and bringing more of this discussion into focus. I'd really like to write this as a separate post, but I'm getting tired. I'm going to bed. And, I'll wake up I suppose tomorrow morning in a hornets next of sorts in what I might write just now. Dave and I are 'writers'. I've known Dave Laird for a long, long time, and we have experienced a long history of mutual and detailed commentary on a lot of facets of recent history, and I mean by that, spanning more or less over one decade of our short history as a nation, country and continued building as an American culture. But in saying this, we say things usually in terms of tremendous license to provoke conversation on the real issues of our time. Well, I guess that has to be of some importance. It ought to be. I will not insult Dave Laird as a writer. He is probably one of the very best writers discussing the contents of our own time, at least in my generation. I'm not the only one to say this either. As all journalists are, they usually find a way to disagree with each other, but nevertheless provide provocative commentary, and at least try to find a way to reasonably show differences of opinion whether that happens to be in various sectors of society, including all of them: politics, sociological patterns, economics, and religion (among other variables in place). As such, Dave has always followed that path, as I have, as being the proverbial 'sceptic'! In this business, you have to include the question mark! You have to be sceptical! You have to play the 'devils advocate', sometimes at least, and BOTH Dave and I have engaged in this activity for a great number of years. Not all journalists really live up to such scrutiny. Honestly! I do and have a very high regard for Dave's commentary however. You all know exactly what I wrote him earlier tonight about his parameters and definitions. Well, strangely enough, he has always done the exact same thing with me! I've long expected that, and indeed would find it rather strange, when I venture over the line and extrapolate scenarios that are overly broad to define a minute point that is likely indefensible! Yes, I've tried that before too, and it was likely Dave that came in and brought some needed critique to my assumptions and likely embellishment that would otherwise be considered less than objective. Honestly, that's a great relationship, and rather strange amongst journalists and writers. It rarely happens when such a thing occurs, as it usually doesn't occur, rather we are faced with a rather 'canned' frame of reference with little critique. As a result of this, you will probably find BOTH Dave and I at each others throats from time to time, but at the same time you will likely find a great deal of mutual respect in the manner in which we speak, present positions on various topics and discuss them all hopefully on the issues themselves, and as they relate obviously to our own biased history, both of which are honestly very different. I suggest here only we are still doing the most honourable and honest thing, likely learning a lot over a long period of time, from each other's history, orientation, and the written commentary, the 'play on things' we both do. Dave Laird is no stranger to Liberty Northwest either. He was here, aiding me, along with several other technicians and writers, in making all of this possible from the technical side. He was one of my chief supporters in encourage the Liberty Northwest network at the very genesis of this endeavour, so I hope some measure of appreciation might be in order tonight. Dave Moderated this network in my absence while I was transiting abroad to the Philippines several years ago. No matter what I was taught in Journalism 101, journalism as such is never entirely objective, although the goal ought to be! In reality, it rarely is. I've been reading a lot of Dave's current commentary recently, and I have to suggest to all of you, he's being far more too fair than most of you realize, really! Dave has bent over backwards more than once to keep this forum alive and active, and I might add, successful. Dave has been right here in the background for more than one decade making this forum possible. Well, let me just end this by suggesting something I am well aware of. Dave is, as I am often the devils advocate on very sensitive issues. I suspect we have to do that, and we would both be foul and irresponsible if we did not do the things that we do to draw out and bring such discussions forward for discussion. Dave Laird and myself are hardly synonomous with viewpoints either, we just do what we have to do to make YOU an engaging part of this process! My reason, as I am quite sure Dave might agree, is to engage you with what is really going on in our own lives in this given moment in time. That is what I do as a Libertarian activist <sometimes politician>, writer and commentator. Most of all, I'll be here, as Dave Laird also visibly will continue to be, over time, to engage you with what's going on! I hope really we don't create a condition on this valuable forum to make unjustified remarks on the character of those of us who provoke such commentary as Dave and I have done on issues that admittedly are extremely sensitive to each and all of us! Warmest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
