mutilated misquotes from Michael Hipp's 11 Nov 2004 classic prose may follow:
---8><--- " one writer described how a 2-D (4-quadrant model) was better than a " simple 1-D left-right. I think the dimensions were social and fiscal " policy. But then there are other things like foreign policy, role/use of " the military, etc. ---8><---- Left/right? That is, politically, utterly without significant meaning; a distinction without a difference. Nonetheless, a 1-D model is the best place to start (multi-d might be very useful later on). The distinction of significance is libertarian/compulsionist. The libertarian (lower case l) is the guy whose basic position is 'my house - my rules'; the compulsionist's, 'your house - my rules'. The problem in bringing this into any sort of discussion is that everyone now is at the compulsionist end of the scale which gives the totally erroneous idea that there is no scale. " We're likely stuck with these terms. But surely we all know (probably " lots of) people who aren't so readily pigeon-holed. I wistfully wish there were a whole damn potful more of us. " And then there's the problem of where to place Libertarians on this " left-right model. Libertarians (upper case L) are compulsionists. R -- http://www.quen.net "Gold needs no endorsement, it can be tested with scales and acids. The recipient of gold does not have to trust the government stamp upon it, if he does not trust the government that stamped it. No act of faith is called for when gold is used in payments, and no compulsion is required." -Benjamin M. Anderson _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
