Good evening again, Mark! Mark Crispin wrote to Frank Reichert...
> The point is that left-statism is currently the greater threat. The fact > that there are right-statists too doesn't mean that we should wring our > hands and allow the left-statists to win. I hope that you understand, I wasn't implying that 'statists' at either end of the political spectrum should be tolerated by Libertarians. I am not so sure either that 'right wing' statists aren't in charge of the direction we seem to be going these days, unless, you assume that the Shrub Regime <tm>, the neo-conservative bunch running much of our current government, isn't the greatest threat of all. I believe, in reality, it is the greatest threat currently threatening our civil liberties. That's my opinion. > You don't have to sign on to the religious right's agenda. I sure don't; > I'm a card-carrying Life member of American Atheists. I'm not an Athiest. I'm a Lutheran. That's not, as I see it, the orientation of this thread. > I have found that much of the rank-and-file in the religious right, as > long as they themselves are not under direct attack, aren't particularly > eager to go out on holy crusades. Of course, it's impossible to sway them > into a sensible position on such matters as abortion or school prayer. > Nevertheless, it *is* possible to get some sort of mutual agreement for > peaceful co-existance with them. On what issue? Certainly not on the majority of 'social issues', which I find them diametrically opposed to civil liberties specifically. In other words, they seem to almost always come down hard on using government power to govern what is socially acceptable, and put those who oppose them in jail if they disagree. > You can tell that the world has changed when the local gun clubs, > including those with a majority religious conservative membership, have > changed their by-laws so that "family member" is defined as "primary > member, partner, and minor children" rather than "husband, wife, and minor > children." Maybe, but I haven't paid that much attention to that, since I haven't found a way to verify religious affiliations of members of such local orgaizations. If you've already done so, then show me the demographics, that is, show me how membership breaks down across religiously defined lines, and how such lines were defined, and by whom? In other words, I seriously doubt that local gun clubs ask for members to reveal their church, or religious orientation before signing on. > Left-statists insist that society has an obligation to protect individuals > from making decisions that the left disapproves of. This include such > things as owning firearms, owning land (and making land-use decisions for > one's own land), choosing the form and funding of one's health care and > retirement, etc. So, pray tell, how has the Shrub Regime<tm> really distanced itself from all such endeavours? Seriously. Think about that before you answer this. Well, I know your question was loaded, specifically asking for disapprovals of the leftist bent, but logically, the neo-conservatives want the government very much involved in all such decisions anyway! Consider the Shrub Regime's<tm> 'No Child Left Behind Act'! Mark my words, "the Shurb Regime<tm> will increase your taxes, and centralize government consolidation over your own personal choices in health care, the education of your children, and codify them into law just as vigorous, if not more so, that the radical lefists could do if they were elected. > Authoritarian? > Ashcroft, perhaps the furthest to the right in Bush's cabinet, is the > first attorney general in decades who has taken the official position that > the Second Amendment means that there is an individual right to own > firearms. > > We haven't had any Waco or Ruby Ridge type incidents under Ashcroft > either. > > Some authoritarian! I really do believe you have seriously missed the point here. Try going to the airport these days, and accompanying your wife to the bording gate! I tried to do that in Spokane, Washington just last thursday night. Times have changed a lot, and Asscroft was, and still is, very much in the centre of why things have changed as they have. America is living very much in a virtual Police State, as we speak, and you can see it everywhere if you choose to observe how things have chaned under the Shrub Regime<tm> in America today. Interesting to... you mention 'Ruby Ridge', alongside of Waco, TX. My property here borders Randy Weaver's property, right here on Ruby Ridge, so I don't need you to lecture me, on your inability to understand how the Federal government's abuse of power really works. > The PATRIOT Act would have happened after 9/11 no matter who had won the > election. The audits are in indicating that Ashcroft did not abuse it. > Can you imagine what Reno would have done with those powers?!? Well, this goes far beyond the scope of this thread, but what I've seen and witnessed during the last several years, since 9/11, is phenemonly worse that anything even coming close to the atrosities occuring during the reign of the last Administration, that is, insofar as civil liberties are concerned. > The important thing now is that PATRIOT sunsets on schedule. We'll see if that event really ocurrs on schedule. My guess is, that in the current regime, things will compound markedly and get even much worse. > Bush & co. are certainly neo-conservatives, but they are not fascists. > Hyperbole does not help your argument. Depends upon your definitions. Check out the latest events over the last couple of days, and form your own conclusions. "Condom-looser Rice" replaces Colin Powell as Secretary of State, and a host of other Cabinet-level appointments, certainly a markedly different consolidation by the radical conservative "neo-conservative" right. Colin Powell could have been the next GOP Presidental candidate from the GOP, and he still might be yet, it's too early to tell -- but the signs are already being written on the wall of THIS Administration. Who would YOU trust as most credible, Colin Powell, or Heir Rumsfeld? > The enemy of "better" is the irrational insistance upon "perfection". > Anything that is better is worth voting for. For your information, I didn't vote for either one of the bozos. I voted Libertarian. So you can sum this up as you will. I didn't vote for the Shrub, and I didn't vote for Kerry either. Since I never signed on with my vote, I will not support the current status quo either. I guess you will, or might, at least by the tone of your message tonight. I don't have to, since I didn't, and refuse to accept the status quo. > In effect, you're saying, "never vote for the better; always hold out for > the perfect, even though the result is that the worse will win." It doesn't really matter. I never signed on, or voted for defeat. I am not obligated to accept the status quo. I voted my conscience, and, in doing that, I don't have to accept or support the status quo. There are a lot of benefits to that, specifically: 1. I do not support, and will not, sending US soldiers, men and women, into harms way in a mercenary effort to interfer and support regime changes around the world that often have included dictatorships, and regimes that host nationals will not support; 2. Not supporting or accepting as 'Gospel' the status quo of who governs America today; 3. Not giving allegiance or propriety to the current 'Regime' in office, even if decided by an uniformed electorate that is absolute nonsense! In short, it doesn't honestly matter whether or not George W. Bush won this electorial fiction or not. Point is: I didn't subscribe, and I also have no obligation to support it either. The choice is mine to make. Not yours, not anyones. > I disagree. It is completely rational to choose the B- (or C+) in order > to avoid the F. That's your choice to make, and obviously you've made it. It is not my choice however, and so I reserve my right and privallege to not support the neo-conservative Regime in power and to oppose it as best I can, and in whatever ways that I have available. > Bush was better than Kerry (or Gore) for the same reason that Gary Locke > was better than Ellen Craswell. In the case of Locke vs. Craswell, there > was no question that Locke would win, so it was alright to throw away a > vote on the Libertarian candidate. But in Bush vs. Kerry or Bush vs. > Gore, the race was entirely too close to take that chance. So what? Likey the Locke vs. Craswell race is very similar in a lot of ways to the Shrub Regime<tm> vs. Kerry Race. Again, so what? Can you honestly tell me you voted your real conscience here? Did you really vote for the right person to respresent YOU? On all of the issues, and at all times? Then, sir, you just LOST this election. You forfeited your own vote for the best man, or women, who would be represent your interests. Welcome to America today! > There is zero danger of the US becoming a fascist dictatorship; claiming > otherwise is ridiculous hyperbole. It's getting late, and I'm going to bed. I guess it's your attitide here that I have a difficult time in dealing with. History moves on, and is always interpreted by who wins, and thereby writes the history books. But to suggest that Fascism isn't alive and well in America today is sick. We are living, and will re-live the consequences of our actions as people, and our government, if we allow it to follow its current course, will lead to consequences also, that we will have to live with forever in the same course of history. Kindest 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
