Good evening, Frank! > Lowell C. Savage wrote to Frank Reichert... > > > Now you see why Robert and I have been talking about an incremental > approach > > to liberty rather than trying for it all at once. > > Not exactly. I think you're reading far more into what I wrote > earlier.
Actually, no. Your comments had to do with the cause of my (and, I believe, Robert's) embrace of incrementalism. The fact that you see the same evidence and believe a different approach is required is separate. > > So, you're going to have to go after each one individually, on their > merits, > > and in some cases, you'll have to demonstrate that the replacement can > work. > > I'm rather more able to assume that things will have to get a > lot, lot worse, than they currently are, before individuals will > wake up and smell the coffee. Rather than looking at the lot of > humans in America indvividually, I'd rather consentrate most of > my efforts on the demise of America, as we know it, in total. So, apparently, you look at the same situation and decide that it means we, as a society, need to "hit bottom" before we can work our way up. > I only suggested that the total results of the election were the > results of the moment, for most of Americans these days, that's > all that counts, that this, vis-a-vis, the 'moment'. A more > circumspect approach to all of this is rather, not the 'moment' > but the climex. > > The so-called incremental approach that you, and Robert, preach, > may after all turn out to be rather, short lived. Well, the risk in any incremental approach is that you get some things done and then the fashion changes (or people get tired of working toward the goal, or whatever) and then you don't get a chance to do the rest. But right now, you certainly aren't going to get the "big bang" change to happen, so you've got to take what you can get. > I understand that you understood me earlier, as suggsesting that > most Americans can't and won't make a choice dependent upon what > is important at this given moment in time, for them! > > Most of that isn't of any importance at all. > > Suddenly, that may, after all, become the most important aspect > to living and surviving in this world in the 21st century. If people cannot be convinced to take a small chance with change in placid times, what makes you think they'll take a big leap of faith when all around seems to be falling apart? The greatest friend of authoritarian governments is a catastrophe. Even if you can make the argument that the government brought the catastrophe about, people are instinctively likely to believe that "more government" will be the solution. I give you, as Exhibit A, Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance." I'll admit that I listened to it on tape so I may have heard an abridged version. But here's the outline: (1) Governments have caused horrific environmental catastrophes (all examples of catastrophes he gives are government-caused). (2) There is a looming environmental catastrophe. (3) Therefore, we need to give governments more power to prevent that looming environmental catastrophe. Even if you buy Gore's conclusion, you have to admit he chose a stupid argument to support it. Yet, Gore's book was hailed as showing that he's a smart, even wise fellow. In other words, if you're looking for some kind of a catastrophe to "save liberty", be careful what you ask for...because you just might get it. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
