On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:18:17 -0800, Lowell C. Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good evening, Travis! > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 really. What he just described was arrived at by trying > > incrementalism. He described your methods end results. > > It was arrived at by incrementalism from the other side. First one thing > was added to the list of things that government should do, then another, > then another. The edifice won't be blown up. It will have to be dismantled > brick by brick.
No. It was arrived at by both republican and democrats sides. Votes such as the vote to increase the debt limit is just another example of republicans incrementally increasing the size of government. Most all the gun control laws were passed with republican support as well. Bush has increased the dept of educations budget by 60% in the past three years, that is a huge incremental step in the WRONG direction. Robert keeps suggesting incrementalism over pushing for major changes. I disagree but it is not that big of an issue in my opinion. My major difference with Robert is that the people he supports push incremental steps in the opposite direction that Robert and I want government to go. > > Actually i think most would be willing to give up their favorite if it > > meant getting rid of all the other garbage. The problem is they do > > not trust anyone to actually do it that says they will. > > There is something to be said for this. But I still think you're talking > about a minority of people even if you include those who would like to see > most of it gone, but don't trust anyone to implement the whole thing. > Besides, you've got a lot of these "favorite" (and "necessary") departments > that people simply can't envision an alternative to. But if you pick any one 'favorite program' far less than 50% think it is vital. > That means you've got > an education problem and you simply cannot educate everyone on everything > all at once. But you might be able to educate a majority on one or two > things and get that done. Then, you might be able to gain sufficient trust > to educate/risk doing something else. The other arguement of course is that you could spend forever educating people on each issue only to find that after you have done enough education on one issue to change peoples minds two more issues have popped up that need education. Therefore what is needed is a more broad education teaching people to be skeptical of government rather than trusting of government. Voting for politicians that claim to be for smalller government but instead offer us more government disguised as less only ocmplicates the problem and does not teach people to trust free markets and be skeptical of the government. Instead it gives them a false sense of accomplishment. Much like the Orwellian world of 1984 had its organized resistance, the republicans serve the same purpose. Millions vote for them thinking they are doing their part to fight the size of government when really they are being screwed by the very people they are trusting to reduce the size of government. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
