Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in small part: >Incrementanlism is okay when you are incrementally going towards your >goal. Allowing police officers to be armed [off duty] while [other] citizens still are >not is not a step in the right direction.
Why is it not? Before the step, X people are allowed to carry guns. After the step, X + N people are allowed to carry guns, where N > 0. How is that not a step in the right direction? > I useful exercise is to >replace the 2nd amendment with the 1st. If there were restrcition on >what you could publish would a good step be allowing certain approved >government officials to publish whatever they want? Yes, of course. What would the benefit be of not allowing, say, a letter carrier to have a Web log? You're saying it's better that NOBODY be allowed to do something than that SOMEBODY be allowed to do it? Travis reminds me of the supposed libertarians who are against allowing gov't to operate gambling (such as lotteries) in states where otherwise nobody would be allowed to operate those forms of gambling. They seem to think it's better that people who want to gamble have no legal opportunity to do so than that they have one legal way to do so. The trouble is, they're focusing on (see the subject line) size of gov't rather than amount of freedom. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert in the Bronx _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
