Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in 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?
>Okay, how about instead of police officers we said, only Not "only". "In addition to everyone who'd OTHERWISE be allowed." >asians could That's funny! Before reading this message I replied to shadow in this thread and gave Chinese as an example! >use guns. Would that be an improvement? Of course! > No. Why not? Why would you rather not increase the number of people allowed to carry guns, if the set of added permittees isn't to your liking? >I am only suggesting equal protection under the law. So given the choice between liberty and equality, you go for equality? That's practically the defining characteristic of the socialist. >> 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. >Government protected monopolies have proven to be bad for freedom. Worse than absolute prohibition?! 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
