Re: [MMouse]: Basic rights - liberatarians
As a tie in to a controversial MM issue, the Declaration of Independence was written by a man who raped slaves. (There can't be consent when you own your partner - Sally Hemings wasn't allowed the "right" to decline.) Well I wouldn't call this a fact. You see, it has never been conclusively proven that it was actually Jefferson who was involved. The real facts were largely exaggerated or just plain lied about by socialists in a transparent attempt to make it seem like Clinton isn't a bad guy. However, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Jefferson was actually involved. Also, If he was, what makes you say it was "rape" and not a consensual sexual relationship? Documented evidence or a desire to make Jefferson look bad? Does this fact make that document any less valid? No. Ernie Fata
Re: [MMouse]: more on libertarians
The following is just way too long. Oh, well. First, I apologize for the uneducated comment and for personal attacks. Now, to respond. First, the primacy of the individual, carried to its utmost conclusion, is Anarchy The governments role is to provide protection (police force and Army) so that the have-nots cannot, as an exercise of their "individual" free will, come and take away the haves' stuff. Already a convenient limitation on total "liberty." Your statements are true, but indicate a misconception. To clarify the individual rights issue: Every individual should have the right to live every aspect of their life as they choose, unless their doing so infringes on the rights of another person. In other words, no matter what I do, there should not be any institution that can stop me, so long as I am not harming any other person or his property. If I carry a gun, for instance, I am infringing on the rights of no one, but if I shoot someone, I must be held accountable. That's individual rights. (By the way, I don't mean to start some kind of gun control debate, it's just a good example.) And there's more. Most libertarians I have spoken with ignore the benefits that they, as "individuals," receive from living in a "society." Government is integral in both ensuring, and yes, limiting the benefits individuals receive from living in a society. Libertarians seem to want to retain the material wealth that government enabled them to obtain, while eliminating any government limits on there benefits. The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual. Government does not enable individuals to obtain the benefits of society except by limiting its control over the private sector. Therefore, it is a lack of government that enables individuals, not the government itself. The libertarian argument is that government should not be allowed the authority to control individuals or the free market in the first place. As for your economic argument, it contains more propaganda than fact, the perfect free market is a myth, and the history of privatization belies your claims of invariable improvement (especially for the poor). It's basic, fundamental economic law. There is no history of privatization in America, only a history of socialism and the government theft of private property. Education, like every other major industry, should be subjected to the free market, where if a business does not improve it fails. Not only would quality go up, the poor would actually be able to afford a good education, because they actually get to keep their money! Under the current system, the poor are forced to send their children to astoundingly bad inner-city public schools because their income is being stolen to support them, and they can afford to pay for the public schools as well as a private school. Only under the current system do the rich have an advantage. Besides this argument against public education, there is the fact that public education is a violation of two of our most important rights-- freedom of religion and freedom of speech. You see, it is absolutely impossible to educate at any level without presenting a social, political, and religious viewpoint. Neutrality is absolutely impossible. Bias is inherant. Our current public schools present Marxist social, political, and religious viewpoints. They teach that humanity should be divided into groups of people with one group deserving protection at the expense of the rights of others, which is a cornerstone of Marx's political and social beliefs, and they teach an atheist or secular humanist religious viewpoint, another of Marx's beliefs. The absence of religion, whether that religion be Christianity or Judaism or Islam, is a religious viewpoint... a secular one. Then, every American, whether they agree with the viewpoint or not, is forced to fund it. They do not have the option to say "I disagree what is being taught at public schools, so I choose not to fund it." This is a violation of free speech and religious right. In a private system, you would have the option of funding opinions you agree with and not funding those you disagree with. A Muslim man, for instance, would not be forced to fun the propagation of Christian doctrines. As for your concluding arguments, I agree equality cannot be achieved, but that does not mean it is not to be sought. It must be sought. The only way to seek it is by making sure that every single individual is equal protected, and no individual recieves more protection by government that another, which is a defining feature of socialism. Your belief that the poor have more rights is baseless, although I can see where you might get that belief, what with the efforts of the GOP to make the American public believe that it's true. This country was founded on an ideal of equality of opportunity,
Re: [MMouse]: show me the perfect free market, and I'll sho
Ok, mr educated. explain how the sovereignty of the individual benefits a 3 week old child. You'll have to clarify this for me... Don't get me wrong, I am an anarchist that believes in self determination - but you have to take into account that we are communal in some aspects. I am not advocating some kind of communism, just recognition of the facts: like that it is easy for men to be libertarian, but women have more of an ethic of care regards themselves, their offspring, and the community. Libertarianism cannot and does not address these issues at all. Libertarianism is a political doctrine, and is not meant to address every societal issue. What I think you are doing here is blurring the lines between society and government. I don't advocate that every individual should fend for himself and not do anything to benefit the community or society as a whole... in fact I abhor that. The point of libertarianism is that the government has no legitimate purpose other than to protect the rights of the individual. Once the rights of every individual have been secured, then every single group of people (racial or otherwise) will have equal rights and equal opportunity. The doctrine is purely political. Morally, I think all humans have an obligation to be selfless and to help others as much as possible, just not through government, because government is synonymous with force, and force is bad. Ernie Fata
Re: [MMouse]: show me the perfect free market, and I'll show you aBridge I'm...
This is a kind of long one, but I tend to ramble... Sorry... Sorry for sending this, but I felt the need to reply to the uneducated, libertarian (the least-aptly named "political group" I've ever come across) propaganda recently posted to the list. So, I'm uneducated, eh? We'll come to that later. The libertarian party is so named because it is the only party which recognizes the sovereignty of the individual, in other words, liberty. Get rid of public education? What a moron. I assume you were privately educated, apparently with little success. Remember not everyone's mommy and daddy are rich, some people need public education. Actually, I am a recent graduate of a public (government) school. An interesting point, by the way; socialist institutions, like the government schools, will always by nature stagnate. Right now our public schools, especially those in poor areas, are failures. A family living in a poor neighborhood is so bogged down by property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, that they are forced to send their children to the horrible schools that happen to be in the area thanks to compulsory education laws. Their children may soon learn that a life a crime pays, which is not a hard lesson to learn when attending schools that are based on theft, the redistribution of wealth. Meanwhile, the rich kids in the suburbs get the public schools that are mediocre (rather than hellish) or private schools. Oh, the poor are so much better off now, huh? Education can only improve if it is subjected to the free market and economic laws such as competition, where invariably the quality goes up and the cost goes down. The only way for a socialist institution to accomplish this is espionage and theft. I've drafted a slogan for you, you can use it if you like: "More inequality, more inequality." Also, I often find these simple words of wisdom should be pondered and absorbed by libertarians: Money does not equal merit. Equality cannot be achieved by humanity. The best that can be done is to have a government which looks at humanity not as a mass of people to be divided into groups but as individuals. The rights of the individual, every individual must be preserved, and beyond that government should have no function. If our government wishes to help the poor, minority groups, etc. (which it does not; politicians just enjoy the power), it cannot deprive other groups (even the rich... and I know being rich is just eeevil) of their rights in doing so. One group of people cannot have more rights than another. Every individual must have equal protection. Group rights can only be secured by these means. Also, I'm curious, why aren't there any poor libertarians? While framing a response to this one, consider how much each response relies on stereotypes. Finally, have you ever tried a political view that wasn't fed to you by a silver spoon from your parents? Why aren't there any poor politicians? Also, while my personal life has nothing to do with a philisophical discussion, my parents are moderate republicans, which is worlds away from my views, and they use stainless steel. I tried their view for a bit, you see, because 12 years in a socialist institution tends to make you a socialist. However, upon discovering how to think in my own terms rather than those set by the government schools, I soon realized that capitalism--real capitalism--is the only just government. It is the only for of government which recognizes that every individual has rights that must be protected, and the rights of one group cannot be sacrificed for the rights of another. Ernie the Slave Machine
Re: [MMouse]: $$
I hate socialism. The postal service should be totally privatized immediatley. This is the least of our worries, though. Washington is damaged beyond repair. They have us in a vice grip already. There are only a few things that can be done to fix it at this point: 1) strict term limits on all legislative and executive offices 2) the abolition of public education and 3) the recognition of constitutional limits to the federal government, which it has been exceeding for about 200 years, and with such fine results, too. We need a capitalist, libertarian government. Modest Mouse rules. Ernie the Slave Machine The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of the United States attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect your use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation the U.S. Postal Service will be attempting to bill email users out of "alternate postage fees". Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt to charge a 5 cent surcharge on every email delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Washington D.C. lawyer Richard Stepp is working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming law. The U.S. Postal Service is claiming that lost revenue due to the proliferation of email is costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year. You may have noticed their recent ad campaign "There is nothing like a letter". Since the average citizen received about 10 pieces of email per day in 1998, the cost to the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents per day, or over $180 dollars per year, above and beyond their regular Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to the U.S. Postal Service for a service they do not even provide. The whole point of the Internet is democracy and non-interference. If the federal government is permitted to tamper with our liberties by adding a surcharge to email, who knows where it will end. You are already paying an exorbitant price for snail mail because of bureacratic efficiency. It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from New York to Buffalo. If the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to tinker with email, it will mark the end of the "free" Internet in the United States. One congressman, Tony Schnell (r) has even suggested a "twenty to forty dollar per month surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the government's proposed email charges. Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored the story, the only exception being the Washingtonian which called the idea of email surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come" March 6th 1999 Editorial) Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away! Send this email to all Americans on your list and tell your friends and relatives to write to their congressman and say "No!" to Bill 602P. Kate Turner Assistant to Richard Stepp, Berger, Stepp and Gorman Attorneys at Law 216 Concorde Street, Vienna, Va.
Re: [MMouse]: built to spill
I'm obsessed with the Pixes myself. Me like pixies too, of course. But me listen to Frank Black now. Pistolero. Yippee! Ernie the sketch comedian
