From: "snow" <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:08:23 +0800
To: sethf@mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein)
Subject: Re: The problem of playing politics with our constitutional rights
In-Reply-To: <9709120730.AA15341@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <199709150155.UAA00434@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> From: David H Dennis <david@amazing.com>
> > able to jump over 50 Libertarians in a single bound, 
> 	able to out-flame 5 or so Libertarians in a single thread is
> more accurate.

	Don't break your arm. 

> 	Here's a quick political lesson: Being a Liberal in the US
> means very roughly ONLY that one believes that the government has some
> role to play in moderating the excesses of the market. It does not

	That may be what they *SAY*, based on what they *DO*, what they 
are for is taking from the productive members of society, and giving to 
the unproductive. (or rather taking from the financially productive, and
giving to the financially unproductive.).

> particularly *make* you a civil-libertarian. However, because Liberals
> think about general social power and the abuse of it, they are very

	Liberals usually don't think much. They are too busy "feeling" and
playing with their crystals. 

> 	It also helps that Liberals are *predominantly* drawn from
> ranks of those who are the targets of both public and private
> abuses. So they often both favor government action against business

	Really? I wasn't aware that the Kennedys were/are targets of public
and private abuses. Nor are the Clintons (exepct they are from Arkansas), 
nor most _current_ union members, including their leadership. etc. 

> 	Corollary 1: Detonating a nuclear device in DC will not solve this
> problem. The surviving government will just have a very good excuse for
> crypto-controls.

	We got plenty of nukes, and if we feel those are too dirty (I don't 
think one or two would matter, but any more than that and things might get 
a little nasty) we could always descalate (or whatever the opposite of 
escalate is) to small arms or conventional explosives. 

> 	Corollary 2: Repeated Libertarian rantings won't solve it either.

	No, but it might get one or two people to stop fingering their 
crystals/genitals long enough to realize that big monololitihc governments 
do not now and never have provided protection for the individual. The 
protections of individuals, whether that be civil-liberty type protections, 
or protections against other evils is always more effective the closer it gets
to home. When neighbors work together, theives have a real hard time.
(the only time when Big Government tends to protect one better than the 
city/neighborhood is in times of war, but if there weren't any big governments,
there wouldn't be any big wars...).