This is an interesting site
- Thread starter Mort
- Start date
Ray VanderLinden
New member
Mort I checked it out a day of so ago. I was going to post it but got called out for a "Disturbance" and it skipped my mind.
It's good to know that there are a few Liberals out there that still can think off the party line. But even he agrees that he is in the minority of his type.
It's good to know that there are a few Liberals out there that still can think off the party line. But even he agrees that he is in the minority of his type.
Well, as long as the subject has been brought up, I guess this is as good a time as any to "out" myself...
<covering my head from blows> I admit it!! I'm a liberal! (Now that I've admitted it, please don't bash me
)
I've refrained from saying anything before about it, because it seems that some of my other political stands aren't too popular around gun groups.
But just to prove I'm not a traitor to the cause, I offer this evidence: I own three guns myself, have ten total in the house, and have taught (along with "cornered rat") thirty people to shoot this year. He handles tactical, and the touchy-feely person here handles the emotional. My daddy instilled in me a certain hatred for gun control at the age of six. What can I say?
I'm also involved with spreading the word to other people when new legislation comes up, and I know a heck of a lot self-professed democrats who jumped on the horn to offer advice to the local legicritters on the pro-ccw bill this year. In fact, I know more pro-gun democrats than anti's!
So, if it's not too much trouble, could I possibly suggest adding the word "most" before "liberals" if people on this forum are about to let us have it?
It kinda sucks to be cruising around with people that you genuinely like and then <wham> they say something that makes you wonder if they really want your support or not.
Mort, thanks soooo much for this heads-up. It's good to know that I have a place to wallow when the liberal-bashing gets a little too thick.
=Q=
<covering my head from blows> I admit it!! I'm a liberal! (Now that I've admitted it, please don't bash me
)I've refrained from saying anything before about it, because it seems that some of my other political stands aren't too popular around gun groups.
But just to prove I'm not a traitor to the cause, I offer this evidence: I own three guns myself, have ten total in the house, and have taught (along with "cornered rat") thirty people to shoot this year. He handles tactical, and the touchy-feely person here handles the emotional. My daddy instilled in me a certain hatred for gun control at the age of six. What can I say?
I'm also involved with spreading the word to other people when new legislation comes up, and I know a heck of a lot self-professed democrats who jumped on the horn to offer advice to the local legicritters on the pro-ccw bill this year. In fact, I know more pro-gun democrats than anti's!
So, if it's not too much trouble, could I possibly suggest adding the word "most" before "liberals" if people on this forum are about to let us have it?
It kinda sucks to be cruising around with people that you genuinely like and then <wham> they say something that makes you wonder if they really want your support or not.Mort, thanks soooo much for this heads-up. It's good to know that I have a place to wallow when the liberal-bashing gets a little too thick.
=Q=
Q...
Thanks and trust me, you are both welcome and safe here....and this is from someone who considers Torquemada a bit lefty
I don't want every one to think exactly like I do, if so, inevitably stagnation and perversion occurs.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Thanks and trust me, you are both welcome and safe here....and this is from someone who considers Torquemada a bit lefty
I don't want every one to think exactly like I do, if so, inevitably stagnation and perversion occurs.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Liberal is such a broad, mushy term, as is conservative. I think the right wing religious wackos belong with the left wing liberazis - in a world of their own, without taking me (us) with them.
I basically hate anyone who tries to limit me. Who cares if its the right boot or the left boot on their neck? A boot is a boot, and I refuse to lick it.
I basically hate anyone who tries to limit me. Who cares if its the right boot or the left boot on their neck? A boot is a boot, and I refuse to lick it.
Awww, Morgan. You don't really mean that...
We all have limits we need to impose upon ourselves, as I'm sure you agree. The problem is that some folks don't want to be limited in manners that prevent them from:
-- robbing, murdering, pillaging, etc.
-- abusing defenseless people, such as children & elderly or non-karate champs (like me), etc.
-- And on and on. You know what I mean.
Some folks feel exactly as you typed. NO limits are acceptable to them. They are feral threats to us all. You are not that way or you would not show the consideration for other people's opinions that you have shown here on TFL.
The question, as in most things, is where do we draw the line:
-- Who should and should not be permitted to have weapons?
-- What weapons may they have? Chemical, biological, explosive threats to their neighbors?
-- Just what is a threat?
-- Who should we kill and who should do it?
(capital punishment, euthenasia upon whose request or authority, birth-control & abortion, etc.)
-- How much power should the various political states (local, state, federal, UN, etc.) have to inflict their views upon us?
Way back, counties fought the powers of states - and lost.
Way back, states fought the powers of the federal gov't - and lost.
Now, countries (political states) are fighting the powers of the "United" Nations. Gee, I wonder how THAT will turn out....
Makes me sick....(and arm myself.)
I really DO believe we are on the same side here.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited February 19, 1999).]
We all have limits we need to impose upon ourselves, as I'm sure you agree. The problem is that some folks don't want to be limited in manners that prevent them from:
-- robbing, murdering, pillaging, etc.
-- abusing defenseless people, such as children & elderly or non-karate champs (like me), etc.
-- And on and on. You know what I mean.
Some folks feel exactly as you typed. NO limits are acceptable to them. They are feral threats to us all. You are not that way or you would not show the consideration for other people's opinions that you have shown here on TFL.
The question, as in most things, is where do we draw the line:
-- Who should and should not be permitted to have weapons?
-- What weapons may they have? Chemical, biological, explosive threats to their neighbors?
-- Just what is a threat?
-- Who should we kill and who should do it?
(capital punishment, euthenasia upon whose request or authority, birth-control & abortion, etc.)
-- How much power should the various political states (local, state, federal, UN, etc.) have to inflict their views upon us?
Way back, counties fought the powers of states - and lost.
Way back, states fought the powers of the federal gov't - and lost.
Now, countries (political states) are fighting the powers of the "United" Nations. Gee, I wonder how THAT will turn out....
Makes me sick....(and arm myself.)
I really DO believe we are on the same side here.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited February 19, 1999).]
Morgan, this may be a carry-over from the other board, but a true religion recognizes the individuals freedom to choose AND experience the consiquences of those choices without draconian enforcement for obedience. Lumping Liberals as all Democrats, Conservatives as all Republican, those who subscribe to organized religion as all fanatics and wackos is a gross error and only contributes to the view that pro-gun people are narrow minded, stuffy, blowhard rednecks that enjoy the thrill of killing, and when ever we get a gun in our hand we loose control and all rational thought.
If you haven't been over the the board "Utah gun control from Hell" (or something like that) Check it out. There is a wonderfully colorful description of the bigotry and hate that people feel, not only for the inanimate object the gun, but for anyone who espouses the 2nd amendment and the rights which it enumerates. Let them be bigots if they want, but we lower ourselves to their level when we choose to do the same.
John/az
------------------
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right"
If you haven't been over the the board "Utah gun control from Hell" (or something like that) Check it out. There is a wonderfully colorful description of the bigotry and hate that people feel, not only for the inanimate object the gun, but for anyone who espouses the 2nd amendment and the rights which it enumerates. Let them be bigots if they want, but we lower ourselves to their level when we choose to do the same.
John/az
------------------
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right"
Dennis - but of course, I agree there are limits that must be observed. To clarify, let me say that I should be allowed to do whatever I want, so long as I don't interfere with your right to do whatever you want.
I don't believe individuals should have weapons of mass destruction (nuclear devices, poison gas, biological warfare pathogens, etc.) as it just leaves too many open to the whims of one, who may be insane or waaay to power hungry. A person shouldn't be allowed to dump toxic waste in a river. There ARE limits - but they should be mostly state limits, not federal.
I agree about individual countries now being pressured by the UN. Look at the situation in Kosovo - this is a stretch, but we're basically saying that a country cannot use force to maintain its borders when challenged from within. If one agrees with the outside pressure being applied there, one must also believe that the Union should have let the Confederacy secede in 1860, no? What if Texas tried to secede today, and by an overwhelming majority vote - would the federal government stand by and say "Okay, good luck to you"? Hypocrites.
BTW, I'm not making light of the Balkan situation.
I, too, am sickened (and arming myself). Cornered Rat has more brothers than he thinks, I think.
I don't believe individuals should have weapons of mass destruction (nuclear devices, poison gas, biological warfare pathogens, etc.) as it just leaves too many open to the whims of one, who may be insane or waaay to power hungry. A person shouldn't be allowed to dump toxic waste in a river. There ARE limits - but they should be mostly state limits, not federal.
I agree about individual countries now being pressured by the UN. Look at the situation in Kosovo - this is a stretch, but we're basically saying that a country cannot use force to maintain its borders when challenged from within. If one agrees with the outside pressure being applied there, one must also believe that the Union should have let the Confederacy secede in 1860, no? What if Texas tried to secede today, and by an overwhelming majority vote - would the federal government stand by and say "Okay, good luck to you"? Hypocrites.
BTW, I'm not making light of the Balkan situation.
I, too, am sickened (and arming myself). Cornered Rat has more brothers than he thinks, I think.
Whoa, this is getting heavy. John, you posted while I was typing. I have to disagree with your definition of a "true" religion. Not all (not most?) recognize the individual's right to choose and experience freedom. I agree that they SHOULD, but most don't. Do you mean any religion you respect gives that choice?
I don't mean to lump all liberals/Democrats/right wingers/Republicans together with their group. I lump those who are against personal freedom and responsibility, AND not open-minded enough to reconsider their views, together as one. I don't believe that excluding them from my life and concern is lowering myself to their level.
--Boy, I hope some of you come to Denver for the NRA convention at the end of April. I'm REALLY looking forward to meeting such an eloquent, level-headed bunch! This conversation would be even better over a glass of wine after dinner...
I don't mean to lump all liberals/Democrats/right wingers/Republicans together with their group. I lump those who are against personal freedom and responsibility, AND not open-minded enough to reconsider their views, together as one. I don't believe that excluding them from my life and concern is lowering myself to their level.
--Boy, I hope some of you come to Denver for the NRA convention at the end of April. I'm REALLY looking forward to meeting such an eloquent, level-headed bunch! This conversation would be even better over a glass of wine after dinner...
Hehehe, Morgan! Yes, you said it well. I respect any religion that recognizes the fact that the individual has the right to choose and experience the consequences of that choice. There are lines to be drawn to what extend we are permitted to express ourselves. For example: Murder, Extortion, Theft, Embezlement, etc. There is a lot of wrong doing that occurs in the name of "Self-expression" or "temporary insanity". A lawless society is anarchy.
Anyway, the other comments that I made about stereotyping by groups and bigotous remarks were meant for the general reading body and were not directed to you specifically. 8) It was meant as a heads-up statement. The last thing pro-control people need is more ammunition!
Sincerely,
John/az
Anyway, the other comments that I made about stereotyping by groups and bigotous remarks were meant for the general reading body and were not directed to you specifically. 8) It was meant as a heads-up statement. The last thing pro-control people need is more ammunition!
Sincerely,
John/az
Jeff Thomas
New member
Well, well ... this is not only an interesting site, this has become an interesting thread.
Q, you're right. It is wrong of me (on other threads) to bash all liberals. However, most of them 'walk like a duck ...', if you know what I mean.
I am a 'classical liberal' - today, called a libertarian. 'Right' and 'left'; 'liberal' and 'conservative' are problematic terms, IMHO. I prefer a test / standard based upon one's belief in economic and personal freedom. I've seen various tests over the years, but here is a sample:
(score 20 for yes, 10 for maybe, 0 for no)
Are you a self-governor on personal issues?
1. Military service should be voluntary (no draft)
2. Government should not control radio, TV or the press.
3. Repeal regulations on sex between consenting adults.
4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.
5. Let people immigrate and emigrate freely.
Are you a self-governor on economic issues?
1. Businesses and farms should operate without government subsidies.
2. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
3. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
4. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
5. Europe and Japan should pay for their own defense.
Then they have a graph basically showing:
A. 'Libertarians' score highly (>75) on personal and economic freedom.
B. 'Left liberals' score highly (>50) on personal freedom, but lowly (<50) on economic freedom.
C. 'Right conservatives' score highly (>50) on economic freedom, but lowly (<50) on personal freedom.
D. 'Authoritarians' (fascists?) score lowly (<50) on both freedoms.
(my card says this is adapted from an original idea by David Nolan, and was being distributed by the Libertarian Party)
I don't answer yes on every question myself, without qualification. And, obviously, the specific questions would change with the times and the news. However, I have come to believe that this dual perspective of personal and economic freedom is much more accurate than the old 'right' and 'left' view.
I also believe that getting away from the labels and, instead, discussing the basic principles of freedom often brings people closer together. It also clearly hightlights those areas where someone is taking what I would consider a radical stand - for example, restricting my freedom because of someone else's religious perspective, or forcefully taking my money to fund another's pet charity.
Please note that the vast majority of libertarians I meet place individual responsibility right up there with freedom. You can't really have freedom if responsibility isn't required. And, part of that responsibility is not initiating force against others. I don't mean pacifism - I mean not being an aggressor / BG.
Morgan's comment was also voiced by an unknown (forgotten, by me!) Supreme Court justice - he said something along the lines of 'my freedom to swing my fist ends at the other fellow's nose'!
I find that discussing freedom / liberty can give me some pretty quick clues to someone else's true views - my warning bells go off when it is clear they are frightened by freedom.
Q, you're right. It is wrong of me (on other threads) to bash all liberals. However, most of them 'walk like a duck ...', if you know what I mean.
I am a 'classical liberal' - today, called a libertarian. 'Right' and 'left'; 'liberal' and 'conservative' are problematic terms, IMHO. I prefer a test / standard based upon one's belief in economic and personal freedom. I've seen various tests over the years, but here is a sample:
(score 20 for yes, 10 for maybe, 0 for no)
Are you a self-governor on personal issues?
1. Military service should be voluntary (no draft)
2. Government should not control radio, TV or the press.
3. Repeal regulations on sex between consenting adults.
4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.
5. Let people immigrate and emigrate freely.
Are you a self-governor on economic issues?
1. Businesses and farms should operate without government subsidies.
2. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
3. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
4. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
5. Europe and Japan should pay for their own defense.
Then they have a graph basically showing:
A. 'Libertarians' score highly (>75) on personal and economic freedom.
B. 'Left liberals' score highly (>50) on personal freedom, but lowly (<50) on economic freedom.
C. 'Right conservatives' score highly (>50) on economic freedom, but lowly (<50) on personal freedom.
D. 'Authoritarians' (fascists?) score lowly (<50) on both freedoms.
(my card says this is adapted from an original idea by David Nolan, and was being distributed by the Libertarian Party)
I don't answer yes on every question myself, without qualification. And, obviously, the specific questions would change with the times and the news. However, I have come to believe that this dual perspective of personal and economic freedom is much more accurate than the old 'right' and 'left' view.
I also believe that getting away from the labels and, instead, discussing the basic principles of freedom often brings people closer together. It also clearly hightlights those areas where someone is taking what I would consider a radical stand - for example, restricting my freedom because of someone else's religious perspective, or forcefully taking my money to fund another's pet charity.
Please note that the vast majority of libertarians I meet place individual responsibility right up there with freedom. You can't really have freedom if responsibility isn't required. And, part of that responsibility is not initiating force against others. I don't mean pacifism - I mean not being an aggressor / BG.
Morgan's comment was also voiced by an unknown (forgotten, by me!) Supreme Court justice - he said something along the lines of 'my freedom to swing my fist ends at the other fellow's nose'!
I find that discussing freedom / liberty can give me some pretty quick clues to someone else's true views - my warning bells go off when it is clear they are frightened by freedom.
Jeff: I'm a true/left liberal in that sense. I didn't mean to make it sound like "Cornered Rat" was a liberal, if anyone got that impression. He's very much a Libertarian... always has been, always will be.
I don't like to mix my other political views in with the gun issue, because I find such an abundance of opposition, and really, I can't keep up with all that mail.
Put simply, I believe that no one should be hindered to succeed. For me, that sometimes means giving a person the means to get back on track. It also means that people should have an avenue to defend themselves should they find that they have been discriminated against. These two things generally will put me in with the "left liberals" as you say. The reason why I'm here in this forum is that "insuring that no one is hindered to succeed" also includes the right to self-defense.
And yes, "cornered rat" & I do have political "fights" from time to time (you should see us the morning after an election), but we still go to bed as friends.
=Q=
I don't like to mix my other political views in with the gun issue, because I find such an abundance of opposition, and really, I can't keep up with all that mail.
Put simply, I believe that no one should be hindered to succeed. For me, that sometimes means giving a person the means to get back on track. It also means that people should have an avenue to defend themselves should they find that they have been discriminated against. These two things generally will put me in with the "left liberals" as you say. The reason why I'm here in this forum is that "insuring that no one is hindered to succeed" also includes the right to self-defense.
And yes, "cornered rat" & I do have political "fights" from time to time (you should see us the morning after an election
), but we still go to bed as friends.=Q=
KAM_Indianapolis
New member
Morgan - you said "I agree there are limits that must be observed. To clarify, let me say that I should be allowed to do whatever I want, so long as I don't interfere with your right to do whatever you want."
I do hope you also meant to say, and don't harm anyone (except maybe yourself) while doing what you want.
I think all labels are limiting. As soon as you try to pigeon hole someone they will do something outside of their box.
The fundamental issue is whether you truly believe in the ideals this country was founded on. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Anyone who accepts that can stand beside me in the fight for what is right.
There are those amongst us who wish to take away our liberties. There are those who will defend them. It should be as simple an argument as that. The criminals on our streets are not nearly as dangerous as the criminals that have been elected.
Peace…
Keith
I do hope you also meant to say, and don't harm anyone (except maybe yourself) while doing what you want.
I think all labels are limiting. As soon as you try to pigeon hole someone they will do something outside of their box.
The fundamental issue is whether you truly believe in the ideals this country was founded on. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Anyone who accepts that can stand beside me in the fight for what is right.
There are those amongst us who wish to take away our liberties. There are those who will defend them. It should be as simple an argument as that. The criminals on our streets are not nearly as dangerous as the criminals that have been elected.
Peace…
Keith
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a
radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ..." "And so a
lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being
abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last
weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and
more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." President Bill Clinton,
3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ..." "And so a
lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being
abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last
weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and
more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." President Bill Clinton,
3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
You folks might be surprised at how many so called red neck gun owners vote democratic because they are in unions and unions are still MOSTLY anti-big business which translates to anti-republican. Most of these people have guns primary to hunt with and don't see high capacity mag bans, assualt type weapon bans, junk gun bans, etc etc etc as a threat to their hunting activities. They don't realize that sooner or later their scoped deer rifles will be called "sniper rifles" and that their bird guns will be called "riot control guns of multiple killing projecticle launchers" etc, etc. The anti-gunners will come up with some evil name for evry gun. They will eventually call high quality .22 target pistols "asassins tools that can be easily silenced by anyone with a hack saw and some steel wool" You would be surprised how many of these people are also not members of the NRA or any other gun rights group. I belive that these gun owners who vote democratic are a real problem and are in effect shooting themselves in the foot. I also belive that if the democrates would see the 2nd amendment for what it is and stop trying to have the government gain more more control of peoples lives,that republicans would become extinct. Well that my 2 cents anyway!
You folks might be surprised at how many so called red neck gun owners vote democratic because they are in unions and unions are still MOSTLY anti-big business which translates to anti-republican. Most of these people have guns primary to hunt with and don't see high capacity mag bans, assualt type weapon bans, junk gun bans, etc etc etc as a threat to their hunting activities. They don't realize that sooner or later their scoped deer rifles will be called "sniper rifles" and that their bird guns will be called "riot control guns of multiple killing projecticle launchers" etc, etc. The anti-gunners will come up with some evil name for evry gun. They will eventually call high quality .22 target pistols "asassins tools that can be easily silenced by anyone with a hack saw and some steel wool" You would be surprised how many of these people are also not members of the NRA or any other gun rights group. I belive that these gun owners who vote democratic are a real problem and are in effect shooting themselves in the foot. I also belive that if the democrates would see the 2nd amendment for what it is and stop trying to have the government gain more more control of peoples lives,that republicans would become extinct. Well that my 2 cents anyway!
Mike in VA
New member
Organized labor, organized religion, big government, big business - they all have a body of dogma and an agenda that you are required to support if you want to participate. They do not care about the individual, and in order to broaden their appeal, they take a lowest common denominator approach to life. Excellence is anathema, because it points up the medocrity the membership must conform to be "in the body". They are oppressive by their very nature, and ultimately, they are about control.
In order for a society to function, there needs to be a reasonable set of shared goals and values, and certainly a degree of cooperation, but to be viable in the long run, maximum freedom of choice and opportunity (including the freedom to fail) is necessary. Natural selection works, frustrating natural selection results in an inbred, weak, and stagnant society.
I feel a major rant coming, so I'll quit now with the thought that with institutionalized anything, less IS more.
Best regards, M2
In order for a society to function, there needs to be a reasonable set of shared goals and values, and certainly a degree of cooperation, but to be viable in the long run, maximum freedom of choice and opportunity (including the freedom to fail) is necessary. Natural selection works, frustrating natural selection results in an inbred, weak, and stagnant society.
I feel a major rant coming, so I'll quit now with the thought that with institutionalized anything, less IS more.
Best regards, M2
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Well, folks, I score a solid 100% on the Nolan quiz. In fact, the Libertarians are kind of stodgy and middle of the road, in my opinion Oh, and most folks use of the word anarchy is a misnomer...they should use chaos instead. I'm what has been called a rational anarchist. Basically that means I don't need a government to tell me what to do or to restrain my savage instincts. I do that quite well myself, thank you. I didn't commit murder today because there are laws against murder. Murder is against my personal code. However, the rational part of rational anarchist is that I have sadly come to the conclusion that there are, in fact, people who need a government to tell them how to behave. Tragic.
Liberals? Conservatives? The only difference I can see between them in Congress is that they disagree on which areas of my life government should control and what level of control should be in force. They are in total agreement over the need for some degree of government control of my life.
If my actions harm no one but myself, it's no one's business but mine. Freedom requires that I not interfere in any fashion with people who speak and behave in a fashion I think is wrong unless those actions or those words harm others. There is no such thing as a little bit of freedom. That being said, let me add that freedom is not license and that there is no freedom without responsibility.
Helping others get back on track? Sure, let's do it, I'll sign up and give time and money. (After I've spent my available time and money securing the 2nd Amendment) Just don't try to get the government to use the power of the state to force me to "help others get back on track."
Justice for the victimes of discrimination? Sure. Let's boycott the perpetrators. Let's refuse to sell to them, work with them or for them. Let's refuse to speak to them or any method that avoids aggression or forcible coercion.
For at bottom, that's all government is-forcible coercion.
"Government is not eloquence. Government is not reason. It is force. And,like fire,it is a dangerous servant and fearful master."
George Washington
Oh, and most folks use of the word anarchy is a misnomer...they should use chaos instead. I'm what has been called a rational anarchist. Basically that means I don't need a government to tell me what to do or to restrain my savage instincts. I do that quite well myself, thank you. I didn't commit murder today because there are laws against murder. Murder is against my personal code. However, the rational part of rational anarchist is that I have sadly come to the conclusion that there are, in fact, people who need a government to tell them how to behave. Tragic.Liberals? Conservatives? The only difference I can see between them in Congress is that they disagree on which areas of my life government should control and what level of control should be in force. They are in total agreement over the need for some degree of government control of my life.
If my actions harm no one but myself, it's no one's business but mine. Freedom requires that I not interfere in any fashion with people who speak and behave in a fashion I think is wrong unless those actions or those words harm others. There is no such thing as a little bit of freedom. That being said, let me add that freedom is not license and that there is no freedom without responsibility.
Helping others get back on track? Sure, let's do it, I'll sign up and give time and money. (After I've spent my available time and money securing the 2nd Amendment) Just don't try to get the government to use the power of the state to force me to "help others get back on track."
Justice for the victimes of discrimination? Sure. Let's boycott the perpetrators. Let's refuse to sell to them, work with them or for them. Let's refuse to speak to them or any method that avoids aggression or forcible coercion.
For at bottom, that's all government is-forcible coercion.
"Government is not eloquence. Government is not reason. It is force. And,like fire,it is a dangerous servant and fearful master."
George Washington
Jeff Thomas
New member
Spartacus, well put ... except the part about me / us being middle of the road!
Q, I respect your concern for your fellow human being's welfare and fair treatment.
I attend a monthly dinner meeting with some libertarians. It is a room full of suits, with mostly older fellows. White-haired activists, if you will. One of them helped me reconsider the approach you have espoused.
He said that we must always remember the real meaning of the laws we pass - the eventual meaning and import, that is. For example, the state wishes to collect taxes to give 'a person the means to get back on track'. Seems laudable. However, this means that if Spartacus or anyone else doesn't believe this is a good use of their funds, their assets would eventually be taken from them at the point of a gun. Melodramatic? Doesn't happen often, does it? But you and I know that is exactly what would happen if someone were so foolish as to refuse to pay their taxes - eventually they would be barricaded in their home or arrested in the street.
So, my older, wiser friend looks me in the eye and essentially says we better be damn sure we really need that law, because, make no mistake, it is coercion. And to enforce it, the state must initiate the use of force. As citizens we have collectively authorized the state to use violence if necessary in order to extend the charity we personally support.
On a more practical note, as recent welfare reform has shown us, state-sponsored charities aren't very efficient. If you or I lend a hand to someone in need, we'll be pretty careful to make sure it is a helping hand and not a hand-out. The state, OTOH, has a tendency to just keep the gravy train rolling, and that just cynically continues a person's dependence on charity, and robs them of their self respect. IMHO.
In closing, Q I thank you for having your convictions, and for joining us in the RKBA. People such as yourself are in a much better position to convince 'liberals' of the logic and intelligence of the RKBA. Regards from AZ.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited February 20, 1999).]
Q, I respect your concern for your fellow human being's welfare and fair treatment.
I attend a monthly dinner meeting with some libertarians. It is a room full of suits, with mostly older fellows. White-haired activists, if you will. One of them helped me reconsider the approach you have espoused.
He said that we must always remember the real meaning of the laws we pass - the eventual meaning and import, that is. For example, the state wishes to collect taxes to give 'a person the means to get back on track'. Seems laudable. However, this means that if Spartacus or anyone else doesn't believe this is a good use of their funds, their assets would eventually be taken from them at the point of a gun. Melodramatic? Doesn't happen often, does it? But you and I know that is exactly what would happen if someone were so foolish as to refuse to pay their taxes - eventually they would be barricaded in their home or arrested in the street.
So, my older, wiser friend looks me in the eye and essentially says we better be damn sure we really need that law, because, make no mistake, it is coercion. And to enforce it, the state must initiate the use of force. As citizens we have collectively authorized the state to use violence if necessary in order to extend the charity we personally support.
On a more practical note, as recent welfare reform has shown us, state-sponsored charities aren't very efficient. If you or I lend a hand to someone in need, we'll be pretty careful to make sure it is a helping hand and not a hand-out. The state, OTOH, has a tendency to just keep the gravy train rolling, and that just cynically continues a person's dependence on charity, and robs them of their self respect. IMHO.
In closing, Q I thank you for having your convictions, and for joining us in the RKBA. People such as yourself are in a much better position to convince 'liberals' of the logic and intelligence of the RKBA. Regards from AZ.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited February 20, 1999).]