Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The views of a Libertarian!
77 views
Skip to first unread message
wolfbat359
Dec 4, 2019, 6:00:09 PM12/4/19
to
me
Dec 4, 2019, 6:15:00 PM12/4/19
to
On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 6:00:09 PM UTC-5, wolfbat359 wrote:
> https://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian/photos/a.1752345521670563/2450293815209060/?type=3&theater
Your lack of understanding libertarian values is appalling. But it’s never too late to learn.
http://www.endit.info/Links.shtml
> https://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian/photos/a.1752345521670563/2450293815209060/?type=3&theater
Your lack of understanding libertarian values is appalling. But it’s never too late to learn.
http://www.endit.info/Links.shtml
wolfbat359
Dec 4, 2019, 6:17:57 PM12/4/19
to
me
Dec 4, 2019, 6:29:45 PM12/4/19
to
wolfbat359
Dec 4, 2019, 6:43:38 PM12/4/19
to
me
Dec 4, 2019, 6:52:24 PM12/4/19
to
islander
Dec 5, 2019, 10:13:10 AM12/5/19
to
On 12/4/2019 3:00 PM, wolfbat359 wrote:
> https://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian/photos/a.1752345521670563/2450293815209060/?type=3&theater
>
To get a good understanding of Libertarian values, you might consider a
publication by the Cato Institute which attempts to measure the extend
to which individual states honor those values. Personally I found it
most revealing of what actually motivates the Libertarian dogma. Here
is a summary of their values and the importance that they place on each
value. Note that over 68% of their values deal with fiscal and
regulatory values.
*Economic Freedom*
Fiscal Policy Weights 29.7%
• State Taxation 13.4%
• Local Taxation 7.9%
• Government Employment 4.0%
• Government Subsidies 2.3%
• Government Debt 2.1%
Regulatory Policy Weights 38.7%
• Land Use 10.5%
• Health Insurance 7.4% (Pre PPACA)
• Labor Market 5.7%
• Occupations 4.5%
• Lawsuits 3.7%
• Miscellaneous 2.9%
• Health Insurance 2.8% (Post PPACA)
• Cable & Telecom 1.1%
*Personal Freedom*
Personal Freedom Weights 29.4%
• Incarcerations & Arrests 6.6%
• Marriage Freedom 4.0%
• Educational Freedom 3.2%
• Gun Rights 3.2%
• Alcohol Freedom 2.9%
• Cannabis Freedom 2.1%
• Gambling Freedom 1.9%
• Asset Forfeiture 1.8%
• Tobacco Freedom 1.7%
• Travel Freedom 1.4%
• Mala Prohibita 0.5%
• Campaign Finance Freedom 0.1%
Werner is a sad voice in the Libertarian wilderness of New York state
which Cato identifies as the least free state with a score of -0.98 on a
scale of +1.0 to -1.0.
Cite: Ruger & Sorens, Freedom in the 50 States, An Index of Personal and
Economic Freedom, Fourth Edition, 2016, The CATO Institute
> https://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian/photos/a.1752345521670563/2450293815209060/?type=3&theater
>
To get a good understanding of Libertarian values, you might consider a
publication by the Cato Institute which attempts to measure the extend
to which individual states honor those values. Personally I found it
most revealing of what actually motivates the Libertarian dogma. Here
is a summary of their values and the importance that they place on each
value. Note that over 68% of their values deal with fiscal and
regulatory values.
*Economic Freedom*
Fiscal Policy Weights 29.7%
• State Taxation 13.4%
• Local Taxation 7.9%
• Government Employment 4.0%
• Government Subsidies 2.3%
• Government Debt 2.1%
Regulatory Policy Weights 38.7%
• Land Use 10.5%
• Health Insurance 7.4% (Pre PPACA)
• Labor Market 5.7%
• Occupations 4.5%
• Lawsuits 3.7%
• Miscellaneous 2.9%
• Health Insurance 2.8% (Post PPACA)
• Cable & Telecom 1.1%
*Personal Freedom*
Personal Freedom Weights 29.4%
• Incarcerations & Arrests 6.6%
• Marriage Freedom 4.0%
• Educational Freedom 3.2%
• Gun Rights 3.2%
• Alcohol Freedom 2.9%
• Cannabis Freedom 2.1%
• Gambling Freedom 1.9%
• Asset Forfeiture 1.8%
• Tobacco Freedom 1.7%
• Travel Freedom 1.4%
• Mala Prohibita 0.5%
• Campaign Finance Freedom 0.1%
Werner is a sad voice in the Libertarian wilderness of New York state
which Cato identifies as the least free state with a score of -0.98 on a
scale of +1.0 to -1.0.
Cite: Ruger & Sorens, Freedom in the 50 States, An Index of Personal and
Economic Freedom, Fourth Edition, 2016, The CATO Institute
me
Dec 5, 2019, 11:59:16 AM12/5/19
to
On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 10:13:10 AM UTC-5, islander wrote:
> On 12/4/2019 3:00 PM, wolfbat359 wrote:
> >
Your contribution to this thread is next to useless. The Wolf is correct in that legality and morality are often unrelated. But that has as much to do with Democrats or ‘Progressives’ , Republicans ... as libertarians. This is why Dems don’t like Republican laws and morals and visa versa.
> On 12/4/2019 3:00 PM, wolfbat359 wrote:
> >
http://www.endit.info
http://www.endit.info/Cracks.shtml
El Castor
Dec 5, 2019, 2:35:21 PM12/5/19
to
their values at the cost of logic and reason. The other end of the
political spectrum makes exactly the same mistake. Both ends delude
themselves with the unshakable conviction that only they have the
answer.
me
Dec 5, 2019, 3:35:36 PM12/5/19
to
Wasn’t America supposed to be about limited government? Government makes laws. Laws create privileges for some and steal inalienable rights from others in the process. Laws steal choices. They prohibit and limit choices for some people and make you obey someone else’s choices. It’s like being told where to sit on the bus. Laws make you do things you would not want to do if you were free. Was it meant to be this way? What can be more valuable than choice? What do you have when you have no choice?
http://www.endit.info/
islander
Dec 6, 2019, 10:30:00 AM12/6/19
to
wolfbat359
Dec 6, 2019, 12:27:09 PM12/6/19
to
me
Dec 6, 2019, 12:52:26 PM12/6/19
to
El Castor
Dec 6, 2019, 1:41:18 PM12/6/19
to
totally unrestrained free market. The other end is Marxism.
me
Dec 6, 2019, 4:45:25 PM12/6/19
to
islander
Dec 6, 2019, 6:32:42 PM12/6/19
to
unrestrained fiscal conservatism, they also view themselves as advocates
of personal freedom (at least to the extend identified by CATO in the
report that I referenced above). Rand Paul, for example, is a strong
advocate for personal freedom.
El Castor
Dec 6, 2019, 9:22:23 PM12/6/19
to
criminalize speech. They are already doing it in Europe and Canada,
and as I recall you look forward to it.
islander
Dec 7, 2019, 9:11:37 AM12/7/19
to
for Libertarians.
El Castor
Dec 7, 2019, 2:50:39 PM12/7/19
to
who promote individual freedom would support it.
Speech aside (important though it is), my fundamental issue with the
political extremes is that they are so caught up in their ideology
that they abandon logic and enthusiastically support concepts that
align with their ideology without stopping to consider the broader
ramifications of their extreme ideas.
wolfbat359
Dec 7, 2019, 4:44:49 PM12/7/19
to
Liberals have allowed Conservatives to own free speech
Isn’t it annoying when someone you don’t like steals all your best ideas? Due to a combination of cowardice and indifference, that's what's happening to free expression. That mighty cornerstone of democratic life is becoming the preserve of the populists. It’s time for liberals to wrestle it back.
The contours of this seem, prima facie, pretty straight forward. Free speech, with a few tightly defined exceptions, is vital in a liberal democracy. Upsetting or offending religious sentiment is not, and should not, be one of those exceptions. We should cherish and defend the right to free expression, and realise that democracies are noisy, chaotic places to live, where good and bad ideas clash. Its health depends on all citizens feeling they can present their views and argue them out fairly, otherwise disillusion and disengagement result.
Yet this is where liberals are losing. Free expression, in any meaningful sense, is more than the laws that uphold it. It frames attitudes and behaviours. Rights can be enshrined, but without exercise they atrophy. For free expression to produce its full personal and societal yield, differing opinions – especially those that are uncomfortable or difficult – should be constantly encouraged, warmly welcomed, sought out, and treated with respectful seriousness. In modern Britain it increasingly feels like we have the law (which is relatively good, a few bits of the Communication Act notwithstanding) but not the spirit of the thing. The liberals point to the law, but the spirit and vigorous practice has been ceded to the populists.
Free expression has both a moral and purposive value. Of course it’s vital to be able to express oneself, to realise the human need and right to speak one’s mind. But it is also a technical means for individuals or society to arrive at a clearer perception of the truth. The patron saint of this idea, and its best exponent, is John Stuart Mill. If we don’t allow our opinions to be “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed” he wrote in On Liberty, then that opinion will be “held as a dead dogma, not a living truth”.
For Mill it wasn’t enough to express an opinion: the true liberal had an obligation to test it, to actively seek out the alternative view, to grill it, interrogate it, to argue it out. And that is where today’s liberal falls short, preferring to close alternatives off rather than open them up. Freedom of expression is chaotic and dynamic – not easy and timid.
The conditions for free expression
There are two conditions beyond the statute book that are necessary for this full free expression to flourish.
First, there can be no possibility of self-censorship. Whether it is fear of retaliation by gun-wielding radicals or fear of offending established opinion on a matter, self-censorship is the anathema of free speech. Citizens must be encouraged to say what they truly think. More: citizens should be encouraged to dissent. If opinion on a subject is set, disagreement should be sought out. Second – and related – citizens need to feel their opinion, once stated, will be listened to seriously and fairly. Not patronised or sneered at: but a welcome part of a debate or discussion even if others strongly disagree.
Self-censorship as a moral imperative
It’s pretty simple, really. But for all the recent JeSuisCharlie-ing and well-crafted legislation, we are some distance from anything approaching this, and drifting further away, becoming trapped in the suffocating grip of self-imposed censorship. As the on-point Kenan Malik recently argued, many liberals believe in self-censorship as moral commitment: "a belief that because we live in a plural society, so we must police public discourse about different cultures and beliefs, and constrain speech so as not to give offence’. Self-censorship as a moral imperative is a very dangerous thing indeed."
Worse, this moral commitment appears to have infected much of our cultural, political and educational life, the parts of society where free expression is most valuable. The idea has taken hold that slippery concepts like "appropriateness", "understanding", or even just "feelings", are legitimate limits on another’s liberty. Brendan O’Neil, in a recent article for the Spectator, wrote of the "Stepford Students" who "robotically utter the same stuff about being offended", their "eyes glazed with moral certainty" shutting down debates ranging from abortion to nationalism, because they think it offensive: "They insulate themselves from anything that might dent their self-esteem and, crime of crimes, make them feel ‘uncomfortable." (This all being then forced on nervous administrators with some manufactured outrage on social media).
Of course, most of us like to say we defend free expression even in its most aggressive form. After the Paris attacks, everyone was exclaiming how much they loved Charlie Hebdo. But est-ce que tu es Charlie, really? Because a lot of the people tweeting #JeSuisCharlie would never for a moment dare to criticise religion – especially Islam – for fear of offending, for fear of professional opprobrium from polite society, for fear of being thought "uncivil" or "inappropriate". And that’s become a problem. As David Aaronovitch argued in the Times following the murders, hardly any other newspapers were Charlie either: never publishing outrageous cartoons or criticising religion, which turned Charlie Hebdo into a blazing and lonely target. The real Charlies get it, while the rest of us, safely at home and comfortably non-controversial, get to feel like we are doing something by posting the thing on our timelines, demanding others take the risks we wouldn't ourselves. (And I include myself in that).
This is all made worse by the considerable efforts some people will go to be offended and be seen to be offended. Last year, “Twitter commentator” Mo Ansar campaigned to have Lib Dem PPC Maajid Nawaz de-selected for retweeting a picture of the prophet. Not because he (Ansar) was offended personally by the pics, mind you. Of course not! Mo is a liberal kind of guy. But he was offended that Nawaz didn’t think other people would be offended.
A lot of people appear to be desperate to be offended, because it gives them a nice feeling of righteous indignation, and, since victimhood seems to be increasingly a lazy proxy for desert, a shortcut to get your way. And each time we give into it, we’re further incentivizing it victimhood politics, like paying a hostage ransom.
I understand, of course, that free speech should, in a perfect world, be exercised with some respect for other people’s beliefs. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and Mill also explained why offensiveness should not be determined and protected by the law. Any vigorous criticism of one’s most cherished beliefs or convictions will, said Mill, always feel offensive and unfair to its target. Laws against it, therefore, would always be too restrictive. More interestingly, and rarely mentioned now, Mill feared that any effort by government to limiting offensiveness would always harm "marginal" groups – because anyone who vilified established orthodoxies will risk prosecution; while he who vilifies the marginal would be lionised. ... (cont)
islander
Dec 7, 2019, 8:38:00 PM12/7/19
to
primary source of all that is Libertarian?
>
> Speech aside (important though it is), my fundamental issue with the
> political extremes is that they are so caught up in their ideology
> that they abandon logic and enthusiastically support concepts that
> align with their ideology without stopping to consider the broader
> ramifications of their extreme ideas.
Then perhaps you would agree that it is not a good idea to label all
> Speech aside (important though it is), my fundamental issue with the
> political extremes is that they are so caught up in their ideology
> that they abandon logic and enthusiastically support concepts that
> align with their ideology without stopping to consider the broader
> ramifications of their extreme ideas.
members of the left or the right with the actions of a few extremists.
Would you like your politics to be labeled the same as Rep Louie
Gohmert? Or perhaps bomb thrower Rep Jim Jordan? I suspect that you
disagree with a lot of their politics. Likewise, I do not like to be
labeled as a socialist (or gasp communist) and I am not a big fan of the
so-called "squad." Frankly, I'm sorry to see Kamala Harris drop out of
the Democratic primary, but I think that she would make a great Attorney
General. I like Elizabeth Warren and think that she is one of the
smartest candidates. Unfortunately, I doubt that we are prepared to
elect a woman as President. On the Republican side, I'm afraid that you
are stuck with Trump and that will probably complete the destruction of
the Republican party. Are you really sure that Trump is the hill that
you want to die on as a conservative?
>
me
Dec 7, 2019, 9:47:53 PM12/7/19
to
On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 2:50:39 PM UTC-5, El Castor wrote:
>
>
> Freedom of speech is a conservative value, so of course libertarians,
> who promote individual freedom would support it.
>
> Speech aside (important though it is), my fundamental issue with the
> political extremes is that they are so caught up in their ideology
> that they abandon logic and enthusiastically support concepts that
> align with their ideology without stopping to consider the broader
> ramifications of their extreme ideas.
What is illogical about individual liberty? If individual liberty is extreme what limit is logical? Is reducing liberty without ramifications? Why do ideas and ideals exist if they are illogical?
>
>
> Freedom of speech is a conservative value, so of course libertarians,
> who promote individual freedom would support it.
>
> Speech aside (important though it is), my fundamental issue with the
> political extremes is that they are so caught up in their ideology
> that they abandon logic and enthusiastically support concepts that
> align with their ideology without stopping to consider the broader
> ramifications of their extreme ideas.
El Castor
Dec 8, 2019, 3:01:26 AM12/8/19
to
supports freedom of speech, but it is not specifically associated
with, nor does it speak for, any political party, including
Libertarians.
Here are some more direct libertarian views on free speech.
"In the domain of libertarian philosophy, the primary concern of the
civil libertarian is the relationship of the government to the
individual. ... One key cause of civil libertarianism is upholding
free speech."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarianism
"Speech is the preferable alternative to violence. When speech is
restricted, violence will fill the void. To stop violence, we must
protect free speech. No exceptions."
https://beinglibertarian.com/free-speech-no-exceptions/
From the 2018 platform of the Libertarian Party ...
"we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech
and press, as well as government censorship in any form"
https://libertarianconvention.org/2018-platform/
And here is a rather telling quote ...
"Attacks on free speech reveal progressivism as a uniquely American
iteration of fascism that shares many of its historical and
ideological roots."
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/most-liberal-value-free-speech
islander
Dec 8, 2019, 10:27:27 AM12/8/19
to
Libertarian values. Why is that?
El Castor
Dec 8, 2019, 3:45:39 PM12/8/19
to
Libertarian Party, or all libertarians. In any case I've already
mentioned Cato's strong support of free speech. Want more? Here's a
link:
"Defending Speech for All "
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2018/defending-speech-all
Have you read the libertarian links I posted -- including the platform
of the Libertarian Party? If people like you attempt to criminalize
speech in the way it has been done in Canada and Europe, I assure you
that Libertarians (among others) will support a federal lawsuit. In
fact it is already happening in response to more limited
infringements. I certainly support them in this. Do you? Of course
not.
"Los Angeles Libertarian Kevin Shaw Wins Lawsuit Against Campus Free
Speech Zone
A Los Angeles college student who sued his school for allegedly
curbing his right to free speech after it prevented him from passing
out copies of the U.S. Constitution was vindicated in court this
week."
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2019/01/los-angeles-libertarian-wins-lawsuit-against-campus-free-speech-zone/
"Iowa Libertarians sue Sen. Claire Celsi for blocking constituents on
Twitter"
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/24/iowa-libertarian-party-sues-sen-claire-celsi-twitter-blocking-viewpoint-discrimination-trump-lawsuit/1818976001/
Etc.
me
Dec 8, 2019, 3:47:10 PM12/8/19
to
islander
Dec 8, 2019, 8:35:29 PM12/8/19
to
On 12/8/2019 12:45 PM, El Castor wrote:
> What are you talking about? Catois Cato -- it does not represent the
> Libertarian Party, or all libertarians. In any case I've already
> mentioned Cato's strong support of free speech. Want more? Here's a
> link:
The CATO Institute certainly think that they are the voice of
> What are you talking about? Catois Cato -- it does not represent the
> Libertarian Party, or all libertarians. In any case I've already
> mentioned Cato's strong support of free speech. Want more? Here's a
> link:
Libertarians and the Koch brothers seem to agree:
"The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered
in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in
1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the
board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch
Industries.[nb 1] In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato
Institute.[6][7] Cato was established to have a focus on public
advocacy, media exposure and societal influence.[8] According to the
2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report (Think Tanks and Civil
Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania), Cato is number 15 in the
"Top Think Tanks Worldwide" and number 10 in the "Top Think Tanks in the
United States".[9]
"The Cato Institute is libertarian in its political philosophy, and
advocates a limited role for government in domestic and foreign affairs
as well as a strong protection of civil rights. This includes support
for the demilitarization of the police, lowering or abolishing most
taxes, opposition to the Federal Reserve system, the privatization of
numerous government agencies and programs including Social Security, the
Affordable Care Act and the United States Postal Service, along with
adhering to a non-interventionist foreign policy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute
islander
Dec 8, 2019, 8:35:47 PM12/8/19
to
On 12/8/2019 12:47 PM, me wrote:
> Bad survey? What's the link to that site?
> Bad survey? What's the link to that site?
Ruger & Sorens, Freedom in the 50 States, An Index of Personal and
Economic Freedom, Fourth Edition, 2016, The CATO Institute
It is now in the 4th edition and you can purchase it directly from the
Economic Freedom, Fourth Edition, 2016, The CATO Institute
CATO Institute.
El Castor
Dec 9, 2019, 2:37:14 AM12/9/19
to
Libertarian party any more than liberal think tanks speak for the
Democrat party. Cato, like all Libertarians, is a strong supporter of
free speech, as am I. Where I personally differ with libertarians is
probably in their economic views. I say "probably" because I'm not
sure what their current positions are. For instance, where they stand
on anti-trust has never been clear. They are either against, or very
guarded in their support.
El Castor
Dec 9, 2019, 2:38:01 AM12/9/19
to
maxw...@my-deja.com
Dec 9, 2019, 8:17:20 AM12/9/19
to
On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 10:27:27 AM UTC-5, islander wrote:
necessarily right wing.
I once saw a measure of political leaning not just on an x-axis but also
on a y-axis (up/down). Down was supportive of a strong central govt.
So down/right was like a right wing military dictatorship (Chile 1980s).
Down/left was like a left wing dictatorship (Cuba, Venusuala).
Top/right was anarchy, top left was individual freedom with measures of
support and protection by govt.
So things are not simply black and white. We can't put people into boxes.
me
Dec 9, 2019, 9:57:12 AM12/9/19
to
https://www.lp.org/platform/
If the formation of monopolies are your main concern then government is a poor solution for your problem. Libertarians value individual choice. I imagine some would choose to transact with private monopolies much as you would choose to obey government monopolies. Tthe essential difference is: one is voluntary and the other is forced.
islander
Dec 9, 2019, 9:58:06 AM12/9/19
to
weights published by CATO Institute that I cited above, where would you
place Libertarians on this two axis chart?
islander
Dec 9, 2019, 10:05:54 AM12/9/19
to
their emphasis is primarily on free market and anti-regulation issues.
islander
Dec 9, 2019, 10:21:29 AM12/9/19
to
On 12/8/2019 11:37 PM, El Castor wrote:
anti-trust regulations.
"It is apparent that antitrust owes its survival to the same forces that
created it—namely, interest groups using antitrust to further their own
narrow agendas at the expense of the public welfare. The proven capacity
of the market to protect consumers from monopolistic exploitation,
combined with the proven proclivity of antitrust regulation to be used
against consumers, argues strongly in favor of a repeal of all antitrust
stances."
https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/antitrust
Their argument is essentially that it interferes with the natural forces
of innovation that ultimately displace large companies that dominate a
market.
That argument is pretty thin, IMV.
billbo...@gmail.com
Dec 9, 2019, 2:52:08 PM12/9/19
to
El Castor
Dec 9, 2019, 3:50:20 PM12/9/19
to
ownership of all roads should be left to private enterprise --
meaning, I suppose, that you would pay a toll to drive on the road in
front of your house. Oh my. But, on the issue of criminalizing speech
they are IMV EXACTLY CORRECT. I support what logic tells me is right,
and oppose what logic tells me is wrong. I don't care what some on
this side, or the other side, of the aisle think I should believe. My
privilege. You should try it sometime.
El Castor
Dec 9, 2019, 3:54:18 PM12/9/19
to
personal freedom. Their understanding of economics evolves from their
absolute dedication to personal freedom.
El Castor
Dec 9, 2019, 5:23:12 PM12/9/19
to
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:52:06 -0800 (PST), billbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
I used to love swap meets. There was a great one in this area that
sadly is no more. Ocassionally had my own table. You're right about
the bargains. Never knew what was going to show up. I'm looking at a
wooden Peters Cartridge Company shotgun shell box -- best I've ever
seen. Went well with my decoy collection. (-8
wrote:
sadly is no more. Ocassionally had my own table. You're right about
the bargains. Never knew what was going to show up. I'm looking at a
wooden Peters Cartridge Company shotgun shell box -- best I've ever
seen. Went well with my decoy collection. (-8
me
Dec 9, 2019, 5:55:19 PM12/9/19
to
Freedom vs. Liberty: How Subtle Differences Between These Two Big Ideas Changed Our World
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-12-09/freedom-vs-liberty-how-subtle-differences-between-these-two-big-ideas-changed-our
me
Dec 9, 2019, 6:03:16 PM12/9/19
to
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 3:50:20 PM UTC-5, El Castor wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 07:21:19 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 07:21:19 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>
> And IMV, also. Some Libertarians believe that construction and
> ownership of all roads should be left to private enterprise --
> meaning, I suppose, that you would pay a toll to drive on the road in
> front of your house. Oh my. But, on the issue of criminalizing speech
> they are IMV EXACTLY CORRECT. I support what logic tells me is right,
> and oppose what logic tells me is wrong. I don't care what some on
> this side, or the other side, of the aisle think I should believe. My
> privilege. You should try it sometime.
Public roads care not free. Somebody pays. Also, lots of houses are on private roads. Apartment complexes or housing developments come to mind. My place in Canada has a right of way for the neighbor to reach his house via my land.
> ownership of all roads should be left to private enterprise --
> meaning, I suppose, that you would pay a toll to drive on the road in
> front of your house. Oh my. But, on the issue of criminalizing speech
> they are IMV EXACTLY CORRECT. I support what logic tells me is right,
> and oppose what logic tells me is wrong. I don't care what some on
> this side, or the other side, of the aisle think I should believe. My
> privilege. You should try it sometime.
islander
Dec 9, 2019, 7:30:53 PM12/9/19
to
billbo...@gmail.com
Dec 10, 2019, 10:56:25 AM12/10/19
to
El Castor
Dec 10, 2019, 2:55:34 PM12/10/19
to
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:56:23 -0800 (PST), billbo...@gmail.com
Best deal I ever got was an original 1936 Ludwig Hohlwein 1936 Winter
Olympics poster. Sold it long ago, but wish I had hung onto it.
Olympics poster. Sold it long ago, but wish I had hung onto it.
0 new messages