"Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net> said:
> "Corwyn J. Alambar" wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I've been wracking my brain for three days and I still can't figure this
> > out.
> >
> > What exactly IS the relevance of the gun discussion to Extropianism?
...
> This was a bit of thread drift off of a discussion about which presidential
> candidate is a more extropic choice. I think most people on the list
> will agree
> that individual liberty is a very extropic thing. Brian, James,
> Daniel, myself,
> and others are apparently of the opinion that individual liberty
> will only exist
> so long as the individual can defend themselves and their individual liberty
> against the agressions of other individuals, groups, and
> governments, and given
> the hostility with which candidates like Nader and Gore have toward both
> individual liberty and the individuals ability to defend that individual
> liberty, I think that we pretty much agree that neither of these
> candidates is
> particularly extropic. Bush many not be much better, but he's more of the
> 'lesser evil' type candidate, because he is for preserving our individual
> ability to defend our liberty, even though he may not be for every individual
> liberty we support. While someone like Harry Browne comes closer
> than most every
> other candidate to most extropian values, his practical ability to win the
> election is about as good as a blind quadrapelegics chance of
> hitting a bull's
> butt with a bass fiddle, and Gore actually has a decent risk of winning this
> election despite himself. In this case its rather obvious what a 'rational'
> choice to make is for an extropian: put Bush in the white house.
...
I tried. I really tried to stay out of this, but I cannot any more.
The idea that I or anyone I know who values individual liberty would
want to be involved with putting Bush or Gore in the White House makes
me want to vomit.
I too want the right to defend myself. But you know what? There's
not a single non-libertarian candidate who will stand up for your
right to own the weapons of your choice. And I mean *any* weapon you
choose.
I want a candidate who will say that it was and is wrong that so many
fellow US citizens I know have been arrested, imprisoned, and
otherwise persecuted for their choice of drugs. Any candidate who
believes that those people deserved what they got and that I or any of
my friends should be in jail cannot have my vote.
Jail is a pretty big threat to liberty.
Any candidate who doesn't want to do away with seizures of property
through income taxes doesn't deserve my vote and doesn't deserve your
vote. Any candidate who wants to eliminate patients' rights to get
medical procedures from their doctors, such as abortions, or drugs
such as RU-486 doesn't deserve any of our votes.
This is not about the lesser of two evils anymore. This is about
acceptable tyranny. As in: there's no such thing as acceptable
tyranny.
I won't be voting for any tryants this year, and neither should you.
It doesn't matter if they're the lesser of two tyrants. Don't vote
for tryants. Please.
Thanks,
James
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:52 MDT