From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 12:27:17 MST
Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> At 08:13 PM 3/20/03 -0800, Spike wrote:
>
>> I would suggest a mostly libertarian society that
>> allows great personal and financial freedom but still
>> reserves the right to raise taxes for common defense,
>> and even the right to draft citizens in a dire
>> emergency.
>
>
> A libertarian society could not work at this time in history. It
> suggests an overly unbalanced approach to social needs and individual
> rights.
Please expound on these supposed social needs that you imply are
contrary to individual rights and perhaps supersede them.
>
> The alternative is a true democratic system that decentralizes big
> government and the taxes are indeed used for common defense as well as
> helping bootstrap society. After all, isn't our goal to work with the
> world, not just put up billboards for our own freedom and rights? This
> cannot be done without a willingness of society to accept all of society
> (of course not the terrorists), rather than I'm right and you are wrong
> approach which libertarians seem to hold onto so dearly. By the way, so
> do Republicans and Democrats, Greens and others :-)
I thought it was our goal to create a world or pockets therein
of maximum extropy. I don't see how those pockets can be
created without maximizing freedom and individual rights. What
does acceptance have to do with this? I don't see that as
orthogonal or contrary. I don't know where reaction such as "I
am right and you are wrong" comes into the general statement you
are making. What do you mean by "accept all of society" more
precisely?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 12:28:09 MST