Dan Fabulich wrote:
>
>
> The trouble is that "non-initiation of force" leaves out the fun part:
> the libertarian position emphasizes that you can do *whatever you
> want*, except for initiation of force. But even that's not very sexy.
> Nor does it obviously offer up an attack plan. As I've argued, while
> socialism tells you what to do: "revolt!" libertarianism requires a
> moral revolution; it requires everyone believing in its rightness and
> voting that way.
>
Well, I am not sure I agree it "requires everyone believing in its
rightness and voting that way". This smacks too much of unlimited
democracy and group think. It requires enough people agreeing to make
the protection of individual rights actually enforced in this country
rather than merely claimed in our basic documents. It requires people
learning (whether they agree or not) to leave one another alone in the
sense of not forcing their beliefs on others. It requires that enough
people understand the issues and raise enough of a stink when elected
officials violate individual rights and make the stink in terms of
individual rights and the Constitutional mandate to protect them (that
these self-same officials have sworn to uphold). It doesn't require
that everyone gets it. It requires that our elected officials know they
are there to protect our rights and that enough of us know that and
will raise holy hell if they don't.
The bottom line may be that this country can no longer be swayed from
destruction through its current political institutions. But we can't
say that without working a bit more at it. If it cannot then it will be
time for a second American revolution or for a partial succession or for
founding something entirely different.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT