On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 15:30, Jkr438@aol.com wrote:

> I have noticed how many libertarian type thinkers seem to favor legalization
> of drugs.  In reality, however, the countries that have actually legalized
> drugs to varying degrees more than the United States, tend to have very
> socialistic ways of viewing the role of their governments.

Including the United States of yester-year? We're more socialized than
we used to be, and we have far more restrictions on drug use than we
ever have. In fact, I think you'll find that many other non-socialistic
countries have toughened anti-drug laws in order to stay in the USA's
good graces, and continue receiving our business and/or aid.

> I believe in fact
> that they succeed in their more permissive attitudes precisely because they
> have done the kind of general social planning in a wide variety of spheres
> that make this possible.

I believe that is utter nonsense. You do not need any particular sort of
government in order to *not* make laws against something. In fact, the
default state of human beings is to have no government and no laws. It
is only our desire for social living that brings us government and laws.

> It is because of the existence of various conundrums like this, that although
> I continue to have a lot of affinity for libertarian ideas (esp.
> neo-Objectivst), on the whole I fail to feel the sense of ideological
> commitment to the libertarian program that self identified Libertarians do.

Huh?
<re-read paragraph two more times>
Oh. Okay. Whatever. Why do you feel that you should have an ideological
commitment to somebody else's program? What's wrong with holding your
own beliefs and voting for whichever individual candidate serves your
beliefs best?

Wolfger


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

You know, I think it's a serious problem that people so often identify themselves as either 'liberal' or 'conservative'. I mean, I think there are many issues where they choose their stance mostly based on which is liberal/conservative. Would the average conservative agree with every stance that he supports, if it was officially considered liberal? Or vice-versa? I know that I, personnaly, am more inclined to favor a liberal agenda than a conservative one. Would I follow a bad liberal stance instead of a good conservative one? I honestly don't know.
kharin <hidden@lucifer.com> wrote:
"It is because of the existence of various conundrums like this, that although
I continue to have a lot of affinity for libertarian ideas (esp.
neo-Objectivst), on the whole I fail to feel the sense of ideological
commitment to the libertarian program that self identified Libertarians do."

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/faq.html#libandleft

"The assumption that Social Darwinism delivers more social freedom is questionable. The welfare states of, for example, Denmark and The Netherlands, abolished capital punishment decades ago and are at the forefront of progressive legislation for women, gays and ethnic minorities - not to mention cannabis and anti-censorship. "



----
This message was posted by kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail

attached: index.html