--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "Durward Starman" <DrStarman@...>
> >Well Starman, let's size this matter up. First of all, I'm not
> >interested in debating anything, which I leave to politicians, and
> >others so inclined. Rather, I like to state my views based on my
> >thoughts and experiences...
> ******* Well, Steve, to size it up, that makes it sound like
> to place your views above all categories and debates. But it seems
> that all your statements so far have been left-wing. That's fine
> admit it, like our correspondent from England. It's the dodging I
> like. You should just say what your premises are. Pro-abortion,
> instance? Pre-euthanasia? Anti-free market? Well , then, if it
walks like a
> duck, and quacks like a duck....
No, my views are mine alone, like any good individualist; not above
or below anyone else. And what make me left-wing; living in
Washington? No, I think it's your poli-sci saavy working its way
here. It says: "Tell me what side you're on"!
> I'm against government control of our schools, against
> regulation of the economy, for the free market, want the majority
> government functions privatized, and for free ownership of guns.
> said I sound like a Libertarian it'd be pretty silly to deny it.
> way, the first two positions are also quite emphatically Rudolf
So, what does free ownership of guns mean? Don't we have enough of
those nasty things without free ownership?
> You see, I hold to the concept of ethical
> >individualism, as espoused in Steiner's philosophical opus.
> >Therefore, statistical analysis, which the american folk soul is
> >forced to take heed of as being somehow of paramount importance,
> >doesn't mean much to me. To me, it's a trick designed to sway
> >public opinion, pigeon-hole the human sectors, and create certain
> >stereotypical models, all of which serve the controlling interests
> >of and behind government.
> *******I've studied the Philosophie der Freiheit for 30 years, and
> other philosophical works, and there's nothing in any of them that
> demographics are false or should be ignored. Thiat's just
> true Steiner said we in the Western Hemisphere tend to rely on
> extensively. But when Steiner was asked where to put the
> Society in the US, for instance, he suggested Chicago, and why?
> knew from studying the demographics of America that there were
> Germans there. This idea that he opposed science, testing, judging
> statistics, is applesauce. This is, as is all too often the case,
> one's own opinions into anthroposophy.
Ok, well yes, Steiner thought alot of social statistics; probably in
order to prove the efficacy of the three-fold social order and its
importance for humankind. But I never said anything about him
opposing any form of such, now did I? No, it sounds rather like you
putting words in my mouth. And as for the ASiA, obviously
demographics means nothing today, as it now resides in Ann Arbor,
> >Now, of course, I never said 'you're not a libertarian', because
> >are! You jusr proved it. I said, "You call yourself a
> >or possibly even a "green party" member."
> *******Here's your actual words:
> "You call yourself a libertarian, or possibly even a "green party"
> member, but its nothing more than a weak little smoke-screen for
> right-wing conservative, republican affiliations. And please don't
> think you fooled anybody."
> ******* There has been no response to the correction I already
made that I
> criticize the Green Party heavily and have never in any way
claimed to be a
> member, contrary to the impression you created there. The Greens
> flat-out Communists. I would never call myself one.
Well, what do you think makes them communists in your view? Too
radical for your taste?
> What you apparently hate is Republicans or right-wing
> you're accusing me of being one and only pretending to be of the
> Party---in other words, calling me a liar. And saying I was out to
> people. Well, sorry, but I don't like that kind of behavior from
> this list.
If you were a liar, I would call you that to your face. And I don't
take this allegation lightly. Re-think it.
> Find a conservative in favor of legalizing drugs or who is also
> astrologer. Not likely.
What can I say.
> >I thought libertarianism concerned freedom allowed with as little
> >government interference as possible. In other words, downsize the
> >agencies not needed, reduce spending, and let people govern their
> >own lives without the watchdog called 'government'. Instead, as
> >all can readily see, Big Brother grows larger and more ominous
> >everyday. So, where does the modern, or maybe it's post-modern
> >libertarian fit in today?
> *******Now this is more like how to debate. Quite right,
> less government control. But there are two camps, the anarchists
> minimalists. I'm in the latter. We want governement to be as
> possible. So the positions one takes turn on how you answer the
> What is the proper role of government? What should it do and not
> I don't think we are so weak that we need the government to
> from all the Big, Bad Capitalist Millionaires out there. In fact,
> way to monopolize things in a free market is to get the
> has the sole legitimate use of force--- on your side. So the
problem is not
> that people amass fortunes but that the government has the power
to do what
> they bribe it to do. Sharply limit government power and capital is
> threat, because the legislators don't have the power to do what
you want to
> bribe them to do. That's called separation of the economic from
> political sphere---- incidentally, a basic of Steiner's threefold
So, basically you agree that a shadow government of greedy and power-
mongering capitalists rules the official government?