Re: [FSP] Understanding is Freedom (was: The veterans)
- No Tim, it's not a "blame America" crowd, or "appeasers" in the
libertarian peace crowd. It's simply a group of individuals who cannot
abide their hard-earned money spent on unpredictable, far-reaching
international projects over which they have no say. Do you have a
problem with me saying exactly how my money is being spent? That's not
a rhetorical question. Please answer it. Remember Ronald Reagan's
welfare queens: those undeserving individuals who stole -- yes, stole
-- the money of unconsenting workers. I may be an appeaser, but you my
man are a supporter of a big, fat, violent welfare queen.
There's nothing, nothing libertarian about robbing individuals to pay
for your boondoggles. Wrap theft in the stars and stripes all you
like. It doesn't change the facts one whit.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
> My friend Fred below displays what many libertarians often approach, i.e.
> seeing America as an "aggressor" and blaming it for many if not most of the
> woes of the world. We have a similar blame-America, pacifist,
> appeasement-oriented individual in the White House, with an amen chorus in
> the old media. It would be a mistake to conflate this attitude with the mass
> of Freestaters. A decent examination and refutation of that attitude is
> found in this magazine
> article<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10784> from
> the Conservative Free Press. --Tim Condon
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Freedom Fred <fred@...> wrote:
>> Tim Condon wrote:
>> > "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has
>> > any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its
>> > worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always
>> > paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
>> > Robert A. Heinlein
>> That's how things were settled in the past. That does not mean we have
>> to carry that sad approach into the future.
>> I am not saying we should all be pacifists. Far from it. We should be
>> strong enough to defend our home turf from any would-be attacker. But
>> that does not mean that we also need to be the aggressor ourselves. For
>> if our "Freedom" is had due to the oppression of others, then that
>> "Freedom" is worthless, both morally and practically.
>> We should all be of the mindset of never initiating aggression. If,
>> then, someone tries to "settle" a disagreement with "naked force", at
>> that point we should respond in like-kind.
>> But if our species is to survive its technological infancy, we'd better
>> be thinking along more constructive lines. Today, a single person, using
>> technology, can kill thousands and disrupt millions, and it's not even
>> that hard to do. Today, with the so-called "war on terrorism", the US
>> has become terrorists themselves, killing countless innocents, which
>> only inflames the anti-US sentiment abroad, leading to the "forever war"
>> pattern, which is also noted in history.
>> We can end this, but only if we are willing to depart from our tribal
>> animalistic ways of dealing with conflict. We will either ascend to
>> saner sensibilities as a species, or wipe ourselves out eventually. The
>> nuclear arms race is one example of how we could (and perhaps nearly
>> did) end ourselves via "naked violence" to the extreme. As the
>> population on this little ball of ours continues to rise amidst our
>> competition for the finite resources and limited land, it becomes even
>> more important to shed our primitive tribalism and seek a new direction.
>> I am convinced that we can be both Free and also Sensible. Alas,
>> Governments currently work against both. Understanding the complex and
>> complicated nuances give rise to ways to undo the sticky odoriferous
>> mess we currently find ourselves.
>> In short: Understanding is Freedom.
>> --Freedom Fred
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Oh, I got the reference. Still, though. Same reaction. ---Tim
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jeremy J. Olson <yahoogroups@...>wrote:
> Heh, tough crowd... No one got the reference?
> At 2009-05-24T17:20:45-0400, <tim@...> wrote:
> > More likely ruined the marriage. Sex used as a weapon is a terribly
> > double-edged sword. ---Tim Condon
> > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Brian W. <arinora@...> wrote:
> > > Maybe-maybe not. It probably just ruined their marriage.
> > >
> > > The quote was from someone else, which I placed in the brackets. My
> > > comment
> > > followed it.
> > >
> > > Brian W.
> > > _____
> > >
> > > From: email@example.com
> > > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Carol
> > > Moore/Secession.Net
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:52 AM
> > > To: email@example.com
> > > Subject: Re: [FSP] The veterans
> > >
> > > I think refusal to give one's husband sex has settled far more :-)
> Jeremy J. Olson
> Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]