Re: [FSP] Cooperation?
- What's your point?
--- revitaliser <email@example.com> wrote:
> --- In freestateproject@y..., Phyllis <adelaide31@y...>=====
> > Please be more specific. You are not getting your
> > across. (or I just getting senile? 8>)
> In message # 4131, you yourself supported change,
The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a
vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors
failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was
time.--George Sutherland, 1862-1942 US Supreme Court Justice
"May you live all the days of your life."
- Jonathan Swift
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
- --- In freestateproject@y..., "Elizabeth McKinstry" <emckinst@h...>
> Okay, like what?IMO, the FSP shouldn't reflect in-principle support for a specific
type of government, especially if it appears to be in conflict with
what libertarianism stands for. The earlier-suggested change of the
word "sole" into "maximum" in the FSP Pledge would be a big
improvement. I'd also take out the reference to "citizen". But, if
it were up to me, I would never have started with a classical
liberal statement in the first place. The LP National Platform,
specifically the SOP and preamble would be a good place to start
looking for alternative wording, but perhaps we should wait a few
days to see what comes out of the Platform Committee Meeting at the
National Convention. Personally, I strongly doubt that the LP will
change into a classical liberal party.