Politics (was: Re: [steiner] Re: Ramtha/Politics)
- --- In email@example.com, "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 seemsto me
> that all your statements so far have been left-wing. That's fineif people
> admit it, like our correspondent from England. It's the dodging Idon't
> like. You should just say what your premises are. Pro-abortion,for
> instance? Pre-euthanasia? Anti-free market? Well , then, if itwalks 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 majorityof
> government functions privatized, and for free ownership of guns.If someone
> said I sound like a Libertarian it'd be pretty silly to deny it.(By the
> way, the first two positions are also quite emphatically RudolfSteiner's.)
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 thatsays
> demographics are false or should be ignored. Thiat's justnonsense. It's
> true Steiner said we in the Western Hemisphere tend to rely onthem too
> extensively. But when Steiner was asked where to put theAnthroposophical
> Society in the US, for instance, he suggested Chicago, and why?Because he
> knew from studying the demographics of America that there werelots of
> Germans there. This idea that he opposed science, testing, judgingreading
> 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 alibertarian,
> >or possibly even a "green party" member."made that I
> *******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
> criticize the Green Party heavily and have never in any wayclaimed to be a
> member, contrary to the impression you created there. The Greensare
> 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 theLibertarian
> Party---in other words, calling me a liar. And saying I was out tofool
> people. Well, sorry, but I don't like that kind of behavior frompeople on
> 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 ominouslibertarians favor
> >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 anarchistsand the
> minimalists. I'm in the latter. We want governement to be aslittle as
> possible. So the positions one takes turn on how you answer thequestion,
> What is the proper role of government? What should it do and notdo?
> 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,the only
> way to monopolize things in a free market is to get thegovernment ---which
> has the sole legitimate use of force--- on your side. So theproblem is not
> that people amass fortunes but that the government has the powerto do what
> they bribe it to do. Sharply limit government power and capital isno
> threat, because the legislators don't have the power to do whatyou want to
> bribe them to do. That's called separation of the economic fromthe
> political sphere---- incidentally, a basic of Steiner's threefoldideas.
>So, basically you agree that a shadow government of greedy and power-
mongering capitalists rules the official government?
- What does the possession of a guns do to the soul of the possessor? In
the case of the Swiss (who do military service - & only those who do
hold weapons) is seems to add to their self-possession (nationally not
always individually). The context seems important there. Canadians too
seem (with a few rare exceptions able to manage the ownership of
rifles - primarily for hunting). As for Iraq -
> As we're learning now in Iraq, a well-armed militia filled withThe "free people of Iraq" as an example to all those who feel that free
> patriots willing to kill and die for their nation is impossible to
> rule over.
access to machines made for the sole purpose of killing might not be a
good idea? Really, Matthew?
And if guns should be available to all free people, why not durgs?
After all a completely doped population have no reason to worry about
invasion, or anything else...Where does the abortion issue fit in with
a perspective that seems to see readines to maim or kill others as a
major contribution "free" societies?
Guns, no guns? - all this seems more a matter of simple commonsense -
the best & only basis for Anthroposophy - than spiritual science.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mathew Morrell" <tma4cbt@...> wrote:
> So long as the average American is armed, as he now is, we are
> unconquerable by invading powers, whether that power is China or the
> As we're learning now in Iraq, a well-armed militia filled with
> patriots willing to kill and die for their nation is impossible to
> rule over. Napoleon learned the same lesson when invading Russia.
> The Brits learned this lesson in 1776. The next to learn are
> This is why the One World Government wishes to disarm the US. People
> like me and Starman will never bow down before false gods and their
> Marxists priests.
> Long live freedom and democracy! Long live the Republic!