Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Politics

Expand Messages
  • Durward Starman
    ... ******* Free means not impeded by the government. You have freedom of speech and of the press here in the US you loathe and regard as the source of all
    Message 1 of 41 , Jun 2, 2007
      >
      >So, what does free ownership of guns mean? Don't we have enough of
      >those nasty things without free ownership?

      ******* 'Free' means not impeded by the government. You have freedom of
      speech and of the press here in the US you loathe and regard as the source
      of all evil, because your ancestors took up 'those nasty things' against
      those using "government" as a way to oppress and rule everyone. When Hitler
      wanted to massacre the Jews, he first forbid them to carry arms. In the
      Polish ghetto, they got hold of some, and the SS fled till they could come
      back with superior weaponry; if Jews had retained arms th Holocaust could
      never have happened. When Stalin wanted to start reducing the Baltic States
      to total submission, he likewise first had the men come to a spot in every
      village and turn in their guns. No tyrant can master an armed populace.
      It would never have been imagined by the Founding Fathers, who got their
      idea of the Minutemen from the Swiss Confederacy, that a free people would
      not have the absolute right to have firearms. That Swiss tradition of every
      adult male having working firearms and knowing how to us them, by the way,
      was the reason they alone of all Europe were not engulfed by the Nazis. (The
      Swiss national pasttime is sharphooting.)




      > > 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. > >
      > >
      > > *******I've studied the Philosophie der Freiheit for 30 years, and
      >Steiner's other philosophical works, and there's nothing in any of them
      >that
      >says demographics are false or should be ignored.
      >
      >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...

      *******I'll let anyone else reading the above exchange judge.



      > > > I never said 'you're not a libertarian'
      > >
      > > *******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
      >are 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?

      *******Because I personally knew some of the communists who formed it, like
      Petra Kelly, with whom I worked in Robert F. Kennedy's campaign, and John
      Sinclair's wife from East Germany, and others. Their anticapitalist bias
      naturally led them to the socialist Green movement using ecology as a cover
      for expanding government power over all economic life---even though
      theoretically its ideal is less of such (sure, once the state "withers away"
      ho ho ho).

      Anyone can easily look up a list of who founded the Greens. Unfortunately,
      there we a number of anthroposophists among them, which Lyndon LaRouche had
      a field day with, claiming we were an evil German cult of neo-Nazis and
      Commmunists.
      The sardonic saying in Germany about them is "Das grune baum, rot
      wurzeln haben" ---"The Green tree has Red roots!"

      But this is a great misdirection from the point, which is that you
      implied I ID'd myself as a member of it, which I never did, along with
      posing as a Libertarian when (presumably by your psychic ability) you 'know'
      I'm actually a Republican right-winger, and fooling people about it.

      > >
      *******..... you're accusing me of .... only pretending to be of the
      >Libertarian Party---in other words, calling me a liar. And saying I was out
      >to
      >fool people. Well, sorry, but I don't like that kind of behavior from
      >people 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.

      *******Give orders to your employees, please. I am not one.

      Once again, I'll let anyone reading the exchange above judge.



      > > Find a conservative in favor of legalizing drugs or who is also an
      >astrologer. Not likely.
      >
      >What can I say.

      ********A non-response, apparently.


      > >
      > >
      > > >
      > > >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
      >we 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,
      >libertarians favor less government control. But there are two camps, the
      >anarchists
      >and the minimalists. I'm in the latter. We want government to be as
      >little as possible. So the positions one takes turn on how you answer the
      >question, What is the proper role of government? What should it do and not
      >do?
      > >
      > > I don't think we are so weak that we need the government to
      >protect us from all the Big, Bad Capitalist Millionaires out there. In
      >fact,
      >the only way to monopolize things in a free market is to get the
      >government ---which 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
      >no 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
      >the political sphere---- incidentally, a basic of Steiner's threefold
      >ideas.
      > >
      > > Starman
      >
      >So, basically you agree that a shadow government of greedy and power-
      >mongering capitalists rules the official government?
      >
      >Steve
      >
      ****No, I'd agree that you are just as greedy and power-mongering as whoever
      you want to point fingers at, and just as capitalistic----although if you'd
      like to say how you earn your living, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
      ;-> Myself, I run my own business, and I want to make more money and
      increase my capital. ( If anyone doesn't want to increase their capital,
      I'll give you an address to donate any to that you don't want. I even take
      MasterCard.)

      By the way, all allegedy-idealistic leftists are also greedy and in
      love with power, the only difference being that some of them want to be paid
      only partly in money and partly in self-aggrandizement of the Ego, in
      feelings of being righteous--- which is much more expensive since it usually
      means people have to die to mint THOSE coins. [That's why I prefer clean
      honest capitalists who are up front about money and comfortable with it,
      Bill Gates rather than Bill Clinton. They state their agendas openly.]

      And I think that, if you knew the government had or could get power over
      your assets, you would be trying to influence legislation to keep it from
      doing so, just like anyone else. In fact, you try to do so by voting.
      And large numbers of people voting have just as much or more power to
      control the government as the people with a lot of money do: so when they
      get together and use it, the rich can't control anything. Look what happened
      in Zimbabwe and is happening now in South Africa since Castro's good buddy
      Mandela got into power. (Sorry to burst the bubble of our correspondent from
      the last successful nation in Africa, who thinks things have gotten better
      there since the communist ANC took over, but my Norwegian wife's family has
      owned property in Capetown for a generation and now the crime is so bad they
      don't even want to go there.) Look at all the places the masses decided to
      use the vote to loot what productive people had created and steal their way
      to success...Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, even France and England for
      awhile.

      If all the evil us caused by a shadow government of 'capitalists', who
      caused all the evil in the Soviet Union all those decades? Who's causing the
      misery now in Cuba and North Korea? Why are US voters and legislators tying
      up American business and making it less competitive every year? If the rich
      ruled, how would an EPA ever have come into existence? Or all the New Deal
      programs?

      So no, I'd say the rich are always TRYING to influence legislation---- but
      so ALSO are the non-productive masses, whose numbers are greater. That's why
      we have a welfare state so generous that Mexican women risk their lives to
      come here 8 months pregnant so their babies will automatcally be US citizens
      and qualify them for all kinds of benefits. People are seduced by the lure
      of "redistribution of income" which means getting what others have or earn,
      being economic vampires and leeches.

      I say that's not the proper role of government to pick one man's pocket
      and give it to another one, but rather it is to ensure that each man in
      exercising his rights does not trample another's, and to stay out of the way
      so each man can pursue his happiness as he sees fit. And to keep the borders
      secure. But since Marxism began to creep into the US in the late 1800's, I'd
      say our government has done a poorer and poorer job of it all. Clear?

      Starman

      _________________________________________________________________
      Play games, earn tickets, get cool prizes. Play now�it's FREE!
      http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=CLUB_hotmailtextlink1
    • saggitar4swas
      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
      Message 41 of 41 , Jun 7, 2007
        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 with
        > patriots willing to kill and die for their nation is impossible to
        > rule over.

        The "free people of Iraq" as an example to all those who feel that free
        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 steiner@yahoogroups.com, "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
        > UN.
        >
        > 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
        > liberals.
        >
        > 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!
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.