>******* 'Free' means not impeded by the government. You have freedom of
>So, what does free ownership of guns mean? Don't we have enough of
>those nasty things without free ownership?
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*******I'll let anyone else reading the above exchange judge.
> > >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
>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 never said 'you're not a libertarian'*******Because I personally knew some of the communists who formed it, like
> > *******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
>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?
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
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*******Give orders to your employees, please. I am not one.
>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.
Once again, I'll let anyone reading the exchange above judge.
> > Find a conservative in favor of legalizing drugs or who is also an********A non-response, apparently.
>astrologer. Not likely.
>What can I say.
> >****No, I'd agree that you are just as greedy and power-mongering as whoever
> > >
> > >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
>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
> > 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
>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.
>problem is not that people amass fortunes but that the government has the
>to do what they bribe it to do. Sharply limit government power and capital
>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
> > Starman
>So, basically you agree that a shadow government of greedy and power-
>mongering capitalists rules the official government?
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
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
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
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?
Play games, earn tickets, get cool prizes. Play now�it's FREE!
- 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!