"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define
it,
is
a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely
talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking
about
the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained
in
detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you
bully. I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a
real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a
thumping by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic.
It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we
can
all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of
making
concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with
the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more
than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant.
However,
as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us
though
it may be really, really small.

Hawke

Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.

Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their
ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought
thru their ideas?

Over 200 years of successful governance. And if you don't think it's been
successful, compare our legal, economic, and other situations with those of
almost any other country.

The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee Jerk". I'll
repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into the
Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of philosophy.

Thank God, they really don't have one, beyond a few things that might better
be called attitudes.

The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly.

Deliver us from ideologues who have a philosophy. Philosophy is for college
classes and books. When it comes to governance, it's a prescription for
disaster. Every time. No exceptions.

I'm not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller
less intrusive government.

So is 90% of the US population -- until you try to make *their* favorite
project smaller.

Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with
themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a
lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies.

No, they're democratically elected governments. That's the exact opposite of
a monopoly. You can get rid of them as easily as by voting them out. That's
our job.

They have no competition.

Of course they do -- every politician who wants their job is a competitor.

They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for their
actions.

That's why we have a tripartite government with a distribution of powers and
an institutionalized system of checks and balances.

I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and create my own
retirement system that someone else pays for.

So do I. d8-)

No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong.
Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would be acceptable
or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that:

Ron Paul is a half-baked crackpot who should stay in Arizona, where nothing
destructive that he could do matters very much. If he goes out in the sun
much, maybe he'll be fully baked some day.

Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of restricting the government to those
powers granted by the Constitution would be a big step in the right
direction to at least curtail some of the Federal Governements
monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing business.

Bull.

What do the Centrists offer...

Government that works.

...to get us out of our current Morass?

What morass? Are you starving? Are you threatened by some other country? Did
you have to sell your children into slavery? What in the hell are you
talking about, "morass"?

It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens.

Stu

What are you, a radical who has a program for overturning tradition? g Of
course it's to wait and see what happens.

What is it you want, Stu? Is it 6,000-pound, 6-liter SUVs and pickup trucks
forever? A McMansion for everyone, with a 40-mile commute? Didn't you
realize 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago, that we were sliding downhill on
a waterslide into a swamp?

We get caught by our own wretched excess from time to time. That's the
product of a hot economy and an....uh, expansive attitude. That's the US. It
means we'll swing up and down, and drive ourselves silly, probably forever.
I happen to like the system, and the people in it, silly or not.

But spare us the talk about "morass." There is no morass. There is only the
roller coaster. Hang on tight.

--
Ed Huntress