On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:51:35 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
wrote:


"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? 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.
The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly. I'm
not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller less
intrusive government.
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. They have no
competition. They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for
their actions. I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and
create my own retirement system that someone else pays for. 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: 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. What do the Centrists offer to get us out of our current Morass?
It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens.

Stu

Hear Hear!!



"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it
happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist