Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] problem with the neighbors and fighting city hall

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Linda Watson <linda AT lindawatson.com>
  • To: Greg Brown <gwbrown1 AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] problem with the neighbors and fighting city hall
  • Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:27:54 -0400

Greg Brown wrote:

But I have to ask, are you the James Ray registered as a Libertarian who
lives on Brooks? That's the only likely Jim Ray in your neighborhood. If
so, then IMHO you've to to let them party on and not resort to using
goverment resources. If not, make sure your voter registration is up to
date so you can vote. Of course, you may be registered a different way
and I just didn't see it.

Good luck!
Linda Watson



Did I read that correctly? If you are a Libertarian don't bother
using any government resources and don't look for help from the City? Can Jim still call 911 if he is assaulted in his yard? But if you
are not a Libertarian go ahead and ask for help? This isn't the
Ba'ath party. Please elaborate.

Greg



Well, Greg, I'll actually have to stand at least partly corrected on this, based on the definition of Libertarian I see on the current national US website:

To put it simply, Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don't violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people's personal choices.

But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance; in favor of people's right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.

http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml


My comment comes from my memory of the Libertarian Party and several Libertarians I've known as being in favor of only protecting a nation's borders, leaving it up to the individuals to work out details of health care, poverty, environmental protection, etc.

The Canadians still have the flavor of Libertarianism that I recall (emphasis mine):

Libertarians do not look at government as a sacrosanct body that cannot be questioned, but simply as the agency which has a monopoly on the legal use of force. Libertarians therefore address themselves to one basic question: What is the proper justification for the use of government's coercive power? The Libertarian answer is that government power must be used *only to protect the individual from the use of force or fraud by others.*

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/enhay.htm

So I thought it ironic that, while listing all the government and Democratic party forms of aid, I found that was at least possible that Jim didn't support the Party, much less government interference.

So is partying until the wee hours and peeing off the porch a "personal habit and lifestyle" that should be tolerated? Is a violation of the rights of others? Surely it's not an example of force or fraud.

My general frustration is in working for an "off-year election," when we are getting ready to elect people who will have a huge effect on our lives (like whether frats or boarding houses can break up family neighborhoods and how this generation of kids will be educated), while knowing that the turnout will be very low. Not to mention the enormous frustration of having worked so hard for the 2004 election, only to lose it or have it stolen, while so many people who either voted for Bush or who didn't vote at all will be drafted, or denied the right to sex ed or to abortion, or suffer when their family can't get health care, (or etc. etc. -- getting really mad now), and then wonder why life is so unfair.

One of the great human challenges is trying to figure out what you believe and then trying to figure out how to live in accordance with your beliefs. Rigorous Libertarians should consider taking advantage only of the government services that they support. But I personally believe in equal access to all government services and would urge the elected officials to give Libertarians even-handed treatment. This is the same logic that makes me cringe yet support Pat Robertson's right to free speech, while also wishing our government would condemn his ideas.

On a similar note, I'd also love to see people who don't support Social Security or other social programs not take advantage of them. Don't like the National Park System? Don't go to Yellowstone. And I'd like to see people who support the war in Iraq enlist in themselves or encourage their family members of military age to enlist. Or better yet, stop supporting the war and work for peace.

... Linda







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page