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

[Linda Watson <linda AT lindawatson.com>]

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