Here, here Marcy!
Marcy & Eric,
Who are "We the People" in your messages below who "put the scums in office" and "got us into this war?" Are you including only people eligible to vote, when apportioning blame for who holds political power? That would imply that persons under 18 and many others are *not* part of "We the People."
Of course one can easily have more impact on the political process by engaging in Internet activism, getting a letter published in the paper, or so forth, than by voting. As a matter of fact, one doesn't even need to reside in the United States or be a U.S. citizen in order to have a greater effect on U.S. politics than the average American voter. So then, is the entire world to blame for the Republicrats? Or only the people with enough education, resources and free time to be politically active? Then again, a good many of the people lacking in knowledge, time or resources might have had these things in abundance had they made different choices, so that doesn't get all those "foreigners" born into decent circumstances off the hook so easily.
By a similar standard, of course, anyone who had the ability to intervene in a positive way in the life of a child even slightly (being friendly to a tot when encountering him on the street with his parents, for example), but didn't, bears part of the responsibility when that kid, as a result of a troubled childhood where he didn't get enough positivity, later goes out and robs a convenience store. Clearly "We the People" are to blame for all these shootings, muggings, and so on that one reads about in the media, since these things happened in "our" society and any of us could have done something more to prevent the circumstances leading up to them than we did. As a matter of fact, even if you were a model parent , you're still equally responsible as part of "We the People" when it comes to doling out the blame. And if you're not a parent, then it's still your fault for not having kids, since if you'd had good kids, they could have helped exert positive peer pressure on the troubled ones.
You're with me on all that, right? After all, Libertarians are (apparently, in your view) no less responsible for Bush and the current members of Congress being elected as were those who actively supported them, since we're just as much a part of "We the People." Individual behavior and consent have nothing to do with our responsibility/guilt -- it's an automatic thing, kind of like Original Sin. Right?
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Hi Starchild,
Yup, I am with you on pretty much all counts on your e-mail; except
for the last sentence, since you have no control over Original Sin,
but you do have control over the scum you put in office. (If your
next question is who is "you", yup again, you are right, my reply
would be, it's We the People!)
Marcy
Marcy & Eric,
Who are "We the People" in your messages below who "put the
scums in
office" and "got us into this war?" Are you including only people
eligible to vote, when apportioning blame for who holds political
power? That would imply that persons under 18 and many others are
*not*
part of "We the People."
Of course one can easily have more impact on the political
process by
engaging in Internet activism, getting a letter published in the
paper,
or so forth, than by voting. As a matter of fact, one doesn't even
need
to reside in the United States or be a U.S. citizen in order to
have a
greater effect on U.S. politics than the average American voter.
So
then, is the entire world to blame for the Republicrats? Or only
the
people with enough education, resources and free time to be
politically
active? Then again, a good many of the people lacking in
knowledge,
time or resources might have had these things in abundance had
they
made different choices, so that doesn't get all those "foreigners"
born
into decent circumstances off the hook so easily.
By a similar standard, of course, anyone who had the ability
to
intervene in a positive way in the life of a child even slightly
(being
friendly to a tot when encountering him on the street with his
parents,
for example), but didn't, bears part of the responsibility when
that
kid, as a result of a troubled childhood where he didn't get
enough
positivity, later goes out and robs a convenience store.
Clearly "We
the People" are to blame for all these shootings, muggings, and so
on
that one reads about in the media, since these things happened
in "our"
society and any of us could have done something more to prevent
the
circumstances leading up to them than we did. As a matter of fact,
even
if you were a model parent , you're still equally responsible as
part
of "We the People" when it comes to doling out the blame. And if
you're
not a parent, then it's still your fault for not having kids, since
if
you'd had good kids, they could have helped exert positive peer
pressure on the troubled ones.You're with me on all that, right? After all, Libertarians
are
(apparently, in your view) no less responsible for Bush and the
current
members of Congress being elected as were those who actively
supported
them, since we're just as much a part of "We the People."
Individual
behavior and consent have nothing to do with our
responsibility/guilt
-- it's an automatic thing, kind of like Original Sin. Right?
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Here, here Marcy!
> > From: "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...>
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: I wanna rouse some rabble! - STOP
THE
> WAR RALLY
> > Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:35:41 -0000
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Eric. For years now, I have been a lonely voice on
this
> > List communicating to my fellow Libertarians my belief that
1) "We
> > the People" put the scums in office that cause so much chagrin;
and
> > 2) As Eric stated so well: better to have public support than
mere
> > attention.
> >
> > Thus, SFTW Coalition hopes to add its voice to the other
numerous
> > rally's that are taking place throughout the country, and state
> > simply and peacefully that we are encouraging our elected
> > representatives to stop the war by stopping its funding.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "eric dupree"
> > <dupreeconsults@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah and the house flags should go up in flames also! And the
Cali
> > flag and all the state flag the voted in the prez.
> > > We are more than just a presidential country...Bush did not
get us
> > into this war. We the people did and now are shucking the blame?
> > > > From: Starchild <sfdreamer@>
> > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: I wanna rouse some rabble! -
STOP
> > THE WAR RALLY
> > > > Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:53:52 -0800
> > > > > > How about burning a big flag -- not the American flag,
but a
> > flag
> > > > bearing the presidential seal? I think that would send an >
> > > appropriate message, and get some media attention, without
the >
> > > misguided backlash from some quarters that might greet the
> > burning
> > > > of "Old Glory," or the implicit message of violence of
burning
> > the
> > > > would-be king in effigy.
> > > > > By the way, I also previously raised the idea of having a> > > Libertarian MC (Marc Joffe?) for the event to guarantee the LP
> > some
> > > > visibility there, but don't recall seeing any responses to
this
> > > > suggestion. What do those involved in planning the rally
think
> > > > about these ideas?
> > > > > Love & liberty,
> > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > > > > Ooops my first message got botched up; so here goes
again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Ron,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the suggestion of slash and burn! However, I
> > think the
> > > > > Stop Funding the War Coalition voted from the start to
have a
> > > > > peaceful rally, such as "the people peaceably to
assemble, and
> > to
> > > > > petition the government for a redress of grievances." I
> > supposed the
> > > > > idea is to walk the walk; if you call for peace, it would
seem
> > to me
> > > > > strange to do it through any kind of violence. But,
that's just
> > my
> > > > > opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcy
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry"
> > <amarcyb@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty
> <tradergroupe@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Everyone;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For those of you involved in the Stop The War Rally -
> > here's a
> > > > > > forwarded message from Aster Francesca with a thought
for
> > > > > > consideration as the capper for the Stop The War Rally
event
> -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Burn his royal highness King George the II in
effigy!!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That'll certainly get the attention of the FBI and
Homeland
> > > > > > Security and Secret Service Presidential Protection
Detail
> and
> > > > > > Government Office Building Polizei - let the news media
know
> > in
> > > > > > advance what you are planning on doing - as this is the
type
> > of eye
> > > > > > candy they just love for the in-depth 10 second news
bites
> > for 5-6-
> > > > > 7-
> > > > > > 9-10-11.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTW: Going to have a band there playing a dirge or at
least
> > a
> > > > > > trumpeter playing Taps for all the fallen dead both
military
> > and
> > > > > > civilian? How about a dragon dance to scare away the
evils of
> > war
> > > > > > followed by the traditional firecracker ball to really
blast
> > away
> > > > > the
> > > > > > demons of war?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTW: Will there be lots of colorful banners?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron Getty
> > > > > > > SF Libertarian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Aster Francesca <ms_shiris@>
> > > > > > > To: Salon_Liberty@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 7:27:58 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: {Salon Liberty} I wanna rouse some rabble!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A very interesting peice from Charles Johnson's site
on the
> > > > > > American Revolution:
> > > > > > > Rad Geek People's Daily 2007-02-24 – Over My Shoulder #32: Mark Kurlansky on the Revolution before the Revolutionary War, from Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea
> > > > > > > Hey, why doesn't someone (say, the anti-war movement)
get
> > > > > together
> > > > > > and very publically hang George II* in effigy- perhaps
in a
> > > > > > deliberately Colonial style?
> > > > > > > If your not-quite-voiced answer is: "I'm afraid what
would
> > happen
> > > > > > to me if I did so", then you have discovered the reason
> > someone
> > > > > needs
> > > > > > to do it, before your worried fear is certain fact.
> > > > > > > Many, many people I know from friends to colleagues to
> > clients to
> > > > > > random people I meet in the supermarket are beginning to
> > conclude
> > > > > > they truly do need to worry. All of these people would
> > understand
> > > > > > the meaning of a public burning instantly and would all
come
> > away
> > > > > > from hearing of one that much more consciously radical.
> > > > > > > I know some of you are involved in the anti-war
movement.
> > Has
> > > > > > anyone thought of this?
> > > > > > > love and strife,
> > > > > > > Aster Francesca {)(*)(}
> > > > > > > * Or why don'twe getinthe habit of protesting I
wannother
> > > > > officials
> > > > > > by beheading them? DEA and Homeland Security officials
come
> to
> > > > > > mind. Or local police commisioners.
> > > > > > > Why don't sex workers publically get together and
declare
> > the
> > > > > cops
> > > > > > and the feds the occupying army there are? Jailed
prostitutes
> > are
> > > > > > patriarchy's political prisoners. They're arresting us
and
> > killing
> > > > > > us, and we protest by running ballot initiatives,
throwing
> > parties,
> > > > > > and having tea with politicians. What gives with that?
We
> > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > declaring people who would ruin lives for practicing
their
> > living
> > > > > > steppe raiders and tyrants beyond the boundaries of
> > civilisation.
> > > > > > > Freude, schöner Götterfunken
> > > > > > > Tochter aus Elysium,
> > > > > > > Wir betreten feuertrunken,
> > > > > > > Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
> > > > > > > Deine Zauber binden wieder
> > > > > > > Was die Mode streng geteilt.
> > > > > > > Alle Menschen werden Brüder
> > > > > > > Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
> > > > > > > email ms_shiris@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Find what you need at prices you'll love. Compare
products
> > and
> > > > > save
> > > > > > at MSN® Shopping.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =
> > > Large Selection of Pedicure Chairs
> > > We offer a large selection of pedicure spas and pedicure
equipment
> > worldwide at discount pricing.
> > > http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?
> > redirectid=c25238dd0ecb4fc5fd5e6d9847623910
> > >
>
> >
>
> =
> Ruth's Chris Steak House
> Serious steak and fine wines. Easy online reservations. Book
your
Marcy,
When I asked you if you were with me on all that, I was being facetious! The last two paragraphs I wrote below do *not* represent my views. Rather I was trying to rephrase the idea I see you holding in such a way that you would see how it contradicts basic tenets of libertarianism. Evidently I have failed -- you still say I am part of "We the People" who bear collective responsibility even for things done without our individual consent.
But who IS this "We the People?" Can you define who belongs to this group? And what definition of "control" are you using, such that you believe I have personal control over who is elected to public office? In practice, I have no more control over that this than I would have over Original Sin, if I believed in such a thing.
If you say otherwise, please show me concrete evidence that I am wrong -- get one person, *any* person of your choice, elected to public office and show that it was your action which was responsible for getting him or her elected. If you cannot do this with even one person, then how can you hold me accountable for an entire government?
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Hi Starchild,
Yes, I did catch on as to where you were coming from...and gave you
an equally oblique reply! However, it might indeed be a matter of
faith, like Original Sin, whether or not you or I believe or do not
believe in the concept of group responsibility. I happen to believe,
you do not. And all is well with the world.
Marcy
Marcy,
When I asked you if you were with me on all that, I was being
facetious! The last two paragraphs I wrote below do *not* represent
my
views. Rather I was trying to rephrase the idea I see you holding
in
such a way that you would see how it contradicts basic tenets of
libertarianism. Evidently I have failed -- you still say I am part
of
"We the People" who bear collective responsibility even for things
done
without our individual consent.
But who IS this "We the People?" Can you define who belongs
to this
group? And what definition of "control" are you using, such that
you
believe I have personal control over who is elected to public
office?
In practice, I have no more control over that this than I would
have
over Original Sin, if I believed in such a thing.
If you say otherwise, please show me concrete evidence that I
am wrong
-- get one person, *any* person of your choice, elected to public
office and show that it was your action which was responsible for
getting him or her elected. If you cannot do this with even one
person,
then how can you hold me accountable for an entire government?
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Hi Starchild,
>
> Yup, I am with you on pretty much all counts on your e-mail;
except
> for the last sentence, since you have no control over Original
Sin,
> but you do have control over the scum you put in office. (If your
> next question is who is "you", yup again, you are right, my reply
> would be, it's We the People!)
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> > Marcy & Eric,
> >
> > Who are "We the People" in your messages below who "put the
> scums in
> > office" and "got us into this war?" Are you including only
people
> > eligible to vote, when apportioning blame for who holds
political
> > power? That would imply that persons under 18 and many others
are
> *not*
> > part of "We the People."
> >
> > Of course one can easily have more impact on the political
> process by
> > engaging in Internet activism, getting a letter published in the
> paper,
> > or so forth, than by voting. As a matter of fact, one doesn't
even
> need
> > to reside in the United States or be a U.S. citizen in order to
> have a
> > greater effect on U.S. politics than the average American voter.
> So
> > then, is the entire world to blame for the Republicrats? Or only
> the
> > people with enough education, resources and free time to be
> politically
> > active? Then again, a good many of the people lacking in
> knowledge,
> > time or resources might have had these things in abundance had
> they
> > made different choices, so that doesn't get all
those "foreigners"
> born
> > into decent circumstances off the hook so easily.
> >
> > By a similar standard, of course, anyone who had the ability
> to
> > intervene in a positive way in the life of a child even slightly
> (being
> > friendly to a tot when encountering him on the street with his
> parents,
> > for example), but didn't, bears part of the responsibility when
> that
> > kid, as a result of a troubled childhood where he didn't get
> enough
> > positivity, later goes out and robs a convenience store.
> Clearly "We
> > the People" are to blame for all these shootings, muggings, and
so
> on
> > that one reads about in the media, since these things happened
> in "our"
> > society and any of us could have done something more to prevent
> the
> > circumstances leading up to them than we did. As a matter of
fact,
> even
> > if you were a model parent , you're still equally responsible as
> part
> > of "We the People" when it comes to doling out the blame. And if
> you're
> > not a parent, then it's still your fault for not having kids,
since
> if
> > you'd had good kids, they could have helped exert positive peer
> > pressure on the troubled ones.
> >
> > You're with me on all that, right? After all, Libertarians
> are
> > (apparently, in your view) no less responsible for Bush and the
> current
> > members of Congress being elected as were those who actively
> supported
> > them, since we're just as much a part of "We the People."
> Individual
> > behavior and consent have nothing to do with our
> responsibility/guilt
> > -- it's an automatic thing, kind of like Original Sin. Right?
> >
> > Love & liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Here, here Marcy!
> > > > From: "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@>
> > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: I wanna rouse some rabble! -
STOP
> THE
> > > WAR RALLY
> > > > Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:35:41 -0000
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Eric. For years now, I have been a lonely voice
on
> this
> > > > List communicating to my fellow Libertarians my belief that
> 1) "We
> > > > the People" put the scums in office that cause so much
chagrin;
> and
> > > > 2) As Eric stated so well: better to have public support
than
> mere
> > > > attention.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, SFTW Coalition hopes to add its voice to the other
> numerous
> > > > rally's that are taking place throughout the country, and
state
> > > > simply and peacefully that we are encouraging our elected
> > > > representatives to stop the war by stopping its funding.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Marcy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "eric dupree"
> > > > <dupreeconsults@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah and the house flags should go up in flames also! And
the
> Cali
> > > > flag and all the state flag the voted in the prez.
> > > > > We are more than just a presidential country...Bush did
not
> get us
> > > > into this war. We the people did and now are shucking the
blame?
> > > > > > From: Starchild <sfdreamer@>
> > > > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: I wanna rouse some
rabble! -
> STOP
> > > > THE WAR RALLY
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:53:52 -0800
> > > > > > > > How about burning a big flag -- not the American
flag,
> but a
> > > > flag
> > > > > > bearing the presidential seal? I think that would send
an >
> > > > > appropriate message, and get some media attention, without
> the >
> > > > > misguided backlash from some quarters that might greet the
> > > > burning
> > > > > > of "Old Glory," or the implicit message of violence of
> burning
> > > > the
> > > > > > would-be king in effigy.
> > > > > > > By the way, I also previously raised the idea of
having a
> >
> > > > > Libertarian MC (Marc Joffe?) for the event to guarantee
the LP
> > > > some
> > > > > > visibility there, but don't recall seeing any responses
to
> this
> > > > > > suggestion. What do those involved in planning the rally
> think
> > > > > > about these ideas?
> > > > > > > Love & liberty,
> > > > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > > > > > > Ooops my first message got botched up; so here goes
> again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Ron,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for the suggestion of slash and burn!
However, I
> > > > think the
> > > > > > > Stop Funding the War Coalition voted from the start to
> have a
> > > > > > > peaceful rally, such as "the people peaceably to
> assemble, and
> > > > to
> > > > > > > petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I
> > > > supposed the
> > > > > > > idea is to walk the walk; if you call for peace, it
would
> seem
> > > > to me
> > > > > > > strange to do it through any kind of violence. But,
> that's just
> > > > my
> > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marcy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry"
> > > > <amarcyb@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty
> > > <tradergroupe@>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Everyone;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For those of you involved in the Stop The War
Rally -
> > > > here's a
> > > > > > > > forwarded message from Aster Francesca with a
thought
> for
> > > > > > > > consideration as the capper for the Stop The War
Rally
> event
> > > -
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Burn his royal highness King George the II in
> effigy!!!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That'll certainly get the attention of the FBI and
> Homeland
> > > > > > > > Security and Secret Service Presidential Protection
> Detail
> > > and
> > > > > > > > Government Office Building Polizei - let the news
media
> know
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > advance what you are planning on doing - as this is
the
> type
> > > > of eye
> > > > > > > > candy they just love for the in-depth 10 second news
> bites
> > > > for 5-6-
> > > > > > > 7-
> > > > > > > > 9-10-11.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BTW: Going to have a band there playing a dirge
or at
> least
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > trumpeter playing Taps for all the fallen dead both
> military
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > civilian? How about a dragon dance to scare away the
> evils of
> > > > war
> > > > > > > > followed by the traditional firecracker ball to
really
> blast
> > > > away
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > demons of war?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BTW: Will there be lots of colorful banners?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ron Getty
> > > > > > > > > SF Libertarian
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: Aster Francesca <ms_shiris@>
> > > > > > > > > To: Salon_Liberty@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 7:27:58 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: {Salon Liberty} I wanna rouse some
rabble!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A very interesting peice from Charles Johnson's
site
> on the
> > > > > > > > American Revolution:
> > > > > > > > > Rad Geek People's Daily 2007-02-24 – Over My Shoulder #32: Mark Kurlansky on the Revolution before the Revolutionary War, from Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea
> > > > > > > > > Hey, why doesn't someone (say, the anti-war
movement)
> get
> > > > > > > together
> > > > > > > > and very publically hang George II* in effigy-
perhaps
> in a
> > > > > > > > deliberately Colonial style?
> > > > > > > > > If your not-quite-voiced answer is: "I'm afraid
what
> would
> > > > happen
> > > > > > > > to me if I did so", then you have discovered the
reason
> > > > someone
> > > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > > to do it, before your worried fear is certain fact.
> > > > > > > > > Many, many people I know from friends to
colleagues to
> > > > clients to
> > > > > > > > random people I meet in the supermarket are
beginning to
> > > > conclude
> > > > > > > > they truly do need to worry. All of these people
would
> > > > understand
> > > > > > > > the meaning of a public burning instantly and would
all
> come
> > > > away
> > > > > > > > from hearing of one that much more consciously
radical.
> > > > > > > > > I know some of you are involved in the anti-war
> movement.
> > > > Has
> > > > > > > > anyone thought of this?
> > > > > > > > > love and strife,
> > > > > > > > > Aster Francesca {)(*)(}
> > > > > > > > > * Or why don'twe getinthe habit of protesting I
> wannother
> > > > > > > officials
> > > > > > > > by beheading them? DEA and Homeland Security
officials
> come
> > > to
> > > > > > > > mind. Or local police commisioners.
> > > > > > > > > Why don't sex workers publically get together and
> declare
> > > > the
> > > > > > > cops
> > > > > > > > and the feds the occupying army there are? Jailed
> prostitutes
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > patriarchy's political prisoners. They're arresting
us
> and
> > > > killing
> > > > > > > > us, and we protest by running ballot initiatives,
> throwing
> > > > parties,
> > > > > > > > and having tea with politicians. What gives with
that?
Marcy,
If you take this issue of collective guilt as a matter of faith, then there is probably no argument I can make that would change your mind. I wish all were well with the world.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>