RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: September 11 - Information and movie screening

Unless you've looked into these issues with the care those discussing
these issues have, present your arguments and have them stand up for
discussion, you really haven't put enough effort into it to comment. As
a rather responsible 55 year old businessman, Catholic and father of
four, I resent your suggesting that my independent research and
financial support of these issues suggests I'm a "nutjob".

You are free to agree or not and bring your own "proofs" if that's what
they are. Discussion is always welcome...and Richard Rider's view
supported by Popular Mechanics that supposedly addresses the conspiracy
theories was presented on this list for discussion too...so we are
hardly closed to other opinions.

If the LP needs anything, it's less name calling. You will find
remarkably little on this list. Those who reduce the discussion to that
are usually asked to leave. We'd certainly prefer to have more people
join the list, party and the discussion as long as they are productive
and polite.

Best regards,

Mike

On Behalf Of Jeremy Linden

Unless you've looked into these issues with the care those discussing
these issues have, present your arguments and have them stand up for
discussion, you really haven't put enough effort into it to comment. As
a rather responsible 55 year old businessman, Catholic and father of
four, I resent your suggesting that my independent research and
financial support of these issues suggests I'm a "nutjob".

I'm sorry, but I stand by my comment. There are plenty of respectable Catholics, businessmen, fathers, and college professors who are Holocaust deniers (or creationists) too. *Maybe* if you were an aerospace engineer, this sort of ad hominem would be credible, but even then I am from one of the most highly ranked engineering schools in the country, and not a single person in the aerospace department has considered such conspiracy theories remotely plausible.

You are free to agree or not and bring your own "proofs" if that's what
they are. Discussion is always welcome...and Richard Rider's view
supported by Popular Mechanics that supposedly addresses the conspiracy
theories was presented on this list for discussion too...so we are
hardly closed to other opinions.

I am of the opinion that arguing such "proofs" only legitimizes the debate, when in reality there is no debate at all. For the same reason, most scientists refuse to debate with creationists.

If the LP needs anything, it's less name calling. You will find
remarkably little on this list. Those who reduce the discussion to that
are usually asked to leave. We'd certainly prefer to have more people
join the list, party and the discussion as long as they are productive
and polite.

If the LP needs anything, it's fewer people circulating these sort of rumors which only make our party seem like a long lost cousin of the Branch Davidians.

Jeremy

Jeremy:

I think a good case could be made that those who are obsessed with
respectability do the movement more harm than good. I would say, in
fact, that the main task of libertarians is precisely to help make the
not-respectable respectable. I remember well that in the '60s the ideas
that drugs should be legalized or that Social Security was going
bankrupt were pure lunatic fringe; the number of "respectable" voices
who defended them you could practically count on the fingers of one ear.
But it wasn't so long after that, in a historical sense, when these
ideas were on the table--on the cover of Newsweek--for inclusion in the
debate. Moderate proposals (medical marijuana, Social Security
"reform") trip you up eternally in slippery-slope arguments: You either
have to tip your hand and concede that a slippery slope is exactly what
you had in mind, or work very hard to convince your audience that you
really want to go no further, which destroys your claim to being
libertarian. Slippery-slope arguments are removed entirely if you are
speaking from the bottom of the abyss.

Our efforts at making the non-respectable respectable will not go well,
needless to say, unless we are perceived as respectable people
ourselves. That means things like being good listeners, open-minded,
respectful, and compassionate. The LPSF activists hold some strongly
divergent opinions among themselves, which frequently get aired on this
list; but, as others have pointed out, this group does a tremendous job
of modeling respect and good will.

As for comparing us to the Branch Davidians: They were peaceful
Christians who took their religion seriously, which is more than you can
say for a lot of people who call themselves Christian.

That an idea is radical does not make it either libertarian or worthy of
our attention, of course. But it is at least odd for a libertarian to
refuse to question the official government account of 9/11--or of
anything else, for that matter! As with the Kennedy assassination, TWA
Flight 800, or Ron Brown's death, we may never know the whole story; but
there are too many absurdities in the official version to take it
seriously. I'm certainly open to hearing explanations of those
anomalies, but the 9/11 Commission, for example, did not even attempt to
explain the collapse of WT7, shrugging it off as a mystery.
Libertarians have not taken the lead, notably, in challenging the
orthodoxy on 9/11; but, if you are embarrassed by the involvement of
some libertarians in that movement, I'm similarly embarrassed by the
government loyalism of libertarians who want to dissociate themselves
from it.