From: lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: Libertairians/Republicans
Summary: well, ALMOST libertarian
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:03:10 GMT

You seem to have a FEW leanings in the libertarian direction, but I think you
have chosen your party correctly, based on the contents of this message. A
real libertarian would never consider federal laws to control how (or whether)
any subject (including sex, contraception, or disease prevention) is taught
in public or private schools.

In article <5773.2AA7ABC1@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Leah.Wesolowski@p0.f2.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leah Wesolowski) writes:
> To: Crossgl@Infonode.ingr.com (Gordon Cross)
> From: Leah "From Toney" Wesolowski
>       Vote!

Oh yeah, I've got a LOT of choices this time... I'll probably once again go
and vote for the only candidates I can support in good faith - the libertarian
ones (Marrou/Lord) - I really can't see any difference between one evil or
another in all of the other races - I HAVE no choices in them, thanks to the
two (?) party system.

> As a Professor once said to me, if you want to win a race you have 
> to get in a race car.

The implication here being that libertarians never have a chance? With that
attitude among potential libertarians, perhaps you are right. How do you think
that the rebublican and democratic parties came into being in the first
place (and party historians out there?) - we used to have Whig and Tory parties
in this country - those had to die out when they no longer addressed people's
concerns, and there may have even been other parties before the two "permanent"
ones came about. It is MY contention that neither of the two largest parties
any longer address a majority of voters' views (which is why voting percentages
are so low). I think we need to get rid of all laws and other impediments to
keep other parties from participating in the political process. There is 
something VERY wrong when a party that regularly gets around 1,000,000 popular
votes for president has to go through an elaborate and expensive campaign just
to get onto each state's ballot. One year in Georgia, they HAD to let the
libertarians onto the presidential ballot because the criteria they tried to
apply to us would have ALSO kept off the REPUBLICAN candidate! (there were
that few registered republicans in the state that year, since ALL local races
were decided in democratic primaries - and the republican still won the state!)

> Libertairianism is my basic philosophy however YOU are not going to 
> sit there and place the War on Drugs squarely on the shoulders of 
> the Party (which I am a member) THe GOP.

??? No libertarian is trying to put the W.O.D. anywhere but on the trash pile.
Many of us consider this the primary threat to our liberties, especially to
the consititution and the bill of rights. The GOP is leading the charge in 
the W.O.D. (Nancy Reagan was a Four Star General...), but you are right that
there are many opportunistic democrats who smell a Good Thing and are happily
trashing rights and freedoms along with the republicans... but I think 
EVERYONE (with the sole exception of you?) would admit that it is PRIMARILY
a GOP thing. The demos want to oppress us in OTHER, and just as creative, ways.

>   Without the Majority led (DEMOCRATIC) congress we would not have 
> such BS laws as the confiscation laws et. al.

wrong - many of the worst abuses in this area ARE from "conservatives", who
are willing to do ANYTHING (read: anything that increases THEIR power and
reduces OUR freedom) in the holy name of the W.O.D.

>   Without the idiotic hand out programs we would no be working from 
> Jan 1 to May 6 just to pay our taxes.

Well, the idiotic socialist transfer payment schemes do account for a very
large percentage of government spending, but there is still a tremendous
amount of spending going on from BOTH sides of congress (but, to be fair, not
from the white house, regardless of WHICH bozo is currently sitting in it - 
the pres. can't sign any checks, rubber or otherwise.) 

What amazes me is that even with the staggeringly large amount of money they
steal from us at gun (tank? bayonet? nuke? how far do you think they would
really go in a real tax rebellion?) point, they still manage to spend EVEN
MORE... which is an even MORE serious problem. But then again, we ARE trying
to provide defense for the ENTIRE WORLD (against what, the martians?), and
to solve EVERY local problem, but tax only AMERICANS. BOTH of the current
large parties are guilty of overspending on numerous issues. Yes the demos
overspend on social programs, but the repubs overspend on OTHER issues. They
are both commiting fraud and pissing away the future security and wealth of our
country for politcally expediency - the ONLY difference is on WHAT they piss
away our money.

>   Without the silly liberals we would not have such things as the 
> "Brady Bill" Cuts in defense, Femi-Naziism, pro-gay movements, ....

and without the silly "conservatives" we would not have such things as laws
against burning flags, laws forcing christian prayer and religion observances
on all students in the public school system (another argument against it)
regardless of religious persuation (or lack of it), pro-life movements that
think it is cute to wave dead babies in the face of young women who are already
having a serious crisis in their lives, etc, etc, etc - hard to tell which is
the pot, and which is the kettle, without a score card. Both look pretty black
from here...

>   Liberals want to give our grade school children condoms and teach 
> them how to use them---BEFORE it is too late and they catch aids...
>   Can't they see that teaching children that sex is something that 
> should be shared AFTER marraige is the most benefitial way to go? 
> Have you heard about the California School where Condoms as a part 
> of the sex ed. program now has the highest teenage pregnancy rate 
> in AMERICA?

But which came first? The condom campaign or the high pregnancy rate? If you
really feel that abstinence is the best possible way to avoid aids, go for
it - practice it yourself every day (you can't be 100% sure that your husband
is clean, so why not practice it even now?). What I, and any other libertarian
objects to, is when you try to apply your own standard and beliefs on other
people who may not think the same way.

>                 While the condom is being waved as a barrier against 
> the AIDS virus (which is now being questioned as to its actual casue 
> of AIDS) hasn't anyone got the guts to stand up and say hey the virus 
> is one millionth of a centemeter and a condom has tiny pores ten to 
> twenty times larger than that...doesn't it make sence that a condom 
> is really no protection at all? Doesn't it make sence that the ONLY 
> way to prevent AIDS is to refrain from having sex untill marraige?

Actually, even refraining from ALL sexual contact is no guarantee that you
will never get AIDS - ask any medical technician who works around blood or
needles... sexual contact is one of the primary ways, but certainly not the
only disease vector - the key is avoiding exchange of certain bodily fluids,
most notably semen and blood, in which the AIDS virus can thrive. If you
saw a traffic accident with people bleeding, would you hesitate to help them?
Here, the chance of you contracting AIDS is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than
in a random sexual coupling, especially if a condom is used. Worth the risk?
It's a TRADEOFF. Just doesn't happen to involve sexual ethics this time, so
you can probably think more clearly about it.

I am afraid that like many SOCIAL conservatives, you are trying to use the
AIDS problem to advance a mostly unrelated SOCIAL program (basically, you 
would rather that EVERYBODY have sex only as a part of a fine christian
marriage, and possibly even only to make babies.. right?). In MY opinion, as
well as many other people, the BEST possible way to avoid getting AIDS (and
I DO have a vested interest at least as great as yours in avoiding it) is to
find a single, monagamous sexual partner who has been tested (and I of course
extend the same courtesy to them), and restrict my sexual contact to them.
Whether I currently have a christian (or government) sanctioned marriage in 
effect at the time with this partner is totally unrelated to the issue. I am
very glad to be married now, because I have found a person that I love very
much, want to spend the rest of my life with, and want to raise children with.
NOT because I was afraid of catching AIDS. Nor do I think that I have lowered
my risk by any appreciable amount. I still have to go to the dentist, the
doctor, and other things that are greater risk than my previous or current
lifestyle. And I would not hesitate to help a bleeding accident victim either,
in spite of the high risk (well, maybe if it was a guy in a dress I'd try to
find some rubber gloves first...)

There are two primary social problems with our society today, in my opinion,
which are the root cause of many of the other social problems we have:

1. People believe it is possible to have "zero risk", and are willing to do
   anything in order to accomplish this unreachable goal - all of life is a
   never-ending trade-off of risk versus benefit - everyone should be allowed
   to choose their own trade-offs, so long as they do not tread on the rights
   and freedoms of other people (rights narrowly defined here, not including
   "welfare rights", etc.) "Those who are willing to trade off freedom for
   security deserve neither" (sorry, forget who said it.. anyone know?)

2. The christian basis of part of our society not only permits, but actively
   encourages people to impose their beliefs and practices on EVERYONE,
   regardless of their needs, feelings, beliefs, etc. The modern liberals
   have happily adopted these tactics, but with an entirely different agenda.
   In my opinion, the tactics are worse than EITHER agenda.

The combination of these two things are really VERY VERY nasty. No real
libertarian would try to advance positions based on either of these assumptions,
let alone BOTH, as you are doing here.

> Oh NO, I am on my soap Box again...
>     (Jump)
>  
> Your turn.
>  
> Leah "From Toney" Wesolowski the Conservative Republican/Libertairian.

I would really appreciate it if you would read a little more about the
libertarian philosophy before you start refering to yourself as one. In my
opinion, you have missed the point as thoroughly as Rush Limbaugh (but then
HE never claims to be one... he understands the vast gulf between the two
positions to which you are trying to claim to belong). If you would like a
book on what libertarianism is really all about, I would be glad to loan you
one I got when I rejoined the national party recently. I think it qualifies
as a fairly accurate representation of the party's views, hence the views
of the majority of people that refer to themselves as libertarians. I am not
trying to discourage you from ANY libertarian view, but you are confusing
people who don't know much about libertarianism by espousing clearly
conservative / non-libertarian views then calling yourself (at least partly)
a libertarian. Please don't think this is a hair-splitting "I'm more x than
you" rhetoric - you are WAY off from the mainstream libertarian views. And
there is nothing wrong with BEING conservative (I greatly admire W.F. Buckley
Jr., who is DEFINITELY NOT a libertarian). Just try to keep labels straight.

> --  
>  = Micro Magic, 830-2362,  Alabama's Usenet/Fidonet gateway.
>  = Reply-To:  Leah.Wesolowski@p0.f2.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG

Larry "Tag - Your turn" Hughes
Newsgroups: hsv.general