Rathmoon wrote:
Ask Japan what they've done about letter mail. I think you missed what I mentioned about just legalizing competition.
I'm aware of that. And I don't see any reason to rock the boat. The quality of the status quo is testament to the power of orthodox approaches. I'm really not dying to know if I can pay twenty cents less to mail a letter without the postal system becoming less than drop-dead reliable.
Ask California what they did with their power grid.
Rathmoon wrote:
APersonal liberty is a more defined philosophy than blunt term "true freedom". Limiting government from liberty infringement isn't always about limiting the current person in charge of making the rules, it's also about limiting who might be the NEXT person in charge making the rules. Fear of "what could happen" is a common tactic used nowadays too, "surrender your freedoms or the terrorists will you get you", "surrender your rights to compete with the government for business or else bad things could happen".
Mmhmm.
Hence my point that "Drug abusers aren't the putative subjects of a Lockesian debate, they're individuals who do great harm to those around them." But then again, I tend to be more authoritarian than most - I tend to believe the state should have a much greater role in stabilizing society.
[url=http://www.umb.edu/news/entry/umass_boston_names_juan_nunez_as_new_chief_diversity_officer/]Ironically enough, I am in the process of starting a controversy about this and hoping I don't get expelled.
[/url]
Rathmoon wrote:
Thanks for the respectful debate by the way.
I feel you.
