Do You Want Smaller Government?

by Harry Browne Libertarian Candidate for President

The most important political question you can ask yourself is simply this:

Do you want smaller government?

Do you want an end to the welfare state, to government destroying our health-care system, to government at all levels taking 47% of the national income in taxes, to government intrusions into your life and your business?

Do you want smaller government?

Stop Supporting Big Government

If you do, the first step toward getting it is obvious:

You must stop supporting those who are making government bigger.

You can't go east by moving west. It's a physical impossibility.

You can't make government smaller by rewarding those who make government bigger. It's a political impossibility.

Only when you begin asking for what you really want do you have any chance of getting it.

Al Gore wants to make government bigger. He's proposed a long list of new government programs.

George W. Bush wants to make government bigger. He's proposed an equally long list of new government programs to show that he's as compassionate as Mr. Gore -- as though having government spend your money somehow demonstrates compassion.

Pat Buchanan says he wants a return to constitutional government. But he's made no specific proposals to reduce government, while proposing to have government fix what he thinks is wrong with America. For one thing, he wants to tell you what kind of car you can drive.

And Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all. But that's the least of his many plans to make government much bigger.

What Smaller Government Means

I am the only presidential candidate offering specific proposals to make government smaller -- much smaller:

* I want to get the federal government _completely_ out of every area where it's made such a mess -- health care, education, law enforcement, welfare, foreign aid, corporate welfare, highway boondoggles, farm subsidies. Not only are these programs unconstitutional, they do tremendous damage to our lives.

* I want to make the federal government so small you won't pay _any_ income tax. (The tariffs and excise taxes already being collected are enough to finance the constitutional functions of government.)

* I want to free you immediately and completely from the Social Security system. I want to sell off government assets to finance private retirement accounts for anyone now dependent on Social Security -- so you and I and every other American can immediately stop paying the 15% Social Security tax.

* I want to end the nightmare of Prohibition by stopping the insane War on Drugs. At least 90% of the invasions of your civil liberties over the last 30 years have been justified by the Drug War. You may have no interest in drugs, but the government still snoops in your bank account, monitors your email, and claims the power to search and seize your property without due process.

* I want to restore completely your unconditional right to keep and bear any weapon necessary to defend yourself and your family. We can't end gun violence with new laws or by enforcing the laws on the books now. The gun laws are the principal _cause_ of gun violence, so we must repeal those laws.

* I _don't_ want to appoint Supreme Court judges who are "strict constructionists" or who divine "original intent." I want to appoint judges who can read the plain language of the Constitution -- who understand that when the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law," it means _Congress shall make no law_. I want judges who will strike down government programs that are not authorized by the Constitution.

In short, I don't want to slow the growth of government. I don't even want to stop the growth of government. I want to _reduce_ government dramatically -- to the limits imposed by the Constitution.

What Freedom Means

I want you to be free to live your life as _you_ want to live it -- not as Al Gore or George Bush thinks you should.

You're the one who gets up every morning and goes to work for 8, 10, or 12 hours a day. How dare politicians like George Bush or Al Gore presume to decide how much of what you earn you should be allowed to keep?

I want you to be able to keep _every_ dollar you earn -- to spend it, save it, give it away as _you_ think best -- not just the crumbs the politicians leave for you.

I want you to be able to use your own money to put your children in a school of your choice -- private, religious, or home school -- without having to beg the state for a voucher or plead with the Board of Education for improvement.

I want you to be able to use your own money to start your own business. Or to support your church or favorite charity in a way you've never been able to do before.

I want you to be free. I want to get government out of your life.

Isn't that what _you_ want?

How to Get to Smaller Government

If so, why would you vote for someone who's moving in the opposite direction -- someone who's made it clear he intends to make government bigger, not smaller?

I'm the only candidate who's running solely for the purpose of making government smaller. I'm the only candidate who doesn't presume to know what charities your money should go to, or how much of your income belongs to the politicians.

How You Can Win

Can I win?

Probably not. But if you vote for anyone else, you won't win either. Your candidate might win, but _you_ won't get what you want. Government will continue to get bigger, more expensive, more intrusive, and more oppressive -- and you will have given your approval to this.

No matter what your reason for voting for Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore -- to keep Al Gore out of the White House or to ward off the Religious Right -- your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement of every big-government proposal your candidate has made.

Even though we Libertarians may not win this year, every vote I get will be an endorsement, a statement, a declaration on behalf of smaller government. No one can misinterpret a vote for me as a vote for more government.

And if I get even one million votes, it could change politics in America forever. It could cause the press to pay more attention to smaller-government proposals, it could encourage other voters to abandon the big-government parties, and it could attract millions of non-voters who have given up on any hope of getting smaller government.

Please don't let the old parties destroy your future by scaring you into voting _against_ someone this year.

Raise your sights. Vote in a way that could lead to a free America with a constitutional government before the end of this decade.

For once, vote for yourself instead of a politician. Vote for freedom.

Vote Libertarian.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 18, 2000

Answers

Whatever happened to Browne anyway? Has he completely dropped out of the races?

-- (not@in.polls), October 18, 2000.

"Whatever happened to Browne anyway? Has he completely dropped out of the races?"

No, he is just being ignored by the media as being a non-player. Nader is given at least some coverage because he is perceived as "colorful", and has some name recognition.

Browne is also thought of as a "wasted vote", such that any vote for him would not have any real impact on the final outcome of the election. "Liberal" Libertarian votes would be siphoned from Gore, and "conservative" Libertarian votes would subtract from Bush's ticket.

Nevertheless, I will vote for Browne. He represents the best mix of my personal views.

Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), October 19, 2000.

>> Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all.<<

If Harry Browne wants credit for having integrity, he just blew it. Lying about one's opponent's positions is not honest. Or maybe Harry claims to be a mind reader and can penetrate secret thoughts that Ralph Nader has never spoken aloud, written or shared with a living soul.

Otherwise, this is (to quote a resident philosopher) "unmitigated horseshit."

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 19, 2000.

How come Browne isn't doing any advertising or anything to let the people know who he is and what he stands for? The reason he isn't showing up in the polls is because most people don't even know he is one of their choices. No publicity whatsoever.

-- (how.come@he's.hiding?), October 19, 2000.

Here's something on Is Voting Realistic?

I found the article a bit hard to follow, but enjoyed the remarks made by people who intend to vote for third-party candidates. I think it was Brian who once said, "I'm not thinking about TODAY. I'm thinking about 10-20 years down the line." Change oftentimes requires small steps.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.

>> Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all.<<

Maybe not in those words, but I certainly have heard Ralph Nader express this sentiment a number of times.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 19, 2000.

Brown's statement about Nader and cars isn't that far off.

Nader on car-related issues:

http://ww w.issues2000.org/Ralph_Nader.htm#Environment

Gore has given auto industry and other polluters a free ride. (Oct 1)

Raise CAFE standards; treat SUVs like cars. (Jul 24)

Motor vehicles are the greatest environmental hazard. (Feb 21)

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 19, 2000.

Interesting...Nader contradicts himself:

Tobacco is the worlds worst air pollutant. (Oct 1994)

Talk about unmitigated horseshit!

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 19, 2000.

>> Maybe not in those words, but I certainly have heard Ralph Nader express this sentiment a number of times. <<

I am not certain how much time you spend listening to Nader speak, but I am under the impression you do not seek out opportunities. Nor am I certain you are a reliable interpteter of Ralph Nader's sentiments.

If I say that I am in favor of the government licensing drivers and requiring a license to drive, does this mean I want the government to say if you can drive a car?

I want to see a quote. Anything at all that backs this up Harry Browne's contention. Sorry, but I am not taking your word for it.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 19, 2000.

OK, Buddy. I followed your link. I found 15 blurbs, condensiing an actual quote from Nader, of which you quoted three. Here are all of them that have anything to do with either cars or oil:

- Gore has given auto industry and other polluters a free ride. (Oct 1)

- Drilling Alaska is a temporary fix for an inebriated system. (Oct 1)

- More renewables & more efficency to stave off global warming. (Jul 24)

- Raise CAFE standards; treat SUVs like cars. (Jul 24)

- Motor vehicles are the greatest environmental hazard. (Feb 21) - Congress should revive energy policies before crisis. (Oct 1999) - Bold investment needed for public transportation. (Jul 1999) - Promote energy independence to avoid foreign wars. (Oct 1996)

Now enlighten me. How is any of this "not far off" from saying he wants to say "if you can drive a car or not"?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 19, 2000.

[If I say that I am in favor of the government licensing drivers and requiring a license to drive, does this mean I want the government to say if you can drive a car?]

Well, yes, strictly speaking. Now add in refusal to licence vehicles that fail emissions tests. And various licensing limits like age and prior driving record. Next, add in various government restrictions on driving, like where roads do and don't get built, toll roads, speed limits, gasoline excise taxes, and so on.

It seems fair to say that does indeed determine how, when, where, and who drives a car. And it seems likely that Nader approves of every one of these restrictions and would increase them if possible. The government *already* says if you can drive a car, and I haven't heard Nader suggesting the reduction or elimination of any of these restrictions. Have you?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 19, 2000.

>> Next, add in various government restrictions on driving, like where roads do and don't get built, <<

Unless goverment stops building roads entirely, it will have to put them somewhere, Flint. By putting them somewhere, they do not, by definition, put them somewhere else. If Harry Browne comes out in favor of halting all road building and maintenance by government, I will consider his criticsim of Nader justified. Until then, not.

>> toll roads, <<

The existance of a toll does not prevent anyone from driving. However, the instant Harry Browne adds to his list of desires that no institution, government or otherwise, can levy any toll on any road for any reason, then I may give him some slack on his criticism of Nader.

>> speed limits <<

Again, the existance of speed limit other than zero mile per hour permits driving of cars. A zero speed limit would also outlaw walking, creeping or crawling. Does Harry Browne believe Nader advocates a speed limit of zero? If so, he is as much of a damn fool as you are, Flint, for bringing it up in this discussion.

>> gasoline excise taxes, and so on. <<

A gasoline excise tax does not prevent driving any more than an income tax prevents shopping.

>. It seems fair to say that does indeed determine how, when, where, and who drives a car. <<

The day that Harry Browne comes out in favor of outlawing all driver's licenses, traffic laws, gas taxes, government road building, tolls, excise taxes on gas "and so on" as you so eloquently put it, I will concede that his position on these matters is one whit different than Nader's, you ass.

>> And it seems likely that Nader approves of every one of these restrictions and would increase them if possible <<

Got quotes? Otherwise, stuff this nonsense back down your pie hole.

Did I say that?

Sorry. Got carried away.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 19, 2000.

Brian:

Usually you show at least a modicum of thought. I'm surprised that politics deprives you of even that much.

My point is that driving is regulated. There are restrictions. Restrictions can vary in degree. Nobody, even Browne, proposes eliminating ALL regulation, and even Nader doesn't propose making regulation so restrictive as to eliminate driving entirely. You are tilting at pure straw men, and the sad thing is you have enough sense to know it.

The issue for which cars are a metaphor here is, just where might an optimal level of regulation lie in general? Do we require more (for our own good, of course) or less (at our own risk, of course)? There is a genuine difference between a Nader who wishes to protect us from those who would use their power against us (greedy, short sighted Big Business), and a Browne who fears that the power to effect so much protection corrupts, and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

OK, you can resume your mindless snit. But it doesn't become you a bit.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 19, 2000.

>> My point is that driving is regulated. There are restrictions. Restrictions can vary in degree. <<

You are the master of stating the obvious, Flint. Good points. Uh, remind me were any of these points in doubt?

>> Nobody, even Browne, proposes eliminating ALL regulation, and even Nader doesn't propose making regulation so restrictive as to eliminate driving entirely. <<

And yet Harry Browne claimed that "Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all." This sounds (please correct me if I am wrong - wait - I did'nt need to say that - of course you would) very much like he is claiming that somebody he identifies as Ralph Nader "propose[s] making regulation so restrictive as to eliminate driving entirely."

So, you are in agreement with me that this claim is spurious and false. Thanks. How could I have missed this point in your first post? Perhaps it was because you didn't make this point in your first post.

>> You are tilting at pure straw men, and the sad thing is you have enough sense to know it. <<

No. Harry Browne made a claim. I was tilting at it. You appeared in the thread supporting his claim.

>> The issue for which cars are a metaphor here is, just where might an optimal level of regulation lie in general? <<

Whether or not cars can be considered a "metaphor" for this issue, Harry Browne's claim was specific, spurious and false. Browne did not say, "metaphorically, using poetic license, Ralph Nader is the sort of person who might wonder whether you should drive a car or not."

As you have admitted, the only possible way in which his claim could be interpreted as true would simultaneouosly render it meaningless, in that it would apply equally to everyone, including himself.

How is it possible to draw a distinction between yourself and another candidate by citing a stance with which you are in perfect accord? Namely that the government has the responsibility to determine who is fit to drive and to carry a driver's license. [Hint: this was a rhetorical question.]

The only other possibility is that Harry Browne was blowing smoke and making a false and spurious claim. If that is how he likes to "make his points" then he is welcome to do so. But anyone can make points if they are allowed to make up the facts.

>> There is a genuine difference between a Nader who wishes to protect us from those who would use their power against us (greedy, short sighted Big Business), and a Browne who fears that the power to effect so much protection corrupts, and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. <<

Again, everyone raise their hand who didn't already know this.

Anyone...?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 20, 2000.

Given Ralph Nader's "green" record, I'm sure it is not a spurious claim to say that Ralph would be very happy if nobody was allowed to drive cars anymore. He'd like to see us all on bicycles with lots of mass-transit.

And no, I don't need to find a quote to know that. Ralph's been saying stuff like that for years.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 20, 2000.

>> I'm sure it is not a spurious claim to say that Ralph would be very happy if nobody was allowed to drive cars anymore. <<

In other words, you are happy to agree with your own preconceptions and misconceptions without going to the work of substantiating them.

>> He'd like to see us all on bicycles with lots of mass-transit. <<

This claim is much closer to being right. It makes no claim about forcing us to ride bicycles or use mass transit against our will.

>> And no, I don't need to find a quote to know that. Ralph's been saying stuff like that for years. <<

So, apparently, quotes to the effect that Ralph wants to take away all our cars are just lying around as common as cow shit in a pasture, and that is why it is too much effort to find one of them. An odd claim.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 20, 2000.

Is this good enough for you?

http://ww w.issues2000.org/Ralph_Nader_Environment.htm

Motor vehicles are the greatest environmental hazard

Year after year, through its traumatic and polluting impact, the motor vehicle performs as the greatest environmental hazard in this country. The inceptions and consequences of this hazard do not conform neatly to municipal, county, and State boundaries. In terms of unused capacity, fuel consumption per passenger, injuries, pollution, and total time displacement of drivers and passengers, automotive travel is probably the most wasteful and inefficient mode of travel by industrial man. Source: VoteNader.com, Auto Safety Feb 21, 2000

Nader has done much good on some issues.

However, I find his stands on many issues to be based on junk science and socialism.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 20, 2000.

Automakers avoid replacing internal combustion engines

Q: On the issue of pollution emissions tests and controls, youve commented, The more you try to control pollution at the end point, the more expensive it gets and the more pissed off people get with administrators and having to go and get their car inspected and get a sticker. So why isnt it controlled at the point of production? A: Because at the point of production the company has to change the product, whereas at the point of emission its more at the [consumer] end. Its more, You havent kept it up. You havent maintained it, etc. But also, if you control it at the emission point you dont have to raise the question of displacing the internal combustion engine with a new propulsion system. You dont have to answer the question why the auto companies have been promising electric cars for all these years. I saw it at the 1939 Worlds Fair at the GM exhibit. And now the head of the Automobile Manufacturers Association is quoted in the press as saying its still ten years off. Source: Alternative Radio, interview by David Barsamian Dec 8, 1995

Rather naive view of electric cars in my opinion. What effect would all these electric cars have on electricity production? Increased electricity production to power these cars may lead to even worse air pollution.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 20, 2000.

Buddy, perhaps you fail to notice that neither of these two quotes say one word about forcing consumers not to drive automobiles. The first simply says that autos have many bad qualities. This is true. They do.

The second simply says that it makes more sense to reduce auto emissions by changing auto design than by measuring emissions on each individual car every year. To me that does make more sense.

Thank you for providing quotes rather than misrepresentation. This has the effect of actually educating people about Nader's positions, rather than tossing mud at him. I have no trouble with having his real positions publicized. I just quarrel with invidious characterizations without offering proof or substance.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 20, 2000.

Brian:

I think a bit more than semantics is involved here. At the risk of stating the obvious...

Browne says "Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all." You reword this to mean "Ralph Nader propose[s] making regulation so restrictive as to eliminate driving entirely."

Now, Browne didn't say "Ralph Nader wants to eliminate driving." He said Nader wants to TELL YOU WHETHER you can drive. This is something quite different, and something Libertarians most fear -- regulations so complex and pervasive as to become whimsical and arbitrary. Laws and regulations are never mutually consistent, nor are they intended to be. At some point, there is a critical mass of mutually ambiguous regulation beyond which the determination of whether a given action is permissible in a given fact situation becomes a matter of near- arbitrary interpretation.

So in concrete terms, when you ask "Can I drive [now, or here, or this vehicle]", well, yes you can according to one person's interpretation of the many regulations, and No, you can't according to someone else's. While driving has not been eliminated, both of these interpreters are TELLING YOU WHETHER you can drive. More to the point, the same interpreter might decide that you can drive and I cannot under essentially identical circumstances -- and cite suitable regulation as plausible support for either decision.

In general, Browne fears that government is the *cause* of most of our problems, and Browne seems to feel that Nader's position is that government is the *cure* for most of our problems, through more comprehensive, more detailed, better enforced regulation of damn near everything. Nader doesn't need to make this claim in so many words -- it simply emerges from Nader's recommendation of Yet Another Regulation whenever he sees a problem.

[...a stance with which you are in perfect accord? Namely that the government has the responsibility to determine...]

Now this is disingenuous as hell. If one person believes government should regulate every little detail of our lives, and someone else believes government should properly regulate only the tiniest portion, do you REALLY claim these people are in "perfect accord" simply because both of them see a role for government to play? This is akin to claiming black is white on the grounds that both are colors, and colors=colors so they're identical! This is not honest argument.

Browne is making the claim that Nader favors what Browne sees as a dangerously intrusive level of government oversight of our lives. He makes this point by depicting Nader as a Big Brother bureaucrat bent on micromanagement (NOT elimination) of activities like driving a car.

From what I've seen of Nader, this point is not all that great an exaggeration. Your retreat into extravagant rhetoric and name-calling strongly implies you recognize this, and have no honest defense. But as you demonstrate, love is blind. There are real issues here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 20, 2000.

>> I think a bit more than semantics is involved here. At the risk of stating the obvious... <<

OK. I presume you will argue the semantics I said do apply do not. Give it your best shot.

>> Browne says "Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all." You reword this to mean "Ralph Nader propose[s] making regulation so restrictive as to eliminate driving entirely." <<

I have not reworded what Harry Browne said. Rather I have quoted him, repeatedly, rather than let his words be reworded by those who seek to argue Harry meant something other than what Harry said. You come to mind.

>> Now, Browne didn't say "Ralph Nader wants to eliminate driving." <<

So you say. And you accuse me of being "disingenuous as hell."

First, if someone is able to 'tell you whether you can do something', they can also tell you that you cannot do it. Not may not, but can not. This implies a dictatorial power, not just to censure the action but to prevent it. If you can't, then you can't.

The other crux of the statement you are choosing to ignore is the phrase "at all", as in "whether you can drive at all [emphasis mine]".

If each of us can not drive at all, because Ralph Nader may use his power to prevent us, how is that different from eliminating driving?

>> He said Nader wants to TELL YOU WHETHER you can drive. This is something quite different... <<

Vastly different, I am sure.

Except, the power to dictate 'whether one can drive a car at all' is the power to eliminate one's driving altogether. This is unavoidable. This isn't just semantics, this is the plain meaning of what Harry Browne claims ":Nader wants".

Now show me where Nader demonstrates he wants that particular power and I will retract my statement that you are an ass.

>> Libertarians fear [...] regulations so complex and pervasive as to become whimsical and arbitrary. <<

This does not address the accuracy of Harry Browne's claim.

>> So in concrete terms, when you ask "Can I drive [now, or here, or this vehicle]", well, yes you can according to one person's interpretation of the many regulations [...] <<

This still does not substantiate the accuracy of Harry Browne's claim.

>> In general, Browne fears that government... <<

Still talking around the point. Harry Browne made a false claim. His fears do not justify that act.

>> [...] Nader doesn't need to make this claim in so many words -- it simply emerges from Nader's recommendation of Yet Another Regulation whenever he sees a problem. <<

Except that, to prove Harry's claim, Nader would have had to have said it "in so many words". I am surprised at you, Flint. You usually don't lawyer around with words like this. Harry's claim was specific. It was about Nader. It was about a specific thing Nader wants. It was false.

>>If one person believes government should regulate every little detail of our lives, and someone else believes government should properly regulate only the tiniest portion, do you REALLY claim these people are in "perfect accord" simply because both of them see a role for government to play? <<

No. I simply expect that when one of the two draws the distinction about the role each believes government should play that he use an accurate distinction rather than making one up. Real provable details, not hand waving and rhetorical flourish.

Harry Browne no doubt could have chosen among hundreds of specific provable distinctions that call out this difference between him and Nader. Instead he chose to make fatuous wordplay and in the process tell a lie about his opponent.

>> This is akin to claiming black is white on the grounds that both are colors, and colors=colors so they're identical! This is not honest argument. <<

Quoted for the irony content.

>> Browne is making the claim that Nader favors what Browne sees as a dangerously intrusive level of government oversight of our lives. He makes this point by depicting Nader as a Big Brother bureaucrat bent on micromanagement (NOT elimination) of activities like driving a car. <<

No. Not "like" driving a car. The claim was specifically about driving a car. It was false.

>> From what I've seen of Nader, this point is not all that great an exaggeration.<<

Why resort to exaggeration at all, when the simple truth will suffice? I suppose next thing we know, Harry will have been on a fire inspection tour of Texas with the head of FEMA.

As for "extravagent rhetoric" on my part. This is a hoot. I just keep saying that the claim is false. It is false. No one has produced evidence it is true.

What I see is you bending yourself into a pretzel saying it isn't false because an interpretation may exist that might allow it to be true, and even though it doesn't exactly conform to the truth, it isn't especially false.

And I am guilty of "extravagent rhetoric"...

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 20, 2000.

Flint and Brian:

You two MUST know what a hoot you are on this one, right? I check in every day to see the "continuing saga of Flint and Brian nitpick over what Nader said/didn't say."

Sorry for the interruption. Let the nitpicking continue.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 20, 2000.

Anita, you're not alone. 8^)

What disturbs me about Browne's statement is that it begs qualification while supplying none. The effect is to evoke a vague sense that Nader's view on cars is somehow extreme and repugnant. It also capriciously clashes with the tone of his essay.

Some might view this as seriously affecting Browne's credibility, but let's be realistic. There are no saints in this world. Well, maybe there are, but I had decided not to run.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 20, 2000.

Brian:

I'm not sure I can follow all that.

What you seem to be arguing is that one cannot properly attempt to summarize or characterize a political position. One must instead use *direct quotes* to do so. You take this position, apparently, because you are offended by the accuracy of Browne's characterization.

Yet any single direct quote is necessarily taken out of the context of any entire global orientation toward the role of government. As an example, a woman doesn't become a nag because her suggestions are individually invalid, but because they are *constant*. You can examine any single suggestion and find merit, missing the forest while you examine a particular tree.

And so you have done with Browne's comment. Armed with your grammar and dictionary, you dig deeply into the meaning of "driving" and "car" and "at all" and "prevent". You emerge from this angels-on- pinheads "analysis" to announce that Browne's characterization, not backed by any specific quote, must be a lie! Nader never said this in so many words!

Accordingly, you argue that one may NOT attempt to predict what Nader might decide about any issue for which no directly applicable quote is available, right? That the sum of Nader's statements and positions and efforts, although they point in a very clear and consistent direction, can NOT be used to characterize that direction without telling a lie!

Brian, I suggest to you that the future cannot be predicted in sufficient detail such that a directly applicable quote is available to handle every eventuality with which a politician must deal. Instead, we must try to synthesize a general philosophy of government each candidate follows, and make our best guess as to how someone following such a philosophy might feel in unpredictable circumstances. Politicians are elected on feelings and impressions, rather than on quotes or specific positions (rarely followed).

I think Browne has captured Nader's general philosophy succinctly, which was precisely Browne's goal. What comes across is NOT that Browne is misquoting Nader, but rather that Browne thinks Nader sees government as Big Brother, there to help you every which way, and knows what's best for you better than you do. Now, Browne's thumbnail sketch may not capture Nader's essence very well (certainly it doesn't in your eyes), but your repeated bleating that such a sketch is invalid because it's not a direct quote deliberately misses the point.

Nader's positions and philosophy imply a considerably more intrusive government than Browne's. Why not argue for or against the value of governmental activism, rather than quibble about whether a characterization must be a direct quote?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 20, 2000.

Anita:

I feel rather like I did last year, trying to deconstruct the irrationalities of the extremists. I think Z said it well when he observed that he can't agree with everything said by any candidate, nor is any candidate ever fully trustworthy in office. At best, you hope someone moves in a general direction you prefer on the whole.

I think Brian's basic position of "Nader is our savior and without sin" is fair game for deconstruction.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 20, 2000.

>> I'm not sure I can follow all that. <<

I'll make it simple. Harry Browne claims Ralph Nader "wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all." This is false.

Is that easier to follow?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 20, 2000.

Brian:

Yes, it's easy to understand. I regard Browne's characterization as essentially true. Nader, from what I can tell, really *does* want to tell you what you can do and what you can't. For your own good, of course.

Browne is describing a philosophy, NOT citing a quote. Browne nailed it, divining the truth better than any specific quote ever could.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 20, 2000.

Flint said, of me:

>> Armed with your grammar and dictionary, you dig deeply into the meaning of "driving" and "car" and "at all" and "prevent". You emerge from this angels-on- pinheads "analysis" <<

Flint, meet Flint, in this same thread:

>> Browne didn't say "Ralph Nader wants to eliminate driving." He said Nader wants to TELL YOU WHETHER you can drive. This is something quite different [...] Laws and regulations are never mutually consistent, nor are they intended to be. At some point, there is a critical mass of mutually ambiguous regulation beyond which the determination of whether a given action is permissible in a given fact situation becomes a matter of near- arbitrary interpretation.

So in concrete terms, when you ask "Can I drive [now, or here, or this vehicle]", well, yes you can according to one person's interpretation of the many regulations, and No, you can't according to someone else's. While driving has not been eliminated, both of these interpreters are TELLING YOU WHETHER you can drive. More to the point, the same interpreter might decide that you can drive and I cannot under essentially identical circumstances -- and cite suitable regulation as plausible support for either decision. <<

To resume Flint's latest reply:

>> Accordingly, you argue that one may NOT attempt to predict what Nader might decide about any issue for which no directly applicable quote is available, right? <<

Wrong. Harry Browne did not "predict what Nader might decide about any issue". Let him feel free to do so when he wishes to.

However, in this case he made a statement. It was about the Nader in the present and what he wants. It was false. It was, in so many words, a lie. A misrepresentation.

One may characterize all one wishes. But a characterization may be true or false. This one was false. A true characterization must rest on some factual basis. Harry Browne provided no such basis. You have provided no such basis.

>> ... any single direct quote is necessarily taken out of the context of any entire global orientation toward the role of government. <<

Flint, Harry Browne did not make a statement concerning Ralph Nader's "entire global orientation toward the role of government." He made a much simpler statement that was false. Had he made a statement about Ralph Nader's "entire global orientation toward the role of government" we would not be arguing.

You seem to be arguing that, because possibly no single quote might be sufficient to establish the truth of Harry Browne's statement, but a set of quotes might be needed, you do not need to provide any quotes at all.

You still have not produced anything resembling a quote or a fact to back up Harry Browne's statement. You are arguing yourself blue in the face, have consumed a couple thousand words, and have yet to state one fact. Just opinions, justifications, characterizations and analysis.

But without facts, what is there to analyze, characterize, justify or opine about?

You are blowing a lot of air. You have not yet produced one substantial fact to back it up. I suggest you get one. Or give up spinning gold from straw.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@Ims.com), October 20, 2000.

>> I regard Browne's characterization as essentially true. Nader, from what I can tell, really *does* want to tell you what you can do and what you can't. For your own good, of course. <<

Then you have a strangely empty argument in favor of this conclusion. You simply state over and over again in different words that Harry Browne is correct and so are you.

>> Browne is describing a philosophy, NOT citing a quote. <<

His statement was not "describing a philosophy". No one has such a limited "philosophy" as to be confined to the question of cars or driving them. Yet, Harry Browne's claim was limited to this arena.

>> Browne nailed it, divining the truth better than any specific quote ever could. <<

I thought you had more regard for the truth than this, Flint. It is hard to see you essentially say that imagining something to be true which is not actual is an instance of "divining" a greater truth, while denigrating the need for anything "specific". And here I thought you admired science.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@Ims.com), October 20, 2000.

Brian:

1) You haven't provided any Nader quotes either. Only Buddy has.

2) I believe Browne was trying to characterize Nader's global philosophy via metaphor. We can agree to disagree on this, but I think Browne's context makes this clear. For example look what Browne says about Buchanan ("he wants to tell you what kind of car you can drive"). Why aren't you defending Buchanan against this same "lie"? Is it really that invisible to you that Browne was trying to find a good way to distinguish between Nader and Buchanan with the same metaphor?

3) I'd feel a lot better about Nader if he'd dived into the primaries along with the real candidates, and been eliminated along with all but two of them. Trying to sneak in the back door never works.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 20, 2000.

Brian:

[Then you have a strangely empty argument in favor of this conclusion.]

Like nearly everyone not well paid to do so, I simply lack the time to dig up every Nader quote I can find (of which there are probably many thousands), try to synthesize a philosophy of government from them with which anyone might disagree, and summarize that philosophy in my own words (which become "lies" unless I use quotes). Yet unless I make this effort, and produce the hundreds or thousands of pages required to present it, my argument is "empty". UNLESS, of course, I agree with your position, in which case all that work is unnecessary.

Personally, I think Nader's general approach is workable for a while, whereas Browne's probably isn't. I doubt that Browne, even if elected President, could really do much to reduce the bureaucracy or the budget. I suspect his efforts would be counterproductive and not lead to any useful coalitions, whereas I think Nader would be very effective in leading us, incrementally and painlessly, beyond the point of no return. Very dangerous. Browne's mistakes would be much more obvious and much easier to recover from.

I just don't see government as a kind of giant In Loco Parentis, and I think Nader does. Am I wrong?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 20, 2000.

>> 1) You haven't provided any Nader quotes either. Only Buddy has. <<

The burden of proof is rightly on the person who makes the claim. Unless by odd happenstance Nader has clearly stated "I don't want to tell you whether you can drive a car or not" such a quest for a quote would be a fool's errand. Would you like me to pick up a left handed hammer while I'm at it?

>> I believe Browne was trying to characterize Nader's global philosophy via metaphor. We can agree to disagree on this, but I think Browne's context makes this clear. <<

So, which context makes this clear?

>> Why aren't you defending Buchanan against this same "lie"? <<

I am not familiar enough with Buchanan's positions to tell whether this is true or not.

That is also why this "metaphor" is invidious. Many people would not know whether this was Nader's true position or not and hearing it would believe it true.

But it is false. Making false claims and then defending them as "metaphor" is sad, dishonest stuff, Flint. Sorry you can't see that.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 20, 2000.

OK, Flint. By now no one is reading the original Harry Browne letter, so I went back to find the context that makes it clear he is speaking metaphorically.

Here it is:

>>Al Gore wants to make government bigger. He's proposed a long list of new government programs. <<

Here he is referring to what Gore proposes to do.

>> George W. Bush wants to make government bigger. He's proposed an equally long list of new government programs to show that he's as compassionate as Mr. Gore -- as though having government spend your money somehow demonstrates compassion. <<

Now he is referring to what Bush proposes to do.

>> Pat Buchanan says he wants a return to constitutional government. But he's made no specific proposals to reduce government, while proposing to have government fix what he thinks is wrong with America. For one thing, he wants to tell you what kind of car you can drive. <<

This does not sound very metaphorical to me. Especially that "for one thing" -- which sounds very much like picking out a specific proposal of Buchanan's.

>> And Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all. But that's the least of his many plans to make government much bigger. <<

Finally, he claims that the driving remark describes one of Nader's "plans", specifically "the least of them".

Why is it in this context that signals metaphor to you? To me this is clearly in the realm of characterizing his opponents actual proposals and plans.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 20, 2000.

Brian:

To the best of my knowledge, Buchanan hasn't specifically said he wants to tell you what kind of car you can drive, any more than Nader has specifically said he wants to tell you whether you can drive a car at all. If you wish (and it seems you do), you can regard both of these allegations as lies.

The public perception, which isn't pure spun sugar, is that Buchanan is an isolationist and Nader is a Big Brotherist. So let's leave your comfy black and white world of truth and lies behind and look at policy philosophies.

Buchanan is regarded as lamenting the loss of American automotive labor jobs to foreign factories, and wants prohibitive tariffs to protect "our" jobs which indirectly places a costly premium on "foreign cars." By implication, Buchanan wants us all driving American cars, built entirely with American parts using American labor and American investmant, in America. He proposes that the government make it so.

Nader is regarded as not caring where the car is built or by whom, so long as it passes strict emissions and safety standards, and is driven by responsible people. All of these standards of course defined by and enforced by government, whose job it is to make sure you cannot inadvertently (much less deliberately) purchase or operate a car that consumes too much gas, accelerates too fast, reaches an unsafe speed, has any known mechanical problems, or results in injury in any conceivable crash.

Now, these are *characterizations* (or, if you prefer, exaggerations) of the positions of both Buchanan and Nader. Browne has attempted to compress complex and multifaceted platforms into single short and understandable sentences. To accomplish this, he has either "lied" about Buchanan and Naders positions about cars, or he has used cars as a metaphor for a general political philosophy.

If you prefer the "lies" position, keep ranting. If you want to discuss the general philosophy of isolationism vs. big brotherism, then recognize a metaphor for what it is and address its validity in the context where it was intended. Can you?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 21, 2000.

ESPECIALLY because no one has asked me, I am declaring Brian as the winner of this deabte.

Now please return to your regularly scheduled driving.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), October 21, 2000.

This debate sorta reminds me of the (admittedly simplistic) characterization:

The Democrats want to be your Mommy;

The Republicans want to be your Daddy;

Libertarians want to treat you like an adult.

 with the added observation that the Green Party (Nader, etc.) want to treat you like your Junior High School Assistant Principal, who doubles as your Physical Education instructor, as well as the Hall Monitor, and the Detention Instructor, and the Cafeteria Monitor, and the Parking Lot Monitor, Bathroom Monitorwell, you get the idea.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), October 21, 2000.

Spindoc,

Problem the Libs have is MOST will never be ready to be adults. Thus to allow us adults to be such, we have to have rules for the kiddies. Libs never muster squat since they treat everyone as if they were responsible, or could be(big assumption and wrong). One would conclude all the damn laws and taxing schemes came about just because the Demos and Repubs like spending your money and running your life. Caught up in the mess many times are the responsible folks who can run their own lives.

Never going to change in my lifetime. Stinks to high heaven but what is the alternative? anarchy? This is exactly what would happen if the Libertarian platform was implemented as proposed. Thus most reject it as irresponsible and a pipe dream. Even the Libs know their plans would take years if not decades to fly even focusing on a few points alone.

No biggy, responsible people just get on getting on with life. Dealt lemons, ya make lemonade. Taxes suck? Earn more, do more. Rests in our hands, not who sits in the WhiteHouse.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 21, 2000.

Flint, please read what spindoc wrote. It is clear to me from the context that spindoc is using metaphor to make his point.

Your assignment: compare and contrast this to what Harry Browne wrote.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 21, 2000.

Brian:

I agree that Spindoc's description is more colorful and far more difficult to confuse with any specific policies or platform planks. I can see that Browne should have been more poetic because politics tends to make even intelligent people so literal-minded as to defy belief.

So let's agree for the sake of discussion that Browne's intention was to libel Nader rather than characterize his politics. Granted, this position makes no real sense, but let's agree on it anyway. Browne *should* have described Nader as a junior high principle/phys ed teacher/hall and bathroom monitor etc. I'll take your word for it that you wouldn't have accused Browne of lying about this without direct supporting quotes, OK?

So maybe you can *finally* stop splitting one particular hair, take a step back, and consider Spindoc's metaphor. After all, if the only support you can muster for Nader is that you insist on misinterpreting Browne as having lied about him, despite repeated attempts to get you to address Nader's view of the proper role of government, what have you got going for you?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 21, 2000.

Doc Paulie,

Of course nothing is going to change if we are all complacent and accept whatever they decide to throw at us.There has to be a breaking point when people just say NO!!!,to me it is obvious that big gonernment is not the answer to our problems,if it were,we would now live in total utopia.Big government has failed,it's paternalistic, maternalistic meddling ways are squeezing the life out of the country.

You know I'm a easy goin',fun lovin' peaceful kinda guy but before I accept the fact that we are wards of a domineering nanny state I would rather see us plunged into anarchy,for it would have to be a better existence than being peaceful slaves.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate,systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME1:193, Papers 1:125

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 21, 2000.

Flint,

Brian is a Green. He agrees with Nader that government is best when it interferes most. Just read the Green platform, commie lite.

;-)

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 21, 2000.

Uncle Deedah:

Yes, I can see this. What's amusing is that no amount of effort can get Brian to stop whining about imaginary "lies" about Nader, and focus on what life would be like if Nader had real power over us. One would almost think Brian is ashamed of Nader's *actual positions*, the way he dodges all attempts to get him to admit them, and redirects his attentions back to his misinterpretation of Browne's description over and over again.

Just once, I'd love to see Brian come out and say "Here is a specific Nader position. Here is what we would gain from it, and here is what it would cost us."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 21, 2000.

"Doc" Paulie,

You said:

"Problem the Libs have is MOST will never be ready to be adults. Thus to allow us adults to be such, we have to have rules for the kiddies. Libs never muster squat since they treat everyone as if they were responsible, or could be(big assumption and wrong). "

"Doc", do you have any idea how revealing of your personal philosophy this statement represents? Do you truly consider the majority in this country "kiddies", incapable of deciding for themselves? If so, then this statement represents a classic example of elitism, the antithesis of democracy.

Dictatorships are formed by such sympathies.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), October 22, 2000.

Do you truly consider the majority in this country "kiddies", incapable of deciding for themselves? If so, then this statement represents a classic example of elitism, the antithesis of democracy.

Dictatorships are formed by such sympathies.

May need to do a little American History Spin if ya think I am an Elitist. Who founded this nation?

Look this is not a perfect world full of intelligent rational people. While personal responsibilty and freedom is always preferable, only a fool believes we can operate a modern society as the Libertarian preaches. We have rules because a significant number of people are unable to behave, and worse, don't want to. Why is this even a mystery?

Belief by some is all the Libs need is more exposure to be taken seriously. I am saying they have had plenty and most have rejected Libertarianism as a pipe dream. And understand, I am not referring to the average jerkweed standing in line at WalMart. I am talking the responsible intelligent amongst us who will actually spend sometime and research a thing.

As to your claim my conclusion leads to dictatorships I say hogwash. Together people understand ultimate power comes from self. The more twits encountered, the more an intelligent rational person has for opportunities to grow, to develop further one's patience. Those who seek advantage over others, operate from a position of helplessness. Reason we need all the dam rules is most are moving away from personal responsibility and freedom and toward a jail of their own making. All the while concluding to themselves they are doing otherwise and living as a FreePerson. Average person thinks Honesty a BET. Is this indicative of people who are enlightened?

I personally find it amazing I have to defend my position. But then again, I found it equally amazing supposedly rational intelligent people wetting their pants over a Y2k bug. And you question why I think stupidity and the like common?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 22, 2000.

Doc,

Then should the enlightened follow the ignorant into the jail or should the enlightened become their jailers?

If I understand correctly I will do neither,but instead will work to teach the ignorant to forge the keys to unlock their freedom and to fight to break the chains of their bondage.

Or????????

Are you saying this country if full of a bunch of total "smart" stupid fucks,from "Wall Street to Wall-mart" that are allready doomed and deserve what they know not?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 22, 2000.

Cap,

We are in agreement, I think. We must be examples of a "the" way. Lacking self control, one forfeits control to sources outside of self. Be it drugs or authorities or the usual combination of many vices the human being can come-up with. Ultimate responsiblity rests with each of us.

Bitching about the Gumbit strengthens it. In fact the Gumbit doesn't even exist as most conceive it, this has been created for a reason. Do any research on Government and it does not take long to understand very little of it is organized or in any way efficient(kinda like my writing). There is not even consistency in website designs, even in the same Governmental Departments. Is this what the problem is sold as? organized chaos? somewhat I guess, but mostly the demon is sold as all knowing and all controlling. Truth is, the greatest enemy is waste and inefficiency. So lets make it work better, not toss the thing with some Revolution or create Anarchy with similar schemes.

Powers(special interests) have a vested interest in your dislike of Government(i.e. Liberals be the exact target created, the bullseye). Most of GWBush's platform rest on this one single concept, we hate DC and their N**g*r loving ways as it is. I know you personally reject the whole corrupt show, but understand even this approach supports these special interests. Libertarians are basically saying to "hell with it", and thus openings are created for any number of special interests to move in and play house.

As with Y2k, many are chasing shadows over the Evil Gumbit. They are puppets in a well constructed sales machine. Look, organization by itself, will create hardships and trade-offs to the individual. Be it government, the company you work for, or your bowling league. One works around the problems, it is called life. They had problems with the Gumbit 100 years ago and we lived thru it, worse even I bet. There is no such thing as perfect anything.

There lies much profit and advantage with having many hating their very own government. For one, it creates a division which allows scumballs easy access to the controls when many are uninvolved and whining.

A Mobil AWL would like nothing better than most wanting the Gov out of controlling drilling access on say National Forest land. Weyerhauser loves the stuff. Ford would love to be done with the Transportation Department. Do you honestly think they care if x- amount of people are sacrificed to save money using defective tires? And if the Gumbit is overbearing and allknowing, why did it take 80+ deaths for them to figure out something was up?

I guess I am asking for you to toss all the rhetoric and maybe open yourself up to the notion much of the "revolution" talk is but sales crud from special interests. They take and package a boogeyman for folks to hate. The same structure which has helped create undoubtly the most free and just nation in recorded history, is now broke beyond repair? hardly.

I don't buy it. What is screwing things up is special interests. Only one viable candidate(Albert Gore) has said his top priority is to send real campaign finance reform to the Congress for consideration and signing hopefully. A major step in the right direction. Our nation has been hijacked by a few with the aid of millions who really, I feel, have not fully thought their positions thru.

I do not deny we face problems. But the structure is not broke. We live in a condition out of balance due to the influence of special interests(and this includes welfare punks as well as Mobil awl). We are a Nation of LAW. Not to stifle your freedom, but to promote it. How many today even bother understanding that? Problem as I see it is most responsible folks have been systematically turned off to it all and do not even vote anymore. Those who still listen are so cynical their votes are mostly protests now, not involvement.

BTW, want to read something which will make your skin crawl? Here is the latest from Dubya....Gore Hits Bush on Balkans Pullback . Bush wants to fight WW3 it appears, in the Middle East or China. Getting surreal now.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 22, 2000.

Doc,

In a strange way I think we do agree but our means of resolve differ.I do think the special interests are at work,being as divisive as possible,but I think the charade is that there is this huge ideological difference between the Repub's(conservatives) and the Demo's(liberals) when in fact the differences are almost nill.The game is an "us" against "them" mentality that keeps everyone busy pointing fingers at how awful the "other" side is.

When I scrutinize the game closely I find that both agenda's have the same goals,they are just ever so far enough apart to cause the illusion of a huge gap in ideolgy.This tug of war between the D's & R's is a ruse better enabling them to hold onto the power of which they have come to view as a birthright or as an elitist gift to guide the poor stupid masses.

You are absolutely right in that nothing is perfect and we do have to work around and through things but...sometimes in the process we can see that change is necessary and that the flaws are warranted enough that a new part or person would better right the wronged ship.

In the case of our government this is not something to be taken lightly and throwing out something just for the sake of it can be just as damning as existing under the current framework,if not more.

On your point about Libertarians opening the door for special interests.How can they be any more entrenched in our political process than they allready are? What I see is the Libertarians and others doing is calling a spade a spade and rightfully decrying what is an abonination of the Constitution,this can be anything but wrong.

I don't think we have been sold "packaged boogeymen",I think their lies and deciet are all too apparent and too real.The proverbial boogeymen are the aristicratic elite that have made a home at the public expense.

We both agree there are problems,what we disagree about is how best to work through them.You think Gore offers the best chance for success while I think Browne the better choice,unfortunately IMHO your choice or one very close to it(Bush) will be the one to guide our country,my hope is that they will be men of honor and do good things for America.

My suspicion however is that neither is a man of honor.

On a slight side note Doc.This thing we call Democracy is a beautiful thing,it allows us to agree to disagree and converse freely and to espouse what we truly believe without the fear that we will be persecuted for those beliefs.It allows the exchange of different ideas that may someday become a reality.Long live America.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 22, 2000.