Liberty (
Sun, 24 May 1998 16:08:34 -0400


At 11:19 AM 24/05/1998 -0700, Tom Boland wrote:

>Liberty, thanks for your very useful feedback.  You keep me thinking.
>While some information is worth forwarding, too many articles from
>elsewhere can thwart HPN members' person-to-person dialog on solutions.
>But then, who is to say what is "too much" forwarding?  I'd rather that be
>the autonomous decision of each member, not a limit enforced by me.  What
>we may not like find interesting, we can always delete.

Then, perhaps I will start forwarding articles from some of the conservative
and religious lists I am on, and only then you will hear lots of complaining
from the so-called tolerant "liberal" community.

>For the sake of free exchange of ideas, I'm wary of setting limits on
>content.  I especially want no limits on political and policy debate.  Why?
>I think we need to consider and test new and unpopular ideas.  If we are to
>ever reduce or end poverty and homelessness, we need to think outside
>standard policy frames.

True.  I have no qualms about freedom and exchange in discussion of ideas,
but I am finding myself deleting 19 out of 20 posts I get from HPN, as
the majority of them seem to be forwarded posts from anarchist lists,
and it should not be assumed that just because these posts are sent to
the list, that they are any way representative of, or accepted by the 
people on this list, anymore than the input I might forward from some of 
the market-oriented conservative and libertarian lists I am also on, many
of which also have rich discussions about social policy and express quite
a different opinion about people who are living in poverty ...

>Hints, tips and voluntary guidelines will - I hope - reduce the kinds of
>posts which discomfort some readers.  But no post, or rules about posting,
>will please everyone on such a diverse list as ours, I'd venture.

I would just ask that a limit be placed on forwarding, but no limit on
topics of person-to-person discussion, with the exception to a rule against
flaming and personal attacks any list member.

>Anarchists and libertarians share some common sensibilities, such as
>mistrust of government.  Is dialog and collaborative action possible
>between the two groups, or am I dreaming?  (Ok, I'm dreaming.)

In technicolour ... ;-)

>People of many persuasions on HPN see the problem of service providers
>pocketing pay with no measuarable improvement of their clients' lots.  Plus
>psychiatric labeling and involuntary mental health "treatment" are seen as
>huge problems by some HPN folks with seemingly opposing ideologies.

Once people accept the concept that rights cannot be implied without
responsibility, then the ideals are achieved.

>Couldn't anarchists and libertarians at least join in opposing involuntary
>psychiatric intervention and social programs that do little to end

I try, Tom ... but it seems that my pro-capitalist views are seen as 
something related to government intervention.  In fact, I've always called
for less government intervention, and have been the only poster who has
consistently taken this position ... 

I would otherwise find it abhorrently hypocritical if I were to oppose
forced treatment, social service agency control over people's lives, and
so forth, but yet at the same time, ask for more government intervention
to keep me alive, or as Graeme says, bare subsistance.

I don't think we will ever convince any government to pour out more money
and staffing to more social programs, while at the same time, leaving
people alone to decide these things for themselves.  Governments have a
very uncomfortable way about achieving monopoly status in anything they 
get involved with ...

Luv ya,

Liberty (*Libby*)