Defining Libertarianism (was Defining Terrorism)
S. Dale Morrey
sdalemorrey at gmail.com
Wed Jun 26 22:10:02 MDT 2013
Jeez I really need to get off gmail.
Now the ads are mentioning that I should get concealed weapons training
"before I need it".
Then in the right hand column, "In house SWAT training, learn to defend
yourself like a pro!"
It's almost as bad as the ads I used to see telling me that they could see
me IP address and that I should use their software to eliminate my IP
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Russel Caldwell <caldr704 at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Daniel C. <dcrookston at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Russel Caldwell <caldr704 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Ostensibly is the key word isn't it
> > > How do we implicitly cede our rights to use force to the government by
> > > participating in society? Exactly what are my options if I decide not
> > > participate? Exactly how would I not participate in society?
> > Move to Alaska and go off the grid. It is an option open to you, and
> > you haven't taken it. That is an implicit acceptance of your
> > circumstances.
> Isn't this being a bit disingenuous? It's kind of like a liberal calling a
> conservative hypocritical if he takes Social Security even though he says
> he doesn't believe in it. Yes, theoretically I could do many dumb things
> and frankly I've done my share, but that doesn't make this a sound
> > > But isn't this a salient point in this conversation? Isn't the current
> > > government ceding its legitimacy as a wielder of force by the very way
> > > exercises that power?
> > Well, depends on which conversation you mean. I don't even remember
> > where we started. Overall though I'd say no. Not unless you want to
> > start a civil war. Personally I'll vote with my feet before I'll
> > fight in a civil war. I like being alive (and, more to the point,
> > being alive in the company of Swedish women) more than I like saving a
> > country full of fat, entitled mouth-breathers from their own
> > inattention and insecurities.
> > Like someone else said, as long as you're free to leave, that's what
> > counts. So far I can still leave - and if someone decides I can't,
> > well, the Canadian border is awfully long and I can still claim
> > citizenship there.
> There's the theoretical and then there's hard reality.
> > > I am painfully aware of the possible weaknesses of the
> > > view in a "what if" kind of way (not that we've tried anything that
> > > remotely close to know one way or another), but I'm also more presently
> > > aware of the catastrophe we've got in the present "democratic" system.
> > Maybe you should just admit that pure systems, on either side of the
> > equation, are never going to work. We don't need to try an
> > anarcho-capitalist system to know it won't work for the same reason we
> > don't need to try a "let's all just get along" system to know it won't
> > work. It's just an obviously bad idea on its face.
> > I've already said that I don't advocate demolishing the system, that it
> wouldn't work. I certainly do advocate a reversing of course. We've been on
> a course of a more socialist, corporatist, militarist society for over a
> hundred years now. How has that worked for us?
> > actually gets what he wants. In a free market transaction 100% of the
> > > participants get what they want.
> > And the people who can't participate because they're poor just get
> > screwed. And we can't have a free market without a government anyway,
> > so what are you still on about?
> By definition everybody can participate in a free market. This is in
> contrast to the idea that a person can just stop participating in society.
> There have been plenty of poor emigrants to this country who have not only
> done well but have thrived in generally free market conditions.
> > > Isn't that that the fundamental definition of government, an
> > > that has a monopoly on the use of force? Isn't that what the founding
> > > fathers of this country feared the most?
> > You mean the founding fathers like George Washington, who used the
> > militia (which the 2nd amendment guarantees) to put down an armed
> > uprising just a few short years after we won our independence? Those
> > founding fathers? No, I really don't think it is.
> I will be the first to admit the hypocrisy of people I revere. I will even
> admit that I've been guilty of it a time or two. Have you? Where is
> hypocrisy more harmful and dangerous, in transactions between two people in
> a free market transaction or when socialist politicians in France hide
> their money from their own socialist leaning government which says a 70%
> tax on income is good for society? Disparaging people like Washington does
> nothing to reduce the real danger of power concentrated in the hands of a
> few elite.
> > -Dan
> > /*
> > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> > Don't fear the penguin.
> > */
> "The legitimate purpose of formalization lies in the reduction of the tacit
> coefficient to more limited and obvious informal operations; but it is
> nonsensical to aim at the total elimination of our personal participation."
> -- Michael Polanyi
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
More information about the PLUG