LibertyPatriot: Wilderness wrote: "First - define liberty. I'll wait for your response."I am first waiting for a respectful response to the four points above, which were specific responses to one of the first posts here. Why? Because that is what those who are following a chronological order in a debate, and have specific and logical replies, do when they choose to debate with honor.
Wilderness wrote: "First - define liberty. I'll wait for your response."I am first waiting for a respectful response to the four points above, which were specific responses to one of the first posts here. Why? Because that is what those who are following a chronological order in a debate, and have specific and logical replies, do when they choose to debate with honor.
I was starting from your original post. The book is titled "Liberty Manifesto". What does liberty mean? It's also the first word in your composite name. I'm starting way back there. If need be I'll go to those four, but it seems to be jumping ahead of ourselves. Do you differ on that point?
LibertyPatriot:The phrase "slave to democracy" is an oxymoron
No it isn't. Read the Founders on democracy.
LibertyPatriot:The phrase "voluntary control" is unclear because it assumes that one agrees with the control - can you cite examples of free people who agree to submit to control
Nonsensical.
LibertyPatriot:Your phrase "from our point of view" suggests that a group of anarchists who oppose control, have actually formed and subscribed to a mutual agreement for same, since your advocacy for one interpretive point of view represents an appeal for control. Again, illogical.
It is only illogical because you continue to promote an ignorant and incorrect view of anarchy, even when being corrected here. Anarchy is voluntarism. You are for involuntary control view a blanket social contract that does not have universal agreement, enforced with the barrel of a gun.
LibertyPatriot:I am for Liberty via the reform of the State.
The state is anathema to liberty. The purpose of the state, is to protect individual liberty. It delivers this service, by violating individual liberty.
LibertyPatriot:What you are for, remains unclear, illogical and not based on any historical examples.
It is perfectly clear. You simply will not take liberty to its logical and rational conclusion. It's you who are being illogical, and historical examples undermine your position, I don't need to provide proof of anarchy in action, voluntarism occurs everyday where the state is not involved.
LibertyPatriot:Or maybe your mind is already made up, and now your objective is forcing others to agree. So much for your work as a "moderator".
No one is forcing you to do anything. You came here and asked for debate. You got it, and now you are crying about it. Well, you should have researched who you were promoting propaganda to. Playing the victim of the big bad moderator is just lame. I am moderating a discussion, one in which you have displayed a lack of knowledge and promoted half-truths, although dozens of members here with or without moderator status are capable of pointing out the inaccuracy and hypocrisy of your position.
Lets use a popular example i've seen before. Democracy is like 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Once the ballets are in how free do you think the sheep will be? In other words freedom has nothing to do with Democracy. America is great at doublespeech/doubletalk, a term Orwell coined. War is Peace, Hate is Love, Pain is Pleasure, Democracy is Peace, ect...
It's completly clear. No one has any right to my property or my productivity without my prior consent. I can use you as an example. Did you vote in the elections? If you did then you yourself are proof of a supposed man who consented and granted control to his government to reign over his person. Now I'm willing to bet your unhappy with Obamah and with the strong intervention of the state over our lives in the past several years. Do you truely feel free in our current state of affairs? It's ironic that you call yourself a free man yet you are not content with the current political arrangement that YOU voted in.
Has democracy has served you well politically over the past 100 years? Have your needs been met? If so why are you trying to push all this conservative political crap if you were already happy as a free man? :)
No your misunderstanding and are incapable of fathoming life without someone granitng you the permission to live it. Let me ask you this. Does the state grant you the permission to live? By what right do you have to live on this earth? By what right are you to own your own productivity and property?
Now that my friend is the first true oxymoron stated here on this thread. :)
By very definition the state cannot exist without first taking from it's citizenry. The state producing nothing of value and since it is incapable of naturally surviving in the free market it must use coersion, force, and theft from it's citizen's to survive.
LibertyPatriot:Is there anyone here who can cite real world examples of what you preach?
I have already given you one, and someone else has posted a link to another. Convenient for you to skip over.
This kind of statement is like going to a Denver Bronco's fan site and asking on their forum why they like the bronco's but without being aware that you were on a bronco's website. Do you have any idea what this website represents? Have you read any article here at all?
LibertyPatriot:So far there is noone here that seems to choose, or be capable of honorable debate,
In what way are we being dishonerable and also what does honor have to do with anything? You sound like a neo-con trying to make the argument that we need perpetual war because it's the honorable thing to do. I don't things because they are honorable. I'm not discussing with you because it's honrable, I'm doing it because your highly entertaining. That word, honor, has been abused into oblivion. A matter of honor seems like a pretty subjective matter to me.
Many have posted some real counter points to your argument and you have conveniently overlooked them. Perhaps it is you who needs to go back and re-read some of them.
yoshimura: NewLiberty: Guys - I think there is a need to clean up the act in interacting with newcomers. If people want to advance liberty in even the smallest ways, interacting nicely with newcomers is highly recommended.
NewLiberty: Guys - I think there is a need to clean up the act in interacting with newcomers.
Guys - I think there is a need to clean up the act in interacting with newcomers.
If people want to advance liberty in even the smallest ways, interacting nicely with newcomers is highly recommended.
Acting nicely does not require softening one's argument or agreeing with them, however.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
All this and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the legitimacy of the creation of the government he proposes
Turn on the smoothing music...this will take some time.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
LibertyPatriot: Greetings - First, thank you for these scholarly forums -- it is a time when clear thinking is again needed at the forefront of politics and economics. WANTED POLITICAL/ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHERS: Is it time for a "Liberty Manifesto?" <-- click to download PDF. We will publish the finished Manifesto in book form in time for the 2010 elections. Essays needed too.Debate the Manifesto here, or go help shape it at link in document.In Liberty -Scott
Greetings -
First, thank you for these scholarly forums -- it is a time when clear thinking is again needed at the forefront of politics and economics.
WANTED POLITICAL/ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHERS: Is it time for a "Liberty Manifesto?" <-- click to download PDF. We will publish the finished Manifesto in book form in time for the 2010 elections. Essays needed too.Debate the Manifesto here, or go help shape it at link in document.In Liberty -Scott
Your "liberty manifesto" is not even worth a status of of miniarchy. It's ambiguous enough even for a socialist to go along with.
Where in your manifesto does it say that individuals are to be free from any form of coercion? That all exchange is to be done on a voluntary basis? That property rights are to be sacred? And the initiation of force is only to be tolerated for defense? I believe your "manifesto" guarantees none of the above!
Very well sir, my definition of Liberty: "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control."And, that definition, I would add, is not arbitrary. It is taken from Dictionary.com as the primary definition of Liberty. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertyYou will note, that nowhere in that definition is either the need for, or possibility of governance by and for the people excluded.Now, since I have honored your request, and since several here suggest I might become educated from your theories, please enlighten me with specific replies to the following questions:1. How does governance by and for the people, when honorable, conflict with Liberty?2. Please define "Anarchy" as a working political theory? You said you previously defined it, but it is still unclear to me how it might work in practical terms.3. Given the definition in #2, please cite historic examples of it at work?4. If historic examples are not available (and I again submit that the colonies had a working set of governing laws, and so were in no way an anarchy in practice), then please state clearly how you think such a "system" (can it be Anarchy if it requires a system?) would work?I will read your answers with an open mind.In Liberty -Scott
NewLiberty:And is it really essential to be absolute sticklers for voluntary society?
Is this a serious question?
LibertyPatriot:Very well sir, my definition of Liberty: "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control."And, that definition, I would add, is not arbitrary. It is taken from Dictionary.com as the primary definition of Liberty. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertyYou will note, that nowhere in that definition is either the need for, or possibility of governance by and for the people excluded.
If your genuienly interested then stop arguing semantics. :)
DD5:That property rights are to be sacred?
Well I think there is something about God coming first and being that a manifesto is a declaration of intentions...I'm guessing all the atheists are going to be..well something, maybe not have their rights respected because they don't believe in divine power and according to this manifesto natural rights are divine edicts [ to which I think is ridiculous, natural rights are based on logic and reason, not fictious entities ]
I would love to do a critique of this book if it ever actually came into existence.
Nitroadict: yoshimura: NewLiberty: Guys - I think there is a need to clean up the act in interacting with newcomers. If people want to advance liberty in even the smallest ways, interacting nicely with newcomers is highly recommended. Acting nicely does not require softening one's argument or agreeing with them, however.
I agree. It's just the tone of the debate.
Anyway, on with the debate! :-D
Laughing Man:All this and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the legitimacy of the creation of the government he proposes
Who really even cares about legitimacy?
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
yoshimura: filc: In american history befor the constitution and before the revolutionary war colonists were pretty much property owners who operated outside of the British governmental control. It was pretty much an organized state of anarchy. People operated as nothing more then property owners. Heavy policing and other rediculous social programs were not needed as just about every person in every household were well trained riflemen. There was not much crime as property owners protected their land with strong diligence. Only idiots would tresspass back then, men in general respected private property that much more. Could you (or anyone here) please recommend any books related to that period and place of american history?
filc: In american history befor the constitution and before the revolutionary war colonists were pretty much property owners who operated outside of the British governmental control. It was pretty much an organized state of anarchy. People operated as nothing more then property owners. Heavy policing and other rediculous social programs were not needed as just about every person in every household were well trained riflemen. There was not much crime as property owners protected their land with strong diligence. Only idiots would tresspass back then, men in general respected private property that much more.
In american history befor the constitution and before the revolutionary war colonists were pretty much property owners who operated outside of the British governmental control. It was pretty much an organized state of anarchy. People operated as nothing more then property owners. Heavy policing and other rediculous social programs were not needed as just about every person in every household were well trained riflemen. There was not much crime as property owners protected their land with strong diligence. Only idiots would tresspass back then, men in general respected private property that much more.
Could you (or anyone here) please recommend any books related to that period and place of american history?
Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment 1681-1690
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
LibertyPatriot:1. How does governance by and for the people, when honorable, conflict with Liberty?2. Please define "Anarchy" as a working political theory? You said you previously defined it, but it is still unclear to me how it might work in practical terms.3. Given the definition in #2, please cite historic examples of it at work?4. If historic examples are not available (and I again submit that the colonies had a working set of governing laws, and so were in no way an anarchy in practice), then please state clearly how you think such a "system" (can it be Anarchy if it requires a system?) would work?
1. It is a myth. The only way to be free from despotic control is to be only involved in voluntary relationships. Any involuntary relationship, by definition, is despotic. So any social contract without 100% agreement, is worthless as a liberty document.
2. Anarchy is voluntarism. Wikipedia can help you with this. Not all of us, but many ascribe to anarcho-capitalism, left-libertarianism or market anarchism.
3. Anywhere that voluntary action occurs without government supervision/coercion is an example of anarchy and spontaneous order.
4. Anarchy is not the absence of law. It is the absence of involuntary laws.
laminustacitus:Who really even cares about legitimacy?
Too true! Much like the quack scientist let us just postulate that was is-is for a reason and therefore above introspection
yoshimura:I agree. It's just the tone of the debate.
It's confrontational and antagonistic. That is what debate against the state involves. Anyone you can sway with soft words and gentle nudges wasn't a serious believer in the myth of state anyway. I mean it is a victory for sure, but it is picking the low hanging fruit.
LibertyPatriot:1. How does governance by and for the people, when honorable, conflict with Liberty?
How can the state say it protects property, when it must violate property to exist?
The people are not the government. The proper class analysis is RULERS vs RULED. Hitler was democratically elected. The Jews didn't commit suicide. They didn't do it to themselves.
LibertyPatriot:2. Please define "Anarchy" as a working political theory? You said you previously defined it, but it is still unclear to me how it might work in practical terms.
Read.
LibertyPatriot:3. Given the definition in #2, please cite historic examples of it at work?
LibertyPatriot:I will read your answers with an open mind.
Thank you. Not much is worse than contempt prior to investigation.
Laughing Man:Much like the quack scientist let us just postulate that was is-is for a reason and therefore above introspection
Terrible analogy, most science, and political science share little to nothing.
laminustacitus:Terrible analogy, most science, and political science share little to nothing.
Of course there is methodological dualism, I was merely being flippant hence the tongue smiley
Conza88: LibertyPatriot:1. How does governance by and for the people, when honorable, conflict with Liberty? How can the state say it protects property, when it must violate property to exist? The people are not the government. The proper class analysis is RULERS vs RULED. Hitler was democratically elected. The Jews didn't commit suicide. They didn't do it to themselves. LibertyPatriot:2. Please define "Anarchy" as a working political theory? You said you previously defined it, but it is still unclear to me how it might work in practical terms. Read.
Link doesn't work
LibertyPatriot: Very well sir, my definition of Liberty: "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control."And, that definition, I would add, is not arbitrary. It is taken from Dictionary.com as the primary definition of Liberty. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty
Very well sir, my definition of Liberty: "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control."And, that definition, I would add, is not arbitrary. It is taken from Dictionary.com as the primary definition of Liberty. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty
I don't think I need to argue that definition at this point. That word "arbitrary". What would you say that means? Cause that's a huge concept.
LibertyPatriot:You will note, that nowhere in that definition is either the need for, or possibility of governance by and for the people excluded.
No. That definition still states that. Well work on that "arbitrary" concept and see if we agree on what it means too. So far no disagreements by me on definitions.
LibertyPatriot:Now, since I have honored your request, and since several here suggest I might become educated from your theories, please enlighten me with specific replies to the following questions:1. How does governance by and for the people, when honorable, conflict with Liberty?
First we need to define arbitrary. I don't want to jump ahead of ourselves. I am honoring what you are asking. To be able to answer this question without long winded writings on my part I'd rather define that concept and start small. Don't want to get too over-worked.
I know. It's a tough nut to swallow. And I don't expect you to find an answer that will satisfy you right away. I think it will slowly come about if you want to continue this discussion with me. Also this might be a good time to ask: Do you think life, liberty, and property exist? I do. But I also definitely think those concepts are not being lived to the fullest, and definitely not the way it might have been conceptualized by Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson.
Anytime a transaction between two people occurs in which both exchange voluntarily - that's anarchy. Nobody was the middleman dictating how the transaction should happen. The two people chose freely on their own. Also every time I have a thought - that's anarchy. When I freely think without a ruler telling me how to think - that's anarchy.
LibertyPatriot:4. If historic examples are not available (and I again submit that the colonies had a working set of governing laws, and so were in no way an anarchy in practice), then please state clearly how you think such a "system" (can it be Anarchy if it requires a system?) would work?
Natural law exists. Of course this is debated on this forum, but I see natural law. In other words, I know a universal unbiased truth exists and therefore justice exists.
I'm trying as well.
liberty student: yoshimura:I agree. It's just the tone of the debate. It's confrontational and antagonistic. That is what debate against the state involves.
It's confrontational and antagonistic. That is what debate against the state involves.
Burn every bridge! Shun all who do not agree with us! Everybody who believes in the existence of the state is a criminal!
liberty student:Anyone you can sway with soft words and gentle nudges wasn't a serious believer in the myth of state anyway. I mean it is a victory for sure, but it is picking the low hanging fruit.
You speak as if you can pick the high-hanging fruit any other way.
Conza88: LibertyPatriot:1. How does governance by and for the people, when honorable, conflict with Liberty? How can the state say it protects property, when it must violate property to exist?
Conza88:The proper class analysis is RULERS vs RULED.
Class analysis is an ad-hoc technique that yields very limited knowledge, esspecially when one pretends that there is an iron-clad difference between rulers, and ruled in the modern world where the majority of the ruled do not believe in the legitimacy of the rulers.
Laughing Man:Of course there is methodological dualism, I was merely being flippant hence the tongue smiley
Real scientists aren't flippant. Scienz is serius bizness!
laminustacitus:Burn every bridge! Shun all who do not agree with us! Everybody who believes in the existence of the state is a criminal!
Oh look who needs some attention in a political thread!
laminustacitus:You speak as if you can pick the high-hanging fruit any other way.
I have never been shy to identify as a libertarian, and I have never been shy about doing outreach. And I have been doing it for several years. What are your credentials as an activist?
laminustacitus: Burn every bridge! Shun all who do not agree with us! Everybody who believes in the existence of the state is a criminal!
Why be soft on those who seek to subjugate either explicitly or implicitly?
laminustacitus:How else do you bring criminals to justice than by denying their property "rights"? Or have you created an imaginary defense of how criminals do not have property rights?
They are violators of rights and therefore to the point they violate the right is to the point where there right is violated. If I steal ten dollars then proportional justice demands the return of that 10 dollars plus damage.
laminustacitus:Class analysis is an ad-hoc technique that yields very limited knowledge, esspecially when one pretends that there is an iron-clad difference between rulers, and ruled in the modern world where the majority of the ruled do not believe in the legitimacy of the rulers.
Right, that is why we see so many anarchist protests on the streets of Washington Ave demanding the end to government.
Hello DD5 -
You make a good point about coercion. If you read the manifestion you will see that our intent is not to coerce anybody. To the contrary, the manifesto is up for debate and I again thank you for honoring that with a good point.
The manifesto is fluid, and thus not seeking to coerce anyone. When it is done, it will be simply a set of ideas in book form -- and so still up for debate. You are of course free to suggest a coercion clause, other clauses to guard against socialism (which we stand against), or to simply wash your hands of it and walk away.
It is interesting to me that if a) you are all against the manifesto as presented, and b) you are certain that you have the correct point of view, that you would spend any time here at all debating same.
I have also noted a couple of comments suggesting I might look back and laugh after I convert to your point of view. Perhaps. But the arrogance assumed is that a) your point of view is correct, and b) that you will never change your own interpretation.
I believe, that in the end, each forum, movement, and society must set a standard to which a majority adhere for the good of the people. Or, you could simply run free in the fields.
I know you don't like that analogy, so please tell me how "capitalists" could survive without agreements as to value of goods or services, just barter or monetary exchange, and without referee (the law) in a system for same?
It still is not clear how anarchy, or ano-capitalism, can be practical, efficient, just, and so for the good of the people.
All governance is evil? What about the laws of nature itself -- are they evil? Don't they govern reality? Or did you mean history has shown time and again the evil of humans acting against the will of the people within a government designed to do only those things the people cannot do by themselves.
Can individuals, with no uniform agreement, build a battleship? Please, tell me how. Maybe you are advocating an anarchic world in which battleships are unnecessary? But that's not reality, is it?
In true Liberty - "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control."Scott
liberty student:Real scientists aren't flippant. Scienz is serius bizness!
The scientific method cannot be applied to humor therefore it is some kind of odd quirk inherent in the illogical
LibertyPatriot:I believe, that in the end, each forum, movement, and society must set a standard to which a majority adhere for the good of the people. Or, you could simply run free in the fields.
So then you admit that there will be a minority of individuals who are subjugated under your government for the purpose of providing the 'good of the people'?
LibertyPatriot:so please tell me how "capitalists" could survive without agreements as to value of goods or services, just barter or monetary exchange,
Bring in the economists!
LibertyPatriot: and without referee (the law) in a system for same?
The government is not law, nor is law the government. Law can be achieved without government therefore government is not necessary concerning a justice system.
LibertyPatriot:All governance is evil? What about the laws of nature itself -- are they evil?
Government is not a law of nature. Therefore you state a nonsequitar.
LibertyPatriot:Can individuals, with no uniform agreement, build a battleship? Please, tell me how.
What use would there be for battleships? I'm not saying they couldn't be built, I merely asking why they would be needed.
LibertyPatriot:It still is not clear how anarchy, or ano-capitalism, can be practical, efficient, just, and so for the good of the people.
It is to me. You are making an argument from ignorance again.
I used to be a big supporter of the constitution/minarchy/"good government"/democracy. It is a waste of time. No revolution will be complete with a return to limited government. We've learned our lesson from past failures.
Perhaps this will help
Sage: From Minarchism to Anarchism in Ten Easy Steps A Guide for Constitutionalists The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts - Murray Rothbard Police, Courts, and Laws – on the Market - David Friedman The Private Production of Defense - Hans Hoppe The Production of Security - Gustave de Molinari Chaos Theory - Robert Murphy No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority - Lysander Spooner Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security - Hans Hoppe Market Anarchism As Constitutionalism - Roderick Long Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? - Alfred Cuzán Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections - Roderick Long (Audio)
liberty student: laminustacitus:Burn every bridge! Shun all who do not agree with us! Everybody who believes in the existence of the state is a criminal! Oh look who needs some attention in a political thread!
...
liberty student: laminustacitus:You speak as if you can pick the high-hanging fruit any other way. I have never been shy to identify as a libertarian, and I have never been shy about doing outreach. And I have been doing it for several years. What are your credentials as an activist?
More than plenty. Nevertheless, you dodged my entire post.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus: Burn every bridge! Shun all who do not agree with us! Everybody who believes in the existence of the state is a criminal! Why be soft on those who seek to subjugate either explicitly or implicitly?
There's a difference between being soft, and being both cordial, and enjoyable; if you are not the latter two then you will find that nobody will desire your opinion.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:How else do you bring criminals to justice than by denying their property "rights"? Or have you created an imaginary defense of how criminals do not have property rights? They are violators of rights and therefore to the point they violate the right is to the point where there right is violated. If I steal ten dollars then proportional justice demands the return of that 10 dollars plus damage.
Why is proportional justice true justice? Or is true justice killing whomever violates another's property?
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:Class analysis is an ad-hoc technique that yields very limited knowledge, esspecially when one pretends that there is an iron-clad difference between rulers, and ruled in the modern world where the majority of the ruled do not believe in the legitimacy of the rulers. Right, that is why we see so many anarchist protests on the streets of Washington Ave demanding the end to government.
You act as if every logical person should be an anarchist, which is quite a fault starting position.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
laminustacitus:More than plenty.
More than plenty is what? IIRC, you don't even identify as a libertarian. What is your political ideology? What was your activism?
laminustacitus:Nevertheless, you dodged my entire post.
The last time we tangled in a proper political thread, you banned someone, then gave yourself a timeout from the forum. As much fun as it is to tweak people who are wound too tight, I'm not a sadist, and would rather skip this round of Lam vs. LS.
That said, you're a grown man, so if you really want to play, I'm game.
Juan:Lam, your reactionary, value-free value-laden, apolitical political comments, are boring.
Juan, your endless insulting is a broken record, and that seems to be the only thing you can do lately.
Debaters -
I thank you for the debate, and am unconcerned with any tone. My primary interest is in education, and in learning, and so all that is required are open minds by all involved who share such an interest. Of course a certain structure makes the process much more efficient -- a case for just governance, is it not?
As you have noted, I came here freely, and chose the forum and what I would present. Have at it is the correct response.
Wilderness asked me to define "arbitrary". Here you go (from wikipedia.org): "choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula."
Recall that the request came in response to the definition of Liberty given: "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control."
So, I now propose to you that a government (much smaller and much more honorable than in present supply) may indeed act on principle to govern for the good of the people. Why is that to be desired? Simply and only for those things individuals cannot do for themselves. I think you know the specific examples, but for point of debate, let's take a national highway system.
- Scott
laminustacitus:There's a difference between being soft, and being both cordial, and enjoyable; if you are not the latter two then you will find that nobody will desire your opinion.
I am enjoyable and yet like Nitro said being enjoyable does not mean being soft. I am not willing to be a people pleaser to every individual who comes to these forums, I reserve my ability to be harsh or kind to who I deem deserve it and stay within the agreed upon contract of these forums.
laminustacitus:Why is proportional justice true justice? Or is true justice killing whomever violates another's property?
Because any less is not just nor is anymore. It is not just to kill a man for merely stealing a pen, nor is it just to make a murder pay only 10 dollars for their homicidal actions.
laminustacitus: You act as if every logical person should be an anarchist, which is quite a fault starting position.
Given that there is no logic in any other ideology, a logical person should be an anarchist. I am willing to hear how you think there is logic in let us say 'Conservatism' or 'Socialism'.
Why de-rail the thread?
Not aimed @ you LibertyPatriot
all monopoly involuntary government is despotic. how could it be otherwise?
can a monopoly involuntary governmental class ruling over innocents possibly be benevolent?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
LibertyPatriot: the good of the people.
LibertyPatriot:I now propose to you that a government (much smaller and much more honorable than in present supply) may indeed act on principle to govern for the good of the people.
What is the good of the people? Does it involve individual liberty?
LibertyPatriot:Why is that to be desired? Simply and only for those things individuals cannot do for themselves.
What can the state do that individuals cannot?
LibertyPatriot: I think you know the specific examples, but for point of debate, let's take a national highway system.
The roads, the roads, they always start with the roads. There is no reason why a national highway system is needed, and if it is, there is no reason why it cannot be built privately either by one operator, or a series of operators with connected highways.