> *Anarcissie* wrote:

>> On May 8, 1:12 am, Michael Price yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On May 8, 11:21 am, "*Anarcissie*" gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> On May 7, 3:48 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>>> I think you're confused. First of all, you've switched from a
>>>> moralistic argument to an anthropological one: from "humans are
>>>> so evil that they require government to restrain them", to "all
>>>> human communities exhibit a state". (This is incorrect, but it
>>>> could be improved with qualification.) Secondly, you're
>>>> confused about libertarians. Libertarians are liberals: they
>>>> believe a state is necessary.

>>> Some of them do, they're called "minarchists". The term was coined
>>> by libertarians to distinguish them from libertarian anarchists.

>> I'm just going by common usage. I think we can call people who
>> assert that the state is unnecessary and undesirable, or who live
>> that way, "anarchists", leaving "libertarian" for liberals who prefer
>> the government to be as small and light as possible, but who believe
>> that some government is necessary (Locke, Jefferson, Nozick, etc.)

> Since Sound of Trumpet, enabled by Google Groups, has
> turned these newsgroups into religion forums, I
> thought you'd all enjoy this hilarious story by Matt
> Taibbi, originally published in _Rolling_Stone_.