|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: joseph2kjoseph2k Date: Jul 9, 2007 04:11
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:48:48 -0700, MooseFET wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 3:54 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian example.net>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:36:05 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:
>>>> Richard The...
|
| Show full article (1.96Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: MooseFETMooseFET Date: Jul 9, 2007 06:53
On Jul 9, 4:01 am, joseph2k yahoo.com> wrote:> Simon S Aysdie wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 11:59 pm, joseph2k yahoo.com> wrote:>>> Simon S Aysdie wrote:
>>>> On Jul 5, 6:48 pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:>>>>> On Jul 5, 3:54 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian example.net>
>>>>> wrote:>
>>>>>> What is this "access to the green" stuff you keep chanting?
>
>>>>> Do you want a contract to be valid and enforced. Do you want police?
>
>>>> He doesn't want *your* police.
>
>>>>> You get the courts enforcing contracts
>>>>> etc.
>
>>>> You mean he gets *your* police and courts.
>
>>>> He's saying he does not need a guvmint for these things, and he is ...
|
| Show full article (2.04Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: MooseFETMooseFET Date: Jul 9, 2007 07:08
On Jul 8, 11:01 am, Simon S Aysdie ti.com> wrote:> On Jul 7, 10:11 pm, mzen...@ eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
> >
>>>You are a statist.
>
>> Hey, Little Dog, here's a clue. You're just a Bolshevik with a few
>> bits flipped. You share the same mechanistic 19th century model
>> of human nature (with a few inversions in the axioms) that made
>> the Soviet Union such a success.
>
> Amusing that in your world un-state means state.
No, he just understands the real situation. You can't have a
situation of no government. As soon as you have a population greater
than one, you will get some sort of government. He understands that,
you don't.
|
| Show full article (2.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MooseFETMooseFET Date: Jul 9, 2007 07:15
On Jul 8, 10:23 am, Simon S Aysdie ti.com> wrote:> On Jul 7, 12:58 pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 12:44 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian example.net>
>> wrote:>
>> Then you need a court system.
>
> I would agree that courts would form and evolve -- they did. The
> point of contention is whether they should be in the purview of The
> State. They should not.
As soon as there is a court system that you can't laugh at when they
rule against you, you have a government and the court system is part
of it. You can't avoid it.
|
| Show full article (1.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John LarkinJohn Larkin Date: Jul 9, 2007 08:17
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:01:32 -0700, joseph2k yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> Statism is a religion.
>My religion is a very limited state, and even more limited corporations.
But then nothing large-scale would ever be accomplished: roads,
manufacturing, medicine, construction, communications, efficient
agriculture, energy distribution, clean water. You are basically
nostalgic for a primitive, third-world village culture; I'm sure not.
John
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Simon S AysdieSimon S Aysdie Date: Jul 9, 2007 11:04
On Jul 9, 7:08 am, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:
> [I]t says that when you take away government you get a new one.
Umm, no. Nozick made arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia that a
least a minimal state would (re-)emerge. Not everyone has found his
arguments persuasive.
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentynine.asp
And also, what you are calling government, isn't what everyone else
calls government. That's why I gave you those references. You could
find out what people mean by it. For example, look at footnote 1 in
the following paper:
/Do Pessimistic Assumptions about Human Behavior Justify Government?/
-- Benjamin Powell and Christopher Coyne
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/17_4/17_4_2.pdf
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Simon S AysdieSimon S Aysdie Date: Jul 9, 2007 11:20
On Jul 9, 4:01 am, joseph2k yahoo.com> wrote:
> See also many high profile defendants
> walking free, in spite of committing major crimes, like that football guy
> of those Enron executives.
Those you speak of were tried in guvmint courts. Those you speak of
resided where there was a guvmint monopoly on justice. So maybe your
example isn't so good.
> My religion is a very limited state, and even more limited corporations.
I went for quite some time down the "enumerated powers" and "limited
government" path. I really wanted to believe in that, but self-
honesty forced me to admit it really didn't work. I lost confidence
in that approach, and against all I've been told and taught, had to
admit that the nature of guvmint -- even when formed as a limited
power entity -- tends by its very nature to consume more and more, to
gradually drift from enumerated powers to plenary powers.
|
| Show full article (1.54Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Simon S AysdieSimon S Aysdie Date: Jul 9, 2007 11:24
On Jul 9, 7:15 am, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:> On Jul 8, 10:23 am, Simon S Aysdie ti.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 12:58 pm, MooseFET rahul.net> wrote:>>> You don't have a free market if people take whatever they want by
>>> force. You are assuming that a free market can exist without a court
>>> system and a police force to ensure that the market is in fact free.
>
>> The point is not to "have no courts and no justice system." The point
>> is to have a free one -- not a state-run monopoly.
I should not have wrote "one," as polycentric is the actual call.
> ...The instant they have enough power to
> make their rulings matter at all, they are part of the
> government.
This is fundamentally incorrect, as I've pointed out before.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Richard The Dreaded LibertarianRichard The Dreaded Libertarian Date: Jul 9, 2007 14:30
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:24:50 -0700, MooseFET wrote:
...
> Your failure is in seeing that it only takes a small fraction of the
> population having evil intent to make trouble. Take a look at the
> real world and you will see this proven over and over.
Oh, I know that a small fraction of the population with evil intent makes
trouble.
They're called "governments".
Cheers!
Rich
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Richard The Dreaded LibertarianRichard The Dreaded Libertarian Date: Jul 9, 2007 14:35
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:28:29 -0700, MooseFET wrote:
> On Jul 7, 3:20 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian example.net>>> That's very, very sad.
>
> It would be if it was true. Equally sad is your child like trust that
> because the majority are honest all will be.
>
Maybe it would benefit you to grow up a little bit and learn to discern
when a person is trustworthy.
Good Luck!
RIch
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
