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
>>> correct. Protection and courts would be available on the open market
>>> if the guvmint did not claim a coercive monopoly on them by violent
>>> force.
>>
>>
>> And why would any sane (non-multimillionare) person trade-in the current,
>> admittedly flawed, and price dependant system we have for a pure "how
>> much justice can you pay for" based system?
>
> "Price dependent?" That's a hoot. The guvmint monopoly on "justice"
> destroyed the price system for courts.
Be the price money or influence, the monopoly on courts and police remains.
You have choice, move or don't. See also many high profile defendants
walking free, in spite of committing major crimes, like that football guy
of those Enron executives.
>
> Besides, that is only your warped statist cliche, in any case.
>
>>> You are a statist.
>>
>> You are a nutter.
>
> Statism is a religion.
My religion is a very limited state, and even more limited corporations.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.В В
--Schiller
