[Rushtalk] Myth and Truth About Libertarianism
Dennis Putnam, Jr.
dput at bellsouth.net
Sat Sep 29 16:54:54 MDT 2012
From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Putnam
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:52 PM
To: Rushtalk Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Myth and Truth About Libertarianism
In my opinion, it is a natural law that anyone using the handle "Paf" to
post on Rushtalk should be locked in solitary confinement for life. In
addition all his/her relatives should be required to forfeit all their
assets to all those using their real name on Rushtalk.
On 9/29/2012 6:38 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:
On 9/29/2012 12:56 PM, Paf Dvorak wrote:
At 11:41 AM 9/29/2012 -0700, you wrote:
On 9/29/2012 9:37 AM, Paf Dvorak wrote:
And who is going to make the rules, and who will enforce them?
The "rules" are natural law. You should enforce them for you and I for me.
What in the word is natural law? Where can I find that written down
somewhere? I am sure we'd get a universal consensus on interpretation. And
therein lies a major rub. Each free individual has his or her own law, with
each individual enforcing it as he or she sees fit. The difference between
this and vigilantism is ?
How long before someone (or many probably) decided they wanted to be boss?
History is riddled with same.
Yes, you are correct. But do you think bullies should be able to do this?
Don't you think one should be able to repel wannabe slave-holder with
Hmmm. Perhaps, but who decides when its time to do that. Incrementalism
makes it difficult to draw that line. And human nature clearly dictates
that not all will see the line in the same place at the same time.
True. I guess I would decide for me, and you for you.
This is along the lines of the argument RKBA folks use when suggesting
everyone should carry:
"An armed society is a polite society."
If you knew that there was no police force to be a bully with a gun for you
if you crossed the line, maybe you'd think twice before crossing it.
First of all, it is ludicrous to believe that everyone would "carry". And
if I live in a society where I need to, how truly free am I?
And if it is true that "an armed society is a polite society", then this
great freedom of which you write derives from fear, not morality. How free
am I then?
No, it doesn't, and is an exaggeration. But you already showed above by
your suggestion of "terminate with extreme prejudice" that deadly force is
appropriate even in situations without the same threat. Where is that line
drawn, and how is it enforced?
Without the same threat? Stealing the fruits of my labor is a good line.
After all, our lives on earth and finite. And what I choose to do with that
time should be totally up to me. If you and the majority think some of my
time should be spent on things you value, you're wanting to take from me a
portion of my life. Just because you aren't taking it all doesn't mean that
I do not want to take anything from you. Never hinted that I did. But I
have met some people who have a pretty warped perception about "things being
taken from them." Again, this boils down to each making his or her own
rules and having the freedom to enforce them - sound or ridiculous.
My line is drawn at my nose. Don't you know when someone else is in your
space? How do you repel someone in your space now? I'm not trying to create
a Utopia. Utopia isn't an option.
I don't terminate them with extreme prejudice. And I don't advocate same
for stealing from me (though I admit it's tempting).
This is the argument against private ownership of the roads. It is a good
question and is answered in many libertarian books and articles. It really
has nothing to do with anarchy though, at least not as defined above.
I am not interested in reading the books. The reason, is that you simply do
not provide a compelling reason to investigate this concept any further.
Ok. Well you brought the subject up. I'm not so much a libertarian as
libertarians are pro others-government. They say they're for
self-government, but not 100%. Maybe Dennis Jr. can answer your question
better than I.
No. You bring this whole issue and concept to the forefront, not Dennis Jr.
330,000,000 simply can't be free to do whatever they want. But that doesn't
mean I favor what we have today. We have a mess. But what you suggest
would be an even bigger one.
I don't think I do. I think we're closer in our beliefs on this than you
think. (I think) ;-)
Here is it again for review:
People everywhere live their lives in anarchy wherever they can, that is
they make arrangements between themselves with no government threatening
violence to influence their decisions. They trade, pick sexual partners,
enjoy hobbies, buy what suits them and makes plans, all without the
interference of government. Even though they may not acknowledge how much
they prefer anarchy (because they don't understand that the best parts of
life are lived in the absence of a ruler), they will often try to minimize
the roll of government in their own lives. As much as they may support the
idea of taxes, for example, most of the sheeple will try to minimize (within
the bounds of the law, of course!) how much they have to render unto Caesar.
Do you disagree?
On what you write in this paragraph, no, I do not disagree. But I have
still read here no convincing argument that we could survive without some
form of centralized governing body; there are simply way too many differing
opinions on what is right and on how things should be.
I don't see that. I only see straw men (but I answered anyway). Maybe I'm
Straw men is an excuse you have made before. is this to be your cop-out when
you have no legitimate answer? These aren't straw men; these are but very
few of the real issues with which the society you promote will have to deal.
Your promotion is shallow.
Stephen A. Frye
s.frye at verizon.net
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk