[Rushtalk] Myth and Truth About Libertarianism

Paf Dvorak notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
Sat Sep 29 23:19:36 MDT 2012


At 06:54 PM 9/29/2012 -0400, you wrote:


>Wow!

Yeah. I guess I'm forcing y'all to have to look at my nick name.
I believe it's insane to use ones real name on the interwebs. This 
used to be a given.
FWIW, if you type the word Paf on a Dvorak keyboard you get my real 
first name...

>
>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:
>
>
><snip>
>
>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 extreme prejudice?
>
>
>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 it's ok.
>
>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 missing something.
>
>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
><mailto:s.frye at verizon.net>s.frye at verizon.net
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
><mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

Paf Dvorak

notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20120930/0a7ec4cd/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list