Free State Wyoming Forum
Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Topic started by: Liberty99 on June 14, 2010, 12:05:08 AM
-
Hello, everyone! I'm a possible FSW mover (although not for at least a few years since I just graduated college and whatnot) here in St. Louis County, MO (Ballwin suburbs at the moment). I got intrigued when I heard about this from a video with Boston T. Party. I noticed that a lot of people mentioned stuff like big gov't, esp. in economic matters, and gun control as reasons for leaving other areas and going to WY. However, as a libertarian, social issues have been just as important to me as economics. Obviously, we need free markets, low taxes and a small or nonexistent welfare state to succeed. However, when I was reading the posts from people who had moved, they mainly explained that they were fed up with 'socialism' in states like California and also wanted gun rights.
I respect that, but what about social freedom? ??? What about fighting the War on Drugs or better drug policy? Medical marijuana? What about the freedom to consume whatever the hell you want? What about sexual privacy and freedom? What about if someone's gay and doesn't wanna be treated like a pariah and want the freedom to marry and whatnot? What if you wanna drink in moderation and don't want some jackass bureaucrat restricting that freedom (I hear that WY is an alcoholic beverage control state)? How judgmental and anti-freedom are average Wyomingians in this regard? Are they moderate or more conservative?
I understand that Wyoming is called "The Equality State", was first to give women suffrage and had the first woman governor. However, if what I read on wiki, for what it's worth, is right, it has a whopping 79% Christians (and about 10% are Mormons, o jeez), AND it's a red state (and if I recall, not a swing state, either). Republicans have long-dominated state and federal politics regarding WY, which kind of worries me. I'm glad the Republicans, at least in rhetoric (since few of them actually practice what they preach anymore, esp. on spending), are right on economic issues, but their stances on social issues and alliances with the Religious Right frightens me. As you can imagine, I'm an agnostic, and I don't like moralist religious folks telling me how to live or that "being gay is sinful" or whatever.
So that brings to mind a few big questions:
1) Are there a lot of FSWers who are 'full-blown' libertarians? Aka favor economic AND social liberty (not merely libertarian-conservative or libertarian-leaning cons)
2) Would you say the average Wyomingian favors shit like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or are they more noninterventionist?
3) Are there any good 'libertarian' cities in Wyoming that aren't as conservative or Republican-leaning (and don't favor Dems much either)?
4) Are there any people in this forum who moved from big REPUBLICAN/Red states because they felt stifled by statist neocons who are more Bible-thumping in their areas? I know there are already plenty who moved from places that had less economic freedom.
-
I'm not in Wyoming, just biding my time til I can move. But from the interactions I have with people here on the board here is my opinion.
1. Yes, there's some that would call themselves just about every political persuasion. From anarchist, voluntaryists, and a healthy dose of Libertarians to some more mainline conservatives. The people that are here are looking for their own personal freedom. It's not like the guys up in NH that are looking to change the world by being pushy.
2. Search through the forums to see about the stance on war. The last thread was many, many pages with all sorts of differing opinions. But going off your comment that WY is a "red" state, where do you think the general stance of the state is? Opinions of board members are all over the place.
3 and 4. Someone else will be able to answer that better then I.
I respect that, but what about social freedom? ??? What about fighting the War on Drugs or better drug policy? Medical marijuana? What about the freedom to consume whatever the hell you want? What about sexual privacy and freedom? What about if someone's gay and doesn't wanna be treated like a pariah and want the freedom to marry and whatnot? What if you wanna drink in moderation and don't want some jackass bureaucrat restricting that freedom (I hear that WY is an alcoholic beverage control state)? How judgmental and anti-freedom are average Wyomingians in this regard? Are they moderate or more conservative?
I understand that Wyoming... is a whopping 79% Christians (and about 10% are Mormons, o jeez),
As you can imagine, I'm an agnostic, and I don't like moralist religious folks telling me how to live or that "being gay is sinful" or whatever.
I know of no activism being done for fighting the War on Drugs in WY. Most of the people I talk to seem to want to just live their life out without being bugged and aren't as interested in making waves about topics other then gun rights.
On being gay. You didn't say if you were or not, and it doesn't matter to most people. Just keep your sex life in the bedroom where everyone else does and it's not a big deal. But keep in mind, the state is mostly "Christian" and the viewpoints of Liberty minded people may not reflect the general population of the state.
I've only visited WY, and only Lincoln County which is HEAVILY Mormon saturated, and I never felt like anyone was pushing me to go to their church or pushing their beliefs on me. Most of the people seemed to judge you solely on your character and if you were a good worker or lazy.
Liberty means different things for different folks. Your idea of personal freedom probably won't match mine, and mine certainly doesn't match everyone else's. Work on achieving your version of Liberty in your life and then worry about others. If you're free, does it matter if you're surrounded by people that aren't as long as they aren't forcing you to be someone you're not?
-
Interesting. ;D
I'm not gay, for the record, but gay rights has always been a big issue for me. I was asking about all that stuff to see if FSW or the general Free State Project in New Hampshire is better for me. It looks to me like maybe NH might be best for someone very politically motivated and interested like me. I'm always hankering for more freedom, but I don't feel terribly threatened at the moment, seeing as how I'm unemployed, live with my mom (until I can afford to move out), and am not paying any big taxes like property taxes. Missouri politics doesn't seem to have really affected me in a big way, either. Only time will tell.
Also, I've never been a fan of cold weather. :-\
-
Most of the West seems to have a 'mind your own business' culture.
You can find routine stories of gay bashing in 'liberal' metros like NY, LA, or San Fran.
Crimes that will include gang rape of Lesbians and outright murder of gay men.
Statistics are hard to find but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that gays are safer in Wy than any lefty city in America.
Don't let democratic rhetoric fool you.
Gay rights mean nothing without the basic Human Right of self defense, which of course liberals hate.
-
from Liberty99:
So that brings to mind a few big questions:
1) Are there a lot of FSWers who are 'full-blown' libertarians? Aka favor economic AND social liberty (not merely libertarian-conservative or libertarian-leaning cons)
I don't know if there are "a lot". I consider myself "full blown". I believe there should be NO drug laws. I believe there should be no abortion laws. I don't really like homosexuals, but agree they can do whatever they want. Whether they should be able to be "married" like a man and woman I'm not really sure about. I don't believe in ANY public schools, but think it's unrealistic to get rid of them since they are so entrenched in the public mind. I don't like illegals coming across the border. Don't know what that says about my libertarianism.
2) Would you say the average Wyomingian favors shit like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or are they more noninterventionist?
I don't know.
3) Are there any good 'libertarian' cities in Wyoming that aren't as conservative or Republican-leaning (and don't favor Dems much either)?
I doubt it.
4) Are there any people in this forum who moved from big REPUBLICAN/Red states because they felt stifled by statist neocons who are more Bible-thumping in their areas? I know there are already plenty who moved from places that had less economic freedom.
I don't know.
Furthermore, in my experience, I find that most FSW folks do NOT get involved in politics. I don't know of any running for office. I don't know of any who have run for office. I don't know anyone part of a campaign. I don't know of any who have organized a Tea Party. Some will write to their elected officials. Many don't. Some think that it's a lost cause. One or two think that even voting is a form of aggression.
Glad to have been of help! Just because I don't know of anyone doing this or that doesn't mean much. Lots of people keep to themselves. It's the libertarian way. Go off by yourself and hope that nobody bothers you. Sadly, reality doesn't work that way.
Mac
-
Liberty99, have you ever considered the premise of Individual Rights vs. Group rights, i.e. Gay rights?
Individuality of Rights
FOURTH, that we shall regard Rights to be neither collective nor additive in Character -- two individuals shall have no more Rights than one, nor shall two million nor two thousand million -- nor shall any Group possess Rights in Excess of those belonging to its individual members;
http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html
Here is some more along the same lines;
"There is no such thing as Gay Rights, Women's Rights, or Minority Rights. The only rights that exist are Human Rights, those that apply to ALL people. Any 'rights' that apply only to certain groups are privileges that they are attempting to obtain by mislabeling them as rights." -- John Dobbins
http://freedomkeys.com/rights.htm
-
Liberty99,
I'm no authority here, just one old guy, listening in to the forum. Judging from your first posts, I expect you are right; you would probably be better off just heading on up to NH. Just my guess.
-
Liberty99, have you ever considered the premise of Individual Rights vs. Group rights, i.e. Gay rights?
Individuality of Rights
FOURTH, that we shall regard Rights to be neither collective nor additive in Character -- two individuals shall have no more Rights than one, nor shall two million nor two thousand million -- nor shall any Group possess Rights in Excess of those belonging to its individual members;
http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html
Here is some more along the same lines;
"There is no such thing as Gay Rights, Women's Rights, or Minority Rights. The only rights that exist are Human Rights, those that apply to ALL people. Any 'rights' that apply only to certain groups are privileges that they are attempting to obtain by mislabeling them as rights." -- John Dobbins
http://freedomkeys.com/rights.htm
Well, when I use a term like "gay rights" I am referring to extending human rights and equality to those people that they have been denied that the majority get for free, primarily when gov't itself and public institutions discriminate. I personally would favor just completely privatizing marriage and get the gov't out of it. However, since that seems almost impossible to convince legislatures to do, and there aren't any current movements to do that, I'm afraid we're gonna have to work within the legal framework. Therefore, in my opinion, gay couples who wanna marry should have every right to, esp. what with all the legal advantages of marriage that straight couples get. 8)
I'm not necessarily saying that people get rights b/c they belong to certain groups, as I favor individual rights first and foremost, but that is just the rhetorical framework that I'm used to, so I use those terms since most people know what I'm referring to easily.
-
However, since that seems almost impossible to convince legislatures to do, and there aren't any current movements to do that, I'm afraid we're gonna have to work within the legal framework. Therefore, in my opinion, gay couples who wanna marry should have every right to, esp. what with all the legal advantages of marriage that straight couples get.
Do you believe that a majority of the electorate can, or should have the power to decide who does and doesn't have rights?
Is the cure for cancer more cancer?
Is the solution for bad government more bad government?
Liberty99,
I'm no authority here, just one old guy, listening in to the forum. Judging from your first posts, I expect you are right; you would probably be better off just heading on up to NH. Just my guess.
I had the same feeling.
The Porcupines are good people. No shame in having an Activist agenda if that is what appeals to you.
-
Politics and politicians, and bureaucrats make my ass tired. I do not practice any organized religion. Doctrine and dogmatism also make my ass tired. I do however believe in a a supreme being, I call it God or the supreme entity of the universe. I don't believe those who practice any religion have any more higher morals than those who do not practice an organized religion. I do not live up to or down to any one else's standards or morals, I have my own and have found they're not worse or better than anyone else's regardless of spiritual philosophy. If you are agnostic thats fine and dandy with me, just don't prosyletise it to me (Spelling) I aint gonna look up the right way to spell it either, you get my drift on it I presume, if not, Oh well, In my opinion FSW is a herd of cats and I like it that way, if you cannot handle that and need supra organized affairs I don't suppose you'll fit in to well. Other'n that you can give us a whilrl and see if it fits. What more can I say??
-
However, since that seems almost impossible to convince legislatures to do, and there aren't any current movements to do that, I'm afraid we're gonna have to work within the legal framework. Therefore, in my opinion, gay couples who wanna marry should have every right to, esp. what with all the legal advantages of marriage that straight couples get.
Do you believe that a majority of the electorate can, or should have the power to decide who does and doesn't have rights?
Is the cure for cancer more cancer?
Is the solution for bad government more bad government?
Well, of course I don't believe in democracy or a tyranny of the majority. This nation was founded as a republic and should stay that way. ;) That's one big reason why I vehemently oppose all those gay marriage amendments passed by all the states. The majority should never have the power to take away ANYONE's rights. We all have unalienable, natural rights, of course. Some people may think using initiatives or recalls is simply "taking back power from the representatives who squandered it", but it can and oftentimes has been abused. People should not fool themselves into thinking the ballot initiative process is any less corrupt or has less of a chance of bringing about bad outcomes.
Obviously the solution for bad gov't is not more bad gov't; however, I am also a pragmatist. :-\ Until we can reasonably convince people that privatizing things like marriage is preferable to gov't giving all these special privileges to married couples, I'm afraid we're gonna have to work within the system. Most people, esp. many proponents of extending marriage or civil unions to gays, still have this mindset that the only way to do it is through gov't. I don't foresee that we'll be able to convince them to favor privatization of marriage in this country, which would be a much better situation for all, until years down the line. That's just a fact of life. And of course, the religious conservative types who vehemently oppose gay marriage and want it banned aren't just gonna give up on all those gay marriage amendments and initiatives anytime soon, esp. if you tell them "Just leave it up to society and get the gov't out." They might view it as "admitting defeat", at least until we can convince them otherwise.
Also, there are some emergency or special situations where I think even if we DO privatize marriage, one could still reasonably require operations such as hospitals to let partners have visitation rights, gay or straight. I mean, no one plans on getting sick and having to go the hospital, and I highly doubt many hospitals do or would automatically share info on whether they accept domestic partners or gay couples. Maybe they would in a privatized marriage environment (who knows). So it'd be harder to use the market to figure out which hospital is best, esp. if your partner has a heart attack or something and needs an ambulance immediately. The driver can't just go to one that's farther away because "they let gays have visitation rights." That could put the victim at further risk. I'm a big fan of the free market and private property rights (defended Rand Paul's statements as well), but I think there are some rare circumstances where that may need to be bypassed, nonetheless. Nothing too coercive, but sometimes there may be no alternative or a vibrant enough market to leave it to itself, at least presently.
-
Politics and politicians, and bureaucrats make my ass tired. I do not practice any organized religion. Doctrine and dogmatism also make my ass tired. I do however believe in a a supreme being, I call it God or the supreme entity of the universe. I don't believe those who practice any religion have any more higher morals than those who do not practice an organized religion. I do not live up to or down to any one else's standards or morals, I have my own and have found they're not worse or better than anyone else's regardless of spiritual philosophy. If you are agnostic thats fine and dandy with me, just don't prosyletise it to me (Spelling) I aint gonna look up the right way to spell it either, you get my drift on it I presume, if not, Oh well, In my opinion FSW is a herd of cats and I like it that way, if you cannot handle that and need supra organized affairs I don't suppose you'll fit in to well. Other'n that you can give us a whilrl and see if it fits. What more can I say??
I won't proselytize if you don't. 8)
-
Hello, everyone! I'm a possible FSW mover (although not for at least a few years since I just graduated college and whatnot) here in St. Louis County, MO (Ballwin suburbs at the moment). I got intrigued when I heard about this from a video with Boston T. Party. I noticed that a lot of people mentioned stuff like big gov't, esp. in economic matters, and gun control as reasons for leaving other areas and going to WY. However, as a libertarian, social issues have been just as important to me as economics. Obviously, we need free markets, low taxes and a small or nonexistent welfare state to succeed. However, when I was reading the posts from people who had moved, they mainly explained that they were fed up with 'socialism' in states like California and also wanted gun rights.
Yeah, we do like our guns. Even me, and I'm one of the least gunny of the bunch.
I respect that, but what about social freedom? ??? What about fighting the War on Drugs or better drug policy? Medical marijuana? What about the freedom to consume whatever the hell you want? What about sexual privacy and freedom?
I'm an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, so I'm all for freedom on all that. Bu-ut..... What about if someone's gay and doesn't wanna be treated like a pariah and want the freedom to marry and whatnot?
No one has any "right" to not be treated like a pariah. Many people *should* be treated like pariahs.
What if you wanna drink in moderation and don't want some jackass bureaucrat restricting that freedom (I hear that WY is an alcoholic beverage control state)?
Umm, if it is, you wouldn't know it. There's more liquor stores per capita in Gillette than you can believe. And actually, that's the only visible effect of any gov't laws about alcohol sales -- there's tons of liquor stores because there's a law that you can't sell it in gas stations.
How judgmental and anti-freedom are average Wyomingians in this regard? Are they moderate or more conservative?
Being judgmental and anti-freedom are two very different things. Perhaps opposite things in a way. Nothing wrong with being judgmental. I think this "alternative lifestyle" trend is a terrible thing. I am opposed to all this tolerance and multiple-cultural garbage. Old-fashioned family values are the best. Some standards and morals are better than others, some ways of living are profoundly unsuccessful, and I'm not afraid to say so.
As you can imagine, I'm an agnostic, and I don't like moralist religious folks telling me how to live or that "being gay is sinful" or whatever.
I think you must ask yourself whether you are a libertarian or a libertine. Is your dream world to be surrounded by gay, drug-using, functionally-illiterate prostitutes with every square inch of their body tatooed or pierced? For everyone to give up believing in any kind of traditional morality? That is not my dream world. The gov't shouldn't be involved, on that we agree. But no social pressure either? No religious people telling you that you're wrong, making you a pariah, nor even just looking judgmetally on you? That's a very different issue. Saying that unwed mothers shouldn't be locked up is different than saying "we need more unwed mothers".
So that brings to mind a few big questions:
1) Are there a lot of FSWers who are 'full-blown' libertarians? Aka favor economic AND social liberty (not merely libertarian-conservative or libertarian-leaning cons)
Most of the ones actually in Wyoming actually are full-blown libertarians. More so than you'd expect just from reading the forum, which has some more moderate and right-wing voices.
-
To understand more where I'm coming from about libertinism vs. Libertarianism, here's a snippet from Hans Hoppe:
On the libertarian side, the cooperation with conservatives was motivated by the insight that while libertarianism may be logically compatible with many cultures, sociologically it requires a conservative, bourgeois core culture. The decision to form an intellectual alliance with conservatives then involved for the libertarians a double break with “Establishment Libertarianism” as represented, for instance, by the Washington DC “free market” Cato Institute.
This Establishment Libertarianism was not only theoretically in error, with its commitment to the impossible goal of limited government (and centralized government at that): it was also sociologically flawed, with its anti-bourgeois—indeed, adolescent—so-called “cosmopolitan” cultural message: of multiculturalism and egalitarianism, of “respect no authority”, of “live-and-let-live”, of hedonism and libertinism.
The anti-establishment Austro-libertarians sought to learn more from the conservative side about the cultural requirements of a free and prosperous commonwealth. And by and large they did and learned their lesson. At least, I think that I did. -- http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/hans-hermann-hoppe/the-property-and-freedom-society-reflections-after-5-years/
And also this:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_7.pdf
Just because I believe in drugs being legal, does not mean I believe we should all go out and use drugs! I, like Harry Browne, want to back to a 1950s kind of situation on drugs, where any 10 year old can buy opium with cash, no questions asked, but yet there was no drug problem.
-
If you think for a second that I'm a libertine, you're sorely mistaken. 8) I just believe in a lot of personal individual liberty, perhaps more so than the traditional American, but I think we should at least be given the right to commit so-called victimless "crimes" without being arrested and whatnot. Of course I believe in responsibility, and all those behaviors should be done in moderation, if at all. One thing I do know, esp. since I've taken quite a few econ courses as well as read up a LOT on economics, mostly during college, is that prohibition very rarely works. If something is in high demand, people will find a way to get it, and if it's banned, a black market will ensue. That's the only possible route things can go. Obviously, I don't think we all should be drug-addicted prostitutes having all kinds of kinky sex all the time, but I do think the freedom to do those behaviors in moderation under the right circumstances, within reason, should at least be given. After all, you can't be responsible without having the freedom to make the right choices. Otherwise, it's totalitarianism or borders on it.
Of course I'm not totally against morality or any code of conduct. Far from it, I believe that all the usual things like rape, murder, stealing, lying (in general), fraud, abuse, vandalism, arson, etc. are wrong. Initiation of force, with few exceptions (e.g. spanking your very young child who may not be able to understand right from wrong just yet by explanation or logic), is obviously wrong. So I guess in that respect, I am in principle an anarchist. But realistically, I am a libertarian since I've come to realize that there's no way America will ever go anarchist. There's far too many statists in this country who want a piece of the tax pie. And there are of course far too many warmongers who won't give up the world police role of the U.S. easily. Maybe it could work in the U.S. on a community-wide scale, esp. in small towns, but the entire U.S. could never go anarchist as one nation and survive.
And as for anarcho-capitalism, while I understand the classic reasons for having that ideology, I can't say I support it, at least not if it were applied to the real world. To me, anarcho-capitalism seems like the "anti-government" version of a utopian worldview, sort of like how Marxists envision their own communitarian utopia. With no central authority to regulate big business or business at all, I'm not so sure things would go so smoothly. Yes, you've eliminated state force, but it seems to me like that could just as easily be replaced by business force. Yes, I know all about how great the free market is, but I'm a libertarian pragmatically precisely BECAUSE I see at least a minimal need to regulate the market and prevent certain abuses of power from taking place, esp. when it comes to things like asymmetric information, which seems to me would be much more prevalent in a totally anarcho-capitalist society. Anarcho-capitalism seems far too theoretical to me. Whenever you google or look up the topic, you'll see lots of postings on how it could be done but very few actual real-world examples. Show me a truly anarcho-capitalist society in practice anywhere in history, esp. recently, and then maybe I'll start buying into it.
I'm the kind of libertarian who sees both unrestricted big business and big government as anathema to a free and just society. Neither one should be off the hook. To me, the most important entity is the individual. His rights should be protected first and foremost. Big business can be just as detrimental to our freedoms and livelihoods at times as big government. I'm sure you've heard of the term "corporatism" and situations such as eminent domain abuse? I also don't particularly care for the seemingly blind anti-regulation viewpoint among many libertarians. They seem to automatically assume all regulation is bad, but it depends on WHAT the regulation is. Yes, I'd say that at perhaps 60-75% of the regulations on the books right now, esp. federally, are probably unnecessary and drag down the economy. However, there are a few here and there that could be necessary. And from my research, at least some of the financial crisis seems to stem from key deregulations of the financial sector, as well as bad gov't such as Fannie and Freddie on steroids (to put it mildly) and the Fed's tampering with interest rates.
-
Yes, many people, including murderers, rapists, corrupt politicians, etc., should be treated as pariahs to some extent or another. However, if you're a normal, innocent person who can raise a family just fine and are a productive member of society, I don't see how being gay, straight, bi, whatever should matter to anyone else. That's my limit. You should be judged, rightly so, for things that involve aggression and the initiation of force against others as well as denying others' rights. But certain private practices or preferences I'm not big on judging people for as long as they're good, hardworking folk.
-
And when I say "judge," I mean in terms of right and wrong. Not in terms of preference. You can think what you want about how gross or nasty or weird a certain behavior is, but as long as it's consensual among the adults involved, and no one's harmed, saying "this is wrong", esp. if you use religion as a reason, seems a little backwards to me. I'm sorry if that offends you, but just that's my belief.
-
Big business can be just as detrimental to our freedoms and livelihoods at times as big government.
I heartily disagree. I see a large difference between being tasered, tortured, tethered, taxed, and trapped vs. being... what? Charged a high price? Waiting a long time in the check-out line? What really is the worst thing a Big Scary Business can do to you?
This seems similar to your demand that sexual deviants be not looked down upon. I see a big difference between being frowned at and being trapped in a concrete cage for the rest of my life. Libertarianism does not define right and wrong. It defines the permissible circumstances to use violence, aka the gov't. If you really think that the only things which are wrong are those acts which initiate force, then yes, you are a libertine philosophically.
Yes, homosexuality is wrong. Incivility, crudeness, promiscuity, being a drunk, all these things are wrong. They are bad. Our buddy, The State, should not be involved. Victimless crimes are not crimes at all. But you seem to be demanding tolerance, acceptance, and embrace for bad and destructive behavior. That is a recipe for disaster.
No offense has taken place, and no reason to be sorry.
-
Well, I can think of a few. What about the risks of offshore drilling and the recent BP oil spill disaster? If BP knew there was no legal authority to take them to task for screwing up, what reason would they have to be careful, so long as they get all the oil in the ocean possible? Things like strict liability obligations if screwups occur as well as compensating those affected, such as fishermen, are sometimes necessary. Or how about if a company dumps in your local lake or river, for example? Now, I know all about Ronald Coase and his study about property rights, but from what I've gathered, it would seem very difficult for a town to actually negotiate, esp. if it has millions of citizens with NO gov't, with a big corporation that makes billions.
I'm not so sure voluntary agreements and the market would always work in the absence of a legal authority to punish negligence, fraud, etc. Maybe I just don't understand all the intricacies, but I think anarcho-capitalism has too much blind faith in the market. As much as I like the free market, I'm a bit more moderate in this regard. I think there surely are a few cases of reasonably-defined market failures and times when a little regulation here and there is needed to fix a problem. The companies don't ALWAYS have the incentive or reason to act responsibly. Sometimes they screw up. Market fundamentalism seems to me to be just as bad for our cause as gov't fundamentalism for so-called welfare liberals. Or neocons.
Well, I guess I should've elaborated a little more on morality and complexities. My mistake. I did mention the utmost importance of responsibility in my first post, btw. Yes, I do also look down upon things like incivility, crudeness, etc. Promiscuity, it depends. I don't encourage it, esp. without protection, but if they're responsible enough to be a little promiscuous, with protection of course, and handle their other life duties, who am I to get in the way or make a big deal? I don't encourage it, but if a few people out of a million are promiscuous and safe, that's a risk I'm willing to take for a free society.
Maybe it's just a difference in our personalities that's the biggest issue here. I like to think a lot, esp. about empirics, economics and politics. I have a very analytical mind, so I question things a lot. And things, esp. so-called moral codes that don't make sense to me, like calling homosexuality wrong, makes no sense to me. You have every right to have your opinions, but I just don't care for this notion among many Americans that we should cling to certain traditions that really make no sense. Tradition for tradition's sake, if you ask me, is dumb, quite frankly. If you wanna uphold a tradition, at least one that tells people how to behave or what's "wrong" or "right", you need a greater reasoning. Unless it's something real harmless and practically pointless like a bar mitzvah, clinging to a tradition can be detrimental to society, like the tradition of slavery we didn't abolish until at least the Civil War era. Or things like segregation.
-
I just came up with another scenario: takings. Let's say there's no one to stand in the way between a business that wants to expand and the fact that you live where they want to expand. In an anarchist society, theoretically there'd be really no one to stop them from bulldozing your house and property and just setting up shop there. They wouldn't even have to compensate you. Now, maybe the citizens who hear about it could be armed and may threaten the business owners if they try, but for simplicity's sake, let's say they didn't bother buying any handguns (or any weapons, for that matter) yet. What, then? Are they just gonna all say to the business owner, "Let's sit down and discuss this rationally and come to a fair agreement"? Unless the townspeople propose something like giving the company a huge bribe (or something similar), I don't see any way around this abuse. Who's going to stop them without some kind of legal or forceful obligation to respect property rights?
Not everyone is willing or might consider it in their best interests to voluntarily contract with someone else. I think anarcho-capitalism and other "libertarian" strands of anarchist thought put too much faith in voluntarism and cooperation among people. Not everyone is willing or will honestly cooperate. That's why I think anarchism, esp. in highly-advanced large nations like the U.S., is mostly theoretical and utopian. I'm not so sure an anarchist society would pan out well.
-
what reason would they have to be careful, so long as they get all the oil in the ocean possible?
Because by not being careful they lose a f*ing! bunch of oil and all the money they could make on it???,
have to pay billions out of their potential profits, get a damn bad name in the public eye, endanger further drilling opportunities, etc. etc.
(Geez, the downsides to such a disaster for everyone practically write themselves)????
Oh yeah, they purposely created this just to get away with it because there was "...no legal authority to take them to task for screwing up".
Gimme a break.
Did they F*ck up? They sure as hell did. Did they plan to, or try to, as is alluded to??
Hell no!
You guys probably think the airlines like to see planes crash for the same kinds of reasons?
The distaste for capitalism is incredible here???? The libs on the left could learn a trick or two from this forum!
-
You guys probably think the airlines like to see planes crash for the same kinds of reasons?
The distaste for capitalism is incredible here???? The libs on the left could learn a trick or two from this forum!
"You guys?" I don't see most of us on this forum taking that stand. One person posting doesn't make a forum. Some of the rest of us quit even trying to talk about this sort of thing here for other reasons. Come visit "The Mental Militia" if you want to talk to a bunch of anarcho-capitalists - and about a dozen other varieties of libertarian and anarchist.
-
Well, I can think of a few. What about the risks of offshore drilling and the recent BP oil spill disaster? If BP knew there was no legal authority to take them to task for screwing up, what reason would they have to be careful, so long as they get all the oil in the ocean possible? Things like strict liability obligations if screwups occur as well as compensating those affected, such as fishermen, are sometimes necessary. can be detrimental to society, like the tradition of slavery we didn't abolish until at least the Civil War era. Or things like segregation.
So if the US Fed government pushes a company to drill out in the middle of the ocean, then writes all the rules on how they can drill, then inspects their drilling and certifies that it's safe... How is the company solely to blame?
Me thinks you may want to read up more on how a free society may work. And I use the term may because know one knows for sure. I only know that I'll keep arguing for more freedom until I get it or I'm dead.
-
Liberty99,
your positions are way too rational, reasonable, level-headed and truthful to ever be popular with libertarians, from what I've seen in the movement.
-
(http://jenden.us/storage/JD/img/must_not_feed_the_troll.jpg)
-
Liberty99,
Just to emphasize again, I am a complete social libertarian. 100%. See here (http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=1915.msg8588#msg8588), for instance. Legalize it, legalize it all! That's my motto. But that doesn't mean "embrace it, embrace it all". Libertarianism is only about politics, not general morality. I was trying to explain that to godscarp in that old thread who was coming at it from the other side -- behaviors x, y, and z are wrong, so we shouldn't legalize them. You are saying that because we should legalize x, y, and z, they can't be wrong. Both of these extremes are in error. There are two issues that must be bifurcated, not fused together: morality and legality. Some behaviors are morally wrong, but aggress against no one and should be legally OK.
You think opposition to homosexuality is irrational and baseless. Yet, homosexuality, if adopted and practiced, amounts to species suicide. That seems like a rational and well-grounded reason to oppose its spread and see any increasing popularity of the lifestyle as unfortunate.
-
Regarding the Big Scary Business Threat, let me just say:
Mises.org (http://www.mises.org), Mises.org (http://www.mises.org), Mises.org (http://www.mises.org)!!!!!
-
You think opposition to homosexuality is irrational and baseless. Yet, homosexuality, if adopted and practiced, amounts to species suicide. That seems like a rational and well-grounded reason to oppose its spread and see any increasing popularity of the lifestyle as unfortunate.
The key word, as mentioned before, is RESPONSIBILITY. As in the PERSONAL kind. To put it succinctly (possibly a bit graphic, sorry), if a man wishes to place his manhood where another man evacuates his bowels, that's his business. I find it disgusting beyond measure, but as long as I don't have to see it or hear about it I'm mostly unaffected by it. The real problem comes when I'm expected to pay for the inevitable results, through the extortion of tax money and increased medical premiums, etc. People can try heroin and meth all they like, but shouldn't expect others to pay for their rehab. The idea that alcoholism, drug addiction, homosexuality and any number of other vices are diseases, genetic predilections or anything other than lack of self control or poor judgment/choice of lifestyle is ridiculous. Bottom line is - if you're only hurting yourself, fine. Do what you want. But making someone else pay for the results of your misbehavior or otherwise clean up your mess is HURTING them. Expecting those same people to embrace and celebrate your condition goes beyond the bounds of reason, yet this seems to be exactly what is expected by many of the so called "gay rights" organizations. Heartless? Perhaps. I'm afraid the path my life has taken has left me with a very low tolerance for BS. Selfish? Damn right! I have enough to do taking care of those I love and helping those I consider deserving. Being bled by irresponsible leeches and parasites sets my teeth on edge every time. Whew, end of rant, sorry I blew up. Please don't consider this rant aimed at anyone in particular here.
DS
-
I don't get the point of equating homosexuality to drug addiction or disease. What are the "inevitable results" of homosexuality that you're expected to pay for? It's just SEX and LOVE. It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved.
And as for homosexuality leading to the end of the species? I don't buy that either. I'm hetero, married, and have no plans of reproducing. I'M the one leading to the end of the species. But as long as I don't munch carpet, I'm a-okay in your books?
-
I don't get the point of equating homosexuality to drug addiction or disease. What are the "inevitable results" of homosexuality that you're expected to pay for? It's just SEX and LOVE. It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved.
And as for homosexuality leading to the end of the species? I don't buy that either. I'm hetero, married, and have no plans of reproducing. I'M the one leading to the end of the species. But as long as I don't munch carpet, I'm a-okay in your books?
AIDS comes to mind. Many other diseases and conditions are possible as well. That's not to single out homosexuals either, it was merely by way of example. The same results can be achieved by careless heterosexual promiscuity, drug abuse, purposely inhaling industrial chemical fumes, riding motorcycles without helmets or any number of self destructive behaviors. I understand that there are homosexuals out there who are in careful, monogamous relationships and who accept personal responsibility for their choices. I still think it's disgusting, but I don't have any real problem with those folks and I'm not talking about them. They aren't the ones being represented by most of the "loud and proud," "celebrate our lifestyle" organizations out there, however. In my opinion, of course. And, as I said - we ALL pay for their follies through the extortion of taxes, increased medical premiums and myriad other ways. So in that respect you're quite wrong - in our current entitlement society it DOES have something to do with someone other than the two consenting adults involved. If I (along with everyone else) am to be forced to accept any amount of responsibility (financially, in this case) for someone else's behavior and lifestyle choices, then I should get to set conditions on those choices. Don't like conditions? Fine, take responsibility.
As for your second statement, I'm not sure it was directed at me. Oh well: Plans don't mean much, as my wife and I learned. Glad we have our daughter, though, and wouldn't change it for the world. I consider it a blessing that certain folks don't reproduce and I doubt the species is in any danger. Furthermore, I don't care if you munch carpet or not as long as you take personal and financial responsibility for any repercussions that crop up from said activity. :D
DS
-
I still don't get it, Darkside. You acknowledge that some homosexuals are promiscuous, while others are committed and monogamous. You acknowledge the same is true for heterosexuals. You're not coming right out and saying this, but I'm just trying to piece together the logic from what you have written... do you believe that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to demand the government teat? I can only speak from personal experience, but most if not all of the gay people I know are extremely self-sufficient responsible individuals, while many of the straight people I know are irresponsible jag-offs. Is it the 'loud and proud' thing that bothers you? Because I don't believe they're being loud and proud about their alleged dependence on public assistance.
In spite of any disagreement, I appreciate your correct use of the word myriad ;)
-
The problem isn't homosexuals, or drugs, or welfare, or immigration, or (insert almost anything)... but that the government is stealing wages with a threat of violence if you object to pay for any government program. There is no accountability and no recourse.
-
homosexuals, but agree they can do whatever they want. Whether they should be able to be "married" like a man and woman I'm not really sure about.....
Someone (on here?) summed up my position on this perfectly. "Why should ANYONE want to stop anyone from getting a government piece of paper."
Not that there should BE government pieces of paper, but really, I can't see feeling any more strongly about keeping homosexuals from getting "legally" married than I can see keeping homosexuals from applying for a zoning variance. I don't think there should BE zoning, but the idea of anyone worrying, taking political action, or protesting with signs that say "THE GAYS DON'T DESERVE ZONING VARIANCES" and "A ZONING VARIANCE IS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN" is pretty damn laughable.
My wife and are "legally" married, got married four years ago. We got married at the courthouse. Except for the cool old justice of the peace who performed the four-minute service, the whole experience was much like a trip to the DMV....Including getting panhandled as soon as we walked out of the building. (This was in California, mind you.)
If we had it to do over, we'd likely consider NOT getting the piece of paper. Or getting the piece of paper but only for tax reasons.....though Obama is trying to cut the marriage deduction, probably because he hates the family unit and considers it a threat to "global governance."
MWD
-
... I doubt the species is in any danger. ...
Especially in Wyoming. A trip to any WalMart would lead you to believe that the average family here has six kids, at least. Which makes me wonder how this could possibly be the least-populated state, but it is.
My wife, Debra Jean, was at WalMart recently. I usually go with her shopping, but I was home busy working. She had an experience that made me pretty darned proud of her.
In front of her at the checkout line there was a young couple (both probably 23 or 24 years old) with three very young kids. And the wife was pregnant. They were taking forever, paying for stuff with food stamps, trying to figure out what they could buy, and counting pennies for the rest. Finally DJ said "Food stamps....sheesh.....If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."
The couple got incredibly indignant, and said "What do you care if we're on food stamps? The money comes from the government!"
DJ said "...And the government gets its money from ME!"
It was getting ugly, until the tall Wyoming gentleman in a cowboy hat behind DJ got up in the husband's face and said "The lady's right...."
I love my wife and I love Wyoming.
MWD
-
I recently wrote my state representative and a Wyoming state senator and suggested a bill whereby all public and government buildings in Wyoming would be required to post signs that say "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em", with a silhouette of a cat, a dog, and a pregnant woman with six kids.
Sort of a modest proposal, but I got a kick out of it.
MWD
-
I know, I'm probably not being as clear as I could. I'm basically bitching about lack of responsibility and entitlement in general. I pretty much only picked on gays as an example because they were the main subject in the preceding posts. Any of the other examples I pointed out would have done just as well. I don't condone homosexuality in any way, and it is certainly unnatural. That said, not all gays are alike any more than anyone else is. I have a real problem with the "loud and proud" fanatics who want to be celebrated and given special privilege rather than simply being tolerantly left alone to do their thing. I think I agree with John in that just because I think someone has a right to their choices as long as they take responsibility for those choices and don't burden others, it doesn't mean I have to like or agree with those choices. Or that I can't look down my nose and shake my head at the folks who make them.
I especially dislike the argument that "It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved." Say someone, hetero, homo, druggie or whatever, contracts AIDS or some other nasty crud from the activities of their chosen "lifestyle." Even if that person is well insured and not asking for handouts, the simple fact is that they are getting such handouts anyway as soon as they begin receiving treatment. You and I are paying for these handouts. When someone uses a large amount of medical services that are paid for through an insurance policy it raises the rates a bit for everyone. This is mitigated just a bit by the fact that the companies try to adjust rates according to risky behavior, but then they have more liability to discrimination lawsuits and the whole thing continues to spiral out of control from there. If the afflicted person doesn't have insurance, we pay increased premiums due to the increased prices of medical services brought on by the industry being forced to allow for the treatment costs of the irresponsible types. At the end, responsible people bear a significantly larger proportional share of the costs to services ratio than the irresponsible people, whatever their group. This would remain true even under single payer "Obamacare," although along with increased premiums we would also see shortage of services and denial of care to both the responsible and irresponsible groups.
The same holds true for most other aspects of life, not just health care. I don't have a clue what to do about it, either. I just know I don't like it. I suppose if we could eliminate insurance and go back to paying the doc ourselves, with livestock if necessary, the problem would solve itself. Hope that clears up my position at least a little. :D
DS
I still don't get it, Darkside. You acknowledge that some homosexuals are promiscuous, while others are committed and monogamous. You acknowledge the same is true for heterosexuals. You're not coming right out and saying this, but I'm just trying to piece together the logic from what you have written... do you believe that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to demand the government teat? I can only speak from personal experience, but most if not all of the gay people I know are extremely self-sufficient responsible individuals, while many of the straight people I know are irresponsible jag-offs. Is it the 'loud and proud' thing that bothers you? Because I don't believe they're being loud and proud about their alleged dependence on public assistance.
In spite of any disagreement, I appreciate your correct use of the word myriad ;)
-
I especially dislike the argument that "It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved." Say someone, hetero, homo, druggie or whatever, contracts AIDS or some other nasty crud from the activities of their chosen "lifestyle."
I do not follow. My statement "It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved" was specifically talking about being gay. Gay sex and gay love between two people is only their business. Just like the sex I have with my husband is only our business. One does not contract AIDS from simply being gay. Being gay does not suggest any particular lifestyle. Personally I'm straight and I don't have any habits that should result in my getting AIDS. Gay people are just PEOPLE. That's what I'm trying to say. They're no more or less prone to any "nasty crud" than anyone else. You are taking a leap somewhere in there that I'm not going along with.
-
My statement "It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved" was specifically talking about being gay.
Perhaps, but the whole gay thing is only a small facet of the point I am trying (in vain, it seems) to make. Something about personal responsibility or some such.
Gay sex and gay love between two people is only their business. Just like the sex I have with my husband is only our business.
I'll go along with that, though I don't particularly want to hear about any of it.
One does not contract AIDS from simply being gay. Being gay does not suggest any particular lifestyle.
Perhaps not, but statistically there are conclusions to be drawn. Being gay is a particular lifestyle, or subset thereof anyway.
Of course they're people, did I suggest anywhere that they're animals or something?
Not sure that there's actual communication taking place here, I certainly didn't set out to debate gayness...
-
I especially dislike the argument that "It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two consenting adults involved." Say someone, hetero, homo, druggie or whatever, contracts AIDS or some other nasty crud from the activities of their chosen "lifestyle." Even if that person is well insured and not asking for handouts, the simple fact is that they are getting such handouts anyway as soon as they begin receiving treatment. You and I are paying for these handouts. When someone uses a large amount of medical services that are paid for through an insurance policy it raises the rates a bit for everyone. This is mitigated just a bit by the fact that the companies try to adjust rates according to risky behavior, but then they have more liability to discrimination lawsuits and the whole thing continues to spiral out of control from there. If the afflicted person doesn't have insurance, we pay increased premiums due to the increased prices of medical services brought on by the industry being forced to allow for the treatment costs of the irresponsible types. At the end, responsible people bear a significantly larger proportional share of the costs to services ratio than the irresponsible people, whatever their group. This would remain true even under single payer "Obamacare," although along with increased premiums we would also see shortage of services and denial of care to both the responsible and irresponsible groups.
All of your arguments against gays, druggies, etc are misdirected. The problem is that there is a government monopoly on violence forcing you to pay for those handouts. It's not the people getting the handouts that should be discussed, it's the giant criminal organization behind it that should be talked about and figured out how to bring down.
If your neighbor is stealing birdseed from the grocers market and putting out bags of said bird seed and feeding the squirrels and every wild creature around and they're crapping all over your house, car, patio furniture.... do you blame the animals or the neighbor?
-
All of your arguments against gays, druggies, etc are misdirected. The problem is that there is a government monopoly on violence forcing you to pay for those handouts. It's not the people getting the handouts that should be discussed, it's the giant criminal organization behind it that should be talked about and figured out how to bring down.
True to a certain extent. The aforementioned people are NOT absolved of any responsibility, however. After all, they vote to continue this crap. You'll not make an anarchist out of me, but what we have here is definitely out of control.
-
You'll not make an anarchist out of me
Give us time. We're persuasive. ;D
-
Republicans made me a Democrat.
Then Democrats drove me to being a Republican.
Republicans drove me to be a libertarian.
Libertarians drove me back to being a Republican.
Republicans drove me to be an anarchist.
Your mileage may vary.
-
Republicans made me a Democrat.
Then Democrats drove me to being a Republican.
Republicans drove me to be a libertarian.
Libertarians drove me back to being a Republican.
Republicans drove me to be an anarchist.
I LIKE ;D
-
....After all, they vote to continue this crap. You'll not make an anarchist out of me, but what we have here is definitely out of control.
The "anarchy" you appear to be afraid of is embodied in the current situation...lawless-ness based strictly on might or majority with fancy pieces of paper justifying the actions.
1828 Definition....AN'ARCHY, n. [Gr. rule.]
Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion.
However...the original definition has morphed into TOO MUCH government where there is too much law & supreme power. The laws are not efficient, individuals (within the gang) do what they please with impunity and there is quite a bit of political confusion.
The "anarchy" a lot of us preach and practice is precisely what you do everyday when you go to work, buy products & services or otherwise freely, voluntarily interact with your fellow man...and is precisely defined as AN ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT, or outside control/restraint.
1828 Definition...GOV'ERNMENT, n. Direction; regulation. These precepts will serve for the government of our conduct.
1. Control; restraint. Men are apt to neglect the government of their temper and passions.
2. The exercise of authority; direction and restraint exercised over the actions of men in communities, societies or states; the administration of public affairs, according to established constitution, laws and usages, or by arbitrary edicts.
Criminals are always going to be criminals no matter how many words get put on paper...I don't see the need to give the worst of them, those committing crime for the "common good" (as defined by those individuals) enhanced tools and "legal" smokescreen for their actions all in one nice neat package.
Remove the sheen of "authority" and let every person's actions stand on their own....want to be "licensed" then get licensed....want to protect three-legged sloths, then protect three-legged sloths. Want the "services" of the existing system, fine...VOLUNTARILY pay them AND most importantly, allow others to opt out. The true free-market "majority" will expand programs they want and defund programs they don't.
Don't stick a gun in my back, and more & more in my face, and tell me I have to support the winners of an election and their actions just because of some g-d piece of paper (at least according to former president Bush) "authorized" it...cause that's anarchy brother and I ain't buying none of it.
MANUMIT
-
The "anarchy" you appear to be afraid of...
Who said I was "afraid" of it? ;)
-
Republicans made me a Democrat.
Then Democrats drove me to being a Republican.
Republicans drove me to be a libertarian.
Libertarians drove me back to being a Republican.
Republicans drove me to be an anarchist.
I LIKE ;D
It's a combination of something I think Paul B. said, and someone's sigline somewhere, extrapolated into my journey.
The "Libertarians drove me back to being a Republican" part is based on arguing online with a handful of young live-at-home vegan pacifist "libertarians" who support the Second Amendment but think I'm nuts for carrying a gun, owning more than one rifle and telling them "libertarians who don't own guns are theorists."
That inspired a line in our new movie, where Neema raps -
"Freedom fiends, there's one thing that I gotta make clear:
If you ain't about your heater then you're nothing but a theorist.
You can read and type, but when the jackers comin',
I know you'll lose the fight on your a** with your thumb in."
MWD
-
The "anarchy" you appear to be afraid of is embodied in the current situation...lawless-ness based strictly on might or majority with fancy pieces of paper justifying the actions.
Yup. Anarchy has a bad name. It has been converted to meaning "chaos." (Even by punk rockers who adopted the "circle A" as a symbol.....I actually liked the European punks more in this respect. Many of the ones on the Continent have actually read some classic anarcho theory. Though they tend to be left anarchist, not anarcho capitalist. And most are on the dole. But the American punkers usually thought "anarchy" was an excuse to break stuff.)
My favorite explanation of the various perceptions of the word "anarchy" comes from (of course), The Simpsons....Where Bart is running for school president, and his nerd opponent has a sign that says "A vote for Bart is a vote for anarchy!"
Bart has a sign that says exactly the same thing.
MWD
-
The "Libertarians drove me back to being a Republican" part is based on arguing online with a handful of young live-at-home vegan pacifist "libertarians" who support the Second Amendment but think I'm nuts for carrying a gun, owning more than one rifle and telling them "libertarians who don't own guns are theorists."
You Michael? Oh my gosh! I had no idea you owned more than one rifle.
Why would anyone need more than one of those things??
~TG
-
The "Libertarians drove me back to being a Republican" part is based on arguing online with a handful of young live-at-home vegan pacifist "libertarians" who support the Second Amendment but think I'm nuts for carrying a gun, owning more than one rifle and telling them "libertarians who don't own guns are theorists."
You Michael? Oh my gosh! I had no idea you owned more than one rifle.
Why would anyone need more than one of those things??
~TG
I know, I know, guns are bad, um'kay?
MWD
-
I know, I know, guns are bad, um'kay?
MWD
Oh, I didn't really say they were bad, just can't figure why anyone would need so much. What's the theory behind it?
-
I dunno, ask TexasGirl, she's got a bunch o' guns!
MWD
-
It's like fire extinguishers. I hope to never have to use those either, but I still have one in every room.
MWD
-
LOL. I only have two hands, so I mainly carry a handgun (for each).
-
Yup. Anarchy has a bad name.
I can't remember where I heard this (although I've seen it from a number of different sources) but if you look at the history of the term "libertarian" it was invented by French anarchists who didn't want to get arrested for being anarchists. So, they made up a new name and confused everyone.
So, recently I have been thinking a lot about the assumption that chaos would inevitably ensue in a stateless society. However, this is based almost solely upon the assumption that all humans are inherently evil. Like Manumit said, the criminals will always be criminals (both the black market and government types)... he and I were discussing this in relation to Constitutional Carry--do you think a felon gives a care whether he or she is allowed to own a firearm or not?? The only thing this type of regulation accomplishes is subjecting law-abiding citizens who actually care about the law to ever-increasing fees, paperwork, background checks... basically, being treated like criminals for choosing not to be a criminal. The same can be said of these CBP checkpoints that I always like talking about--do you think the illegals are going to drive up to one of these booths and be questioned at gunpoint about where they are going and where they were born? Hell, no.
So, the criminals will always be criminals. But what about the rest of us who go through ridiculous lengths to deal with the endless knot of mind-numbing regulations the state foists on us? The assumption that all of us will turn into murderous thieves is based upon a fundamental assumption that the only reason we go through all that trouble is because we're afraid of being punished. I tend to think we go through all this crap (me included) due to a misplaced sense of honor and right vs. wrong. In short, this assumption of inevitable chaos is based upon an assumption of a fallen or sinful human nature--this is a premise that I fully and completely reject.
-
I think that the book "Everyday Anarchy" by Stefan Molynoux does a great job in discussing the term Anarchy. www.freedomainradio.com/free.html (http://www.freedomainradio.com/free.html)
It’s hard to know whether a word can ever be rehabilitated – or whether the attempt
should even be made...
Some words can never be rehabilitated – and neither should they be. Nazi, evil, incest,
abuse, rape, murder – these are all words which describe the blackest impulses of the
human soul, and can never be turned to a good end...
The word “anarchy” may be almost beyond redemption – any attempt to find goodness in it
could well be utterly futile – or worse; the philosophical equivalent of the clichéd scene in
hospital dramas where the surgeon blindly refuses to give up on a clearly dead patient...
It's well worth the read and he passes the books out via his website. www.freedomainradio.com/free.html (http://www.freedomainradio.com/free.html)
-
lol, "Anarchy" doesn't have a lot to complain about - look what they did to the word "liberal."
How that happy little word evolved a colloquial definition of "freedom hating, big gubmint promoting, elitist nanny stater" I'll never figure out.
-
Great point DS.
-
Has anyone read, "Unintended Consequences" by Ross a friend mentioned it, so I looked it up on Amazon, they want a fortune for it. So much that it peaked my curiosity. Gun rights seems to be the main theme.
enJoy,
Cody
-
Yes, I'd say that was an insane price. It isn't available in soft cover or kindle, e-format either.
Personally, I did not like the book at all, but that's just my opinion.
See if you can find one in a library or borrow one from someone here. The FSW library may have a copy. Send a PM to Jared and he can tell you.
Far as I'm concerned, "Neither Predator Nor Prey" by our own Mark Spungin is a far better story all around.
Look here: http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=6669.0 (http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=6669.0)
-
Just two days ago, I noticed a copy on one of our bookshelves. I'd better lock the darn book in a safe :o
I'll agree with MamaLiberty, it isn't a worthy buy at those prices. It's been years since I read the book, but do remember it introducing some concepts that I had not thought of before I read them there. If you find a copy at a reasonable price, it may be worth your time reading the book.
-
Has anyone read, "Unintended Consequences" by Ross a friend mentioned it, so I looked it up on Amazon, they want a fortune for it. So much that it peaked my curiosity. Gun rights seems to be the main theme.
enJoy,
Cody
Not that I would condone an illegal activity but the book is available as a .PDF to download. Sure would make sense for the publisher to sell it as a kindle or something seeing as there is obviously a demand.
-
All,
Thanks for the feedback, just bought Marks book from Amazon. Authors must like Wyoming's long cold winters. (Well maybe not) It's thawed out here for a while, just had some home made soup and three Grand kids are under foot. A good book would be nice right now. I have several text books I could read for a night class. I just finished one called "Sunflower" very thought provoking. Initial setting or story origin comes from the holocaust and deals with forgiveness (or not).
enJoy,
Jim