[marc stevens]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain;

I prefer there be almost no violence at all. But America worships violence, so I am an unhappy American citizen regarding that topic.

Libertarians also basically believe that might makes right (that is, don't you dare constrain me as a talented, ambitious, even "superior" individual!) but want those power relations to exist only (or predominantly) among private parties. How is this preferable to the alternatives, other than as a topic of superficial discussion at the country club?

No, you are totally off base here. Libertarians believe the initiation of the use/threat of physical force is wrong, they call it the non-aggression principal. I think you have a problem with this because you believe people should not have a choice regarding services they want and pay for. You think government is good and therefore, I should have to accept and pay for it, or to move to Afghanistan.

You are not a citizen and if you truly believe that, then prove it. I can guarantee you the only things separating you from a so-called "illegal alien" do not exist and if you take the time to think about it and try proving they exist, you can only meet with failure.

It's called public relations, it's how you get hundreds of millions of people to submit to armed robbery, almost total control of their lives and property and attack anyone who tries to point it out.

It's also how you get people to believe that providing services on a voluntary basis somehow cannot work.

[marc stevens]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain;

I can't take libertarianism seriously as a political philosophy. I feel that libertarianism, like Rand's objectivism, is the fruit of an adolescent mind, one immature in understanding human nature, history, and the importance and meanings of democratic citizenship and state. Citizenship, not "democratic subjecthood" (as in the U.K.) and not monadism (i.e., radical individualism). Libertarianism and objectivism emphasize the "freedom" aspect of democracy and turn it into a cult of the individual, which I feel is basically anti-democratic because (1) they despise the process of finding today's legislative compromise (which might also change later), which is so necessary and so basic to democracy, (2) democracy requires an ongoing process of interaction by political bodies and representatives to accurately reflect any changes in views of the people, (3) the political rights and status of the individual are fundamental (this is the point of having no king, that vestige of the anachronism of tribal society) and individual rights are important, but there is no absolute freedom of the individual because if so there is no state and making possible the existence of the state is the whole point.

If you're going to have a state and if other states exist out there, then there is such a thing as a treasonable act, for instance. (In opposition to marc's view.) There's no way around it. There are going to be rules, some rising to the status of laws. (See H.L.A. Hart's book "The Concept of Law.") If there is a need for shared resources within a state, and there always is, then revenue (perhaps in the form of in-kind resources) must be raised from the citizens to create those resources. That could be done on a voluntarily basis, I suppose. But what if the rich among us chooses not to contribute when in fact that person as a citizen is receiving benefits by living within the political context of the state. (My presumption, and belief from experience, is that, by definition, there are benefits to all the citizens from the existence of their state. Understanding this fact should be a key part of a citizen's education.) This implies to me that, for instance, there should be a rule applying to all the citizens about raising revenue to be used by the state for the common good.

Warren Buffett, a very successful capitalist, has been forthright in acknowledging that his wealth was built upon the foundation of being a participant, as a citizen, in the economic system implemented in the state of the United States of America. He admitted that he benefited from being a citizen of this state. If he were of a libertarian political philosophy, he would not make that statement.

If a citizen of a state fundamentally doesn't like that state's rules and perhaps also believes that the current rules won't be changed to his/her liking, that person can leave that state.

Libertarians tend to emphasize the differences among persons rather than the commonalities among all citizens. (I personally prefer to be a citizen.) This is inherently immature and retrograde in a society. A society of libertarians could never achieve great things; this actually seems to be their preference. Noble selfishness seems to be what is valued.

All those posts and you still have not answered a simple yes, or no, question. Should a service or product be provided at the barrel of a gun?

First, libertarianism is not a political philosophy. Political philosophy is nothing more than public relations, it's about diverting attention away from the facts so people argue things such as democracy and non-existent things such as "states" and "citizens." Instead of noticing you're being robbed, you instead focus on how the stolen money is being used i.e., military, schools, jails.

Thinking the concept that all human interaction should be voluntary is "immature" is a striking example of the brilliance of political propaganda. If one looks at crimes, you'll notice the one element making the act a crime, is the fact it is an involuntary human relationship. Rape is a good example.

The casinos certainly provide benefits to most people in Las Vegas, does that mean everyone, even those who don't care for the casinos should contribute to the operating costs? How ridiculous a concept, just because there is a direct or indirect benefit to the community there is automatically an obligation to pay a "fair share" of the operating costs. And if you don't like it, you can just move. I'm sure you would never accept that from a casino owner, so why accept it from someone claiming to be a "governor"?

As I wrote in an earlier post, you are not a citizen. There are no citizens and there is no state. You have a better chance proving you are Napoleon than proving you are a citizen and there is a state.

[Chest Rockwell]

Welcome to Crazytown, population: this guy ^

[ParkTwain]

Marc Stevens wrote:

"armed robbery euphemistically called taxation"

What is your problem with taxation. GROW UP! You think you can't accumulate wealth while also being taxed. YOU'RE WRONG! GROW UP! Taxation is an INHERENT PART of having a state. WHAT FREAKING PLANET ARE YOU FROM? I can't believe there is a radio programming director that would allow someone of your thought processes ON THE AIR. You're the fringe on the fringe here.

A society also has rules and laws. Persons may VOLUTARILY break the law, then the state's delegated workers enforce the laws and apply penalties against the lawbreakers. You somehow have a problem with that. If you believe that you should drive at all times over 70 mph regardless of the street, you have chosen to put your life in the hands of law enforcement, and it is only a matter of time till you are stopped and incarcerated. So be aware of the laws and don't break them, and maybe your life can be directed into a productive line of work.

[ParkTwain]

Hey Marc Stevens, if you are so concerned about what happened at Waco, please explain why that RELIGIOUS GROUP had SO MANY GUNS stashed at their compound. What were they so worried about and why were they that determined to use VIOLENCE to do what they wanted? You live by the gun, then you'll die by the gun, including the CHILDREN entrusted by parents to be members of the religious clan, not so difficult to understand. This was a little religious DICTATORSHIP being conducted. It's called David Koresh's EGO and DELUSIONS, get it? DO YOU LIKE DICTATORSHIPS? I didn't think so.

[ParkTwain]

Marc Stevens wrote:

"As I wrote in an earlier post, you are not a citizen. There are no citizens and there is no state."


OK, and there is a Twilight Zone, perhaps self-induced paranoia based on incomplete information and poor reasoning skills, and you're in it. Good luck to you.

[marc stevens]

Originally Posted by Chest Rockwell;

Welcome to Crazytown, population: this guy ^

Brilliant, when you have nothing of substance resort to the ad hominem attack.

[marc stevens]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain;

Marc Stevens wrote:

"armed robbery euphemistically called taxation"

What is your problem with taxation. GROW UP! You think you can't accumulate wealth while also being taxed. YOU'RE WRONG! GROW UP! Taxation is an INHERENT PART of having a state. WHAT FREAKING PLANET ARE YOU FROM? I can't believe there is a radio programming director that would allow someone of your thought processes ON THE AIR. You're the fringe on the fringe here.

A society also has rules and laws. Persons may VOLUTARILY break the law, then the state's delegated workers enforce the laws and apply penalties against the lawbreakers. You somehow have a problem with that.

Once again, nothing of any substance, just an ad hominem rant. Yes, people get wealthy despite the armed robbery, I guess only children believe robbery is wrong. So if you're robbed it is now a defense to just say "Grow up PT, you can still accumulate wealth."

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by marc stevens

Once again, nothing of any substance, just an ad hominem rant. Yes, people get wealthy despite the armed robbery, I guess only children believe robbery is wrong. So if you're robbed it is now a defense to just say "Grow up PT, you can still accumulate wealth."

So, if you think you're "being robbed," it is by some criterion that you haven't yet RATIONALLY EXPLAINED on this board. That explanation must somehow address the basic principles that (1) a state needs resources to perform work for the common good and (2) a state is going to have rules and laws and therefore citizens must allow representatives of the state to have the means to enforce those rules and laws.

Ah, but you don't believe that a state exists for the U.S.A.! So this little chat board tete-a-tete is going to go NOWHERE.

[marc stevens]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain;

Hey Marc Stevens, if you are so concerned about what happened at Waco, please explain why that RELIGIOUS GROUP had SO MANY GUNS stashed at their compound. What were they so worried about and why were they that determined to use VIOLENCE to do what they wanted? You live by the gun, then you'll die by the gun, not so difficult to understand. This was a little religious DICTATORSHIP being conducted. It's called David Koresh's EGO and DELUSIONS, get it? DO YOU LIKE DICTATORSHIPS? I didn't think so.

David Koresh was a licensed gun dealer. It's called an "inventory".

There was no problem with the "number" of guns he had, he as accused not paying a $200.00 tax on one of them. That's certainly reason to send in truck loads of armed men after him.