On May 18, 10:45=A0pm, Michael Price <nini_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 19, 5:25=A0am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 8:51=A0pm, Michael Price <nini_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 18, 5:04=A0am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 16, 3:51=A0pm, James Beck <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > In article <7164469d-2972-499f-bf76-df8fbbbef7bd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> > > > > > On May 16, 2:58=A0pm, James Beck
<j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> =
wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <fd5d617a-6d51-4dfe-9045-240698fc4e96
> > > > > > > @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >> BTW, Libertarians are not anarchists, I don't know where
that=
idea keeps
> > > > > > > coming from
>
> > > > > > Of course Libertarians aren't anarchists. =A0Anarchists have a
c=
oherent
> > > > > > agenda and philosophy: the elimination of all government
authori=
ty.
> > > > > > Libertarians haven't the slightest idea what their agenda is:
th=
ey
> > > > > > just whine about the government without presenting any
alternati=
ve
> > > > > > approach. =A0Other than fantasy societies like medaieval
Iceland=
where
> > > > > > there weren't enough people to require a government. =A0Which
is=
why
> > > > > > they should move to a desert island. =A0That is the ideal
Libert=
arian
> > > > > > Society: =A0NO SOCIETY AT ALL!!!
>
> > > > > I have no idea where your Icelandic crap is coming from either.
> > > > > Libertarianism isn't about having no society either.
> > > > > Want to try again?
>
> > > > As I said, Libertarians have no specific agenda. =A0They just
whine
> > > > about the government without even attempting to present a
practical
> > > > alternative. =A0What's to try again?
>
> > > =A0 What an absurd lie. =A0Libertarians have presented a practical
> > > alternative
> > > time and time again. =A0Is not ending the "War On (some) Drugs" a
> > > practical
> > > way of reducing overdoses, aids and Hep. C infections, and murders?
> > > Is
> > > not ending the "War On (Some) Terror" a practical way to prevent our
> > > own
> > > citizens being locked up without trial? =A0Is not ending
professional
> > > licensing
> > > a practical way to cut costs in various professions? =A0The fact is
th=
at
> > > Medieval
> > > Icelandic society did work without a government and libertarians
have
> > > repeatedly suggested a similar setup. =A0So why claim that we don't
> > > suggest practical alternatives? =A0Unless by "practical" you mean
"abl=
e to get
> > > approved by pro-government thugs"?
> > Obviously the U.S. government is hopelessly corrupt. =A0On that we can
> > agree. =A0Not so, other governments.
>
> =A0 Really? =A0So there's a government that doesn't violate it's
citizen's=
> rights
> for it's own benefit?
>
> >=A0The governments of Western Europe
> > -- Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, for example --
> > run highly civilized societies with low crime rates, excellent social
> > services, much less poverty than the U.S, and a high standard of
> > living for their citizens.
>
> =A0 If these are examples of governments you think are not corrupt look
> at their agricultural policy.
>
> > =A0Mediaeval Iceland had a population density
> > of roughly 1 person per 1000 sqaure miles. =A0We are not in that
> > position, you utter loon.
>
> =A0 I never said we were so why are you heaping abuse on me? =A0If
there's=
> a reason to believe that anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work with higher
> population densities you haven't produced it. =A0Instead you just lied
> and said that libertarians did not produce practical alternatives.
>
> > =A0We need some real government. =A0Just not a
> > hopelessly corrupt one, as we have in the U.S.
>
> =A0 By government I assume you mean the State. =A0Very well then prove
> we need government. =A0Prove that we could not organise what little
> good government does without the State. =A0And while we're at it
> prove that minarchism is not "practical" since you tarred them with
> the same brush. =A0Why is it "impractical" to have a government that
> limits itself to the enforcement of natural rights?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You remind me of the Creationists who claim to have an alternative to
Evolution. They don't. They have some vague criticisms of Evolution
-- some reasonable, some not -- but no alternative. They just say --
"God did it all". You're saying let's just be nice, then we don't
need the State. Then you ask me to "prove" we need the state, knowing
full well that you would accept nothing as proof.
Government defends your property. Government enforces basic rights.
Government provides education. Government defends the country.
Government provides assistance to the poor and elderly. Any system
that did all of these things would, effectively, be a government.
When government is weak -- as in contem****ary "capitalist Russia", for
example, there is terrible exploitation, life expectancy collapses, as
does the total population.
The Underclass in Capitalist Russia
You will find it instructive to listen to a radio play based on the
work of Russian writer/prostitute Maria Sudaieva, who committed
suicide in order to escape exploitation by the Russian Mafia, on Radio
France Culture:
http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/emissions/theatre_europe/i=
ndex.php?emission_id=3D84
If you are wondering why contem****ary Russia is facing a demographic
crisis of a rapidly declining population, and why life expectancy has
declined by 10% in the country since the fall of Communism, this may
help to explain why. There is no government. Just Capitalist
exploitation by the rich and powerful, using violence, drugs,
intimidation, *** as control strategies.
What was Maria Sudaieva's perception of the Communists? They were the
"Red Heroes": Saints, Gods, Angels. They protected the poor against
the rich. Yes, they were controlling: but, for Good, not Evil.
|
