On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 01:35:24 -0700, Wraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Wrong, the whole theory of individual rights is just as much an
>> > abstract as community is. If you don't think so, then the alternative
>> > is the law of jungle, or as Mr. Shirley says, the person with the
>> > biggest hammer. Just because we are moving back in the direction of
>> the
>> > law of the jungle, doesn't mean that all rule of law (or abstracts)
>> is a
>> > scam, it only means that what passes for rule of law today is.
>> > Goat
>>
>> Yup. The reason that we get to live to a ripe old age is because
>> we don't get left with the kill or be killed choice that you get without
>> law and civilization. That doesn't mean you can't have a libertarian
>> society. The one I grew up in was pretty much that way back when Nevada
>> had a minarchy rather than a State. (Defined as a government which has
>> become it's own primary constituency.)
>
> A libertarian society wouldn't require a coercive state and its endless
> laws to be civilized. Neo Cons tend to believe that other people are
> evil, and thus must be watched by the States enforcers. Neo Libs tend
> to believe that other people are stupid, and thus must be "protected"
> by the States enforcers. Combine the two, and one has a rather familiar
> warfare/welfare state. I was once a minarchist, until I realized the
> folly of the position.
The problem is that Zack couldn't survive in one. His idea of liberty
is license-- the ability to act without regard to consequence, even when
he's
doing harm to others. Zack says "Libertarian" but when you analyze, he
actually
comes closer to Rosseau's "State of Nature" and in that situation, given
his
idea of what constitutes civilised behavior, it wouldn't be a matter so
much of
if than when he gets killed.
> ================================================================================
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans." Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN
