I remain fond of the concept of numerous competing justice agencies ala David Friedman's, "The Machinery of Freedom." (Yes, Milton's son.)
I first realized I was a libertarian when I read Murray Rothbard's, "For a New Liberty." Worth a read. So is his, "Man, Economy, and the State." Well, actually, damn near anything he wrote is worth a good read. G. Zack Bass wrote: > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I believe that anyone who truly embraces NAP _must_ be >> or become an AnCap. >> It's a logical consequence, don'tca know? (Guess not.) >> >> > > ONLY if there exists a Justice Agency powerful enough to stand against > any other Agency within its chartered realm, which is that it enforces > NAP (which implies that it never violates NAP). > Many AnCaps look at that and cry "Government" and the deal's off. > > There are LOTS of scenarios for AnCap. NONE of them will _naturally_ > lead to a place where NAP is enforced, but if such Enforcement is > built in from the beginning then fine. > Or something that is NOT AnCap, that is unabashedly Government at its > inception, can also be perfectly libertarian and enforce NAP. > I don't care how it comes about, as long as NAP is ENRORCED; otherwise > I don't care to live there. > > Oh, and I might as well mention that there are a lot of AnCaps who > claim that Enforcing NAP by Force is a Violation of NAP. HAHAHAHAHA > Obviously these people are just Pacifists who oppose all Violence, or > the weirdos who allow it only in Defense and claim that any > non-Defensive use of Force violates NAP. Pity. NAP shouldn't be that > hard to grasp. > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
