On Feb 10, 9:36 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > There was no claim regarding Libertarians NOR whether they do or do not want > Government. > You complained that 'money' achieves 'quicker' Government action. > As I noted, your problem is with Government.
Not just government, but the wealth that buys government as they see fit to have. > <sigh>"I think of myself as a realist, preferring to focus my attention on > better and worse ways of accomplishing ends, mindful that our visions of the > "ideal" will be forever changing and beyond our grasp. I sympathize with your beliefs, no matter how unrealistic in today's world or not, it's still amounts to a Utopian idea. It will also undoubtedly be a very slow progression to that end. Maybe one day in the far future it will be tried, But it's not going to happen in your lifetime. But if self governess also equates to unfairness in actions, it's not going to work in reality and winds up being just another theory that's not demonstrably superior to other forms of governing. > > Black Patron has a right to his life. No what your saying is he has a right to die... as quietly as possible. Because in your scenario, hospitals wouldn't have to serve him either. > > IF Sam Walton did NOT want to serve Black Patron, it is certainly his right. That's where we differ... if he wants to sell, then he must sell to everyone equally or not at all. You're scenario denies that right to masses of people while securing it to an individual. Perhaps he wants to sell at different prices to different people also? So you're all for price gouging too? > > Black Patron has no right to FORCE Sam Walton to 'serve' him (slavery). > > Similarly, Sam Walton has no right to FORCE Black Patron to buy from him. All you're doing is securing the right to enslave people through denial of services. > > "There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire > > everybody in the company from the chairman on down, > > simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton. That's a nice little saying but the fact is; If pure capitalism ruled the day, you'd still be waiting for AT&T to lower your $1,000 a month phone bill, as there would be no competition. > There is no 'weighing' of rights. Perhaps you do not grasp the ideal of > rights -- your response certainly suggests this. > One cannot have a right to what another must provide. Again, you want people to die slowly and quietly by denial of services. > In the Sam Walton illustration, you imagine anyone wanting Walton's wares has > a RIGHT to them. They do and it works pretty well for everyone. > His wares, his decision with whom he trades. That he will necessarily trade > with anyone for 'green' also escapes you (his goal will inevitably be to make > money ... why forego a potential market?) For potential power and influence is why. > You seek a right to slavery. Such is NOT a right. Slavery? ha-ha, no slavery doesn't come from telling hungry people they have a right not to starve while looking at a warehouse full of food. > Should Walton be able to FORCE people to buy his wares? He doesn't have to because laws exist that tells him he must already. > Why do you imagine Others should be able to FORCE him to sell to them? The laws already exist so he does for good reason. > It doesn't have to stop at Black Patron, it could be White Patron, > Christian Patron, not-from-my-town Patron, poor Patron, long-hair > Patron, people-who-wear-glasses Patron, etc. etc. etc. > So you're going to send cops to enforce all of those? > You're going to need a mighty big police state to do that. > Curious how such a large police state will happen after Libertarians > gut government? > There was no mention of Costumed Government crime historians. Not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean??? > If Joe opens a business and seeks only to hire 4 foot Asian women, why would > he need cops? > If he only want to sell his product to Lesbians, why would he need cops? If Joe decides only to sell to 4' tall Asian lesbian women, chances are very good you'll need cops and lawyers. But chances would also be good that Joe isn't very business savvy either. That's a rather weak argument. Suppose that someone cornered the corn market and only sold to a foreign country, or to only people that were rich enough and only for personal use? Yeah, you'll have to send lots of cops and lawyers for that one too. But never mind all the dead people and animals, they should die slowly and quietly, it's their right, right? Brothers Nelson Bunker Hunt and William Herbert Hunt attempted to corner the world silver markets in the late 1970s and early 1980s, at one stage holding the rights to more than half of the world's deliverable silver. During the Hunts' accumulation of the precious metal, silver prices rose from $11 an ounce in September 1979 to nearly $50 an ounce in January 1980. Just think how good cornering markets will be for everyone right? Especially the poor. Yet that's exactly what you propose. > You appear hopelessly confused. > Minimum wage only ensures that someone MUST be paid at least X. > > > It does not guarantee employment. In fact, those worth LESS than > > > X will not be employed. > > Half true. > > The part of the Civil War that many people overlook is the fact that > > many northerners were out of work precisely because of the low cost of > > slavery. > > Lincoln's War is irrelevant to the Minimum Wage. > It's completely relevant to employment though. > Lincoln's War is not relevant to employment either. And I'm the one who's confused? Why do you suppose there was rampant unemployment? Wouldn't have anything to do with free labor would it? Nah, couldn't be. Just frees up more people to be in the army and make war, right? I have a feeling you're going to start weighing again. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
