Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[Jhoffa_]

Hey, maybe I was wrong..

I kinda feel good about a Bass Boat Navy..

Yeah, sunset missles are no problem for a target smaller than a go-kart..

Maybe the Libertarians are right after all.

[dcwusmc]

Still ducking the question??????

[OWK]

I went back and read your exchanges with donh, and it seems that you are incorrect in your understanding of the fundamentals of libertarian philosophy.

Libertarian philosophy does not prohibit force or fraud.

It prohibits the initiation of force, or fraud.

Hence if an individual acts to initiate force against another, he morally empowers the use of restraining (defensive) force under libertarian philosophy. And the same libertarian philosophy suggests that men may act in concert (i.e. form a government) in the defense of rights.

So if (as in your example) you tried to force your neighbor's wife into prostitution, or caused harm to your neighbor's property, or tried to engage his children (who are too young to understand the concept of consent) in sexuality, he would be morally entitled to either [a: restrain you himself, or b:act in coordinated effort with his neighbors (i.e. government) to restrain you, with force if necessary[

Libertarian philosophy does not prohibit force.

It prohibits the INITIATION of force.

Please make a note of it.

[Alan Chapman]

I have been truly amazed with the twists of logic Roscoe has used in this thread.

You'll have better luck getting the north poles of two magnets to stick together than you will discussing things logically with Roscoe.

[Jhoffa_]

Good luck. They've been avoiding it all day.

Yeah, it's because they can't answer.. and their ideology works on paper, but (ironically) could only be put into practical application in a world of Kevin's and CJ's.. (Whom they personally despise.. )

They are a joke.. a very few people who make an incredible ammount of noise..

[dcwusmc]

Agreed, but at least Tex answered and quite reasonably by comparison to some past replies and certainly as compared to others posting on this very thread!

[AKbear]

Yep, they violated property rights. The so called Whiskey Rebellion is kind of like the first Waco. They destroyed property and killed people because they didn't pay their taxes.

Now, I have seen you mention the "no force, no fraud" thing over and over and some of your statements regarding the same.

You first must understand a principle before you can use it in a debate, and from your use of it to derive "rights" shows you have no understanding of it at all.

It's not "no force, no fraud," it's, "No one may initiate force or fraud,"

Just thought I would clear that up for you.

[OWK]

As a barrier to anarchists.

OK... I'm with you on that score.

I approve of the notion of state.

Where I differ with you, is in defining the responsibility of state.

I say the state's only morally legitimate responsibility, is the defense of rights, so that we are free to pursue or own improvement and industry.

You say, the state should exist to dictate our actions, so as to make us better people.

[Jhoffa_]

Please make a note of it.

I will Mr. OWK.

And, in the mean time please take a minute to explain the concept of Property Right's and such to Mister Donh as they would exist under a "pure" Libertarian Government..

He seems to be getting a little confused.

[Texasforever]

Unless you are talking about the 2nd clause. Then you still have to take into consideration the 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment.

So in your mind both the 10th amendment and the 21st amendment are constitutionally suspect?

[southern rock]

Under Libertarianism, criminals would break down doors with impunity. Who would stop them?

Ummm... Homeowners?

[donh]

You are a liar Don.. You are making things up as you go along.. Even the most staunch defender of the Libertarian ideology would agree.

Staunch defenders are not the same thing as contributing philosophical theorists. Most political animals couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag, including, sadly, most libertarian political activists.

When you can point me to a well-known libertarian political philosopher who disagrees with me, I will feel moved to respond. You have still not responded to the substance of my argument, which makes it perfectly clear why "force and fraud" is not in essential conflict with any sensible understanding of property rights, with regard to your cow-poking-beside-the-schoolyard example.

Property rights, are important, sure, but they not absolute trumps in any libertarian theory of which I am aware. Continuing to insist that they are, without providing me with an example from a well-known libertarian philosopher, after I've given you a perfectly obvious example otherwise, vis. a vis. manslaughter, is just silly.

[tpaine]

What does being a fink have to do with 'padding egos'?

-- You & strela are beyond bizarro.

[OWK]

Yeah, it's because they can't answer..

Already answered.

There was nothing even remotely difficult about your question.

Your position was based on a fundamental mistake on your part.

[AKbear]

I know. However, as I mentioned in a post somewhere up in all this, I do it for the lurkers more than trying to change Roscoe's mind. Some days I have the patience for it, but most days I don't even try.

[Jhoffa_]

It's not "no force, no fraud," it's, "No one may initiate force or fraud,"

I am well aware of that..

So, my "bossie" example stands.. Eh?

[Jhoffa_]

You & strela are beyond bizarro.

We finally made it baby..

See, I told you all the effort would pay off in the long run..

[AKbear]

Agreed, but any government program, federal, state, county, or local, must take into consideration the whole constitution including the entire Bill of Rights. Most especially the Bill of Rights.

[Jhoffa_]

PS: I don't know who posted #1070, but I didn't "get" it pulled..

So put down the tinfoil.

[OWK]

So, my "bossie" example stands.. Eh?

If you'd be willing to repeat your example, I'd be willing to answer it to the best of my ability.