I am going to descend just slightly into a debate that I've had many, many times with Libertarians (who I consider to be equal to anarchists and certainly no better.) It's risky, because those earlier debates were far reaching and there is no time by me for that here. But I will explain my understanding of you, a little.
I think I understand. It is an insult to ethics to imagine that a gov't may, if consistent refusal to comply continues, escalate things to the point of killing someone for nothing more than refusing to pay their taxes in some year. The gov't insists with letters, they are ignored, the gov't seizes legal control over property, this too is ignored, and the gov't sends over police to eject the person, and this too is opposed, and ultimately it comes right down to the application of coercive force which if it is to mean anything must finally come down to a willingness on the part of those who make up that coercive facet of gov't to actually kill the person if they continue to resist on the basis of what really is just a financial disagreement.
That remains a quandary for any society and the answer seems to only be, "well, so long as people see the threats or otherwise are willing to cooperate it isn't a moral problem." That doesn't really answer it, it just defers the question.
I don't have an answer to this, by the way. I'm just saying that I think I gather your argument somewhat.
But that isn't the whole of it. There is much more, such as concepts of property ownership, the entire subject of scarce resources, the ability to control in some degree what happens around one's smaller circle of life, and so on. However, do deal with all that would be to fully engage in another Libertarian mire and right now I don't want to do that, especially here.
On this point, we need to partly disagree. I _do_ agree that people are inherently good. This places you and me in a different camp than many who assume that people are essentially evil. But I don't agree that anarchy (with property ownership concepts added in) will work, either. Been there, seen the results.
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:43:08 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: ...
Like, when you leave the ATM with $200.00 you just withdrew, and some thug comes up and flashes a .357 magnum in your face and asks politely, "May I please have your money?"
Are you then having a "financial disagreement" with the thief?
How is The Government any different - just because a bunch of people voted for them, they get carte blanche to rob people of their hard- earned income?
The issue is that I don't accept anarchy with unfettered private property ownership tacked onto it as a viable approach. I embrace your point that "people are essentially good" and we are probably in concert there. Beyond that, I would want to argue, but as I also said it is more important to me not to be mired in a Libertarian debate. Let's just embrace what we find in common.
And it's just not that interesting. I've been there, done the debate, listened to the sides, changed and reshaped my own opinions over time, struggled with private property ownership versus scarce resource issues, struggled with what it means to have the ability to control in some degree what happens around one's smaller circle of life, taken things from "you are the only person on earth" and walked slowly through to "what now, with lots of folks everywhere around you" logic, and so on. I've done all this while also caring for those who lost their children, their families, to war and violence. It is simply not the case that the only way I can be fair to you, or to counter some accusation from you like the above, is to re-investigate and re- justify (to you or anyone) my own conclusions about the issues every time someone else thinks they can re-argue old Libertarian points.
To put it simply, I just don't find the arguments for anarchy, with unfettered private property ownership pasted onto it, convincing in the least.
I never advocated "Anarchy". I just said "pure" anarchy simply means "no king/emperor/fuehrer/etc."
Libertarians believe in _some_ kind of government, like to build roads and libraries, but those things are voted for locally, and the people voluntarily pay their share, because it's the Right Thing To Do.
But stealing 30% of some guy's paycheck in Kansas to pay for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska isn't.
I wasn't referring to something _you_ said, because frankly I never read that statement from you. Luckily. It comes from other discussions in another time and place. It's my summation of it, so that I don't need to belabor details.
I know. Been there, heard it, argued both sides.
Like I said, I understand the ethical problems. It's just not the right answer to them because of the other problems it creates.
And no, I don't want to engage on this. I'm just telling you my take, not asking for an argument.
He's correct. Political correctness has turned us all, Democrats AND Republicans, into impotent weenies :-(
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
He also overlooked the 2004 election when the terrorists tried to influence the elections.They wanted Kerry to be elected. (then they would have nothing to fear.)
I just love the way idiots try to equate the American Revolution (or anything else) with terrorist actions. More "moral equivalence".
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.