| ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Who won the cold war?
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:52:08 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank wrote in part, quoting Larry & me:
>> >gorbachev had the power to be a stalin.
>> What made you think that?
>History, for one thing. Soviet history. You can even go back much
>further and talk about Czarist history. Gorbechev was the man in
>charge. He spoke for the state.
That's right, he spoke for the state. That means he figured out what the
state would go for, and said it. The state would not do anything he chose
to say.
>Probably a better question, addressed to you. How do you account
>for Gorbechev becoming the acceptable "darling" in the west? Man
>of the Decade in TIME magazine, for example? The leader of an
>environmental think tank, based in San Francisco? An acceptable
>spokesman for Democratic Reform, amongst other things?
Basically for the same reason ANY politician becomes a darling of the press:
1. a charming personality
2. saying what the press wants to hear.
Gorby and his wife (Remember how Rena got to be a celebrity too?) were
different in their temperament and background than had been the crude
Kruschev and the officious Brezhnev or Kosygin. (Chernenko wasn't alive
long enough to make an impact. Andropov might have had a chance; I scoffed
when Bob Falk told me he was a British agent, but later he convinced me.)
And the press by then was VERY interested in presenting a Soviet leader as a
good guy who'd end the cold war, as opposed to Reagan's wanting to keep it
going. And everybody liked that port wine stain on his forehead.
>Face it,
>Gorbechev was a visionary, although from the socialist/communist
>bent. I am not convinced that YOU can convince me that he was
>focused upon totalitarian "soviet style" utilitarianism to create
>its polar objectives, as the Soviet empire previously held as its
>core.
I'm not convinced of that either. By his time there were no true believers
left in the Politburo under 80 YO. (I even heard there was practically
nobody youthful, PERIOD, in the Politburo.) They had no "-ism" in the
sense
of ideology. But they did have jobs, and privilege, and enjoyed being part
of the "nomenclature". All they wanted to do was keep themselves
going,
climb the ladder and step on the toes of those below them. Gorby got to
where he was, looked and saw that there ws some human ballast that was
sinking the ship faster than it might go down otherwise, and wanted to pry
that ballast loose.
In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: 17 Aug 2002 14:43:37 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 12:23, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > > The question, 'Who won the cold war' is however controversial. I
> > > would suggest Russia and the former soviet block republics won
the
> > > cold war, since they seem to be the only ones benefiting with
> > > increasing liberalization of the economic, social and individual
>
> You replied:
> > Next thing we'll see is you claiming the south won the Civil War,
since
> > they benefited from the following economic progress and sociological
> > advances. Or that Japan won WWII because of the economic boom they
made
> > after the end of it. Talk about revisionism!
>
> I will no go into much labour to discuss semantical elements of your
> argument here. The South obviously did NOT benefit very much
> economically following the northern occupation, particularly under
> President Grant. But there are voices, voiced by historians of merit,
> that do question who won WWII, particularly in the case of Japan! You
Maybe they should read the documents of surrender. That should help
clear their minds.
> > To say the Soviet Union won the cold war is to ignore what the cold
war
> > _was_. The cold war was the USSR wanting to expand it's empire, and
the
> > US wanting to prevent that.
>
> I don't question that at all. It certainly was an ideological
> struggle to be sure. Gorbechev, Yeltsen, and particularly Putin
> wanted to make a tremendous shift toward democratic reform, and it
> gets better as you go from the first to the last individual in current
> power. I am NOT suggesting that Gorbechev had in mind Vladimir Putin,
> but nevertheless, things work that way naturally over time that way
> sometimes, and in this case it certainly did. Which is why I took the
> time to point out that with Gorbechev's reforms, liberty was certainly
> the main focus in contrast to dictatorial regimentation in the
> previous decades of Soviet history. Yeltsen was also a product of his
> own time, as is Putin. But these were and are giants of men with a lot
> of guts and vision, and it had little to do with Ronald Reagan --
> that's all I really said! It would have happened anyway! It had to.
> With or without Reagan.
It would have happened with or without Gorbachev, in his own words.
Sorry, Frank, but I take Gorbachev's words about his intentions and
desires far more seriously than yours. He has stated that it was about
preventing change, not liberty. Yeltsin, as noted elsewhere, was no
champion of liberty, but a lover of power. Polls conducted by.in Russia
show that the people there generally can not see he did anything good
(46%), and less than a quarter of those polled felt he brought any good
movement in democracy, political reform and freedom.
Yeltsin is no light of freedom or liberty. Putin? the verdict is still
out, but I will say he looks better than Yeltsin and Gorbachev, so far.
Recall, however, that he was elected on a move of nationalism, after his
"war on terrorists" that started in October of 1999, when he was PM.
>
> > It was not about central planning,
> > communism, capitalism, or republicanism or democracy. The Soviets
> > wanted to rule the world. The US wanted to prevent that. Have you
> > forgotten the policies of "containment" and "limited
containment"?
>
> No I haven't. But if you are talking primarily in terms of
"liberty",
> then you'll have to admit that most of eastern Europe and the former
> Republics of the former Soviet Union are by far more free today, and
> Ronald Reagan planed no role in that occurring. The PEOPLE wanted
> liberty, and the politicians in this case, e.g. Gorbechev, Yeltsen and
> Putin knew that to be the case. In any case, it still took a lot of
> guts to get in the face of the Communist Party and the Cps control of
> the Soviet apparatus to bring about any reform at all! It could have
> easily failed. It didn't. Gorbechev is still the "Man of the
Decade"
> according to TIME magazine, and NOT Ronald Reagan to the chagrin of
> the radical right.
And Hitler is still a "winner" of the Time MOY, as is Kruschev and
Stalin. Bug freaking deal. Can you name other "Man of the Decade"
"winners"? Nope. None before or since, according to time. A Dubious
"honor", at best.
>
> I know very well I am pissing off the radical right elements here. I
> also know Gorbechev is still likely a communist, and still believes
> communism can work in an open society with free choices. He is
> probably correct, and since he has never renounced communism, I
> believe his leadership was especially important, since the outcome of
> his liberalization resulted in a pluralistic democracy in Russia, and
> throughout the former Soviet block! Think about that. He took the
> chance, and yet he has never renounced his own beliefs -- he was
> willing to give the people the chance to choose! They have, and they
> still do.
Frank, in his own words, he thought he was helping communism. he reuslt
were not his intention.
>
> Can a communist be a real libertarian at heart? I don't know. But
> contrary to many here, I believe that self-determination, that nations
> have a right to freely choose their own government, is a core
> libertarian assumption. Which is also why I believe that islamic
> states have a right to freely determine their own form of government,
> and the foreign policy and associated aspects that govern such a
> society.
>
> > Have you forgotten how the Europeans were unhappy with the US'
> > involvement in Afghanistan because they felt it was jeopardizing our
> > ability to defend them?
>
> I DON'T THINK SO! Where's the evidence for this? God, I'd like to
> hear more about this. Where did this come from?
Just to be clear, I am talking about the first trip to Afghanistan, not
the current one. Did you think I was referring to the latest trip?
>
> > Does the Soviet Empire cover any appreciable amount of geography
today?
>
> There is NO Soviet Empire today. It's gone. There is far more
> liberty and freedom in Russia and almost all former Soviet Republics
> -- that's the point.
No, that is not the point you have been pushing. The result was not the
intention. Therefore, one can not give the credit to Gorbachev the way
you do.
> > Nope. It crumbled. To say that contributing factors to the the fall
of
> > the USSR was what the war was about, or to say that the resulting
> > changes were what the war was about is to ignore history, and be
> > revisionist.
>
> What's so "revisionist" about being factual? Truth is: great
leaders
> emerged and took tremendous chances to bring about these changes, and
> Ronald Reagan was, again, not one of them, nor was US foreign policy
O whatever, Frank. So, you are saying that had the US NOT faced off with
the USSR, in a policy of containment with regards to the spread of the
Soviet Empire, it would have changed nothing? Are you saying that if we
had just rolled over and gave up, Gorbachev would still have still made
it into power, and still have made the changes? How much history must
you ignore to come to that conclusion? Most of it, that's how much.
> really. The radical right would like to believe that all of the
> changes in the last decade or so of the 20th century were the direct
> result of US foreign policy. If anything at all, US foreign policy
> probably restrained such reforms from taking place until they wer
You know Frank, your blame America for everything is getting old and
tired. You cannot logically claim that American Foreign Policy causes
bad things, and does no good things. It shows your bias.
> > There is a major difference between who *benefited* form changes or
from
> > the ending of a war, or even from the result of the war, and who won
the
> > war.
>
> No, just as in the American Revolution, it took leadership on the part
> of those concerned, to bring about what the people really wanted.
> About the ONLY thing that the Shrub has done, was to at least
Who mentioned Bush? Not I; you. Again, your bias colors your words. Bush
had nothing to do with the breakup of the USSR, so your referencing him
is out of contest, and irrelevant. The people wanted food, water,
heating, and basic good they were not getting. Liberty was not, I know
this may suprise you, their chief concern.
> > If you really want to get down to it, the USSR wound up following
the
> > policy of "If you can't beat them, join them", aka
BandWagoning.
>
> That's just not the way it happened, and I hope you know it. It's a
> lot more complicated than that. You had to defeat the CP's hold on
BS. The weight of USSR's Empire rested on three pillars. The KGB, the
CP, and the military. In Afghanistan, her military was reduced in might
and power, as was the KGB and the CP. The war in Afghanistan was costing
the USSR approximately 10Billion a year, and in the end about 60,000
troops. Ramifications of the loss of that war rippled through the USSR
like an earthquake. The KGB was also damaged heavily by the failure in
Afghan.
In fact, the very fact that Gorbachev achieved the station he did,
against the desires of the KGB and the "hard liners" demonstrates
clearly that the KGB had lost much of it's power.
> the Soviet political apparatus. It took real individuals to make that
> happen, even relegate the CP to the sidelines! Do you REALLY believe
> that Gorbechev's challenge to the Communist hardliners, or Yeltsen's
> ability to stand up against a counter coup, was simply grandstanding?
Yeltsin's "standing up" to the coup WAS grandstanding, yes. Look at
his
actions after he obtained power to see the truth behind it, Frank. In
Gorbachev's words, he felt the "Hardliners" were trying to dissolve
the
USSR. IN HIS WORDS. You are Frank, not Gorbachev. I'll take his words on
his desires and intentions above your *any* day. Just as I'd take your
words about your desires and intentions over his, *any* day. Tell me why
I should believe your statements about what he did over his own.
> > Contrary to some here, not one man was responsible for the fall of
the
> > Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It was the culmination of a
> > long series of events.
>
> It was finally the result of real people. Real people with courage and
> character. I have no idea how you want to continue this dialogue, but
> you have not made any case whatsoever that the US won the war. We
> didn't win it. If we had won it, then liberty would prevail in the US
Bullshit, Frank. As *you* have said often, the was was NOT about
liberty. It was a battle of ideologies, not liberty. so take your
argument and shine some light on it. You determine the winner of a
contest by looking at the goals of each contestant, or the contest. As
you have repeatedly said, and I agree with, Liberty was not a factor in
the contest. Therefore, it is not a factor in determining who won it.
The only case you have made for USSR winning it, is that they
*benefited* from the end of it, and from *adopting the policies of the
opposing contestant*.
> -- it isn't. Does the US government have to be the world statesman?
> Does everything that takes place on this planet result from US
> leadership? This is the same insane arrogance displayed by the Shrub
> Regime<tm> today in relation to virtually everything. Bill, get off
of
> it! The US government is NOT the omniscient God that controls the
> entire planet. Ronald Reagan was NO hero.
Open your eyes and do some reading. Either show me where I claimed
Reagan was a hero, etc. (or even close) or shut up and apologize. Fact
is, I have been making the statement that the "named players" were not
leaders in it, and that NO ONE MAN IS DUE THE CREDIT. Christ man, open
your eyes, take off your "Frank is always right" glasses and read for
a
change. I see a lot of arrogance in *your* words up there Frank. Lots of
things that have never been claimed in this forum *by*anyone*. Yup, lots
of straw up there.
>
> > These Gorbasms are truly amazing. I've seen it claimed that he was
> > responsible for the growth of the Internet! HAH!
>
> Well, I've heard equally outrageous claims that Ronald Reagan was
> responsible for ending the cold war, restoring democracy, liberty, and
> apple pie and motherhood! What the fuck -- over? If you add tax free
> beer and cigarettes I might sign on! Don't you have a clue that
> ultimately, the US government doesn't have a special mandate to save
> the world against itself?
Yay, another pathetic strawman from you. Can you not stick to the
subject? It seems all you care about these days are the prices of your
beer and cigarettes. How much are they in Russia? Maybe that is where
you should be trying to go to. Oh, wait they have rampant unemployment,
and approximately one in four citizens are below the *Russian* poverty
level. Yeah, they are doing soooo well over there.
> Real people do such things, and they aren't always Americans, or even
> attached in any way to the US government, or arrogant US foreign
> policy. Often people determine for themselves what they want, and
> politicians see an opportunity to supporting such. Ronald Reagan is
> hardly considered a patriot anywhere except by the far right wing in
> US politics. Certainly NOT in the former Soviet block.
And I am supposed to care why? I don't give a damn about your personal
vendetta against Reagan. It is only important in showing your bias
against facts. I don't give a damn about personalities, I care about the
long term tendencies and progressions that are above and beyond mere
personalities (you know, the important things when looking at history
and application of it to the future and present). A personality can
*only* become accepted *if* there is a basis for supporting it. Period.
Fact is much of the events that contributed to the demise of the USSR
occurred during his watch, now before you get your panties in a bunch
again, notice I said during his watch. Further, to deny that the
military buildup had a devastating effect on a the strength of the USSR
is just plain biased and ignorant, Frank. Facts are that over eighty
percent of the Soviet economy was dedicated to her military. In the late
1970's that military was dealt a heavy blow by it's failure in Afghan.
Follow that with an increase in opposing forces and you have a recipe
for economic crash, which is exactly what happened. Facts are that they
could not keep up with us, so they lost one of their foundational
pillars.
You know, this revisionism you are preaching can be compared to a
footrace. Joe and Bob are in the Olympics, in the 100 meter dash. Joe
wins the gold, and Bob the Silver. Joe won. But Bob has better charisma,
and winds up on the cover of Wheaties. What you are doing is saying that
Bob won the race. When the fact is, he came in second.
Now, if you want to argue that Bob *benefited* more from the race, fine.
but to say Bob *won* the race is ignorant, and revisionist. By your
argument, that the cold war was won by the soviets because they
*benefited* more, then the cold war was fated to be won by them, because
they would have *always* benefited from moving toward economic freedoms.
Again, as you have acknowledged, the Cold War was one of Communism vs
non-Communism. It was not about free-markets or Levis. The Soviets
wanted to control the world. The Soviet Empire has fallen., hence, it
LOST. it FAILED to achieve it's goals. The US point in the Cold War was
to PREVENT the Soviet Empire from conquering the world. It SUCCEEDED. It
is pretty damned hypocritical for you to shout that the Cold War was not
about liberty, and then use liberty as a determinant in who won it.
If you can not see that there is a difference between benefiting from
the ending of a war, and winning the war, then there is no point in
attempting to discuss this with you further.
--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:13:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Bill!
Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
> Yeltsin, as noted elsewhere, was no
> champion of liberty, but a lover of power. Polls conducted by.in Russia
> show that the people there generally can not see he did anything good
> (46%), and less than a quarter of those polled felt he brought any good
> movement in democracy, political reform and freedom.
That's probably true, since about 80 percent or above in America
today, subscribe that the Shrub Regime<tm> is doing a fabulous job in
the 'war on terror'. What the hell does that mean? With Gorbechev, it
had to start somewhere. It started with Gorbechev, and any political
science student would know this -- this is not something that can be
decided in a public opinion poll.
> Yeltsin is no light of freedom or liberty.
Yea he was, and in his own time, as history hopefully will finally
verify. Did he have it all together? Not likely. Was he a catalyst
for liberty -- obviously!
> Putin? the verdict is still
> out, but I will say he looks better than Yeltsin and Gorbachev, so far.
> Recall, however, that he was elected on a move of nationalism, after his
> "war on terrorists" that started in October of 1999, when he was
PM.
I can't say definitively for sure, but I would suggest that history
will finally reveal that Putin was one of the world's greatest
statesmen for free choice and liberty. Once gain however, I don't
have the luxury of writing history books, and I don't' honestly know.
I do know bull shit when I see it. Lowell Savage's explanations of
east Asian history certainly tops my list of absolute bull shit, as I
wrote earlier. I really does. He has no clue whatsoever about what
motivates people in east Asia. All I am saying is that I can freely
talk about what I DO know, but can expand on that necessarily to reach
ultimate conclusions about global realities. I do know for a fact,
that we are losing badly in the discourse of world opinion.
> And Hitler is still a "winner" of the Time MOY, as is Kruschev
and
> Stalin. Bug freaking deal. Can you name other "Man of the Decade"
> "winners"? Nope. None before or since, according to time. A
Dubious
> "honor", at best.
We're talking about history. And yes, Kruscheve was a man and stature
of his own age. Look at the "age" we are talking about for crying out
loud! Now, before you shoot from the hip here, consider what life was
like in the 1960s! I mean that! Who had the guts to stand up before
massive US aggression? Who did?
> Frank, in his own words, he thought he was helping communism. he reuslt
> were not his intention.
I know that. So what, at least he believed that it could become a
choice, alongside other ideologies, right? People make their own
choices ultimately. I respect Gorbechev a lot, mainly because he still
believes that "communism" is a choice, not a result of the use of
force! Think about that! He was the only Soviet leader that even
gave the people such a choice, and he willing to live under the
consequences. That's huge! Self-determination is always the best
choice from a libertarian point of view. As well as individuals,
nations themselves have choices. Yes. I'll fight this battle to the
bitter end, you do not have the moral right to impose "liberty" by
force. We lose every moral high ground when and if, we attempt to do
such a thing. Liberty stands or falls on the basis of its own
merits. If we reject that, then we are no longer talking about
liberty anymore, we are talking totalitarianism and force.
Liberty and Russia, you wrote:
> No, that is not the point you have been pushing. The result was not the
> intention. Therefore, one can not give the credit to Gorbachev the way
> you do.
Gorbechev was a key player, the central one, at the time. His example
was and still is, that communism has a rightful place on a free
playing field. He was willing to risk that, e.g., that communism
could win on a free playing field throughout the Soviet block.
> O whatever, Frank. So, you are saying that had the US NOT faced off with
> the USSR, in a policy of containment with regards to the spread of the
> Soviet Empire, it would have changed nothing? Are you saying that if we
> had just rolled over and gave up, Gorbachev would still have still made
> it into power, and still have made the changes? How much history must
> you ignore to come to that conclusion? Most of it, that's how much.
No Bill. You have this entirely backward and wrong. Without
Gorbechev's openness and restructuring, nothing else would have
happened, likely for years, or decades. I don't honestly know why you
have a problem with this.
> You know Frank, your blame America for everything is getting old and
> tired. You cannot logically claim that American Foreign Policy causes
> bad things, and does no good things. It shows your bias.
Why is that? Because the US government has been the most arrogant and
imperialistic power or the face of the earth for the last five
decades? I won't even pretend to respond to such arrogance. We're
not talking about liberty here are we? Think about this for a while.
The greatest potential liberty likely exists today in eastern Europe,
or the former Soviet Union. Why is that anyway?
> Who mentioned Bush? Not I; you. Again, your bias colors your words.
Well, I guess I do have certain bias. Mainly I hate fascism about as
much as I do socialist communism.
> Bush
> had nothing to do with the breakup of the USSR, so your referencing him
> is out of contest, and irrelevant. The people wanted food, water,
> heating, and basic good they were not getting. Liberty was not, I know
> this may suprise you, their chief concern.
This borders on the ridiculous. I've already stated pretty clearly
that the US had little to do with the break-up of the Soviet block,
didn't I? Bush wasn't even politically around at the time.
> Yeltsin's "standing up" to the coup WAS grandstanding, yes.
I'm going to have to drop all of this from further discussion, at
least for my part. This was a giant moment in history and YOU know
it. It changed virtually everything. If YOU can't see that, I am
indeed very, very sorry. And, if that is the case, then George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Samuel Adams had no significant roles
to play on the world stage either. You don't have a single clue about
what personalities played any role on the world stage, either in 1776,
or during the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. I'm personally tired
of bantering this about as if words had no meaning, or fundamental
actions had no consequence.
So, I'll let this all drift by, and will likely not comment further.
Before closing off however, if these individuals DID NOT PLAY A GIANT
ROLE on furthering liberty in the former Soviet Union, or upon the
world at large, then I guess I am at a complete loss in discovering
the significance of our own heroes, as mentioned just previously.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:06:39 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings Frank,
>I do know bull shit when I see it. Lowell Savage's explanations of
>east Asian history certainly tops my list of absolute bull shit, as I
>wrote earlier. I really does. He has no clue whatsoever about what
>motivates people in east Asia.
Yes, I suppose I'm being naive in presuming that the people in east Asia
are motivated by the same things that motivate people worldwide. Most
people want the best possible life for themselves and their families. Some
people concentrate on material things, others on religious things. Almost
no one turns down good things that come their way and most are willing to
work hard for what they want. But I guess, in this case, I'll have to
defer to you, Frank, and accept that the people in east Asia are motivated
by something else. (Of course, I don't remember ever saying anything about
what "motivates people in east Asia", but I must have because Frank
doesn't
lie.)
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: 17 Aug 2002 14:49:32 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 11:03, Robert Goodman wrote:
> bill@libc.org wrote in small part:
>
> >If Libertarians were elected to all federal elective offices
> >available for two straight elections, it would still take a decade
> >or more to make the changes we need done.
>
> Could you please elaborate?
Sure.
First, as any Libertarian will attest to, Libertarians disagree on
enough things regarding how to solve the problems, that we'd argue for
at least the first 6 years or so. ;^)
Second, the system we have effectively slows down sweeping changes of
the kind the Libertarians would like to make. Some would say by design.
Third, the big one, IMO, is entitlements. It will take years to
dismantle the welfare system without destroying the society/economy in
the process. A reorganization of the military structure, and, as you
mention, the field of law, is likewise not a quick end. There are enough
laws that congress could spend years doing nothing but repealing law
after law, and still only dent it.
--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:23:35 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
bill@libc.org wrote in part:
>> >If Libertarians were elected to all federal elective offices
>> >available for two straight elections, it would still take a
>>decade >or more to make the changes we need done.
>> Could you please elaborate?
>First, as any Libertarian will attest to, Libertarians disagree on
>enough things regarding how to solve the problems, that we'd argue
>for at least the first 6 years or so. ;^)
>Second, the system we have effectively slows down sweeping changes
>of the kind the Libertarians would like to make. Some would say by
>design.
>Third, the big one, IMO, is entitlements. It will take years to
>dismantle the welfare system without destroying the society/economy
>in the process.
I don't see that. Maybe I need more detailed or concrete examples.
>A reorganization of the military structure, and, as
>you mention, the field of law, is likewise not a quick end. There
>are enough laws that congress could spend years doing nothing but
>repealing law after law, and still only dent it.
>--
The rate of repealing laws is not a problem if a meat-axe approach be taken.
Even if a fine-toothed comb is employed, there's enough manpower in all the
think tanks to have worked it out in advance.
In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:03:23 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Lowell!
"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
> I guess, in this case, I'll have to
> defer to you, Frank, and accept that the people in east Asia are motivated
> by something else.
Okay good. Now a quick and remedial review of east Asia might be in
order.
East Asians are less of a homogenous group of people than are the
people of European origin frankly. Language, religion and cultures
are much different and more pronounced than in the west. In every
case what motivates them is quite different, and they cannot be
considered as is typical of many as a single block of people. There
are huge social, religious and cultural differences between say Japan
and Korea, between Japan, Korea, and China. Between Malaysians and
Vietnamese. Between Thais and Malaysians.
Nevertheless, there are some similarities that do seem to lie within
the background on how they view the world, and perceive things. They
are less confrontational than westerners usually are, and will even
lie to you in many cases when face-saving becomes important. It is
not considered a virtue when you insult someone, even though perhaps
the "insult" might be justifiable in western eyes. I am not directly
familiar however with southern Asia, having spent very little time
there, and never residing anywhere in that region, as I have in both
Japan (10 years) and the Philippines (about 10 years). I've also
spent time in Vietnam, Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong and Macau, Malaysia
and Singapore.
Now having said that, I find it troubling that east Asians are
beginning to sound more confrontational, and sometimes directly
"insulting" in dealing with the arrogance and beligerant nature of the
US government, particularly in foreign and economic policies. It is
occurring more frequently these days, particularly in the opinion
pages of regional and local newspapers.
In steep contrast to this, there is a far greater likelihood of
finding cultural common ground in things like religion, philosophy,
economics and social similarities in what we call western
civilization, which can largely be defined as western European, and
north, central and South American regions. Historically, for the most
part, the religion has been Christian, or various variants thereof,
and the long history of western empires, particularly Greek and Roman
were significant in bringing a sense of cultural, philosophical and
social affiliation.
There is one major difference in making this judgement however, and it
is very significant to any foreign policy considerations and efforts
by the US government and the western world. East Asian nations seem
to be far more pragmatic in dealing with this as an issue, and are
less judgmental in how nations, external to themselves, conduct their
own internal affairs. The issue I am talking about is the large and
growing block of islamic countries that stretch from Morocco through
Indonesia (with few exceptions such as India, Myrmar, Thailand, Indo
China, Singapore and the Philippines). Presently, Islam makes up
approximately 1/3 of the world's population, and in a few short years,
it will comprise even a much larger percentage. 30 million muslims
presently are in the United States.
Such a pragmatic and even-handed approach in foreign policy
demonstrates how ASEAN nations, some such as Malaysia and Indonesia
with huge muslim majorities, can coordinate such things as treaties,
economic pacts, mutual security and defence efforts, and immigration
etc. on a routine basis with non-muslim countries in the same
organization. Although Myrmar is largely targeted by US and western
human rights groups and governments, mainly from the US and Britain,
as being a brutal, if not tyrannical regime, no such condemnation
exists from the Philippines, Thailand, and other members of the ASEAN
block, nor does such condemnation exist from say Japan, Korea or
Taiwan. Internal policies and matters of individual governments are
largely matters considered for practical reasons for their own people
to deal with.
Due to centuries of coexistence and learning to work, trade, and deal
with each other, east Asians have a very different outlook on
conducting foreign policy than does the arrogant, imperialistic
gunboat diplomacy of the western world, in which the US government
seems to be the best holdover of a 20th century representative.
Imperial Japan was the largest exception to this, but that has its own
origin in history on the cultural maturity in which Japan developed
itself, and its relative isolated status for centuries as a remote,
but unified, island civilization. Unlike China, Japan developed one
language, a unified political system, banking system, and borrowed
very much but very selectively from those they chose had better
systems that might work well. They still conduct things in largely
such a way today.
It is not really feasible, or even realistic in any way for US foreign
policy to assume that such civilizations can be changed by brute
force, and made to accept democratic pluralism, libertarian idealism,
and western values! If you tout Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and
Taiwan as examples of this, don't fool yourself! It hasn't happened.
All such societies have borrowed what they like from the west,
modified it to fit their own cultural identities, and pragmatically
used such to further their own societies, economies and growth.
It is not a question about whether Japan is more libertarian than
Korea. Or if Hong Kong is more libertarian than Thailand. If you ask
a common Japanese man if he believes individuals have the right to
conduct their own personal affairs according to their own choices, and
be responsible for such choices, you would find yourself in a
difficult and awkward situation. Likely the answer you would get would
be evasive to your question. Japanese culture is steeped heavily in
non-individualism and mutual consensus building. You don't just go
home after working an 8-hour day on the job. You head for the
entertainment district with your colleges well into the night and
spend much of your time with them, usually riding home on the commuter
train before the station closes. It would be considered very
disrespectful to do otherwise! You have no luxury for deciding what
YOU chose to do, but you have every responsibility to be loyal to your
company and those you work with. You don't drive a Toyota if you work
for Nissan. Such would again be considered very disrespectful and an
insult to your employer.
In the private opinion of the Japanese man, he would even consider
your question to be arrogant and likely disrespectful. He won't tell
you that however. You learn that by having private friendships with
individuals, who eventually will open up and discuss such things. But
in the interest of face-saving, the answer you get will likely NOT be
yes, or know, but an evasive response about how Japan deals with ideas
such as making choices.
So, even though Japan has a written Constitution that in many ways
resembles the US Constitution, every Japanese knows full well that
that Constitution is NOT Japanese, it is foreign, and does not really
deal with or speak to Japan as a civilization. It is just more
practical to have such a Constitution, than to overtly change it right
now. Japan could have scraped that Constitution over the years, but
there are practical reasons for not doing so. That's a long story
however, and for time considerations, let's just assume that it meets
the immediate and pragmatic needs of Japan to keep that Constitution
in place.
I hope this helps in bringing some balance and understanding, that US
foreign policy, brutal military aggression, and arrogant gunboat
diplomacy isn't necessary seen as such a great virtue in the eyes a
billions of people.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 04:53:29 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Well, this one is going to be a little bit shorter than usual...
unfortunately, not much. :-)
Greetings again Frank.
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > I guess, in this case, I'll have to
> > defer to you, Frank, and accept that the people in east Asia are
motivated
> > by something else.
>
>Okay good. Now a quick and remedial review of east Asia might be in
>order.
I've snipped the rest of it because it was, at best, a replay of old
western shibboleths about the East (with a few facts thrown in). At worst,
it was getting darn close to the old "well, those little brown people
simply aren't capable of making liberty work." I'm sure you didn't really
mean that, Frank, but it sure started to look that way in a few spots.
On the one hand, you said there are huge social, religious and cultural
differences among the different peoples of Asia. On the other hand, you
come up with a bunch of similarities among them which are "different"
from
the west. Perhaps these are all true--but if so, it still makes my
point. In fact, you didn't point out anything that would change if US law
were magically transplanted to those countries. For instance, the fact
that a Japanese worker is more likely to socialize with his co-workers
after work to show his loyalty to "the team" is a cultural choice that
he
would be free to make in a free society. There is no law in Japan that
says he must do this and there is no law in the US that says his
counterpart must not. In fact, given your discussion of the Japanese
constitution, perhaps the most interesting thing is that the major
constitutional debate in that country over the last 20 years or so has been
whether Japan should keep its defense spending within the constitutional 1%
limit (I forget whether it is 1% of GDP or 1% of total government receipts)
or whether it should exceed the limit and whether it should amend its
constitution to do so. (So far, it has exceeded the limit--although it has
used "creative bookkeeping" to stay "technically" within
bounds.) Of *ALL*
the provisions in the Japanese constitution, this one must be the most
offensive to the true "Japanese patriot". And yet, there are a lot of
people who don't want to exceed that limit and want to keep that limit in
the constitution!
My point was that those countries which had the most economic freedom were
the ones which were best off economically--regardless of how they got that
freedom. I also noticed that they tended (with the possible exception of
the Philippines not getting that freedom) to get that greater amount of
freedom due to their contact with either Britain or the US. (And note that
one of my previous posts said something like "one of the things we may have
done wrong was in *not* intervening in the internal affairs more
actively." The Philippines is a case in point, we probably should have
pushed Marcos out a long time before the people there did. Had we done so,
the people there might be much better off today. Of course, it's also
*possible* that Marcos would have been replaced by someone worse--for the
Filipinos. So I'm only going to leave it a mild "probably".)
You also pointed out that many of these people do not appreciate the
freedoms that they have and do not understand that what economic progress
they have made is due to those freedoms. This means that they also do not
understand what is preventing them from achieving more economic
progress. So what? That doesn't mean they are correct. That means that
the evidence needs to be pointed out to them. After all, there are plenty
of people here in the US that don't understand that their wealth is not due
to the US Government actions, but due to the freedom and the rule of law
that we enjoy.
Tell me Frank. What is it that you really think? Do you really think that
the people in Burma are better off with a military junta running things
instead of their elected civilian officials? Do you really think that
Suharto was good for Indonesia? That Communism was good for Vietnam, Laos,
and Cambodia? That the people of Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea, and the
Philippines really don't want to go through the hassle of actually
*electing* their representatives, and that where there are problems with
the democratic or representative institutions, that they don't want them
fixed? That the rule of law, human rights, property rights, voting rights,
due process, freedom of speech, low taxes, and all the other similar things
that we libertarians fight for here in the US doesn't and wouldn't make a
significant difference in all of these countries? In other words, Frank,
do you really believe in freedom--even for people who aren't white,
middle-class, or at least, Americans?
One final thought. Freedom generally isn't "imposed" on the
majority of a
population. Rather, freedom for the majority of the population is
"imposed" on the minority that was formerly "ruling" the
country. Since
you mentioned the "tolerance" that the Asian nations have for Myanmar
(Burma), I'll take it as an example (remembering Barry Goldwater's
discussion of "moderation" and "extremism"). If the US came
in and
"imposed liberty" on that nation (and I don't think it would be a good
idea
to do so--unless there are some things I don't know), we would not be
"imposing" on the majority of the people. Rather, we would be
"imposing"
on the military junta and their supporters. If it turned out that the
elected government was just as bad as the military junta and the people
turned against it (and against us), then at that point, we *would* be
trying to *impose* on the majority. But, of course, that's part of what
freedom is about--the freedom to change the government you no longer
believe is working in your best interest, and if that particular freedom is
"imposed" on the nation, then the people can change their government
to get
one more to their liking.
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: 17 Aug 2002 14:58:59 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 05:49, Frank Reichert wrote:
> So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a freely
> elected government, when the people voted for that government in the
> voting booth? I submit to you that it is NONE of the U.S.
> government's business who people in sovereign nations elect to lead
> and represent them.
This fixation on "freely elected" intrigues me. One the one hand,
it
provides for mob-rule, tyranny of the majority. Anything decided by
election is right. On the other hand, it opens a slippery slope.
If the elections were not fair, or there were none, does that mean your
argument then switches sides? If it is wrong to "interfere" with
governments "freely elected", the corollary is that it must not be, if
the government was instituted by force, or rigged elections. If that is
accepted, then by that maxim, the government of any and all freely
elected governments, including the US, are not wrong to "interfere"
with
non-freely elected governments, provided they provide a means of a truly
fair election. That slope is slippery, because who determines what is
fair? How does one certify that people were voting their desires, as
opposed to voting a certain way to either curry favor with a perceived
powerhouse, or avoid retribution from the prior non-freely elected
government?
--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: 17 Aug 2002 15:02:47 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 05:16, Frank Reichert wrote:
> election of their own choosing. There is still speculation that
> President Bush wasn't REALLY elected, since there is still controversy
> surrounding the ballot counting in Florida. It would be morally wrong
Gore's supporters counted the ballots their way, and he still lost. Keep
up, Frank.
--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:23:39 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
>> election of their own choosing. There is still speculation that
>> President Bush wasn't REALLY elected, since there is still
>>controversy surrounding the ballot counting in Florida. It would
>>be morally wrong
>Gore's supporters counted the ballots their way, and he still lost.
>Keep up, Frank.
>--
And I wouldn't care if it took a coup to keep Gore out of the White House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:37:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Robert!
Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
> Did I ever question that? Do you think I care HOW people get into power?
> Did I ever say I was for fair elections here? Sure, I'll tell OTHERS that
> I'm for free & fair elections, because I want to get their sympathy by
> making them think they have mine, but here I'll come right out and say
fuck
> the people, bring on freedom!
Problem with this is that you exclude the idea of self-determination
and free elections as if it had nothing to do with liberty. A case in
point is that you assume that people were more free under Pinochet
than they were under Allende. People had been given more economic
freedom under Pinochet, and under many conditions that might be
supportable. But that came at a terrible expense in terms of other
issues, e.g.: freedom of speech, press, and the freedom to make
political choices, such as electing government.
I have never tried to suggest that democracy, free choice or
legitimate elections guarantee liberty. I do suggest that true
liberty cannot really be achieved in the absence of such choices.
Again, there is no guarantee that the people will choose freedom if
given such choices, indeed in many cases they will not -- at least for
a while. But you cannot initiate force against someone to force them
to be free against their own will and still call that liberty. A
condition for liberty is that people themselves must choose liberty,
rather than some vague concept of bringing liberty to them under the
barrel of a gun, as obviously was the case of Pinochet's coup against
Allende.
> Why should people be allowed to vote themselves a piece of what others
own,
> when those others have the guns or treachery to stop them? Why should the
> robber get an even break?
I would only suggest that the people themselves do have the option of
taking up arms to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.
I have always said that. But usually that seldom works very well, and
other alternatives seem to work much better, including civil
disobedience, aggressive protests, and using the power of the pen to
influence others to go along with you. I would say however that it is
never morally defensible for another state to impose such force for
the purpose of overthrowing any other government. Again, unless the
people themselves will support liberty on their own, such a concept
can never be considered legitimate, since you can't impose liberty by
external force. It would amount to something along the line of the
current Afghan puppet regime, propped up entirely by the US and
British governments. That government is just as alien to the people
who live in Afghanistan as would be the case under British colonial
rule of the US.
I only make the later point to suggest that the American people were
far more free under King George than we are under the current Shrub
Regime<tm> where about 50 percent of our productive income is forcibly
confiscated by the later, and its surrogate state governments acting
largely under federal mandates. Indeed, in today's political climate,
I would gladly choose, if given the opportunity, the government of
King George, as it existed in the 1770s, than the current government
ruled democratically by the people of the US.
> I'd thought we'd already made clear that some of us value liberty over
> democracy, and that some of us valued justice over rules or fairness.
I do not hold that pure democracy is a good idea either, which is why
the US government was put together in the fashion that it was. The US
Constitutionally as it was set up, was NOT a democracy. About the
only thing that could have been considered democratic at all was the
lower House of the US Congress. The Senate was then appointed by the
States, not under direct democratic vote by the people, and the
Electoral College was (and is) responsible in the process of electing
the President. The loss of the State's power to select who represents
them in the US Senate was a tremendous loss of Constitutional checks
against democratic mob rule.
I previously wrote:
> >So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a freely
> >elected government, when the people voted for that government in the
> >voting booth?
You replied:
> Simple: the result was greater liberty & justice for all.
Certainly NOT if the people don't want it, and the third party
government imposes such "liberty" by brute force! The tremendous
costs associated with imposing such a condition upon an unwilling
people has also been a disaster.
> Since when were Duvalier and Amin Marxists? (I"m not even sure
about
Haile
> Selassie.) And even Ortega had avowedly communist opposition.
>
> >But for the US to interfere in Chile's political process
> >undermines the principle of self-determination and free choice also.
>
> And Frank, we've already established that YOU're for those things. Don't
> you know by now that WE aren't?
I have no idea who this "we" is that you constantly refer to. I do
know that the Libertarian Party does not support initiating force to
overthrow existing governments outside of the confines of a legitimate
war for defensive purposes. Put mildly, if you wish to impose by brute
force, liberty for ONLY yourself, and against the wishes of a sizeable
majority who do not want you to be free, you will almost always lose.
At some point you will need to draw the "hearts and minds" support
from a majority who will support such liberty.
And, if enough people DO want to be free, then something along the
order of the Free State Project (FSP) or similar massive migration to
a small populated foreign state, would be more practical and effective
than pursuing a policy of armed aggression against third world
countries such as Iraq, Iran, Somalia, or imposing alien governments
upon people who will never accept it. As was the case in the early
history of America, particularly under colonial rule, many people who
did want such freedom migrated here and supported liberty, at least
for a while. In many cases too, such people also brought with them
there one fashion of despotism and tyranny, as in the cases of State
Supported churches and baring religious freedom.
All I am suggesting as there are much better practical alternatives
than simply pursuing a policy of aggression to achieve liberty. If
enough people were of like mind, then it would be more practical to
sell your possessions and move to a state or (foreign) territory where
the majority of people of like mind would ensure that liberty is
defensible against other alternatives.
Some counties lean pretty heavily in such a direction right now. How
committed are you really to liberty? Are you committed enough to
migrate elsewhere and support such an effort, to achieve that goal?
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:52:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings Robert!
Robert Goodman wrote:
> And I wouldn't care if it took a coup to keep Gore out of the White
House.
And, taking into account the tremendous loss of liberty underway under
the Shrub Regime<tm>, just how much greater freedom do you believe we
have now, rather than if Gore had been elected? I would suggest for
one thing, that Congress would likely be more hostile to such
draconian policies than is currently the case under Bush. But the
Shrub Regime's<tm> support in Congress for a fascist infrastructure
may be waning right now anyway, as I've noticed that even some key
Republicans finally are now questioning the wisdom of unilaterally
attacking Iraq.
On the other hand, maybe we should just stand by and allow the Shrub
Regime<tm> to wage constant wars against third world dictatorships.
It would be a foreign policy disaster against the US of unimaginable
proportions. We would be standing alone on the world stage with every
conceivable nation of any credibility at all condemning us for such
wanton aggression. We would certainly see a tremendous upsurge in
attacks upon US interests and facilities world-wide, as well as most
likely on the US itself, and that's probably what it might take to
bring down to earth this rogue government. I'm not suggesting this
would likely result in more freedom to the US, however more nations
would then be free to make their own choices on how they are governed,
and opportunities for self-determination would certainly increase.
For the US, such would likely result in even more draconian siege
mentality, isolation and internal police state policies. But then,
the US also has a right to self-determination, and if the people
choose fascism over freedom, that's their choice.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:18:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Bill!
Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote:
> > So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a freely
> > elected government, when the people voted for that government in the
> > voting booth? I submit to you that it is NONE of the U.S.
> > government's business who people in sovereign nations elect to lead
> > and represent them.
You replied:
> This fixation on "freely elected" intrigues me. One the one hand,
it
> provides for mob-rule, tyranny of the majority. Anything decided by
> election is right. On the other hand, it opens a slippery slope.
I'm one of the key opponents of pure democracy, and you should know
that. But you should also know that even the checks and balances the
US government had in place have been largely dismantled, such as the
US Senate being the body that represents state's interests, and the
States appointing the members of the Senate to represent such
interests. The shift was to make the entire US Congress a pure
democratic institution. The same mindset is also underway to abolish
the Electoral College, again making it possible for a pure democracy
to elect the Executive Branch.
So, unless the people are willing to vote and replace those checks
against wanton democratic rule, I see little over the horizon, outside
of a revolution, to bring back such guarantees. One of the best
examples of a free state that I can remember was Hong Kong under
British colonial rule. Almost pure economic freedom, and a high
degree of social freedom existed. Taxation was very low, and people
had the right to associate and form associations as they chose. About
the only limits I can think of is that there were laws on the books
limiting criticism of China, or inciting China, the reasons for which
are rather obvious, since the government's existence depending
entirely on China not overthrowing the place.
It can be argued from this, that the people weren't really free, since
the British Government refused to allow elections for local
government, which was very odd, since it is out of character with
usual British colonial practices that go back hundreds of years, where
colonies were allowed local legislatures. The reason the British did
not pursue the practice in Hong Kong was because the Chinese would
NEVER have tolerated a freely elected Hong Kong government if such a
government was opposed to the Chinese communist government.
On the other hand, there really were elections (of a sort) that
supported the British colonial government, the votes were cast by the
feet of the millions of immigrant refugees who were pouring into Hong
Kong by any method available to escape the communist socialist
paradise on the mainland. So it can also be argued that prior to the
end of British rule, there was some sense of self-determination, since
the influx of immigrants weren't leaving by choice either.
> If the elections were not fair, or there were none, does that mean your
> argument then switches sides?
No, it doesn't necessarily. See my points on Hong Kong. I'm more
interested in self-determination than I am with elections. I believe
in self-determination, rather than external aggression to achieve the
overthrow of any existing government. Sometimes self-determination
takes a very long time to achieve, particularly if liberty is
advanced. It happened eventually throughout eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union, most of that was largely non-violent,
fortunately. And that didn't happen (although others might dispute
this) through the use of external force. It also didn't result from
the voting booth either.
> If it is wrong to "interfere" with
> governments "freely elected", the corollary is that it must not
be, if
> the government was instituted by force, or rigged elections. If that is
> accepted, then by that maxim, the government of any and all freely
> elected governments, including the US, are not wrong to
"interfere" with
> non-freely elected governments, provided they provide a means of a truly
> fair election. That slope is slippery, because who determines what is
> fair? How does one certify that people were voting their desires, as
> opposed to voting a certain way to either curry favor with a perceived
> powerhouse, or avoid retribution from the prior non-freely elected
> government?
Again, self-determination is not always the result of traditional
elections. The mandate of the people can take various forms, usually
(at least in the historical sense) people simply gravitate toward, or
withdraw their support from the emperor, as the case may be. Any
government operating outside of the will of the people will eventually
be overthrown, either through peaceful means, or sometimes a violent
overthrow.
My point has been, that if the people have a government in place that
they will not support, the only way such a government could survive is
through the brute force of a third party superpower, and least more
super than its own ability to maintain itself in power. This has
nothing particularly to do with liberty at all. But the point is the
US government can't legitimately mandate and support governments
against the will of the people themselves, and the argument that such
a government will bring greater freedom is ridiculous, since in many
cases people choose tyranny (as in America) over freedom.
If you don't want to hear that then consider this: the people every
two years have an opportunity to overthrow the US government
peacefully. Every two years every member of the US House of
Representatives is elected. If the majority of Americans wanted to
end this horrendous taxation, wealth redistribution, the Social
Security and Medicare systems, such could easily be done quickly in
the voting booth every two years. You simply choose to elect
Libertarians and Constitutionalists to the US Congress and voted the
Republican and Democratic fascists out!
There are other ways the people could reject this government too. As
I said, it doesn't depend upon elections. People could easily choose
just to disobey all unjust laws. Just say no. Don't obey them.
Massive civil disobedience. Libertarian-minded individuals could
migrate to states that are more free with less taxation. I don't
really see that happening, although the Free State Project in theory
believes it might be possible. So, even with the absence of
elections, the American people largely have self-determined the
government and the absence of liberty that they are willing to
accept. That's a cold, but brutal fact. If Mexico were to attack the
US, and even giving assurances that they would bring a government that
is much more free than our existing one, I am quite sure that the
American people would take to the streets to fight the Mexican
invaders, even if as such, they would still find themselves
"languishing" in regulatory and taxation that is nothing less than
tyranny by supporting this government against Mexico's alternative.
Grant it, this is all hypothetical, but in a nutshell, this is why the
US government cannot impose liberty upon other nations and people
through the use of brute force. In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime
was really very small, and there were always plenty of arms and ammo
laying around. What did we see there. Millions of displaced refugees
living in Pakistan and Iran to escape a deplorable and repressive
regime in Afghanistan. What if those 2 or 3 million refugees had just
killed off the Taliban and thrown out the Arab militants such as
AlQaeda, and brought upon liberty and freedom throughout Afghanistan.
Of course one of the reasons is that the loyalties of the refugees
were likely all very different. Some fleeing from war lords while
being loyal with another one that might be losing in factional
struggles. Many perhaps were communists and were just fleeing because
they supported the former Soviet puppet regime. I guess we'll really
never know for sure what percentage versus other percentages supported
who or what. My point is that I doubt very much if "liberty" was ever
much of a consideration. Loyalty and alliances changes most likely
resulted in the displacement of people. Another point is that the
puppet regime in place by force from the US government is seen as only
a temporary, illegitimate, and an aggressor upon the will of the
people of Afghanistan, whatever that may be. The government of Hamil
Karzie really has virtually no influence outside of Kabul. It is the
US and British "peace keepers" who really maintain any sense of
internal security.
Now, in the face of all this, General Tommy Franks is suggesting that
US forces will be in Afghanistan for years! Oh shit, we weren't told
this now were we! He likened US presence in Afghanistan to the fifty
years US forces have been deployed in South Korea, suggesting this too
could take decades before things will become stabilized. This is an
interesting assessment indeed. As you know, the South Korean
government today isn't tickled pink by the Shrub Regime's<tm>
belligerent rhetoric against North Korea and interference in South
Korea's efforts to negotiate. AND THAT'S AFTER MORE THAN FIVE DECADES
OF US MILITARY PRESENCE! Even the Koreans want self-determination
amongst themselves rather than the US bully screwing up what they
believe might be best for themselves.
Okay, now we are being postured to believe that US military presence
in Afghanistan could be in place for decades, and thus requiring much
more in terms of military personnel, hardware, and security support.
How much is THAT going to cost? But the Shrub Regime<tm> isn't
content with even that. He wants to impose a new government in Iraq
too! That will be far more expensive that than of Afghanistan, and
since the US will be acting alone, presumably the new Iraqi government
will be completely dependent upon the US government for its survival
in this volatile region for decades to come. Then, when we're done
with pulverizing Iraq into the stone age and making "appropriate"
regime changes, we'll likely move on to Yemen, Somalia, perhaps Iran,
or maybe Syria if Israel becomes insecure and stability breaks down
which it certainly will after we attack Iraq.
Then, there is still this little matter of Saudi Arabia, who covertly
or indirectly pours millions of dollars into "terrorist" groups such
as AlQaeda. NOW, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT??? Since the
Saudi government is reluctant to rattle that can of worms, obviously
once Iraq has been neutralized, (and if the Saudi government still
even exists in its present form), we'll need to do something to cut
off the funding of terrorists coming from Saudi Arabia.
This gunboat diplomacy is certainly going to ingratiate the US
government with muslims everyone, including the 30 million or so who
reside in the US itself! I wonder where THEIR loyalties will lie in
all of this. It really doesn't take but only a small percentage of
outraged sympathizers to create a substantial underground "terrorist"
apparatus. It seems to me that this would become fertile recruitment
ground for islamic militants and terrorists -- and most of this would
be justified on the basis that we DESERVE to get pounded. People do
have a right to defend themselves. And, if the only way to do that is
to blow up US government buildings and economic infrastructure, then
so be it.
This is going to be the reality of which we will have to deal with
when the Shrub Regime<tm> attacks Iraq, particularly if this is a US
unilateral attack. The Shrub Regime<tm> will be totally isolated, and
no allied support will exist to continue to fight this insane 'war on
terror'. The greatest terror may finally become US isolation and
vulnerability to massive resistance throughout the islamic world.
And, the form of that resistance may not be excluded from at least
some of the muslim population residing in America itself.
Next question: can the US economy sustain this, perpetually? Can we
sustain the huge cost of defending puppet regimes in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, maybe Saudi Arabia itself eventually? Can we
sustain the economic costs associated with "terrorist" attacks upon US
targets abroad, and horrendous attacks against major economic and
political targets in major US cities across America?
All I am suggesting here is that we try to get some kind of grasp upon
where this aggressive and militant US foreign policy is really going,
and we'd better do that right now. The road the Shrub Regime<tm> is
travelling at the moment has the probability of destroying US foreign
relations irreparably for a long, long time. It has the propensity to
bankrupt totally the US economy, and derail global economic and
political relations.
The best we can hope for now is that the US Congress puts the breaks
on this reckless disregard for principled morality, and puts a stop to
this insanity before it ultimately destroys us.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:05:09 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank wrote in part:
>Problem with this is that you exclude the idea of self-determination
>and free elections as if it had nothing to do with liberty. A case
>in point is that you assume that people were more free under
>Pinochet than they were under Allende. People had been given more
>economic freedom under Pinochet, and under many conditions that
>might be supportable. But that came at a terrible expense in terms
>of other issues, e.g.: freedom of speech, press, and the freedom to
>make political choices, such as electing government.
The "freedom to make political choices" I count as nothing, sorry.
Freedom
of speech and of the press are good things, definitely. I suppose if I had
to prioritize, I'd have to count freedom of action as superior to freedom of
speech. I mean, given the choice between being allowed to do something but
not talk about it, and being allowed to talk about something but not do it,
I'll take the first.
Meanwhile, we'll never know for sure, but I suspect that over the years, had
Allende stayed in, there'd've been less freedom of speech and press than
with Pinochet and his successors.
>I have never tried to suggest that democracy, free choice or
>legitimate elections guarantee liberty. I do suggest that true
>liberty cannot really be achieved in the absence of such choices.
My suspicion is that maximum liberty cannot be obtained until they're
abolished. In the absence of such a situation, democracy may be a good or a
bad thing, depending on conditions. I think on balance that right now the
world is better off with it.
>But you cannot initiate force against someone to
>force them to be free against their own will and still call that
>liberty. A condition for liberty is that people themselves must
>choose liberty
No. There are no such conditions. A person being left alone is at liberty,
however that comes about. There's no such thing as forcing someone to BE
free; however, you CAN force someone to leave someone else alone!
>Again, unless the people themselves will support
>liberty on their own, such a concept can never be considered
>legitimate, since you can't impose liberty by external force. It
>would amount to something along the line of the current Afghan
>puppet regime, propped up entirely by the US and British
>governments. That government is just as alien to the people who
>live in Afghanistan as would be the case under British colonial
>rule of the US.
Legitimate, shmegitimate. How about colonial rule of Hong Kong? Sure,
having it revert to China was popular, but what about the people who chose
to leave? You think they wouldn't've wanted to stay if they could be
assured of not being looted & gagged?
>I only make the later point to suggest that the American people were
>far more free under King George than we are under the current Shrub
>Regime<tm> where about 50 percent of our productive income is
>forcibly confiscated by the later, and its surrogate state
>governments acting largely under federal mandates. Indeed, in
>today's political climate, I would gladly choose, if given the
>opportunity, the government of King George, as it existed in the
>1770s, than the current government ruled democratically by the
>people of the US.
So how can you complain when I make the same judgement re other countries?
>> I'd thought we'd already made clear that some of us value liberty
>>over democracy, and that some of us valued justice over rules or
>>fairness.
>I do not hold that pure democracy is a good idea either, which is
>why the US government was put together in the fashion that it was.
>The US Constitutionally as it was set up, was NOT a democracy.
>About the only thing that could have been considered democratic at
>all was the lower House of the US Congress. The Senate was then
>appointed by the States, not under direct democratic vote by the
>people, and the Electoral College was (and is) responsible in the
>process of electing the President. The loss of the State's power
>to select who represents them in the US Senate was a tremendous
>loss of Constitutional checks against democratic mob rule.
Did you not see that I wrote "justice over rules" above? All this
business
about constitutions and senates and colleges is just rules. It's no
substitute for justice.
>> >So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a
>>freely >elected government, when the people voted for that
>>government in the >voting booth?
>You replied:
>> Simple: the result was greater liberty & justice for all.
>Certainly NOT if the people don't want it, and the third party
>government imposes such "liberty" by brute force!
What if THE RIGHT people want it -- the people who don't want to be looted
-- and the force is being imposed against the looters?
>> And Frank, we've already established that YOU're for those things.
>>Don't you know by now that WE aren't?
>I have no idea who this "we" is that you constantly refer to.
Me and whoever agree with me.
>Some counties lean pretty heavily in such a direction right now.
>How committed are you really to liberty? Are you committed enough
>to migrate elsewhere and support such an effort, to achieve that
>goal?
I'm not convinced I've any to gain. I'm an activist; it's not my own
personal liberty I'm primarily concerned with, but everyone else's. If I
were primarily concerned with my own freedom, I wouldn't write about it
here. Instead, I'd do whatever was most cost effective to not be bothered.
I wouldn't concentrate on altering laws, but in operating within them or
breaking them without getting caught. And I'd do it very quietly.
I don't see much good of libertarian activists concentrating geographically.
To the extent we do that, we lose our influence elsewhere. Also, we become
more conspicuous and easier targets to hit. It's pretty much the Jewish
question. Are Jews safer being in their own, very conspicuous country, or
to be dispersed? Are they safer identifying themselves as such, or being
anonymous?
Besides, what do you really care about? The amount of taxes you pay, or
your after-tax income? The number of drugs prohibited you, or the number of
drugs easily available in your drug store? I'll take positive over negative
liberty, thank you. The ultimate bodily freedom is the grave, but I'm not
interested in that.
Truly I So Briney,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:05:16 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank wrote:
>Robert Goodman wrote:
>> And I wouldn't care if it took a coup to keep Gore out of the
>> White House.
>And, taking into account the tremendous loss of liberty underway
>under the Shrub Regime<tm>, just how much greater freedom do you
>believe we have now, rather than if Gore had been elected? I would
>suggest for one thing, that Congress would likely be more hostile
>to such draconian policies than is currently the case under Bush.
No, I think Gore would've been a very effective bipartisan-governing POTUS,
unfortunately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:05:21 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank wrote in small part:
>I'm more
>interested in self-determination than I am with elections. I
>believe in self-determination, rather than external aggression to
>achieve the overthrow of any existing government. Sometimes
>self-determination takes a very long time to achieve, particularly
>if liberty is advanced. It happened eventually throughout eastern
>Europe and the former Soviet Union, most of that was largely
>non-violent, fortunately. And that didn't happen (although others
>might dispute this) through the use of external force. It also
>didn't result from the voting booth either.
But who's the "self" in "self-determination"? How is the
political unit to
be determined? Yugoslavia? Croatia? Serbska?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:46:10 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Robert!
As I wrote last night, I wanted to give more time to some of what you
wrote, today. It was rather late coming in here, and my faculties
weren't in enough order to deal with some of the substance you wrote.
Here we go...
Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote:
> >I'm more
> >interested in self-determination than I am with elections. I
> >believe in self-determination, rather than external aggression to
> >achieve the overthrow of any existing government. Sometimes
> >self-determination takes a very long time to achieve, particularly
> >if liberty is advanced. It happened eventually throughout eastern
> >Europe and the former Soviet Union, most of that was largely
> >non-violent, fortunately. And that didn't happen (although others
> >might dispute this) through the use of external force. It also
> >didn't result from the voting booth either.
>
> But who's the "self" in "self-determination"? How is
the political unit
to
> be determined? Yugoslavia? Croatia? Serbska?
This is an honest query, and I hope you won't turn this into another
word game.
You won't I'm sure agree with me on this, so I hope we can part as
just agreeing to disagree. Liberty is a two-fold proposition. I
believe in individual, personal liberty, and I also believe that
individuals have a right to choose their own government, that
government's boundaries, and what takes place in the context of law
within such boundaries. Each nation, as such, has sacrocinst
jurisdiction on whatever laws, morals, religion (if any), social
constraints, economic and political jurisdiction, decided as such by
natural processes of general agreement. Kind of like what ancient
tribes have done for millenniums!
In many cases, probably almost all cases really, this has been the
mechanism for survival over external aggression. That's just the way
it is, and I cannot change that. The order of civilization usually
finds itself at odds against others, those who wish to possess it for
themselves, for their own parochial reasons. That's pretty much
history. Not western history, eastern history, American history, or
any history. It's pure history.
If you refuse to accept the legitimacy of sovereignty, then there is
obviously nothing more than I can say to change your mind that it is
necessary for human survival. I can attempt to rationally explain
it. I can shout it to the rooftops, but because you believe each and
every individual has the natural recourse to somehow avoid it, we will
never agree on any ideal of a macro view on what constitutes
"liberty". Truth is however, government is necessary and always has
been. Be that a tribe, a monarchy, an association or whatever,
government is necessary for survival. That is what I was mainly
talking about in trying to define what the higher ideal of
"self-determination" is really all about. And, I know. It might not
be defined as a "libertarian solution", per se, yet it is. When
people form a government to protect their own interests it is a free
choice, even if that choice is not the result of a poll, or the
outcome of an election.
Everyone's fate is largely determined by their own choices. If
Afghans chose to be guided by the Taliban government, or accept Arab
militants (e.g. al-Qaieda) to protect their interests, then they are
pretty much bound to the results of such choices. It may be hell on
earth, but at least it was a hell that they chose to either accept, or
reject. As I wrote last night, there were always plenty of guns and
ammo, and over 3 million refugees, and no one seemed to want to simply
kill off the few members comprising the Taliban government, and simply
kill or expel the Arab militants in Afghanistan!
Contrast this, if you will, to the American patriots fighting against
British colonial rule! What's the difference? There's a huge
difference. The American patriots took on the greatest political and
military power on earth, and fought (albeit with French support,
explained in another post), but that too was a choice that eventually
each individual had to make for themselves. That too came by force.
Those supporting King George had their property confiscated, and they
fled to Canada, or elsewhere within the British empire. But this was
all a matter of individual choices. Robert, when you make a choice,
for better or worse, sometimes you lose, sometimes you win.
Now I'm about to get absolutely ugly. I don't agree with you. You
disagree that individuals have unalienable rights. You don't believe
that rights are universally a party of nature, that is the right of
free association, the right to free speech, the right to religious
choice, the right to do much of anything. If individuals have no
unalienable rights, then it follows that any right is protected by
yourself, against a multitude of other individuals, and some forming
governments and other associations, to take what "you personally"
believe are your rights, away from you!
Your argument here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It isn't
practical, nor is it even ideological! For you, there are no absolute
self-evident unalienable rights! Your own rights are what you, as an
individual, choose them to be. Now, what the fuck are you going to do
to protect them? You'd better find the best brute on the block to
protect your "self described" rights, and most likely, that brute will
have his own self-interest to preserve some hegemony of power, or your
about to be history! Isn't anarchy just wonderful? Hell now, it is
extreme hell.
And in this, I can't help you here. Because you have defined yourself
as an absolute arbitrator over what your rights might be, you're on
your own to defend them, always. And in such an endeavour, you will
look to others that might share such compassion for "rights" of your
own making and design, since no rights in nature exist at all. That's
also your argument, and has been for as long as I can remember anyway.
Let's go a bit further with this Robert. You now are faced with a
couple of things, first, you believe your rights are your own
business, and as such you have a right to them. Secondly, since
"rights" are NOT a given or norm of nature, you will naturally have to
defend them entirely by yourself. You'll obviously look for allies --
you'll seek to associate with others of like mind to yourself --
you'll form an association, a mafia, a group, and a government that
will support you, define the borders upon which your "self-appointed"
rights will be preserved!
What you propose seems to be along the order of a parochial "militia
movement" to defend what you collective believe constitutes what you
decide are your collective rights. Am I getting close? Then, why, do
you disregard the necessity for at least some form of limited
government in whatever form it takes? Before I close, why do you
believe that should not be recognized as a sovereign government, with
the right to self define itself as such. And, here's the clincher...
does YOUR government have a right to exist against aggression by a
foreign jurisdiction?
Please Robert. Don't be selective in this. Address this issue, and
everything I addressed in its total context. One-liners, and word
games ain't going to cut it here. There are no "rights" accept those
you individually choose to accept, along with your friends and those
you choose to assimilate as allies. Do YOU guys and gals, have a
collective right to self-determine what your rights are, and does your
collective group of co-subscribers have a right to exist under their
own determined choices?
Be forewarned. This argument may also be applied to Israel, to Iraq,
and to any other nation on the earth where other "individuals" have
made such choices in real time, and in real history, including what
comprises the US government.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:56:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Bill!
Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
I wrote:
> > election of their own choosing. There is still speculation that
> > President Bush wasn't REALLY elected, since there is still controversy
> > surrounding the ballot counting in Florida. It would be morally wrong
You replied:
> Gore's supporters counted the ballots their way, and he still lost. Keep
> up, Frank.
What can I say? This still seems to be the focus of many others that
still have questions about the legitimacy of The Shrub<tm> Regime's
rule, and authenticity.
So, what's your point? For me it's relatively easy, e.g.: I didn't
vote for the fucking bastard, and no, I do not support this
administration. Perhaps you did. I don't know who you voted for, or
what you expect, that's your choice. I know for damn sure I didn't
vote or contribute to this stinking mess, corruption and unlimited
government -- NO, NOT EVER!
So, what's your excuse for defending it?
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:25:55 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
At 19:49 08/17/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Robert Erdman...
>
> > We supposedly helped depose (communist) Salvador Allende which
resulted
in
> > ("right-wing") Augusto Pinochet running the country for just
over a
decade
> > and a half.
>
>Ya, wasn't that really special?! I suspect there are some on this
>list who likely approve of such atrocious acts of terror by the US
>government. As I wrote Robert earlier, there is less contention over
>Allede's mandate to rule as G.W. Bush has with his controversial votes
>in the State of Florida! There was never any question that the people
>elected Allende!
Yup. "Illegitimate" Bush got 49.9% and Allende got a
"mandate" with
36.5%. "Illegitimate" Bush had his party in control of the legislature
(ok, at least when the elections were over, he did) while Allende with his
"mandate" got to deal with a legislature controlled by an opposition
party.
> > The interesting thing is that some of the
> > same people who are mortally afraid of Bush using the power and
popularity
> > he now enjoys to set up some sort of tyranny will refuse to
acknowledge
> > that Allende was essentially doing the same thing in Chile (but
Allende
was
> > doing far more than Bush--nationalizing industry, expropriating
> > privately-owned property and redistributing it, and imposing price
> > controls).
>
>So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a freely
>elected government, when the people voted for that government in the
>voting booth? I submit to you that it is NONE of the U.S.
>government's business who people in sovereign nations elect to lead
>and represent them.
>
> > Not only that, but both right- and left-wing groups within the
> > country were arming, marching, and occasionally fighting. The military
> > coup (which ended with Allende shot dead in the presidential
> > palace--probably by attacking soldiers) had to quickly turn toward
rounding
> > up armed left-wing Allende supporters in order to prevent a prolonged
civil
> > war which many expected. That doesn't justify the killing that took
> > place. But on the other hand, the people most exercised about
"Pinochet's
> > 2,000-3,000 murders" aren't much concerned about how many people
were
> > murdered by "Baby Doc Duvalier", Haile Salassie, Idi Amin,
Fidel Castro,
or
> > Daniel Ortega--not to mention the various dictators and thugs that ran
the
> > Soviet Union, China, and eastern Europe.
>
>Now look who's strawman building. You conveniently list only marxist
>despots who murder.
Like Duvalier? Salassie? Amin? Looks like most of the ones I mentioned by
name were "right wingers". That constitutes strawman building? That
constitutes "only marxist despots"???
> What about the predecessor of Daniel Ortega in
>Nicaragua (Antonio Somosa (sp), who ran groups of notorious right wing
>death squads to help solidify his base of power. He eventually was
>overthrown and lived in exile in Paraguay (another right wing
>dictatorship) with an hellacious human rights record. By contrast,
>Oretega lost in what is considered a free election, and marxism was
>finally defeated in Nicaragua peacefully!
Hmm. Yeah, peacefully--after murdering a half million Miskito Indians and
agreeing to an election after years of fighting the Contras.
> > What really torques people about Pinochet (although they won't say
it)
is
> > that he was successful. When he took over, there was a huge black
market
> > and a damaged economy (which was part of the reason that there even
*was* a
> > coup.) But Chile is now one of the more successful nations in Central
and
> > South America having one of the fastest-growing economies and a
per-capita
> > GDP second only to Argentina (without the abundant natural resources
that
> > early in the last century made Argentina a potentially larger and
wealthier
> > economy than the US!)
>
>I really don't know what your point is in any of this. Even if true,
>although I doubt Argentina's economic situation is the same as you
>quoted today, and you left out Brazil for some reason also.
Could be that Argentina is now in worse shape than Chile--although it would
need at least a 20% decline from its 2000 level because the Chilean economy
hasn't grown that much in the last two years. I was looking up the info in
the CIA World Factbook and it was only showing data for 2000. I left out
Brazil because it has a much lower per capita GDP than Chile does. (Chile
is at something like $10,100 while Brazil was at something like $6,700 (I'm
not going to look it up again, just to make sure.)
The point is that that people hate Pinochet because he was successful, not
because he was some kind of massive butcher (relatively speaking, he was a
minor murderer--if that).
>, it does
>not justify US force in foreign politics usually, unless in a declared
>war in which we have a clearly defined enemy to defeat. Pinochet did
>perform well usually in economic liberalization, and was chiefly
>instrumental in successfully privatizing social security. But for the
>US to interfere in Chile's political process undermines the principle
>of self-determination and free choice also. Using US intelligence
>resources, or even overt military aggression is something that
>libertarians should never accept as legitimate. Indeed, the
>Libertarian Party does not.
Actually, we had a declared enemy at the time. It was global
communism. You may not approve of the methods, but they were vastly
preferable to waiting for a communist state to emerge and then finding we
had to wage war against it to prevent it from destabilizing its neighbors
by exporting guerrillas.
> > Not only that, but from what I've read, Chile is rather stable, and
in
some
> > ways more "libertarian" than the US is right now.
>
>I don't doubt that it is, since I consider the US to be governed
>largely with an executive branch and prostitute judicial system that
>borders on abject fascism. There are a lot of countries that are far
>more libertarian than the US government, particularly when you include
>the dual aspect of libertarian idealism, e.g.: both economic and
>social liberty. The Philippines is by far less economically or
>socially intrusive than is the US government, and I could name several
>others in the same category.
>
> > As one example, they
> > have a privatized "social security" system that is far
beyond what any
> > politician is talking about for the US--and in Chilean politics, their
> > privatized system is the "third rail" (touch it and die).
>
>I'll give Pinochet credit for that one, and several other economic
>liberalization efforts that he brought about. That said, it still
>does not justify any US intervention or destabilization efforts to
>topple marxist Allende from power. Had the Chilean people themselves
>deposed Allende, and totally through their own efforts and resources,
>that could be considered morally acceptable.
Now you have gone off the deep end. If the people want to get rid of
someone they have to dump him without *any* help from us??? Are you
saying, then, that France was "unjustifiably intervening" when it sent
troops and ships to help 13 rebellious English colonies break away from
English rule?
> In fact, there is a
>government in place considerably north of Chile, where I would welcome
>such a change, driven by the people, if indeed it would bring about
>social and economic liberalization.
I'm beginning to wonder if you'd actually notice any such change....
>But since Carnivore might be tuning in, I won't identify such
>specifics any further.
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:13:26 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank wrote in part:
>> But who's the "self" in "self-determination"?
How is the
>>political unit to be determined? Yugoslavia? Croatia? Serbska?
>You won't I'm sure agree with me on this, so I hope we can part as
>just agreeing to disagree. Liberty is a two-fold proposition. I
>believe in individual, personal liberty, and I also believe that
>individuals have a right to choose their own government, that
>government's boundaries, and what takes place in the context of law
>within such boundaries. Each nation, as such, has sacrocinst
>jurisdiction on whatever laws, morals, religion (if any), social
>constraints, economic and political jurisdiction, decided as such by
>natural processes of general agreement. Kind of like what ancient
>tribes have done for millenniums!
>In many cases, probably almost all cases really, this has been the
>mechanism for survival over external aggression. That's just the
>way it is, and I cannot change that. The order of civilization
>usually finds itself at odds against others, those who wish to
>possess it for themselves, for their own parochial reasons. That's
>pretty much history. Not western history, eastern history,
>American history, or any history. It's pure history.
None of that gives a way to answer my question. I hope you understood why I
asked about Yugoslavia, Croatia, and Serbska. First, parts of Yugoslavia
broke away, mostly over ethnic differences. Yugoslavia claimed to be a
nation, with sacrosanct, as you say, jurisdiction, and said the breakaways
were illegitimate. Then within at least one of those breakaways, an ethnic
group suddenly found itself in the minority, so an area in which they were a
majority attempted to break away from one of the breakaways. How is it to
be decided which unit is legitimate?
>Your argument here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It isn't
>practical, nor is it even ideological! For you, there are no
>absolute self-evident unalienable rights! Your own rights are what
>you, as an individual, choose them to be. Now, what the fuck are
>you going to do to protect them? You'd better find the best brute
>on the block to protect your "self described" rights, and most
>likely, that brute will have his own self-interest to preserve some
>hegemony of power, or your about to be history! Isn't anarchy just
>wonderful? Hell now, it is extreme hell.
>And in this, I can't help you here. Because you have defined
>yourself as an absolute arbitrator over what your rights might be,
>you're on your own to defend them, always. And in such an
>endeavour, you will look to others that might share such compassion
>for "rights" of your own making and design, since no rights in
>nature exist at all. That's also your argument, and has been for
>as long as I can remember anyway.
>Let's go a bit further with this Robert. You now are faced with a
>couple of things, first, you believe your rights are your own
>business, and as such you have a right to them. Secondly, since
>"rights" are NOT a given or norm of nature, you will naturally
have
>to defend them entirely by yourself. You'll obviously look for
>allies -- you'll seek to associate with others of like mind to
>yourself -- you'll form an association, a mafia, a group, and a
>government that will support you, define the borders upon which
>your "self-appointed" rights will be preserved!
>What you propose seems to be along the order of a parochial "militia
>movement" to defend what you collective believe constitutes what you
>decide are your collective rights. Am I getting close? Then, why,
>do you disregard the necessity for at least some form of limited
>government in whatever form it takes?
I don't disregard the value of such things. All I do is point out that one
must not confuse expediency with righteousness.
>Before I close, why do you
>believe that should not be recognized as a sovereign government,
>with the right to self define itself as such. And, here's the
>clincher... does YOUR government have a right to exist against
>aggression by a foreign jurisdiction?
How could my government "have" a right, when there are NO
pre-existing
rights? I don't discount the usefulness of people organizing for just
purposes; all I say is that the products of organizations should be judged
on a case-by-case basis as to their justice. The mere fact that an
organization is undertaken by persons for at least the purpose of protecting
their interests, which interests include their own liberty, does not make
any particular thing that body does good or bad. Similarly, I think people
should be allowed to have guns, but that doesn't mean I think everything
everybody does with a gun is good or just!
Meanwhile, YOU have the problem of explaining how such an entity could have
rights that could include the infringement of others' rights.
In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:03:05 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Robert!
Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
> None of that gives a way to answer my question.
Okay. Fair enough.
> I hope you understood why I
> asked about Yugoslavia, Croatia, and Serbska. First, parts of Yugoslavia
> broke away, mostly over ethnic differences. Yugoslavia claimed to be a
> nation, with sacrosanct, as you say, jurisdiction, and said the breakaways
> were illegitimate. Then within at least one of those breakaways, an
ethnic
> group suddenly found itself in the minority, so an area in which they were
a
> majority attempted to break away from one of the breakaways. How is it to
> be decided which unit is legitimate?
For starters, I was puzzled why on earth you chose Yugoslavia as an
example in the first place. Yugoslavia was the creation of external
force. The fact that the borders were arbitrary, the ethnic groups
long considered hostile enemies, and a government held together only
be brute force as a Soviet proxy was doomed to unravel itself in short
order! Again, self-determination as I have been writing about is what
unravelled the artificial State, created by and held together by
external foreign force and intervention! Hardly a good representative
of your position so far, which is why I was so puzzled.
But to answer your question, Yugoslavia was never legitimate in the
first place, and the people eventually said so when the foreign and
internal powers were no longer able to hold it together. Yes, the
people had to right to overthrow it and to self determine the states
and political framework upon which they chose to govern them. And, if
you claim that it's just too messy of a problem, with genocide and
such, then ask yourself why is it such a stinking mess. The answer
lies again in external force and intervention for creating something
the people did not want. If anything that really underscores my
foreign policy position, and I fail to see how it helps your idea that
that self-determination is not ultimately defining.
In fact Robert, I can think of many other examples that exist to show
why such artificial boundaries and forced political unions hardly ever
work, when external force is the catalyst for their creation. Let's
example a couple more.
The former Soviet Union is a great example as well. Its demise was
not so brutal as that of Yugoslavia, but the same pattern emerges on
WHY it really became unglued. It too was the product of White Russian
occupation and colonial control, therefore that Soviet "Union" was a
union created and maintained by brute force. It certainly did not come
about as a result of self-determination. It was held together under
sever police state conditions, with a giant security and police force
that clamped the lid for decades on any desention. In other words, it
too was artificially contrived.
And again, as in the case of Yugoslavia, the people had every right to
rebel, dissolve their union, and self-determine the political
conditions that govern them. Again, they did. It is interesting once
again, that this reality, e.g., that the people did once again
self-determine their own borders and political framework, was
accomplish with NO external force being applied! If any external
pressure at all was present, it was Russia, attempting to coerce the
Russian Federation of Independent States. Some of that is practical,
and likely does enjoy some support from the people of the independent
states, for security and defence reasons if not for any other reason.
Well, guess what? There are a lot more examples to choose from here,
so let's just take a blanket approach and take a gander at Africa.
Massive European colonialism created countless artificial boundaries,
splitting and bringing together rival ethnic groups, and calling them
political territories. This practice certainly had nothing at all to
do with the will or self-determination of the people, who prior had
their own remedial political realities, mainly tribal, and of their
own choosing.
This too was all brought about through the use of external, and
sometimes brutal force. At the time that much of this was occurring,
it was justified by Britain, France and others as morally right and
necessary. A new philosophy was emerging, that of Manifest Destiny,
or, "the White Man's Burden". It was determined to be necessary to
bring civilization, and order, and social laws, and economy, and
religion, and education and the list goes on and on. I suppose you
could throw in freedom, liberty and all the rest of such concepts into
the equation to justify this nightmare that has subsequently
developed. The US government itself used this justification for
assuming colonial jurisdiction over the Philippines, and elements of
it appeared in justification for attempting to change Vietnam in the
Vietnam War.
Today, after decades of civil wars, ethnic rival conflicts, and
atrocities that far dwarf even Yugoslavia, in many cases even an
economic order has largely been replaced by politically contrived food
shortages, other heinous acts depriving humanity of even bare
necessities such as food and shelter. You can attempt to blame all of
this on Marxism if you want to, but that skirts the larger issue of
creating forced territories, and depriving people of the right to
self-determine their own lives and future. Do such people have a
right to rebel, overthrow such artificial political structures?
Certainly. Should external force be used? Well, to give you a clue,
it was external force that created the mess in the first place, and we
all know that to be sure.
A caveat here. In north Africa, most of the colonial states already
had their own boundaries before the French sent in their paid
mercenaries (the Foreign Legion) to assume political control over
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and most of west Africa. Italy's failed
attempt to colonize Libya also had a pre-existing ethnic group,
religion, and had solid political boundaries. Other such states
include Ethiopia and Egypt whose political boundaries remain
essentially unchanged from pre-colonial times. This further supports
the reality that self-determination, selfdetermine political
boundaries and a culture that largely remains intact, is less likely
to experience destabilization. After the French and Italians were
booted out, there wasn't really a severe problem with peacefully
redefining national goals within this region.
I previously wrote:
> >What you propose seems to be along the order of a parochial
"militia
> >movement" to defend what you collective believe constitutes what
you
> >decide are your collective rights. Am I getting close? Then, why,
> >do you disregard the necessity for at least some form of limited
> >government in whatever form it takes?
You replied:
> I don't disregard the value of such things. All I do is point out that
one
> must not confuse expediency with righteousness.
Well, in this case YOU seem to promote expediency with the Shrub
Regime's <tm> sabre rattling threatening to invade Iraq. What
"righteousness" here do you have in mind -- liberty? Will more people
be FREE after The Shrub takes out Saddam Hussein and the entire (or
almost the entire) islamic world rises up in its own "righteous"
indignation over arrogant US use of force? A provocative and
unilateral US attack on Iraq is exactly the last thing that we should
ever do right now. It's an action designed in hell.
I think we've got to consider a serious question right now. How the
hell do you bring about the goal of more freedom by arbitrarily
attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you, particularly when they
present to threat to you? You become an enemy (and it's your choice
in doing so), and as such, you no longer have any moral or high ground
to use diplomacy and reason to bring about liberty any longer.
Hussein is not posing any direct threat against the US government
unless we give him a compelling reason why we should be considered his
enemy. I believe the case has already been made that we have. That is
unfortunate. Have you really thought any of this through at all? The
US is not located anywhere in the close proximity to the Middle East.
What is this really all about? If Saddam Hussein were the Prime
Minister of Canada, I might have cause for some "US interest" and
security concerns. So, what is your motivation
> How could my government "have" a right, when there are NO
pre-existing
> rights?
I suggest that is your dilemma here is not mine.
Maybe, that's the source of our contention in much of this, no?
It's your government, or at least a clan of like minded individuals,
and it's your choice. However, beginning with Cicero and others,
those, who through recorded history have identified rights common to
mankind, and define such as clearly established in nature, also have
choices. I have no such choices to make in anarchy, unless that is, I
have the power to force everyone else to accept such choices at the
point of a gun. And that power too is relatively nebulous. It can
easily just go away tomorrow if others wish to challenge such power.
I guess this is really where the rubber meets the road. Do you have
inalienable rights, and if not, then how do you define any notion of
what your rights might be? What do you do, if you are merely 5
percent of a minority who believe you, that might subscribe to your
notion of "rights"? I think this is an important consideration. On
the other hand, there are a host of others who have studied history,
and the development of "rights", and recognize that certain rights are
obviously essential and self-evident (as the Declaration of
Independence states). There is a science to this after all, historical
science nonetheless. If you disavow that as even a consideration,
then I fail to see why you suggest that I support a right that ONLY
YOU claim you have on the basis of raw power!
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:23:59 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank wrote in part:
>For starters, I was puzzled why on earth you chose Yugoslavia as an
>example in the first place. Yugoslavia was the creation of external
>force. The fact that the borders were arbitrary, the ethnic groups
>long considered hostile enemies, and a government held together only
>be brute force as a Soviet proxy was doomed to unravel itself in
>short order! Again, self-determination as I have been writing
>about is what unravelled the artificial State, created by and held
>together by external foreign force and intervention! Hardly a good
>representative of your position so far, which is why I was so
>puzzled.
The very reasons you give are exactly why I chose it.
>But to answer your question, Yugoslavia was never legitimate in the
>first place, and the people eventually said so when the foreign and
>internal powers were no longer able to hold it together. Yes, the
>people had to right to overthrow it and to self determine the states
>and political framework upon which they chose to govern them. And,
>if you claim that it's just too messy of a problem, with genocide
>and such, then ask yourself why is it such a stinking mess. The
>answer lies again in external force and intervention for creating
>something the people did not want. If anything that really
>underscores my foreign policy position, and I fail to see how it
>helps your idea that that self-determination is not ultimately
>defining.
So it broke apart. Just arbitrary lines anyway, as you say, due to outside
influence. But how do you cut it -- presumably geographically -- so it's
not arbitrary and can be said to reflect the will of the locals? The areas
in question were all more or less integrated, so there were ethnic
majorities and minorities, but mixed no matter how you did it. So when a
republic broke away in which Serbians were a minority, was the result
legitimate? And when a piece of that broke away in which the Serbians were
a majority, was that legitimate?
I see very different approaches to this question. On one hand, Kendall And
Louwe in their canton proposal for South Africa prescribed that the canton
boundaries NOT be drawn along racial or ethnic lines. OTOH, my friend Bob
Blumetti is very partisan to "blood" theories of nation-building.
>I guess this is really where the rubber meets the road. Do you have
>inalienable rights, and if not, then how do you define any notion of
>what your rights might be? What do you do, if you are merely 5
>percent of a minority who believe you, that might subscribe to your
>notion of "rights"?
That's just as much a problem for you. What if when the lines are drawn by
the majority, you're part of the 5% identifiable minority that gets looted &
persecuted?
>I think this is an important consideration. On
>the other hand, there are a host of others who have studied history,
>and the development of "rights", and recognize that certain rights
>are obviously essential and self-evident (as the Declaration of
>Independence states). There is a science to this after all,
>historical science nonetheless.
If they were self-evident, they wouldn't be controversial! Why would you
even NEED a Declaration of Independence if it were just to say what
everybody already knew?
In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: GA Cong. primary
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 09:02:39 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, <drctalk@drcnet.org>
I notice RLC GA has endorsed Linder in the primary against RLC member Barr.
The two have nearly identical liberty ratings (pretty high), but RLC GA
likes that Linder wants to replace income with sales taxes.
Linder has been playing it loose lately re LP's attack ads against Barr,
neither avowing nor disavowing their message, after previously posting a
link on the subject from his WWW site. Linder's position is against medical
marijuana as well. The difference appears to be that on this as well as all
other issues, Barr is just more of a loudmouth than Linder. Linder probably
wouldn't've tried to stop every step of DC's medical marijuana ballot
initiatives, but would quietly have led a vote to over-ride their effect
when they passed, so in substance they'd be just the same. It all comes
down to symbolism, then. But LP should realize that while Barr is a
negative symbol for drug reform, he's much more widely known as a positive
symbol for freedom w.r.t. firearms.
Actually Linder may be slightly worse on the drug issue than Barr. Barr's
campaign has attacked Linder for his adopting support for a bill to have FDA
regulate tobacco products as medical products after Philip Morris (in which
Linder owned stock) took that position.
I'm interested in whether LP's ads (technically for the Rand campaign) will
wind up pushing Barr over the top by identifying him as the anti-drug
candidate. It's an open primary, meaning one doesn't have to be previously
enrolled Republican to vote in it. One never knows who'll be motivated to
come out and vote.
In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:19:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Lowell!
"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
> Sorry, folks, this is another long one.
Good, because my reply isn't going to be very long, only pointing out
historical facts and resources. By the way, I minored in Asian
History and have been an ongoing student of such most of my adult
life. Good luck.
> So Frank, can you point me to some documentation of this "herculean
> investment and aid" to build up Japan? I'm sure there's some
reasonably
> "authoritative source" on the Web--if such aid existed.
Try reading the most authoritative source of east Asian History, just
for starters. The book is entitled "East Asia", written by three top
Asian history scholars: Reischour, Fairbank and Craig, some of the
most authoritative scholars on Asian History ever published. It is
remedial reading for anyone wishing to gain even a basic appreciation
for the social, political and economic realities that transpired in
Asia following the Second World War. The US government had decided
that Japan was the key as a political and economic counterweight to
both Soviet and Chinese ambitions in east Asia.
> To be sure, we
> basically ran that country for several years and when the Korean War
began,
> we dumped a lot more military over there which created some jobs (even
some
> that didn't require women. :-)
That too is an over simplification. We pumped the Japanese as a major
industrial and economic power to counter other political realities.
Other nations, such as the Philippines, that also hosted US military
facilities, NEVER received any significant economic aid! That also
includes both Taiwan and South Korea, both of which emerged in
economic significance mainly own their own, building also largely on
Japanese economic expansion.
> But there's *NO WAY* any of that (or the 4
> years of the Marshall Plan, from '47 to '51) brought them up to economic
> wealth nearly on a par with the US! In fact, what got the Marshall Plan
> going was that some of these countries were *so bad off* that we figured
> that if we didn't do *something* they'd degenerate into following whatever
> whacko blamed their troubles on their neighbors!
I thought we were talking about Japan, and east Asia? Apparently you
want to make shifts elsewhere. I have no idea why. I also wrote last
time, that Japan was NOT a benefactor of the Marshall Plan! I also
indicated, that the Japanese economic expansion was totally irrelevant
to that, didn't I?
> What really drove the
> Japanese (and Western European) economy was that they liberalized and
> companies were able to produce goods and sell them and profit from
> them.
This is ALL so much BULL! You have no idea what you are talking
about, and it shows. You can't link Western European economic aid,
with what took place with the US effort to build up Japan. No way!
> The Marshall Plan came with strings attached. "You get this money
> so your people will all have food and heat and clothes and shelter, but
> only if you get rid of your trade barriers and reduce your taxes on
> businesses, etc."
That's pretty naive when it comes to Japan -- the political goals were
very much different. Why do you believe that Japan's constitution
pretty much resembles our own, even though the Japanese have no social
basis for accepting such principles? It is nevertheless, Japanese
law, although it is totally foreign to their own sociological
understanding of principles! This is an interesting study in itself,
and if you care to pursue it further, there are resources far more
credible than internet links to get there!
> We talked about this before and you told the list that the Philippines
has
> a 49% limitation on foreign investment in local firms (in other words,
> local ownership must be at least 51%) and that there were several other
> problems with setting up businesses in the Philippines. That's part of
the
> reason that the Philippines is doing so poorly, especially in comparison
to
> other places in that area which do not have those limits on businesses
> (like Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and
Malaysia)
That's not either the point, nor the issue, and you know it. Japan
also had tremendous restraints on foreign ownership, as did South
Korea. All of the above nations you cite as references, also had
limitations on foreign ownership. The only possible exception to that
might have been Hong Kong, which was under the control of Great
Britain. Both South Korea and Japan have, however, recently over the
last few years, relaxed many of such constraints regarding foreign
ownership. The Philippines is in a state of flux, or change, on how
to deal with this, but that too in changing. The point I DID make,
was that Japan was the chosen counterweight to maintain US hegemony in
east Asia. Japan certainly knew that well, and even today relies
chiefly on the US nuclear shield as its main line of defence!
> Oh. So now US imperialism takes the form of IMF/World Bank financing and
> assistance? Well, I suppose that is just one more reason to stop sending
> US funds to those institutions.
Yes, it is. But that is only a starting point. All US taxpayer
funding of economic and military aid should come to an end in all
forms.
> A whole bunch of people think that they
> are *US* institutions rather than multinational ones and blame the idiocy
> of these institutions on "US Imperialism."
Well then, who the hell do you believe is the catalyst for such
institutions? Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Nicaragua, Columbia? Why are
confiscated US tax dollars being used to prop them up? You tell me
who funds these institutions, and you'll begin to realize that the US
government plays a central if not a decisive role. What would happen
say tomorrow, if the US government dissolved it membership in the
United Nations, if it terminated every conceivable international
global treaty regarding aid, trade, and economic global structuring?
What would really happen? What if we booted the UN out of the US and
off US soil? What if we failed to recognize any diplomatic immunity
or rights for UN diplomats? Well, who's going to pick up the tab, who
is going to host such an organization, and at the same time, pay for
it?
> Argentina's problem is not because of IMF or the World Bank, or anything
> except socialist policies that Argentina can't seem to get rid of. Early
> in the last century, they had the money to set up some super social
> programs, a great "safety net" for anyone that needed (or wanted)
it, and
a
> great retirement program. Well, now the money isn't coming in for things
> like wood and beef the way it used to and so Argentina is trying to figure
> out how to keep paying for those programs.
I think we can drop this here. Mainly because that is an exact
picture of where the US itself will likely be in the next decade or
two. Keep in mind, that Argentina was the third largest economic
power in the western hemisphere until quite recently in terms of
historical context. To use your own words, we, in the US may soon
find that technology, and all other mainstays for economic order may
not be able to pay for the massive debts of social security, medicare,
and all other forms of social(ist) nets being promised to the American
people. There is a way out of this, but most likely we will choose to
go down the shitter ala Argentina and Brazil.
> Now, the IMF contributed, in a
> small way by helping Argentina defer the day of reckoning which, of course
> only made that day worse.
Yea, and will the IMF be around to bail out the US government for not
being able to balance the books? That day is coming also. The point
is here, is that the US government has little to do with the
centralization of financial control, as the Federal Reserve is NOT
either Federal, nor is there a Reserve!
> Hmm. And here I thought that all of these were "victims" of
Western
> Imperialism. Malaysia and Singapore were a former British colony, but
> gained independence something like 40 years ago, so they're the least
> "victimized". Taiwan got cut loose by Carter in '78, but, of
course, they
> still "suffer ongoing US imperialism" in the form of weapons
sales and
> protection by the 7th fleet. Hong Kong was a British possession until
'99,
> thus a "victim" of "British Imperialism", and, finally,
of course, South
> Korea and Japan "suffer" from the "US Imperialism"
which takes the form of
> US troops and bases on their soil to this very day. Sounds to me like the
> best way to be a "success story" is to be a "victim" of
Anglo-American
> "Imperialism". :-)
I can't go along with this, obviously. All I can say, is that it IS
western imperialism, but probably not generically a US product. We
need to address the issue of who owns the IMF? Who owns the Federal
Reserve? (certainly not the US government), and who owns and controls
politicians? Until we address this globalization thing, nothing else
will ever make any sense at all.
> OK. So China managed to do the right thing without being
"victimized" by
> "US Imperialism". That still doesn't mean that being a
"victim of US
> Imperialism" isn't an advantage. :-)
Now wait a minute. Did I say that? China just joined the World Trade
Organization under that organization's own rules and restraints. I
also mentioned that China will also lose its own sovereignty on the
basis of such membership. Which is exactly why I wrote as I did. Who
the fuck is the World Trade Organization? Is it the US government?
Who is it, really? Who's in charge, and who makes the rules?
> Let's see here, the ASEAN alliance contains:
> Brunei: GDP/capita: $17,600
> Cambodia: GDP/capita: $1,300
> Indonesia: GDP/capita: $2,900
> Laos: GDP/capita: $1,700
> Malaysia: GDP/capita: $10,300
> Myanmar (Burma): GDP/capita: $1,500
> Phillippines: GDP/capita: $3,800
(GROSSLY OVERSTATED, BY I WILL CONCEDE YOUR POINT NEVERTHELESSS...
Most filipinos do NOT make $3,800 a year, and I know that to be a
fact. Most exist and subsist on less than a dollar a day.) Try a
figure based on about $500 or less an year and you'll be far more
accurate.
> Singapore: GDP/capita: $26,500
> Thailand: GDP/capita: $6,700
> Vietnam: GDP/capita: $1,950
> For some of these countries, the question is, if they've just enjoyed
> "unprecedented economic growth" as you claim, Frank, where were
they
before
> that??
Well, you got me hanging by the balls. After all, I live here. I
wouldn't know, how could I?
> Other than Brunei, this is pretty much a case for "Western
Imperialism"
and
> "western" free economies. (I know almost nothing about Brunei
other than
> that it gained independence from Britain in 1984 (more "Western
> Imperialism") and over half the GDP comes from exports of oil and gas
and
a
> substantial portion of the remainder from overseas investments--meaning
the
> average "Joe" probably gets squat while the Sultan lives it
up--in fact
> didn't Forbes or someone say he was the "richest man on earth"?)
Yea, you're right. You DON'T know very much. Sorry to burst your
bubble. And, here's the kicker. Most people in the region don't like
America! Including Brunei! They hate us. How are you going to deal
with that? Brunei is a very rich country, as you so stated. The
people consider us as infidels and our entire culture should be
destroyed. Welcome to reality.
> Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos famously rejected "Western
Imperialism"--both
> through war and subsequent policy. Look where it's gotten them. Burma
was
> a British colony and has been wracked by war almost continuously since
> WWII--making it another place where a little "Western
Imperialism" to end
> the warring and set up a democracy might have helped. Indonesia was a
> Dutch colony that gained independence in 1949 only to get 4 decades of
> "authoritarian rule", which apparently was better than communism,
but only
> barely. We've already discussed why the Philippines didn't benefit from
"US
> Imperialism" and, of course, the remainder are happy beneficiaries of
> various levels of good ol' "Western Imperialism".
Boy, do you have a "real grasp" on history or what? Real history,
real
realities, I submit you are waving the flag for US internventionalism,
and little more. You have NO idea at all how you piss off just about
everyone who lives in this region. You are the problem, and your
solutions are useless and hostile. How's that for a quick assessment
on things? It might be "your" way or the "highway", but
there are
others, a great majority of such, who will wish nothing better than to
destroy you!
> Yup. Here we go again with International Monetary Fund apparently being
> run by the US. Of course, to some extent, the demands have been the
> correct ones. But if these economies were doing so splendidly, why did
> they need to run cap in hand to the IMF?
Oh God, is this logic great, or what? I probably can't change your
fetish for western idealism. I won't have to. The rest of the world
isn't going to tolerate such arrogance much longer. You and I have no
solutions. People have their own solutions, and they'll make up their
own minds in due course on what such solutions are viable, and what
are not. They have a right to do so, even if that means killing you,
and deploying hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre in New
York to get your attention.
I previously wrote:
> >On foreign policy matters, I guess we'll just have to agree to
> >disagree.
>
> That's fine, but you're going to state your opinions, you'll have to do a
> better job of backing them up.
No Lowell, I won't have to. The rest of the world will certainly be
capable in due course of backing up what they really want, in the face
of US imperialism and aggression. I know this will take a while for
this to sink in, and I know there is nothing I will ever say that will
convince you. Problem is, you and your utopia will be destroyed, as
it ought to be and should be destroyed. You're not talking about
liberty, you are talking aggression, imperialism, and the use of force
to force your own ideology and conclusions on the people who hate
you. That's the REAL reality of our time, and our time is very
limited. Trust me.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:25:42 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank asked:
>China just joined the World
>Trade Organization under that organization's own rules and
>restraints. I also mentioned that China will also lose its own
>sovereignty on the basis of such membership. Which is exactly why
>I wrote as I did. Who the fuck is the World Trade Organization?
>Is it the US government? Who is it, really? Who's in charge, and
>who makes the rules?
Its member states, who'd'ya think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:24:22 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Robert!
Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote:
> > Who the fuck is the World Trade Organization?
> >Is it the US government? Who is it, really? Who's in charge, and
> >who makes the rules?
You replied:
> Its member states, who'd'ya think?
I guess you are entitled to believe that if you want to. Oh well.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:34:34 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
>> > Who the fuck is the World Trade Organization?
>> >Is it the US government? Who is it, really? Who's in charge,
>>and >who makes the rules?
>> Its member states, who'd'ya think?
>I guess you are entitled to believe that if you want to. Oh well.
>Kindest regards,
>Frank
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
Who'd you think? Android robots from Mars? Your cousin Vinnie? Moonies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:05:23 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Frank!
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > Sorry, folks, this is another long one.
>
>Good, because my reply isn't going to be very long, only pointing out
>historical facts and resources. By the way, I minored in Asian
>History and have been an ongoing student of such most of my adult
>life. Good luck.
Ooh. I'm scared! Not!
BTW. Note that most of this came up because I originally said:
And finally as for the US being an "Imperialist Power", we're a pretty
benign one. Our former enemies are now our friends and allies (albeit
somewhat limp-wristed allies) and not only that, but within about 30-40
years of their defeat at our hands, were enjoying economic wealth almost on
a par with their former conquerer. All of the other "victims" of US
"imperialism" have also done reasonably well.
(Note: in the last sentence above, I probably should have said
"Most"
instead of "All".)
Now Frank and I disagree about the *reason* that our former enemies are
enjoying economic wealth almost on a par with their former conqueror and
that disagreement temporarily blinded me to something else. The fact is,
we actually agree that the US's former enemies (at least from WWII) are
doing pretty well, and *the US* had a lot to do with that! Here are the
2000 GDP/capita numbers to put it in perspective (remember, Germany
absorbed an East Germany that was an economic basket case 10 years prior to
the 2000, the year for these statistics and that is included in its number):
Japan: 24,900
France: 24,400
Germany: 23,400
U.K.: 22,800
When you look at the caveat for Germany, the Axis powers (sorry, but Italy
was a minor player in WWII) did better than our allies. (Although Italy
didn't do too badly either, at 22,100.)
For all our supposed "imperialism", that's not too bad.
> > So Frank, can you point me to some documentation of this
"herculean
> > investment and aid" to build up Japan? I'm sure there's some
reasonably
> > "authoritative source" on the Web--if such aid existed.
>
>Try reading the most authoritative source of east Asian History, just
>for starters. The book is entitled "East Asia", written by three
top
>Asian history scholars: Reischour, Fairbank and Craig, some of the
>most authoritative scholars on Asian History ever published. It is
>remedial reading for anyone wishing to gain even a basic appreciation
>for the social, political and economic realities that transpired in
>Asia following the Second World War. The US government had decided
>that Japan was the key as a political and economic counterweight to
>both Soviet and Chinese ambitions in east Asia.
Woopldy doodle! Look, I'd be shocked if our "herculean investment and
aid"
(your words, Frank) to Japan has amounted to more than $100/person--since
1945! In fact, I'd be surprised if it exceeded $10 (which, BTW, would be
in the neighborhood of $10,000,000,000 or $10 Billion total!). I asked you
for some documentation about this "aid". You tell me to read a $104
book
(on Amazon.com)!! I don't doubt that it's good and authoritative, but I'm
not asking for every little detail of what happened, just some numbers on
Japan.
> > To be sure, we
> > basically ran that country for several years and when the Korean War
began,
> > we dumped a lot more military over there which created some jobs (even
some
> > that didn't require women. :-)
>
>That too is an over simplification. We pumped the Japanese as a major
>industrial and economic power to counter other political realities.
>Other nations, such as the Philippines, that also hosted US military
>facilities, NEVER received any significant economic aid! That also
>includes both Taiwan and South Korea, both of which emerged in
>economic significance mainly own their own, building also largely on
>Japanese economic expansion.
So the major difference between Japan's $24,900/person/year economy and The
Philippines' $3,800/person/year economy is that the US "pumped in"
$100/person to Japan over the last 55 years (I'll go with the outrageously
high number, here)? Are you really saying this, Frank?
> > But there's *NO WAY* any of that (or the 4
> > years of the Marshall Plan, from '47 to '51) brought them up to
economic
> > wealth nearly on a par with the US! In fact, what got the Marshall
Plan
> > going was that some of these countries were *so bad off* that we
figured
> > that if we didn't do *something* they'd degenerate into following
whatever
> > whacko blamed their troubles on their neighbors!
>
>I thought we were talking about Japan, and east Asia? Apparently you
>want to make shifts elsewhere. I have no idea why. I also wrote last
>time, that Japan was NOT a benefactor of the Marshall Plan! I also
>indicated, that the Japanese economic expansion was totally irrelevant
>to that, didn't I?
As I pointed out at the beginning, here, this thread came up in response to
what I said about former US enemies and "victims of US
imperialism". That's a little bit more than just East Asia.
Also, I misread what you said about the Marshall Plan and responded
accordingly. My apologies. You are correct that you originally said Japan
did *not* benefit from the Marshall Plan.
> > What really drove the
> > Japanese (and Western European) economy was that they liberalized and
> > companies were able to produce goods and sell them and profit from
> > them.
>
>This is ALL so much BULL! You have no idea what you are talking
>about, and it shows. You can't link Western European economic aid,
>with what took place with the US effort to build up Japan. No way!
I was *not* linking aid of any kind with the building up of economies. The
aid (in both cases) was little more than a stopgap or a small boost. Even
with as much money as we sent to Europe, I'll bet it was peanuts on a
per-capita basis. Same thing in Japan. In both cases, it was establishing
the basis for freedom and allowing business to grow, prosper and profit
that allowed for the buildup of production and wealth.
> > The Marshall Plan came with strings attached. "You get this
money
> > so your people will all have food and heat and clothes and shelter,
but
> > only if you get rid of your trade barriers and reduce your taxes on
> > businesses, etc."
>
>That's pretty naive when it comes to Japan -- the political goals were
>very much different.
Ooh! So we had *sinister motives* for building Japan back up. Tremble,
tremble. Umm. Waitaminit! *So what?* They still benefited from our
"imperialism"!
> Why do you believe that Japan's constitution
>pretty much resembles our own, even though the Japanese have no social
>basis for accepting such principles?
Yup! We won, they lost. We forced it on them, so their "social basis for
accepting such principles" (whatever that means) is irrelevant. (Although
the form of government is a parliamentary one, more like the UK's--but
that's a minor detail.) The main thing, though is that with this
constitution forced on them, they've out-produced (on a per-capita basis)
the UK! So whatever "social basis" they had or hadn't, it's obviously
worked pretty well for them! In fact, it seems to me that this is evidence
that the principles our constitution is based on are applicable
world-wide! (Notwithstanding contrary psychobabble gobbledy-gook about
"social basis" or "socialogical understanding" or whatever.)
> > We talked about this before and you told the list that the
Philippines
has
> > a 49% limitation on foreign investment in local firms (in other words,
> > local ownership must be at least 51%) and that there were several
other
> > problems with setting up businesses in the Philippines. That's part of
the
> > reason that the Philippines is doing so poorly, especially in
comparison
to
> > other places in that area which do not have those limits on businesses
> > (like Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and
> Malaysia)
>
>That's not either the point, nor the issue, and you know it. Japan
>also had tremendous restraints on foreign ownership, as did South
>Korea. All of the above nations you cite as references, also had
>limitations on foreign ownership. The only possible exception to that
>might have been Hong Kong, which was under the control of Great
>Britain.
Oh, so *that's* the reason that Hong Kong had a per-capita GDP above all
the others mentioned above (except Singapore).
Seriously, why are Taiwan and South Korea doing so well while the
Philippines are doing so poorly? You've now said that Taiwan and South
Korea "NEVER received any significant economic aid!" But at the same
time,
both Taiwan and S. Korea were "victims of US imperialism" in the most
obvious way, we had all kinds of troops and bases in both
countries! Taiwan was well on its way toward a first-world economy when
the US pulled out. (I *know* this Frank, I was there.) One reason is that
entrepreneurship was at least tolerated (if not encouraged) in Taiwan and
you've told me about how it was discouraged in the Philippines. Another is
that Taiwan did not have the kleptocracy that the Philippines had. A third
is that Taiwan did not have the problems with huge landowners running farms
with what amounted to sharecroppers that the Philippines had. My educated
guess (although I don't absolutely know for sure) is that this was a
carryover from Spanish colonial times and may have been extended somewhat
artificially by Americans or it may have simply been that the Americans
accepted the property rights as they stood at the time we took over from
the Spanish and that was enough to perpetuate the system. Basically,
everything I just said about Taiwan could also be applied to S. Korea.
> Both South Korea and Japan have, however, recently over the
>last few years, relaxed many of such constraints regarding foreign
>ownership.
Good. Now if Japan could lower its taxes, change some of its land laws
(which are keeping small farmers going, growing crops in the middle of huge
cities on valuable land), and ease some of its import restrictions, it
might come out of its slump.
> The Philippines is in a state of flux, or change, on how
>to deal with this, but that too in changing.
And the sooner they do it, the sooner they will start enjoying the benefits.
> The point I DID make,
>was that Japan was the chosen counterweight to maintain US hegemony in
>east Asia. Japan certainly knew that well, and even today relies
>chiefly on the US nuclear shield as its main line of defence!
You mean *THAT*'s all we've been arguing about here? Whether "Japan was
the chosen counterweight" to China? Shucks Frank, I'll buy that! Here I
thought we were talking about the role of freedom in creating a strong
economy and you seemed to be arguing that the *only* (or at least the
*main*) reason that Japan (and Taiwan and S. Korea) were so wealthy
(relative to the others in that area) was that Japan had received a whole
bunch of aid. Of course, we're so great at maintaining our "hegemony"
that
we can't even get these countries we've got all this "hegemony" over
to
vote with us in the UN much more than about 50%!
> > Argentina's problem is not because of IMF or the World Bank, or
anything
> > except socialist policies that Argentina can't seem to get rid of.
Early
> > in the last century, they had the money to set up some super social
> > programs, a great "safety net" for anyone that needed (or
wanted) it,
and a
> > great retirement program. Well, now the money isn't coming in for
things
> > like wood and beef the way it used to and so Argentina is trying to
figure
> > out how to keep paying for those programs.
>
>I think we can drop this here. Mainly because that is an exact
>picture of where the US itself will likely be in the next decade or
>two. Keep in mind, that Argentina was the third largest economic
>power in the western hemisphere until quite recently in terms of
>historical context. To use your own words, we, in the US may soon
>find that technology, and all other mainstays for economic order may
>not be able to pay for the massive debts of social security, medicare,
>and all other forms of social(ist) nets being promised to the American
>people. There is a way out of this, but most likely we will choose to
>go down the shitter ala Argentina and Brazil.
I'll agree with that, even though I think our economy may be able to take
more damage than Argentina's was. Still, I don't want to do the damage.
> > Let's see here, the ASEAN alliance contains:
> > Brunei: GDP/capita: $17,600
> > Cambodia: GDP/capita: $1,300
> > Indonesia: GDP/capita: $2,900
> > Laos: GDP/capita: $1,700
> > Malaysia: GDP/capita: $10,300
> > Myanmar (Burma): GDP/capita: $1,500
> > Phillippines: GDP/capita: $3,800
>
>(GROSSLY OVERSTATED, BY I WILL CONCEDE YOUR POINT NEVERTHELESSS...
>Most filipinos do NOT make $3,800 a year, and I know that to be a
>fact. Most exist and subsist on less than a dollar a day.) Try a
>figure based on about $500 or less an year and you'll be far more
>accurate.
Sure, and most people in the US don't make the $36,200 quoted for the
US. (I believe the average in Spokane is in the mid-20s.) So yeah, there
are some really rich people balanced by some really poor people. It should
go without saying.
> > Singapore: GDP/capita: $26,500
> > Thailand: GDP/capita: $6,700
> > Vietnam: GDP/capita: $1,950
>
> > For some of these countries, the question is, if they've just enjoyed
> > "unprecedented economic growth" as you claim, Frank, where
were they
before
> > that??
>
>Well, you got me hanging by the balls. After all, I live here. I
>wouldn't know, how could I?
I don't know. You're the one claiming all the credentials and you're the
one who made the claim of "unprecedented economic growth". So, what's
the
deal?
> > Other than Brunei, this is pretty much a case for "Western
Imperialism"
and
> > "western" free economies. (I know almost nothing about
Brunei other
than
> > that it gained independence from Britain in 1984 (more "Western
> > Imperialism") and over half the GDP comes from exports of oil and
gas
and a
> > substantial portion of the remainder from overseas
investments--meaning
the
> > average "Joe" probably gets squat while the Sultan lives it
up--in fact
> > didn't Forbes or someone say he was the "richest man on
earth"?)
>
>Yea, you're right. You DON'T know very much. Sorry to burst your
>bubble.
OK, so what did I get wrong? Obviously, you know what I got wrong, so tell
me.
>And, here's the kicker. Most people in the region don't like
>America! Including Brunei! They hate us. How are you going to deal
>with that? Brunei is a very rich country, as you so stated. The
>people consider us as infidels and our entire culture should be
>destroyed. Welcome to reality.
Woopie dingle! So they don't like us. Who cares? The "victims" of
"Western Imperialism" still look like they're doing a lot better than
the
"non-victims".
> > Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos famously rejected "Western
Imperialism"--both
> > through war and subsequent policy. Look where it's gotten them. Burma
was
> > a British colony and has been wracked by war almost continuously since
> > WWII--making it another place where a little "Western
Imperialism" to
end
> > the warring and set up a democracy might have helped. Indonesia was a
> > Dutch colony that gained independence in 1949 only to get 4 decades of
> > "authoritarian rule", which apparently was better than
communism, but
only
> > barely. We've already discussed why the Philippines didn't benefit
from
"US
> > Imperialism" and, of course, the remainder are happy
beneficiaries of
> > various levels of good ol' "Western Imperialism".
>
>Boy, do you have a "real grasp" on history or what? Real history,
real
>realities, I submit you are waving the flag for US internventionalism,
>and little more. You have NO idea at all how you piss off just about
>everyone who lives in this region. You are the problem, and your
>solutions are useless and hostile. How's that for a quick assessment
>on things? It might be "your" way or the "highway", but
there are
>others, a great majority of such, who will wish nothing better than to
>destroy you!
Facts are stubborn things aren't they Frank? I point out that "Western
Imperialism" appears to result in better economic performance than the lack
thereof. In response, you rant about how much I'm pissing off people. You
know what? I don't care about pissing people off. I care about what it is
that's going to get them the economic growth they want.
Look, what US interventionism tended to do was create market economies,
capitalism, and the rule of law which leads to economic growth. Not
always, not perfectly, not painlessly. But it worked better than just
about anything else. And if you're running around the Philippines
spreading untruths about why it is that the Philippines isn't doing well
and why Japan is, then *YOU* are part of the problem. Now, you might be
liked by everyone you meet and you might be getting a lot of free dinners
out of it, but you're actually hurting them more than if you were punching
them out.
> > Yup. Here we go again with International Monetary Fund apparently
being
> > run by the US. Of course, to some extent, the demands have been the
> > correct ones. But if these economies were doing so splendidly, why did
> > they need to run cap in hand to the IMF?
>
>Oh God, is this logic great, or what? I probably can't change your
>fetish for western idealism.
Actually, I don't think it is "western". Yes, I talked about
"Western
imperialism", but I was being sarcastic in saying that the
"victims" of
"Western imperialism" tended to do better than their neighbors. But
what
makes "Western imperialism" work in Asia, South America, and
everywhere
around the world where it is tried is the fact that the principles that it
embodies are principles that best answer the basic human needs of all
people--regardless of whether they are tall white people or little brown
people (or any other kind of people).
> I won't have to. The rest of the world
>isn't going to tolerate such arrogance much longer.
Like they say in Texas. "If it's fact, it ain't bragging."
>You and I have no
>solutions.
Speak for yourself. My solution is freedom, capitalism, the rule of law,
and democratically-elected representative government. You know, that thing
that keeps getting called "Western imperialism" when it is imposed or
pushed on other countries--which as I keep pointing out, tend to do better
as a result.
> People have their own solutions, and they'll make up their
>own minds in due course on what such solutions are viable, and what
>are not. They have a right to do so, even if that means killing you,
>and deploying hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre in New
>York to get your attention.
Yes, there are plenty of other people who think they have solutions. And
they will use force to impose those solutions on others. It's interesting
that the people "deploying hijacked aircraft into the WTC in NY" came
from
some of the most despotic countries on the face of the earth. They want to
impose their solutions on me regardless of my supposed "arrogance" or
lack
thereof. Their "solutions" are basically what they (falsely) accuse
the US
of doing--stripping the wealth away from others and taking it for
themselves. But if the US were doing that, then how could the countries
we've been pillaging be wealthier than the ones we haven't?
>I previously wrote:
> > >On foreign policy matters, I guess we'll just have to agree to
> > >disagree.
> >
> > That's fine, but you're going to state your opinions, you'll have to
do
a
> > better job of backing them up.
>
>No Lowell, I won't have to.
Yeah, I guess you're correct. You can simply keep making your unsupported
assertions and there's not a thing I can do to make you back them up with
actual facts (instead of claiming some kind of authority with your "Minor
in Asian History"). I suppose it's about time I go back to ignoring you
since reading you is generally a waste of time.
> The rest of the world will certainly be
>capable in due course of backing up what they really want, in the face
>of US imperialism and aggression. I know this will take a while for
>this to sink in, and I know there is nothing I will ever say that will
>convince you. Problem is, you and your utopia will be destroyed, as
>it ought to be and should be destroyed. You're not talking about
>liberty, you are talking aggression, imperialism, and the use of force
>to force your own ideology and conclusions on the people who hate
>you. That's the REAL reality of our time, and our time is very
>limited. Trust me.
I'm not too worried. You see, our freedom is our strength and the rest of
the world doesn't seem to be able to get quite the level of freedom that we
enjoy (your beer and cigarettes in the Philippines, notwithstanding). And
when they get close to our level of freedom, then they have no desire to
attack us. You see, Europe and Japan and several other places may not want
us attacking Iraq (as a for-instance), but they know we aren't going to be
attacking them. Likewise, in spite of our disagreements, they have no
desire or reason to attack us. Similar things can be said about a whole
host of other places, from Taiwan and the Philippines to most of South
America, to Africa, to most of South Asia. The remainder pretty much know
what they need to avoid doing to avoid going to war with US (for instance,
we probably are going to leave Burma alone, even though it's a horrible
dictatorship, and the generals that run Burma aren't going to be calling in
Al Qaeda because they don't want the consequences). Those (like
Afghanistan and soon, Iraq) who we end up going to war against will have a
regime change, getting new leaders, possibly a constitution (similar in
some respects to our own), the rule of law, and a more democratic form of
government. That will, in turn, set up the conditions for more personal
freedom and a better economy, leading to less reason for them to be mad at
us.
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will Strike First?
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:21:32 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Bill!
Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote:
> > I just received this press release moments ago, and believe that it is
> > time sensitive to pass it along prior to the outbreak of any
> > conflagration in the Middle East that may have greater consequences
> > than anything either the Shrub Regime<tm> and the news media
moguls
> > have led us to believe this far.
You responded:
> Heh, when I read the subject line, I thought it was about Maine.
What can I say. I did the best I can.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:56:54 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automatted. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.
To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:
http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:56:45 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automatted. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.
To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:
http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Frank - A mouse in your pocket??
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:08:08 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
hello, frank,
response below:
on 8/19/02 8:18 PM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:
<snip>
> My point has been, that if the people have a government in place that
> they will not support, the only way such a government could survive is
> through the brute force of a third party superpower, and least more
> super than its own ability to maintain itself in power.
Right on, Frank! And the above, not liberty, has been the guiding force of
U.S. foriegn policy.
> This has nothing particularly to do with liberty at all.
Absolutely, as i see it. Ocassionally more liberty has been the result, as
in Grenada, but that has been a by-product, not the mission. Most often the
result has been the reverse.
> But the point is the
> US government can't legitimately mandate and support governments
> against the will of the people themselves,
Damn straight, Frank! - not "legitimately", but 'legitimate' has
not stopped
the U.S., even for a second.
> and the argument that such
> a government will bring greater freedom is ridiculous, since in many
> cases people choose tyranny (as in America) over freedom.
<snip>
Yeah, they do Frank, but it's worse than that. Much worse. Many humans
have wanted to choose freedom, understanding it in their gut. And what
happened? In the Fifties the CIA (admitting to it now) subverted a
democratic election in a near republic, Iran. The CIA wanted someone they
could control, so they liked the Shah and his Savak secret police. What did
that give the U.S.? It gave it the embassy fiasco, and the Iotola. That
act has 'destabilized' the mid-east ever since, even more so than the
forced "creation" of the religious state known as Israel. Then, of
course,
there was $6-billion worth of CIA financing for its ally at the time, Ossama
and the Taliban.
I sure you recall, Frank, like Ossama, Saddam was an ally of the U.S., too -
bigtime. Armed him, the U.S. did. When the Shah fell, as he had to, Saddam
was the buffer between Iran and Saudia Arabia. Saddam was the next nuttso
the U.S. put it's power behind. As I see it, with an insane foreign policy,
which has had nothing to do with liberty, the U.S. created the Iotola,
Saddam, the Taliban and lots else.
Who generated Castro? The U.S. with its support for the fascist, nuttso
Batista!! Same, same in the rest of South and Central America.
And who gave the U.S. the Vietnam war? Diem, the fascist puppet!! With
U.S. foriegn policy what it has been, those who feel the need for liberty in
their gut turned to communism. Didn't have to be, but they were driven
there by the U.S. support for fascism.
It wasn't Marx who generated the Soviets, it was the Czarists! For those
seeking liberty in their gut, the U.S. has been mostly on the wrong side,
claiming to speak for liberty while supporting fascism. Communism, fascism?
It would be a hard choice for me, too, given that choice - the choice most
often given by the U.S., with liberty never presented except as a
rationalization, with no truth to it.
Dunno what the foreign policy of a 'free state' should be, if that's not a
contradiction in terms, but i do know that the U.S. has not offered that
option.
I wish, Frank, you'd quit it with calling the U.S. us. What, Frank? Do you
have a mouse in your pocket? I **ain't** one of "us". I figure you are
not
either.
Sincerly,
Larry
,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Frank - A mouse in your pocket??
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:09:45 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Larry!
Again, thanks a lot. I'll deal with this tomorrow, when I have to
sleep and sobriety to handle this. It's very good, and I read it
all. Until tomorrow, good night.
larry fullmer wrote:
> hello, frank,
> on 8/19/02 8:18 PM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:
> <snip>
> > My point has been, that if the people have a government in place that
> > they will not support, the only way such a government could survive is
> > through the brute force of a third party superpower, and least more
> > super than its own ability to maintain itself in power.
> Right on, Frank! And the above, not liberty, has been the guiding force
of
> U.S. foriegn policy.
Again, I likely ain't goin' to agree with all you say here, but you
made a great start, and you addressed all the right issues.
I will get back with you tomorrow. It's now after midnight, my time
here, and I would rather devote more time to this tomorrow. Thanks so
much for coming back on this issue.
Kindest regards, again,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Frank - A mouse in your pocket??
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:39:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Larry!
Now I can finally get back to this.
larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote:
> > My point has been, that if the people have a government in place that
> > they will not support, the only way such a government could survive is
> > through the brute force of a third party superpower, and least more
> > super than its own ability to maintain itself in power.
You replied:
> Right on, Frank! And the above, not liberty, has been the guiding force
of
> U.S. foriegn policy.
I agree with that Larry. Problem is, as long as I can remember,
dating back to the Eisenhour days, politicians have always justified
US military aggression as defeating tyranny, and anti-freedom forces
such as "communism" (a big one in the long cold war days). Now we are
being spoon fed that Saddam Hussein is a dictatorial despot that keeps
his own people in bondage. The justification for removing him is
largely seen as an opportunity to bring in "democracy" and a freer
society!
The fiction here is that the US government supported the present Iraqi
regime against its war with Iran, providing military aid, all the
while knowing that Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran in
the process. We didn't object to that then, simply swept it under the
rug and ignored it.
There are many other dictatorial regimes just as bad, such as Saudi
Arabia, which by the way, is most likely the highest contributor in
monetary terms to islamic terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda! You
are correct, none of this has very much at all to do with liberty, and
it doesn't really make any sense either.
> Absolutely, as i see it. Ocassionally more liberty has been the result,
as
> in Grenada, but that has been a by-product, not the mission. Most often
the
> result has been the reverse.
US foreign policy and the result of decades of military adventurism by
the US government has been a disaster, particularly in terms with our
relations with islamic states. It is because we supported for decades
the dictatorship of the Shaw of Iran that we ended up as "The Great
Satan" when the Iranian people rose up and deposed him. Even now,
Iran is undergoing moderate change, and seems to be reaching out to
end much of the animosity with the US government, only to be
classified by the Shrub Regime<tm> as part of the "axis of
evil"!
I previously wrote:
> > and the argument that such
> > a government will bring greater freedom is ridiculous, since in many
> > cases people choose tyranny (as in America) over freedom.
You replied:
> Yeah, they do Frank, but it's worse than that. Much worse. Many humans
> have wanted to choose freedom, understanding it in their gut. And what
> happened? In the Fifties the CIA (admitting to it now) subverted a
> democratic election in a near republic, Iran. The CIA wanted someone they
> could control, so they liked the Shah and his Savak secret police. What
did
> that give the U.S.? It gave it the embassy fiasco, and the Iotola.
Noted, and I agree.
> That
> act has 'destabilized' the mid-east ever since, even more so than the
> forced "creation" of the religious state known as Israel. Then,
of
course,
> there was $6-billion worth of CIA financing for its ally at the time,
Ossama
> and the Taliban.
It's amazing how alliances can be reversed so quickly, then spoon fed
to the American people as an opportunity to bring about even more
FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. The real reason is more control and hegemony by
the US government, as was the case in Iran in the 50's as you note, in
bringing to power the Shaw's regime.
> I sure you recall, Frank, like Ossama, Saddam was an ally of the U.S.,
too
-
> bigtime. Armed him, the U.S. did. When the Shah fell, as he had to,
Saddam
> was the buffer between Iran and Saudia Arabia. Saddam was the next nuttso
> the U.S. put it's power behind. As I see it, with an insane foreign
policy,
> which has had nothing to do with liberty, the U.S. created the Iotola,
> Saddam, the Taliban and lots else.
You got that right, and meanwhile the Shrub Regime<tm> is sailing
right along with high public approval ratings in conducting foreign
policy! This foreign policy remains a disaster, and it can only get
much worse as one islamic nation after another boots us out.
Eventually this could become both economically and physically
catastrophic in terms of increased terrorism, attacks upon US
political and economic targets, and a declining economy to pump up and
support various puppet regimes.
> Who generated Castro? The U.S. with its support for the fascist, nuttso
> Batista!! Same, same in the rest of South and Central America.
> And who gave the U.S. the Vietnam war? Diem, the fascist puppet!! With
> U.S. foriegn policy what it has been, those who feel the need for liberty
in
> their gut turned to communism. Didn't have to be, but they were driven
> there by the U.S. support for fascism.
Even Ho Che Menh once held in high esteem George Washington, and many
of America's founders.
> Dunno what the foreign policy of a 'free state' should be, if that's not
a
> contradiction in terms, but i do know that the U.S. has not offered that
> option.
> I wish, Frank, you'd quit it with calling the U.S. us. What, Frank? Do
you
> have a mouse in your pocket? I **ain't** one of "us". I figure
you are
not
> either.
As you know, I use the term only as a convention. You also know, I do
not support US foreign policy past or present for the last five
decades and longer. Come to think of it, I don't support US economic
policies either, since the beginning of the Federal Reserve and the
imposition of the marxist graduated income tax to provide collateral
against the debt incurred by the Fed's monetary inflationary agenda.
And in further retrospect, I don't support the US government's
domestic policies either, as they are either fascist, or leaning in
many cases toward a marxist orientation, e.g.: Social Security,
Socialized medicine, and State sponsored public education. The
Department of Homeland Security is nothing more than the origin of a
vast centralized fascist gestapo under the central control of the
Executive Branch. It's limits are rather arbitrarily defined, and its
future powers may well become all inclusive.
No, "I ain't one of "us" either, Larry. Thanks again.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Self determination...
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:33:51 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings Robert, and everyone else!
Robert finally posted a lot of great stuff to consider, and a lot of
it rather sober and provocative. And, in some cases, I agree with
him. Unfortunately here in the Philippines it is 11:30 p.m., and I'd
rather take this up tomorrow when I have a lot more time to devote to
this.
Stay tuned.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: None So Blind, None So Deaf
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:51:53 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings everyone!
I do not agree with all of this. But nevertheless I am forwarding it
here right now because it is worth a read. And, I hope everyone will
read this. I am also not forwarding the source from where I received
this, because I have not asked for or received such permission. And,
this is not a quote, as I am otherwise publishing it in its entirety
as I received it. I didn't write it either, so don't come back and
claim that I support all of such tenants. I don't, but it's still a
very good read.
Kindest regards,
Frank
None So Blind, None So Deaf
by Edgar J. Steele // August 18, 2002
Hear now this, O foolish people,
and without understanding;
which have eyes, and see not;
which have ears, and hear not:
Fear ye not me?
---Jeremiah 5:21-22
Football again! Kids getting ready for school. Shorter summer days.
Barbecues. Family. The Dow is rallying. Normal.
Life is good. Enjoy it. Savor the taste. Pack away memories to
caress in
future years, because America as you know it is over.
No? You think not? Just more conspiracy ranting from the Internet?
Like
Y2K, maybe? Not a chance.
There are none so blind, as those who will not see. The evidence
literally
surrounds us, yet most refuse to see it for what it is.
Look - you can see the stock market sucking in the last possible bit
of the
rubes' money, before heading for the cellar. Right out in the open,
the
American government is frantically consolidating power for the
terrible
struggle it sees just ahead, a struggle for its very survival. The
rest of
the world, which sees so much more clearly than America, is girding
for
hard times. They know that hard times means war. And war means death
- on
a global scale.
None so deaf, as those who will not hear.
Listen - you can hear the death throes of the American economy, the
engine
that drives the global economy. Record (and massive) corporate
bankruptcies. Record personal bankruptcies. Unemployment as far as
the
eye can see. Public debt has advanced so far and so fast that when
interest rates rise, as they always do, there will not be enough tax
revenue, even, for the interest on the debt.
All major banks, every single one of them, are teetering right on the
edge,
owing to their unprecedented derivative "investments" (which are what
kept
the stock market up and the gold price down for so long,
incidentally); it
is not a question of "if" they will fail - they will, and soon. Right
now,
you can see the effects of this policy spreading from one South
American
country to another, as their banks fail and their economies follow.
The stock market bubble gave way to the real estate bubble, but that
finally is starting to deflate, too. Things are spiralling out of
control
for the wunderkinds who thought they could make the good times last
forever.
Nobody but the Zionist Neo-Conservative is happy with the warpath
America
has set upon. Remember when the sole objective was to root out Bin
Laden?
Then, Al Qaeda? Then, the Taliban? Then, all of Afghanistan got
carpet
bombed?
Now, we're going to kill Saddam and replace the Iraqi government with
puppets like those in Afghanistan. And, we're tuning up for Saudi
Arabia,
can you believe it?
We have declared war on Islam, pure and simple, and we are not going
to
stop until we make the world safe for Israel.
Whatever happened to Bin Laden, by the way?
With hard times and an increasingly unpopular war will come public
protest
on a scale never before seen in America. Prompted by the entitlement
mentality created within the last generation and fueled by the massive
immigration of the past two decades.
America's black underclass is seething. Hispanics have all but made
Aztlan
a reality. Whites are confused and getting angry. Bush knows this.
Bush also knows that survival of his government depends upon its
ability to
control the American populace.
Just this past week, Bush authorized American military and
intelligence
services to begin murdering suspected terrorists in whichever country
they
found them...including America. Read that last sentence again and let
it
sink in for a moment.
People, including American citizens, have already been disappearing -
literally - with their families frantic with worry and knowing not
what has
become of them. How long before Bush and his henchmen begin to apply
the
terrorist label to people like the author of this essay - or its
reader?
Ashcroft publicly acknowledged for the first time, also this past
week,
that huge concentration camps in remote areas exist. For years,
rumors of
these camps have been on a par with UFOs, but now they are legitimate.
Some are for the expected refugees from city bioterrorism and some are
for
"enemy combatants" within America. Makes you wonder just how long
this War
on Terrorism has been planned, doesn't it? Lincoln had thousands of
his
critics arrested and held in such camps during the civil war. We
rounded
up Japanese-Americans for such camps during WWII. Don't think for a
moment
that Bush won't do the same.
All in addition to recent radical changes eliminating the need for
search
warrants or probable cause, establishment of military tribunals,
elimination of posse comitatus restrictions (so that soldiers may be
used
in American streets) and a host of other police-state directives.
In short, America's government has abandoned all pretense that the
Constitution still has any effect. Now exposed to full view, it must
dart
to the finish, before many more of us wake up.
Bush knows the only way out of the coming Depression (yes,
grasshopper, not
merely recession) is war, just like the last time. Bush knows that he
will
need to create an excuse to go to war, just as Roosevelt needed an
excuse
to enter his war. Did you know that, already, we occupy both northern
and
southern Iraq? All Bush needs is the excuse - an Archduke, a
Lusitania, a
Reichstag Building, a Pearl Harbor, another 911.
Wake up. Look. Listen. Do the math.
Get ready, because it is not going to be pretty. Get your family to
safety. Get a financial emergency plan in place. Start thinking
now, not
too late...though, for some, it is already too late.
-ed
"I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth."
- Morpheus
Copyright © Edgar J. Steele, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: None So Blind, None So Deaf
Date: 20 Aug 2002 15:28:49 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 09:51, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings everyone!
>
> I do not agree with all of this. But nevertheless I am forwarding it
> here right now because it is worth a read. And, I hope everyone will
> read this. I am also not forwarding the source from where I received
> this, because I have not asked for or received such permission. And,
> this is not a quote, as I am otherwise publishing it in its entirety
> as I received it. I didn't write it either, so don't come back and
> claim that I support all of such tenants. I don't, but it's still a
> very good read.
Leaving this in so it remains clear Frank did not author the referenced
material.
> Look - you can see the stock market sucking in the last possible bit
> of the
> rubes' money, before heading for the cellar. Right out in the open,
> the
Awww, Chicken Little learned how to type.
>
> Listen - you can hear the death throes of the American economy, the
> engine
> that drives the global economy. Record (and massive) corporate
> bankruptcies. Record personal bankruptcies. Unemployment as far as
> the
> eye can see. Public debt has advanced so far and so fast that when
> interest rates rise, as they always do, there will not be enough tax
> revenue, even, for the interest on the debt.
Boy, talk about ignorance and misinformation. Well, let us look at some
facts, shall we?
Fact is business bankruptcy is *gasp* DECLINING!
In fact, BUSINESS filings for the 3-month period ending June 30 totaled
9,695, down 6.4 percent from the 10,330 bankruptcy business cases filed
in the same period in 2001. NON-BUSINESS filings for the 3-month period
ending June 30 increased less than one percentage point (0.2 percent),
from 390,064 in 2001 to 390,991 in 2002.
Of further interest, is the *fact* that since 1980 (when business
filings were 43,694), the highest year for business filings was 1987,
with 82,446. last year, it bumped up to 40,099. At the current rate, we
will be under that figure by the end of the year.
Here is a quick rundown of the last two decades of business bankruptcy
figures:
1980 43,694
1981 48,125
1982 69,300
1983 62,436
1984 64,004
1985 71,277
1986 81,235
1987 82,446
1988 63,853
1989 63,235
1990 64,853
1991 71,549
1992 70,643
1993 62,304
1994 52,374
1995 51,959
1996 53,549
1997 54,027
1998 44,367
1999 44,367
2000 35,472
2001 40,099
Funny how that does not support this Chicken Little's claims, isn't it?
I guess you could say that 2000 broke a twenty year LOW in business
bankruptcy filing; as both percentage of businesses, and raw number of
them.
What is further, is that this is yet another case of
"single-number-itis". One thing that is NOT done by the previous
author,
is a comparison of bankruptcies to population. You would think such a
thing to be standard, yet in people afflicted with paranoid
singlenumberitis, it is often overlooked, or outright ignored.
For example, let us say that in year 1, there are 50 business
bankruptcies. In year 5 there are 500. Sounds bad, the economy is
collapsing, yadda yadda yadda, right? Not necessarily, since I have not
given you the whole picture. In year one there were 500 businesses. Ten
percent filed. In year 5 there 50000, or 1 percent. Focus on the "raw"
number, and you lose sight of the reality.
So what is the current situation? What is the percentage of businesses
filing bankruptcy? Is it rising, falling, maintaining? Well, there are
over 7 million businesses in the US. It doesn't take a genius to see
that 40,000 is less than a single percent of 7,000,000. In fact, it is a
little over a half of one percent. Fact of the matter is, that then
number of businesses each year has been steadily increasing. On average
there is a *net* increase of nearly 70,000 businesses each year.
Well, shall we look at personal filings then? last year we hit a peak of
1,452,030 non-business filings. Sounds pretty big, eh? Well, that is 1.5
million out of nearly 300 Million people. Again, less than one percent.
It is ignorant, and deceitful to make comparisons between years based on
raw numbers. one simply *must* take into account all factors, such as
growth of the field.
"Unemployment as far as the eye can see"? The author must be very
short-sighted. Unemployment is at only 5.9%. Still within the desired
range.
Despite the media hype over last year's economy, personal income, and
personal disposable income, has shown an increase month over month for
every month since December 1998 except two: last August and October.
September 2001 saw a near complete recovery of that amount, and December
surpassed July's number.
Gee, the more you look at reality, the more the author's claims exposed
as the tripe they are.
Further, bad debt costs account for approximately 9.6% of total nonfarm
business income. Interest paid by persons? Well, out of 7.2235 trillion
dollars in personal outlays in 2001, only .5554 trillion of that was to
interest.
>
> All major banks, every single one of them, are teetering right on the
> edge,
> owing to their unprecedented derivative "investments" (which are
what
> kept
> the stock market up and the gold price down for so long,
> incidentally); it
> is not a question of "if" they will fail - they will, and soon.
Right
> now,
> you can see the effects of this policy spreading from one South
> American
> country to another, as their banks fail and their economies follow.
I note there is no actual data here, either. No evidence, just clucking.
The rest of Chicken Little's fantasy is trimmed. Since he provides ZERO
evidence to support any of his claims, and in fact the data stands in
opposition, the value of his writings is exceedingly minor, IMO. The
only value I see in it was the evidence that the author suffers from
"paranoid singlenumberitis".
--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Declaration of Dependence
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:42:00 -0000
From: "justiceforfamilies" <justiceforfamilies@attbi.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
By Executive Order from the President of the United States:
The Declaration of Dependence
Article I. Because the citizens are stupid and dysfunctional and
cannot manage their own lives the Government will now do so for you.
The Constitution is now suspended.
Article II. All guns, baseball bats, big sticks, numchucks, and
slingshots must now be turned in, within seven (7) working days at
your nearest Center to Enforce Compliance which is located at your
police station.
ArticleIII. Cigarette smoking is now an act of terrorism that will be
prosecuted in the United Nations World Court, and punishable by
public stoning or beheading.
Article IV. Your issue (sic: "children") are now property of the
State. You have seven (7) working days to turn them into the nearest
VI Lenin State Orphanage operated by the Ministry of Life Micro-
Management. Report to the de-lousing chamber to make the transfer.
Article V. All private property is now property of the State. You may
lease back your home, car, furniture, and clothing from the State for
an amount that will be calculated to be 438% of your current income.
Article VI. All citizens must maintain compulsory insurance on all
property that they do not own and which they lease back from the
State, including clothing.
Article VII. There will be NO SMOKING/ NO PETS in any residence.
Officers of Compliance will conduct random spot checks and
surveillance. Violators will be transferred to the nearest WHO
internment camp for enforced "retraining." A sum equal to 742% of
your income will be appropriated to re-inburse the Gov't for the "re-
training" that you didn't want in the first place.
Article VIII. The Courts are now closed to the people. The Courts are
for the sole use of the Gov't to prosecute the citizens for non-
compliance issues.
Article IX. All citizens will serve 10 hours each week of MANDATORY
shopping time at Walmart and spend no less than 113% of their weekly
income to nurture and reinforce government mandated addictive
consumerism.
Article XI. Independent thinking is now a felony punishable by a
completely arbitrarily determined prison sentence.
Article XII. All citizens must report for State imposed counselling,
and will work vigilantly, in full cooperation, to: 1-discover why
they are human, and 2- to vigilantly monitor any lapses of
appropriate attitude and gratefullness to the Gov't.
Article XIII. All people (outside of the Gov't) are now equal. To be
fair to all, we will equalize to the lowest common denominator.
Article XIV. Same sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in
the United Nations World Court.
Article XV. Any works of, or references to the deposed Constitution,
Delaration of Independence, Bill of "Rights" (snigger..), American
history as not written by John Dewey, the subversives Ward and June
Cleaver and Ozzie and Harriet Nelson, Norman
Rockwell, or Mayberry are now delared articles of subversion and
allusions to such will be a felony act of treason.
Article XVI. All citizens must report for sexuality indoctrination.
Article XVII. Members of the Gov't, the Legislatures, the Office of
dependence Enforcement, Ministry of Life Micro-Managemnet will be
except from these laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: OOPS! correction...
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:36:42 -0000
From: "justiceforfamilies" <justiceforfamilies@attbi.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
By Executive Order from the President of the United States:
The Declaration of Dependence
SHOULD read:
Article XIV. OPPOSITE sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in
the United Nations World Court.
OOOOPS!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: OOPS! correction...
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:15:39 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>
justiceforfamilies@attbi.com posted a nutso-conservative rant in the
form of an imaginary `Declaration of Dependence', which included the
following:
> Article XIV. Same sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
> offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in
> the United Nations World Court.
The poster then found it necessary to post the following correction:
> The Declaration of Dependence SHOULD read:
>
> Article XIV. OPPOSITE sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
> offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in
> the United Nations World Court.
>
> OOOOPS!!!!
Ironically, it is by issuing this correction that the poster gives
him/her/itself away, as a loony-right nutcase rather than anything
resembling a libertarian. If the intention of this Article was to
suggest that the Coming Fascist Regime will intrude into people's
private lives by banning one government-disfavoured sort of personal
relationship, the Declaration as issued made that point just as
effectively as did the `correction'. Why did the poster feel it
necesary to change the example given? Why would anyone see a ban
on one sort of cohabitation as more objectionable than another?
I think the answer is pretty obvious; no libertarian of any
description would see a difference worth making between the original
piece and the correction, but a nutcase from the so-called `social
conservative' sector would. I think our anonymous poster, who properly
regards with horror the imaginary (and utterly unrealistic) prospect
of a ban on mixed-sex cohabitation, not only would not regard a ban
on same-sex cohabitation with equal horror, but would actively support
such a ban. Indeed, he/she/it probably regards those courts which have
struck down such bans or rendered them unenforceable in some states as
`judicial activists', and those legislators who have repealed the bans
in other states as betrayers of the republic. (And I think chances are
good that if you replaced `sex' with `race', and swapped `same' and
`opposite', the same would be true - JFF would probably regard with
horror a ban on same-race cohabitation, but I suspect secretly wishes
bans on mixed-race cohabitation could be reinstated.)
--
Zev Sero "If France rearms, there will be peace;
zsero@free-market.net if Germany rearms, there will be war."
Winston Churchill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: OOPS! correction...
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:57:18 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Zev wrote in part:
>justiceforfamilies@attbi.com posted a nutso-conservative rant
Nah, I think it was just a satiric piece.
>> Article XIV. Same sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
>> offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
>>in the United Nations World Court.
>The poster then found it necessary to post the following correction:
>> The Declaration of Dependence SHOULD read:
>> Article XIV. OPPOSITE sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
>> offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
>>in the United Nations World Court.
>> OOOOPS!!!!
>Ironically, it is by issuing this correction that the poster gives
>him/her/itself away, as a loony-right nutcase rather than anything
>resembling a libertarian.
Maybe. But it could just as well be that since the first version would
affect far fewer than the 2nd, the 2nd version was thought to be a better
example of social engrg.
Other parts of the piece didn't fit the stereotypic "loony right",
inasmuch
as they decried the TV shows that traditionalist conservatives get nostalgic
for, and made a big deal about excessive Wal-Mart shopping (which admittedly
COULD be a target of the loony right, but usually isn' thought of as such).
In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: OOPS! correction...
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:58:10 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Zev!
Zev Sero wrote to everyone...
> Ironically, it is by issuing this correction that the poster gives
> him/her/itself away, as a loony-right nutcase rather than anything
> resembling a libertarian. If the intention of this Article was to
> suggest that the Coming Fascist Regime will intrude into people's
> private lives by banning one government-disfavoured sort of personal
> relationship, the Declaration as issued made that point just as
> effectively as did the `correction'. Why did the poster feel it
> necesary to change the example given?
I don't know either, but after reading both over, I'm wondering
whether the correction just an attempt to broaden the scope somewhat.
At any rate, I haven't been able to communicate with the poster since
they subscribed. I usually can an autoresponder saying they receive
too much email to answer each and every one of them, then thanking me
for tuning in to their site, etc. Based upon what I could find out,
they seem to be a right wing pro-family organization, and most
directly against Child Protective Agencies and other government
organizations, including public schools, the undermine a family's
right to manage itself.
I haven't spent enough time reading their material to determine if
they lean toward libertarian idealism, or are rather a group of right
leaning conservatives.
> Why would anyone see a ban
> on one sort of cohabitation as more objectionable than another?
I don't believe in reading between the lines as a way of getting into
the mind of such an author, unless clear biases are revealed much more
clearly than was the case here.
> I think our anonymous poster, who properly
> regards with horror the imaginary (and utterly unrealistic) prospect
> of a ban on mixed-sex cohabitation, not only would not regard a ban
> on same-sex cohabitation with equal horror, but would actively support
> such a ban.
That appears to be a giant leap, Zev.
The article's intent appears to be more of disdain for intrusive big
government, in the Orwellian fashion, than any attempt to promote even
more laws regarding free choices regarding cohabitation. That my take
on the read anyway.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: self-determination
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:28:44 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>
If I've understood Frank's writing on this subject, he seems to think
that whatever government exists in a country is the result of the
`self-determination' of `the people' of that country, unless and until
`the people' replace it. He thinks it is the right of `the people' to
have such a government remain in power, regardless of what it does to
those who oppose it. If enough of `the people' oppose the government,
then, one way or another, they will eventually remove it themselves,
but until that happens, or if those who are unhappy with it are too
weak or too few to effect a change, then their only option is to
comply or emigrate.
What's more, it seems that Frank agrees that it is legitimate to remove
oppressive governments, but only if they happen to be in your own
country. So it would be OK for a group of Iraqis to organise and
oust Saddam Hussein (it doesn't seem to matter to Frank how big this
group is, or what proportion of the country's population agree with it),
but if the members of this group are not themselves Iraqis their
enterprise suddenly becomes wrong. Nor is any other government allowed
to help them - they must succeed or fail (and be slaughtered) all on
their own, and if they accept help from outside then they are `puppets'
and illegitimate.
I wonder, then, whether Frank thinks it was OK for France to support
the American rebels who formed the USA, and if so why. Perhaps they
should have rejected such support, and told Lafayette and Steubens
to go home, because they were interfering with the `self-determination'
of the colonists.
--
Zev Sero "If France rearms, there will be peace;
zsero@free-market.net if Germany rearms, there will be war."
Winston Churchill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: self-determination
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:36:36 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings Zev!
Zev Sero wrote to everyone...
> I wonder, then, whether Frank thinks it was OK for France to support
> the American rebels who formed the USA, and if so why. Perhaps they
> should have rejected such support, and told Lafayette and Steubens
> to go home, because they were interfering with the `self-determination'
> of the colonists.
Nice try Zev! The American patriots were natural allies with France,
and both the Patriots and France were at war with Great Britain,
albeit for very different reasons. Had France NOT been at war with
Britain at the time, it is highly unlikely they would have fought the
British on American soil. In other words, it was a mutual alliance
against a common enemy, in which both parties were at war.
It was also to France's consternation that the new US government did
not continue its alliance with France after the American revolution
had been won, nor did the new US government remain committed to
France's war with Britain any further after victory over Britain.
In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that France would have
come to the aid of the American patriots had they not already been in
a long drawn out war with Britain, but there is historical evidence
that the founders of the American republic had no intention of
continuing such an alliance after the objective of victory over
British occupation ended.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: self-determination
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:18:22 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote to everyone...
>> I wonder, then, whether Frank thinks it was OK for France to support
>> the American rebels who formed the USA, and if so why. Perhaps they
>> should have rejected such support, and told Lafayette and Steubens
>> to go home, because they were interfering with the `self-determination'
>> of the colonists.
> Nice try Zev! The American patriots were natural allies with France,
> and both the Patriots and France were at war with Great Britain,
> albeit for very different reasons. Had France NOT been at war with
> Britain at the time, it is highly unlikely they would have fought the
> British on American soil.
Of course they wouldn't. What's that got to do with the question.
The question isn't *why* they did it, but whether they had the *right*
to do so. According to your vision of `self-determination', at least
as far as I can discern it, it would appear that by intervening on the
side of the rebels they were interfering with the `self-determination'
of the colonists, and preventing an authentic manifestation of `the
will of the people' (which you seem to think emerges from the success
or failure of military action, but only without outside interference).
Nor does anyone claim that the USAn invasion of Afghanistan, or the
possibly-coming invasion of Iraq, was/is motivated by concern for
the oppressed people of those countries. That it is to their benefit
is a very positive side-effect, and certainly provides additional moral
justification, but the primary *purpose* for USAn action (i.e. what's
in it for us) is to protect and advance its own legitimate interests.
Just to reiterate: there are (at least) four separate considerations
when a state contemplates military action: 1. is it in our interest?
2. is it prudent? 3. does it conform with international law? and
4. is it morally right? Each of these questions needs to be addressed
separately. You seem to be addressing #4 with your concept of `self-
determination'. The point you just raised now, though, relates to #1.
(Note: In the case of the USA, #3 is a little more complex, becausee
the USA has never seen `international law' as legally binding, but
rather as a set of customs that are worth keeping unless it's really
really important. So the question isn't simply "is it legal?" but
rather "is it `legal', and if not, is it worth doing anyway?".)
--
Zev Sero "If France rearms, there will be peace;
zsero@free-market.net if Germany rearms, there will be war."
Winston Churchill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who Won the Cold War? (OT for SHWI)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:37:03 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
I cribbed this off soc.history.what-if. On 2002-08-20
raharris1973@my-deja.com said:
>Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.history.what-if
>Who won the Cold War?
>What we know for sure is that the Soviet bloc collapsed, remarkably
>quickly, and remarkably peacefully.
>However, some people attribute this outcome to their own policies,
>first I'll name two who trumpet it the loudest:
>1) The Americans, especially American conservatives see themselves
>as the cause and libertarians see this as a vindication of their
>views.
>2) Al-Qaida, Osama Bin-Laden and the Mujhadeen movement. They
>fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, the the Soviets withdrew and
>collapsed.
>But here's some other candidates who might have just as plausible a
>claim-
>1) The German people, especially the East German people, who voted
>with their feet to end the system and who gave the Soviet collapse
>its most vivid images. Yay Germany, when you win a war, it happens
>to be the one where you're the good guy.
>2) The Polish people, for similar reasons.
>3) Saudi Oil Ministers- Their engineered price collapse in the 80s
>denied the Soviet Union easy revenue. Hey, maybe the indirect
>effects of low oil prices in the 80s mattered more than Mujhadeen
>activity on the ground. In Islamic terms this was a great success,
>leading to the creation of 6 Islamic nations out of the SU, and
>saving Afghanistan.
>4) China- for making reform within communism look possible and
>attractive.
>Thoughts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who Won the Cold War? (OT for SHWI)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:19:43 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Robert!
Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...
> I cribbed this off soc.history.what-if. On 2002-08-20
> raharris1973@my-deja.com said:
> >Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.history.what-if
> >Who won the Cold War?
> >What we know for sure is that the Soviet bloc collapsed, remarkably
> >quickly, and remarkably peacefully.
> >However, some people attribute this outcome to their own policies,
> >first I'll name two who trumpet it the loudest:
Yea, what's the purpose of this? Seems to vindicate even mine, and
the Libertarian Party's point of view against initiating force, since
the Soviet empire collapsed anyway regardless of the billions of
dollars, and loss of American lives in such places as Vietnam!
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who Won the Cold War? (OT for SHWI)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:13:21 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank asked:
>Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...
>> I cribbed this off soc.history.what-if. On 2002-08-20
>Yea, what's the purpose of this?
The subject had been discussed here recently, and I saw it raised elsewhere,
so I thought I'd show people here what was being said elsewhere. I do that
a lot.
In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who Won the Cold War? (OT for SHWI)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:27:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Robert!
Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
> >Yea, what's the purpose of this?
Interesting that you conveniently left out everything else I wrote in
that paragraph. Why? Because I believe it vindicated a point I have
been making, and you chose not to make that a part of this issue?
> The subject had been discussed here recently, and I saw it raised
elsewhere,
> so I thought I'd show people here what was being said elsewhere. I do
that
> a lot.
I've noticed that. BUT...
Yea, I raised a few brief points as well, and you chose to block them
from discussion. I suppose I can go back and resurrect them and
republish them as such; but I wonder why your preference for brevity
seems to be so one-sided.
If what I said wasn't important, I wouldn't have originally written
them.
I've noticed recently I've given you a lot of courtesy, in usually
posting profusely what you write in your own defence. I would expect
the same degree of courtesy in responding to legitimate questions when
they concern specific points being called into question. Momentarily
ago, I just looked over what *I really wrote*, and what you chose to
respond to. Conveniently, you left just about everything of any
significance out. Do you want me to pursue this... I can.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who Won the Cold War? (OT for SHWI)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:49:29 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank wrote in part:
>Yea, I raised a few brief points as well, and you chose to block
>them from discussion. I suppose I can go back and resurrect them
>and republish them as such; but I wonder why your preference for
>brevity seems to be so one-sided.
>If what I said wasn't important, I wouldn't have originally written
>them.
>I've noticed recently I've given you a lot of courtesy, in usually
>posting profusely what you write in your own defence. I would
>expect the same degree of courtesy in responding to legitimate
>questions when they concern specific points being called into
>question.
I just wasn't interested in discussing that subject any more. I saw this
Usenet post, read it, and said, oh good, Frank'll like that, so I forwarded
it. That doesn't mean I wanted to discuss it. You say you're giving me a
lot of courtesy, I thought I was doing it out of courtesy to you.
I don't forward things because I agree with them. I forward them because I
think someone'll get a kick out of them, regardless of my opinion.
In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 04:39:20 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: "Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest" <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank:
You have mentioned something of interest here, on the point of the
Vietnamese refusing to "accept" or partake in their
"inalienable" rights to
self determititive life, liberty and property.
I have heard various posters to this group say that the rights of "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", freedom of speech & religion,
etc,
are inalienable, inherent, innate, and essentially guaranteed by Nature or
God to all human beings.
They have argued to me that even in lands as Iraq, China and Sudan, the
populace actually retains these "inalienable" rights, its just that
the
governments they live under prevent the exercise of those
"inalienable"
rights, i.e. they have 'em, they just can't use them.
I have argued there ain't no such thing; that personal, human rights are
hard fought and hard won pockets of liberty that we are quite privileged to
demand and be entitled to as a legal right within a given society.
To clarify, within a society that declares these rights entitled to its
citizens, they are for all intents and purposes actual guaranteed rights.
But it is only by virtue of the collective love of liberty and freedom
within the society we live in that we can expect to enjoy these rights, and
they are a rare and fragile thing in the cold world.
Now here seems to be an interesting example that breaks the hypothesis that
the inalienable righters put forth.
What if you have a population that actually enjoys and is satisfied with an
authoritarian government? A society where the government tells everyone what
religion they must practice, what things they may/may not speak or think,
how they live there personal lives, etc.
And yet, all the people living there actually have no complaints, and think
its just the best way to live; and such opinion is honest and uncoerced.
I would ask the "pro inalienable righters", do these people still
retain
those so called rights anyway? Even if they don't want them, and eschew
others trying to push them onto them?
I would say, under threat of being in ad absurdium, absolutely not. And if
they do not have these rights, why then such rights cannot obviously be
inalienable at all. QED.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
> Greetings again Gary!
>
> Gary Triest wrote to Sev Sero...
>
> > I believe that in a sovereignty, particularly one that I am going to
live
> > in, Libertarian values and concurrent laws are supreme.
> > However, without such a society I do not believe that another
sovereignty
> > has a legal right to tell another one what to do. I say this with the
> > fearful observance of the principle of reciprocity. i.e. what you
consider
> > to be acceptable or moral in your society, another society may not
consider
> > so. Does that mean that any government should have the legal right to
take
> > action in another country to enact the way it thinks should be done?
It
goes
> > both ways, and if you don't want Iraq to dictate how we should live
here,
> > then you can not expect to do the same to them.
> > That is under the assumption of a legal right.
>
> You have just raised some interesting and serious matters that ought
> to have a lot to do with the way all nations deal with each other.
>
> For starters, I've listened carefully to the arguments of Zev and
> Robert, particularly regarding the rightful use of force. Both seem to
> assume that it is perfectly okay for any nation to initiate force
> against another one, if in fact the end result is a greater liberty in
> the nation than the government that preceded it. Both gentlemen seem
> to assume three things:
>
> 1. That the people in such a target country REALLY want such liberty
> and freedom, and are willing to support it once it is forced upon
> them.
>
> 2. That liberty, as a principle, can be a "forced solution",
> vis-a-vis, forcing a country, culture and society to accept that
> liberty is better than the previous status quo simply because the
> "powers that make it a reality" justify it as a superior
position.
> And,
>
> 3. That external force will change the hearts and minds of a target
> population, and thereby become self perpetuating.
>
> Now, although many who love and cherish liberty, may be zealous and
> unrelenting in making it a global reality, we do have to ask ourselves
> if this really ever works as a practical means.
>
> Three decades ago, we tried to force our morality and visions of
> democracy and liberty upon South Vietnam. Not only did we get booted
> out, but the South Vietnamese refused to fight or support their
> inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Although the US
> government committed hundreds of thousands of mercenary forces to
> install a government more friendly to our values, along with billions
> of dollars in military aid, liberty regressed tremendously with the
> overthrow of the South Vietnamese puppet regime installed by the US
> government.
>
> It can now be rightfully argued, that subsequent to all of this, the
> current Vietnamese regime has far more liberty, and a growing private
> sector economic base that South Vietnam enjoyed when it was being
> forced upon them by the US government. What Goodman and Sero fail to
> recognize is that "liberty" is not something that can be achieved
> through the use of force! The Libertarian Party understands this
> quite well, as I do. For many however, their love for "liberty"
means
> that by God everyone will enjoy liberty whether they like it or not,
> or else!
>
> I've noted that Robert, in particular, seems to relish the notion that
> he is a pragmatist. However, historically, in practical terms, any
> attempts to force "liberty" through the use of external power has
> usually failed dismally, only to resurrect itself on its own accord,
> later. Another great example is the demise of the former Soviet
> Union, and the Eastern European block formerly under a strong
> communist fraternity. We spent billions to arm ourselves, and
> countless billions to destabilize the Soviet socialist structure.
> Eventually, individual countries spawned their own leaders, such as
> Gorbechev, Yeltsen and finally Putin to radically change social,
> political and economic structures because the old ideas failed
> miserably!
>
> Liberty sells best when it is the "home grown" variety, and is
not
> being forced upon a target population through external aggression and
> force! Even the face of Communist China is changing rapidly, and has
> nothing at all to do with US military force! Yea, we tried that too,
> and it also failed. North Korea will also eventually succumb to end
> tyranny and bring about economic and social change in the direction of
> private property, civil liberties, and a change of the old guard with
> a new one, hopefully one much better than the present, and probably
> with a unification with South Korea.
>
> One of the things I have been trying to hammer home to everyone is
> that US foreign policy has been a dismal failure. Most of the changes
> I am talking about right now have very little to do with any of the
> military adventurisms of five decades of a badly failed foreign
> policy. With the Shrub Regime's<tm> current fetish for attacking Iraq
> may finally make US foreign policy finally irrelevant, since virtually
> no one supports such military belligerency anymore! Current estimates
> are that the US will spend about $80 billion, paid by US taxpayers, to
> topple Hussein, and that presupposes that such actions will even be
> tolerated by international consensus!
>
> Not only will such actions further bankrupt an already bankrupt US
> Treasury, it will isolate the US as a rogue state, using the same
> principles that we claim to despise by those we detest so much. It
> will also go much further to creating division between the islamic
> world and the United States, and anyone else who dares to support such
> wanton aggression, inviting further terrorist attacks and setting
> liberty back ever further. The only bright spot on the horizon may be
> the beginning of the end of US imperialism.
>
> If true peace and liberty will come out of any of this, it will likely
> be in the form of a Ghandi style non-violent resistance to US
> aggression. We have the monumental military power, but in the face of
> it all, it may become the satire of the entire 21st century, that
> military power is evil when it is used in such a way to force people
> to change their values, beliefs, and ideals. And right now we are
> dealing with real cultures, real people, who believe very different
> than we do. All of the military might on earth should not be
> permitted as morally acceptable to change the hearts and minds of such
> people who are very different from our own.
>
> The US government has stooped to the lowest level, the lowest common
> denominator of morality, in trying to use brute force for several
> decades to change the landscape of thinking, to force a change in
> life-style, morality, and even under the guise and garb of
"liberty".
> When we stoop to such a level, we have lost all moral arguments for
> the conduct of our actions. And the whole planet is now watching
> everything that we do.
>
> For crying out loud, we can't even clean up our own stinking mess, our
> own immorality, and the conditions upon which we wage all such wars
> against human behaviour at home on our own turf! How absurd and
> ridiculous are our moral judgements on the rest of the planet! We
> have become only a nation with no moral soul -- we have long sold
> ourselves out to the notion of a omnipotent "government". All I
am
> saying here is that we ourselves, have no idea of what real liberty is
> all about, yet we choose to impose our inane values on the rest of the
> plant by brute force!
>
> In time, the piper will be paid in due course.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 02:26:45 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Rights are inalienable--even if people choose to live as if they have
"alienated" their rights. Suppose all the people in a society actually
enjoy and are satisfied with an authoritarian government and have no
complaints about keeping its rules. That would mean that no one would be
put in jail, or murdered by the police, or fined or punished in any other
way for breaking the rules of the society because, after all, everyone
enjoys and is satisfied with the laws. Or we could go one step
further. Occasionally someone will "step out of line" and will be
genuinely happy when they are caught and corrected. Still, no ones rights
have been violated. Now, when the first person sticks up and says "Hey,
waitaminit! I have an inalienable right to ..." and they get punished for
saying it (or for doing whatever it is), then the society is no longer the
one postulated above. In other words, not *all* the people "have no
complaints about keeping" the rules of the authoritarian society. And at
that point, the society (or the government of that society) is guilty of
violating someone's rights.
And that's the breaking point of this argument about "the people of
nation
X actually *want* to live under tyrant Y and so therefore we have no
'right' to impose 'liberty' on them." Look, if every American female
decided to wear a burka in public for religious reasons, then they are free
to do so. If every American female decided *not* to wear a burka in
public, they could do that as well (at least as far as the law is
concerned, some of them might run into trouble with their "religious"
husbands). It's ridiculous to say that because every woman in Afghanistan
under the Taliban was wearing a burka "because they wanted to" meant
that
it was ok for the men to beat the "violators".
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
Gary Triest wrote, in part:
>Frank:
>
>Now here seems to be an interesting example that breaks the hypothesis that
>the inalienable righters put forth.
>What if you have a population that actually enjoys and is satisfied with an
>authoritarian government? A society where the government tells everyone
what
>religion they must practice, what things they may/may not speak or think,
>how they live there personal lives, etc.
>And yet, all the people living there actually have no complaints, and think
>its just the best way to live; and such opinion is honest and uncoerced.
>I would ask the "pro inalienable righters", do these people still
retain
>those so called rights anyway? Even if they don't want them, and eschew
>others trying to push them onto them?
>I would say, under threat of being in ad absurdium, absolutely not. And if
>they do not have these rights, why then such rights cannot obviously be
>inalienable at all. QED.
Hardly QED. Your argument rests on the assumption that everyone in the
population is in favor of the government's actions. That's an invalid
assumption whether you are talking about the USA LP (or any USA party, for
that matter) or people in Afghanistan or a tribe of "primitives" in
the
jungle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: the new "Declaration of Dependence"
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:33:34 -0000
From: "justiceforfamilies" <justiceforfamilies@attbi.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
By Executive Order from the President of the United States:
The Declaration of Dependence
Article I. Because the citizens are stupid and dysfunctional and
cannot manage their own lives the Government will now do so for you.
The Constitution is now suspended.
Article II. All guns, baseball bats, big sticks, numchucks, and
slingshots must now be turned in, within seven (7) working days at
your nearest Center to Enforce Compliance which is located at your
police station.
ArticleIII. Cigarette smoking is now an act of terrorism that will be
prosecuted in the United Nations World Court, and punishable by
public stoning or beheading.
Article IV. Your issue (sic: "children") are now property of the
State. You have seven (7) working days to turn them into the nearest
VI Lenin State Orphanage operated by the Ministry of Life Micro-
Management. Report to the de-lousing chamber to make the transfer.
Article V. All private property is now property of the State. You may
lease back your home, car, furniture, and clothing from the State for
an amount that will be calculated to be 438% of your current income.
Article VI. All citizens must maintain compulsory insurance on all
property that they do not own and which they lease back from the
State, including clothing.
Article VII. There will be NO SMOKING/ NO PETS in any residence.
Officers of Compliance will conduct random spot checks and
surveillance. Violators will be transferred to the nearest WHO
internment camp for enforced "retraining." A sum equal to 742% of
your income will be appropriated to re-inburse the Gov't for the "re-
training" that you didn't want in the first place.
Article VIII. The Courts are now closed to the people. The Courts are
for the sole use of the Gov't to prosecute the citizens for non-
compliance issues.
Article IX. All citizens will serve 10 hours each week of MANDATORY
shopping time at Walmart and spend no less than 113% of their weekly
income to nurture and reinforce government mandated addictive
consumerism.
Article XI. Independent thinking is now a felony punishable by a
completely arbitrarily determined prison sentence.
Article XII. All citizens must report for State imposed counselling,
and will work vigilantly, in full cooperation, to: 1-discover why
they are human, and 2- to vigilantly monitor any lapses of
appropriate attitude and gratefullness to the Gov't.
Article XIII. All people (outside of the Gov't) are now equal. To be
fair to all, we will equalize to the lowest common denominator.
Article XIV. Opposite sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in
the United Nations World Court.
Article XV. Any works of, or references to the deposed Constitution,
Delaration of Independence, Bill of "Rights" (snigger..), American
history as not written by John Dewey, the subversives Ward and June
Cleaver, Ozzie And Harriet Nelson, and Norman
Rockwell, or Mayberry are now declared articles of subversion and
allusions to such will be a felony act of treason. ( ...and you
KNOW...where you will go...)
Article XVI. All citizens must report for sexuality indoctrination.
Article XVII. Members of the Gov't, the Legislatures, the Office of
Dependence Enforcement, Ministry of Life Micro-Managemnet will be
excempt from these laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: LP RELEASE: Defeat of Rep. Bob Barr
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:56:31 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: August 21, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================
LP's medical marijuana ads play role
in defeat of U.S. Rep. Bob Barr
WASHINGTON, DC -- The "worst drug warrior in Congress" has lost his
seat, and the Libertarian Party appears to have played a small role in
making it happen.
U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, a four-term incumbent, lost the Republican primary
in Georgia's 7th District on Tuesday night to fellow Republican John
Linder, 67 percent to 33 percent.
Over the past two weeks, Barr's Libertarian opponent, Carole Ann Rand,
flooded Georgia's 7th District with more than 4,000 TV spots. The ads
feature a multiple sclerosis victim who lashes out against the
Congressman for his crusade against medical marijuana.
"Barr's defeat is a victory for every American who believes that
doctors and patients – rather than politicians – should be making
medical decisions," said Rand. "Like Babe Ruth pointing to a spot in
the bleachers before he hit that home run, we pointed out our target
and knocked him right out of Congress."
The party's political director, Ron Crickenberger, acknowledged that
many factors contributed to Barr's defeat.
"Actually, it's impossible to gauge the precise effect that this or
any other ad had on the outcome," he said. "Nevertheless, there are a
number of reasons to believe that our ad had an impact.
"For one thing, our ad was virtually the only issue-based TV spot in
the campaign, so it became a lightning rod for publicity. Both Barr
and
Linder ran personality-based, feel-good ads. Linder's main ad simply
described how he met his wife, which was designed to leave voters with
a warm, fuzzy feeling. And Barr's TV spot came to be called the 'Barr
is gooder' ad. It portrayed a good 'ol boy saying, 'Linder is good.
But
I'm going to vote for Barr, because he's gooder.'
"That left us a huge opportunity to inject our issue into the public
debate – and we did."
For another thing, media interest was piqued by the dramatic ads,
Crickenberger said.
"Political reporters for every major paper in the district, including
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote about the ad's expected
impact," he said. "In addition, local talk radio hosts turned it into
a topic for discussion, and Atlanta-based, syndicated radio host Neal
Boortz really beat Barr up over the medical marijuana issue.
"So while Barr's loss was attributable to many factors, I believe
these ads put another nail into his political coffin."
The 30-second ad opens with a shot of multiple sclerosis sufferer
Cheryl Miller lying on a stretcher as an announcer asks: "Why does Bob
Barr want this woman in jail?" Miller introduces herself as a medical
marijuana user and says, "Bob Barr thinks I should be in jail for
using my medicine. Why would you do that to me, Bob?"
The ad concludes: "When the Drug War turns on our own sick and dying,
it's gone too far -- and so has Bob Barr."
The 30-second ads ran in Barr's district on two broadcast networks –
Fox and NBC – as well as on CNN, TNT, Comedy Central, MS/NBC, and
dozens of other cable networks.
Produced by the national Libertarian Party, the ads are part of its
goal of defeating the worst drug warriors in Congress, whether
Republican or Democrat. Other targets for defeat include U.S. Rep.
Henry Bonilla, R-TX; Sen. Max Cleland, D-GA; Senator Tim Hutchison, R-
AR; and Senator Max Baucus, D-MT.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html
Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:
To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Repeal USA PATRIOT ACT
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:19:14 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
Greetings everyone!
This was recently posted on the Idaho Libertarian Activist Conference,
and I encourage you to pass it on to others, or appropriate to other
lists in which you participate.
Kindest regards,
Frank
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [idaho_libs] FW: Repeal USA PATRIOT ACT
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:24:33 -0700
From: "David T. Terry" <davidt@onlinemac.com>
Reply-To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
To: "Idaho_ libs" <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
> Let's get behind this.
>
> ----------
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> I have just read and signed the online petition:
>
> "Immediate and Total Repeal of the USA/Patriot ACT"
>
> hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
> service, at:
>
> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/sabene/
>
> I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you
might
> agree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and
consider
> signing yourself.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Fran Tully
Idaho Libertarian Activist Conference addresses and sites:
Post message: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: idaho_libs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: idaho_libs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: www.liberty-northwest.org
Libertarian Party of Idaho Web link: www.lp-idaho.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/idaho_libs
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Big Brother- this is amazing
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:04:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
Greetings again everyone!
Everyone check this baby out!
Kindest regards,
Frank
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [idaho_libs] RE:Big Brother- this is amazing
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 21:19:55 -0600
From: "Ben F. Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
Reply-To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
To: <birvin@allidaho.com>
I found a copy of my drivers license on this web site,
they have a copy of every driver license in the USA in
their database.
http://www.DriversLicenseSearch.net
Ben
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fspcrackerbarrel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
[Image]
Idaho Libertarian Activist Conference addresses and sites:
Post message: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: idaho_libs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: idaho_libs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: www.liberty-northwest.org
Libertarian Party of Idaho Web link: www.lp-idaho.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/idaho_libs
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Darklady Online & on Cable TV! (Forward From
robgood@bestweb.net)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:07:35 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>,
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<Undisclosed-Recipient:;@bestweb.net>
Darklady Online & on Cable TV!
Exercise your First Amendment rights by joining in!
First, join gonzo sex writer Darklady & Adult Buzz (www.AdultBuzz.com)
editor-in-chief Kath Blackwell as we co-host the 110th session of Script
School! Script School is the 2nd longest running adult webmaster oriented
radio show on the web.
Hang out in the chat room or call in your questions on the topic "Women
on
the Internet." Among our guests will be Anne of www.Annescams.com and
www.AnneLovesGreenGuy.com.
http://www.scriptschool.com/radio/
Friday, August 23rd
2:00 pm - 4:00 pm (PST)
Then, if you're in the Portland, Oregon/Vancouver, WA area watch Libertarian
candidate for Oregon's District 42 House of Representatives seat Darklady as
she and other third party political candidates discuss important political
issues and answer your call-in questions about the upcoming November 5th
election.
Sunday, August 25th
6:00 pm - 7:00 pm (PST)
Harry Lime Show (www.HarryLimeTV.com)
Cable Channel 11 in the Portland/Vancouver area
Repeats on Channel 21
Wednesday, August 28 at 11:00 pm
Friday, August 30 at 11:30 pm
Want to be in the studio audience?
http://www.mctv.org/map-f.html
==========================
Theresa A. Reed
Libertarian Candidate
Oregon House of Representatives
District 42
http://www.darklady.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dark-Lady
"Friends of Darklady" [Theresa A. Reed for House of Rep. Dist. 42]
Party HQ: 12602 SW Farmington Rd., Beaverton, OR 97005
ryLimeTV.com)
Cable Channel 11 in the Portland/Vancouver area
Repeats on Channel 21
Wednesday, August 28 at 11:00 pm
Friday, August 30 at 11:30 pm
Want to be in the studio audience?
http://www.mctv.org/map-f.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Update: the cold war dialogue...
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:39:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings everyone!
Here's my exact statement based upon a reply to Robert Goodman.
Apparently he didn't want to deal with the rest of the story, or its
conclusions.
I wrote:
QUOTE...
Yea, what's the purpose of this? Seems to vindicate even mine, and
the Libertarian Party's point of view against initiating force, since
the Soviet empire collapsed anyway regardless of the billions of
dollars, and loss of American lives in such places as Vietnam!
UNQUOTE.
Seems to indicate to me Robert's selective propensity for one-liners.
Choosing and selecting sound bites of what he can respond to, without
dealing with realities and conclusions. What he managed to respond to
was only FIVE WORDS, namely: "Yea, what's the purpose of this?" Take
a gander at the whole sentence and how it fits. In short, he didn't
really respond at all to the real question I posed at all. Nice!
So, both the Libertarian Party, and my view are reduced to five small
words, actually four small words, "What's the purpose of this?"
That's it folks. That's the entire gist of Robert's argument. You
decide if he may have perhaps left something else of importance out, a
lot of stuff really.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Practically speaking...
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:11:50 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hello Robert!
Why should I support you? Think about this for a while. Why should I
support YOUR choices? Why do I care? After all, you don't recognize
any rights common to mankind as being inalienable rights, rights
recorded in history as being inviolatiable? You just have to consider
what this really means. That means, if YOU really believe you have a
right to violate the rights of others, then that is your personal
choice. You violate that choice each and every time you preach
against self-determination of people to make such choices.
Do your choices support my choices for myself? If this is really all
about choices becoming a product of individual FREEDOM, then it seems
to me you have a lot to contribute to make that position clear and
definitive, rather than in one-liners, as you've chosen to do. Is
there any way that you can scientifically talk about "rights" in a
sense of common, understood, historical and documented evidence that
such is self-evident in nature itself, particularly human nature?
Well, if you can't do that, then it follows, you'll lose. I don't
care about YOUR freedom, your right to make choices. I'll kill you if
I want to, and if I have to opportunity as such. That's what it comes
down to actually. All this says is that YOUR rights mean nothing,
only to yourself. You have no recognized government who will defend
or support you. And, in any case, you refuse to accept that a
government ought to have such power to support you.
In essence you say there is no ultimate freedom. There is no liberty.
There are no inalienable rights of man. Fine, then you have no rights
either, and I will NEVER support your right to be free. I am
concerned mainly about my own "rights". No government at all, just
pure and absolute power to protect my own rights, or at least rights
that I have the personal power to protect. I DON'T care about YOU!
Why should I care about what YOU believe are your rights? I could
care less about your rights.
Isn't there a way that you can concede that individuals cannot be free
without a government, without a contract, without a definition of some
order that defines such rights?
I know, I coming from the edge. I am also trying to make a point.
What is "rights"? If rights are only the figment of one's own mind,
then it will certainly be a matter of assault by anyone wishing to
take such rights away.
Robert, I honestly don't have any idea what I can do with you. All I
can say is that government is necessary to protect recognized and
fundamentally accepted rights. Anything less than that is really
anarchy. I can't and won't deal with that as even a remote
possibility. It doesn't and won't work.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Practically speaking...
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:49:34 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank asked:
>Why should I support you?
Because you agree with my ideas.
>Think about this for a while. Why
>should I support YOUR choices? Why do I care? After all, you don't
>recognize any rights common to mankind as being inalienable rights,
Sure, but you do. You do what you believe in.
>Do your choices support my choices for myself?
Mine do, yeah.
>Is there any way that you can scientifically talk about
>"rights" in a sense of common, understood, historical and
>documented evidence that such is self-evident in nature itself,
>particularly human nature?
No.
>Well, if you can't do that, then it follows, you'll lose. I don't
>care about YOUR freedom, your right to make choices. I'll kill you
>if I want to,
But you don't.
>I DON'T
>care about YOU! Why should I care about what YOU believe are your
>rights?
It's obvious that you do, or you wouldn't be writing about it.
>I could care less about your rights.
>Isn't there a way that you can concede that individuals cannot be
>free without a government, without a contract, without a definition
>of some order that defines such rights?
In general, people cannot "be" free WITH OR WITHOUT the things you
say.
Freedom is always a matter of the moment. No freedom is perpetual. Then
it's just a matter of considering under what conditions one is most likely
to be free. People have been exploring that question for a long time.
Government can do some good things. It's nice to figure out how it can best
serve freedom, just as how any thing can be made useful. I think it's a
good thing to make a legal system involving rights. It's just that I don't
pretend those rights are anything more than a useful invention, rather than
a discovery of something that already existed somehow in Platonic space.
In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: philosophical anarchism.....
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 03:52:44 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Frank
on 8/22/02 10:11 AM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:
> Hello Robert!
frank, you shoulda wrote hello, larry , too.
i'm way behind on my email. i was lucky enough to meet a woman.
Frank, lots of us libs are philosophical anarchists.
good gawd, frank, you are so self-righteous when is comes to your perceived
need for government. i figure that tells me, lib or not, you need a leader.
no leaders, frank. not even you.
LF
check out anti-state.com frank. ain't fair for you to treat us lib
anarchists like we don't have the slightest of brain cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: philosophical anarchism.....
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:08:42 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Larry!
larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...
> Frank, lots of us libs are philosophical anarchists.
I have no idea what percentage actually fall into that category. I
don't have any love for government either, as you already know very
well. Government isn't an entity you love, but rather an entity that
needs to have very clearly defined and specific powers.
> good gawd, frank, you are so self-righteous when is comes to your
perceived
> need for government. i figure that tells me, lib or not, you need a
leader.
Okay, here's my point. I would LOVE to be able to sustain a reason to
desolve government entirely, that is, if that is it would have the
objective of promoting liberty. Unfortunately, in most cases at
least, I am firmly convinced that the complete absence of government
would result in decreasing liberty for most people at the expense of
those who have tremendous wealth and power to enjoy their own
liberty. Here is why I take this position:
1. Human nature. It is human nature for individuals with power to
have even more power over you. There are such qualities in the human
race that wants to take away whatever you have by force (sometimes
lethal force), control you for their own purposes, steal from you,
rape your wife or daughter, and maybe in some cases just fuck with you
because they don't like you.
I know for damn sure I do not have the economic power to defend my
liberty over myself, my family or private property against such
powerful forces displayed in a society in the total absence of
government. Neither do I have the economic capacity to hire private
security guards to protect my liberty and stand around doing so
24-hours each day waiting for the moment someone might want to fuck
with me, seize my property, rape my daughter. Get the point?
2. I have better uses for my time than to spend 24-hours each day
toting a gun, lurking around outside my house, waiting for some
asshole to show up and attack me or my family. There would be very
little productive times in such a society because when I could lay my
gun down, and actually do anything productive, I might be exposing
myself to some economically giant warlord who would send his thugs to
my house to do his bidding to kill me, steal from me, extort me with
"protection" schemes and so forth. Productive and free society that
you might envision, simply would last very long.
3. For many, many years Larry, I've read the Libertarian lists. I've
listened to just about all of the arguments for philosophical
anarchism, and still I am not convinced that *I* would enjoy freedom,
nor would I have a way to really defend myself against thugs and
beasts who wish to take my liberty away, including of course my
property or any other assets that would then be open season for such
beasts to plunder. Kind of like today's government, but even this
isn't as bad as NO government at all.
Okay, here's the point in case you missed it. I don't want to spend
24-hours of each day, 365 days out of each year, just worrying about
the prospect of defending myself. I've got better things to do with
my time. Since I don't have the resources to employ the badest brute
on the block to defend my liberty, then I would be forced to spend
such time defending myself in the absence of hiring a government to do
so. I've heard the argument, and I'm sure if I don't mention it here,
"We'll, just form private associations with neighbours or others to
defend yourself." Okay, let's say that might be a logical (although
typically "warlord" type of necessity) alternative. But is it an
alternative? What I mean is, okay, let's say I join along with all of
my neighbours to hire a private security organization to defend myself
along with a small community of neighbours.
Larry, how is that really different from government? Isn't that
technically what government is supposed to be? Another question, does
such an association become a government, since all of the neighbours
would have to vote, or agree upon what that private security force
should do, and any limitations on power that it might have. Let's say
another group of neighbours, across the river, or in another block
also form such an association. But this one has aggressive
intentions, and has the economic resources to hire a very aggressive
private security apparatus that is capable of wiping you and your
neighbours out in a heartbeat. Let's assume here that they will
simply show up, unannounced, and kill off your security force, and
rape, maim, steal and loot all of your property, taking your daughters
as booty. What you are talking about here is a "warlord" or tribal
mentality. In essence you still have governments around, you just
call them private arrangements, but these arrangements will become
always critical of the whims and desires of each individual forming
such an association. Again, in all practical ways, this would be
similar to a tribal government, such as has existed prior to the rise
of more advanced civilizations.
And, who's going to pay for these security services? Let's say 90
percent of this "private association", or government vote to levy each
family $5,000 a year to pay for such protection. What if the 10
percent feel they are getting raped and don't want to go along with
it, yet they need such protection since they don't have the economic
resources to cover their ass if they pull out of the association. So
some kind of monetary policy would have to be a part of any such
agreement, which amounts to majority rule, or taxation! Surprise!
Surprise!
So far here, I've only been talking about protecting your interests,
property and family. What is your "association" of neighbours going
to do when you get a blizzard, I mean six feet of snow in three days,
and covering about two miles of private road just to get to your front
door. Don't laugh, that actually happened to me in 1996 in north
Idaho. You see, I live on Ruby Ridge, about two thirds of that
distance (2 miles) is on a county road, the rest is private. During
that one winter, it continued to snow, from November 15, through
around April.
The reason I am bringing this up is because it is very similar to a
larger "free association" that total anarchy would bring. The one
third of private road leading to MY front door was private road, and
all on private property. Yea, one or two neighbours deciding to kick
in and pay for a private contractor to bring in a bulldozer for six
months and keep the road clear. Other neighbours did NOT want to kick
in their share, and never did. But since the private portion of the
road was always on private land that covered their own, they got a
free ride. We paid for the road maintenance, and they enjoyed jumping
in the rig and driving into town.
What if you extrapolate that out even further, lets say to an entire
county, with private roads then becoming something along the lines of
not 2 miles, but likely 2,000 miles? Let's then assume that 10-15
percent of such would want to kick in the bucks to keep the roads
open. What about the other 85 percent that opted out, yet enjoyed
open and clear roads anyway?
Human nature is also a part of this too. It's called greed. They want
the benefits, but don't want to contribute their fair share. How
would you force them to pay their fair share? Now you are talking
about the use of force aren't you? How would that be very much
different from government levying taxes to do the same thing?
Here's the problem with the private road scheme. In an anarchy, all
roads would be private, and at the same time cross a lot of private
properties depending upon the length of the road or highway. There
would obviously be no government at all, with even limited powers to
maintain the road. And in an anarchy, there would be dozens of
private associations and groups formed to deal with keeping the roads
open and clear of snow. Paved, patched, maintained, graded, and some
degree of safety enforcement. No civilization could ever progress
very far under such conditions, it's a lot like the security problem I
mentioned earlier.
There is no way, human nature as it is, that anarchy could ever
provide for liberty, security, or even bare essential services. As
I've stated my case above, you're not going to get any increase in
freedom -- rather, you're going to be living in stark horror over
which "other" association "war lord" might come in and take
it all
away from you. Or, how you might drive to work the next morning
because another group of individuals decided the road isn't worth
maintaining any longer. At some point, yes (I know you don't like
this) a "government" would be formed to provide security, road
maintenance, and other services that are essential and necessary for
any civilization to survive.
> no leaders, frank. not even you.
I hope you understand, it isn't "leadership" I am talking about
here.
It is necessary for a very limited and very strictly defined
government to exist. There would be absolutely no liberty at all in
the absence of government. Human nature isn't interested in liberty.
"Real Liberty" is not anything that the American people understand,
want, or will accept! We've gone down the shitter for too long to be
able to convince anyone to vote in our direction right now.
I saw a real neat website by an indian tribe selling tax-free
cigarettes. I'm going to post that separately here in a moment.
Because what I will be posting is in html format, I didn't want to
attach it here in this post, for those who can't read html. The
subject line will be Indian Cigarettes. I COULDN'T BELIEVE the price
of a taxed pack of cigarettes is really as high as it is today. After
all, I've been gone from the US for the last five years, and was only
back for about a month two years ago. I was flabbergasted at the
price for a carton of cigarettes, and the Indian Tribe had a "no tax"
discount price of around the price I remember on store shelves just
two years ago!
So, Larry. I disagree that anarchism could ever be made to work. At
some point, a limited government would have to be brought into the
equation for any civilization, and liberty, to exist at all. But this
current government has to go. Hopefully peacefully as in the case of
the Soviet collapse, but THIS government really has to go. I am
starting to re-think a lot of things, that is, about my desire to come
home, to my own house in Naples, Idaho, and try to survive under such
conditions of paying $40 or more for a carton of Winstons! This is
absolutely insane, just as is the Shrub Regime's<tm> 'war on terror'
and foreign policy totally insane. I was really pissed in reading the
Indian Tribe ad, and I can't fathom how any American could ever accept
such an atrocious government. Don't make me out as pro-government
Larry -- I hate government! It's just a necessary evil, and that's all
it is. Maybe, because in some sense, "human nature" is evil, and
that's why it's necessary, I don't know frankly.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the American people
are brain dead and will NEVER stop defending this fucking government.
It's likely beyond anything any political party will ever be able to
put an end to.
> check out anti-state.com frank. ain't fair for you to treat us lib
> anarchists like we don't have the slightest of brain cells.
You do have minds, I won't disagree with that. I just cannot be
convinced that human nature will ever evolve into a state where
anarchy could possibly work. Look at the price of a pack of Winstons
the next time you walk into your friendly Safeway store. Compare that
with about 35 cents a pack here in the Philippines. And then, consider
that the difference between 35 cents a pack here, and the $4.00 a pack
in the US is all in government TAXES! That represents about a 1,000
percent markup, and all in TAXES! In America, who cares? Taxation at
1,000 percent!? That should certainly piss off somebody! Apparently
it has become perfectly acceptable. Maybe, I am so out of touch with
Amerika today, that I really shouldn't even consider coming back at
all. It may be already far too late for liberty to really ever again
become an open issue again in US politics.
If I don't come back, I feel your pain. It is my own.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: philosophical anarchism.....
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hi Frank,
> > good gawd, frank, you are so self-righteous when
> is comes to your perceived
> > need for government. i figure that tells me, lib
> or not, you need a leader.
>
> Okay, here's my point. I would LOVE to be able to
> sustain a reason to
> desolve government entirely, that is, if that is it
> would have the
> objective of promoting liberty. Unfortunately, in
> most cases at
> least, I am firmly convinced that the complete
> absence of government
> would result in decreasing liberty for most people
> at the expense of
> those who have tremendous wealth and power to enjoy
> their own
> liberty.
The situations you describe are quite horrible and I
certainly wouldn't want to live in them, even though
I'm an anarchist. But I think you're misunderstanding
what many of us anarchists mean by "no government."
Much of the problem comes from using the word
"government" since the word can be defined as law and
order. Most anarchists (at least of the libertarian
sort) don't want to get rid of government in the sense
of "law and order;" what they want to get rid of are
"States" - entities that are legally able to initiate
force.
Most of the evil that "governments" do, in my opinion,
results from the initial evil of their capacity to
tax. If you take the US government exactly as it is
right now and simply remove it's ability to tax, I
think you would have pretty well defanged the monster,
even if no actual "laws" and "regulations" were
changed. A "government" that has to receive all its
money through voluntary donations, the selling of
services, and user fees would meet my ideal of
"anarchism" - and I'm guessing that's probably not too
far from what you are in favor of.
> 1. Human nature. It is human nature for individuals
> with power to
> have even more power over you. There are such
> qualities in the human
> race that wants to take away whatever you have by
> force (sometimes
> lethal force), control you for their own purposes,
> steal from you,
> rape your wife or daughter, and maybe in some cases
> just fuck with you
> because they don't like you.
Yup, this is exactly true. And I think it is the
reason why no matter what system is in place, the
majority of people MUST value liberty and be vigilant
in protecting it for liberty to work. There is no
way, in my opinion, to guarantee that liberty will
prevail; indeed, the cards are stacked against it,
since there will always powerful (and not so powerful)
people who are trying to gain more power over everyone
else.
One of the best ways to prevent power hungry people
from being able to actually gain power is to make sure
there are no socially sanctioned institions that are
legally able to initiate force - specifically, that
there no institutions with the legal power to tax. I
think the US government is a prime example of why a
State with "clearly defined and specific powers"
cannot protect liberty for any length of time if it
ALSO has the power to tax. The Constitution did a
brilliant job of creating boundaries around the
government and dividing power so no one portion of the
government could have dictatorial control. And what
happened? Things started going wrong almost
immediately, within 150 years the republic was
destroyed, and a little over 200 years later we're
practically in a police state.
It doesn't matter how limited or specific a
"government's" powers are, so long as it is legally
able to initiate force power hungry people can use the
institution to gain power over other people.
> 2. I have better uses for my time than to spend
> 24-hours each day
> toting a gun, lurking around outside my house,
> waiting for some
> asshole to show up and attack me or my family.
> There would be very
> little productive times in such a society because
> when I could lay my
> gun down, and actually do anything productive, I
> might be exposing
> myself to some economically giant warlord who would
> send his thugs to
> my house to do his bidding to kill me, steal from
> me, extort me with
> "protection" schemes and so forth. Productive and
> free society that
> you might envision, simply would last very long.
Anarchism does not require throwing away the last
3,000 years of development in law and order. To have
"anarchism" (at least from my point of view) simply
requires taking away the "government's" ability to
tax. Leave the present court system and rules in
place; just take away the government's ability to
coerce people into funding and participating in them.
> "We'll, just form private associations with
> neighbours or others to
> defend yourself." Okay, let's say that might be a
> logical (although
> typically "warlord" type of necessity) alternative.
> But is it an
> alternative? What I mean is, okay, let's say I join
> along with all of
> my neighbours to hire a private security
> organization to defend myself
> along with a small community of neighbours.
>
> Larry, how is that really different from government?
> Isn't that
> technically what government is supposed to be?
A group of neighbors hiring a private security
organization to protect them would emphatically not be
a "government" (i.e. State), so long as the no one was
forced to fund the secuirty organization who didn't
want to.
And it's highly unlikely that such a neighborhood
security organization would be of the "warlord" sort,
since most private security organizations (at least as
they exist now in the US) are concerned with
PREVENTING rather than PROSECUTING crime.
> Another question, does
> such an association become a government, since all
> of the neighbours
> would have to vote, or agree upon what that private
> security force
> should do, and any limitations on power that it
> might have. Let's say
> another group of neighbours, across the river, or in
> another block
> also form such an association. But this one has
> aggressive
> intentions, and has the economic resources to hire a
> very aggressive
> private security apparatus that is capable of wiping
> you and your
> neighbours out in a heartbeat. Let's assume here
> that they will
> simply show up, unannounced, and kill off your
> security force, and
> rape, maim, steal and loot all of your property,
> taking your daughters
> as booty. What you are talking about here is a
> "warlord" or tribal
> mentality.
Yup, this is always a danger, no matter what system is
place. There will ALWAYS be people who want to use
force to gain power over other people. But, I think
the best way to prevent such scenerios from happening
is 1) to have the majority of people value liberty and
2) for people to be capable of defending themselves.
On the other hand, I don't think finding the biggest
and baddest warlord on block, and dressing him up with
fancy clothes and charming words, will effectively
prevent that warlord from initiating force against
other people. It may give the people under the
warlord's care some security for a while (even though
people outside the warlord's care may get squashed
during that time), but the warlord will always turn on
the people who created him. Is this not exactly the
situation going on the US at right now? Just because
the US government spouts lovely things about liberty
and freedom doesn't change the fact that underneath
it's still basically just a warlord tribe on a grand
scale.
> And, who's going to pay for these security services?
> Let's say 90
> percent of this "private association", or government
> vote to levy each
> family $5,000 a year to pay for such protection.
> What if the 10
> percent feel they are getting raped and don't want
> to go along with
> it, yet they need such protection since they don't
> have the economic
> resources to cover their ass if they pull out of the
> association. So
> some kind of monetary policy would have to be a part
> of any such
> agreement, which amounts to majority rule, or
> taxation! Surprise!
> Surprise!
If security was paid for privately it would operate
under the same free market principles that guide the
acquisition of any desired commodities. There would
be competing groups providing security and people
would pay for what they want.
There is no reason to assume that a private security
organization could tax people UNLESS it was a State
organization with the power to initiate force.
> So far here, I've only been talking about protecting
> your interests,
> property and family. What is your "association" of
> neighbours going
> to do when you get a blizzard, I mean six feet of
> snow in three days,
> and covering about two miles of private road just to
> get to your front
> door. Don't laugh, that actually happened to me in
> 1996 in north
> Idaho. You see, I live on Ruby Ridge, about two
> thirds of that
> distance (2 miles) is on a county road, the rest is
> private. During
> that one winter, it continued to snow, from November
> 15, through
> around April.
>
> The reason I am bringing this up is because it is
> very similar to a
> larger "free association" that total anarchy would
> bring. The one
> third of private road leading to MY front door was
> private road, and
all on private property. Yea, one or two neighbours
deciding to kick
in and pay for a private contractor to bring in a
bulldozer for six
months and keep the road clear. Other neighbours did
NOT want to kick
in their share, and never did. But since the private
portion of the
road was always on private land that covered their
own, they got a
free ride. We paid for the road maintenance, and they
enjoyed jumping
in the rig and driving into town.
What if you extrapolate that out even further, lets
say to an entire
county, with private roads then becoming something
along the lines of
not 2 miles, but likely 2,000 miles? Let's then
assume that 10-15
percent of such would want to kick in the bucks to
keep the roads
open. What about the other 85 percent that opted out,
yet enjoyed
open and clear roads anyway?
Me:
The way you deal with such situations - if the rewards
would outweigh the costs - is to set up tollbooths so
that people who are using the roads have to pay for
their use. It's probably not going to be very
economical for you to try to charge people a toll for
using YOUR private road (though, who knows? perhaps it
might be?). But certainly if some group owned a
particular road, it would not be difficult for them to
figure out some way of charging fees for use of their
road that would pay for maintence and still leave a
profit.
You:
Human nature is also a part of this too. It's called
greed. They want
the benefits, but don't want to contribute their fair
share. How
would you force them to pay their fair share? Now you
are talking
about the use of force aren't you? How would that be
very much
different from government levying taxes to do the same
thing?
Me:
I don't think it's ever right to force people to pay
their "fair share." You figure out a way to charge
user fees or the people don't pay. It is never
appropriate to initiate force and steal money from
people.
You:
There is no way, human nature as it is, that anarchy
could ever
provide for liberty, security, or even bare essential
services. As
I've stated my case above, you're not going to get any
increase in
freedom -- rather, you're going to be living in stark
horror over
which "other" association "war lord" might come in and
take it all
away from you. Or, how you might drive to work the
next morning
because another group of individuals decided the road
isn't worth
maintaining any longer. At some point, yes (I know
you don't like
this) a "government" would be formed to provide
security, road
maintenance, and other services that are essential and
necessary for
any civilization to survive.
Me:
Granted, there are a number of potential problems with
private roads. Still, to my way of thinking, you
either believe the free market works or you don't.
I've seen enough evidence to support the idea that
free market can fairly and efficiently provide needed
services to people in many, many areas (including
areas that people have said were "impossible" to
provide without force) that I have no doubt that the
free market could also provide usable private roads.
I don't know exactly how the free market would take
care of the issue of private roads, but usable roads
have been private in the past and I have no doubt that
they could be private in the future.
If I assumed that a State was needed to tax people in
order to provide roads, then why shouldn't I also
favor the State taxing people to provide other desired
goods like health care or housing or food? How do you
determine which goods should be provided through
coercion and which should be provided through
persuasion?
Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Indian Cigarettes...
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:27:29 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings everyone!
Is it really like this folks?
[Image]
I know, I've been gone for a while, a couple of years anyway. Marlboros at
$75.00 a carton? The cost here in the Philippines is around $0.45 cents a
pack. Same great taste, just not the 1,800 percent tax to enjoy the choice
or luxury in doing so!
If this is for real, I REALLY feel your pain! Now what do you want to do to
change any of this? Anything? It's your dime.
To bring this home to roost, the REAL cost of a whole carton of Marlboro's
is really about $4.50. The rest is all in taxes.
Why should I ever anymore consider any options still available to come back
home?
Maybe an outright overthrow of all existenting government in the U.S. might
be a practical choice after all! That is, if anyone else is still left, and
even has an urge to defend their own right to make such choices without
paying the devil to do so!
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Praise the Lord and pass the torpedoes
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:17:22 -0600
From: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
"Idaho Libertarians" <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
I love that WWII phrase.
I don't use it much, but I think it a lot.
It is about hedging your bets ... insurance ...
I think there is a strong possibility that the socialists will
bleed this cow until it collapses. I believe major portions
of Atlas Shrugged could come to pass.
I moved from California (the nanny state) to Idaho to be
away from the dependent masses and near a lot of people
who still believe in responsibility... folks who have a chance
of surviving a collapse.
I regularly compete in the Civilian Marksmanship Program
(shooting an AR-15) and in Practical Pistol matches. I enjoy
match shooting and like to stay familiar with the tools that
would become necessary if the cash cow dies.
On the other hand, I dedicate a lot of time, energy, money
and my soul to the Libertarian Party. It is CHEAP compared
to the alternative. I am not convinced we will succeed, but
we offer THE ONLY HOPE for survival of "The Great
American Dream".
I don't think I am wasting my time with the LP. We have a
real chance here. Sure it is tough to sell the message that
you can't have everything you want just given to you, but
there are a growing number of folks becoming
dissatisfied and dissolusioned.
When you get weary from battling on the front lines, pull
back, take some time off, but don't walk away. Stay in
reserve for that time when you see a need you can fill
or do little bits rather than big ones.
Our numbers are growing. Our credibility is growing. We
are having little successes all over the country and beyond.
We can succeed. It is sure worth the effort.
Ted Dunlap
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE:Big Brother HOAX (probably)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:42:23 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>
I couldn't connnect to the site advertised, but it's almost certainly
a hoax. See http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/license.htm
--
Zev Sero "If France rearms, there will be peace;
zsero@free-market.net if Germany rearms, there will be war."
Winston Churchill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RE:Big Brother HOAX (probably)
Date: 24 Aug 2002 12:12:23 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
On Fri, 2002-08-23 at 13:42, Zev Sero wrote:
> I couldn't connnect to the site advertised, but it's almost certainly
> a hoax. See http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/license.htm
No, not a hoax, a joke.
--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography - Strike the
Root.....
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:47:21 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
hi frank,
comes to market-anarchism, which is the term i prefer, i appreciate your
concerns. i do. the problem i have, frank, is that you seem to write about
your concerns as if market-anarchists have never thought about them, much
less have they responded to them. you're wrong about that, frank. bigtime
wrong, as michelle's admirable response to you indicates.
i believe you wrote something like that you would prefer to be a
market-anarchist were it not for the insurmountable problems. well, frank,
check out the two sites below. they may not convince you, but at least i
figure you will find a body of thought which you can respect while
disagreeing.
government grows from one premise, and one premise only: the premise that
some human institution can morally, legitimately and practically have a
monopoly on the use of **initiated** physical agression. i would think
defending that premise would give any libertarian pause, and an incentive to
discover that such an institution is niether moral, legitimate or practical.
i'd try it with dealing with some of your concerns right now, but i'm real
short of time.
sincerely,
larry
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html
http://strike-the-root.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: the evil of government......
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:52:04 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
rob@strike-the-root.com
hiya, frank,
response below:
Maybe an outright overthrow of all existenting government in the U.S. might
be a practical choice after all! That is, if anyone else is still left, and
even has an urge to defend their own right to make such choices without
paying the devil to do so!
Kindest regards,
Frank
what ya mean "maybe", frank? i thought you were a lib (grin).
well, given your spelling of "existenting" government, maybe you
are trying
to make the finest of distinction, like most min-archists do (grin).
subscribe to the above link, frank. they will blow your mind daily.
i figure there is hope for you yet, frank (grin).
pluuze, frank, subscribe. government is pure evil, in all of its forms.
larry f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the evil of government......
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:56:57 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
In case you wanted to know my opinion in this, my guess is that it would NOT
be a net benefit to the world were all gov'ts to vanish this minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: the evil of government......
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:46:57 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
hi, robert,
response below:
on 8/24/02 11:56 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:
> In case you wanted to know my opinion in this, my guess is that it would
NOT
> be a net benefit to the world were all gov'ts to vanish this minute.
i figure your "guess" is a certainty. your hypothetical ain't gonna
happen,
though, so niether of us have to worry about it. liberty must be achieved a
step at a time. even the success of the american revolution required a long
history of anticedents: the renassance, the enlightenment, the magna carta,
the common law, john locke - the list is long. i do maintain, however, that
getting there a step at a time, there is nothing either immoral or
impractical about market-anarchy which would require humans to stop short
with a minarchist state. to say it another way: even a minarchist state
necessarily rests on a monopoly on initiated physical violence. i see
nothing which justifies such a monopoly, either morally or practically.
sincerely,
larry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 02:09:33 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
on 8/23/02 4:43 PM, Harry.Browne@AmericanLibertyFoundation.net at
Harry.Browne@AmericanLibertyFoundation.net wrote:
>
>
> L i b e r t y W i r e
>
> |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
>
> HARRY BROWNE'S LIBERTY & PEACE COMMENTARY
> published every Thursday on
> WorldNetDaily.com
>
> How to Oppose Terrorism
>
> by Harry Browne
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28690
>
> I frequently get emails from people saying that I
> only complain -- and never offer solutions to the
> terrorism problem. That isn't true, see...
> http://harrybrowne.org/TerrorismSeries.htm
> but here's a laundry list of "Do"s and "Don't"s
> regarding the war. (And please note that it doesn't
> include being nice to the terrorists.)
>
> What to Do
>
> * Repeal the regulations that prohibit guns on
> planes -- and that mandate metal detectors and
> security searches at airports. Before those
> measures were introduced in 1973, there were no
> reported cases of passengers shooting each other
> by accident or in arguments. There _were_ a few
> hijackings using guns, but far fewer passengers
> actually died than have been killed since
> introducing the security measures.
>
> * Recognize that 9/11 was a trillion-to-one shot
> that couldn't be duplicated in a million years.
> So don't turn America upside-down, causing
> billions of dollars in losses to companies and
> business travelers to prevent the repetition of
> something that most likely won't happen again
> anyway.
>
> * Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him
> in America. _He must have a fair trial_ --
> consistent with the rules of evidence and the
> Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial,
> he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world
> -- creating hundreds of millions more
> anti-Americans who will support future acts of
> terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9/11
> attacks, killing him without a fair trial
> terminates the hunt for the real criminal
> -- leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who
> shoots him on sight.
>
> * Declare an end to the so-called War on Terrorism.
> Call it a victory, a defeat, or an armistice.
> But quit acting as though it's an excuse to
> invade any country or take away our civil
> liberties.
>
> For the Future . . .
>
> These long-term measures should be taken:
>
> * Bring all American troops home. They're a
> principal cause of the anti-American feeling
> that provides financial support, networking, and
> manpower for thugs who wouldn't be much of a
> threat otherwise. How would you feel if Chinese
> troops were stationed in your city?
>
> * Stop telling other countries who their leaders
> should be or what their foreign policy must be.
> President Bush can buy off foreign leaders with
> your tax money, but he can't buy the friendship
> of the people in those countries -- people who
> suffer because of misguided policies forced on
> them by arrogant American know-it-alls. How
> would you feel if the Russians issued ultimatums
> regarding how our country must be run?
>
> * End all foreign aid -- military and economic. It
> has ruined countries, provided resources to our
> enemies, and turned hundreds of millions of
> people against America.
>
> * Stop choosing sides in foreign political battles.
> They're none of our business, and our meddling
> usually comes back to haunt us. (Remember, our
> government supported Iraq in its war against
> Iran.)
>
> * Recognize that foreigners don't care whether or
> not you're "free." They do care whether or not
> our government is interfering in their country.
>
> What Not to Do
>
> And here's a list of things we definitely should
> _not_ do. . . .
>
> * Don't set up military tribunals that operate
> without the Anglo-Saxon rules of evidence.
> That's a sure way to convict the wrong people
> and allow the real criminals to continue
> hurting us.
>
> * Don't imprison people without trial, without a
> lawyer to defend them, and without access to
> their families and the press. What's the point
> of "defending America" if we throw away American
> principles?
>
> * Don't invade Iraq. That's probably the only way
> to motivate Saddam Hussein to attack us with
> whatever dangerous weapons he might have. So
> long as we leave him alone, he won't commit the
> suicidal act of provoking the U.S. to drop
> nuclear bombs on him.
>
> * Don't disrespect the sovereignty of foreign
> countries when chasing Osama Bin Laden. How
> would you like foreign police or military to run
> around your city chasing people they think are
> criminals?
>
> * Don't assume that your government tells you the
> gospel truth -- or that it will succeed in
> anything it does. Don't forget that these same
> politicians told you they were running budget
> surpluses while they were hiding deficits by
> stealing from Social Security. And these are
> the same Keystone Kops who have promised for
> decades to stamp out drugs, poverty, crime, and
> sin. How well have they succeeded?
>
> * Don't let politicians use the so-called War on
> Terrorism as an excuse to take away our
> remaining freedoms.
>
> Apology
>
> I'm sorry that I can't snap my fingers and undo 50
> years of bad American foreign policy. Unfortunately,
> by continuing to tell the rest of the world what to
> do, President Bush is making a bad situation even
> worse.
>
> So here's a final _don't_:
>
> Don't lose your self-respect. It isn't necessary
> for you to speak out against the war, but don't
> embarrass yourself by joining in patriotic displays
> that are nothing but sound and fury.
>
> If you deceive others or deceive yourself, you too
> will be a casualty of the so-called War on
> Terrorism.
>
> Harry Browne is the Director of Public Policy for
> American Liberty Foundation.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Summer, plus Christmas, are the two most
> challenging periods for most non-profits. But the
> Christmas holiday really only lasts for three weeks
> or so. American Liberty Foundation is no exception
> to this rule. We're at the tail end of our toughest
> season.
>
> Our saving grace this Summer was the opening of
> http://www.eLibertyTools.com
>
> Next week, we will be releasing three bits of
> good news. Plus we hope to release another new
> product. We've worked long hours to make these
> things happen and we think you'll be pleased
> when you hear them.
>
> Now would be an excellent time for you to check
> out the wonderful products at our store, or you
> can make a much appreciated contribution by
> clicking here:
> http://www.americanlibertyfoundation.org/gateway.htm
>
> Thanks so much for your continuing support
> of our libertarian outreach.
>
> Jim Babka
> President
> American Liberty Foundation
>
> MAILING ADDRESS: American Liberty Foundation
> 6718 Lenclair St
> Alexandria, VA 22306
>
>
> |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
Date: 24 Aug 2002 12:18:06 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 03:09, larry fullmer wrote:
> > * Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him
> > in America. _He must have a fair trial_ --
> > consistent with the rules of evidence and the
> > Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial,
> > he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world
> > -- creating hundreds of millions more
> > anti-Americans who will support future acts of
> > terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9/11
> > attacks, killing him without a fair trial
> > terminates the hunt for the real criminal
> > -- leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who
> > shoots him on sight.
Honestly, to those who would consider him a martyr, it doesn't matter
how he winds up dead. If he kills himself rather than be captured, he
will be considered a martyr. If he is given a trial by anyone other than
his friends, and killed, he will be considered a martyr. To me, and to
the experts I've dealt with, this demonstrates ignorance of the mindset
of these people.
--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:54:42 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
hi, bill,
mostly i agree with you bill, which is why i would prefer that ossama be
captured alive and *not* killed. i would prefer that he be locked up naked
in the central park zoo where all humans could visit to pay him homage, or
to taunt him as they choose.
lf
on 8/24/02 11:18 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 03:09, larry fullmer wrote:
>
>>> * Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him
>>> in America. _He must have a fair trial_ --
>>> consistent with the rules of evidence and the
>>> Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial,
>>> he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world
>>> -- creating hundreds of millions more
>>> anti-Americans who will support future acts of
>>> terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9/11
>>> attacks, killing him without a fair trial
>>> terminates the hunt for the real criminal
>>> -- leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who
>>> shoots him on sight.
>
> Honestly, to those who would consider him a martyr, it doesn't matter
> how he winds up dead. If he kills himself rather than be captured, he
> will be considered a martyr. If he is given a trial by anyone other than
> his friends, and killed, he will be considered a martyr. To me, and to
> the experts I've dealt with, this demonstrates ignorance of the mindset
> of these people.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 17:34:04 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hello Larry (and Bill):
Actually, I figure that our government has already found the
solution. He's probably dead under tons of rock, or perhaps that group
that was supposedly a bunch of "shepherds" (attacked by one of our
"Predator drones") included him. My guess is that if the government
knows
he's dead, they aren't going to say. Also, any information about it is
probably highly classified. If at some time he were to surrender (with a
minimal number of colleagues and no press), he'd probably be taken away
somewhere, shot, and then dumped over the Marianas Trench on a mission so
highly classified and compartmentalized that only Bush or Cheney and
possibly some general could put it all together and even figure out the
general area to be searching. (Of course, there are probably even better
ways to do it.)
So, no body. No certainty about where he died or was captured or held in
captivity or where the remains are. Therefore, no place to build a
shrine. He'll be like Elvis for a while: everyone will have a friend of a
friend who knew someone who saw him sometime. Slowly he'll just become
"the guy that pulled off a big one against the US, which brought some
massive changes to the Arab world, represented the last dying gasp of
militant Islam, and motivated the western world sufficiently to nearly
eradicate terrorism."
Obviously, we've got a long way to go to get there and we face some
internal dangers on the way. But I'd say the odds are in our favor.
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>hi, bill,
>
>mostly i agree with you bill, which is why i would prefer that ossama be
>captured alive and *not* killed. i would prefer that he be locked up naked
>in the central park zoo where all humans could visit to pay him homage, or
>to taunt him as they choose.
>
>lf
>
>on 8/24/02 11:18 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 03:09, larry fullmer wrote:
> >
> >>> * Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him
> >>> in America. _He must have a fair trial_ --
> >>> consistent with the rules of evidence and the
> >>> Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial,
> >>> he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world
> >>> -- creating hundreds of millions more
> >>> anti-Americans who will support future acts of
> >>> terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9/11
> >>> attacks, killing him without a fair trial
> >>> terminates the hunt for the real criminal
> >>> -- leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who
> >>> shoots him on sight.
> >
> > Honestly, to those who would consider him a martyr, it doesn't matter
> > how he winds up dead. If he kills himself rather than be captured, he
> > will be considered a martyr. If he is given a trial by anyone other
than
> > his friends, and killed, he will be considered a martyr. To me, and to
> > the experts I've dealt with, this demonstrates ignorance of the
mindset
> > of these people.
> >
> >
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 05:41:49 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Well Lowell, that certainly would prevent him from ever being a popular
martyr for others to die for or emualate.
They would think he is still out there having pulled the big one over on the
Satan, when we in fact know he aint round here no more.
Also they would save some $25M for the finders fee in getting him
prosecuted.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
> Hello Larry (and Bill):
>
> Actually, I figure that our government has already found the
> solution. He's probably dead under tons of rock, or perhaps that group
> that was supposedly a bunch of "shepherds" (attacked by one of
our
> "Predator drones") included him. My guess is that if the
government knows
> he's dead, they aren't going to say. Also, any information about it is
> probably highly classified. If at some time he were to surrender (with a
> minimal number of colleagues and no press), he'd probably be taken away
> somewhere, shot, and then dumped over the Marianas Trench on a mission so
> highly classified and compartmentalized that only Bush or Cheney and
> possibly some general could put it all together and even figure out the
> general area to be searching. (Of course, there are probably even better
> ways to do it.)
>
> So, no body. No certainty about where he died or was captured or held in
> captivity or where the remains are. Therefore, no place to build a
> shrine. He'll be like Elvis for a while: everyone will have a friend of a
> friend who knew someone who saw him sometime. Slowly he'll just become
> "the guy that pulled off a big one against the US, which brought some
> massive changes to the Arab world, represented the last dying gasp of
> militant Islam, and motivated the western world sufficiently to nearly
> eradicate terrorism."
>
> Obviously, we've got a long way to go to get there and we face some
> internal dangers on the way. But I'd say the odds are in our favor.
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> It's the freedom, stupid!
> Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>
> >hi, bill,
> >
> >mostly i agree with you bill, which is why i would prefer that ossama
be
> >captured alive and *not* killed. i would prefer that he be locked up
naked
> >in the central park zoo where all humans could visit to pay him homage,
or
> >to taunt him as they choose.
> >
> >lf
> >
> >on 8/24/02 11:18 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 03:09, larry fullmer wrote:
> > >
> > >>> * Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him
> > >>> in America. _He must have a fair trial_ --
> > >>> consistent with the rules of evidence and the
> > >>> Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial,
> > >>> he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world
> > >>> -- creating hundreds of millions more
> > >>> anti-Americans who will support future acts of
> > >>> terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9/11
> > >>> attacks, killing him without a fair trial
> > >>> terminates the hunt for the real criminal
> > >>> -- leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who
> > >>> shoots him on sight.
> > >
> > > Honestly, to those who would consider him a martyr, it doesn't
matter
> > > how he winds up dead. If he kills himself rather than be
captured, he
> > > will be considered a martyr. If he is given a trial by anyone
other
than
> > > his friends, and killed, he will be considered a martyr. To me,
and to
> > > the experts I've dealt with, this demonstrates ignorance of the
mindset
> > > of these people.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
> >
> >To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> >To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> >Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> >Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> >
> >URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> >Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> >Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated
Bibliography - Strike theRoot.....
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:31:41 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Larry!
larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...
> i believe you wrote something like that you would prefer to be a
> market-anarchist were it not for the insurmountable problems.
No, not really. I was referring mainly to human nature itself, which
would make it impossible to exercise freedom at all in a pure
anarchy. If human nature was really all about "freedom" then, I would
find no problem with anarchy. The free "market" as we are again
finding out, is also something about greedy, immoral individual with a
propensity to defraud.
I'm still trying to sort out what anarchists believe concerning a
court system, or any system at all that could redress things like
fraud, murder, rape, aggression. All of this is human nature too.
Looking at ALL recorded history, and I mean all of it, I have NO
reason whatsoever to trust that human nature favours liberty! That's
the key problem when considering the merits of anarchy. Who, or better
yet, what organization will be delegated POWER to represent those who
have become victims of aggression? One individual can't address such
a problem, unless they happen to have the power, economic resources,
and so forth, to do so! Show me how, in an anarchist reality, how
people can be FREE! Isn't that really what this discussion is all
about?
I spent a lot of time last night drawing up rather graphically couched
language in various situations to show that anarchy would be only an
exercise -- and is wrongly placed and couched in idealism, assuming
human nature is always honest. Real human nature, in reality is hardly
EVER honest. Liberty is NOT on the minds of those who control power
and economic status. And ultimately, it is NOT likely in the minds of
very many others either, including those who have no wealth to speak
of!
> well, frank,
> check out the two sites below. they may not convince you, but at least i
> figure you will find a body of thought which you can respect while
> disagreeing.
Larry, I am VERY sure, I have heard all of these arguments before,
many times before. I respect them all as idealistic, nothing more.
They aren't practical, they don't account for aggression and human
nature, and they won't work on principle. Governments, national
sovereignty, national defence, border control, court systems, and
police are necessary to make liberty possible! I am not saying that
the current systems in place in the United States are even remotely
close to bringing liberty either. But they one were! Or, pretty much
so, discounting slavery and other such aberrations.
> government grows from one premise, and one premise only: the premise
that
> some human institution can morally, legitimately and practically have a
> monopoly on the use of **initiated** physical agression.
I don't agree. Government exists by human, individual choice, and
delegation of power over some set of principles. In the interest of
history, the US government was formed mainly to protect rights,
against both external and internal aggression. That government should
have been restrained by people who care about liberty. Over the
course of time, it has degraded to nothing less than a monopolistic
democratically-controlled police state, and YOU know that! That was
never the original intent. That's exactly why the vast majority of
the American people today tolerate and approve of the Shrub
Regime's<tm> advocacy of aggression, internal and external, even at
their own peril. Anarchy isn't going to solve this problem either,
but would only make it impossible. In a pure "economic" or whatever,
"anarchy" the most brutal and biggest kid on the block is going to
fuck you, take away what you have, and finally kill you if you
resist! That's the bottom line. You have no redress, no court
system, no military protection, no police. At the very time you
though you were the most "FREE" would be the very time you would
become the most vulnerable in losing your own life, your existence,
and everything you thought you once had.
Unfortunately, and this is why anarchy couldn't and never could work,
human nature is all about aggression! Enough said. Prove me wrong.
Show me in historical context where I have erred. Is HUMAN NATURE in
history ever been about liberty, or is it about AGGRESSION? Think
about this long and hard. Has any anarchy every survived against
aggression? EVER? And, if so, HOW has it done so?
So, if you want liberty, or as much of it as you can get and protect,
then there has to be another way, and that includes at least, a very
limited, restrained, and clearly defined "government"! Somewhat along
the order of the original Bill of Rights to the US Constitution,
clearly had in mind. It also requires people, real individuals, who
will support such restraints upon government, such as the Tenth
Amendment.
> i would think
> defending that premise would give any libertarian pause, and an incentive
to
> discover that such an institution is niether moral, legitimate or
practical.
It may not be any of those things. But is it unfortunately NECESSARY.
It is also necessary for the people to want freedom, and insist upon
constraints upon government abuse of power. Again, power should be
carefully delegated, and locked in check. That was the original
purpose of the Bill of Rights, really an afterthought to the US
Constitution. Many, at the time, felt it wasn't even needed at all,
that it was already clearly indicated. Even that, today has been
bastardized and often called into question.
> i'd try it with dealing with some of your concerns right now, but i'm
real
> short of time.
At any rate Larry, there is no easy way to again achieve "freedom".
You can't do it all by yourself. You and I will be dead and gone,
likely before the next real battle for freedom ever occurs. That's
sad. However, it's an ongoing struggle, and it has existed at least
in recorded history from the time of Cicero! Probably before that.
For real freedom to exist, you have to have a society that understands
basic premises. The "right" to life, liberty and property. We do not
have such a society in America today.
I'm stuck with some choices too. Should I just say, "Fuck it", and
stay in the Philippines where social and economic liberty is much
stronger (due to the absence of government), or should I struggle to
come back home (which I am doing) to go home, but again: to a people
who don't give a damn about liberty anyway, and where a "police state"
government is ALL POWERFUL?
Those are my choices. And, in my case, perhaps I don't have the
luxury of such a choice anymore, because the US government has already
made its case, and apparently by the consent of the people.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated
Bibliography - Strike theRoot.....
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hi Frank,
The free "market" as
> we are again
> finding out, is also something about greedy, immoral
> individual with a
> propensity to defraud.
>
> I'm still trying to sort out what anarchists believe
> concerning a
> court system, or any system at all that could
> redress things like
> fraud, murder, rape, aggression.
If you are really interested in understanding how
anarchists think law and police could be provided read
Bruce Benson's books "The Enterprise of Law" and "To
Serve and Protect." They present a very well reasoned
and researched argument for how such services can be
effectively provided without a State.
All of this is
> human nature too.
> Looking at ALL recorded history, and I mean all of
> it, I have NO
> reason whatsoever to trust that human nature favours
> liberty!
I have no reason to believe human nature favors
liberty either. That's why I'm an anarchist. I think
liberty will best be served by not creating
institutions that allow people to legally initiate
force.
That's
> the key problem when considering the merits of
> anarchy. Who, or better
> yet, what organization will be delegated POWER to
> represent those who
> have become victims of aggression? One individual
> can't address such
> a problem, unless they happen to have the power,
> economic resources,
> and so forth, to do so!
No one would be "delegated" that power. People would
purchase the security they wanted from the private
organizations of their choice.
Show me how, in an
> anarchist reality, how
> people can be FREE! Isn't that really what this
> discussion is all
> about?
Take the US exactly as it is now and remove the
government's ability to tax. You'd be pretty close to
my view of anarchism.
> > well, frank,
> > check out the two sites below. they may not
> convince you, but at least i
> > figure you will find a body of thought which you
> can respect while
> > disagreeing.
>
> Larry, I am VERY sure, I have heard all of these
> arguments before,
> many times before. I respect them all as
> idealistic, nothing more.
> They aren't practical, they don't account for
> aggression and human
> nature, and they won't work on principle.
I am rather doubtful that you have heard the arguments
before - or, if you have, that you've really listened
to them. Libertarians aren't anarchists because they
have an idealized view of human nature or think humans
are fundamentally good and honest. We are anarchists
precisely because we think it is in human nature to
try to aggress against other people and we believe the
best way to prevent power hungry people from being
able to exercise their desire to aggress is to prevent
there from being any institutions that allow for legal
aggression.
If you are truly interested in this question, I would
suggest that you read the arguments again with an open
mind - trying to understand what anarchists really
think instead of just projecting your own
preconceptions about anarchism onto them. Your
characterization of anarchy sounds a bit like the
communist version of anarchism, but it is NOTHING like
any of libertarian versions of anarchism I have
studied.
> Governments, national
> sovereignty, national defence, border control, court
> systems, and
> police are necessary to make liberty possible! I am
> not saying that
> the current systems in place in the United States
> are even remotely
> close to bringing liberty either. But they one
> were! Or, pretty much
> so, discounting slavery and other such aberrations.
Why are they necessary? I think its idealistic and
naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
any great length of time. When has it ever happened
in the past?
The US is the best example of a government that was
deliberately established to have limited and
decentralized powers and to primarily protect human
rights. The Constitution was a brilliant effort to
achieve this. And guess what? It failed! It took
less than 150 years for power hungry people to destroy
the republic that the founders so carefully created.
And now, here we are, 200+ years later, rapidly
evolving into a police state.
I don't think the destruction of the US Republic is
just an aberration or soley due to "mistakes" of the
governed or the governors. Back when the Constitution
was written, the founders knew it was in nature of
government to grow and become more powerful at the
expense of the people. They did their very best to
put all the limits they could on the government to
prevent this growth of power. And, still, it did not
take very long for the government to break through
those limits.
I think creating a society where liberty flourishes
will be difficult under any circumstances. I just
think that liberty has the best chance to exist in a
society where there are no institutions that allow
people to legally initiate force. If any institutions
are in place that can legally initiate force, it is
inevitable that through their use of force those
institutions will become stronger and more powerful -
in exactly the way that the US, once the bastion of
freedom for the world, has deteriorated into a police
state.
> > government grows from one premise, and one premise
> only: the premise that
> > some human institution can morally, legitimately
> and practically have a
> > monopoly on the use of **initiated** physical
> agression.
>
> I don't agree. Government exists by human,
> individual choice, and
> delegation of power over some set of principles. In
> the interest of
> history, the US government was formed mainly to
> protect rights,
> against both external and internal aggression.
In a few rare cases, that has been true. But most
governments throughout history have little to do with
a social contract or "protecting rights" (except maybe
the rights of the aristocracy).
Anarchy isn't going to solve this
> problem either,
> but would only make it impossible. In a pure
> "economic" or whatever,
> "anarchy" the most brutal and biggest kid on the
> block is going to
> fuck you, take away what you have, and finally kill
> you if you
> resist! That's the bottom line. You have no
> redress, no court
> system, no military protection, no police.
It is exactly for this reason that I think you have
either not read or not paid sufficient attention to
libertarian theories of anarchism. No libertarian
anarchist that I am aware of wants to do away with
laws, "court systems," or "police." Rather, what they
want is to PREVENT the most brutal and biggest kid on
the block (the State) from controlling the laws, the
court systems, and the police.
> Unfortunately, and this is why anarchy couldn't and
> never could work,
> human nature is all about aggression! Enough said.
Exactly! It is in human nature for people to want to
aggress against other people. And that is precisely
why libertarian anarchists want to get rid of
institutions that allow people to legally aggress
against other people and that reward them for doing
so.
Has any anarchy every
> survived against
> aggression? EVER? And, if so, HOW has it done so?
Alas, most anarchist societies have been overcome by
the aggression of more powerful States. There will
always be a danger, even in an anarchist society, of
aggression from outside destroying that society. The
best way to prevent this from happening, though, is 1)
for the population to be well armed and 2) for the
society to have strong enough economic ties with the
rest of the world that no other State would want to
harm themselves by attacking the society (and killing
the goose who laid the golden egg).
Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An
Annotated Bibliography - Strike theRoot.....
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:01:43 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hello Michelle:
>Hi Frank,
>
>
> All of this is
> > human nature too.
> > Looking at ALL recorded history, and I mean all of
> > it, I have NO
> > reason whatsoever to trust that human nature favours
> > liberty!
>
>I have no reason to believe human nature favors
>liberty either. That's why I'm an anarchist. I think
>liberty will best be served by not creating
>institutions that allow people to legally initiate
>force.
And the reason I am *not* an anarchist is that I think people will
eventually form those institutions anyway. The problem is that when you
have a "culture" which says those institutions should not be created,
then
they will get created on an ad-hoc and un-cover basis which means that only
a few people will have any say in how they work. Guess who the next
tyrants will be?
> That's
> > the key problem when considering the merits of
> > anarchy. Who, or better
> > yet, what organization will be delegated POWER to
> > represent those who
> > have become victims of aggression? One individual
> > can't address such
> > a problem, unless they happen to have the power,
> > economic resources,
> > and so forth, to do so!
>
>No one would be "delegated" that power. People would
>purchase the security they wanted from the private
>organizations of their choice.
And what prevents the "private organizations" from turning into
what
amounts to a government? After all, if you are running one of these
organizations, it could be mighty tempting to start running "black
bag"
jobs of one kind or another on the people who aren't paying you.
>Why are they [governments] necessary? I think its idealistic and
>naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
>any great length of time. When has it ever happened
>in the past?
WWII, Cold War, Waterloo, just to name a few examples. Certainly they are
examples of a "lesser of the two evils" winning against a
"greater of the
two evils". But, as a practicality, you're not going to beat anything but
a very weak government, unless you have another government.
>The US is the best example of a government that was
>deliberately established to have limited and
>decentralized powers and to primarily protect human
>rights. The Constitution was a brilliant effort to
>achieve this. And guess what? It failed! It took
>less than 150 years for power hungry people to destroy
>the republic that the founders so carefully created.
>And now, here we are, 200+ years later, rapidly
>evolving into a police state.
Hmm. That's true in some respects and false in others. Freedom of speech
and religion and due process have all increased over those years. What is
interesting is that much of the "sturm und drang" about
"Asscroft" is that
he's trying to remove some of the gains in due process rights for suspected
terrorists THAT HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RECOGNIZED!!! In other words, 150
years ago, given a similar situation, many of Ashcroft's moves wouldn't
have been particularly controversial.
> Has any anarchy every
> > survived against
> > aggression? EVER? And, if so, HOW has it done so?
>
>Alas, most anarchist societies have been overcome by
>the aggression of more powerful States. There will
>always be a danger, even in an anarchist society, of
>aggression from outside destroying that society. The
>best way to prevent this from happening, though, is 1)
>for the population to be well armed and 2) for the
>society to have strong enough economic ties with the
>rest of the world that no other State would want to
>harm themselves by attacking the society (and killing
>the goose who laid the golden egg).
On this point, I think we all three have some level of agreement. An
anarchist society is basically impossible until the vast majority of the
world is a libertarian one--or until some society is so much more wealthy
than any other that aggression by the technologically backward governments
is simply inconceivable. (Think of a society with machine guns, night
vision scopes, CCTV cameras, etc. threatened by a country wielding
spears.) Of course, how do you get that sort of difference without having
trade bring the technologically backward country forward sufficiently to
use force against the anarchist society?
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated
Bibliography - Strike theRoot.....
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hi Lowell,
> > > Looking at ALL recorded history, and I mean all
> of
> > > it, I have NO
> > > reason whatsoever to trust that human nature
> favours
> > > liberty!
> >
> >I have no reason to believe human nature favors
> >liberty either. That's why I'm an anarchist. I
> think
> >liberty will best be served by not creating
> >institutions that allow people to legally initiate
> >force.
>
> And the reason I am *not* an anarchist is that I
> think people will
> eventually form those institutions anyway. The
> problem is that when you
> have a "culture" which says those institutions
> should not be created, then
> they will get created on an ad-hoc and un-cover
> basis which means that only
> a few people will have any say in how they work.
> Guess who the next
> tyrants will be?
I don't agree with you, but that's at least a
comprehensible argument. :)
> > That's
> > > the key problem when considering the merits of
> > > anarchy. Who, or better
> > > yet, what organization will be delegated POWER
> to
> > > represent those who
> > > have become victims of aggression? One
> individual
> > > can't address such
> > > a problem, unless they happen to have the power,
> > > economic resources,
> > > and so forth, to do so!
> >
> >No one would be "delegated" that power. People
> would
> >purchase the security they wanted from the private
> >organizations of their choice.
>
> And what prevents the "private organizations" from
> turning into what
> amounts to a government? After all, if you are
> running one of these
> organizations, it could be mighty tempting to start
> running "black bag"
> jobs of one kind or another on the people who aren't
> paying you.
Well, there's always going to be the danger of States
arising and trying to aggress against other people.
There have always been people who have wanted to
initiate force against other people and I have no
doubt that there will always continue to be people who
try to initiate force against other people.
Still, I think the best way to prevent States from
arising is to not have a State to begin with. If most
people are armed and have a certain level of wealth,
it's going to be difficult for a group within that
society to create a State from scratch that can
overpower everyone else.
> >Why are they [governments] necessary? I think its
> idealistic and
> >naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
> >any great length of time. When has it ever
> happened
> >in the past?
>
> WWII, Cold War, Waterloo, just to name a few
> examples. Certainly they are
> examples of a "lesser of the two evils" winning
> against a "greater of the
> two evils". But, as a practicality, you're not
> going to beat anything but
> a very weak government, unless you have another
> government.
Yes, there have been wars where an army was able to
stop the "aggression" of another army. Still, war is
the lifeblood of the State and even if wars like World
War II and the Cold War (and the War on Drugs, the War
on Poverty, the War on Terrorism, etc.) succeed in
stopping some examples of "aggression" they also
usually produce a lot of aggression.
I don't look at World War II and think, there's an
example of the US saving "liberty." Yes, we did get
Hitler out of power, but we helped get Stalin into
power and a great deal of damage was done to liberty
within America.
> >The US is the best example of a government that was
> >deliberately established to have limited and
> >decentralized powers and to primarily protect human
> >rights. The Constitution was a brilliant effort to
> >achieve this. And guess what? It failed! It took
> >less than 150 years for power hungry people to
> destroy
> >the republic that the founders so carefully
> created.
> >And now, here we are, 200+ years later, rapidly
> >evolving into a police state.
>
> Hmm. That's true in some respects and false in
> others. Freedom of speech
> and religion and due process have all increased over
> those years. What is
> interesting is that much of the "sturm und drang"
> about "Asscroft" is that
> he's trying to remove some of the gains in due
> process rights for suspected
> terrorists THAT HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN
> RECOGNIZED!!! In other words, 150
> years ago, given a similar situation, many of
> Ashcroft's moves wouldn't
> have been particularly controversial.
Yes, there are some definitely some areas where there
is more liberty now than there was early in the US's
history. Still, I think that overall there has been
more liberty lost than gained.
Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated
B
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:58:34 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Michelle wrote in small part:
>If any institutions
>are in place that can legally initiate force, it is
>inevitable that through their use of force those
>institutions will become stronger and more powerful -
Then progress would be impossible, so the statement above must be
incomplete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated
B
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hi Robert,
> >If any institutions
> >are in place that can legally initiate force, it
> is
> >inevitable that through their use of force those
> >institutions will become stronger and more
> powerful -
>
> Then progress would be impossible, so the statement
> above must be
> incomplete.
You're going to have to be a little less cryptic,
Robert. What are you talking about? Very little
progress is achieved by initiating force; indeed, the
more that institutions (i.e. States) in a particular
place initiate force, the less progress usually
occurs.
Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated
B
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:16:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@monet.bestweb.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com
On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Michelle wrote in part:
> > >If any institutions
> > >are in place that can legally initiate force, it
> > >is
> > >inevitable that through their use of force those
> > >institutions will become stronger and more
> > >powerful -
> >
> > Then progress would be impossible, so the statement
> > above must be
> > incomplete.
>
> You're going to have to be a little less cryptic,
> Robert.
If such institutions inevitably became stronger and more powerful, then
nothing could be done about them. Else, what would "inevitably" mean?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated
B
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
--- Robert Goodman <robgood@monet.bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Michelle wrote in part:
>
> > > >If any institutions
> > > >are in place that can legally initiate
> force, it
> > > >is
> > > >inevitable that through their use of force
> those
> > > >institutions will become stronger and more
> > > >powerful -
> > >
> > > Then progress would be impossible, so the
> statement
> > > above must be
> > > incomplete.
> >
> > You're going to have to be a little less cryptic,
> > Robert.
>
> If such institutions inevitably became stronger and
> more powerful, then
> nothing could be done about them. Else, what would
> "inevitably" mean?
Not necessarily. It is inevitable that the
institutions would grow in the same way it is
inevitable that a human child will grow into a human
adult. Still, things can be done to stop the growth
of the institutions. A human child might be killed
(thus stopping growth); a State might face to legal
challenges to various laws or civil disobedience. The
question is first, how likely is it that such measures
will occur and second, how likely is that they will be
effective in curbing the State's growth?
Some people, like Frank (I'm assuming), think that it
is possible to create an institution that can legally
initiate force AND keep it's powers in check IF the
citizenry are sufficiently vigilant. On the other
hand, I - like other market anarchists - am very
doubtful that the citizenry could do so even if they
wanted to. It is too easy for the State to increase
it's own powers and too difficult for citizens to
prevent the State from gaining power. The most the
citizens can hope to do, so long as a State
institution is in place, is to slow down the descent
into tyranny.
Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:50:34 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote in very small part:
>>I think its idealistic and
>>naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
>>any great length of time. When has it ever happened
>>in the past?
>WWII, Cold War, Waterloo, just to name a few examples.
I'd like your opinion on who was protecting liberty at Waterloo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:38:30 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hello Robert:
>savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote in very small part:
:-)
[Michelle wrote]
> >>I think its idealistic and
> >>naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
> >>any great length of time. When has it ever happened
> >>in the past?
[I wrote]
> >WWII, Cold War, Waterloo, just to name a few examples.
[Robert wrote]
>I'd like your opinion on who was protecting liberty at Waterloo.
As I noted almost immediately afterward in my post, all of those involved a
greater and lesser of two evils. All told, I'd say that Napoleon was a
greater threat to liberty than the kings and dukes he was up
against. Napoleon was not defending the French Revolution, but rather was
an "Emperor" bent on the conquest of Europe (not that the French
Revolution
was any great shakes, basically trading a petty tyrant, the king, with a
relatively peaceful social order for a tyrannical, blood-soaked mob
rule). On the one hand his policies, domestically, may have been more
"enlightened" and in some ways provided more freedom for the French
people,
than either his predecessors or his contemporaries. But on the other hand,
his military adventures resulted in millions of deaths of soldiers and
civilians alike from Lisbon to Moscow and from Danzig to Cairo.
But I'm sure reasonable people will differ.
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:14:38 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Lowell!
"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Robert Goodman...
> Napoleon was not defending the French Revolution, but rather was
> an "Emperor" bent on the conquest of Europe (not that the French
Revolution
> was any great shakes, basically trading a petty tyrant, the king, with a
> relatively peaceful social order for a tyrannical, blood-soaked mob
> rule).
One of the questions along these lines was concerned whether ANY
government at all could be expected to protect liberty for very long.
I believe the US government actually came closest to that, up to about
the time of the turn of the 20th century. Three things occurred which
dramatically changed the manner in which the US government was
constituted and would thereafter exercise power:
1. The democratization of the US Senate, from formerly state control,
to direct democratic vote, thus eliminating the balance of power
between the democratic House of Representatives and the Senate. As a
result, BOTH houses of Congress were constituted on the bases of mob
rule.
2. The creation of the Federal Reserve, which was neither Federal, nor
is there any reserve. This created the potential (which followed in
due course) for an inflationary money supply, and endless increases in
funding deficit government spending, more laws, programmes and police
jurisdiction.
3. The marxist graduated income tax, insuring the collateral
(taxpayers) for government borrowing.
Prior to this period, during the rather free reign of capitalism and
free markets, the US economy and the livelihood of the people were
growing at the fastest rates in history.
So maybe the answer is still yes, a government CAN be expected to
defend liberty if rightly constituted under such a system of
separation of powers. It was the breakdown of that constituted
separation of powers that resulted in democracy and mob rule
government bringing more tyranny and loss of freedom, and everything
else along with it. Unfortunately now that democracy in America is so
firmly entrenched, I seriously doubt that liberty can any longer be
peacefully brought back and put into place. It appears that the trend
for "democracy" is growing rather than declining, as the
"Electoral
College" or direct vote for the Executive Branch, has been an ongoing
challenge for the last several decades. As is evident in recent
history, the trend is running heavily into centralization in virtually
all areas, including a national police infrastructure. Contrary to
the LP, the greatest danger today isn't the 'War on Drugs', but rather
the infamous 'War on Terror' that is currently only in its embryonic
stage.
It may be that the more loosely organized Russian Federation of
Independent States might have the propensity to achieve a much
stronger separation of powers, depending upon how that all shakes out
over the next several decades. If such a federation is allowed to
peacefully evolve, it certainly does have such a potential. The
geography of the region, such as it is, poses the greatest danger
against that peacefully evolving. North America is a far less hostile
environment than that of the Russian federation for example.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:38:57 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hi Michelle!
I'm going to answer you in three parts. First I want to talk about why I
don't think anarchy will work. Even though I have noted before (and will
again, I'm sure) that in order to have wholesale level slaughter, you need
a government. Anarchy can't manage that because you don't have a
government. However...I don't think it will work. The next post deals
with war and the final one with whether things are getting better or worse
here in the US. (Yup. I wrote the whole thing out then decided I needed
to split it.)
>Hi Lowell,
>
> > And the reason I am *not* an anarchist is that I
> > think people will
> > eventually form those institutions anyway. The
> > problem is that when you
> > have a "culture" which says those institutions
> > should not be created, then
> > they will get created on an ad-hoc and un-cover
> > basis which means that only
> > a few people will have any say in how they work.
> > Guess who the next
> > tyrants will be?
>
>I don't agree with you, but that's at least a
>comprehensible argument. :)
Thank you. I'll take what I can get. :-) And you're so nice in the way
you disagree, I almost hate to say that I disagree with you. :-)
> > And what prevents the "private organizations" from
> > turning into what
> > amounts to a government? After all, if you are
> > running one of these
> > organizations, it could be mighty tempting to start
> > running "black bag"
> > jobs of one kind or another on the people who aren't
> > paying you.
>
>Well, there's always going to be the danger of States
>arising and trying to aggress against other people.
>There have always been people who have wanted to
>initiate force against other people and I have no
>doubt that there will always continue to be people who
>try to initiate force against other people.
>
>Still, I think the best way to prevent States from
>arising is to not have a State to begin with. If most
>people are armed and have a certain level of wealth,
>it's going to be difficult for a group within that
>society to create a State from scratch that can
>overpower everyone else.
This was actually somewhat the situation in some parts of Europe when Rome
"fell." However, people rather quickly latched onto local strongmen
(who
often were "strong" by virtue of having better military equipment.)
The
deal would be struck somewhat as follows: the "strongman" would
protect the
others, but in return, the others would pay a certain amount each year to
the "strongman" and would be available for battle. Of course, as more
people in an area "pledged their fealty", the remainder came under
greater
pressure to do likewise. Eventually, the pressure could consist of
force. Then, of course, the "strongman" would engage in
"pre-emptive"
strikes against the neighboring "strongman" who would be alleged to be
an
evil person preparing to force the locals to pledge their fealty to
him. Of course, once the neighboring strongman was defeated, then his
vassals would generally pledge fealty to their conqueror. Of course, the
neighboring strongmen would see this and engage in "pre-emptive"
strikes or
alliances of their own. And so the cycle would go until you had a
full-fledged government serving a king or emperor.
While the anarchist philosophers might think they'd avoid having such a
thing happen since they would have "security companies" and so on, I
think
that what you'd find would be a similar thing occurring. The names and the
details and some of the methods might be different, but eventually, you'd
get approximately the same result.
I think it's too much a part of human nature to want to be "part of
something bigger" than oneself and it's too easy to create a panic which
needs "someone, anyone" to "save the day." Those two things
together tell
me that anarchy is simply too unstable to sustain itself for very
long. Then, you get something put together in a panic or on the sly and
when you get everything sorted out, guess what? It benefits one person (or
a few) far more than anyone else.
So, what I prefer is that governments be created out in the open with a lot
of debate. That they be set up to avoid the problems that have plagued
states from time immemorial. It won't be perfect, but then nothing created
or run by human beings ever will be. The question is whether it will be
better than the likely alternative. So, given how I think Anarchy will
almost immediately tip into some sort of feudalism (although it wouldn't be
called that), I'd rather work on getting the government right and keeping
it right.
> > >Why are they [governments] necessary?
I don't think it's so much a matter of "why they are necessary" as
a
question of "what kind we will have." Note: I don't think there's a
question that we will have a government--we will. And if we try to pretend
that we are getting by without one, we'll turn around and get bit in the
posterior by one that sprang up while we weren't looking.
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:39:07 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hello again, Michelle:
Here's part three, on things getting better in the US.
> > >The US is the best example of a government that was
> > >deliberately established to have limited and
> > >decentralized powers and to primarily protect human
> > >rights. The Constitution was a brilliant effort to
> > >achieve this. And guess what? It failed! It took
> > >less than 150 years for power hungry people to
> > destroy
> > >the republic that the founders so carefully
> > created.
> > >And now, here we are, 200+ years later, rapidly
> > >evolving into a police state.
> >
> > Hmm. That's true in some respects and false in
> > others. Freedom of speech
> > and religion and due process have all increased over
> > those years. What is
> > interesting is that much of the "sturm und drang"
> > about "Asscroft" is that
> > he's trying to remove some of the gains in due
> > process rights for suspected
> > terrorists THAT HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN
> > RECOGNIZED!!! In other words, 150
> > years ago, given a similar situation, many of
> > Ashcroft's moves wouldn't
> > have been particularly controversial.
>
>Yes, there are some definitely some areas where there
>is more liberty now than there was early in the US's
>history. Still, I think that overall there has been
>more liberty lost than gained.
You may be correct. I guess the question is whether we've reached the
"point of no return" (I don't think so) or whether we're doomed to a
downward slide or whether we can climb back out to liberty. When I think
back over what has happened over the last 40 years, there's a lot of reason
for optimism. First of all, in the 50's, 60's and the 70's, we were
beating down the last vestiges of organized, government-supported
racism. We've swung the pendulum too far, and we're starting to
correct--but I don't think we'll over-correct and support anything that
smacks of government pushing down blacks (or other minorities).
Also, during that time, we thought we were fighting a rearguard action
against global Communism. Even Whittaker Chambers, when testifying against
Algier Hiss, thought that eventually communism would win, bad as it would
be. Now, in 2002, the remaining communists really aren't much more than
pretending to be "communist" and its more of a question of how much
longer
the people will have to put up with it than anything else.
While we still have a lot of "economists" who either ignore or
think
they've figured out a way around the principles of Frederic Bastiat (see
his classic essay, "That which is seen and that which is not seen" at
"
http://www.cpm.ll.ehime-u.ac.jp/akamachomepage/akamac_e-text_links/Bastiat.html
"
and follow a link, or do an internet search on "Bastiat".) Of course,
those who understand Bastiat have gotten considerably more sophisticated as
well. But in the 1970s, we had Nixon putting in wage and price controls
and Carter trying to ration energy, while in the 1990s we had Bush losing
because he raised taxes and Clinton realizing that, in many ways, the bond
traders (and their confidence in the solvency of the US) held his
presidency in their hands. People are learning, both here and worldwide
that socialism (in any form) simply doesn't work, and that freedom does
(Ok, so I'm still working on Frank on this one, but we've got to start
somewhere :-> ).
Bush "touched the Third Rail of American politics" and *didn't*
die. "Welfare reform" worked.
We've managed to avoid nationalized health care (except for our senior
citizens--and not yet all of them) and we are getting to see the health
care systems of the other nations buckle under the load of not enough
resources, poor efficiency, higher usage, and poor payscales causing a
brain drain of health-care talent.
Same thing with gun control. We have Democrats running from it as an issue
and Republicans (and a few Democrats) occasionally running against it (see
the Dingell (pro-gun) win over Rivers (anti-gun) in the
re-districting-forced Democrat primary). Not only that, but the cautionary
tales are starting to come in. While our crime rates are going down, crime
rates worldwide are trending up--particularly in places with gun control
(like the UK, which now has twice our violent crime rate--although their
murder rate hasn't increased enough to match our "murder with feet and
hands" rate...yet. But I expect that by about year 10 (2006) they'll have
somewhere between 2 and 3 times the murder rate they had at year 0
(1996)). Meanwhile we've almost entirely flipped the number of states that
didn't allow any form of concealed carry to the current number that are
"Right-to-Carry" states.
We're in the middle of what most Americans consider to be a "war",
yet,
about the worst knock against the government is that it is "violating the
due process and privacy rights" of people suspected of being enemy
terrorists (ok, so some people don't like the idea of going after other
terrorist countries that aren't linked to 9/11 but they haven't
convincingly made a link to a degradation in our freedom here). And a big
part of that was a bipartisan bill that was rushed through without
sufficient debate. Now, there is actually a small bipartisan movement to
revisit some of that "PATRIOT Act" to pull some of the worst stuff
out. Meanwhile, proposals for an intrusive "National ID card" fell
flat. Gun control is *still* off the table. And one of the biggest issues
in the "War on Terror" is *whether we should give some freedom back to
the
pilots of commercial airlines by letting them (with appropriate training)
*carry guns*!!!*
Public schools are slowly being pushed into a situation where they will
have to either get better or go out of business (personally, I think
they'll mostly get better). They're being pushed by both home-schooling
and by vouchers. Meanwhile, there may be some technological changes coming
which will completely put the traditional school out of business (over the
next 30-50 years, of course).
With the fires in the West this year, we may have the silver lining that
the so-called environmentalists are finally losing their credibility. Of
course, the "Spotted Owl" controversy, the "lynx hair"
fraud, and the
"sucker fish" idiocy have contributed (to all our international
friends, I
apologize for the NW focus). Once they lose their credibility, it becomes
a lot easier to point out to people that the rest of their "sky is
falling"
rant isn't any better.
I'm an optimist in many ways. But this is more than a question of "is
the
glass half full or half empty?". It's a question of "is the tub
filling or
draining?" Well, while the tub may have sprung a few new leaks and had a
few hoses taken away, it's also had a few leaks plugged and added few more
hoses putting water in. So while it's hard to tell whether the water level
is rising, I kind of think it is. It's real easy to focus on the things
you don't like and then, since you are focusing on those things all the
time, you forget that there are a lot of other things going on that are
good.
This place is *still* the best place in the world! (And it's getting
better!)
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:39:02 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hello again, Michelle:
Here's part two, on war.
> > > I think its idealistic and
> > >naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
> > >any great length of time. When has it ever
> > happened
> > >in the past?
> >
> > WWII, Cold War, Waterloo, just to name a few
> > examples. Certainly they are
> > examples of a "lesser of the two evils" winning
> > against a "greater of the
> > two evils". But, as a practicality, you're not
> > going to beat anything but
> > a very weak government, unless you have another
> > government.
>
> Yes, there have been wars where an army was able to
> stop the "aggression" of another army. Still, war is
> the lifeblood of the State and even if wars like World
> War II and the Cold War (and the War on Drugs, the War
> on Poverty, the War on Terrorism, etc.) succeed in
> stopping some examples of "aggression" they also
> usually produce a lot of aggression.
No question that "war is the lifeblood of the state" and that even
the
winning side of a war "produces a lot of agression." But the question
isn't "would we be better off without war?", it's "are we better
off
fighting this war than we would be if we don't fight?"
> I don't look at World War II and think, there's an
> example of the US saving "liberty." Yes, we did get
> Hitler out of power, but we helped get Stalin into
> power and a great deal of damage was done to liberty
> within America.
(Stalin had been in power for some time--since Lenin's death in 1924.)
Let me see. Had we not entered the war, Hitler might have eventually
conquered Britain. That would have also given him control of the
Mediterranean and all of North Africa. He then might have been able to
fight the Russians to a standstill. The Japanese could have completely
conquered China, southeast Asia and India (with all the fearsome
consequences that entails for those populations). Of course, it's also
possible that Russia would have defeated Germany by itself--and rolled all
the way to the Atlantic--meaning that *ALL* of Europe would have suffered
under communism rather than just the central and eastern parts. So, our
entering the war kept half of Europe out of the worst example of Fascism or
Communism. Then, once the dust settled, whoever ran things would have
eventually turned their attention on us. Not a pretty picture.
Also, had Germany survived much longer (which, without our assistance,
would have happened) then Hitler probably would have gotten the bomb. If
he was defeated before he could deploy it, then the Soviets would have had
it--as well as *all* the German rocket technology. An even less pretty
picture.
Maybe the US didn't "save" a whole lot of "liberty" in
WWII--although we
did save plenty. But our participation made for a far better world than
would have resulted had we stayed out.
Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Hi Lowell,
I don't entirely agree with your optimistic view of
things in the US, but I did want to say "thank you!"
for pointing out some of the good things that have
been going on as of late.
It's easy to focus on the bad stuff that is happening
in the world and then start feeling real pessimistic
about the future. But, still, there have been some
good things that happened, even politically!, in the
20th century and I appreciate your taking the time to
point them out.
(I may be a pessimist about politics, but I would
certainly LIKE to be an optimist. And it is nice to
read an optimistic perspective on things here every
now and then, to balance out all the doom and gloom.
:) )
Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers
--- "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Hello again, Michelle:
>
> Here's part three, on things getting better in the
> US.
>
> > > >The US is the best example of a government that
> was
> > > >deliberately established to have limited and
> > > >decentralized powers and to primarily protect
> human
> > > >rights. The Constitution was a brilliant
> effort to
> > > >achieve this. And guess what? It failed! It
> took
> > > >less than 150 years for power hungry people to
> > > destroy
> > > >the republic that the founders so carefully
> > > created.
> > > >And now, here we are, 200+ years later, rapidly
> > > >evolving into a police state.
> > >
> > > Hmm. That's true in some respects and false in
> > > others. Freedom of speech
> > > and religion and due process have all increased
> over
> > > those years. What is
> > > interesting is that much of the "sturm und
> drang"
> > > about "Asscroft" is that
> > > he's trying to remove some of the gains in due
> > > process rights for suspected
> > > terrorists THAT HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN
> > > RECOGNIZED!!! In other words, 150
> > > years ago, given a similar situation, many of
> > > Ashcroft's moves wouldn't
> > > have been particularly controversial.
> >
> >Yes, there are some definitely some areas where
> there
> >is more liberty now than there was early in the
> US's
> >history. Still, I think that overall there has
> been
> >more liberty lost than gained.
>
> You may be correct. I guess the question is whether
> we've reached the
> "point of no return" (I don't think so) or whether
> we're doomed to a
> downward slide or whether we can climb back out to
> liberty. When I think
> back over what has happened over the last 40 years,
> there's a lot of reason
> for optimism. First of all, in the 50's, 60's and
> the 70's, we were
> beating down the last vestiges of organized,
> government-supported
> racism. We've swung the pendulum too far, and we're
> starting to
> correct--but I don't think we'll over-correct and
> support anything that
> smacks of government pushing down blacks (or other
> minorities).
>
> Also, during that time, we thought we were fighting
> a rearguard action
> against global Communism. Even Whittaker Chambers,
> when testifying against
> Algier Hiss, thought that eventually communism would
> win, bad as it would
> be. Now, in 2002, the remaining communists really
> aren't much more than
> pretending to be "communist" and its more of a
> question of how much longer
> the people will have to put up with it than anything
> else.
>
> While we still have a lot of "economists" who either
> ignore or think
> they've figured out a way around the principles of
> Frederic Bastiat (see
> his classic essay, "That which is seen and that
> which is not seen" at
>
"
http://www.cpm.ll.ehime-u.ac.jp/akamachomepage/akamac_e-text_links/Bastiat.html
"
>
> and follow a link, or do an internet search on
> "Bastiat".) Of course,
> those who understand Bastiat have gotten
> considerably more sophisticated as
> well. But in the 1970s, we had Nixon putting in
> wage and price controls
> and Carter trying to ration energy, while in the
> 1990s we had Bush losing
> because he raised taxes and Clinton realizing that,
> in many ways, the bond
> traders (and their confidence in the solvency of the
> US) held his
> presidency in their hands. People are learning,
> both here and worldwide
> that socialism (in any form) simply doesn't work,
> and that freedom does
> (Ok, so I'm still working on Frank on this one, but
> we've got to start
> somewhere :-> ).
>
> Bush "touched the Third Rail of American politics"
> and *didn't*
> die. "Welfare reform" worked.
>
> We've managed to avoid nationalized health care
> (except for our senior
> citizens--and not yet all of them) and we are
> getting to see the health
> care systems of the other nations buckle under the
> load of not enough
> resources, poor efficiency, higher usage, and poor
> payscales causing a
> brain drain of health-care talent.
>
> Same thing with gun control. We have Democrats
> running from it as an issue
> and Republicans (and a few Democrats) occasionally
> running against it (see
> the Dingell (pro-gun) win over Rivers (anti-gun) in
> the
> re-districting-forced Democrat primary). Not only
> that, but the cautionary
> tales are starting to come in. While our crime
> rates are going down, crime
> rates worldwide are trending up--particularly in
> places with gun control
> (like the UK, which now has twice our violent crime
> rate--although their
> murder rate hasn't increased enough to match our
> "murder with feet and
> hands" rate...yet. But I expect that by about year
> 10 (2006) they'll have
> somewhere between 2 and 3 times the murder rate they
> had at year 0
> (1996)). Meanwhile we've almost entirely flipped
> the number of states that
> didn't allow any form of concealed carry to the
> current number that are
> "Right-to-Carry" states.
>
> We're in the middle of what most Americans consider
> to be a "war", yet,
> about the worst knock against the government is that
> it is "violating the
> due process and privacy rights" of people suspected
> of being enemy
> terrorists (ok, so some people don't like the idea
> of going after other
> terrorist countries that aren't linked to 9/11 but
> they haven't
> convincingly made a link to a degradation in our
> freedom here). And a big
> part of that was a bipartisan bill that was rushed
> through without
> sufficient debate. Now, there is actually a small
> bipartisan movement to
> revisit some of that "PATRIOT Act" to pull some of
> the worst stuff
> out. Meanwhile, proposals for an intrusive
> "National ID card" fell
> flat. Gun control is *still* off the table. And
> one of the biggest issues
> in the "War on Terror" is *whether we should give
> some freedom back to the
> pilots of commercial airlines by letting them (with
> appropriate training)
> *carry guns*!!!*
>
> Public schools are slowly being pushed into a
> situation where they will
> have to either get better or go out of business
> (personally, I think
> they'll mostly get better). They're being pushed by
> both home-schooling
> and by vouchers. Meanwhile, there may be some
> technological changes coming
> which will completely put the traditional school out
> of business (over the
> next 30-50 years, of course).
>
> With the fires in the West this year, we may have
> the silver lining that
> the so-called environmentalists are finally losing
> their credibility. Of
> course, the "Spotted Owl" controversy, the "lynx
> hair" fraud, and the
> "sucker fish" idiocy have contributed (to all our
> international friends, I
> apologize for the NW focus). Once they lose their
> credibility, it becomes
> a lot easier to point out to people that the rest of
> their "sky is falling"
> rant isn't any better.
>
> I'm an optimist in many ways. But this is more than
> a question of "is the
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: test
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:02:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@monet.bestweb.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Just seeing if I can post from the shell (monet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Liberty in our lifetime?
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:06:42 -0000
From: "justiceforfamilies" <justiceforfamilies@attbi.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com
www.freestateproject.org
The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-
oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S. to secure
there a free society. We will accomplish this by first reforming
state law, opting out of federal mandates, and finally negotiating
directly with the federal government for appropriate political
autonomy. We will be a community of freedom-loving individuals and
families, and create a shining example of liberty for the rest of the
nation and the world.
The Free State Project is a new strategy for liberty in our lifetime.
We don't want to wait decades for most citizens in the U.S. to
realize that the nanny state is an insult to their dignity. For those
of us who already understand the debilitating effects of a government
bent on reducing liberty rather than increasing it, the Free State
Project aims at liberty in a single state.
What do we mean by liberty? We believe that being free and
independent is a great way to live, and that government's only role
should be to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
To quote author L. Neil Smith, we believe that "no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation."
What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal
state taxes and wasteful state government programs. We will end the
collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in
enforcing unconstitutional laws. We will repeal laws outlawing drugs
and guns. We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain.
We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and
monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal
government for more autonomy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: human nature - Anarchy and real Liberty
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:52:15 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
group, frank, lowell, robert,
frank, in response to my 'annotated biblography', and in your responses to
michelle, you've written extensively about your view of 'human nature'.
uhhh, frank, may i write honestly, without claiming that it *necessarily*
applies to you? assuming my request is granted in advance i will write: we
humans necessarily look at the world through our own eyes. for whatever
reason, frank, i'm sorry that you have such a dim view.
yeah, we humans have committed horrors and atrocities nearly beyond belief
to the point that, *near* misanthrope that i am, i've very nearly come to
prefer the bonobo chimp over all other primates as god's finest creation.
and, still, frank, i'm listening to wonderful music as i write to you on my
computer from the comfort, and largely peaceful security, of my home, with a
life span much greater than my ancestors, just having eaten a meal that only
a few hundred years ago not even kings and queens could have contemplated.
the problem for me, frank, is that you write as if it is government which
created the context for the above mentioned wonders, and for those
un-mentioned. wrong, frank, as i see it! you have demand, rather
stridently, that i and michelle consult history. i now ask you to do the
same, frank, pluuze. it is under the sanction of government, with it in the
lead, that the primary horrors and atrocities have been committed. and,
yes, i know who ted bundy was. but we're talking literally millions here,
frank - *millions* and more.
you claim we 'evil' humans must have government to prevent chaos. like i
have begged you, frank, consult history. government has very nearly been
synonomous with chaos. when has any few lancer even come close??
yet, frank, i will now write that whether or not human nature is basically
evil (since the 'fall', frank?) is entirely irrelevant. both government and
market-anarchy are faced with the same human nature to deal with. the
question is how to deal with that nature both morally and practically.
whatever human nature may be, frank, basically good, basically evil, or with
either possible, i see market-anarchy as by far the most moral **and**,
also, the most practical solution - by far, not even a horserace.
before i get to that, though, frank, i want to quibble with you about an
irrelevancy, as i see it. in the u.s. we live in a sick culture, and most
of the reast of the earth is in even a worse state, and yet, frank, my
friends, my neighbors, the folks in the grocery store and on the sidewalk
are, despite your caims about human nature, very peaceful. they understand
the evil of murder, theft and fraud. they, by and large, niether sanction
such, or commit such. ted bundy got no sanction for who he was. none!!
and, yet, the same folks, my neighbors, friends, and folks in the grocery
sanctioned r. m. nixon, l.b. johnson, g.w. bush. and in other countries,
the same folks sanction such as hitler and stalin, while they would never
consider for a second killing their very own neighbor. what's the
difference, frank? as i see it, it is arguments from such as you, which
sanction government with the claim that it has interests which serve the
collective, and thus override individual morality.
at that level, frank, i find the arguments for minarchy every bit as
corrupt, though with some innocence, as the arguments which sanctioned
hitler, pol pot, and stalin - the collective good before the inalienable
rights of the individual, with government a *****necessary***** evil (to
quote you, frank). heya, frank, if you are going to argue for and sanction
a 'necessary' evil, no wonder you have such a dim view of your fellow
humans, eh?
but, frank, as i wrote, the above discussion is irrelevant, as i see it, and
i truly believe it is. you have written that you have heard and read all of
the arguments for market-anarchy. excuse me, frank, for not being as nice
as michelle by me, here, writing BULLSHIT!!!!!!!! you ain't read 'em,
frank, and you ain't heard 'em, or you did not give them the slightest open
minded consideration, you with all of the answers all ready.
why can i call "BULLSHIT" with such confidence? because you write
as if
market-anarchy, repecting the mis-guided idealism as you do, requires some
kind of a change in human nature which would eliminate all propensity for
initiated agression and the need for protection for the weak against the
stronger 'predators by nature', with no need for police-forces, courts and
"state-enforced justice" (if there even is such a thing).
**that** tells me, frank, that you do not know **squat** about the arguments
for market-anarchy, nor the thought that has gone into it. and it is
exactly that **all knowing **condensension** which pissed me off so much,
and caused me to write my first communication on this subject. good gawd,
frank, do you really think i'm such a dumb-shit that i'm arguing that the
lion will lie down with the lamb, not in your heaven, but in this life??!!!!
tells me what you think of me, frank, or it tells me lots about you.
thingo is, frank, all of the thought which has gone in to market-anarchy has
been directed at how best to deal with the human propensity for initiated
agression, however widespread it may be. what is the **best** most
practical way to provide for the defense of individual rights, and provide
for the human need for justice and peace. if you think for a fucking
second, frank, that i and other market-anarchist are arguing for the day
when the lion will lie down with the lamb, AND YOU DO, BECAUSE YOU HAVE
WRITTEN IT REPEATEDLY, WELL FRANK,
I'M BIGTIME FUCKING OFFENDED THAT YOU THINK I'M SUCH A DUMB-SHIT!!!!!!!!!
wanna talk, frank?? or are you just gonna keep calling me a nuttso who
ain't thought about anything???!!!!!, arguing for an effortless heaven on
this earth, in this lifetime.
sincerely,
LF
btw, frank, david friedman, milton's son (you know him, milton i mean),
primary theoritician of market-anarchy that his is, coined the pharse
"utopia is not an option", and popularized it in lib circles. what ya
think
of that, frank, arguing that we market-anarchist are hoplessly idealistic
utopians???????!!!!!!!!!!!
on 8/25/02 5:16 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@monet.bestweb.net wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Michelle wrote in part:
>
>>>> If any institutions
>>>> are in place that can legally initiate force, it
>>>> is
>>>> inevitable that through their use of force those
>>>> institutions will become stronger and more
>>>> powerful -
>>>
>>> Then progress would be impossible, so the statement
>>> above must be
>>> incomplete.
>>
>> You're going to have to be a little less cryptic,
>> Robert.
>
> If such institutions inevitably became stronger and more powerful, then
> nothing could be done about them. Else, what would "inevitably"
mean?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: common f----- law........
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:28:38 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
heyya, frank, lowell, robert,
ya'll have heard of the "common law", eh?
where the hay do ya think that wonder came from?
i figure ya ain't got the slightest of idea?
i figure you dummies oughta read the italian jurist, the most respected of
all, even by statists - bruno leone.
see, the deal was, the kings and queens of england didn't care a bit it the
commoners murdered, stole, raped or whatever, so long as the royality got
what they demanded, comes to taxes and draftees.
yup, true story!!!!!! consult history, frank!!!!!!!!
the commoners were on there own, fully, with *not* so benign neglect.
what'd they do? well, hell, they rose up and said we want no ted bundys
amoungst us. nor any other thieves, rapists or murders. with no state
***protecting*** their rights, they had to do it for themselves. the
english common law was invented by humans, in liberty, with no legislation.
none!!!!!!! just common law 'judges' selected by the community of humans,
without even a vote. true fucking story. only way ya got "elected" to
discover common law was by the selection of fellow humans based on your
reputation for justice.
good gawd, frank, lowell, robert, 'fore you call we market-anarchist utopian
nuttsos, i figure ya oughta at least study up on where the hell the "common
law" came from - it being one of the greatest achievements in human
history.
market-anarchy is utopian???????? how the fuck do you think we got to where
the hell we are??? it was the human mind, with it's discovery, including
the common law. government prevented chaos????????? rotflmao!!!!!!!!!!
git over it, frank, you with an agressive gun in your hand, justifying a
"necessary" evil called government. you only git to use that gun for
defense, frank!!!!!!!! it's a "common law"!!!!!!
to quote blackstone, a common law jurist, among the best of them: "...no
human laws are of any validity if contrary to this." - claim to be free of
initiated agression.
so, frank, you lowell, and robert turn out to be government lovers, willing
to force me. i figure that means you'll show up at my cabin in the
mountains, like the fbi did for randy weaver.
so, frank, think about your shit!! government supporter that you turn out
to be, holster your gun, frank, or quit it with calling yourself a lib.
i'll defend myself from nuttsos who claim i'm a "utopian",
protecting me
from my own "fallen" evil. show up at my cabin, frank, with your guns
drawn, you ain't gonna git a chance to shoot my wife. no way.
you let me live my life, my way, with no agression, or you don't. if you
show up with guns claiming i gotta support your minarchy, guns are what
you'll get in response.
hate to say it, frank, but with your arguments, you strike me as an aplogist
for the fbi and the batf.
all i ask is to be left alone to fend for myself, in common agreement with
my fellow humans. if you have another plan which takes unholsted guns,
well, christ, - sorry to find you've identified with the enemy.
good gawd, frank, holster your gun, pluuze. government, by its nature,
requires an unholstered gun. didn't know you were one of those, frank,
though you are a religious type who needs gawd or government to save ya from
evil.
well, frank, i ain't evil, but don't fuck with me 'till you have disarmed
me.
sincerely,
larry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: just to make myself clear........frank.......
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:04:03 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
heyya, frank,
just in case i didn't communicate clearly, earlier, if you want me to
support your minarchy against your percieved "evil human nature",
you're
gonna have to force me.
don't try it with forceing me, frank!!!!!
i just wanna be left alone to fend for myself. call me a dummie for that,
i'll pay the price. YOU DON'T GIT TO CHOOSE FOR ME FRANK, WITH YOUR
UN-HOLSTERED GUN. heyya, frank, ya only git to draw on me if i threaten
you.
I AIN'T, FRRANK. I JUST WANNA BE FREE OF YOUR GOVERNMENT. LEAVE ME ALONE,
I'LL LEAVE YOU ALONE. NEAR AS I CAN TELL, THOUGH, FRANK, YOU ARE PERFECTLY
WILLING TO FORCE ME WITH GUNS INTO YOUR VERSION OF A "MINARCHY".
GOOD GAWD, FRANK, GIT YOUR HEAD OUTTA YOUR RELIGIOUS ASS. GAWD OR
GOVERNMENT, YA GOTTA HAVE SOMEONE TO PROFESS ALLIGANCE TO. OKAY, DUMMIE, DO
IT, TO EACH THEIR OWN. BUT, FRANK, YOU'VE DRAWN GUNS IN YOUR FIGHT AGAINST
EVIL, AND POINTED 'EM AT ME. HEYYA, FRANK, MARKET-ANARCHIST I AM, GIT THE
GUNS OUGHTA MY FACE. I DON'T TAKE KINDLY TO THAT WAY OF WINNING AN
ARGUMENT.
WHAT YA WANT, FRANK? REASON OR GUNS. YOU PICK!!!!
LARRY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: just to make myself clear........frank.......
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:33:39 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
Greetings again Larry!
larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...
> GOOD GAWD, FRANK, GIT YOUR HEAD OUTTA YOUR RELIGIOUS ASS. GAWD OR
> GOVERNMENT, YA GOTTA HAVE SOMEONE TO PROFESS ALLIGANCE TO.
Incorrect, it is first and foremost necessary to recognize that:
1. Government owes IT's allegiance to the people, rather than vice
versa, and that is has a limited and clearly defined capacity to
exercise jurisdiction against aggression. Individuals, as such, are
not morally subservient to give carte blanc allegiance to any
government, particularly one that initiates aggression and force.
2. You have no historical evidence or support whatsoever in the entire
history of the earth to suggest that the absence of all government, in
some form, is anything but an idealistic "theory" or fantasy at best.
> OKAY, DUMMIE, DO
> IT, TO EACH THEIR OWN. BUT, FRANK, YOU'VE DRAWN GUNS IN YOUR FIGHT
AGAINST
> EVIL, AND POINTED 'EM AT ME.
I believe that force is absolutely necessary to confront and defend
against aggression. Whether that "force" is using firearms, is of
little consequence. It could be redressed in other ways, also using
force, and the best was is through a legitimate court system that
recognizes that aggression is morally wrong. We don't have such court
systems in place any longer today. Unfortunately, today's courts are
directed toward enforcing unjust laws, those laws that have the
propensity to aggress, e.g.: tax laws, laws regulating or restricting
non-violent human behaviour, such as smoking a joint, etc.
The answer here isn't removing all government, it is repealing about
95 percent of the laws on the books, and drastically reducing the
amount of revenue a government can get its meat hooks on! Even
Michelle seems to fall along the lines that government should not be
allowed to involuntarily tax, but could exist in some form without
forced taxation. Frankly, I don't know HOW that might work out on a
practical scale, since whoever would end up funding such a state,
would obviously control it, and what it does.
> HEYYA, FRANK, MARKET-ANARCHIST I AM, GIT THE
> GUNS OUGHTA MY FACE. I DON'T TAKE KINDLY TO THAT WAY OF WINNING AN
> ARGUMENT.
I don't know if I'm winning an argument as such, but I am not waving
guns in your face Larry. I don't care what you choose to do, that is,
unless it amounts to aggression against me, or others, which amounts
ultimately to a threat against me as well. I am certainly NOT going
to send the troops in to curtail you from making free, non-aggressive
choices. If you commit a bank robbery and thereby steal my life's
saving on deposit, then that's another story.
> WHAT YA WANT, FRANK? REASON OR GUNS. YOU PICK!!!!
Mankind does not live "reasonably", which is why guns are sometimes
necessary. In other words, it's not an issue between reason or guns.
Both are necessary. Human nature is not "reasonable", it is innate
and it is not always good either. No matter what kind of "system" you
devise, whether with an absence of government, or a bunch of goon
squads running around protecting individual rights, or even aggressive
war lords seeking to loot, rape, and control, you're going to have
include human nature into that equation. You're rather evasive it
seems to me on how you are going to deal with that.
Problem is that anarchy is a theory such as marxism is a theory. It
assumes "reason" in somehow in control over human nature, and as such
it has little to do with practical applications for any society which
is made up of human beings. Marxism was built around various
sociological utopian ideals, none of which ever came to pass once such
a system took control and power, such as, that government would
increasing wither away and become unnecessary. No marxist state ever
existed in which government did not grow exponentially and assume
control over every aspect of human activity. Marxism also was built
upon the notion of economic equality, and universal prosperity.
Again, no marxist state ever was able to bring about such utopian
expectation, and the reverse was always the result in practical
comparisons with more free market economies.
Evidence suggests that even pre-recorded history necessitated the
existence of government, in that case grouped around tribal leaders,
councils, or elders. In some cases sociological studies reveal that
even territorial boundaries weren't required to define such a
government's jurisdiction, e.g., wandering, nomadic tribes moving from
place to place. In any case however, they had a means for common
defence against external aggression, and settling disputes among
themselves.
If you cannot see the similarities here with what you propose in a
free association of forming alliances, then you entirely miss the
point. That too ultimately requires the existence of some form of
government. In fact, what you may be proposing is nothing more
perhaps than just that, a self-governing tribe of individuals
appropriating security measures to defend the alliance. And in such
an alliance, YOU, as an individual are only ONE VOICE in determining
how such arrangements will be made, and how such will be financed.
Your idea of living alone on a mountain top defending yourself won't
work very long either, as Randy Weaver and family finally found out.
A larger bully with aggression on his mind will take you out, as in
the later case, the US government did against the Weaver family.
Kindest regards,
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: which is it, frank??....
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:32:17 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
hello, frank,
thanks for responding. my response is interspersed below:
on 8/27/02 7:33 PM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:
> 1. Government owes IT's allegiance to the people, rather than vice
> versa, and that is has a limited and clearly defined capacity to
> exercise jurisdiction against aggression. Individuals, as such, are
> not morally subservient to give carte blanc allegiance to any
> government, particularly one that initiates aggression and force.
well, frank, i sorta liked what you wrote, 'cept that, from my frame of
reference, it appears that you have not yet thought real clearly about the
fundamentals of the question. let me put it this way: as a market-anarchist
i give *no* allegance, carte blanch or not, to *any* government. now, you
might figure i'm a nuttso (and you will, though i do hope to change your
mind) for my lack of allegiance even to some, yet fictional, minarchy, but,
be that as it may, there is not the slightest hint of aggression in my lack
of allegiance. so, frank, what are you and your minarchy gonna do with me?
are you gonna force my allegiance, or are you gonna let me go my own
non-agressive way, maybe hiring a private security agency who i might figure
will defend me better than your minarchy? are you gonna let me do that,
frank? if so, i figure you're a market anarchist already. if your not
gonna do that, if you and your minarchy intend to force my allegiance and
prevent me from making other contracts, you are obligated to justify the
force you will use to gurantee the geographical monopoly of your minarchy.
government, as i see it frank, by definition, claims a geographic monopoly
on all of those humans who live within its arbitrary borders, allegiance or
not. if even one individual human within its boundaries does not grant
allegiance, that allegiance must be *forced* with the use of initiated
physical agression, or the threat of it. that seems to be clearly the case,
frank, unless you are at least willing to grant sanction to competeing
"governments" within the same geographical area. and how can you not
sanction that, frank, if allegiance is something an individual human has a
right to non-agressively choose? if humans have a right to cast their
allegiance to the non-agressive "government" of their choice, how do
you
distinguish that from a voluntary contract in the market? you are obligated
to explain to me, frank, why individual humans do not have that right, it
seems to me. short an explanation from you, frank, i figure you're a market
anarchist all ready, you just haven't realized it yet.
as you intimated above, government is formed, and derives it's power and
allegiance from the people. to quote you: "IT owes its allegiance to the
people". now, reading you, i can read people as a collective, with no
individual rights, with the "people" meaning the group. which people
are
you writing about, frank? Me? i'm no "people". i make my own
contracts,
thank you very much. are you going to let me do that frank? if you are
willing to let me "opt out" of *your* minarchy, you are a market
anarchist.
if you are not, i find you to be a statist wolf in libertarian sheep's
clothing - willing to force me to choose as you have. which is it, frank???
it's that simple, frank!!, and that complex. which is it??!!
>
> 2. You have no historical evidence or support whatsoever in the entire
> history of the earth to suggest that the absence of all government, in
> some form, is anything but an idealistic "theory" or fantasy at
best.
the argument from history, eh? criminee, frank, that is an entirely beside
the point argument. i can hear you saying to the first humans trying to
start their own fire, rather than capture litning, that there is no evidence
in history that such can be done. and i can hear you arguing with the
american revolutionists that the is little evidence in history that humans
can get along without kings. with your arguments from history, frank, all i
have to say is 'thank gawd you ain't been in charge of human progress" -
there'd have been none, given that bullshit argument. gotta say though,
it's you who needs to consult history, not me. obviously you are unaware of
the hundreds of years in which iceland developed non-government ways to deal
with aggression and dispute resolution, peacefully. and so far you have
given no respect to the non-government discovery of english common law!!
nor have you shown the slightest respect to the Iriquoi, and other native
americans, some of whom were t. jefferson's model of how to have a
government without truly having one. there's lots in history you've not
consulted, as i see it. me? i don't give a crap about history, except to
learn from it.
WHERE THE HELL IN HISTORY, FRANK, HAS THERE BEEN A FUNCTIONG MINARCHY WHICH
AS SECURED THE RIGHTS OF 'THE PEOPLE'??????
if history is your thingo, frank, i have a helluva lot more evidence than
you do. a helluva a lot!! to quote marvin, in a way i figure he didn't
intend: 'the idea of government is broken, and it can't be fixed'. consult
history, frank!!
> I believe that force is absolutely necessary to confront and defend
> against aggression. Whether that "force" is using firearms, is of
> little consequence. It could be redressed in other ways, also using
> force, and the best was is through a legitimate court system that
> recognizes that aggression is morally wrong. We don't have such court
> systems in place any longer today.
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN, FRANK, WITH 'ANY LONGER'! WHEN THE HELL DID 'WE'
HAVE THAT?? i find you real damn prone to use **collective** terms, that's
why i wrote you not long ago inquiring if you have a mouse in you pocket.
who is "we", frank?? collective terms hopelessly confuse the thinking
of an
individualist, as i see it. don't try it with putting me in your pocket,
frank. i ain't no "we". and niether were blacks, native americans,
women,
nor lots of others. what the hell ya mean with, "any
longer"??????!!!!!!!
just 'cause ""we"" got rid of kings, doesn't mean
""we"" got the job done.
good gawd, with so much to do, folks like you harken back to the good old
days which are "no longer" here. criminee, you talk like some kind of
a
conservative with nothing left to conserve, not that there ever was. in
human history, liberty is a damn new idea!! it needs your help with
furthering, frank. conservatively harkening back to the good old days which
never even existed ain't help. you ain't even got history on your side.
> Unfortunately, today's courts are
> directed toward enforcing unjust laws, those laws that have the
> propensity to aggress, e.g.: tax laws, laws regulating or restricting
> non-violent human behaviour, such as smoking a joint, etc.
heyya, frank, read yourself, above!! without taxes, how the hell do you
intend to pay for **your** government roads?? frank, i love ya, but you
ain't real anilitical are ya?? (and i ain't a real good speller).
and, yaaaa, today's courts, far beyond that, enforce allegiance, as i figure
you do, 'till you tell me otherwise. if you're gonna force government on me
frank, non-violent that i am, why the heck are you so worried about the best
example in history of a minarchy tellin' me what i can smoke??
> The answer here isn't removing all government, it is repealing about
> 95 percent of the laws on the books, and drastically reducing the
> amount of revenue a government can get its meat hooks on!
if you and your minarchy take one f------ penney from me frank, it'll take
the meat hooks of violence, sanctioned by you. do you really wanna send the
government to my door to force me to pay for **your** decisions. like i
wrote you, frank, you have a gun in your hand, or at least your selected
minarchy does, and that implicates you. put your gun back in the holster,
frank. you've **no** excuse to use it on me, nor does your minarchy.
> Michelle seems to fall along the lines that government should not be
> allowed to involuntarily tax, but could exist in some form without
> forced taxation. Frankly, I don't know HOW that might work out on a
> practical scale, since whoever would end up funding such a state,
> would obviously control it, and what it does.
heyya, frank, when you buy a burger from mcdonalds, you excercise control.
mcdonalds couldn't exist without your free, voluntary choice. you, frank,
and others who so choose, control what mcdonalds does. i have no problem
with that, just don't go with forcing michelle to eat there, 'cause she's a
veggie.
FRANK, AS I SEE IT, IT IS THE INALIENABLE RIGHT **NOT TO FUND** THAT WILL
SAVE LIBERTY, IF IT CAN BE SAVED. YOU DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOUR FELLOW HUMANS
THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES 'CAUSE YOU FIGURE THEY WOULD CHOOSE
DIFFERENTLY FROM YOU, AND "THEY'D HAVE CONTROL". I RESERVE THE RIGHT,
AS A
HUMAN, WITH INALIENALBE RIGHTS, TO FUND WHAT I CHOOSE TO. IF YOU THINK THAT
MAKES ME A CONTROL FREAK, YOU DAMN WELL OUGHTA TAKE A LOOK AT YOURSELF, SO
WORRIED ABOUT CONTROL, THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO FORCE ME TO CHOOSE AS YOU.
> I don't know if I'm winning an argument as such, but I am not waving
> guns in your face Larry.
the hell you're not, frank!! as mao said, government's power grows out of
the barrel of a gun. and that is true about the gun you sanction for
minarchy. holster your gun, frank, or check it at the door.
> Mankind does not live "reasonably", which is why guns are
sometimes
> necessary. In other words, it's not an issue between reason or guns.
> Both are necessary. Human nature is not "reasonable", it is
innate
> and it is not always good either. No matter what kind of "system"
you
> devise, whether with an absence of government, or a bunch of goon
> squads running around protecting individual rights, or even aggressive
> war lords seeking to loot, rape, and control, you're going to have
> include human nature into that equation. You're rather evasive it
> seems to me on how you are going to deal with that.
i ain't been evasive at all, frank. you just peed me off when you, early
on, accused me of supporting goon squads and war lords, when you support the
broken idea of government, aiming your support for it at me, with your gun
out of the holster.
>
> Problem is that anarchy is a theory such as marxism is a theory.
bullshit!! marxism has not the slightest relevance to market anarchy. in
fact they are polar opposites. i understand why you write that, because the
sucess of marxism required a change in human nature. lump me in with that
marxist crap, frank, you pee me off bigtime, but i guess i already wrote
that.
the real "theory" here, frank, is your "theory" of
minarchy. you're much
more of a morxist than i, figuring the state can be salvaged, given the
history.
> It
> assumes "reason" in somehow in control over human nature, and as
such
> it has little to do with practical applications for any society which
> is made up of human beings.
heyya, frank, reason is **all** we humans have. or guns. you got a gun in
your hand, frank, with your support of minarchy. no damn wonder you
disparge reason.
so, frank, you wrote me with an epistle about the failure of marxism. i
figure it's you who needs to read that, not me. i'm trying real damn hard
not to be offended by you telling me why marxism failed. why the hell ya
think i need to read that, unless you figure i'm an irrational utopian,
while it is you who supports the utopian idea of a government which is not
agressive.
<snip>
> In any case however, they had a means for common
> defence against external aggression, and settling disputes among
> themselves.
good gawd, frank, there ya go again, claiming, with not even asking, that i
believe we humans need no mechanism for settling disputes. git over that,
frank, or piss me off bigtime. i might be wrong about how disputes can be
settled witout the agressive force of government, but if you write me one
more damn time indicating that i'm arguing for a utopia where there will be
no human disputes i tell ya to fuck of, disputing you.
>
> If you cannot see the similarities here with what you propose in a
> free association of forming alliances, then you entirely miss the
> point. That too ultimately requires the existence of some form of
> government. In fact, what you may be proposing is nothing more
> perhaps than just that, a self-governing tribe of individuals
> appropriating security measures to defend the alliance. And in such
> an alliance, YOU, as an individual are only ONE VOICE in determining
> how such arrangements will be made, and how such will be financed.
I'M ONLY ONE VOICE, EH?? WELL, YAAA. I AIN'T NO "WE". gotta say,
though,
frank, you only have one voice, too. I REFUSE TO LET YOU SPEAK FOR ME UNLESS
WE REACH VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.
"only one voice", eh. hell, i though the value of the one voice was
what
libertarianism was all about!! how many voices do you have, frank, in your
minarchy, assuming it will do your biding. DON'T GO SPEAKING FOR ME, FRANK,
EVER, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF MY "ONE VOICE".
>
> Your idea of living alone on a mountain top defending yourself won't
> work very long either, as Randy Weaver and family finally found out.
> A larger bully with aggression on his mind will take you out, as in
> the later case, the US government did against the Weaver family.
GOOD GAWD, FRANK, I AIN'T TALKING ABOUT DEFENDING MYSELF. CRIMINEE, I DON'T
EVEN KNOW HOW TO MAKE MY OWN SHOES, AND JUSTICE IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT TO ME
THAN SHOES. DO YOU VALUE SHOES OVER JUSTICE, FRANK? THE SUPPLY WILL ALWAYS
ARISE TO MEET THE DEMAND ON THE MARKET. WHAT DO YOU VALUE, FRANK, AND WHY
THE HELL DO YOU CONCLUDE THAT EVIL CAN SO EASILY OUT-BID YOU WITHOUT THE
SANCTION OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH EVEN YOU GRANT????
GOOD GAWD, FRANK, JUST AS A THOUGH EXPERIMENT, CONSIDER WHAT SHAPE THE WAR
AGAINST HUMANS WHO USE DRUGS WOULD BE IN IF THOSE WHO WANTED TO RUN THE
LIVES OF OTHERS HAD TO FUND THE WAR WITH VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS, TAXES
BEING AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW????????? ASSHOLES AIN'T GOT THE MONEY, FRANK,
UNLESS YOU FIGURE EVERYBODY BUT YOU IS AN ASSHOLE OUT TO GIT YA.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
THE STATE, MINARCHY OR NOT, IS ORGANIZED VIOLENCE. WITHOUT THE SANCTIONED
ORGANIZATION, ALL YA GOT IS A BUNCH OF FREE LANCERS. THEY'RE VASTLY
OUTNUMBERED. VASTLY!! UNLESS YOUR VERY OWN EYES, AND MIND, THINKING WHAT
YOU WOULD DO WITH NO STATE, TELLS YOU DIFFERENTLY.
THINK ABOUT IT FRANK, PLUUZE.
SORRY FOR THE CAPS. I HIT THE KEY AWHILE BACK AND GOT LAZY.
SINCERELY,
LARRY
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: i ain't no mouse, frank..........
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:50:04 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
frank,
i've written you about this several times before, and i just did, again,
earlier tonight.
quit it with your use of collective terminology like "we" and
"us". it's
appropriate *sometimes*, but it sure as hell isn't when a lib. is discussing
minarchy, or the actions of the shrub (tm).
my name is larry, frank. I AIN'T NO DAMNED 'WE', NOT IN YOUR POCKET, OR IN
THE POCKET OF THE 'WE' YOU USE TO REFER TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
IF YOU CALL ME "WE" AGAIN, FRANK, BELIEVE ME, I'LL REMIND YA I
AIN'T SUCH!!
K???
LF
|
