[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010
I wrote this on Dec. 24, 2008: --- In smith2004-disc...@yahoogroups.com, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: There is nothing wrong with being a Pacifist. All Pacifists are libertarians by default. Go ahead, look it up, it's Message #10279. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smith2004-discuss/message/102795 See that? I stated it clearly. LIAR. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg...@... wrote: Larry, you have never stated clearly any fucking thing - Original Message - From: Zack Bass zak...@... To: LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2010 10:09:38 PM Subject: [LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010 --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Jay P Hailey jayphailey@ wrote: People who relish the idea of having a prodctive life on their own terms without initating violence against any one, you sneer at for not meeting your definition of libertarian. Liar. I stated clearly that ALL true Pacifists are by default Libertarians.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010
Nah, I got an A+ in my college Ethics course, but I still use the terms Morality and Ethics interchangeably. I am in line with Ayn Rand's usage: A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. See http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics When you mention Religion, though, I do believe you are conflating the ideas of SIN and Immorality. Asshole though I may be, I have demonstrated over and over that I *AM* Moral and Ethical, because I follow the Non-Aggression Principle and advocate it at all times - regardless of my baser leanings, I always follow it and hold it as the highest Principle... and that makes me a libertarian, with Morals and Ethics. As Ayn Rand says, it is a code of values accepted by CHOICE by someone who might have motives to choose otherwise; a code of Morality and of Ethics. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg...@... wrote: I wouldn't say whether there was a moral difference, since I run my life on ethics. Groups mean nothing to me unless they have baseball bats aimed at me (it's illegal to defend yourself with even your fists in New Jersey). I hold to high ethical standards, especially the ZAP, and have no morals (I've been an atheist for a long time), and while asshole that you are you respect neither morals nor ethics, you may know the difference between ethics and morals, you are well-read. -- Ward Griffithswdg...@... home.comcast.net/~wdg3rd Aim high and you won't shoot your foot off. -- Phyllis Diller - Original Message - From: Zack Bass zak...@... --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg3rd@ wrote: I am a pacifist (have you actually looked up the word in the dictionary, Larry, it has nothing to do with individual interactions You dare to say, in this forum, that there is a Moral difference between the actions of an Individual and the actions of a hundred or a million Individuals in a Group?
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics the Objectivist ethics is the morality of life -- Ayn Rand --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: Nah, I got an A+ in my college Ethics course, but I still use the terms Morality and Ethics interchangeably. I am in line with Ayn Rand's usage: A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. See http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics When you mention Religion, though, I do believe you are conflating the ideas of SIN and Immorality. Asshole though I may be, I have demonstrated over and over that I *AM* Moral and Ethical, because I follow the Non-Aggression Principle and advocate it at all times - regardless of my baser leanings, I always follow it and hold it as the highest Principle... and that makes me a libertarian, with Morals and Ethics. As Ayn Rand says, it is a code of values accepted by CHOICE by someone who might have motives to choose otherwise; a code of Morality and of Ethics. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg3rd@ wrote: I wouldn't say whether there was a moral difference, since I run my life on ethics. Groups mean nothing to me unless they have baseball bats aimed at me (it's illegal to defend yourself with even your fists in New Jersey). I hold to high ethical standards, especially the ZAP, and have no morals (I've been an atheist for a long time), and while asshole that you are you respect neither morals nor ethics, you may know the difference between ethics and morals, you are well-read. -- Ward Griffithswdg3rd@ home.comcast.net/~wdg3rd Aim high and you won't shoot your foot off. -- Phyllis Diller - Original Message - From: Zack Bass zakbas@ --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg3rd@ wrote: I am a pacifist (have you actually looked up the word in the dictionary, Larry, it has nothing to do with individual interactions You dare to say, in this forum, that there is a Moral difference between the actions of an Individual and the actions of a hundred or a million Individuals in a Group?
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism duh Anarcho-pacifism (also pacifist anarchism or anarchist pacifism) is a form of anarchism which completely rejects the use of violence ***IN ANY FORM FOR ANY PURPOSE***. duh --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg3rd@ wrote: From: Wraith wraith@ I am a pacifist (have you actually looked up the word in the dictionary, Larry, it has nothing to do with individual interactions unless the individuals have names like Ghandi, Stalin, Truman and Hitler) and have been for decades. I shoot to kill when I have to. When I use the term Pacifist, I refer to those people who say that they oppose THE USE OF VIOLENCE. Some of them have posted such shit here. THOSE people are Pacifists who oppose Violence EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE. Ask Planetary Jim. There really are such morons.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg...@... wrote: Like the next time we catch Larry with a 10-year-old. How does this self-defense of which you speak work? You propose to defend your Self against a 10-year-old boy? What did he ever do to you? He brags about his polygamy (with imported brides), I don't brag, I just live (with American women)). I didn't brag about anything, I responded to the Libel in which you accused me of masturbatory hallucinations. I showed that you were mistaken, it is not a hallucination. (I have videos too.) But... are American women somehow better for bragging rights, in your estimation? Is that what you're on about? Anyhow, only one of my wives is Imported, I complained quite clearly that I have not been Allowed to import the other one, that's the PROBLEM. Okay. Here is the relevant joke: Chauncey is chauffeuring The Queen and runs into a limousine driven by his old nemesis, Worthington. Chauncey leaps out of his car and says, Can't you drive? You moron! Worthington replies, Keep your voice down. Are you aware that Lady Smedley is in my car? Whereupon Chauncey runs to his car, throws open the door to reveal The Queen, and yells, And what do you think this is, a piece of shit?
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010
bump --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: There is Violence, namely the hunting down and punishing of offenders AFTER THE FACT, that is neither Initiation of Force nor Defense. If one opposes this hunting down AFTER THE FACT, then one is without recourse when he arrives home to find his family already raped.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Jay P Hailey jayphai...@... wrote: I will not do business with you. I will have as little to do with you as possible. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/remus11.txt I don't keer w'at you do wid me, so you don't fling me in dat brierpatch. Roas' me, but don't fling me in dat brierpatch. Robert Blake and I are simply crushed.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Jay P Hailey jayphai...@... wrote: Sounds like PACIFISTS, not libertarians: ... a movement that rejects the use of violence or coercion http://www.libertopia.org/home/ Then DON'T GO! Hurr Durr! What's your point? Someone fucks up a press release and I'm the bad guy for catching it? Every criticism or value judgment of any sort on this Group is henceforth going to draw your eloquent denunciation?
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Jay P Hailey jayphai...@... wrote: People who relish the idea of having a prodctive life on their own terms without initating violence against any one, you sneer at for not meeting your definition of libertarian. Liar. I stated clearly that ALL true Pacifists are by default Libertarians. http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. L. Neil Smith Thus one's MOTIVES are irrelevant. All that matters is that one hold that Moral position and behave accordingly. Which I always do. What I might WANT to do is irrelevant.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Libertopia 2010
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howl...@... wrote: I found it interesting, when your name came up, that the impression you had given was one of initiating violence, not violence in defense. False dichotomy. There is Violence, namely the hunting down and punishing of offenders AFTER THE FACT, that is neither Initiation of Force nor Defense. If one opposes this hunting down AFTER THE FACT, then one is without recourse when he arrives home to find his family already raped.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Court rule on Miranda rights - Suspects must say they want to be silent
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewil...@... wrote: The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself Obviously he did not, at that time, choose to remain silent. It was established long ago that a perp may choose to remain silent at one time, and choose to speak at a later time. This was one of those times.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Priceless....
Cute, though staged. I found a sharper photo from 2007 and put it on BATF.com: http://BATF.com --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewil...@... wrote: Priceless http://sites.google.com/site/jonjayray/atf.jpg http://sites.google.com/site/jonjayray/atf.jpg
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Dennis Lee Wilson embraces RESTITUTION and SELF DEFENSE
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: You're either with us, or you're with Perfect dichotomies tend to lend themselves to fallacies rather easily. That's stupid. Yours is a FALSE Dichotomy. A perfect Dichotomy would be, Either you are with us, or you are NOT with us. THAT isnot a Fallacy. All you need for a perfect Dichotomy is a statement, and the logical negation of that statement. A OR NOT A. Ring a bell?
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Dennis Lee Wilson embraces RESTITUTION and SELF DEFENSE
Why would one wish to enjoy retribution? Some times violence is necessary No it isn't. It's just a Personal Choice. Pacifists exist. Why would someone enjoy stamp collecting, or golf, or Rapp? Beats me, but no biggie. , but that doesn't mean that one should take pleasure from that necessity. Doesn't mean one shouldn't either. Personal Choice. All that is important is The Non-Aggression Principle. As long as I know a man is not Initiating Force, I don't care what goes on inside. Some folks just seem to like hunting, and boxing, and crap like that. Personal Choice, don't get your panties in a wad. Thats always seemed to be a rather warped perspective to me shrug Different strokes. Tolerance. A guy sucking a dick has always seemed to be a rather warped perspective to me shrug, but it's none of my business as long as he is not Initiating Force.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: Anarchy is an ideal. Yep, and it is a DIFFERENT ideal from the Non-Aggression Principle. I prefer NAP.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: At 06:42 PM 5/9/2010, you wrote: Is a Justice League, that does nothing but ENFORCE THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE, a State? Depends on ones definitions. How is it defining Initation? Oh jeez don't even go there. Next we'll be saying how do you define Restitution how do you define SELF-DEFENSE what is Truth what is Justice what is this thing on my neck I don't know where it came from.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: Depends on ones definitions. How is it defining Initation? The same way the Non-Aggression Principle is defining it I imagine.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Jay P Hailey jayphai...@... wrote: Libertarian society CAN punish violations of the Non-Aggression Principle.. It is entirely moral to have a Justice League that helps Victims hunt down and punish Aggressors. After all, enforcing NAP is never a violation of NAP. Only if you know for absolutely certain that the target of the Hunting and the Punishing has actually committed the violation you speak of. You bet.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
And some of us will do a lot more than simply Defending when we catch them IN THE ACT. Some of us will, when we finally find out who did what to whom, hunt them down to Punish them. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg...@... wrote: Jay, I love you like a brother, but you still don't understand libertarianism. We will defend ourselves against folks doing stuff to us, we won't do things to other folks. The Zero Aggression Principle is too simple to play in Network News. -- Ward Griffithswdg...@... - Jay P Hailey jayphai...@... wrote: From: Jay P Hailey jayphai...@... To: LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 8:01:36 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question - For example, Michael Jackson hired a Witch Doctor to cast a spell that would harm an enemy. It turned out that Witch Doctors cannot actually cast spells that harm people, but Jackson was too stupid to know that; he definitely INTENDED to do what he could to harm his enemy by Force. He committed, morally, the exact same attempted harm committed by Squeaky Fromm and the guy who wanted a hit man; yet he was never punished at all. Unless you count that he continued to be Michael Jackson as punishment. This is one area where the Libertopian, Free Market Anarchism deal falls down - punishment. The Libertopian system doesn't punish bad people worth a damn. However, if you wiegh the lack of punishment versus the lack of oppression... I find I am mostly okay with that. Curt pointed out and I have to agree - that we have to go by objective action and objective results. If we look at the Intent of the NY times Bomber, we have to get into everyone's intent. And then we wind up proactively arresting people when their actions show bad intent and we're back into the modern nation state, justifying tyrrany by saying it prevents unknown annd unseen bad people from doing hypothetical bad things. -*- Ward said Libertopians don't use bombs. I think this is too broad a statemment. Explosives are still useful for mining and remving tree stumps. Stupid people will still think it is a barrel of laughs to blow up things other thann stumps and hillsides. I think it's a mistake to assume that everyone in libertopia will have calm, rational, adult judgement. But I do think there's a lower floor of supid past which you're going to talk libertopians into killing you. But I think people of that calm, rational Adult judgement will ration out their force commesurate with the situation. At least I imagine that this is so - I have no direct experience of having calm, rational, adult judgement. Jay ~Meow!~ Yahoo! Groups Links
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Jay P Hailey jayphai...@... wrote: Like I said - I think we have to draw a line that leaves intent and other intangible things out but encloses objectively measurable effects. Otherwise, we're trying to decide how to detect, meaaure and resolve someone's intent as a conflict with someone else's rights. That's fine if you don't care abput MORALITY. Automobiles and robots and horses do not do Evil things, just things we might not like. But INTENT is very important when we deal with the Morality of human behavior. Are we to have the very same reaction to an automobile accident as to an intentional vehicular homicide? But I would forget about that word Rights. You always run into silly Conflicts with that word. If it can't be re-phrased in terms that do not include that word, in terms only of Initiation of Force, then there is something wrong with what you're trying to articulate. I have a Right to Food. I have a Right to Water. I have a Right to Education. I have a Right to Shoes. I have a Right not to see nekkid men in the streets. Gimme a break.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howl...@... wrote: At the Austrian Scholar's Conference 2010, there was a panel of Libertarian Lawyers that I found exceptionally interesting. One pointed out how the concept of punishment was actually a carry-over from Cannon Law of the church, as the state took over all social functions. It shouldn't take a fuckin SCHOLAR'S CONFERENCE to know that ain't so. Paybacks have been around far longer than the Catholic Church and have nothing to do with any Religion. You think the Hatfields and the McCoys gave a thought to The Church when they acted up? Jeez, there are societies that have never heard of ANY organized Religion that get pissed and go for payback. L.Neil himself told me about Indian tribes who were fond of flaying and the like. There are a bunch of talks entitled Practicing Law In Light Of Rothbard, and it's in there. Anyway, the gist of the talk is that the same action, if proven to have been deliberate, can have punitive damages There ya go. Human nature cries for vengeance. You can set it up in Law, or you can wait until *I* do it and then find out that you can't punish *ME* any more than you could punish the guy I wanted you to punish. , but as Jay points out, how can anyone know intent? First of all, that is quite a different question from Is it Immoral to Punish if you *DO* know Intent? Second, often it is EASY to prove Intent. Like when the guy sneaks into your house, breaks your lock, and rapes your favorite wife while she is screaming Cut it out! on the surveillance video. The same underlying message was in the movie _Minority Report_. That had to do with Intent alone, with no ATTEMPT at all. It is the ATTEMPT that ought to be Punished. But if we're going to Appeal To Authority in El Neil, then we aught to also cite _Timepeeper_, where he has no death penalty what so ever, save at the time of the crime, at the hands of the intended victim. First, he puts some things into novels that he does not actually advocate; but the Death Penalty AFTER THE FACT he has advocated in several places other than the Necktie Party article... for example, the Empire of Lies speech. http://www.lneilsmith.org/empireoflies.html Second, if that is The Rule, fine, but then I can simply SUE the Intended Victim for the Approved Settlement Amount, kill him while he sleeps, and pay that amount as the Approved Settlement Amount for MY crime. Neat. Jolly. How come you guys never bother to think these things through? The fact is that community standards will apply to adjudication just as it does to everything else. In the Viking lands, Danegeld was the price of a man's life. At the same time, while the _price_ might be paid by a wealthy man who decided to kill someone, their reputations meant more than the money. Yep, Honor Killings will abound. More over, what if in the intervening years, the subject has turned his life around and is a positive asset to community? Who cares about The Community? He is not to be Punished because his life needs turning around, he is being Punished because THE VICTIM desires that he be Punished. Some Victims are Pacifists; I would expect them to be juicy targets, but that is their right. Does his bad intent 15 years ago outweigh his good intent now? Like German concentration camp guards found 40 years later? Yeah, always seemed like overkill to me, too. That ought to be entirely up to The Victim. There ought to be *NO* Punishment for ANY Crime if The Victim forgives (perhaps because she was bought off, which is illegal now but ought to be legal - Michael Jackson again). Of course, in the case of a Murder, the Victim cannot forgive, so you get the Maximum Punishment, even 40 years later, so watch out.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: There is also a market for initiation... As long demonstrated by history. Absolutely. One reason why it is better to have an Justice League institution than to have plain Market Anarchy.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
Is a Justice League, that does nothing but ENFORCE THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE, a State? Sure, it could be unstable. But it is a lot more stable than Anarchy, which has never lasted more than a year anywhere... always degenerates into Initiation Of Force, since only Market forces are at work and as we know there is a big Market for Initiation of Force against Witches, Blasphemers, Drug Merchandisers, Sheepfuckers, and Duelers. Neither Iceland, nor Ireland, nor Ibeland, nor Ideland, nor Ifeland had Anarchy for more than a year. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: At 05:23 PM 5/9/2010, you wrote: --- In mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.comLibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wraith@ wrote: There is also a market for initiation... As long demonstrated by history. Absolutely. One reason why it is better to have an Justice League institution than to have plain Market Anarchy. Ah... The wonders of minarchy. Being a little bit statist is like being a little bit pregnant... ^^
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
There are a lot more places than the USA. Which Article did the Chinese Justice System grow from? The British had a Justice System long before the Colonies began. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewil...@... wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wraith@ wrote: At 05:23 PM 5/9/2010, you wrote: --- In mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.comlibertarianenterpr...@y\ ahoogroups.com, Wraith wraith@ wrote: There is also a market for initiation... As long demonstrated by history. Absolutely. One reason why it is better to have an Justice League institution than to have plain Market Anarchy. Ah... The wonders of minarchy. Being a little bit statist is like being a little bit pregnant... ^^ Amen to that. Jim Davies has written a couple of interesting articles about how the US Justice system grew from the acorn of a nearly blank Article III in the Constitution.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
He has Initiated Force against some people (those who might have been harmed if he had been a little smarter). Therefore anyone who was at risk, AND anyone who is a friend of such a person and is asked to retaliate, may blow the sonofabitch away without Initiating Force - it is only a Response to an earlier Initiation. Yes, if all we are allowed is DEFENSE, then no one will EVER be hunted down and punished. One second after raping your favorite wife, a perp can walk away and all you can do is sue him for monetary damages. I say screw that, a victim if Initiation of Force ought to be able to retaliate without being held to be Initiating Force. The hell with DEFENSE ONLY. If we stick to that, then CRIME PAYS, since embezzlers and shoplifters and the like will only have to pay back WHEN THEY? ARE CAUGHT, and the times they are NOT caught it's all gravy, no risk of being hunted down after the fact, screw that. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Jay P Hailey jayphai...@... wrote: I was driving along with my friend today We were discussing the Tines Square Bombing attempt. The suspect is alleged - note these two words - he is a suspect because he has NOT been found guilty, and his actions are alleged because they haven't been proven by evidence. But leaving that aside - He is alleged to have placed fertilizer, gasoline and propane tanks in his vehicle with the intent that they should explode and hurt bystanders. So - in libertopia, we have arbitration and restitution as our legal basis. Free Market arbitration and assessment of damages. Okay. On Anti-war I have heard a lot of talk that two street vendors and a homeless man idenntified the bomb and alerted the police... Okay - so, because they were standing nearest to the vehicle that was rigged with the intent of explodiing... Let's say they are the plaintiffs - the complainants. Although the alleged dumb bomber didn't know them he wound up targeting them for attempted murder But his attempt failed utterly. His bomb was rigged badly, and nothing damaging happened. Assume for the sake of argument that the bomber has comitted the act, and that his intent was to murder random folks to make a ppolitical statement. As he approaches the parking spot, if our two street vendors and the homeless man identify the bomber, and his vehicle as a threat - they are entitled to take action to defend themselves, up to shooting and killing the bomber in order to prevent his attempt to damage them. But after he's left, and his vehicle fails to detonate - and THEN his attempt to hurt these ppeople is discoveered to have happened... What is the damage? My knee jerk is that bomber is liable for the amount of their lives*, and their belongings - as well as the damage to local privately owned property... But none off that stuff was damaged. No one suffered an actual, objective loss - the bomber's intent was to kill people and these three people are obviously the people in the threatened area But tey weren't hurt. They siffered no actual loss. What is their claim against the bomber? Is there any way to sanction the Bomber in order to say As a cultural issue, we'd prefer you not blow people and their stuff up? Or does he get a You don;t know how to build a bomb pass and damage to his reputation as a result? How does that work in Libertopia? -*- * I assume that a monetary value can be assessed for a human life, based on expected life time eanrings and rules of thumb concerning his emotional value to his lived ones. I don't say thhat this is the ONLY value, or even the Primary value of any given human - that depends on spiritual beliefs and principles that are hard to quantify - as a matter of arbitration, insurance and other social uses - we have to use the handles we have. We can only measure the parts of a humann being we have good systems of meeasurement for. So we can measure expected life time earnings and make some guesses about other values any given person brought to his loved ones. That's the value we use for arbitration of murder or injury to a human being. The ineffable values of a human being are beyond the scope of a social conflict resolution system - the fact that our arbitration customs cannot address these should not be construed to imply that we don't think they exist, or matter. Jay ~Meow!~ We do not write because we want to; we write because we have to. - W. Somerset Maugham Jay ~Meow!~
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg...@... wrote: Let's say they are the plaintiffs - the complainants. Although the alleged dumb bomber didn't know them he wound up targeting them for attempted murder Attempted Murder, unless there was assault involved, is not a crime in any jurisdiction I know of. Sure it is. Lots of guys are incarcerated each year because they hired a hit man who was actually incapable of harming the target - almost all hit men are undercover police officers. When someone hires one of these, he THINKS that he is going to have someone killed, but his method is bound to fail. It is his INTENT that current Law punishes. Likewise, Squeaky Fromm was imprisoned despite the fact that her weapon was harmless. On the other hand, current Law is very inconsistent on this. For example, Michael Jackson hired a Witch Doctor to cast a spell that would harm an enemy. It turned out that Witch Doctors cannot actually cast spells that harm people, but Jackson was too stupid to know that; he definitely INTENDED to do what he could to harm his enemy by Force. He committed, morally, the exact same attempted harm committed by Squeaky Fromm and the guy who wanted a hit man; yet he was never punished at all.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howl...@... wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: I say screw that, a victim if Initiation of Force ought to be able to retaliate without being held to be Initiating Force. The hell with DEFENSE ONLY. Then be ready to die, as the others defend themselves against you. Ah, but it is EASY to kill the asshole without being CAUGHT IN THE ACT. Then, according to you Defense-Only nutjobs, no one is morally entitled to hunt me down AFTER THE FACT. I am sure you noticed that I keep saying AFTER THE FACT. and the times they are NOT caught it's all gravy, no risk of being hunted down after the fact, screw that. Non sequiter. If they are not caught, they cannot therefore be hunted down. Oh so sorry, you WERE too dumb to notice that I said AFTER THE FACT Obviously I was referring to not being caught IN THE ACT, since I said they were not at risk of being hunted down **AFTER THE FACT**. Unless, of course, your actual purpose is simply violent emotional gratification by lashing out at the nearest convenient target. Not at all. My actual prupose (ONE of my actual purposes) is violent emotional gratification by lashing out at THE GUILTY. I despise Terrorists; they harm the INNOCENT. I am selective. In which case, be prepared to die as they defend themselves. Nah, I can easily kill just about anyone without being caught IN THE ACT. He's gotta sleep sometime. He ain't got eyes in the back of his head. Once I shoot the guy in the back, I throw down my Glock and mosey off. None of your DEFENSE-ONLY nutjobs will defend himself then, since at that point none of them is being attacked. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA And none of them will hunt me down AFTER THE FACT, since that is not Self Defense. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Logic
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Another of Larry's masturbation halucinations
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg...@... wrote: How many Favorite wives do you you have, Larry? Most of us have only one favorite wife at a time even when we're polygynous. My senior wife is my favorite at this time. But the junior wife is awfully good. Yes, if all we are allowed is DEFENSE, then no one will EVER be hunted down and punished. So you insist on the imaginary right of offense. Not at all. You liar. You know that I vigorously support the Non-Aggression Principle. Many of us will defend ourselves and those we love, ethically. Of course. But when you come home and see some asshole has ALREADY done the deed and walked away, you DEFENSE-ONLY nuts will do nothing, right? You object when *I* hunt the bastards down, so YOU wouldn't do it, right? Right? AFTER THE FACT? Right?
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: A question -
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Jay P Hailey jayphai...@... wrote: This is one area where the Libertopian, Free Market Anarchism deal falls down - punishment. The Libertopian system doesn't punish bad people worth a damn. Libertarian society CAN punish violations of the Non-Aggression Principle.. It is entirely moral to have a Justice League that helps Victims hunt down and punish Aggressors. After all, enforcing NAP is never a violation of NAP. A guy I know named L.Neil Smith does not favor this Self-Defense Only crap: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle285-20040822-02.html No more secrets, no more lies. Can anyone write a better campaign slogan? Specifically, I said that government secrets must be forbidden by law, and that any government employee who is convicted of lying to any member of the public **FOR ANY REASON** must be hanged by the neck in public and on prime time network television until he or she is dead. -- L.Neil Smith, Necktie Party (emphasis mine) See that? Neil envisions a libertarian society that BY LAW hunts people down AFTER THE FACT and kills them.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Texas Cops punish Nudist, and Badnarik still advocates enforcement of evil Law
Fuckin shitheads, and Badnarik takes THEIR side. This is an important issue. SCREW YOU, BADNARIK http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20357750,00.html Erykah Badu Fined $500 for Controversial Nude Video By Mike Fleeman Saturday April 03, 2010 11:45 AM EDT Erykah Badu Fined $500 for Controversial Nude Video Erykah Badu says her new video is about liberating herself from layers of inhibiting demons. Now police want to liberate her wallet of some cash. The singer will be issued a disorderly conduct citation carrying a $500 fine for stripping off all her clothes and feigning being shot in the head in Dallas's Dealey Plaza, where John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Police initially said no citizens complained after the video for Window Seat was filmed March 13, but after it hit the Internet one witness came forward: a woman with two children who said she was offended to see Badu disrobe in public, the Dallas Morning News reports. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/040310dnmetbaducomplaint.20ba68e58.html Dallas police to cite Erykah Badu for disorderly conduct over naked Dealey Plaza video 09:18 AM CDT on Saturday, April 3, 2010 By TANYA EISERER / The Dallas Morning News teise...@dallasnews.com Erykah Badu took her clothes off, but Dallas officials have decided it is the city that feels stripped of its dignity. After consulting with city prosecutors, the Dallas Police Department has decided that it will issue a disorderly conduct citation to the Grammy-winning artist for getting naked in Dealey Plaza last month. Initially, police said they had no complaints about the taping of the video, and had no plans to pursue any charges. But after the video went viral Monday, the subsequent brouhaha made national headlines and became the subject of talk radio and the blogosphere. Dallas Police Deputy Chief Mike Genovesi, who oversees the special investigations division, said Friday that he expects that citation about as serious as a traffic ticket will be issued next week. In a news release, police state that Badu had disrobed in a public place without regard to other individuals and children who were in close proximity. Genovesi said police had one witness had come forward Thursday, and told authorities that she observed Ms. Badu remove her clothing on the public street. The witness had two small children with her and was offended. Not that there aren't more than a hundred thousand witnesses if you factor in the people who have watched the many versions of the video posted on YouTube. In the video, for the song Window Seat, Badu strips down as she strolls toward the location where President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. A rifle sound, edited into the video, rings out and she collapses to the pavement as bystanders watch. Badu, 39, is a graduate of Dallas' Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing and Visual Arts. She is a Dallas native. Her representatives could not be reached for comment Friday. On Monday, she told The Dallas Morning News that the video was a protest and about liberating yourself. It was shot in one take on March 13, according to Badu. City officials say she failed to obtain the proper permits to produce the video. Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway said Thursday that he wants to consider an ordinance levying tougher penalties, such as a big fine, on people who produce a for-profit film within the city limits without the proper permits. City Attorney Tom Perkins said he had viewed the video, but he declined to comment on what he thought about it. Once we receive the information from the police department and she is mailed the complaint, we will start the prosecution process, Perkins said Friday. Disorderly conduct is a Class C misdemeanor. Police said the ticket will be mailed to Badu. She can choose to pay the fine or go to court. The fine: $500. The publicity: Priceless.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Vermont Secession Strategy
More interesting, and more doable, is the possibility of a New Hampshire Town seceding from NH and becoming a Vermont Town - far from the Vermont Cops! New Hampshire has accepted this in principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killington,_Vermont_secession_movement In 2005, the New Hampshire legislature passed HB 288 establishing the Killington Incorporation Commission, a three-person body created to meet with a counterpart body in Vermont. The Commission, established in New Hampshire, met in November 2005 and notified the Governor, Senate President and Speaker of the House in Vermont that they were assembled and ready to meet. Of course, what New Hampshire was thinking of was a Vermont Town becoming part of NH, but the Principle is the same... and there are all these Free Statists to support the idea in NH. When Grafton becomes part of Vermont, then the NH State Police no longer have any jurisdiction there - and the Vermont State Police are a fur piece away! No more Merle-invites-Concord-in-to-bust-the-meth-lab! And the locals can vote to make every parcel of land worth next to nothing, so Vermont cannot Tax them more than a teeny amount. I have been promoting this idea for almost 5 years. Never gonna happen, but it is really doable - except for the part where the U.S. Congress must approve. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, wdg...@... wrote: Most of the details about Vermont apply to New Hampshire. Although new Hampshire doesn't have the history of having been a free republic (as I recall, Vermont was an independent country for an even shorter period than California was), but New Hampshire does have access to the Atlantic Ocean, something Vermont needs to ask permission from socialist enclaves like Canada and Massachusetts to reach. Of course, New Hampshire is also the place the Free State Project is working on, and while the Free State Project is not a secessionist organization (we just want to get freedom activists into the territory), quite a few members among the early movers _are_ secessionists. Just by luck the FSP chose the state where my roots are deepest (my mother's family has been in New Hampshire since about the time of the Salem trials, I don't know if there is a connection to the move north, but it's fun to speculate). We're more than halfway there. This month the FSP passed 10,000 members. 20,000 is the magic number where people really have promised to move. (I want to move earlier, but La Esposa has some health problems and I have a crappy low-pay dead-end job with medical insurance, so I can't open my restaurant for a while yet). -- Ward Griffithswdg...@... home.comcast.net/~wdg3rd The Bible says (in Palms 90:10) that The days of our years are threescore years and ten, yet Xtians frequently defy G-d's will and continue to preach rather than commit suicide on their 70th birthday. Yeah, the Psalm says you're allowed to live to eighty, but you're going to suffer if you do that, so you might as well just kill yourself. Suicide is not a sin in the Old Testament, and I can't find the spot in the New Testament that changes the status. (This blasphemy is an original from me [wdg3rd], the sort of thing I strive for). - Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewil...@... wrote: From: Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewil...@... To: LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:15:58 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [LibertarianEnterprise] Vermont Secession Strategy http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/sale4.1.1.html Vermont Secession Strategy by Kirkpatrick Sale Recently by Kirkpatrick Sale: `To the Size of States There Is a Limit': Measurements for the Success of Secession Thomas Naylor has just outlined the strategy that the Second Vermont Republic is operating under in a paper he has distributed this week. Though it is (very) specific to Vermont, where there are now at least nine candidates for the fall election, it should be of interest and perhaps instruction to secessionists everywhere. The text follows: The Problem: The American Empire is the largest, wealthiest, most powerful, most materialistic, most racist, most militaristic, most violent empire of all time. It is owned, operated, and controlled by Wall Street, Corporate America, and the Israeli Lobby. It has lost its moral authority and is unsustainable, ungovernable, and, therefore, unfixable. Opportunities: 1. The Vermont Mystique. Classic red barns, covered bridges, the picturesque patchwork pattern of small farms, black-and-white Holsteins, tiny villages, little rivers, ridges, hollows, valleys,
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Larkin Rose has some interesting comments related to the Joe Stack event.
Excellent commentary as usual from Mr. Rose. But I like Heinlein's comment on the subject, in Starship Troopers: My mother said violence never solves anything. So? Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewil...@... wrote: Larkin Rose has some interesting comments related to the Joe Stack event. -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 . . . Can Violence Solve Violence? Rarely do I hear anything from Stefan Molyneux that I can substantively disagree with, so allow me to jump on this rare opportunity to take issue with something he said. (I'm hoping this rant finds its way to him, and I'm betting one of you forwarding it to him will work better and faster than me trying to find his e- mail address in my infinite, messy pile of stuff.) In a recent podcast, where he gave his thoughts on the Joe Stack incident, Stefan asserted that violence cannot be solved with violence. Partly true, partly false. Here is the link for that clip: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1588_true_news_joe_stac\ k_irs.mp3 http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1588_true_news_joe_stac\ k_irs.mp3 I think Stefan would agree that the initiation of violence is a symptom of something not being right in the head of the aggressor. And it is absolutely true that the root CAUSE of the aggression cannot be fixed via more violence. However, the EFFECT (or symptom) of that problem CAN be. As a very simple example, if someone breaks into my house at night, my 12-gauge is not going to repair whatever mental damage led the guy to want to do such a thing. However, it has a good chance of stopping the EFFECT of his psychosis. In such an instance, my goal would not be to fix what is wrong with the invader, but to prevent the potential SYMPTOMS of his psychological problems. Likewise, the irrational belief in the myth of authority is the direct cause of the vast majority of theft, assault and murder in the world. The people at the IRS, for example, routinely commit harassment, terrorism, extortion and robbery, because they truly believe that when something evil is legalized, it ceases to be evil. They (and their victims) have been indoctrinated to believe that theft is bad, UNLESS authority does it, in which case theft (tax collection / law enforcement) is GOOD, and RESISTING it is bad. So the root cause of the problem is their indoctrination into the cult of authoritarianism, and all the propaganda and rhetoric they were fed about law, taxation, government, and all the other bunk which is designed to paint theft as a GOOD thing when the slave-masters do it, and only bad when us peasants do it. And the SOLUTION to that problem is, quite literally, deprogramming people out of the most dangerous superstition: the belief in authority (the notion that some people have the right to rule others). So no, cursing at, punching, shooting, or blowing up IRS employees cannot fix that underlying problem. HOWEVER--and this is a big however--while delusions remain, violence can sometimes deter the EFFECTS of those delusions. No matter how much an IRS employee has bought into the state propaganda, if he thinks he might die if he keeps on robbing people (collecting taxes, as he would call it), he might choose a new career. The underlying problem would remain, but the symptom, in that case, would disappear, as would some of the potential resulting damage. In general, it's a bad idea to focus on treating the SYMPTOMS of a problem, instead of treating the problem itself. This is true in medicine, economics, philosophy, and just about everything else. However, if the symptom of ONE person's problem is the SUFFERING of another, then treating the symptom is a worthwhile goal, for the sake of the innocent victim. Suppose someone came up with a way to convince all 100,000 or so employees of the IRS that if they showed up for work the next day-- or ever again--they would all die horrible deaths. And suppose they could be made to believe that without any of them actually being harmed. Frankly, I would be thrilled. Though it would do nothing to address the underlying problem--that the state's hired thieves believe legal theft to be morally righteous--it would, on a practical level, deter them from victimizing others as a result of their delusions. So the question is, when do we focus our efforts on trying to enlighten the deluded, and when do we do whatever it takes to stop the deluded from hurting people? My answer is, we should continually focus on both. Those of us who know that we own ourselves have the absolute right to do whatever it takes to stop others from initiating violence against us, whether they fully understand what they're doing or not. At the same time, it sure would be nice if we
[LibertarianEnterprise] Victim of Initiation of Force needs help from police to hunt the perps down
http://origin.tampabays10.com/news/local/afternoon/tryit/story.aspx?storyid=83284 St. Petersburg, Florida St. Petersburg Police are looking for two people who mugged a man in a wheelchair on the Pinellas Trail. The victim told police he was held up at knifepoint and robbed. -- Troll ^^
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Kaptain Krazy?
Of course. I said whiner because Britton says that whenever *I* complain about some Aggression, and then Dennis chimes in and says right on. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: At 11:55 AM 2/9/2010, you wrote: --- In mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.comLibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewilson@ wrote: THE STATE SHOULD NOT BECOME INVOLVED! whiner Troll ^^ Zack, the State is simply short hand for those who will use force to impose their will and perspective. Anyone who seeks such power, is the very LAST who should have it.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Kaptain Krazy?
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howl...@... wrote: If the man have no interest in the child, and the woman has it _anyway_, he is just as much off the hook as the woman would be if she chose not to finish the pregnancy regardless of what the man wanted. BOTH ought to be off the hook in ALL cases, whether the baby becomes Born or not. Surely we don't want THE STATE Forcing people to support their children when they do not choose to do so! A major step forward would be if all those people who wanted to make the decision for others would put their pennies where their mouths are and fund serious research into fetal transplant or artificial womb. There ya go! NO Government interference in Child Support.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Kaptain Krazy?
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewil...@... wrote: THE STATE SHOULD NOT BECOME INVOLVED! whiner
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: 'Fraud Kits' are NOT an *Initiation* of fraud.
Everything you say would be correct in a place where there was such a Threat of Initiation of Force. Fraud IS indeed an acceptable response to Initiation of Force OR Fraud. However, I do not believe that Egypt is such a place. but that is top be seen. For now, can we agree that, in the absence of such Threats, a slut who defrauds a prospective Fuckor is violating ZAP/ZAP? And yes, that applies equally to men and to women; if a woman does not want to fuck a man who is a Negro, or who is not a Virgin, or who does not have a million bucks, then it would be RAPE to tell her otherwise in order to get into her panties. Same for a Woman who tells a man a lie in order to fuck him or marry him. And in fact this happened in a reality show on TV a couple of years ago, some women wanted to fuck a millionaire Bachelor, but they didn't want to fuck just anybody, and this guy LIED ans said he was a Millionaire and fucled them under false pretenses. FRANCE is an example of a place where there is no threat of Violence if a woman is not a Virgin, a place where women do NOT have to marry if they do not want to. And yet women are practicing the same kind of FRAUD and the PC Liberals still try to justify it: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_Ccid=1213871239419pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout === === A court in the northern city of Lille has annulled the marriage of a young Muslim couple after the groom complained his bride was not virgin as she claimed to be. The husband said his bride had deceived him on one of the essential elements of the marriage. The bride acknowledged that she had led her groom to believe that she was a virgin when she had already had sexual intercourse. ... politicians, feminists, and rights activists saw the ruling as an affront to the legal equality of men and women and a violation of a woman's privacy, reported Times. The protests continue. [I'm] shocked to see that today in France the civil law can be used to diminish the status of women, Valerie Letard, Minister for Women's Rights, said. (Times) ... It is interesting to note here that the virginity issue is highlighted and not the deception itself. Although we don't know if the intention of the bride was deception, never the less, in any case involving deception, courts of law in any country would annul a contract when it is based on such, and the accused party admits the guilt. The sexuality of women in France is a private and free matter, said feminist Elisabeth Badinter. The annulment will just serve to send young Muslim girls running to hospitals to have their hymens restored, she claimed. === === So... can we agree that it would be proper to criminalize the USE of Fraud Kits IN FRANCE? And perhaps also in Egypt, or some other countries, if it is shown that, like France, they do not in fact use Violence against non-Virgins who do not use FRAUD to hide their sluthood from prospective Contractors? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Ann Morgan septit...@... wrote: I think I should point out what ought to be obvious, that in a great many cases, the use of these kits is not, in fact, an *initiation* of fraud, which would be a violation of the ZAP (zero aggression policy) which forbids the *initiation* of force, or fraud. The reason why, has to do with both the ZAP, and the idiotic culture which exists in Egypt and other such countries. The ZAP proscribes the initiation of force or fraud, or the THREAT of initiation of force or fraud. It does NOT proscribe the use of force or fraud as a *response*, once someone else has used, or threatened to use, force or fraud. Now, the culture in Egypt and other such countries is such, that a woman who has sex outside marriage, if this is found out, will have force initiated against HER, which is, in fact, a violation of the ZAP. To be specific, she will be killed, if not be her present or future husband, than by a mob led by self-appointed mullahs. And this will happen regardless of whether she is married, single, or chooses to get married in the future. The fact that a woman chooses to have sex does not violate the rights of anyone else, regardless of what the mullahs or other idiots in such countries think. Since a woman can expect, in such countries, to be killed if this is discovered, the *initiation* of a threat of violence against her is pretty much a given. Therefore, such kits, although a fraud, are not an INITIATION of fraud. They are a use of fraud in response to a previously existing threat of an initiation of force, and the use of such kits to prevent herself from being killed is no more a
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: 'Fraud Kits' are NOT an *Initiation* of fraud.
Read this article about Egypt. Seems pretty common for people to fuck and not get slaughtered. It is merely a SOCIAL thing - just like in the West, only more embarrassing. (Maybe you were thinking of Saudi Arabia.) http://www.weddingnight.com/honeymoon-traditions/0801-egypt-honeymoon.html == == A previously unheard of phenomenon has also become quite widespread among young people in Egypt in recent years: secret common-law (urfi) marriage. This consists of a simple contract drawn up between the two partners and signed by two witnesses supposedly fulfilling the Islamic requirements for a valid marriage. It is largely used by young people to circumvent the prohibition of pre-marital sex, though the option is not available to Christians. Since it is not registered at a government office, this type of `marriage' has no legal status. It is also temporary in nature. The simple act of tearing up both copies of the contract is enough to dissolve the marriage. Common-law marriages are used to circumvent vice laws, and have become a cause for growing concern among both government and religious officials. The religious, as opposed to legal, legitimacy of this type of marriage is debatable. == == --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: Everything you say would be correct in a place where there was such a Threat of Initiation of Force. Fraud IS indeed an acceptable response to Initiation of Force OR Fraud. However, I do not believe that Egypt is such a place. but that is top be seen. For now, can we agree that, in the absence of such Threats, a slut who defrauds a prospective Fuckor is violating ZAP/ZAP? And yes, that applies equally to men and to women; if a woman does not want to fuck a man who is a Negro, or who is not a Virgin, or who does not have a million bucks, then it would be RAPE to tell her otherwise in order to get into her panties. Same for a Woman who tells a man a lie in order to fuck him or marry him. And in fact this happened in a reality show on TV a couple of years ago, some women wanted to fuck a millionaire Bachelor, but they didn't want to fuck just anybody, and this guy LIED ans said he was a Millionaire and fucled them under false pretenses. FRANCE is an example of a place where there is no threat of Violence if a woman is not a Virgin, a place where women do NOT have to marry if they do not want to. And yet women are practicing the same kind of FRAUD and the PC Liberals still try to justify it: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_Ccid=1213871239419pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout === === A court in the northern city of Lille has annulled the marriage of a young Muslim couple after the groom complained his bride was not virgin as she claimed to be. The husband said his bride had deceived him on one of the essential elements of the marriage. The bride acknowledged that she had led her groom to believe that she was a virgin when she had already had sexual intercourse. ... politicians, feminists, and rights activists saw the ruling as an affront to the legal equality of men and women and a violation of a woman's privacy, reported Times. The protests continue. [I'm] shocked to see that today in France the civil law can be used to diminish the status of women, Valerie Letard, Minister for Women's Rights, said. (Times) ... It is interesting to note here that the virginity issue is highlighted and not the deception itself. Although we don't know if the intention of the bride was deception, never the less, in any case involving deception, courts of law in any country would annul a contract when it is based on such, and the accused party admits the guilt. The sexuality of women in France is a private and free matter, said feminist Elisabeth Badinter. The annulment will just serve to send young Muslim girls running to hospitals to have their hymens restored, she claimed. === === So... can we agree that it would be proper to criminalize the USE of Fraud Kits IN FRANCE? And perhaps also in Egypt, or some other countries, if it is shown that, like France, they do not in fact use Violence against non-Virgins who do not use FRAUD to hide their sluthood from prospective Contractors? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Ann Morgan septithol@ wrote: I think I should point out what
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: 'Fraud Kits' are NOT an *Initiation* of fraud.
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Boris Karpa microbal...@... wrote: So, under your logic, would it be okay for a woman to use such a kit if she IS a virgin? Not necessarily. In the (perhaps unlikely) event that a man wanted a virgin who had an intact hymen, it would be Fraud to claim that she did have one when she did not. For example, he might be planning to make money with a Video of her finest hour: http://Hymen.com (a Domain Name which I was the first to own, and made quite a profit when I sold it to these guys)
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: 'Fraud Kits' are NOT an *Initiation* of fraud.
Yes, you are absolutely right, when it is intentionally Fraud. Your case may be an instance of Breach of Contract, where the moron meant to fulfill the terms of the deal but changed his mind... this is not usually considered Criminal Fraud. Where someone DOES lie about his intentions to fulfill such a contract, this is in fact RAPE. I might add that you got an especially raw deal. I assure you that there ARE plenty of men (even heterosexual men) who derive great pleasure from pleasing their partners. And once again I admire your rationality in setting out the terms explicitly, and your balls for saying so here. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Ann Morgan septit...@... wrote: Zack Bass wrote: So... can we agree that it would be proper to criminalize the USE of Fraud Kits IN FRANCE? And perhaps also in Egypt, or some other countries, if it is shown that, like France, they do not in fact use Violence against non-Virgins who do not use FRAUD to hide their sluthood from prospective Contractors? Assuming that the goal of the use of the fraud kit is fraud, then yes, such an action would be a violation of the ZAP (I can imagine other possible goals of using such a kit, such as playing out a kinky fantasy). However, would you then be willing to ALSO criminalize fraud on the part of men? Case in point, my second (now ex) boyfriend, made me three specific promises before I had sex with him, namely to not repeat the actions of my first boyfriend in three matters: 1. Not to push me away after having sex with him. 2. To try to get me off 3. Not to insult me if I ever asked him to get me off. During the six months I had a relationship with him, he broke all three promises, and acted just like boyfriend #1. He pushed me away and left the room every time he was done getting what he wanted. He never even TRIED to get me off, and when, after 6 months, I reminded him that he had promised to, he chose to insult me instead. (At which point I did the same thing I did when boyfriend #1 did this, and broke up with him). To my mind, THIS was fraud. If you want to criminalize the deceitful use of fraud kits by women, are you also willing to criminalize such lies by men? - Ann
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: 'Fraud Kits' are NOT an *Initiation* of fraud.
1: Yep, you're right. 2: Yes, I see. 3: I agree. 4, 5, 6,... X: Yup all the way down. Guys just get off and that's it, no problem, but how some women get off is a mystery to men (and often to the women themselves, although you don't seem to be that kind of personality). I once had an affair with a girl whose husband had told me that she never had an orgasm with him (we weren't sneaking around, he had another girl living with them and she made a deal with him and I was the deal). Well, I didn't really try, since it was known to be impossible, but she was VERY horny and fun, and she even sometimes had the type of walnut shell texture in there that is said to be associated with (or actually IS) a G-Spot, and which I thought at the time was some kind of varicose veins - which I have noticed with only one other girl, and both of them were Jewish, for what THAT is worth. Striking facts: This girl told me that she had in fact had an orgasm once. It was when she was taking the entrance exam for USF in an auditorium, she was squirming around in her seat and BANG! Interestingly, her father was a Math professor at the University of Tampa. She was crazy about intelligence... her husband was a genius, and back then so was I, and several of their kids were genii too - her first kid (he was two when we had that affair) later wrote the very first book published by Microsoft Press, when he was a teenager. One more strange fact, where I was working a few years later we got a Temp, who turned out to be her sister. She described to several of us how she would have orgasms just by being in a rain forest... I have no idea how the subject came up, she was only there a few days. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Ann Morgan septit...@... wrote: Zack, you wrote: Yes, you are absolutely right, when it is intentionally Fraud. Your case may be an instance of Breach of Contract, where the moron meant to fulfill the terms of the deal but changed his mind... this is not usually considered Criminal Fraud. Where someone DOES lie about his intentions to fulfill such a contract, this is in fact RAPE. You know, I don't give a crap if he 'changed his mind' or not, for a number of reasons. First of all, as I mentioned, I was going with him for 6 months, and it never occured to him during all that time to inform me that he had 'changed his mind' and never intended to keep any of his three promises? So far as I am concerned, even if he meant his promises at the time he made them, his failure to inform me that he had changed his mind, but to continue to have sex with me, constitutes criminal fraud. Further more, he committed additional fraud AFTER we broke up, and repeatedly lied to me, claiming that he had tried many times to get me off, and was never able to. That's crap. He never tried. And I found a man last year who actually DID bother to try, and had no problem whatsoever getting me off in less than 5 minutes (unfortunately he didn't want to see me again. :-( What is more, I got him to admit to this fraud himself, when I got him sufficiently agitated in an argument on Yahoo messenger, and he finally admitted that he 'didn't like' trying to get off someone with my particular sort of personality. Well, that's just a bunch of bullshit. The ZAP doesn't say not to initiate force or fraud 'unless you don't like' someone's personality. Or the way they look. So far as I'm concerned, if someone makes a promise, they had better keep it regardless of whether they 'like' it or not, unless they are physically unable to. I don't always 'like' keeping my promises. Case in point, many years ago I went to a large anniversary celebration for a local hardware store. They had a 'Wheel of Fortune' in the store, which you could spin, and pick different prizes, depending on what number you got. The best prizes were gotten if you spun a '1'. I told my younger brother that if I got a '1' on the wheel, I would get him a large stuffed 'Ninja Turtle' figure that they had. I never really thought that I would get a '1'. Well, I spun the wheel, and as it turned out, I got a '1'. I would much rather have gotten the jacket that they had for myself, but I sucked it up and got the Ninja Turtle figure for my brother. Why? Because I had told him that I would. I'm tired of people not doing things because they don't 'like' them. I have to deal with a princess at work who is supposed to be helping me, but instead hides in the office and takes 4 hours to do 30 minutes worth of paper work, because she doesn't 'like' doing heavy lifting, so I get to do a double share of it. I happened to mention to this princess the other day that I got 'extremely busy' during the month of October, mainly due to working on Halloween related activities. She said that was strange, because unlike me, she not only had a job, but also a husband and three
[LibertarianEnterprise] Egypt to ban Fraud Kits
Egyptian lawmakers are proposing to outlaw a certain kind of Initiation of Fraud - faking virginity, i.e. tricking a man into behavior which would not be forthcoming if he knew the Truth. And of course now Liberals are complaining - defending the Right of sluts to obtain goods and services by Fraud. http://glossynews.com/science-and-technology/gadgets-and-gizmos/200910070300/egypt-to-ban-lab-fabricated-hymens/
[LibertarianEnterprise] Letterman - Reverse Morality in New York Law
Bob Halderman has been arrested and indicted for a Victimless Crime: Offering to keep quiet about something David Letterman did, in exchange for a couple of million dollars. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125449900451259695.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews In a libertarian regime, this would not be punished, because Halderman would perfectly justified in actually DOING what he offered to do (keep quiet), and moreover would be perfectly justified in doing what he threatened to do (expose Letterman's actions). Thus he did not Initiate Force, nor did he Threaten to Initiate Force. But suppose Letterman had told him, I won't pay you anything, but if you do expose me I will ask the Authorities to imprison you for Extortion. Then Letterman would not have been committing a Crime under New York Law, even though this IS a Threat to Initiate Force. Thus New York Law makes a Crime of a Victimless Act, and does not punish Initiation of Force and indeed encourages it and engages in it.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Uppity Fed - census snoop gets it - GO KENTUCKY!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord Government Worker killed in nearby Concord Lexington, April 19. 1775 Was anti-government anger behind the death of a Government worker found dead this morning? At least one Government Worker was shot to death today. He is said to have been looking for illegal firearms. The Government suspended door-to-door interviews in the rural area while investigators tried to determine whether the death was a killing or a suicide, and if a killing, whether the motive was anti-government sentiment. This certainly seems like something committed by a person with an anti-government bone to pick, said Doug Mataconis in Below the Beltway. But there's no evidence yet to suggest that's true, so nobody should jump to conclusions. My immediate curiosity is whether this had something to do with an illegal weapon operation, said Robert Stacy McCain in The Other McCain, rather than 'anti-government sentiment.' Gun dealers don't like to have people snooping around -- and that's what Government workers do. So wait before you swallow any kind of politicized Let's-Blame-Glenn-Beck speculation. The Crown Investigators will have to answer the question of whether anti-government sentiment had anything to do with the Government worker's death, said Shannon Bell in Right Pundits. One can only hope that this isolated incident will not result in those who speak out against the government being lumped in with a killer. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: (queue the Queen song...) http://www.theweek.com/article/index/100773/The_hanging_of_Bill_Sparkman The hanging of Bill Sparkman Was anti-government anger behind the death of a census worker found dead with fed scrawled on his chest? U.S. News Opinion Thursday, September 24, 2009 The hanging of Bill Sparkman The FBI is investigating the death of U.S. Census worker Bill Sparkman, 51, whose body was hanging found near a Kentucky cemetery with the word fed scrawled on its chest. The Census suspended door-to-door interviews in the rural area while investigators tried to determine whether the death was a killing or a suicide, and if a killing, whether the motive was anti-government sentiment. This certainly seems like something committed by a person with an anti-government bone to pick, said Doug Mataconis in Below the Beltway. But there's no evidence yet to suggest that's true, so nobody should jump to conclusions. My immediate curiosity is whether this had something to do with a moonshine or drug operation, said Robert Stacy McCain in The Other McCain, rather than 'anti-government sentiment.' Drug dealers don't like to have people snooping around -- and that's what Census workers do. So wait before you swallow any kind of politicized Let's-Blame-Glenn-Beck speculation. The FBI will have to answer the question of whether anti-government sentiment had anything to do with Bill Sparkman's death, said Shannon Bell in Right Pundits. One can only hope that this isolated incident will not result in those who speak out against the government being lumped in with a killer.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: One simple question for Michael Badnarik
In my attempts to get an answer to the question, I wrote to a girl I know well, who had praised Badnarik in public last time she mentioned him. Now she comes up with the following. (She must have thought I meant that he was going to run for Sheriff in Montana, not Texas.) None of this is a negative in my book (note that he agrees with ME on a Victim's Retaliation), but obviously the author of this letter thought so - and she's a lot closer to the Granny types. But I'll keep asking The Question; eventually we'll know The Answer. == == I wouldn't trust him, he isn't qualified. He just wants to carry a gun, He is considered by many here in Austin to be a communist. He is also an atheist. You do not want him in Montana. He really isn't qualified to do anything like that. He has no clue what to do, and his ego is huge. This is a very bad idea. Badnarik is not sheriff material. He is a self absorbed egotist. Trust me, I was very friendly with him for a while and he is stupid as sludge, scared to death. Once he saw an EMT worker looking for an address and he hid in the closet with his gun on. He thought people were coming to get him. He is such a loser here in Texas that he needs to go to Montana to be some hot shot. Sorry to sound so negative, the man is considered by some of his long term 'friends' to be a square. Plus... he is a very angry man... holds it all in. What he told me was when his campaign manager took off a couple of weeks before the campaign (for rep in Texas) he blamed him for his loss, and told me that he wanted to kill him... the only thing that kept him from killing him was he couldn't figure out what to do with the body. He said he thought of this for months and would kill him if he could of figured out how to hide the body so he wouldn't be caught... I am not joking about this. People need to know this... I do not think he is very stable either. He is not sheriff material. Good to hear from you. I hope you can influence this, it would be a disaster. He is not what he portrays himself to be. == == --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, zakbas zak...@... wrote: http://badnarikforsheriff.com/ I have been told that Michael Badnarik will run for Sheriff in a Texas County. I have one burning question about that: It is well established that it is perfectly legal in Texas, and not even any kind of misfeasance or malfeasance or nonfeasance, for a Sheriff to ignore a Texas State Law. One example is the Dildo Law. Most County Sheriffs simply ignore that Law with impunity. My question is this: if you are elected, will you refuse to punish, arrest, or harass people enjoying their libertarian right of public nudity? Or will you pander to the shitheads and Initiate Force against us? Please reply with your answer to: curi...@...
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewil...@... wrote: ... civil wars in Africa, drug wars in South America, or even Gengis Khan in Mongolia. They claim that these things, which are actually examples of competing governments, are what life without government will produce. I don't make that claim. My claim is that, if you start with no Government and let things proceed, Governments (as you are using the term here - which, I believe means force-INITIATING Agencies correct me if I got it wrong since you don't define it) WILL BE FORMED. That is what the shitheads always want to do. Without something in place at the inception of this governmentless condition, something that works strongly against the formation of Force-INITIATING Agencies, the same people who today want to punish drug dealing and blasphemy and institute things like Sharia Law will form such Agencies to make the world they like. Thus you WILL have those competing governments. A substantial Majority of Texans want to punish cocksucking between males (not heterosexual couples). The only thing stopping them is the threat of Federal Marshals coming in to protect the men they want to incarcerate. Those same people, if there were no Government in Texas, would form a well-funded Agency to punish queers. To say that we can start with no Government and live well because IOceland allegedly did it once is disingenuous. If Iceland did it, you'd have to figure out why it worked that one time and has always promptly failed everywhere else. Well, here find that: ... the Icelandic Commonwealth between 930 and 1262 had 'some features' of an anarcho-capitalist society while there was a single legal system, enforcement of law was entirely private and highly capitalist; and so provides some evidence of how such a society would function. 'Even where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially public offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism Excuse me, if enforcement of The Law is ENTIRELY Private, what constrains the Private Enforcement Agencies to follow the Single Legal System? If you want your neighbor's horse, and he doesn't want to sell it at any price, what prevents your hiring a Private Army to take it from him CONTRARY TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM'S LAWS? In that case, there was another System - your own; not just one. No, there were Laws that were Enforced - we know that has to be the case if there was a Single Legal System; and the Security Firms were NOT entirely Private, they had to answer to something higher. That something higher is what I have continually insisted is needed; and David Friedman insists that that is what Iceland had. As I have said, it does not have to be a Force-INITIATING Agency; it can be an Agency that enforces NAP and nothing else. But it has to be strong enough to stand against all the mafias and Tongs and Inquisitions so many people are so find of. Some Anarchists label that a Government and gut-reflex oppose it. Some Anarchists do not label that a Government because it does not Initiate Force It is just swell to have Private Law Enforcement Agencies available to the highest bidder. It is a nightmare to have THE LAW ITSELF written by the highest bidder. Another common objection to stateless legal enforcement systems is to ask for just one example of where it has worked. Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and well-documented historical example of how a stateless legal order can work and it provides insights as to how we might create a more just and efficient society today. continued here: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121 http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
Iceland did not have a condition of Anarchy for more than a year at any time. Anarchy has always promptly degenerated into Force-Initiating Agencies. That doesn't mean it can't be rigged up correctly, but it never has so far. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewil...@... wrote: Iceland collapsed in the year 1262, 290 years after it was founded. Roderick Long points out that it only took 85 years for the United States to have its first civil war. That Iceland lasted so long is impressive. The collapse did not occur until after almost three centuries of relatively peaceful living had gone by. Roderick T. Long states, We should be cautious in labeling as a failure a political experiment that flourished longer than the United States has even existed. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Lee Wilson dennisleewilson@ wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Zack Bass zakbas@ wrote: [snip] It will exist longer than Anarchy can exist! The arrangement that has been PROVEN over and over to be almost immediately unstable is Anarchy! No condition of Anarchy has ever persisted for more than a year without degenerating into Authoritarianism. Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government by Thomas Whiston [Posted December 25, 2002] [0] Those who claim that government is the source of social order say that in its absence there would be violence, chaos, and a low standard of living. They cite civil wars in Africa, drug wars in South America, or even Gengis Khan in Mongolia. They claim that these things, which are actually examples of competing governments, are what life without government will produce. Another common objection to stateless legal enforcement systems is to ask for just one example of where it has worked. Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and well-documented historical example of how a stateless legal order can work and it provides insights as to how we might create a more just and efficient society today. continued here: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121 http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
See, the mistake you are making is that you think that Initiation is part of the definition of the word Coercion. It is not. The definition of the word Coercion includes threats of non-Initiatory Force. The concept of Initiation does not appear in the definition of the word Coercion. That is why libertarians use the term INITIATION OF FORCE. It is purely a semantic problem of course, but it is annoying to have people use words in non-standard ways. The whole point of inventing words was to Communicate. How do we get the bank robber into the patrol car without Coercion? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howl...@... wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 01:44 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote: If you do not get off my lawn I will shoot you. Rape me and I'll kill you. Both of these are Coercion by Intimidation. But neither of them is an Initiation of Force, or even a Threat of Initiation of Force. Neither is coercion. They are both self defense. The coercive individuals are the rapist and the trespasser. Those are the ones who had to INITIATE their abuse of private property. I'm glad I only saw Wraith's response to this idiot. My email filter must be working nicely. Curt- - -- The Magistrate, enrobed in taxes, condemns the thief in stolen rags. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBSoSAXy9Y35yItIgBAQJa6wf+P5HNqqECJdhgGJnR15KCYGCTI0pbHVNg Byi1VuT6RrqUlaj656m/3oQ5VyAlkvBwNQ75qp/MMupLNSmrYfMfp4XnR6nOB4Ss RlgVjIepcVo6y6C8TCyf9/+LHN/kddOLqZKUFJqN4lQ4QFmizS//JgJxNsCaHCZR 21JGSPoMU+G3/tbzVAzJMwaX+qMptfFV7Dizzah5VWwDwwcWCEZoCpzEMnybOYU0 UuBhx9hRBaMZPKMkwmcabJvJFLcyzILdMpv7gLWi5910QuASiZjVUXIsVble22cs 5918jJlxDRuByVjIpgAmyeqaZVGPLebx4ATXjFsX2cvdm7pU6FseXA== =PCgu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: At 02:48 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that saying to a trespasser, If you don't get off my lawn I will shoot you is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle? Unwarranted assumption on your part. Unattractive evasion on your part.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
Here's an example: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-notable-libertarian-theorists-and-authors == == Libertarians make coercion specific by defining it as the use of physical force, the threat of such, or deception (fraud) that alters, or is intended to alter, the way individuals' would use their property (including their body) if those elements were not present. == == See that? The Force and Threats described above may or may not be Initiatory. Nothing in the definition limits Coercion to INITIATION OF FORCE. In particular, threatening to kill someone IF he rapes you is COERCION, by the definition of Coercion, because it is a Threat intended to alter the behavior of the prospective perp - specifically, to make him avoid Raping you, when he would rape you if the Threat were not present. This is an example of Coercion (a Threat of the USE of Force) that is not an Initiation of Force and is not a Threat of Initiation of Force. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: See, the mistake you are making is that you think that Initiation is part of the definition of the word Coercion. It is not. The definition of the word Coercion includes threats of non-Initiatory Force. The concept of Initiation does not appear in the definition of the word Coercion. That is why libertarians use the term INITIATION OF FORCE. It is purely a semantic problem of course, but it is annoying to have people use words in non-standard ways. The whole point of inventing words was to Communicate. How do we get the bank robber into the patrol car without Coercion? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howland@ wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 01:44 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote: If you do not get off my lawn I will shoot you. Rape me and I'll kill you. Both of these are Coercion by Intimidation. But neither of them is an Initiation of Force, or even a Threat of Initiation of Force. Neither is coercion. They are both self defense. The coercive individuals are the rapist and the trespasser. Those are the ones who had to INITIATE their abuse of private property. I'm glad I only saw Wraith's response to this idiot. My email filter must be working nicely. Curt- - -- The Magistrate, enrobed in taxes, condemns the thief in stolen rags. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBSoSAXy9Y35yItIgBAQJa6wf+P5HNqqECJdhgGJnR15KCYGCTI0pbHVNg Byi1VuT6RrqUlaj656m/3oQ5VyAlkvBwNQ75qp/MMupLNSmrYfMfp4XnR6nOB4Ss RlgVjIepcVo6y6C8TCyf9/+LHN/kddOLqZKUFJqN4lQ4QFmizS//JgJxNsCaHCZR 21JGSPoMU+G3/tbzVAzJMwaX+qMptfFV7Dizzah5VWwDwwcWCEZoCpzEMnybOYU0 UuBhx9hRBaMZPKMkwmcabJvJFLcyzILdMpv7gLWi5910QuASiZjVUXIsVble22cs 5918jJlxDRuByVjIpgAmyeqaZVGPLebx4ATXjFsX2cvdm7pU6FseXA== =PCgu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: Negative coercion is wrong because it is initiation. No, negative coercion may easily be justifiable - when it is not Initiation of Force and is not a Threat of Initiation of Force. As in, IF you rape me THEN I will kill you. That is a Threat all right, but it is only a Threat to do something that you are entitled to do - respond after the fact with overwhelming retaliatory Force.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
The response (a Threat) is perfectly justified Coercion, because it is not Initiation of Force or even a Threat to Initiate Force. Thus we agree that that Threat is not a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehl...@... wrote: The trespasser has initiated force. The response is in defense of property. Any questions? Zack Bass wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Wraith wraith@ wrote: At 02:48 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that saying to a trespasser, If you don't get off my lawn I will shoot you is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle? Unwarranted assumption on your part. Unattractive evasion on your part.
[LibertarianEnterprise] The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
On the front page of LP.org today: http://www.lp.org/ Libertarians oppose not only the White House's plans for government-run medicine, but the use of violence to achieve political or social goals. Excuse me, nothing about the Principles of Libertarianism is inconsistent with the use of Violence. The only restriction on our Violence is that we do not INITIATE it. Any libertarian may choose to kill his oppressor (for political goals or any other goals he has in mind) without ceasing to be a libertarian; the only relevant fact is that the other guy started it. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwelnat.htm Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell, 1945
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
To you and to me and to most libertarians, sure; but to those libertarians who are Pacifists it is not an option. Note how they snuck onto the LP page a prohibition against any and all USE of Violence, not just its Initiation: Libertarians oppose... the use of violence to achieve political... goals. Fortunately, the very first Plank in the LP Platform is still the Non-Aggression Principle: = = 1.0Personal Liberty ... No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. = = This Principle, known as NAP or cutely ZAP, allows for unlimited retaliation and retribution, but not INITIATION of Force. Many libertarians abjure unlimited retaliation,, but a NAP Libertarian can follow the Non-Aggression Principle and still retaliate as much as he wishes; if the other guy doesn't like it, he shouldn't have STARTED it. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehl...@... wrote: Huh? Self defense is always permissible. Zack Bass wrote: On the front page of LP.org today: http://www.lp.org/ http://www.lp.org/ Libertarians oppose not only the White House's plans for government-run medicine, but the use of violence to achieve political or social goals. Excuse me, nothing about the Principles of Libertarianism is inconsistent with the use of Violence. The only restriction on our Violence is that we do not INITIATE it. Any libertarian may choose to kill his oppressor (for political goals or any other goals he has in mind) without ceasing to be a libertarian; the only relevant fact is that the other guy started it. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwelnat.htm http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwelnat.htm Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell, 1945
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Nudity Laws and Sharia Laws abound in the U.S. and Pakistan
Oh darn, I just invented the Crotchless Burka and Googled it and got 147 hits, I'm too late. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: At 12:07 PM 8/6/2009, you wrote: Right on! Of course, where you live there are Laws too, the difference being that everyone there has unanimously Consented to follow those rules. The problem arises when shitheads decide that some Majority (The People) will make Rules that one or more guys have not Consented to. Isn't Democracy WONDERFUL!...evil grin Its all about numbers(power). That's ALL that matters to the politicians and interest groups involved.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
He didn't mean to, he just didn't consider all the possibilities - despite the fact that I have shown them to him before. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Boris Karpa microbal...@... wrote: Yeah, go ahead, insult all the minarchists on this list. On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Wraith wra...@... wrote: At 07:49 AM 8/13/2009, you wrote: To you and to me and to most libertarians, sure; but to those libertarians who are Pacifists it is not an option. Note how they snuck onto the LP page a prohibition against any and all USE of Violence, not just its Initiation: Libertarians oppose... the use of violence to achieve political... goals. Fortunately, the very first Plank in the LP Platform is still the Non-Aggression Principle: = = 1.0 Personal Liberty ... No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. = = This Principle, known as NAP or cutely ZAP, allows for unlimited retaliation and retribution, but not INITIATION of Force. Many libertarians abjure unlimited retaliation,, but a NAP Libertarian can follow the Non-Aggression Principle and still retaliate as much as he wishes; if the other guy doesn't like it, he shouldn't have STARTED it. The so called party of Principle has forgotten what this is all about, in its focus on gaining Power within the system. If you think about it, any form of coercive government would by its nature violate the ZAP. Thus real libertarians would be anarchists.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: The so called party of Principle has forgotten what this is all about, in its focus on gaining Power within the system. If you think about it, any form of coercive government would by its nature violate the ZAP. Thus real libertarians would be anarchists. Well, not quite. A powerful Force-using Agency that never Initiated Force would not violate the Non-Aggression Principle. For example, an overwhelmingly powerful We Don't Like Murder Agency could exist. Or one that punished Initiation of Force generally. Neither of those would violate NAP - for as long as it did not Initiate Force. They would constitute a Libertarian Government without being Anarchist. Enforcing NAP without Initiating Force is possible, despite all the yelling from the Anarchists. I have done it. You can do it. Retaliation and Vengeance are fun.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html Who is a libertarian? A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. L. Neil Smith Thus someone who uses Force against Initiators of Force could still be a libertarian - even if he set up or supported a Government that did exactly that and no more. Not all libertarians are Pacifists and Anarchists. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Eric Pavao rkbab...@... wrote: Wraith wra...@... wrote: The so called party of Principle has forgotten what this is all about, in its focus on gaining Power within the system. If you think about it, any form of coercive government would by its nature violate the ZAP. Thus real libertarians would be anarchists. would be? Real libertarians ARE anarchists. Boris Karpa Wrote: Yeah, go ahead, insult all the minarchists on this list. Why on earth would someone who is not a libertarian be on this list? --Eric -- -- Where Guns Are Outlawed Terrorists Need Only Boxcutters RKBA! http://RKBAbang.com/
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
You are using the word coercion incorrectly. It is possible for Coercion to be used without the Initiation of Force. Consider any Threat designed to gain Compliance: If you do not get off my lawn I will shoot you. Rape me and I'll kill you. Both of these are Coercion by Intimidation. But neither of them is an Initiation of Force, or even a Threat of Initiation of Force. They are merely a Threat of RETALIATION, and NAP allows us Retaliation if we choose to enjoy it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. 2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howl...@... wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 13 August 2009, Eric Pavao was heard to say: Real libertarians ARE anarchists. Boris Karpa Wrote: Yeah, go ahead, insult all the minarchists on this list. Why on earth would someone who is not a libertarian be on this list? Ayn Rand didn't like Libertarians, specifically because she was a minarchist and the NAP precludes any functional monopoly on coercion. Like a little bit pregnant, or somewhat on time, either initiating force is wrong for everyone, or it isn't. Either coercion is a valid form of interpersonal interaction, or it is not. Curt- - -- The Magistrate, enrobed in taxes, condemns the thief in stolen rags. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBSoRlIC9Y35yItIgBAQKu9gf/Z7d0JvPdr1OxP7usAqgybEZUTZzbuZ/t TOoHUKxKg7/XE2pyfrVji8XIwX7nBomAIIYx72GDe1PjlMp2EFjr2c+4A84LwCKx J6oU9NvnYclP//0mGbn8R6CJUaO5r1Ag2oy6dw6UwPZd7BPvjOT9tH3MsQJLDYWj PkrCWFhGL6lQj1lvSiJPtGv7nhzXndddshPzQqizpHMR/MKb6OfMD/CaGCDYtV8x GEYSn/tp2Grd3v7PGRaHsz4T9AURY5KBuw1nVYPEifLKyDstia4L9sGfEFQdXNzU hcGN/cdqer5eaywwC/068vTM08Nq59ZCqhlsE8suTKqDF3JqKvlPyA== =cpk5 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: The Pacifists do their part to destroy the Libertarian Party
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: Enforcing NAP without Initiating Force is possible, despite all the yelling from the Anarchists. I have done it. You can do it. Retaliation and Vengeance are fun. Did you note my use of the word coercive? Given the choice, I'd rather have restitution than revenge. And I 'd rather have a blow job. What you would rather have is irrelevant. The important thing is that we avoid Initiation of Force. What we do, within that restriction, does not make us non-libertarian. Some of us enjoy Retaliation, some prefer restitution. Neither is morally wrong, it's simply a case of Personal Preference. Coercive does not imply Initiation of Force.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Nudity Laws and Sharia Laws abound in the U.S. and Pakistan
A prominent FSP Member (what they were called at the time, now they are Participants) named Thom Simmons once threatened to cut off my penis with garden shears if I neglected to wear clothes ON MY OWN PROPERTY next door to his house. Many self-proclaimed libertarians still support Nudity Laws. The funny thing is that every one of them also opposes the Government-Forced wearing of Burkas! There is no moral difference; there is no more justification to force a woman to cover her clitoris in public than there is to force her to wear a burka in public. Or to force a man to cover his penis in public. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/03/2644541.htm Journalist 'ready for 40,000 lashes' Posted Mon Aug 3, 2009 3:01pm AEST Updated Mon Aug 3, 2009 3:02pm AEST A Sudanese journalist facing 40 lashes for wearing indecent trousers has vowed on the eve of her judgment that she is ready to be whipped 40,000 times in her bid to change the country's harsh laws. Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, who works for the media department of the United Nations Mission in Sudan, is to be judged on Tuesday after waiving the immunity granted to UN workers. She is to be judged under Article 152 of Sudanese law, which promises 40 lashes for anyone who commits an indecent act which violates public morality or wears indecent clothing. I'm ready for anything to happen. I'm absolutely not afraid of the verdict, said Hussein, who is in her 30s and whose husband died of kidney failure. Police arrested Hussein and 12 other women wearing trousers at a Khartoum restaurant on July 3. Two days later 10 of the women accepted a punishment of 10 lashes, but Hussein is appealing in a bid to eliminate such rough justice. The other two women are also facing charges. If I'm sentenced to be whipped, or to anything else, I will appeal. I will see it through to the end, to the constitutional court if necessary, Hussein said. And if the constitutional court says the law is constitutional, I'm ready to be whipped not 40 but 40,000 times. Hussein invited scores of journalists to her first court hearing on Wednesday, when she made a point of wearing the same clothes she wore when she was arrested - moss-green slacks with a loose floral top and green headscarf. Hordes of people, many of them female supporters and some also wearing trousers out of solidarity, crammed into the courthouse for the hearing. 'Unconstitutional' My main objective is to get rid of Article 152, Hussein said. This article is against both the constitution and sharia, the Islamic law ruling northern Sudan. Adding insult to injury, some of the women whipped in July were from animist and Christian south Sudan where sharia law does not apply. If some people refer to the sharia to justify flagellating women because of what they wear, then let them show me which Koranic verses or Hadith [sayings of the Prophet Mohammed] say so. I haven't found them. Unlike many other Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, women have a prominent place in Sudanese public life. Nevertheless, human rights organisations say some of the country's laws discriminate against women. Tens of thousands of women and girls have been whipped for their clothes these last 20 years. It's not rare in Sudan, Hussein said. It's just that none of them would dare complain, because who would believe that they were whipped just for wearing trousers? They're afraid of scandal, of raising doubts about their morals. I want people to know. I want these women's voices to be heard.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Update on Philip Luty
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Ken Holder khol...@... wrote: Philip has been arrested again, this time for aiding and abetting terrorism on account of some suspected (or actual) terrorists were found with copies of his books and such in their possession. I understand that several Abortion Terrorists have been found to have copies of The Holy Bible in their possession. Has the Author of that Book been prosecuted?
[LibertarianEnterprise] Obama extends federal benefits to polygamous Domestic Partners?
Just how does he define Domestic Partner? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087sid=ar3fMvMxR.RQ The presidential memorandum Obama will sign this afternoon will allow domestic partners of civil service employees to be added to the long-term care insurance program... Some of the benefits being expanded today were already permissible at the discretion of employee supervisors. Berry said the memorandum will make the benefits mandatory.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Knifes
Thet are alerting us to an Evil from Customs, but I do wish these alarmist press releases would be honest. In this case, the lie is here: The proposal would not only outlaw assisted opening knives, its overly broad new definition of a switchblade would also include all one-handed opening knives and most other pocket knives! ... this proposal would make it illegal for the estimated 40 million law-abiding Americans who own and carry pocket knives to do so. However, the truth is that this proposal does NOT make carrying anything illegal! It pertains to Importing. If YOUR State chooses to make a knife illegal to possess or to carry, that is the fault of YOUR STATE, not the Feds. Florida explicitly allows the possession and carrying of switchblade knives. I have several. I bought them on the internet. It is possible that the seller violated a Federal Law by selling them to me across a State iine, but the Feds do not consider ME a criminal, because the Law applies only to the SALE of the knives, not the PURCHASE. It is perfectly legal even under Federal Law for a knife dealer to buy switchblade knives across State lines. And in **SOME** States (e.g. Florida) it is perfectly legal for them to be SOLD within the State. So if YOUR STATE oppresses you, don't blame the Feds for that. The Feds are bad enough, making it hard to import them and transport them across State lines, without having to adulterate your argument with LIES. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wra...@... wrote: It seems that The Usual Suspects are at it yet again. Having lost in the recent case in the US supreme court(guns), they have attempted to sneak in a change that impacts knifes. Here are the details. http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=81Itemid=1
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Knifes
See http://theswitchblade.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNTStore_Code=TKGASK and the links at http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/switchblade/ --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: Thet are alerting us to an Evil from Customs, but I do wish these alarmist press releases would be honest. In this case, the lie is here: The proposal would not only outlaw assisted opening knives, its overly broad new definition of a switchblade would also include all one-handed opening knives and most other pocket knives! ... this proposal would make it illegal for the estimated 40 million law-abiding Americans who own and carry pocket knives to do so. However, the truth is that this proposal does NOT make carrying anything illegal! It pertains to Importing. If YOUR State chooses to make a knife illegal to possess or to carry, that is the fault of YOUR STATE, not the Feds. Florida explicitly allows the possession and carrying of switchblade knives. I have several. I bought them on the internet. It is possible that the seller violated a Federal Law by selling them to me across a State iine, but the Feds do not consider ME a criminal, because the Law applies only to the SALE of the knives, not the PURCHASE. It is perfectly legal even under Federal Law for a knife dealer to buy switchblade knives across State lines. And in **SOME** States (e.g. Florida) it is perfectly legal for them to be SOLD within the State. So if YOUR STATE oppresses you, don't blame the Feds for that. The Feds are bad enough, making it hard to import them and transport them across State lines, without having to adulterate your argument with LIES. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith wraith@ wrote: It seems that The Usual Suspects are at it yet again. Having lost in the recent case in the US supreme court(guns), they have attempted to sneak in a change that impacts knifes. Here are the details. http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=81Itemid=1
[LibertarianEnterprise] Hypocrisy - Michael Savage wants open border into Britain
After all that anti-immigration rhetoric, fighting to keep us from bringing our Mexican and Filipina friends here to visit us, Michael Savage is now whining oh so publicly about not being allowed to cross the British Border at will. I just love hypocrisy. And Irony. Hypocrisy and irony. I could sit and watch them all day. SHUT THE HELL UP, MR. WEINER, IT'S YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO BRING MY JUNIOR WIFE HERE FROM THE PHILIPPINES. I HOPE YOU ARE NEVER ALLOWED TO TRAVEL ACROSS ANOTHER BORDER FOR THE REST OF YOUR MISERABLE LIFE.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Do Alpha Male Geeks Scare Women Away from Libertarianism?
Substitute libertarian for programmer and libertarianism for programming and read it again... maybe the popular explanation is not the most accurate one? Disclaimer: I am a programmer and my graduate work was in mathematics... that's why I am so meek and tame. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Do-Alpha-Male-Geeks-Scare-Women-Away-from-Programming-834170/?kc=EWKNLCSM05052009STR1 Do Alpha Male Geeks Scare Women Away from Programming? By: Darryl K. Taft 2009-04-30 Why are there so fewer women programmers than men? Do alpha male geeks keep them away? David Heinemeier Hansson, creator of Ruby on Rails and self-proclaimed R-rated male, raises the questions and offers some observations. Why are there so fewer women programmers than men? Do alpha male geeks keep them away? David Heinemeier Hansson, creator of the popular Ruby on Rails Web application development platform recently posed this question in a blog post. Said Hansson: I just can't get into the argument that women are being kept out of programming because the male programmer is such a testosterone-powered alpha specimen of our species. Compared to most other male groups that I've experienced, the average programmer ranks only just above mathematicians in being meek, tame, and introverted. Indeed, some have long said that one reason the open-source ranks have had fewer women than men was because of the vociferous nature of the open-source software movement in its early days and that women just did not want to be part of the discussion, which some deemed more of an argument or rant. Yet, women such as the Open Source Diva Danese Cooper of Sun, Intel and now Revolution Computing, stand as proof that women can take the heat and cook in the same kitchen as men. But there just are not enough Daneses out there, Hansson is saying. Hansson's post on women in technology followed one where he described himself as an R rated person. When I talk to musicians, doctors, lawyers or just about any other profession that has a fair mix of men and women, I don't find that these men are less R rated than programmers and that's scaring off women from these fields, he said. Quite the contrary in fact. Hansson said he believes the theory that macho programmers chase women away from the field is bunk. He adds: Now that doesn't mean the underlying problem isn't worth dealing with. It absolutely is! I think that the world of programming could be much more interesting if more women were part of it. I wish I knew how to make that happen. If I find out, I'll be the first to champion it. Here's to Mr. Hansson. Bringing more women into the field is an issue we all ought to champion.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Economics for idiots 101
Exactly right. Better yet, buy HOUSES. When the price doubles, sell half of the houses. Pay off the loans. Last month I bought a foreclosed house for 65% of what the guy owed the bank - less than half of what it was appraised at a year ago. Bank of America gave me a fixed-rate loan at 5.125%. And foreclosed-house prices will continue to fall for another year, at which point people who are buying them up will have increased the market price and all will have adjusted. By 2012 at the latest you'll have doubled all your money, even better than Gold - and it's easier to borrow money from a bank to buy a House than to buy a billet of Gold. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehl...@... wrote: Government spending will create massive inflation. Borrow as much as you can, buy gold. When the price doubles sell one half of the gold. Pay off the loans. Now you know why banks don't want to create any new loans. Bill Koehler Albuquerque, NM
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: hope
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Mike Blessing mikewb1...@... wrote: On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland wrote: The problem, as I see it, is that all the prohibition in the world hasn't stopped it, so relying on prohibition is just like staying married to an alcoholic on the theory that they'll change. All the prohibition in the world has not stopped Murder either. What's your point? Considering that the laws outlawing murder haven't stopped it, maybe the point was that laws aren't the way to solve problems. I'm afraid that WAS his point. But having an Agency that punishes those who Murder IS quite effective, even though it doesn't entirely stop Murder. The Threat of Punishment keeps a LOT of people from committing Murder, just as such Threats also keep down the levels of prostitution, practicing medicine without a license, cockfighting, carrying concealed weapons, and failure to wear seatbelts.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Judicial Activists gnawing on the Constitution again
There have been many times that State Legislatures have Voted DOWN the ERA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment === === ... the only occurrence favorable to the ERA between the original deadline of March 22, 1979, and the revised June 30, 1982, expiration date wasâas noted earlierâits approval by the Florida House of Representatives on June 21, 1982. In the final week before the deadline, that ratifying resolution was defeated in the Florida Senate by a vote of 16 yeas and 22 nays. === === For another example, see this call to VOTE DOWN the ERA in the Illinois Legislature in 2003: http://www.eagleforum.org/era/2003/IFI-Alert.shtml ... and in fact the Legislature DID VOTE DOWN that bill. As usual. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Ken Holder khol...@... wrote: At 11:09 PM 2/7/2009, wdg...@... wrote: No, dimplick.the ERA was never voted _down_. It was simply never voted _for_ by enough state legislatures. Honest, there is a difference between voting _for_ something and voting _against_ something. Oh, come-on now, Ward! You trying to bring logic into the real world? You KNOW that will never fly! :-( Anyway: For a principle which every one must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 4, chapter 3 Ken Holder
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: hope
(Malum IN se.) Yes there is a BIG difference. So say that. Your objection was to the INEFFECTIVENESS of Prohibitions, whether of Malum In Se or of Malum Prohibitum. And the ineffectiveness of a Prohibition is not a valid argument against it. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehl...@... wrote: Zack Bass wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howland@ wrote: The problem, as I see it, is that all the prohibition in the world hasn't stopped it, so relying on prohibition is just like staying married to an alcoholic on the theory that they'll change. All the prohibition in the world has not stopped Murder either. What's your point? There is a difference between malum prohibitum and malum pro se that's the point
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: hope
(Malum IN Se. sigh) Malum PROHIBITUM is something that is illegal (Prohibited) just because The Law says so, but is not necessarily (but may also be) Malum IN Se. Has nothing to do with Religion aside from the fact that Religion is SOMETIMES the motivation for it. Malum IN Se is Evil, whether it is Prohibited or not. Something can be BOTH. You are getting them backward, turned the other way around in reverse as Bugs Bunny says. Not to mention persisting in typing Malum PRO Se when you mean Malum IN Se. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehl...@... wrote: Malum pro se is religion enacted into law. The view of some imposed on others. The effect is to enslave the latter. Zack Bass wrote: (Malum IN se.) Yes there is a BIG difference. So say that. Your objection was to the INEFFECTIVENESS of Prohibitions, whether of Malum In Se or of Malum Prohibitum. And the ineffectiveness of a Prohibition is not a valid argument against it. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Zack Bass wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howland@ wrote: The problem, as I see it, is that all the prohibition in the world hasn't stopped it, so relying on prohibition is just like staying married to an alcoholic on the theory that they'll change. All the prohibition in the world has not stopped Murder either. What's your point? There is a difference between malum prohibitum and malum pro se that's the point
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: hope
It is Slavery, among other things. Slavery is not always religiously motivated. Prohibition, however ineffective, is not always Evil. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehl...@... wrote: Every restriction of peaceful activity is slavery. Call it anything you wish. Zack Bass wrote: (Malum IN Se. sigh) Malum PROHIBITUM is something that is illegal (Prohibited) just because The Law says so, but is not necessarily (but may also be) Malum IN Se. Has nothing to do with Religion aside from the fact that Religion is SOMETIMES the motivation for it. Malum IN Se is Evil, whether it is Prohibited or not. Something can be BOTH. You are getting them backward, turned the other way around in reverse as Bugs Bunny says. Not to mention persisting in typing Malum PRO Se when you mean Malum IN Se. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Malum pro se is religion enacted into law. The view of some imposed on others. The effect is to enslave the latter. Zack Bass wrote: (Malum IN se.) Yes there is a BIG difference. So say that. Your objection was to the INEFFECTIVENESS of Prohibitions, whether of Malum In Se or of Malum Prohibitum. And the ineffectiveness of a Prohibition is not a valid argument against it. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Zack Bass wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howland@ wrote: The problem, as I see it, is that all the prohibition in the world hasn't stopped it, so relying on prohibition is just like staying married to an alcoholic on the theory that they'll change. All the prohibition in the world has not stopped Murder either. What's your point? There is a difference between malum prohibitum and malum pro se that's the point
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: hope
The one I already gave: Prohibition of Murder. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehl...@... wrote: Give one example where it is not evil. Zack Bass wrote: It is Slavery, among other things. Slavery is not always religiously motivated. Prohibition, however ineffective, is not always Evil. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Every restriction of peaceful activity is slavery. Call it anything you wish. Zack Bass wrote: (Malum IN Se. sigh) Malum PROHIBITUM is something that is illegal (Prohibited) just because The Law says so, but is not necessarily (but may also be) Malum IN Se. Has nothing to do with Religion aside from the fact that Religion is SOMETIMES the motivation for it. Malum IN Se is Evil, whether it is Prohibited or not. Something can be BOTH. You are getting them backward, turned the other way around in reverse as Bugs Bunny says. Not to mention persisting in typing Malum PRO Se when you mean Malum IN Se. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Malum pro se is religion enacted into law. The view of some imposed on others. The effect is to enslave the latter. Zack Bass wrote: (Malum IN se.) Yes there is a BIG difference. So say that. Your objection was to the INEFFECTIVENESS of Prohibitions, whether of Malum In Se or of Malum Prohibitum. And the ineffectiveness of a Prohibition is not a valid argument against it. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Zack Bass wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howland@ wrote: The problem, as I see it, is that all the prohibition in the world hasn't stopped it, so relying on prohibition is just like staying married to an alcoholic on the theory that they'll change. All the prohibition in the world has not stopped Murder either. What's your point? There is a difference between malum prohibitum and malum pro se that's the point
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: hope
Prohibition of Murder. Prohibition of Theft. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehl...@... wrote: I misspoke How about some examples of malum prohibitum that are not the whims of some over others? Zack Bass wrote: Malum IN Se has nothing to do with enactment into Law. Malum PROHIBITUM is that which is enacted into Law... and it may also be Malum IN Se. And Malum PRO Se is... well, there is no such thing. As I told you over A YEAR AGO when we had this same discussion. You don't learn quick do you. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howland@ wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 08 February 2009, Valentine Michael Smith was heard to say: Malum pro se is religion enacted into law. The view of some imposed on others. The effect is to enslave the latter. Exactly. Where no harm can be demonstrated, there is no crime. Murder is harm, the most permenant sort. So is assault, battery, trespassing, etc etc etc. Holding a plant, sacreficing a chicken, simply speeding, no harm can be demonstrated, so there is no crime. Voluntarily getting hurt, such as playing football, again there is no crime. You hurt yourself. Injuring, harming, even killing, in self defense is no crime, because without the attacker initiating force there would have been no incident. Accidents are not crimes, even if there is death, because rational people realize the universe is arbitrary and sometimes shit happens. There may be _negligence_ without intent to harm, but that must be proven before a response can be enacted. This is the most vague area of common law, and truly depends upon community standards. But that is what courts are for. Curt- - -- The Magistrate, enrobed in taxes, condemns the thief in stolen rags. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBSY8NVS9Y35yItIgBAQJs4Af+L9sSt0G+N1PbANMB8/ZlvRkdf2KNZx3r NrMp7fdkTNGT0TeQfZXO+KwtCmAxpUdir2OllTkHZT+e4YHgCgXnze/S6KdogwJI hHex/ebL38L+J/pk9yihA6vd9nyxWTDD7czfbQvnEoNoY9jeP+zJ7MuQjRsJpj1z PUPZDmd6vi77gbSSoClnhp2ZZSPAhZg2KbGaoPGY1pLBy4OGvZ4pTiV8WU9aIV4k 2hYaE+vJvGAuehnlz+Z9O6vHt4uR//fIrAUTrOTpfVQchZ7PJWVTRblwOp4x2w7+ OPa9NQJOowQlIHxW9yIutQKRRw83UMYzdGtFflHI79gsmFeC5u1DWg== =VQOQ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Minarchist?? Actually MINISTATIST is more appropriate!
Okay... --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Boris Karpa microbal...@... wrote: Claiming something is nonreligious doesn't make it morally right On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Zack Bass zak...@... wrote: From Jan. 21, 2008. 2008, see? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Zack Bass zakbas@ wrote: Do you remember what we are talking about? Can you read the quoted previous posts? YOU said that all Malum Prohibitum is Religion. Therefore I said that practicing medicine without a license is an example of Malum Prohibitum but it is NOT religion. A like counterexample like get it. Focus. duh --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: You're joking. Why should anyone need a license ? Must be your religion. It's not mine. Zack Bass wrote: Another example: practicing medicine without a license What religion is THAT? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: You are in fantasy land. All malum prohibitum is religion. You can fantasize about other reasons but when you impose your other reasons you have unlimited power . Traffic laws are a matter of ownership if I own the road I should be able to decide how it is used. Zack Bass wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: What if I create a church that makes all drug use a sacrament? The Drug Law we have in the U.S. right now is NOT Religion enacted into Law. Obviously you CAN invent a religion that makes, say, reckless driving a Sin; but the Law we have has nothing to do with Religion - Religion is NOT the reason the Law was Enacted. Malum prohibitum is religious law. Any way you slice it. No, it is merely Enacted Law, that is, something that is considered wrong (Malum) BECAUSE it is against The Law. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malum%20prohibitum http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malum%20prohibitum http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malum%20prohibitum http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malum%20prohibitum an offense prohibited by statute but not inherently evil or wrong (e.g. Drug Handling) And murder is malum pro se. Weird. Google has TWO count 'em TWO hits on malum pro se, and 16,600 on malum in se. As I wrote it.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: hope
Well, some DEFINE them so that they ARE mutually exclusive. By such a definition, we can't say much about them that is not a tautology. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehl...@... wrote: To quote John McEnroe You can't be serious. Zack Bass wrote: Yup. And in this case it is also Malum Prohibitum. As I stated a few hours ago, they are not mutually exclusive. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Last time I checked murder was malum in se Zack Bass wrote: The one I already gave: Prohibition of Murder. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Give one example where it is not evil. Zack Bass wrote: It is Slavery, among other things. Slavery is not always religiously motivated. Prohibition, however ineffective, is not always Evil. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Every restriction of peaceful activity is slavery. Call it anything you wish. Zack Bass wrote: (Malum IN Se. sigh) Malum PROHIBITUM is something that is illegal (Prohibited) just because The Law says so, but is not necessarily (but may also be) Malum IN Se. Has nothing to do with Religion aside from the fact that Religion is SOMETIMES the motivation for it. Malum IN Se is Evil, whether it is Prohibited or not. Something can be BOTH. You are getting them backward, turned the other way around in reverse as Bugs Bunny says. Not to mention persisting in typing Malum PRO Se when you mean Malum IN Se. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Malum pro se is religion enacted into law. The view of some imposed on others. The effect is to enslave the latter. Zack Bass wrote: (Malum IN se.) Yes there is a BIG difference. So say that. Your objection was to the INEFFECTIVENESS of Prohibitions, whether of Malum In Se or of Malum Prohibitum. And the ineffectiveness of a Prohibition is not a valid argument against it. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: Zack Bass wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howland@ wrote: The problem, as I see it, is that all the prohibition in the world hasn't stopped it, so relying on prohibition is just like staying married to an alcoholic on the theory that they'll change. All the prohibition in the world has not stopped Murder either. What's your point? There is a difference between malum prohibitum and malum pro se that's the point
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: on being precise
I made no representation as to what is Acceptable. Read. I am not telling you to do anything if you seek an unlicensed physician, I am telling you only that the Law against doing so is not a Religious Law. MY Religion does not exist; I despise the very idea of Religion, especially the concept of Worship. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehl...@... wrote: So then you think slavery is acceptable. If I choose to seek an unlicensed physician you are telling me to go screw myself I must practice your religion and pay for it to boot. Nice argument comrade. Zack Bass wrote: As I said in January 2008, Practicing Medicine Without A License. As I also said at that time, Duh. --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith bkoehler8@ wrote: All malum prohibitum of peaceful activites is religion enacted into law. Deal with it.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Judicial Activists gnawing on the Constitution again
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=411754 Two administrative judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California have ruled the U.S. government must pay health benefits to the same-sex partners of two federal lawyers -- one of whom is on the 9th Circuit's staff. In one of the rulings, Judge Stephen Reinhardt stated that the government's refusal to grant those benefits amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. Neither a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage justifies denial of federal benefits, Reinhardt stated. None of these shitheads has noticed that the ERA was VOTED DOWN - and even that was deliberately worded so that it would not have outlawed discrimination against queers even if it HAD passed. Absent such a Constitutional Amendment, the Constitution is at the same place it always was - with NO guarantees of Gender Equality.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: hope
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Eric Oppen techno...@... wrote: If all Simpson wanted was to get his own rightful property back, he had a lot of other options--- including calling the cops and filing a complaint about a theft. Barrelling in with a gun was incredibly stupid. What's your point? We already know he's stupid. You say that he had several options, including the one he took and some others. So? He chose one of the stupider options. So? If you see a man with your rightful Property, does The Law require that you stand there and watch him walk away while you try to find a phone?
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: hope
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland curt.howl...@... wrote: No force was in use with the simple posesion of his property by someone else. That means his use of force was in fact his initiating force in the situation. BULLSHIT. Are you seriously saying that the use of FORCE to get my rightful property back from the man who is keeping it from me is an Initiation Of Force? And that therefore it is Immoral to use Force to recover my Property? Libertarians do not agree with that! We honor Private Property - many libertarians consider the right to Property the BASIS for Morality. Filing suit after requesting his property back and being refused would have been the non-coercive method. Now you're are being incredibly stupid. What does filing suit mean? It means that you are going to a Court to get THEM to use Force for you! Which you have just said was Immoral. If it is Moral to get a Court to use Force for you, then it is Moral for you to take care of your own Property Retrieval. Duh. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwelnat.htm Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: hope
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Rick Pasotto r...@... wrote: On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:44:57PM -, Zack Bass wrote: ... a man is Not Guilty under The Law but the Jury just plain doesn't like him for whatever reason. My point is that according to John Adams, 1771, the Jury has the legal power to CONVICT him anyhow. Most Jury-Nullification advocates don't like that... they only like it when it gets a legally guilty man off the hook. If he is (obviously?) not guilty under the law then why did the DA bring charges? Why did the judge allow the trial to proceed? Must be a conspiracy. Surely you have heard of such things happening. What IS your point? Can;t you accept that there can be an example where a man is charged but is Not Guilty? If that is beyond your imagination, then you must be baffled by the fact that we have Trials at all, since the fact that the DA brought charges proves he is Guilty. MY point is that John Adams's maxim would have juries convicting men who have violated no Law just because the jury doesn't like him, even after they hear evidence that he is Not Guilty under The Law as written. YOUR point is obscure.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zack Bass wrote: Problem is, according to your statements, your guys are gonna start shooting at my guys, and mine are gonna try to shoot back. Well, that is one way of settling it, definition by death Or your guys could simply decide not to start shooting at my guys. I prefer things a little looser. Room for you and your crew to live in peace so long as you keep your slaves well chained; don't expect me and mine to give them back should they escape; we won't be your enforcers. Well that's all we have ever asked! I never once asked that your guys ENFORCE anything for us, only that they keep out of it. You know that. We'll be coming over to collect our Property ourselves.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, that's only because you prefer a government which will impose one set of definitions upon all -- yours. You will probably appreciate the cartoon on this site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freetownproject/ I got it straight out of a Li'l Abner book, unmodified. I was looking for depictions of my ideal girl, Moonbeam McSwine (REALLY ATTRACTIVE inside and out), and that jumped out at me.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
Gary wrote: Zack wrote: so Nora does what Oscar wants, but then he says, I decided I don't want to give you any stinkin Kidneys, so blow it out your ass! Jane is going to DIE full of Oscar's filthy semen, alienated from her true love Paul, unless some kind Arbitrator decides to make Oscar give up that kidney AS HE AGREED TO DO. Same deal, Zack; no specific performance. And if the deal was not a specific Kidney, but say a specific HOUSE, still no Specific Performance? Oscar wouldn't have to give her his House as he agreed to do? I think we've just solved the Housing Credit Crunch Problem - at the cost of ensuring that no one ever again will make a Mortgage Loan to anyone.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
And the same answer for Voluntary Taxation? Or is that something that is not inalienable. I think it's better to consider a man's Body as his Possession - and like all Possessions, it is his to bargain with. Otherwise what good is it? Why can't a man have the right to give his Life for his Friend? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zack Bass wrote: --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York gfyork@ wrote: I have no problem with consensual acts of any kind, not even bd or sm or voluntary sex slavery. The issue I've been exploring with Zack involves the limitations of contract. I think this may be part (by no means all) of the problem here. What is your meaning of Voluntary Slavery? Just this -- a game. It's over when one party no longer wants to play. From a natural rights perspective, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are inalienable. Meaning, those rights can neither (legitimately) be taken away nor given away. The natural rights position is sometimes awkward because there appear to be times when those rights are, say, forfeited. This latter doesn't seem to square too well with inalienable but then, I'm not a philosopher. Might be that problem was been worked out. From a pragmatic perspective, the people I want to have around me will neither care to enforce slavery contracts nor countenance violence from those who do. In my mind, it is not Slavery if you can just walk away. That is merely Employment or Recreation or some other innocuous indulgence. Correct. There IS and HAS BEEN such a thing as Voluntary Slavery, in which you enter into it Voluntarily (for whatever reason seems sufficient to you) but then you are constrained to remain - just as there could be such a thing as Voluntary Taxation, in which you agree to a schedule of Taxation (for whatever reason, erhaps in order to get the other guys to make the same commitment) and thenceforth are committed to that burden, even though after a while you very well might wish you could get out of it. I do not care to participate in a society will indulge slavers. So I won't construct' one. G.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The scenario is unrealistic. Organ banks wouldn't survive if they accepted Jane's organs from you. Again, you need to get out more. You have no idea how the world works. You cannot imagine how any normal person could countenance Slavery, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers were slavers and Slavery has been nearly universal throughout the entirety of human History and before, even into the second half of our own 19th century. Haven't you ever heard of Nazis? Of COURSE whole societies could have Contractual Kidney Sales and Voluntary Slavery (the real kind, that you can't get out of), since they have always had INVOLUNTARY SLAVERY. As for Organ Donors in sleazy operations, consider the Philippines, where people are trading in Organs VOLUNTARILY, TO THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED: http://www.asiaobserver.com/Phillippines-story1.htm And, of course, there are bleeding hearts like you trying to close that avenue to the poor desperate men trying to help their families. Kidneys for sale What do you do when there is no work? When your children are dying, and you cannot afford to pay a doctor? In the Bagong Lupa slum area in the Filipino capital at least 150 men have chosen to sell one of their kidneys. By John Einar Sandvand Manila, Philippines Napoleon Custodio (27) regrets that he donated his kidney for transplantation. Photo: John Einar Sandvand Marlene Maico was only two years old at the time. Then she fell sick. Very sick - with several diseases at the same time. Her life could only be saved if she was treated properly at a hospital. - But I had no money, says the father, 31-year-old Satur Maico. The family lived in a shanty in Bagong Lupa, a large slum area close to the harbor in Manila, the capital city of the Philippines. Garbage and sewage are floating below the shanties. There is visible damage after a typhon hit a few months earlier, in which many of the families lost their homes. For many people it is a depressing life. There is no work. At least not every day. And when they get something to do, residents say, pay is a meager 3 to 6 dollars. In this neighborhood a desparate Maico helplessly watched his daughter on the brink of death. Finally he chose what he considered to be his only alternative: He accepted that one of his two kidneys was removed from the body and transplanted into a man who was willing to pay. - I received 70.000 pesos (1750 USD) for my kidney. That is the smallest amount anyone has been paid in this area. But I was desperate and did not have much to negotiate with, says Satur Maico. Thus the daughter, who now is six years old, was admitted to hospital. The father could afford the 15.000 pesos fee. And she survived. Today a long scar at the right side of his body bear witness of Maico's sacrifice for his daughter. And at least 150 other men have the same scar in this slum area, according to Dalmacio Zeta, who makes a living as broker in the kidney trade. Kidney broker Dalmacio Zeta receives USD 300 for every kidney he can get hold of. Photo: John Einar Sandvand - I receive 12.000 pesos (300 USD) for every kidney I provide, tells Zeta (picture to the right). According to him, several brokers operate in other slum areas in Manila. As in many countries, there is a great need for human organs for transplantation in the Philippines. Only a fraction of relatives approached after the death of a family member accept donating organs for people in need. And not all patients have relatives willing to sacrifice one of their own kidneys. This situation makes some rich patients choose to open their wallet in search of a person who is willing to help save their lives. Despair In Bagong Lupa hardly anybody donates their kidneys out of compassion. Instead painful poverty and human despair are the motivating forces behind their acceptance when a broker like Dalmacio Zeta approaches them. - I would not have done it again, one donor, 27-year-old Napoleon Custodio (picture above), says. For him, what was promised to be a simple surgery, caused a number of problems. - I spent one year recovering. And even today I am not able to do heavy physical work. I also have to observe a number of restrictions, for instance as to what type of food I can eat, he says. In what seems to be a typical explanation in the Philippines, he says he made his sacrifice for his family. He received 75.000 pesos (1875 USD), of which half was given to his parents and the rest shared between himself and his six siblings. - Sometimes I cannot get job assignments because of my poor health. That makes me feel like I was cheated, he explains. His marriage also broke
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we agree that some sense of proportion is indicated? For instance, if you're five days late making the twenty dollar payment on your TV rental agreement, I don't get to come in and blow you away because the rent is overdue? Depends on the Agreement. Ordinarily I should expect that you get to take the TV - SPECIFICALLY - as in SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - rather than suing me for the Money. Same as if I mortgaged or pawned or otherwise promised my HOUSE or my Kidney, as Oscar did.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zack Bass wrote: And the same answer for Voluntary Taxation? Or is that something that is not inalienable. Can't say without knowing your idea of Voluntary Taxation. Any way you look at it, I figure taxation is always suspect: guilty until proven innocent. Hey, I DEFINED it, don't snip something out and then say you don't know what I said: That one agrees to be Taxed in a certain manner, and thenceforth cannot avoid being Taxed in that manner. Just a some idiots agree not to have pink flamingos on their lawns - they may no longer want to abide by their Agreement, but they are Obligated - it is a Voluntary Agreement even though they changed their minds. I think it's better to consider a man's Body as his Possession - and like all Possessions, it is his to bargain with. Otherwise what good is it? Why can't a man have the right to give his Life for his Friend? Give of your body or your life all you want. For exactly as long as you want. Okay. Oscar gave his Kidney for value received, then when Nora tried to get access to and take physical possession of the Kidney which she Owned, he used Force to prevent her enjoyment of her Property. Poor Nora. Poor sick Nora, she will die defiled because Oscar is mean.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Common Law:] Orders of specific performance are granted when damages are not an adequate remedy ... If the Nora/Oscar case landed in my court, and if Oscar were unwilling to pay for a kidney for Nora, or was unwilling or unable to secure a loan sufficient to pay for that kidney, he'd lose the house and probably all else he had of value up to an amount sufficient to purchase a kidney. Yeah, but Nora wants THAT Kidney - it is the only one that matches hers adequately. Anyhow, in the event that Oscar's all of wealth is insufficient to pay for a proper Kidney for Nora, then there is no adequate remedy other than Specific Performance, which Oscar IS capable of providing to Nora. Even under Equity Law.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am going to quote extensively from the wikipedia article that can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance Not extensively enough, it turns out. A couple of paragraphs further we find this: == == In the United States, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code displaces the traditional rule in an attempt to adjust the law of sales of goods to the realities of the modern commercial marketplace. If the GOODS [KIDNEY] are identified to the contract for sale and in the possession of the seller, a court may order that the goods be delivered over to the buyer upon payment of the price. [NOTE THAT NORA HAS PAID THE PRICE AND NOW DEMANDS THE GOODS (KIDNEY).] This is termed replevin. In addition, the Code allows a court to order specific performance where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances, leaving the question of what circumstances are proper to be developed by case law. In the civil law (the law of continental Europe and much of the non English speaking world) specific performance is considered to be the ***BASIC*** right. Money damages are a kind of substitute specific performance. == ==
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ordinarily I should expect that you get to take the TV - SPECIFICALLY - as in SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - rather than suing me for the Money. Same as if I mortgaged or pawned or otherwise promised my HOUSE or my Kidney, as Oscar did. So -- if, in the Agreement, you agree I get to blow you away, it's ok? Of course! Just as in a Dueling Contract and I fire first - you have a right to your shot. A deal's a deal. Blow away, mate.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zack wrote: And, of course, there are bleeding hearts like you trying to close that avenue to the poor desperate men trying to help their families. Please direct me to the note I wrote which caused you such mis-comprehension. You won't let Nora take physical possession of her Kidney that she paid Oscar for. Without an ability to enforce a Contract For Sale, the Goods cannot be used in Bargaining except in a limited way.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We were discussing a libertaria; not nazis, not a sleazy third world country, or an unenlightened age. A libertarian community is likely to recognize Property, including Bodies and Body Parts, and the right to buy, sell, rent, and otherwise bargain with all Property. A NAP-libertarian community will definitely NOT Initiate Force against a man engaged in Consensual Bargaining or any of its natural Consequences. Lib Lites and Nerf Libs might.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You will notice that it contains no definition of Voluntary Taxation. That one agrees to be Taxed in a certain manner, and thenceforth cannot avoid being Taxed in that manner. Yes, the place I defined Voluntary Taxation was in a previous post, which I know you read therefore you could not legitimately pretend not to know what I meant by the term: Voluntary Taxation, in which you agree to a schedule of Taxation (for whatever reason, erhaps in order to get the other guys to make the same commitment) and thenceforth are committed to that burden, even though after a while you very well might wish you could get out of it.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: == == If the GOODS [KIDNEY] are identified to the contract for sale and in the possession of the seller, a court may order that the goods be delivered over to the buyer upon payment of the price. [NOTE THAT NORA HAS PAID THE PRICE AND NOW DEMANDS THE GOODS (KIDNEY).] This is termed replevin. In addition, the Code allows a court to order specific performance where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances, leaving the question of what circumstances are proper to be developed by case law. I expect the judge would not hold for specific performance, citing hardship. You have GOT to be kidding! WHOSE hardship? Nora is going to ***DIE*** unless Oscar fulfills his part of the bargain!!!
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nora wants THAT Kidney - it is the only one that matches hers adequately. Ah, donkey poop. You have not heard of Tissue Matching? It was in all the papers.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, don't blame me for Nora's inability to write a good contract. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, she should have made sure of the goods first. That is, made sure that the kidney in question was out of the body and available to be delivered. She and Oscar together wrote a great Contract. The Kidney became HER PROPERTY and Oscar merely served as Custodian until such time as she finished her part of the Bargain. Oscar is using FORCE to deprive her of enjoyment of HER PROPERTY.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A libertarian community is likely to recognize Property, including Bodies and Body Parts, and the right to buy, sell, rent, and otherwise bargain with all Property. A NAP-libertarian community will definitely NOT Initiate Force against a man engaged in Consensual Bargaining or any of its natural Consequences. Lib Lites and Nerf Libs might. Mulberry bush again. We've already agreed that your idea of a libertaria is not mine. No Mulberry Bush. I am clearing up just how our libertarianisms differ. Mine is NAP (Principled), yours is... something else, full of Sentimentalism and Esthetics.
[LibertarianEnterprise] Re: CONGRATULATIONS, Zack!
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Gary F. York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zack Bass wrote: I am clearing up just how our libertarianisms differ. Mine is NAP (Principled), yours is... something else, full of Sentimentalism and Esthetics. Au contraire. Been there; done that. Already established that the devil is in the definitions. And, in particular, that you don't alone get to define NAP, ZAP, force, initiation, contract, etc., etc. Problem is, according to your statements, your guys are gonna start shooting at my guys, and mine are gonna try to shoot back.
