Your error is in that you misunderstand Libertarianism. It is not anarchism. It is not even the maximization of individual liberty, but rather, the optimization of it. Libertarians set rules for the kind of society they idealize. This is a recognition that rights must be balanced with responsibilities. Where Libertarianism fails is to undervalue the importance of culture and tradional norms which vitalize a society. But it is incorrect to characterize Libertarianism as an "anything goes" ideal. Without the protection of property rights, there can be no liberty. As to the exact legal definition of those rights, and as to the best way to implement those rights, even Libertarians will hotly disagree among themselves. Ah, the beauty of controversy! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On May 3, 5:23 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 3, 9:00 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Not so. Making it for sale is the issue. > > > > Yes infringing my right to sell freely > > > As we also infringe on your right to rob banks freely. > > Robbing and selling are different things!! > You do know this is 'epistemology' don't you?? > Homework; > 1) look up the terms ' robbing ' and ' selling' > 2) Find synonyms for the above and write two sentences that show the > DIFFERENCES between the two ideas. > > > > > > > Again, not so.Such matters end up in civil courts. > > > > If you institute some form of "loser pays" rule, there would be little > > > > burden on the taxpayer. > > > > So would it be worth taking a 16 year old kid to court for downloading > > > the latest DVD? > > > No. But it was well worth it for Polaroid to take Kodak to court for > > patent violation. > > This is called special pleading -not as bad as confusing two > completely different words but bad none the less. > > > > > > THis is just stupid. No rules are obeyed without legal sanction. > > > > > The few that do occur would be more borderline cases requiring a > > > > judge. > > > > But the scenario is nowhere nearly as dire as you portray it. > > > > Its not dire - it is what we have already - imperfect and in need of > > > more government to > > > protect and enforce -not less. > > > Government is neither wiser nor more benevolent than the citizenry. > > And the self-interests of government too often conflict with the > > legitimate interests of the governed. > > Interesting but this does not address the problem. > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
