From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No, such a definition would be anarchy which is mutually exclusive to > libertarianism because anarchy is lawlessness, chaos, defenselessness, > ignorance, etc. > No it is not. We have told you the correct definition many many times you have just chosen to ignore it and use yours instead.
> There is no peaceful anarchy and there is no example of lasting > anarchy, not even in iceland which was not ever living in anarchy but > who anarchists like to point to as their shining example of success. You are actually more correct than you realise about Iceland. It had too many statist elements which is why it failed. And don't forget the constitution gave us GWB, Billaery Clinton, Afghanistan, Iraq and the sequel ect ect ect. All those things are a product of the operation of the constitution. And why the constitution, why not the articles of confederation? BWS ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
