And your's fails where you assume that collective property is a legitimate concept.  There is no such thing as collective property absent an initiation of force.  And initiation of force is contra-moral, and contra-libertarian.

BWS

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2006 10:33 am
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity

> This is where your logic fails. 
>
> On an island without a government, people can legitimately band
> together to defend rights, but not to violate them.  People do have
> the right to determine whether or not someone else will be allowed to
> sell goods within their combined and/or collective property.  This
> means they can grant this power to government.  Nobody on an island
> has the right to tell another person what medicines they will or won't
> take, what weapons they will or won't own, or what religion they will
> follow.  This means they can't grant this power to government.
>
> Tariffs are legitimate.  Drug laws, gun laws, abortion laws, and and
> religious laws are not.
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Quoth Paul Ireland:
> >
> > > To determine whether any law is legitimate all one must do is
> ask what
> > > would happen if you didn't have a government.  If there were a
> > > community of people who each owned land and these people
> agreed to
> > > protect each other from violence, attacks, etc., they could
> also agree
> > > that nobody from outside thier community would be allowed to sell
> > > goods within the community they own, without paying a fee to
> the town
> > > to cover the cost of having police, judges, lawyers, etc. to
> ensure> > that the business they conduct isn't fraudulent, theft, etc.
> >
> > And they could agree that decapitation is the proper penalty for
> > possession of marijuana.
> >
> > And they could agree that having a handgun merits a prison sentence.
> >
> > And they could agree that if the guy down the road has a 55-gallon
> > drum in his garage that may have something dangerous, it's okay for
> > them to go over and burn his house down, just in case.
> >
> > And they could agree that if someone floats, she must be made of
> wood,> and is therefore a witch, and therefore should be burned.
> >
> > They could agree on any or all of those things. They probably
> wouldn't> try to portray their claims as "libertarian," though.
> >
> > Tom Knapp
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>


ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian



SPONSORED LINKS
Libertarian English language Political parties
Online dictionary American politics


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to