In a Libertarian world could you sell your self into slavery www.crazyforliberty.com
--- doug craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They is a real need for a military in a free > country(I never said a standing Army).Most of the > conflicts America has been involved in are one we > should not have been involved in.If we did not have > the ability to defend ourselves we would be ran over > by another country.How would stop an invasion by > Cuba,Mexico or China if they invaded tomorrow in > your > would.From what I am gathering from your writing you > would not have a military in any form. > (BTW does not the Constitution provide for a US > navy) > > --- Kenneth Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I see no connection between a socialist > institution > > like the military > > and libertarianism. Libertarianism has > historically > > (and correctly so) > > been opposed to a standing army, such as the one > > which taxpayers are > > forced to pay for here in the U.S. > > > > I suppose one can argue for voluntary socialism, > but > > cooperatives are > > much different. A voluntary institution does not > > enslave its members > > and force them to continue in such a slave > > relationship over and over > > again when the expected time of the contract is > > over. Even the > > temporary slave relationships which were exacted > > from the scots and the > > irish in the agreements to come to the American > > colonies was only for > > seven years. > > > > Your portrayal of normal people who are not in the > > military is clearly > > mistaken. One can be "Pro-Freedom" AND have > fought > > and defended freedom > > without being in a socialist institution. Does > > "Pro-Freedom" mean that > > you must kill another from some other land? > > Obviously not, and I would > > not expect you to claim this is the only meaning > > that you take for > > "Pro-Freedom". Even the most vile socialists > don't > > go that far! Does > > "Pro-Freedom" mean living in some state-owned, > > state-controlled > > barracks, marching to some statist tune, crying > out > > to kill the enemy, > > falling in line and doing whatever your leader > tells > > you to do? Of > > course this has nothing to do with freedom, and > you > > know that, unless > > you are completely indoctrinated in statism. > > > > Being "Pro-Freedom" means engaging in life, making > > choices which > > encourage others to be free from coercion, to > > understand the rights and > > principles of freedom, and respecting the property > > of others. You may > > have a much different vision of "Pro-Freedom" than > I > > have, from what you > > have said, and I can only see it as a > contradictory > > one. Socialism is > > not freedom (save in "1984"). The difference is > too > > vast. > > > > Cheers! > > Just Ken > > > > Eric Dondero Rittberg wrote: > > > > > Actually, quite the opposite. I find it hard to > > give the > > > libertarian label to any American who has not > > served in the > > > Military. Hard to justify saying that one is > > Pro-Freedom, when one > > > has done absolutely nothing to fight and defend > > that freedom. > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > > <mailto:Libertarian%40yahoogroups.com>, Kenneth > > Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I can think of no institution, save that of > > prisons, which are > > > more > > > > socialist than the military is. Do you > honestly > > think that, > > > simply > > > > because you have been, or currently are, > > involved in such an > > > > organization that it is libertarian in any > > respect? I have come > > > across > > > > libertarian prisoners, usually in for > > non-violent offenses, and > > > even a > > > > few people in the military that claim to be > > libertarians, but I > > > see no > > > > connection or affiliation between > libertarianism > > and military law, > > > > military installations (at least not until > they > > are sold to > > > private > > > > interests), WMDs, biological weapons, standing > > armies, ecological > > > > destruction of wide swaths of land called > "test > > ranges" > > > and "proving > > > > grounds" (such as we have here in Nevada), > > deaths of thousands and > > > > thousands of ordinary people, and the like. > > > > > > > > Perhaps you can provide defenses for all of > > these, each of which > > > is an > > > > essential element of the current military. > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > Just Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > doug craig wrote: > > > > > > > > > The military is not anti Libertarian. > > > > > > > > > > --- Eric Dondero Rittberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > <mailto:ericdondero%40yahoo.com>> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ummm, geez, I dunno? Maybe to protect > > freedom? > > > > > > Just a guess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > removed] > > > > > > > > > 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/
