Make love not war? :) -Terry Liberty Parker 'Real world' experiment in LIBERTARIAN community became famous at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569
--- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So then, what's the point in having a Military at all. Why don't we > just abolish it? Why give young men with raging hormones an outlet > for engaging in masculine activities. Why not just emasculate all > young men and turn them into women? Wouldn't the world be better > off if we men, all became feminist girly men, as you suggest? > > > --- In [email protected], Kenneth Gregg <kgregglv@> > wrote: > > > > Eric, > > You seem to misunderstand my point. I do not want to put any > troops in > > harm's way, and certainly do not hate people caught up in any > socialist > > indoctrination, no matter whether they have been talked into it by > > politicians or the local recruitment office. I would encourage > anyone > > to get out of a dangerous situation as quickly as possible. > Quit. > > Resign. Go on strike. Get out of there. Take a plane, a boat, a > > car--anything to get out of there. If you want a bumper sticker, > > "BRING OUR TROOPS HOME--NOW!" comes to mind. > > > > Cheers! > > Just Ken > > > > Eric Dondero Rittberg wrote: > > > > > Put aside the issue stance for a second, and try to look at this > from > > > a strictly pragmatic, political standpoint. > > > > > > How does this look for the Libertarian Party and the overall > > > libertarian movement, that libertarians such as yourself are so > > > publicly and ademently expressing their disdain for the Military? > > > > > > Might as well print up some bumper stickers that say, "While even > > > Democrats are squishy, we Libertarians Proudly Proclaim that we > Hate > > > the Troops". > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > > <mailto:Libertarian%40yahoogroups.com>, Kenneth Gregg <kgregglv@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > doug, > > > > people do it today in the U.S. It's called joining the > military. > > > In a > > > > socialist society, you are already a slave. > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > Just Ken > > > > > > > > doug craig wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a Libertarian world could you sell your self into > > > > > slavery > > > > > www.crazyforliberty.com > > > > > > > > > > --- doug craig <HankReardan@ > > > > > <mailto:HankReardan%40yahoo.com>> 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 <kgregglv@ <mailto:kgregglv%40cox.net>> > > > 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> > > > > > <mailto:Libertarian%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > > <mailto:Libertarian%40yahoogroups.com>, Kenneth > > > > > > > Gregg <kgregglv@> > > > > > > > > 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 <ericdondero@ > > > > > > > > > > <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/
