Eric, You've completely lost me in this point. Do you mean to say that the only reason to have a military is because young men have "raging hormones" or that if there is no military they will turn "into women"? I'm quite certain that I did not suggest to "emasculate all young men" and that "we men, all became feminist girly men..." and do not know where you got that idea.
A free, unregulated society has always contained many opportunities for the adventurous who are willing to take risks and chances, men OR women. But this may be beside the point that you are trying to make. Do you need war? Do you think anyone needs war to be men, or be satiated? Do you need to kill another man, woman or child in order to be a non-feminist, non-girly man? Is this what you are getting at? Just curious. Just Ken Eric Dondero Rittberg 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] > <mailto:Libertarian%40yahoogroups.com>, Kenneth Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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> > > > <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> > > > > > > > > <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/
