This is just a thought that you might be interested in: Von Mises, too, like
you, decided that at least a few laws are needed. He submitted, as an example
of what he was talking about, that without ANY laws, there would not even be
any way to determine who could participate in a society and who could not. At
what age could one become a participant and go to work regardless of any
opposition from one's parents? (Or should age even enter into this decision?)
--And at what level of mental retardation or other mental incapacity (if at any
level) could one become a participant?
This made me laugh. For, as super-regulated and finely written into law as
these matters (and practically all other matters) now are, there still are no
good answers to these questions. At least, there still are no answers that
will satisfy very many people at once.
So it is true that freedom (or anarchy, or whatever word you think I should
use here) cannot supply an answer to all questions--at least, not yet. And
possibly, it never will.
But statism certainly does not do so either.
The difference between the two is that, under statism, one uses a jail to
"resolve" an issue. Once somebody is put into jail, under statism, everyone is
willing to regard the issue as having been "resolved." (Except, perhaps, you,
if you are the one who happens to get put into jail). Under statism, jails are
used to substitute for brains in resolving issues.
Under statism, if person X has done something of such nature as to get
himself put into jail according to law, then he is put into jail. Issue
"resolved."
Under anarchy, by contrast, one has only one's brain to use, inadequate as it
may be. Your brain may be able to tell you only that you do not know the
answer, or that you do know the answer and no one else will listen. This is
where all truth and progress begins: recognizing that a problem exists and
that you have NOT solved it, regardless of laws, regardless of jails..
chris fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see you choose to ignore the way livelihood has been used in the
past in reference to what i was saying. Not a problem! There is a definition of
it that would refer to my meaning if you choose to look it up.
gary popkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A lively 'hood is a jumping place where
lots of brothers (and sisters) hang out and party.
A livelihood is what you do for a living.
chris fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I work 12 hours a day 5 days a week, is
that the kind of lively hood you were referring to? I was referring to the
means to survive which is threatened.
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and
lay it on us.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
