ma ni wrote: > > Regarding the first parts of your reply: > I believe (I usually don't like to reply to your > difficult-to-read posts) you came full circle, from disagreeing, > to agreeing with my guard-dog-product analogy. I believe YOUR > computer/car-analogies fail because they can not come back to > actively kill you, no matter how badly they fail to function or > how badly they are maintained. Of course we must agree that no > analogy can come close to meeting the level of aggression of > govt. But one thing is for certain: the problem results not from > beating the dog.
Certainly the guard dog analogy is workable (I never claimed it wasn't), but not that it was sold with any guarantees as you assert. And yes, a car or computer (though not usually just setting on a desk only hooked to the net), either one, can kill you if the technology isn't tended to. The government is a system just like these other things are, with one exception, the mean junk yard dog (represented as government) is suppose to be us. Beating the dog is also very apt, as the dog has been made to do things that it was never intended to do (and was warned not to start letting or making it do them), and then we wonder why it is trying to chew our arms off. If you can't keep your freedom in a system that is set up to allow the people to do that, then it is doubtful you will be able to keep it any longer starting with a complete power vacuum (as unlikely as that has ever been to have ever happened, or happen). > > Sorry, but my handicap won't allow me to decipher the points in > the rest of your post accurately enough to directly reply to > them. > > Let's re-clarify (has been said many times before, but...) the > essence of "no-government" libertarianism: All it does is > identify a big problem and offer a simple solution. The problem > is initiated aggression and the solution is eliminating it. This > is no different than saying that people harming others (direct > harm to non-consenting others) is bad and should stop. Few will > disagree with this most obvious ethic, but most will disagree > with it when it's applied to government. And people will continue to oppress others whether you call the agency (as in organization) that does it a government, a business, or an armed gang of thugs. Such aggression is called war, and unless you organize (whether you want to call it a government, a business or an armed group of thugs) against those waging war on you, then you can expect the results the same as they ever have been in history, slavery and death, and like the founders said about the constitution, even organizing isn't always a guarantee to prevent ending up dead or slaves, especially when you allow others to govern for you, when you are suppose to be doing it yourself. Goat
