Below, yes. But I am not trying to advance an argument in that particular email.
When you try to convince someone else, you must do more than state your beliefs. You must make reasoned arguments regarding relevant issues and concerns. Yes, the current system is abused and needs changing. How is your alternative the best solution? How do you know it would be better than other approaches? The article below is a bunch of assertions. If you already agree, I'm sure you will nod along. Perhaps it was intended as a rallying cry, and not to win others over. However, it was presented on this list as a "verbal slaying" of an opposing point of view. That, the article certainly is not. Chris > Chris, > > I'm afraid that works both ways. You are also just "one guy > stating his beliefs". > > ------------------------ > > This is just one guy stating his beliefs. He says "why not", "I > believe" and "it seems to me". Yet, he doesn't advance any > arguments or > present proof. In what situations would the absence of > government > produce better results, and how? Simply pointing out a problem > doesn't > make your solution the right one. > > Chris > > >> >> < Those Wacky CATO Protesters | LRC Blog | LRC Home | Arthur >> > McBride Lyrics > > >> August 01, 2008 >> To Secure These Rights? >> Posted by Manuel Lora at August 1, 2008 01:38 PM >> >> The state fails to do even the things that its supporters claim >> > it should do: the protection of our rights. Take a look at this > story or this one or this one --these abominations represent the > complete collapse of the concepts of "justice" and "defense" and > "protection." In true Orwellian fashion, justice now means > plunder, defense means offense and protection means aggression. > >> To the radical libertarian, the above headlines are, while >> > shocking, not really surprising. What does surprise is that many > of those who claim to favor liberty still stop short of fully > accepting the conclusion of their own premises: that government > is inefficient and operates via aggressive means. If we claim > that the state should not be engaged in education because the > result is monstrous, why not, then, apply the same reasoning to > other functions that the state performs, such as defense and > protection and law and courts? We oppose state education, state > entertainment and every other state industry but when it comes to > police and justice and law, many --too many-- give their consent > and support! > >> It seems to me that the classical libertarians (such as >> > minarchists and constitutionalists) have made a terrible mistake. > They have taken the most important of institutions, namely the > protection of our rights, and given them to the monopolist. I > believe that, if it were possible, it would be preferable to have > the government take care of things like entertainment and toilets > instead of the "slightly" more important functions of defense and > law. > >> Ultimately, the state cannot be reformed and the political >> > system can only do so much. Indeed, nothing short of the > abolition of statist politics --of the state itself-- is > acceptable to the radical libertarian. If the government isn't > fit to be my janitor or educator, it is not fit to be my police, > my judge, my jury, president, prosecutor or legislator. > >> Says Thoreau: That government is best which governs not at all; >> > and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of > government which they will have. > >> The freedom revolution begins with one's consent. Withdraw it. >> > It's time. > >> Reddit . Digg this . Stumble It . Shout It . Add to Mixx . >> > Discuss on Newsvine > > > > ------------------------------------ > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
