>--- In [email protected], "ejpoleii" <ejpol...@...> wrote:
>
> Sasan, I don't believe Jon is trying to "blame the victims." This
> kind of argument is typical of libertarian debates. We attack each
> other over minor misunderstandings rather than concentrate on the
> real issues. You (we all) should stop this.
Jon's misunderstanding is not "minor". Aggression is completely unacceptable,
both for ethical and practical reasons. Jon believes that aggression is just
fine as long as it is authorized by a special document. I have a serious
problem with that belief.
> While you have not that I can remember been explicit, I understand
> that you advocate complete anarchy. You do not accept the presence
> of government in any form. If this is the case (why not just say
> so?)
I advocate the abolition of all Protection Rackets, including governments. Call
it what you want to: Anarchism, Voluntarism, whatever...how about just being a
Human Being. Why must there be a word to describe people who don't initiate
force against others? Is the concept really that radical?
> how about you pick a couple of services that government presently
> provides and describe how these would be provided in an anarchic
> situation? Then the group can pick at your solutions, ask
> questions, suggest alternatives, and so forth. Pick some hard ones.
> Not things we all pretty much agree government should not be
> involved in.
It sounds like you're asking me to engage in Central Planning. No individual or
group is competent enough to plan entire industries. I'm not going to pretend
to be qualified.
If you want to know what certain services looked like BEFORE they were
monopolized by governments, just do a Google search.
---Sasan
