Ed$, If I may reply to your comments to Sasan:
An argument against an underlying cause of lots of problems is NOT "the sole argument for everything" or "a substitute for the complicated problem of describing how to get from here to there in a realistic fashion" - nor is Sasan implying that it is (either). It seems the only reason you are inventing the two mischaracterizations is so you can criticize a good argument. I personally think "glorified protection racket" is a very insightful description. It provides a very fresh perspective and seems to be catching on quite well. So much for your absolute exaggeration (very easy to refute). What do you mean "libertarian solutions to non-libertarian problems are extremely difficult or impossible" and "applying a truly libertarian solution to a problem created by government is often the pathway to total disaster"? Your type of libertarianism seems most unusual. If you disagree with libertarian arguments advocating libertarian solutions, what exactly do you suggest? Where is Sasan's denigration of others? Please specify. It is curious that you characterize Sasan's as not a "civilized debate", since the disagreement is against tyranny and barbarism; and the point is MORE civilized behavior. Regarding your challenge: Since this is not only (really) a project forum, discussion of principle is perfectly fine here. Since I often argue against prohibition and advocate for its elimination without including any suggestions regarding any other intermediate plans of action, am I also guilty of your charges? Would you lay the same criticism against an anti-war argument if there were no further details about HOW to "stop the war"? You seem to imply a new burden of proof for those who address problems; that they should not do so without also including all the precise details for a complete plan of action. ---------------------- Sasan, there are ways of saying the same thing that are "civilized" and "uncivilized". I don't have too much of a problem with pointing out that the basis of all government is force. I do it all the time. What I do have a problem with is using that as the sole argument for everything and as a substitute for the complicated problem of describing how to get from here to there in a realistic fashion. You can scream (or write) all you want about how government is evil and use terms like "glorified protection racket" but this will never get you anywhere. I've always said that libertarian solutions to non-libertarian problems are extremely difficult or impossible. In fact, applying a truly libertarian solution to a problem created by government is often the pathway to total disaster. My understanding of your initial post was that you are done with "civilized debate." You denigrate others for proposing solutions or principles for solutions (such as srict consitutional interpretation) that don't match your strict anarcho-libertarian opinions. My challenge is to tell us what you are going to actually do to effect true change in a way consistent with your statements. Otherwise, you are just using this forum to vent your rage at the state. This would better be done using other forums such as letters to the editor and your congress critters. Ed$
