Typographical error. Correction: "illegal" not 'legal' as follows: "But we don't believe there ought not or need not be laws agasint murder, or child molestation, for example. I proudly stand up here before you all today and say that Child Molestation, Child Pornography and Murder, should all be ILLEGAL.. I'm fine with the state having the power to prosecute the perpetrators of the above crimes."
--- On Tue, 1/26/10, Bruce Cohen <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bruce Cohen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Libertarian] "If there wasn't a law against murder..." To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 10:38 AM On the other hand, Libertarians, by defenition, DO want laws against this kind of things. Libertarians DO believe in laws against violent or property crimes, for example. While your discussion of how many Anarchists can argue on the head of a pin is very interesting, it's not Libertarian. Libertarians believe in government. Small, yes. Very small, for sure. As small as possible, even. And, Constitutionally contstrained with lots of protections. But we don't believe there ought not or need not be laws agasint murder, or child molestation, for example. I proudly stand up here before you all today and say that Child Molestation, Child Pornography and Murder, should all be legal. I'm fine with the state having the power to prosecute the perpetrators of the above crimes. You, Sasan, are free to believe and speak how you do, and I learn a lot from these views. But it's not Libertarian. And this is supposed to be a LIBERTARIAN discussion group, not a Anarchist promotion group. Please take your propaganda with you when you leave. Thank you. Bruce Cohen http://www.GetBruce .com --- On Tue, 1/26/10, Sasan <sasan.sadat@ yahoo.com> wrote: From: Sasan <sasan.sadat@ yahoo.com> Subject: [Libertarian] "If there wasn't a law against murder..." To: Libertarian@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 10:29 AM "...then nothing would prevent me from killing people." In order to make this assertion, you would have to make several assumptions: 1) You have the motive to kill someone. 2) You are emotionally capable of killing someone. 3) Your potential victim is unarmed. 4) Even if your potential victim is armed, you do not fear them. 5) Your potential victim will be unsuccessful in defending themselves. 6) You do not fear retaliation from the victim's friends and family. 7) You do not feel empathy for the victim's friends and family. 8) You do not care if murder will tarnish your reputation. Not surprisingly, governments are quite adept at meeting these conditions rather than preventing them. ---Sasan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
