Jeez I really need to get off gmail. Now the ads are mentioning that I should get concealed weapons training "before I need it". Then in the right hand column, "In house SWAT training, learn to defend yourself like a pro!"
It's almost as bad as the ads I used to see telling me that they could see me IP address and that I should use their software to eliminate my IP address. On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Russel Caldwell <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Daniel C. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Russel Caldwell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Ostensibly is the key word isn't it > > > > > How do we implicitly cede our rights to use force to the government by > > > participating in society? Exactly what are my options if I decide not > to > > > participate? Exactly how would I not participate in society? > > > > Move to Alaska and go off the grid. It is an option open to you, and > > you haven't taken it. That is an implicit acceptance of your > > circumstances. > > > > Isn't this being a bit disingenuous? It's kind of like a liberal calling a > conservative hypocritical if he takes Social Security even though he says > he doesn't believe in it. Yes, theoretically I could do many dumb things > and frankly I've done my share, but that doesn't make this a sound > argument. > > > > > > But isn't this a salient point in this conversation? Isn't the current > > > government ceding its legitimacy as a wielder of force by the very way > it > > > exercises that power? > > > > Well, depends on which conversation you mean. I don't even remember > > where we started. Overall though I'd say no. Not unless you want to > > start a civil war. Personally I'll vote with my feet before I'll > > fight in a civil war. I like being alive (and, more to the point, > > being alive in the company of Swedish women) more than I like saving a > > country full of fat, entitled mouth-breathers from their own > > inattention and insecurities. > > > > Like someone else said, as long as you're free to leave, that's what > > counts. So far I can still leave - and if someone decides I can't, > > well, the Canadian border is awfully long and I can still claim > > citizenship there. > > > > There's the theoretical and then there's hard reality. > > > > > > I am painfully aware of the possible weaknesses of the > anarcho-capitalist > > > view in a "what if" kind of way (not that we've tried anything that > comes > > > remotely close to know one way or another), but I'm also more presently > > > aware of the catastrophe we've got in the present "democratic" system. > > > > Maybe you should just admit that pure systems, on either side of the > > equation, are never going to work. We don't need to try an > > anarcho-capitalist system to know it won't work for the same reason we > > don't need to try a "let's all just get along" system to know it won't > > work. It's just an obviously bad idea on its face. > > > > I've already said that I don't advocate demolishing the system, that it > wouldn't work. I certainly do advocate a reversing of course. We've been on > a course of a more socialist, corporatist, militarist society for over a > hundred years now. How has that worked for us? > > > actually gets what he wants. In a free market transaction 100% of the > > > participants get what they want. > > > > And the people who can't participate because they're poor just get > > screwed. And we can't have a free market without a government anyway, > > so what are you still on about? > > > > By definition everybody can participate in a free market. This is in > contrast to the idea that a person can just stop participating in society. > There have been plenty of poor emigrants to this country who have not only > done well but have thrived in generally free market conditions. > > > > > > Isn't that that the fundamental definition of government, an > institution > > > that has a monopoly on the use of force? Isn't that what the founding > > > fathers of this country feared the most? > > > > You mean the founding fathers like George Washington, who used the > > militia (which the 2nd amendment guarantees) to put down an armed > > uprising just a few short years after we won our independence? Those > > founding fathers? No, I really don't think it is. > > > > I will be the first to admit the hypocrisy of people I revere. I will even > admit that I've been guilty of it a time or two. Have you? Where is > hypocrisy more harmful and dangerous, in transactions between two people in > a free market transaction or when socialist politicians in France hide > their money from their own socialist leaning government which says a 70% > tax on income is good for society? Disparaging people like Washington does > nothing to reduce the real danger of power concentrated in the hands of a > few elite. > > > > > -Dan > > > > /* > > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > > Don't fear the penguin. > > */ > > > > > > -- > "The legitimate purpose of formalization lies in the reduction of the tacit > coefficient to more limited and obvious informal operations; but it is > nonsensical to aim at the total elimination of our personal participation." > -- Michael Polanyi > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
