-Caveat Lector-
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Robert Paul wrote:
-Caveat Lector-
William Hugh wrote:
""The state" is here to stay."
This is good...anarchy leads to statism any way. I oppose statism
because it is idolatry and the root of most social evil.
So, we agree that some form of
-Caveat Lector-
some form of government is always necessary or society resorts to chaos.
Do you personally need the gun and the club to keep you in line? Or do you
behave like a decent human being becaue that's what you are?
Show of hands please. I would particularly like to hear in detail
-Caveat Lector-
- Original Message -
From: nessie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
anarchy leads to statism any way.
This is like saying gravity lead to weightlesness.
It does, if you go fast enough, far enough.
DECLARATION DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange
-Caveat Lector-
I wrote:
"anarchy leads to statism any way."
To which Nessie wrote:
"This is like saying gravity lead to weightlessness."
In a free fall one IS weightless. What I meant was...without government
criminal gangs come to power and later after one gang conquers the rest
they
-Caveat Lector-
Nessie wrote:
"Do you personally need the gun and the club to keep you in line?"
No, we need the gun and the club to keep criminals in line. All
government means is organized defense. We have organized food production
so that one doesn't have to grow one's own food, otherwise
-Caveat Lector-
wiithout government criminal gangs come to power
(1.) That's statist propaganda, and quite simply untrue. Many people, many
cultures, get along without government just fine.
Read People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchism by Harold
Barclay, ISBN 0-900707-75-5
-Caveat Lector-
- Original Message -
From: Robert Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wrote:
"anarchy leads to statism any way."
To which Nessie wrote:
"This is like saying gravity lead to weightlessness."
In a free fall one IS weightless. What I meant was...without government
criminal
-Caveat Lector-
Good point, n. I'm sure you're a charming person and not the type to
go running amok.
But if you are going to argue that human beings in their natural state
are wise, benign, peaceful and nonviolentand that they have a natural
propensity to respect the property and civil
-Caveat Lector-
But if you are going to argue that human beings in their natural state
are wise, benign, peaceful and nonviolentand that they have a natural
propensity to respect the property and civil liberties of others, I would
disagree.
Humans are ALWAYS in a natural state. NOTHING
-Caveat Lector-
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999, Robert Paul wrote:
-Caveat Lector-
William Hugh Tunstall wrote:
"If there is not a massive restructuring, we're going to see a repeat
of the kind of social unrest we saw back in the sixties..."
Robert Paul wrote:
That's what we need except most
-Caveat Lector-
Instaed of a war on poverty, we should declare war on big business.
The state is not the problem. Capitalism and businessmen are the
problem.
Joshua2
Norse Knight wrote:
-Caveat Lector-
The purpose of the "War on Poverty" wasn't to end poverty but to grow
the State. As
-Caveat Lector-
Absolutely.
If there is not a massive restructuring, we're going to see a repeat of
the kind of social unrest we saw back in the sixties...
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999, Nurev wrote:
-Caveat Lector-
Instaed of a war on poverty, we should declare war on big business.
The state is
-Caveat Lector-
Nurev wrote:
-Caveat Lector-
Instaed of a war on poverty, we should declare war on big business.
The state is not the problem. Capitalism and businessmen are the
problem.
Joshua2
I am insulted! To imply that they are Capitalist. Theonly thing that some of
those
-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 99-07-11 12:14:52 EDT, you write:
Instaed of a war on poverty, we should declare war on big business.
The state is not the problem. Capitalism and businessmen are the
problem.
When you look even further the bankers control the Corporations with
-Caveat Lector-
Joshua2 wrote:
"Instead of a war on poverty, we should declare war on big business."
I agree if you mean corporate business"
"The state is not the problem. Capitalism and businessmen are the
problem."
The State creates the problem by giving privileges to big business. The
-Caveat Lector-
William Hugh Tunstall wrote:
"If there is not a massive restructuring, we're going to see a repeat
of the kind of social unrest we saw back in the sixties..."
That's what we need except most will argue for more statism, the very
poison that creates poverty.
Robert Paul
-Caveat Lector-
Piper wrote:
"To imply that they are Capitalist. The only thing that some of those
politicians have capitalized on is other peoples thoughts and work."
Most people have no idea what capitalism is...that ideology has been
defined mostly by it's enemies and incompetent
-Caveat Lector-
Bob Stokes wrote:
"When you look even further the bankers control the Corporations with
their money."
This is true, but...
"Convert the Federal Reserve from a private institution to a bank for
the United States"
To give that bank a state sanctioned monopoly would still leave
-Caveat Lector-
By DEB RIECHMANN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Ever since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty 35
years ago, the government has had little success elevating depressed
areas like those President Clinton toured this week. Nurturing economic
revival in poor pockets of Appalachia, inner
-Caveat Lector-
The purpose of the "War on Poverty" wasn't to end poverty but to grow
the State. As it has been written "war is the health of the State". The
only thing necessary to end poverty is to get the State off Our backs.
Robert Paul
DECLARATION DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a
-Caveat Lector-
- Original Message -
From: Norse Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The purpose of the "War on Poverty" wasn't to end poverty but to grow
the State. As it has been written "war is the health of the State". The
only thing necessary to end poverty is to get the State off Our
-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 07/09/1999 8:11:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The purpose of the "War on Poverty" wasn't to end poverty but to grow
the State. As it has been written "war is the health of the State". The
only thing necessary to end poverty is to
-Caveat Lector-
Ric wrote:
"Ending poverty can be helped by ending military-industrial welfare."
I agree, Ric, both kinds of welfare add to poverty but will the
socialists want to end their sham programs or the nationalists their's?
Both have much in common, leftist statism is no different in
-Caveat Lector-
Prudy wrote:
"Whose poverty will that end?"
Most are poor because of illegitimate government actions...those are the
ones.
"Besides it's not the State on your back since a couple of weeks ago."
I'm not sure what you mean.
"It's just the States on your back."
They are ALL
-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 07/09/1999 9:18:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. How so?
Just give the latest Rehnquist Court decisions a few months to get around,
and you will see. Prudy
DECLARATION DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion and
-Caveat Lector-
I say to hell with the both of them.
Absolutely. But let's think long, hard, and above all realistically about
how we dismantle them. If we rip the safety net out from under even a
comparitively rich a society like America, where one of five people still
has trouble paying the
-Caveat Lector-
Nessie wrote:
"Absolutely. But let's think long, hard, and above all realistically
about how we dismantle them."
Yes, it won't be easy; I don't think that dismantling the
welfare-warfare State can be done collectively.There are things that one
can do individually, we need to
27 matches
Mail list logo
