POLITICS - Re: money and health (was Nutrition 101)

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:08:18 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

>>I think many people probably share your view, and I think it is

>>important to point out that there is no one libertarian blueprint of

>>society. Abolishing *civil* government or greatly limiting it means just

>>that, abolishing civil gov't or greatly limiting it.

>

>Given the range of " libertarian " viewpoints espoused so far,

>yeah.

Well since I have answered these out of order, I hope you have come to

understand the *singular* foundational agreement among all libertarians,

the belief in the NAP - non-agression principle.

I mentioned the " group " thing, I believe, in response

>to the " cowboy " attitude, esp. in regards to not wanting to

>help pay for the upkeep of women with children.

>

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean not wanting to pay

*through theft* for children not of my own making, then I would have to

plead guilty. On the other hand there are situations that do warrant

help, and they could be taken care of on voluntary basis, by indivuduals,

families or groups of individuals (churches, businesses, social

organizations, etc.)

The " group " thing is not at odds with libertarian thought.

>Since you libertarian types seem to be all over the place

>in terms of other beliefs, and since there are no examples

>of successful libertarian societies, I'm trying to stay out of

>the debate. In your case, the " Orthodoxy " part of your

>belief might take the place of the " civil government " part

>(churches ARE a form of government, for the members).

Okay, lets be clear. There is self-government, family gov't, business

arrangements (gov't) and civil government. Of those mentioned, only one

has the power of the gun, and that is civil gov't. Thus, it is unique

from all other types of gov't.

Should the Eastern Orthodox Church ever wield the power of the gun, at

that point it would cease being the Eastern Orthodox *Church* and become

a civil *gov't.*

>

>Until someone *does* a libertarian society, it's mainly

>a theory. So far the historical examples of " no civil

>government " are power voids, which are eventually

>filled by usually far less desirable elements.

I gave some examples, even cited links. I will give some again (but no links).

1. Ancient Israel (before the Kings)

2. Medieval Iceland, a society praised by some scholars for its cultural

output

3. 17th century Pennsylvania

4. Somalia

Also there are numerous micro-examples of libertarian societies and the

private provision of services. I posted some material that gives much

historical evidence. Since I posted it once I won't bother posting it

again.

>> You and Rush Limbaugh aren't as far apart in your thinking as you might

>>believe. In fact in terms of your approach to the state you and he are

>>spot on.

>

>Ack! That is cruel. I have not listened to the guy for eons, but

>every quote I've heard from him makes my skin crawl. And

>I'm not exactly a flag-waving patriot ... I like the gov't to

>keep the corporations in line, esp. on environmental issues,

>and he doesn't strike me as an environmentalist.

The point is, Mr. Limbaugh is more than happy to use the power of gov't

and theft when it advances *his* social agenda, and you are just as

happy to do the same thing when it advances *your* social agenda.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale