They All Ought To Shut The Fuck Up About How “It’s Your Money” Until They Actually Mean It
Jun 29, 04 | 3:57 am by John T. KennedyFew things offend my delicate sensibilities more than hearing something good and decent said by someone who doesn’t mean it.
“It’s Your Money!”
Rush Limbaugh can’t say it enough when he’s going after the democrats. The democrats want to take your money, but Rush will help you keep it. Because it’s yours. Ask Sean Hannity. Ask George W. Bush. It’s your money.
It’s a good and decent thing to say. But they don’t mean it.
If it’s your money then you can just keep it all, right? Obviously these guys who recognize that it’s your money will have your philosophical and political back, won’t they? They wouldn’t throw you in jail for simply keeping your money, would they?
Well..
…that could be a problem.
What put me on this tonight was a good and decent Bleat from James Lileks:
“Well, it’s a philosophical difference,” she sniffed. She had pegged me as a form of life last seen clicking the leash off a dog at Abu Ghraib. “I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.” Those last two words were said with an edge.
“But then I wouldn’t have hired them,” I said. “I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.”
“Well, what did you do?” she snapped.
“What do you mean?”
“Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?”
“They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.”
That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:
“Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.”
It’s very nice. The only problem is he doesn’t mean it. Glenn Reynolds calls this an exploration of the heart of darkness. That’s right, but these guys need to explore their own hearts because they don’t mean it.
You see there’s an aspect of the heart of darkness here that’s more troubling than the young airhead going door to door for Kerry. What’s far more troubling is that Lileks and Reynolds think there is a difference of principle between their own politics and the politics of Kerry and his airheaded minion. But they really don’t mean it when they say it’s your money. All they are really arguing about with the democrats is how much to steal from you and what to spend it on. The nitwit is being more honest about her politics than they are.
The full implications of the assertion “It’s your money” are profound. If it’s yours then nobody has a right to take it from you. It means that no level of taxation is morally defensible. It means government and states are immoral in principle.
They don’t mean it and they ought to shut up because they soil those good and decent words when they use them.
“It’s your money to begin with, by the way.” - George W. Bush in Maryland as his flunkies sold off Peabo Bryson’s piano on Ebay. He didn’t mean it.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 2:06 pm
Do you use the post office? roads? Own T-bills? Worse, do you use Federal Reserve Notes???
Don’t lie, YOU live off of tax money. We can quibble on the degree of tax-consumption, but (unless you are the unabomber) we all do it. You hand is also in the pot, theif (as is mine).
Condemn the taxes/statism and I will cheer you on. But to pretend you are holier-than-thou and above USING OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY and be prepared for me to laugh in your face, because it is just the usual libertarian mental-masturbation and HYPOCRISY!!!!
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 3:49 pm
The same gang who demands the money from me also forcibly maintains a monopoly on the business of delivering letters and building interstate highways. So far they have not claimed a monopoly on parcel delivery and maintaining the roads around my neighborhood, so I pay for those freely and voluntarily. But even if they do claim this monopoly, I will continue to have parcels delivered and will continue to drive up to my own house, making me an even worse hypocrite in your estimation.
If that gang then monopolizes health care and I contract a disease, I will seek treatment and become even more of a hypocrite.
If that gang then monopolizes grocery stores and I buy some lettuce, I will become the worst hypocrite of all.
At that point I would need to sit in a warm batch and slit my wrists to avoid the Ugly Truth that I had become an utterly despicable hypocrite.
According to the Ugly Truth, as the gang monopolizes more aspects of life, we who cherish freedom become ever more hypocritical.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 4:00 pm
Silly Patrick, you are only a hypocrite if YOU CONDEMN people for eating when the state controls the food. You are only a hypocrite if you DENY reality like a self-rightous fool. Nobody held a gun against your head and FORCED you to drive, send packages, profit from Federal-supplied money system, etc. You CHOSE to be a tax-consumer. There is no VALUE denying it!!! (other than to delude yourself)
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 4:05 pm
Also, Federal Reserve “Notes” are the worst insult of all. A century ago individual banks and assayers issued their own monetary instruments in the form of gold and silver certificates and coins. But as you probably know, in 1933 some guy named “Franklin” gave an order to confiscate everyone’s gold and gold certificates and force them to accept ordinary green paper in return, on pain of 10 years locked in a cage if they refused. His enforcers looted safe deposit boxes and even told people they could not enter into business contracts denominated in gold.
By some baffling quirk of human nature, most people actually obeyed this insanity. I even talked to a dude who was nine years old when all this happened and he said “Well so what, the paper was as good as gold.” Yeah that’s right, so what. Shut up and do as you’re told, it’s for your own good. Really, it is.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 4:30 pm
I don’t disagree Patrick. You see one of the chains that slave us (worse than taxation). Yet I use “money” every day - and I bet so do you.
I am sure the wanna-be revolutionaries here do to.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:26 pm
Silly Patrick, you are only a hypocrite if YOU CONDEMN people for eating when the state controls the food.
OK, I won’t do that.
You CHOSE to be a tax-consumer. There is no VALUE denying it!!!
When there is an alternative, I recommend choosing it. When there is no alternative, I recommend creating one.
Maybe one day we will see an outright slave rebellion. The gang is talking lately about forcing people into literal chattel slavery in the form of a military draft. I wonder how that will go.
In any case, I’ve been meeting quite a few ordinary people with bad attitudes. That’s encouraging.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:34 pm
You are being dishonest. There are lots of alternatives to using roads (don’t drive) and postal service (UPS) and even “money” (barter). YOU CHOOSE TO BE A TAX-CONSUMER!!!
I agree about creating alternatives, yet I don’t see so-called libertarians making much effort. Instead they jerk off to revolutionary fantasies while pretending they are holier-than-thou!
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:36 pm
Ugly,
If someone imposes by force a monopoly on the air around your head, are you stealing if you draw another breath? Is he entitled to take whatever he wants from you in return for that breath?
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:40 pm
Ugly,
How much of your money is the state entitled to? Is there a limit, or is it simply whatever the collective decides?
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:42 pm
Nobody is entitled to anything. People choose to be slaves. If I choose life as a slave over death by lack of oxygen, I still chose. And I would be a fool to PRETEND otherwise.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:45 pm
If nobody is entitled to anything why did you start by accusing me of using other people’s money? How is it their’s if they are not entitled to it?
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:53 pm
Nobody is entitled to anything. People choose to be slaves. If I choose life as a slave over death by lack of oxygen, I still chose. And I would be a fool to PRETEND otherwise.
Why are you obliged to be a slave if you take the breath? If take the breath and then find a way to deny them anything in return have you stolen from them?
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 5:56 pm
Let me re-phrase: Nobody is entitled to anyONE. People are entitled to what is their own.
That should make more sense!
(when are you going to add an edit button here?)
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:04 pm
“Why are you obliged to be a slave if you take the breath?”
That seems to be the reality of the scenerio you are painting. Death or slavery (while they have the power to cut off my oxygen).
” If take the breath and then find a way to deny them anything in return have you stolen from them?”
Well now I should warn you that I don’t accept your premise of colating taxpaying/consumption with oxygen. One is clearly a choice. The other is one that for most people isn’t (would you choose liberty or death? why haven’t you?)
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:05 pm
I don’t intend to add an edit button.
Okay, so I’m entitled to what’s mine.
So who owns the public property?
How much are the owners of the public property entitled to extract from me if I use it?
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:12 pm
Ugly,
That seems to be the reality of the scenerio you are painting. Death or slavery (while they have the power to cut off my oxygen).
They have that power for a moment, or an hour, or a year, but as long as I’m breathing I have the opportunity to rectify that situtation. When I do, do I owe them anything for the air?
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:28 pm
“So who owns the public property?”
The State.
“How much are the owners of the public property entitled to extract from me if I use it?”
Whatever price you agree to.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:32 pm
If you are talking here on Earth, people can’t own air anymore than they can own the space-time continuum or other humans.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:34 pm
The State.
Why is the state entitled to the property?
Whatever price you agree to.
How is such an agreement reached?
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:40 pm
If you are talking here on Earth, people can’t own air…
See what a scuba diver thinks about that.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:50 pm
“Why is the state entitled to the property?”
Because people voluntarily grant it to them. See below.
“How is such an agreement reached?”
By paying your taxes and/or consuming taxfunded goods.
“See what a scuba diver thinks about that.”
I am seeing strawmen ahead.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 6:57 pm
If a highwayman offers you a choice between “Your money or your life” and you turn over your wallet to him to preserve your life, is he now entitled to that property because you voluntarily granted it to him?
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 7:13 pm
You are stooping to tired cliches!!
But why were you on that road in the first place when you knew in advance what the toll for passing was? And then, with as much notice as exists in this world, you decide to bitch about the PRICE?
What is worse is that the road was funded by stolen money. The highwayman lives on a hill and some people choose to send him money in advance (or else he MIGHT do SOMETHING - but is it really a death threat???) And even though you know it to be so, you go ahead and appropiate this stolen money for yourself (by use or otherwise!) - if it is highway robbery you might have held the gun yourself!
Do you use federal reserve notes? Yes/no
Do you use the post office? Yes/no
Do you use roads? Yes/no
Did you have choice in all of above? Yet what did you choose…
I am not condmening you for doing so, as I do it myself. But my eyes are a little more open!
We are in a moral bind - and choosing to “overlook” this technicality is even worse.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 7:20 pm
I use them all but there is no moral bind because the state was not entitled to monopolize the markets in the first place.
To say it is so entitled is to say that it is good and proper for all men to be it’s slaves. That wouldn’t be a moral bind either, just an ugly truth.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 7:34 pm
Who cares? We both agreed that nobody is entitled to anyone.
But the State does not monopolize transportation or package delivery or transfer of goods (though I don’t dispute that roads, USPS and $$$ are more popular). You have a choice to barter, or fly a plane or use UPS.
Yet you choose to utilize them.
If you consume a stolen good, it is the same as stealing it. Disagree?
(and the ugly truth is that most men choose to be slaves!)
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 7:52 pm
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 7:54 pm
Ugly: “If you consume a stolen good, it is the same as stealing it. Disagree?”
Disagree.
If there is a pathway between my house and yours, we can walk or drive along it to visit each other. If the state steals from everyone and paves it, does that require us to walk a different route, just to avoid benefiting from the theft?
If the state pays someone to re-roof my house while I am on vacation, must I drill holes in it, or scrape off the new shingles, or move?
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 8:03 pm
” If the state steals from everyone”
(Everyone? More likely _someone_)
“and paves it, does that require us to walk a different route, just to avoid benefiting from the theft?”
Yes, if you want to avoid profiting from the theft (and being party to it). If I pick up a $10 bill dropped by a mugger when I can see that the victim is lying facedown on the sidewalk, I am equally guilty of theft.
“If the state pays someone to re-roof my house while I am on vacation, must I drill holes in it, or scrape off the new shingles, or move?”
You had no choice - so it isn’t your problem.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 8:21 pm
But the State does not monopolize transportation or package delivery or transfer of goods …
It exercises monopoly power over all of these, and all industry.
If you consume a stolen good, it is the same as stealing it. Disagree?
I disagree. If there’s no prospect of the original owner being made whole then consuming the good is not stealing it. It was stolen when it was stolen, by the party that stole it.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 8:29 pm
Ugly,
The fact that I cannot restore to you or anyone else what the state has stolen from you doesn’t mean the state has any right to it. When I use that property I steal nothing from you. The state stole from you and I was not party to it; your beef is with the state.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 8:43 pm
“It exercises monopoly power over all of these, and all industry.”
Only in your MIND.
“If there’s no prospect of the original owner being made whole then consuming the good is not stealing it.”
Based on what? You are still taking something that doesn’t belong to you. PS: “Finders Keepers” is a very SOCIALIST notion.
“The fact that I cannot restore to you or anyone else what the state has stolen from you doesn’t mean the state has any right to it.”
Doesn’t mean you have a RIGHT to it either!
“When I use that property I steal nothing from you.”
Yes you do, and from yourself. You are consenting to the legtimacy of THIEVERY.
Maybe you are not as bad as holding a gun to someone’s head, but you are NEARLY as bad.
“your beef is with the state”
My beef is with STATISTS and at least I can admit that I am part of the problem (though less so than people who stick their heads in the sands - i.e. yourself)
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 9:22 pm
Ugly,
OK, I’ve heard various arguments before about “receiving stolen goods,” and some of them are very strict. For example, a friend of mine once suggested that if you own a retail store and a customer attempts to pay for a purchase with what you believe to be stolen money, then you should call off the sale and refuse to accept the money.
So far so good, who can disagree with that? But here’s the twist: if the customer is a public school teacher, then that money was very likely taken from someone else by force. So you should escort the school teacher out the door and refuse to sell her a pair of shoes.
You see, if you don’t do this, then you are benefiting from tax money and you are in receipt of stolen goods.
Yikes! Never mind that money is fungible. That is HARSH! Actually if I were running, say, a cigar store, I would consider refusing service to certain government employees. It would be a tough stand and I’d catch hell from the various magistrates, “private” government contractors, etc.
Seriously though, money IS fungible. There is no way one can possibly restore the money to its rightful owner. As JTK says, it’s already been stolen, so the victim has a beef with the state, not with me the cigar store owner. However, if I do sell cigars to a state employee, I am providing “aid and comfort” to the enemy, which may be treason-indeed. Shunning and ostracizing state employees may be the way to go. (Heh heh, assuming they give a damn what a few malcontents such as myself think of them. :-)
In any case, I don’t run a cigar store — I am an independent computer programmer and I do not deal with such people.
But back to one of your main points — do I really have the “choice” not to benefit from public roads? Obviously I wouldn’t be able to drive to the grocery store. I also would have to refrain from having any groceries delivered to my house. I would literally have to stay right here and grow all my own food.
However, even then I would need at least a shovel to till the soil. That shovel would have to be delivered to my house over public roads. I would need seeds for my crops. Sure, I would have my own water well, but I would need pumps and various parts for that, again delivered over public roads.
Your central point is so highly impractical that I can hardly even consider it to be a principled position — I cannot imagine any worthwhile principle of moral life clashing so obviously and irreconcilably with the basic facts of reality and human survival.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 9:41 pm
Careful there Patrick — you are dangerously close to admitting the UGLY TRUTH - that today the State is basic fact of reality and human survival and LIFE! To admit this would rob you of your anarchist holier-than-thou self-rightousness! What would you do then??? (maybe find a better solution?)
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 10:15 pm
Careful there Patrick — you are dangerously close to admitting the UGLY TRUTH - that today the State is basic fact of reality and human survival and LIFE! To admit this would rob you of your anarchist holier-than-thou self-rightousness! What would you do then??? (maybe find a better solution?)
Look man, all you’re saying is that if government agents start collecting taxes to buy up all the FOOD and then they start doling it out with ration tickets, that anybody who wants to EAT is benefiting from stolen money, or the State, or whatever.
If that ever happens then I CAN suggest a better solution. Those government agents should STOP doing that. We who cherish freedom would initially complain a lot but still line up for our rations, but eventually (I hope) we’d use our AKs and RPGs and make them stop.
To say that the State is a “basic fact of reality and human survival and LIFE” is like saying that failing to pay protection money to a local mobster is the cause of burned down businesses and broken legs. That ignores the simple fact that things would be far better off without the local mobster at all.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 10:36 pm
Well know you are just building strawmen (not worth my time). Too bad you won’t see the solution. You rather stick your head in the sand and fantasize about “fighten the man” with your AK and RPG (reaching for a club, JUST LIKE A STATIST, real creative!!!).
Mobsters exist because WE LET THEM exist. And blowing off their heads in response is to lower ourselves below their level. But since that is your natural inclination (and that of other “freedom-lovers”), I think the State is here to stay.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 11:13 pm
“The fact that I cannot restore to you or anyone else what the state has stolen from you doesn’t mean the state has any right to it.”
Doesn’t mean you have a RIGHT to it either!
I don’t have a positive right to it, but I have not violated anyone’s right by using it.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 11:15 pm
“It exercises monopoly power over all of these, and all industry.”
Only in your MIND.
The government asserts complete authority over what UPS can ship, for instance.
June 29th, 2004 at Jun 29, 04 | 11:21 pm
Mobsters exist because WE LET THEM exist.
Why do you let them exist?
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 12:22 am
… Too bad you won’t see the solution. You rather stick your head in the sand and fantasize about “fighten the man” with your AK and RPG (reaching for a club, JUST LIKE A STATIST, real creative!!!).
OK, I let the discussion go off track here. I was talking about an improbably extreme situation and yes, I threw out an improbably extreme and fantastical response. I’ll grant you that.
Mobsters exist because WE LET THEM exist. And blowing off their heads in response is to lower ourselves below their level. But since that is your natural inclination (and that of other “freedom-lovers”), I think the State is here to stay.
In light of my little clarification I will now ignore the accusation that violence is my natural inclination. It is not.
I am actively working on products which I hope will enhance the profitability of freedom. That’s one approach. Evidently you are talking about something else.
I suppose you’re saying something along the lines of “well, if people would simply stop benefitting from the state in any way, shape or form, then things would change.” Or something like that. You’re being pretty coy about what you really mean.
Problem is, I need to eat. That means I need to drive to a grocery store on a public road and buy food. Got any ideas? I’m open to suggestions.
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 4:02 am
You have a choice to … fly a plane…
And that’s an alternative to state-provided transportation? I guess those state subsidies don’t count, eh?
Careful there Patrick — you are dangerously close to admitting the UGLY TRUTH - that today the State is basic fact of reality and human survival and LIFE!
Duh. That’s like saying “it’s June 29th today”. Doesn’t mean this holds true for all time.
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 4:27 am
And that’s an alternative to state-provided transportation? I guess those state subsidies don’t count, eh?
Oh and I guess the state doesn’t fully regulate air travel.
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 5:22 am
Knndy> “Whn s tht prprty stl nthng frm y.”
>
gly>Ys y d, nd frm yrslf. Y r cnsntng t th lgtmcy f THVRY.
<>Bllsht
f th stt stls yr lnd v mnnt-dmn nd pvs t, nd hv t crss t bcs t s th nly smnt vlbl, m nthr trspssng n yr prprty nr cndnng th thft f t.
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 2:46 pm
Wow, amazing how rothbardian magic tricks can ERASE common sense. So if I understand it, if you see a wallet on the ground next to a guy bleeding a sidewalk (clearly the victim of a mugging) you can HOMESTEAD (i.e. steal) his property??? And shoot (or RPG) anyone, who like a hyena, tries to also scavenge the loot?
If we are stooping to cliches…welcome to Somalia (or modern day Iraq, yet another anarcho paradise).
But I suppose the whole idea of actually carrying your package down a trail or flying a private plane (such as is common in Alaska) is beyond your abstract thinking?
“Why do you let them exist?”
I’m not sure, but unlike YOU I don’t try to hide it!
Damn the man by sticking your head in the sand. How FREE you are!
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 3:29 pm
Ugly wrote:
“Why do you let them exist?”
I’m not sure, but unlike YOU I don’t try to hide it!
You claimed the mobsters/government exist because you let them. Why do you allow them to exist?
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 3:50 pm
Because it is safer. I would rather live in Statist USA rather than Iraq, Alaska or Somalia.
See how I can admit it?
Why can’t YOU?
Like alcoholism, admission is the first step to recovery.
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 4:24 pm
Ugly Truth wrote:
Because it is safer. I would rather live in Statist USA rather than Iraq, Alaska or Somalia.
How would your literal or figurative departure to Iraq, Alaska, or Somalia deprive the government of existence?
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 5:50 pm
You right away ASSUME my goal is some sort of collective crusade against the USA government. But in fact, my departure to Iraq, Alaska, or Somalia would reduce the State’s influence ON ME.
In other words, if I was free of the state (or more free) in Iraq, Alaska, or Somalia, why would I care about the existance of the USA government?
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 7:11 pm
MJS:
>>f th stt stls yr lnd v mnnt-dmn nd pvs t,
>>nd hv t crss t bcs t s th nly smnt vlbl,
>> m nthr trspssng n yr prprty nr cndnng ts thft.
gly:
[]Ww, mzng hw rthbrdn mgc trcks cn RS cmmn sns. S f ndrstnd t, f y s wllt n th grnd nxt t gy bldng sdwlk (clrly th vctm f mggng) y cn HMSTD (.. stl) hs prprty???
Bzzzzzt! Wp-wp-wp-wp!
Flgrnt fls-nlgy rrr!
Pnlty Bx: Mk yr wy mmdtly t nthr blg fr [7] dys, drng whch tms, y shld rd th prgrm: < hrf="http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/FLLCYS.HTM" ttl="http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/FLLCYS.HTM">< hrf='http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/FLLCYS.HTM' rl='nfllw'>http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/FLLCYS.HTM
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 7:13 pm
<>Bcs t s sfr. wld rthr lv n Sttst S rthr thn rq, lsk r Sml. S hw cn dmt t? Why cn’t Y? Lk lchlsm, dmssn s th frst stp t rcvry.
Rcvry t wht?
June 30th, 2004 at Jun 30, 04 | 7:37 pm
Woop-woop-woop-woop - strawman alert!!!! Sorry Schneider, but I wasn’t refering to your specific strawfilled post (which was strawman). Think about that on the bench while you remove the straw from your boots.
“Recovery to what?”
Smug “anti-statist” statism, which you suffer from.
July 1st, 2004 at Jul 01, 04 | 4:40 am
You right away ASSUME my goal is some sort of collective crusade …
My immediate assumption was that you were a slippery troll who couldn’t track an argument or answer a simple question straight out. Your responses confirmed the assumption.
July 1st, 2004 at Jul 01, 04 | 4:52 am
rlr, gly wrt:
>Knndy wrt:
>>”Why s th stt nttld t th prprty?”
>
>Bcs ppl vlntrly grnt t t thm.
Ths s th mbgs-cllctv fllcy.
< hrf="http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/FLLCYS.HTM" ttl="http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/FLLCYS.HTM">< hrf='http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/FLLCYS.HTM' rl='nfllw'>http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/FLLCYS.HTM
Mst rcnt xchng:
MJS
>>>>f th stt stls yr lnd v mnnt-dmn nd pvs t,
>>>>nd hv t crss t bcs t s th nly smnt vlbl,
>>>> m nthr trspssng n yr prprty nr cndnng ts thft.
gly
>>>S f ndrstnd t, f y s wllt n th grnd nxt t
>>>gy bldng sdwlk (clrly th vctm f mggng) y cn
>>>HMSTD (.. stl) hs prprty???
MJS
>>Bzzzzzt! Wp-wp-wp-wp! Flgrnt fls-nlgy rrr!
gly
>Srry Schndr, bt wsn’t rfrng t yr spcfc strw-
>flld pst (whch ws strwmn).
gt t nw: Y’r trllng wsl wh dsn’t ndrstnd wht mny f th wrds, phrss nd cncpts y’r nm-drppng ctlly *mn*. “Strw mn” rfrs t prtclr lgcl fllcy, n whch nt dd <>nt cmmt Mnwhl, th fls-nlgy y ndlgd n shld b qt bvs t vryn: n th cs f my hs bng srrndd by Lvthn’s flt-fnc pn stln lnd, thr’s nthng tht thr r th vctm cn d bt t. Frthrmr, s th vctm llwd m ccss t my wn prprty prr (v whtvr smnts xstd) t th szr, cn hrdly b cmmttng r ndrsng th stt’s crm by cntnng t d wht <>h ddn’t cnsdr crm — nd ths s ll cmpltly bsd th pnt f m bng mnfstly nbl t rctfy th sttn (nt, mnd y, tht ‘m ndr mrl blgtn t, snc ws nt prty t th crm) v ny mns shrt f rvltn.
Ths, thn, y ttmptd t qt t n sly rctfbl sttn (n whch th cntnts f th wllt wll lmst crtnly cntn vrs plstc rctngls mbssd wth th nm f thr wnr, r, f lckng sch, th mpty wllt tslf s hrdly fbls prz fr m sprt ff wth whl th pr bstrd blds t dth). n my xmpl, th “mggr” s n mnptnt gvrnmnt blln tms my sz; n yr fls-nlgy, th mggr hs ncngrsly lft th scn wtht th prprty whch ws prsmbly th rsn fr th sslt n th frst plc. n my xmpl, ‘v dn nthng t th vctm, nd th vctm wld nt cnsdr my ctns nrsnbl n ny vnt; n yr fls-nlgy, y pst tht bltntly rb hm.
Yr chcs hr r tw:
1. Bgn t THNK.
2. Cndyss yr wy thrgh nthr lm-brnd rjndr, r jst rn ff t th nxt blg.
July 1st, 2004 at Jul 01, 04 | 2:14 pm
Don’t feed trolls.
July 1st, 2004 at Jul 01, 04 | 7:08 pm
Dn’t wrry bt m, Mch; cn hndl myslf: < hrf="http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/trll.jpg" ttl="http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/trll.jpg">< hrf='http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/trll.jpg' rl='nfllw'>http://hm.mn.rr.cm/mdwbrkhm/z/trll.jpg
July 2nd, 2004 at Jul 02, 04 | 6:52 am
One thing which has bothered me for many years now is the death of objections to the outrageous lie that the people in Somalia, Afghanistan, or some other third-world country in the midst of civil war are living under anarchy.
They are not and people who know better should not let this lie go unanswered so often.
How is being ruled by warlords a lack of government–particularly when those warlords impose harsh Shariah laws? Anarchy is a lack of government or, more precisely, each individual governing himself or herself. It is not simply the lack of a strong central government.
July 2nd, 2004 at Jul 02, 04 | 10:31 pm
I think it’s fair to say that Somalia is in a state of anarchy. Max Weber’s definition of the State has always been my favorite, and Somalia certainly doesn’t have an entity which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force over a single geographic area. The fact that Somalia is a pretty unattractive place to live (although, compared to some of its neighbors and what it looked like as a state, it’s not quite so bad) is a mark against anarchism, but then, Cuba, North Korea, pre-Saddam Iraq, and a whole host of other countries are a mark against statism.
July 3rd, 2004 at Jul 03, 04 | 5:29 pm
No, Micha, you are wrong. You’re requiring that the geographic area be the entire country. But a warlord is the dictator of a town, city, or province. He attempts to maintain a monopoly on the use of force in that geographic area. He does so by pushing around the peasants and by waging war against neighboring gangs or weak representatives of the so-called official national government.
The lack of central government is not what makes these places undesirable places to live. These people are technologically primitive, compared to most of the world. The land is mostly desert or mountain. And, most importantly, they have mired themselves in a barbaric religion which is very hostile to individual rights and technological progress.
If there’s a pertinent difference between the warlords imposing Shariah law in these countries and the UN-recognized leaders of various third-world dictatorships, I don’t see it.
July 4th, 2004 at Jul 04, 04 | 3:50 pm
<blockquote>The fact that Somalia is a pretty unattractive place to live (although, compared to some of its neighbors and what it looked like as a state, it’s not quite so bad) is a mark against anarchism</blockquote>
For the past decade or so, Somalia has been without central government; it has also been without war, mass slaughters, or regional warlords; it has also been without famine (while many in surrounding countries faced starvation), and boasts a strong business community and, especially, a thriving (completely unregulated) telecommunications sector.
There are lots of bad things that go on in Somalia, and I would hardly want to live there. But that is not because Somalia hasn’t got a central government; that is the best thing that’s happened to Somalia in many years. It’s because Somalia is very poor, and in a region of the world where the land is bad and industry is only slowly developing. I don’t see how anarchy would (or could) suddenly change such large-scale facts about the absence of established land or capital over so few years, so I have trouble seeing how this counts as a mark against anarchism (any more than, say, the fact that we haven’t developed spacecraft to take us to Alpha Centauri yet would be a fair argument against state-funded space programs).