Yes. The concept is illogical.
Best, Michael
Dear Dr. Mike;
As Spock the Vulcan said to Captain Kirk; " Humans are illogical."
This is what makes us humans and so darn interesting. To paraphrase
Admiral Farragut; Damn the State - Full Speed Ahead!
Ring the Bell and stop all taxes.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Michael R. Edelstein"
<dredelstein@t...> wrote:
Yes. The concept is illogical.
Best, Michael
From: "Ronald Getty" <tradergroupe@y...>
To: <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss]Citizens Against the State Who and what
is
libertarian? How libertarian are they?
> Dear Dr. Mike;
>
> You asked: Do you mean the concept of the state is a
contradiction
in terms, built on a non sequitor?
>
> Non-sequitor:
>
> Definition:
> [n] (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the
premises
> [n] a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it
>
> Which definition of non-sequitor were you referring to?
>
> From the days of Socrates - Plato - Aristotle people have debated
what is the State and does the State have any relevance. In the
context of the thread and your original question of whether or not
the
State can defend its Citizens from itself. NO - the State can not
be
relied on to defend its Citizens from itself. The State is a
cannibal
eating its young.
>
> The State is a creation of its people. Or in some cases a
figment of
its imagination. Should its people decide to do away with the State
for any reason they deem necessary then let it happen. The State
is of
the people by the people and occassionally for the people. The
people
need to be constantly vigilant to protect themselves from the
State.
The State will not look after its young should the State decide to
eat
its young. It's every man for themselves in such a milieu.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
>
> "Dr. Michael R. Edelstein" <dredelstein@t...>
wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > > Mike asked : Since the chief violator of individual rights is
the
> > > state, how can the state defend its citizens against
> > > itself?
> >
> > The State can not defend its citizens against itself.
>
> Do you mean to tell me, Ron, the concept of the state is a
> contradiction in terms, built on a non sequitor?
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: "Ronald Getty" <tradergroupe@y...>
> To: <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss]Citizens Against the State Who and
what
is
> libertarian? How libertarian are they?
>
>
> > Dear Dr. Mike;
> >
> > Mike asked : Since the chief violator of individual rights is
the
> > state, how can the state defend its citizens against
> > itself?
> >
> > The State can not defend its citizens against itself. The
citizen
> must defend themselves against the State.
> >
> > Vive La Revolucionas!!! Fraternite!! Egalite!!! Liberte!!!
Don't
> Tread On Me!!!
> >
> > Let the Crooks of Congress eat the Pork Barrell Cake at the
> taxpayers expense. Let the Citizens eat the the Cake of Freedom
from
> Taxes.
> >
> > The State exists because the Citizen is willing to temporarily
allow
> the State to exist. If the Citizen determines the State is no
longer
> acting in the Citizens best interest in such Libertarian matters
as
> common defnese of life and property then the Citizens is free to
> dissolve the State. And if so desired the Citizen and only the
Citizen
> can re-form a State.
> >
> > For more on this topic read some Lysander Spooner. He had some
> severe reservations with how the State was not acting in its
Citizens
> best interest.
> >
> > I say it's time to put a new Citizens initiative on the
California
> ballot. I'd call it Proposition 1776. It would allow the
Citizens of
> California to secede from the Union and establish the Golden Bear
> Nation of California. A free tax and a free trade Nation.
> >
> > Screw Bush and the Morons of Congress. It's time we took back
our
> country from those idiots who are not acting in our best
interests.
> The bill to date for Iraq is at $150 Billion and California's
share
is
> $15 billion. The budget deficit is $500 Billion. Our share is $50
> Billion.
> >
> > Not one penny more for war not one penny more for taxes!!!!!
Ring
> the bell and stop all taxes!!!!!
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > "Dr. Michael R. Edelstein" <dredelstein@t...>
> wrote:
> > Steve,
> >
> > Question for you concerning national defense:
> > Since the chief violator of individual rights is the
> > state, how can the state defend its citizens against
> > itself?
> >
> > Best, Michael
> >
> >
> > From: "Steve Dekorte" <steve@d...>
> > To: <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 5:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Who and what is libertarian?
How
> > libertarian are they?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > You would apply it the same way in which you would provide
> police
> > > > and fire services. You buy what you need so it is there
when
it
> is
> > > > needed. Not a reactive force but a proactive force.
> > >
> > > *Who* buys it? If my neighbor pays and I do not, how is he
to be
> > > protected in a way that does not offer protection to me?
> > >
> > > -- Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
> > Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon
or
> > Lexmark
> > > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to
the US
Although I agree with Michael E. that witch hunts
within the party are detrimental, I thought this
article might be of interest to some, especially the
section on taxes-
http://www.lp.org/lpn/9503-essence.html
I had the opportunity to see David Nolan at the recent
state convention speak to these same point he wrote so
long ago, without deviation. I guess as party founder
he's the closest thing to an LP 'supreme court' that
we have at this point. Anyone care to challenge him?
David
Libertarian Candidate for State Senate, Dist. 3
Dear David;
David Nolan wrote in his definitions:
No Taxes on Productivity
In an ideal world, there would be no taxation. All services would be paid for on an as-used basis. But in a less-than-ideal world, some services will be force-financed for the foreseeable future. However, not all taxes are equally deleterious, and the worst form of taxation is a tax on productivity-i.e. an "income" tax-and no libertarian supports this type of taxation.
What kind of taxation is least harmful? This is a topic still open for debate. My own preference is for a single tax on land, with landholders doing their own valuation; you'd state the price at which you'd be willing to sell your land, and pay taxes on that amount. Anyone (including the tax collector) who wanted to buy it at that price could do so. This is simple, fair, and minimizes government snooping into our lives and business. Is this "the" libertarian position on taxes? No. But all libertarians oppose any form of income tax.
Idealistically, some minimilast type of tax for common defense of life and property is needed. However, I can not believe David Nolan would use the above system for determining taxes. There is no mention of capping the property tax rate. No mention of the " State" setting minimum standards at which the property would be valued. I can not believe David Nolan would leave these to the Legislators to decide.
Do you know if David Nolan has come out with a better example of what could be done IF some type of taxes are needed?
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
David Rhodes <dfrhodes@...> wrote:
Although I agree with Michael E. that witch hunts
within the party are detrimental, I thought this
article might be of interest to some, especially the
section on taxes-
http://www.lp.org/lpn/9503-essence.html
I had the opportunity to see David Nolan at the recent
state convention speak to these same point he wrote so
long ago, without deviation. I guess as party founder
he's the closest thing to an LP 'supreme court' that
we have at this point. Anyone care to challenge him?
David
Libertarian Candidate for State Senate, Dist. 3
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
Yes, no witch hunts, especially since the witches seem to be on our side! 8)
http://members.tripod.com/Hail_Eris/eris/PPPP/wicca.htm
About David Nolan's five points -- as previously noted, I don't subscribe to the idea that a person's stand on any single issue or group of issues can definitively make him or her a libertarian or not. Perhaps that notion works if you're dealing with someone who has very well-formed and internally consistent beliefs, but as we know, that's not most of the public. I think this is where Nolan's five points lose their utility. He seems to imagine applying his standard to a politically-informed person with rigorous views on various issues.
On the content of the list however, I don't disagree too much. I often tell people in response to questions that from my observations, the traditional "big three" libertarian issues are guns, drugs and taxes, and he lists those issues among the five.
Self-ownership is even more important than the "big three," but to my mind it doesn't belong on the same list. It's more of a core right that undergirds rights like the right not to be taxed, etc. And sound money is important, but it's a poor litmus test if for no other reason than it's so obscure that few people are likely to have an informed position on it.
I do agree with Nolan that of all taxes, a tax on land is probably about the least objectionable you could come up with, and I like his method of assessment.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>