Sally Zalatovski has three kids and is very active despite that.
We have corresponded about the liberty movement in a sometimes balmy exchange.
She has given me permission to share this part of the exchange, but requests no replies to her as she is very busy.
I am confident that many in this group disagree with her positions on foreign policy as I do, but please keep the discussion here for now.
Phil,
Sally calls the cost of national security "a cost WE are comfortable paying" (emphasis added). But of course voluntary donations from those who wish to make them are not the problem -- the problem is that people who have *different* priorities for how they wish to spend *their own money* are being forced by law to instead give it to the U.S. government, which is *not the rightful owner*. By talking about who is "comfortable" with the arrangement, rather than who is being coerced against their will (robbed), Sally appears to avoid talking about the aggression (big government forcibly taking money from its rightful owners) that she is implicitly sanctioning. Of course her avoidance of the root problem that people with libertarian views are going to perceive, does not eliminate the possibility of our working together on issues where we agree, as she mentions, or of conservative-inclined and libertarian-inclined folks each expressing their own views as individuals at rallies and events.
Since I also value my time, and neither have time for secondhand communication with people who don't want any replies to what they've written, nor am bound by any personal agreement not to respond to the material you've posted (my condolences if either of you failed to consider this fact when requesting or giving permission to forward), I'm copying Sally on this message so she has the opportunity to read my thoughts as I have read hers. I am not expecting a response from her, or considering her obligated to respond if she does not wish to take the time to have a real dialogue, so she needn't spend any longer on this message than the second or two it takes her to delete it, unless she chooses otherwise.
In the future however, I would suggest not posting stuff here from colleagues or single-issue allies who object to receiving responses to their comments, since airing one-way communications of views that are at odds with libertarianism on libertarian lists, or putting our ability to communicate on a secondary footing vis-a-vis those colleagues or allies, does little to advance liberty.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - Note correct spelling of Sally's last name (I fixed it in your message below)
Remarkable how willing people are to "pay" with the lives of others.
Of course if *not* coercing people to pay taxes meant that other people would automatically be subject to even *more* coercion, that would definitely change the picture -- then there would be a strong argument for choosing the option that resulted in the least amount of total coercion.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Thank you for sharing this, Phil. Sally is so straight forward! And her outlook is similar to mine -- join if you agree with the issue, and ignore if not. Her request that we do not bother her when she requests, in my opinion, should be respected. After all, she is not at all interested in running a one-woman debate society, but in action that arises from her perspectives.
Marcy
Yes, Steve, very interesting how so many are willing to put others in harm's way, including their own children. Not a good thing. As a long-time anti-war activist, I have often argued with folks whether they were sure the death of their child was worth the cause for which he/she died. When working with pro-war groups, the best I can do is state my case and move on to achieving common goals.
Marcy