property rights & conflict resolution


You wrote:

Why would
government be interested in maintaining itself,

You summarize beautifully the core problem with "limited" govt.
With a monopoly on force and the power to line its pockets with "free"
money, why, indeed, would any govt--no matter how small and
"limited"-- not grow and grow and grow and grow?

Best, Michael

Actually, that's what the Constitution and the Judiciary were supposed to be
for. I still can't figure out if the breakdown was ultimately judicial
activism or the people's ignorance of the Constitution, or both, but I'm
convinced it's somewhere in one of those two. Of course a legislature and
executive will naturally expand their power whenever possible. But the
framers did at least attempt to put a balance on that. If theirs was only
the first try in history, I don't see why we should give up on it without a
second attempt.


Hi Everyone,

I got back into town yesterday evening, and I want to
remind people about the Political Chat tonight. I read
in one of Steve's e-mails that he was interested in
continuing the discussion about anarchy and
libertarianism, and suggested doing this at one of the
Political Chats. I think this is a great and
interesting topic, and one that is new to me, and it
would be ideal if some members of the lpsf who
consider themselves as anarchists could be present if
and when we decide to choose this topic at the
Political Chat (maybe tonight!).

I actually began writing this e-mail last night, but
my doorbell rang and it was a buddy of mine who just
got back from fighting in Iraq. It was great to see
him, and interesting to look at his pictures and hear
of his experience there (and political views, as

I would like know who will be at the Chat tonight, and
take suggestons on a topic, or topics we could discuss
tonight. I also want to thank Steve for his interest
and passion in these discussions (the PC and the LPSF)
and getting me to really think deeply about my views.
If I wasn't challenged by some of his comments and
questions, I wouldn't be thinking so deeply about the
beliefs I hold.

I'll be checking the lpsf e-mail in a later on to see
who and how many people will be attending tonight, and
checking for suggestions on a topic. Thanks to
everyone for attending the PC's (Political Chats).

Dave Barker.


  You seem to be assuming the power of coercive taxation would attach to a limited government. That's not what I am proposing. I just think we need an entity called government, with a mandate from the public to be the final arbiter of disputes and custodian of the "public space" where certain rights are guaranteed, in order to avoid a power vacuum or the emergence of other de facto governments.

              <<< Starchild >>>