Posted on 09/23/2002 8:56:33 AM PDT by Commie Basher
M
Are they the feds somehow forced to allow states to pass them?
Why dosen't the federal government declare the California law a nullity?
Thanks in advance,
First off, there is no such word as minarchy. It's referred to as mini anarchism, or even mini-anarchism, if you so choose.
Secondly, calling me an "idiot" may relieve your frustration, but besides from not being true, you are breaking the ground rules that exist here on FreeRepublic. Name calling is frawned upon, bucko!
Thirdly, I'm not a big governemnt statist, as you say. I'm a mainstream conservative and a Reagan conservative, who supports conservative Republican candidates for public office. Which is the current and exact agenda, of the founder of FReeRepublic.
Now until you Libertarians and libertarians, can get more then 384,440 votes in a presidential election, like you did in 2000, I'd watch all that outrageous rhetoric of yours. It makes you look downright uniformed.
The truth is, your desire for a chaotic society will never be realized. At least not as long as traditional conservatives are around to keep you heathens and neanderthals in line.
Chuckle, chuckle.
Honestly, someone who makes a comment that "the golden rule and libertarian philosophy are at opposite ends of the spectrum" is not even worth the time of replying to. Notice none of the other "usual suspects" have taken up his cause.
No, I am afraid that is very incorrect. An "anarchist" is someone who refuses to submit all lawful authority, and seeks to become a law unto himself. Such people are tyrants in the making. And they are always wrong. They are ultimately accountable to God.
If so, why not purchase a section of border and charge $1,000 for anyone who wants to enter.
If they're on your property, they're your problem. If they impact adjoining property, or if they leave your property and can't find anyone else willing to do business with them, then they will suffer the consequences.
No, you stated libertarians, as in all libertarians, and this is simply untrue. One could just as easily state that republicans support a state church, without indicating that only some do, and be equally as inaccurate.
I know all there is to know about the Libertarian Party platform and the libertarian philosphy.
What you have shown by your posts so far indicates that you do not. Please cite exactly where libertarians, or the LP, advocate completely dismantling either our criminal justice system or our military such that we would be unable to defend our country.
If someone chooses to deviate from the libertarian norm, thats a different story. Perhaps those individuals should become political independents and stop presenting themselves, as something they are not.
Again, what you are representing as the 'libertarian norm' is not that.
I know Harry Browne. I remember the other LP candidates for president throughout the years. I'm familiar with Ron Paul and his fellow libertarian pals. I've argued with many a Libertarian and libertarian, right here on FreeRepublic. You can't deceive this astute political observer and lifelong conservative. So don't try!
With all due respect, I am neither trying to deceive you nor do I label it as 'astute' when some tries to associate positions with libertarianism that do not necessarily represent reality.
Google finds 627 hits on minarchy and zero on "mini anarchism" or "mini-anarchism". So far, your command of the facts is underwhelming.
Well, you're the libertarian standing in the circle and the circle is in public view. I'm sure you enjoy that reality.
Your inability to comprehend simple English, is astounding. I will atempt to clarify what I meant, since you're having continued difficulites.
While you see some connection between the two statements you posted, I do not. Once again, the Libertarian Party platform and the libertarian agenda are farfetched forms of political philosophy. They're impractical idealism, which offers nothing to basic American beliefs and traditional values. You're force and fraud argument is hollow.
If the government orders the principal of a public high school not to allow a prayer before a football game, and he does so anyway, is he an anarchist? If you give a child a home-made sore throat remedy that includes whiskey, are you an anarchist?
The truth is that we are all anarchists, each with his own cost-benefit criteria for determining whether we will obey a governmental decree.
Why not?
You're [sic] force and fraud argument is hollow.
How so?
You are so clueless you don't even know what this is about. It's not about medical marjauna but about states rights. The right of people to live in a community that shares their values.
A similar right was trampled when the supreme court ruled against prayer in school. If you believe that the Federal government has the right to dictate how local communities choose to live, than you are an ememy of freedom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.