Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The real meaning of Christmas.
Music played:
itunes.apple.com/us/playlist/wsb-…_campaign=buffer
Angels We Have Heard on High by Third Day
O Come, O Come by MercyMe
On Christmas Day by Smalltown Poets
What Child is This by Todd Fields
Go Tell It On The Mountain by Athey Creek Christian Fellowship
I Will Find A Way by Athey Creek Christian Fellowship
Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence by Surface of the Deep
In the First Light by Smalltown Poets
Tell Me The Story of Jesus by Kim Walker Smith
Variant on Benedictus by Dan Forrest & Jeff Lippencott
Make Room by Casting Crowns
I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day by Sarah McLaughlin
A Cradle in Bethlehem by Sara Groves
Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas by Judy Garland
Subscribe to Erick Erickson Show in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Hoping I'm not too late to this party... Isn't the problem with the notion of "private law" (as it has been discussed here) that "law" always implies a lawgiver? If Jack and Jill agree to escrow the money for their dinner date with trusted friend Bob, that isn't a legal arrangement; it's merely an agreement. Our judges preside over courts. Interesting word that. Whose court? I think it's safe to say that we've inherited that language from times when it was the king's court and the king's law in his realm. "Law" (fully understood) and political authority seem inseparable. @ says:
Sorry "Nozick really" should have been "didn't really" @ says:
James-I'm traveling right now and don't have my copy with me so I can't give you the exact chapter. It's fairly early in the book where Nozick is discussing the hypothetical evolution from a state of nature into a minimilist state. At an intermediate level people subscribe to private security agencies which provide physical and property-right protection for their members and arbitration services among their members. I agree with you that such arrangements are functionally indistinguishable from states except to the extent that they are not exclusive over a geographical area and are voluntary. In that sense they are indeed much like drug cartels. As to your point about drug cartels being essentially states so that their internal governance is law, I'm not going to argue with you on that. I recognize I've been using a non-standard definition of private law, but that seems to me to be a pretty non-standard definition of state. Again, I'd like to stress that I'm not taking my argument on this thread straight from Nozick. A,S&U just provided a background for my thinking. @ says:
The closest public thinker to what I've described is Robert Nozick. Nozick really write in legal terms, but substantively he addresses these issues in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." The purely private enforcement I'm talking about is similar to the intermediate state between the state of nature and the minimalist state. In it, competing private enforcement agencies provide a framework for law and social organization. Nozick didn't think a such a system of purely private law was desirable either, but he did think it was theoretically possible as a transitionary form of social organization. What I'm defending here isn't the exact same thing, because I think it's possible for a system of purely private contract law to exist alongside a public system of criminal law. @ says:
David Friedman also writes about a historical example of private law enforcement -- Medieval Iceland -- here. (Enforcement was private, but the letter of the law, in my opinion, was not entirely private, as the law-speaker, the guy whose job it is to remember all the law, sounds to me like a public official.) David Friedman's book, "Law's Order", offers an analysis of conventional law from an anarcho-capitalistic perspective. Or more precisely, it analyzes law from an economist's perspective, and the particular economist in question also happens to be an anarcho-capitalist. Whatever you think of anarcho-capitalism itself, this book is good. In particular, it made me understand what intellectual property is, and why having different laws for patents and copyrights is, in fact, reasonable. @ says:
Introduction
Why Private Enforcement Must be Inefficient (author hopes to rebut this section in later sections)
- Institutions for Efficient Private Enforcement
- Efficient Locks
- Problem: New Bribery Incentives
- Solution: Observing Expected Punishment
- Summary
The article involves making simplifying mathematical models and then using optimization (calculus) on them. But as long as you have a qualitative understanding of expected value (risk analysis, basic statistics), you'll be able to understand his description of an efficient institution for the private enforcement of law (in Section 6). There is cheerful discussion of topics such as efficient versus inefficient bribery, which is a bit disorienting at first for most honest people, but if you stick with it, you'll see what he means (even if you don't agree with it). @ says:I'd be in favor of allowing force in repossessions, but I think we've been diverted from the point. My assertion is that entirely private law is possible. I've repeatedly stated that I don't think it's desirable. At this point your criticisms seem to be based on the undesirability of purely private law. I haven't been playing devil's advocate in favor of purely private law, I've jus been arguing that it is possible. I don't think that pointing out it would be messy and inefficient contradicts my point. @ says:
Ed- I think we are about 90% on the same page. At this point, I think we're separated by how narrowly we choose to define the law-giving authority. @ says:
Asking what happens if the escrow agent decides to keep the money is akin to asking what happens if the judge decides to dismiss your suit out of personal animus. At some point all law requires people to decide to adhere to it. Also, as a practical matter you would have professional escrow agents who will act honestly because a failure to do so will ruin their reputation and drive them out of business. PayPal, may be ultimately subject to state legal constraints, but its reliability is much more directly the result of market forces. Again, I'm not an anarchist and I think that the state enforcement of private law is desirable, I just don't think it is inherently necessary. @ says:
On the downside, it's super amateur, with a section devoted to the ability to use non-standard currencies and pages of dense stuff, but with entitlement reform and just about everything else discussed in professionally written manifestos being covered by "We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. " You'll note that the Constitution doesn't require the employment of anyone who is not a politician, and you can get by with a judicial branch of a single member; if they mean there should be a federal government of three people + Congress, then they should say that. They understand the risks of letting in dangerous people, but not the risks of admitting dangerous plants and plant parasites. On the upside, it's against the federal funding of campaigns and energy subsidies; it may be better than Johnson's. Pop quiz: What does this mean, in practical terms? "Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect." @ says:
Comments nontrivially surpassing follows by an order of magnitude - is that a record? @ says:
Eh, don't let me interrupt, I just jumped in to say hi to Midget Rattlesnack. We have missed you! @ says:
It's also worth noting that the reputational incentives for Paypal aren't that great. Sure, if it took all the money put into its accounts and ran, it wouldn't be able to do any more business as a quasi-bank, but that's a trade off that would be more than worth it; Paypal isn't worth as much as its client money, a situation that is not unusual. @ says:
I agree with you to the extent that state involvement is pervasive in our current system. My argument is that it doesn't have to be. If the state decided tomorrow that it wouldn't enforce PayPal contracts I don't think it would make Paypal unviable. Your argument seems to be that in the current system the state is involved one way or another on all law. My point is that it is possible, though not necessarily advisable, to have a system where the state isn't involved in some law. @ says:
James and Ed- In the context of this discussion I haven't been assuming any state backing of private contracts and I've shown how private third-party enforcement can be every bit as constraining on the contracting parties as recourse to courts. I'm not sure why you assume that an enforcement entity motivated by market forces is more likely to act capriciously than one motivated by statutory motives. @ says:
I'm not defending AC at all. I'm arguing that a state is not inherently necessary for there to be law. I happen to think that a minimal state is desirable. @ says:
In the context @ says:
I hate to use an appeal to authority in a debate such as this, but I'm going to anyway because our dispute seems to be about the basic question of the existence of private law. Black's Law Dictionary is an almost universally accepted authority on defining legal terms. Its second edition defines private law as: "As used in contradistinction to public law. The term means all that part of the law which is administered between citizen and citizen, or which is concerned with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights in cases where both the person in whom the right inheres and the person upon whom the obligation is incident are private individuals." @ says:
Just as an aside, do you accept the distinction between natural law and positive law? Or the existence of natural law? @ says:
Continued from 181. I do agree that we have a semantic disconnect, but I think it is about what we mean by public and private. I'm not an anarchist, so I recognize that there will be some state. My distinction between public and private law has to do with whether it involves the state. Essentially, my use is similar to the distinction between public and private sector workers. When you said "When we add an outside authority [by which I assumed you were mainly referring to enforcement agency] (whether imposed or voluntary) the transaction isn't really private anymore..." it seems that the public/private distinction you were making is less about the involvement of the state and more akin to the distinction between public and private lives than to public and private sectors. I could have completely misunderstood you, so please correct me if I did. @ says:
As to the historical basis for democracy being more friendly to individual liberty, I can think of a number of counter examples: I would rather live in Pinochet's Chile than Chavez's Venezuela, Franco's Spain was at least arguably freer than Republican Catalonia, oligarchic Rome granted citizens greater civil liberties than democratic Athens, the passage of the Parliament Act of 1911 paved the way for the democratically popular British Welfare State... @ says:
Also, I do appreciate that you don't have a formal background in this and I think you're doing a good job making your case even for someone who does. I just think that the position you've staked out, that there is no such thing as private law, only works if you're willing to say that any situation where there is no state involvement cannot be law per se. If that's your position I'm okay with that, I just disagree. This is a fairly hotly contested issue within jurisprudence and philosophy generally. @ says:
Does the enforcement entity have to be the same as the source of authority? If authority should ideally come from the consent of the governed, why doesn't the consent to be governed by a contract constitute authority? On the other hand, if authority comes from force, is a mobster's extortion lawful? If general applicability is a requirement, are treaties between two nations law? I'm sorry, I know that a string of questions is annoying, but these are all points raised by your requirements for law. @ says:
....continued from #166 If I'm alternating between a formal and a functional view of law, it's because there is truth and value in each approach. @ says:
.....continued from #165 I've also argued, indirectly anyway, that another required component of law is general applicability to the entity/jurisdiction governed by the authority. Law is not generally the paradigm we use to think about a situation in which one is autonomous. Nor is it the paradigm we use to think about private transactions; I pay life insurance premiums so that when I die my wife gets a payout - we don't call that arrangement law. Prohibition of fraud and concept of implied warranty are certainly law, but the insurance arrangement itself is not. continued..... @ says:
.....continued from #164 So far I've argued that enforcement (not necessarily consistent or successful enforcement) is a required component of law. I've also argued that enforcement requires authority; I'd prefer that authority be derived from natural law and consent of the governed as is our system, but history has shown us that authority is more likely to be derived from coercion. continued..... @ says:
One last point: I think any viable AC system would have to require the presence of numerous large corporations, if only because they can provide a needed stability and reliability compared to individuals. And I can only imagine that several of these companies would also act as clearinghouses/brokers/escrows/arbitration services for contracts between third parties. Think of a large-scale version of what PayPal or credit card companies do today. Of course, it could be argued that these institutions are essentially replacing the judiciary power of the state, so what is the difference other than semantics? Well, hopefully there would be enough such corporations that they would compete and offer slightly different conditions, thus allowing people to choose, and preventing any one of them from assuming the type of monopoly we have in our "statist" system today. Again, hopefully.... @ says:
.....continued from #178 The mob does indeed operate by rules, and within that context/jurisdiction it does serve as law because there is a system and not just a list of oughts; fortunately, the mob context is usually subsidiary to a community context and the legal system of the community supercedes the legal system of the mob. Treaties are the result of a wider legal system and there is general applicabilioty to all living in those jurisdictions. If you and I were the only two actors in the world, and we weren't part of a wider system, then yes our agreements would be law in both senses because metaphysical rights/obligations arise and because we are each the final authorities of our own self contained systems. @ says:
.....continued from #174 I agree with the founders that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; these can flow from either divine law or natural law. Great, but if the governing authority denies the divine and interprets natural law differently then I'll at least have something to mutter to myself while wasting away in the concentration camp. When we talk about law in relation to AC or even the libertarian ideal, we're talking about the system and not the essence of law. So private agreements can be considered private "law" only because such agreements are understood within the context of the wider legal system with an implicit and overriding public guarantee. Absent a wider system and the implicit authoritative guarantee, the rights and obligations that arise from a private agreement can only be of the metaphysical variety, without any finally physically binding consequences except those imposed by the agreeing parties. When we add an outside authority (whether imposed or voluntary) the transaction isn't really private anymore - it seeks entrance to a wider legal system rather than remaining in the metaphysical realm. @ says:
Wow. I blew this thread off at first when it appeared to be another "let's pile on the libertarians for their naive utopian moon colony worldview," but...this turned into 8 pages of awesome.
.....continued from #123 Fine that people make agreements and submit themselves to the wisdom of private arbitration or even enforcement agencies (as they must since no contract can possibly cover all contingencies specifically). I don't buy that these agencies would act as transparently, disinterestedly, or as honorably as AC proponents suggest, and I don't see why such an arrangement would be more desirable than what we have now. But what such agencies definitely can't do is non-coercively resolve a dispute between a customer and a non-customer. @ says:
Wow, speeding truckers, road kill, traffic jams, children playing in the road may get hit, roads in bad conditions, non working traffic lights. Sort of sounds like Detroit or Chicago does it not? Good thing we pay all those taxes and have all those rules so none of this ever happens here. The only difference I can see is that when I drive through our mess of a traffic system I am required by law to be sober. @ says:
Now I've caught up on the whole conversation, I'm (pleasantly) surprised to see there are other Ricochetoise besides me ready to bring up anarcho-capitalism even though they themselves don't feel like anarcho-capitalists. (For those keeping track, I'd be enormously pleased if our government-enforced law just stuck closer to its common-law roots.) @ says:
Also, I am genuinely interested to know if you consider law to be anything beyond whatever the government is willing to use force to compel you to do. There are serious jurists who think that or something very similar, I just want to know where you're coming from on this issue. My own theoretical background is a natural law social contractarian. @ says:
And apologies for jumping into the cross-fire between Salvador and Ed, but I wanted to make something clear. I know I've asked for intense fire by going out on a limb and trying to defend a radical idea (essentially, for fun), but in never feels quite right when Ed talks about the positions I've defended, and I think it's because they've never felt like my actual positions. I get excited about new ideas that sound plausible and relatively unknown and my excitement sometimes gets the best of me. I don't know what I would call myself, but I don't "feel" like and real anarcho-capitalist. I just don't know enough about it to make a real judgement either way and that's why many of Ed's very sound arguments don't really sway me. I don't know how to answer some of his points, but I also feel there are likely good retorts to them I simply haven't seen fleshed out yet. So, yes, I am open to the idea pending further debates between knowledgeable people and more personal research, but I don't wish to defend AC whole cloth because I know there is much I don't yet understand. @ says:
You state 1) that you recognize the distinction between law and law enforcement and 2) that law without enforcement isn't law. How are those two positions compatible? Simply because private law is often enforced via a public mechanism doesn't make the law itself public. @ says:
I for one am enjoying the exchange. @ says:
Ed's getting at the difference between law and legislation, which is a distinction we don't make enough.
Law is about rights and obligations. When rights and obligations are the result of a government act of general applicability, such as a statute requiring people to pay income tax, the law is public. When the rights and obligations only bind the parties privy to the law, such as a contract which exchanges services for money, the law is private. You are under no less obligation legally to pay your plumber than you are to pay your income tax. From a libertarian perspective, enforcement of law, both public and private, is one of the few legitimate roles of the state. @ says:
Anytime mate. Even though the stuff is legal they keep it in a newspaper bundle frequently to avoid scrutiny. I find that interesting. He showed me various Ark of the Covenant places. Quite a big deal there. The same guy also went to Turkey to visit an 11,000 year old set of religious statues like a mini Stonehenge and he also visited the house where Mary mother of Jesus lived her final decades. My office got a cool slideshow. @ says:
Is this the appropriate place in the conversation to make bad puns? A "let the khat outta the bag" quip.... @ says:
Contd. The fact that the state ultimately will play a role in enforcement if one party refuses to adhere to whatever the arbitration mechanism concludes doesn't make contract law any less private. It's just an example of the proper spheres of public and private law. Private law is for determining most rights and obligations between individuals. Public law, in the sphere of interactions between individuals is limited to the enforcement of whatever it is that the private law mandates. @ says:
Good points QBF. I could have titled my post "Laws don't stop idiots from killing people". @ says:
To a lesser extent, we see the effects of driving under the influence of khat with caffeine. Caffeine has been shown to increase alertness and reduce accidents in truck drivers. But at a certain point propping yourself up on caffeine can be harmful, as it gives a false sense of alertness and only works short-term. What stops people in America from plowing through multiple nights on gas station coffee? I think this is where your point about a moral group being necessary comes into play. I think most of us have a pretty high regard for human life, and feel a twinge of the fear of God if ever we wake up to rumble strips. That seems to be the underlying problem, more so than the khat, and if that's absent I'm not sure how a government can solve it. Ethiopia has laws against driving under the influence of khat, and they don't seem to do much good. @ says:
My son is doing his first long hauls here as a trainee and he's doing half the work, unsupervised right now. Report it and join the soup lines. Keep the wheels spinning indeed. If happening here with our innumerable rules and regulations, one can imagine the free market, unfettered of regulation would hire the drivers who just won't stop and can handle their drugs pretty well. @ says:
Much like a well informed electorate needed to maintain our constitutional republic, is this same knowledgeable and moral group needed for libertarianism to work. Our nation is full of dependent idiots being fed pablum by the media as well as our commie educators. I like libertarian values. I will vote Rand Paul. Will it work with the defective clay that is the US? @ says:
The Ethiopian government has the 13th highest trade tariffs in the world, restrictive gun ownership laws, and is in Heritage Foundation's most economically repressed category at 163rd freest in the world. Just because a government doesn't have control locally doesn't mean it isn't repressive and controlling centrally. Take a wild guess what happens when a government takes away its citizens ability to trade, make a living, and defend itself. Cartels take over. There is NOTHING libertarian or anarchist about Ethiopia. @ says:
Private roads and private business entities hiring and firing. Manslaughter is a crime. I have that so far. Likely that is far preferable to the fiasco I describe, is it possible. The fact that we have a long haul trucker in a third world country is I, think, the coolest thing. @ says:
What country Samuel? @ says:
The stories I hear from relatives paint a picture of chaos on the streets, especially in Addis Abeba. It's every man for himself. Because Ethiopia is both modern and primitive people cross freeways like they're neighborhood streets. You'll also see herds of goats, sheep, etc. The city also has a smog problem and I know someone who started a nonprofit to get more catalytic converters into the cars to reduce pollution. On the flip side, I've been told that the roadside courtesy is much greater. If you're broke down on the side of the road it is not uncommon for the next person to stop and help you. @ says:
I get by with being cute rather than coherent. One needs the best looking and cuddliest in a second husband. Would you penalize the drugged drivers for their accidents/manslaughters and if so how? @ says:
The idea that people think ONLY Government can make good decisions is disturbing to me. Restrictions abound in the world, the libertarian position is to not make it Government mandated. If you are a poor merchant, you can choose to hire an iffy driver. Those with means can use privately owned entities that provide screening etc. That Doc, and intelligent and capable man, and really decent potential second husband such as yourself has to ask disappoints me a little. But you are cute, so I'll let that slide. @ says:
Fred, you weren't named in the post so I waited with a drop of blood in the water and in you swam. Welcome to the puzzle. Solve number 37 post please. @ says:
Barkha, I'd let you take me as a second husband or even marry Zafar before I went back to my ex. @ says:
A legalized drug and no enforcement about driving for days while high. Third world or not, this is a mental exercise of what if's and it applies to philosophies. What if drugs were legal( I support legalizing weed and finding ways to decriminalize the others to lessen our problems so I'm not I'm diametric opposition to your positions), legal here in the US? What if we had no regulations on truckers(80,000 lbs of truck) regarding the amount of time they could drive I one sitting? What if truckers felt free to consume potent stimulants to drive for days? What if this presented an immense danger to society? Now I want the libertarian solution to this scenario. @ says:
Ahh, I have them all here. So this is the gathering. The one who keeps their head gets the prize Highlander! @ says:
Well, I for one am a converted libertarian. Clearly an example from a lawless third world country changes everything. No more drugs for me - let's spend more money on the war on drugs despite the number of drug users rising. Also, the gun situation in Ethiopia is horrendous I hear. Let's get rid of the second amendment. You know, some Islamic countries chop of hands of thieves and I hear crime rates are pretty low. Who wants to support that? Show of hands? Chile and Argentina had really low divorce rates before divorce was legal. Let's make divorce illegal, shouldn't we? Doc I am sorry - you have to go back to the ex, but hey - it's all for a divine cause, no? I love false equivalencies.... :-D @ says:
@Central Scrutinizer Many on the left make the same argument about guns. Surely, based on your and their argument, a large increase in gun ownership will result in a large increase in gun death and general anarchy. But, statistics show the exact opposite. I used the example of the German Autobahn above, whose anarchistic lack of speed limit would surely be a veritable death trap. But, it's not. In the US, we restrict drinking alcohol to those over 21 (18 when I was a kid). When I first went to Germany as a college student, there was no minimum drinking age. With the advent of the EU, they have instituted a minimum age of 16 for drinking at a public establishment (still no minimum that I'm aware of for drinking at home or in private). Yet, in my experience, alcohol abuse in American colleges was worse that anything I saw in Germany. Part of the libertarian message is that empowering people to act responsibly results not in anarchy but enhanced personal responsibility. Having a lot of laws does not result in a more civil society, but having people who understand the importance of civil behavior toward others does. @ says:
Germany is filled with responsible people. Our country is being increasingly filled with dependent idiots. Fornicating everywhere, high on drugs, and asking me to foot the bill for the consequences. @ says:
I'm still nothing approximating an expert, but the Libertarian ideal does not involve lawlessness, but simply no individual entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. If we were to change systems in America there would be little if any places that approximated this. No one would want to live in that situation, and there would be protection agencies to stop people from being raving lunatics and endangering others. How would the protection agencies be able to stop them in the lawless swamp? The government-less existence goes both ways. The protection agencies would try to maximize their profits by keeping their customers happy. @ says:
And are they free to bring all the attending business and civil society structures with them that encourage safety and responsibility? Let's talk about these trucks. In the United States, if you were free of regulation, would you hire a driver who drove your truck recklessly with only khat holding them together? You might, but good luck getting insurance for those trucks. You'd bring safe trucks, hire safe drivers and insure against accidents. Your large foreign business has deep pockets and would rather not get sued for running over somebody's kid because your driver was on a six day khat binge. Smaller businesses would imitate your best practices and the general level of safety would be raised. Not through some government fiat, but because safety is good for business. Doc, its a mess there because these systems don't exist. And they don't exist because what government there is in Ethiopia has assumed responsibility for them and is horrible at it and it probably retards private efforts to do it better. @ says:
Dropping the golden earring. Love it. Help I'm slipping in to the twilight zone. @ says:
I'm still thinking about the conspicuousness of diplomatic personnel. I won't venture much on the larger theme of Africa. I don't think it's possible to explain Africa. Certainly I can't, though I've tried. But if someone else wants to take a crack at it, one might start with those visibly patrolling diplomats. I find it hard to imagine anyone really driving Ethiopia end to end, but if people really are, and in trucks, trucks loaded with something other than khat...well, who loaded 'em? Diplomats, disbursing "aid"? @ says:
Radar Looove! @ says:
So, let's give it a whirl. Go full anarcho-capitalist-libertarianist for a single 2 year period. At the end of the 2 years, those of us left (and I assure you it'll be the cream of the crop and a much smaller crowd) host a constitutional convention. If we still want to do the a-c-l thing, put it in a constitution. I'd be willing to bet BIG MONEY, that the new post a-c-l constitution would look a lot like our current one (except amendment 2 would be amendment 1 and would be a lot clearer than it is). "I've been drivin' all night, my hand's wet on the wheel There's a voice in my head, that drives my heel." @ says:
This story came from a conversation I had today. I'm for as little government needed as possible. How far does one go down their own rabbit hole before the vast majority of intelligent and aware individuals think that person is nuts. As for Obama, he can kiss my barnacled backside. Our society has been increasingly drawing the line toward the nanny state in almost every place other than much bandied gay issues. I titled this to get comments and rile Fred. He'll show up soon. @ says:
I guess your point is that without government, we'd be no different than Ethiopia. That's also a point Obama often makes, as he insists that there is only the individual and the government. Libertarians tend to believe a better relationship is between the individual and social institutions, with an appropriately sized (i.e. limited) government there to enforce basic protections. For most libertarians, such basic protections would include lawlessness on the highways. It's the other 95% of stuff that government does that tends to be viewed with disdain. @ says:
I haven't read all the comments yet. I just read the OP. But did I miss something, Doc? How does libertarianism and Ethiopia fit together? @ says:
I knew you were joking. I should have put a Ha to start my response. This guy was telling me about being in Cairo recently. No cops, chaos, roads and apartments falling apart, trash everywhere, and an uncertain population. Thanks Obama. @ says:
DocJay, there is a vast difference between regulating the size of my soda and regulating the substances people operating 18 wheelers are using. One is the nanny state, the other is a public safety issue. Why do people keep painting libertarians as people who want NO laws. Nothing is farther from the truth. Libertarians want no laws that restrict my liberty of my own person, on my own property, when that libery threatens no one. There is a huge difference and I find the title to your post a gross mischaracterization of the libertarian position. We are not anarchists. @ says:
Just exercising individual liberties to drive as fast as they want high as a kite on the Ethiopian vegemite Bro. What's the problem? Next you are gonna want to send the jack booted thugs to curtail freedom of choice. @ says:
"You want to buy some death-sticks?" "I don't want to buy death-sticks." *waves hand* "You want to go home, and think about your life." "I want to go home... and think about my life..." @ says:
Somali pirates and gangsters are given a supply of the stuff as wages.