From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #131 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, June 9 2006 Volume 15 : Number 131 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: resurrection of old thread (warning: no political content) ["Spotted ] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [Capuchi] Re: My name is "Eb": turn my fuck-crank ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [Capuchi] WMD [Jill Brand ] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [Benjamin Lu] Re: My name is "Eb", and I'm driving in Atlanta again ["Stewart C. Russel] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [Capuch] My name is "Eb," and I'm cuckoo for sniffing cocoa puffs [2fs Subject: Re: resurrection of old thread (warning: no political content) On 6/8/06, Bachman, Michael wrote: > > Jeff wrote: > > >Another possible contender for the "long-lived band" crown (although not > >with only original members) - Crazy Horse? (I'm thinking of the > >Talbot/Molina/Sampedro combo...) Haven't they been together - more or > less - > >for about 30 years now? > > I make it about 31 years. Zuma came out in 1975, wasn't Sampedro on Zuma? Yeah, but forget it. Crazy Horse has been redefined many times since then, with and without Neil. They have had numerous ancillary members on their Neil-less releases since '75, and then there's GREENDALE, credited to Neil Young & Crazy Horse, with Sampedro nowhere to be found (although he did tour for the album, playing inaudible electric piano until the encore "hits" set). I miss Poncho, or hell, Ben Keith, on both GREENDALE and LIVING WITH WAR. You might have a solid argument about the membership of either CSN or CSNY. Then again arguably each time one reemerges it marks the breakup of the other... - -Rx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:06:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, FSThomas wrote: > We've got laws against pedophilia, too. If you fervently believed in > relations with pre-teens and were so convinced it was right, in your > eyes you're not breaking the law, either. I didn't write that a person wasn't breaking the law when they practice civil disobedience. I argued that they might not be wrong in doing so. People do not fail to molest children because it's illegal. Go out and talk to folks on the street and ask them if they'd have sexual relations with, say, pre-adolescent children if it were legal. Things don't have to be illegal to be socially unacceptable and, therefore, unthinkable to the majority of the population. Ultimately, we do not live by the law. We live by our ethical codes. You break the laws that you see it is appropriate -- safe, helpful, convenient, etc. As Jeffrey pointed out, all drivers speed and many fail to signal. Millions of Americans regualarly or semi-regularly smoke marijuana (which usually includes purchase or growing the stuff, too). And thousands of Americans have sexual contact with minors. The law doesn't stop people from doing things that they think are right. And following the law because it is the law doesn't make us any more free, safe, or happy. In fact, it does the opposite. > Or, conversely, are you? Right now we have immigration laws & policies. > If you don't like them, why not strive for change. In the meantime, > though, don't break the law, encourage others to, or support those who > did. Civil disobedience is part of the fight for change. See, say, every civil rights movement ever. Reasoned discussion against the wrong is also part of the fight. I think that's what I'm trying to do here. You simply cannot maintain that breaking the law is always wrong and following the law is always right. Jeffrey pointed out the contradictions that will arise. I have to ask, is your ethical development really at this position? Do you really believe in the rule of law above all else? Where does Kohlberg rank that? > If these folks are so willing to knowingly break the law to enter the > country, what makes you think they're going to obey any other laws while > they're here? I think they'll do just like everybody else. However, since they're in a position that is easily compromized, they will be subject to extortion and coercion by those who would exploit their position. They'll probably have to work sub-minimum wage labor in for shady employers. It's quite possible that the poverty of such a life might lead to the desperation that is the cause of property crime or dealing drugs. Of course, we fix all that by just allowing unfettered immigration like this country was built to do. > And, hey, if I break a few laws to improve my life, who's to blame me? You are to blame you. And if your personal ethical structure is such that you are breaking laws in such a way that you make people less free, safe, or happy, well then, our entire culture and society is to blame. Not that I think blame does much good. > A little insider trading here, a little, say, armed robbery there. No > one's going to arrest me for *that*. After all, I'm only doing it to > better the conditions for my wife and family, right? It's the same > goddamned thing as hopping a fence. Sorry. Not quite. Armed robbery hurts people and endangers them unduly. Our culture does not accept that danger as a simple matter of living, so it's wrong. (Our culture DOES accept the danger of getting hit by stray automobiles, so driving's not wrong -- even though it's just about as dangerous as firing guns into the air.) If you take on a whole bunch of unfortunately pragmatic assumptions about wealth and property, then you can easily argue that insider trading hurts people, too, by making stock markets unstable and driving down prices that deprive people of their pensions or whatever. The benefit to the one is very small compared to the cost to everyone else. On the other hand, hopping a fence so that you can take demeaning work in the USA has HUGE benefits for Americans as well as some benefit for the illegal immigrants. Hell, the whole reason Bush wants the amnesty program is so that we can continue the standard of living that comes from living on the backs of the slave class that (along with other federal subsidies) maintains the profitability of agribusiness and much of the service industry. [Me, then Ferris] >> Imagine saying that this kid was born without feet so everyone should >> have to use crutches all the time -- otherwise, how in any way is that >> fair? >> >> No. That's insane. Instead, it's the other way around: most people >> are born WITH feet, so we should do what we can to make sure this kid >> without them can get around as easily as everyone else. > > That's a great analogy. Cool. > I would say, though, that when you cross the line of making it easy for > the footless kid at the expense of everyone else, you have a problem. Well, it depends on the degree of expense. If we all had to get up in the morning and touch our toes twice in order to allow all the footless children to walk about normally, that would be a totally reasonable thing. Hell, considering the number of people born without feet, even taking turns physically carrying those people everywhere they wanted to go wouldn't be an excessive burden. But sure, as a practical matter, if we had to devote our resources entirely to helping a handful of kids walk, that just wouldn't make sense. It would be "the right thing" from the perspective of ethical behavior, but there probably wouldn't be any way to do it without seriously impeding the freedom and happiness of most people. > I think that's what were on the verge of with the immigration issue. > We definitely don't have to agree on this (or much else, for that > matter). Huh?!? Our society benfits ENORMOUSLY from illegal immigration. Undocumented workers (as you write) drive down labor costs and increase the standard of living for most Americans. The added cost to social services is miniscule in comparison. > But not at the expense of those who are already in the system, dealing > with the process. If you grant amnesty to those already here, what > message are you sending? "Hey, are system is *fucked*, so we're just > going to let all these folks in." That'd be an honest message, at least. The system is fucked. The system REQUIRES these people and criminalizes their very existence. Hell, the system even requires the criminalization, but cannot require full enforcement of the law. Our society MUST HAVE cheap labor in order to maintain current standards. That's fucked up. > Or, more accurately, "Thanks for dealing with all this--we really > appreciate it--but quite frankly you're all suckers and we're going to > let all these other folks in first." The amnesty proposal doesn't go as far as to give workers citizenship and full protection under the law as laborers. It just says that you're probably not going to be deported. Now, he could just as easily take the stand you're taking (and he would probably like to do so because it's consistent with his [un]ethical system that puts business above people), but he knows (and when I write "he", I mean the machine that is the Presidency) that full enforcement is impossible without massive spending and inconveniencing the lives of tens of thousands of rich people in California -- and even then it's unlikely that you'd make much of a dent in the problem. In the end, it would be one more thing that he failed to do. Amnesty can be achieved with minimal effort and chalked up in the "success" column (which is woefully underchalked in this administration) without really doing anything to upset the balance of power. In a sense, this is exactly like the view the State Department has had toward democracy since the Reagan administration (and possibly earlier). Thomas Carothers wrote in his book that it was/is the policy of the State Department to support democracy... unless doing so would upset traditional economic relationships. Our money first, then other people. [He also wrote about their understanding that democratic political movements almost always had socialist tendencies which reminds me of Stephen Colbert's brilliant observation that "reality has a well-known liberal bias".] > And my choice not to drive down the sidewalk in midtown at lunch hour is > voluntary subjugation to the law, too, it appears. If everyone obeyed > laws as they saw fit - when it was convenient for them - what the fuck > type of society would we be living in? Everyone DOES obey the law as they see fit. That's the whole point. If the only thing preventing you from breaking the law is your fear of punishment, then you need to get some help. > [I seem to remember your being something of an anarchist, which then > begs the question of why I bother with any of this.] Dunno. Maybe you'll learn something. > I don't want to see a citizenship rubberstamp for anyone who just > happens to be here. Why not? That's how you got it. Wouldn't that be "fair"? > (Note, too, if they *do* go that route, it will only be for our Latino > brothers and sisters, not for Asians, Europeans, etc. It would be the > same deal as it was the last time Reagan did it.) Well, sure, because it's only being done to maintain the economic relationships. You have to be coming from abject poverty to be exploited by the labor market in the way that north-bound immigrants typically are. >> How many people did Hussein kill in 1990? 2000? How many have died as >> a result of the invasion this year alone? > > I don't have the numbers, but I would submit that the vast majority have > been at the hands of insurgents, not US troops. "But if we weren't > there in the first place ..." sure. If the citizens of the country, or > the imams of the mosques didn't harbor, aid, and abet the terrorists, > they wouldn't be dying, either. Again, if we weren't there in the first place, those people wouldn't be fighting and almost nobody would be getting killed in the streets. Nobody fighting means nobody to harbor, aid, or abet. > More people across the country have running water and electricity than > at any time under Hussein's reign. Schools, hospitals are being built > and funded. I don't know. Probably not. Yeah... not. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:06:41 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: My name is "Eb": turn my fuck-crank On 6/8/06, 2fs wrote: > > > > Point is, I don't think we *can* prevent Iran (or anyone else) from > developing nukes. The information and technology and materials are out > there. Yeah, that's always puzzled me. Once someone's figured out how to make something, and basically as long as its component parts exist, anyone else can follow their footsteps. I don't even know why developing nuclear weapons is called "research". We know how to make these things. You wouldn't need a scientific research program to figure out how to build a Chevy Nova. I've never done so, and I doubt I ever will, but if I got it into my head, I'm damned sure I could. And I bet I could buy it piece by piece and put it together in my spare time like that guy in the Johnny Cash song, in a shed I rented under an assumed name, and no foreign government would ever catch wind that I used stuff that already exists to build something that they already knew how to make a long time ago. That being the case, isn't every nation now capable of becoming a nuclear power? As opposed to what they're not capable of, which would be, let's say, becoming a turning-your-enemies-into-pink-fuzzy-bunnies power, that being something science hasn't worked out yet? - -SER ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:18:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: My name is "Eb": turn my fuck-crank On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, FSThomas wrote: > Question: Do you think that the Middle East (or the world, for that > matter) is a better place with a nuclear Iran in it? > > If so, how, and if not, what would you be willing to do to prevent it? I think Jeffrey's remarks were more or less spot-on. Eventually, every military and paramilitary organization is going to have the power to destroy the entire world. The goal, then, is to make sure nobody WANTS to destroy the entire world (or even select parts of it). Sure, you're going to have the odd nutjob in Billings or D.C. or Ankara or Shanghai or Bristol or Johanesburg that thinks the world should pay for its sins, but we, as a culture (global or local) can take lots of good steps to make sure that those people aren't going to get enough support to raise an army. And when it comes down to it, that means pacifism in every sense of the word. We make people happy so that they want to keep the peace. Of course, that's not going to happen when power is held by the ideologies of the world's Rumsfelds and Bin Ladens. However, just as popular support of those people's notions put them in power, popular disdain for those notions can make sure those people never attain power. Of course, that's a lofty, ultra-long-term goal. As a practical matter of today (always with tomorrow and the next day in mind), we should be doing as Jeffrey suggested. Ultimately, the best that each of us can do is live as close to our own standard for what we'd like other people to be as possible. The Golden Rule is pretty much the only rule. The USA does not have the Golden Rule as a policy guideline. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Capuchin wrote: >> In the end, we should do what we can to make sure that everyone has as >> easy a time doing what they would like to do as possible. If something >> is hard for one person, we shouldn't go around making it just as hard >> for everyone out of some misguided sense of "fairness". > > That sounds almost libertarian of you! As long as you keep that a lowercase "l", I'll accept the label. Libertarianism requires socialism, of course, but the Libertarian Party in the USA somehow doesn't understand that. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 19:09:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: WMD Jeff wrote: "I saw a bumper sticker on a car today that said US MARINES: AMERICA'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION." Are you sure that this wasn't supposed to be funny? I thought, when I read your post, that this was meant in an ironic/cynical sort of way, like one of my favorite bumper stickers - Republicans for Voldemort. Am I wrong, or was the word "dude" just bandied about on the list? Jill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:45:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Capuchin wrote: > >> In the end, we should do what we can to make sure that everyone has as > >> easy a time doing what they would like to do as possible. If something > >> is hard for one person, we shouldn't go around making it just as hard > >> for everyone out of some misguided sense of "fairness". > > > > That sounds almost libertarian of you! > > As long as you keep that a lowercase "l", I'll accept the label. I will. > Libertarianism requires socialism, of course, but the Libertarian Party in > the USA somehow doesn't understand that. How exactly does libertarianism require socialism? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:11:45 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and I'm driving in Atlanta again FSThomas wrote: > > "On the other side of the spectrum, Minneapolis, Nashville, St. Louis, > Seattle and Atlanta rated as the cities with the most courteous drivers Wha?! St Louis is insanity on wheels. It's one of my least favourite places to drive. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > How exactly does libertarianism require socialism? Well, coercion by violence is, in some senses, the opposite of liberty. So you can't be libertarian and support a police force. Without a police force, you have no mechanism for enforcing property relations. The only strategy, then, to allow you to have is to make sure there are no have-nots. Hence, your obligation to your fellow man becomes a means of assuring your rights are respected. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 19:19:32 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: My name is "Eb," and I'm cuckoo for sniffing cocoa puffs On 6/8/06, Jill Brand wrote: > > Jeff wrote: > "I saw a bumper sticker on a car today that said US MARINES: AMERICA'S > WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION." > > Are you sure that this wasn't supposed to be funny? I thought, when I > read your post, that this was meant in an ironic/cynical sort of way, like > one of my favorite bumper stickers - Republicans for Voldemort. I think in some contexts, the sticker would be interpretable in that way. But given the context - the type of vehicle, other bumper stickers, etc. - I would be highly surprised if it were meant ironically. Unless the whole signifying complex was intended ironically. Which reminds me of that brilliant article in _The Onion_ a year or so ago...about the guy who wore the dark blue suits, took the high-paying upper-management job, bought the suburban house, married the lovely wife and had the two charming children all IRONICALLY. No one else got it - fools. Am I wrong, or was the word "dude" just bandied about on the list? I missed it. It probably goes into the same mental drawer-of-to-be-ignored as anything Bush says that otherwise sounds good and "my name is 'Eb' and I'm..." - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:35:46 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: My name is "Eb", and I'm driving in Atlanta again FSThomas wrote: > Dolph Chaney wrote: > > Now, Ferris, you know good and well that driving in any part of Atlanta > > equates to anarchy anyway. > > Hey! We got voted one of the "politest" cities to drive in! > > http://tinyurl.com/jw6cp : > > "On the other side of the spectrum, Minneapolis, Nashville, St. Louis, > Seattle and Atlanta rated as the cities with the most courteous drivers > who were less likely to change lanes without signaling or swear at other > motorists." From experience, the rating of Seattle up there is based on a meaningless definition of courtesy. Courteousness isn't the absence of rudeness so much as a positive value of it's own involving things such as speeding up or slowing down to open up gaps so other drivers don't have to slam their brakes or get forced into barriers where lanes end or even things that should be completely second nature such as properly coming to speed to merge into the flow of traffic. Since Seattle drivers are blissfully unaware that anyone else is on the road with them (or, more likely, that anyone else on the road with them matters), they simply lack the capacity to be polite in any meaningful way. In other words--Seattle drivers suck. Hard. Give me LA drivers--those guys are pros, even if they're flipping you off. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:51:09 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again Jeme wrote: > Libertarianism requires socialism, of course, but the Libertarian Party in > the USA somehow doesn't understand that. Under what possible definition of libertarianism is this true? Marc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:38:55 -0700 From: "Jason Brown" Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On 6/8/06, Marc Alberts wrote: > Jeme wrote: > > Libertarianism requires socialism, of course, but the Libertarian Party in > > the USA somehow doesn't understand that. > > Under what possible definition of libertarianism is this true? Anarcho-communist libertarianism? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:09:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > How exactly does libertarianism require socialism? > > Well, coercion by violence is, in some senses, the opposite of liberty. > So you can't be libertarian and support a police force. Maybe you can't be a hard-core libertarian fundamentalist and do so. But really, those who don't support some sort of police force are not libertarians but anarchists. The pledge of the US Libertarian Party (with which I do not wholly agree) says "I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the *initiation* of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." I can see how a hard-core libertarian could still justify a police force on the grounds that the criminals were the ones who initiated force. (Of course, there would be no such thing as a victimless crime in this world.) > Without a police force, you have no mechanism for enforcing property > relations. The only strategy, then, to allow you to have is to make sure > there are no have-nots. And socialism does that? :) Hard-core libertarianism implies favoring anarchy. More reasonable libertarianism shares very little with socialism as far as I can tell. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:11:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Jason Brown wrote: > On 6/8/06, Marc Alberts wrote: > > Jeme wrote: > > > Libertarianism requires socialism, of course, but the Libertarian Party in > > > the USA somehow doesn't understand that. > > > > Under what possible definition of libertarianism is this true? > > Anarcho-communist libertarianism? And that is definitely NOT what the US LP is about. :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 23:12:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Jason Brown wrote: >> On 6/8/06, Marc Alberts wrote: >>> Jeme wrote: >>>> Libertarianism requires socialism, of course, but the Libertarian Party in >>>> the USA somehow doesn't understand that. >>> Under what possible definition of libertarianism is this true? >> Anarcho-communist libertarianism? > > And that is definitely NOT what the US LP is about. :) And, hence, why I insisted you keep the lowercase "l". J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 23:37:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Capuchin wrote: >> Well, coercion by violence is, in some senses, the opposite of liberty. >> So you can't be libertarian and support a police force. > > Maybe you can't be a hard-core libertarian fundamentalist and do so. More to the point, you can't be an ideologically consistent libertarian and do so. Libertarianism with sanctioned coercion is automatically not libertarianism. Coercion is the opposite of liberty; straight-up, diametric opposite. > But really, those who don't support some sort of police force are not > libertarians but anarchists. Any imposed hierarchy requires coercion to ensure participation (the "imposition" part). While libertarianism describes the system of belief that values human liberty as an ideal, anarchism describes the system of belief that values structures and institutions without imposed hierarchy as an ideal. They describe different things, but pretty much require one another. > The pledge of the US Libertarian Party (with which I do not wholly > agree) says "I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the > *initiation* of force as a means of achieving political or social > goals." I can see how a hard-core libertarian could still justify a > police force on the grounds that the criminals were the ones who > initiated force. (Of course, there would be no such thing as a > victimless crime in this world.) Not quite. The US Libertarian Party (or, as I like to call them, "Republicans who smoke pot") are all about maintaining property relations. They need a police force to make sure that money stays in the hands of the people who have it and to make sure that control over land (among other things) can be used against the poor to make sure the poor continue to service the rich. The initial violence here, if you go way back, is the seizure of the land into private hands... and the initiation of force today is clearly on the part of the police when they forcibly eject people from places the land lords don't want some people to be. >> Without a police force, you have no mechanism for enforcing property >> relations. The only strategy, then, to allow you to have is to make sure >> there are no have-nots. > > And socialism does that? :) Socialism IS that. Socialism is the system of belief that values social equity as an ideal. Hence, a socialist is a person who wants to do what is necessary to make sure people do not go without the things that they believe they need. > Hard-core libertarianism implies favoring anarchy. More reasonable > libertarianism shares very little with socialism as far as I can tell. You simply can't have libertarianism without socialism. If you are libertarian and not socialist, you end up creating a huge class of people who have-not and they will either rise up and remove the liberty from the haves or the haves must clamp down and remove the liberty of the have-nots. Now, a person can be socialist without being libertarian. While that's not ideologically inconsistent, it's really unpleasant. The upshot of such an unholy mix of values would be that haves and have-nots are eliminated by handing down the "needs" from on high. As a result, there are no have-nots because the individual does not decide what it is possible to have. Yeah, pretty shitty if you value liberty even the tiniest bit. But, in the end, libertarianism requires socialism because socialism is the only value system that is sustainable without coercion by violence. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #131 ********************************