Extracted from Thread

On Feb 16, 6:09*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message

...



1) From 1992-2003, the policy Saddam was containment. I will post
links stating this if you wish, by the people in power who were in
charge of the containment.

Well, we certainly have proof that there was NO OTHER MISSION because of
course Henry wasn't informed of it.

2) The UN is a tool for attempting to handle the political end of
containment.

Another interesting example of how Henry believes that corruption in the UN
is really something else.



Dumbass -


What I wrote is true. The UN is a political tool (it's a talk shop)
and it has no real power.

I don't disagree that it's corrupt like most political institutions,
but everytime you do the kneejerk strawman, you demonstrate your near
complete lack of intellect.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Tom Kunich wrote:
Another interesting example of how Henry believes that corruption in the
UN is really something else.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
everytime you do the kneejerk strawman, you demonstrate your near complete
lack of intellect.

Please send all feature improvement requests to schwartzsoft.com.

On Feb 15, 11:00*pm, "Bret" wrote:
"SLAVE of THE STATE" wrote in ...

But that isn't what you mean. *What you really mean is that you want
to force others, at the end of a gun barrel, to pay for your "good
idea," and even to "participate."

It's not my idea. It's the system I was born into. I have no particular
notions about enforcement of the system.

That is where the problem lies, not
with whether or not insurance is a "good idea." *There isn't a kind
and gentle way to coerce, although I know you want to believe there
is.

We're not talking about insurance but public charity. How much charity is
appropriate is certainly debatable but using loaded words like "stealing",
"evil" and "at the end of a gun barrel" is demagoguery.

So if you could cut the double-speak, it would make you appear more
honest, if you care about that sort of thing.

You're trying to argue that the America we've both lived in all our lives is
un-american. Now that's double-speak.

On the other hand, the equation of taxation = socialism =
being a liar, thief and killer, might not be such a bad thing
after all. Liars, thieves and killers have been unfairly
tarred; many of them played crucial roles in the founding
of our nation, and in general in the overthrow of monarchies.
In fact, this paper I was recently reading:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi...10.1086/526403

"An-arrgh-chy: The Law and Economics of Pirate Organization"
by Peter Leeson (George Mason Univ.), if that link doesn't
work, use: http://www.peterleeson.com/An-arrgh-chy.pdf

makes a pretty good case that pirates in the early 1700s
more or less invented their own self-organized,
self-governing quasi-democratic mode of organization,
for perfectly good economic reasons. They were libertarian
capitalists before libertarian capitalism was cool. Yet with
a safety net: if a pirate lost an arm or a leg, there were
specified payouts. As the blogger I got the link from said,
it "bears some disturbing similarities to an hours-long
anarcho-capitalist bull session." Only it worked in real
life. The founders of the U.S.A., of course, while in their
own P.R. a bunch of overtaxed merchants, were often
regarded as renegades, raiders and privateers.

Ben
To live outside the law you must be honest.

On Feb 17, 7:56*pm, "
wrote:

"An-arrgh-chy: The Law and Economics of Pirate Organization"
by Peter Leeson (George Mason Univ.), if that link doesn't
work, use:http://www.peterleeson.com/An-arrgh-chy.pdf

makes a pretty good case that pirates in the early 1700s
more or less invented their own self-organized,
self-governing quasi-democratic mode of organization,
for perfectly good economic reasons. *They were libertarian
capitalists before libertarian capitalism was cool. *

In what manner of speaking is a pirate defined as capitalist or
libertarian? Is it only in the strange nether-world of Olber-speak?

I ask because a capitalist is someone who builds capital, or at least
believes doing so is important in some way. (Invests in tools,
machines, buildings, infrastructure, and in general, the means of
production for end use (consumer) products.)

I ask because a libertarian is someone who believes in in a social
construct of liberty, which says "live and let live," or better "I
won't do to you what I wouldn't want you to do to me."

Both capitalism and libertarianism, as ideologies, have touchstones in
the notion of private property via the lockean homesteading principle
and voluntary (free) trade. So the question is how pirating -- the
stealing of property -- can be regarded as either capitalist or
libertarian.

-----------
Thanks for the link -- Leeson writes a good paper here and there.

Here is another interesting paper:
_An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild
West_, Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill Department of Economics,
Montana State University
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

I look into this sort of thing because as I checked off my list the
governing methods/systems that had too many problems, the list became
empty, so then I began to ask "how does a system of law and governance
develop in the first place?"

On Feb 15, 10:00 pm, "Bret" wrote:
"SLAVE of THE STATE" wrote in ...

Bret,
There is nothing wrong with a belief that a safety net is a "good
idea." In a free society/population, if you want to form a safety net
with people on a voluntary basis, no one will stop you. I might even
buy in myself.

I should have been clearer. I meant a universal safety net
in the context of the nation.

I knew what you meant -- I explained in the only sense it can be taken
as a moral act. The federal government must break its own law of
enumerated powers to do such a thing, since it has no power to do any
such thing. That is the first barrier, which has not been crossed.
The next barrier is the question whether coercion of that manner can
be justified in a 'large population' paradigm. The assertion and
burden of proof are born upon those who say it is justified.

But that isn't what you mean. What you really mean is that you want
to force others, at the end of a gun barrel, to pay for your "good
idea," and even to "participate."

It's not my idea. It's the system I was born into. I have no particular
notions about enforcement of the system.

How vague. So you don't know if it is a good idea, or bad idea, or
why. "It just is." Worse, the means to the end aren't even
considered important enough to "have a particular notion about."

That is where the problem lies, not
with whether or not insurance is a "good idea." There isn't a kind
and gentle way to coerce, although I know you want to believe there
is.

We're not talking about insurance but public charity.

"Public" charity is not charity. Quit with the modifiers that
obliterate the meaning.

How much charity is appropriate is certainly debatable
...

If it is charity, then it is a debate one has with oneself.

... but using loaded words like "stealing",...
and "at the end of a gun barrel" is demagoguery.

Unfortunately, it is not demagoguery. It is actually what happens.
Don't believe me? Do your own experiment. Try refusing payment to the
guvmint the "taxes" they assess upon you. Try defending your property
against the seizure. Get back to us with the results, if you survive.

So if you could cut the double-speak, it would make you appear more
honest, if you care about that sort of thing.

You're trying to argue that the America we've both
lived in all our lives is un-american. Now that's
double-speak.

You are the dude that above effectively says "whatever,... it just is
as it is -- we was just born into it." You have no foundational
notion of what "american" is. This means you are not qualified to
begin arguing "american" principles of governance, nor critisize
anyone, including me.

On Feb 16, 9:26*am, Bret wrote:

It's ironic that Bush made most of his money through corporate
socialism i.e the public funding of the Texas Rangers stadium in
Arlington. Anyone paying sales taxes there that didn't also attend
ball games was paying to make Bush richer with no benefit to
themselves.

Why ironic? It is totally predictable behavior. It happens all the
time.

Maybe one of these days you might wake up a bit more skeptical about
what people can and cannot accomplish with governance. I am not
sanguine on the prospects.