From: anwyn@hrnowl.lonestar.org (anwyn)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Libertarians, guns, etc. 
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 03:30:03 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Horned Owl BBS


In article <1992Sep30.183428.2889@access.digex.com> corun@access.digex.com writes:

  > 
  > In article <717815607snx@hrnowl.lonestar.org> anwyn@hrnowl.lonestar.org (anwyn)  >  writes:
  > >
  > >Libertarians of all kinds oppose unnecessary violance.
  > 
  > What is necessary violence, and how do you justify one kind of violence over
  > another?
Self defense would be necessary violance. It is justified by the urge to
survive imparted by billions of years of natural selection.
  > 
  > >I believe that all people should choose not to support violance. 
  > 
  > Are you also saying that people should choose to support violence if they 
  > want it?

No I did not say that.
  > 
  > >All persons  should retrain
  > >the right (and the means) to defend themselves and inocent third parties.
  > 
  > Once you take it upon yourself to defend innocent third parties, aren't you
  > in effect setting yourself up as some sort of governing body for these people?
No, I have in no way promised that I will come to the aid of third parites,
I mearly reseve the right to if I should choose to. Libertarians believe it
is wrong to initiate force against a person.
  > Aren't you saying that since they can't defend themselves you'll do it for
  > them? Isn't this perpetuating something you consider to be a myth, i.e. a 
  > State? 
I am a concrete individual not an abstraction.
            And who decides that you or anyone else who takes this stance gets to
  > be in charge?
I do not assume that I or any one else would be in charge. I mearly
assert that all individuals retrain the right to self defense and the
ablity to come to the aid of third parties that come under attack.
I do not see what is controversal about this. Even under our current "state
myth" the virtually all the the "state governements" (mythical to me) are said
to sanction self defense and the defense of third parties.
  > 
  > >All violance is committed by individuals. However much violance occurs
  > >in an organized fashion. Groups of organized persons are often involved.
  > >Although I do not believe in the existance of the State, I do believe
  > >that others do, and these beliefs can have social consequences.
  > 
  > What social consequences? Remember, you don't believe Society exists either.
That is right I don't. In this case I refer only to groups of people opearting
under the same myth acting in concert together. That is all I meant.
Incidentally, I note that you have not responded to my challenge 
(in a previous post) that you prove the existance of "society".
Since much of your previous arguements relied on the term "society"
they collapse unless you can prove that "society" actually exists.

  > 
  > >If one were to examine the recient history, one will find that most
  > >violance has been committed under the aegis of the various State myths.
  > >The millions sacrificed in the World Wars come to mind. Of course, the
  > >Nazi extermination camps can not be forgotten. Consder those deliberately 
  > >starved and extermined by Stalin. Consider the thousands of Tibetians
  > >reciently killed. The number of people killed under the authority
  > >of a (to me, mythical) state makes insignifacant the number that are
  > >killed by purely individual violance. Therefore, any plan to solve
  > >the problem of individual violance is unwise, if that plan expands the
  > >power of the State (or rather the myth of the State if you insist on
  > >being pedantic about it like Corum.)
  > 
  > But you said above that all violence was committed by individuals. Doesn't
  > that make the number of people killed by individuals the same as the number
  > of people killed by the State? 
When I refer to individual violance I meant violance that was not sanctioned
by any of the various "state" myths. All violance is committed by individuals,
but most violance is said to be sanctioned by someone's alleged "state".
  >                                 In fact, isn't it the same group of people?
  > And by the way, I never said the State was a myth, you did. I'm being pedantic
  > about the existence of the State, you're being pedantic about the non-existence
  > of it. I wish you'd make up your mind which side of the fence you're going
  > to sit on.
I have always been on the same side of the fence. The State does not exist.
No one can produce any evidence for its existance. However, the State
is so commonly assumed to exist that common usage assumes it exists. 
Whenever I let myself slip into common usage, you have obtusely assumed
that I have changed  my mind about the existance of the state. Therefore
you have forced me to be pedantic.
  > 
  > Also, if all violence is committed by individuals, how can it be unwise to
  > try and solve the problem of individual violence? According to your logic,
  > it's the only kind of violence.
All violance is committed by individuals. One can classify violance by the 
motivation. That is, if an individual commits violance because he belives
that the violance is sanctioned by a "State" that the individual believes
in, then that could be called "State motivated violance" even though
states do not actually exist. Other violance would simply be individual
violance.

If in trying to address individual violance, we were to increase the
power of the myth associated with our alleged "state" we could increase
the probability of "State motivated violance", this would be counter
productive.

  > 
  > >I do not believe that State schools should take it upon themselves to
  > >teach answers to fundamental moral questions. These questions should be
  > >left to individuals. In fact, I believe all public schools should be sold
  > >to private persons and private organizations. Education is too important
  > >to be left to government. (If you had an important package to send it 
  > >California, would you entrust it to U.S. Snail of Fed EX it?)
  > 

  > But what if the only private organizations that can afford to buy the
  > schools are Xtian Fundy organizations? 
What if a comet falls out of the sky and kills us all? Your assumption
implies that Xtian's are the only people smart enough to earn money. If
this were true, perhaps we should take another look at their beliefs.
  >                                         Are you going to send your children
  > there and risk them being taught that you're a sinner who should be burned
  > at the stake? 
No, your assumption is wrong. All you need to afford education is to get
your education tax money back. The private schools are much cheaper than
the public schools and achieve better results. Another example of the
"government" incompetance.
  >                Education is too important to be left *entirely* to any
  > school system, state run or private. 
Which is why if the public schools were abolished, a diversity of
schools will form in response to market demand.
  >                                      Education starts with you, in the
  > home. 
True.
  >       Even Fed Ex can drop a fragile package or even lose one. I will agree,
  > however, that moral issues are better left to the parent in most cases. There
  > are still alot of people whose morals I will question, and some of them are
  > teachers, and some of them are parents. Schools should give a base of examples
  > for the children. A child cannot easily differentiate between moral and
  > immoral, but sometimes neither can a parent. The drunk who beats his wife
  > for example. There must be a balance.
I hesitate to tell other people how to manage the education of their children.
Let us kill the monstrous "government" fiend (or rather the myth of the
monstrous government fiend, since you insist that I be pedantic)
and leave such questions to individuals. At least most parents love 
their children, and you can be sure that the government bureaucrats don't.
  > 
  > Bb,
  > 
  > Corun
  > 
anwyn@hrnowl.lonestar.org	(Sysop horned Owl BBS)