From: anwyn@hrnowl.lonestar.org (anwyn)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Libertarians, guns, etc. 
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 05:05:02 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Horned Owl BBS


In article <1992Oct2.044334.21648@access.digex.com> corun@access.digex.com writes:

  > 
  > In article <717910203snx@hrnowl.lonestar.org> anwyn@hrnowl.lonestar.org (anwyn)  >  writes:
  > >
  > >Self defense would be necessary violance. It is justified by the urge to
  > >survive imparted by billions of years of natural selection.
  > 
  > But violence is still violence, and haven't you been promoting a cessation
  > of violence? 
No I have never advocated that anyone should renounce the right to 
self denense.
  >               There is no such thing as necessary violence, 
Tell that to the peoples that have been slaughtered. This stupid pacifism
causes great harm by disarming decent people leaving the predatory types
free to attack.
  >                                                             and if natural
  > selection is to some into play, given the type of logic you have consistantly
  > displayed here, your genes would have been out of the pool long ago. Humans
  > no longer obey the law of survival of the fittest. You just have to look
  > at humanity today to see that. A prime example is the English nobility
  > with it's hereditary blood diseases. Humanity's bigotry, racism and supreme
  > arrogance have led to too much inbreeding, and not enough diversity in the
  > species.
Human still obeys that law. Stupid humans manage to get themselves killed 
all the time. Many of the Noblity proved that the law of natural selection 
still operates by dying of their afflections.
  > 
  > >  > >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.
  > 
  > No, but you imply it with your use of the word "choose." Otherwise you're
  > implying that you think all people should follow your example. And who are
  > you that we should allow you to tell us what to do?
I am not responsible for the stupid conclusions that you jump to. I have
implied no such thing. I have mearly said people should peacefully 
influence others to avoid unnecessary violence.

  > 
  > >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.
  > 
  > Yet above you said that "necessary violence" was permissible. Any time you
  > make a violent response to a threat, you initiate force. You just can't have
  > it both ways.
It is not initiating force to respond to someone else's force. I am not trying
to have it two ways.
  > 
  > >I am a concrete individual not an abstraction.

  > 
  > From my point of view you are blue phospors on a CRT. For all I know you
  > could be an incredibly clever person, leading us all on a merry goose chase
  > with this fruitless argument just to see how we'll react. I doubt it, but
  > it could be. Anything is possible. The horse might even learn to sing.
Let us put this back in context.
  > 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.

I was saying that I can not be a state, because you can not touch a state,
you can not smell a state. States do not go to the bathroom.
  > 
  > >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.
  > 
  > I don't have to prove it to you, you already believe it exists. Every time
  > you refer to organized groups of people acting together, you admit to the
  > existence of society. 
NO I do not. People act together. But that does not prove that there
is a "society" that explains that fact. Combustuion occurs but that
does not prove that phlogiston (the substance that was thought to be the
cause or essance of combustion) exists. People act together for
differing reasons.
  >                        The Oxford English Dictionay defines society thus;
  > 
  > society, n. organized and interdependent community. The system and organization
  > of living in this.
Phlogiston is in the dictionary too and it does not exist. People
act together in groups for diverse reasons. It is not necessary to invoke
some occult property such as "society" to explain why people do this.
Often the reason people act together because they share common beliefs.
The object of the belief, that causes people to act together, does not
itself have to exist. For example, Christians often work together
bacause of a common belief in the Christian God, and that God does not exist.
Some people may work together because of beliefs about "society" and
society does not exist. People may act together because of a common
belief about their "State" and that "State" does not exist.
  > 
  > Whether you choose to believe it or not, as long as you buy food from a grocer,
  > buy clothes in a store, work for a wage and pay taxes, you are living in a
  > society. You are dependent on other people, and they are dependent on you.
  > That is society. If you choose to live in the mountains alone, grow your
  > own food, make your own clothes, and do only that work which produces anything
  > other than money to help you survive, and never communicate with another
  > person for the rest of your life, then you are outside society. You're on
  > your own (YOYO). But even despite all that, there would still be other people
  > out in the world living and working and playing together in a society.
The people exist, their relationships exists, but you have produced no 
evidence that a single underlying explaination for this exists.
You have produced no evidence for the existance of society other than
repeated bald assertion.
  > 
  > >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".
  > 
  > You're the only one I know of who says this. Do you mean that the rapist is
  > going to blame the state for his assault on a woman? Most rapists blame the
  > woman. Is the bank robber going to blame his theft on the state? Some
  > terrorist group might rob a bank, but they'd more than likely be doing it
  > as an act against the state. Is the murderer going to blame his crime on
  > the state? I doubt it.
But these exmaples, are not the most common cases of violance.
The most common killings occur in WARs or in extermination campaigns
undertaken by groups of people who share a belief in A State.
  >                         Besides, there you go again talking out of both sides
  > of your mouth. First you say you refer to "individual" violence, then you
  > say violence is "sanctioned" by some state you insist doesn't exist. Get a
  > grip. You can't continue to blame violence on something you keep saying
  > doesn't exist.
The State does not exist! But the belief in the State exists. It is the
false belief in a State that causes violance. I am beggining to wonder
if you are being deliberately obtuse to score retorical points.
  > 
  > >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.
  > 
  > Then if you're going to insist on taking a specific stance, stop slipping
  > into common usage. You can't defend your position if you keep contradicting
  > yourself. If you truly believe that there is no state and no society, then
  > you must stop citing them as examples. The minute you do, you admit to their
  > existence, and it blows your whole argument to hell.
I have never admitted their existance. I only admitt the certain people
belive they exist, and these beliefs have consequences. Bad consequences,
like all false beliefs.
  > 
  > >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.
  > 
  > I will grant you that it takes an individual to commit an act of violence.
  > However, there are two reasons that individuals do this (and I'm not saying
  > that they are the only two, just primary examples). One reason is that they
  > want to commit it. The other reason is that they are ordered to. Let's take
  > a look at the second reason, since the first is self evident, and often
  > accompanies the second.
  > 
  > I'll use the example of the Nazi atrocities. Here we had an organized
  > group of individuals (a society) who gained sufficient power over other
  > individuals such that they could order them to murder millions of people
  > in a variety of horrible ways. Many of the individuals who carried out
  > these orders did so for reason two alone. The others did so because of
  > both reason one and two. In all cases, however, there was a state (OED,
  > organized political community under one government) throughout that existed
  > and initiated the comission of these crimes. It was not a myth, it was
  > real.
No it was the belief in The "state" that caused the crimes. People with
a common set of belief did the crimes, and without those beliefs the
crimes would not have occurred. No one can produce any evidence
that any state acutally exists. (For an analogy, One commonly
observes a group of christians working together to build a church
building. The building is real. The Christians would say that they are
working together because of "God". An atheist would say that
the people are working together because of a common belief. The atheist
denies the existance of "God". No one can produce any evidence that "God"
exists. I am a atheist with respect to the "State".)
  > 
  > >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.
  > 
  > But if a plan caused a cessation of violence, how could it be counter-
  > productive? If increasing one thing leads to a decrease in another, and
  > it's for the betterment of humanity, how can it be bad?
The plans are usually designed only to decrease violance that is
not modivated by the "State" myth.  Because the plan increases
the power of the "state" myth, it may acutually increase the probability
of violance in the form of WARs or extermination campaigns.
  > 
  > >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.
  > 
  > No it doesn't. But you have to admit, the fundies have lots of money to
  > play with. And they are quite organized. They have easily gotten their
  > own people elected to government offices, and could easily take control
  > of the entire country is we're not careful.
Yes, but they do not have enough money to buy every building that
could used for a school or every person able to teach. That is the
beauty of a Free Market it is almost impossible to buy everything.
  > 
  > >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.
  > 
  > Show me stats on this. As a product of both parochial and private schooling,
  > I can assure you that private schools are much more expensive than public
  > ones. It wasn't until I was in the sixth grade that my parents could finally
  > afford the tuition for a private school, and that for only one year. After
  > that I went to public shools. 
That is because your father was trying to pay taxes for the public schools
at the same time as paying for private schools. If you compare the
tax money spent on the public schools versas the private money on private
schools you will find that per student less money is paid for private
schools.
  >                               Your naivete is incredible if you believe 
  > that a) anyone can get back any tax money the government's already got,
If people stop believeing in government and its legimitacy and start
viewing government officials as the thugs and thieves they are, it
will become difficult for taxes to be collected.
  > and b) private schools are cheaper than public.
  > 
  > >  >                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.
  > 
  > Leading to very expensive schools being unaffordable by the poorer section
  > of society, and poorer schools being unable, for lack of money, to provide
  > as good an education as the more expensive ones. All this leads us to a
  > worse condition than we are in with public schools. It's almost as bad,
  > but I believe that state funding can be more easily regulated than private
  > funding. Eventually we will come to our senses and start evening out the
  > money that goes to the public schools so that all the children get an eqaul
  > education.
Money is not the problem in education, caring is. The Japaniesse spend
less per student than people living in North America do. There probably
were people educated 100 years ago in a 1 room school who were better
educated than many graduated today.
  > 
  > >  >                                      Education starts with you, in the
  > >  > home. 
  > >True.
  > 
  > Shards and shell! We agree on something.
  > 
  > >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.
  > 
  > Right. Anarchy forever. All for one, and all for one. Let me hear it for me.
  > I pray it doesn't happen in my lifetime. It must be wonderful to be as sure
  > of things as you.
I find your faith in the State truely touching!
  > 
  > Bb,
  > Corun
  > 
  > 
  > -- 
  > ===========================================================================
  >     Corun MacAnndra    |
  >   Dark Horde by birth  |      Forewarned is a Hindu god.
  >     Moritu by choice   |
  > 
anwyn@hrnowl.lonestar.org	(Sysop horned Owl BBS)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan