🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JYKdncQJYuUhgKbZRVn-sw@forethought.net>,
 Lady Libertarian <Lady_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xxx> wrote:

> SteveR <tex_driver@comcast.net>  wrote :
> 
> > In article <yOudnfDxx-IO7aTZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@forethought.net>,
> >  Lady Libertarian <Lady_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Libertarianism is the only political philosophy with an
> >> objective defining principle ( the non-initiation of force
> >> principle ), that doesn't drift all over the place with the
> >> whims of the masses.
> > 
> > 
> > What exactly does "the non-initiation of force principle"
> > mean? No cops? 
> 
> So simple yet so hard for coercive collectivists to understand.
> 
> "Who is a libertarian?
> A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, 
> under any circumstances, to ***initiate*** force against another 
> human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation.

Paul Revere was what?


> Those who 
> act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether 
> they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with 
> it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- 
> L. Neil Smith.

I was unaware libertarians were pacifists.
 
> It sounds simple yet the implications are profound.
> 
> It would mean you'd have to implement voluntary government: Only 
> the amount of government that the people would willingly support, 
> and that wasn't allowed to initiate force.


A government that cannot initiate force is anarchy. It's what the law is 
and how it's enforced that are key.


> Before you scoff at 
> the idea and start saying that no one would support it, think 
> about it some. Everything the government currently does, which 
> people wouldn't support it doing, all the waste and pork would be 
> gone, leaving maybe 5% of the budget the government has now, 
> which would only be used for the essentials that people would 
> willingly support. Therefore they'd likely have more funding for 
> the things the people really wanted, without all the waste and 
> oppression of human rights that the government does now.

A new bureaucracy better than the old bureaucracy.

> > Can the democratic republic system of gov't we enjoy exist
> > without the "whim" of the electorate?
> 
> That's the whole problem. Once people find out they can form a 
> mob and enslave others to pay for every frivolous whim they can 
> think of, it grows into the kind of out-of-control-monster we 
> have now, until it eventually collapses.

We're collapsing? Compared to what?

> Go look up how much debt this country has now.

That is a Reagan-era argument. Shoulda learned.


> And all the government has to do is keep running those printing 
> presses and printing money.
> 
> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It 
> can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote 
> themselves largesse ( gifts ) from the public treasury. From that 
> moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising 
> the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that 
> a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always 
> followed by a dictatorship. - Alexander Fraser Tytler (later Lord 
> Alexander Fraser Woodhouslee), in "The Decline and Fall of the 
> Athenian Republic," published 1776.

He was describing the left.