Just a note to privacy & freedom aficionados:

Found an interesting group hosting a PRIVACY & PROSPERITY conference
in Panama in May.  Members might like to be aware of this, if not
already.

See http://www.offshoreconferences.com

Let's work to break down the controllers by sharing knowledge and thus
freedom!

That's an easy question, and already answered - "none".
Government, being *nothing* more than a monopoly on the
use of force in a particular geographic area, has *no*
legitimate function.  Since every power that it *takes*
reduces, equivalently, the social power of individuals,
it is anti-social in nature, and *should* be opposed by
every rational, peaceful, and honest person.

Oh, make sure that you give a complete response, which
David suggested might make it a *fair* question.  And
please resolve the contradiction which you suggest, as
to *how* freedom and government can be other than
mutually exclusive.

grier

Roderick T. Beaman wrote:
> OK, Grier.
>
> Please tell me what do you think govrenment's
> functions should be.  I still think that you've dodged
> this question.  I've tried to get you to make a
> statement.  What functions should be delegated by the
> populace to government and how should government be
> permitted to accomplish them?
>
> I'll make this statement myself and it's subject to
> alternation by discussion and proving they are
> improper.  Government's function is the protection of
> life and property and that is all.
>
> Roderick T. Beaman
> The Crazy Libertarian
> Protect Freedom - Disarm The Government.

As the piece points out, we share several *goals*
with the Greens, but they look to authoritarian,
government-based solutions.  They are watermelons,
as some say, green on the outside, but red on the
inside

Of course, on one issue in particular, you lean
that way, yourself, but that's off the subject.

You *may* want to think about your opposition to
corporations, as I was once forced (by myself :-)
to do.

In fact, *anyone* should be able to declare that
an enterprise operates with limited liability, and
anyone working for, dealing with, and investing in,
could decide, for themselves, whether to do so.
But, government has arrogated that right to itself,
and dispenses it, as a form of monopoly privilege,
to corporations.

There *are* some problems with corporations, such
as grossly excessive executive compensation, overly
compliants boards of directors, etc.  But, since
government organizations such as the SEC, IRS, etc.
*created* most of these problems, government will
*not* improve conditions, while a truly free market
*would*.  Remember, government has *always* been a
tool of economic oppression, for enabling an elite
to live at the expense of others.

Corporations serve a very valuable purpose, though.
They enable people to pool their capital, to invest
in projects which are too big for individuals, and
which are not actively managed by the investors,
while letting them keep a lid on their financial
liability.  Without limited liability corporations,
some of the things that we take for granted might
not even exist.

grier

Roderick T. Beaman wrote:
> I am the moderator of the Yaho group, Libertarian Exchange.  I was
> surprised to find a campus Green among the members.  I'll read this
> article more thoroughly but I just skimmed it and found that they are
> opposed to corporations to which I say, "Here. Here."  In spite of
> being a free market enthusiast, I believe that by limiting liabilty,
> corporations are immoral and irresponsible.
>
> <snip>

----- Original Message -----

From: Roderick T. Beaman

To: LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 4:30 PM

Subject: [LibertyBandwagon] FOR GRIER - What IS Government's function?

OK, Grier.

Please tell me what do you think govrenment's
functions should be. I still think that you've dodged
this question. I've tried to get you to make a
statement. What functions should be delegated by the
populace to government and how should government be
permitted to accomplish them?

I'll make this statement myself and it's subject to
alternation by discussion and proving they are
improper. Government's function is the protection of
life and property and that is all.

Roderick T. Beaman
The Crazy Libertarian
Protect Freedom - Disarm The Government.

__________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

OK, Grier.

Please tell me what do you think govrenment's
functions should be.  I still think that you've dodged
this question.  I've tried to get you to make a
statement.  What functions should be delegated by the
populace to government and how should government be
permitted to accomplish them?

I'll make this statement myself and it's subject to
alternation by discussion and proving they are
improper.  Government's function is the protection of
life and property and that is all.

Roderick T. Beaman
The Crazy Libertarian
Protect Freedom - Disarm The Government.



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

I am the moderator of the Yaho group, Libertarian Exchange.  I was
surprised to find a campus Green among the members.  I'll read this
article more thoroughly but I just skimmed it and found that they are
opposed to corporations to which I say, "Here. Here."  In spite of
being a free market enthusiast, I believe that by limiting liabilty,
corporations are immoral and irresponsible.

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "R. Lee Wrights"
<rleewrights@...> wrote:
>
> A Peace With Greens?
> by George Squyres
>
> "The question has been asked recently if we ought to forge an
alliance with
> the Greens.  They also are a third party struggling to compete with
the
> duopoly, to borrow Mr. Nader's excellent reference, and perhaps we
can both
> gain by pooling resources to move farther down the road. This has
gone back
> and forth, some declaring that we have many objectives in common,
others
> stating that an alliance with the Greens would be an unholy one.
If the
> question is to be resolved with any certainty rather than becoming
just
> another topic that is divisively beaten to death, there must be a
clear
> reason why or why not. I hope the following perspective will serve
that
> end."
>
> See the complete article at: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=575
>
> --
> Only interested in Liberty,
>
> R. Lee Wrights
>
> Editor-in-chief, Libertyforall.net  http://www.libertyforall.net
> Vice-Chairman, Libertarian Party of North Carolina
http://www.lpnc.org
> Editor, Rational Review News
http://www.rationalreview.com/news/index.html
> Contributing Editor, Rational Review  http://www.rationalreview.com
> Editor, The Choice Channel  http://tinyurl.com/fau3f
>
> "I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion,
in
> philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."  - Thomas
Jefferson
>

A Peace With Greens?
by George Squyres

"The question has been asked recently if we ought to forge an alliance with the Greens.  They also are a third party struggling to compete with the duopoly, to borrow Mr. Nader's excellent reference, and perhaps we can both gain by pooling resources to move farther down the road. This has gone back and forth, some declaring that we have many objectives in common, others stating that an alliance with the Greens would be an unholy one.  If the question is to be resolved with any certainty rather than becoming just another topic that is divisively beaten to death, there must be a clear reason why or why not. I hope the following perspective will serve that end."

See the complete article at: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=575

--
Only interested in Liberty,

R. Lee Wrights

Editor-in-chief, Libertyforall.net  http://www.libertyforall.net
Vice-Chairman, Libertarian Party of North Carolina  http://www.lpnc.org
Editor, Rational Review News   http://www.rationalreview.com/news/index.html
Contributing Editor, Rational Review  http://www.rationalreview.com
Editor, The Choice Channel  http://tinyurl.com/fau3f

"I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."  - Thomas Jefferson

the following is a post that I just received.

Roderick T. Beaman

Please post the following from the Ron Paul campaign,
on every site
and list that you have:

You all have very good ideas. I want to include all of
you about what
we are doing.

First and foremost, the goals that we hope to
accomplish are:

1. Bringing the message that liberty can be
reestablished in
American only by respecting the rule of law, the U. S.
Constitution.
2. Saving America from bankruptcy, world war and a
continued
fascist regime by getting Ron Paul elected President.

What you can do:

1. Republicans need to get involved in the party.
Become voting
delegates at your precinct, county and state
conventions. Support Ron
Paul at all these events. Ask them to invite Ron Paul
to speak at
their state conventions! (1-800-RON-PAUL)

2. Republicans need to call the county chairs,
executive committee
and state chairmen of your individual state. Ask that
they support
and endorse Ron Paul. Tell them that it is imperative
at this time in
history that we have someone who in incorruptible and
a true
conservative because this country is going bankrupt –
financially and
morally.

3. Those of you, who are not Republicans, hold your
nose and take
the plunge as Ron Paul is running in the Republican
primary and
believe it or not, most grassroots Republicans believe
in limited
government and want someone to believe in Ron Paul is
that Republican.

4. Write letters to the editors of newspapers about
supporting Ron
Paul for President.

5. Continue to hammer talk show blogs and email
commentary
promoting Ron Paul for President. (you have done a
great job at this)
Ask them to invite Ron Paul onto their station. Tell
them to call
1-800-RON-PAUL. Promote him and the issues of liberty
and the U.S.
Constitution.

6. Ron Paul has to win Republican primaries before he
can get to
the next step – the general election, so we need you
to work in
Republican circles to get that done.

Thanks so much. You don't know how much we love you as
supporters.
If it weren't for you holding back the tide of big
government by
supporting Ron Paul in all of his endeavors, we would
have little hope
for freedom.

So, because of you, there is……….Hope for America !





Roderick T. Beaman
The Crazy Libertarian
Protect Freedom - Disarm The Government.



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

I think Jefferson was pretty good as a president.  His
big failing was buying the Louisiana Purchase, a
decision that bothered him, from what I've read, for
the rest of his life.  Under him, we also began a
policy of Americanizing Louisiana in what may have
been an early cultural imperialism.   But there were
fewer federal employees (I don't know if it includes
military) after he left office than when he began.  I
don't know another preisdent who can make the same
claim.  He also assiduously sought congressional input
during the Barbary incidents.

Roderick T. Beaman
The Crazy Libertarian
Protect Freedom - Disarm The Government.



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

--- In cal-libs@yahoogroups.com, Eric Dondero <ericdondero@...> wrote:
>
> Wow! Check this out. Former Senator and staunch Conservative
Republican Rick Santorum appears to be heavily leaning towards Rudy
Giuliani for President.


That's appropriate.

http://spreadingsantorum.com/

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "Roderick T. Beaman"
<crazylibertarian@...> wrote:
>
> I just pledged and request that all libertarians do
> the same. I will contribute no matter if this pledge
> is met or not.  Ron Paul is the most principled
> candidate for president since Thomas Jefferson.
>


Jefferson wasn't particularly good as president, despite his fine
rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence.

And you should give at least as much to an actual LP candidate as to
Republican Ron Paul.

May I suggest, Steve Kubby.

http://kubby2008.com/

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "Roderick T. Beaman"
<crazylibertarian@...> wrote:
>
> I just pledged and request that all libertarians do
> the same. I will contribute no matter if this pledge
> is met or not.  Ron Paul is the most principled
> candidate for president since Thomas Jefferson.
>


Jefferson wasn't particularly good as president, despite his fine
rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence.

And you should give at least as much to an actual LP candidate as to
Republican Ron Paul.

May I suggest, Steve Kubby.

http://kubby2008.com/

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "Roderick T. Beaman"
<crazylibertarian@...> wrote:
>
> I just pledged and request that all libertarians do
> the same. I will contribute no matter if this pledge
> is met or not.  Ron Paul is the most principled
> candidate for president since Thomas Jefferson.
>


Jefferson wasn't particularly good as president, despite his fine
rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence.

And you should give at least as much to an actual LP candidate as to
Republican Ron Paul.

May I suggest, Steve Kubby.

http://kubby2008.com/

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "Roderick T. Beaman"
<crazylibertarian@...> wrote:
>
> I just pledged and request that all libertarians do
> the same. I will contribute no matter if this pledge
> is met or not.  Ron Paul is the most principled
> candidate for president since Thomas Jefferson.
>


Jefferson wasn't particularly good as president, despite his fine
rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence.

And you should give at least as much to an actual LP candidate as to
Republican Ron Paul.

May I suggest, Steve Kubby.

http://kubby2008.com/

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "Roderick T. Beaman"
<crazylibertarian@...> wrote:
>
> I just pledged and request that all libertarians do
> the same. I will contribute no matter if this pledge
> is met or not.  Ron Paul is the most principled
> candidate for president since Thomas Jefferson.
>


Jefferson wasn't particularly good as president, despite his fine
rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence.

And you should give at least as much to an actual LP candidate as to
Republican Ron Paul.

May I suggest, Steve Kubby.

http://kubby2008.com/

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "Roderick T. Beaman"
<crazylibertarian@...> wrote:
>
> I just pledged and request that all libertarians do
> the same. I will contribute no matter if this pledge
> is met or not.  Ron Paul is the most principled
> candidate for president since Thomas Jefferson.
>


Jefferson wasn't particularly good as president, despite his fine
rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence.

And you should give at least as much to an actual LP candidate as to
Republican Ron Paul.

May I suggest, Steve Kubby.

http://kubby2008.com/

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "Roderick T. Beaman"
<crazylibertarian@...> wrote:
>
> I just pledged and request that all libertarians do
> the same. I will contribute no matter if this pledge
> is met or not.  Ron Paul is the most principled
> candidate for president since Thomas Jefferson.
>


Jefferson wasn't particularly good as president, despite his fine
rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence.

And you should give at least as much to an actual LP candidate as to
Republican Ron Paul.

May I suggest, Steve Kubby.

http://kubby2008.com/

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "Roderick T. Beaman"
<crazylibertarian@...> wrote:
>
> I just pledged and request that all libertarians do
> the same. I will contribute no matter if this pledge
> is met or not.  Ron Paul is the most principled
> candidate for president since Thomas Jefferson.
>


Jefferson wasn't particularly good as president, despite his fine
rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence.

And you should give at least as much to an actual LP candidate as to
Republican Ron Paul.

May I suggest, Steve Kubby.

http://kubby2008.com/

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "Roderick T. Beaman"
<crazylibertarian@...> wrote:
>
> I just pledged and request that all libertarians do
> the same. I will contribute no matter if this pledge
> is met or not.  Ron Paul is the most principled
> candidate for president since Thomas Jefferson.
>


Jefferson wasn't particularly good as president, despite his fine
rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence.

And you should give at least as much to an actual LP candidate as to
Republican Ron Paul.

May I suggest, Steve Kubby.

http://kubby2008.com/

I've already decided that I will be breaking my new rule
*this* time, so that I can vote for Ron Paul, assuming
that he wins the primary.  It's quite a long shot, I'd
say, given the media blackout, and the enmity that even
his *own* party elite feel for him, but I sent him $200,
as soon as he was able to accept it.

I even plan to re-register as a Republican, the thought
of which sends shivers down my spine, so I can vote for
him in the primary.

I started beating the drum for him on the day that news
of his exploratory committee leaked, and I follow the
news about him, almost every day.  Yes, some Democrats
(the ones who are *really* serious about being anti-war)
*do* like him.

Of course, I don't agree with him 100% (he is pro-life,
and pro-imaginary-lines-in-the-sand, after all), but I
believe that he is the only Republican who can win.  I
think that Hillary has a lock on her nomination, given
the frequency that enemies of the Clintons end up dead.

And, of course, there is *no* way, given our first-past-
the-post electoral system, that a third party can win.

I believe that America is irreversably on the way down,
but Ron Paul may be able to keep it from imploding in
*my* lifetime.  If Hillary wins, kiss it goodbye.

grier

Roderick T. Beaman wrote:
> God, whatever you do Grier, don't stop voting.  Not this year,
> anyway.  Not with Ron Paul running and seeming to gather more steam
> with every passing day.
>
> Maybe I'm just exposed to those who generally agree with me, so he
> seems to be getting stronger than he really is, but I've read that
> even some Democrats are looking at him.  Is this the chance we've
> been working for to breakthrough to the public and have them realize
> there is an altermative; that what they're thinking, we've been
> saying?
>
> George McGovern once remarked that (Barry) Goldwater says what the
> guy in the street is thinking.  McGovern said it as a warning to his
> fellow politicians and Democrats.  The two major parties may be
> marginalized by the Ron Paul insurgency.

God, whatever you do Grier, don't stop voting.  Not this year,
anyway.  Not with Ron Paul running and seeming to gather more steam
with every passing day.

Maybe I'm just exposed to those who generally agree with me, so he
seems to be getting stronger than he really is, but I've read that
even some Democrats are looking at him.  Is this the chance we've
been working for to breakthrough to the public and have them realize
there is an altermative; that what they're thinking, we've been
saying?

George McGovern once remarked that (Barry) Goldwater says what the
guy in the street is thinking.  McGovern said it as a warning to his
fellow politicians and Democrats.  The two major parties may be
marginalized by the Ron Paul insurgency.


--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, Grier Ellis <grier@...>
wrote:
>
>
> I agree with what David just said (and what I said,
> earlier, if you recall) - that this is discussion is
> a waste of time, since neither side will convince the
> other.  Your line in the sand is human life, while
> mine is self-ownership.  No matter how abhorrent I
> may find abortion to be, the difference between the
> collective control of one's body and complete slavery
> is only a matter of *degree*.  Just as Mises showed
> that there can be *no* lasting middle ground between
> economic collectivism and the free market, I believe
> that there can be no lasting middle ground between
> authoritarian collectivism and individual freedom.
>
> We're playing semantic word games, again, so each of
> us believes that the other is dodging the question.  I
> do *not* believe in (other than self-) government, so
> how can I ascribe *any* legitimate power (or function)
> to it?  You believe in the sanctity of human life, so
> believe that individual rights *must* be compromised.
>
> This is precisely why I decided to stop voting. Since
> *any* government which disallows individual secession
> *requires* the use of force, by *definition*, voting
> implies acquiescence to that use of force, no matter
> which side of the stick you end up on.  I want no part
> of it.
>
> grier
>
> Roderick T. Beaman wrote:
> > So, I guess you can only seek protection from government if you,
> > yourself, delegate the authority for it.  I take it, that if you
> > choose not to delegate that power yourself, then government has
no
> > right to prosecute anyone who harms you.
> >
> > It's not a question of force, it's a question of when it becomes
a
> > matter for government to protect life.  Again, you dodge the
> > questions, cleverly there Grier, but you are still dodging them.
> >
> > Maybe I can ask it more simply.  In your view, what functions
does
> > government have, if any?
> >
> >
> > --- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, Grier Ellis <grier@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Not necessarily.  Government has an obligation (though
> >> the courts deny legal liability) to defend the life
> >> of each individual who has delegated that power to it.
> >>
> >> I'd say that, oh, somewhere around 0% have knowingly
> >> done that, though.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter *how* you attempt to rationalize
> >> the collective use of force, Rod.  If individuals
> >> have the right of self-ownership, no justification
> >> is possible.  If individuals do *not* have the right
> >> of self-ownership, then they have *no* rights, and
> >> the collective can do whatever it wants to them.
> >>
> >> grier
>

I just pledged and request that all libertarians do
the same. I will contribute no matter if this pledge
is met or not.  Ron Paul is the most principled
candidate for president since Thomas Jefferson.
--- "Y. Kelly" <ykellydsl@earthlink .net> wrote:

>
> For the cost of a couple of pizzas or some designer
> coffees, you can help the cause of Liberty today!
> I started a pledge drive using a smaller amount so
> that many people could join in:
> http://www.pledgeba nk.com/RonPaul4P res
> I hope you will quickly sign on. The current FEC
> reporting period ends 3/31 and it's important for
> Dr. Paul to have a very good showing.
> You can help right now.
>
> Thank you. Your creativity, efforts and ideas are
> appreciated.
> Peace, Liberty & Prosperity,
> Yvonne
> Finally, the President We Need: www.ronpaul2008. com
>

Roderick T. Beaman
The Crazy Libertarian
End the American Empire before it ends US.

Roderick T. Beaman
The Crazy Libertarian
End the American Empire before it ends US.



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

I agree with what David just said (and what I said,
earlier, if you recall) - that this is discussion is
a waste of time, since neither side will convince the
other.  Your line in the sand is human life, while
mine is self-ownership.  No matter how abhorrent I
may find abortion to be, the difference between the
collective control of one's body and complete slavery
is only a matter of *degree*.  Just as Mises showed
that there can be *no* lasting middle ground between
economic collectivism and the free market, I believe
that there can be no lasting middle ground between
authoritarian collectivism and individual freedom.

We're playing semantic word games, again, so each of
us believes that the other is dodging the question.  I
do *not* believe in (other than self-) government, so
how can I ascribe *any* legitimate power (or function)
to it?  You believe in the sanctity of human life, so
believe that individual rights *must* be compromised.

This is precisely why I decided to stop voting. Since
*any* government which disallows individual secession
*requires* the use of force, by *definition*, voting
implies acquiescence to that use of force, no matter
which side of the stick you end up on.  I want no part
of it.

grier

Roderick T. Beaman wrote:
> So, I guess you can only seek protection from government if you,
> yourself, delegate the authority for it.  I take it, that if you
> choose not to delegate that power yourself, then government has no
> right to prosecute anyone who harms you.
>
> It's not a question of force, it's a question of when it becomes a
> matter for government to protect life.  Again, you dodge the
> questions, cleverly there Grier, but you are still dodging them.
>
> Maybe I can ask it more simply.  In your view, what functions does
> government have, if any?
>
>
> --- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, Grier Ellis <grier@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Not necessarily.  Government has an obligation (though
>> the courts deny legal liability) to defend the life
>> of each individual who has delegated that power to it.
>>
>> I'd say that, oh, somewhere around 0% have knowingly
>> done that, though.
>>
>> It doesn't matter *how* you attempt to rationalize
>> the collective use of force, Rod.  If individuals
>> have the right of self-ownership, no justification
>> is possible.  If individuals do *not* have the right
>> of self-ownership, then they have *no* rights, and
>> the collective can do whatever it wants to them.
>>
>> grier

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, "davidt" <davidt@...> wrote:
>
> If someone volunteers to string these two bastards up,
> I'll gladly supply the rope!
>
> I'm talking about Ramos and Compean, not Dobbs and
> Perna, although a good tar and feather party might be
> in order!
>
> David Terry
>


Can I help?

-p

--- In LibertyBandwagon@yahoogroups.com, John Perna
<savefreed0m2oo3@...> wrote:
>
>   Lou Dobbs is live tonight,


That is, indeed, unfortunate.