Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Skip to search.

Re: Intellectual Property at Cato

Expand Messages
  • simplulo
    >I disagree that the fundamental political question were: > when may you legitimately use force? That s not the question at all! >The question
    Message 1 of 1348 , Feb 20, 2002
      >I disagree that the fundamental political
      question were: <br>>"when may you legitimately use
      force?" That's not the question at all!<br>>The
      question presumes law and thus is biased toward the
      law.<br><br>Well, yes, politics is the decision-making process for
      legislation, and law sets the conditions for the permissible
      ("legitimate") use of force. If I enter your house and threaten
      your children with a knife, may you or may you not
      shoot me? Of course you may. Should you? Not if you can
      find a better way. However, if your creativity fails
      you and you end up shooting me, you have committed no
      crime and no one may rightly use force against you.
      People may, however, label you as violent and shun
      you.<br><br>So, when do you have the right to use force? In
      defense of your property, broadly
      defined.<br><br>>Anyway, Marion says it right, the point is not to ponder
      about property rights,<br>>because it isn't the best
      strategy to win an election, <br><br>That assumes that the
      goal of every conversation is winning elections, and
      in this case it is not. I would never discuss
      abstract property rights with the average man in the
      street; with you I remain somehow optimistic. In an
      aerospace company (e.g. mine), it is not necessary for
      everyone to be a master of all the scientific principles
      behind powered flight: the company needs a few
      scientists, a lot of engineers, and a lot of technicians.
      Each has his place. Similarly, I consider it important
      that a core group of libertarians understand the
      theoretical principles behind their political movement. My
      leanings are theoretical (at work as well), and I prefer
      to discuss principles. When someone is clearly a
      technician, I leave off such discussion. Even though one
      meets technicians in these discussion forums, I
      consider anyone here to interested in all facets of
      libertarianism, not just in the dull details of getting people
      elected. ;-) <br><br>>law and currency are creations of
      government <br><br>Law yes (well, not necessarily), currency
      no. Governments love their monopolies on currencies,
      because it allows them to tax us with inflation, but
      there is no more reason to have a national currency
      than a national airline or a national car
    • scottbannock
      Thanks a lot, I ve added it.
      Message 1348 of 1348 , Apr 7, 2002
        Thanks a lot, I've added it.

        --- In LibertarianDebate@y..., jgmaynard <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > Hi Scott:
        > I have a group that I think would go great on your regional list -
        > New Hampshire Libertarians
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhlibertarians
        > Thanks!
        > Jim Maynard
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.