Thank you Devin. While I appreciate Kevin’s sincerity-I see him in an
alternate universe. If it came to fruition, I think the unintended consequences
would be a “Mad Max” world of gang violence as opinions wavered on the
legitimacy of Big D or little d rights/privileges depending on the location
&moment- or govt imposed tyranny. Nation States exist, and they have borders
that are much more than mathematical crosshairs on the globe. You can’t throw
away thousands of years of civilizations’ attempt to codify property and human
rights & obligations. The best we can do is encourage/support individuals to
be more responsible citizens (of their respective nations)which includes reining
in the corrupt govt/corporatist/military collusion that restrains all our
progress.
Just
some quick thoughts:
Michel - I'd imagine - would rather the
government have all the guns and trust that they'll use them to enforce equality
than to have faith in the people and their capacity to organize.
If you
have communautarian feelings then express them through actions - not
taxes.
Ron Paul finds the federal government an unacceptable entity to
force people to use their private property in a particular way. I might
disagree with the extent to which he applies his philosophy but I respect it
enough not to demonize it.
Every nation has a unique history and
identity. I think we should encourage political differentiation within the
framework of increasing people's access to technologies that enable them to
escape coercion by becoming more self sufficient.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Michel Bauwens
<michel@p2pfoundation.net>
wrote:
I think that this is the heart of the matter and an obvious
difference between 'left' and 'right' approaches'
it's really about
how far you extend the circle of care .. for right-minded people it's nearly
always about 'just for us' and they can have deep communautarian feelings
(except probably for committed anarcho-capitalists who only believe in
individual contracting and full commodification of all things), by contrast
the left wants to extend it. ron paul finds it acceptable to refuse entry to
black people on the basis of property rights, something no person on the left
could tolerate ... natalie explicetely rejects the quest for equality even
thought the revolt against inequality is at the heart of this movement .. but
we can find commonality around freedom ..
though of course, freedom without equality is a chimera, as you need a
gun to protect you from your neighbour ...
and the greatest the differential, the greater number of guns needed (now
nearly a quarter of the workforce ?)
Michel
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulot
cakis
<xekoukou@gmail.com> wrote:
That is what a conservative libertarian would
say. ''Protect the liberty of a certain group of people, for example the
american people. This is how the greek athenian democrarcry worked as well.
It wars a democracy for menr. But if we start thinking about liberty to a
set of people we end up with the conclusion that everyone is a libertarian
(take as a set only yourself ). That would make the use of the word
libertarian unnecessary (as we all are libertarians). Since the word is used
to differentiate between people, we end up through Reductio ad absurdum that your defintion of
libertarian is wrong.
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________
P2P
Foundation - Mailing list
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Devin Balkind
Director, Sarapis Foundation
_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing
list
http://www.p2pfoundation.nethttps://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation