Except I didn't say what was attributed to me.
James Rogers wrote:
>
> Barbara (and Olga),
>
> What Mike and Lee agreed on below is not what I would characterize as the
> proper libertarian position, and perhaps they are forgetting their history.
>
> Generally, if people aren't willing to defend their property and lives
> against an invading force, then those things weren't worth defending in the
> first place. Forcing people to do anything for any purpose is a giant red
> flag that what you are trying to do is violating a central tenet of value
> economics. The War for Independence in the United States was accomplished
> in large part because ordinary people decided it was a worthwhile cause for
> which they were willing to expend substantial effort and put their lives at
> substantial risk. And that wasn't a fight against an evil invading force,
> it was a mere petition for independence.
>
> -James Rogers
> jamesr@best.com
>
> On 7/29/01 3:19 PM, "Barbara Lamar" <altamiratexas@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> >>> Namely, if your group already maintains a very high level of
> >>> liberty, and you don't want to lose it, then resistence to
> >>> [liberty-destroying] invaders damn near justifies any means.
> >
> > and Lee Corbin agreed.
> >
> > IMO, your libertarian society is thereby doomed to become unfree. The
> > problem is that the state power used to win wars is never dropped (not
> > entirely) once the wars are won.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:59 MDT