RE: Property [was Re: The Education Function]

Michael Scarazzo (
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:39:49 -0800 (PST)

> Market freedom is the most effective means for achieving libertarian
> It is not necessarily the best means for achieving other goals, such
> communalism or equality. These alternative goals are equally valid,
> perhaps unpalatable or even abhorrent to a libertarian.

It is a perfect means to acheive communalism for those small groups of people who wish to live as they see fit. Liberty by definition allows for many different people to live as long as they do not actively attempt to stop others from exhibiting their own freedom to life and their pursuits of happiness. It's not abhorrent. In fact, allowing those people to live as they see fit is at the heart of Libertarian principles.

> society, etc. In Russia and many SE Asian countries, for example,
> capitalism looks rather like a dismal failure at the moment.

In what respects do they think that capitalism is a failure. You mean to say that the governments in those countries see it that way. If you explain to the people in those countries that they could make enough money and need not pay hommage others (government) to avoid hunger. I think they would choose to be self-sufficient. I would.

> A bit of an exaggeration, eh? I live in DC and work for the
> Trust me, most government activities have nothing to do with force.
> sure, at some abstract level the State could suddenly decide to
ditch our
> constitutional rights and blow us away for non-conformance, but in
the vast
> majority of transactions this possibility is so remote as to be

ANY violation of the rights guaranteed to an individual must not be allowed, unless they have violated those of another individual. In that case certain rights are forfeit. What is this "abstract level"? Are you insane? IRS and DEA thugs routinely ignore the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and violate the rights of individuals. Pay or else and we have the guns. Any infringement is not negligible because there must be no exceptions to supremacy of the individual. The state is supposed to exist FOR the people; not the people for the state.

> Now, if you want to talk rampant coercion in modern America, my
exhibit A
> would be the control businesses have over their employees. To the
> American, the government is some remote entity with which one
interacts on
> April 15 and election day. One's boss, on the other hand, can very
> and easily make one's life miserable if one fails to carry out his
or her
> wishes.

Businesses have control over their employees for only as long as they work for the business. To me, the government is a very real and present danger to my freedom. Each day that I work having to pay taxes through the taxation of my company and through the taxes deducted from my paycheck without my approval are very real to me. Those productive dollars go to pay the salaries of people like you, who do not provide service based on the market. Your job exists because the government can arrest and punish those will not subscribe. If an individual's boss attempts to exercise undue authority or tries to abuse his authority, I have legal means to address the issue, beyond finding other employment. Please, Mr Government, tell me how I can successfully avoid paying your salary without being financially ruined or placed in jail.

Your arguements and rationale are absurd. You have no real concept of the power that the state has taken over the individual during this century in the US.

Get your free address at