Libertarian View of War Cleared Up, Let’s Have a Drink

Over at Catallarchy, debate begins anew about the justice of the Iraq War, sparked by a post about the libertarian split over the war at the Volokh Conspiracy. Fortunately, our esteemed senior editor cleared up this little spat a few years ago in “The Wrong Hill”:

It doesn’t matter if there is a right side in the war, neither side can have any right to require Charlie Anderson to participate in any way. This is the argument libertarians need to make, not that war is evil, but that it can never be moral to force others to participate. It will do no good to win the argument that a war is evil while implicitly accepting that it is legitimately a collective decision; that’s the wrong hill. The right hill is the one where we reject the collectivist premise first.

Pace the argument at Catallarchy, the war may or may not be moral (though I don’t think it is) and it may or may not be utility-maximizing (I think the idea is incoherent in itself), but what matters is that no one has the right to require my money or my body to fight it.

Interestingly enough, at the Volokh post, Rose Friedman says, “And we will!” in response to a quip from Milton Friedman about winning the war. There’s the wrong hill right there.

I’ll have a gin and tonic.

46 thoughts on “Libertarian View of War Cleared Up, Let’s Have a Drink”

  1. War collectivism happens on both ends of the sword.

    It’s certainly true that collectivism is often used to make excuses for commandeering people’s lives and property in the name of the war effort. But it’s also certainly true that collectivism is often used to make excuses for burning villages and dropping bombs on innocent people’s heads. Sometimes this is done explicitly as terrorism or collective punishment; sometimes it is done on the idea that the national military or diplomatic aims justify continuing the war by any means necessary, no matter the cost to innocent third parties.

    Kennedy’s right that anti-war libertarians don’t put nearly enough stress on the first sort of collectivism. But why in the world shouldn’t one challenge the second sort of collectivism, too?

  2. There’s never any justification for forcing someone else to participate in your self-defense? So, if we’re neighbors and I need your garden hose to help stop my house from burning down, I have no justification for borrowing it against your will? Or, if you’re standing in the way of a terrorist about to set off a suitcase nuke, I have no right to shove you out of the way to stop him?

    Such untenable, context-free statements of libertarian principles make individual liberty look like a juvenile fantasy. They retard the cause of liberty.

  3. Starr,

    There’s never any justification for forcing someone else to participate in your self-defense?

    No.

    Such untenable, context-free statements of libertarian principles make individual liberty look like a juvenile fantasy.

    The implicit claim you’re making, that individual rights are based on circumstances, directly equates to “the greatest good for the greatest number”.

    They retard the cause of liberty.

    Nobody’s going to be manufacturing any freedom for themselves by pretending to hold principles that they’ll concede for convenience.

  4. So, if we’re neighbors and I need your garden hose to help stop my house from burning down, I have no justification for borrowing it against your will?

    a. No. Absolutely not. Never.

    b. Borrowing one’s property against one’s will is termed theft in English. You are debasing the language in order to euphemize your justification for theft.

    c. Assume that persons A and B need a kidney, person C needs a heart, and person D needs a liver. You are a perfect match for all four of them. Don’t they have justification to “borrow against your will” these organs from you, thus saving four lives for the price of one? If you want to be consistent, you must answer Yes to this question.

  5. Am I justified in taking (stealing) someone’s garden hose in an attempt to put out a fire? No, but I’d do it anyway. I’d later pay the consequences, which would be petty compared to my house burning down.

    And if you were to knock someone down, hell, let’s say you ran them over with a car and you successfully took out suitcase nuke guy, well, whatever reckoning there is afterward should take into account that your victim would’ve been dead had you not acted. He might even be grateful to you.

  6. My previous attempt to reply to people seems to have failed, so I’ll try again. In brief:

    JTK: I’m arguing for exceptions to be made in cases of immediate necessity where there is no other timely alternative. I believe there are timely alternatives to tax funding, so taxation would not be justified by the sort of exceptions I’m raising.

    Lopez: Individual rights are not a suicide pact. You don’t have a duty to die if you can only defend yourself against being murdered by borrowing, stealing, or even destroying someone else’s property. You may have a duty to recompense them for the harm, but you don’t have a duty to die.

    USS: Borrowing is temporary, theft is permanent. Also, there is a difference between taking away someone’s alienable rights, such as some of their property, and taking away their inalienable rights, such as part of their body or their life. Taking away someone’s body parts is a greater form of harm than taking away their alienable property, and thus requires a higher level of justification.

    Billy-Jay: Congrats, you’re the most sane one to reply to me yet.

  7. Taking away someone’s body parts is a greater form of harm than taking away their alienable property, and thus requires a higher level of justification.

    So, is there a situation that justifies taking one’s organs? I mean, look at it from both direcctions – taking your organs saves four lives for the price of one. Isn’t that justification enough? Isn’t it all a matter of degree and utility? What if your organs saved 5,000 people? Is that high enough level of justification?

    Borrowing is temporary, theft is permanent

    Once again, you are abusing the language in order to justify your endorsement of theft. Or maybe your English just sucks? Borrowing implies consent. CONSENT. Without consent, it’s theft.

    My previous attempt to reply to people seems to have failed

    That’s what happens when you make no sense.

  8. You don’t have a duty to die if you can only defend yourself against being murdered by borrowing, stealing, or even destroying someone else’s property.

    Or by holding a gun to their head, which was your original question? If Anne threatens Bob’s life so that Bob will contribute to Anne’s defense against Chuck, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the claim that Anne has no duty to leave Bob alone.

    Hey, maybe Anne would die without a lung transplant, and Bob happens to have a spare hundred grand. Anne doesn’t have a duty to die rather than helping herself to Bob’s money to spend on a lung transplant any more than she has a duty to die rather than helping herself to Bob’s money for defense against violence, right? Of course you’d say that she ought to pay him back, but you don’t really have an argument that she ought to refrain from robbing him in the first place unless you somehow morally seperate violence from other ills. I don’t see that happening, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

    Edit to add:

    Starr, I don’t know why you had problems commenting, but we’ve had enough spam to where I’m just hitting the delete button without reading any of them. It’s possible that your comment got caught and auto-deleted. If this is a continuing problem then I’ll pay more attention to the spam trap.

    Staples, if we had an filter blocking goofy comments, you’d go into the bit bucket before Starr.

  9. Staples, if we had an filter blocking goofy comments, you’d go into the bit bucket before Starr.

    What’s your point? What was goofy about my comments? I’m all for snide remarks, but you need to make a point to go along with those.

  10. Lopez: No, my original question had nothing to do with holding a gun to an innocent person’s head; that occurred in neither of my hypotheticals. I do not accept the notion that it is OK to target innocents with threats of death or grievous bodily harm, even if the purpose is to save the lives of other innocents. Lesser harms, such as property takings not involving such threats of death or grievous bodily harm, are a different matter.

  11. Tim Star: “I do not accept the notion that it is OK to target innocents with threats of death or grievous bodily harm, even if the purpose is to save the lives of other innocents. Lesser harms, such as property takings not involving such threats of death or grievous bodily harm, are a different matter.”

    This seems to have some wierd implications. Suppose I need to pay for a kidney transplant (I have no duty to die any earlier than necessary, right?) and I want to do it on your nickel because I’m broke. According to you, I’m not entitled to use violence to get you to cough it up, but I still have a right to your money. In that case, why isn’t violence permissible? After all, I have a right to your money. Shouldn’t I be free to use violence to secure my right?

    I could see this getting wierder still. Based on your view, if I want to take a up a better diet and a gym membership to prolong my life, and I can’t afford this on my own, then I’m supposed to be permitted to take your stuff to fund this. I can’t use violence, but if I decide to steal things from your house while you are out and pawn them to fund my new healthy lifestyle, well, that should be ok, right? After all, I have no duty to die in my fifties and I’m only committing a property taking, not threatening you with bodily hurt.

  12. Starr,

    No, my original question had nothing to do with holding a gun to an innocent person’s head; that occurred in neither of my hypotheticals.

    I interpreted “There’s never any justification for forcing someone else to participate in your self-defense?” to mean that you judged it fine for someone to force someone else to participate in their self-defense. And I wasn’t sure how you’d go about that without using force.

  13. Tim,

    Lesser harms, such as property takings not involving such threats of death or grievous bodily harm, are a different matter.

    I’m scratching my head trying to think of what kind of takings you’re talking about here. All takings that I can think of used to finance the war on terror entail such threats.

  14. James: I’m only talking about situations in which someone’s life or property is in immediate danger, and there is no time for a peaceful way to save it from harm.

    JTK: I’ve given specific examples of the sort of takings I’m talking about. I’m well aware of the fact that the War on Terror is currently funded coercively – that’s why I advocate changing that fact.

    [This was caught in the spam filter. JL]

  15. Dim Star,

    I have been going over some of your entries on this site. Although I despise the Rockwell crowd more than anybody, you have some nerve referring to others as crypto-fascists and pseudo-libertarians. Half of your entries focus on justification of theft and murder, and you are as much a libertarian as Bush and Rockwell are. If there is one good thing that comes out of the LRC/Mises zoo, it is their ideological opposition to this war, and to wars in general.

  16. Tim,

    “I’m only talking about situations in which someone’s life or property is in immediate danger, and there is no time for a peaceful way to save it from harm.”

    So if you’re about to take my stuff, I’m entitled to draft the next guy or take his stuff to protect me? And he’s entitled to draft the next guy and take his stuff to protect himself from me? And so on? Do you see where this would lead if practiced consistently?

  17. James: When did I ever claim that conscription could be justified? You are making the same mistake as JTK, thinking that I’m trying to justify current policy with regard to resourcing wars, or that anything other than scrupulous adherence to an unqualified non-aggression principle logically implies support for those policies. I’m not, and it doesn’t.

    Useless: There are such things as just wars; to be against them is to be for injustice. If that is what you like about the paleocreeps, then you deserve to be associated with those slavery-denying, Confederacy-defending, police-brutality-defending, Holocaust-denier-approving scumbags.

  18. Uncle Sam Staples said:

    “I have been going over some of your entries on this site. Although I despise the Rockwell crowd more than anybody, you have some nerve referring to others as crypto-fascists and pseudo-libertarians. Half of your entries focus on justification of theft and murder, and you are as much a libertarian as Bush and Rockwell are. If there is one good thing that comes out of the LRC/Mises zoo, it is their ideological opposition to this war, and to wars in general. ”

    This is off topic, but I am curious why many of the libertarians who post on this site seem to find the “LRC/Mises zoo” so infuriating. I’ve been a long time supporter of the Mises Institute, and reading articles at Lew Rockwell daily has helped me see the Libertarian position concerning current events more clearly. Granted, this is my first time at this site, and what I’ve seen so far is intriguing, but I am merely curious as to why such animosity exists. LRC/Mises are anti-war, as you say, and though I find the articles denying evolution and the promotion of the “socially conservative lifestyle” generally to be rather tiring, I still think what the Mises Institute attempts is good.

  19. Thantor, I think the biggest reason LRC gets so much “hate” around here is its affection for the Confederacy. It’s fairly difficult to be an ideologically consistent libertarian and support a state in which human slavery was commonly accepted.

    Anyway, I don’t have much of a problem with LRC, even though I will take issue with the occasional article posted there.

  20. Thantor,

    I don’t hate LRC/Mises. The thing is though that they’re so consistently wrong on so many things. Even worse is that rather than saying straight up “Gee, that was stupid”, they attempt the clumsiest denials, coverups, and excuse-aways imaginable (ref: Bob Wallace’s curious notions about Jews, Hans Hoppe’s magical disappearing column, Stephan Kinsella in general).

    I don’t have a problem in principle with folks lauding slaveholding tyrants, engaging in nonsense talk about global Jew conspiracies, using male homosexuality as a childish pejorative, endorsing crypto-Nazi scumbags, praising Commie cartoonists, etcetera(*1). In fact I don’t have a problem with such folks being at the forefront of the libertarian movement(*2). The reason is of course that I couldn’t care less about the state of the libertarian movement or the folks that associate themselves with it – I’m here for me only, and I’m not counting on The Movement to manufacture me much of anything in the way of freedom.

    Thing is that their petty dishonesty annoys me, and it amuses me to occasionally flip the lights on and watch ’em scatter like roaches. The humor works on so many levels, too: if they can’t stand my attention (me: Mr. Nobody from Nowhere) how long are they gonna last in the outside world? Answer is that they can’t stand )( that much scrutiny by anyone without retreating back to the warm confines of their own echo chamber (ref: their treatment of Tom Palmer. Yes, it’s partly because he’s openly homosexual, but it’s mostly because he’s both an outspoken critic of them and far more prominent than they’ll ever be.). And they think they’re gonna be able to bring the message to the masses? That’s rich.

    Also amusing are the petulant protests by the LRC/Mises.org supporters who wonder why bad ol’ No-Treason.com is so mean to the poor, poor crypto-confederates whilst evil meanies like [fill in the blank] blather on unnoticed by us. Answer is of course that I hold LRC to a higher standard than I hold Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter or whoever. Ought I not? Nobody quite says “yes” but they all wish we’d have a big glass of Ignore The Paleocreeps In The Room, Please.

    LRC could shut us up for good by just getting two notches smarter and one notch more honest – say, about to the level of the National Libertarian Party. It’s both amusing and revealing that they can’t make it over that hurdle. In fact, besides my own amusement I’m actually trying to do them favors, they’d be personally better off by publishing arguments that can stand the scrutiny of some Nobody from Nowhere. The fact that they can’t see that much is also amusing and revealing.

    (*1) All real examples, documented on this site.
    (*2) Let’s stipulate it for discussion. No snickering, please.

  21. Why I hate SpewRantwell.com? Let me count the ways:

    1) Because Stephan Kinsella threatened to sue me for defamation because I reposted claims that a certain client of his (whose name I won’t mention, but wasn’t Mindy Whackleroy) plagiarized her book (which wasn’t titled “The Unreasonable Bitch.”)

    2) Because they cite the arguments of Holocaust deniers like Harry Elmer Barnes, David Irving, David Hoggan, etc., while hiding the fact that their sources are Holocaust Deniers, if they even credit these sources at all. (e.g., Raico cites Irving several times in his hatchet-job on Churchill in “The Costs of War,” but those citations don’t appear in the index of the book; only Irving’s fraudulent work on the Dresden bombing appears in the index. David Gordon cites one of Hoggan’s works, without mentioning the fact that he was an infamous Holocaust Denier who also got caught fabricating evidence and wrote “The Myth of the Six Million”) They thus sucker innocent well-meaning libertarians into buying into neo-Nazi propaganda.

    3) They defend-by-denying the statist aggression of the Confederacy, Wilhelmine Germany, Bolshevik Russia, Nazi Germany, Militarist Japan, etc., or by finding those who fought such tyrannical regimes morally equivalent to those regimes. E.g., Rothbard blamed Poland for its invasion by Germany, Finland for its invasion by Russia, South Korea its invasion by North Korea, sided with Argentina in the Falklands War, denied that the IRA indiscriminately killed civilians, held that Israel was the aggressor in the Six Day War, cheered at the fall of Saigon & Phnom Penh to the Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge, etc.

    4) They defend police brutality, such as Lew Rockwell’s defense of the beating of Rodney King on the grounds that it was safer when the cops beat up all suspects both in the paddy wagon & back at the station. Then, when called on it, they hypocritically deny having done so.

  22. From Tom Palmer’s blog:

    [Hoppe] asked my friends in Guatemala when they took him to a restaurant: “Do Indians eat in the same restaurants as white people?” When told yes, and even that they sit at the same tables, he showed visible disgust.

    Whether this story is true or not I don’t know, but if I had to guess, I’d say it is.

  23. Hmmm. Well I’ve tried to digest the myriad links that Uncle Sam Staples provided, and I found the information very useful. Most problems seem to center around Hoppe and his immigration views along with his and others alleged anti-semitism. I disagreed with Hoppe’s stance on immigration upon first encountering it, but I found Walter Block’s rebuttal satisfying, and I never knew that Hoppe’s stance was considered the party line on that matter. Dr. Block was the one who introduced me to libertarianism in a introductory economics class, so I find it hard to dismiss the organization of which he is a member. I wouldn’t be a libertarian today if it wasn’t for the Mises Institute, so they must in some small way be achieving their goal of spreading the philosophy of freedom by supporting libertarian professors. On Lew Rockwell I usually just skip over the articles by Gary North and others that don’t interest me. I admit that many of the viewpoints posted there that are indirectly related to libertarianism could possibly be off-putting to potential convertees, but I haven’t read anything yet to convince me to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. The Mises Institute, in contrast to other libertarian views I have read, has never supported the current war, and I always read their avowed opposition to The Civil War in the same light. Still, thanks for the information and hospitality.

  24. Walter Block is the only true libertarian and the only person I respect in the Mises Zoo. I emailed him once and asked him why he associates himself with these creeps. He was puzzled by my question and said that he considered Hoppe and Rockwell to be “Rothbard’s lieutenants”. I find it sad that he chooses to be blind to what goes on there, but that is yet another example of libertarian loneliness, where a libertarian would join anyone who may sound remotely like a libertarian so as to feel a part of something.

  25. Tim Starr,

    Look, if you feel like you are being misconstrued you can complain or you can be clear. Exactly how much of my stuff are others entitled to take in “situations in which someone’s life or property is in immediate danger, and there is no time for a peaceful way to save it from harm?”

    When they commence to taking exactly this amount (whatever amount YOU believe is the right amount), it seems that my property is in immediate danger. How much of your stuff am I allowed to take at that point?

    Thantor,

    The problem with Hoppe et al is that they are, most of the time, right so it’s tempting to overlook when they screw up on dealbreaker stuff like, say, slavery.

  26. Timmy,

    1. I, associated with the paleocreeps? You have a very limited ability to think clearly and rationally, you know? All I was saying is that the one good thing that comes out of there is their opposition to the war, and that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Apparently, such fine distinctions place an unbearable burden on your intellect.

    2. If you consider the war in Iraq to be justified, then you probably consider all the twentieth-century wars that the US got itself in to be justified. The death of 40,000 innocent civilians in Iraq is not something that you should bother yourself with, right? After all, they started it, didn’t they?

    3. Useless? That’s the best you can do?? I am personally offended that you could not find anything better than that.

  27. James: You seem to have missed the fact that I also believe that if someone must take some of your property to save a life that they must also compensate you for it as much as possible.

    Useless: Once again, to condemn just wars is to support injustice. If you want to go along with the crypto-Nazi/crypto-Commie critique of US foreign policy that SpewRantwell.com espouses, go right ahead. Oh, and your estimate of US-caused civilian deaths in Iraq is grossly exagerrated.

  28. Starr,

    Once again, to condemn just wars is to support injustice.

    Just to be perfectly clear, are you saying that the Iraq war is just, or are you talking about some hypothetical war?

  29. Timmy,

    I know it’s hard for you, but try to answer a few simple questions:

    1. What is crypto-Nazi/crypto-commie (CN-CC) about LRC’s opposition to the war? Don’t tell me that they are in general CN-CC, just tell me specifically what you find CN-CC about their opposition to the war.

    2. How do you define a just war? Another hint – They started it may fly with your mouth-breathing brethren on your blog, but not here. Try to be a bit more specific.

    3. Why do you keep trying to associate me with the LRC crowd? Both I and Fidel Castro supprt the notion that 1+1=2, but that does not make me a communist. I read somewhere that Hitler was a vegetarian, but that does not make vegetarians Nazis. Do you get my point? My opposition to the war is independent to that of LRC, and I was merely pointing out they are right for a change on an issue.

    Timmy, if you cannot answer these questions without once again barking LRC… crypto-Nazi…we good, they bad…, I’d have to concede that associating you with South Park’s Timmy was unfair to Timmy. Maybe you’re more of a Gobbles?

  30. Tim Starr,

    Suppose that someone is justified by whatever criteria you have in mind to take my things and they attempt to do so. May I then take your property to defend mine?

  31. Starr,

    JTK: I’ve given specific examples of the sort of takings I’m talking about. I’m well aware of the fact that the War on Terror is currently funded coercively – that’s why I advocate changing that fact.

    Advocating change doesn’t quite answer the question: Is it just to tax me to fight the war on terror if I’d prefer to use my resources otherwise?

    And do you advocate the abolition of coercive funding of the war on terror even if it means the war will not be fought effectively? Pulling the plug on coercive funding today would likely bring a very abrupt halt to the war on terror.

  32. Link

    [Code your links. Dummy. JL]

    MOTHER SHEEHAN’S MARRIED LOVER

    Activist breaks camp in Crawford to do ‘damage control’

    Cindy Sheehan packed her bags and left Crawford ,Texas, Tuesday afternoon and arrived home in Berkeley, Ca. late Tuesday evening. Sheehan rushed back to do damage control after explosive information became public today about an alleged affair that began while she was still married to her husband Patrick, and after her son Casey Sheehan died in Sadr City, Iraq attempting to rescue members of his trapped squad.

    Sources are telling authors Melanie Morgan and Catherine Moy, (American Mourning, Cumberland Press) that Sheehan is furious that the news of her affair has gone public.

    Sources have identified the boyfriend as former right-winger Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig Von Mises think tank located in Alabama, who is himself married.

  33. Tim Starr, you make perfect sense to me :) Staples, once again you suck like a hoover.

    ———-

    Taking away someone’s body parts is a greater form of harm than taking away their alienable property, and thus requires a higher level of justification.

    So, is there a situation that justifies taking one’s organs? I mean, look at it from both direcctions – taking your organs saves four lives for the price of one. Isn’t that justification enough? Isn’t it all a matter of degree and utility? What if your organs saved 5,000 people? Is that high enough level of justification?

    Borrowing is temporary, theft is permanent

    Once again, you are abusing the language in order to justify your endorsement of theft. Or maybe your English just sucks? Borrowing implies consent. CONSENT. Without consent, it’s theft.

    My previous attempt to reply to people seems to have failed

    That’s what happens when you make no sense.

    ———-

    Staples,

    I come back from a few month’s sabbatical to find you making the same ridiculous arguments.

    Tim Starr has some very good points, let’s analize yours first and destroy your commie rhetoric.

    1.) He wasn’t talking about taking someone’s organs you craven idiot, he made it quite clear that he was talking about BORROWING a garden hose.

    Let’s analyze:

    Borrowing a Garden Hose to put out a fire VS. Stealing Organs (Like your commie friends in CHINA do)

    Hmm….Big difference to me. Anyway, both arguements ARE APPLES AND ORANGES.

    ———-

    “Once again, you are abusing the language in order to justify your endorsement of theft. Or maybe your English just sucks? Borrowing implies consent. CONSENT. Without consent, it’s theft.”

    No he’s not Mr. Brown shorts. Mr. Brown Shorts, do you know the legal definition of larceny? No you don’t, let me educate you:

    Larceny: An act of TAKING WITH THE INTENT OF DEPRIVING the owner PERMANETLY of use or benifit.

    WRONGFUL APPROPIATION: Taking with the INTENT to deprive only TEMPORARY.

    Mr. Brown shorts, did that tid-bit of information force itself in that brickwall you call a skull?

    Does a country have the right to press people in service?

    Yes it does.

    If you don’t like the rules, move to Canada or some other country. YOU LIVE ON THIS LAND NOW DEAL WITH THE RULES OF DRAFT AND EMINENT DOMAIN.

  34. What do you mean, “should be the one to leave?”

    Are you refering about going to Canada?

    No, you have a choice:

    1. Abide by the rules of this country

    a. Military Draft

    b. Eminent Domain

    2. Move to a country that has different laws.

    You do not have a right to:

    1. Refuse to go to war when your country calls upon YOU who live in that country,

    2. Refuse to follow any other rules prescribed by law.

    ——————–

    Hypocrates. You talk about the law, how wrong stealing is. But it is the LAW that you may be drafted. You think the law is a buffet? You can pick and choose what laws to obey?

    Hypocrate. Look at your own body, do you not have white blood cells, that are living organisms? They are called to fight the diseases in your own body, do they not?

    What makes the cell behave so? In a micro level they obey to keep you protected and in the macro level so shall you.

    But you want to fight what is natural and good? What is in your own blood?

  35. Number one:

    This is only the secound time I posted so the idiotic statement:

    “Yes he is. He shows up here intermittently. Please don’t feed him.”

    If this is onl the secound period of posting, I doub that qualifies as “trolling” or even “show[ing] up here intermittently”.

    ———-

    “What do you think I mean when I ask why I should be the one to leave?”

    Since your statement was vauge as can be (on purpose no doubt), I assumed you were talking about leaving to another country.

    Let me stop the red hearing arguement before you get to far…

    Now, since you asked this idotic question, plus throwing around a buzz word such as “troll”, it is clear you would rather throw insults and diverge the topic at hand. Which is that your an idiot.

    Inasmuch as your stupidity matches your ignorance, I will leave you alone as you are not qualified to debate me.

    ———-

    “J.C., do you think that stealing would be okay if there wasn’t a law against it?”

    Good point billy-jay, but off topic:

    1. There is a law against stealing, and has been laws against stealing from the begining of recorded history. Thus your argument is void. It is like saying, “well if the laws of gravity didn’t exist, would it be okay to jump off a bridge?” You see, the law has always been there.

    2. Even when the law wasn’t written, there are what we call inalienable rights. Such as the right to freedom, to enjoy the fruits of our labor, worship, and of speech just to name a few.

    3. Now, I’ll know what you will get at, so I will cut you off at the pass. You are probably forming the arguement, “Well, isn’t forcing someone to vacate their homes and enter military servive at odds with what you just said?

    4. No. The “natural law” can be altered slightly to accomidate the needs of the majority. However, I do concede there are abuses of authority, like forcing someone to vacate their home so that a state can sell the land to a big corporation (it was on Hannity and Comes).

    5. Thus because the law is by human hands it is prone to corruption and failure. However, the answer is although the law is imperfect, made by imperfect man, in an imperfect world, it is better than the alternative. If we stop the Draft, we can kiss our arses good bye when a real war begins.

  36. “Inasmuch as your stupidity matches your ignorance, I will leave you alone as you are not qualified to debate me.”

    Thanks. I’d be so ashamed and humiliated to tell anyone about it if I were ever to attempt engaging in a serious debate with someone with the level of intelligence that you display.

  37. J.C., you missed my point. You called a lot of people here hypocrites because you thought they were picking and choosing laws to obey. You misinterpreted what was said. There is a difference between law & morality. Stealing is immoral. That was the point, not that stealing was against the law.

    Have you ever read any Lysander Spooner? You might want to do that so you know where the regulars here are coming from.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *