X-Loop: openpgp.net
From: David J. Brunell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The key concepts are force and fraud. Neither should be initiated from
one
> human entity to another. By "human entity" I mean person, corporation, or
> government. Why are force and fraud wrong? Because it is against man's
> nature. Man survives by the use of reason, and both force and fraud are
> attempts to short-circuit his mind.
You seem to be an objectivist ("man survives by the use of reason" is
actually false in reality, although I can agree that this is how things
*should* be).
> Because there are those who would use force and fraud against other
people,
> governments have been established and given a legal monopoly on the use of
> force.
By whom have those governments been established? Who gave them that right?
[Note: this has never been the case in history, anyway; all known
governments have been established by the use of force.]
> The only legitimate function of government in a free society is to
> protect its citizens from force and fraud. To do this requires national
and
> local defense infrastructures and an unbiased court system. A government
in
> a free society cannot engage in income redistribution schemes from any
human
> entity to any other, since doing so requires the initiation of force or
the
> threat of force. The United States is not a free society.
The problem with minimal governments (with ANY government) is that they MUST
initiate the use of force, or be reduced to corporation status. This has
been elaborated by someone whose name escapes me now, but basically if I
want to defend myself and a few friends, and someone else wants to enter the
business of law making, and they pay us for this, then the government has
two options: 1) let us do it - in which case, it is just another business
entity, or 2) initiate force against us, to preserve their monopoly. End of
"minimal".
Mark
