chazwin wrote:

chazwin wrote:

Happily that process is being slowed down in the USA, there are only a
mere 30,000 deaths per year from guns -

Prove it you fucking liar.

Proof positive:
http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms.

You forgot this chazzzzzzz

Suicide 16,869;

Homicide 11,348;

Accident 802; (45,000 die in car crashes)

Legal Intervention 323;

Undetermined 231.

And of course you failed to mention that guns require a human being to
pull the trigger and you fail to mention the most important of all

JUST WHO the ***** are YOU to take the right off a peaceful human being
to defend their own fucking life, by at very least the identical means
by which they are being threatened?

It is against the law in the USA to arrest an outlaw for carrying a
assault rifle.

What outlaw you dumn commie *****?

chazwin wrote:

tg wrote:

chazwin wrote:

tg wrote:

chazwin wrote:

The Libertarianz party's slogan is "More Freedon: Less government".

This is false and contradictory as it has been clear from the history
of politics in the last 250 years that governements are the very thing
that has enabled the growth and preservation of personal freedoms.

As with socialism, you are just playing definition word games. Define
government.

If resources are abundant, then people are free.
If they are not abundant, then people's actions are limited---they are
free to fight over resources or die, but they are not free to live in
peace.

This is not true. There are many examples in history where the
resources have been plentiful but they have been gathered by slaves.

If resources are abundant, there may be some form of *governance* to
deal with cooperative ventures and aberrant individuals. This has minor
effect on personal freedoms if at all.

Have you heard of slavery? Governments can be used to garentee freedom
just as they can garentee slavery. Police and other organs of the state
can be used to enable or disable freedom to many, some or all of the
populace: but without any goverment you can only be free to be raped,
shot at, robbed or enslaved by outlaws and bandits.

If resources are scarce, then people form states. Since states function
to control resources, they restrict personal freedom by denying access
to resources to some individuals and not others.

Actaully, in history, states have been formed in response to large and
stable resource bases. For example Catal Huyek where the first states
where formed in the Levant and Babylon were enabled becasue of the
abundance of resources, not scarcity. States can both garentee access
as well as deny it. But there can be no worthwhile freedom with no
state at all.

But
states may increase personal freedom for *members* of the state because
they control resources to the benefit of those members and the
detriment of non-members. Likely this just averages out.

So what's your definition of government?

I think we are both using the same term here. A body initiated to make
and enforce law over a defined people and land, usually for the defence
and control of a nation.

First, as to slavery. You are forgetting that slaves *are not members
of the state*, and you are taking a narrow view of abundance.

I think you are fundementally wrong headed here. They may not be
citizens, but as the state needs those "vocal tools" like it needs
other tools and pack animals they are effectively, though not
technically, members of the state. So what if they are not members of
the state you have lost the thread completely.

If you can get everything you need by exchange within your population,
then it makes no sense to hold slaves, since they are troublesome and
dangerous.

You have not studied ancient history as I have. First there are very
few instances of states where you can get everything you need. People
want more than their needs sorted -they also want someone to suck
their ***** for free, and to die in the silver mines to make jewellry
for their wives.

Here you are being about as thoughtful as Mikey. As I say below, having
slaves *isn't free*. You have to work at it, by having superior
military and overseers and police to round up runaways, and whipping
them, and so on.

The population produces what it produces. You can have luxuries and sex
workers without slaves, in fact that is fairly common. Having some
portion of the population be slaves doesn't change what products are
available.

Like in ancient Athens.

For example, if there is sufficient land for each person to
grow more food than they need, why would you risk getting killed to
make someone your slave when you can just do the work of growing food?

Never in history! If it ever happend for a moment then it was wiped
away with the next generation.

Think about Sparta---these people had to be psycho-warriors to defend
against an uprising of the Helots, and to defend their land against the
other city-states. Why, if good land was so plentiful, would anyone
bother?

Spartan were an army of occupation. They had moved south into the
Peloponese and enslaved and entire nation, they were under potential
siege for 100s of years. Are you making a point here?

Yes. Having slaves doesn't mean that there is abundance.

I was suggesting that freedoms have been the result of more governance
not less. I suggested that was so in the last 250 years, including the
revolutions in France and America, but also true of the English Civil
War (though i think we peaked too early). Since those times personal
freedoms have increased in the West comensurate with the state's
ability to preserve and maintain those freedoms: public health,
education, social programmes, policing, service sector. eg Roosevelt's
"New Deal" represented a significant increase in government control of
the economy and lifted millions of Americans out of poverty.
Without this degree of government we could all be free to grow up
stupid, unhealthy, robbed or shot by someone with a gun. But if that is
what you mean by freedom then go ahead.

What you really have is, as I said, members of the state denying the
benefit of the resources to the non-members, whether the non-members
are doing the work of extraction or not.

How is this relevant to more freedom:less government?

Now as to terminology:

I don't accept your definition, whether you call it government or
'glarbament', because it is too broad.

It is the slogan of the Libertarianz - take it of leave it!

For example, you could have an island where there is no law at all, but
the residents support a navy that patrols the ocean to keep out others
and protect the fishing grounds. (This is what libertarians fantasize
about.)

OTOH, if the island is impossible to get to, but the population is
small and stable, and everyone can get food easily, then there could be
a council of elders that enforces rules about social behavior---fights
over a woman, and so on, but doesn't deal at all with matters of
property.

You mix the two together---state and governance---so reaching some
understanding becomes very difficult.

I think it is you that have the problem. Governance is what the state
does.

I just gave an example where there is a state that doesn't provide
governance for its members.

It can be mobilised to do the work for the few or for the many.
It can lead to more freedom or less. But no governance means poverty,
crime and decay.

Not on my island, where there is abundance.

-tg

-tg

chazwin wrote:
"The Libertarianz party's slogan is "More Freedom : Less government".

This is false and contradictory as it has been clear from the history
of politics in the last 250 years that governements are the very thing
that has enabled the growth and preservation of personal freedoms."

My original statement made no necessary connection between freedom and
government.

Which means nothing more then, than you have replied to More Freedom :
Less Government in a blatantly dishonest, context dropping fashion.

Because Libertarianz, in that phrase, mean only, and are drawing a
direct link between the size of government and individual freedom, e.g.
North Korea no individual freedom, you dumb arsed dishonest ignorant
commie Fido Castro and now Kim Jong Il arse licking *****.

The ONLY possible contradiction, in context, to the phrase More Freedom
Less Government IS to claim that Big governments mean More freedom.

Michael Gordge