DRAFT version of Federal "Justice" Shutdown Project
catskillmarina at gmail.com
Thu Mar 22 10:57:33 PDT 2018
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 03/22/2018 01:43 PM, jim bell wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 10:36:10 PM PDT, Marina Brown
> <catskillmarina at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
> On 03/22/2018 01:06 AM, jim bell wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 3:37:48 PM PDT, juan
>> <juan.g71 at gmail.com <mailto:juan.g71 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:30:32 +0000 (UTC) jim bell
>> <jdb10987 at yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987 at yahoo.com>
> <mailto:jdb10987 at yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987 at yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>>> I don't have to agree with this, in order to recognize
>>> Come on.
>>> If you actually didn't agree with this you'd denounce it as a
>>> wholly criminal, anti-libertarian activity carried by the US
>> So now, you are actually criticizing me for FAILING to engage in
>> 'virtue signalling'!!!
>> Virtue signalling
>> I am not in support of borders and i support people's right to
> without "Papers".
> I notice that you don't distinguish between public (government)
> borders and private (private property) borders. Why is that? I
> oppose government borders. But I believe in the concept of
> private property, which amounts to the right to exclude others from
> that property. We live on the surface (2 dimensional, more or
> less) of a sphere (Earth) and we desire to travel and have goods
> (and information) brought to us. That will require that roads and
> other utilities be constructed and maintained, and that costs
> money. The people who finance such construction will therefore
> have rights.
> Think of your neighborhood: In the post-governmental (as we know
> it) future, people will voluntarily enter into contracts to build
> and maintain roads and other connections (power, water, sewer).
> This may limit those who don't enter into those contracts from
> using those roads. Who knows what the owners/maintainers of those
> roads may agree to?
> Not wanting to think about such eventualities doesn't mean that
> they won't eventually occur.
>> I grieved when Gilmore's right to travel case was decided against
> For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires
> people to show some sort of identification in order to travel. But
> I believe I cannot prohibit it if a private (non-governmental)
> company such as an airline decides, for itself, that it will insist
> on identification in order to allow passengers to travel. The risk
> to fellow passengers has become too great (hijacking, bombing, etc)
> to avoid this, sadly. I COULD choose to take airlines that DIDN'T
> require people to identify themselves. Presumably, such airlines
> will exist when that is allowed.
>> I guess travelling through E Germany in 1973 made a pretty heavy
> impression on me as a child.
>> If you say i am "Virtue Signaling" that would be hillarious.
> You will notice that I didn't say that.
> Jim Bell
Most libertarians are opposed to collectivism. The idea that a
neihborhood or country is privately owned by the members who then
can keep anyone out or kick people out can become rather nightmarish
form of collectivism.
I tend to support voluntary associations except when they become
repressive and totalitarian. Heck, even homeowner associations sometimes
become repressive. ...which is why i live out in the sticks where you
don't even need a permit to build things.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the cypherpunks