>>>>>There is no third way except your third way, which is privatized force, in any amounts needed to enforce your beliefs in a privatized world.<<<<

I have explained that private force is only righteous for self defense and defense of private property. You, for some reason, think that the right to defend self and property is wrong, that it is only righteous for the state to “force”.…..everyone.

>>>>>Quote:
I am not hostile in the least, except to evil ideas. And anyone who does not reject evil in the ………..literary style and vocabulary when you can't defend what you are promoting. It is a dodge.XXXXXX
No dodge involved. One might think on an education forum people might try to communicate in a way that made it easy for others to understand instead of relying on slang to get their points across.<<<<

Like “plunking down”?

>>>>You apparently think slang is acceptable, especially when you are attempting to defame and ridicule and tarnish another person as "evil." As if you even knew what the word meant.<<<

Heck, yes, slang is appropriate, even on this high toned literary education forum.

>>>>>Quote:
Been there, done that! You just started posting ABOUT me in posts to others.

Then why not try it again? In the past when this happened, you were all over the forum involved in every discussion imaginable. It was not unusual or breaking any rules for me to refer to the notions you had just recently posted. However, I will certainly avoid doing so in the future.<<<<

LOL! I’M “involved in every discussion imaginable”???? Pot-kettle-black and back at ya, there….“Reffington”. (Ooops, more “slang, there. My “bad”).

For reasons best known to yourself, you have chosen to go on and on and on and on today in attempts to prove not only that I am wrong, but that my ideas are "evil."

This is quite a charge to make on a public forum, and naturally I object to it. I believe it is unfair and wildly inaccurate to characterize my ideas as evil. If you believe that is true and that failing to denounce them puts you "in league" with evil, then please don't read my posts.

Yet denouncing nearly everything I say here seems to have become your favorite pastime. It is as if you feel that you and you alone are entitled to comment on what Gatto's research and work on education mean, especially pertaining to governance. This is something I doubt Gatto would ever do, especially since he seems to have as many readers of liberal political persuasion as any other. Yet you seem to treat this forum as if it were your own private property, open only to whatever notions of governance you and lewrockwell.com may dream up.

You claim that privatized force would only be used to defend private property and person, but you have no way of knowing that. Neither have you any right, here, on this forum, to try to shut down other people's contributions and speech as evil, or to describe people as nutjobs and slimebags, expecting people to accept your opinions of them as such based on your explanations. Your explanations are not the last word on anyone or anything. They are your opinions, nothing more.

This in itself is unfair in the extreme, and contributes nothing toward furthering understanding on a forum that is open to everyone. But furthering understanding or appreciation of different points of view does not interest you. That you consider engaging in the state's dialectic. So you speak as if you were a dictator, all the while accusing me of wanting to force everyone to live in a certain way, advancing evil ideas or encouraging theft by the state. I have explained to you why I don't believe that taxation is theft, but that does not stop you from making your repeated charges. This does not mean that I believe that all taxation is legitimate or that tax rates are fair. But I believe that public monies are needed in order for government to function. You consider this theft and robbery, since you believe government should not exist.

You don't want to further mutual understanding. You seem to want to put your own point of view across to anyone who will listen, claiming that it is the only legitimate viewpoint. That government of any kind has to be based on murder, theft and lies.

Your jocular conclusion to this post is not amusing to me, especially after you have tried to portray me or my ideas as evil. I am still surprised that you feel justified in making such appraisals. But your own lack of awareness and complete absence of doubt or self-criticism with regard to your own opinions seem to make you all the more aggressive and warlike in your speech. Your speech is abusive and you care not at all. You believe that the use of abusive speech is appropriate in countering ideas that you do not like. I don't.

>>>>>>For reasons best known to yourself,<<<<<

Actually, no, I have gone to a great deal of trouble to explain WHY I hold the positions I do. There is no mystery.

>>>> you have chosen to go on and on and on and on today in attempts to prove not only that I am wrong, but that my ideas are "evil."<<<

Some humans claiming the right to aggress against other humans and their property is evil, as is stealing from them, brainwashing them and their children and claiming it is education, etc., etc.

>>>>This is quite a charge to make on a public forum, and naturally I object to it. I believe it is unfair and wildly inaccurate to characterize my ideas as evil. If you believe that is true and that failing to denounce them puts you "in league" with evil, then please don't read my posts.<<<<<

Theft, murder, lying, brainwashing, enslavement, forced association, all of these are evil things. Insisting that “we” “all” “must” choose between evils to be “good citizens” is simply demanding that people choose evils. Now, I disagree and do not want to choose evil but defend YOUR right to live that way. I simply deny YOUR right to insist that I do and that if I don’t that I am evil, a bad “citizen”, “selfish”, etc. We do not share the same values or worldview. I see no reason why we should. You insist that we must, that people must not have the option to be free. You claim that “excluding” people is wrong. You do not use the word evil, but you INSIST that people have no right to discriminate in their associations, that this is a wrong thing. This is a set up for dysfunction. Forcing association is forcing the dialectic, the endless bickering over whose values will be shoved onto who…always restricting someones liberty or seizing their property to benefit another. It is key to maintaining a highly centralized state.

>>>>Yet denouncing nearly everything I say here seems to have become your favorite pastime.<<<<

You expect to post stuff like that unchallenged? You certainly feel free to challenge my posts.

>>>>>It is as if you feel that you and you alone are entitled to comment on what Gatto's research and work on education mean, especially pertaining to governance.<<<<<

?? On what are you basing this statement? I have never tried to silence anyone here. JTGs work speaks for itself, no one has to say “what it means“.

>>>>This is something I doubt Gatto would ever do, especially since he seems to have as many readers of liberal political persuasion as any other. <<<<

You are certainly free to comment at will. And so am I. I have no issue with “liberals” per se, it is when they insist that “we” “all” must be statists that disagreement arises, as in your opining that traditionally religious parents cause all the violence and wars of the world and claim the need for monitoring them….”for the children”, of course.

>>>>Yet you seem to treat this forum as if it were your own private property, open only to whatever notions of governance you and lewrockwell.com may dream up.<<<<

Nonsense. I defend my positions, you can’t defend what you endorse because it is inherently wrong….if one accepts that theft, murder, lying, brainwashing kids, and forced association is wrong. You accept that these things are wrong only under certain conditions.

>>>>You claim that privatized force would only be used to defend private property and person, but you have no way of knowing that.<<<<<

I never claimed that. That is the only force that would be legitimate. There would be those who would aggress and bully, just as there are now, both “privately” AND in the state class. And we have much less ability to defend against the amount of aggression going on now than we would in a society without a monstrously huge state class with its armies and militarized “police”. I have repeatedly posted that I have no way of knowing the exact appearance of society given the liberty to pursue their own ends rather than the ends of the state ruling elites. I imagine it would be quite diverse. None of this need worry you, you certainly would be free to form a state, probably more of a city-state and carry on as you are now, just on a much smaller scale.

>>>> Neither have you any right, here, on this forum, to try to shut down other people's contributions and speech as evil, or to describe people as nutjobs and slimebags, expecting people to accept your opinions of them as such based on your explanations.<<<<

This is humorous coming from you. I would certainly be remiss if I did NOT point out that an idea is evil, such as your scapegoating of the traditionally religious parents you despise. I don’t expect people to accept my opinions. I expect them to read yours and read mine and see which ones are the most moral and logical….or at least think about their worldview and why they have it.

>>>>Your explanations are not the last word on anyone or anything. They are your opinions, nothing more.<<<<

Of course, as are yours. But some opinions make sense, some are not contradictory, some are based on logic and moral truth. Some do not and are not. That is the whole point of a “discussion” forum, to determine these things.

>>>>>This in itself is unfair in the extreme, and contributes nothing toward furthering understanding on a forum that is open to everyone.<<<<
Nonsense! At the very least new ideas are explored, sacred cows gored. And you are all over that, as long as it’s not YOUR sacred cow.

>>>>>But furthering understanding or appreciation of different points of view does not interest you.<<<<

“New ideas” like the scapegoat theory that traditionally religious parenting causes all the wars and violence in the world? I think pointing out that atheistic states are FAR more willing to engage in mass slaughter was a worthwhile contribution to that discussion. You consider my pointing that out “shutting down discussion” and not appreciating “different” points of view. Your objection is that I revealed what it was.

>>>> That you consider engaging in the state's dialectic.<<<<

Engaging in the dialectic is when you claim we all must come to agreement, compromising our values and morality because we all have to think the same way, live the same way, worship the same way, love the same things and hate the same things….all based on the idea that forced association is a Good. In this paradigm there is no option for those who do not WANT to assimilate into this continual spiral of compromise, who want to live and think differently, even….(gasp!) …excluding others if they choose.

>>>>>> So you speak as if you were a dictator, all the while accusing me of wanting to force everyone to live in a certain way, advancing evil ideas or encouraging theft by the state.<<<<<

You have denigrated my rejection of forced association as “exclusionary” and implied it is evil. Obviously, you endorse forced association. Forced association cannot exist without the state maintaining a dialectic in order to fashion a morally relativistic, extremely conforming culture. There MUST be continual “dialogue”> compromise> new behavior/thought (thesis>antithesis>new synthesis, the Hegelian dialectic). The consensus, of course, has ALREADY been engineered, the “dialogue” merely a ritual for the masses to preserve the illusion that they have “input”. Your complaint is that I reject this process and claim that everyone has the right to reject it if they desire. You, and Ron, claim that I MUST accept it because I live in the US.

>>>>> I have explained to you why I don't believe that taxation is theft, but that does not stop you from making your repeated charges.<<<

You cannot define theft as taking something that does not belong to you and say that taxation does not fit that definition. The reason it does not fit the definition in your mind is that YOU view the state as owner of all. In your view the state cannot steal because they have the RIGHT to appropriate whatever they want from the rest of us. What is unclear is WHY you think this.

>>> This does not mean that I believe that all taxation is legitimate or that tax rates are fair.<<<<

Then by your definition of theft how is taxation not theft?

>>>> But I believe that public monies<<<<

But there ARE no “public monies”. There is OUR money and what of that the state TAKES.

>>>>> are needed in order for government to function.<<<<

Yes. Without looting us they could not loot and tyrannize us on the scale they are. They would be reduced to the petty bullies and criminals they are.

>>>> You consider this theft and robbery, since you believe government should not exist.<<<<

No, I have repeatedly posted that some people want/need ruled. They should be allowed to be ruled if that is what they want. It is their right to choose how they want to live. You do so you should have that. What you DON’T have is the right to rule others, even by proxy claiming that others REALLY “self-govern”, forcing your state on them.

>>>>>You don't want to further mutual understanding.<<<<

I understand you pretty well. When you post stuff like the above paragraph on the state not existing it makes me think I am not getting my point across.

>>>>> You seem to want to put your own point of view across to anyone who will listen, claiming that it is the only legitimate viewpoint.<<<<<

Legitimate?? I believe so. HOWEVER, I speak only for ME. YOU are welcome to your notions of a benevolent state class and unselfish citizenry reared scientifically without traditional religion causing violence and wars. Your worldview is based on theft, lies, dumbing down, forced association, killing, aggression. Mine is not. All I say is you have no right to force your state on others.

>>>>That government of any kind has to be based on murder, theft and lies. <<<<

I think you could have a state of like minded people who AGREE to all live there under the conditions you specify and no murder or lying or theft would be necessary. But once you start FORCING it on people then it becomes immoral and murder, theft, lies, dumbing down, jailing, etc. all becomes necessary to maintain rule over others.

>>>>Your jocular conclusion to this post is not amusing to me, especially after you have tried to portray me or my ideas as evil.<<<<
If the shoe fits.

>>>> I am still surprised that you feel justified in making such appraisals.<<<<

I’m sure you are. In your mind, only REAL thinkers, cultural critics and social engineers like Riane Eisler are justified in “making appraisals”….and far worse ones than I have of your ideas.

>>>> But your own lack of awareness<<<<

You can call me a lot of things but unaware is not one of them.

>>>> and complete absence of doubt or self-criticism with regard to your own opinions seem to make you all the more aggressive and warlike in your speech.<<<

You call my “speech” “warlike” because I disagree with your morality and believe in objective morality and truth. Clinging to objective morality and truth MEANS that one has no doubt on those issues because the points have BEEN “decided”, that is why they are considered “Truths”. You do not accept that objective morality and Truth exists, to you it is up for dialogue and consensus and to be established and enforced on all via “governance”….all except YOUR Absolute Truth such as the Good of forced association, forced “governance”, tax theft, kid jails for “the poor“. You are just as doubtless on your “absolute truths“. You use the term “warlike” in an effort to color my disagreement as violent and evil. In a sense you are correct. We are engaged in culture “wars”, and thanks to the MSM and the govschools you have been winning. But here, on this little forum, your ideas that have been shoved down peoples throats and brainwashed into them as children, these lies and manipulations are being shown up for what they are. Boo hoo.

>>>>Your speech is abusive and you care not at all.<<<<

You can call traditionally religious people the cause of all violence and wars in the world and post this. I am not abusive. If anyone has been abusive it is you. You might phrase it more eloquently and not use beyond-the-pale (horrors!) SLANG, but the nastiness is always there, usually in your sign-offs.

>>>> You believe that the use of abusive speech is appropriate in countering ideas that you do not like. I don't.<<<

It is not abusive or "warlike" to call evil what it is. And saying that it is is simply an attempt to stifle criticism.

Saying that Mitch Hall is a nutjob and Riane Eisler is a slimebag is verbally abusive. Saying my ideas are "crap, crap, crap, commie crap" is verbally abusive. You may say that my objections to such "criticism" is an attempt to stifle criticism, but it is not. All I have asked is that you state your criticism in language that is NOT VERBALLY ABUSIVE, but instead, you repeatedly rely on name calling and ad hominem attacks, claiming your name calling is an accurate description, even claiming that anyone who believes taxation is legitimate has to be a "commie."

The difference between us is that you believe any government - except governance of covenant communities - is illegitimate. I do not.

You make laundry lists of offenses of government and accuse me of being in favor of those things when I have repeatedly stated that the government as it exists now is not the government that I believe is legitimate. Your answer to government violation of rights is one of complaint, not protest, not even attempts to create the covenant communities you say you want. No, it is bitter and hateful complaint and attempts to identify me with robbery and murder - in other words, ad hominem attacks.

The "traditional" families that Lloyd deMause talks about are not specifically traditional religious families, yet you pretend they are when claiming my ideas are "evil," taking umbrage because you think that you are in a traditional religious family. They are families that believe raising children and teaching them through violence and coercion is a legitimate method of child rearing. These are the very things you protest when government commits such offenses against adult citizens or foreign citizens, failing to even be willing to examine how or why adults might believe that force and coercion are a legitimate means of enforcing their will upon others. If children have been raised through such means, what are the ways of cooperation that they would learn?

You believe that citizenship is for the "dumbed down," yet active citizenship is the only means of ensuring fair or honest government, or that everyone's interests are given a fair hearing. I assume you believe that in your covenant communities you will also just be able to be "left alone," aside from your peaceful cooperation and trading. That is usually not how communities, that rely on MUTUAL agreements related to governance, work. Yet you believe that without government, governance structures will simply disappear. You believe that the so-called free market is a viable stand-in for government, where trade and cooperation based on trade determines governance. Apparently it has never occurred to you how easy it would be for those capitalists with the most money to enslave other people, as they have now.

You believe that taxation is theft, failing to recognize the mutual ground upon which all income is earned or property acquired. You pretend that humans are isolates, that any income they earn through life IN COMMUNITY is exclusively their own. I disagree with this assessment.

You support big box stores such as Wal-Mart, king of the big box stores, as if that were something that benefits society, no matter how many local businesses such retail outfits put out of business, no matter how much destruction is visited upon local economies. At the same time, you champion local "covenant communities," as if such communities could exist in environments dominated by big box stores.

You never fail to try to identify me with everything you hate about corrupt government, and your hatred of government can be clearly discerned in your hateful messages directed to me.

Once again, you make false claims against me, insisting that that is my worldview when it is not, and I think you KNOW it is not. The fact that you feel you can write such lies with impunity here shows how skewed your own worldview is, pretending that I am in favor of all the corruption and wrongdoing of which the government is guilty. Why you try to personalize this and claim only good for your own worldview and evil for mine, I don't know. But it is dishonest in the extreme to make such charges against me when I have repeatedly stated that government as now exists is not what I think government should be.

You also claim that I have no right to force "YOUR STATE" on others. But you have never explained why you believe that you have the right to break up countries into "covenant communities" smaller than Liechtenstein, some perhaps governed via theocracy, some by racist exclusionary principles, some by homophobia or who knows what. Yet you presume this right, no matter what anyone else may want, based on the dubious "teachings" of your heroes such as Rothbard or Hoppe or other separatists who claim your devotion

Louise,
JS has a couple of blind spots. She cannot conceive of the US Constitution as nothing more in essence than a contract. And, she cannot conceive of a covenant community covering a nation. Yet, that is exactly what the US is.
Perhaps she comes to her viewpoint through some inate quality of her mind and soul, perhaps she is motivated by it being a convenient cover for arguing in favor of the neo confederacy movement. In the end it matters not at all which is her motivation. She is dead wrong in a manner that is simplistic enough for a child to understand. There is no excuse for an adult to continue denying the facts.
Ron

>>>>Saying that Mitch Hall is a nutjob and Riane Eisler is a slimebag is verbally abusive. Saying my ideas are "crap, crap, crap, commie crap" is verbally abusive. You may say that my objections to such "criticism" is an attempt to stifle criticism, but it is not.<<<<<

Just go back and read any number of repliues to me you have made and made extremely judgmental and inflammatory comments about my postings, even complaining about my opinions being "re-thought thoughts and claiming yours are original with you, although neglecting to show us any.

>>>> All I have asked is that you state your criticism in language that is NOT VERBALLY ABUSIVE, but instead, you repeatedly rely on name calling and ad hominem attacks, claiming your name calling is an accurate description, even claiming that anyone who believes taxation is legitimate has to be a "commie."<<<

It is not ad hominem if I explain WHY I calll you those things. You promote collectivism, the communist planks, it makes you a commie. Sorry you don't like the name. I should think YOU would rethink your positions. Social planners who claim that traditional parenting is the cause of all the wars and violence in the world ARE nutjobs and slimebags and scapegoating a religious demographic just as Hitler did to the Jews.

>>>>The difference between us is that you believe any government - except governance of covenant communities - is illegitimate. I do not.<<<<

Then YOU are welcome to be ruled. But you have NO legitimate right to force it on those who do not consent to your "governance".

>>>>You make laundry lists of offenses of government and accuse me of being in favor of those things when I have repeatedly stated that the government as it exists now is not the government that I believe is legitimate.<<<<

Well, bully for you. You like some goivernments but not this one, presumably because it allows traditional parenting to go unpunished and carries on foreign wars of which you disapprove while having no issue with the war it is waging on the people. I don't care WHAT kind of "governance" you think is dandy, you still have no right to force it on people who do not consent to it. That is tyranny.

>>>>> Your answer to government violation of rights is one of complaint, not protest, not even attempts to create the covenant communities you say you want.<<<<

No. I never POSTED that I wanted them. I posted that they are an option some might consider, among MANY options.

>>>> No, it is bitter and hateful complaint and attempts to identify me with robbery and murder - in other words, ad hominem attacks.<<<

That is what the state DOES. You think that tehese things are fine, done for the "right" reasons" or for "the poor" or "the children". Your contention that my only option is to PARTICIPATE with the evil (anything else is simply complaining and not DOOOIIINNNNGGGG!!! anything....and that is the point) nd hopefully my participation will make it a little less evil is unacceptable. You are welcome to DO and PROTEST and Dialogue, blah, blah in your state but have no right to demand others have it forced on them.

You make no sense. What does seem to make sense, to you, is justification of your own hateful remarks, claiming that ad hominem is not ad hominem if you explain why you believe it is an accurate description, etc., etc., etc.

You also take offense because I posted topics for discussion - on what you call "traditional families" - and those topics displease you. So you try continuously to demonize and discredit me. It seems nothing will stop this mission of yours, since you've found a target who represents all the things you say you hate about the state.

What's peculiar about it, as you seem to bask in what you believe is "Christian righteousness," is your nonstop expressions of derision and hatred toward me, as if that is what proves you are a worthy Christian. These expressions of venom affect me not at all. But they do affect the level of discourse on this forum, which you drag down to your own level of sheer venom.

Try sending a letter to the editor calling people slimebags or nutjobs. lewrockwell.com might publish it, but I doubt any newspaper or magazine would. You simply use this forum as your own soapbox to try to convince anyone who will listen that government is evil. It doesn't make you look good, despite your voluminous protestations.

Just think. When the empire breaks up you can have your commie utopia and eradicate traditional parenting and I can live free of your "COMMUNITY".

>>>>>The "traditional" families that Lloyd deMause talks about are not specifically traditional religious families, yet you pretend they are when claiming my ideas are "evil," taking umbrage because you think that you are in a traditional religious family. They are families that believe raising children and teaching them through violence and coercion is a legitimate method of child rearing.<<<<<

And we know EXACTLY who you are targeting: those evil Dobson followers, spankers who you call child beaters.

>>>>These are the very things you protest when government commits such offenses against adult citizens or foreign citizens, failing to even be willing to examine how or why adults might believe that force and coercion are a legitimate means of enforcing their will upon others. If children have been raised through such means, what are the ways of cooperation that they would learn?<<<<<

Your contention that state force and violence are excusable but parental spanking is “beating” and inexcusable. The most violent and brutal person I have ever known was NOT spanked or physically punished as a child at all, yet he grew up into an abusive bully. What’s your theory on that?

>>>>>You believe that citizenship is for the "dumbed down," yet active citizenship is the only means of ensuring fair or honest government, or that everyone's interests are given a fair hearing.<<<<

There is no such thing as coerced “honest” government! Are you mad? What do I care if the goon holding a gun on me or threatening me with jail is “honest”? What is “fair” about being enslaved for 9 months of the year so crats can have cushy retirements and pensions? I don’t need to be involved in the “interests” of others! Leave others alone! As long as they are not bothering anyone their “interests” are their own affair.

>>>>>I assume you believe that in your covenant communities you will also just be able to be "left alone," aside from your peaceful cooperation and trading. That is usually not how communities, that rely on MUTUAL agreements related to governance, work.<<<<

Sure it is. The people who want to live according to certain guidelines MUTUALLY agree to certain rules. They then agree to trade with others according to MUTUALLY agreed upon contract. What’s the problem?

>>>> Yet you believe that without government, governance structures will simply disappear.<<<<

Without access to our property via monopoly on aggression the state will shrink/disappear . That does not mean that some folks, like yourself, won’t decide they LIKE being ruled and set up a city state.

>>>>You believe that the so-called free market is a viable stand-in for government,<<<

??? I have posted no such thing.

>>>> where trade and cooperation based on trade determines governance.<<<<

I have never posted this either. You are having a great deal of difficulty conceiving of a stateless society without forced “governance”.

>>>>Apparently it has never occurred to you how easy it would be for those capitalists with the most money to enslave other people, as they have now.<<<<

As they have now?? With the mightiest state in the world, the greatest armies in the world and a Marxist president?? How could the evil capitalists have DONE this with “Our Governance” protecting us?? I know, I know. It is OUR fault for getting ourselves dumbed down and voting for BAD masters. Do you think the evil capitalists would have a fraction of the loot they do without state protectionist regulations? You believe the mythology that the state protects you. That is fine…for YOU. But you have no right to demand others be forced to submit to them.

>>>>You believe that taxation is theft, failing to recognize the mutual ground upon which all income is earned or property acquired. You pretend that humans are isolates, that any income they earn through life IN COMMUNITY is exclusively their own. I disagree with this assessment. <<<

Aaaaahhh. So there is no private property When I get up at 5 AM and run my butt off all day, getting no breaks and tolerating all manner of rudeness and poor working conditions I OWE COMMUNITY a score of my production because they did…what??? Well, I disagree with YOUR “assessment”. And you whine because I call you a commie…because this BS isn’t communism at all, is it?

>>>>>>You support big box stores such as Wal-Mart, king of the big box stores, as if that were something that benefits society, no matter how many local businesses such retail outfits put out of business, no matter how much destruction is visited upon local economies.<<<<<

Walmart is no different than Target, Kmart, etc. For some reason you hate them. So don’t shop there, or at any big box store. I have lost count of the times I have gone to a small local store or business only to have them not be open although their sign indicates they should be, or be ignored while the owner chews the fat with a visitor leaning on the counter. I have never had that happen at Walmart.

>>> At the same time, you champion local "covenant communities," as if such communities could exist in environments dominated by big box stores.<<<<

They wouldn’t have to shop there, no one would be twisting their arms.

>>>>You never fail to try to identify me with everything you hate about corrupt government, and your hatred of government can be clearly discerned in your hateful messages directed to me.<<<<

Gee, I wonder why?

>>>>Quote:
Your worldview is based on theft, lies, dumbing down, forced association, killing, aggression. Mine is not. All I say is you have no right to force your state on others.XXXXX
Once again, you make false claims against me, insisting that that is my worldview when it is not, and I think you KNOW it is not. The fact that you feel you can write such lies with impunity here shows how skewed your own worldview is, pretending that I am in favor of all the corruption and wrongdoing of which the government is guilty.<<<<

I can only refer you back to your many posts promoting things like state monitoring of private families, your scapegoating of traditional parenting, your claim that private property does not exist, that all belongs to the “COMMUNITY”.

>>>>>Why you try to personalize this and claim only good for your own worldview and evil for mine, I don't know. But it is dishonest in the extreme to make such charges against me when I have repeatedly stated that government as now exists is not what I think government should be.<<<<<

LOL! I know what you think governance SHOULD be, and that is worse yet. I don’t care WHAT kind of “governance” you want, the state itself is rotten to the core, based on aggression, lies, theft, and killing. YOU are welcome to it.

?????You also claim that I have no right to force "YOUR STATE" on others. But you have never explained why you believe that you have the right to break up countries into "covenant communities" smaller than Liechtenstein, some perhaps governed via theocracy, some by racist exclusionary principles, some by homophobia or who knows what.<<<<

Demanding the state leave us alone, denying their legitimacy to rule is not the same thing as “breaking up countries”. I believe the country WILL break up as the gulag becomes seen for what it is but I have no ambition to “break it up”. I will applaud when it does, unless another state moves in and sets up their racket. Some people WANT theocracy, some want white only or black only communities, some want homosexuality mainstreamed and some want to be spared from witnessing overt homosexual displays. What is so awful about folks just living as THEY want? Why do they have to live the way YOU want?

>>>>>Yet you presume this right, no matter what anyone else may want,<<<<

BULL! I have repeatedly posted that you should live in the type of state you want. The fact that what you want is FORCING others to live as YOU say they should is not a persuasive argument. YOUR wants are no more important than mine or anyone elses.

>>>> based on the dubious "teachings" of your heroes such as Rothbard or Hoppe or other separatists who claim your devotion<<<<

Devotion? They make a lot more sense than you do.

And making no more sense than you did the first, second, tenth or twentieth times you've run through your lewrockwell.com vision of a better world.

How blind and without insight into your own thought process ARE you?

Your contention that it is tyranny to deny the right of others to tyrannize us illogical. And that has NOTHING to do with LRC or my style of speech that so offends your delicate sensibilities.