JS,
Thank you for answering. I suppose if I can give factual and logical answers you will be honor bound to drop your non-factual statements.

"Where's this "contract" "we" accepted"?? Produce it.'
Sure nothing could be simpler. I assume you have seen the Constitution of the United States of America? Right or wrong?
The Constitution is not a law passed by a ruling legislature. There was none at that moment considering that agreement.
The Constitution was not handed down by a court or a king.
The Constitution is a contract agreed upon by a free people. It is nothing else.

"Which is why the workers are being taxed out of 9 months of procuction a year...."we" are so "powerful". Right! Posted like a check receiver, not a check PAYER."
Have you read John Taylor Gatto's Underground History? If you have and have listened to the historian Stephen Davies, Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (available on Youtube.com under that title) you will know there was a huge sea change in our government beginning sometime after 1870 and hitting its high water mark around 1940. If you then read the introduction to Andrew Carnegie's, Gospel of Wealth you will get a general description of how and by whom that came about. If you then read the Federalist Papers you will come to realize that the power to rule has never passed from "We the People."
Whether or not you choose to acknowledge our contract the fact remains that the rest of us have formed a contract and are living under it more or less peaceably. We have our problems. We will settle those ourselves. The point is that we have the contract, we have the power and we are in the process of taking our country back.
Ron

>>>>>Well, if Jeff Tucker as spoken, that's it? The final word?<<<<

LOL! Perhaps if I had written in the subject line:
"JEFFREY TUCKER on "The THird Way".... you would have been suitably impressed. The point is noy Jeffrey Tucker, the point is the ideas he expresses (although I find Tucker a very intelligent and consistent thinker).

Now, do you have any comment on what he has written? Any refutation of what he has expressed? Do you think what he has written is untrue? Why?

>>>>So, according to you, the only force of law permissible is that employed to keep people out of covenant communities and the rest of your privatized world?<<<<

Force of law? What do you mean? Are you saying that if people form a mutually agreed upon contracted community on their own private property others who do not agree to abide by their rules and values should be allowed to trespass and force the community to associate withn them?

>>>>>Interesting. There should be no government or enforceable public laws. The only laws that should be enforced are those initiated by private entities and security forces. What a world.<<<<<

YOU certainly would be able to contract and live in a state type community where you have drug laws, taxation, a DEA, a Sept of "Education", an EPA, etc., etc. Everyone wins instead of SOME people forcing other people to live in what THEIR version of what society should be. A much more harmonious arrangement and with less bickering and contention.

I have no comments to make on Tucker's article.

The point I was making was that you view force by government as illegitimate, but you seem to have no such compunction about privatized force.

Tell us in how many other instances besides "covenant communities" you would view use of force as legitimate? How much force? How much force and private security companies would be needed to protect your privatized world?

Would you have privatized jails to keep law and order or would you just shoot people on sight?

>>>>The point I was making was that you view force by government as illegitimate, but you seem to have no such compunction about privatized force.<<<<<

???Huh? Only in self defense or defense of private property.

>>>>>Tell us in how many other instances besides "covenant communities" you would view use of force as legitimate?<<<<<<

Self defense or defense of private property. The same rights that used to be lawful in this country....unless you lived in a community that contracted to relinquish these rights for some reason.

>>>>> How much force? How much force and private security companies would be needed to protect your privatized world?<<<<<

As much as necessary. Probably far less than is used against people for no reason now by the state.

>>>>Would you have privatized jails to keep law and order or would you just shoot people on sight?<<<<

Not my community. I'd throw them out with a warning to not ever return unless they were able to provide restitution for whatever they did to the wronged party. And I certainly would never shoot anyone I couldn't see.

The point is, you are invoking the third way, violence and coercion, but privatized violence.

The same violence you claim is wrong, murderous, thieving, etc., when used by the state.

This makes no sense to me, none whatsoever. Further, I'd rather have a court system and a Constitution in place and rely on PRINCIPLES of justice than on privatized violence set up by privatized forces to oversee a privatized world.

>>>>The point is, you are invoking the third way, violence and coercion, but privatized violence.
The same violence you claim is wrong, murderous, thieving, etc., when used by the state.<<<<

Self defense is not a "Third way". It is a legitimate right. What good is a property right without a right to defend your property or person??

>>>>This makes no sense to me, none whatsoever.<<<<

As your position makes no sense to me.

>>>> Further, I'd rather have a court system and a Constitution in place and rely on PRINCIPLES of justice than on privatized violence set up by privatized forces to oversee a privatized world.<<<

And YOU are welcome to them.

>>>>>Quote:
As much as necessary. Probably far less than is used against people for no reason now by the state.XXXX
You have no reliable way of predicting that.<<<<

Look just on youtube at the many many instances of recorded state violence against the innocent, not to mention the wars being waged all over the place. Subtract state sized wars, that leaves the "violence" of self defense and property defense. Their would be the occ aggressor but he/she would be limited by resistance to his/her illegitimate force. Look at the difficulty superstates like the US and USSR have had occupying foreign countries with far smaller armies and supplies.

JS,
I'm just curious but are you aware that the Roman Catholic people invented modern capitalism and that scholars from the Roman Church developed the first, and todate the best, theoretical underpinnings for capitalism. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand are johny come latelies.
Ron