"If anyone is curious, here are writings by Tolstoy's avowedly segregationist and racialist" heroes. "

Ah... there it is. I was sure it was only a matter of time, and I was right. Funny, but of all your quotes, you don't mention Rothbard's sometime support of the Black Panthers and other Black Power groups of the sixties, or his praise and respect for Malcolm X (whom Rothbard called a "superb leader, one of the great men of our epoch"). Why is that?

"Here's an article from Reason Magazine (a libertarian rag) talking about Rockwell was behind the infamous Ron Paul newsletters"

Reason is notorious for its sellouts of libertarian principles and its efforts to ingratiate itself with the beltway elite. This completely unsubstantiated claim and its timing, made just as Ron Paul was starting to gain traction in the Republican primaries, was as politically motivated as it could have possibly been.

"Here's Lew Rockwell's epic defense of the Confederacy.

http://mises.org/Books/sol.pdf"

This book Putin links to is "Speaking of Liberty", a lengthy tome covering a ton of different topics. If you wanted to highlight Rockwell's defense of the Confederacy, you could've come up with much better examples. Here is the entirety of the 'epic' two paragraph defense of the Confederacy in SOL:

"Instead, after a reprieve in 1833, the central government engaged in more and more trade protectionism and centralized tyranny, which helped lead to war. In his seldom quoted first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln pledged, “no bloodshed or violence,” but he also promised to “collect the duties in the impost no matter what.” He effectively announced that he planned to tax the South to death, and as soon as he was able to do so, Lincoln imposed the highest tariff in US history, doubling the rates to 48 percent. It’s no wonder that when Edmund Ruffin fired the first shot in the beginning of the war between the states, he aimed at a customs house — Fort Sumter.

The war is also appropriately called the War of Federal Aggression. And one aggression occurred in 1861 with the passage of the Morrill Tariff. The South made the choice for liberty through secession, and the Confederate Constitution specifically forbade high tariffs. At the beginning of the war, a revealing Boston newspaper editorial accused the South of the gravest crime of all, which the editorialist called the cause of the war. The South, said the editorial, wanted a system “verging on free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon import, no doubt, the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured.” Alas, the South was not allowed to carry out its policy of free trade, and the nation paid a terrible price."

"Here's Lew defending/advocating for police brutality again"

This is an odd accusation coming from the man who thinks America needs to be "pacified". Anyone who bothers to actually read lewrockwell.com knows that police brutality is a frequent topic - and that it is certainly not viewed positively. Heck, one of the regular contributors has a blog almost exclusively devoted to the subject:

freedominourtime.blogspot.com

For anyone you *is* genuinely curious, I'd highly recommend perusing lewrockwell.com and judging for yourself. Rothbard's writings - not just the snippets Putin cut and pasted in an effort to put him in the worst possible light - are available here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html

i don't know who Rothbard is, should i care?

I mean i know who putin is, i kinda care what he has to say (about nazi's, lets say)

sorry, i that sounds kind pouty... clearly if i don't care i could just go away... and i think i may leave this thread where it is now...

Murray Rothbard was an American writer, one of the fathers of anarcho-capitalist philosophy, and a prominent thinker in the libertarian movement from the 60's-80's (he became a Republican in the early 90s, if memory serves, and died in 1995). I would say that Rothbard is even less relevant to your daily life than the philosophers who've been dead for 300 years but are constant topics of conversation on this forum, so there's really no need for you to care about him unless you have an interest in anarcho-capitalism and/or libertarianism in the United States. Putin is bringing him and some of his more controversial writings up because he lost the argument and is desperate for some kind of dramatic (but irrelevant) parting shot to save face.

but wasn't putin on my side? and i think i won all the things i was argueing... either that or no-one cares anymore and they're ignoring me (equally likely, and perfectly comendable :p )

On the water issue water is something that is necessary for human life, therefore it is immoral to privatize it. Water is something that is necessary to belong to all people so everyone is able to have a say in how it is used, because when the water we have now is gone we're screwed. These are not decisions that should be left to a select elite few.

Knives may not have been made for violence but it's very easy to convert them to that use. And I'll admit that guns are made for violence but I'd like to quote Yagyu Munenori's Book of Family Traditions on the Art of War.

"There is and old saying, "Weapons are instruments of ill omen, despised by the Way of Heaven. To use them only when unavoidable is the Way of Heaven." The reason weapons are instruments of ill omen is that the Way of Heaven is the Way that gives life to beings, so something used for killing is truly and instrument of ill omen. Thus the saying has it that what contradicts the Way of Heaven is despised.

Nevertheless, it also says that to use arms when unavoidable is also the Way of Heaven What does this mean? Although flowers blossom and greenery increases in the spring breeze, when the autumn frost comes, leaves always drop and trees wither. This is the judgment of nature.

This is because there is logic in striking down something when it is completed. People may take advantage of events to do evil, but when that evil is complete, it is attacked. That is why it is said that using weapons is also the Way of Heaven.

It may be that myriad people suffer because of the evil of one man. In such a case, myriad people are saved by killing one man. Would this not be a true example of "the sword that kills is the sword that gives life"?"

@LeonL - Water, while necessary - is not a limited commodity either. We can make it as well as clean and reuse it. In fact, it is one of the hardest chemicals to completely destroy and has such an abundance on the earth that if we ever ran out, it would be the end of the whole earth as all the oceans would dry up.

The immorality is in "owning"the only clean water source available to a group of people and holding it over them. Owning water where there is an abundance and multiple sources is not immoral in any sense. And charging a reasonable fee for purifying a source for human consumption is also not unreasonable (like your local water district does). But if the only source of water for bathing and drinking is owned by one corporation and there is no competition, then that coorporation is acting immorally.

It is the need of a gun which is in question, the fact that accidents can happen, or that it creates a battleground and thus reduces personal security is why we'd prefer to keep them out of public - it's not whether using violence may sometimes be neccesary...

As for the concealed weapon license, yes, of course, require all firearms in public to be licensed and background checks be done, prevent anyone from carrying a firearm otherwise. (whether concealed or not) Then everyone can be happy to know that anyone with a gun has gone through proper vetting...

However the fact is no-one NEEDS to carry a gun when walking down the street (in a non-bear country, urban sidewalk) If the culture doesn't have guns in the home there will be no need for one for defence (how to disarm a culture to this level is a separate question - fact: there exists cultures where the majority of house invaders don't choose to bring a firearm with them BECAUSE there are no guns in any of the houses they've ever invaded!)

So, what need can there be? defending against Tyranny is a stupid arguement, self-defence is un-needed in a culture without firearms (or you can better defend yourself by wearing a stab-proof vest) - what's left?

also: "On the water issue water is something that is necessary for human life, therefore it is immoral to privatize it."

Water is a need, provision of water is a service, corporations have demonstrated that they are better at providing services than governments, therefore not privatising water is the equivalent of squandering that resource. LeonL, you're not really up on capitalist arguements, are you?

Sorry Ora, you're just too gosh-darned polite and reasonable to have an argument with.

In response to one of your arguments, it is true that not all disarmaments of the general public result in mass slaughter, but it is more or less a truism that mass slaughters committed by governments are preceded by disarmaments of the victims.

and draug mentioned monopolies... obviously using a monopoly to control supply is NOT how corporations provide better services (one of the weakness of government controlled supply is that they monopolize it...)

@tolstoy, i think i replied to that twice already. That A always precedes B does not mean A implies B.

B implies A - that is mass slaughter implies the slaughterers have disarmed first.

It is a logical FAIL to suggest A implies B, or the act of disarming a population is to facilitate the slaughter....

I keep substituting 'travel' for A to show you how stupid this implication is. travel to a location preceeds every murder. That does not imply someone who is travelling is on their way to commit murder.

If the government was willing to properly establish a system for distributing water to the people, it would be easy for them but. But instead they decide it's easier to give that power to their rich supporters. Fact: T. Boone Pickens was a huge supporter of the Bush White House and the GOP, and giving him the right of eminent domain, something about that doesn't sit right with me. And I'm sure you've heard the theories that within the next few years water, not oil, will be the leading cause of wars. Do you feel comfortable having special interest corporate groups petitioning congress for war. We've had blood for oil long enough, blood for water is just as unacceptable if not more.

If you agree to the necessity of violence sometimes then you must also recognize the need for weapons to implement that violence. I'm not at all against licensing gun holders, a violent criminal or mentally unstable person should not be allowed to have a gun, but a law abiding citizen has every right in my opinion.

"That A always precedes B does not mean A implies B."

I see no flaw in your logic there. I think where we differ is that many of us believe the damage of B so severe that we consider preventing B by avoiding A is a good idea. Let's put it another way. Let's say A is smoking and B is lung cancer. Not all smokers get lung cancer. But don't you think it is a good idea to not smoke, so as to avoid lung cancer?

Using the smoking analogy... Does that mean the government should have the power to ban tobacco? I say no. But it does mean they should have the power to regulate it so minors or others not capable of making an informed decision don't get ahold of it.

Here's an article that reinforces my fears on water privatization. I hope those of you who doubt me take the time to read it.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/52526/?page=1

It's also a bad example because smoking does not always proceed lung cancer...

obi-fool posted, "...Wow.

I didn't EXPECT for this to become a debate about gun control...

But I certainly provided the environment for such a discussion to take place..."

###########################################################3

You provided nothing, idiot.

The last time that I checked, Kestas set up this website and it's forum.

Your puerile premise of the existence of a toxic political climate as a cause for this american fruitcake going off the rails was completely dismissed out of hand as nonsensical.

On a more positive note, the Jew bitch seems to be on the road to recovery.

She briefly regained consciousness, and refused to suck a cock.

Life goes on.....

"Do you feel comfortable having special interest corporate groups petitioning congress for war."

Talking about how i feel is another issue entirely. I do not support the privatisation of water, but you claimed it is somehow immorale. I agree socialism is the way to forward. Corporate culture is not one i would wish to even be seen supporting, but there is nothing immoral about owning water.

"If you agree to the necessity of violence sometimes then you must also recognize the need for weapons to implement that violence. I'm not at all against licensing gun holders, a violent criminal or mentally unstable person should not be allowed to have a gun, but a law abiding citizen has every right in my opinion."

I don't agree violence is sometimes necessary, i full acknowledge that some people abhor violence and would go so far as to turn the other cheek when the chinese army comes and invades. (see the invasion of tibet)

I personally would choose a more practical view of life and defend myself, so i acknowledge not the NEED for violence, but the morality of self-defence - IF i lived in a culture where i needed a gun to defend myself then i would admit that need, but i don't.

Nobody on the streets of my country is carrying a gun, hence i do not need a gun to defend myself, or if i had the right to hold a gun then so would most other people, and my safety would be less secure.

"I see no flaw in your logic there. I think where we differ is that many of us believe the damage of B so severe that we consider preventing B by avoiding A is a good idea."

So you learned from the Waco Seige that guns will stop government forces from wiping you out? It think the claim that (not A) prevents be is faulty.

Nevertheless, A clearly make B easier, however you must weigh the risk of B being easy (and the likelyhood that YOUR government will decide B is a good idea) against the damage which NOT A does to your personal security.

Either you think your government is/may be dangerous (in which case i'd elect a new one) or your government system is inherently unstable and untrustworthy (in which case i'd change that)

OR you think the damage of NOT A is minimal and acceptable.

Now NOT A may be minimal, but i think the likelyhood that the US government will decide to engage in a genocide program rather implausible. I do not think NOT A is acceptable damage to society.

"Let's say A is smoking and B is lung cancer. Not all smokers get lung cancer. But don't you think it is a good idea to not smoke, so as to avoid lung cancer?"

Your analogy is inherently faulty. It is not know that smoking WILL cause cancer, but it is know that a certain combination of mutations(most likely caused by smoking, though other things can cause these mutations aswell) and initial genetic markers WILL cause cancer. There is a reasonable percentage (lets say ~50%) of smokers who develop lung cancer.

There is no reasonable number of US governments who have engaged in genocide against their own people.

"Using the smoking analogy... Does that mean the government should have the power to ban tobacco? I say no." - we're not talking about self-harm, we're talking about guns harming others and society in general - I presume you would agree that given the inherent dangers of second-hand smoke that No person should be required to work in a smokey environment - therefore the government should, imho, ban smoking in enclosed (interior) work places - i might not go so far as to say public places, but enclosed public places.

I don't think people should be allowed expose me to their smoke - in private they can make whatever informed decisions they choose.

Lastly @Maple, thank you for your frank and useful addition to the thread.

Just a side note: second hand smoke studies are very inconclusive and leading. In a free society, if a person doesn't want to work in a smoking environment, they can get a new job. No business owner should be forced to ban smoking in his private business. He should be free to listen to their customers. If their customers want to smoke then the owner can allow it. If not, then the owner can go nonsmoking.

And this is from someone who only frequents nonsmoking restaurants.

Oh, and you can chose to speak with your wallet and frequent nonsmoking businesses also.

"Just a side note: second hand smoke studies are very inconclusive and leading."

A huge assertion. Could you cite a couple of studies that are 'very inconclusive and leading' please? Many health services work under 'evidence-based medicine', whereby evidence is analysed and used as a basis for chosen policies and practices.

"No business owner should be forced to ban smoking in his private business."

Why? If it's the law, it's the law. What if selling drugs or abuse of minors was part of someone's business? Are you suggesting that businessmen can make whatever laws they like if it's 'private'?

in principle Draug, i agree with you - though while voting with your wallet is entirely valid for customers, there is no reason to assume employees have the same level of choice.

Secondly, i don't have any statistics to rely on, so i can't comment on the validity of the second hand smoke studies (though my government, and many other european governments managed to push through legislation, i can assume they did some research/had some medical advisors)

In principle, i think you agree that people should not be *forced* to cut their lives short due to working conditions.

Now let's assume a lack of job mobility and good research into second hand smoking - do you think governments should ban smoking in the workplace?

@scagga - Draug said essentially 'No government *SHOULD* pass a law which affects a private business'

your 'if it's the law'-paragraph is missing the point entirely.

Missing the point? I'm still challenging the core of his initial statement. I gave a good question for him to consider, which I'll repeat for continuity of cause:

"What if selling drugs or abuse of minors was part of someone's business? Are you suggesting that businessmen can make whatever laws they like if it's 'private'?"

@orathaic "i don't have any statistics to rely on" Here is a start for you. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/index.htm

@scagga, he's not saying businesses should make their own laws, he's saying market forces should be used to determine whether people don't want to work/play in a smokey environment. From the basic premise that the local/distributed decision-making the individuals are capable of making is better and more efficient that any centralised decision-making which a government can impose from 'above' - and that thusly government SHOULD not waste it's time making decisions which will inevitably be less efficient - and as all encompassing rules actually damaging to individual freedoms...

He never said there were no things which the government should make laws about - he has made it quite clear the laws should be enacted regarding property rights (which IMHO includes the right not to have your body damaged by second hand smoke...)

Draug, correct me if i mispeak on any of this!

@warspite, thanks but i'm not going to try and prove anything which requires any actual research, i would like Draug to answer my question which assumes that the research can prove things on way or another, but i'm not going to get into a statistics war quoting various reports by different people, if he wants to dredge up some report which i have no way to disprove i'm not going to spend my time finding counter reports...

orathaic I figured you wouldn't. I did it more as a lark.

The founders were most certainly explicitly Christian and while many expressed support for 'freedom of religion' - that more or less meant freedom to choose whatever Christian sect you please. But even that is rather dubious, considering one of the main grievances of the founders was the Quebec Act - which gave freedom to Catholics in the Quebec province - which at the time included a big portion of what is now the USA.

The Maryland Constitution of 1776 said "XXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty"

"XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.'

New Jersey restricted political office to Protestants in their 1776 constitution

"XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one
religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and
that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the
enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious
principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith
of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably
under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of
being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a
member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and
freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their
fellow subjects."

The Delaware constitution of 1776 mandated that all office holders take an Oath to the Trinity.

"ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:

" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.""

Other states did similar things.

"and that thusly government SHOULD not waste it's time making decisions which will inevitably be less efficient - and as all encompassing rules actually damaging to individual freedoms..."

That really doesn't seem to make sense.

I'm sure you don't have to think hard to find laws that impinge on individual freedoms, but that you might probably accept. E.g. laws prohibiting on rape, murder, various forms of abuse of other people. You would argue for those laws I reference you are protecting people's rights to not come to harm. I don't see how the no smoking law is therefore different. Why should we have universal laws that protect us from psychological damage +/- physical damage (e.g. rape) but not merely physical health? (e.g. no smoking in venues)

Why do you draw the line against smoking but not the other prohibited things?

" From the basic premise that the local/distributed decision-making the individuals are capable of making is better and more efficient that any centralised decision-making which a government can impose from 'above' -"

Again, why is it ok to allow people to indiscriminantly harm other people (in potentially very serious ways) in one way but not another?

Market forces are not subject to morals or protecting people from coming to harm. That is not their role.