-- Desert Son

"P.S. bucky1, I just wanted to say thanks for your recent post to William Timberman. I've been following your posts, and while I disagree with much of what you have said, I think your recent post has, for me, at least, begun to clarify a little bit more where you are coming from (I'm not phrasing this well, hope my meaning is apparent). So, thanks for that."

Your welcome, and thanks for the kind words. They come infrequently as of late. :-)

I do not mind folks who disagree with me; there would be nothing to talk about if we all agreed. I just hate the constant attacks on people. I have even decided that the "shooter" may well be a sock-puppet of a regular who just does that to give everyone a common enemy that is an easy target. Hmmmm. Who has that kind of time?

William: "...depending on the condition of the body politic at the time, it's hard to see how the mere existence of a third party necessarily provides the B we're seeking.

What if there is no "B" to look for?

LWM: "... Wow! I had no idea ...

Not surprised.

William:

The Hell's Angels, and their subculture of ritual domination predate the War on Drugs, bucky. It's strictly Lord of the Flies stuff. (I suppose you'll now tell me that if the government hadn't started WWII, the Hell's Angels subculture wouldn't exist, because the disaffected veterans who founded it wouldn't exist.) ...

The war on drugs goes back much, much further than the Hell's Angels. The angels might have existed even if drugs, girls, and gambling were legal among consenting adults; but they would have played hell paying for their lifestyle.

The horrible nightmare that is the inner city is a byproduct of the the nasty idea of having the government make people behave. By the way, have you read up on the scare they used to get the first drug laws on the books? It was pure bigoted, racist sexual scaremongering that blacks were going to screw every white woman in America.

By having laws to force people to "be moral" we create the situation where the opposite is encouraged. Did I mention ironic evil?

Please do not make this an "anarchy" issue as that is a cop-out. We could have followed the present Constitution and stayed out of people's private lives in the area of drugs, gambling, and prostitution.

-----------------------------------------------------

by Harry Browne

http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne32.html

Few people are aware that before World War I, a 9-year-old girl could walk into a drug store and buy heroin.

That's right – heroin. She didn't need a doctor's prescription or a note from her parents. She could buy it right off the shelf. Bayer and other large drug companies sold heroin as a pain-reliever and sedative in measured doses – just the way aspirin is sold today. Cocaine, opium, and marijuana were readily available as well. No Drug Enforcement Agency, no undercover cops, no "Parents – the Anti-Drug" commercials. Just people going about their own business is whatever way they chose. ...

don't know much about poli sci and it will mean nothing to me if you cite writers and use specialized terms, but I am curious in a layman's terms kind of way: Are you saying that private property and enforceable right of contract exist without a government?

It can be. The absence of government is not the absence of societal organization. Most libertarians believe that societal organization arises automatically.

Private law even. (and there are historical precedents)

And, in the "in for a penny" department, are you saying that warlordism and strong-man status quo did not exist anywhere until after western European colonialism?

No. I was thinking of the present African situation that will be the next war by Democrats if it continues until 2008. (yes, the Dems win in 2008 --- you heard it here first) :-)

Africa has been a heartbreaking place my whole lifetime. Can anyone honestly deny the western involvement in the horrors? (that was my point, even if poorly written)