Well, bucky, I just can't seem to leave you stranded at the station without at least a wave. Yes, I read your anarchist catechism, and while I have no objections to particular points, I will say that if you thought the New Deal bureaucracy was huge and arbitrary, wait till you see the administrative overhead when your particular form of bliss arrives.

The only other observation worth making is one I made before: Mr. Long, like you, tends to love the history of thought more than he loves actual history. He literally has no idea how we got where we are, much less who paid for it.

Well, as you say, the hour is late. I dare say we'll get our licks in piece-by-piece, as Glenn's topics prove congenial. Just two more things before I go:

1) The aspersions I accused you of casting weren't on me, rather on historical figures such as LBJ.

2) I seem to have mistaken you for a libertarian. There is, I see, a difference which you think is worth preserving. Fair enough. I apologize for thinking you cared only about lower taxes, the freedom not to associate, and feeling the wind in your hair.

Anarchists have no catechism. These people are not anarchists. They are not libertarians. They are cultists and they get treated like Tom Cruise and Scientology get treated in Germany, except they are treated that way anywhere they go outside of their own enclaves. They may try cuddling up to you like this:

cuddlymumson...You pose a good fundamental question about security in the stateless society. I don't really want to respond to that at any length in this forum, both because it's waaaay off topic and because I'd much prefer to limit my interaction with the folks on this forum who aren't particularly interested in reasonable discourse.

But if you'd like to have that discussion, give me an e-mail address.

No saffron robes and a trip to the farm upstate so I'd say you are safe. Enjoy hearing all about Molinari.

http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm#1

Hey, I successfuly resisted the come-hither glances of the Nichirens, and the Selective Service. I'm in no peril at all from a mere anarcho-capitalist.

WT:

1) The aspersions I accused you of casting weren't on me, rather on historical figures such as LBJ.

2) I seem to have mistaken you for a libertarian. There is, I see, a difference which you think is worth preserving. Fair enough. I apologize for thinking you cared only about lower taxes, the freedom not to associate, and feeling the wind in your hair.

I did not 'cast aspersions' on LBJ. I out and out called him a mass murderer and monster. I thought that in 68 and I think that today.

I do not think Long wrote a 'anarchist catechism' since the catechisms I have seen do not give the arguments against ones position before answering the argument. At least not the one of my faith.

We 'care' about the same things more than likely, but differ on the path to get there. At least we do if you care for freedom and voluntary cooperation among people.

The example of 350 (or so) years of Iceland's freedom is something you should study. When has Democracy ever delivered such a time of freedom?

Anyway, will we talk again on some other topic.

You, I never worry about.

;-)

This reliance on "constitutionalism" and obscure and archaic treatises remind me of Bob Black's (a truer anarchist) hilarious...

"CONSTITUTIONALISM": THE WHITE MAN'S GHOST DANCE

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/black/sp001650.html

Bullets will not kill anarcho-capitalists. If they dance around enough you might miss the "capitalist" and the "constitutionalist" and hit the "anarchist".

This thread sorta became the blogging equivalent of the undead. Anyway, in hopes this'll be my very last comment, I just wanted to say thanks, L.W.M. That was some funny stuff. Erudite, but also hilarious. I loved the part about there being lotsa property rights, but no property which didn't belong to the king. Our boys never heard of the travails of Robin Hood, I guess -- unless the merry men were one of those private enforcement agencies Long talks about. They've also never read Jane Austen, or Dickens.

I also loved the description of property as most folks experienced it as a complex network of social obligations which generally favored someone else. More like sharecropping than every man's home is his castle. Lovely stuff.

Thanks again...it was as refreshing as a cold shower.

As I said, these pretenders and hucksters wouldn't know true anarchists, libertarians or classical liberals from a hole in the ground. As far as putting a stake through them, that might work if we catch them in their daylight proof coffins of repose while the sun is out and drive it through the place the heart should be and shoot them with garlic smeared silver bullets.

My hat's to you, bebop-o.

`Is it he?' quoth one, `Is this the man?
By him who died on cross,
With his cruel bow he laid full low
The harmless Albatross.

The spirit who bideth by himself
In the land of mist and snow,
He loved the bird that loved the man
Who shot him with his bow.'

Here's the esteemed (and prolific) Malvina Reynolds on this:

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=587114

She was a pearl. A bit of bio on her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvina_Reynolds

Chances are you've heard her songs even if you haven't heard of her.

Peace and love be with you, and sleep gentle, my humble ex-warrior.

Cheers,

... sign a statement hindering their right to speak about their detention if there is nothing to hide? Don't these people see the failed logic here? Or dón't they even care?

Bush claimed to have started this "war" to preserve our way of life. He claimed that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. They should love us now...

Heidi in Cairo

I have it on good authority that you too gentlemen are experts at cock smoking. Is this information true and correct to the best of your recollections?