HP11

Yes, there's a reason. But they go to war for the property, not for the reason they want the property. People that steal, don't steal for a specific reason. They want the stolen money for a reason. But they steal because they want the money. Certainly you can take it down to the root. But that is an antecedant cause, not a direct cause. Or are you claiming the "want" is the idea they are fighting for or stealing for, and not the money itself? Or in other values, it's not the food they are stealing or fighting for, it's the idea of having the food or getting the food? Take away their supposed reward after death, and the rewards to their families, how many would be?

I understand. Certainly. But though I agree with you that ideas, that is, an integrated philosophy, SHOULD be primary, it is often not. People frequently vote their pocketbooks, not who will protect their freedoms, etc. Kings have often gone to war strictly for property. Would you say such wars are based on ideas or economics?

Why? Philosophically Marxist in terms of fundamentals? Or something he said? And more importantly, is it true?

But there is a stronger reason the south chose secession. Tariffs. They were breaking the south. Wars, no matter what their separate apologists may claim, are ALWAYS fought over economics. Slavery was not initially an issue when The South first elected to secede. Lincoln grabbed at it to pull him through at the point where he'd nearly lost. And consider all the countries in South America but one, ended slavery WITHOUT war. The cost in lives was astronomical here by comparison. Then add all the other stuff mentioned above about him, plus suspension of Habeas Corpus and his income tax. I guess, for these and the others you mention, my choice goes to Lincoln. But I have to consider these guys too: G.W. Fastest national debt growth in history of U.S. If taxation=slavery and deficit spending=taxation, he's been pretty bad. I know, he didn't appropriate it. But he helped justify it, traded with congress for it and certainly didn't veto it. Reagan, second fastest. H W Bush, Reneged on "Read my lips." Nixon, Not Watergate as his worst but wage and price controls. George Washington, put down the whiskey rebellion, the same thing the colonies left England over. Jefferson (I know, I know many, many pluses here), bought Louisiana without due process. As Henry Adams wrote, in purchasing Louisiana, Jefferson bought a foreign colony without its consent and against its will...made himself monarch of the new territory, and wielded over it, against its protests, the powers of its old kings. Such a sweeping and unjustified exercise of executive privilege effectively, as Jefferson admitted, made blank paper of the Constitution. Perhaps, surprisingly, it is these two of our heroes, Jefferson and Washington who led the way to the statism we have today. Who do you hold as the best, or should I say, least bad president?

Ah. I thought you were using the word context as if it were representing analogically an actual place, because of the word "where" following it. Maybe a comma after the word "context" would have helped or another sentence structure. Thanks.

We were out walking the dogs in the desert this evening, when a fragrant smell wafted over the creosote, saguaro and cholla...from the direction of the distant white spire above the local Baptist church. "Mmmm, smells like barbecue," she said. "That's right," I replied, "you have your choice of beef, pork or human. The barbecue sauce is right over there! Dig in! For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him." "That is so gross!" she said. "Jus' talkin' 'bout John, 6:55."

In your previous response you used the word context instead of example. Why?

When does an example become a context?

I suppose I'd go with Calumet K as one of them...or the one I'm writing now.

Would another example include: Say someone's property is in such and such a county...then a nearby city votes to expand and forcibly annex that part of the county into their area of incorporation? Allow me to point out there might be new restrictions on deeds and other laws, such restrictions amounting to a violation of the takings clause. And of course this example does not represent an idealized Objectivist government. But it is a present day example, isn't it? I mean as long as we're context switching from the abstract moral to the concrete?

Isn't that known as context switching? What's that got to do with it? Why look to disprove a moral principle based on whether or not you can find a present day example? I do, however, appreciate your honesty in conceding it would be "relevant".

1787/09/19 Wed - Constitution is published in the Pennsylvania Packet 1787/09/28 Fri - Congress approves the Constitution and sends it to the states 1787/10/05 Fri - First Centinel Anti-Federalist letter published 1787/10/27 Sat - First Federalist Paper is published 1787/12/07 Fri - Delaware ratifies 1787/12/12 Wed - Pennsylvania ratifies 1787/12/18 Tue - New Jersey ratifies 1788/01/09 Wed - Connecticut ratifies 1788/02/02 Sat - Georgia ratifies 1788/02/06 Wed - Massachusetts ratifies 1788/03/24 Mon - Rhode Island referendum rejects Constitution 1788/04/28 Mon - Maryland ratifies 1788/05/23 Fri - South Carolina ratifies 1788/05/28 Wed - The Federalist published (Federalist Papers 1-85) 1788/06/21 Sat - New Hampshire ratifies 1788/06/21 Sat - Constitution Ratified 1788/06/25 Wed - Virginia ratifies 1788/07/02 Wed - Congress is informed the Constitution has been ratified 1788/07/26 Sat - New York ratifies 1788/09/13 Sat - Congress votes to begin a new government on the following March 4 --->HOW ABOUT RIGHT HERE?

I understand, the way you see it monopoly government is a necessary requirement of capitalism. But I wasn't asking about capitalism in general. I was asking about monopoly government. Perhaps a small distinction from your perspective, but not from an anarchist's, is it? What if YOU were there first and didn't want to be subjected to that particular government? I suppose there the government could answer, why not? We're fair. We're just. We're magically perfect. Take our word for it. What if you didn't believe them? In such a case, wouldn't their claim of jurisdiction suggest a threat of initiatory force? In case they weren't perfect and your suspicions happened to be correct?

Clarification: If the rule of law requires initiation of force against individuals in order to itself be initiated, doesn't such a contradiction make such a supporting system (the rule of law initiated / set up using that method--initiation of force) immoral by its nature as compared with the fundamental rights and needs of man?

Rand held Law to be a branch of political philosophy. Also, I prefer to reserve the word "needs" to human beings. I prefer to use the word "requires" when referring to things including philosophy. I have one question here, about Capitalism requiring the rule of law. If the rule of law requires initiation of force against individuals in order to itself be initiated, doesn't such a contradiction make such a supporting system immoral by its nature as compared with the fundamental rights and needs of man?