Beautiful Anarchy

[SOBF]

From what i can tell they want to sell a lot or most of it because they think the the free market will better a better system to keep it and care for it. The problem is: I don't have a few million to buy a piece. Once it's gone, it's gone.

Start a Gofund and buy your own land.Problem solved. Pretty sure Upsetter covered this. I suggest you re-read it.

Ahhh shit...you canucks like to wade into the deep end dont ya?

As with every other issue, the libertarian response varies. Take PERC for example. My ideological neighbors so to speak. Their perspective speaks for itself and I totally disagree. But then, Im a personally responsible libertarian who thinks people can look after commonly held property with just as much love and respect as that which a person privately owns.

It is part of montana's history to cherish our publicly owned lands and waters. Its why, even though the various clerk and recorder offices forgot to siphon off river bottoms when recording patents 100+yrs ago, easements in the public interest were prescriptively created over the decades, and subsequently recognized by our SCt and legislature.

Folks did what they did to survive, put food on the table. If there is anything more grounded in the libertarian ethos, I dont know what that is. To preserve that heritage and protect it from selfish assholes who think, just cause they have the money to drown us all out, they can, is to protect the individual liberty of all us working stiff montanans from usurpation by those who would do so if they could.

IMO, that is, again, a legitimate purpose for govt's coercive power: to protect the rights of those who cannot, except at great expense (now would be a great time to conisder a donation to MT PLWA), from those who have the power to run roughshod over them.

I made it easy for you

[cantfishforshit.]

It would take several billion dollars. No thanks, I say we live it as is, since it has worked since the formation of the country and everything.

[Bobwhite]

I just received this from my friend and mentor.

I thought it was a very interesting read...

Your thoughts?

https://bananas.liberty.me/2015/04/14/j ... is-a-sham/

[FormerlyChaseChrome]

An oversimplification and reactionary; to my mind at least. I still think one has to consider the arguments from principle--regardless of what one makes of academe (or any ivory tower that might be construed as...heavens no..."living an examined life")--so a reading of Robert Borks work might prove germane. It is the tension that lies at the heart of the judiciary and the constitution...originalism vs. natural law.

I don't subscribe to legal positivism but Bork is quite brilliant and might prove to help clarify what is at stake in the question for you vis. libertarian thinking. (I for one, would be concerned if someone decided his freedom included driving on the left side of the road all the time...)

If you want to dig at the nuance between the conjoined twins (liberty and equality...discovering that the tension is ever so slightly tilted in favour of equality) look at the eminently readable and breathtaking "Four Essays on Liberty" by Isaiah Berlin

Hope you find what haunts you man...

[fallen513]

Too much verbiage, C.


Too much.

[FormerlyChaseChrome]

Dude: but there are no "six-fucking-syllable" words...mind there is a seven-fucking-syllable word

[flybug.pa.]

politicians are all bought and sold out...........in the end it doesn't matter. we are all on a rope going for a drag being pulled by the Uber going thru this movie called life.

[Redchaser]

Bob"s original article is an interesting read. If held for quite some time now that who we elect to office isn't worth getting terribly worked up over because the system will work and shape the man far more than the man can ever shape and work the system.

[Bobwhite]

A Libertarian perspective on gay marriages...

http://christophercantwell.com/2015/06/ ... look-cool/

[befuddled]

A Libertarian perspective on gay marriages...

http://christophercantwell.com/2015/06/ ... look-cool/

What the Supreme Court did is for people who are completely on the opposite side of the spectrum from anarchy. In fact they are seeking recognition from government, not separation from it. He makes valid points...which are all irrelevant when taken in the context of the people this affects, at least coming from an anarchist point of view. When viewed as an anarchist, the anarchist has no dog in this fight whatsoever.

[flybug.pa.]

constitution what?

[Redchaser]

Essentially the SCOTUS ruled that gay people have as much right to be miserable as anyone else. Personally I'm fine with it as I fear a government that intrudes into our personal lives much more than I rear a couple of dudes getting married. I am concerned however with how this will play out in regard to religious liberty. I certainly do not think it is right to discriminate against an INDIVIDUAL for being gay, however there is a difference between simply providing a product or service to an individual and being forced to participate in an event or ceremony the violates your religious beliefs. I worked in the wedding industry (DJ) for a long time. Preachers/Officiants, Photographers, caterers, musicians/DJ's are all on site and part of the event, not simply purveyors of a product. For the record, I've played music at a few gay/lesbian "commitment ceremonies", that was a choice I made weighed against my convictions, however I wouldn't impose that on someone who is perhaps more devout than myself.