RoR: Forum

I think its interesting that this guy used the singular "essential service" when the context seems to imply he believes the gov't has essential services. Perhaps a hint of rationality screaming from his subconscious?

Post 1

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 9:23am

Very well written, you should email it immediately to the paper.

Post 2

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 10:54am

Go Teresa!

Sam

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 11:32am

haha.

I did some editing (what a mistake to write at 1am!) and sent it off.

What a great feeling that is.

Post 4

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 12:43pm

Good reply. I hope your paper prints it.

jt

Post 5

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 3:39pm

Naaah, they won't print this. I sent it to the author, who just wrote back:

"Hi and thanks for sending along your insightful analysis. Is there anything in there, that you liked? Thanks..TS"

He can't be serious. What in the hell does that mean?

Post 6

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 7:43pm

He should be fired. That question was inappropriate. Are you a Kindergartener that he talks to you like that?

Post 7

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 8:38pm

I'm only "prepared to disagree with you" in regard to even "Police, Court, and Jail" being seen as "essential" � in the senses of their having forced revenues and mandatory customers.

For current counterexamples, as to "police," take a closer look at what's behind "Paul Blart, Mall Cop," and as to "courts," examine the American Arbitration Association.

(I'd have cited the likes of the Corrections Corporation of America on the same basis for "jails," but they are tainted from having a strong interest in the State creating new crimes. Encouraging self-defense weaponry, expanding restitution for victims, and abolishing all "crimes" with no victims would vastly reduce the need for jail or prisons, anyway.)

Be that as it may, you did a well-turned defense of the minarchist position, and I hope it gets printed.

Post 8

Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 11:19am

The State of Michigan's Constitution states its purpose is to protect the sovereignty of its people. It is the choice of the individual to stay objective and self disciplined . If one is fortunate enough to have accidently discovered a little knowledge about the Napoleonic code one can proceed to base the importance of a service based on its merit. Just as one can base there actions on the same principle. Ones actions justify ones existence.

Post 9

Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 1:40pm

How is it that Mr. Brunton has an Atlas icon, but I'm still required to approve his posts? (The site couldn't be smart enough to know that I'm not always sure what his posts mean.)

Post 10

Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 4:50pm

Teresa, slam dunk!! Well done!

Post 11

Monday, February 9, 2009 - 3:42pm

lol, Thanks, John. You have no idea how much that means coming from you! (Mr. "Argue to the Death" Armaos!)

Post 12

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 5:41pm

lol, Thanks, John. You have no idea how much that means coming from you! (Mr. "Argue to the Death" Armaos!)

Lol! Well I feel like I now have to live up to my newly appointed nickname. Ok here goes;

Just for that Teresa, I do not argue to the death! I argue to physical injury!

Post 13

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 4:21pm

Steve Reed: "'I'm only "prepared to disagree with you" in regard to even "Police, Court, and Jail" being seen as "essential" ...

Allow me to direct you to the Dissent Forum where you will find "Police Forces and Courts of Law" and a couple of other interesting topics.

All of that being as it may, The Corrections Corporation of America is not merely "tainted" it is immoral. Prisoners are the moral responsibility of the state because the state created their criminality. For the state to seize you and turn your body and soul over to a private company to make a profit from is for the state to engage not just in mere slavery, but the marketing of slaves. Can the Corrections Corporation of America then lease you out to Arthur Daniels Midland to work their farms or to Kennecott to labor in its mines or to Blackwater to fight their wars?

No. Crime and criminality being what it is by its objective nature, prisoners are the moral responsibility of the state. The privatization of prisons is completely wrong on every moral premise.

I agree with you that there are many other alternatives to prison; and victim restitution is part of that other mix. I add also reintegration and restoration.

Post 14

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 4:30pm

Teresa, did you mean Tim Skubick (with a k?) Tim's an old middle of the left liberal from way back. He is a mainstream Democrat whose services to the Public Television viewership have a 30-year tradition, at least. When I ran for Congress in Michigan's 6th, there were four candidates. Tim invited the Republican and Democrat to his show and then wanted the other independent and me to come on later. We both declined independently of each other (appropriately enough) and then exchanged notes at the next public forum. We refused to validate him, basically. He knows enough to be just friendly enough to just the right Republicans -- and adversarial with the proper Democrats. But it is just a game to maintain his image as a incisive interviewer. Most often, he's just feeding lines to the liberals: he's their stooge.

Post 15

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 7:59pm