[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

DRAFT version of Federal "Justice" Shutdown Project

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:57:33PM -0400, Marina Brown wrote:
> On 03/22/2018 01:43 PM, jim bell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 10:36:10 PM PDT, Marina Brown 
> > <catskillmarina at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I grieved when Gilmore's right to travel case was decided against
> >> him.
> > 
> > 
> > For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires
> > people to show some sort of identification in order to travel.  But
> > I believe I cannot prohibit it if a private (non-governmental)
> > company such as an airline decides, for itself, that it will insist
> > on identification in order to allow passengers to travel.  The risk
> > to fellow passengers has become too great (hijacking, bombing, etc)
> > to avoid this, sadly.   I COULD choose to take airlines that DIDN'T
> > require people to identify themselves.  Presumably, such airlines
> > will exist when that is allowed.
> Most libertarians are opposed to collectivism. The idea that a
> neihborhood or country is privately owned by the members who then
> can keep anyone out or kick people out can become rather nightmarish
> form of collectivism.

Thank you for stating this.

Humans have historically shown that they are generally unable to act
individually, in support of their collective interest.

The complexity of even comprehending an actual with no direct
individual benefit, yet ultimately an individual benefit due to
collective action/ group effects, seems beyond many - I'd say even
beyond the majority.

So for example the "deal" whereby our Melbourne (Victoria, Australia)
"Citylink" road was already built and "paid for" by our current
collective system of Australian government, was usurped by some money
loving scoundrels in government and sold on the sly to Macquarie
Bank, a shareholder/ investor collectivist group acting against the
interests of the general community, who have been taxing use of this
'public road' ever since.

  â??In 1996, Transurban was awarded the contract to augment two
  existing freewaysâ??

The human citizens could simply not use that road, and bypass it,
take public transport, and suffer longer trip times, to kick that
banking conglomerate demon to the kerbside - a united front would fix
the problem in about a month.

-Especially- when Citylink first appeared, but still the case now -
stop the money going to the parasite, reclaim our commons.

But humans just accepted this disgraceful usurpation of the public
commons, and paid, and keep paying, and do not act in their own
collective interest.

In our digital age we perhaps have a greater (in general) awareness
of "the commons" and its value to us collectively, and that it is in
our individual interests to foster this commons - both digitally and
physically.  (As most of us know, Disney has used government for its
intended purpose and created statutes to extend their Mickey Mouse
monopoly against the interests of the broader community, despite
billion$ in profits for decades which profit was enabled due to
statute copyright laws.)

Anarchy/ libertarianism does not preclude a functioning and abundant
commons, but it does not require it either - it may be that
education, and will to act in support of concepts which are
"ultimately in the interests of the individual, just not providing
immediate gratification" is critical to a utopian anarchy, rather
than a dystopian anarchy - unfortunately we don't have many anarchies
or "libertarian states" to compare.

> I tend to support voluntary associations except when they become
> repressive and totalitarian. Heck, even homeowner associations sometimes
> become repressive. ...which is why i live out in the sticks where you
> don't even need a permit to build things.