Something For XEL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCI5opHrf_8&mode=related&search=

Xel, reading a number of your statements, I can see that you aren't very big on libertarian PRINCIPLES, and that you are buying into utilitarian ideas.  I'd like to take the time to point you in the direction of this little video I found on youtube here...

Pay attention to what he is saying about principles & utilitarianism, as I think this is a crucial difference between the way you think, and the way I think. 

If you and I agree on something, say, the legalization of drugs, but we disagree with each other on WHY drugs should be legalized, there will likely be other ways in which we don't see eye to eye. 

You may also want to hear what he says about regulation of the economy, libertarianism, crime, etc.

>>8 "You can try and divide liberties into different camps or sects if you like, but really when you think about it, no liberty is possible without 'economic' liberty." Economic liberty means free transactions without modulations or interceptions by an arbitrary entity, loosely defined. That has nothing to do with who I put my dick in or what I can see on the internet. Also, economic liberty is not legit or desirable unless it is accompanied by social liberty *and vice versa*. One of the reasons I deplore many in the libertarian party is that they are faux-social liberals, or at least completely egocentric on a non-pragmatic or even ethical level.
>>9 "Anyway, how can one form of taxation equate to slavery, yet another doesn't?" In a non-meritocratic society a degree of economic redistribution is a must on an ethical and economical level.
"I see little reason to think laissez-faire capitalism, anarcho capitalism, or a generally 'libertarian' society would not be socially mobile." That's because every orthodox libertarian is completely addicted to ignoring environmental determinism, the possible problems of accumulated capital, non-meritocratic forces surviving a laissez-faire shift and other intrinsical or possible factors.
"I don't see how slavery of any kind for any reason comports with libertarian logic and ethics." It doesn't. But not all taxation that exceeds that needed for a night-watcher is slavery.

"you’re both evading the true issue: weather the government’s power includes legal use of force (aggressive not defensive). That’s the only issue you should be working with at this time. start small and work up." Well, I'm stumped. I can't entrust government to keep itself in line regarding taxation and handling its duties better than mercantile forces, so where do I, or Rand or Friedman for that matter, draw the line in a consistent way... I like this conundrum. I shall look into it.