I'm glad you have some questions! Let's begin.
1. So, in the case of Ken Lay or Dennis Kozlowski, for example, are all "fruits of their labor" to be granted without caveats about criminal activity?
Of course not. All people are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. Of course, we do not consider gains which are fraudulently arrived at to fall within that category.
I believe that's what you're referring to. If so, where did you ever get the idea that we do not believe in prosecuting crimes? (Specific example(s) will suffice.)
You are, in keeping with what has become a grand tradition, woefully and risibly uninformed. From no less than the Libertarian Party "Statement of Principles":
"We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation."
lp.org
In fact, we have novel approaches to addressing those issues. What have the socialists proposed?
lp.org
2. Just how far do you take your juvenile and brutal "law of the jungle" concept?
"[My] law of the jungle" concept?
First of all, they're not "my" concept. When all else - by which I mean blathering emotion, kneejerk rhetoric, and twitching - fails, Duray, you might want to refer to a source, LOL.
lp.org
You may also refer to the previous post, which addresses specific issues. Why you're choosing to attribute them to me, instead of - if they rub you the wrong way, as they seem to - take the Libertarian Party to task is telling indeed. :-)
I've never expressed that I feel that theft, fraud, or coercion are acceptable. (A few examples of posts I've made to that precise effect follow; again, you're free to produce posts I've made to the contrary, thereby supporting your assertion.)
*****
"In fact, by my thinking, we should be living in a land not "void of rules [and] laws" but instead, with a far smaller number of more strongly enforced rules focused upon reducing or eliminating coercion, physical and property harm, and fraud."
Message 18375527
Message 18328771
Message 15216454
*****
Next question(s)?
LPS5 |
