Quote Brutus563:I was introducing myself as an anarcho-capitalist, and MEJ asked me what I thought about Glass-Steagall. I replied that I considered it to be an act of aggression. By this I mean that it is an attempt by some people to forcibly control the behavior of another.
My observation drew this reaction from MEJ: "'Glass-Steagel is an act of aggression'... are you kidding?...smoke a little more"
Now, Glass-Steagall may be something with which you agree or disagree, but it seems hard to make the case that it does not amount to one group of people forcibly imposing the manner in which another group of people may behave. This is not a mutually agreed upon arrangement, but is imposed and enforced with a gun.
My question for the board is whether acts such as Glass-Steagall are seen as (possibly justified) acts of aggression?
I hope this is a legitimate topic of discussion and doesn't result in my being banned.
Firstly - It'll take a whole lot more than the statement of a contrary viewpoint to get you banned here - this ain't Limbaugh's message board, where only like-minded opinion is welcome.
On to your topic - are traffic laws an act of agression? Heck, if I'm caught driving to fast, a guy with a gun actually comes up to my car to talk to me! But that's because I present a danger to other drivers, isn't it?
How about product safety laws? No toxic substances allowed in edible merchandise. Yes, the "invisible hand" will EVENTUALLY prevent that, but how many have to get sick or die until it does? How about if one of them is my wife - or your daughter?
If Glass-Steagall IS an act of agression, it's done for the very same reasons as my two examples above - to prevent the agression of the ruthless (driver in the 1st case, capitalist in the 2nd) from doing harm to others.
Now go read some MORE "truth" from the sociopathic Ayn Rand, Brutus.