[ALawPoker]

I'm calling you out, pal.

I don't have any specific evidence really. It's sort of like trying to explain why you called with 10 high and won the pot. But I'm pretty sure it's true, and feeling like posting about it. I've had odd assumptions about 2p2 posters before, and usually ended up being right. So maybe this is one of them.

First of all, he believes in logical truth. The man's life is dedicated to being logical. And to me, AC is the logical destination. So in a way it's almost far-fetched (*to me*) that Sklansky wouldn't agree that government is bad.

I have the vague theory that he is (myopically) only interested in discussing things logically, but ultimately he believes it leads to the conclusion that the state is interference. He just isn't willing to start off with that assumption because he refuses to discredit himself (in some people's eyes) by claiming a broad belief. And also he probably believes he does the broad belief better justice by not claiming it anyways.

Now, Sklansky might not "be" an ACist. I don't think he really cares, or is as passionate about it as someone like Borodog. But I think he would agree that most of the things he talks about are ultimately things that support the AC arguments.

That being said, I fully expect to be laughed at for posting this. I also don't expect David would admit it even if I'm right. So this thread is mostly useless. But I'm so sure that I'm right (and have been for a few days now -- DAYS, I say) that I couldn't help but post it.

Liberty and justice for Sklansky.