PDA

View Full Version : Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian?




Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 04:44 AM
Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian?


Kenny Johnsson (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/mailto:kennyoftheliberalpost@gmail.com/omailto:kennyoftheliberalpost@gmail.com) interviews Lew Rockwell for The Liberal Post (http://liberalpost.wordpress.com/)



Johnsson: Do you consider yourself a libertarian?

Rockwell: Most certainly. What are the choices? Conservative is obviously out, even though the media describe us this way. The term's heritage dates to the Tory party in Britain, the very mercantilist-landowners who resisted change in the Corn Laws. This group opposed capitalism as socially destabilizing. They didn't like the merchant class making more money than the old families – meaning that they didn't want to lose their privileges. In the US, the term conservative came about after World War II. It had no meaning, really, other than to refer to the general desire to be prudent in public affairs, in contrast to the revolutionary tendencies on the left. The problem is that it amounted to a defense of the status quo, and, after Buckley, it was irretrievably wrapped up with the Cold War cause.

I like the term liberal since genuine liberalism is our heritage. It was their insight that society is self-managing, and this is the greatest political idea ever advanced in human history. But there are two problems here. The first is that the term was hijacked by socialists during the Progressive Era and especially after the New Deal, when the liberals finally sold out to the state. The second is more obscure but it is important: even the good kind of liberalism was very much bound up with republican theory, that you could have a government made up of the people rather than the elites. This error, which is really utopian, led to a commitment to government as an essential institution. Advances in economics and political philosophy since that time have shown that this is a misnomer. There is no way to keep government in check, since by definition it is guilty of committing the very aggressions it is supposedly designed to keep at bay: namely, theft, murder, counterfeiting, kidnapping, and the like. So the liberal critique of the state just wasn't radical enough.

There are other options, such as the term I once used, "paleolibertarian," which refers to libertarianism before the movement emerged to institutionalize it as an ideological wing of the state's political apparatus. This term was designed to address a very serious problem that libertarians in Washington had come to see themselves as a pleading pressure group hoping to find "market-based" solutions to public policy problems but within public policy, and thus do they support school vouchers, limited wars, managed trade, forced savings as an alternative to social security, and the like. Unfortunately, the term paleolibertarian became confused because of its association with paleoconservative, so it came to mean some sort of socially conservative libertarian, which wasn't the point at all – though the attempted definition of libertarian as necessarily socially leftist is a problem too.

There are other strange terms bandied about from time to time, but in the end, I think we have to be happy with the term libertarian, while knowing that politics tends to taint all word usage issues. What is a libertarian? It is a person who believes in the absolute right of private property ownership. All else follows from that one proposition.

Johnsson: Your slogan on LewRockwell.com is Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Market; how do you define anti-state?

Rockwell: To be anti-state is to hold the intellectual position that there is nothing that society needs that the state can do better than the market. If you hold that view, you are anti-state. So in some ways, to say anti-war, anti-state, and pro-market is to propose redundancies of the same idea. I would defend the anti-state idea in every aspect of human life. The market is better in schools, energy, food, housing, charity, trade, consumer protection, justice, security, and even international relations. I know of no exceptions. The major burden of all the editorial work that I do is to make this point again and again. Does it grow weary? Not in any way. The number one, central, ubiquitous problem of our time and all time is the state. Whenever a criminal band manages to bamboozle the public that it alone should be granted the legal right to aggress on others, there is a problem that needs to be uprooted. The struggle for freedom is precisely this and no other.

Johnsson: What about anti-war? Are there no wars libertarians can support?

Rockwell: We can support any defense of person and property. But war as we understand the term in modern times is a government program like any other, meaning that it over-utilizes resources, causes destruction of property and life, and fails to achieve its stated aims. On the last point, war often leads to the opposite of its stated aims. Iraq is a good example. But it is important for us to realize that in this respect, it is like any other government program. Western history had this idea of "just war" that was supposed to prevent war from starting and prevent them from becoming total. But who is left to decide what is just and what is not? The finally authority here is the state. Of course it sees itself as just. That's why we need not just rules but institutional change.

Johnsson: Who would you support in the 2008 elections?

Rockwell: I would like to see elections for public office abolished, and that is particularly true for the presidency. The idea of the president was initially that some far-seeing, wise person would emerge from the aristocratic class who would sit atop the apparatus of the state and make sure that all things ran well. The founders were not stupid: they knew there was potential for abuse. So they made it possible to impeach the president if there was the slightest slip up. Unfortunately, this didn't work. It was like putting the chief inmates in charge of overseeing the conduct of the other inmates. The problem is that they all end up working together.

If you look at the crop of people who are running for president today, you gain new understanding of Hayek's phrase "the worst get on top." What an amazing bunch of dangerous nothings they are. The Democrats look positively dreadful. The antiwar people among them have touted the idea that every young person should be enslaved into national service. What are these people thinking? Most of them are nothing but voices for a special interest cause. The Republicans are creepy too: people in love with the idea of military force and who think more jails and more wars will solve all the world's problems.

In many ways, it seems like the 30s all over again, when everyone thought we had to choose between socialism and fascism and that there was no other path. At least the confusions of the 30s have the excuse that a depression was raging. What's our excuse for forgetting the liberal vision today? It is really disgusting.

Of course I'm cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood. Ultimately, however, I do not believe that politics offers a way out. What we need is a new consciousness concerning the idea of human liberty.

Johnsson: Would you vote for a libertarian in any election?

Rockwell: I don’t vote. Why play along? Your vote doesn’t count, unless the election is decided by one vote, and you have far more chance of being killed on the way to the polls than that happening. Besides, the vote is the sign and symbol of the democratic state. I abstain.

Johnsson: Do you think we should reform taxes?

Rockwell: The tax reform game is an old one. The idea is to tell people that taxes can be made simpler, easier, less intrusive, less distortive, less onerous, and all the rest. But it never seems to pan out, and for one simple reason: taxing always and everywhere means taking money from people by force. They try to disguise that in various ways, and that is really what is going on with tax reform. It's like negotiating with a robber, who proposes to enter your house at night so he won't disturb you, or asks for a key to the front door so that he won't have to break in, or suggests that you give him some cash so that he won't have to take the family silver. In the end, your property is gone. So reform doesn't seem like a good path to me. What we need are lower taxes, or, ideally, no taxes. We should start by abolishing certain tax programs, such as the income tax.

Johnsson: Some say you're an anarchist; is that true?

Rockwell: The term anarchist is mostly used to mean someone who believes that if the state and law are gotten rid of, all property would become collectively owned. It was the great insight of Murray Rothbard that this is not the case: private ownership and the law that support it are natural, while the state is artificial. So he was an anarchist in this sense but to avoid confusion he used the term anarcho-capitalist. This doesn't mean that he favored somehow establishing a capitalist system in place of the state. What he said is that capitalism is the de facto result in a civilized society without a state. Has this position made advances? Yes, but not so many that we can use the term anarchism without causing confusion. If the purpose of words is to communicate, I'm not sure that the term does that well.

As to my own views, I do believe that society thrives best without a state. But I'm with Rothbard, Nock, Molinari, Chodorov, and others who believe in law and private government, such as we find in corporations, housing subdivisions, and church hierarchies. So if by anarchism we mean a society without law, I'm completely against that idea.

Johnsson: How did the Mises Institute get started?

Rockwell: I founded the Mises Institute in 1982 in cooperation with Mises's widow Margit. The idea was to provide an infrastructure of support for Misesian thought, primarily in economics but also in other areas. Rothbard was an enormous help. We ended up as his main publisher at a time when others found him to be too radical, just as people found Mises to be too radical. The Mises Institute is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. It has become a major force in the world of ideas. I'm thrilled at the progress we've made.

Johnsson: Some have said Murray N. Rothbard's view on economic thought is not reliable; do you agree or disagree with that?

Rockwell: Did Murray make mistakes? Of course. There are no oracles who see all and know all. But no one can read a masterpiece like Man, Economy, and State (http://www.mises.org/store/Man-Economy-and-State-with-Power-and-Market-The-Scholars-Edition-P177C18.aspx?AFID=14), or browse his massive History of Economic Thought (http://www.mises.org/store/Austrian-Perspective-on-the-History-of-Economic-Thought-2-volume-set-P273C0.aspx?AFID=14), and say that his economic thought was unreliable. He was a great theorist and teacher in every way.

Johnsson: Do you agree with Ron Paul that we should go by the Constitution and that's it?

Rockwell: The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!

May 25, 2007


Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/mailto:lewrockwell@gmail.com)] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://www.mises.org/) in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/), and author of Speaking of Liberty (http://www.mises.org/store/Speaking-of-Liberty-P173C0.aspx?AFID=1?AFID=1).


Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com


Lew Rockwell Archives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/rockwell-arch.html)


http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberal-post-interview.html

tonesforjonesbones
10-29-2008, 08:29 AM
That is really a great interview. I agree...the constitution has loopholes ..and I wonder if it was intentional by the Federalists. Heck...they didn't even allow the Anti Federalists into the convention. John Adams ALWAYS wanted a big central government...look...he was responsible for the Sedition Act to shut down the press..and threw them in jail. Hamilton created the central bank. The ANTI FEDERALISTS..are the ones who were true advocates of freedom. Thanks for sharing this interview. Tones

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 08:35 AM
That is really a great interview. I agree...the constitution has loopholes ..and I wonder if it was intentional by the Federalists. Heck...they didn't even allow the Anti Federalists into the convention. John Adams ALWAYS wanted a big central government...look...he was responsible for the Sedition Act to shut down the press..and threw them in jail. Hamilton created the central bank. The ANTI FEDERALISTS..are the ones who were true advocates of freedom. Thanks for sharing this interview. Tones The Constitution was a "rush job" by the Federalist cabal, and it shows. They had to do it while TJ was in France. There was major concern in the cabal that his hostile public opposition would simply scuttle their coup. ;)

tonesforjonesbones
10-29-2008, 08:52 AM
Hmmm...well. I guess it's better to try to get back to it even though it's not perfect. i would say that i agree with a lot of the libertarian ideas...but I'm not a libertarian. I have become opposed to putting myself in any box...I'd rather take the good ideas of many ...and come to my own conclusions. I know that I don't agree with any communist views so far. i don't like the democrat party whatsoever because it has been hijacked by the communists. The Republican party has also been hijacked by the communists but the grassroots republicans still hold on to more traditional values. I think I want to stay away from political parties and just work for good causes. I particularly like G. Edward Griffin's approach...to just "float". Infiltrate existing organizations and work to change them...pull them back

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 08:58 AM
Hmmm...well. I guess it's better to try to get back to it even though it's not perfect. i would say that i agree with a lot of the libertarian ideas...but I'm not a libertarian. I have become opposed to putting myself in any box...I'd rather take the good ideas of many ...and come to my own conclusions. I know that I don't agree with any communist views so far. i don't like the democrat party whatsoever because it has been hijacked by the communists. The Republican party has also been hijacked by the communists but the grassroots republicans still hold on to more traditional values. I think I want to stay away from political parties and just work for good causes. I particularly like G. Edward Griffin's approach...to just "float". Infiltrate existing organizations and work to change them...pull them back Sounds libertarian ( small "l" ) to me. ;)

Dieseler
10-29-2008, 09:02 AM
I consider myself a fresh fucked fox about to run through a forest fire.

DAFTEK
10-29-2008, 09:05 AM
I consider myself a fresh fucked fox about to run through a forest fire.

lol.... :D

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 09:08 AM
I consider myself a fresh fucked fox about to run through a forest fire. Nice alliteration there. ;) :D

Dieseler
10-29-2008, 09:18 AM
Its just slick, slung, slang for being beat down, bent over and borked but good.

tonesforjonesbones
10-29-2008, 09:38 AM
Well..i like libertarian economics for the most part..but I'm not even a purist on that. i like some protectionism. I consider the libertarian party draws the people who want the lassiz faire lifestyle..no moral compass people. That is why I don't subscribe to the LP. They hate Christians...and I am not ok with that. If they want to destroy Christianity in the USA..well...I'm not going to support them. That alone has pushed me right back to the GOP. At least the grassroots GOP is still fairly moral. I consider a moral society one that will be more successful in the pursuit of happiness. The communists have done a fine job of erroding the christian majority. That is why the country is going to hell in a handbaskett. tones

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 09:44 AM
Well..i like libertarian economics for the most part..but I'm not even a purist on that. i like some protectionism. I consider the libertarian party draws the people who want the lassiz faire lifestyle..no moral compass people. That is why I don't subscribe to the LP. They hate Christians...and I am not ok with that. If they want to destroy Christianity in the USA..well...I'm not going to support them. That alone has pushed me right back to the GOP. At least the grassroots GOP is still fairly moral. I consider a moral society one that will be more successful in the pursuit of happiness. The communists have done a fine job of erroding the christian majority. That is why the country is going to hell in a handbaskett. tones The Libertarian Party is an oxymoron and NOT libertarian. The disgruntled smaller government statist GOP folks just STOLE the name. :mad: Kinda like the socialists STOLE "liberal".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

mport1
10-29-2008, 12:00 PM
Excellent article.

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 12:09 PM
Excellent article. Agreed! :) Thanks!

heavenlyboy34
10-29-2008, 12:24 PM
The Libertarian Party is an oxymoron and NOT libertarian. The disgruntled smaller government statist GOP folks just STOLE the name. :mad: Kinda like the socialists STOLE "liberal".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

+a zillion! Thanks for posting, TW. I was about to post this myself. :D

Andrew-Austin
10-29-2008, 02:18 PM
+a zillion! Thanks for posting, TW. I was about to post this myself. :D

Are you Truth Warrior's other account?

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 02:30 PM
+a zillion! Thanks for posting, TW. I was about to post this myself. :D If you could see my face, you would see a look of "non-surprise". :D

heavenlyboy34
10-29-2008, 02:39 PM
Are you Truth Warrior's other account?

nah, I'm just a not-so-secret admirer of TW. lol I've never met him in person (I don't even know TW's gender for sure-I just default to the masculine case till I'm corrected), but I like his posts, for the most part. :)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 02:43 PM
nah, I'm just a not-so-secret admirer of TW. lol I've never met him in person (I don't even know TW's gender for sure-I just default to the masculine case till I'm corrected), but I like his posts, for the most part. :) Accurate gender default. ;) :D

mediahasyou
10-29-2008, 04:36 PM
small "l" libertarian here.

Rockwell got a point wrong. Conservatism has been around since the French and American revolution. Conservatives supported little change in the Status Quo: (At the time, status quo was Aristocracy and Monarchy and Dictatorship.)

Looking back at what the words "conservative" and "liberal" used to mean, it's easy to see how far the Parties have driven from an initial goal. Heck, the Father of the two parties was the Democratic-Republicans. (A very libertarian party.)

For this reason, governments are unstable. Even if we could achieve a libertarian society like the founders did, it would not stay with a government at hand. The founder's lost their libertarian government, there is no new evidence we can preserve our newly libertarian government if we could get there.

And to Mr. Franklin's quote: "A republic, if you can keep it."

The bottom line is we cannot keep it. Government is an unnatural, unstable institution that can not be restrained.

Sorry Mr. Franklin.

LibertyEagle
10-29-2008, 04:51 PM
The bottom line is we cannot keep it. Government is an unnatural, unstable institution that can not be restrained.

Sorry Mr. Franklin.

Obviously, so is anarchy.

UnReconstructed
10-29-2008, 04:53 PM
libertarian with a little l... non-violence

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 04:58 PM
libertarian with a little l... non-violence Non Aggression as in Non Aggression Principle. ;)

Truth Warrior
10-29-2008, 05:00 PM
Obviously, so is anarchy.

Did ya even READ Lew's interview article? :rolleyes:

mediahasyou
10-29-2008, 05:33 PM
Obviously, so is anarchy.

Prove it.

You can't. The Statist Hogs have claimed all land on the planet. There is a reason Monopolies don't like competition.

Anti Federalist
10-29-2008, 05:55 PM
I consider myself a fresh fucked fox about to run through a forest fire.
http://www.theinterpretersfriend.com/misc/humr/laugh.gif

The_Orlonater
10-29-2008, 07:36 PM
Well, I'm no anarchist.

So you guys decide for me like you always have.

The_Orlonater
10-29-2008, 07:38 PM
The Libertarian Party is an oxymoron and NOT libertarian. The disgruntled smaller government statist GOP folks just STOLE the name. :mad: Kinda like the socialists STOLE "liberal".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

The LP is a Minarchist Party.
Is it bad that people change their minds? What if someone is a hardcore statist and become an anarcho-capitalist and in ten years they lead a successful movement towards it?

What would you do? Call him a statist?

Oh, the flaw in the logic of one-sidedness.

But no one is complaining, right?

anotherone
10-29-2008, 09:42 PM
Well..i like libertarian economics for the most part..but I'm not even a purist on that. i like some protectionism. I consider the libertarian party draws the people who want the lassiz faire lifestyle..no moral compass people. That is why I don't subscribe to the LP. They hate Christians...and I am not ok with that. If they want to destroy Christianity in the USA..well...I'm not going to support them. That alone has pushed me right back to the GOP. At least the grassroots GOP is still fairly moral. I consider a moral society one that will be more successful in the pursuit of happiness. The communists have done a fine job of erroding the christian majority. That is why the country is going to hell in a handbaskett. tones

totally wrong as usual tones.

What Libertarians hate it hypocracy, and the forcing of religion on society. We are not anti-Christianity, far from it.

But how is one Christian if one if forced to be moral? You are only truly a Christian when you are free, *yet* choose to live a moral life.

Your lack of understanding is why you are unable to convince people here to vote for John McCain. We are voting 3rd party because we understand this.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 02:16 AM
The LP is a Minarchist Party.
Is it bad that people change their minds? What if someone is a hardcore statist and become an anarcho-capitalist and in ten years they lead a successful movement towards it?

What would you do? Call him a statist?

Oh, the flaw in the logic of one-sidedness.

But no one is complaining, right? We true libertarians are complaining, we still want our good name back from the statist "minarchist" thieves. They're just getting it all screwed up and dirty.

Trance Dance Master
10-30-2008, 02:30 AM
I once considered joining the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, but wasn't too impressed with the leadership.

Ozwest
10-30-2008, 02:37 AM
totally wrong as usual tones.

What Libertarians hate it hypocracy, and the forcing of religion on society. We are not anti-Christianity, far from it.

But how is one Christian if one if forced to be moral? You are only truly a Christian when you are free, *yet* choose to live a moral life.

Your lack of understanding is why you are unable to convince people here to vote for John McCain. We are voting 3rd party because we understand this.

Atheists make great Libertarians.

Politics and Religion as a practice, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.

Trance Dance Master
10-30-2008, 02:45 AM
Atheists make great Libertarians.

Politics and Religion as a practice, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.
The practice of religion is to instruct society on character development.

The practice of politics is to instruct society on social status.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 03:11 AM
i once considered joining the libertarian national socialist green party, but wasn't too impressed with the leadership. lol! ;)

LibertyEagle
10-30-2008, 03:38 AM
totally wrong as usual tones.

What Libertarians hate it hypocracy, and the forcing of religion on society. We are not anti-Christianity, far from it.

Yeah, I hate hypocrisy too. Kind of like when self-professed atheists and agnostics spend their time bashing others' religious beliefs on one hand, while professing on the other that they want religious freedom.

Another thing that seems rather hypocritical. Why do people who do not believe that a higher being exists, spend so much time bashing that higher being?

sailor
10-30-2008, 03:41 AM
Good interview, but I was hoping for a survey. :(

Ozwest
10-30-2008, 05:00 AM
The practice of religion is to instruct society on character development.

The practice of politics is to instruct society on social status.

Excuse me,

I don't require Religion to be a moral citizen. As I respect your freedom to practice your religion, I would hope you respect my right to be self - reliant.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 05:05 AM
Good interview, but I was hoping for a survey. :( We've surveyed several times before, there's a whole potfull of "claimed" libertarians on the RPF. ;) Feel free to start another survey thread, if you wish. :)

chwisch87
10-30-2008, 07:53 AM
I am pretty much an Objectivist but support libertarians.

chwisch87
10-30-2008, 07:57 AM
Yeah, I hate hypocrisy too. Kind of like when self-professed atheists and agnostics spend their time bashing others' religious beliefs on one hand, while professing on the other that they want religious freedom.

Another thing that seems rather hypocritical. Why do people who do not believe that a higher being exists, spend so much time bashing that higher being?

Of course they support the freedom of religion and of course they can say they don't like religion. Ayn Rand once said that as long as you keep religion out of government you will have peaceful coexistence (IE freedom to practice). Now that doesn't mean to say that people who find religion irrational cannot say so; myself included.

Truth Warrior
10-30-2008, 08:00 AM
I am pretty much an Objectivist but support libertarians. "It Usually Starts With Ayn Rand". ;)

Trance Dance Master
10-30-2008, 09:10 AM
Excuse me,

I don't require Religion to be a moral citizen. As I respect your freedom to practice your religion, I would hope you respect my right to be self - reliant.

There are many alternatives to religion to receive instruction on character development. The practice of psychology is to instruct on character development. Psychology is the new church.

Josh_LA
11-01-2008, 12:26 PM
I was, now I'm more of an anarchist

Trance Dance Master
11-01-2008, 12:59 PM
I was, now I'm more of an anarchist

I wonder who the top leaders of the anarchy movement are and what goals they plan to accomplish when they get enough followers.

http://eyeonhate.com/white/bw.html
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1773388&postcount=9

Fifteen hundred miles away, on another campus, however, there was one lone accolade for those being called "The Trench Coat Mafia." Bill White, then University of Maryland student and head of the controversial "Utopian Anarchist Party," applauded and defended the shooters. Issuing a call for support of the perpetrators, White said,

"We have to remember that people who go and shoot up their schools are not acting as tyrants here. These are oppressed people who are struggling against society and who are now fighting society in the only way they know how. These students have spent their lives tortured by society, and now they are fighting back. We have to admire them for doing it. How many of us will ever fight back?"

Truth Warrior
11-01-2008, 01:10 PM
I wonder who the top leaders of the anarchy movement are and what goals they plan to accomplish when they get enough followers.

http://eyeonhate.com/white/bw.html
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1773388&postcount=9

Fifteen hundred miles away, on another campus, however, there was one lone accolade for those being called "The Trench Coat Mafia." Bill White, then University of Maryland student and head of the controversial "Utopian Anarchist Party," applauded and defended the shooters. Issuing a call for support of the perpetrators, White said,

"We have to remember that people who go and shoot up their schools are not acting as tyrants here. These are oppressed people who are struggling against society and who are now fighting society in the only way they know how. These students have spent their lives tortured by society, and now they are fighting back. We have to admire them for doing it. How many of us will ever fight back?" Ya don't seem to get that whole "leaders" thing about anarchy. :D Did ya ever try to herd cats? ;)

Ozwest
11-01-2008, 01:14 PM
There are many alternatives to religion to receive instruction on character development. The practice of psychology is to instruct on character development. Psychology is the new church.

Fishing is my Church.

I am fishing for loaves...

With a Ugly Stick and a Shimano reel! :D

heavenlyboy34
11-01-2008, 03:03 PM
we true libertarians are complaining, we still want our good name back from the statist "minarchist" thieves. They're just getting it all screwed up and dirty.

+1 qft

The_Orlonater
11-01-2008, 06:16 PM
We true libertarians are complaining, we still want our good name back from the statist "minarchist" thieves. They're just getting it all screwed up and dirty.

Thieves?

So anarchists are true libertarians?
What about us hayekians who believe the right law is liberty?

How about this. This is how I think "Libertarianism" should be thought of.

Minarchist and Anarchists.

We just differ on a few things.