Constitution = Collectivist

[mediahasyou]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.

[Conza88]

Lol, that is going to offend a lot of peoples sensibilities...

Well... the truth hurts. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.
A piece of paper was never supposed to do it all. How could it? Our Founders told us that it was US that had to stay vigilant. We didn't.

[Theocrat]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.

What's wrong with collectivism? It's inescapable in any realm of society. There may be certain institutions and ideals where collectivism is not okay (like the economy), but it is not inherently evil. As a member of Ron Paul Forums, one could argue that you are a collectivist because you're part of a like-minded group whose goal is to return government back to its Constitutional limits and enhance liberty for all people in the United States. Unless, I'm mistaken about your intents for being here...

[Andrew-Austin]

Various wordings for the definition of collectivism:

-The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

-The theory that the state should own all means of production

-The socialist principle of control by the state of all means of productive or economic activity

or as Edward Griffin would simply put it: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bys8CLAFhUs)

-The common base ideology among Communism, Fascism, Socialism, and Nazism. The group (an abstraction) is more important than the individual, and if necessary the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number via government (ends justify the means).

Griffin in the linked video, claims the founding fathers were clearly against the collectivism implicit in democracy.


What's wrong with collectivism? It's inescapable in any realm of society. There may be certain institutions and ideals where collectivism is not okay (like the economy), but it is not inherently evil. As a member of Ron Paul Forums, one could argue that you are a collectivist because you're part of a like-minded group whose goal is to return government back to its Constitutional limits and enhance liberty for all people in the United States. Unless, I'm mistaken about your intents for being here...

Fitting in with a certain crowd does not make one a collectivist, you are using a very loose definition of collectivism.

[Conza88]

TW, spooner ? :confused:

[Theocrat]

Fitting in with a certain crowd does not make one a collectivist, you are using a very loose definition of collectivism.

Fitting in with a certain crowd who has a motive to spread their beliefs and ideas to another group of people (which they feel will work for the benefit of everyone in society) is indeed collectivism. Is that not what Ron Paul Forums is about in spreading the ideas of liberty and limited government to an increasingly ignorant and tyranical government and citizenry, as well?

[Dequeant]

Were Jefferson not in France at the time, I'm sure that we would have a far more properly worded an thought-out constitution.

[heavenlyboy34]

That, and it has too many loopholes that allow gov'ment to expand. (and that fucking 16th ammendment! WTF?? :p)


The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.

[heavenlyboy34]

What's wrong with collectivism? It's inescapable in any realm of society. There may be certain institutions and ideals where collectivism is not okay (like the economy), but it is not inherently evil. As a member of Ron Paul Forums, one could argue that you are a collectivist because you're part of a like-minded group whose goal is to return government back to its Constitutional limits and enhance liberty for all people in the United States. Unless, I'm mistaken about your intents for being here...

It's bad 'cuz G. Edward Griffin says so! ;)

[Andrew-Austin]

Fitting in with a certain crowd who has a motive to spread their beliefs and ideas to another group of people (which they feel will work for the benefit of everyone in society) is indeed collectivism. Is that not what Ron Paul Forums is about in spreading the ideas of liberty and limited government to an increasingly ignorant and tyranical government and citizenry, as well?

Yes we are a group which tries to influence government and fellow citizens, and others disagree with our motives.

That alone I don't think can define a group as collectivist though, you have to look at the group's motives. In our case, we wish to limit government and grant more liberty to everyone, which is not imposing anything on anyone. Repealing laws based on principle is quite different than enacting them for the 'greater good'. Putting individual rights first and restricting government to protecting those rights, is not sacrificing anyone for the sake of a majority.

True if successful we would be denying certain minorities (the poor, corporate special interests) the government benefits and handouts they receive now, but the "for the greater good" axiom cannot be applied to this really.

[heavenlyboy34]

+1


Yes we are a group which tries to influence government and fellow citizens, and others disagree with our motives.

That alone I don't think can define a group as collectivist though, you have to look at the group's motives. In our case, we wish to limit government and grant more liberty to everyone, which is not imposing anything on anyone. Repealing laws based on principle is quite different than enacting them for the 'greater good'. Putting individual rights first and restricting government to protecting those rights, is not sacrificing anyone for the sake of a majority.

True if successful we would be denying certain minorities (the poor, corporate special interests) the government benefits and handouts they receive now, but the "for the greater good" axiom cannot be applied to this really.

[Conza88]

Umm Theo, just letting you know - you're taking Kade's line of thought on this.

Just thought you should know... him being, what you have called - your arch-nemesis and all.. :)

[Mini-Me]

By and large, I would call the Constitution a pro-liberty document, especially when compared to the unconstitutional government we face today. It does have obvious and glaring flaws in both its language and provisions though (considering, among other things, that it didn't work to restrain the government ;)), and the language used in the Preamble is no exception. Although the Preamble gives the government no actual power, the phrase "general welfare" can be interpreted both tightly (general welfare = protection of individual rights) or loosely (general welfare = any collectivist measure that "might help," even and generally at the expense of individual rights). Therefore, that phrase is a potentially - but not necessarily - collectivist choice of words.

Anyway, when it comes to defining collectivism, I'm going to have to dig into the Ayn Rand quote from Kade's old signature (thanks Conza ;)):

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group.
At its core, that is collectivism in its most dangerous form, and this is the form which is expressed in collectivist political ideologies. Broadening the definition very slightly, I would also argue that judging an individual based on group stereotypes or statistics is also collectivist. In fact, there's a strong link here to the strictest definition of collectivism, that which I quoted above: Collectivist statistics and stereotypes of people are exactly what government uses to justify violating the rights of everyone, even those who are exceptions to the stereotypes/statistics (and those "exceptions" usually comprise the majority of people anyway). In other words, collectivist judgments form the flimsy moral basis for tyrannical collectivist rules. By themselves, such generalizations do in way subjugate the individual to the group, because they alienate the individuals to whom the group judgment does not rightly apply, undermining their individuality for the sake of judging the group collectively.

Broadening the definition much further and depending on the circumstances, I might argue that identifying with a group of people in contrast to other supposed groups is also collectivist. That said, this makes for a much weaker argument, because defining collectivism as such presents a second definition so loosely related to the first that it waters down the meaning of collectivism in its strictest sense, conflating benign group cooperation with the subjugation of the individual to the group. Working with or even identifying with a group of people (such as other Ron Paul supporters) is not necessarily collectivist in the anti-individualistic sense of the word, because you could be identifying with a group of people in contrast to other individuals who explicitly do not identify themselves with that group, or who explicitly identify with an opposing group. In other words, by aligning themselves with an opposing political ideology, neocons for example have each voluntarily identified with an ideology that libertarian and old-school conservative Ron Paul supporters oppose. We as the aforementioned self-described Ron Paul supporters disagree with each and every neocon individually (on the subject of their neoconservatism), precisely because their neocon beliefs are by definition in conflict with our own pro-liberty beliefs.* On one hand, if a few neocons like to drink the blood of Iraqi children, it would be unfairly collectivist of us to stereotype and judge all neocons based on the behavior of a few, because we would be making presumptuous generalizations about many individuals. After all, it's almost guaranteed that at least one neocon does not like to drink the blood of Iraqi children, and we would be disenfranchising that individual by imposing a collectivist judgment on him/her. On the other hand, if the term "neocon" is defined to apply only to someone with very specific beliefs with which we (or even simply I) disagree, it is then safe to judge said individuals together as a group for the beliefs they are guaranteed to share (and if they don't share said beliefs that define neoconservatism, they're not neocons, so the judgment does not apply to them - see where I'm going with this?). In this particular case, the "collectivist" judgment used out of convenience has no ill effects, since it's really more like a whole bunch of individual judgments condensed into one package.

Bottom line: In the non-political sense, a broad definition of collectivism can include all collective or cooperative activity, such as an individual's identification with a group or even the benign formation of groups of individuals. However, this kind of "collectivism" is obviously not necessarily anti-individualistic, which is why it should not be confused with collectivism as it is used in the political sense! In the political sense, collectivism is defined in direct opposition to individualism. Collectivist ideologies are inherently anti-individualistic at their core, sacrificing the rights and dignity of the "expendable" individual for some perceived benefit to the collective. Whenever I say I oppose collectivism, this is what I am talking about.

*Note: I should mention that it's actually slightly collectivist to assume that all Ron Paul supporters take a pro-liberty stance on everything - but if I conveniently define "Ron Paul supporter" to be a very strict hardcore subset of all those who actually support Ron Paul in some capacity, I can fall back on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

TW, spooner ? :confused: You rang? :D

By their very nature, essence and design, the BARBARIC human institutions ( us vs. them [ church, state, etc.] ) tend to be and ARE collectivist, fear based, competitive and ANTI-individual.<IMHO> :p

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

"The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle." -- Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin

[Truth Warrior]

What's wrong with collectivism? It's inescapable in any realm of society. There may be certain institutions and ideals where collectivism is not okay (like the economy), but it is not inherently evil. As a member of Ron Paul Forums, one could argue that you are a collectivist because you're part of a like-minded group whose goal is to return government back to its Constitutional limits and enhance liberty for all people in the United States. Unless, I'm mistaken about your intents for being here...

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob Lefevre

"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." -- Bob Lefevre

[Truth Warrior]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.

;) :)

"A limited government is a contradiction in terms." -- Bob LeFevre

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html (http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html)

[LibertyEagle]

And the anarchists overtake the board. :rolleyes:

[Conza88]

Anyway, when it comes to defining collectivism, I'm going to have to dig into the Ayn Rand quote from Kade's old signature (thanks Conza ;)):


No worries. ;) Just keep in mind his application of the quote was fallacious. The reason being, he chose to confine his point to this forum, which is retarded. You can't choose to ignore the rest of the world in an attempt to consider yourself an individual. He chose to mirror himself as an outsider, he loved making himself a target and it was no-ones fault but his own. The "individualism" he espoused is pretty much the same 95% of the population. Yet he'd be here and say "we're all collectivists." <-- which is collectivist thinking in itself.. lol :rolleyes:

^ Clinically retarded.

Btw, attempting to limit the state is also clinically retarded. :)

On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution (http://mises.org/story/2874)
Daily Article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe


IV - Two Hundred Years Later …

After more than two centuries of "constitutionally limited government," the results are clear and incontrovertible. At the outset of the American "experiment," the tax burden imposed on Americans was light, indeed almost negligible. Money consisted of fixed quantities of gold and silver. The definition of private property was clear and seemingly immutable, and the right to self-defense was regarded as sacrosanct. No standing army existed, and, as expressed in George Washington's Farewell Address, a firm commitment to free trade and a noninterventionist foreign policy appeared to be in place. Two hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically.[16]

....... <snip>

Last but not least, the commitment to free trade and noninterventionism has given way to a policy of protectionism, militarism, and imperialism. In fact, almost since its beginnings the US government has engaged in relentless aggressive expansionism and, starting with the Spanish-American War and continuing past World War I and World War II to the present, the United States has become entangled in hundreds of foreign conflicts and risen to the rank of the world's foremost warmonger and imperialist power. In addition, while American citizens have become increasingly more defenseless, insecure, and impoverished, and foreigners all over the globe have become ever more threatened and bullied by US military power, American presidents, members of Congress, and Supreme Court judges have become ever more arrogant, morally corrupt, and dangerous.[17]

What can possibly be done about this state of affairs? First, the American Constitution must be recognized for what it is — an error.

Read on here. (http://www.mises.org/story/2874#4)

Yeaah, umm you can do what you enjoy doing Mini - i.e writing long ass essay's, thinking of ways things can be limited etc. But the results will be the exact same, because the premise is flawed. Instead of "thinking" out scenarios for the sake of it, why not use ya it more wisely? eh? I recommend Henry Hazlitt's; the Thinking as a Science. (http://mises.org/books/thinking.pdf) :)


The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
Preamble
- 2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

;)

[Truth Warrior]

And the anarchists overtake the board. :rolleyes: Yep, the collectivist barbarians AKA statists have had it long enough to make their failed case.<IMHO> :D

BTW, isn't the WHOLE original purpose and function of this board just ONE INDIVIDUAL named Ron Paul? ;)

The Real World Order Is Chaotic (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer185.html)
Much as it bothers the god-kings.

[Conza88]

And the anarchists overtake the board. :rolleyes:

:D Hopefully the anarcho-capitalists have taken over.. not the anarchists :eek:

I don't see what the problem is... anarcho-capitalists hold the same positions as libertarians... i.e the non aggression axiom + Lockean private property rights..

They just maintain the principles and follow the logical conclusion that the market can do better than the state does - in ALL areas.. :D without the coercion and violence... :)

[Truth Warrior]

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

[heavenlyboy34]

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

Jeffersonians FTW!! :D

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

More and more I find myself siding with the Anti-Federalists. If I were Emperor for One Day, boy, a new stronger Bill of Rights and a far more restrictive Constitution would take place of the near disaster we have now. I can see why Jefferson and many of the other Anti-Federalists felt the principles of The Declaration of Independence had been betrayed by Hamilton and the other Federalists. I hate to think what would have happened had the Bill of Rights never been ratified.

General Welfare my aching ass (to paraphrase Penn Jillett).

[Mini-Me]

No worries. ;) Just keep in mind his application of the quote was fallacious. The reason being, he chose to confine his point to this forum, which is retarded. You can't choose to ignore the rest of the world in an attempt to consider yourself an individual. He chose to mirror himself as an outsider, he loved making himself a target and it was no-ones fault but his own. The "individualism" he espoused is pretty much the same 95% of the population. Yet he'd be here and say "we're all collectivists." <-- which is collectivist thinking in itself.. lol :rolleyes:

^ Clinically retarded.

Of course...that's why I spent the rest of my post detailing the meaning of collectivism. ;) Kade completely misconstrued the meaning of the word "subjugation" in the Rand quote. He broadened the word's meaning to the absurd level where a person is "collectivist" simply by being of the majority opinion (among just one small social/political sphere, at that!), regardless of whose opinion in and of itself constituted political collectivism (which actually does advocate the violation of individual rights through subjugation of the individual to the group). Meh. I still miss him though, and I kind of feel bad criticizing him without him here to fight back.


:D Hopefully the anarcho-capitalists have taken over.. not the anarchists :eek:

Herein lies the problem with the distinction you're going to such pains to make: Philosophically, you're correct, but structurally, anarcho-capitalism is exactly the same as every other type of anarchism. It's entirely stateless (at least for a time, depending on its stability) and without any clear rules except those which "enough" people agree upon via social contract that order spontaneously arises to enforce them. How, then, are you going to make sure that if we ever fell into anarchy, it would be anarchy of a desirable and stable kind, where the unwritten rules would be based upon the non-aggression axiom? There is only one way: You must use a gradual approach of slowly scaling back the state as you educate people about why!



Btw, attempting to limit the state is also clinically retarded. :)
<snip>

To use similar hyperbole, I'd also argue that attemping to abolish the state all at once is also "clinically retarded," along with the idea that anarcho-capitalism would ever be the result of a sudden government collapse. After all, just consider the mentality of about 95% of people in America: Even if I were ready to accept the idea, they are obviously nowhere near ready for even strictly limited government, let alone anarcho-capitalism! Because of that, any kind of anarchism if attempted today would turn out very ugly. The only way you could ever possibly accomplish your stated goal of anarcho-capitalism is with a gradual approach, as mentioned above: You must educate people enough to have more and more libertarian views, as you chip away at the state and dismantle it one piece at a time...and of course, you must strip away each piece of the state in such a way that everything goes smoothly and there isn't a reactionary shift back towards statism.

If all government (federal and state) were ever demolished too quickly - in some kind of violent revolution of the mob, for instance - anarcho-capitalism would not just spontaneously result from the aftermath. There would be anarchy for a time, but it would be the violent sort of anarchy resulting from a leviathan state collapsing into a power vacuum. Some of the uneducated mob would take advantage of the confusion and disorder to loot and pillage, and the rest of the uneducated mob would scramble together some kind of iron-fisted government to bring back order. After all, how many times have you seen the fall of one government spontaneously turn into peaceful anarcho-capitalism? :rolleyes: In such a scenario, we would have no choice but to deliberately come together and form the most limited government we possibly could, while mustering up grudging support from the reluctant "centrist" masses. Otherwise, they would take charge and form another government with a Constitution much more explicitly collectivist than the current one. After we formed the most limited government we could, we would then have to resume our work of educating people, limiting the new government, and downsizing it until the "appropriate" size is reached. In your eyes, the appropriate size is "nonexistent," but you must still first pass through minarchism to get to any kind of stable and orderly anarchism, let alone anarcho-capitalism in particular.

If just the US government collapsed but state governments remained, that would be the optimal situation, since organized law enforcement could still keep order and quell the violent looting, pillaging, rioting, etc. of the shellshocked masses during the immediate aftermath. Certainly, it would be much easier to subsequently limit and scale down state governments than the federal government, assuming the federal government were already out of the way. In that case though, we're once again back to gradually limiting and downsizing a government.

Do you see where I'm going with this? No matter how you slice it, the only way you can ever successfully achieve anarcho-capitalism anyway is with a gradual approach, and that is inherently an excercise in simultaneously limiting and downsizing government. To explicitly restate the implications of this necessarily gradual approach, I will quote something I said to you a few weeks ago (that I never got a real response to):


In other words, achieving anarcho-capitalism pretty much REQUIRES you to be wrong about your assumption that no checks and balances could ever restrain a state! If you actually want to achieve anarcho-capitalism, then you more than anyone should be interested in what Constitutional checks and balances might actually work well enough to keep government limited for a very long time.

[youngbuck]

I got a long way to go, but I'm getting a lot of food for though in this thread. At first sight, I would have to agree with Mini-Me regarding Anarcho-Capitalism. How exactly could such a system be put into place, especially with the masses as brainwashed and propagandized as they are today?

[Josh_LA]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.


"Can be interpreted" is a far stretch, and YES liberals HAVE argued this. However, history has proven that early years of our nation was far from using the Constitution to promote welfare, general or otherwise.

[Truth Warrior]

I got a long way to go, but I'm getting a lot of food for though in this thread. At first sight, I would have to agree with Mini-Me regarding Anarcho-Capitalism. How exactly could such a system be put into place, especially with the masses as brainwashed and propagandized as they are today?

Step #1 - Give up barbarism. Until then NOTHING changes.<IMHO> :(

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi

[heavenlyboy34]

Step #1 - Give up barbarism. Until then NOTHING changes.<IMHO> :(

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi


+1776 :) (good Ghandi quote, TW :) :D)

[Matisa]

Oh yes, offended indeed! I don't need big words to tell the truth.

The fact of the matter is the US consitituion is based off of basic biblical prinicpals . Take that away and see what happens,,

this nation is one nation UNDER GOD !

Our founding fathers thought alot of the good book, called the bible.

This is how they wrote this document Which should be held
so proudly....... Ron Pauls revolution for the Consitution !

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

[Truth Warrior]

Oh yes, offended indeed! I don't need big words to tell the truth.

The fact of the matter is the US consitituion is based off of basic biblical prinicpals . Take that away and see what happens,,

this nation is one nation UNDER GOD !

Our founding fathers thought alot of the good book, called the bible.

This is how they wrote this document Which should be held
so proudly....... Ron Pauls revolution for the Consitution !

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ Ah, is that why the Bible is featured and mentioned so frequently and prominently in the US Federal Constitution? :rolleyes: Which principles are those again?

Got it! :p

( I swear it's just like talking to the captured and brainwashed patrol in the "Manchurian Candidate". )

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh yes, offended indeed! I don't need big words to tell the truth.

The fact of the matter is the US consitituion is based off of basic biblical prinicpals . Take that away and see what happens,,

this nation is one nation UNDER GOD !

Our founding fathers thought alot of the good book, called the bible.

This is how they wrote this document Which should be held
so proudly....... Ron Pauls revolution for the Consitution !

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

They also read the Qu'ran, ya know. ;) You should start advocating for Allah too.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ah, is that why the Bible is featured and mentioned so frequently and prominently in the US Federal Constitution? :rolleyes: Which principles are those again?

Got it! :p

( I swear it's just like talking to the captured and brainwashed patrol in the "Manchurian Candidate". )

It's also why "under God" wasn't added to the pledge till the post-war 20th century, TW. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

It's also why "under God" wasn't added to the pledge till the post-war 20th century, TW. ;) I was alive and remember when it was changed. Were you?

[Theocrat]

Umm Theo, just letting you know - you're taking Kade's line of thought on this.

Just thought you should know... him being, what you have called - your arch-nemesis and all.. :)

I'm glad that Kade and I finally agree on something else other than Congressman Paul's credentials as the best candidate for President. As I've stated before, collectivism, in the general sense, is inescapable for any person. An individual's last name easily classifies him or her as a collectivist. Think about it.

[heavenlyboy34]

I was alive and remember when it was changed. Were you?

No (I am but a spry 27 years old), but I read about it. Was it a big, contentious affair when it happened? :confused:

[NaT805]

How is everybody doing this lovely day?

[Andrew-Austin]

I'm glad that Kade and I finally agree on something else other than Congressman Paul's credentials as the best candidate for President. As I've stated before, collectivism, in the general sense, is inescapable for any person. An individual's last name easily classifies him or her as a collectivist. Think about it.

Your definition of collectivism seems to be so vague and blurry (wrong), that all humans can be categorized as collectivists just by merely being social creatures.

The most pro-individualist persons on the planet could be called collectivists according to such a definition.

So there we have it Theo, individualists are collectivists, and 2 + 2 = 5.
Perhaps you are just looking for an excuse to send your Godly storm troopers after me (to promote the general welfare of the nation of course) for looking at porn.


How is everybody doing this lovely day?

Relatively well, sir. :p

[youngbuck]

Step #1 - Give up barbarism. Until then NOTHING changes.<IMHO> :(

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi

So how can we expect people to give up barbarism? Perhaps if they were influenced by a supreme moral compass, e.g. the Bible?

Other than a paramount influence like that, I see man falling into his own immoral and hedonistic ways.

[Truth Warrior]

No (I am but a spry 27 years old), but I read about it. Was it a big, contentious affair when it happened? :confused: As I recall, nary a ripple. Of course I didn't read newspapers then, nor now, BTW.

[Conza88]

I'm glad that Kade and I finally agree on something else other than Congressman Paul's credentials as the best candidate for President. As I've stated before, collectivism, in the general sense, is inescapable for any person. An individual's last name easily classifies him or her as a collectivist. Think about it.

This (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1853354&postcount=38)

:)

[Theocrat]

Your definition of collectivism seems to be so vague and blurry (wrong), that all humans can be categorized as collectivists just by merely being social creatures.

The most pro-individualist persons on the planet could be called collectivists according to such a definition.

So there we have it Theo, individualists are collectivists, and 2 + 2 = 5.
Perhaps you are just looking for an excuse to send your Godly storm troopers after me (to promote the general welfare of the nation of course) for looking at porn.

Your response is so laughable that I don't even know if I should reply to it. Your whole disagreement with me is based on the fear that I'm going to get you to stop looking at porn?! Are you kidding me? Is that all you care about? Porn, prostitution, and pot. You libertines never cease to amaze me.

Yes, I am saying that all humans are collectivists. We're not just individuals. Sure, we have personal responsibilities for our individual education, careers, and health (among other things), but those are not the only things which define us as humans. God created us, not to be alone as mere individualists, but to be engaged in relationships with each other. That's one reason why God blessed mankind with the institution of marriage, for example.

You fail to remember that before you realized your "individuality" in this world, you were a "collectivist" as a baby, depending on your parents to nourish you and teach you every step of your infanthood and childhood, as well. The failure with people like you is that you take one concept (individualism), and you run with it without considering the societal, political, and religious implications and exemptions that it has in the living world.

So let me just say this: I believe that humans are both individualists and collectivists, depending on the context of the human institutions they are part of. For me, it's not an "either/or" issue; it's "both/and." That was the point of my first post.

[BeFranklin]

Your response is so laughable that I don't even know if I should reply to it. Your whole disagreement with me is based on the fear that I'm going to get you to stop looking at porn?! Are you kidding me? Is that all you care about? Porn, prostitution, and pot. You libertines never cease to amaze me.

Yes, I am saying that all humans are collectivists. We're not just individuals. Sure, we have personal responsibilities for our individual education, careers, and health (among other things), but those are not the only things which define us as humans. God created us, not to be alone as mere individualists, but to be engaged in relationships with each other. That's one reason why God blessed mankind with the institution of marriage, for example.

You fail to remember that before you realized your "individuality" in this world, you were a "collectivist" as a baby, depending on your parents to nourish you and teach you every step of your infanthood and childhood, as well. The failure with people like you is that you take one concept (individualism), and you run with it without considering the societal, political, and religious implications and exemptions that it has in the living world.

So let me just say this: I believe that humans are both individualists and collectivists, depending on the context of the human institutions they are part of. For me, it's not an "either/or" issue; it's "both/and." That was the point of my first post.

This really started with Ayn Rand and her "virtue of selfishiness". I've read all of Ayn Rand's books, *and* her objectivist newsletters, which most of the posters on here that even like Ayn Rand probably have not. Ayn Rand was a hypocrite. She decried hippies for doing drugs, and did speed. She talked about marriage and had affairs. She was a rabid anti-Christian. I use to defend her works from being similar to Nietzsche. But on reflection on her purpose and fruit, I've changed my mind.

Like you said, her philosphy can not work in the real world. It is however, ideal for sophistry. Its a logical system, but incomplete and fails to be able to reach objectives in the real world (notice the use of objective and real world). In fact, its probably the worst philosophy in the conservative movement today, it endlessly allows you to talk and sound like you are doing something, and not do anything practical. It sounds like the philosophy of the founders, but its a poor imitition. The young particually fall for this.

The root of the Ayn Rand's sophism is a false dichotomy in the golden rule. It is not enough to attack redistributing wealth (something all conservatives have believed), but *all* altruism is wrong. Giving someond a sandwhich on the street who is hungry is evil according to Ayn Rand. You could use the sandwhich or money more. We're not talking about being forced to do that. Ayn Rand says its wrong for you to do it even if its something you want to do on your own. All altruism you want to do is wrong. All "self sacrifice is wrong". Everything is either "selfishlessness" or "selfishness". And selfishness is a virtue :rolleyes:

Every wrong thing I've seen in the world has flown from lust of money and selfishness. This virtue is
not one that needs to be taught because everyone already has it, Good Lord!

The golden rule is neither selfless or selfishness. Love your neighbor as yourself does not say to love your neighbor *more* than yourself (selfless) or *less* then yourself (selfish). It is a balance.

Yet Ayn Rand was able to write her books on the subject, and attack >>voluntary carring for others<< as wrong, all based on deconstructing the golden rule into a false dichotomy.

Although Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand disciple, and wrote an essay in her book "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal", so one might wonder if Alan Greenspan was really the snake he appears in causing the economic bubble or was "just pulling the plug on the paper money system" - another "atlas shrugged", there is a deeper way to read that, with the attack not being on physical money, but "altruism" and "the golden rule". Pull the plug on people's motives, and you can really screw the world!

And to answer the first question, Alan Greenspan was a snake, and did help cause the current problem and *knew* it. For the same reason, Ayn Rand was also a snake, and is causing the current problems with her imitiation philosophy, and also *knew* it. Snakes nest together.

Possibly the only book of Ayn Rand's I still like is her Romantic Manifesto. But it isn't perfect, and I probably could write a better one. For similar reasons, I don't like CS Lewis much anymore.

[BeFranklin]

Ah, is that why the Bible is featured and mentioned so frequently and prominently in the US Federal Constitution? :rolleyes: Which principles are those again?

Got it! :p



And yet you say elsewhere you want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. You know that the US Constitution wasn't what we originally had from our revolutionary founders, it was the Articles of Confederation.

And here is how the Articles of Confederation end:


And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

[BeFranklin]

It's bad 'cuz G. Edward Griffin says so! ;)

Ok that proves it. What did that prove :D

[BeFranklin]

And the anarchists overtake the board. :rolleyes:

Speaking of Ayn Rand.. :o Although she was a minimal government advocate, her movement did awaken the anarcho-capitalist movement.

As said above, there is a limit to how much you can ignore the basis of why governments are instituted (see: Declaration of Independence), and that any society, even a community without a formal government, works out of a sense of duty, which is impossible as you take a "virtue of selfishness" to its logical conclusion - and Atlas Shrugs, and the United States falls. :mad:

I believe in a very minimal government. Under the english common law, there is an idea of being "outlawed". What this means is you are outside the law, and therefore won't be protected (also where we get the word "outlaw"). Nothing to do with jails or anything else. They're just outside the law and won't be protected.

I once argued with an anarchist. I said people form together governments because they find them useful, so you will always have governments. He said well what if I don't want to join and pay your taxes, or perform a duty to be in the milita, etc. I said, fine, and under this system you wouldn't be punished if it isn't a real crime, but you would still be an outlaw, and you wouldn't like that any better. And then I explained to him what an outlaw was.

He was really upset. What, you would do that to me? I said yes, if you won't protect me, I am not going to protect you. If I or anyone in the local city government saw someone robbing you on the highway, we wouldn't help you. He was incessed. I just kept saying if you won't help us, we won't help you :rolleyes:. The concept of being an outlaw is powerful one.

Just an illustration of how an argument that sounds really good in a sophist/libertine/anarchy sense might not work in the real world.
Also it illustrates a freeloader principle, and how a community might deal with it. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

And yet you say elsewhere you want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. You know that the US Constitution wasn't what we originally had from our revolutionary founders, it was the Articles of Confederation.

And here is how the Articles of Confederation end: Theology AIN'T my reason for preferring the AoC. The Federalists betrayed the American Revolution with their 1789 coup power grab, is the reason.

[Truth Warrior]

Speaking of Ayn Rand.. :o Although she was a minimal government advocate, her movement did awaken the anarcho-capitalist movement.

As said above, there is a limit to how much you can ignore the basis of why governments are instituted (see: Declaration of Independence), and that any society, even a community without a formal government, works out of a sense of duty, which is impossible as you take a "virtue of selfishness" to its logical conclusion - and Atlas Shrugs, and the United States falls. :mad:

I believe in a very minimal government. Under the english common law, there is an idea of being "outlawed". What this means is you are outside the law, and therefore won't be protected (also where we get the word "outlaw"). Nothing to do with jails or anything else. They're just outside the law and won't be protected.

I once argued with an anarchist. I said people form together governments because they find them useful, so you will always have governments. He said well what if I don't want to join and pay your taxes, or perform a duty to be in the milita, etc. I said, fine, and under this system you wouldn't be punished if it isn't a real crime, but you would still be an outlaw, and you wouldn't like that any better. And then I explained to him what an outlaw was.

He was really upset. What, you would do that to me? I said yes, if you won't protect me, I am not going to protect you. If I or anyone in the local city government saw someone robbing you on the highway, we wouldn't help you. He was incessed. I just kept saying if you won't help us, we won't help you :rolleyes:. The concept of being an outlaw is powerful one.

Just an illustration of how an argument that sounds really good in a sophist/libertine/anarchy sense might not work in the real world.
Also it illustrates a freeloader principle, and how a community might deal with it. ;)

"A limited government is a contradiction in terms." -- Bob LeFevre

[BeFranklin]

Theology AIN'T my reason for preferring the AoC. The Federalists betrayed the American Revolution with their 1789 coup power grab, is the reason.

Yeah, but you might consider who was on which side back then on the religios issues too. Alexendar Hamilton mocked Ben Franklin for wanting to include prayer in the Constitution convention - and Ben Franklin's speech was one of the most stirring I've heard, and some of the anti-federalists were doubtful about the intention of the constitution on exactly those grounds, which is why we have the 1st amendment.

[Conza88]

Herein lies the problem with the distinction you're going to such pains to make: Philosophically, you're correct, but structurally, anarcho-capitalism is exactly the same as every other type of anarchism. It's entirely stateless (at least for a time, depending on its stability) and without any clear rules except those which "enough" people agree upon via social contract that order spontaneously arises to enforce them. How, then, are you going to make sure that if we ever fell into anarchy, it would be anarchy of a desirable and stable kind, where the unwritten rules would be based upon the non-aggression axiom? There is only one way: You must use a gradual approach of slowly scaling back the state as you educate people about why!

Nope, fail. Anarcho-capitalism is a subset of Libertarianism. Non Aggression axiom + respect for property rights.. Sorry mate, that ain't the same as the other types of anarchism.


13. Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?
No, but it's close. Just as anarcho-capitalism is a subtype of anarchism, it is also a subtype of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief that liberty is the primary political virtue, conjoined with the belief in capitalism. But libertarians don't necessarily deny the legitimacy of the State as an institution - most believe that a minimal State is necessary to provide defense services. This minimal State, sometimes called "the nightwatchman State," is a government that provides only three things: police, courts, and defense against foreign invasion. This means that no government redistribution of wealth or regulation of the market is allowed. Anarcho-capitalists, therefore, hold the same values as minarchist libertarians, but take it to the logical conclusion: even a minimal State is too authoritarian. If government monopoly is bad for all other services, how can it suddenly be okay for the provision of defense? In short, an anarcho-capitalist is a radical libertarian. He rejects minarchism for anarchism.

You don't think people are able to defend their property and that they have no incentive or easy means too? You think people don't know stealing is bad? LOL.. Insurance companies won't have an incentive to defend their clients property from destruction or theft? There won't arise private security firms? The people who own the roads won't have an incentive to defend their property? Those who own apartment blocks, or a community have no incentive to make their areas safe? Even though crime in an area REMARKABLY lessens the value of those propertys... :rolleyes:

You really have no understanding of anarchy do you? Be honest... ;) Anarchists attack private property potentially more than they do the state. They believe the STATE is the vital PROTECTOR of private property, and private property is evil and immoral. Thus so is the state. :rolleyes: They arrive at the same conclusion, for the wrong reasons. They see capitalism as being a form of authoritarianism.. to anarchists - "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron... check out an anarchists perspective: here (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/libcap/refuteAC.html).

Recommendations for you:

The Anarchists
- Robert LeFevre (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/143.mp3) :o

The Anarchist Society vs. the Military State: The Insignificance of the Free Rider by Vedrun Vuk (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Vuk.mp3) :)


12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/12.mp3)

An Anarchist Legal Order by Roderick T. Long (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Long/Long-10.mp3) :D


To use similar hyperbole, I'd also argue that attemping to abolish the state all at once is also "clinically retarded," along with the idea that anarcho-capitalism would ever be the result of a sudden government collapse. After all, just consider the mentality of about 95% of people in America: Even if I were ready to accept the idea, they are obviously nowhere near ready for even strictly limited government, let alone anarcho-capitalism! Because of that, any kind of anarchism if attempted today would turn out very ugly. The only way you could ever possibly accomplish your stated goal of anarcho-capitalism is with a gradual approach, as mentioned above: You must educate people enough to have more and more libertarian views, as you chip away at the state and dismantle it one piece at a time...and of course, you must strip away each piece of the state in such a way that everything goes smoothly and there isn't a reactionary shift back towards statism.

Yes... and you think I've presented or hold different views on this? :confused: -> :rolleyes: i.e abolish state.


NEW BANNER: What would be the purpose of a libertarian party?

ROTHBARD: I think if there were a libertarian party – and I don't want to make it seem as if this is a realistic thing at this time – if there ever were a strong libertarian party it could do several things. Tactically, we could have a balance of power. Even better as an educational weapon. If we had ten guys in Congress, let's say, each of whom are constantly agitating for libertarian purposes – voting against the budget, etc., I think it would be very useful.

Also, we have a long-range problem which none of us has ever really grappled with to any extent. That is, how do we finally establish a libertarian society? Obviously ideas are a key thing. First off you have to persuade a lot of people to be anarchists – anarcho-capitalists. But then what? What is the next step? You certainly don't have to convince the majority of the public, because most of the public will follow anything that happens. You obviously have to have a large minority. How do we then implement this? This is the power problem. As I've expressed this in other places, the government is not going to resign. We are not going to have a situation where Nixon reads Human Action, Atlas Shrugged, or Man, Economy and State and says "By God, they're right. I'm quitting!" I'm not denying the philosophical possibility that this might happen, but strategically it's very low on the probability scale. As the Marxists put it, no ruling class has ever voluntarily surrendered its power. There has to be an effort to deal with the problem of how to get these guys off our backs. So, if you really have a dedicated group in Congress or the Senate, you can start voting measures down or whatever. But I don't think this is the only way. I think maybe there will be civil disobedience where the public will start not paying taxes or something like that. If you look at it, there are several possible alternatives in dismantling the state. There is violent revolution, there is non-violent civil disobedience and there is the political action method. I don't know which of these will be successful. It's really a tactical question which you can't really predict in advance, it seems to me that it would be foolhardy to give up any particular arm of this.

It's incumbent upon people to come up with some sort of strategic perspective to dismantle the state. For example, Bob LeFevre somehow works it out that it's almost impossible to get rid of the state – from his own point of view. He is against violent revolution – okay, now that is a very respectable position; he's also against voting; he's against political parties – it becomes very difficult to really see how one can get to the state at all with this kind of procedure. I don't see why we should give up something like political parties. It might be a route eventually to dismantling the state or helping to dismantle it.



If all government (federal and state) were ever demolished too quickly - in some kind of violent revolution of the mob, for instance - anarcho-capitalism would not just spontaneously result from the aftermath. There would be anarchy for a time, but it would be the violent sort of anarchy resulting from a leviathan state collapsing into a power vacuum. Some of the uneducated mob would take advantage of the confusion and disorder to loot and pillage, and the rest of the uneducated mob would scramble together some kind of iron-fisted government to bring back order. After all, how many times have you seen the fall of one government spontaneously turn into peaceful anarcho-capitalism?

Again, never presented anything to the contrary. You are talking about people who have no respect for property rights and employ VIOLENCE and coercion - you've just made the distinction between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists lol. Or do you contend that anarcho-capitalists don't respect the foundations of their ideology? And that they have no qualms breaking the principles of non aggression and property rights? :rolleyes:

Edit:
Somalia is doing good.. and this is from a people in Africa who traditionally have no respect for property rights at all... What would happen in the US with a profound tradition of entrepreneurship and enterprise?........... :cool:


In such a scenario, we would have no choice but to deliberately come together and form the most limited government we possibly could, while mustering up grudging support from the reluctant "centrist" masses. Otherwise, they would take charge and form another government with a Constitution much more explicitly collectivist than the current one. After we formed the most limited government we could, we would then have to resume our work of educating people, limiting the new government, and downsizing it until the "appropriate" size is reached. In your eyes, the appropriate size is "nonexistent," but you must still first pass through minarchism to get to any kind of stable and orderly anarchism, let alone anarcho-capitalism in particular.

Lol, so many assumptions. The government collapsed? Why? How? Those that were in power are kicked out, but others of a different persuasion get in?


If just the US government collapsed but state governments remained, that would be the optimal situation, since organized law enforcement could still keep order and quell the violent looting, pillaging, rioting, etc. of the shellshocked masses during the immediate aftermath. Certainly, it would be much easier to subsequently limit and scale down state governments than the federal government, assuming the federal government were already out of the way. In that case though, we're once again back to gradually limiting and downsizing a government.

Do you see where I'm going with this? No matter how you slice it, the only way you can ever successfully achieve anarcho-capitalism anyway is with a gradual approach, and that is inherently an excercise in simultaneously limiting and downsizing government. To explicitly restate the implications of this necessarily gradual approach, I will quote something I said to you a few weeks ago (that I never got a real response to) :

A gradual approach? Wow... so Fabian of you..

The real question is; Do you Hate the State? by Murray Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)... The difference being, I am a Radical and an abolitionist and you, are a conservative and gradualist...

"The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

It should be noted here that many of Milton’s most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money – are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.

His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.

And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement."


In other words, achieving anarcho-capitalism pretty much REQUIRES you to be wrong about your assumption that no checks and balances could ever restrain a state! If you actually want to achieve anarcho-capitalism, then you more than anyone should be interested in what Constitutional checks and balances might actually work well enough to keep government limited for a very long time.

Nope. This is what I have previously said:


The state is a weed.

You can stunt it's growth for a short period of time; but eventually it becomes immune to the poison (the Constitution)..

Once immune as we now so evidently see, the 'limiting' factor has no effect what so ever.

Instead of trying to find a new poison or actually continue to apply the same poison forever... Anarcho-Capitalists... take the pragmatic and pro-active approach...

Why don't we pull the weed up at the roots? Kill it.

Why would you want to reestablish a flawed concept / experiment? You don't care about the generations to come? Your childrens, children? The US.. we'll say lasted roughly what... a decade before Washington issued an executive order on Foreign Policy matters. (http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm2.cfm) It set the precursor. It is irrefutable - the state won't remain limited. Pure minds don't seek power. Collectivists gravitate to the power centers because they want to impose their will on others. If you were to establish another limited state; it would also inevitably - end up as tyranny if the hearts and minds of people abandon liberty. Which to the products of welfarism and public education and the 4th estate - THEY HAVE. Essentially, there WILL be a need to have a revolution down the track; after generations have become used to and accustomed to the FABIAN and gradualist approach / growth of the state. They'll have to fight for their rights again, all because you failed to learn from history. Why should you care though, you'll be long gone right?

Can I ask - what books have you actually read on the subject?

Strategy: Secession, Privatization, and the Prospects of Liberty by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/hoppe/10.mp3)

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah, but you might consider who was on which side back then on the religios issues too. Alexendar Hamilton mocked Ben Franklin for wanting to include prayer in the Constitution convention - and Ben Franklin's speech was one of the most stirring I've heard, and some of the anti-federalists were doubtful about the intention of the constitution on exactly those grounds, which is why we have the 1st amendment.

Nope I don't, because it's TOTALLY irrelevant. An illegal and unauthorized coup is simply that. :p

Put the lipstick on the pig however you want to. :rolleyes: It's still just a pig with lipstick.

[BeFranklin]

Trying to call me and my neighbors coming together to form a possee "the state", and that that ought to be contracted out to a private insurance company apart from me and my neighbors is ridicoulous.

Unless everyone is equally part of using "the force", the other entity becomes the state. Anarcho-Capitalism has a lot less to offer then our historical traditions, and also by the same token, no history of it working.

[BeFranklin]

Nope I don't, because it's TOTALLY irrelevant. An illegal and unauthorized coup is simply that. :p

Put the lipstick on the pig however you want to. :rolleyes: It's still just a pig with lipstick.

The pig may have been wearing lipstick, but if it was it was oinking we're anti-christian.

The reason the US Constitution doesn't make overt references to God may be, as some anti-federalists suggested, because they wanted to establish or control religion. Considering how things have been devolving to Hamilton's side, the anti-federalists may have been right.

Benjamin Franklin:


Mr. President:

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other -- our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own wont of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

Alexendar Hamilton's Reply to this stirring speech.

"It was no time to seek foreign aid". Sounds like something the devil would say.

You may be right about about the Constitution. But the side you'd be on would be the athiests at that time.

[Truth Warrior]

Trying to call me and my neighbors coming together to form a possee "the state", and that that ought to be contracted out to a private insurance company apart from me and my neighbors is ridicoulous.

Unless everyone is equally part of using "the force", the other entity becomes the state. Anarcho-Capitalism has a lot less to offer then our historical traditions, and also by the same token, no history of it working.

Please try to stay on track. :rolleyes:

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109)

[Conza88]

30. TOWARD A THEORY OF STRATEGY FOR LIBERTY (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirty.asp)
The ETHICS of LIBERTY by Murray Rothbard

"It might be thought that the libertarian, the person committed to the “natural system of liberty” (in Adam Smith’s phrase), almost by definition holds the goal of liberty as his highest political end. But this is often not true; for many libertarians, the desire for self-expression, or for bearing witness to the truth of the excellence of liberty, frequently takes precedence over the goal of the triumph of liberty in the real world. Yet surely, as will be seen further below, the victory of liberty will never come to pass unless the goal of victory in the real world takes precedence over more esthetic and passive considerations.

If liberty should be the highest political end, then what is the grounding for that goal? It should be clear from this work that, first and foremost, liberty is a moral principle, grounded in the nature of man. In particular, it is a principle of justice, of the abolition of aggressive violence in the affairs of men. Hence, to be grounded and pursued adequately, the libertarian goal must be sought in the spirit of an overriding devotion to justice. But to possess such devotion on what may well be a long and rocky road, the libertarian must be possessed of a passion for justice, an emotion derived from and channelled by his rational insight into what natural justice requires.3 Justice, not the weak reed of mere utility, must be the motivating force if liberty is to be attained.4

If liberty is to be the highest political end, then this implies that liberty is to be pursued by the most efficacious means, i.e., those means which will most speedily and thoroughly arrive at the goal. This means that the libertarian must be an “ abolitionist,” i.e., he must wish to achieve the goal of liberty as rapidly as possible. If he balks at abolitionism, then he is no longer holding liberty as the highest political end. The libertarian, then, should be an abolitionist who would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty. Following the classical liberal Leonard Read, who advocated immediate and total abolition of price-and-wage controls after World War II, we might refer to this as the “button-pushing” criterion. Thus, Read declared that “If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage-and-price controls instantaneously I would put my finger on it and push!” The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push a button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty—not something, by the way, that any utilitarian would ever be likely to do.5

Anti-libertarians, and anti-radicals generally, characteristically make the point that such abolitionism is “unrealistic”; by making such a charge they hopelessly confuse the desired goal with a strategic estimate of the probable path toward that goal. It is essential to make a clear-cut distinction between the ultimate goal itself, and the strategic estimate of how to reach that goal; in short, the goal must be formulated before questions of strategy or “realism” enter the scene. The fact that such a magic button does not and is not likely to exist has no relevance to the desirability of abolitionism itself. We might agree, for example, on the goal of liberty and the desirability of abolitionism in liberty’s behalf. But this does not mean that we believe that abolition will in fact be attainable in the near or far future.

The libertarian goals—including immediate abolition of invasions of liberty—are “realistic” in the sense that they could be achieved if enough people agreed on them, and that, if achieved, the resulting libertarian system would be viable. The goal of immediate liberty is not unrealistic or “Utopian” because—in contrast to such goals as the “elimination of poverty”—its achievement is entirely dependent on man’s will. If, for example, everyone suddenly and immediately agreed on the overriding desirability of liberty, then total liberty would be immediately achieved.6 The strategic estimate of how the path toward liberty is likely to be achieved is, of course, an entirely separate question.7

Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being “unrealistic” when, in the 1830s, he raised the standard of the goal of immediate emandpation of the slaves. His goal was the proper moral and libertarian one, and was unrelated to the “realism,” or probability of its achievement. Indeed, Garrison’s strategic realism was expressed by the fact that he did not expect the end of slavery to arrive immediately or at a single blow. As Garrison carefully distinguished: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.”8 Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

Gradualism in theory, in fact, totally undercuts the overriding goal of liberty itself; its import, therefore, is not simply strategic but an opposition to the end itself and hence impermissible as any part of a strategy toward liberty. The reason is that once immediate abolitionism is abandoned, then the goal is conceded to take second or third place to other, anti-libertarian considerations, for these considerations are now placed higher than liberty. Thus, suppose that the abolitionist of slavery had said: “I advocate an end to slavery—but only after five years’ time.” But this would imply that abolition in four or three years’ time, or a fortiori immediately, would be wrong, and that therefore it is better for slavery to be continued a while longer. But this would mean that considerations of justice have been abandoned, and that the goal itself is no longer highest on the abolitionist’s (or libertarian’s) political value-scale. In fact, it would mean that the libertarian advocated the prolongation of crime and injustice.

Hence, a strategy for liberty must not include any means which undercut or contradict the end itself—as gradualism-in-theory clearly does. Are we then saying that “the end justifies the means”? This is a common, but totally fallacious, charge often directed toward any group that advocates fundamental or radical social change. For what else but an end could possibly justify any means? The very concept of “means” implies that this action is merely an instrument toward arriving at an end. If someone is hungry, and eats a sandwich to alleviate his hunger, the act of eating a sandwich is merely a means to an end; its sole justification arises from its use as an end by the consumer. Why else eat the sandwich, or, further down the line, purchase it or its ingredients? Far from being a sinister doctrine, that the end justifies the means is a simple philosophic truth, implicit in the very relationship of “means” and “ends.

What then, do the critics of the “end justifies the means” truly mean when they say that “bad means” can or will lead to “bad ends”? What they are really saying is that the means in question will violate other ends which the critics deem to be more important or more valuable than the goal of the group being criticized. Thus, suppose that Communists hold that murder is justified if it leads to a dictatorship by the vanguard party of the proletariat. The critics of such murder (or of such advocacy of murder) are really asserting, not that the “ends do not justify the means,” but rather that murder violates a more valuable end (to say the least), namely, the end of “not committing murder,” or nonaggression against persons. And, of course, from the libertarian point of view, the critics would be correct.

Hence, the libertarian goal, the victory of liberty, justifies the speediest possible means towards reaching the goal, but those means cannot be such as to contradict, and thereby undercut, the goal itself. We have already seen that gradualism-in-theory is such a contradictory means. Another contradictory means would be to commit aggression (e.g., murder or theft) against persons or just property in order to reach the libertarian goal of nonaggression. But this too would be a self-defeating and impermissible means to pursue. For the employment of such aggression would directly violate the goal of nonaggression itself.

If, then, the libertarian must call for immediate abolition of the State as an organized engine of aggression, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory to the overriding end (and therefore impermissible), what further strategic stance should a libertarian take in a world in which States continue all too starkly to exist? Must the libertarian necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not, since realistically there would then be no hope of achieving the final goal. It is therefore incumbent upon the libertarian, eager to achieve his goal as rapidly as possible, to push the polity ever further in the direction of that goal. Clearly, such a course is difficult, for the danger always exists of losing sight of, or even undercutting, the ultimate goal of liberty. But such a course, given the state of the world in the past, present, and foreseeable future, is vital if the victory of liberty is ever to be achieved. The transitional demands, then, must be framed while (a) always holding up the ultimate goal of liberty as the desired end of the transitional process; and (b) never taking steps, or using means, which explicitly or implicitly contradict that goal.

Let us consider, for example, a transition demand set forth by various libertarians: namely, that the government budget be reduced by 10 percent each year for ten years, after which the government will have disappeared. Such a proposal might have heuristic or strategic value, provided that the proposers always make crystal clear that these are minimal demands, and that indeed there would be nothing wrong—in fact, it would be all to the good—to step up the pace to cutting the budget by 25 percent a year for four years, or, most desirably, by cutting it by 100 percent immediately. The danger arises in implying, directly or indirectly that any faster pace than 10 percent would be wrong or undesirable.

An even greater danger of a similar sort is posed by the idea of many libertarians of setting forth a comprehensive and planned program of transition to total liberty, e.g., that in Year 1law A should be repealed, law B modified, tax C be cut by 20 percent, etc.; in Year 2 law D be repealed, tax C cut by a further 10 percent, etc. The comprehensive plan is far more misleading than the simple budget cut, because it strongly implies that, for example, law D should not be repealed until the second year of this planned program. Hence, the trap of philosophic gradualism, of gradualism-in-theory, would be fallen into on a massive scale. The would-be libertarian planners would be virtually falling into a position, or seeming to, of opposing a faster pace toward liberty.

There is, indeed, another grave flaw in the idea of a comprehensive planned program toward liberty. For the very care and studied pace, the very all-embracing nature of the program, implies that the State is not really the enemy of mankind, that it is possible and desirable to use the State in engineering a planned and measured pace toward liberty. The insight that the State is the permanent enemy of mankind, on the other hand, leads to a very different strategic outlook: namely that libertarians push for and accept with alacrity any reduction of State power or State activity on any front; any such reduction at any time is a reduction in crime and aggression, and is a reduction of the parasitic malignity with which State power rules over and confiscates social power." Continues... (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirty.asp)

Care to respond Mini Me? :)

[Theocrat]

This really started with Ayn Rand and her "virtue of selfishiness". I've read all of Ayn Rand's books, *and* her objectivist newsletters, which most of the posters on here that even like Ayn Rand probably have not. Ayn Rand was a hypocrite. She decried hippies for doing drugs, and did speed. She talked about marriage and had affairs. She was a rabid anti-Christian. I use to defend her works from being similar to Nietzsche. But on reflection on her purpose and fruit, I've changed my mind.

Like you said, her philosphy can not work in the real world. It is however, ideal for sophistry. Its a logical system, but incomplete and fails to be able to reach objectives in the real world (notice the use of objective and real world). In fact, its probably the worst philosophy in the conservative movement today, it endlessly allows you to talk and sound like you are doing something, and not do anything practical. It sounds like the philosophy of the founders, but its a poor imitition. The young particually fall for this.

The root of the Ayn Rand's sophism is a false dichotomy in the golden rule. It is not enough to attack redistributing wealth (something all conservatives have believed), but *all* altruism is wrong. Giving someond a sandwhich on the street who is hungry is evil according to Ayn Rand. You could use the sandwhich or money more. We're not talking about being forced to do that. Ayn Rand says its wrong for you to do it even if its something you want to do on your own. All altruism you want to do is wrong. All "self sacrifice is wrong". Everything is either "selfishlessness" or "selfishness". And selfishness is a virtue :rolleyes:

Every wrong thing I've seen in the world has flown from lust of money and selfishness. This virtue is
not one that needs to be taught because everyone already has it, Good Lord!

The golden rule is neither selfless or selfishness. Love your neighbor as yourself does not say to love your neighbor *more* than yourself (selfless) or *less* then yourself (selfish). It is a balance.

Yet Ayn Rand was able to write her books on the subject, and attack >>voluntary carring for others<< as wrong, all based on deconstructing the golden rule into a false dichotomy.

Although Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand disciple, and wrote an essay in her book "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal", so one might wonder if Alan Greenspan was really the snake he appears in causing the economic bubble or was "just pulling the plug on the paper money system" - another "atlas shrugged", there is a deeper way to read that, with the attack not being on physical money, but "altruism" and "the golden rule". Pull the plug on people's motives, and you can really screw the world!

And to answer the first question, Alan Greenspan was a snake, and did help cause the current problem and *knew* it. For the same reason, Ayn Rand was also a snake, and is causing the current problems with her imitiation philosophy, and also *knew* it. Snakes nest together.

Possibly the only book of Ayn Rand's I still like is her Romantic Manifesto. But it isn't perfect, and I probably could write a better one. For similar reasons, I don't like CS Lewis much anymore.

You've given an interesting perspective, BeFranklin. I agree that "selfishness as a virtue" is another flaw from those who argue exclusively for individuality as the most important aspect of human identity. Deeply rooted in that faulty belief is the forgotten notion that men are inherently sinful, and thus, they need to be redeemed from that evil nature, first.

In any case, thanks for the response.

[heavenlyboy34]

You've given an interesting perspective, BeFranklin. I agree that "selfishness as a virtue" is another flaw from those who argue exclusively for individuality as the most important aspect of human identity. Deeply rooted in that faulty belief is the forgotten notion that men are inherently sinful, and thus, they need to be redeemed from that evil nature, first.

In any case, thanks for the response.

I agree that man is naturally flawed. I would say that enlightened study is sufficient to fix it, tho. (JMHO)

[heavenlyboy34]

You've given an interesting perspective, BeFranklin. I agree that "selfishness as a virtue" is another flaw from those who argue exclusively for individuality as the most important aspect of human identity. Deeply rooted in that faulty belief is the forgotten notion that men are inherently sinful, and thus, they need to be redeemed from that evil nature, first.

In any case, thanks for the response.

I agree that man is naturally flawed. I would say that enlightened study is sufficient to fix it, tho-plus extreme restraints that prevent man from gaining authority over other men. (JMHO)

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I agree that "selfishness as a virtue" is another flaw from those who argue exclusively for individuality as the most important aspect of human identity. Deeply rooted in that faulty belief is the forgotten notion that men are inherently sinful, and thus, they need to be redeemed from that evil nature, first.

Sorry, but individuality IS the most important aspect of human identity. Otherwise there would be no 'I', there would be just a 'we'. As for the second charge, **** Sapiens evolved on a hostile world where survival was the name of the game. That, more than anything else, is the reason all humans have violence of some type ready to burst forth. Its also why The Founding Fathers didn't mess with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[BeFranklin]

Sorry, but individuality IS the most important aspect of human identity. Otherwise there would be no 'I', there would be just a 'we'. As for the second charge, **** Sapiens evolved on a hostile world where survival was the name of the game. That, more than anything else, is the reason all humans have violence of some type ready to burst forth. Its also why The Founding Fathers didn't mess with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I may be an important word, but we is also important. As in "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union," or "We hold these truths to be self-evident,".

Ayn Rand wrote a whole book - Anthem, decrying the word we. While read alone it makes a pretty good read when compared to socialist collectivist societies like the Soviet Union, but when compared to the rest of her writings, it becomes somewhat telling when compared to what the founders wrote.

The founders definitely beleived in the concept of duty, and civic community. Rand's philosophy is a perversion of it, and sophistic in nature (and I'm using that in the real sense here, not as an insult). She may have single handedly poisoned the conservative movement if it doesn't move beyond her. Alan Greenspan in my opinon does truely represent this philosophy - hypocrisy and the use of sophistry for power. And its yet to be seen if Alan Greenspan has caused a world wide economic collapse *1.

Edit: And to get back on track, if I is the most important word for human identify, I doesn't reproduce, so the species dies. Among other things, Randian philosophy has problems dealing with families and children. And more to the point, Theocrat is right about the inherit sinfullness of man, making I and egoism not very relevant. I'm just trying to shake the tree to show you that this philosophy has problems, without pointing to God yet, but I am a Christian, and that is the ultimate problem with philsophy rooted in man's goodness. Man is by nature sinful since the garden of eden and the fall.


http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952
Capitalism the Unknown Ideal:
Ayn Rand (20 articles total), Nathaniel Branden (2), Alan Greenspan (3) and Robert Hessen (1).

[BeFranklin]

You've given an interesting perspective, BeFranklin. I agree that "selfishness as a virtue" is another flaw from those who argue exclusively for individuality as the most important aspect of human identity. Deeply rooted in that faulty belief is the forgotten notion that men are inherently sinful, and thus, they need to be redeemed from that evil nature, first.

In any case, thanks for the response.

Thanks Theocrat. And thanks for pointing out the ultimate problem in many of the competing wordly philosophies - that man isn't inherently sinful or that they need to be redeemed from it.

[Deborah K]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.

Are you implying that we are better off having decades of administrations that have systematically subverted the Constitution than we would have been if those same administrations had adhered to it?????????

[Theocrat]

Sorry, but individuality IS the most important aspect of human identity. Otherwise there would be no 'I', there would be just a 'we'. As for the second charge, **** Sapiens evolved on a hostile world where survival was the name of the game. That, more than anything else, is the reason all humans have violence of some type ready to burst forth. Its also why The Founding Fathers didn't mess with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

You either haven't read or haven't understood my previous posts, so let me reiterate what I've said. The importance of any human identity is both in his or her own unique individuality as well as his or her relationships to people in the world.

When God distributes rights, He gives them covenantally and conditionally, which means that He bestows His blessings not just on one person, but on a group of people who have an obligation to live in a particular manner before their God and amongst each other, or else they face the sanction of having those rights taken away from them.

Now, from a purely political perspective, I can understand the notion of individuality when it comes to preservation of life, promotion of liberty, and protection of property as a duty the civil government owes to each person under its jurisdiction. Legally, individuals are responsible to obey the law or face the consequences from their own actions (forget about what constitutes a just law, for now). Economically, individuals have the duty to make a living for themselves as much as they are willing and able to do, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor without total civil government intervention.

However, we should never forget that our nation is bonded by a common creed or set of beliefs. In that sense, I would say we are collectivists. I doubt that any member here on the forums just considers himself or herself as a citizen of planet Earth. No, we understand and recognize that we belong to a constitutional republic called "The United States of America" as active participants of the political system ("We the People," as BeFranklin so appropriately pointed out earlier in this thread). Even the name of our country "United States of America" is collectivist!

So once again, my point is that humans are individualists and collectivists, and that depends on their political, social/familial, religious, and legal contexts. Most importantly, we are creatures of a loving and sovereign God, all made in the same likeness (or model shapened) of His image. We have a common obligation and purpose to Him, first, and then to our neighbors, and finally, to ourselves. There is not just "I" in our existence; there is "we," too. We just need wisdom to guide us when to make distinctions between the two.

[Deborah K]

So let me just say this: I believe that humans are both individualists and collectivists, depending on the context of the human institutions they are part of. For me, it's not an "either/or" issue; it's "both/and." That was the point of my first post.


Yes, but do you agree that the less collectivism we have to deal with in society, the less divisive we are?

[BeFranklin]

Yes, but do you agree that the less collectivism we have to deal with in society, the less divisive we are?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that just reading your post even though its not addressed to me. We've been more divisive the more selfish and less family oriented we've become. You'll have to clarify what you mean before I could say anything more.

[Deborah K]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. We've been more divisive the more selfish and less family oriented we've become. You'll have to clarify what you mean before I can say anything more.

I'm referring to groups like La Raza, National Organization for Women, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, International Lesbian and Gay Association, Labor Unions, Republicans, Democrats, on and on and on......

[Theocrat]

Yes, but do you agree that the less collectivism we have to deal with in society, the less divisive we are?

It just depends on the context in which we're speaking about. Let me explain to you what I'm talking about. In families, I don't think less collectivism is good because when individuality becomes more important than a dad's relationship to his daughter's well-being (for example), it can lead to all sorts of emotional and financial problems for that daughter (rebellion, independence from her parents' rules, etc.). In short, less collectivism actually causes more divisiveness in a family.

On the other hand, in politics & economy issues, collectivism is a problem when the government thinks it can regulate the markets in an efficient way by imposing higher taxes to pay for services and programs that "everyone" will benefit from. Collectivism also is bad in this context when it comes to the government's control of land and resources to benefit the "general welfare" of its constituents. Yes, I think it does become more divisive in this case because it creates a larger gap in societal classes and even in ideological/religious/philosophical groups, fighting over who gets what and why they should get it.

So, in some situations, more collectivism causes divisiveness, and in other institutions, less collectivism can cause divisiveness, too.

[Deborah K]

It just depends on the context in which we're speaking about. Let me explain to you what I'm talking about. In families, I don't think less collectivism is good because when individuality becomes more important than a dad's relationship to his daughter's well-being (for example), it can lead to all sorts of emotional and financial problems for that daughter (rebellion, independence from her parents' rules, etc.). In short, less collectivism actually causes more divisiveness in a family.

On the other hand, in politics & economy issues, collectivism is a problem when the government thinks it can regulate the markets in an efficient way by imposing higher taxes to pay for services and programs that "everyone" will benefit from. Collectivism also is bad in this context when it comes to the government's control of land and resources to benefit the "general welfare" of its constituents. Yes, I think it does become more divisive in this case because it creates a larger gap in societal classes and even in ideological/religious/philosophical groups, fighting over who gets what and why they should get it.

So, in some situations, more collectivism causes divisiveness, and in other institutions, less collectivism can cause divisiveness, too.

I've never heard of collectivism being used to describe families and such.

Webster: collectivism: : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution

[Truth Warrior]

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob LeFevre

[Theocrat]

I've never heard of collectivism being used to describe families and such.

Webster: collectivism: : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution

Yes, I understand that, but I've applied collectivism to the institution of the family, which is a government of its own. As a governing body, the family does seek to take care of the economic and political needs of its members. There is a head (the father) and followers (the mother [acting as a co-governor] and children...and pets, too), so I think the term can be used broadly in that system of government, too.

[Theocrat]

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob LeFevre

Says who?

[Truth Warrior]

Says who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre)

http://www.mises.org/story/1970 (http://www.mises.org/story/1970)

[heavenlyboy34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre)

http://www.mises.org/story/1970 (http://www.mises.org/story/1970)

Neat. :) I don't like this tho-"Although often forgotten by libertarians today, LeFevre "preached a thoroughgoing pacifism that held it to be an impermissible violation of the property rights of an assailant to destroy the ropes he'd tied you up with (just so long as they were his ropes) and just as bad to take a necklace back from a blackguard who stole it from you as it was for the blackguard to take it from you in the first place.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre#cite_note-rfc3-3)"

If someone violated your personal property rights (of your body) by using their property (the rope), wouldn't you be within your rights to remove the assailant's property from your property? :confused: Sounds sensible to me.

[Theocrat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre)

http://www.mises.org/story/1970 (http://www.mises.org/story/1970)

Who cares what Robert LeFevre has to say on the subject of whether we should have government or not? He's not the final authority on the subject, for he is not God. He's just another man telling us what we should know about other men, and that without God's Spirit. You might as well be quoting Confucius or Buddha because they are just as wrong and false in their assumptions about the nature of mankind as LeFevre is.

Who cares what I have to say on the subject (anticipating your predictable response to my post)? I don't claim to speak on my own authority, but I speak on the authority of the ommipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Creator of the universe, Who does have the final verdict both in matters of what governments men are accountable to as well as judgment of their obedience to such governments in this life and the next.

[Truth Warrior]

Neat. :) I don't like this tho-"Although often forgotten by libertarians today, LeFevre "preached a thoroughgoing pacifism that held it to be an impermissible violation of the property rights of an assailant to destroy the ropes he'd tied you up with (just so long as they were his ropes) and just as bad to take a necklace back from a blackguard who stole it from you as it was for the blackguard to take it from you in the first place.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre#cite_note-rfc3-3)"

If someone violated your personal property rights (of your body) by using their property (the rope), wouldn't you be within your rights to remove the assailant's property from your property? :confused: Sounds sensible to me. Keep reading and learning, grasshoppa. ;) :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Who cares what Robert LeFevre has to say on the subject of whether we should have government or not? He's not the final authority on the subject, for he is not God. He's just another man telling us what we should know about other men, and that without God's Spirit. You might as well be quoting Confucius or Buddha because they are just as wrong and false in their assumptions about the nature of mankind as LeFevre is.

Who cares what I have to say on the subject (anticipating your predictable response to my post)? I don't claim to speak on my own authority, but I speak on the authority of the ommipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Creator of the universe, Who does have the final verdict both in matters of what governments men are accountable to as well as judgment of their obedience to such governments in this life and the next.

This begs the question-why does a deity with those qualities need you to work for it? Also, how can I verify your credentials? :confused:

[heavenlyboy34]

Keep reading and learning, grasshoppa. ;) :D

Yes, Sensei. :) ~bows~

[Theocrat]

This begs the question-why does a deity with those qualities need you to work for it? Also, how can I verify your credentials? :confused:

I never said that God needed me for anything. He most certainly does not. However, because God created man to know Him and have fellowship with Him in this universe and because God has given man dominion over His creation, we can know with certainty what God's will is, at least as it pertains to various types of government. That knowledge is based on the Scriptures, and the understanding thereof from God's Holy Spirit in regenerating our souls from living in sin towards loving Him.

Ultimately, if you want to "verify my credentials," you must change your worldview first.

[Xenophage]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.

Mmmm... yes, but no. Many collectivist philosophers have come to the conclusion that, in fact, individualism promotes the greatest collective good in a society! Sounds like a paradox, doesn't it? But it seems to be true, if you examine history.

The fact is, you can be a staunch defender of individual liberty and free markets while coming at the issue from the angle: the greatest good for the greatest number. J.S. Mill provided this argument quite convincingly in "On Liberty."

Now, if you're like me, you'll think that's a weak position to take, philosophically. I'm an individualist from the start. Even so, I recognize the argument and I'm able to use it in defense of my politics when its suitable, and I know that winning over a collectivist is a lot more likely than winning over an individualist... because there are more collectivists, and individualists already agree with me!

Its more difficult to change someone's ethical philosophy than it is to change their political philosophy.

[Truth Warrior]

Who cares what Robert LeFevre has to say on the subject of whether we should have government or not? He's not the final authority on the subject, for he is not God. He's just another man telling us what we should know about other men, and that without God's Spirit. You might as well be quoting Confucius or Buddha because they are just as wrong and false in their assumptions about the nature of mankind as LeFevre is.

Who cares what I have to say on the subject (anticipating your predictable response to my post)? I don't claim to speak on my own authority, but I speak on the authority of the ommipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Creator of the universe, Who does have the final verdict both in matters of what governments men are accountable to as well as judgment of their obedience to such governments in this life and the next.
My sentiments about Saul the ROMAN "Saint" ( AHEM ) Paul precisely. ;)

And Romans 13, v. 1-7 merely jumps and bites you on the butt yet once again. :(

The Triumph of Imperial Christianity (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance155.html)
Laurence Vance on the conservatives' war religion.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1854348&postcount=48 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1854348&postcount=48)

The Libertarian From Nazareth? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/butler-b1.html)

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

[heavenlyboy34]

I never said that God needed me for anything. He most certainly does not. However, because God created man to know Him and have fellowship with Him in this universe and because God has given man dominion over His creation, we can know with certainty what God's will is, at least as it pertains to various types of government. That knowledge is based on the Scriptures, and the understanding thereof from God's Holy Spirit in regenerating our souls from living in sin towards loving Him.

Ultimately, if you want to "verify my credentials," you must change your worldview first.

1) God has given man dominion over His creation, 2) we can know with certainty what God's will is, at least as it pertains to various types of government.

These are mutually exclusive. If man has dominion over "God's creation", then God no longer has a say over the world's governments. (God has "gifted" the earth to man to do with as he pleases) If God does have a say in the world's governments, man no longer has dominion. (God is an "Indian Giver")

[Conza88]

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It (http://mises.org/story/2066)

Read it... ;) And remember, you shouldn't believe the media hype.. OR do you think they are responsible enough to accurately report a people, who are remarkably better off without a government? :confused: -> :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It (http://mises.org/story/2066)

Read it... ;) And remember, you shouldn't believe the media hype.. OR do you think they are responsible enough to accurately report a people, who are remarkably better off without a government? :confused: -> :rolleyes:

Great example of true stateless society. Thanks, Conza!! :) (Aussies rock! ;))

[BeFranklin]

1) God has given man dominion over His creation, 2) we can know with certainty what God's will is, at least as it pertains to various types of government.

These are mutually exclusive. If man has dominion over "God's creation", then God no longer has a say over the world's governments. (God has "gifted" the earth to man to do with as he pleases) If God does have a say in the world's governments, man no longer has dominion. (God is an "Indian Giver")

Not a gift, as it turns out we are stewards from Genesis, but from the time the Son of God came down to us and became King of Kings, he has made us Kings and Priests.

This plays an important part of the Revolutionary war. One of the fameous slogans of the Revolutionary war was no King but King Jesus. It was used during the shot that was heard around the world for instance, which started the revolutionary war and was fought on a church lawn.

It plays later into the idea of every American is a Sovereign, the declararation of Independence, and the Jefferson quote on the King of Kings I posted earlier.

Why does it play into the idea of Sovereign citizenship as expressed in early American history and one of the first important supreme court cases?

Because equality is a) something not really naturally observed in a physical sense. And people may be free, but most of them don't seem kingly - and more important b) equality doesn't mean *Sovereign*. Sovereign is the best thing you can have. Equality as mere peasants, common citizens, and so on would be a lot more expected, and in fact is how citizens of today are treated. Equal, but not very sovereign. Also, its more common in how the world operates to to have ranks, and we are seeing that today.. some are more equal then others.

But to have equal *Sovereigns* is hard unless you have a King of Kings. This is one of the ideas behind the early American revolution, and it replaces the divine rights of kings and subjects of the pope/dark ages with a different doctrine.

A King of Kings concept works well here, but it was in the bible that way 2,000 years before the American revolutionaries started to use it.

[Theocrat]

Not a gift, as it turns out we are stewards from Genesis, but from the time the Son of God came down to us and became King of Kings, he has made us Kings and Priests.

This plays an important part of the Revolutionary war. One of the fameous slogans of the Revolutionary war was no King but King Jesus. It was used during the shot that was heard around the world for instance, which started the revolutionary war and was fought on a church lawn.

It plays later into the idea of every American is a Sovereign, the declararation of Independence, and the Jefferson quote on the King of Kings I posted earlier.

Why does it play into the idea of Sovereign citizenship as expressed in early American history and one of the first important supreme court cases?

Because equality is a) something not really naturally observed in a physical sense. And people may be free, but most of them don't seem kingly - and more important b) equality doesn't mean *Sovereign*. Sovereign is the best thing you can have. Equality as mere peasants, common citizens, and so on would be a lot more expected, and in fact is how citizens of today are treated. Equal, but not very sovereign. Also, its more common in how the world operates to to have ranks, and we are seeing that today.. some are more equal then others.

But to have equal *Sovereigns* is hard unless you have a King of Kings. This is one of the ideas behind the early American revolution, and it replaces the divine rights of kings and subjects of the pope/dark ages with a different doctrine.

A King of Kings concept works well here, but it was in the bible that way 2,000 years before the American revolutionaries started to use it.(Emphasis mine)

Here is some evidence from the Library of Congress which substantiates your claims, BeFranklin:


Religion as Cause of the Revolution

Joseph Galloway (1731-1803), a former speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly and close friend of Benjamin Franklin, opposed the Revolution and fled to England in 1778. Like many Tories he believed, as he asserted in this pamphlet, that the Revolution was, to a considerable extent, a religious quarrel, caused by Presbyterians and Congregationalists whose "principles of religion and polity [were] equally averse to those of the established Church and Government."

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006771.jpghttp://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006772.jpg

Resistance to Tyranny as a Christian Duty

Jonathan Mayhew delivered this sermon--one of the most influential in American history--on the anniversary of the execution of Charles I. In it, he explored the idea that Christians were obliged to suffer under an oppressive ruler, as some Anglicans argued. Mayhew asserted that resistance to a tyrant was a "glorious" Christian duty. In offering moral sanction for political and military resistance, Mayhew anticipated the position that most ministers took during the conflict with Britain.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006522.jpg

Revolution Justified by God

Many Revolutionary War clergy argued that the war against Britain was approved by God. In this sermon Abraham Keteltas celebrated the American effort as "the cause of truth, against error and falsehood . . .the cause of pure and undefiled religion, against bigotry, superstition, and human invention . . .in short, it is the cause of heaven against hell--of the kind Parent of the Universe against the prince of darkness, and the destroyer of the human race."

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006582.jpg

[Josh_LA]

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It (http://mises.org/story/2066)

Read it... ;) And remember, you shouldn't believe the media hype.. OR do you think they are responsible enough to accurately report a people, who are remarkably better off without a government? :confused: -> :rolleyes:

call them and tell them oppressor is coming! (or is there a pirate waiting for me halfway?)

[heavenlyboy34]

Ok that proves it. What did that prove :D

I was just joking. Hence, the :D.

[foofighter20x]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.

Since you are quoting the Preamble, I guess it would be kind of me to point out that the U.S. Supreme Court has held time and again that the preamble is merely a statement of pious hope and has no binding legal weight whatsoever.

:rolleyes:

[Matisa]

I think you took what I said wayyyyyyy out of context!

the US Constitution was founded on biblical principals, such as , thou shalt not kill. and guess what? its illegal to kill. Right!

what else is illegal ,,

it was founded on Christian principals...

you will not see bible verses in the constitution, but you will see
the foundation of what the bible teaches.

That is what I mean..

[Conza88]

I think you took what I said wayyyyyyy out of context!

the US Constitution was founded on biblical principals, such as , thou shalt not kill. and guess what? its illegal to kill. Right!

what else is illegal ,,

it was founded on Christian principals...

you will not see bible verses in the constitution, but you will see
the foundation of what the bible teaches.

That is what I mean..

The U.S Constitution was founded on Natural Law.

The bible has some elements that line up with this.. and most parts that don't. :)

[Peace&Freedom]

The U.S Constitution was founded on Natural Law.

The bible has some elements that line up with this.. and most parts that don't. :)

The Declaration and Constitution was founded on the concept of "the law of nature" (which was later construed as 'natural law') from the 12th century English common law tradition---and that tradition is based on biblical principles. Even the tripartite makeup of the federal entity was drawn from the Trinity. To try to white out the biblical influences and origins of the founders' thinking is a fruitless task.

[Mini-Me]

OMFG, I am going to KILL MY COMPUTER. I just typed out a complete response to this post, went searching through the forum to find another post to link to, and...oh, Firefox decided to crash. Fucking great! By the way, this is a regular occurrence. :mad: Because of that, I'm going to take my frustrations out on Conza. BTW, I removed your smilies so I could post this.


Nope, fail. Anarcho-capitalism is a subset of Libertarianism. Non Aggression axiom + respect for property rights.. Sorry mate, that ain't the same as the other types of anarchism.
"Nope, fail," for lack of reading comprehension. I know what anarcho-capitalism is. :rolleyes: It's a subset of anarchism, and it differs philosophically from other ideas of anarchism, precisely because of anarcho-capitalist respect for private property and non-aggression. However, by definition, all forms of anarchism including anarcho-capitalism inherently share the same governmental structure: The absence of the state. While they're philosophically different, any and every one of them could result from the absence or abolition of the state, depending on the starting conditions...because in practice, they're each different potential results of the same exact structure of statelessness. Because of that, abolition of the state is necessary but not sufficient for anarcho-capitalism to result from generic anarchy. In order for anarcho-capitalism to come about, the state must not be abolished "by any means necessary" - it must be specifically dissolved in a pro-liberty atmosphere. (Of course, I don't advocate absolute anarcho-capitalism anyway, but that's beside the point.) That is the point I was trying to make, and it should have been completely obvious by the fact that I specifically mentioned that you are correct about the philosophical differences between different subsets of anarchism, but that the various organic expressions of anarchy all presume the same governmental structure (nonexistence).



You don't think people are able to defend their property and that they have no incentive or easy means too? You think people don't know stealing is bad? LOL.. Insurance companies won't have an incentive to defend their clients property from destruction or theft? There won't arise private security firms? The people who own the roads won't have an incentive to defend their property? Those who own apartment blocks, or a community have no incentive to make their areas safe? Even though crime in an area REMARKABLY lessens the value of those propertys...

You really have no understanding of anarchy do you? Be honest... Anarchists attack private property potentially more than they do the state. They believe the STATE is the vital PROTECTOR of private property, and private property is evil and immoral. Thus so is the state. They arrive at the same conclusion, for the wrong reasons. They see capitalism as being a form of authoritarianism.. to anarchists - "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron... check out an anarchists perspective: here (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/libcap/refuteAC.html).

Recommendations for you:

The Anarchists
- Robert LeFevre (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/143.mp3)

The Anarchist Society vs. the Military State: The Insignificance of the Free Rider by Vedrun Vuk (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Vuk.mp3) :)


12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/12.mp3)

An Anarchist Legal Order by Roderick T. Long (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Long/Long-10.mp3) :D
:confused: <----- You
The point -----> .

Just because you and the anarcho-communists don't want to be associated with each other or given the same label does not mean you are not still all anarchists. :rolleyes: Your pathological insistence that you are not an anarchist is simply ridiculous, and so is their own insistence that you're not an anarchist, because anarcho-capitalism is inherently and by definition a subset of anarchism (just as it is a subset of libertarianism). No matter how much closer your beliefs are to those of minarchist libertarians than those of anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalism is still an anarchist philosophy, and an anarcho-capitalist society is one expression of an anarchist society. Of course the anarcho-communists don't consider you a "true" anarchist, but that's kind of ironic anyway, considering that if anything, anarcho-capitalists are probably the only true anarchists around. After all, voluntary socialism exists within the framework of free market capitalism in the form of cooperatives, insurance companies, etc. and voluntary communism exists within the framework of free market capitalism in the form of families/communities. By explicitly rejecting the free market, the anarcho-communists and anarcho-socialists and their other collectivist ilk must necessarily be advocating a more coercive type of economic planning or redistribution of wealth...which is inherently authoritarian and requires an institution that is essentially the government in all but name (regardless of how local or universal the collective's "authority" is). Of course, you already know that, but I like irony enough to write about it. In the sense that "monarchy" means "one ruler," "anarchy" means "no rulers." In the unhyphenated sense of the word, all anarchists share in common their goal to abolish the state, regardless of their actual reasons for desiring it...and anarcho-capitalists are included in that category, no matter how much anarchists of every persuasion will gripe about their association. If the anarcho-communists wanted the label of anarchism to refer to a specific political ideology that inherently implied more than a simple opposition to the state, then perhaps they should have picked a better word. Of course, the anarcho-communists probably aren't really anarchists at all in the etymologically correct sense of the word, since they seem to desire the establishment of a new state at the end of the first week...but in any case, nothing changes the fact that you in particular are indeed an anarchist in that very sense.

By the way, I wasn't arguing against anarcho-capitalism anyway. I already know that insurance companies will provide blah, blah, blah services in the absence of government, provided government is abolished in such a way that is conducive to liberty. Heck, I think it might even work given the correct starting conditions, though I don't have the same religious faith you have that it absolutely will work and nothing else can possibly work. I do find it a little strange that you somehow found the above passage from my previous post to be some kind of opportunity for educating me about what insurance companies do under anarcho-capitalism...it kind of came from left field. Heck, I've linked other people to Chapter 12 of For a New Liberty myself when I thought they were totally misunderstanding anarcho-capitalists.



Yes... and you think I've presented or hold different views on this? confused -> rolleyes i.e abolish state.
Actually, you DO present different views on this below, where you mention your rejection of a gradual approach for a no-holds-barred, "I'd hit the magic button and erase absolutely all government overnight if I could" approach.



Again, never presented anything to the contrary. You are talking about people who have no respect for property rights and employ VIOLENCE and coercion - you've just made the distinction between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists lol. Or do you contend that anarcho-capitalists don't respect the foundations of their ideology? And that they have no qualms breaking the principles of non aggression and property rights?
Edit:
Somalia is doing good.. and this is from a people in Africa who traditionally have no respect for property rights at all... What would happen in the US with a profound tradition of entrepreneurship and enterprise?...........

Somalia is doing alright, but they are not a stateless society. They may not have a strong national government (and that's a good thing), but they still have local authorities to keep the peace. Does such a situation create good prospects for future anarcho-capitalism as insurance companies start gradually taking over the responsibilities of the local authorities? Sure. However, they wouldn't want the police to all be abducted by little green men and disintegrated overnight, leaving a sudden vacuum. Obviously that's not going to happen, and they're doing alright, but as I said before, I'm not arguing against localities seceding, and I'm not even necessarily arguing against anarcho-capitalism in general right now (although it's not my preference). I'm just arguing against the idea that "any way of abolishing government is a good way." More on this in a moment...



Lol, so many assumptions. The government collapsed? Why? How? Those that were in power are kicked out, but others of a different persuasion get in?
I wasn't making "assumptions." I broke things down case-by-case to illustrate why, no matter what, we are necessarily going to be engaged in a practical exercise about how to restrain and downsize the state via repeals and new Constitutional checks and balances (whether "the state" means the federal government, state governments, or local governments). Cases:
We can downsize or abolish all government gradually and in an orderly fashion. This includes political action, civil disobedience to spark political action, pushing through repeals at federal or state levels, pushing through Constitutional checks and balances at federal or state levels, pushing for the eventual secession of one jurisdiction from a larger jurisdiction, etc. Alternatively...
"If all government (federal and state) were ever demolished too quickly - in some kind of violent revolution of the mob, for instance -" (emphasis added to answer your question)... chaos would ensue. Odds are, the violent mob would be collectivists anyway, trying to set up a new collectivist government. Without any kind of law and order, all the "ordinary" sheeple would scramble together an iron-fisted government to crack down on the looters, pillagers, etc. In any case, the push for a new authoritarian and collectivist government would be too strong for the anarchy to ever last and spontaneously transform into anarcho-capitalism. The point here is that even if you are to commit to anarcho-capitalism, there are still bad ways to abolish the government, and if all government were abolished too quickly in a prevailing anti-liberty atmosphere, you'd have only two choices: Let the mob create their hellhole collectivist government, or try to take leadership positions and put as many checks and balances and pro-liberty measures into the new Constitution as possible (to create the best new starting point possible). Either way, such a sudden absence of government would not last for long, and after the dust settles, we're back to restraining and downsizing the new government.
"If just the US government collapsed but state governments remained" ... this would be a much more interesting situation, since local authorities could still keep law and order in the meantime. This goes for situations in which the raging mobs storm the White House and the French Revolution comes to America, and it goes similarly for secession as well. It applies to pretty much any scenario that would free some or all states from the federal government but leave state governments (or perhaps just local governments) standing intact. In any such case, we would then be performing an exercise in gradually downsizing and restraining state/local government, which is much more manageable, but still a matter of creating Constitutional checks and balances to prevent the continual progress from being undermined.
As you see, that was a case-by-case account...yet you just picked the second scenario and decided that I was making "assumptions" by addressing it. Frankly, I think you have some serious misconceptions about what the word "assumption" even means.



A gradual approach? Wow... so Fabian of you..
My gradual approach makes me about as Fabian as your radical approach makes you a Maoist. :rolleyes:



The real question is; Do you Hate the State? by Murray Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)... The difference being, I am a Radical and an abolitionist and you, are a conservative and gradualist...

"The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

It should be noted here that many of Milton’s most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money – are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.

His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.

And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

I'm much more radical than a gradualist who would cut the income tax by 2% while foregoing a viable opportunity for abolishing it outright. Really, when I say I favor a gradual approach, you should keep in mind that I'm mainly saying that in contrast to those who advocate storming the Bastille. There are a lot of shades of "gradualism." To elaborate:
I'm against violent revolution for many obvious reasons, but one of them is that such an environment would not only put anarcho-capitalism out of the question, but it would also make it extremely difficult to even achieve a new government favorable to minarchist views. When I think of people "abolishing" government by any means necessary, as soon as possible, something resembling this image comes to mind (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Heads_on_pikes.jpg).
I'm also against taking the wrong opportunities first and repealing certain legislation in the "wrong order." Very often, government creates one horrible regulation and then creates another one to smooth out some of the worst "side effects" of their original blunder, rather than repealing it outright. The new legislation is also bad, but without it, the first law might be intolerable. For instance, consider the example of local cable and telephone monopolies: If certain regulations restraining their practices were removed before their government-granted monopoly status were erased, the usage terms and prices of Internet access would become onerous, without any checks from either competition or government.
In line with the previous bullet-point, it's important to remember that if we were to make any severe misstep by repealing legislation in the wrong order, public backlash could create a reactionary shift towards statism. The same also applies to any scenario in which we were to miraculously push through some massive reduction in the more basic governmental responsibilities without any warning, before the masses are educated enough to be comfortable with it. This is why I oppose using the hypothetical "magic button to erase ALL government," but I'm perfectly fine with secession of states from the union.
Although I advocate rapid and tremendous cuts in spending, the size and scope of government, etc., there are a few areas that I believe we must be especially cautious about moving too quickly on: One is public schools. After that, if we are to ever move from minarchism to anarchism, we must be very careful about the manner and speed in which we shifted the government's responsibilities to the private sector in terms of roads, courts, and defense. If nothing else, insurance-based private defense companies require planning and time on the part of entrepreneurs to set up, and if we ever dissolved such "night watchman" sectors of the government too quickly, the resulting void could get very ugly.

Really, I'm only gradual to the extent that I want the changes we make to stick. Similarly, I only accept compromise in the right direction. Within those confines, I'm as radical as I think I can afford to be.



Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement."

If that's the case, we still shouldn't be arguing about courts. Instead, anarcho-capitalists should be presenting their concerns about the minarchists' "excessive" gradualism and lack of sufficient radicalism, pointing out specific areas in which we could make faster progress. Arguing about courts does nothing to solve Rothbard's actual beef with the minarchists.



Nope. This is what I have previously said:



Why would you want to reestablish a flawed concept / experiment? You don't care about the generations to come? Your childrens, children? The US.. we'll say lasted roughly what... a decade before Washington issued an executive order on Foreign Policy matters. (http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm2.cfm) It set the precursor. It is irrefutable - the state won't remain limited.
Now, THIS - the bolded part, emphasis added myself - is what you call an assumption. It is an unfounded and unimaginative assumption at that. Your basic argument is this: The Constitution failed to restrain the state, and states are historically known to expand their power. Despite the fact that there have been very few earnest historical attempts to create a Constitutionally limited state, the failure of the Constitution necessarily demands the failure of any and all subsequent attempts. Do you not see the logical fallacy here? To give an analogy, it's as if you're saying:
"A structural engineering fault in this parking garage made it collapse into itself. After all, heavy stone always falls to the ground when given the chance. Therefore, every parking garage will have similar engineering faults and will not stand the test of time."

If we were to implement all of the checks and balances I suggest, I challenge you to find some way in which the government could escape its restraints. You never really properly replied to this post, giving one of the most dismissive bullshit posts I've ever seen in post 31:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1829941&postcount=29
Most of the post is irrelevant to this discussion, but I'll repost the relevant portion right after this post.



Pure minds don't seek power. Collectivists gravitate to the power centers because they want to impose their will on others. If you were to establish another limited state; it would also inevitably - end up as tyranny if the hearts and minds of people abandon liberty. Which to the products of welfarism and public education and the 4th estate - THEY HAVE. Essentially, there WILL be a need to have a revolution down the track; after generations have become used to and accustomed to the FABIAN and gradualist approach / growth of the state. They'll have to fight for their rights again, all because you failed to learn from history. Why should you care though, you'll be long gone right?
You know, your attitude sometimes reminds me a lot of socialize_me and some other vehement anti-anarcho-capitalists. Whereas they continually make unimaginative assumptions about how anarcho-capitalism cannot possibly work and a state is the only option, you continually make unimaginative assumptions about how Constitutional limitations cannot possibly work and anarcho-capitalism is the only option. Both stem from the same know-it-all attitude, and if I were feeling particularly like an asshole today, I would respond to your assumption with one of theirs. In any case, I do believe that there are Constitutional limitations that would probably work indefinitely, and I've thought of some candidates. Please, try to find some "security vulnerabilities" with them (taken together), and I'll see about patching them if need be. However, don't just dismiss them without due consideration and the assumption that you already know it all: I'm certainly not dismissing anarcho-capitalism without consideration, after all.

In any case, my position certainly does not stem from an indifference toward future generations! On the contrary, I believe that a Constitutional republic (or many), if "done right," is probably more perpetually pro-liberty and stable than anarcho-capitalism might be. I could be wrong, but in any case...how quickly do you really think you could ever achieve anarcho-capitalism anyway, Conza? Honestly, I don't think this is a matter of one generation (us) spending a few years fixing our mess, abolishing the government in favor of anarcho-capitalism, and then living happily ever after. We may very well spend the rest of our lives promoting liberty and never achieving it (whether in the sense of minarchism or anarcho-capitalism), and the future generations you're speaking of might still have to do the same. I'd love to create a world in which our children, grandchildren, etc. perpetually live in peace and never have to spare a thought about those who might take away their liberty, but I don't think we can magically create that kind of world over the next decade alone.



Can I ask - what books have you actually read on the subject?

Strategy: Secession, Privatization, and the Prospects of Liberty by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/hoppe/10.mp3)

Books on anarcho-capitalism? I have not read any from cover to cover, but I've dabbled. I've read the most "radical" portions of For a New Liberty and refer to them occasionally, I've skimmed through the rest, I've read articles on Lew Rockwell's site, I've read a bit of Healing Our World (not necessarily anarcho-capitalist, but close), etc. Nick Coons is also a very good representative of strict adherents to the non-aggression axiom. I am certainly no authority on anarcho-capitalism, the proposed methods to achieve it, the hypothetical arguments about how it might work, or the comprehensive counter-arguments against common objections...but I certainly know enough to debate it on an Internet forum. That said, I rarely actually debate anarcho-capitalism itself. Half of our arguments are about terminology half the time anyway, like when you steadfastly refuse to accept the completely valid label of anarchist, which applies equally to Murray Rothbard as it does to Noam Chomsky. :rolleyes:

More importantly though, I'm not even debating anarcho-capitalism right now anyway! I'm RARELY EVER on the attack about anarcho-capitalism, and when I am, I merely raise concerns, rather than arrogantly proclaim that it cannot possibly work. Of course, you apparently consider even the most innocuous and gentle concerns about anarcho-capitalism to be a grave mistake only a noob with no grasp of the philosophy whatsoever could possibly make. :rolleyes: In contrast, you're constantly making blunt and aggressive attacks on anyone hinting their preference for a Constitutional republic, constantly forcing them to defend the mere idea that any Constitutional republic might work...but whenever I mention specific checks that probably would work, you either totally ignore them or just attack them blindly with a generic comment about how no Constitutional check or limit could ever work, because the current Constitution was a failure, the worst rise to the top, and we should "learn from history." Your repetitive and annoyingly vocal contempt for minarchism in multiple posts in almost every single thread you post in wouldn't be so bad if you didn't refuse to consider or seriously address viable minarchist ideas...but since that is the case, your complete and almost religious intolerance for minarchist thought goes well above and beyond the occasional intolerance that militant old school conservatives display towards anarcho-capitalists. It's as if every other poster on this board is a "fail" because they're not marching in lock-step with Murray Rothbard. Please, grow some respect for other people.

In this thread, I'm NOT arguing against anarcho-capitalism. I am arguing against the idea that there's no such thing as abolishing government too fast, and I'm also strongly objecting to the unimaginative assumptions that no Constitutional limits or checks could ever possibly restrain a state. If you remember, I raised similar objections when socialize_me acted as if anarcho-capitalism could never possibly work. While I prefer minarchism, I disagree with the closed-minded attitude that both the militant anarcho-capitalists and the militant minarchists or Constitutionalists have.

[Mini-Me]

REPOST THAT I MENTIONED ABOVE, AS PROMISED:


Lmao.. you disagree because you're ignorant of the alternatives, you falsely assume a lot. I've come from your position mate, the one you currently hold. I already know the reasoning, I haven't rejected ANYTHING out of hand - and to contend so is to be wrong. I've already had the reasoned arguments, like I said - go find the thread where it was discussed. I'll go try find it aswell. We're practically having them now again though, :rolleyes:

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In case you haven't noticed....

“Power is not alluring to pure minds”
~ Thomas Jefferson

There is a reason collectivists, social engineers, socialists - are packed in the Halls of Power, and will ALWAYS gravitate too it and whatever institution they can to rule the lives of other men/women and IMPOSE their will on others.

Please provide a check and balance on human nature.. :rolleyes:



The point of history you have failed to learn is that the state ain't going to remain limited. That principle has been established.... long, long, long ago. You can try make it harder, and it will potentially slow the growth for a period of time - but it WILL be subverted and it will overcome the restrictions imposed on it. Suspension of Habeas Corpus anyone? LOL...


Here's a response I made to one of your own posts on this very subject...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1762368&postcount=44
from this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=162936

I am not "ignorant of the alternatives," and I am not falsely assuming anything. You're acting as though I'm rejecting anarcho-capitalism out of hand, whereas I am not. My mind is open to strong arguments for it, but unlike you, I have not ruled out the possibility that procedural checks and balances could be written into a Constitution that would prevent a state from growing in power. Your closed-mindedness to such a possibility underscores your own failures in creativity and imagination. Ironically, your closed-mindedness makes you the one who is "ignorant of the alternatives" in this case. Here are a couple threads containing a discussion on checks and balances:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=145854 . Here are my suggestions:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1556820&postcount=10
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1556823&postcount=11
Notice that someone actually considers some of these checks to be TOO strong. ;)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161053 . My suggestions started in this post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1737968&postcount=44
Again, someone felt that one of these checks was TOO strong, and I spent some time defending it. At the end of the thread, I made this post, including some various hypothetical checks: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1739404&postcount=99

One of my favorite hypothetical checks and balances is a Constitutional requirement that citizens be able to file lawsuits against the government for unconstitutional or unjust laws or practices (including the creation of unconstitutional bureaucracies), which a jury of peers would then decide upon. If that's not enough by itself, consider how strong such a check would be if the Constitution - the law itself - explicitly and unequivocally stated in 72-point font that if anyone were ever denied such a trial/hearing, the government would immediately lose all legitimate authority and the people would be completely justified in rebelling against the government, hanging government officials with legal impunity, etc. What if the Constitution further stated that this is in fact the solemn duty of the people, and if just about everyone was taught exactly that from a very young age? If the Constitution itself drew such an obvious line in the sand, it would become very difficult for government to get away with unconstitutional laws for any period of time (and to avoid circumvention through amendments, certain parts of the Constitution could be unamendable). Whenever the government tried expanding its power, someone would call them on it and the government's power would soon be returned to former levels by a jury...and any individual could keep suing over and over (at their expense of course) until a favorable jury overturned the unconstitutional law. The only laws that could withstand the test of time under such a system would be those that practically everyone agreed with. The erosion of Constitutional checks and balances is gradual and cumulative, and it has only gotten as far as it has in the United States because the government has been able to build upon previous expansions of power - while going unchallenged - for many generations. If the people could regularly enforce Constitutionality through jury trial of laws and practices, and if any circumvention of this check invited open rebellion and assured death to any official bold enough to try it, the government would probably never be able to gain enough of a foothold to build upon past expansions of power.

[BeFranklin]

The Declaration and Constitution was founded on the concept of "the law of nature" (which was later construed as 'natural law') from the 12th century English common law tradition---and that tradition is based on biblical principles. Even the tripartite makeup of the federal entity was drawn from the Trinity. To try to white out the biblical influences and origins of the founders' thinking is a fruitless task.

And closer to the Constution, the Constitution was directly written from the Articles of Confederation, which is what the Revolutionary founders actually wrote (since the Constitution wasn't the first charter of the country) and copied many of its main points, and the Articles of Confederation shows its biblical nature.

[Republicae]

Collectivist????

I think if you read much more of the historical documents you will find that both Jefferson and Madison were well aware that this was a Republic of Republics, each of the States being Free, Independent and Sovereign both before and after the ratification of the Constitution. Far from being a "Collectivist" document, it supports layers upon layers of checks and balances that propose to safeguard the individual and minority opinion. Granted, it has now been distorted to such a point that the real collectivistas use it as a mere facade to give the government an acceptable face of legitimacy, but it does not invalidate the original intent of the documents.

The fault is not in the Constitution sir, but in the inability of the American People to stand upon that Constitution with the courage and bravery that first brought this country into being! We lost our country because we do nothing!

Indeed, the entire premise of the federal government was one of an agent of the Several States that formed a voluntary union simply to represent those Several States in a very limited, very narrow framework. The Founders were also very well aware that there was always the propensity of government, given time, to become tyrannical, to that end the Founders were very clear that the Right to Bear Arms served one purpose and one only and that was to physically defend the People against such transgressions from an overbearing federal government which they all understood as a foreign entity. The Several States, each with their own Constitution, makes up the country, the federal government is, or should be, only a reflection of the Republics for which it serves, not rules.

I also suggest that you read the entire volume of John C. Calhoun's work on the Disquisition of Government, it is an extremely well written expose on just what this country is comprised of and that the federal government was to be nothing more than an administrative institution for the benefit of the Several State Republics, each Independent and Soveriegn States with seperate Constitutions.

Just because there has been, as the Founders foresaw, a grand distortion of the Principles of the Constitution, does not mean that it is voided by such distortion. In fact, the Constitution did in fact create a multi-layed Republic of Republics, even down to the checks and balances imbedded within the structure of the Several States, which were to serve as an immediate check on the over-extension of the federal delegated powers. The superior governments, in the case of our Republic of Republics, is that of the States. It was the States, based upon the Soveriegnty of the People of those Republics, which created the federal government, which according to the Federalist Papers is subordinate to that of the States.

It is perhaps the most incredible layered system of government ever to be conceived and even though that is true, even the Founders were well aware of the nature of men and the propensity for men to seek to subvert power and authority to their own ends.

Concerning a Republic, it operates by Concurrent Consent to provide the ultimate protection against majority rule, unfortunately we have lost a great deal over the years, especially with the 17th Amendment, which was primarily intended to protect the usurpation of power by the federal government. Once the 17th Amendment was "ratified" it placed the Senate under the democratic process of direct elections taking it out of the hands of the State Legislatures, this was a primary check on federal powers by the States.

Mr. Madison stated: “If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated [not absorbed] into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation…. In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.”

As you see, Mr. Madison was well aware of the dangers and sought to prevent such consolidation by imbedding as many checks and balances as possible within the Constitution. Mr. Madison, one should not forget, was an ardent defender of the Independence and Sovereignty of the Several States...addtionally, he is called the Father of the Constitution because he crafted much of it with the Sovereignty of the Individual State Republics in mind.

Mr. Madison is very clear, that there is an extremely important reason behind placing layers of separation within the structure of a government that is bound by a “simple league”, Sovereign and Independent States, each sharing in the common council of both through their individual Senators appointed by the States to serve, not the nation, but the respective States.

Mr. Madison goes on to say: “Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation."

Mr. Madison clearly states that the structural requirement of Senators who are answerable to their respective States is imperative to the maintenance of both checks and balances within the structure as a whole and to protect the Will of the People through the ancillary Sovereignty of the States. Additionally, this structure was also an essential element in preventing potential excesses in legislation.

Mr. Madison then gives a more thorough explanation of the reasons behind the particular Constitutional Structure of the Republic:

“First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance, which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government."

You will notice Mr. Madison states, in no uncertain terms, that by requiring two separate and distinct bodies, as in the House of Representatives and the Senate, that such a structure not only provides a vital check on government in general, but it also doubles the security of the People themselves by requiring concurrence of those bodies. Such concurrence would provide a necessary check to potential ambitions, usurpations and corruption that could easily occur if there was but one body or if the two mirrored one another.

[Republicae]

It is imperative to understand that this country is formed solely upon the Sovereignty of the People themselves and that in that Sovereignty, they have, out of both necessity and desire, come together to form communities of governments to act both on their behalf and upon their Consent. This Sovereignty finds its expression, and has done so, in the governments of the Several States, which in turn, have reflected their Will in the formation of a federation of States called the United States.

The Several States, in the purist expression of the People's Sovereignty have formed, established and delegated the government federal. The Rights of the People are embedded in the Rights of the States, you cannot have one without the other, nor can you have a delegation of authority and power without such Rights, both Reserved and Delegated. It is the Delegated Trust, from the People through the medium of their Respective States to the federal government, which pronounced and delineates the Sovereignty of the People themselves.

Delegated powers must always subordinate to those Reserved by both the States and the People. The powers Reserved by the People and thereby the States, which represent them, have the complete power to Amend the federal government by Constitutional Convention with three-fourths Concurrent Majority voting in assent. This power speaks to the sole Sovereignty of the People through the medium of the States in which they resided and hold their Citizenship. The subordinate federal government is simply the reflection of the States and thereby the People.

In its formation, the federal government is simply a reflection of the compact between the States, who by Consent of the People, did ratify that compact between them. The Constitution was not formed by the federal government but the federal government by the Constitution. This Constitution was merely a compact of agreement between the Several States acting upon the Consent and Will of the People who resided in those States. As such, this compact, with its specified provisions and divisions of authority and power, was and is subject to the continued Consent and Will of the People through their respective mediums of government, the States.

There is, in the essence of primacy, no such thing as States Rights outside of the delegation of both authority and power to the Several States by the People of those States. Likewise, there is no Sovereignty in either the Several States or the federal government outside of the Delegation, in Trust, of such authorities and powers by the People themselves as expressed in the Compact between the Several States, reflected in the federal government. The Constitution was not, nor is it today, an agreement between the Several States and the federal government since the federal government has no inherent powers or authority within itself. The Constitution solely an agreement between the People, through the medium of the Several States, and themselves.

The Constitutions of the Several States preceded both the formation of the Constitution and federal government so too, do they precede it in both execution and authority. The language of the Constitution cannot be stronger in the delineation of delegated authority and power emanating from the States, by the Consent of the People themselves to the federal government. As such, this agreement, ratified between the Several States, solely upon the Consent of the People, seeks to guards the Reserved Powers of the People, thus the Several States, against the government as a whole and against all its departments, officers and any mode that might be devised which would impair such construction thereby impeding the Reserved Powers of the States, respectively, which solely reflect the Rights of the People. It was this intention, clearly enumerated, to place the Reserved Powers of the States, and thus the People, beyond the possible interference and control of the federal government of the United States.

It was also clearly stated that, in consideration of these Reserved and Delegated Powers, that the Right of the Separate Governments of the Several States was complete and contained within themselves to protect their own Powers and Authorities as Consented to by the People to represent them respectively in each of their respective States. As to the federal government, the provisions of this Compact between the States, through the Consent of the People, was to allow for the protection of those Delegated Powers to the federal government as long as the federal government, thus the majority of the States, continued adherence to the provisions agreed upon by the Constitution.

To speak to the Delegation of Powers to the federal government, the Constitutional Convention was very deliberate in both content and expression, especially in the inclusions of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. One of the more interesting facts is that the final version of the 10th Amendment was far more expansion as it was originally proposed which was worded in a far more restrictive verse: "That each State in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the Constitution, delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."

Of course, in the Resolutions of Ratification by the Several States, the meaning of both the 9th and 10th Amendments is clearly expounded. These Resolutions express the exact nature and character of what was taking place as they Ratified the agreement between them called the Constitution of the United States. This agreement did not place any Power or Authority within the grasp of the federal government as inherent, but only as Delegated in Trust. That Trust only extended to, and was expressed by the continuation of maintenance of the provisions of that agreement; upon violation of such provisions it was expressly expounded that such violations would effectively nullify and render void the agreement itself, thereby rendering the Several States to their original form as separate governments without an agreement forming a federal government between them to reflect certain preset and limited requirements.

In these Delegate Powers, the People, through the medium of the Several States, have given or granted an agency of execution of such Delegated Powers to act on behalf of the People themselves; thus performing certain duties, restricted by Compact, that are intimately connected with the Principle Power of the People themselves. Without such agency, all ability to act upon these Delegated Powers would be nugatory therefore, such powers are delineated in a structure of government broken into various Branches, each set with particular limited powers and overlapping powers crafted to both execute and check the powers of each Branch. So too, in the creation of a multi-layered government structure, the Several States play an indispensable role in maintaining balance within the system and in the protection of their Citizens.

Now, to reiterate the scope of the Powers of the Several States and thus the People themselves who delegate such Powers to the States we need look no further, of course, than the Constitution. In support of this opinion the Constitution is of extreme clarity, it relies upon, in the first place, on the 2nd Section of the 6th Article, which provides the following: " This Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land: and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." It is apparent in this clause that there is a very definite supremacy associated with the mechanics of the government of the United States except when such supremacy contradicts or infringes upon the laws or Constitutions of the Several States. This is a delineation of the various levels of Power and Authority that has been duly delegated to each stratus of government, from those of the States themselves, then to those that the federal government reflects in both application and scope of such powers and authorities thus delegated.

It is, or should be sufficient to see that such a statement is declaratory in both nature and character and that there are no powers or authorities vested in the federal government by the Constitution that extend beyond those enumerated in the Delegated Trust placed into the mechanics of the federal government as it reflects the Will of the People as expressed through their Respective States. The layers of supremacy results from the relationship that was formed between the Several States in agreement to form the federal government and within the very specified limits placed upon the federal government by the States in Convention. The reach of the federal government does not extend beyond the Delegated Trust of powers and authority, all others being Reserved to the States and to the People of the States. Beyond these enumerated and thus Delegated Powers, the Constitution is completely destitute of all authority. In other words, without the Delegation of these very limited powers by the States, acting upon the Consent of the People themselves, all execution of any power or authority by the federal government any operations outside such of Delegated powers is mere assumption and therefore illegal.

It is interesting to see just what the Delegates of the Constitution Convention rejected when they dismissed certain "articles", and it is this dismissal that speak volumes about what was and was not intended in the construction of Constitutional Order, thus the various delegation of powers to the States and the federal government. As reported by Committee, the following words were proposed and then rejected: "The acts of the legislature of the United States, made in pursuance of this Constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Several States, and of their Citizens and inhabitants; and the Judges of the Several States shall be bound thereby, in their decisions; any thing in the Constitutions or laws of the Several States to the contrary notwithstanding." As we can see, there is a very distinct difference between what was proposed and what was approved for final ratification by the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The above, as opposed to the prior approved version, clearly demonstrates the designation of supremacy over the mechanics of the federal government by the Constitutions and laws of the Several States.

Thus such limitations on the scope of supremacy of the federal government, in all its operations and powers, were marked with such distinction and clarity that there should be no need to elucidate, but obviously that is not the case. These limitations are clarified, not only in degree, but also in extent. It is within these limitations duly imposed upon the government by the authority of the Constitution, as agreed in Compact by the Several States in Convention, that the proper operation of government can be achieved and assure the protection of the Will and Rights of the People. To assume that the government can carry its own supremacy beyond such limitations, thus extending its own authority over the Reserved Powers of the Several States, in any shape, channel or form, would essentially destroy the entire system of the Republic by consolidating all its power in the hands of the government without regard to the Will of the People.

Thus we have seen that there has, through the decades, been a rapid expansion of the reach of the authority and powers that the federal government has assumed. This assumption is nothing more than usurpation, illegal under the Compact between the Several States as Ratified and, as we see, very detrimental to the Rights of the People. Even within the governments of the Several States, authority and power has been usurped from the People who retain Rights that are not even enumerated within the Constitution itself. We have been effectively taught that the Rights stated within the document of the Constitution are the only Rights We the People have, but that is untrue. There are Rights that were never Delegated to either the States or the federal government, not only were such Rights never Delegated they were not even enumerated; yet we make no claim upon them.

Congress and indeed the State Legislatures have both extended themselves and the scope of their power beyond that which was delegated. Our times have seen a myriad of novelty legislation emanating from both bodies however, this does not mean that such legislation is legal in the Constitution sense, it merely denotes that both legislative bodies have made an assumption of powers and authorities beyond those delegated to them. The law, whether on the level of the federal government or the State, must also be as proper as it is necessary. Without those two standards of character, then the law is without competency and should be considered void of demand.

The law therefore must yield that which is both proper and necessary, under such delegated powers, to be executed legally. We must realize, and therefore press upon all government, that is it, both our Right and therefore our Power to establish and ordain our government. Indeed, we have, ordained and established our State governments through their State Constitutions; from that origin, the States, by our Consent and through such Powers and Authority Delegated in Trust, did ordain and establish the federal government upon our behalf and for our sole benefit. We did so, in such ordination and establishment, form separate State Constitutions and thereby State governments, each created by itself and for itself without any concert or agreement with any of the other States; afterwards, in our Sovereignty, we did ordain and establish the federal government to be a reflection of the States to perform very specific functions within a very limited scope of delegated power.

Unlike the ordination and establishment of the governments of the Several States, the planning, ordination and execution of the federal government was done in concert and agreement between the Several States. It is this very same Power and Authority, through the Conventions of the Several States that did ordain and establish a federal government. This Supreme Power, as declared by the 10th Amendment, still resides within the People themselves and is solely Reserved by the People of the Respective States. I dare say that while there are those who would claim that such Power has been extinguished, they either fail to understand or refuse to assent to the Authority that still resides within the People themselves and if they hold such views then they only continue to allow for the assumption of power by the federal government.

[Republicae]

This is the Right of the People, to Retain and Reserve those Powers and Authorities unto themselves and to exercise such Rights even when the various departments of government act to the contrary. Although there are those who would, through such assumption, lay claim to power and authority through the government, in both its infringements and abuses over Constitutional Order; there must come a time when We the People realize, and therefore exercise, the fact that Sovereignty resides in the People and not in government. When government, at any level, relinquishes its loyalty to the Constitution, the People themselves are released from all allegiance to the government for it is impossible for the People to remain loyal to an un-loyal, and therefore illegal government.

It must be logical to adhere to the principle that, so far as the federal government is concerned, that the People of the Several States can act in the very same way, in the same capacity, in which they did ordain and establish the federal government by Constitution, can, by the same united and concurrent voice, change, abolish or establish another government in its place, as well as completely dissolve the Union altogether. The Power to ordain and establish must also, by the very nature of such Power, have the Authority and Ability to dissolve the agreement that they entered into by Concurrent Consent. This, both the act of creation and dissolution, is an example of the high Sovereignty of the People. If this is not the case then all our Rights are contingent upon the whims of the government and our compliance to its will regardless of our desires or Consent. Our system must stand as one in the relationship of the superior to the subordinate, the People themselves being superior to the subordinate federal government as the creator to the created.

An interesting note concerning constitutions is that the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics included within its articles the right of any Soviet Republic to Secede. The banality of that right can be seen in the way that constitution was ordained and established; in contradistinction to our own Constitution, the constitution of the former U.S.S.R. was ordained by the central government itself, for itself, of itself, and did not rely upon the consent of the people over whom this legal document resided. Of course, the right of secession was among many rights guaranteed to the people of the former Soviet Union however, since none of those rights and indeed the existence of the Soviet government itself did not depend upon the consent or will of the people and since the people themselves held no concept of their natural rights or sovereignty, the constitution was of no effect regarding the people themselves or their potential grievances. This is an example of what happens when there is a complete centralization of power. All so-called rights in such a system are absolutely contingent upon compliance.

In our original, thus former Constitutional Republic, it was the People, after all, that both called for the creation and existence of the federal government and conferred upon it all the powers and authorities it utilizes. Without such conferment the federal government has no ability or power to operate in any capacity or strength whatsoever, in fact, there would be no federal government since it emanates solely from the Consent of the People. As we have seen however, there has been a consolidation of powers and authorities by the federal government, centralized over the years to the effect that the Powers and Authority Reserved to the States and the People respectively have been assumed and absorbed by the centralized federal government; the effects of this process is evident.

So, the People of the Several States, in the essence of their Sovereign Capacity, agreed to unite themselves in a connection what was as close as possible without merging their Respective Sovereignties, the States, into one common sovereignty and consolidated government. For, it that had been the case we would not have State Constitutions or State governments and would only have one central government with one Constitution. The governments and Constitutions of the Several States are not, in any way, subordinate to the federal government, just the opposite is true. As to this Compact, that is the view of the document that legally provides the provisions of the functionaries of the federal government on behalf of the People in the Several States.

It is, in no way, the rule over the individual governments of those States, only the rule over the federal government as emplaced by the Several States in Compact. To use the language of the Constitution itself, it was solely ordained as the "Constitution for the United States" and not over them as they Ratified it between themselves. So, if a State or several States violate the provisions of the document they violate it in terms of the Compact made between the States, but when the federal government violates the document it violates the Law as set forth by that document as ordained by the Several States.

The Constitution was ordained over the federal government, over all departments and functions of the federal government, not over the States, which possess their own Constitutions that provide for the laws of each of the Several States. The federal government is therefore, under complete obligation to follow the strict legal format enumerated in the Constitution as it was ordained and established by the Ratification of the Several States in Compact Agreement between them. In the most distilled legal form, the federal government owes complete and absolute allegiance to the People as reflected through the Compact enacted between the Several States. So, if the Constitution is indeed a Compact between the Several States, acting in their Sovereign Capacity, upon Consent of their Sovereign Citizens, the rest should logically follow the necessary consequences of that action of ordination and establishment.

The absorption of Reserved Powers by the Delegated Authority is one, as we have seen for the last 150 years, of the most pressing dangers to the future health and well-being of our country for the absorption of those Powers Reserved to the States and to the People respectively effectively neutralizes the Rights of the People themselves. There can be no restoration of the Constitutional Republic without the restoration of the proper role of the Several States along with the Power and Authority Reserved to them and the Sovereignty of the People. Conversely, if the federal government is not reigned into and limited to the scope of power and authority that was Delegated to it in Trust, then there can and will be no restoration of the Constitutional Republic.

As we see, the issue of centralized power is gradually being questioned, not only by Citizens in their Individual Status, but also by the States. It is once again time to make this a primary issue in our hopes for the Restoration of the Republic for without the proper role of government, without the checks and balances as enumerated within the Constitutional Compact as Ratified Between the Several States then this country will continue down the road that will only lead to an increase of centralized power and tyranny. Without the proper exercise of Power and Authority as delineated within the Constitution the hopes and dreams of those who maintain Constitutional Patriotism will never be realized. We must make every concerted effort to regain each and every legislature of each State in order to press upon the federal government its place as a subordinate servant of the People.

This is indeed a Revolution that is no less important, no less critical for our Liberty than that fought in 1776. The results of this Revolution will determine the future of this country and whether our children and children's children will enjoy the Heritage of Liberty passed down from those who had the insight to form and craft our once-prosperous Republic. Increasingly, there will be forces, which will rise against all who contend that these Principles are both valid and pertinent to our lives and the wellbeing of our country. At some point in the future we must all decide whether we will be considered merely collaborators with the centralized power expressed by the federal government or if we will oppose such assumption of powers and therefore be considered, for all intents and purposes, enemies of such usurpation of power by that government.

We have become a society which must seek permission, pay taxes, fees, hold licenses and generally comply with all codes, rules, regulations and legislations whether they be proper and necessary or not. We are a society that must completely rely upon our complance to the central government, and increasingly to another layer of compliance acts legislated by our own States, if we wish to remain relatviely free and unfettered in our pursuits.

"All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either." Thomas Paine

As Thomas Paine said, time does not alter either the nature or the quality of the principles behind power. Either that power is delegated from a superior source of Sovereignty or it is assumed and therefore usurped. Now, the question of Sovereignty is perhaps one of the most important questions concerning the degree and quality of Liberty within this country. Only a Sovereign Source can delegate power and authority; likewise, only a Subordinate Source can receive those delegated powers and authority to act upon them.

It then becomes quite obvious in the following words within the Declaration of Independence where all Sovereignty emanates: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" Those peculiar words were to declare the independence of the colonies from Britain. Additionally, once the War for American Independence was won, Great Britain recognized each State, by name, as being Sovereign and Independent States. This same phraseology was then used in the Articles of Confederation in the description of the States.

When these same States, by the consent of their Citizens, through Convention ratified the Constitution they did so in the same Sovereign Status as they did when they Declared their Independence to form a Revolutionary government and then formulated a Confederation through Consent and Compact; as the need arose they then entered into a Compact between themselves to form the Sovereign States in Union. They, through Consent, retained the same style throughout every stage of political formation. Each government, both the government of the Several States and the general government of the States or the federal government, were delegated powers and authority derived from the Consent of the People Sovereign.

The facts are well-established and the provision within the Constitution is too explicit to deduct any other opinion except that the States retained their Sovereign Status through the delegated authority and powers of the People through their Consent. So, even after the Ratification of the Constitution, the independent, distinct and sovereign character by which they both formed and ratified that Compact was never divested from the States, nor the People. The People are the Prima Materia Imperium from which all Powers and Authority stems within this country and within both the State and the federal governments, it can not originate in either government since they are both ordained and established by the People. Remember, a thing created can never be greater then the one who created it, the act of creation is the superior act.

Each government is the natural extension of the governed since each government, whether State or general, partakes in the character of the source which formed it to act as an Agent on the behalf of those who gave Consent; thereby delegating authority and power to act in their best interests. Since Sovereignty is the source of all delegated powers and authority, the primary benefactor of such power and authority will be the States in which the Sovereign People reside, from there the States, acting as Agents of the People will properly delegate and grant a degree of authority and powers to the general or federal government to act in a limited capacity on behalf of the States united as a political community for the Sole Benefit of their Citizens.

The federal government has no powers or authority that emanates inherently from itself, despite its claim to the contrary, but must rely solely upon the delegation of those powers and that authority from the Sovereignty of the People of the Several States. The federal government is a reflection of the States united through the Voluntary Compact of Union, otherwise known as the Constitution.

The allegiance of the People therefore, will naturally be toward their respective States since it is the Several States that make up the Voluntary Union of States which reflects those States through the usage of Three Distinct and Separate Branches. Each of those Branches are also totally dependent on the Concurrent Consent of the States and the People in their Sovereign Character as each Branch depends on the Delegation of Their Power and Authority to act.

So, the States were Ordained to act through the powers and authority delegated to them by the Sovereign People of each State, in turn the federal government was Ordained by the States to act both on the behalf of the States and in turn the People Sovereign. The government of the United States is not now, nor has it ever been singular, but reflects the Several States by their Concurrent Consent as Ordained and Granted by the People.

The Preamble of the Constitution defines the reasons for the Ordination of the government and those reasons are clearly enumerated as very specific objects: "to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." So, it was the Several States, or the People that make up the Several States, that Ordained the government through the Ratification of the Constitution between them; this Act of Concurrent Consent and Ratification did not place the federal government over the States or the People, the Several States, and thus the People only delegated a degree of authority and power to it in order for it to fulfill the specific enumerated objects previously stated.

It is obvious therefore, or at least it should be, that the one to whom authority and power is delegated is not, nor can it be higher then the one delegating that power and authority. The Authority that ordains and establishes must therefore, be higher than that which is ordained and established. This should be common sense, unfortunately the assumption of powers not only usurps common sense, but power as well.

The 10th Amendment states clearly that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, by the Compact between the Several States vested a degree of power and authority to the general or federal government. It split this power and authority between Three Branches, distinct in purpose and operations. The 10th Amendment then continues to say that those powers that are not delegated to the federal government and that are not prohibited by it [the Constitution] are reserved to the States or to the People. This is not a limitation upon either the States or the People, but solely upon the federal government of these United States. It is also apparent that there are powers and authority that the People did not delegate to either the States or the federal government, but that are completely retained by them alone.

This is the bar, the measurement of all government action and legislation. There can be no action or legislation that infringes upon the Retained Rights, the Retained Authority and Power of the People. Although Congress and even the State Legislatures tend to present and pass legislation that does not conform to the principle that the People retain these Sovereign Characteristics, the proper and legal measure of all legislation is if that legislation contradicts those Rights Reserved and Retained by the People and the People alone. There are, in additional to those Rights enumerated within the Constitution, Rights, Power and Authority Retained by the People which are not mentioned, not enumerated within the Constitutional Compact.

Additionally, even the Supreme Court of these United States should, by the act of the Sovereign Source of its own delegated powers, always consider the measure of all opinions based not on an allowable degree of Rights due the People, but solely limiting the assumption of powers by the government itself. The Supreme Court only holds the degree of supremacy as it is delegated to it and no more.

Through the Compact between the Several States, the People ordained and established a government of the People, by the People and solely for benefit of the People. This government was formed and intended to operate as a federal, in contradistinction of a national government. In a national government all other Constitutions and governments, such as those of the States would be superceded and absorbed, but that was never the case, nor is it the case even though for decades that has been the primary focus of certain elements within the federal government and both of the ruling political parties. The Several States are the expression of the People's Sovereignty, as is the federal government the expression of the People's Will through the Several States in Union. Each of the Several States, by Concurrent Consent of the People, ratified this Voluntary and Reflective Union but retained all Sovereignty and Power to alter, abolish or, if necessary, to leave that Voluntary Union.

Likewise, the Executive and the Legislative Branches are only allowed a degree of authority and power as it is delegated to them to perform a very specific and narrow set of obligations to the People. Any actions or Legislation beyond those specific and narrow set of obligations and all Three Branches only assume power, or usurp it from the People.

Of course, through the decades the 10th Amendment, like the 9th has been ignored to the point of being effectively neutralized. There are no divided powers, no divided authority, no divided sovereignty; it all rest within the People and is only delegated to the Several States and to the federal government. The Several States and the federal government hold Authority and Power only in Delegated Trust; with that Trust comes all the Responsibility and Duty enumerated within the Compact between the Several States agreed by Concurrent Consent of the People of those Several States.

Since all Power and Authority is either Delegated through legal Consent or Assumed and thereby Usurped illegally, where does that leave us in our opinion of this current government? What respect or loyalty do We legally have to a government who has illegally Assumed and Usurped its Authority and Power from the People of these Several States united?

[Conza88]

"Nope, fail," for lack of reading comprehension. I know what anarcho-capitalism is. It's a subset of anarchism, and it differs philosophically from other ideas of anarchism, precisely because of anarcho-capitalist respect for private property and non-aggression. However, by definition, all forms of anarchism including anarcho-capitalism inherently share the same governmental structure: The absence of the state. While they're philosophically different, any and every one of them could result from the absence or abolition of the state, depending on the starting conditions...because in practice, they're each different potential results of the same exact structure of statelessness. Because of that, abolition of the state is necessary but not sufficient for anarcho-capitalism to result from generic anarchy. In order for anarcho-capitalism to come about, the state must not be abolished "by any means necessary" - it must be specifically dissolved in a pro-liberty atmosphere. (Of course, I don't advocate absolute anarcho-capitalism anyway, but that's beside the point.) That is the point I was trying to make, and it should have been completely obvious by the fact that I specifically mentioned that you are correct about the philosophical differences between different subsets of anarchism, but that the various organic expressions of anarchy all presume the same governmental structure (nonexistence).

I'm sorry, I'm not an "ANARCHIST" - I don't believe in abolishing the state by any means necessary. I respect the non aggression axiom + property rights.

Philosophically? NOT just - it is called REAL LIFE principles aswell...

Take a look champ, here - Riots in Greece (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBLwg1BO-Ss). 'ANARCHISTS' or more properly called Vandarchists. ;)


Rothbard writes: "The crucial point is that whether the motivation or the goal is rage, kicks, or loot, the rioters, with a devotion to present gratification as against future concerns, engaged in the joys of beating, robbing, and burning, and of massive theft, because they saw they could get away with it. Devotion to the sanctity of person and property is not part of their value-system. That's why, in the short term, all we can do is shoot the looters and incarcerate the rioters."

No offense, Macy's-window-breaking vandarchists.

Clarification: The point here is not whether shooting looters is proportionate punishment or not; or whether it ought to be the state doing it. The point is that Rothbard clearly and correctly classified these people as criminals--he didn't excuse their actions by saying that the property they were looting was not "really" private property because the owners were all really just "part of" the state.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022995.html

You see any ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS running around destroying private property? lol Your whole "argument" is fallacious, because I don't hold - nor have I ever - held those positions you attribute to me. Yet, you have ASSUMED as much.



Just because you and the anarcho-communists don't want to be associated with each other or given the same label does not mean you are not still all anarchists. Your pathological insistence that you are not an anarchist is simply ridiculous, and so is their own insistence that you're not an anarchist, because anarcho-capitalism is inherently and by definition a subset of anarchism (just as it is a subset of libertarianism). No matter how much closer your beliefs are to those of minarchist libertarians than those of anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalism is still an anarchist philosophy, and an anarcho-capitalist society is one expression of an anarchist society. Of course the anarcho-communists don't consider you a "true" anarchist, but that's kind of ironic anyway, considering that if anything, anarcho-capitalists are probably the only true anarchists around.

What we are really delineating is the ESOTERIC AGENDA of the label.

I refuse to accept the label that has been tarnished and is intellectually decrepit. The label ORIGINALLY was for socialists, who believed the state was there to protect private property. Why use their "handle" that is associated with CRIMINALS - people who use violence, and don't respect private property?

Nope. Anarcho-Capitalist is ftw. They can call themselves anarchists all they want, (they truley aren't) as you said, anarcho-capitalists are the only true anarchists. :) I'm just refusing to accept the label, it is MUCH easier to SELL and PROMOTE the ideas, if they haven't got the bullshit baggage attached to them.



After all, voluntary socialism exists within the framework of free market capitalism in the form of cooperatives, insurance companies, etc. and voluntary communism exists within the framework of free market capitalism in the form of families/communities. By explicitly rejecting the free market, the anarcho-communists and anarcho-socialists and their other collectivist ilk must necessarily be advocating a more coercive type of economic planning or redistribution of wealth...which is inherently authoritarian and requires an institution that is essentially the government in all but name (regardless of how local or universal the collective's "authority" is). Of course, you already know that, but I like irony enough to write about it. In the sense that "monarchy" means "one ruler," "anarchy" means "no rulers." In the unhyphenated sense of the word, all anarchists share in common their goal to abolish the state, regardless of their actual reasons for desiring it...and anarcho-capitalists are included in that category, no matter how much anarchists of every persuasion will gripe about their association. If the anarcho-communists wanted the label of anarchism to refer to a specific political ideology that inherently implied more than a simple opposition to the state, then perhaps they should have picked a better word. Of course, the anarcho-communists probably aren't really anarchists at all in the etymologically correct sense of the word, since they seem to desire the establishment of a new state at the end of the first week...but in any case, nothing changes the fact that you in particular are indeed an anarchist in that very sense.

Yes, you knew that. I like the irony aswell. The only true anarchism is anarcho-capitalism. Instead of fighting pointless "battles" about who is the true anarchist.. I'll let the retards with flawed ideologies have the label, THEY originally created... and I'll stick with the fine label that more ACCURATELY describes the position I hold. Anarcho-CAPITALISM.. which is a product of LIBERTARIAN ideology... it is the NATURAL, LOGICAL - conclusion of the non aggression + private property rights.

Libertarianism -> insanely more associated with Anarcho-Capitalism than any other ideologies.

The ranking goal is: Liberty. THAT is the criteria. So we classify, or order the ideologies - as to which provides the most of that. Anarcho-Capitalism - obviously no 1. No state - no



By the way, I wasn't arguing against anarcho-capitalism anyway. I already know that insurance companies will provide blah, blah, blah services in the absence of government, provided government is abolished in such a way that is conducive to liberty. Heck, I think it might even work given the correct starting conditions, though I don't have the same religious faith you have that it absolutely will work and nothing else can possibly work. I do find it a little strange that you somehow found the above passage from my previous post to be some kind of opportunity for educating me about what insurance companies do under anarcho-capitalism...it kind of came from left field. Heck, I've linked other people to Chapter 12 of For a New Liberty myself when I thought they were totally misunderstanding anarcho-capitalists.

For the exact same reason you took it upon yourself to write about voluntary socialism within a freemarket. ;)


Actually, you DO present different views on this below, where you mention your rejection of a gradual approach for a no-holds-barred, "I'd hit the magic button and erase absolutely all government overnight if I could" approach.

Yes! But you assume that to do that; you'd need to break the non aggression axiom, or property rights! ;) The "push the button" scenario, is if you were in power, if you got elected etc.. if you were GIVEN the chance, to DO away with the state, with TYRANNY over the lives in EVERY manner, would you ABOLISH it... or would you slower GRADUALLY remove it.

You are morally justified to abolish it. And morally - the sooner the better. :)



Somalia is doing alright, but they are not a stateless society. They may not have a strong national government (and that's a good thing), but they still have local authorities to keep the peace. Does such a situation create good prospects for future anarcho-capitalism as insurance companies start gradually taking over the responsibilities of the local authorities? Sure. However, they wouldn't want the police to all be abducted by little green men and disintegrated overnight, leaving a sudden vacuum. Obviously that's not going to happen, and they're doing alright, but as I said before, I'm not arguing against localities seceding, and I'm not even necessarily arguing against anarcho-capitalism in general right now (although it's not my preference). I'm just arguing against the idea that "any way of abolishing government is a good way." More on this in a moment...

You are wasting BOTH our time... well mine at least. Why are you arguing against the idea: "any way of abolishing government is a good way." <--- I NEVER said that, why are you quoting it as if I did? :confused: Nor have I ever held the notion, nor supported anyway is a good way, or AKA - 'the ends justify the means'.. STRAWMEN then!!?! :o


I wasn't making "assumptions." I broke things down case-by-case to illustrate why, no matter what, we are necessarily going to be engaged in a practical exercise about how to restrain and downsize the state via repeals and new Constitutional checks and balances (whether "the state" means the federal government, state governments, or local governments). Cases:
We can downsize or abolish all government gradually and in an orderly fashion. This includes political action, civil disobedience to spark political action, pushing through repeals at federal or state levels, pushing through Constitutional checks and balances at federal or state levels, pushing for the eventual secession of one jurisdiction from a larger jurisdiction, etc. Alternatively...
"If all government (federal and state) were ever demolished too quickly - in some kind of violent revolution of the mob, for instance -" (emphasis added to answer your question)... chaos would ensue. Odds are, the violent mob would be collectivists anyway, trying to set up a new collectivist government. Without any kind of law and order, all the "ordinary" sheeple would scramble together an iron-fisted government to crack down on the looters, pillagers, etc. In any case, the push for a new authoritarian and collectivist government would be too strong for the anarchy to ever last and spontaneously transform into anarcho-capitalism. The point here is that even if you are to commit to anarcho-capitalism, there are still bad ways to abolish the government, and if all government were abolished too quickly in a prevailing anti-liberty atmosphere, you'd have only two choices: Let the mob create their hellhole collectivist government, or try to take leadership positions and put as many checks and balances and pro-liberty measures into the new Constitution as possible (to create the best new starting point possible). Either way, such a sudden absence of government would not last for long, and after the dust settles, we're back to restraining and downsizing the new government.
"If just the US government collapsed but state governments remained" ... this would be a much more interesting situation, since local authorities could still keep law and order in the meantime. This goes for situations in which the raging mobs storm the White House and the French Revolution comes to America, and it goes similarly for secession as well. It applies to pretty much any scenario that would free some or all states from the federal government but leave state governments (or perhaps just local governments) standing intact. In any such case, we would then be performing an exercise in gradually downsizing and restraining state/local government, which is much more manageable, but still a matter of creating Constitutional checks and balances to prevent the continual progress from being undermined.
As you see, that was a case-by-case account...yet you just picked the second scenario and decided that I was making "assumptions" by addressing it. Frankly, I think you have some serious misconceptions about what the word "assumption" even means.

My gradual approach makes me about as Fabian as your radical approach makes you a Maoist.

Rothbard was a moaist? How interesting... :rolleyes:

How about you address Rothbards article on the issue. I posted it here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1854109&postcount=55). And I will repost it for you now below.


I'm much more radical than a gradualist who would cut the income tax by 2% while foregoing a viable opportunity for abolishing it outright. Really, when I say I favor a gradual approach, you should keep in mind that I'm mainly saying that in contrast to those who advocate storming the Bastille. There are a lot of shades of "gradualism." To elaborate:
I'm against violent revolution for many obvious reasons, but one of them is that such an environment would not only put anarcho-capitalism out of the question, but it would also make it extremely difficult to even achieve a new government favorable to minarchist views. When I think of people "abolishing" government by any means necessary, as soon as possible, something resembling this image comes to mind (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Heads_on_pikes.jpg).
I'm also against taking the wrong opportunities first and repealing certain legislation in the "wrong order." Very often, government creates one horrible regulation and then creates another one to smooth out some of the worst "side effects" of their original blunder, rather than repealing it outright. The new legislation is also bad, but without it, the first law might be intolerable. For instance, consider the example of local cable and telephone monopolies: If certain regulations restraining their practices were removed before their government-granted monopoly status were erased, the usage terms and prices of Internet access would become onerous, without any checks from either competition or government.
In line with the previous bullet-point, it's important to remember that if we were to make any severe misstep by repealing legislation in the wrong order, public backlash could create a reactionary shift towards statism. The same also applies to any scenario in which we were to miraculously push through some massive reduction in the more basic governmental responsibilities without any warning, before the masses are educated enough to be comfortable with it. This is why I oppose using the hypothetical "magic button to erase ALL government," but I'm perfectly fine with secession of states from the union.
Although I advocate rapid and tremendous cuts in spending, the size and scope of government, etc., there are a few areas that I believe we must be especially cautious about moving too quickly on: One is public schools. After that, if we are to ever move from minarchism to anarchism, we must be very careful about the manner and speed in which we shifted the government's responsibilities to the private sector in terms of roads, courts, and defense. If nothing else, insurance-based private defense companies require planning and time on the part of entrepreneurs to set up, and if we ever dissolved such "night watchman" sectors of the government too quickly, the resulting void could get very ugly.
Really, I'm only gradual to the extent that I want the changes we make to stick. Similarly, I only accept compromise in the right direction. Within those confines, I'm as radical as I think I can afford to be.

Could you do me a favor and write up an article (it can be as long as you want.. you'll like it like that) or simply copy and paste what you believe to be your grand ideas of limiting the state and present your case for limited government to Hoppe, or anyone over at the mises forums. I'm an amateur compared to those guys on Anarcho-Capitalism, and debating methods. This is playschool compared to there. Wld like to see you present the same limited govt argument over there. Game? Hoppe's email is on lewrockwell or mises.

In all your posts, I didn't see anything addressing the points I hold. You actually TOTALLY ignored it. You quoted it; but never addressed it. (Talking about your post above this) And the points are the ones I have highlighted throughout this, with several quotes in bold. - Thomas Jefferson Quote, LeFerve and Acton.


If that's the case, we still shouldn't be arguing about courts. Instead, anarcho-capitalists should be presenting their concerns about the minarchists' "excessive" gradualism and lack of sufficient radicalism, pointing out specific areas in which we could make faster progress. Arguing about courts does nothing to solve Rothbard's actual beef with the minarchists.

No, why is there even a reason to argue about it - at this point in time? You can just as easily ignore it the comments instead of choosing to debate it. The position I hold is an extension of minarchism / libertarianism to its logical conclusion. I am all for more liberty - as previously stated. In anyway, shape or form - that doesn't break the non aggression axiom or property rights. If the state was to crumble tomorrow for whatever reason, you'd have to continue to campaign to get people to reject whatever govt was going to try arise. You would set up private defence companies, or the ones that ALREADY EXIST would be a booming market, gaining more profit - hiring more people.... Insurance companies.. that ALREADY EXIST would make contracts, or revise them if necessary etc.. (Yeah, you all know it right? lol) WHY would anyone go to the stupid notion of trying to restablish a STATE, just so they can try get minarchy?

WHAT is the purpose of that? You want law and order right? YOU only think a state could provide that? Why? 2nd amendment - people have a right to defend themselves, and collectively organize as a militia. They could defend their neighborhoods.. if necessary, its called neighborhood watch.. lol

Do you think guns should be taken from individual citizens like in Katrina? To re-establish LAW and ORDER? lol..


Now, THIS - the bolded part, emphasis added myself - is what you call an assumption. It is an unfounded and unimaginative assumption at that. Your basic argument is this: The Constitution failed to restrain the state, and states are historically known to expand their power. Despite the fact that there have been very few earnest historical attempts to create a Constitutionally limited state, the failure of the Constitution necessarily demands the failure of any and all subsequent attempts.

Unimaginative & unfounded? lmao. NOPE. I can imagine, MANY ways the state would get around its imposed Constitutional "limits". HELL, all I need do is open up a history book.

NO that is NOT my basic argument, and I love it how you always feel compelled too reframe what I say.


If we were to implement all of the checks and balances I suggest, I challenge you to find some way in which the government could escape its restraints. You never really properly replied to this post, giving one of the most dismissive bullshit posts I've ever seen in post 31:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1829941&postcount=29
Most of the post is irrelevant to this discussion, but I'll repost the relevant portion right after this post.

My basic argument is this:

Power is not alluring to pure minds. - Thomas Jefferson

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. – Lord Acton (1887)

Please offer a refutation of human nature. Why would you ever want to keep such an institution as the state around? It is like a one world government. The fken fools who support it (in Uni in my tute class) are retarded enough to advocate it, "it shouldn't be anything like the United Nations" etc.. but that hardly matters - these people profess a profound hatred for George Bush etc.. but they cannot comprehend or imagine, WHAT is stopping a person like GWB coming to power at the head of a One World Government? I assume you'll add some remarkably foolish checks and balances - ohh, they wld need to get a 7/10 vote of support from all countries or something. The FABIANS and Rhodesians are everywhere.. countries and national boundaries don't mean dick. Obviously for INTERNATIONAL socialists... :rolleyes:


You know, your attitude sometimes reminds me a lot of socialize_me and some other vehement anti-anarcho-capitalists. Whereas they continually make unimaginative assumptions about how anarcho-capitalism cannot possibly work and a state is the only option, you continually make unimaginative assumptions about how Constitutional limitations cannot possibly work and anarcho-capitalism is the only option. Both stem from the same know-it-all attitude, and if I were feeling particularly like an asshole today, I would respond to your assumption with one of theirs. In any case, I do believe that there are Constitutional limitations that would probably work indefinitely, and I've thought of some candidates. Please, try to find some "security vulnerabilities" with them (taken together), and I'll see about patching them if need be. However, don't just dismiss them without due consideration and the assumption that you already know it all: I'm certainly not dismissing anarcho-capitalism without consideration, after all.

Power is not alluring to pure minds. - Thomas Jefferson

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. – Lord Acton (1887)

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." – Robert LeFevre

Natural Law... Collectivists will gravitate towards power, people who wish to impose their will on others. Thats not even accounting for psychopaths,
narcissists and megalomaniac's..

This takes place while all the 'normal' people, those who value liberty etc.. just want to be left the f--- alone..

People also take things for granted that have come easy to them.


In any case, my position certainly does not stem from an indifference toward future generations! On the contrary, I believe that a Constitutional republic (or many), if "done right," is probably more perpetually pro-liberty and stable than anarcho-capitalism might be. I could be wrong, but in any case...how quickly do you really think you could ever achieve anarcho-capitalism anyway, Conza? Honestly, I don't think this is a matter of one generation (us) spending a few years fixing our mess, abolishing the government in favor of anarcho-capitalism, and then living happily ever after. We may very well spend the rest of our lives promoting liberty and never achieving it (whether in the sense of minarchism or anarcho-capitalism), and the future generations you're speaking of might still have to do the same. I'd love to create a world in which our children, grandchildren, etc. perpetually live in peace and never have to spare a thought about those who might take away their liberty, but I don't think we can magically create that kind of world over the next decade alone.

"Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grand-children are once more slaves." – D. H. Lawrence (1885-1938)

Want to deny it? :rolleyes: Limited Government - rights won.. yet over time, because the state apparatus still exists - it again rises up to enslave the populace.

[Conza88]

Books on anarcho-capitalism? I have not read any from cover to cover, but I've dabbled. I've read the most "radical" portions of For a New Liberty and refer to them occasionally, I've skimmed through the rest, I've read articles on Lew Rockwell's site, I've read a bit of Healing Our World (not necessarily anarcho-capitalist, but close), etc. Nick Coons is also a very good representative of strict adherents to the non-aggression axiom. I am certainly no authority on anarcho-capitalism, the proposed methods to achieve it, the hypothetical arguments about how it might work, or the comprehensive counter-arguments against common objections...but I certainly know enough to debate it on an Internet forum. That said, I rarely actually debate anarcho-capitalism itself. Half of our arguments are about terminology half the time anyway, like when you steadfastly refuse to accept the completely valid label of anarchist, which applies equally to Murray Rothbard as it does to Noam Chomsky. :rolleyes:

I reject the label because it is tainted with bullshit. It's like; there exists a t-shirt with the Anarchist symbol on it. For hundreds of years it has been worn by socialists and those who aren't actually for "no ruler", yet they profess to be. The people who have worn the shirt and often criminals - destruction of private property (because the state protects it) and have no regard for the non aggression axiom. The shirt stinks, it has blood on it, the smell of petrol, tear gas, it is torn and unwashed.

Then along comes Anarcho-Capitalism. A new shirt to represent a new ideology. It is fresh and clean. It smells great, it is ironed and pressed - sparkling new.. gleaming with logic and reason.

What you want me to do is wear the old traditional 'anarchist' shirt. And say, hey guys "I've still got the shirt on" but I'm a different bloke to the last guy who wore it... in fact I'm not coming rioting with you lot, I respect private property and the non aggression axiom.. I believe in Capitalism. But who cares what the other anarchists think right? We can go convert the people!

You try to approach someone on the street.. they scream, ANARCHIST! DESTROYER of PROPERTY, etc etc. Or fancy that you aren't wearing or appear to be an anarchist today... you approach someone - Hi, I'm an anarchist... (*Eyes glaze over*) , <-- reaction to the old label and all the bullshit that was done under its banner.

Alternatively; to better SELL THE IDEAS OF LIBERTY... you go about in your pristine, new, clean, fresh smelling dry cleaned good looking collared going out shirt and approach someone.. Hi I'm an anarcho-capitalist.. "? whats that exactly?" ** I'm not dumb enough, nor is practically ANYONE too try convince anyone in that way. Which is why I, and I presume most of us - use the labels we want depending on the situation... if you are on the street campaigning..

"Constitutionalist" / "Limited Government" works great for the sheeple.. :eek:
Then comes Libertarianism, Minarchism, Anarcho-capitalism.. imo. I flick between these depending on the setting... and since I am amongst company here, were people aren't braindead fox news and american idol drongos.. I choose the label anarcho-capitalism and what it represents - not "anarchy" and all the other freaks who've completely ruined the shirt - it is now unwearable.

"Murray Rothbard used the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his philosophy from anarchism that opposes private property,[6] as well as to distinguish it from other forms of individualist anarchism.[7]"

Was he stupid for doing so? :rolleyes:


More importantly though, I'm not even debating anarcho-capitalism right now anyway! I'm RARELY EVER on the attack about anarcho-capitalism, and when I am, I merely raise concerns, rather than arrogantly proclaim that it cannot possibly work. Of course, you apparently consider even the most innocuous and gentle concerns about anarcho-capitalism to be a grave mistake only a noob with no grasp of the philosophy whatsoever could possibly make. In contrast, you're constantly making blunt and aggressive attacks on anyone hinting their preference for a Constitutional republic, constantly forcing them to defend the mere idea that any Constitutional republic might work...but whenever I mention specific checks that probably would work, you either totally ignore them or just attack them blindly with a generic comment about how no Constitutional check or limit could ever work, because the current Constitution was a failure, the worst rise to the top, and we should "learn from history." Your repetitive and annoyingly vocal contempt for minarchism in multiple posts in almost every single thread you post in wouldn't be so bad if you didn't refuse to consider or seriously address viable minarchist ideas...but since that is the case, your complete and almost religious intolerance for minarchist thought goes well above and beyond the occasional intolerance that militant old school conservatives display towards anarcho-capitalists. It's as if every other poster on this board is a "fail" because they're not marching in lock-step with Murray Rothbard. Please, grow some respect for other people.

:rolleyes: I have nothing against working with people who want more liberty. However, when someone begins advocating something that will inevitably or has the innate potential to reduce my liberty, I'm going to speak up...

I would like to see you change or alter human nature - that's something the socialists contend is plausible. And just like the statists they are - you are aswell.. to a MINIMUM degree. A statist none the less.


In this thread, I'm NOT arguing against anarcho-capitalism. I am arguing against the idea that there's no such thing as abolishing government too fast, and I'm also strongly objecting to the unimaginative assumptions that no Constitutional limits or checks could ever possibly restrain a state. If you remember, I raised similar objections when socialize_me acted as if anarcho-capitalism could never possibly work. While I prefer minarchism, I disagree with the closed-minded attitude that both the militant anarcho-capitalists and the militant minarchists or Constitutionalists have.

Is it possible to restrain or LIMIT the Federal Reserve and its impact on the market and society? Whilst MAINTAINING its existence? Ask yourself that.

Let's ask what Ron Paul thinks...


"Inflation, as Ron Paul points out, is caused by the government's continual creation of new money, by what amounts to its system of legalized counterfeiting. But, if that is so, why not simply urge the government to stop the creation of money? Why not point out to our rulers the bad consequences of their actions? But Ron Paul realizes that this kind of education, or even pressure, is not going to work by itself. For we are dealing not simply with ignorant or misled people; we are dealing with a pernicious system.

Let us put it this way: give any man or group power, and it will tend to use that power. If the power is inherently abusive, then that power will be abused. Our present system gives to the federal government and its Federal Reserve System the unlimited power to counterfeit. The problem is that if the Fed has the power to counterfeit, it will inevitably use that power. Why? Because the power to counterfeit is too tempting. The power to create money means that it is far more tempting to print it than to work for it. It means that the counterfeiter can pay his debts, spend more money, give more money to his friends and associates. In the case of government, the power to counterfeit means that government's debts can be paid without levying taxes, that government spending can increase, and that political allies can be purchased and maintained."

The Federal Reserve, by its mere existence - is an intervention in market. It creates the business cycle - it fcks people over.

The State and its mere existence, is an intervention in the true prospects for liberty. It is an intervention in society's social structure. You cannot have a free market in money - when the Federal Reserve exists, you cannot have TRUE monetary FREEDOM. The same goes with the existence of the state. You cannot have TRUE social and economic FREEDOM.. with the existence of the state. :)

Btw, what is government? - simply, it is a group of men. There is nothing government can do, that the free market can't also do - but more EFFICIENTLY and EFFECTIVELY.. without the FORCE and COERCION.. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

To summarize the above. ;)

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

[Conza88]

Books on anarcho-capitalism? I have not read any from cover to cover, but I've dabbled. I've read the most "radical" portions of For a New Liberty and refer to them occasionally, I've skimmed through the rest, I've read articles on Lew Rockwell's site, I've read a bit of Healing Our World (not necessarily anarcho-capitalist, but close), etc. Nick Coons is also a very good representative of strict adherents to the non-aggression axiom. I am certainly no authority on anarcho-capitalism, the proposed methods to achieve it, the hypothetical arguments about how it might work, or the comprehensive counter-arguments against common objections...but I certainly know enough to debate it on an Internet forum. That said, I rarely actually debate anarcho-capitalism itself. Half of our arguments are about terminology half the time anyway, like when you steadfastly refuse to accept the completely valid label of anarchist, which applies equally to Murray Rothbard as it does to Noam Chomsky. :rolleyes:

Murray Rothbard and Noam Chomsky couldn't be any different. That's like comparing Tupac to the Spice Girls and labelling both under the completely valid label of musicians, or artists of entertainers whichever you want :rolleyes: .. The fact remains they have a certain adjective, a different GENRE aka IDEOLOGY. That separates them in MANY many regards. The influences upon them. What they do in their free time, go do drugs, get high, write some ryhmes, or go shopping, go for a run etc.. WHAT, HOW, WHY, WHEN and WHERE are all different. They use different instruments (methods) to get their desired result of the ideology.. invariably - they produce a different tune.. ;)

In regards to your "gradualist approach" responses... you obviously didn't read this from Rothbard. Did you end up listening to the links provided ?

REPOST THAT I MENTIONED ABOVE, AS PROMISED:

30. TOWARD A THEORY OF STRATEGY FOR LIBERTY (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirty.asp)
The ETHICS of LIBERTY by Murray Rothbard

"It might be thought that the libertarian, the person committed to the “natural system of liberty” (in Adam Smith’s phrase), almost by definition holds the goal of liberty as his highest political end. But this is often not true; for many libertarians, the desire for self-expression, or for bearing witness to the truth of the excellence of liberty, frequently takes precedence over the goal of the triumph of liberty in the real world. Yet surely, as will be seen further below, the victory of liberty will never come to pass unless the goal of victory in the real world takes precedence over more esthetic and passive considerations.

If liberty should be the highest political end, then what is the grounding for that goal? It should be clear from this work that, first and foremost, liberty is a moral principle, grounded in the nature of man. In particular, it is a principle of justice, of the abolition of aggressive violence in the affairs of men. Hence, to be grounded and pursued adequately, the libertarian goal must be sought in the spirit of an overriding devotion to justice. But to possess such devotion on what may well be a long and rocky road, the libertarian must be possessed of a passion for justice, an emotion derived from and channelled by his rational insight into what natural justice requires.3 Justice, not the weak reed of mere utility, must be the motivating force if liberty is to be attained.4

If liberty is to be the highest political end, then this implies that liberty is to be pursued by the most efficacious means, i.e., those means which will most speedily and thoroughly arrive at the goal. This means that the libertarian must be an “ abolitionist,” i.e., he must wish to achieve the goal of liberty as rapidly as possible. If he balks at abolitionism, then he is no longer holding liberty as the highest political end. The libertarian, then, should be an abolitionist who would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty. Following the classical liberal Leonard Read, who advocated immediate and total abolition of price-and-wage controls after World War II, we might refer to this as the “button-pushing” criterion. Thus, Read declared that “If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage-and-price controls instantaneously I would put my finger on it and push!” The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push a button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty—not something, by the way, that any utilitarian would ever be likely to do.5

Anti-libertarians, and anti-radicals generally, characteristically make the point that such abolitionism is “unrealistic”; by making such a charge they hopelessly confuse the desired goal with a strategic estimate of the probable path toward that goal. It is essential to make a clear-cut distinction between the ultimate goal itself, and the strategic estimate of how to reach that goal; in short, the goal must be formulated before questions of strategy or “realism” enter the scene. The fact that such a magic button does not and is not likely to exist has no relevance to the desirability of abolitionism itself. We might agree, for example, on the goal of liberty and the desirability of abolitionism in liberty’s behalf. But this does not mean that we believe that abolition will in fact be attainable in the near or far future.

The libertarian goals—including immediate abolition of invasions of liberty—are “realistic” in the sense that they could be achieved if enough people agreed on them, and that, if achieved, the resulting libertarian system would be viable. The goal of immediate liberty is not unrealistic or “Utopian” because—in contrast to such goals as the “elimination of poverty”—its achievement is entirely dependent on man’s will. If, for example, everyone suddenly and immediately agreed on the overriding desirability of liberty, then total liberty would be immediately achieved.6 The strategic estimate of how the path toward liberty is likely to be achieved is, of course, an entirely separate question.7

Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being “unrealistic” when, in the 1830s, he raised the standard of the goal of immediate emandpation of the slaves. His goal was the proper moral and libertarian one, and was unrelated to the “realism,” or probability of its achievement. Indeed, Garrison’s strategic realism was expressed by the fact that he did not expect the end of slavery to arrive immediately or at a single blow. As Garrison carefully distinguished: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.”8 Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

Gradualism in theory, in fact, totally undercuts the overriding goal of liberty itself; its import, therefore, is not simply strategic but an opposition to the end itself and hence impermissible as any part of a strategy toward liberty. The reason is that once immediate abolitionism is abandoned, then the goal is conceded to take second or third place to other, anti-libertarian considerations, for these considerations are now placed higher than liberty. Thus, suppose that the abolitionist of slavery had said: “I advocate an end to slavery—but only after five years’ time.” But this would imply that abolition in four or three years’ time, or a fortiori immediately, would be wrong, and that therefore it is better for slavery to be continued a while longer. But this would mean that considerations of justice have been abandoned, and that the goal itself is no longer highest on the abolitionist’s (or libertarian’s) political value-scale. In fact, it would mean that the libertarian advocated the prolongation of crime and injustice.

Hence, a strategy for liberty must not include any means which undercut or contradict the end itself—as gradualism-in-theory clearly does. Are we then saying that “the end justifies the means”? This is a common, but totally fallacious, charge often directed toward any group that advocates fundamental or radical social change. For what else but an end could possibly justify any means? The very concept of “means” implies that this action is merely an instrument toward arriving at an end. If someone is hungry, and eats a sandwich to alleviate his hunger, the act of eating a sandwich is merely a means to an end; its sole justification arises from its use as an end by the consumer. Why else eat the sandwich, or, further down the line, purchase it or its ingredients? Far from being a sinister doctrine, that the end justifies the means is a simple philosophic truth, implicit in the very relationship of “means” and “ends.

What then, do the critics of the “end justifies the means” truly mean when they say that “bad means” can or will lead to “bad ends”? What they are really saying is that the means in question will violate other ends which the critics deem to be more important or more valuable than the goal of the group being criticized. Thus, suppose that Communists hold that murder is justified if it leads to a dictatorship by the vanguard party of the proletariat. The critics of such murder (or of such advocacy of murder) are really asserting, not that the “ends do not justify the means,” but rather that murder violates a more valuable end (to say the least), namely, the end of “not committing murder,” or nonaggression against persons. And, of course, from the libertarian point of view, the critics would be correct.

Hence, the libertarian goal, the victory of liberty, justifies the speediest possible means towards reaching the goal, but those means cannot be such as to contradict, and thereby undercut, the goal itself. We have already seen that gradualism-in-theory is such a contradictory means. Another contradictory means would be to commit aggression (e.g., murder or theft) against persons or just property in order to reach the libertarian goal of nonaggression. But this too would be a self-defeating and impermissible means to pursue. For the employment of such aggression would directly violate the goal of nonaggression itself.

If, then, the libertarian must call for immediate abolition of the State as an organized engine of aggression, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory to the overriding end (and therefore impermissible), what further strategic stance should a libertarian take in a world in which States continue all too starkly to exist? Must the libertarian necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not, since realistically there would then be no hope of achieving the final goal. It is therefore incumbent upon the libertarian, eager to achieve his goal as rapidly as possible, to push the polity ever further in the direction of that goal. Clearly, such a course is difficult, for the danger always exists of losing sight of, or even undercutting, the ultimate goal of liberty. But such a course, given the state of the world in the past, present, and foreseeable future, is vital if the victory of liberty is ever to be achieved. The transitional demands, then, must be framed while (a) always holding up the ultimate goal of liberty as the desired end of the transitional process; and (b) never taking steps, or using means, which explicitly or implicitly contradict that goal.

Let us consider, for example, a transition demand set forth by various libertarians: namely, that the government budget be reduced by 10 percent each year for ten years, after which the government will have disappeared. Such a proposal might have heuristic or strategic value, provided that the proposers always make crystal clear that these are minimal demands, and that indeed there would be nothing wrong—in fact, it would be all to the good—to step up the pace to cutting the budget by 25 percent a year for four years, or, most desirably, by cutting it by 100 percent immediately. The danger arises in implying, directly or indirectly that any faster pace than 10 percent would be wrong or undesirable.

An even greater danger of a similar sort is posed by the idea of many libertarians of setting forth a comprehensive and planned program of transition to total liberty, e.g., that in Year 1law A should be repealed, law B modified, tax C be cut by 20 percent, etc.; in Year 2 law D be repealed, tax C cut by a further 10 percent, etc. The comprehensive plan is far more misleading than the simple budget cut, because it strongly implies that, for example, law D should not be repealed until the second year of this planned program. Hence, the trap of philosophic gradualism, of gradualism-in-theory, would be fallen into on a massive scale. The would-be libertarian planners would be virtually falling into a position, or seeming to, of opposing a faster pace toward liberty.

There is, indeed, another grave flaw in the idea of a comprehensive planned program toward liberty. For the very care and studied pace, the very all-embracing nature of the program, implies that the State is not really the enemy of mankind, that it is possible and desirable to use the State in engineering a planned and measured pace toward liberty. The insight that the State is the permanent enemy of mankind, on the other hand, leads to a very different strategic outlook: namely that libertarians push for and accept with alacrity any reduction of State power or State activity on any front; any such reduction at any time is a reduction in crime and aggression, and is a reduction of the parasitic malignity with which State power rules over and confiscates social power." Continues... (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirty.asp)

Care to respond Mini Me? :)"

[Conza88]

To summarize the above. ;)

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/851/tupus9.gif :D

[Mini-Me]

Once again, I'm going to strip out your smilies so I can post.


I'm sorry, I'm not an "ANARCHIST" - I don't believe in abolishing the state by any means necessary. I respect the non aggression axiom + property rights.

Philosophically? NOT just - it is called REAL LIFE principles aswell...

Take a look champ, here - Riots in Greece (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBLwg1BO-Ss). 'ANARCHISTS' or more properly called Vandarchists.

Considering how often you repeat phrases like "abolish state" or "abolish the state" like a mantra, as if abolishing the state in general would solve every problem and inevitably lead to anarcho-capitalism, it was worthwhile to qualify your statement and point out that "abolishing" the state would only lead to anarcho-capitalism under very specific conditions. Apparently you know this, which is good - but the actual words you write in your posts are often a whole lot more unqualified and less nuanced.

As far as anarcho-capitalism vs. anarchism in general: They are different philosophies with different real-life principles that their adherents hold, but in terms of government structure under all of the above systems, it's exactly the same (nonexistent). This particular point is not even debatable. Anyway, you've missed the entire reason why I've pointed it out over and over: I've been pointing this out precisely because anarchists of all stripes (including the anarcho-capitalists) want to abolish the state, but they want to abolish it for very different reasons and to very different ends. The whole point of mentioning the identical government structure under all types of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, is to offer a repeated warning that "abolishing the state" in general is not enough to ensure anarcho-capitalism. Of course, abolishing the state by "any means necessary" is against your moral code (as well as unworkable as far as your goals are concerned), but your repeated insistence that we must abolish the state, without offering any other sort of qualifiers, begs correction and clarification.



You see any ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS running around destroying private property? lol Your whole "argument" is fallacious, because I don't hold - nor have I ever - held those positions you attribute to me. Yet, you have ASSUMED as much.

Which positions? I've never accused you of being one to run around rioting and looting, if that's what you're thinking (if so, reread everything I wrote). :rolleyes: Also, I honestly did not even assume in my own mind that you want to abolish the state by "any and all means" anyway. Instead, I've been trying to point out the whole time that your words are ambiguous, and if you will not qualify your arguments, I will. When you say that we must "abolish the state," without adding any qualifiers or conditions, such vague statements can be interpreted very broadly and carry implications that you may not (and do not in fact) mean. When you write loaded statements without clarifying, you cannot blame other people for taking your words the way they're written.



What we are really delineating is the ESOTERIC AGENDA of the label.

I refuse to accept the label that has been tarnished and is intellectually decrepit. The label ORIGINALLY was for socialists, who believed the state was there to protect private property. Why use their "handle" that is associated with CRIMINALS - people who use violence, and don't respect private property?

Nope. Anarcho-Capitalist is ftw. They can call themselves anarchists all they want, (they truley aren't) as you said, anarcho-capitalists are the only true anarchists. I'm just refusing to accept the label, it is MUCH easier to SELL and PROMOTE the ideas, if they haven't got the bullshit baggage attached to them.

That's fair enough, and I certainly understand why you'd rather be called an anarcho-capitalist than an anarchist, specifically because of the extra baggage the term "anarchist" implies. However, an anarcho-capitalist is still an anarchist in the broadest sense of one who seeks to abolish the state...which is the common thread tying all anarchist philosophies together, no matter how disparate they may be. Besides, the very term anarcho-capitalism by itself contains "anarcho-," a prefix with clear and obvious ties to anarchism. Unless you call your belief set by an entirely different name, such as voluntaryism (despite the implied differences in strategy with "mainstream" anarcho-capitalism), you will not free yourself entirely from the baggage of the anarchist label. Really, that's the whole reason why the anarchists felt so obligated to write up a "rebuttal" of the anarcho-capitalist label anyway: They were already afraid of the association the "anarcho-" prefix correctly drew with the word "anarchism," if not the disjointed and half-baked philosophy they choose to call anarchism:

Much the same can be said for "anarcho"-capitalism. Anarchists would not bother themselves with it except that it calls itself anarchism.
To be fair though (and this is off topic), I do think both groups have more common ground than you really give each other credit for, and I mean that in a good way. Many of your disagreements really revolve around a matter of word definition. They are against "capitalism" because they define it as being irrevocably equivalent to a system of heirarchical and power-based social relationships, yet they turn around and say:

Opposing the latter does not mean opposing the market. Not all anarchists are communists (although most are). Capitalism is just one form of market system, one rooted in specific property rights and social relationships. For those "anarcho"-capitalists who genuinely seek a free society and still think that markets are the best way to organise an economy then the ideas of anarchist mutualism should be of interest. This is a socialist system based on "occupancy and use," where self-employed workers and co-operatives govern themselves and sell the product of their labour to their fellow workers. A society without hierarchy, exploitation and oppression -- a genuine anarchist society rather than a system of mini-states.
Obviously, free market capitalism does not preclude the existence of cooperatives and such, and under a system without plunder and where justice truly prevailed, an anarcho-capitalist society would actually produce the same kind of more equal social and working relationships the anarchists strive for. (It just might take a while, considering the sheer amount of property that has been consolidated in the hands of the rich through plunder over human history.) This is something that the anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc. fail to see, due to their hatred of the word "capitalism," and it blinds them from seeing the truth, that the anarcho-capitalists basically want the same thing as an end result: Liberty, both negative and positive (though it is unjust to destroy negative liberty in the pursuit of positive liberty, something they also don't understand). They also fail to see the futility in trying to force and enforce equal social relationships, because the presence of an enforcer would inherently imply the inequality of the people being forced. In other words, they have fine goals which are quite similar to those of the anarcho-capitalists...they're just confused as all hell with how such goals might be achieved, especially the anarcho-communists, who have no grasp of economics whatsoever.

ANYWAY...



Yes, you knew that. I like the irony aswell. The only true anarchism is anarcho-capitalism. Instead of fighting pointless "battles" about who is the true anarchist.. I'll let the retards with flawed ideologies have the label, THEY originally created... and I'll stick with the fine label that more ACCURATELY describes the position I hold. Anarcho-CAPITALISM.. which is a product of LIBERTARIAN ideology... it is the NATURAL, LOGICAL - conclusion of the non aggression + private property rights.

Libertarianism -> insanely more associated with Anarcho-Capitalism than any other ideologies.

The ranking goal is: Liberty. THAT is the criteria. So we classify, or order the ideologies - as to which provides the most of that. Anarcho-Capitalism - obviously no 1. No state - no
Fair enough, but I still think it's pretty pointless to shun the label of "anarchist" when "anarcho-capitalist" so clearly invokes the word "anarchism" all by itself.



For the exact same reason you took it upon yourself to write about voluntary socialism within a freemarket.
Perhaps...;)



Yes! But you assume that to do that; you'd need to break the non aggression axiom, or property rights! The "push the button" scenario, is if you were in power, if you got elected etc.. if you were GIVEN the chance, to DO away with the state, with TYRANNY over the lives in EVERY manner, would you ABOLISH it... or would you slower GRADUALLY remove it.

You are morally justified to abolish it. And morally - the sooner the better.
Actually, I fear the immediate use of a magic button even if it were done through the political process. Regardless of whether it involves breaking the non-aggression axiom or not (such as violent revolution presumably would, arguments of self-defense aside), if an attempt were made to abolish government too early - either before people were comfortable enough with the idea or before "replacement" institutions were in place (defense/insurance, courts, etc.) - the resulting chaos and unrest would create a reactionary shift toward a new government (perhaps a worse one).



You are wasting BOTH our time... well mine at least. Why are you arguing against the idea: "any way of abolishing government is a good way." <--- I NEVER said that, why are you quoting it as if I did? :confused: Nor have I ever held the notion, nor supported anyway is a good way, or AKA - 'the ends justify the means'.. STRAWMEN then!!?!
See above about how vague and loaded statements like "abolish the state" (or really, "abolish state," as I most recently remember you saying it) can carry undesired implications.



Rothbard was a moaist? How interesting...
My point exactly. He wasn't a Maoist for the same reason I'm not a Fabian. :rolleyes: (Actually though, I mentioned that my gradualism makes me about as Fabian as your radicalism makes you a Maoist, not Rothbard...but no matter.)



How about you address Rothbards article on the issue. I posted it here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1854109&postcount=55). And I will repost it for you now below.
Ah, I didn't notice that post...I'll check it out (but not right now, since it's already 5:20 AM and I haven't gone to bed yet!).



Could you do me a favor and write up an article (it can be as long as you want.. you'll like it like that) or simply copy and paste what you believe to be your grand ideas of limiting the state and present your case for limited government to Hoppe, or anyone over at the mises forums. I'm an amateur compared to those guys on Anarcho-Capitalism, and debating methods. This is playschool compared to there. Wld like to see you present the same limited govt argument over there. Game? Hoppe's email is on lewrockwell or mises.
I just might, actually (not tonight though). Obviously they won't accept any minarchist argument as morally legitimate, out of a principled aversion to all government based on the non-aggression axiom, but they'd probably be happy to try to find practical holes in my checks and balances as well...and I'm genuinely interested to see if anyone actually could (when they're taken in combination).



In all your posts, I didn't see anything addressing the points I hold. You actually TOTALLY ignored it. You quoted it; but never addressed it. (Talking about your post above this) And the points are the ones I have highlighted throughout this, with several quotes in bold. - Thomas Jefferson Quote, LeFerve and Acton.
I'll explain below why I've ignored those quotes.



No, why is there even a reason to argue about it - at this point in time? You can just as easily ignore it the comments instead of choosing to debate it. The position I hold is an extension of minarchism / libertarianism to its logical conclusion. I am all for more liberty - as previously stated. In anyway, shape or form - that doesn't break the non aggression axiom or property rights. If the state was to crumble tomorrow for whatever reason, you'd have to continue to campaign to get people to reject whatever govt was going to try arise. You would set up private defence companies, or the ones that ALREADY EXIST would be a booming market, gaining more profit - hiring more people.... Insurance companies.. that ALREADY EXIST would make contracts, or revise them if necessary etc.. (Yeah, you all know it right? lol) WHY would anyone go to the stupid notion of trying to restablish a STATE, just so they can try get minarchy?

WHAT is the purpose of that? You want law and order right? YOU only think a state could provide that? Why? 2nd amendment - people have a right to defend themselves, and collectively organize as a militia. They could defend their neighborhoods.. if necessary, its called neighborhood watch.. lol

Do you think guns should be taken from individual citizens like in Katrina? To re-establish LAW and ORDER? lol..

(Fully answering your questions about why someone would want to create a minarchist state would be beyond the scope of this discussion, so I'll pass on those.)
That's a fair enough reason for debating courts and such, but it is still not the reason Rothbard gave for not being able to walk "hand-in-hand" with the minarchists. He wrote:

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement."
His problem was: Minarchists are not radical enough in their methods anymore (clearly admitting that minarchists can be radical).
His solution seemed to be: Argue philosophical points between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, such as courts (his example, not mine). However, arguing over issues like courts doesn't really tackle the actual problem he had, which had to do with political strategy rather than the difference between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism.

In other words, you just gave a much better answer than he did about why we should argue about courts now. ;)



Unimaginative & unfounded? lmao. NOPE. I can imagine, MANY ways the state would get around its imposed Constitutional "limits". HELL, all I need do is open up a history book.
I can also imagine many ways the state can get around most Constitutional limits...which is exactly the premise I built my own ideas around. ;) That's why I called your assumptions unimaginative and unfounded: You refused to think outside the box and acknowledge the possibility that certain checks and balances just might exist that differ so substantially from "the usual" that ordinary arguments about unstoppable growth of government might not apply.



NO that is NOT my basic argument, and I love it how you always feel compelled too reframe what I say.



My basic argument is this:

Power is not alluring to pure minds. - Thomas Jefferson

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. – Lord Acton (1887)

Please offer a refutation of human nature. Why would you ever want to keep such an institution as the state around? It is like a one world government. The fken fools who support it (in Uni in my tute class) are retarded enough to advocate it, "it shouldn't be anything like the United Nations" etc.. but that hardly matters - these people profess a profound hatred for George Bush etc.. but they cannot comprehend or imagine, WHAT is stopping a person like GWB coming to power at the head of a One World Government? I assume you'll add some remarkably foolish checks and balances - ohh, they wld need to get a 7/10 vote of support from all countries or something. The FABIANS and Rhodesians are everywhere.. countries and national boundaries don't mean dick. Obviously for INTERNATIONAL socialists...

Power is not alluring to pure minds. - Thomas Jefferson

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. – Lord Acton (1887)

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." – Robert LeFevre


Natural Law... Collectivists will gravitate towards power, people who wish to impose their will on others. Thats not even accounting for psychopaths,
narcissists and megalomaniac's..

This takes place while all the 'normal' people, those who value liberty etc.. just want to be left the f--- alone..

People also take things for granted that have come easy to them.

The main reason I don't need to refute human nature or those poignant quotes* is precisely because I've already taken all of the above into account. I'm not trying to prove those observations wrong; instead, I'm working with them as my starting point. When I thought of what checks and balances might work and which could be circumvented, my fundamental assumption was that each and every politician and public official is and will always be evil incarnate (which is a shade more dangerous than human nature and the nature of power-seeking politicians in general ;)).

Thomas Jefferson also said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Notice that over two hundred years ago, the Founders and Framers were already keenly aware that public officials and politicians could not be trusted. Lord Acton summed it up very succinctly in his own famous quote, but the general idea was well-known long before 1887.

The question, then, is not about debating human nature. The question is, starting with the most cynical and pessimistic assumption of human nature possible, what limits could be placed upon government's power to make human nature inconsequential, and what checks and balances could ensure those limits remain? Obviously, the Framers of the Constitution miscalculated** big-time, and they left gaping holes for abuse without creating any strong and uncorruptible mechanism for catching, reversing, and punishing that abuse (and by relying on the Supreme Court and little else to point out unconstitutional laws, they were inherently relying upon "confidence in man")...but human nature by itself does not preclude the possibility of a fail-safe system, because the whole point of such a system is to be foolproof (or evilproof, rather).

*I even like LeFevre's quote, and I think it merits serious consideration, but I also think it's ultimately flawed.
** ...except perhaps who may have had tyranny in mind in the first place, to a greater or lesser extent.



"Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grand-children are once more slaves." – D. H. Lawrence (1885-1938)

Want to deny it? Limited Government - rights won.. yet over time, because the state apparatus still exists - it again rises up to enslave the populace.

That was a good quote, but Lawrence's words are very general. You can't really use that quote as an argument against minarchism, because the minarchists believe that their beliefs more than those of the anarcho-capitalists would ensure and preserve liberty. Personally, I guess I'm a "soft" minarchist, since I don't know for sure, but I believe that minarchism [done right] is probably a safer bet. My basic prescription for "minarchism done right" is above, of course (in the post I reposted from another thread).


I reject the label because it is tainted with bullshit. It's like; there exists a t-shirt with the Anarchist symbol on it. For hundreds of years it has been worn by socialists and those who aren't actually for "no ruler", yet they profess to be. The people who have worn the shirt and often criminals - destruction of private property (because the state protects it) and have no regard for the non aggression axiom. The shirt stinks, it has blood on it, the smell of petrol, tear gas, it is torn and unwashed.

Then along comes Anarcho-Capitalism. A new shirt to represent a new ideology. It is fresh and clean. It smells great, it is ironed and pressed - sparkling new.. gleaming with logic and reason.

What you want me to do is wear the old traditional 'anarchist' shirt. And say, hey guys "I've still got the shirt on" but I'm a different bloke to the last guy who wore it... in fact I'm not coming rioting with you lot, I respect private property and the non aggression axiom.. I believe in Capitalism. But who cares what the other anarchists think right? We can go convert the people!

You try to approach someone on the street.. they scream, ANARCHIST! DESTROYER of PROPERTY, etc etc. Or fancy that you aren't wearing or appear to be an anarchist today... you approach someone - Hi, I'm an anarchist... (*Eyes glaze over*) , <-- reaction to the old label and all the bullshit that was done under its banner.

Alternatively; to better SELL THE IDEAS OF LIBERTY... you go about in your pristine, new, clean, fresh smelling dry cleaned good looking collared going out shirt and approach someone.. Hi I'm an anarcho-capitalist.. "? whats that exactly?" ** I'm not dumb enough, nor is practically ANYONE too try convince anyone in that way. Which is why I, and I presume most of us - use the labels we want depending on the situation... if you are on the street campaigning..
I understand this, but the label of anarcho-capitalism does very little to shed such word association baggage, as I mentioned above.



"Constitutionalist" / "Limited Government" works great for the sheeple..
Then comes Libertarianism, Minarchism, Anarcho-capitalism.. imo. I flick between these depending on the setting... and since I am amongst company here, were people aren't braindead fox news and american idol drongos.. I choose the label anarcho-capitalism and what it represents - not "anarchy" and all the other freaks who've completely ruined the shirt - it is now unwearable.

"Murray Rothbard used the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his philosophy from anarchism that opposes private property,[6] as well as to distinguish it from other forms of individualist anarchism.[7]"

Was he stupid for doing so?

If his goal really was to sever any link between his philosophy and collectivist anarchism, then, well...yes, he was pretty stupid for including the "anarcho-" prefix, I've gotta say. ;)



I have nothing against working with people who want more liberty. However, when someone begins advocating something that will inevitably or has the innate potential to reduce my liberty, I'm going to speak up...
Go ahead and speak up for anarcho-capitalism - I'm not objecting to that. I just don't like the attitude. (Which by the way you've been a lot better about in these two posts...)



I would like to see you change or alter human nature - that's something the socialists contend is plausible. And just like the statists they are - you are aswell.. to a MINIMUM degree. A statist none the less.
Am I statist in the sense that I prefer the existence of a state? Of course. I'm certainly not statist in terms of believing in the supremacy of the state, though. That label is better suited to Hitler, Stalin, Hillary Clinton, Pol Pot, etc.

However, I think you're totally misunderstanding where I'm coming from as far as my minarchism goes. Granted, a lot of minarchists wrongly believe, "There's nothing wrong with the Constitution - it's the people's fault for failing to hold the government to it," not realizing that any system designed around such an assumption is doomed for failure. My goal is not to change human nature to make it reliable: My goal is to neutralize human nature entirely.



Is it possible to restrain or LIMIT the Federal Reserve and its impact on the market and society? Whilst MAINTAINING its existence? Ask yourself that.

Let's ask what Ron Paul thinks...



The Federal Reserve, by its mere existence - is an intervention in market. It creates the business cycle - it fcks people over.
Indeed...although it's important to point out that without the power of legal tender laws and capital gains taxes, the Federal Reserve would be as entirely powerless as any random person printing paper and saying it's money. Of course, the kind of government with the power to create the Federal Reserve is also the kind of government with the power to make legal tender laws and levy capital gains taxes, but anyway...



The State and its mere existence, is an intervention in the true prospects for liberty. It is an intervention in society's social structure. You cannot have a free market in money - when the Federal Reserve exists, you cannot have TRUE monetary FREEDOM. The same goes with the existence of the state. You cannot have TRUE social and economic FREEDOM.. with the existence of the state.

Btw, what is government? - simply, it is a group of men. There is nothing government can do, that the free market can't also do - but more EFFICIENTLY and EFFECTIVELY.. without the FORCE and COERCION..

It's mostly true that as long as a state exists, even one that taxes minimally, people will not be 100% free. Then again, if a state funded itself entirely through user fees (a position Nick Coons occasionally addresses) and allows competition in defense and insurance, etc., then that would not preclude social and economic freedom. That said, such a state may be difficult to differentiate from a private organization anyway.

However, the minarchist argument is essentially that we might not have true social and economic freedom under anarcho-capitalism either, since peaceful anarcho-capitalism might very well become much more easily undermined and lead to truly tyrannical government. I'm not saying it necessarily would (though others do, and I think they're too hasty in coming to that definitive judgment), just that it might, since anarcho-capitalism includes no carefully crafted systematic checks and balances. Unlike private institutions, the premise behind legitimate government is that it is meant to be an institution that is deliberately created without any ulterior motives of its own to protect the rights of individuals, and which is explicitly answerable to them (not just implicitly through market power). Obviously the people occupying government seats throughout history have learned how to subvert governments, but that does not mean it's impossible to create a policy set that would prevent this from happening. Whereas it's very clear to me how states have been abused throughout history and what can be done to make a minarchist system work, the hidden long-term dangers of anarcho-capitalism are not so obvious (though I've offered some concerns in other threads), and the proposition of charging directly full-ahead into the unknown is something I approach very cautiously.

[Republicae]

The original wording of the Preamble read: "We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution, for the government of ourselves and our posterity."

On the very next day this preamble was unanimously adopted; and the reader will at once perceive, that it carefully preserves the distinct sovereignty of the States, and discountenances all idea of consolidation. Collectivist? NO!

[Conza88]

Considering how often you repeat phrases like "abolish state" or "abolish the state" like a mantra, as if abolishing the state in general would solve every problem and inevitably lead to anarcho-capitalism, it was worthwhile to qualify your statement and point out that "abolishing" the state would only lead to anarcho-capitalism under very specific conditions. Apparently you know this, which is good - but the actual words you write in your posts are often a whole lot more unqualified and less nuanced.

This is not my problem. I am not a socialist. I respect homesteading property rights + non aggression axiom. That is clinically evident, AS A LIBERTARIAN it is the FOUNDATION and LYNCHPIN of the ideology. Rothbard extended from that position - anarcho-capitalism takes it to the logical conclusion.

If I say I want to abolish the state endlessly, I mean what I say - at it comes from the principles, the AXIOMS of liberty and natural law. It's not my fault if you or anyone misconstrues my position as a traditional anarchist one - that is YOUR FAULT, not mine... I would have thought by now, it is blatantly obvious I'm not a socialist / aka traditional anarchist. :rolleyes:


As far as anarcho-capitalism vs. anarchism in general: They are different philosophies with different real-life principles that their adherents hold, but in terms of government structure under all of the above systems, it's exactly the same (nonexistent). This particular point is not even debatable. Anyway, you've missed the entire reason why I've pointed it out over and over: I've been pointing this out precisely because anarchists of all stripes (including the anarcho-capitalists) want to abolish the state, but they want to abolish it for very different reasons and to very different ends. The whole point of mentioning the identical government structure under all types of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, is to offer a repeated warning that "abolishing the state" in general is not enough to ensure anarcho-capitalism. Of course, abolishing the state by "any means necessary" is against your moral code (as well as unworkable as far as your goals are concerned), but your repeated insistence that we must abolish the state, without offering any other sort of qualifiers, begs correction and clarification.

How does it beg clarification? MATE, I have OUTLINED the approach - I have posted Rothbard's, which I agree with. YOU are the one who has not READ it, NOR responded to it. The only person under any delusions IS YOU. ;)


Which positions? I've never accused you of being one to run around rioting and looting, if that's what you're thinking (if so, reread everything I wrote). Also, I honestly did not even assume in my own mind that you want to abolish the state by "any and all means" anyway. Instead, I've been trying to point out the whole time that your words are ambiguous, and if you will not qualify your arguments, I will. When you say that we must "abolish the state," without adding any qualifiers or conditions, such vague statements can be interpreted very broadly and carry implications that you may not (and do not in fact) mean. When you write loaded statements without clarifying, you cannot blame other people for taking your words the way they're written.

The ONLY reason you think they NEED clarification is because you are ignorant of my position. You're inability to read, address or even comprehend it's existence is fundamental to the reason we've having this discussion.

No-one else has failed to understand, bar you. Quit adding in the collective, you represent yourself, so speak for yourself and not others.

Toward a Strategy for Liberty by Murray Rothbard (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1854109&postcount=55)

Back on page 6! I guess I have to assume you don't read the posts I make in the thread.


That's fair enough, and I certainly understand why you'd rather be called an anarcho-capitalist than an anarchist, specifically because of the extra baggage the term "anarchist" implies. However, an anarcho-capitalist is still an anarchist in the broadest sense of one who seeks to abolish the state...which is the common thread tying all anarchist philosophies together, no matter how disparate they may be. Besides, the very term anarcho-capitalism by itself contains "anarcho-," a prefix with clear and obvious ties to anarchism. Unless you call your belief set by an entirely different name, such as voluntaryism (despite the implied differences in strategy with "mainstream" anarcho-capitalism), you will not free yourself entirely from the baggage of the anarchist label. Really, that's the whole reason why the anarchists felt so obligated to write up a "rebuttal" of the anarcho-capitalist label anyway: They were already afraid of the association the "anarcho-" prefix correctly drew with the word "anarchism," if not the disjointed and half-baked philosophy they choose to call anarchism:

The fact that there IS A DIFFERENCE. Warrants the alternate label. To say otherwise is illogical. The approach is different, the GOAL is ALSO different - the prime goal of ANARCHO-CAPITALISM = being Liberty, which involves the abolition of the state (theft, coercion & violence) whilst Anarchy traditionally is about the abolition of the state, because it protects private property. There is no regard for property rights or the non aggression axiom.

They appear to share the same name but they are REMARKABLY different. You're inability to accept this is outstanding.


Fair enough, but I still think it's pretty pointless to shun the label of "anarchist" when "anarcho-capitalist" so clearly invokes the word "anarchism" all by itself.

Yes, fair enough indeed. Pointless? HARDLY. To those not in the know, they don't automatically connect anarcho with anarchism. I didn't. But if they do, it also forces people to ask, if they get to that level of understanding - well, what not call yourself an anarchist.? You're then able to profess the reality of the situation.



Actually, I fear the immediate use of a magic button even if it were done through the political process. Regardless of whether it involves breaking the non-aggression axiom or not (such as violent revolution presumably would, arguments of self-defense aside), if an attempt were made to abolish government too early - either before people were comfortable enough with the idea or before "replacement" institutions were in place (defense/insurance, courts, etc.) - the resulting chaos and unrest would create a reactionary shift toward a new government (perhaps a worse one).

There is going to be a riot if you abolish the Income tax, the IRS and the Federal Reserve. :rolleyes: Maybe from the people losing their jobs? So what? They're jobs are parasitic. They shouldn't exist. They have NO RIGHT to exist, and should be abolished. If you disagree with that - then logically you must be FOR the bailouts.. ;) But I think it fairly obvious that you're not.

The Myth of National Defence - (Ed) by Hoppe (http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf)


See above about how vague and loaded statements like "abolish the state" (or really, "abolish state," as I most recently remember you saying it) can carry undesired implications.

My point exactly. He wasn't a Maoist for the same reason I'm not a Fabian. (Actually though, I mentioned that my gradualism makes me about as Fabian as your radicalism makes you a Maoist, not Rothbard...but no matter.)

You totally missed my point, I hold the EXACT same position as Rothbard. Thus, you calling me a Maoist - is calling Rothbard a Maoist - which is clinically retarded. You would know this if you had taken the time to read what I posted on pg 6, and not have automatically dismissed it.

Ah, I didn't notice that post...I'll check it out (but not right now, since it's already 5:20 AM and I haven't gone to bed yet!).

Such a shame. You never got round to doing so. How about now?


I just might, actually (not tonight though). Obviously they won't accept any minarchist argument as morally legitimate, out of a principled aversion to all government based on the non-aggression axiom, but they'd probably be happy to try to find practical holes in my checks and balances as well...and I'm genuinely interested to see if anyone actually could (when they're taken in combination).

Please do.


I'll explain below why I've ignored those quotes.


See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. – Frédéric Bastiat





(Fully answering your questions about why someone would want to create a minarchist state would be beyond the scope of this discussion, so I'll pass on those.)
That's a fair enough reason for debating courts and such, but it is still not the reason Rothbard gave for not being able to walk "hand-in-hand" with the minarchists. He wrote:

No, he wanted "radicals". Which he said is:

"Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul."

I'm an intense radical, I despise the state, the leviathan mther fkcers. You on the other hand.. don't.

It's like a guy I met at the local party, he is a David Friedman guy - free market anarchist, where I think the positions he holds is to the extreme that - he believes the market wld decide the laws, or something like that, anyway - that is besides the point.

He holds the position on utilitarian grounds! Yikes. He doesn't hate the state, he is not a radical at all. He wants to make the party policies, like lets campaign on a 30% fair tax or whatever... There is NO principle or hatred of it. It is gradualism, it's not Lets ABOLISH the Income Tax.

^ But THAT is the only way we will win. So like Rothbard says... when it comes down to it, even though he is a free market ANARCHIST - I'd much prefer a RADICAL minarchist who hates the state nearly as much as I do, any day of the year!


His problem was: Minarchists are not radical enough in their methods anymore (clearly admitting that minarchists can be radical).
His solution seemed to be: Argue philosophical points between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, such as courts (his example, not mine). However, arguing over issues like courts doesn't really tackle the actual problem he had, which had to do with political strategy rather than the difference between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism.

In other words, you just gave a much better answer than he did about why we should argue about courts now.

When it comes to abolitionism vs gradualism = gradualism FAILS.


I can also imagine many ways the state can get around most Constitutional limits...which is exactly the premise I built my own ideas around. ;) That's why I called your assumptions unimaginative and unfounded: You refused to think outside the box and acknowledge the possibility that certain checks and balances just might exist that differ so substantially from "the usual" that ordinary arguments about unstoppable growth of government might not apply.

I refused to accept your fantastical notions not grounded in reality. You can dream up all the "solutions" you want. Here in the real world though, you premises are flawed.


The main reason I don't need to refute human nature or those poignant quotes* is precisely because I've already taken all of the above into account. I'm not trying to prove those observations wrong; instead, I'm working with them as my starting point. When I thought of what checks and balances might work and which could be circumvented, my fundamental assumption was that each and every politician and public official is and will always be evil incarnate (which is a shade more dangerous than human nature and the nature of power-seeking politicians in general ).

Weakest rebuttal ever. You need to refute them. Those who come to power, will not abide by your Constitution. They'll simply "interpret it"...


Thomas Jefferson also said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Notice that over two hundred years ago, the Founders and Framers were already keenly aware that public officials and politicians could not be trusted. Lord Acton summed it up very succinctly in his own famous quote, but the general idea was well-known long before 1887.

Lmao, yes - and they tried - and it failed. Haha. Thanks for making my point even clearer.


The question, then, is not about debating human nature. The question is, starting with the most cynical and pessimistic assumption of human nature possible, what limits could be placed upon government's power to make human nature inconsequential, and what checks and balances could ensure those limits remain? Obviously, the Framers of the Constitution miscalculated** big-time, and they left gaping holes for abuse without creating any strong and uncorruptible mechanism for catching, reversing, and punishing that abuse (and by relying on the Supreme Court and little else to point out unconstitutional laws, they were inherently relying upon "confidence in man")...but human nature by itself does not preclude the possibility of a fail-safe system, because the whole point of such a system is to be foolproof (or evilproof, rather).

They won't abide by it. It's simply a "piece of god damn paper"...

Let's Abolish Government - By Lysander Spooner (http://mises.org/books/spooner-text.pdf)

NO TREASON: The Constitution of No Authority - the Constitution holds no authority over anyone. It ain't voluntary, and nor will be yours. ;) (pg 355+)


*I even like LeFevre's quote, and I think it merits serious consideration, but I also think it's ultimately flawed.
** ...except perhaps who may have had tyranny in mind in the first place, to a greater or lesser extent.

Ultimately flawed? :rolleyes: Care to expand on that reasoning? Or actual provide one? lol.


That was a good quote, but Lawrence's words are very general. You can't really use that quote as an argument against minarchism, because the minarchists believe that their beliefs more than those of the anarcho-capitalists would ensure and preserve liberty. Personally, I guess I'm a "soft" minarchist, since I don't know for sure, but I believe that minarchism [done right] is probably a safer bet. My basic prescription for "minarchism done right" is above, of course (in the post I reposted from another thread).

You can, and I did. They believe - irrationally. You yourself have said you've hardly read any anarcho-capitalist books = epic fail.


I understand this, but the label of anarcho-capitalism does very little to shed such word association baggage, as I mentioned above.

No it doesn't, if anything it at least differentiates.


If his goal really was to sever any link between his philosophy and collectivist anarchism, then, well...yes, he was pretty stupid for including the "anarcho-" prefix, I've gotta say.

Differentiation was the assumed goal. "Murray Rothbard used the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his philosophy from anarchism that opposes private property,[6] as well as to distinguish it from other forms of individualist anarchism.[7]" ;) Thus not stupid.


Am I statist in the sense that I prefer the existence of a state? Of course. I'm certainly not statist in terms of believing in the supremacy of the state, though. That label is better suited to Hitler, Stalin, Hillary Clinton, Pol Pot, etc.


LMAO?! You are a hypocrite. Can you not see the AMAZING hypocrisy you have just espoused. You call me an anarchist, and I reject the notion - for the reason that I'm not a collectivist retard socialist.

I then call you a statist, and you then largely use the same rebuttal. I can so easily go back and throw your own words back against you. And it would be rather fun. But you don't like that attitude do you? rofl.

Have you finally come round then? :D You get defensive when I call you a statist. I get defensive when you call me an anarchist. You prefer minarchist, I prefer anarcho-capitalist.

Maybe now you can stop having a cry over me CORRECTLY differentiating between the two? YEAH, you probably should. Wouldn't want to REMAIN a hypocrite now would we?


However, I think you're totally misunderstanding where I'm coming from as far as my minarchism goes. Granted, a lot of minarchists wrongly believe, "There's nothing wrong with the Constitution - it's the people's fault for failing to hold the government to it," not realizing that any system designed around such an assumption is doomed for failure. My goal is not to change human nature to make it reliable: My goal is to neutralize human nature entirely.

Well you can't neutralize human nature entirely - if that is your goal, it will fail remarkably. SOCIALISTS want to remould or change human nature, you want to neutralize it. Both will fail.

You have to ACCEPT it. Self-interest reins supreme, you cannot alter it. That is human nature. Any society that drifts from Natural Law - has and will fail. The closer it holds to it, the longer it will last.


It's mostly true that as long as a state exists, even one that taxes minimally, people will not be 100% free. Then again, if a state funded itself entirely through user fees (a position Nick Coons occasionally addresses) and allows competition in defense and insurance, etc., then that would not preclude social and economic freedom. That said, such a state may be difficult to differentiate from a private organization anyway.

There we go.. you're not for 100% freedom. Such a state you mention, wouldn't be acting as one - if no coercion is involved etc. It wouldn't be one then.


However, the minarchist argument is essentially that we might not have true social and economic freedom under anarcho-capitalism either, since peaceful anarcho-capitalism might very well become much more easily undermined and lead to truly tyrannical government. I'm not saying it necessarily would (though others do, and I think they're too hasty in coming to that definitive judgment), just that it might, since anarcho-capitalism includes no carefully crafted systematic checks and balances. Unlike private institutions, the premise behind legitimate government is that it is meant to be an institution that is deliberately created without any ulterior motives of its own to protect the rights of individuals, and which is explicitly answerable to them (not just implicitly through market power). Obviously the people occupying government seats throughout history have learned how to subvert governments, but that does not mean it's impossible to create a policy set that would prevent this from happening. Whereas it's very clear to me how states have been abused throughout history and what can be done to make a minarchist system work, the hidden long-term dangers of anarcho-capitalism are not so obvious (though I've offered some concerns in other threads), and the proposition of charging directly full-ahead into the unknown is something I approach very cautiously.

Anarcho-Capitalism vs Minarchism:

"In TEOL Rothbard points out that the minimal government advocates have yet to come up with a cogent theory of taxation."

How about you make a start? lol

It ended with the Constitution. Article by Vin Suprynowicz. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz111.html)

Washington Warp: Why Even Good People in the Beltway Can't Think Straight by Jeffery Tucker (http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=3842)

^ 25min +

"DC culture has the effect of turning people into secret anarchists or secret totalitarians."

Which one do you think Ron Paul is? ;)

[Conza88]

Why Be Libertarian? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard199.html)

Why be libertarian, anyway? By this we mean, what's the point of the whole thing? Why engage in a deep and lifelong commitment to the principle and the goal of individual liberty? For such a commitment, in our largely unfree world, means inevitably a radical disagreement with, and alienation from, the status quo, an alienation which equally inevitably imposes many sacrifices in money and prestige. When life is short and the moment of victory far in the future, why go through all this?

Incredibly, we have found among the increasing number of libertarians in this country many people who come to a libertarian commitment from one or another extremely narrow and personal point of view. Many are irresistibly attracted to liberty as an intellectual system or as an aesthetic goal, but liberty remains for them a purely intellectual parlor game, totally divorced from what they consider the "real" activities of their daily lives. Others are motivated to remain libertarians solely from their anticipation of their own personal financial profit. Realizing that a free market would provide far greater opportunities for able, independent men to reap entrepreneurial profits, they become and remain libertarians solely to find larger opportunities for business profit. While it is true that opportunities for profit will be far greater and more widespread in a free market and a free society, placing one's primary emphasis on this motivation for being a libertarian can only be considered grotesque. For in the often tortuous, difficult and grueling path that must be trod before liberty can be achieved, the libertarian's opportunities for personal profit will far more often be negative than abundant.

The consequence of the narrow and myopic vision of both the gamester and the would-be profit maker is that neither group has the slightest interest in the work of building a libertarian movement. And yet it is only through building such a movement that liberty may ultimately be achieved. Ideas, and especially radical ideas, do not advance in the world in and by themselves, as it were in a vacuum; they can only be advanced by people and, therefore, the development and advancement of such people – and therefore of a "movement" – becomes a prime task for the libertarian who is really serious about advancing his goals.

Turning from these men of narrow vision, we must also see that utilitarianism – the common ground of free-market economists – is unsatisfactory for developing a flourishing libertarian movement. While it is true and valuable to know that a free market would bring far greater abundance and a healthier economy to everyone, rich and poor alike, a critical problem is whether this knowledge is enough to bring many people to a lifelong dedication to liberty.

In short, how many people will man the barricades and endure the many sacrifices that a consistent devotion to liberty entails, merely so that umpteen percent more people will have better bathtubs? Will they not rather set up for an easy life and forget the umpteen percent bathtubs? Ultimately, then, utilitarian economics, while indispensable in the developed structure of libertarian thought and action, is almost as unsatisfactory a basic groundwork for the movement as those opportunists who simply seek a short-range profit.

It is our view that a flourishing libertarian movement, a lifelong dedication to liberty can only be grounded on a passion for justice. Here must be the mainspring of our drive, the armor that will sustain us in all the storms ahead, not the search for a quick buck, the playing of intellectual games or the cool calculation of general economic gains. And, to have a passion for justice, one must have a theory of what justice and injustice are – in short, a set of ethical principles of justice and injustice, which cannot be provided by utilitarian economics.

It is because we see the world reeking with injustices piled one on another to the very heavens that we are impelled to do all that we can to seek a world in which these and other injustices will be eradicated. Other traditional radical goals – such as the "abolition of poverty" – are, in contrast to this one, truly utopian, for man, simply by exerting his will, cannot abolish poverty. Poverty can only be abolished through the operation of certain economic factors – notably the investment of savings in capital – which can only operate by transforming nature over a long period of time. In short, man's will is here severely limited by the workings of – to use an old-fashioned but still valid term – natural law. But injustices are deeds that are inflicted by one set of men on another; they are precisely the actions of men, and, hence, they and their elimination are subject to man's instantaneous will.

Let us take an example: England's centuries-long occupation and brutal oppression of the Irish people. Now if, in 1900, we had looked at the state of Ireland, and we had considered the poverty of the Irish people, we would have had to say: poverty could be improved by the English getting out and removing their land monopolies, but the ultimate elimination of poverty in Ireland, under the best of conditions, would take time and be subject to the workings of economic law. But the goal of ending English oppression – that could have been done by the instantaneous action of men's will: by the English simply deciding to pull out of the country.

The fact that of course such decisions do not take place instantaneously is not the point; the point is that the very failure is an injustice that has been decided upon and imposed by the perpetrators of injustice – in this case, the English government. In the field of justice, man's will is all; men can move mountains, if only men so decide. A passion for instantaneous justice – in short, a radical passion – is therefore not utopian, as would be a desire for the instant elimination of poverty or the instant transformation of everyone into a concert pianist. For instant justice could be achieved if enough people so willed.

A true passion for justice, then, must be radical – in short, it must at least wish to attain its goals radically and instantaneously. Leonard E. Read, founding president of the Foundation for Economic Education, expressed this radical spirit very aptly when he wrote a pamphlet I'd Push the Button. The problem was what to do about the network of price and wage controls then being imposed on the economy by the Office of Price Administration. Most economic liberals were timidly or "realistically" advocating one or another form of gradual or staggered decontrols; at that point, Mr. Read took an unequivocal and radical stand on principle: "if there were a button on this rostrum," he began his address, "the pressing of which would release all wage and price controls instantaneously, I would put my finger on it and push!"[1]

The true test, then, of the radical spirit, is the button-pushing test: if we could push the button for instantaneous abolition of unjust invasions of liberty, would we do it? If we would not do it, we could scarcely call ourselves libertarians, and most of us would only do it if primarily guided by a passion for justice.

The genuine libertarian, then, is, in all senses of the word, an "abolitionist"; he would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty, whether it be, in the original coining of the term, slavery, or whether it be the manifold other instances of State oppression. He would, in the words of another libertarian in a similar connection, "blister my thumb pushing that button!"

The libertarian must perforce be a "button pusher" and an "abolitionist." Powered by justice, he cannot be moved by amoral utilitarian pleas that justice not come about until the criminals are "compensated." Thus, when in the early 19th century, the great abolitionist movement arose, voices of moderation promptly appeared counseling that it would only be fair to abolish slavery if the slave masters were financially compensated for their loss. In short, after centuries of oppression and exploitation, the slave masters were supposed to be further rewarded by a handsome sum mulcted by force from the mass of innocent taxpayers! The most apt comment on this proposal was made by the English philosophical radical Benjamin Pearson, who remarked that "he had thought it was the slaves who should have been compensated"; clearly, such compensation could only justly have come from the slaveholders themselves.[2]

Antilibertarians, and antiradicals generally, characteristically make the point that such "abolitionism" is "unrealistic"; by making such a charge they are hopelessly confusing the desired goal with a strategic estimate of the probable outcome.

In framing principle, it is of the utmost importance not to mix in strategic estimates with the forging of desired goals. First, goals must be formulated, which, in this case, would be the instant abolition of slavery or whatever other statist oppression we are considering. And we must first frame these goals without considering the probability of attaining them. The libertarian goals are "realistic" in the sense that they could be achieved if enough people agreed on their desirability, and that, if achieved, they would bring about a far better world. The "realism" of the goal can only be challenged by a critique of the goal itself, not in the problem of how to attain it. Then, after we have decided on the goal, we face the entirely separate strategic question of how to attain that goal as rapidly as possible, how to build a movement to attain it, etc.

Thus, William Lloyd Garrison was not being "unrealistic" when, in the 1830s, he raised the glorious standard of immediate emancipation of the slaves. His goal was the proper one, and his strategic realism came in the fact that he did not expect his goal to be quickly reached. Or, as Garrison himself distinguished:

Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.[3]

Actually, in the realm of the strategic, raising the banner of pure and radical principle is generally the fastest way of arriving at radical goals. For if the pure goal is never brought to the fore, there will never be any momentum developed for driving toward it. Slavery would never have been abolished at all if the abolitionists had not raised the hue and cry thirty years earlier; and, as things came to pass, the abolition was at virtually a single blow rather than gradual or compensated.[4]

But above and beyond the requirements of strategy lie the commands of justice. In his famous editorial that launched The Liberator at the beginning of 1831, William Lloyd Garrison repented his previous adoption of the doctrine of gradual abolition:

I seize this opportunity to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country, and of my brethren, the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice and absurdity.

Upon being reproached for the habitual severity and heat of his language, Garrison retorted: "I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt." It is this spirit that must mark the man truly dedicated to the cause of liberty.[5]

[Conza88]

Also suggest reading: Rothbards memo found on Libertarianpapers.org :D

[nodope0695]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.


You're dismissed, Number One.....

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

[Truth Warrior]

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

[heavenlyboy34]

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

Statism sucks. :p:mad::(

[ARealConservative]

people are inherently collectivist.

[Truth Warrior]

people are inherently collectivist.

Sheeple are inherently "flocktivist". :p :rolleyes:

[Deborah K]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.


Ron Paul would beg to differ. :rolleyes:

[ARealConservative]

Sheeple are inherently "flocktivist". :p :rolleyes:

It's true unfortunately. Even you made it quite a few years before figuring it out for yourself, right?

[Truth Warrior]

It's true unfortunately. Even you made it quite a few years before figuring it out for yourself, right? The deprogramming from the early government school "brainwashing" indoctrination took some concentrated effort and focused study. LBJ and Nixon were the final straws and helped the process out immensely. :p

[HOLLYWOOD]

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

We only need enough government to unite to protect Liberties. All others are the Usurpations of evil government and their own agenda.

http://www.constitution.org/cs_abuse.htm (http://www.constitution.org/cs_abuse.htm)

"The contest is not between Us and Them, but between Good and Evil,
and if those who would fight Evil adopt the ways of Evil, Evil wins."

[Truth Warrior]

We only need enough government to unite to protect Liberties. All others are the Usurpations of evil government and their own agenda.

http://www.constitution.org/cs_abuse.htm (http://www.constitution.org/cs_abuse.htm)

"The contest is not between Us and Them, but between Good and Evil,
and if those who would fight Evil adopt the ways of Evil, Evil wins."

"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre

[heavenlyboy34]

"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre

;):p

[heavenlyboy34]

Ron Paul would beg to differ. :rolleyes:

He's had some issues with the constitution...especially in regards to taxation and executive authority. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

The Declaration and Constitution was founded on the concept of "the law of nature" (which was later construed as 'natural law') from the 12th century English common law tradition---and that tradition is based on biblical principles. Even the tripartite makeup of the federal entity was drawn from the Trinity. To try to white out the biblical influences and origins of the founders' thinking is a fruitless task.

The Federalists say the 3 branches of government were inspired by Grecco-Roman political philosophy. :eek:;)

[Chosen]

The purpose of the OP comment is to create a propaganda campaign against a new emerging belief. Many Libertarians and Liberty minded folk are beginning to be able to see the B Hussein Obama administration, as well as the W Bush administration as collectivist. This term was pushed out of the public fare for quite some time by a far left reaching media.

This simply demonstrates that this is nothing more than typical communist bravado. Semantic warfare based on illiteracy seems to be all they have left.

I would first recommend this article on Tolkein vs Socialism because it illuminates some of the definitions of collectivism quite well.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro6.html

Then I think some education for the OP is at hand. Collectivism is authoritarian . The constitution is a document of protection.

You will see this sort of 3rd grade nonsense poor out of the collectivist left as they fear an upcoming revolt from Liberty minded folk. Let's see if we can provide some education here...


"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group -- whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good'." -- Ayn Rand

The constitution does not subjugate it protects.


"Collectivism, unlike individualism, holds the group as the primary, and the standard of moral value." -- Mark Da Cunha

The constitution does not hold the group as the primary. It also does not promote general welfare, it endeavors to protect the rights of individuals. Nowhere does it force the actions of individuals towards a common goal, that is collectivism-not indicated in the Constitution. Again, the op is confused as to what collectivism is. Like I said it is semantic propaganda he/she is playing. Nonetheless, Hitler and Hillary Clinton saw the Constitution and American society as individualistic.

Here Hillary proclaims that we should abandon our principles of individuality:

"We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society." -- Hillary Clinton Would she have said that in a society that is collectivist?


Again, nowhere in the constitution does it indicate that individual rights are to be relinquished for the good of the whole. Mr O'Rourke's view on collectivism is:


"The foundation of collectivism is simple: There should be no important economic differences among people. No one should be too rich. No one should be too poor. We should 'close the wealth gap'." -- P.J. O'Rourke



"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..." -- United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4


"I can’t think of anything that would do more toward putting us back on the road to liberty and personal responsibility than for the average American, and for the news media, to come to the understanding that we are not a democracy, nor were we supposed to be." -- Neal Boortz
In other words, we are a Republic committed to individualism as indicated in the Constitution.


Further education of the op is possible, I am sure of it.

Wonder who Nikita is talking about here:

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." -- Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev, addressing the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, 2-25-56 Some collectivist society that does not foster individualism? lol

[Chosen]

The correct framing of the OP's original "statement" (I guess we can call it), is to ask how the Bill of Rights doesn't protect the individual? That was its purpose.

"The Constitution only prohibits the government from infringing upon individual rights"- that was its purpose.

[apropos]

Well said, Chosen, and correct.

[Original_Intent]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.

A few quibbles. I agree with your last paragraph completely.

edit: I just read Chosen's post at the top of this page, and he said it a lot better.

The phrases "common defense" and "general welfare" are not collectivist statements.

Collectivists believe that the few can be sacrificed for the greater good of the many. This is NOT "common" or "general" as used in the Constitution. Common and general mean "equally for all" in my opinion, which is not collectivist. It has sure been twisted and interpreted into meaning collectivist (by being NOT general and NOT common) but I don't think that was the um original intent. :)

I think arguing that it is an anti-liberty document is to be at best facetious and at worst disingenuous and deceptive.