The idea that no army can stop...

[awake]

http://i45.tinypic.com/15x1xdg.png

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

bump

[awake]

Opps.. scaled wrong

[s35wf]

that would make a GREAT bumpersticker :D

[Kludge]

http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=18

[moostraks]

Must be read without an improper stop though or it completely changes the meaning. In todays world I could see it being read as if it is freedom given by the government.

[s35wf]

Must be read without an improper stop though or it completely changes the meaning. In todays world I could see it being read as if it is freedom given by the government.


capitalize or put more emphasis on "from" :D

[BetaMale]

Must be read without an improper stop though or it completely changes the meaning. In todays world I could see it being read as if it is freedom given by the government.

Haha so true. Your average American Idiot will most likely read it the wrong way.

My brother was wearing a 'Go Green, Recycle Congress' shirt and some restaurant employee said "hey dude, awesome shirt!" as he lifted up his work shirt to reveal a greenpeace shirt. He clearly had no clue...

[helmuth_hubener]

Possible alternatives:

Liberty is the lack of government.

Liberty is the absence of government.

"Liberty" is being free from the government.

To have liberty is to be free from the government.

Or finally, another von Mises quote: "Government is the negation of liberty."

[BetaMale]

I have pasted on my bathroom mirror the following Mises quote

"Government is essentially the negation of liberty"

[helmuth_hubener]

http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=18 Infantile.

The first argument: There are various ways to gauge the level of intervention a gov't engages in, and one might be highly interventionist in one area (controlling wealth distribution) and less interventionist in another (controlling the press).

Response: So what? This is only even an argument because the author sees intervention 1 as no big deal and intervention 2 as horribly evil. What about people who want to make money and have no interest in printing newspapers? Like, umm, normal people! The much-vaunted common man, addicted to eating and narrowly preoccupied with sheltering himself. Well forget them! Who cares about them? As long as free expression is protected and no one persecutes the Jews, the gov't must be free and enlightened!

The fact is, libertarians know there are many different ways a place can be free or not free. Which freedoms are most important will vary by individual. One man might insist on gun rights, one might insist on the right to run a business without wage restrictions, one might insist on the right to print a newsletter without content restrictions. They are all freedoms, and the degree to which the freedom exists depends on the degree to which the gov't stays out of that domain. In short, all this bozo is saying is that a gov't can be big financially yet small personal-behavior-restrictingly (other than the personal behavior of keeping one's own money). Well duh! Yes, that's true; we already knew that (the visa versa is only true to an extent -- gov't ability to enforce oppressive laws ultimately depends on at least some taxation).

Second argument: Rules benefit man, thus government benefits man. See traffic.

Response: Traffic conventions arose spontaneously and voluntarily. That's how good rules come about.

"Anti-government people" are not against rules. But whoever makes rules must have legitimate authority to do so. We are against illegitimate, aggressive rules, shoved down throats by those with no legitimate purview over those areas they seek to enrule.


QER. Quite Easily Refuted.

[awake]

"liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order."