Judicial activism: Conservatism vs Libertarianism

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Damon Root Discusses Libertarians vs. Conservatives on the Supreme Court and More! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbf5I6h09t8&feature=player_embedded)

[heavenlyboy34]

libertarians prefer to eliminate government courts altogether ;) Silly reasonites :rolleyes:

[low preference guy]

libertarians prefer to eliminate government courts altogether ;) Silly reasonites :rolleyes:

nonsense. i thought anarchists wanted to take the word Voluntaryists. now they also want to be called libertarians? i guess crazy people have trouble making up their minds.

[Matt Collins]

libertarians prefer to eliminate government courts altogether ;) Silly reasonites :rolleyes:
I think you are confusing libertarianism and anarchism :rolleyes:

[YumYum]

I think you are confusing libertarianism and anarchism :rolleyes:

Torchbearer best described Libertarianism: "I don't care what you do, just leave me the fuck alone!" :)

[heavenlyboy34]

I think you are confusing libertarianism and anarchism :rolleyes:

Nope. You are confusing libertarianism and conservatarianism.:p;)

[Vessol]

nonsense. i thought anarchists wanted to take the word Voluntaryists. now they also want to be called libertarians? i guess crazy people have trouble making up their minds.

uh..Voluntaryism was individualist anarchist to begin with..

Also Libertarianism arose out of the classical liberalism of Victorian England and the individualist anarchism of Thoreau.

[heavenlyboy34]

nonsense. i thought anarchists wanted to take the word Voluntaryists. now they also want to be called libertarians? i guess crazy people have trouble making up their minds.

No, it's a matter of marketing. We have to find the word that works best for the intended audience. What do you mean "crazy people"? You think RP is crazy (a lifetime member of the LP and admitted libertarian)? Then why be here? :eek:;)

[heavenlyboy34]

uh..Voluntaryism was individualist anarchist to begin with..

Also Libertarianism arose out of the classical liberalism of Victorian England and the individualist anarchism of Thoreau.

True dat. Low preference guy would do well to review Riggenbach's history of libertarianism. :cool:

[low preference guy]

No, it's a matter of marketing. We have to find the word that works best for the intended audience. What do you mean "crazy people"? You think RP is crazy (a lifetime member of the LP and admitted libertarian)? Then why be here? :eek:;)

i'm referring to you. last time i heard Ron Paul he didn't call for abolishing courts.

ron paul doesn't want to abolish courts, so the appropriate question is: Why are YOU here?

[heavenlyboy34]

i'm referring to you. last time i heard Ron Paul he didn't call for abolishing courts.

Yes, but he's taking the populist/"right" libertarian/constitutionalist libertarian route, and plenty of libertarians disagree with him. He doesn't get into the technical aspects of libertarian society because he has another purpose. "Mr Libertarian"-Murray Rothbard, would be all in favor of private courts (note you improperly wrote "abolishing courts", which noone here advocates).

[low preference guy]

"Mr Libertarian"-Murray Rothbard,

"Mr. Libertarian". LOL.

Rothbard was never very influential in libertarian circles while he was alive. If you read the papers of the time, libertarians most often disagreed with him than not. Calling him "Mr. Libertarian" is a PR move by Lew Rockwell and his friends, and a laughable one.

[Vessol]

i'm referring to you. last time i heard Ron Paul he didn't call for abolishing courts.

ron paul doesn't want to abolish courts, so the appropriate question is: Why are YOU here?

And Peter Schiff is for pre-emtpive bombing Iran. Of course everyone here just says that he doesn't actually believe this and is just saying it to look good in the media spotlight.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Mr. Libertarian". LOL.

Rothbard was never very influential in libertarian circles while he was alive. If you read the papers of the time, libertarians most often disagreed with him than not. Calling him "Mr. Libertarian" is a PR move by Lew Rockwell and his friends, and a laughable one.

interesting you picked one of the least substantial parts of my post-really just a passing comment-instead of dealing with the heart of the issue. Somehow, I'm not surprised you would stoop to this. But you make me laugh, nonetheless. :D

P.S.-Mises called Rothbard "The Great System-Builder". Perhaps you have a different standard for "influential" than the rest of the english-speaking world. ;)

See Riggenbach's discussion of Rothbard here (http://mises.org/media/4643)

[low preference guy]

interesting you picked one of the least substantial parts of my post-really just a passing comment-instead of dealing with the heart of the issue. Somehow, I'm not surprised you would stoop to this. But you make me laugh, nonetheless. :D

there wasn't anything substantive in your post to address.

[heavenlyboy34]

there wasn't anything substantive in your post to address.

lolz!! Excuses, excuses. I clearly wrote
"Yes, but he's taking the populist/"right" libertarian/constitutionalist libertarian route, and plenty of libertarians disagree with him. He doesn't get into the technical aspects of libertarian society because he has another purpose."

but you somehow managed to not read it-or claim it "unsubstantive". :rolleyes: Pathetic! This kind of post-literate understanding of text will destroy your attempts at gaining liberty from the regime.

[Matt Collins]

Nope. You are confusing libertarianism and conservatarianism.:p;)Wrong again.... Modern day conservatives want to limit government economically but expand government into the social lives of the People. Libertarians want to shrink the government to the minimum amount necessary needed to secure individual rights. Anarchists want to abolish the government all together.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Wrong again.... Modern day conservatives want to limit government economically but expand government into the social lives of the People. Libertarians want to shrink the government to the minimum amount necessary needed to secure individual rights. Anarchists want to abolish the government all together.

Libertarianism doesn't have a set objective, just like classical liberalism did (just look at the differences between classical liberalists, they were tremendous). You can be an anarchist or a minarchist and a libertarian at the same time, libertarian simply means that you favor freedom (which, if taken to the extreme would result in anarchism, but especially under today's political climate minarchists are obviously for more liberty as well). And on the point of Rothbard being called Mr. Libertarian only by a Lew Rockwell and a few of his friends in the Mises Institute; don't forget that Ron Paul is a senior Member of the LvMI as well and he even helped found it and holds speeches there regularly as a senior member. Questioning the membership of people here on the basis that they can identify with Rothbard is really weird as Ron Paul himself, after whom these forums are named, is a big fan of Rothbard himself and has repeatedly said so.

[heavenlyboy34]

Wrong again.... Modern day conservatives want to limit government economically but expand government into the social lives of the People. Libertarians want to shrink the government to the minimum amount necessary needed to secure individual rights. Anarchists want to abolish the government all together.

:rolleyes: You think these labels are all-inclusive? Puh-leeze! There are more than enough establishment conservatives who love big government (and have more money than you and your friends put together) to render the few small government conservatives basically irrelevant. Libertarians are split a number of ways on pretty much every issue, especially the issue of government. There are anarchists who want to abolish the government, like Molyneux, but this is the younger, confused bunch who don't know the difference between the State and the Government. Serious anarchists are devoted to abolishing the State in favor of voluntary society.

I can see why your posts are so confuzzled-sounding. You aren't familiar enough with this subject yet to speak intelligently about it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Is this really the thread to bring this up? Don't we have enough evidence to show how corrupt the courts are even in the local municipal courts? Private arbitration is far more efficient, less costly, and you actually have a choice unlike "public" courts. I have friends first hand who have been so fucked by the court system that it's sad (and this is child custody, support, etc.). Every single facet of the system is entirely corrupted. This is the nature of an unaccountable (and voting is not accountability) system who the employees judge themselves. It's as if we made payment mandatory to farmers, and the sole arbitrage to the mandates and prices set out by farmers were their court judges. You honestly believe this would be a fair process?

Only market processes ensure the greatest amount of transparency, accountability, and choice.

I mean hell, look at Dana Rohrerbacher (who studied under Robert LeFevre!)! He was an An-Cap who turned into establishment shill for the most part. The system is inherently corrupt. It needs to go.

The Nature of Man and His Government
http://mises.org/daily/1970

[low preference guy]

Private arbitration is far more efficient, less costly, and you actually have a choice unlike "public" courts.

Do you have the phone number of one of those private arbitration agencies that are efficient and cheap? I have a little conflict, want it solved, and don't want to spend much money. Could you please give me their phone number? Thanks in advance.

[YumYum]

There is the real world that we live in, and there is the make-believe world we dream of. I think John Lennon touched on this subject in a song called "Imagine".

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you have the phone number of one of those private arbitration agencies that are efficient and cheap? I have a little conflict, want it solved, and don't want to spend much money. Could you please give me their phone number? Thanks in advance.

The closest we currently have to an example of this is the "Arbitration Firm". Google it-there's loads of them out there, probably some in your area. :cool: Here (http://www.fulbright.com/arbitration) is the site for one of the world's top arbitration firms.

In the Stateless society, this kind of industry would grow exponentially because rational people normally prefer to resolve conflict civilly.

[low preference guy]

In the Stateless society, this kind of industry would grow exponentially because rational people normally prefer to resolve conflict civilly.

No, a stateless society will be one of chaos where no rights are protected.

[Matt Collins]

:rolleyes: You think these labels are all-inclusive? Puh-leeze! There are more than enough establishment conservatives who love big government (and have more money than you and your friends put together) to render the few small government conservatives basically irrelevant. Libertarians are split a number of ways on pretty much every issue, especially the issue of government. There are anarchists who want to abolish the government, like Molyneux, but this is the younger, confused bunch who don't know the difference between the State and the Government. Serious anarchists are devoted to abolishing the State in favor of voluntary society.

I can see why your posts are so confuzzled-sounding. You aren't familiar enough with this subject yet to speak intelligently about it.
You fail to realize that libertarianism |= anarchism. They are two distinctly different philosophies. :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

No, a stateless society will be one of chaos where no rights are protected.

That's never been the case for stateless societies in western civilization before. You are really stretching logic here. America has been though Stateless phases, and your doomsday scenario didn't play out. Again, you make the careless mistake of confusing the State with the Government. Voluntary government works whenever it's tried. :cool: You also mistakenly assume that the State protects your rights. This is utterly false. The State actively works to undermine your "rights". (I use quote because positive rights theory is bogus)

[heavenlyboy34]

You fail to realize that libertarianism |= anarchism. They are two distinctly different philosophies. :rolleyes:

Incorrect. They are two flavors of the same philosophy. libertarianism has roots in classical liberalism, and anarchism takes these concepts to their conclusion. While classical liberalism is of, by, and for the elites, libertarianism (and its anarchist offshoot) is of, by, and for the individual. See "Let's Abolish Government" (http://mises.org/store/Lets-Abolish-Government-P473.aspx), a collection of the great libertarian Lysander Spooner's (http://mises.org/media/4511) work.

[low preference guy]

Incorrect. They are two flavors of the same philosophy. libertarianism has roots in classical liberalism, and anarchism takes these concepts to their conclusion.

Almost right, you missed that anarchism really is more similar to consistent Marxism than classic liberalism.

[heavenlyboy34]

Almost right, you missed that anarchism really is more similar to consistent Marxism than classic liberalism.

Not so. I don't know what trashy conservative rag you read this in, but it's not true. Marx didn't believe in private property. He also believed in a strong central state.

It's true that there are quacks like that who call themselves anarchists, but that's not the point of anarchism. Anarchism and Voluntaryism seek to justify individual liberty because it is simply the most optimal state of existence.

Can you cite a book to verify your claim? I didn't think so. ;)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Almost right, you missed that anarchism really is more similar to consistent Marxism than classic liberalism.

Nice to see you are supporting theft. That to me seems like the Marxist position, but carry on..

[low preference guy]

Not so. I don't know what trashy conservative rag you read this in, but it's not true. Marx didn't believe in private property. He also believed in a strong central state.

It's true that there are quacks like that who call themselves anarchists, but that's not the point of anarchism. Anarchism and Voluntaryism seek to justify individual liberty because it is simply the most optimal state of existence.

Can you cite a book to verify your claim? I didn't think so. ;)

It's pretty well known that Marx wanted the state to vanish at the end of his process, just like anarchists do. I won't bother to look the exact book or page to cite, I'm not here to do your homework on Marxism.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's pretty well known that Marx wanted the state to vanish at the end of his process, just like anarchists do. I won't bother to look the exact book or page to cite, I'm not here to do your homework on Marxism.

You heard it here first folks -- Robert LeFevre, Frederic Bastiat, and Albert Jay Nock are Marxists.

You should really read this by Nock:

Anarchist's Progress
http://mises.org/daily/2714

[low preference guy]

You heard it here first folks -- Robert LeFevre, Frederic Bastiat, and Albert Jay Nock are Marxists.

Bastiat wasn't an anarchist. AED is, as usual, making things up.

Also, is more similar is different from is. But I guess I'm asking too much from someone who doesn't know how to read.

[low preference guy]

For clueless (or lying) AED, here is a statement from Bastiat supporting a night watchman minimal state:


As for us, we think that the state is not and should not be anything else than the common police force instituted, not to be an instrument of oppression and reciprocal plunder, but, on the contrary, to guarantee to each his own and to make justice and security prevail.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's pretty well known that Marx wanted the state to vanish at the end of his process, just like anarchists do. I won't bother to look the exact book or page to cite, I'm not here to do your homework on Marxism.

poor comparison. Marx's utopian version of "anarchy" claims that there is no legitimate property, believes that the worker "owns" the product of his labor (when obviously his employer does). Indeed, Marxist "anarchism" is basically the opposite of what modern anarchists hold to be true. See "Boundaries Of Order" by anarchist Butler Schaffer. He shows that property is a stabilizing factor in Stateless society (among other things).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Bastiat wasn't an anarchist. AED is, as usual, making things up.

Also, is more similar, is different from is. But I guess I'm asking too much from someone who doesn't know how to read.

Actually, Bastiat was indeed a Voluntaryist by the time of his death, not to mention his protege, wrote one of the first works on private security and defense namely Gustave de Molinari who for all intents and purposes is indistinguishable from Bastiat.

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their arti- ficial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

F. Bastiat -- The Law

Bastiat also died terribly young. Gustave was essentially the living remnant of Bastiat for the next 30 years.

[heavenlyboy34]

Bastiat wasn't an anarchist. AED is, as usual, making things up.

Also, is more similar is different from is. But I guess I'm asking too much from someone who doesn't know how to read.

He erred in including Bastiat, but that's not the same as "making things up"-which you are doing.

[low preference guy]

poor comparison. Marx's utopian version of "anarchy" claims that there is no legitimate property, believes that the worker "owns" the product of his labor (when obviously his employer does). Indeed, Marxist "anarchism" is basically the opposite of what modern anarchists hold to be true. See "Boundaries Of Order" by anarchist Butler Schaffer. He shows that property is a stabilizing factor in Stateless society (among other things).

The fact that anarchism and marxism support abolishing the state while classic liberalism favor having one is enough to conclude that anarchism is more similar to marxism than classic liberalism.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, Bastiat was indeed a Voluntaryist by the time of his death, not to mention his protege, wrote one of the first works on private security and defense namely Gustave de Molinari who for all intents and purposes is indistinguishable from Bastiat.

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their arti- ficial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

F. Bastiat -- The Law

Bastiat also died terribly young. Gustave was essentially the living remnant of Bastiat for the next 30 years.

Thanks for reminding me of that. I need to re-read it one day. :cool:

[low preference guy]

He erred in including Bastiat, but that's not the same as "making things up"-which you are doing.

I see. When AED is outright lying you call that "erring". When I disagree with you, you call it "making things up". Do you really think AED didn't make something up when he said that Bastiat was an anarchist? hahahaha.

[heavenlyboy34]

The fact that anarchism and marxism support abolishing the state while classic liberalism favor having one is enough to conclude that anarchism is more similar to marxism than classic liberalism.

No it's not. That is utterly false reasoning. By that reasoning, Locke was a Marxist because he believed in a type of Labor Theory of Value. :rolleyes: You're really an epic fail. Perhaps you should stop before you get even worse. :eek:

[low preference guy]

No it's not. That is utterly false reasoning. By that reasoning, Locke was a Marxist because he believed in a type of Labor Theory of Value. :rolleyes: You're really an epic fail. Perhaps you should stop before you get even worse. :eek:

No, it's not false reasoning. Having no state has much more impact in society than believing in the Labor Theory of value, thus whether or not a movement proposes getting rid of the state is much more fundamental.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I see. When AED is outright lying you call that "err". When I disagree with you, you call it "making things up". Do you really think AED didn't make something up when he said that Bastiat was an anarchist? hahhahaha.

Bastiat was indeed a Voluntaryist.

http://mises.org/daily/2035

Does this to you sound like a minarchist?

I also must ask again, why do you support thievery, and thieves?

[low preference guy]

Bastiat was indeed a Voluntaryist.

http://mises.org/daily/2035

Does this to you sound like a minarchist?

Does explicitly stating that the state should "guarantee to each his own and to make justice and security prevail" sound like an anarchist?

You should get the wishful thinking award.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Does explicitly stating that the state should "guarantee to each his own and to make justice and security prevail" sound like an anarchist?

You should get the wishful thinking award.

Care to provide the date for that quote, and in which essay, book, or pamphlet he wrote it? You also fail to realize that Molinari and Bastiat were like two peas in a pod (indeed, they were always together!).

[low preference guy]

Care to provide the date for that quote, and in which essay, book, or pamphlet he wrote it? You also fail to realize that Molinari and Bastiat were like two peas in a pod (indeed, they were always together!).

I'm not even sure if I failed to realize that because I don't know what it means. Can you try to make your statement more open to interpretation? Are you playing on the rumors that Bastiat was gay?

As for the quote, geez, I'm shocked that a self-styled Bastiat expert doesn't know where it is from. It's from a major work. Google is your friend.

[YumYum]

I'm not even sure if I failed to realize that because I don't know what it means. Can you try to make your statement more open to interpretation? Are you playing on the rumors that Bastiat was gay?

As for the quote, geez, I'm shocked that a self-styled Bastiat expert doesn't know where it is from. It's from a major work. Google is your friend.

He said that they were like "two peas in a pod". He didn't say they "peed in the pod". There is a difference. Please continue.

[low preference guy]

He said that they were like "two peas in a pod". He didn't say they "peed in the pod". There is a difference. Please continue.

Oh. Of course! Thanks for the clarification.