Who were/ will be the greatest libertarians throughout history?

[justinc.1089]

If you had to name around 5 of the greatest libertarians throughout history, for whatever reasons you feel they are the "greatest," who would they be? They can be living today also.

If you want to name more or less than 5 feel free to.


Some that come to my mind are the following:


Ron Paul

(for many obvious reasons)

Barry Goldwater

(I know, not entirely perfect, but still, quite libertarian when compared to other influential individuals, and he made a lasting profound difference in the country's direction. In my opinion, without Goldwater, there may not have been Ron Paul's success.)

Thomas Jefferson

(Not perfect, but still, read the Declaration of Independence. I don't think there is a more eloquently stunning libertarian work in existence personally.)

Andrew Napolitano

(Some of you are probably surprised I list Napolitano in my top 5 libertarians, but honestly, I think the guy has exposed the ideas and truths of libertarianism to more people than anyone ever before in history now that he has a major tv show as well as all his books too. Not to mention the difference he has surely made in his career also. He has a bright future ahead too, where I am certain he will continue to make a profound impact in the spread of libertarianism!)

Andrew Jackson

(Destroyed the national bank. Achieved one of our current goals. Enough said. Sure he wasn't perfect, but come on, he defeated the bankers.)


These are just off the top of my head really though. I know there are some others I could mention as well, but I know you guys will mention them more than likely.

[YumYum]

My favorite Libertarian is Noam Chomsky. He is a Social Libertarian.

[cindy25]

this may surprise most of you, but what about Jerry Ford?

1) he restored the right to own gold
2) ended draft registration, no talk no broken promises as per Reagan
3) had he won in 1976 he planned major tax cuts

[00_Pete]

The LORD Jesus Christ for trolling the violent homosexual Romans, the priests/clergy, the judges and lawmakers, the money-changers, the Jews and pretty much everyone that deserved to be trolled.

Antony Sutton for his research, integrity and death-defiance exposure of the Illuminati.

Rothbard not only for his economic theories but for telling the truth about the character of most of his "fellow" libertarians, about whining homosexuals, whining minorities,whining feminists, race, the importance of a stong moral code and traditions and the superiority of the Old Culture over the inhumane New Culture...i dont agree with him on everything.

Ron Paul for obvious reasons (his pro gays in the military was a major blow for me however)

Basil Marceaux for his general views, for his spirit of rebellion and having the guts to tell the truth about sacred-cow Thomas Jefferson.

[MichelleHeart]

Economists: Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard

Political Figures: Calvin Coolidge, Grover Cleveland, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams

[amy31416]

The LORD Jesus Christ for trolling the violent homosexual Romans, the priests/clergy, the judges and lawmakers, the money-changers, the Jews and pretty much everyone that deserved to be trolled.


And thus the LORD sayeth verily: I hath sent my only son to troll for thee. A curse of 2 maidens 1 chalice shall be visited upon the evildoers. LUKE 23:12

[Kludge]

No love for Friedman, who not only contributed greatly toward free-trade economics but also was crucial in eliminating the draft?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

In no order:

Voltaire
TJefferson
F. Bastiat
M. Rothbard
William Wallace

[Kludge]

In no order:

Voltaire
TJefferson
F. Bastiat
M. Rothbard
William Wallace

Anyone unfamiliar with Voltaire should at least read Candide. It's available free on Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=x-4Te1GEczYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Voltaire's+Candide&source=bl&ots=lng0XoGOB5&sig=bnzqkk-dQEJVXZ1wJAchcosNhHI&hl=en&ei=tIVmTLuGHYT7lwfkhKygBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=twopage&q&f=false) and isn't just an enlightening read, but is also very comical.

I think I'd say it was my favorite read this year.

[cindy25]

forgot about Friedman, he belongs on anyones list

also Grover Cleveland.

[t0rnado]

Lysander Spooner
Adam Smith
Montesquieu to a certain extent
Baruch Spinoza

A ton of Enlightenment philosophers, who were called classical liberals back then, were really responsible for modern libertarianism.

[johngr]

H. L. Mencken.

[BuddyRey]

Lysander Spooner, without a doubt. Few people in the general populace have heard his name today, but those who do encounter his incredibly novel, yet intuitive and wholly logical conclusions regarding the nature of man and government are forever changed.

Whether he was fighting for the abolition of slavery by litigating for black Americans on a pro bono basis, defending the south's right to secede on both moral and Jeffersonian grounds, or challenging the Postal Monopoly at great personal risk to his own wealth, happiness, and mortal hide, the life of Lysander Spooner was an epic win for liberty.

[djdellisanti4]

Lysander Spooner
Adam Smith
Montesquieu to a certain extent
Baruch Spinoza

A ton of Enlightenment philosophers, who were called classical liberals back then, were really responsible for modern libertarianism.

Actually at that time they were just liberals. Classical liberalism wasn't really a term until later on.


Top 5 in particular order

Thomas Jefferson
Frederic Bastiat
Milton Friedman
Adam Smith
Ron Paul

[Galileo Galilei]

First, by far, is Galileo.

The War upon Galileo
http://englishatheist.org/galileo.shtml

Second, by a large margin, is James Madison.

Third, Origen of Alexandria.

[Old Ducker]

No love for Friedman, who not only contributed greatly toward free-trade economics but also was crucial in eliminating the draft?

Friedman invented income tax withholding and persuaded Nixon to abrogate the Bretton Woods agreement and sever the tie between the dollar and gold.

[low preference guy]

Friedman invented income tax withholding and persuaded Nixon to abrogate the Bretton Woods agreement and sever the tie between the dollar and gold.

Yep. Friedman was mixed at best, a statist at worst.

[Golding]

Economists: Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard

Political Figures: Calvin Coolidge, Grover Cleveland, Patrick Henry, Samuel AdamsAgreed, just to add Jefferson.

[Old Ducker]

If you had to name around 5 of the greatest libertarians throughout history, for whatever reasons you feel they are the "greatest," who would they be? They can be living today also.

If you want to name more or less than 5 feel free to.


Some that come to my mind are the following:


Ron Paul

(for many obvious reasons)

Barry Goldwater

(I know, not entirely perfect, but still, quite libertarian when compared to other influential individuals, and he made a lasting profound difference in the country's direction. In my opinion, without Goldwater, there may not have been Ron Paul's success.)

Thomas Jefferson

(Not perfect, but still, read the Declaration of Independence. I don't think there is a more eloquently stunning libertarian work in existence personally.)

Andrew Napolitano

(Some of you are probably surprised I list Napolitano in my top 5 libertarians, but honestly, I think the guy has exposed the ideas and truths of libertarianism to more people than anyone ever before in history now that he has a major tv show as well as all his books too. Not to mention the difference he has surely made in his career also. He has a bright future ahead too, where I am certain he will continue to make a profound impact in the spread of libertarianism!)

Andrew Jackson

(Destroyed the national bank. Achieved one of our current goals. Enough said. Sure he wasn't perfect, but come on, he defeated the bankers.)


These are just off the top of my head really though. I know there are some others I could mention as well, but I know you guys will mention them more than likely.

Without putting a lot of thought into it, I'd add a couple.

Lao Tzu - probably the worlds first libertarian
Cyrus the Great - The only emperor I can think of who brought liberation instead of oppression and plunder to conquered lands. "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds."

[Galileo Galilei]

Antonius Pius, the greatest Roman Emperor (138-161). Last Roman emperor to balance the budget, sold imperial lands to the public, didn't start any wars, didn't debase the currency, established justice in the court system, kept taxes very low, etc.

[emazur]

I certainly don't know the accomplishments and writings of every libertarian through history, but I'll list the 5 most influential to me (in no order):
1) Ron Paul - for his overall message, especially in regards to economics and foreign policy
2) Peter Schiff - He's the best on economics - really, really good at communicating that to the layman. His answers to pretty much everything has are also short, blunt, and hard to dispute.
3) G. Edward Griffin - Taught me things about history and the Fed that I knew nothing about
4) Harry Browne - One of the best libertarian communicators. I voted for him in 2000 when I was first eligible to vote. I didn't know nearly as much then as I do now. Harry planted the seeds of liberty that Ron Paul continues to cultivate
5) Ayn Rand - I know she doesn't call herself a libertarian, but Atlas Shrugged is one of the best books ever written and her message of anti-collectivism is hard to argue with. If you read the overly long Galt speech, you'll see that she understands that collectivism causes not just the Atlases of the world to shrug, but also the "lesser" men who are robbed of their chance of ever developing their full capacity. I didn't know anyone else realized that until I read Rand.

[Che]

Ludwig Von Mises
Ron Paul
F. Nietzsche
Any Rand
Rothbard

[MatM]

Mr. Republican Robert Taft was a constant defender of liberty and always fought the tyranny of FDR and the New Deal.

[ClayTrainor]

Dead:

Murray Rothbard
Lysander Spooner
Frederic Bastiat

Living:

Thomas Woods
Stefan Molyneux
Ron Paul

[AlexMerced]

me :)

[amy31416]

me :)

Awesome. You have some books/writings comparable to Ron Paul, Bastiat and Rothbard's?

[james1906]

Lao Tzu - probably the worlds first libertarian


<-- yes!

[low preference guy]

Awesome. You have some books/writings comparable to Ron Paul, Bastiat and Rothbard's?

don't tempt him... he might to ask you to subscribe to his youtube channel.

[AlexMerced]

don't tempt him... he might to ask you to subscribe to his youtube channel.

Now that you mention it... :p

I havn't written that much... yet, but I have some interesting stuff written at LibertyIsNow.com

I also did write a small pamphlet called "Economics and Liberty: a pocket guide for beginners" -

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/economics-and-liberty-a-pocket-guide-for-beginners/6483439?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/2

Plus over 300 videos over at http://www.youtube.com/alexmerced

I'm more than glad to speak at any event in the NYC area :)

[james1906]

don't tempt him... he might to ask you to subscribe to his youtube channel.

But then you can see how messy his apartment is!

[amy31416]

But then you can see how messy his apartment is!

I actually watch the vids to get fashion ideas for my husband.

[Liberty Star]

Charlie Sheen.

[AlexMerced]

But then you can see how messy his apartment is!

I actually was cleaning it up a bit today, I just have no where to put all these damn clothes... not to mention all the damn ties.

If you don't want to see my room you can download my MP3 "Ecomomics in One MP3"

http://individualist.ning.com/

[Kludge]

I actually watch the vids to get fashion ideas for my husband.

It's true.

She made me wear one of Alex's sweater-vests last night during sex. Weirdest thing...

[AlexMerced]

I actually watch the vids to get fashion ideas for my husband.

Really? I'm glad someone appreciates my eccentric wardrobe

[AlexMerced]

It's true.

She made me wear one of Alex's sweater-vests last night during sex. Weirdest thing...

*Tear of Joy*

[Imperial]

I think you have to make a distinction here between philosophers and politicians.

Philosophers:
FA Hayek - The Constitution of Liberty is one of the most comprehensive tracts of libertarian political philosophy ever compiled.

Milton Friedman - He may not be right about everything, but no real thinker ever is. He did alot to make changers in the real-world in our discourse and in economics.

Robert Nozick - A voice in the wilderness to oppose Rawls. He wasn't a pure libertarian, but he definitely was a free thinker.

Lysander Spooner - The ballsiest philosopher ever. Probably the most radical of libertarian philosophers, nobody can deny he took principled stands and lived them.

Thoreau - combining freedom with romanticism in a convincing manner, even if he was a bit more statist than others.


Politicians:
Ron Paul - sparked a libertarian movement in 21st century America.
Thomas Jefferson - a revolutionary thinker who tried to move in favor of liberty in the presidency, but illustrated the difficulty of applying philosophy to the real world.
Grover Cleveland - a bulwark for liberty in a time when the populists and progressives were gaining legitimacy.
Otto Guevara- He is a libertarian-leaning liberal, but he has done alot to fight for freedom in Costa Rica.

As for the last one.... Maybe Justin Amash, but I don't know. I think we will see the leaders of the movement emerge soon.




F. Nietzsche

There is little that was libertarian about Nietzsche. I actually dislike this philosopher more than any other.

[james1906]

I actually watch the vids to get fashion ideas for my husband.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257126

I'm enjoying the Hives meets Ed Grimley look in the latest installment.

The bladder buster on the TV adds a touch of class.

[amy31416]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257126

I'm enjoying the Hives meets Ed Grimley look in the latest installment.

The bladder buster on the TV adds a touch of class.

Stop.....stop!!!!

YouTube - ED Grimley gets a visit from the Devil (original airing) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOz1kAQKY_Y)

[libertybrewcity]

The LORD Jesus Christ for trolling the violent homosexual Romans, the priests/clergy, the judges and lawmakers, the money-changers, the Jews and pretty much everyone that deserved to be trolled.


I'm willing to bet Jesus would have been a damn socialist had the Romans not been there.

[libertybrewcity]

Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Ayn Rand, Thoreau, Person 5

[00_Pete]

I'm willing to bet Jesus would have been a damn socialist had the Romans not been there.

Randianism at work?

Read Igor Shafarevich´s awesome "The Socialist Phenomenon" and you will see that the Roman empire, like any godless, immoral, sexualized, depraved, Family-unit despising, traditional-values-hating civilization was under the full grip of the "Socialist Phenomenon". The Romans were the commies.

In those days, like in the present, the "behind the scenes" collaboration between high-finances (money-changers and the [censured for racial political correctness purposes] and socialism (the Romans) was manifested in the Crucification. The LORD Jesus Christ was the first one to see thru the "bankers/high finances-socialist/statist" Hegelian-dialect.

[osan]

Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Ayn Rand, Thoreau, Person 5

Me. I'll not be remembered by a soul. but that is OK. I'm not here for the fame or the food. The beer, on the other hand...

[osan]

Randianism at work?

Read Igor Shafarevich´s awesome "The Socialist Phenomenon" and you will see that the Roman empire, like any godless, immoral, sexualized, depraved, Family-unit despising, traditional-values-hating civilization was under the full grip of the "Socialist Phenomenon". The Romans were the commies.

It was a typical non-egalitarian culture. Nothing unique there. The larger the mob, the farther from individual liberty it flees and with greater force does it despise the individual. This is readily observable.


"In those days, like in the present, the "behind the scenes" collaboration between high-finances (money-changers and the [censured for racial political correctness purposes] and socialism (the Romans) was manifested in the Crucification. The LORD Jesus Christ was the first one to see thru the "bankers/high finances-socialist/statist" Hegelian-dialect.

I seriously doubt that JC was the first to see much of anything. I don't mean to offend your apparent religious attachments, but your statement is unsupportable. I know you probably want to tout JC as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but for many it just is not so.

Finally, it is "Hegelian dialectic", just FYI in case that wasn't a mere typo.

[YumYum]

Me. I'll not be remembered by a soul. but that is OK. I'm not here for the fame or the food. The beer, on the other hand...

I agree. Its your job to help someone else enjoy the fame. :D

[00_Pete]

It was a typical non-egalitarian culture. Nothing unique there. The larger the mob, the farther from individual liberty it flees and with greater force does it despise the individual. This is readily observable.



I seriously doubt that JC was the first to see much of anything. I don't mean to offend your apparent religious attachments, but your statement is unsupportable. I know you probably want to tout JC as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but for many it just is not so.

Finally, it is "Hegelian dialectic", just FYI in case that wasn't a mere typo.

I couldnt give a quarter of a baboons arse about what you think nor im trying to convert any Modal-libertarian to anything..."They hated me, they will hate you"

Dont take yourself so seriously.

We JC beleivers were still the very first ones to warn against the NWO, our researchers and "intellectuals" still hold a almost total monopoly of all the major anti-NWO works and we still kick ass. :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I couldnt give a quarter of a baboons arse about what you think nor im trying to convert any Modal-libertarian to anything..."They hated me, they will hate you"

Dont take yourself so seriously.

We JC beleivers were still the very first ones to warn against the NWO, our researchers and "intellectuals" still hold a almost total monopoly of all the major anti-NWO works and we still kick ass. :)

The Catholic Church was among the first NWO-operations.

[00_Pete]

The Catholic Church was among the first NWO-operations.

NWO is +/- 250 years old. Catholic Church infiltrated? Sure, and many mainline protestant churchs too. Buw how is that any different from Libertarians infected with cultural-marxism? Same thing...

However, for all the "intellect" and "reason" and "strong mind that doesnt need the crutch of religion" and "science" and all that crap...from those silly Christians came the entire foundations of the resistance against the NWO...isnt that interesting? :)

But dont worry, we let you jump on board the "anti-NWO train", just be polite and make sure all the weight from "intellect" "reason" and "science" and "cool" and "counter-culture" and all the excess baggage dont slow the train down ;)

[libertybrewcity]

Randianism at work?

Read Igor Shafarevich´s awesome "The Socialist Phenomenon" and you will see that the Roman empire, like any godless, immoral, sexualized, depraved, Family-unit despising, traditional-values-hating civilization was under the full grip of the "Socialist Phenomenon". The Romans were the commies.

In those days, like in the present, the "behind the scenes" collaboration between high-finances (money-changers and the [censured for racial political correctness purposes] and socialism (the Romans) was manifested in the Crucification. The LORD Jesus Christ was the first one to see thru the "bankers/high finances-socialist/statist" Hegelian-dialect.

I will look into that. Thanks for the info.

[libertybrewcity]

Me. I'll not be remembered by a soul. but that is OK. I'm not here for the fame or the food. The beer, on the other hand...

Well, now that you mention it, you are absolutely right. I think my "person 5" should replaced by "all Ron Paul/liberty lovers"! That would include you then, and we will all be remembered!

[LibertyEagle]

My favorite Libertarian is Noam Chomsky. He is a Social Libertarian.

Oh, YumYum. Chomsky is a socialist.

[Galileo Galilei]

George Washington

Thomas Jefferson

James Madison

James Monroe

Ed Thompson

Ayn Rand

John Locke

David Nolan

John Hancock

Samuel Adams

John Stossel

R. W. Bradford

Stephen P. Gordon

Grover Cleveland

Davy Crockett

James Wilson

Antoninus Pius

Galileo Galilei

Giordano Bruno

Origen of Alexandria

Benjamin Franklin

Roger Sherman

[Rael]

Harry Browne

[Andrew-Austin]

No love for Friedman, who not only contributed greatly toward free-trade economics but also was crucial in eliminating the draft?

Fuck that guy, he invented the withholding tax system in order to make collecting income taxes more efficient. He was pro-welfare, pro-income tax, pro-Fed.


My favorite Libertarian is Noam Chomsky. He is a Social Libertarian.

Hah. If you are enough like Chomsky, don't call yourself a libertarian.



Lysander Spooner
Adam Smith
Montesquieu to a certain extent
Baruch Spinoza

Adam Smith was/is overrated as an economist. His labor theory of value was shite, and it later encouraged the birth of Marxism. He couldn't even solve the value paradox though it was done before him. I guess he can still belong on a libertarian list though, I'm just being a jerk.

[low preference guy]

Fuck that guy, he invented the withholding tax system in order to make collecting income taxes more efficient. He was pro-welfare, pro-income tax, pro-Fed.



Hah. If you are enough like Chomsky, don't call yourself a libertarian.

Friedman sucks.

[low preference guy]

Originally Posted by Yum
My favorite Libertarian is Noam Chomsky. He is a Social Libertarian.


Hah. If you are enough like Chomsky, don't call yourself a libertarian.

I took Yum's post as an obvious joke.

[WaltM]

I'm a single issue voter if I were to name the best libertarians : intellectual property.

[agorist ninja]

Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Don't lump him in with the rest of your minarchist idols. He was a far, far better person than all of the others named in this thread.

[Galileo Galilei]

Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Don't lump him in with the rest of your minarchist idols. He was a far, far better person than all of the others named in this thread.

Spooner is an enemy of liberty and an enemy of the US Constitution. Spooner inspired Abe Lincoln to become a tyrant. According to Spooner, since Lincoln didn't sign the Constitution, then Lincoln was not bound by it. That is exactly what Lincoln did, he violated the Constitution. Then a couple generations later, Woodrow Wilson did the same thing.

Thanks to people like Spooner, we now have many politicians who ignore the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers built up our nation, and then Spooner tore it down.

[LibertyVox]

The greatest Librarians

Ainsworth Rand Spofford
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Ainsworth_Rand_Spofford.jpg
and John Russel Young

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/John_Russell_Young.jpg
Oldest Librarian..Elsie Chandler
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~alcsilve/elsiechandler1lg.jpg

World's hottest Librarian

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r1QLgXcOQfA/hqdefault.jpg

[Andrew-Austin]

Spooner is an enemy of liberty and an enemy of the US Constitution. Spooner inspired Abe Lincoln to become a tyrant. According to Spooner, since Lincoln didn't sign the Constitution, then Lincoln was not bound by it. That is exactly what Lincoln did, he violated the Constitution. Then a couple generations later, Woodrow Wilson did the same thing.

Thanks to people like Spooner, we now have many politicians who ignore the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers built up our nation, and then Spooner tore it down.

Lincoln actually read Spooner and said he came to that conclusion, or are you just being an ass?

When Spooner said that those who did not sign the Constitution were not bound by it, he meant the subjects not the rulers. That is pretty obvious, its not very nice to twist people's positions. According to Spooner Lincoln's reign was illegitimate to begin with. Your post is laughable, blaming the downfall of your precious governmental system on a not so influential anarchist.

[Fozz]

My favorite Libertarian is Noam Chomsky. He is a Social Libertarian.

Chomsky is a socialist, not a libertarian.

[YumYum]

I took Yum's post as an obvious joke.

:D

[WaltM]

Spooner is an enemy of liberty and an enemy of the US Constitution. Spooner inspired Abe Lincoln to become a tyrant. According to Spooner, since Lincoln didn't sign the Constitution, then Lincoln was not bound by it.


this is exactly what "Sovereigns" and "gold fringers" say. that they get to violate laws they never agreed with.






That is exactly what Lincoln did, he violated the Constitution. Then a couple generations later, Woodrow Wilson did the same thing.

Thanks to people like Spooner, we now have many politicians who ignore the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers built up our nation, and then Spooner tore it down.

thanks for admitting that adherence to law is opposition to voluntaryism & freedom.

[erowe1]

The word "libertarian" is used in different ways, I know. But Andrew Jackson was no libertarian in any possible sense. He was a tyrant. He might even have been one of America's 10 or so least libertarian presidents.

Jesus definitely belongs very high on the list.

I agree with others that Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith both probably belong there.

I don't know who else is in that league. Possibly Lord Acton, Cicero, or Lao Tzu.

[YumYum]

The word "libertarian" is used in different ways, I know. But Andrew Jackson was no libertarian in any possible sense. He was a tyrant. He might even have been one of America's 10 or so least libertarian presidents.

Jesus definitely belongs very high on the list.

I think Chester A. Arthur comes as close as to a libertarian president that we ever had. Before he was president he was as corrupt as they come, but when he became president after Garfield died, he defied his own Party and Tammany Hall and got the gears in motion to do away with the spoils system and clean up D.C. He died hated by the Republicans, a sick, broken man. When asked by a reporter before he died "why, when he was such a corrupt politician before he became president, did he become an honest incorruptible president?" He replied that he respected the office of the presidency too much to engage in corruption.

Question: Isn't Jesus' "Kingdom" also a "government"?

[libertybrewcity]

Chomsky is a socialist, not a libertarian.

Noam Chomsky considers himself a Socialist Libertarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Anarchist_communism

It could be considered the opposite to Anarcho-Capitalism. (anarcho communism)

[YumYum]

Noam Chomsky considers himself a Socialist Libertarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Anarchist_communism

It could be considered the opposite to Anarcho-Capitalism. (anarcho communism)

Actually, there are many things that he believes in that are in agreement with many members on this forum. He is 100% in agreement with Libertarians on foreign policy.

[erowe1]

Question: Isn't Jesus' "Kingdom" also a "government"?

That's a really hard question to answer with a simple answer.

But first off, you might notice that none of the people I listed were strict anarchists, so it wouldn't be fair to count them as libertarians but disqualify Jesus just for his not being an anarchist (although I think you could make a half-decent argument that he was one anyway, a la this good book (http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Christianity-Mr-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0802804950/)).

And even at that, your putting "government" in quotation marks suggests that you recognize that "government" itself is not necessarily a simple thing to define. Depending on what is meant by that word, some kinds of government are much more libertarian than others, and some could be fully compatible even with full-fledged anarchism (provided "anarchy" is not so broadly defined as the exclusion of any and all "governments," no matter how that word is used). I find Albert Jay Nock's distinction between "the state" and "government" helpful (Nock may not be in the top 5 libertarians of all time, but he should at least be in the top 5 of the 20th century).

My personal belief is that, yes, the kingdom Jesus spoke of is to be a literal government with Himself as the monarch after he physically returns to Earth (we could debate whether that government will be "libertarian" or not--I would say that it will at least be much more libertarian than what we're used to--but that would be somewhat beside the point anyway as I think it would be fair to bracket off some future kingdom ruled by Jesus that has no bearing on current public policy as being neither pro- nor anti- libertarian in any relevant sense for us). But among all Christians throughout history, my view of the kingdom (premillennialism) is probably the minority position, whereas most other Christians would equate the kingdom Jesus preached with something much more spiritual, such as the Church as it is now to exist on earth, as sort of a counter-culture. Then again, within the Church, there exists government (of a sort) as well, but one that only has authority over those who voluntarily subject themselves to it, which is not-anti-libertarian.

[libertybrewcity]

Actually, there are many things that he believes in that are in agreement with many members on this forum. He is 100% in agreement with Libertarians on foreign policy.

Yes, the anarcho part they are in agreement so that means no government which equals no foreign policy. But generally, anarcho-capitalism is almost the complete opposite of anarcho communism in that ancoms won't accept capitalism. They want self-driven communism or collectivism. How that works, who knows!

[erowe1]

Yes, the anarcho part they are in agreement

The problem is that Chomsky doesn't actually believe the "anarcho-" part. He just uses that label because he's ashamed to admit that there's really not much that distinguishes him from the run of the mill liberal democrat.

[libertybrewcity]

The problem is that Chomsky doesn't actually believe the "anarcho-" part. He just uses that label because he's ashamed to admit that there's really not much that distinguishes him from the run of the mill liberal democrat.

Ultimately, though in his arguments he doesn't advocate for government. He still believes in the individual to rule themselves without government collectively, unlike the run of the mill liberal democrat that advocates a big government, invisible hand progressive capitalism.

[LibertyVox]

Libertarian philosophy or at least its formulation-- as it comes to us in the present -- as a coherent philosophy can be traced o the enlightenment period in Europe. More specifically to the British Isles with contributions from the Gaul and Austria.

If you go further than that, many cultures who ruled the day with breakthroughs in enlightened human thought, did show potential for breakthoughs in thought bordering on libertarian , and might have made them had they not lost/replaced/overcome by others or changed their modus operandi. One can find many indiiduals across the globe sprinkled through out history, whose thoughts, or at least a couple of them, may seem "libertarian". But that's about it. It's a romanticized illusion mostly.

As far as the religious figures of the past go, what a person believes that he/she may stand for would be an individual interpretation even if there is an "official" organized religious body whose decrees are claimed to be divinely inspired. That's the way it will be.

So again, what we call libertarianism has its root in the classical liberal thought of the 17th-19th century Enlightenment period.

[erowe1]

Ultimately, though in his arguments he doesn't advocate for government. He still believes in the individual to rule themselves without government collectively, unlike the run of the mill liberal democrat that advocates a big government, invisible hand progressive capitalism.

Doesn't he believe in things like universal healthcare paid for by taxation or some other form of compulsory participation?

[Galileo Galilei]

Lincoln actually read Spooner and said he came to that conclusion, or are you just being an ass?

When Spooner said that those who did not sign the Constitution were not bound by it, he meant the subjects not the rulers. That is pretty obvious, its not very nice to twist people's positions. According to Spooner Lincoln's reign was illegitimate to begin with. Your post is laughable, blaming the downfall of your precious governmental system on a not so influential anarchist.

That's complete BS. All educated northerners back then read Spooner. Spooner was talking about anyone who didn't sign the Constitution. It is interesting you use the terms "rulers" and subjects". We don't have that in the United States under our Constitution, and certainly didn't have it back in the 1840s. Under Spooner's perverse nomenclature, the signers of the Constitution were "rulers", hence he was certainly referring to people like Lincoln.

The Constitution binds the government anyway, not the people, so you have things ass-backwards.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Patrick Henry

[erowe1]

The Constitution binds the government anyway, not the people, so you have things ass-backwards.


Unfortunately, inasmuch as the Constitution empowers the government to subjugate others without their consent, it does bind people. Spooner's point was that the Constitution has no legitimate authority to grant such powers to the government, that the victims of that government's actions, since they had not agreed to be subjugated to it, were under no moral obligation to accept the authority of that constitutional government over them.

But since Lincoln did take an oath to uphold the Constitution, that argument wouldn't work for him. When he broke his oath, he really was reneging on an agreement he voluntarily made.

[Galileo Galilei]

Unfortunately, inasmuch as the Constitution empowers the government to subjugate others without their consent, it does bind people. Spooner's point was that the Constitution has no legitimate authority to grant such powers to the government, that the victims of that government's actions, since they had not agreed to be subjugated to it, were under no moral obligation to accept the authority of that constitutional government over them.

But since Lincoln did take an oath to uphold the Constitution, that argument wouldn't work for him. When he broke his oath, he really was reneging on an agreement he voluntarily made.

You've got a lot of double talk. First of all, if the Constitution has no authority, it can't subjugate anyone.

Also, Lincoln didn't follow your rational, he followed Spooner's rational, unfortunately.

[erowe1]

You've got a lot of double talk. First of all, if the Constitution has no authority, it can't subjugate anyone.

Also, Lincoln didn't follow your rational, he followed Spooner's rational, unfortunately.

I never said anything about the Constitution subjugating anyone. I referred to governments subjugating people. Spooner's view was that no government could appeal to a constitution as legitimizing its subjugation of people, unless those people themselves accepted that constitution.

Lincoln did not follow Spooner's rationale. Spooner explicitly opposed Lincoln in the Civil War, and Spooner's anti-Constitution arguments would not in any way let Lincoln off the hook for what he did, since Lincoln actually did personally take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

[Galileo Galilei]

I never said anything about the Constitution subjugating anyone. I referred to governments subjugating people. Spooner's view was that no government could appeal to a constitution as legitimizing its subjugation of people, unless those people themselves accepted that constitution.

Lincoln did not follow Spooner's rationale. Spooner explicitly opposed Lincoln in the Civil War, and Spooner's anti-Constitution arguments would not in any way let Lincoln off the hook for what he did, since Lincoln actually did personally take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Spooner wasn't very consistent in his views. Of course his views were all over the place and relative to his short term goals. Lincoln's oath meant nothing to Spooner because the oath itself was inside the Constitution, which Lincoln didn't sign.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Spooner's intentions were. What matters is that Lincoln used Spooner's theory to violate the Constitution. Spooner was a bitter man who ideas led to a lot of misery and tyranny.

Lincoln also bought into Spooner's idea that the mythical Union of 1774 was somehow superior to the Constitution. Both agreed that the Union preceded the Constitution, an idea which Lincoln used to justify his notion that states could not secede.

[erowe1]

Spooner wasn't very consistent in his views. Of course his views were all over the place and relative to his short term goals. Lincoln's oath meant nothing to Spooner because the oath itself was inside the Constitution, which Lincoln didn't sign.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Spooner's intentions were. What matters is that Lincoln used Spooner's theory to violate the Constitution. Spooner was a bitter man who ideas led to a lot of misery and tyranny.

Lincoln also bought into Spooner's idea that the mythical Union of 1774 was somehow superior to the Constitution. Both agreed that the Union preceded the Constitution, an idea which Lincoln used to justify his notion that states could not secede.

I'm not a Spooner fan or apologist, but it's obvious that you're only insisting that Lincoln used Spooner's arguments to justify his actions to cast aspersion against Spooner in a way that you consider clever. It only gets more ridiculous the more you repeat it.

Yes, Lincoln's oath meant nothing to Spooner. But that's not because Spooner thought Lincoln's rights to subjugate people exceeded what the Constitution authorized (as Lincoln did), but rather his authority over them didn't exist at all beyond whatever they willingly individually accepted, neither in those powers that are actually enumerated in the Constitution, nor any others.

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm not a Spooner fan or apologist, but it's obvious that you're only insisting that Lincoln used Spooner's arguments to justify his actions to cast aspersion against Spooner in a way that you consider clever. It only gets more ridiculous the more you repeat it.

Yes, Lincoln's oath meant nothing to Spooner. But that's not because Spooner thought Lincoln's rights to subjugate people exceeded what the Constitution authorized (as Lincoln did), but rather his authority over them didn't exist at all beyond whatever they willingly individually accepted, neither in those powers that are actually enumerated in the Constitution, nor any others.

That might be your view of Spooner, but it wasn't Lincoln's. Lincoln also mined the anti-Federalist Papers for excuses to violate the Constitution.

[thehunter]

Lord Acton has always been a model for me!

[justinc.1089]

The word "libertarian" is used in different ways, I know. But Andrew Jackson was no libertarian in any possible sense. He was a tyrant. He might even have been one of America's 10 or so least libertarian presidents.

Jesus definitely belongs very high on the list.

I agree with others that Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith both probably belong there.

I don't know who else is in that league. Possibly Lord Acton, Cicero, or Lao Tzu.

I knew someone would say that about Jackson lol. He hated and despised the banks and fought them his entire life from my understanding, so in that sense he was libertarian. Thats why I put him on my list, although my list would be different if I had 10 minutes to spare to think about it lol. I'm just too busy with my job, internship, and college classes to spend much time on here thinking up some libertarians I think very highly of.

I do know Jackson did a LOT of tyranical things, and overall, if studied in detail, he would probably be much more of a statist than a libertarian. But do you really think he was so bad to say he was not libertarian in ANY sense?

[AuH2O]

And thus the LORD sayeth verily: I hath sent my only son to troll for thee. A curse of 2 maidens 1 chalice shall be visited upon the evildoers. LUKE 23:12

Is NO ONE going to acknowledge how funny this is??

[forsmant]

I am the greatest person ever to walk the earth.

[erowe1]

I do know Jackson did a LOT of tyranical things, and overall, if studied in detail, he would probably be much more of a statist than a libertarian. But do you really think he was so bad to say he was not libertarian in ANY sense?

If you mean "libertarian in any possible sense" so broadly that someone who agrees with libertarians on any issue at all is a libertarian in some sense, then Jackson's opposition to central banking would qualify him (and for whatever else I say about him, kudos to him for that, there's certainly nothing wrong with celebrating his heroism on that issue). But I've never seen the word "libertarian" expanded so broadly that any one (or even a few) litmus test issues can automatically qualify someone.

What I meant by my remark was that I've seen a lot of different criteria used to qualify someone as a libertarian (believing in self-ownership and the policies that derive from it, believing in consistent application of the zero-aggression principle, falling anywhere in the "libertarian section on the Nolan chart, holding to a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, being a strict constitutionalist, being relatively more libertarian than the average Republican). But of the ways I've seen the word "libertarian" used, I don't think any would include Andrew Jackson.

[yokna7]

Noam Chomsky considers himself a Socialist Libertarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Anarchist_communism

It could be considered the opposite to Anarcho-Capitalism. (anarcho communism)

This term is still an oxymoron to me. One cannot achieve, what I believe to be, moderate libertarianism without economic freedom. That's where it all starts. Hayek taught us that..

[RedStripe]

Kevin Carson, who is slowly rescuing the libertarian name from the right-wingers and the randroids

[justinc.1089]

If you mean "libertarian in any possible sense" so broadly that someone who agrees with libertarians on any issue at all is a libertarian in some sense, then Jackson's opposition to central banking would qualify him (and for whatever else I say about him, kudos to him for that, there's certainly nothing wrong with celebrating his heroism on that issue). But I've never seen the word "libertarian" expanded so broadly that any one (or even a few) litmus test issues can automatically qualify someone.

What I meant by my remark was that I've seen a lot of different criteria used to qualify someone as a libertarian (believing in self-ownership and the policies that derive from it, believing in consistent application of the zero-aggression principle, falling anywhere in the "libertarian section on the Nolan chart, holding to a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, being a strict constitutionalist, being relatively more libertarian than the average Republican). But of the ways I've seen the word "libertarian" used, I don't think any would include Andrew Jackson.

Point taken, we'll just leave Jackson at being fiercely libertarian about banking at least, while not at all libertarian about most matters.

[00_Pete]

Is NO ONE going to acknowledge how funny this is??

It is, i didnt noticed it first. The Bible reference is all wrong thu...


Kevin Carson, who is slowly rescuing the libertarian name from the right-wingers and the randroids

More like the "flat earther" of capitalism. Go worship a Sid Vicious statue and leave us alone. :D

[RedStripe]

More like the "flat earther" of capitalism. Go worship a Sid Vicious statue and leave us alone. :D

Learning to read the books of those with whom you disagree is a good way to avoid being a close-minded dolt. By the way...