David Boaz Makes the Case for Libertarianism

[tropicangela]

Executive Vice President David Boaz addresses a Student Forum on October 29, 2010 at the Cato Institute. Boaz is the author of "Libertarianism: A Primer" (http://bit.ly/9q3dWb) "The Politics of Freedom: Taking on the Left, the Right, and Threats to Our Liberties" (http://bit.ly/dcvpuX), and is editor of "The Libertarian Reader" (http://bit.ly/aZKlY0), a collection of essays from Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman.

YouTube - David Boaz Makes the Case for Libertarianism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee6MIrtenH0)

[Matt Collins]

His book, "Libertarianism: A Primer" is a great read.

[Travlyr]

He is wrong. The state owns everything and has since April 17, 1933. Capitalism died that day and Socialism defeated liberty.

Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership"is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

[mczerone]

He is wrong. The state owns everything and has since April 17, 1933. Capitalism died that day and Socialism defeated liberty.

Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership"is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

Interesting, did that ever make it into the official US Code, or was it just a "resolution"?

It reminds me of studying Constitutional law. Whether you are talking about free speech, reasonable searches, due process, or even the equal protection clause, there is always a "test" for constitutionality of gov't actions that weigh the factor of "government interest". Some typical influences on this factor are protecting the children, keeping state secrets, expected costs to the court system, and tax revenue (amongst others more or less arguable like: maintaining ordered (i.e. structured, imposed) liberty, keeping citizens alive (despite their own wishes), or maintaining popular legitimacy ("following the will of the people")).

So you don't have rights if the government doesn't want you to have them, and if the Resolution you quoted was given the force of law, you don't have property if the government doesn't want you to.

Yet some libertarians still can't imagine revoking these ultimate powers from D.C., even if to redistribute them to more local states (god-forbid anyone suggest these powers are inherent in individuals, and should be returned to them).


Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Part of being disposed to suffer must include excusing the evils done by Government. It hurts less if you can convince yourself its good for you, and you are hence open to suffer more. I think we're reaching that breaking point though, where Cato and others are no longer pacifying those who are suffering even though they see the evils for what they are. Mises.org is becoming more popular amongst libertarians. The Tea-parties are becoming (or at least, became) more popular among the mainstream political population because the evils of both parties were no longer sufferable.

It may not be over-night, but the people are close to being able "to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

[Matt Collins]

heh heh heh... David Boaz reads RonPaulForums..... that is awesome!

[johnny.rebel]

Libertarianism FTW!