Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice to You - Christopher Cantwell

Excellent post.

Ironically, that Madison quote is one that could more logically be used in support of libertarianism than anything less, for in context he was pointing out the problem with centralized authority as it relates to human nature, not to our inability to govern ourselves as individuals.

Hear, hear! It becomes a barrier to entry for their competition. That's why �- contrary to myth -- most large business are in favor of increased regulation and why the ultra-wealthy are usually limousine-Liberals, a la, Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Eric Schmidt of Google, Teresa Heinz Kerry, on and on, too numerous to list�

I disagree. Economics is where their purity and simplicity is most legitimate.

"Major economists" are "major" because they have the ear of the state, which raises them to "major" status. The reason they have the ear of the state is because Keynesianism benefits the state, and their partners in crime the banks, even if it harms everyone else in the long run.

That's not why, and left alone it self-corrects perfectly, so long as the state does its part in punishing real crimes and torts, and enforcing contracts, but no more than that.

I've corrected him on this error before. It didn't stick.

Perhaps, but the presupposition underlying the statement below demonstrates you are at odds on its fundamental starting point:



Yes, there is, but it isn't the reason you seem to think it is. It seems you think the reason is that governments choose economic systems based upon their workability & how well they serve the people.

Libertarianism starts from the position that centralized power serves itself alone. Here is where you are wholly at odds with libertarian thought. Governments don't serve anyone but themselves. Our measured capitalism is measured so as to serve those in power; the measures don't "protect consumers" as you seem to assume.

Economics are as central to libertarianism as they are to progressivism; you can't buy into libertarianism without its economics. Your rejection of its economics suggest you are at odds on much more foundational levels.

I'm curious. I believe in ordered liberty. Does that disqualify me from being a libertarian?

No, Dave, that's exactly what Libertarianism is. Barak espouses anarchy, which is its polar opposite. Libertarianism says that it�s wrong to intentionally, avoidably hurt the innocent and it sanctions putting mechanisms in place to prevent that from happening, as best as possible. Anarchism posts an open season on the innocent.

Or, to put it another way, a Libertarian says a person�s right to swing his fist ends where another person�s nose begins, while an anarchist claims he�s entitled to that space too.

I'm not a Libertarian, as my faith swings me over into the Conservative ideology, though one cannot be a Conservative without the libertarian foundation.

There are anarchist in the Libertarian Party which cracks me up, but like TRH and Uriah have been saying, a libertarian and an anarchist are not the same thing.

tag

No.

Anarchy is simply the lack of government in a society.

It doesn't mean the desire to deprive others of their rights.

Probably my favorite essay on the matter:

http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

Yet, Anarchist join political parties whose purpose is to elect Government officials.

Gotta love the irony in that...

Well, then,...obviously they're not anarchists.

They're confused about what the term means,...as are many who are participating in this thread.

That's kind of the reason that the OP's statement is so funny.

which one?

Which anarchist?

My understanding of AnCap is that they don't necessarily believe everything would be great without a state. They believe that whatever kind of society exists in a particular place, the state makes it worse than it would have been without one.

Absent a formal state, however, some other form of despotism will tend to reign, even if less centralized. So the conservative supports the existence of the state, recognizing it as, at best, a necessary evil (criminal by nature), but places strict limits on it by various means, such as by constitutions, checks and balances, decentralization, the rule of law, traditional institutions, etc., but he also recognizes that liberty is the fruit only of a certain sort of culture, mainly that which sprang from Western Civilization (particularly by way of England), and that it's a highly unnatural state for humanity to find itself in, the norm being despotism and tyranny. All the more reason to conserve the pillars in our society which have traditionally supported liberty, e.g., the rule of law, Christianity, the traditional family, traditional morality, free markets, sound money, property rights, etc..

In practical reality that is likely to be the way it plays out, but the question becomes where giving one person authority over another ends.

Seems the tendency of gov't that, no matter how reigned in at the outset, they inevitably end up being the aggressor.

The anarchist seeks to head em off at the pass.