In my heart I lean toward Libertarianism. I like the idea of a very limited government. I think the federal government should be more limited than state governments. Though I haven't decided everything that should happen at each level of government, they all sould repeal about 70% (or more) of the laws on the books. I think our various levels of government should be focused on keeping foreign and domestic enemies at bay and safeguarding individual freedom.

However, I fully recognize the concept of a truly Libertarian society requires people to be mature and decent to each other. This just isn't the way the world is or has ever been. A good example is use of cell phones while driving. People should have enough common sense to know how big a distraction a cell phone can be while driving. They should make every effort to overcome that distraction by using a headset, a speaker system, or focusing more on driving than talking. However, most don't and it creates dangerous situations. People should have enough sense not to drink and drive, to wear their seatbelts, to not leave infants unattended in a car, etc. However, many people do not apply common sense to these things so laws are passed.

So is the Libertarian View a type of government worth striving for or is it just an unrealistic pipe dream? Is voting and supporting political conservatives and incrementally trying to undo our current state of over regulation the best we can do? Do we lose more by seperating ourselves into a group that will never achieve enough political power to have any effect, or by choosing the lesser of two evils with the political parties who can have an effect?

Blaine

Blaine, I guess I'm not the only one that mauls stuff like this over in my mind. The way I see it, alot of folks just don't have enough common sense or responsability to live totaly free of government interference. If I ever arrive at a reasonable conclusion, I'll let you know. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

That being said, I'll tell you how I see it Others may or may not agree with my take. There is only one guy I can be responsable for, and I got to look him in the eye every morning to shave. In his heart, he believes that maturity and decency cannot be legislated, and any attempt to is wrong.

We have laws against driving while talking on cell phones, drinking & driving, leaving infants unattended, and on and on. Folks still do it. We also have laws against robbery and murder. Folks still do that too.

The only way to enforce all these laws on everyone equally, is constant supervision. Even though I do none of these things, the simple idea of "Big Brother" constantly peering over my shoulder leaves a hollow feeling in my chest. And I believe that all these unenforcable laws lead us in that direction.

Remeber that guy I said about being accountable to? I just cannot go on voting for someone I don't like, trust or agree with, just because the other choice is worse yet. If I do, he keeps me up at night.

I guess I realize it's a no win situation, but after all, I've still got to shave.
7mm

Maybe a little allowed "Darwinism" would work?

Government has a job...to protect the civil liberties of the individual citizen from the depredations of the Bigs...Big Government, Big Labor, Big Green, Big Business, Big Education, Big Crooks and Big Religion.
I probably forgot a couple...the whole idea is to prevent the consolidation of unaccountable political or economic power. Once an entity is so large as to be able to take unfair advantage, it will.
The Darwinism part would be great...we had a version of it here in MT for a long time...no speed limits. You didn't drive stupid in Montana for long before finding yourself off a cliff or in a river sometime soon.
It had a benefit. Most drivers drive the numbers on the sign. Long-time Montanans drive the road and learn to read it. The newcomers? Hah.
We should replace all traffic laws with one -- Driving While Stupid. Get three of them and you can't drive for two years, unless of course you kill yourself once out of the three.

Blaine, what is today called "libertartianism" was originally called liberalism (today many say "classical liberalism"). Classical liberalism is the economic and governmental system/theory/philosophy that developed starting in the 18th Century, i.e., the 1700s. It was the system for liberty adopted by the Founding Fathers, was the cause of the American war for independance and our system of government. It's primary early theorists were Locke and Montesquieu (I recommend you read them both). It became fully developed in the 19th Century, and was the cause of the spread of liberty in many European nations.



Gradually, however, the Leftists stole the name of "liberal," and the true liberals started calling themselves conservatives and/or libertarians. I should comment though that classical liberalism and modern libertarianism are political and economic philosophies, whereas conservatism is most accurately described as an orientation of the mind, i.e., the belief that free society had a complex organic development, and if messed with by social engineers, it will be utterly destroyed, and will require at least another thousand years to re-acqure, if indeed it is even possible to re-acquire it. Keep in mind that the vast majority of human history has been characterized by a small class of Nobles forcing their collective wills on the rest of humanity who lived in squalor and constant fear (under tyranny), and that liberty marks only a very small part of human history. It may well have been a fluke, never again to re-emerge once destroyed.



Conservatism basically says that we like the free society which resulted from 18th and 19th Century liberalism (which, itself, rested on many centuries of previous development), so don't mess with the institutions that have developed as a result, because that would be like chopping down a huge oak tree, and trying to re-assemble it in a different manner, according to your liking (i.e., The tree will die). Classical liberalism and modern libertarianism are not the same as conservatism, but rather a well developed philosophy of government and economics. And YES, it works very well indeed, as proved by the unique status we have so long enjoyed in the world as the best place to live. Nowhere in the world has true liberalism been more influential on the way a people live and govern themselves than in the United States of America, and it shows in 200 years of liberty and prosperity.



Gradually, however, starting in the early 20th Century, the Leftists stole the name liberal, and have been implementing Statism/Socialism little by little, and our freedoms are gradually being eroded. Classical liberalism is being replaced with its opposite, and too few are educated enough to know the difference. I agree with the Conservatives in that I am persuaded that once the oak tree is chopped down, you will not be able simply to put it back together again once the leftist expiment has proved disasterous (which it has everywhere it has been tried). We will have to start from scratch with an acorn. Liberal society and government was an organic development in Western civilization, and cannot be simply re-engineered at will. Way too complicated for that. There is enough of the tree still standing and living that we can still stop its total destruction, but we are nearing a point of no return, in my opinion. Once the original tree of liberty has been completely chopped down, so that no remnant survives in the world, it will not be possible to nurse it back to health and vigor, anymore than you can restore the tree to life which was used to build a row of park benches.



P.S. It is too little appreciated that Conservatism is an essential component of Classical Liberalism. It was the view of the Classical Liberal thinkers that social change through government should be very slow and difficult, and that established institutions must be preserved from rapid change as a result of legislation (They never suspected that the Supreme Court would ever become a vehicle for rapid and extreme social alterations). Classical liberals were also conservatives, in other words. This is why our Constitution was written in such a way as to be very difficult to alter. Passage of legislation is intentionally very ineffecient in the United States (or at least that was the intent of the Founding Fathers), because of the many checks and balances built into the system. The president was not given the power to plunge us into war, preferring that Congress have that sole power, realizing that, due to that body's inefficiency, wars would only be entered into if the great majority of Americans were in favor of it (today, of course, the president may plunge the nation into war at will). The national government has only limited power to alter our society (or, at least that was the plan), as its powers are few and enumerated, and do not deal with anything of much import to local society.



These are all conservative components to the Constitution. It is important that you not confuse true Conservatism with modern Republican politics. Modern Republicans are best characterized as moderate socialists/statists, not as Conservatives, even if there are still a few Conservatives here and there in the Republican Party.

And with all these millions of laws and ordinances, people still do stupid things.

Its inevitable. Probably 98% of all legislation is passed with never any intent of preventing a mishap, or protecting the populus.

They are passed as part of the scheme of revenue enhancement for the governing body. Government produces nothing, its sources of cash to survive are taxes, fees, and fines. Quite often literally stolen in a manner that would lock you or I up for fraud if we attempted to deceive in a similar mannor.

Case in point, my home town. My home town's "main" street coinsidentally is also a section of a U.S. Route. There have been parking meters on this street for as long as I can recall. A while back, a well to do lawyer decide to fight his parking ticket. He won. Being a U.S. Route superceded the municipality's right to install the parking meters. Since the municipality had no jurisdiction, the parking ticket was illegaly issued, and the case was dismissed.

To this day, the meters are still on this street, monies are collected from them, tickets are issued, fines are paid by unsuspecting unknowing motorists.

Part of the reason they do not know? The decision was sealed by the court.

A fraud is committed everyday in my town. Parties have conspired to prevent the truth from being divulge to the masses. All in the name of revenue.

Sounds like corruption, fraud and racketeering if it were you or I. Should we not hold our governments to the same standard?

No, no, a thousand times no!

"Mankind is basically good" is the fundamental tenet of left liberalism, not of libertarianism! Libertarianism could be argued to be based on that passage from Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." Libertarians understand that people are naturally corrupt, which is why it is always (always) a losing proposition to give them coercive government power over others.

In a libertarian society, individuals would be ultimately responsible for any injury, damage, or other violation of the rights of others that they caused. Most if not all of the restrictions on what you could do while driving would be imposed by insurance companies, not governments. (Furthermore, the various government-sponsored immunities from and limits on litigation that insurance companies now enjoy would be gone.)

Insurance companies, you see, are the logical ones to make such rules, because they actually have a stake in the effectiveness of the rules, and are therefore motivated to make rules that really work. Politicians have no stake in the effectiveness of traffic laws, and are motivated only by how many votes they think they can get from their target constituency.

In a libertarian society, driving drunk or talking on a cell phone while driving would probably not be illegal. After all, it's not a violation of anyone's rights. However, your insurance policy would probably state in big red letters that any property or civil damages or criminal penalties incurred while intoxicated or distracted would not be covered; and if you did violate somebody else's rights, any demonstrable intoxication or distraction would undoubtedly be considered during sentencing.

Look at it this way: any assertion you make that in the real world people are not mature or decent to each other is susceptible to the following challenge: then why would you want them to rule you?

Barak makes a great point. In a free society, tort and criminal law is how irresponsible individual conduct is dealt with, not "prior restraint" laws, such as those banning the carry or ownership of firearms. Prior restraint laws presume a guilty mind and an evil intent, while our traditional laws (developed when we were a far more libertarian/classically liberal society) presumed innocence till guilt was proved. Laws based on prior restraint are characteristic of parternalistic societies (e.g., Communist societies), not free ones. In a free society, all are presumed to be responsible for their own conduct, and only when their behaviors demonstrably disrespect the rights of others does society (i.e., the law) step in to hold that person accountable.



Now, you might ask, "If our laws should presume an innocent mind, how then can you say that Classical Liberalism presumed that each man is a potential tyrant?" Different situation. That presumption is based on the axiom "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton). Corruption (evil intent) is only a problem when people have great power to do harm, such as that possessed by the "Nobility" of prior centuries and most government officials today. Our system, however, was originally designed to place very little power in the hands of any small number of individuals, and all power that must be given to government officials was checked and limited by other institutions and branches of government. Our system, however, has largely been undermined by the leftists/statists of the 20th and 21st centuries, falsely calling themselves "liberals". Our mission is largely one of restoration, not experimentation. Authentic liberalism has already been tried and has universally enjoyed unprecedented success. Never perfectly, but the closer any nation has approximated it, the better that nation has prospered under liberty.

Yeah, Barak sure DID get that one right, and so did you Hawk on prior restraint.
One, there are a lot of venal scumbags out there, and no number of laws will ever make them good. That's what guns are for and why it's not a good idea to take them from the good guys. At the least, you can march the scumbag to the slammer.
Then comes prior restraint. Like I said, we didn't have a speed limit in Montana for a long time. I thought it was great to be able to rely on my own judgement, and I survived its evolution.
Now we have prior restraint -- restrained down to the limits set by a little old lady in a Delta 88 with no shocks, bald tires on glare ice with coffee between her legs. The limits on main roads are set foolishly low to the point where people drive the number in a howling blizzard and THEN wonder how they got caught in a flaming 600 car pileup?
I beleive we should be able to make choices, and yes, be held accountable for the consequences. Making good choices begets more, to where it becomes second nature for all members (should I say surviving) of society. But what happens if all the choices are made for you...and when the time comes that there's a decision to make that hasn't been legislated or whatever...making the right, rational, and I would say ETHICAL decision becomes a crapshoot.
Vicious circle, that.
Finally, about the Tree of Liberty. In this global society, it is crazy to expect that another great experiment in human freedom will come along after America. We developed from that "acorn" in isolation. If it hadn't been for distance and time and space, all of which are now nonexistent in the historical sense of the words, we would never have gotten away with what we have done. If we lose our freedoms, that's it for the world, for all those other people who deserve to have at least a dream of liberty, if not liberty in practice.
Hmmmph.

While I agree that the federal government should be smaller, and oversteps it Constitutional bounds, I do not believe that the Libertarian view is valid.

That view is too near anarchy to be effective. It is a view that as long as I don't hurt anyone else it is my right to do as I please.

On the surface that seems valid. However, whether something hurts/affects others is often not as clear as they would make it.
Prostitution is not a victimless crime. In addition, the moral views of the society and individuals do in fact impact others. Sometimes all others.

To accept immorality in the form of sex, drugs, or whatever else you want to name, is harmful to the society.
The attitudes toward abortion present a callousness toward the value of human life, and the approval of the failure to be responsible for your actions. It is the claim of the Libertarians that they believe each should be responsible for his actions. However, the attitude that one can have sex and then not accept the consequences when pregnancies occur contradicts the Libertarian claim.

The Libertarian claims that morality is not the responsibility of the government. The ignore the fact that murder, stealing, etc are moral issues.

The laws of a society reflect the values of that society. The law is a great teacher, although only one part of the lessons that should be presented in a society. The other legs are home, church, and schools plus peer pressure.

Any claim that the government is not to teach moral values, and the schools are not to teach them, but that the home and church are the places that moral values should be taught ignores a very basic fact.
MANY homes do not have much in the area of correct moral values. They are too often homes of a single parent who has become a parent through immoral sexual activity. The home is therefore of little help.
Those families do not usually attend a church. The church then cannot teach morality to those people. We would be abandoned those people to their enviornment. It is a bad evil environment.

Accordingly, it is absolutely necessary that the government pass laws which deal with moral values.
Consider the subject of homosexuality which is in the news much these days.

If a child grows up in a society where the law says that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, and to discriminate against homosexuals is a crime, and the schools teach that it is a natural lifestyle, and there is no stigma in society against homosexuality, that child will grow up with a warped view of the morality of homosexuality, and has a greater chance of participation in it.

It will be the opposite if the government says that it is wrong and illegal, the schools teach that sexual immorality is wrong, and if the society ostracizes active homosexuals, then that child will have a different view of homosexuality.

The degradation of the morals of this society have adversely impacted all of us in one way or another.
Or lack of proper moral values is reflected it the results. School shootings, parents and children killing one another, rapes, violence, diseases that are transmitted by drugs and sex, fear of walking the street after dark in so many parts of all cities, and the lack of respect for others are all manifestations of our moral decadence. Just look at some of the logos on tee shirts, and the language on TV and movies. In my youth one would have been thrown out of a home where he visited and used vulgar or cursing language. Now most invite it into their home in the name of entertainment.

The Libertarian view goes along with much of the problem, although they deny that they approve of it. But that is not enough. A nation must provide an atmosphere which furthers righteousness and seeks to halt unrighteousness. Today, none of the political parties is perfect. However, on balance the Republican party has the MORAL high ground. That is the primary reason I am a Republican. We will never get it exactly right because we are imperfect humans, but we must try.

Before you ask me, I will tell you that the absolutes for the determination of proper morality are found in the Holy Bible. It was the basis for our views in the early days of our nation, and on which we built a great nation. Sadly, as we depart from those absolutes, the nation becomes poorer in liberty and justice.

Proverbs 14:34 ��Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

Jerry

Guys,

This is an excellent discussion!

Blaine

I'm not sure how to respond to you, Jerry. What if the Tao or Talmud or Confucious or Koran was all we had to go on? Not all, just one of those? Do you really want to be a Muslim. What if the government that took on that moral role you speak of was Muslim? You wouldn't like that at all, same as any other believer doesn't want their belief system forcibly imposed.
That said, religion has a critical role to play in a society in that it provides people with freely-accepted bounds of acceptable behavior.
The Jews made their dietary laws for a good reason -- no refrigeration. Trichinosis was a bad deal, and guzzling down unpasteurized milk wasn't so smart either.
So there was some practical stuff in there to keep the good guys alive.
Never mind STD's in pre-drug days. Bacchanlia would have killed off the population in no time, leading to invasions from healthy nations.
The reason for all the brimstone talk was simple...with an all-seeing God up there in the absence of cops, there wasn't a need for a huge gummint. The weekly guilt-trip on Sunday worked...for a long time.
Okay, now lets go to an atheistic nation where the theorists decided to kill the church and replace it with Father State. USSR. The state controlled behavior so completely that subjects never had a chance to develop skills of individual self-government, self-restraint. The repression was so pervasive it developed to the point where if someone could do a crime, no matter how petty, they would -- simply to prove to themselves they were still humans and not automatons.
When the Soviet Union went belly-up, this nation without a moral compass went totally bonkers...but there has also been a resurgence in religion, and Russia and all the spinoffs (well, most anyway) seem to be finding their way with a little bit of a moral compass.
However, when you get down to the dirt here in America, I would never willingly accept moral guidance from government. That is for society at large acting as parents and fellow citizens.
My parents hardly ever went to church or temple (I'm a mutt), but they managed to inculcate me with a sense of right or wrong that needs no reinforcement. The state could never have done that.
Finally, the Texas decision. I feel it was the right one. Just like government should stay the hell out of our gun rooms, it should stay the ($*^&# out of our bedrooms. That said, I do not support a societal legitimation of "gay marriage." That's not what marriage is for, not how biology is designed to work. Period.
If two froots want to make a life partnership among themselves, fine. If they can find a private employer willing to insure the "partner" and hand over such private-sector benefits that normal married couples get...well, fine. But spousal Social Security benefits? Nah.
Bottom line is I don't think gays et al should be persecuted, nor do I feel they should be supported. Leave 'em alone -- in return, they are expected to leave the rest of us alone.

Dave,
[I'm not sure how to respond to you, Jerry. What if the Tao or Talmud or Confucious or Koran was all we had to go on?]

But it isn�t. This nation was founded by Christians, and was basically a Christian nation for most of our history. While I doubt that most of those who were here were truly born again believers, they did ascribe to the moral and ethical values contained in the Bible.
In some nations they only have other religions. We have been commanded to carry the gospel of Christ throughout the world. Without it they are lost eternally.

Because we have been blessed by having the truth, God�s Word, we built our laws basically on that truth. We have never been perfect, but as a nation we have believed in the moral absolutes of the Bible.

[However, when you get down to the dirt here in America, I would never willingly accept moral guidance from government. That is for society at large acting as parents and fellow citizens.]

In fact you do every day. Laws in general are bases upon moral principles. Some are very obvious, for example, murder, rape, and theft. Others are not so obvious, and some are not based upon morality. I again say that there are so many who did not, and do not, have the advantage of parents who have a good moral compass, and so they grow up without a conscience which normally helps individuals to do right. Today we have those who have not conscience. They murder without any feeling of guilt or remorse.
Laws must be bases upon moral values. However, those values must be the correct ones. Otherwise we have unjust and immoral laws, such as the Muslim countries, in general, do.

It is worth noting, that as far as I have ever known there is not one of the world's major religions which accepts homosexuality as normal or even tolerable.

[Finally, the Texas decision. I feel it was the right one. Just like government should stay the hell out of our gun rooms, it should stay the ($*^&# out of our bedrooms.]

Then would you approve of incest and the sexual abuse of minors? What about statutory rape? You would not. There is no right to have total freedom in our bedrooms. That right is only between husband and wife.

One other thought.
Earlier in history there were probably no STDs. Then there were such things such as syphilis, and others.
There is a built in consequence of sin. STDs are one of the consequences of sexual immorality. As mankind found cures for the diseases, God caused/loosed others. Now we have AIDS. It is not unusual for God to attempt to get man�s attention by degrees. If mankind will not respond it gets worse.
In time it will get worse than anyone can imagine.

Here is what God has revealed will happen because of the sinfulness of mankind, and their refusal to turn from it.
Revelation 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

The decision by the Supreme Court was a decision which furthers the moral degradation of this nation, and which will in time result in our destruction as a nation such as we know today.

As for persecution, I would not hunt them down and harm them. I would in fact go to the aid of anyone who was being attacked without cause. But if persecution means ostracizing known practicing homosexuals, then I would do that. If I had a business I would not hire one, and want nothing to do professionally or socially with one.

[Leave 'em alone -- in return, they are expected to leave the rest of us alone.]
The main problem here is that they do not leave us alone. They insist on the same special status as races do. They flaunt their filthy lifestyle, and that must be resisted by all legal means. They are determined to have their lifestyle declared to be normal and accepted, to include marriage. I will always resist and oppose such things.

Jerry

That's a paraphrase of the Non-Aggression Principle. To a first approximation, it's okay, but it's not exact; if you try to apply it rigorously to real-world situations, it'll cause you problems. There are times, under the NAP, when it is your right to hurt someone else.

Please don't dismiss anarchy quite so quickly. There are a number of very instructive philosophical aspects to anarchy that can help you "think outside the box." For example, why exactly do we need a state? What is it that the state can do that can't be done just as well or better by the free market? (Answer: it can legally use preemptive coercive force rather than persuasion. That's all.) Whoever said "Anarchy is chaos!" was a statist. I personally happen to think that anarchy is somewhat less than practical, but it is not chaos, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for it and for the folks who have spent time thinking about it and researching it.



If, given a particular act of prostitution, you can identify one or more victims who have demonstrably had their rights (life, liberty, property) violated, then libertarians would agree with you that those victims are entitled to some sort of relief.



Libertarians don't believe in "society" as a moral actor or subject. Only individuals are capable of moral or immoral action, and only individuals can be acted upon morally or immorally. We also hold that subjective beliefs cannot violate anyone's rights: if rights are to be violated, they must be violated by action, which may or may not spring from any given set of moral beliefs.



Here I'm afraid you have things slightly askew.

Libertarians go much further than claiming that morality is not the responsibility of the government. We don't even stop at saying that the government cannot possibly have any positive effect on morality. We go all the way to the claim that the government is, unavoidably and in all cases, the enemy of morality: law destroys moral choice.

And we support that claim by observing that morality--true morality--involves an individual's free-will choice to conform himself to a particular abstract moral standard, frequently to his own immediate disadvantage. Law, on the other hand, externally influences a decision to follow or not follow a particular course of action for the purposes of self-preservation. One who makes a decision not to hire a prostitute in a state other than Nevada is not making a noble moral choice: he's making a crass, selfish choice. (Or at the very least, there is no way he can prove to anyone--including himself--otherwise.)

Law destroys morality. Morality is good; we want to destroy as little of it as possible: therefore, we want as few laws as possible. Can we get rid of all laws and proceed on the basis of morality alone? No, we can't, because not all people are moral. Therefore, libertarians believe that we should have some laws, but only in cases involving the clear violation of another's rights. If there is no victim, then there can be no just law. That's why libertarians support laws against murder and stealing: because they violate others' rights to life, liberty, and/or property, not because they're morally wrong.



On the contrary, the law (at least as it exists today) is an exquisitely lousy teacher. It teaches that the government has life-or-death power over its subjects at a whim, rather than the other way around. It teaches that one can depend on others, rather than oneself, to ensure one's safety and success. It teaches that doing the wrong thing can be okay if you can get out of it by exploiting a loophole in the law. And it teaches that those who have money, resources, and power can get away with more than those who don't.

But we agree about the other legs.



Agreed. But how did it get that way? Can you guess what I'm going to say? Government is how it got that way. The government extorts resources from the successful and hands them out to the unsuccessful. The government punishes folks who make hiring/firing decisions based on employees' moral choices. The government refuses to protect the rights of unborn babies, thus further rewarding irresponsible activity. The government has arranged things so that one does not need to be responsible or moral or pay attention to one's children to survive or even to succeed; therefore, many aren't and don't.

Government created this problem, and more government can only make it worse, not better. Abandoning those people to their environment, as you say, is the best thing that could possibly be done for them--at least from a government perspective. If they can convince people that they're worth taking a chance on, then private charities and individuals may choose to help them. They have no right to other people's time or money, and it's time both they and we understood that.



Look: I believe that sex should be restricted to within (traditional) marriage. Why? Well, okay, because the Bible says so. But I think it goes deeper than that. I think the Bible says so because that's the way God designed us to operate optimally. Deviations from that are suboptimal; we can discover that either by reading the Bible or by trying it out for ourselves and observing the result (or, preferably, by observing the result when others try it for themselves). We absolutely do not need the government to tell us how we ought to be conducting our personal relationships. (Just think of the amount of information the government would have to have about everybody to fairly enforce an anti-sodomy law, and how many enforcement personnel it would take, and how much it would cost!)

On the one hand, if Judeo-Christian marriage is really better than all the alternatives, it should be able to naturally-select itself to the top of the heap without government help. On the other hand, government has so thoroughly screwed up Judeo-Christian marriage so far through no-fault divorce and apallingly stupid family-law bungling that I think it's pretty important to get it out of the picture before it destroys it completely.



All of that is caused by government, and can't be solved by government.

School shootings happen because schoolchildren have no discipline, and they have no discipline because school discipline has been effectively outlawed by the government.

Children killing parents happens (are you ready?) because children have no discipline, and they have no discipline because family discipline has effectively been outlawed by the government.

Parents (and step-parents, and temporary boyfriends, etc.) killing children happens because the government has made children disposable meal tickets.

Sexually-transmitted diseases are rampant because the government has taken away all the natural God-given incentives against promiscuity and irresponsibility.

Diseases are frequently passed by drug needles because the government has outlawed the white-market sale of drug paraphernalia by folks who might provide cheap, sterile equipment.

Rapes and violence and fear of walking the streets at night only happens because the government has guaranteed street goblins a steady supply of hapless victims by outlawing the act of and the means to self defense.

Lack of respect for elders, or for others in general, flourishes because government anti-discrimination laws make people afraid to protest the lack of respect lest they be slapped with a lawsuit or even a criminal charge.

And for every scummy, unprincipled Democrat you can name, I'll bet I can name you at least one scummy, unprincipled Republican, starting with Abraham Lincoln. There is no moral high ground in government. (Nor should there be: if it exists at all, government should be regarded as a possibly unnecessary evil and looked on with distaste; those who participate--on purpose--in it should be avoided.)

Barak,
And your post contains the reason(s) that the Libertarian view is not valid, and will never be accepted by the mainstream.
Not much else for me to say.
Jerry

Barak,

Bravo, bravo!!!

The founders were not all Christians. That is why the Creator is refered to and not God or Christ. Check it out. Bob

Well said Barak. Someone once very wisely commented of government (i.e., the state) that it is, at its best, a necessary evil." Someone else wisely remarked that government (i.e., the state) makes for a very dangerous servant, but an intolerable master. I like the analogy to keeping a tiger to guard one's estate. Constantly checked, and kept in regular fear of his keepers (us), he (the government) will keep your estate safe from badly intentioned tresspassers, but, given half a chance, he is almost as likely to make a meal out of his keepers.



The early liberal thinkers were not clear on whether there was a difference between the state and government. More recently, we distinguish. Usually, however, government gives birth to the state, whether or not that was the original intention. The state is little more than a parasite on society, hardly different from the nobles of past centuries, or the Mafia today. Governments, on the other hand, are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, to secure for us and our posterity the blessings of liberty, i.e., the rights to life, liberty and the persuit of property/happiness.



Notice I said "the persuit of." Nobody has a right to property (including basic necessities), but only the right to persue them without interference, while not themselves interfering with the rights of others to do the same. The leftists have twisted this to mean that we have a right to HAVE various things, which naturally implies an obligation on the part of the rest of us to PROVIDE those things, via the income tax and wealth redistribution, for those who do not have them. Most Americans today are socialists/statists in their basic philosophy of government, and don't even know it. "Socialists are those other guys, not me."

Boy, they always say don't riff politics or religion in polite company, and here we are doing BOTH.
I don't really agree all that much with Barak's support of "anarchy," especially after seeing a fair number of circle A's running around Missoula last year. Not a society I'd wish to be part of.
I guess you could call me a "leave me the *^#$) alone" libertarian. Smoke all the pot you want, drink all you want, just don't operate heavy equipment around me or I'll kick your fanny, get you fired and tossed in the slam. Sleep with whatever ADULT you want, just don't stick me with the bill for your AIDS medication.
I suppose if everyone exercised their rights to life, liberty and property in a RESPONSIBLE manner there would be no need for government...but we humans tend to be venal, selfish nincompoops. And so are our "leaders."
Shoot, now my trigger finger itches.

Are you saying that no one has the right to OWN property or that no one has the right to OBTAIN property? There IS a difference. If no one has a right to OWN property you shouldn't have a problem with income tax or the redistribution of wealth by the government since if no one has a right to property then you have no right to what the government is taking from you and giving to someone else nor has there been a transgression of your rights since you didn't own what was taken in the first place. Unless of course your name is Nobody, whom you have stated has a right to property.

Perhaps a more complete explanation might be in order, just for the sake of clarity.

You and I agree on a large number of things, as I'm sure you know. However, I don't think that property and happiness are the same thing.

And I do think that there is a fundamental, unalienable right to property. As a matter of fact, it's the most fundamental right, because all the other ones derive from it. Your right to liberty essentially consists of the right to acquire, use, and dispose of your property in whatever way you deem appropriate without being interfered with, provided of course that you don't interfere with anyone else in the process. Your right to life simply comes from the fact that you own your own life: it's your property to do with as you please, without interference or interfering.

As a matter of fact, the very concept of freedom itself depends on property rights, as I'm sure you'll see if you think about it.

But you also have a point in that the right to own property does not include a right to be provided with property by others, especially if it is extorted from them with force from the state and handed to you. You properly acquire property either by creating it yourself or by persuading someone else to give it to you of his own free will, usually by providing him with some sort of agreed-upon compensation.

But once it's yours (provided that it has not been obtained through an initiation of force or fraud), it's yours, and anyone who tries to take it from you without your consent would best be prepared to be dealt with as an initiator of force.

Well, that's a perfectly valid kind of libertarian. Lots of people want to be left alone; that makes them human, not libertarian. But if in order to be left alone, they're willing to leave others alone (and not appeal to the state to jerk others around on their behalf), then they're definitely on the right track.

I don't know what a "circle A" is, but if you like being left alone and they're not willing to leave you alone, then they don't sound much like what I know of capitalist anarchists. (There is a philosophy called socialist anarchism, but I've never understood it, and so far no one has been able to explain it to me.)

But if you've got the basic tenet down (I'll leave you alone if you'll leave me alone) and you're an intellectual type of person, you're in danger of thinking yourself into anarchism at some point. I may think myself there eventually; but I'm not there yet.


Libertarians make allowances for people to be venal, selfish nincompoops--as a matter of fact, it's pretty much assumed that they will be. However, in a libertarian society, being selfish and venal means walking lightly around others and saying please and yes sir and thank you ma'am, because you wouldn't want anybody with a gun to get the idea that you were trying to initiate force.


Excellent! Then my work here is done.

Barak, I don't know the other gentleman who misunderstood my statement on property rights, but I am very surprised that you would misconstrue my meaning. Ok, here goes. If we had a "right to property," that would imply an obligation on the part of others to provide said property for you. You have a right to YOUR property (both real and personal), but not that of others, and you have a right to both pursue and obtain property in a free society by any legitimate means. As you state, property rights are the foundation of a free society (see John Locke), but that is entirely different from the leftist view that people literally have a right to property, e.g., the right to have housing, medicine, food, clothing provided for them. This is the view held by socialists, i.e., that if I don't have something to which I have a right, then government must provide it to me. Negative! You have a right to pursue it, obtain it by trade, manufacture it, receive it as a gift, but you do not have the right to have that which belongs to another if you don't currently have it. If you had a right to have an income (rather than the right to pursue it, obtain it, keep it), for example, then we who already have it are obliged to give you that to which you have a right. See the difference between having a right to property and the right to pursue property? One implies socialism, and the other free market capitalism.

I was not saying that property is identical with happiness. I identified both the pursuit of happiness and of property as being a right.

Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out.

One way I've heard it described before that makes sense to me is that all true fundamental rights are negative--that is, they protect the absence rather than the presence of action. That is, you can be said to have the right to be free from somebody coming into your house and taking your food; but you can't be said to have the right to force somebody else to put food in your house.

It gets a little dicey, though, because politicos will try to represent positive government entitlements (for example, unemployment compensation) as negative rights ("freedom from poverty"). In such cases you have to think, "If I am to be kept from experiencing or having or dealing with this, will obligations need to be placed on others?" If yes, then it's not a right, but an entitlement which violates the rights of somebody else.

Yes, that's the way I've heard it expressed too. That is to say, it is not a true right if its satisfaction places a positive obligation on society, or anyone else, to take some kind of action for your benefit. In Communist countries we see lists of such rights, e.g., the right to be free from hunger, from want, etc.,. FDR was a Communist, and we see this conception of rights in many of his speeches.

Are you saying that we have a right to pursue property and that if through our own efforts we are successful in that pursuit then we have the right to consummate that pursuit by obtaining that property but that we do not have a right to have property provided for us?

I'm not trying to be anal here. I'm really trying to understand what you've written. I understand what Barak has written and agree with it but your explanation is still a little murky to me.

Skidrow, I'm sorry I've confused you. Perhaps I could be clearer. Let us first establish what authentic property rights are. You have a right to pursue the acquisition of property, to thereby acquire it, to then keep and use it, to make it yourself, to receive it as a gift, to give it away and to sell it, but to say that we have property rights is not to say that we have a right to property. If I have a right to property, and I currently have none, my right is being vioted, no? If my right is being violated, then government has a positive duty to step in to prevent my right from being violated (that's why governments are instituted), and this is where we get the income tax and wealth redistribution. The answer is that we do not have a "right to property," but rather a right to pursue it (and, naturally, to acquire, sell, keep, use, etc.,.).



It is typical of Communist nations to assert that everyone has a right to certain things, i.e., property such as food, medicine, housing, etc.,. In America we traditionally say that everyone is free to pursue material goods, necessities and land, but we do not have the right to them, per se. To say we have a right to property is to imply that if we don't have property, then it is a legitimate function of government to step in, take from others who do have it, and give some to us.



Let's use the right to pursue happiness, mentioned in the Declaration of Independance, as an example. I don't have the right to be happy, because if that were my right, my failure to be happy would be a violation of my right, and the government would then have a positive duty to step in, assess what is missing in my life, and then provide the missing elements so as to make me happy. Not the case. We are free to pursue happiness, but we do not have a right to happiness. See the difference?

I think we're getting closer, but I still have a problem with not being able to comsumate the pursuit. If I understand you correctly, we have a right to pursue happiness, property etc. but you don't believe that we have a right to what we have obtained if we are successful in our pursuit. That's where I have a problem. If I have achived happiness then I have a right to what I have achived, however fleeting the duration of that achivement may be. If I pursue something and achive it or obtain it then it is mine. Once I have gotten it (what ever "it" is) (hope it isn't catchy) through my own effort and/or means with nothing provided for me with out charge or cost by the government or anyone else then what ever I have is then mine and I have a right to keep it, at least for as long as it lasts, therefore I have a right to it since it has become my property through achivement, successful aquistion or passage of title.

In other words, I don't have a right to have anything given to me or provided for me but I do have a right to own what I have aquired though my own means and effort.

We may be talking at cross purposes or it may be semantics.

I think I understand what you mean but I'm having difficulty with the way you're explaining it. I guess that's my problem. Sometimes the simplest things are the most difficult to understand until the moment of epiphany when all is made clear by the manifestation of a slightly different perspective.

The bottom line is, I think, that none of us has a right to be given anything or to have anything provided for us by anyone else.

I further think that it is very important to remember (polititians and bureaucrats, are you listening?) that our government has no rights what so ever but only those privileges that we have given it. That's the part that the "new liberials" just don't get. In their pursuit of "freedom from" they take it as a given that the government has the right and the responsiblity to provide the necessary gifts to achive all those "freedoms from" that they want every one to have and have absolutely no problem with the fact that in order for govenment to provide someone with something it first has to be taken from someone else. While you have characterised them as socialist I think that they are closer to the communists that you later mentioned as they are more concerned with the needs of the "have nots" being met than with the ability of the providers to provide. For my part, I can do very well on my own, thank you very much. And if I can't that's my problem, not your's, and neither you nor anyone else has any responsiblity to provide me with anything that I'm incapable of getting on my own.

Skidrow, from what you have said, I can see that you hold a view of property rights essentially identical with my own. You are just having trouble with the words I've used to express essentially the same idea.

I will use something very concrete now in an attempt to clarify (or bring to sharp focus) the more subtle point I was attempting to make. Would you say that I have a right to a Corvette? I think you will agree with me that I do not, for if I did, then I could place my demand with some agency of government (remember that governments are instituted to secure that which is my right), and one would promptly be shipped to my place of residence at tax-payer expense. On the contrary, however, while I do not have the right to a Corvette, I do have the right to do whatever is legal in order to acquire a Corvette, and then (once mine) I have every right to dispose of it, or to use it, in any way I choose (within the confines of the law), i.e., once acquired, it becomes mine, and I may excercise "dominion and control" over it. Now expand that to property in general, and you've got it.

If you are still in the dark as to what I'm saying, just rest assured that we essentially agree on property rights. The point I am making is a little more subtle, however. Barak's point about the difference between a true right and a false right is another approach to the same exact point, so if you understand that, you've got it.

Exactly--although I would use the word "powers" rather than "privileges," but that's nitpicking.

Have you read Vin Suprynowicz's take on that? (How do you say "Suprynowicz's" anyway?) I thought it was fascinating. He applies it in the case where pro-gun and anti-gun people are arguing over what sorts of weapons the government should allow its subjects to own, and where the anti-gunners pull out the hysterical red herring, "Well, then, what about tanks and artillery and fighter planes and battleships and NUCLEAR WEAPONS?? I suppose you think you have a right to own those too, huh?"

Vin says, "Well, does the government have the right to own them?"

He imagines the response would be, "Of course the government has the right to own them. But do you think you have the right to own them?"

And then he says basically what you said: "Where do you think the government got the right to own them?" And etc.

Hmm, I say. Innnteresting, I say.

Guys,

Time to attack part "B" of my post.

"So is the Libertarian View a type of government worth striving for or is it just an unrealistic pipe dream? Is voting and supporting political conservatives and incrementally trying to undo our current state of over regulation the best we can do? Do we lose more by seperating ourselves into a group that will never achieve enough political power to have any effect, or by choosing the lesser of two evils with the political parties who can have an effect?"

Comments

Blaine

TRH,

Got it. Thanks.

Barak,

I think that one of the greatest difficulties in discussing weapons, govenment and the 2nd Amendment is that most people, to include many who are well versed in firearms, don't understand the distinction between arms and ordnance. When the Constitution was adopted the right to bear arms was singled out for protection and reserved to the people while the privilege of aquiring, maintaining, storing and the responsibility for paying for ordnance was customarily bestowed upon the federal and various state govenments. What is important to remember is that no where and at no time did the founders state that the people did not have the right to keep and bear ordnance. It simply wasn't enumerated as one of the rights specifically protected by the Constitution. For the most part it wasn't an issue as the expense of owning ordnance made it prohibitive for the average citizen. In my view it comes down to more of an economic issue rather than a right vs privilge issue since the peoples right was never abdicated and the government has no rights.

Careful, I'm still probably mongering power somewhere out there in the shadows. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

That depends. Do you want the idealistic perspective or the pragmatic perspective? The truth is what you percieve and believe it to be regardless of what the actual facts are. Truth as defined currently is subjective rather than objective and doesn't necessarily relate to what ever the pertinent facts are so therefore it can change depending upon your perspective and experience. So pick your version of the true answer to your question and go with it. Everything the rest of us have to say on the subject is mere opinion.

Yeh, well, I'm one of the ones who isn't convinced that it makes a particularly big difference.

But just in case, I didn't mention the Second Amendment. Simply from the Declaration of Independence, where a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, if the government has the just power to own heavy weapons, then it must have gotten that power from us, which means we also have it, Second Amendment or no.

I'm sure I've probably posted my perspective here before (I've posted it everywhere else, it seems), but just in case, I'll do it again.



1. One does not get less government by voting for more government. Even the conservative hero Ronald Reagan significantly increased the size of government, especially the military. Perhaps he increased it less quickly than a Democrat would have; but it is not at all clear that either Papa Bush or Baby Bush has increased the size of government slower than Democrats would have.



2. The objective of a third party in a two-party system is not to win; it's to make a primary party that is abandoning its base lose. And that is a significant amount of political power, especially in a close race.



3. Corollary to 2: if you have serious problems with what the Republicans are doing, then the worst possible thing you can do is vote Republican. As long as they keep getting your vote, they have no reason to care about what you think of what they're doing, or to do anything differently. Elections are not about figuring out how to make voters already in the tent happier: they're about figuring out how to get voters outside the tent inside the tent. Anger and disgust on the part of the voters inside the tent is completely immaterial, as long as they stay inside the tent. That's why the Republicans use the "lesser of two evils" argument and the "A vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat!" slogan: not to soothe angry brows or salve wounded consciences, but specifically to keep voters inside the tent without having to give them anything.



You want the Republicans to listen to you? Proclaim far and wide that you'll never vote Republican again until Republicans put your issues back on their agenda and make you believe them. In a race where they can hope to win only by one or two percentage points, that will carry a lot of weight.



4. The objective of government (any government, Democrat or Republican, or Taliban or Likud or whatever) is not to protect people's rights. (That's the stated purpose of government according to the Declaration of Independence, but not its objective.) The objective of government is not even to make voters happy. The objective of government is simply to acquire and consolidate power. It's as if the government is a living, breathing entity in and of itself. Yes, it's made up of individuals, but it will use the power it already has to bend those individuals to the task of providing it with more power. It doesn't care whether they're Democrats or Republicans, Christians or heathens, honest or dishonest. It will use whoever and whatever is available to grow bigger and more powerful as quickly as it thinks it can get away with.



The only check on the ability of government to continue growing, and the only throttle on its rate of growth, is the people as a whole. It doesn't really matter which party is in the majority, or even whether the political system is democracy, republic, monarchy, dictatorship, or whatever. If the people are willing to give the government more power, the government will cheerfully take that power and be instantly back for more. If the people demand power back from the government, the government will surrender power to them to preserve its existence; for since government is by definition parasitic on the people, it must always be much less populous than the people, and it understands that in a direct and wholesale confrontation it cannot but lose. The classic power struggle is not between the bourgeoisie and the workers, not between the believers and the infidels, but between the government and the people. It always has been and it always will be, at least until Messiah comes.



So you see, the question of whether we send a Democrat or a Republican into government is, from the long view, entirely irrelevant. Whichever it is, the government will swallow him up and begin using him for its own purposes. The only important question is what we the people are willing to put up with. If we are willing to continue surrendering our liberties, then whoever we send to Washington (and our own state capitals, etc.) will continue taking them from us. If we're willing to demand them back, and to bear the possible consequences of such a demand, then whoever we send will give them back to us, as slowly and reluctantly as he can without being dragged from his office and hanged from a streetlamp.



In point of fact (and this is the important part, right here), the very concept that there are substantial differences at all between Democrats and Republicans, once they get into office, is a deception the government uses to keep us voting rather than shooting.



No matter who you vote for, the government always wins. It's not just a bumper sticker: it's the law.

I am not sure about this ordnance distinction from arms. There are small arms, and then there are all the rest. Small arms are such as handguns, rifles, submachineguns, shotguns, grenades, and the like, i.e., those that can ordinarily be carried by one man in the field. The Second Amendment did not state that only our right to "small arms" shall not be infringed. Neither did the Constitution give to the Federal Government an EXCLUSIVE power to keep ordnance, as it did the coining of money, the regulating of its value, the fixing of standards regarding weights and measures, or the issuance and enforcement of patents, for example. Since all of its just powers derive from the consent of the governed, and we have never (through our representatives in the Federal Government) consented to the Federal Government's EXCLUSIVE power to keep and maintain ordnance, this power remains equally with the people at large (The Federal Government acquired this power only via our collective consent through Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, so an amendment to that document would be necessary for it to claim exclusive power over its possession), and the States respectively.



The question remains, however, whether this right is inalienable with regard to the people. Certain rights are inalienable, i.e., even the people, through their consent, are powerless to give it away. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now, if my right to life is inalienable, then my right to acquire and possess the means of preserving my life is also inalienable. If you can make a case that there are circumstances where my self-preservation might require that I possess ordnance (nukes, for example), then you have a case that this is an inalienable right. I think not, however, as it is impractical to carry ordnance (such as a nuke) with you at all times, or even while doing most of your ordinary daily activities. Additionally, it is hard to imagine where the carrying of a nuke would be useful in preserving one's life. This would suggest that the ownership of certain ordinance, though a right held by the people, is not an inalienable right, and can be legislated away by our representatives at either the State or the Federal level, i.e., by our collective consent.



We are still, however, left with the question whether the Second Amendment prevents the infringement of our right to keep all ordnance, and that would depend on the definition of arms. If all ordnance are arms, then an amendment to the constitution would be required to outlaw their possession by the people. No amendment, however, may alienate from us the right to keep and bear those arms that are practical to bear on our persons, and which are useful in preserving our individual lives, as this is without question an inalienable right. Only while in actual custody for criminal conduct (or the legitimate suspicion thereof) are we rightly prevented from exercising it.

jmartin03 said:


I don't think that accurately describes libertarianism. That sounds more like rational anarchy.

Barak,

The problem I see with bailing on the Republican party in protest is you wind up electing the Democrats, which are normally much worse. Instead of a Libertarian party, I'd like to see a Libertarian "wing" within the Republican party that weilds enough power to make changes in the Libertarian direction.

The question is how do we get there?

Blaine

Democrats are not much worse, not from the standpoint of liberty.



It was a Republican administration that gave us the USA PATRIOT Act and the Office of Homeland Security. Come to that, it was a Republican administration that gave us the War of Northern Aggression, which may be the only greater insult to American liberty in history.



There is no substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to achieving the purpose of government, namely protecting the rights of the people and securing the blessings of liberty; anyone who says different is selling something.

No, Democrats are a lot worse. The dems/libs openly support larger government, to the point of socialism. They are anti-freedom to a much larger degree. They want to increase taxes, federalize and take control of most everything, take away our guns, and dictate how we think through political correctness. They want us to be happy little sheep and do as we're told.

I agree, the Republicans are far from perfect. It is the nature of governments to grow, and the government has indeed grown under the Republicans--but not nearly as much as under the dems/libs. Further, the focus of the Republicans/conservatives is less on government solutions, more on cutting taxes, and more on individual freedoms and responsibilities. They want to push power down to lower levels.

I think we agree that the Libertarian approach is what we all want, but it is fantasy to think the Libertarian party will ever wield significant power. We can either kick dirt in the face of the Republicans and have NO say in what goes on, or we can work in incrementally get our agenda into the mainstream of the party and get results.

"War of Northern Aggression". I grew up in Oregon, and as such have no stake in this whole South vs North thing. Oregon did become a state in 1859 and as such, was pro-Union. However, the conflicting interests present at that time were just not a significant part of life in Oregon. As such, I have a fairly objective view of the Civil War, as I have no stake in either side.

In short, slavery was wrong--period. Slavery was the catalyst for the conflict. After studying Lincoln, I am convinced preserving the Union and abolishing slavery were his motivations. I believe God placed Lincoln as the president during that time. Interestingly, there were more abolitionist societies in the South than in the North. Perhaps slavery was on its way out without the war, maybe not.

Now the North didn't exactly have the moral high ground, as they greatly benefitted from the affordable products made available due to slave labor. The North could have helped the South economically during this time to facilitate a peaceful transisiton out of slavery.

I see several reasons the Civil War was fought.

1. To end slavery
2. To preserve the Union
3. To maintain state's rights
4. Young men looking for an adventure/wanting to prove themselves in war
5. Economic survival for the South
6. Ego

I'm sure there are other reasons people fought. Regardless, to view the war being fought over one issue--regardless of what side a person is are on--is inaccurate.

The USA PATRIOT Act and Office of Homeland Security do indeed have potenital for abuse and corruption. Power corrups. However, what do you think the dems/libs would ahve come up with?

Blaine

I have to disagree with your order of reasons. The war was not about slavery at the onset, but about states rights. The north controlled both houses of Congrees and imposed their will on the south on any law they wanted. SEE TARIFFS.
To preserve the union, yes, the north needed the south to fund their infrastructure through tariffs.
The south fought to maintain states rights.
Let me ask you, as a member of the military would you follow an order to disarm Americans? I think that is about as close as we would come to a repeat of that war. And don't get your panties in a wad just because I disagree with you, I'm just disagreeing with you. Not invading your home. Bob
P.S. I didn't vote for W. (guess who)

The reasons I listed were not necessarily in order of importance. Southerners will likely consider 3 and 5 as the top two reasons, where Notherners would probably pick 1 and 2. However, I am suspicious #5 was a bigger driver than most care to admit.

How are TARRIFS not part of reason 5?

Would I follow an order to disarm Americans? Which Americans? Organized crime--yes. A radical anti-US militia--yes.

Why would I care if you disagree with me?

Blaine

I'm afraid you did get your panties in a wad. Reconsider and reply tomorrow, when you are thinking clearer. I didn't say anything about organized crime or radical militias. At any rate those would be law enforcement issues, not defending against invaders.
Please excuse me for being an idiot and assuming that you followed the normal listing of reasons in order of importance. Talk to you in a day or two. Take care. Bob

I'm sorry, I didn't explain fully. The tariffs were imposed on agricultural products to fund infrastucture improvements in the north. The south got screwed in the appropriation bills. Get it? Bob

Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independence is not the document that this country is founded on, but rather an excuse, or explanation if you prefer, for the founding fathers declaring themselves to be in a state of rebellion against their legitimate government. At the time the Declaration was written there was no United States of America but rather 13 individual colonies that weren't necessarily thinking of themselves as states yet, mostly, but not always, acting in concert and most often trying to promote their own control over the proceedings while trying not to have to pay for anything. The founding document of the United States of America was the Articles of Confederation, which was found to be considerably lacking and was replaced by the Constitution of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence, while a splendidly written document which makes an excellent case in favor of rebellion, is in no way, shape or form binding on either the government of the United States of America or the people of the United States of America but rather is simply what it states it is, a declaration. At the time it was written, no one who was involved in the process in any way had any legal standing to state anything for anybody or any country but rather was in open rebellion against their legitimate government. The question of whether their government at the time was or not legitimate was not decided by declaring themselves in rebellion but buy the successful comsumation of that rebellion by force of arms. You can put any other face on it that you want but the fact remains that had the rebellion been unsuccessful we wouldn't be having this disscussion now because at best we'd have attained commonwealth status and at worst we'd still be a group of occupied colonies.

The major problem with the Constitution is the way in which the branches of government are taught. The accepted manner of explaining the division of governmental power states that there are three branches of government, executive, judicial and legislative when actually there are four, the three previously mentioned plus the people, as evidenced by the opening line of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which states, "We, the people, ....". No where does it state, we the members of the federal government, nor we the representatives of the several states nor any other discription of those who wrote and/or adopted the Constitution as anyone other than "the people." Problem is that few people seem to remember and even fewer seem to care that "We, the people" created this nation and that we the people hold the ultimate power in this nation. If we have anyone to blame for the increase in the size, scope and pervasivness of government the only guilty party can be ourselves. We either forgot or didn't care that our government is our servant and not the other way around. Libertarians won't fix things any more than Republicans or Democrats will because they're still fixed on the wrong problem. The problem is not controlling a few individual aspects of government or decreasing it's size or budget or reducing it's power or any other attempt to curtail any thing that our government does. The problem is US and our inablity to get off our collective asses and exercise our ultimate power over our government and work our will on it. As long as everyone is playing the "my view point is better and my party will produce a better government than yours" game we're all still p--sing in the wind. We shouldn't want to produce a better government, we should want to control it rather than having it control us.

Guess I've digressed and touched on more than one point. Oops.

Professionals have distingushed between arms and ordnance since the days of swords and catapults. Arms commonly refers to those weapons used by one individual and ordnance commonly refers to those which are crew served. The fact that the people have a right to own ordnance is evidenced by the fact that the right still exists and is recognized, although considerably infringed, by the federal government and the governments of about half of the states. Machineguns up to fifty caliber, as opposed to true assualt rifles and submachineguns (which would be arms), can be owned by any one willing to pay the cost of the transfer and undergo (and pass) the federal background check and ordnance over fifty caliber can be owned by anyone holding a license to own a destructive device. Practically speaking, what can be owned is more limited by what the government will allow to be sold and/or imported rather than by what is allowed to be owned. I would submit that while owning ordnance may not be an enumerated right under the Second Amendment that its protection would fall under the Ninth Amendment. If so and since, as you say, we have never consented to the federal government being the exclusive owner of ordnance then I further submit that whether it is an inalienable right or whether it is not is somewhat moot since if the former it can't be denied and if the latter no action to renounce it has been taken.



As a side note, I wonder how many people, not to mention how many ATFE employees, realize that the implementing regulations concerning the ownership of destructive devices are somewhat less than accurate when defining a destructive device as being larger than fifty caliber. Technically speaking, any firearm with a barrel that is 50 times its bore diameter in length is fifty caliber. The 16 inch guns on the Iowa class battleships were fifty caliber and the 16 inch guns on the South Dakota class were forty five caliber. Since they were single shot and are not greater than fifty caliber then if they should ever be for sale one should be able to buy one simply by completing a 4473 and passing NICS. Kids, don't try this at home!

Those were reasons for Secession, not for the war. The reasons for the war were that 1) Federal troops refused to evacuate Fort Sumter, which was on sovereign Confederate territory, 2) Northern aggression was escelated further by their delivery of supplies and reinforcements to said fort, upon which the fort was fired upon by forces of the South, and 3) Northern aggression was intensified further by a massive invasion of troops into the territories of the South.



Now the question becomes, "Did the South have a right to secede?" The answer, I submit, is clearly yes. The Union was a voluntary associatioin of sovereign states from the start (it was the states who gave birth to the union, therefore the states can depart from it), and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government shall have authority to prevent any state, or group of states, from dissolving its political association with the Federal Government. And, no, secession is not the same as "insurrection" (which the Constitution does authorize the Federal Government to suppress). Insurrection means to war against one's own government, and once a group of sovereign states secedes, the government from which they have seceded is no longer their own. Insurrection against it, therefore, is impossible.



Whether you like it or not, the Declaration of Independance was a founding document of this nation. None of the Founding Fathers would support your claim to the contrary. The fact that it establishes no law is not the issue. It states our fundamental view of legitimate government, and a government's proper relationship to the people. If you have any doubts about its status in our nation, just open up your copy of the Federalist Papers (I hope you have one).



In the Declaration of Independance it states that "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., to secure the rights of its citizens to safety and happiness, as they themselves define these terms], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government." Above that it speaks of a people's right to dissolve the political bonds that had previously connected them with another government.



I think the fact that the Northern States were imposing tarriffs on the Southern states, in effect preventing them from profitably trading with Europe for industrual equipment, constituted something more than a "light or transient cause." This was in fact crippling the economy of the South, ensuring that it would forever remain in the service of the North's growing industrual economy.

I have zero emotion in this and as such, have no idea what makes you think otherwise. It appears you are reading emotion into my replies. I am all for the vigorous debate of ideas, just not personal attacks. I have seen no personal attacks here. In fact, this whole thread and been good in that regard.

I still don't see a disagreement. The tarrifs are further proof for my reason #5, that many in the South fought this war over economic reasons. When you add the tarrifs to the lack of willingness of the North to "put it's money where it's mouth was" and provide economic aid to the South to help in the transition from slavery, the ecomic reason becomes even more compelling.

Blaine

RH,



Good points.



What you have described is certainly the rationale I have heard many Southerners use to justify secession. I am not saying it is invalid, but like I posted earlier, it is just part of the story--not the whole picture. To an outside observer, the South's insistence that the issue was state's right looks like a smokescreen for justifying slavery and their economic concerns. Conversly, the North's insistence that the war was fought over just slavery also appears as a smokescreen to justify their own economic reasons. I think it is muddier than that.



Though the constitution doesn't specifically state the federal government has the authority to prevent states from seceding, it is a well understood principal of formal governments, practiced from the beginning of civilization. The colonies would not have even developed a union (and almost didn't) if it was just simply a matter of associating together whenever they felt is was convienent or economically beneficial. If they did not have a committment to remain a nation, then the whole constitutional process was meaningless and there never was a USA.



As such, the secession was illegal. A legal secession would have been the result of a vote in congress, signed by the president, and not held unconstitutional by the supreme court. Yes, it wouldn't have happened because the North was in power and was taking advantage of the South. Such is the nature of the party in power. Power corrupts.



It's no different today when city folk are the majority and get laws passed to the detriment of the rest of the country. The answer is to work within our system to make a legal change--not take up arms against our countrymen. Yes, there is a point when armed rebellion is called for, but we are not at that point yet. We still have amny legal avenues to use to make progress to our goal of a more Libertarian America. How exactly to do that was the whole point of my starting this thread.



Blaine

Blaine, unlike previous republics, the republic called the United States of America is a "compound republic," rather than a "single republic." This is unique in human history. In a "single republic," all power and sovereignty is surrendered by the individual states joining it, which then become mere subdivisions of the central republic. Not the case with our "federal" republican system.



In Federalist No. 32 we read, "The state governments clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act [i.e., the act of union via the signing of the Constitution], exclusively delegated to the United States." The states had in fact never, via the Constitution, relinquished the sovereign right to dissolve their political connection with the Federal Government (If you say they had, then please show me where specifically in the Constitution the delegation to the central government of this sovereign right is enumerated). Therefore, they still retained said right at the time of the Confederate secession.



The powers of the Federal Government are "few and defined," says Federalist No. 45, while the powers of the states remain "numerous and indefinite." The state's powers "extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Southern States deemed that continued union with the Federal Government of the United States of America was detrimental to these ends, and justly exercised their sovereign power in dissolving said union, as was their right as sovereign states.

At least the Democrats are honest about their intentions, which can't be said for the Republicans. The Republicans campaign on a platform of smaller government, but in fact produce bigger government. Therefore, in this particular event I score the Republicans lower than the Democrats.

That might have worked before 9/11 gave the Republicans an opportunity to show their true anti-freedom colors without taking too much popular heat for it. Since 9/11, I think the Republicans are going to have a lot tougher job pawning that particular lie off on anyone who actually understands what freedom is.

Again, at least the Democrats are honest. When a Democrat wants more money for the feds, he straightforwardly increases taxes (or invents new ones) and takes the political heat for it. When a Republican wants more money for the feds, he leaves taxes where they are--or even cuts them, as witness Baby Bush--and simply spends money the government doesn't have, increasing the deficit and reducing the real value of your wealth every bit as much as a Democrat tax would have, but secretly, with inflation that sneaks invisibly into your bank account and steals the value of your money. Again, the Republicans get lower marks from me in this category than the Democrats.

Ahem! Whose idea was Project Exile? Anyone? Anyone? Whose idea was it to federalize airline security? Anyone? Anyone? How about repeatedly bailing out the major airlines, which amounts to a form of federalization? How about school vouchers, which are a sneaky way of federalizing private schools? How about this execrable "faith-based initiatives" scheme from Baby Bush to federalize churches? How about the War On (some) Drugs, for criminy's sake? No--the Democrats absolutely have no corner on federalization. The Republicans will certainly tell you that they do, but--guess what: the Republicans are politicians. They lie. But I repeat myself.

Here's one that's at least arguable; I'll give you that. My argument, though, would be that both parties want to take away our guns, but the Republicans understand gun owners a little better than Democrats, and realize that it has to be done slowly and gradually if bloodshed is to be avoided. Every government must eventually disarm its citizens if it is to continue to grow; and our government shows no desire to stop growing.

Again, the Republicans are just as offensive at this as the Democrats, although these days they call it "patriotism" rather than "political correctness." Surely you heard John Ashcroft opine that any American who wasn't wholeheartedly behind the administration's tyrannical, imperialist, misbegotten agenda was supporting the terrorists. You can read plenty of Republicans all over the Internet (maybe even some here!) reviling anyone who doesn't "support our troops" in the sense of approving of the mission they were given in Iraq and sending them goodies. It amounts to the same thing.

The government wants us to be happy little sheep and do as we're told. It's in the interest of whoever is in power, because--as I said before--it keeps us voting rather than shooting.

Skidrow, I think we agree more than we disagree, except about the importance of the Declaration of Independence, but Hawkeye already addressed that issue better than I would have been able to.


I wouldn't put it quite this way (I think it can be unnecessarily distracting to think of the people as part of the government, especially today, and I think there are much bigger problems with the Constitution than that), but I think that in the essentials we're in quite close agreement. Witness:


Absolutely! I can certainly blame myself. For most of my politically-mature life, I was a nominal Republican who dutifully went to the polls every election and voted a straight Republican ticket, then went home and forgot about politics until the next election.

One day, if liberty advocates are successful, perhaps the federal government will be small and weak enough for awhile that there will be no reason for a responsible adult to worry about national politics at all; but that's certainly not the case now.

Here I think you think you're disagreeing with me, but I don't think it's quite working out that way. Small-l libertarians have no illusions about winning a Presidential election and hacking huge bloody chunks out of the federal government. Fantasies, yes; illusions, no. We know it's not going to happen. We're not trying to win: in the political arena we're simply trying to make hypocrites who falsely wave the flag and holler about liberty and freedom lose. In the social arena, on the other hand (here, for instance), we're trying to evangelize the hearts and minds of the people and begin to provide some of the fertile ground for the sea change you (quite astutely) say is necessary.

I'm not going to convince anybody to be a libertarian: I'm not smart enough, persuasive enough, ingenious enough, or charismatic enough. But the government will. It's not smart, persuasive, ingenious, or charismatic either, but it is very powerful. When it takes a bead on you, the way it took a bead on me in 1998, it can turn you into a libertarian dang quick.

And hopefully, the next guy here who gets rousted into libertarianism by the federal government will remember reading a few of these discussions, come back here, and save himself a lot of time and effort that I had to put in for myself.

I would tend to agree with you however the fact that the question was never answered in legal terms but rather by force of arms can lead to some disagreement. The fact that, at least in the very early years of our country, the right to secession was taken seriously is evidenced by the way that Congress continually refused to address the issue of slavery. Each time abolishing slavery was brought up in congress the states of the deep south threatened secession and the issue was set aside. The reason that Madison pushed a bill though the House which stated that the Congress did not have the Constitutional authourity was to defuse the issue of slavery and thus the issue of secession. The founders took secession very seriously as a right of the states and it was only after their departure from the arena of American politics that the legitimacy of the right of secession fell into question.




Intellectually and morally I would agree with you. Legally I would not. As I stated earlier, in my view the Declaration of Independence is simply a declaration of rebellion and of why the founding fathers, and Jefferson particularly, felt that they had a right to rebel. Since, as you have agreed, it established no law it isn't and wasn't legally binding on anyone. What it did do, in addition to its declared purpose of informing the government of Great Britain and the majority of the populace of the several American colonies of our intent to sever our relationship, was to define the arguement of what was the proper relationship between government and citizens and set the stage for the debate and discussion that led to the determination of what sort of government our new country would have and laid the basis for the documents that founded it. Unfortunately, too many compromises were required to gain the agreement of the various parties involved to remain true to all of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence when it came time to actually found the country and organize the government. Each and every flaw in the Constitution can be traced to the points where it strays from the principles outlined in the Declaration. As I'm sure you're well aware, one of the major arguements that almost left the Constitution stillborn was over the the wording of the Declaration in regard to all men being created equal and having the right of liberty and the way in which that principle would be reconciled with continuing the practice of slavery. Unless slavery was left in place, thus violating the promise of the Declaration, the deep south would have refused to ratify the Constitution. Therefore a compromise was reached which simply postponed the inevitable. I believe that we would be a lot better off today if the Declaration was in fact the founding document which formed the basis of our country's government but unfortunately the author and a large number of the Declaration's signatories simply couldn't accept having some of the principles put forth in that document imposed upon themselves.

Yes, I have a copy of the Federalist Papers, along with all the other pertinent documents, but I thank you for your concern.

Quote:

"At least the Democrats are honest about their intentions, which can't be said for the Republicans. The Republicans campaign on a platform of smaller government, but in fact produce bigger government. Therefore, in this particular event I score the Republicans lower than the Democrats."

The Democrats are open about big government being the solution to all our social problems, but they are not honest about their goals of a socialist America and not honest concerning their desire to see America diminished as a world power.

Quote:

"That might have worked before 9/11 gave the Republicans an opportunity to show their true anti-freedom colors without taking too much popular heat for it. Since 9/11, I think the Republicans are going to have a lot tougher job pawning that particular lie off on anyone who actually understands what freedom is."

It is unrealistic to think we could continue "business as usual" after 9/11. The public demanded something be done, and I guarantee the Republican answer is much less intrusive on our freedom than a Democratic answer would have been. The Dems would have restricted private ownership of firearms even more than it is now. They would have rstricted ammo sales, reloading component sales, optics, you name it. On what do I base this assertation? Look at the draconian gun laws already in existence in the most democratic/liberal states.

Quote:

"Again, at least the Democrats are honest. When a Democrat wants more money for the feds, he straightforwardly increases taxes (or invents new ones) and takes the political heat for it. When a Republican wants more money for the feds, he leaves taxes where they are--or even cuts them, as witness Baby Bush--and simply spends money the government doesn't have, increasing the deficit and reducing the real value of your wealth every bit as much as a Democrat tax would have, but secretly, with inflation that sneaks invisibly into your bank account and steals the value of your money. Again, the Republicans get lower marks from me in this category than the Democrats."

Yes, the dems sometimes ask for more tax money, but they are also are the worst at pork barrel spending. Sadly, the Republicans are catching up in spending. When the dems want more tax revenue, they raise taxes. When the Republicans want more tax money, they cut taxes to stimulate the economy, increasing growth and thus tax revenue. If we were undertaxed, then raising taxes would indeed increase revenue. However, we are overtaxed to the point of it being a drain on our economy, and as such tax cuts stimulate economic growth.

Further, the increasing national debt isn't a big issue right now. Inflation is staying very low. We have a different dynamic right now that what we've seen in the past. As the economy recovers--and it is already on it's way--tax revenue will increase due to growth, and the deficit will be reduced. the most important thing is to get the economy well into it's upswing, even at the expense of a temporary increase in the national debt.


Quote:

"Ahem! Whose idea was Project Exile? Anyone? Anyone? Whose idea was it to federalize airline security? Anyone? Anyone? How about repeatedly bailing out the major airlines, which amounts to a form of federalization? How about school vouchers, which are a sneaky way of federalizing private schools? How about this execrable "faith-based initiatives" scheme from Baby Bush to federalize churches? How about the War On (some) Drugs, for criminy's sake? No--the Democrats absolutely have no corner on federalization. The Republicans will certainly tell you that they do, but--guess what: the Republicans are politicians. They lie. But I repeat myself."

I think you are seeing small things in their most extreme possible form. There are some things the federal government can do well, and providing airport security is not an unreasonable task for the government. The private sector wasn't doing the job. I would have preferred to keep airline security private, but with more stringent standards. Actually, I would have preferred allowing pasengers with CHLs to carry on airline flights.

Repeatedly bailing out the airlines--though not a policy I agree with--is not a form of federalization. Our economy is hugely dependent upon airline travel. Bailing them out is simply an effort to keep the economy going. It is not a good decision, as the free-market would have regulated itself soon enough.

Faith based initiatives are also not an attept at federalization, neither are school vouchers. They are efforts to reduce government mandates and increase prive choice. No doubt the dems would sieze upon the opportunity to federalize these programs once they are in power again.

Quote:

"Again, the Republicans are just as offensive at this as the Democrats, although these days they call it "patriotism" rather than "political correctness." Surely you heard John Ashcroft opine that any American who wasn't wholeheartedly behind the administration's tyrannical, imperialist, misbegotten agenda was supporting the terrorists. You can read plenty of Republicans all over the Internet (maybe even some here!) reviling anyone who doesn't "support our troops" in the sense of approving of the mission they were given in Iraq and sending them goodies. It amounts to the same thing."

PC is not the same as patriotism. Patriotism has existed for many years, and it is the natural pride that people have for their own country. It is an outgrowth of ethnocentrism, but it is based more in ideals than in ethnicicity (sp?). PC is thought control. It is a desperate attempt for the liberals to get their ideals to become reality. They know liberalism (not classic liberalism, but liberalism as it is understood in the US today) cannot withstand the scrutiny of logic, so they must control how people think to keep them from asking the wrong questions.


Even though were are debating this issue, my goal is similar to what I assume yours to be--a great increase in personal freedom and a reduction in government at all levels. However, I my short 43 years of existence, I have never seen cynics (and there is much to be cynical about in politics) or the Libertarian party make any positive contribution toward those goals. The cynics just sit around and bitch. The Libertarian party--though my heart is with them--can't seem to figure out they will never have any power as a separate entity.

So sadly, I must pursue my goals without Libertarians or cynics. Not having the cynics is actually a positive thing. I just wish they'd choose to be part of the solution instead of a non-player. I think "skeptical optimism" is a much more effective way to conduct one's life. However, not having the Libertarians on board is a loss. So I will incrementally attempt to get the message out via the conservative Republican movement--a method I have seen work.

Blaine

RH,

I think your points are good. However, the role of the federal government has been a hotly debated topic since the beginning of the Union. Many interpretations existed, and we have evidence of opinions--presidents, congress, the supreme court--hitting both sides of the pendulum. One's view of the legality of the South's secession will depend on how one views the state of the union. Regardless, the Union could have been preserved without war had both sides conducted themselves more honorably.

What is most troubling, is--even with the formation of a limited government controled by the people--is how people have the government grow and assume so much control .

Blaine

I don't know that we disagree about the importance of the Declaration of Independence, we just see it from different perspectives. While I don't agree that it was the document that this country was founded on it was the catalyst for everything which followed. Had there been no Declaration there would most likely have been no rebellion and had there been no rebellion there would have been no United States of America. The Declaration was extremely important in that in addition to justifying the rebellion it defined the spirit, if not the exact terms, upon which this country was founded. It simply wasn't a legally binding document as was Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution. Without being legally binding on anyone it could be ignored and later, especially during the writting of the Constitution, it was.











Nope. Just stating what I think. To expand a bit, I think that we are our own worst enemy since rather than tolerating slight differences and uniting in a real effort to regain the control that we have allowed to slip away from us we would rather slit each others throats over minor points of difference and continue to let the world as we know it go to hell in a hand basket. Rather than simply supporting liberty we would prefer to support one or another of the various political parties even though most of us are not completely happy with most of them. We do this because we are so afraid of losing elections, power etc. that we would rather support a certain amount of party positions that we don't agree with rather than chance losing power to an opposing party. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? That's what we've been doing for years by continuing to support the so-called major political parties. Political parties largely exist only to promote the candidates who would not be electable on their own merits. As members of a party they can be elected because the public can tell to some degree what they support with out knowing very much about the candidates themselves by knowing which party they belong to. These marginal candidates also can depend on financial backing from the party that they are affiliated with since that party would rather spend money on the campaign of an unknown marginal candidate than loose the contested office to a member of another party and they can depend on getting the votes of those who support their political party for the same reason. If they had to win elections totally on their own abilty and merit with no backing from any political party or machine probably only about 20% of the politicians presently holding office would be able to win an election. The current political system in the United States simply proves that in addition to cream scum also rises. The political party system sucks and reaffirms that Pogo was right.

They sure were back when they were in power. Remember Hillary! and her national health care plan? The Democrats didn't exactly say, "Look, vote for our new socialist plan," but I never heard a single Democrat deny that it was socialist. I only heard two major groups of defenses from Democrats--they were either in the don't-deny-but-change-the-subject category ("But we have to have it--our old people are dying!") or the minimize-the-impact category ("Yes, but not very socialist; Canada and the UK are much more socialist than this plan").

And remember when Madeleine Albright tried to defend Clinton's sale of nuclear secrets to the Chicoms by saying that it would be a good thing if America was no longer the world's only nuclear superpower?

No--the Democrats are very clear about what they want. It's the Republicans that holler "Smaller government!" until they get into office and then create entire new Cabinet-level bureaucracies.


Wrong. It's a little startling how fundamentally we disagree on this issue; I'm not used to disagreeing with gun people quite so completely.

I actually agree about the "business as usual" comment, but not the way you intended it. 9/11 was motivated by government, encouraged by government, allowed by government, and covered up by government. Business as usual was exactly what we got when government continued to deal with the situation.

As for public demand, I'm not so sure. I heard a lot of Congressional demand, but not much public demand. Even if you're right, though, the issue of "unalienable rights" comes into the picture. There are powers that the government is flatly not allowed to have, according to the Constitution, even if everybody wants to give it those powers. A number of those powers are among the ones Bush has been using 9/11 hysteria to arrogate to himself.

And you're also wrong here about Democrats being worse than Republicans, for one of two reasons. First, history argues that it's quite likely the Gore response would have been to lob a magazine of Tomahawk missiles into a remote patch of desert somewhere, with hopes of killing a few brown people but as little desert scrub as possible. But even if that's not the case, and they would have used the opportunity to attempt the sort of martial-law crackdown you envision, you're still wrong. Why? Because we wouldn't have let them get away with it. Everybody "knows" that the Democrats are anti-freedom and the Republicans are pro-freedom: therefore, any anti-freedom moves from Democrats are automatically tyranny on a stick, and any anti-freedom moves from Republicans are automatically good-hearted, only temporary, and absolutely necessary. That's how Bush was able to violate more freedoms in three months than Clinton managed in eight years.



Increasing national debt not a big issue? Economy recovering? Temporary increase in the national debt? Like I said, it's amazing how drastically we disagree. I'm not even sure there's enough common ground here for discussion.


Quite the contrary. Airline security was supposed to ensure that nobody got on the airplanes with a blade more than 4" in length. Did anybody get on the airplanes with a blade more than 4" in length? No. Did the private sector do its job? Absolutely. Government, on the other hand, was supposed to ensure that enemies of the US from terrorist countries were not allowed into the country--and when student visas for such people expired, the people were deported. Were such people allowed to enter and stay in the US? Yes. Did the government do its job? Absolutely not. So what was the response? Federalize airline security: kick out the successful private sector and replace it with the unsuccessful federal government.

Not that it matters all that much, because the federal government lays down the requirements for airline security anyway, meaning that security regulations have nothing to do with what actually works, but rather with what polls best. If the feds were to stop bailing out the airlines, make them fully liable to civil suits from their passengers, and get completely out of the airline security business, believe you me the airlines would come up with working security measures. Too intrusive, and nobody flies your airline and you go bankrupt and starve. Too lenient, and somebody takes over your airplane; all the passengers and/or their families sue, and you go bankrupt and starve. There's an appropriate incentive to get it right.


Sigh. I'm not even going to deal with this right now.


What would you call it, then? It's only in an extremely esoteric sense that the government doesn't own the airlines. With all but one of them subject to instantly disappearing on the government's whim if it doesn't come up with bailout money, they'll all do exactly as they're told, just as if they were federalized. Perhaps you can point out the practical difference: I don't see it.


Replace "PC" with John Ashcroft's brand of "patriotism," and "liberal" with "conservative," and you still have a true statement. It's important that people not think about how they were deceived into supporting an imperialistic foreign war of aggression, so when they ask the wrong questions (for example, "Daddy, why did the President lie about those terrible weapons in Iraq? Isn't lying bad?") they must be controlled ("Are you supporting the terrorists?!").


I'm not sure if our goals are similar. I'm pretty sure we define "freedom" fundamentally differently. And if you mean "reduction in government at all levels" the way Republicans seem to mean it--namely "wild, uncontrolled increase in government at all levels"--then I suspect we have different definitions there too.


One more time: third parties don't try to win, they try to make primary parties lose.

Yeah, I remember, prior to 9/11, I used to ALWAYS take my folder with me on board, as I always had it with me everywhere I went. The airport guard would either take out a ruler to measure the blade, or use his or her fingers to measure it (presumably, they had previously identified how many fingers together made four inches). Then they would let me take it, no problem. Now I have to go defenseless, so that if there are terrorists aboard with plans to force the plane into a sky-scraper, I am nearly powerless to do anything about it, assuming they are in possession of some kind of deadly weapon. Yeah, that increases my security a whole lot, thanks. I feel so much safer now that I am defenseless. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Yah--I have managed to stay off all commercial airlines since 9/11. If I have the money and the weather is reliably nice, I fly myself wherever I have to go (and if you ride with me, you're welcome to bring all the knives, guns, bombs, ammunition, etc. it takes to make you feel secure, as long as you don't blow the weight-and-balance limits); otherwise I drive. If I can't fly myself, and I can't drive, then I don't have to go; that's all there is to it.

I would submit to you that there are few things the federal government can do well in addition to spending other people's money.



I think that except possibly for Barak you all are missing the point on this one. Airline security is a joke, has always been a joke and will continue to be a joke for the forseeable future. The reason 9/11 happened in the first place is beacuse the federal government and the airlines decided early on after D. B. Cooper and the "fly me to Cuba" fad that a certain number of hi-jackings can be tolerated rather than to simply not tolerate hi-jackings at all. This is evidenced by all the security taking place on the ground rather than where the hi-jackings actually take place, in the air. The airlines have always been anti gun and anti prevention and willing to negotiate with hi-jackers. The federal government allowed that attitude and encouraged it. Wittness the fact that at the time of 9/11 firearms WERE allowed in the cockpit under federal law but banned by all the airlines. One tiny little Freedom Arms revolver in each cockpit could have prevented 9/11. Instead the airlines, with government approval and encouragement, set up a system of smoke and mirrors to lull airline passengers into complacency by putting on just enough of a show to convince passengers that they were safe. 9/11 happened because what passed for airline security was concentrating on who was getting on a plane with what rather than what they were doing after they got on the plane and because the point of embarkation rather than the point of attack, the cockpit, was being "protected."



Existing Constitutional law recognizes that we all have the right to carry firearms on any flight that begins and ends within the territorial boundarys of the United States. The problem lies with having both an airline industry and a federal government that think they are above the law. Only airline regulation and governmental infringment prevent us from exercising our right to carry arms on aircraft in order to have the means at hand to defend ourselves. Once again the question has been turned around. The question is NOT should we be allowed to carry firearms on aircraft but rather WHY ARE WE BEING PREVENTED from exercising our right to bear arms and to self defense.



Cynics are the people who keep the world as honest as it still is. A world without cynics would be a world without truth.

Quote:

"The Democrats didn't exactly say, "Look, vote for our new socialist plan," "

Exactly.

Quote:

"...........but I never heard a single Democrat deny that it was socialist."

I never heard them be anything but evasive on the issue, which leads me to my ascertain that they do not want their ultimate goals generally known. I do remember them talking about being "progressive" and "compassionate", which may be codespeak for socialism, so I suppose you could say they didn't deny it in that sense. However, that is not the same as explaining their vision for a socialist America, which includes no private ownership of guns, no hunting, no SUVs, no choice in education, no choice in thought, etc.

Quote:

"Wrong. It's a little startling how fundamentally we disagree on this issue; I'm not used to disagreeing with gun people quite so completely."

You really can't see that you are always embroiled in a debate of some sorts with "gun people" on this site? You are the "odd man out" on many of these issues. That is alright and even good, because we need to have different viewpoints and the free exchange of ideas. Most of the "gun people" I have come in contact with here--and I have posting with this bunch for 6 years--hold a different view than you. Conservative Republicanism seems to be the norm, with a focus on working within the system to incrementally reclaim our liberties.

Quote:

"9/11 was motivated by government, encouraged by government, allowed by government, and covered up by government. Business as usual was exactly what we got when government continued to deal with the situation."

9/11 was motivated by intolerant Islamic extremists who believed any means justified their ends. While the US government could have done better, it is not the government's fault these cowards chose to do what they did. I personally hate that sort of moral relativism. It fits right in with the idea that we are not responsible for our own actions because "society did this to me" or "society did that to me". No doubt, society can influence a person, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. I thought Libertarianism was big on individual responsibility. Perhaps we do disagree on a very fundamental level.

Quote:

"the issue of "unalienable rights" comes into the picture. There are powers that the government is flatly not allowed to have, according to the Constitution, even if everybody wants to give it those powers."

I agree the constitution limits government's powers, and our government has assumed way too much power. The issue is the people of this country have willingly let the government accumulate more and more power. As such, they think nothing of letting the government take more freedoms away in the name of security. In fact, they demand it. I see this everyday at work. I have been a USAF pilot for 20 years. Everytime there is an accident, the public demands we change our rules so it doesn't happen again. They do not want to hear that the dead pilot violated rules already in place. They want us to make more rules to keep pilots from violating the rules that already exist. So we build another fence around Torah. This is exactly what happened after 9/11.

Quote:

"history argues that it's quite likely the Gore response would have been to lob a magazine of Tomahawk missiles into a remote patch of desert somewhere, with hopes of killing a few brown people but as little desert scrub as possible. But even if that's not the case, and they would have used the opportunity to attempt the sort of martial-law crackdown you envision, you're still wrong. Why? Because we wouldn't have let them get away with it."

I do not agree with your interpretation of history. If Gore had been in power, the dems/liberals would have gained momentum and pushed through more of their agenda. People would have become more conditioned to these additional restrictions on our freedoms. They would have demanded the government protect us after 9/11, and would have been even more willing to give away more freedoms and liberties than they did under W.

Quote:

"Did anybody get on the airplanes with a blade more than 4" in length? No."

Not only have did folks manage to get 4" knife blades on airliners, they also managed to get guns through screeners. How many "secret tests" did we see conducted well prior to 9/11 highlighting this? I saw many.

Quote:

"What would you call it, then?"

I call it repeatedly bailing out the airlines in a misguided attempt to speed economic recovery.

Quote:

"Replace "PC" with John Ashcroft's brand of "patriotism," and "liberal" with "conservative," and you still have a true statement."

You do not have a true statement. Patriotism demands people critically question motives while remaining committed do what is best for our country. PC demands people accept what they are told without question.

Quote:

"I'm not sure if our goals are similar. I'm pretty sure we define "freedom" fundamentally differently. And if you mean "reduction in government at all levels" the way Republicans seem to mean it--namely "wild, uncontrolled increase in government at all levels"--then I suspect we have different definitions there too."

I am for a large reduction in governmental control, a drastic reduction in the number of laws and federal regulations, an increase in personal freedoms, a reduction in litigation, a prospering free market economy, and the return of common decency and good sense on how people conduct themselves (not via legislation), among other things.

Quote:

"One more time: third parties don't try to win, they try to make primary parties lose."

What an ineffective way to try and have influence. Then again, maybe it is a brilliant ploy. If one were a socialist and trying to conceal their socialism, this "spoiler" method would a great cover for furthering the socialist agenda. One could claim to be for more freedom and less government with their words, but their actions would put liberals working toward a socialist America into power.

This thread has been interesting for me, and I thank you for your input. When I started this thread, I was undecided about the Libertarian party. There is much about the Republican's I don't like, and I was hoping the Libertarian party was an effective tool to move the country toward smaller government, more personal freedoms, etc. However, I now see the Libertarian party's efforts have the exact opposite effect. As imperfect as it is, I will remained aligned with the Conservative Republican movement, and work within the system to incrementally effect positive change toward more freedom.

Blaine

AFP, to get to your second point, whether going GOP is more valid than Lib -- or as I once regretfully did, going Reform, biggest mistake in my $(*#^$ life letting that idiot Clinton in the back door --
I am now a registered activist Republican. I'd switch parties in a heartbeat if the Dems were the old "lunchbucket Democrats" I remember from my younger days, looking out for the little guy against the bigs.
I thought about going Libertarian, but I believe government has a role to play in its most important role, protecting freedom or defending it from its enemies, both foreign and domestic.
As a GOP stalwart, I am active in order to keep the authoritarian fascists from dominating the party line, just like I vote against the authoritarian Commies that have in fact taken over the Democratic party. The sad truth is that moderatism or whatever is dead, and has been dead on the national level since the 1994 election blew the moderate Dems off the face of the earth and replaced them with hard Republicans. What few middle of the road swing districts still exist on the map are in fact dominated by extremist factions within the electorate that will absolutely slaughter someone who won't toe their line. Campaign finance limits leave candidates completely vulnerable to single-issue assaults.
The sad thing is no candidate can run his or her own campaign free of being shotgunned at the worst possible instant by a marginal clique intent on tossing the election their way and to hell with everyone else.
Seen that right here in my hometown, also in a former place of residence where my Colorado lege (I didn't love her, she was a pompous ice queen Range Rover Republican) was just BLASTED by an anonymous fake "seniors" group. I wouldn't wish that on many people.
But then we wonder why we don't get quality people running for office and giving us proles something to stand and vote FOR?
Rat a tat tat.

Dave Skinner, I would suggest, based on what you've said, that you don't really understand the essentials of either conservatism or libertarianism. I hope you are a reader, because, if you are, you can inform yourself about these things, and come to conclusions about them based on real knowledge, rather than the impressions you get from reading posts on websites, watching Fox News, or whatever. I hope you will take my suggestion to heart and, if you do, you could do no better than to read two books, i.e., Russel Kirk's (conservative) "The Politics of Prudence," and Friedrich Hayek's (libertarian) "The Road to Serfdom." I hope you do not take this as an insult, because it is really meant as anything but. If I thought you stupid, I wouldn't bother recommending that you read these types of books. It would be a waste of time.

Libertarians are not anarchists.



What is a "hard Republican?"

Government's most important role is NOT protecting freedom or defending it. That is the most important role of the electorate. Too many of us depended on the government to do just that for too long and look at where it got us.

Do you know of any politician (other than Ron Paul of Texas, of course) who is not evasive on questions designed to make him look bad to his audience? Suppose you were a politician and somebody asked you in front of an audience why you were willing to let thirteen children die every day just so that you could have a safe full of many more guns than anybody could possibly need. You get maybe three seconds to answer before your political opponent on the other side of the TV screen begins running you over. Do you think your answer would sound evasive to the listening soccer moms? Mine would.


Of course I'm accustomed to disagreeing with people: it's what I do best. I'm even accustomed to disagreeing with gun people, unfortunately. What surprised me was the depth of the disagreement between you and me about 9/11. You seem to think that 9/11 happened because we don't have enough government--that more government would have been able to protect us from it, and that more government now will be able to prevent such events in the future. My position is that 9/11 happened precisely because we have too much government, and that more government now will not only not protect us from future events, but will make us much more vulnerable to future events. That's a pretty fundamental disconnect.


No, 9/11 was committed by Islamic extremists. It was motivated by the US government meddling in the affairs of other countries that it should have kept its nose out of. Why isn't anybody flying airplanes into tall buildings in Switzerland?


When your kid runs suddenly out into the street and is hit by a passing car, whose fault is it? Will you sue the driver for not swerving around your kid to keep from hitting him? Maybe you will; but the fact remains that if your kid had stayed on the sidewalk where he belonged, the car would have passed harmlessly by. Perhaps you can argue that the driver should have been more alert, or that his tires should have been newer, or his brakes should have been more recently serviced, and perhaps some or all of that would be true; but the fact is that everybody knows people walk on the sidewalk and cars drive on the street, and it shouldn't be a terrible surprise that if you run out on the street you might get hit by a car.

Likewise, everybody knows what happens when you p!ss off Islamic extremists. We've seen it happen over and over and over again. We can argue that it's not right for them to kill innocent people in large numbers, and perhaps it's even true; but we also know that they don't bother to ask our opinion before they do it. However, our government decided it would be a good idea to p!ss them off anyway. For years. Decades, even. And we got away with it: the kid was standing in the middle of the street flapping his ears and wagging his tongue, daring the oncoming cars, and the cars were swerving around him to the right and to the left. Finally, one of them squarely ran him down.

Oh my gosh, we say. What a shock, we say. What a horrible, immoral, cowardly driver, we say. It was just an innocent child, we say.

Well, I say, why couldn't the kid have just stayed on the sidewalk? Was that driver so horrible, immoral, and cowardly that he would have driven his car up on the curb and dodged the trees just to get the satisfaction of squashing the kid? Mmm, don't think so.


It's not moral relativism, and it doesn't fit right in. Moral relativism is where you say that murdering Americans is worse than murdering brown people, therefore murdering brown people is relatively right and murdering Americans is relatively wrong: in other words, it's right for us to kill brown people but wrong for them to kill us. I'm not saying that: I'm saying two things, both of them different. First, murder is wrong, period, even when it's done by the sainted United States Federal Government. Second, unnecessarily p!ssing off brown people who are known to kill lots of innocent civilians when they're p!ssed off is stupid.


A point on which we agree. I particularly like the "another fence around Torah" part.


Well, as Aslan said, it is not given to sons of Adam and daughters of Eve to know what might have been. Continued argument is probably pointless.


I saw an article after 9/11 that said after the changeover was complete, inspectors managed to slip 44 handguns through checkpoints at American airports in 30 days. I don't know which is a worse breach of "security," but I know that the terrorists didn't use knives with blades over 4".


That's why I specified John Ashcroft's version of "patriotism"--the one that equivalences dissidence with treason.


Good for you. The problem is that you seem still to be laboring under the misapprehension that Republicans will give you all those things--or even that they'll try to give you all those things.

As current events continue to parallel historical precedents, I think it will become evident to almost everybody, probably including you, that nobody will give you all those things: you have to take them, or you don't get them.



Please don't judge the Libertarian Party by me. I'm not a Libertarian, just a libertarian. If you're looking for a group that still compromises on principle, just not as much as the Republicans, then the Libertarian Party may indeed be what you're looking for. They're not libertarian enough for me; my suspicion is that probably no organized political group would be.

Exactly! If you go out, seeking dragons to slay, don't be surprised if your house is incinerated while you're away. Nobody denies that there are a lot of dragons out there, deserving of being slain, but it's just not a wise policy if you hope to avoid trouble. Dragons can be pretty destructive when pissed off. George Washington had it right when he advised future administrations to always wish the peoples of other nations well, trading peacefully with them all, but to avoid foreign entanglements at all cost.

Apparently when you read his "Farewell Address" you skipped over the part about the need to rise above party differences and rally behind the elected representatives of the national government. Or did he have it wrong there?

Another thing to remember when reading Washington's Farewell Address, just as when reading the "Federalist Papers", it why it was written in addition to what was written. Both were written to justify something and sway opinion. Neither was written as a pure expression of philosophical principles of government. The passage you're refering to in Washington's Farewell Address was written in part to justify the "Jay Treaty" with England and to refute Jefferson's attempt to discredit Washington's administration and oppose Jefferson's support for closer relations with France.

I never said the man was Jesus Christ. I quoted that which I took as wisdom. I don't believe it true BECAUSE Washington said it, but because it rings true to the ears of reasonable people. It is only proper, however, to give the man credit for having said it, particularly considering his significance in US history, and the context in which it was said.



A patriot is one who loves his country, and opposes policies destructive to it. I tend to agree with T. Roosevelt when he stated that

Okay...libertarians are pot-smoking conservatives.

Hard republicans are the theocratic authoritarian sort...they wish to use government power to enforce behavior patterns and engineer society to their liking just like hard democrats, just from the far end of the spectrum.

No...when I was talking government, I mean primarily the armed forces. My old man and my moms other husbands were all officers in combat in various overseas fiascoes. We have some pretty good yaps about why they wore the uniform.

Going back to that ordnance/arms debate earlier, the truth remains that huge firepower is needed for geopolitical purposes as long as other nations have the same capability. And since there are so many peaceniks and libertarians that are unwilling to pay for it, while benefiting from it (can you say Free Rider Syndrome), there has to be a central institution that puts the bite on the beneficiaries to pay for the toys. With due constraints such as Posse Comitatus and so on.

Finally, Hawk, I have read Hayek, Bastiat and others, lots of Cato policy papers and the whole schmear. I took econ from some pretty cutting edge profs at Montana State, understand demand curves and all sorts of other groovy stuff. You would not believe some of the cigar-and-scotch sessions I've participated in.

I can't be a Capitalized Libertarian because I feel that freedom has to be tempered with moral and ethical restraint, and there have to be institutions in place for those times when morals and ethics don't keep behavior within the bounds of the social contract. My problem is that I have a sense of justice and desire for fairness that just won't let me go that last step.

Never mind that the playing field is far from level and there are too many imbalances that would not allow a libertarian system to develop properly, like our oceans allowed us a crack at establishing a free constitutional republic -- a chance that voters unlike ourselves are mindlessly pissing away every time November rolls around.

Didn't mean to imply that you did. I just wanted to make the point that all to often when someone quotes one of the founding fathers we're all expected to swallow what is being quoted as though we were watching a burning bush and listening to a voice speaking down from the heavens. 'Tain't necessarily so. They had the same problems and differences of opinion that we are having and were just as fallible as we are. Their greatness derives not from who they were but from what they accomplished given the problems that they had to over come and the limitations on what they had to work with. That's part of what I was refering to in previous post in another thread when I stated "in other words, if you don't play well with others you suck." They often didn't like one another and sometimes didn't even respect one another but they all realized that if they didn't work together and cooperate and sometimes even compromise that they wouldn't be able to accomplish what they had set out to do. Accepting that allowed them to create the country that we have inherited. It's a lesson that we seem to have forgotten for the most part.

I do find it refreshing to converse with someone who quotes someone because what was said was reasonable and is giving credit to the person who said it rather than trying to influence the discussion by using quotes to make a point appear stronger because some "great historical figure" seems to agree with the position being taken by the person doing the quoting.



While I agree with the sentiment expressed in that statement, I find it interesting that you would quote the President who probably did more than any President since Lincoln and prior to FDR to consolidate and strengthen the power of the executive branch. I would dearly love to have Teddy here to explain exactly what he meant by that.

Ok, what you are describing are the opposite of political conservatives (i.e., not far right, but far left). I hope you realize that. What you describe are leftists. Leftist wish to concentrate power at the top for social engineering purposes (Contrary to popular belief, Hitler, like Stalin, was a radical leftist, not a rightist). Social engineering cannot happen without consolidated government. And, yes, there are quite a few leftists in the Republican Party, even if they would never describe themselves that way. They may be "conservative" in the religious spectrum, but that does not necessarily carry over into the political domain.



P.S. A "religious conservative" is one who prefers not to alter the traditional teachings and morality of his chosen religion. It is no guarantee that the person in question will be a "political conservative," or even understand what those words mean. However, religious and political conservatism are in no way mutually exclusive.

No, he is not one of my favorites, but he did occasionally say some things that are worth quoting. I have no doubt that he believed the above quoted definition of patriotism. Where he would differ with you and me is on the question of whether his consolidation of executive power was actually good for the country. I take it he would argue that it was, and that therefore he was acting as a patriot.

Quote:

"Do you know of any politician (other than Ron Paul of Texas, of course) who is not evasive on questions designed to make him look bad to his audience? Suppose you were a politician and somebody asked you in front of an audience why you were willing to let thirteen children die every day just so that you could have a safe full of many more guns than anybody could possibly need. You get maybe three seconds to answer before your political opponent on the other side of the TV screen begins running you over. Do you think your answer would sound evasive to the listening soccer moms? Mine would."

I never said politicians aren't trying to make themselves look good. Your contention is the Republicans are worse than the Democrats in terms of being straight forward about their agenda. You say the Democrats are "honest" in this regard. I disagree with that contention, for all the reason I've posted earlier.

Quote:

"You seem to think that 9/11 happened because we don't have enough government--that more government would have been able to protect us from it, and that more government now will be able to prevent such events in the future."

I do not know where you got that idea. I have clearly stated 9/11 happened because Islamic extremists believe any means justifies their end. I also did not say more government was the answer. I said the public demanded the government do something to better protect them. The government responded by adding more beaurcracy and taking more personal freedoms--which is the nature of governments.

Quote:

"My position is that 9/11 happened precisely because we have too much government, and that more government now will not only not protect us from future events, but will make us much more vulnerable to future events...................No, 9/11 was committed by Islamic extremists. It was motivated by the US government meddling in the affairs of other countries that it should have kept its nose out of. Why isn't anybody flying airplanes into tall buildings in Switzerland?"

Here we do have a fundamental disagreement. While I recognize US involvement overseas has caused ill will toward us from some, it is not logical to assume if we weren't involved we wouldn't still be a target. The Islamic extremists hate us and all of Western Civilization. Our very existence is anathema to them. They want an Islamic world and there is no room for infidels. Even the Koran speaks of this, and the Koran existed well before the USA.

There are those who hate us just because of who we are. They hate us because we have freedom (what's left of it anyway). They are going to come after us regardless of what we do. As such, we should not let their threats determine our policy at home and in the world. US policy is for people like you and I to hash out. The terrorists have no say. If they don't like what we do, then they can negotiate as part of a recognized government or movement. If they want to kill our people, then we will wipe them from the face of the earth.

The idea that we will be safe if we stay nice and mind our own business just is not how the world has ever functioned. We have to be proactive, involved, and strong. What level of involvement is a valid discussion point. At this point, our only option is to remain on the offensive against terrorism.

The reason nobody attacks Switzerland is because they have nothing worth going after. Switzerland has also been smart about it's national defense, requiring marksmanship from it's citizens, keeping them armed, and being in a mountainous region that would be hard to occupy. However, that strategy will not work forever. If the Islamic extremists ever did gain power, Switzerland would eventually be on their list as well.

Quote:

"When your kid runs suddenly out into the street and is hit by a passing car, whose fault is it?"

It is the kid's fault, just as when a terrorist hijacks a plane and flies it into a building, he is the responsible party. The one who does the deed bears ultimate responsibility.


Quote:

".........you seem still to be laboring under the misapprehension that Republicans will give you all those things--or even that they'll try to give you all those things."

No, I am saying I can have influence with the Republicans to a much greater degree than with the Democrats. I can personally make a difference, where if my efforts were aligned with the Libertarian party they would be wasted efforts.

Quote:

"I'm not a Libertarian, just a libertarian."

This question is not meant to sound challenging. What positive change toward libertarianism have you personally be able to make? As a registered Republican, I have been able to contact my congressmen, make my views known, and cast my vote toward what I believe in. Yes, I only one of a few million, but when enough like minded folks take action in this manner we do have influence. Also, not that many people are involved, so my voice carries more weight than most folks.

Blaine

No, weakness will not result in safety. Number one, we should maintain the best foreign intelligence service, airforce, army, navy, marines and special forces in the world, depending on our technological superiority in all of these, and focussing on rapid deployment ability. Number two, we should announce that we plan to leave Europe for the Europeans, Asia for the Asians, etc., and gradually pull our troops out over a ten year period, while encouraging those peoples to gradually assume the role of their own defense. Number three, anyone commits an act of terrorism against Americans, find them and kill them with extreme prejudice, along with any organizations associated with them. If it is a group supplied or assisted by a national government, wipe them out as a nation, then leave. Repeat as necessary. I guarantee it would stop in short order.







That's really absurd. You have not explained why Switzerland has not suffered from extensive Muslim terrorism. They did not attack the U.S. as opposed to Switzerland because they hoped to acquire our natural resources or because fewer Americans than Swiss are proficient riflemen.

Yes, I did. They just haven't got to them yet because we are a more visible and higher value target. The half dozen semi-rational leaders of the movement realize they get more bag for their buck going after the US than they would places like Switzerland.



It is a mistake to think we can live side-by-side with Islamic extremists if we'll just leave them alone. Most of them are irrational, and they only way to deal with an irrational threat is to eliminate it. There is no deterrence or "live and let live with these terrorists." US involvment in the middle east is just an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway.



Blaine

Another thing Teddy said that's worth quoting was "walk softly and carry a big stick." Unfortunately our stick has been allowed to atrophy. Now we've got what passes for a SecDef these days who wanted to cut even deeper scrambling around trying to find enough available forces to meet demands that we argueably shouldn't even be committed to.



That's presently the stated policy. Unfortunately it hasn't been carried out as stated and never will be. No President these days has the freedom of action to carry it out without catastrophic (at least for his administration) consequences.



AFP,

Have you given any thought to the premise that the reason no terrorist has ever attacked Switzerland is because that's where their money is? Switzerland may not be the goose that lays the terrorists golden eggs but it sure as hell sits on the nest that they're in. No terrorist, Islamic or otherwise, would ever want to do anything to disrupt their source of or storage facility for funds. Probably 80% of all the dirty money in the world flows through Switzerland and most of the rest flows though the Bahamas.

Makes a lot more sense than what you're saying since fanatics and extremists don't tend to give much thought to how difficult something is, especially Islamic terrorists. They just tend to say "Allah wills it" and off they go.

Still have to agree with Hawkeye's third point. Even if it didn't act as a deterent, since Islamic terrorists are a pretty dense hard headed group, eventually they'd be extinct and extinction is an excellent way to deal with the problem. When terrorists become extinct they tend to lose their effectiveness.

Skid,



That is a good point. I suppose it's possible they have their money there and as such they don't want to jeapordize it. A big problem with these fanatic terrorists is they are not always rational, so it's easy to see them attacking a place even it it will harm them in the long run. Of course, that is what is happening to them since they attacked America.



If their goal--as many believe--is just to get Americans out of the ME, then an attack on PSAB, Al Jaber, or other American base in the ME would have been a more effective method. If 9/11 had been attacks on those places, then American public opinion would have likely been strong for us to get out of the ME. However, by attacking American Soil, they have shown themselves to be hateful of America regardless of foreign policy.



Blaine

We have chosen the lesser of the two evils for so long, we can no longer tell the difference between them.

Dan

Hawk, let's go this way...
You're correct in that Hitler's NASDAP...which I think was National Allegemeine Socialischtiche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei. (Or National Social Democratic Workers Party). Yes, Hitler was a socialist.
I guess the thing is, there are "conservative" totalitarians/authoritarians and "liberal" totalitarians (now THAT's an oxyMORON) at both ends of the spectrum. Ashcroft on one end, Kuchinich on the other. They're both dangerous as hell and a good reason to keep yourself in guns and ammo.
The bottom line is they are all 8 year olds that never got over the feeling of bossing their little brothers and sisters around...which is why our public political discourses are so often at the third grade level.

Dave, they are both oxymorons in a certain sense. If we use the archaic meaning of the word "liberal," it would be oxymoronic to associate it in any way with the word "totalitarian." If we stick to modern English, however, "liberal-totalitarian" is not an oxymoron, but conservative-totalitarian is.



Broadly speaking, conservatives believe that whatever we have in our society that is good is deeply rooted in history and tradition, and that to upset institutions that developed organically is to destroy that which is good in society. Speaking more specifically of American Conservatism, we are talking about preserving traditional American liberty and values, which arose from our history and from the political thinking of the Founders, and the limited form of republicanism that they established. It also relates to preserving our religious traditions and liberties, which also itself relates to the limited government they created. American conservatism also extends, in other words, to preserving societal traditions, while preventing the use of government by radicals to destroy those traditions, and the institutions which support them. They prevent this by not giving government that much power.



Since strictly limited government cannot be used to destroy our societal traditions (being too weak regarding internal matters), conservatives wish to preserve limited, rather than create unlimited, government. Conservatives desire that governmental power remain broadly disbursed, and close to the people. Conservatives wish for lots of different kinds of small government, varying between the states, and among the states, rather than centralized gigantic government, because that way an equalibrium is preserved. That is to say, if government becomes intolerable for too many people in state A, then they can all move to state B, C or D, and State A will lose their economic base, being forced to change. Subsiderarity, in other words, is an additional check on abusive power.



None of this would tend towards the totalitarianism of which you speak, so the words conservatism and totalitiarianism do not belong in any way together. The more extreme a conservative becomes, the LESS consolidated power (i.e., totalitarianism) he would wish to see, not the more.



Ashcroft might be "dispositionally conservative," in that he likes traditional Christian values, and certain other liberties, but he is certainly no political conservative, in the American tradition. He apparently does not value limited government, which is a core aspect of authentic American conservatism. In this respect, he is a radical leftist. Leftists, by definition, wish to use the power of the state to implement their personal ideal for society, lacking respect for the notion that societal change should be organic, natural and gradual, not imposed from above. For this they need government to be powerful, unlimited in scope, and centralized. Ashcroft is one of these. He is, in this respect, a son of the French Revolution rather than the American War for Independance.

Gotta disagree with you, brother. Conservatives are not satisfied if the government merely does not destroy the societal traditions they consider important: they're not happy unless the government actively enforces those traditions. And to do that, it needs to have a lot of power.

The War On (some) Drugs, and the constellation of lost liberties that goes with it, is largely a gift from conservatives. Ditto the War On Terror, also known as Empire America, and the further violence it has done to the vision of our founders. Conservatives insist on criminalizing the possession of at least child pornography, and preferably all pornography. Conservatives would blow a gasket at the thought of getting the government out of prostitution. Conservatives have been registering on the Richter scale recently regarding the Supreme Court's ruling on the Texas sodomy law--and not for the right reasons, either. (The right reason, of course, is that the Fourteenth Amendment gives the Supremes wayyyy too much power over state laws.) And most tellingly (especially on this board), there are a lot of folks who call themselves conservatives who get all upset at the thought of Vermont(/Alaska) carry. They support the "right" to bear arms, but they need a powerful government to supervise and hand out that "right" as they dictate.

No, conservatives and liberals are both advocates of big government. Liberals need government to take away your money and control what you think and say; conservatives need government to take away your money and control what you do in private.

Have you ever taken a close look at one of those Hi-Lift bumper jacks? The main beam has a series of holes through its center, and the jack mechanism has two big pins that fit through the holes. As you move the handle one way, one of the pins is securely lodged in a hole, and the other pin moves up to the next hole and drops in. Then, when you move the handle the other way, the second pin holds while the first pin moves up to its next hole.

That's exactly the way the government uses liberals and conservatives to jack the people gradually into slavery. One pin is always in and the other pin is always out, but as power alternates between the two the government inexorably wins.

The above quote spoken by the author of "Conscience of a Conservative".

We're not really addressing one another. You're talking theory and I'm talking history.

I used to be a conservative. I remember what it was like. They say there's no saint like a reformed sinner.

What's going on here? Are we wearing each others shoes this time?



Just to add another dimension to the discussion, I would submit to you that the terms Liberal and Conservative are regional as well as reletive. What passes for conservative on the east and west coasts would be considered liberal in the inland west and south and vice versa.

[We have chosen the lesser of the two evils for so long, we can no longer tell the difference between them.]

I don't know who "we" are, but there is a world of difference between the political parties. I don't have any diffficulty telling the difference. That is the reason I vote Republican, and could not vote Dem or Lib.
The moral position of both parties insure that I could never belong to either.

Jerry

That's right. One of them is the upper bumper-jack pin, and the other is the lower. A world of difference.


The Libertarian party doesn't have a moral position. That's one of its differences. Libertarians (and libertarians) believe that morality and politics are inimical to one another, and should be kept apart.

What you may mean is that your particular morality advocates the application of preemptive coercion in certain cases, and libertarianism does not offer you the mailed fist of government to use in such pursuits the way conservatism does. However, that's a political difference rather than a moral difference.

I don't know what kind of conservative you were, Barak, but if you think authentic American conservatism is about expanding government, you were no kind of conservative in my book. You got taken by people calling themselves conservatives.



The philosophic basis for American conservatism is found in thinkers such as John C. Calhoun, who said, "If there be a political proposition universally true, one which springs directly from the nature of man, and is independent of circumstances, it is that irresponsible [i.e., unchecked] power is inconsistant with liberty, and must corrupt those who exercise it. On this great principle our political system rests."



Yeah, that sounds just like a liberal.



You have to distinguish between statists/authoritarians using the name conservative from authentic conservatives. I think you have not thoroughly enough explored authentic American conservatism, Barak, based on some of your statements. Perhaps I could recommend some books.

"The Libertarian party doesn't have a moral position."

All parties have a moral position either by design or default.
To say that "A woman has the right to choose what to do with the unborn child in her body" is a moral position, in that it supports a right to an immoral action.

To say that we should leave homosexuals to their own actions, and that government has no right to interfere is to have a position which tolerates and ignores immorality.

To support the right of prostitution is a moral position.

Those are just three moral issues which the LP accepts and therefore supports by default.
So I could never be a part of a party which encourages, by its acceptance, immoral actions.

I am not interested in arguing whether you believe the above are immoral or not. The Bible says they are, and that settles it.

Jerry

The conservative approach to these questions is that they are not matters for the federal government. The federal government, were it to operate within its intended bounds, would have nothing at all to say about any of it. They are matters for the states to determine. Some states will allow these things, some states will ban them, and some will leave it to the counties and townships to determine. This is the essence of conservatism.



Now, libertarianism would differ in that it opposes diversity in this regard. Libertarianism would like, ideally, to impose one uniform national system of enforced "liberty," as it were, rather than a system of legal diversity. Under libertarian rule, not even the states would be free to determine the propriety of prostitution, for example. The advantage of conservatism, i.e, legal and governmental diversity (aka "decentralization"), on the other hand, is that it is the approach most likely to result in the largest number of people living under the kind of government they like. These things, being decided at the local level, are more prone to being "customized" to the liking of the people in each locality. If a member of a political minority finds the laws of his locality intolerable (let's say he would like to smoke pot and/or visit a prostitute, for example), he is free to move to a state, county or township with laws more to his liking in this regard because, under conservatism, the federal government has not established a uniform national law regarding such matters, i.e., it is not one of the federal government's few and enumerated powers.



This is another way that conservatism differs from libertarianism. Libertarianism would impose its view of liberty on all, uniformly from above, while conservatism allows for, and even encourages, a diversity of laws, so long as the "rule of law" always prevails.



P.S. The alternative to the "rule of law," is the rule of men, i.e., arbitray rule. In the words of Friedrich Hayek, "Stripped of all technicalities, this [i.e., the rule of law] means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand -- rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."

T R H,
[The conservative approach to these questions is that they are not matters for the federal government.]

But that approach ignores the fact that some things, such as marriage and the recognition thereof, transcends state boundries.
It is admittedly a difficult judgement call as to the degree to which the federal government gets involved, but when the decisions of the courts are such as the recent ruling on homosexual rights, then it has already gotten involved.

The federal government has the responsibility to promote the general welfare, and that is not served by such things as I have mentioned.

Governments at all levels have a moral responsibilty to promote, and to a degree enforce, moral behavior. This nation has for most of its history observed the moral code of the Bible, and has embraced the standards of Christianity.

While we as individuals have the freedom of not embracing the Christian faith, there still must be a moral code upon which laws are based.

The pursuit of liberty cannot flourish in a society which embraces or condones immoral conduct. I recognize the limitations of governments in this area, but it does not negate governments responsibility.

I again say that government does in fact teach and foster morality either by design or default. The law is a great teacher of morality. Unfortunately, with the acceptance of immorality within our nation, our laws as intrepreted by the USSC are teaching the wrong message.

Jerry

The requirement that other states must recognize lawful marriage does not in any way contradict anything I've said. To the extent that the federal government facilitates this, it is operating according to the rule of law. Read Article IV, Section One of the U.S. Constitution. I do hope you have a copy.



As to the rest, it is my conviction that Christian values and morals are superior, and societies based on them will prosper and rise to the top. Those, therefore, who substantially deviate from those values and morals within society will naturally falter. It is only when government steps out of its bounds that those who follow bad morals and values are artificially propped up and perpetuated. "Same-sex-marriage" is an outgrowth of bad morals being protected by government, and would not even be an issue today if the federal government operated within its constitutional bounds. When the federal government operated within its bounds, those with bad morals were permitted to reap what they had sown (which is ultimately both a blessing for them and for society). Most of the moral decline in America, as Barak has alluded, is directly traceable to the federal government operating out of its constitutional bounds.

That was not a ruling on homosexual rights but rather a ruling on personal liberty. Read what the Supremes wrote, not what others are saying that the Supremes ruled in that case.

As for the rest of your post, which appears to advocate a federal government mandating a state religion and making law based on the moral code expressed by that religion, you seem to be somewhat confused about what a republic is. What you are describing is a theocracy. If you prefer that form of government that's your right however if you would like to live in a theocratic state then I suggest that you move to Iran since the government there is a somewhat functioning theocracy. Or you might try the Vatican.

Government should be neither immoral nor moral but amoral. Secular law should not be based on any religious moral code but rather on practicality and common sense. Secular acts are neither just nor unjust but rather legal or illegal.

Legal and moral are not synonyms and should not be confused with each other. One defines the suggested lifestyle of a religious following and one defines what is and is not allowed in secular society.

Enforced morality is one of the quickest paths to tyranny that there is since with God on your side how can you be wrong and therefore whatever you believe and force on someone else must be right. I would much rather society make moral judgements and government make legal ones.

I was the kind of conservative who had probably heard the name Barry Goldwater somewhere before but couldn't remember in what context. I was the kind of conservative who couldn't really list the "conservative principles," but I knew that they were good, and liberal principles, whatever they were, were bad. I was the kind of conservative who dutifully went to the polls every election and voted a straight Republican ticket, never having heard of any of the candidates before except possibly the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.

In other words, I was the same kind of conservative that you tend to find in places like this in large numbers.

Then I met the government face to face in late 1998, and it turned me into a much better-educated, hair-on-fire activist libertarian in almost nothing flat. I was ready to go to Washington and start shooting the bastards in between three and four months, and I might well have done it if I had fallen in with the wrong crowd. Four and a half years later, I'm a bit more mature, but still a baby libertarian compared with folks like Vin Suprynowicz, Claire Wolfe, or L. Neil Smith.

If you're an advocate of what you call "authentic American conservatism," though, I hope I don't catch you voting for any Republicans--at least, not the modern crop of them.


I'm not convinced the distinction would do me much good. I understand the difference between a statist and a libertarian. I'm not interested in whether statists or libertarians call themselves conservatives or not; I'm interested in whether they want my liberties or not.


I'm sure you're right. The conservatism with which I'm familiar is that preached by successful politicians who call themselves conservatives. (I can get away with that because there aren't any successful politicians who call themselves libertarians.) Seems to me, though, that by your careful definitions of "authentic American conservatism," you must be whistling into just as strong a wind as I am for political candidates.

Barak,

Quote:

"Then I met the government face to face in late 1998"

What happened?

Blaine

See, The_Real_Hawkeye, this is what I commonly mean by conservative. Conservatives need a big government to take away your money and control what you do in private.


Have you heard a libertarian say that? I've never heard a libertarian say that. I've heard liberals say that.

You kind of picked a bad example there. There are pro-abortion libertarians, who would argue that the government has no business interfering in the relationship between a woman and her doctor, whether he's giving her medical advice, prescribing drugs, or performing abortions. But there are also anti-abortion libertarians who say that the unborn child within her is (or should be) a legal person whose life, liberty, and property is just as worthy of being defended as anyone else's--and that to the extent the government has an interest in doing that, the government has an interest in preventing abortion.


It's a simple government lie that law and morality walk hand in hand. Law and morality are mortal enemies of one another, and whenever you put them together both are corroded and one is usually destroyed. It's always been that way. Look to the Middle Ages for all sorts of examples.


If at some point you become interested in the preservation of American liberty, you're going to have to learn to think more clearly and discriminatingly than this. Stating that the government has no right to control a voluntary business transaction between consenting adults that initiates no force or fraud against anyone is not the same thing as saying that prostitution is good--any more than it's the same thing as saying that sending $200 to a televangelist for a cheap mail-order Bible with gold-edged pages is good.

As long as you keep getting concepts like that confused with one another, I'm afraid you're not going to be much help in this particular thread.

You're not comparing libertarianism with conservatism: you're comparing federalist and centrist forms of government. The axes are orthogonal.

Any form of government based on our Constitution cannot make laws regarding homosexuality, abortion, or prostitution on the national level, because of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Those are issues reserved to the States, or to the people. Doesn't matter whether the government is being run by libertarians or "authentic American conservatives."

Our present government is not known for its scrupulous attention to the Constitution, but you will notice that there are no federal laws against prostitution, and the "law of the land" regarding abortion is not legislation at all, but a judicial fiat.



Arguable--even with the confusion above. A libertarian scheme, on the local level, would most likely privatize most of the functions now held by government, including legislative, executive, and judicial functions. Private entities, because they must compete to survive, are much quicker and more efficient than governmental entities, which must merely confiscate more money to survive.

In an extreme case, individual neighboring households (perhaps even in the same building) might live under completely different forms of covenantal, privately-administered "government."

With the standard form of coercively-funded involuntary government, you really can't get much more granular than moderate-sized cities. Yes, there are village councils and town aldermen and so forth, but they're usually heavily dependent on the county and the state, because a small community or neighborhood doesn't provide enough tax base to support all the inefficiencies and sluggishness of a coercive government.


You mean under federalism, I assume.

Suppose there was no state, county, or township more to his liking? In a libertarian community, the same member wouldn't have to move at all. He'd simply adjust his law-enforcement contract, or perhaps hire a different law-enforcement company.


Libertarianism doesn't impose anything on any person or group of persons--unless you count the Non-Aggression Principle as an "imposition." It imposes only on the government.

I'm reminded of somebody or other (can't remember the name, but I admire the guy) who was being questioned by the Senate two or three years ago about something or other, and Joe Biden asked him, "How old does a person have to be before the Constitution applies to him?" This guy dithered momentarily in confusion and said, "The Constitution never applies to a person, Senator; the Constitution applies only to the government."

Two points to that guy.

Barak

[It's a simple government lie that law and morality walk hand in hand. Law and morality are mortal enemies of one another, and whenever you put them together both are corroded and one is usually destroyed.]
Not true. Laws are based upon a moral position. Law cannot be amoral. Some particular laws may be amoral such as what should be the speed limit, but laws in general are based upon a moral code. Who is to say that murder is wrong unless there is a moral code, which governs? No doubt you know that some societies have considered headhunting and cannibalism as legal and proper. Their laws are based upon some moral code, even though it is a wrong one. We could say the same type thing regarding stealing, lying, and many other things.

The problem with government and morality as you state is whether or not the moral base is a correct one. We, for most of our history have based our code on the principles and precepts of the Judeo/Christian ethic.

[As long as you keep getting concepts like that confused with one another, I'm afraid you're not going to be much help in this particular thread.]

On the contrary the views I have put forth have been the views of the great majority of Americans through the ages.
The LP basically advocates freedom at the expense of morality and even order. It fosters liberty without responsibility, even though you will deny that. However, the allowance of abortion is an example of freedom without responsibility.

[If at some point you become interested in the preservation of American liberty, you're going to have to learn to think more clearly and discriminatingly than this.]

Liberty can only be maintained in an atmosphere of good moral values. The crime problems, including school shootings and violence, are a direct result of the degradation of moral values in this nation.
When I was in school we could buy a gun anywhere if we had the money. I bought my first one when I was ten, and only had a 12-year-old friend with me. Why can�t I do that now? Because the violence and disregard for life has caused the misguided to blame the gun. However, they did not do so when I was a youth. As the law has defended/tolerated immorality we have lost liberty. I had rather have the liberty to walk down the street unafraid at night than to have the right to buy porno, or visit a prostitute, neither which I do anyway. Yes they are connected by lack of a moral code, which constrains evil, and promotes righteousness.

We used to be able to play at night, but not anymore. The moral view of sex and human life has changed all that. Pornography, which the Libertarians would say must be allowed in the name of liberty, is one part of that problem of rape, etc. It is a symptom of a permissive society, and the incorrect ideas of the courts as to what constitutes free speech.

I do know what this nation has been like, and it was much better in the past. When a Bill Clinton can be elected as anything, and then defended in the face of obvious cause to remove him from office, then we have about reached the bottom of the barrel. The law has fallen down.

All the rhetoric will not change the fact that the LP is out of the mainstream of Americans, and will remain so for a very long time, probably forever.

[Libertarianism doesn't impose anything on any person or group of persons.]

That very fact is an imposition on those who disagree. Carried to its logical conclusion it is anarchy. Does Libertarianism not impose a requirement to drive safely, or to refrain from drinking and driving, or to carry a 5-foot board showing people having sex? If it does, then your statement is incorrect. Maybe you would say that is a non-aggression imposition, whatever you might mean by that.

Jerry

We already hashed this over on the first page of this thread, and I already responded (in post #173823), and you already copped out once. If you had something new to contribute that I hadn't already considered, it'd be worthwhile to hash it through again, but I have better things to do than watch you cop out again. If you want to talk to me about law and morality, first answer #173823.


You seem to believe that if we could just get the government to enforce the correct morality, everything would be okay. That government would, of course, need to oppress and even kill people who disagreed with that morality, but perhaps you think that people will change their morality to suit you if you point a sufficiently big and scary-looking gun in their face.

That's an interesting view for a Christian to take.

On the one hand, it's right in line with the Christian history of torturing Muslims and Jews, burning their houses and places of worship and raping their women, until they agreed to be baptized.

On the other hand, it's in direct opposition to the Christian experience that even today Christianity flourishes most verdantly precisely where it is most persecuted by the government. If Christians won't change their morality when a Communist government lines them up against a wall and guns them down, what makes you think anyone else will when a Christian government lines them up against a wall and guns them down?


You don't read, do you?


That's true. And the government--any government--by its very nature, destroys whatever good moral values it's allowed to get its hands on.


I used to think that too, until Bush took office. Clinton was definitely scum, but he pretty much kept his scummy activities confined to desecrating the office of President. Bush hasn't bothered the office of President, but he has made a much bigger hash out of the Constitution, our liberties, and our nation's place in the world. And it's entirely possible that the next one could be even worse.


Why are we talking about the Libertarian Party? I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party. Are you?


If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if you want to use the government to oppress people who, though they aren't hurting anyone or violating anyone's rights, do things with which you disagree, then it's an imposition upon you to tell you you can't.

By that logic, it's an imposition upon a thief to tell him he has to stop stealing. It's an imposition upon a murderer to lock him away where he can't kill people. You don't have any problem with impositions of that sort. Yet impositions on the government, which in reality is nothing but a socially-acceptable thief and murderer, are a problem for you.

Apparently this is because you're a bit too squeamish to do the robbing and murder yourself, and if you couldn't use the government to do it for you, you wouldn't be able to control other people the way you want to.

I have little sympathy.


A libertarian government, such as it would be, would impose no such rules. Government has no business imposing such rules, because it has no interest in their outcome, only in their political effect.

There would be rules like that in a libertarian system, but they would be imposed by either insurance companies or by the companies that owned the roads--probably both. Folks like that actually have an interest in seeing that the rules work, rather than that they attract the right numbers of votes from the correct constituencies.


Huh?


The Non-Aggression Principle says that it is unacceptable for any person or group to initiate force or fraud against any other person or group.

There are two more of the benefits of libertarianism: 1) it actually has a principle that can be quoted (as opposed to indistinct, airy references to "conservative principles"), and 2) there's only one of them, so the list is easy to remember.

I am indeed comparing libertarianism with conservatism (when I say "conservatism," assume "authentic American conservatism," as, firstly, we are in America, and, secondly, words should be assumed to refer to authentic, rather than false, objects). For a libertarian, there is no goal higher than individual liberty from government coercion within a sphere he deems an individual right. For a conservative, however, liberty is a primary interest, but so is the preservation of tradional institutions and the rule of law, without which liberty is invariably lost. A conservative realizes that liberty was not suddenly invented in the 18th or 19th Century, but is a product of an ancient organic development, and rests on a complex outgrowth of that development. A libertarian, on the other hand, would think little of clearing away every convention and starting anew, to establish his dream of a "libertarian paradise," while this would rightly horrify a conservative. That is why I say that a libertarian would think little of ignoring the constitution (i.e., federalism) , so long as this makes possible the establishment of his own personal idea of a libertarian paradise (such as you described in one of your recent posts). This is a rootless tree, and will not live to see day two. Radicalism has never resulted in enduring liberty, and never will.



You say I am referring to federalism, not conservatism, however you miss the point. A conservative realizes that liberty is a delicate organic development, which relies for its continued existence on the support of a complex system, deeply rooted in history and tradition, and the institutions it rose up with. Libertarians tend, on the other hand, to be radicals, and would think little of ignoring or even eliminating the constitution, if that meant they could establish their notion of a perfect libertarian society. It would only be one person's (or a group of people's) view of liberty, however, and would ultimately open the door for the worst kind of tyranny, once all reverence for convention had been eliminated.



So conservatives want liberty within the established order (realizing that they are mutually dependant), willing only to make prudent reforms to it, while libertarians want liberty NOW, and COMPLETE, without concern for the established order, which they would not mind disposing of completely if that meant they were free to establish in its place some imagined libertarian paradise. Yes, even federalism is expendable to a libertarian, the more efficiently "liberty" can be implemented on all. After all, liberty was invented ex nihilo by 18th and 19th Century liberal thinkers, wasn't it? We can therefore invent it anew.







Libertarianism imposes something indeed. Tell the small town resident who would like to keep pornography from public news stands, or drugs off the streets, that libertarianism doesn't impose anything on anyone.









Well said. I agree 100%. Perhaps you are a little bit conservative, Barak.

Hi Barak,
BTW, I don't know how to put things in quotes. How do you do that?
In the meantime regarding your statement,
[Apparently this is because you're a bit too squeamish to do the robbing and murder yourself, and if you couldn't use the government to do it for you, you wouldn't be able to control other people the way you want to.]

That is utter nonsense.
You confuse being squeamish with being moral. As a dedicated Christian I do not do those things because I do not want to and also I do not do some things because they are against the law. I am commanded to obey law unless it conflicts with the Word of God.

Your take on what "Christianity" has done does not reflect true Christianity. It also does not justify immorality by anyone.

I agree with the premise that to impose amorality on people is just as much an imposition as imposing morality. Without laws, based upon correct moral absolutes, man is basically an anarchist, and used force to do as he wills. Governments have the duty and responsibility to control that.
[Romans 13:1 �Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 �Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.]

In any case there is either anarchy or imposition of some moral standard on a society. That moral standard will be the basis of the success or lack thereof, over a long period of time, as to the well being of that society. That is the reason I will continue to attempt by all legal means to have the moral standards upon which this nation was founded, and made great to be the basis of law.
Those standards are the Judeo/Christian ethic found in the Holy Bible.

You of course have the same right to oppose those moral standards and the laws they would influence.

Jerry

I'll try, but you'll probably have to keep reminding me, since you're one very small voice trying to claim that particular meaning for "conservatism," while the Bush administration, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the media all prefer another meaning, and very loudly and pervasively--and therefore, some would argue, more relevantly.


Libertarians also believe in what I suspect you mean when you talk about the rule of law, but they'd probably use another name for it--perhaps the inviolability of contracts.


Here, apparently, we do disagree.

I don't believe that liberty is all that fragile or complicated, and I certainly don't believe that it needs to be supported by government. The thing that was unique about the American experiment was that for the first time it tried to make government and liberty live in harmony with one another. It worked for awhile, until people forgot; by now it has pretty much failed. It ought to be pretty clear by now that if there is some way to achieve that balance permanently, it's not the way the founding fathers designed. You could say that it wasn't their fault, because they assumed that the fruit of their loins would be courageous and stand up to the government when it tried to take away our liberties, instead of being the sniveling cowards we have shown ourselves to be. On the other hand, one could argue that it should have been foreseen that the blessings of liberty would bring prosperity, and continued prosperity would breed fat fundaments and wussy constitutions.

I think we're probably doomed to a swinging pendulum. We'll eventually be oppressed into some form of resistance, and then we'll beat the government back far enough that we can be prosperous again; a couple of generations of prosperity will breed all the fight out of us, and we'll consent to oppression again. Add a spiritual element to this cycle, and you get exactly what happened over and over again in the book of Judges.


Keep in mind that a libertarian cannot initiate force. If tearing down convention and starting anew would require an initiation of force, then a conservative has nothing to fear from a libertarian.


Libertarians don't have a problem imagining a system that isn't constrained by the US Constitution, that's true. Most libertarians also have moderate-to-severe objections of one sort or another to the Constitution itself--for example, its well-known crisis of authority, probably best elucidated by Lysander Spooner.

However, that doesn't make us necessarily enemies of the Constitution. If our government were to return to some kind of Constitutional form, regardless of who was in charge of it, it would have to get much, much smaller; and from a libertarian point of view that's a good start. My wife, for example, isn't as enthusiastic about primitive camping as I would like her to be; but that doesn't mean I don't love her, or that I think I could find someone better suited to me than she is. The Constitution may have its problems, but it's head and shoulders above what we've got now.


Some libertarians undoubtedly want that. I did, when I was a very young libertarian. Not all of them do, however. Within a year of my conversion, I understood that if I had a magic button that, when pressed, would instantly eliminate all government and turn America into the most radiant libertarian paradise ever imagined by Robert Heinlein or L. Neil Smith, I would yank the button out by the roots and stomp it to pieces and burn the pieces. (That's very much like what Baby Bush and his minions did to Iraq; did that turn into a libertarian paradise, or chaos?)

You can't force liberty on somebody, or even give it to him. He'll simply give it back and insist that you re-lock his chains. Liberty has to be taken. That's what the Iraqis never did, and it's why they're not free. It's what the American Revolutionaries did do (with a little help from the French), and it's why they were free, at least for awhile. Mature libertarians understand that.


Libertarianism doesn't work that way. Under a libertarian system, there'd be no such thing as a public street. The street would be owned by somebody, and if you wanted to put a newsstand on that street, you'd have to sign a contract or covenant with the street owner. You'd also probably want insurance for your newsstand. A parent offended by pornography in the newsstand might well sue everybody in sight, so it would probably be an issue in both the contracts (with the street owner and the insurance company) that potentially-offensive pornography would not be displayed. If you were sued for public obscenity and held liable, the contracts would keep the streetowner and the insurance company out of it, and you'd be personally responsible for the entire judgment. Therefore, you wouldn't do it in the first place.

It wouldn't be illegal, exactly, but it wouldn't have to be. You don't need governments for everything. Really you don't.

Well, actually we cannot lay claim to that. It was England that attempted that first, and largely succeeded for a very long time. The American War for Independance happened precisely in reaction to a British retreat from its previously long-standing tradition of respect for personal liberty, the rule of law, limited, checked and divided government. We didn't invent those ideas in 1776. We inherited them. When Britain pushed too far in the direction of tyranny (a departure from its own long-standing tradition at that time), we reacted, which is a conservative response, not a radical one. Our goal was to "conserve" those things which we had long enjoyed as English colonists, e.g., local self-rule, representative government, rule of law, divided and limited government, decentralization of government, respect for basic rights and liberties, etc.,. Yes, once we kicked them out, we had to find a way to make those things work detatched from Great Britain, and that meant creating a government that embodied those ideals, but this was hardly a radical purpose. It's purpose was to re-establish what the Brits had taken away, while making provision for defending our way of life from competing nations. Like it or not, that means we need government.

As for other points, it looks like we will simply have to accept that we differ on them. I feel, however, that more often than not, libertarians and conservatives can work together for similar goals, as both of us aim at conserving liberty. We certainly differ when it comes to local rights of self-government, as you pretty much oppose government period. Rather than abolish government, however, I would like to see it reformed. The word reformed tells you that I think our government, as established, was pretty darn good, though not perfect, but has become deformed over the years. You, on the other hand, would be just as happy to start from scratch, and that's where conservatism and libertarianism differ.

Well, the popular media has chosen to identify neo-conservatism as the real variety. This, however, is a relative newcomer to the political scene in America, and has very little in common with actual conservatism. If you would like to know something about authentic American conservatism, take a look at www.thenewamerican.com. You will find plenty to read there.

The popular media has an agenda, and I would not trust them to define the word conservatism for you. Real conservatism has a history. You can read the writings of Edmund Burke, for example, to get a flavor for it. I particularly recommend his "Reflections on the Revolution in France." He is considered the father of American conservatism, in that American conservatives largely took him as their template.

You add "quote" and "/quote" in square brackets (I can't show you exactly, or you'll get a quote instead of a demonstration) before and after the quoted text. Or, if you prefer, click the "Quote" link in the "Instant UBB Code" cluster on the message-entry page for an example.


Perhaps not. Suppose you were walking down the street and you encountered a stranger shooting heroin in an alley. Would it be moral for you to grab that person, overpower him, tie him up, bundle him into your car, and chain him to the wall in your basement until he agreed to mend his ways?

If so, then why are you wasting time here posting on 24HourCampfire instead of saving junkies?

If not, then how can it possibly be moral for you to hire somebody else (the government) to do exactly the same thing?


That's a cop-out and you know it--or you should, if you call yourself an intellectually-honest Christian. The torturers of the Crusades and the Inquisition were not measurably farther in their practices from Jews and Christians in Biblical times than you are today; as a matter of fact, your modern practices would probably seem much stranger to the heroes of the Bible than what the Crusaders did. Remember, more than once God told his people to go into a city and kill every man, woman, child, and animal in it. At least once, he punished them when they didn't.

And the Crusaders and Inquisitors (at least some of them) were every bit as serious about being Christians back then as you are now. Have you read the writings of some of the church fathers from that period? If you want to draw credible, fundamental distinctions between them and you, you have to come up with something better than, "They just weren't true Christians."

There is a credible, fundamental difference between them and you, in case you're wondering, and it has nothing to do with doctrine or relative depth of faith. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.


One can impose neither morality nor amorality on anyone. Morality is a free-will choice: if you force somebody down one path or the other, then you have made the choice for him and destroyed whatever moral element it had. The concept of forcing amorality on people is just silly: it would have to consist of setting a free-will choice before them and then forcing them not to make the choice.


Ah--finally we get to Romans 13. Are you aware of the context of this passage? What behaviors or false teachings was Paul correcting?


"Imposition of a moral standard" is a contradiction in terms. If you impose it, then the most it can be is a behavioral standard, not a moral standard. If it's a moral standard, it must be accepted, not imposed.

Why must there be only one moral standard across all of society? Do you know of anywhere that this dream of yours has ever been realized? If so, how much blood had to be spilled to make it so, and how do you know it was successful? (Maybe somebody somewhere thought that renting a prostitute was actually okay, but the government was never able to kill him because he never told anyone what he believed.)

Barak, we posted simultaneously, so look up for my response to you. There are two posts there, one on the bottom of page 3 and one at the top of page 4.

Good point about the British Empire...although we could probably argue about whether the British idea of individual liberty (in its prime, I mean) and the Framers' idea of individual liberty was the same.

However, I'm much more interested in this: all the stuff you need to be happy as an "authentic American conservative"...why do you need a government to give you all that? What's fundamentally wrong with getting it from the private sector?

And of course, nobody can "start from scratch" anymore, libertarian or not.

Barak, go to www.thenewamerican.com/focus/government/index.htm and read The State of Big Government, and tell me if you agree with the gist of it.

I do.

Barak, have you ever read Our Enemy The State, by Albert Jay Nock? I think you would benefit from it a lot. There is a distinction between "the state" and government, and he really brings that out and makes it clear. Perhaps your quarrel is with the state, and not with government at all.

Barak,

You seem to be at odds with yourself here. Could you kindly explain what seems to be two conflicting statements? On the second point I don't mean the common explanation that the oppressors pushed and the oppressed pushed back but when you say that " Liberty has to be taken" there's an implication there that there may be an initiating force rather than a reactive force.

On another point, I'd have to agree with Hawkeye on his definition of what a conservative is. One of the major problems with society today is that people have forgotten that words have meanings therefore they tend to use them incorrectly or attribute their own meanings for them. Witness the common present day usage of words such as gay and [bleep]. Perfectly good words whose meaning has been warped by improper usage or improper understanding. Just because the "religious right" is branded as conservative or because the liberals call someone or something conservative or even when someone who doesn't properly understand the term conservative uses it to describe them self that doesn't mean that conservative is the correct description for them and their actions. It just means that either they don't have a firm grasp of the English language or they don't care that their speech is imprecise. As far as the commonly accepted meaning for "conservative" being the one that you have attributed it simply because it has become commonly accepted among those who either have an agenda or speak carelessly; just because the vast majority of the world's population at one time believed that the world was flat didn't make acceptance of that belief correct.

You don't need government to give you all that, you need government to assist in the means to protect it. Alone you're always at the mercy of anyone who wants to take control of you. As a member of a group you are stronger and more able to protect what is yours. In order for the group to operate and cooperate it must have some sort of structure. That's government.

Barak,

Quote:

"Then I met the government face to face in late 1998"

What happened?

Blaine

Barak,
Now I will see if I can Quote>


In Romans chapter 13 Paul is continuing his discussion regarding vengeance, which he began in chapter 12 verses 12 and 17.
In his discussion he covers the authority of government. God has said that vengeance is His. Ultimately He will judge for eternal destiny. However, there is a vengeance in this life, and He has given that authority to act in His behalf to extract vengeance on evildoers. He has also given government the responsibility to do that. The fact that human governments do a poor job does not negate the authority of government.

Quote
"Imposition of a moral standard" is a contradiction in terms. If you impose it, then the most it can be is a behavioral standard, not a moral standard. If it's a moral standard, it must be accepted, not imposed.
/quote

Not true. A law which has a moral standard as a base imposes the standard of conduct which the standard requires. That is an imposition of a moral standard.
I agree that it might not change the hearts of people, although it is a factor in teaching moral standards to the people of that society. If on grows up in a society which accepts a certain behavior according to its laws, then he draws certain conclusions as to the right or wrong of that behavior.

Do you really think that a child which grows up in a society which accepts and even encourages homosexuality, for instance, by its laws has the same attitude as if that society said in its law that homosexuality was immoral and illegal? The law is a great teacher, and the old canard which says that you can�t legislate morals is true, but not the truth. It ignores the fact that the law teaches, and therefore can change the moral attitudes of individuals. It certainly regulates behavior.

Quote
If so, how much blood had to be spilled to make it so, and how do you know it was successful? (Maybe somebody somewhere thought that renting a prostitute was actually okay, but the government was never able to kill him because he never told anyone what he believed.)
/quote

The types of moral based laws which I am talking about were the laws which were in effect for most of our history. How much blood was spilled then?
I am not sure why some of you think that it is necessary to kill everyone who does not agree with or follow the law. Where did you get such an idea?
The laws, which said that abortion was illegal, or adultery was illegal, or many other things, did not impose the death penalty.

As for prostitution, which you would probably say is a victimless crime; it is obvious that many who use prostitutes are married. Would you say that if the man caught AIDS for instance, and gives it to his wife, that she has not been a victim? If he is found by his wife and she divorces him would you say that she and the children have not been victimized?
The view which you seem to hold does not think past the two parties, and does not realize that �No man is an island.� (Who said that?}

Quote
One can impose neither morality nor amorality on anyone.
/quote

Not true. The moral standards which are reflected in laws are imposed upon everyone. If you allow porno and prostitution in a city, then that permission is imposed on those who might walk down the street at night as they see the prostitutes and maybe are propositioned. If we go to a magazine stand we see the porno magazines. Many of us find those things objectionable, and it is a hindrance to our own pursuit of happiness. It is objectionable to be in a restaurant and have to hear the gutter language which is so common today, and seems to be protected by free speech.
Now you will say, then don�t eat there, but I respond that I have the right to eat out free from vulgar language in the presence of my wife, and others including myself. Free speech has been grossly overdone. It is not without limits.

I think this is long enough for now.

Jerry

Thanks for reading closely enough to catch that.

If I had known that you would use it in that context, I would have written, "Liberty must be taken back." The natural state of man is liberty; if a man is not free, then it is only because another man is enslaving him. And in that case, the enslaver is the initiator of force; should the slave have to use force in throwing off his chains, it is reasonable to view it as retaliatory force.


I understand.

And yet, for good or ill, the language evolves. The word "prevent," for example, used to mean 'to come before,' rather than 'to stop from occurring.' I could argue, if I wished, that the former meaning was the purer one and the latter was simply an obscene corruption of it; I could, if I wished, always use the word in the former sense rather than the latter. People would not understand me, and I'd be constantly explaining myself.

Some folks, I suppose, see that as a worthy pursuit. I'm a libertarian: to each his own. But to me, it seems like a painful waste of time.

No, that's a bunch of guys with guns who have for some reason or other agreed to help you defend what you have.

Given your description so far, the entity can be either governmental or private. (Structure alone, as I'm sure you're aware, doesn't define government.)

Why, then, is it so important that the particular guys with guns who protect your particular stuff have to be hired by unaccountable government entities and paid with money involuntarily extorted from people?

The fundamental difference between government and the free market is that government has a monopoly on the legal use of initiated coercive force. The free market has to persuade you to do whatever it wants of you; the government merely sticks a gun in your face and forces you to do it--and in the process steals your money to pay for the gun in your face and the goon holding it.

You are in control of your relationship with the free market; but the government is in control of your relationship with it.

But protection is defense; and defense by definition is retaliatory force, not initiated force; therefore protection doesn't require government. And if government is not required, then why in the name of Common Sense would you want it?

Apparently you left out the square brackets []. It's okay, though: I can tell what you meant.


Verse 12??

That's not what I meant. The reason Paul is talking about the continued authority of government to the believers in Rome is that they had gotten the idea that God's law completely nullified man's law. In modern terms, if you were a Christian, and there wasn't anything in Christian doctrine about speed limits, then you could drive whatever speed you wanted and man had no authority over you. Paul was setting them straight: God's law is superior to man's law, he said, but that doesn't mean that man's law disappears or is of no purpose.

He was not saying that every government and government leader acts only under direct inspiration from God, and the word of the government carries divine authority. It ought to be clear anyway that that's not the case; but if it isn't, I'll be glad to cite you some examples.


A moral standard and a standard of conduct are not the same thing. You can impose a standard of conduct, whereupon people will immediately begin squirming to find loopholes and convenient interpretations and other ways to get around it and do what they want to do. The best you can do with a moral standard is teach it. People who understand will then of their own free will overlook inept phrasing and difficult concepts in an attempt to apply the spirit of the standard as best they can.

The instant you try imposing a moral standard, it becomes a standard of conduct instead and loses all its moral character.


And if one grows up in a world where flies surreptitiously lay eggs in meat, he might draw the conclusion that meat spontaneously generates maggots. That doesn't mean it's true; it only means that his view of the truth has been distorted by his circumstances.


I already answered this "the law is a great teacher" flummery back on the first page of this thread. Repetition is not rebuttal.


If you're a gun person, then you ought to know. Governments kill scads of people. In the 20th century alone, by some counts, governments murdered 156 million of their own people. That doesn't count soldiers killed in battle.


Is there any other way to achieve a single society-wide moral standard? You have to kill or drive out everyone who doesn't agree with your moral standard; if you leave any dissidents alive, then you have more than one moral standard.


Not of the prostitute, no. If the wife wishes to bring her husband up on charges for infecting her with AIDS, then I support her. The prostitute is only liable if she has falsely represented herself as being free from AIDS.

Are you one of those people who wants to see an entire practice banned because you can imagine that one day it might injure somebody? Where do you stand on the "Assault Weapons" Ban?


Not by the prostitute, no. If the wife would like to sue the husband for breach of contract, then I support her.


You have a very, very low opinion of morality. I'm surprised. You expect a moral person to be able to avoid prostitutes and pornography only so long as they're made legally unavailable? Your moral person can't be expected to have enough character to resist actual temptation rather than merely theoretical temptation?

On the other hand, it's not actually that surprising. If you call "morality" that which you impose involuntarily by law under penalty of fine, imprisonment, or death on somebody, then it stands to reason that the "moral persons" you produce by such a process would exhibit very low character according to your "moral" code.

Christians like you make life tough on me sometimes. I frequently find myself in the position of defending Christianity to folks who have been the object of one too many Christian jihads from people like you, and from time to time I get weary pointing out that "make disciples of all nations" says nothing about the point of a sword or the muzzle of a gun.


Now you're one of the "I have the right not to be offended" folks too? Are you sure you're not a liberal? How do you feel about the word "[bleep]?"

Barak, what you say would have some validity if the "evolution" of the word conservatism were natural, gradual, and imperceptible, as the evolution of the word prevent was. This is a different case, however. It is in the interest of the left to blur the meaning of words which are dangerous to their cause, i.e., which shed light on their fundamental errors. If conservatism refers to religious fanaticism, and the desire to expand federal police powers at the expense of personal liberty, then the left feels far less threatened by the prospect of a mad rush of liberty-loving Americans wishing to identify themselves with such, or exploring that movement's tenets. There is a method to their madness, you see. By this method, they discredit real conservatives, making it seem somehow unseemly to be one. They hijack the language, and thereby limit the availability of ideas able to oppose them. If they identified conservatism as what it actually is, too many people would then be exposed to the compelling arguments of conservatism in opposition to liberalism, and that would not be good for their cause. The alteration of the meaning of conservatism was engineered as a means of neutralizing effective opposition. This was not just a case of a natural change in usage over time, as many English words have undergone since the days of Chaucer.

I can accept that. However, I submit to you sir that you sir are a power monger. Your stated desire is unfettered liberty. In order to to effectively enjoy unfettered liberty you must have the power to persue your liberty without interference. Therefore you must have power to maintain liberty. Ergo, you sir are a power monger.



Not necessarily true. The best defense is a good offense. Trite but true. The most effective, and the least popular, defense is the preemptive strike. It is superior to all others since all the distruction of war takes place on someone else's property, it comes as a surprise to the strikee who, at least in theory won't be prepared for it, it is successful more often than not, and when its over you don't have to go about the business of rebuilding. You can simply bury your dead, who would have died on your dirt anyway had you waited for the agressor to come to you, and go on with your business. But strategy and tactics is another subject for another day.

Sort of true. We may run into trouble over the phrase "unfettered liberty." I'm not completely sure what you mean by it, but it sounds like you mean "the capability to do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, for whatever reason you wish." That's not what a libertarian means by liberty. In the libertarian view, the liberty of one individual is always "fettered" by the liberty of the individuals around him. I can only justly exercise my own liberty as long as it does not decrease the liberty of my neighbors. But, of course, as you point out, I must have the power to ensure that my neighbors only exercise their liberty so as not to decrease mine. That's what the NAP is all about.


This is arguable; but in any case it is not available as an option to the just libertarian.

In real life, though, its unavailability turns out not to be much of a handicap. The NAP places a libertarian under no specific obligation to match force to force; theoretically, mere trespassing could justly be met with a lethal response if there were reason to believe the trespasser had lethal intent. A libertarian would want to be pretty sure that a court would vindicate such action, though, before he took it, because he might well find himself before one in order to forestall the family and friends and townspeople of the late trespasser from applying what they saw as their own retaliatory force.

Barak, do you intend to reply to my last post, or don't you think I've made a valid point?



In any event, both the first and second definitions in my edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language are consistant with my expressed understanding of the authentic meaning of the word conservatism. The first definition they provide relates simply to that disposition which prefers to maintain the traditional order, and this is perfectly consistant with what I have said here, if not all-encompassing. The second definition goes further, however, in support of my expressed understanding on the matter: Reaction, being the natural human response to the occurance of something which one opposes (in this case, "sudden change in the established order," and "government activism"), is also implied here. Reaction means to take action designed to restore the status quo once deviated from by radicals. There is support, also, for this in the aforementioned dictionary, as one of the definitions of the word reaction is "opposition to liberalism."



So, it seems that the authentic meaning of the word conservatism has not changed at all, despite the heroic efforts on the part of the popular media; that is assuming you accept the authority of the American Heritage Dictionary to provide us with the authentic meaning of American-English words.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the results of Frank Buchman's Moral Re-Armament movement.

What you are advocating is that the government attempt to alleviate the degree of moral turpitude which, as you see things, permeates society today. In essence, you would have the government declare war on immorality. What makes you think that the government would be any more successful in that than it has has been with the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty? Government doesn't change society, society changes government.

We can discuss this "till the cows come home" and will not agree.
The views of the liberterarians here reflect the reasons that that view is not valid, and will not become the platform for anyone who can get elected.

Government has a responsibility to enact moral laws, and this nation has in general acknowledged it throughout most of its history. No, not everyone will obey, but that does not negate government's responsibility and authority.

Barak, sorry that you did not get the chapter 12 connection with 13.

The closest party to one with the moral base of our historical positions is the Republican party. I am not wedded to any party, but for not it is the RP for me. I will continue to attempt to have what I believe to be the proper moral standards enacted into law where possible.
Each of you has the same right. So far, at the present time, it appears that the liberals have had the edge.

I hope President Bush can get re-elected, cause a landslide in the Congress, and get federal judges and SC justices in office who will interpret the Constitution, and not make law as they have for many years.

Jerry

The laws regarding victimless immorality are best suited to local government, because then they can reflect local values. When you have the federal government making these kinds of laws and court rulings (either way), you will have all kinds of conflicts with various local values, and most people will be unpleased with government for one reason or other. Some localities will think the laws prudish, while other will think them tyrannical and theocratic, while still others will think that they do not go nearly far enough. This is why the federal government was not given authority to legislate or make court rulings regarding local laws such as these (e.g., abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, drug usage). These things are best dealt with at the local levels of government. This way, if any group finds them intolerable, they can move to a locality with less or more morally restrictive laws.



P.S. I don't include abortion in the category of victimless immorality.

Regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning state laws criminalizing homosexual acts, I find it to be in error. The Constitution does not place this matter in the hands of the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a state matter. However, in the Fourth Amendment we do find that the people's right to be secure in their persons and houses against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. It doesn't merely state that the Federal Government shall not violate this right, but plainly that it shall not be violated, i.e., by anyone. The definition of unreasonable is also given: that is to say, it is unreasonable unless there is probable cause. This is a legal term of art, which refers to the situation where it is more likely than not, based on the evidence as judged by reasonable men, that a crime has been committed. Not only that; it is deemed unreasonable unless there is a warrant issued by a judge which states exactly what and who is to be searched and/or seized.



This being the case, we would not likely ever see a situation where the police are routinely observing people's bedrooms hoping to discover some sort of perverted activity, as the liberals would like us to imagine. So long as the searches are reasonable, as defined above, I see no great threat to liberty here. The threat is only to homosexual rights, and of those there are none. If a state would like to protect that activity, of course, it should be allowed to do so. On the contrary, however, if a state would like to outlaw it, it has that right too, as homosexual activity has been considered a grave vice by every culture in human history going back to the Old Testament, and local governments have always enjoyed the right to criminalize grave vice.



If a state chooses to outlaw such activity, then search warrants should be issued upon sworn affidavits of probable cause. The reality, however, is that most people are so horrified by the prospect of police searching for this kind of activity (even with probable cause) that they would never tolerate any police department carrying out this kind of search. Whoever was responsible would soon lose his job. In fact, the only way the Bowers v Hardwick case, and the more recent one, ever became criminal issues is by accidental discovery. That is to say, there was a police search underway for something entirely unrelated (for which there was a valid warrant), and seeing the illegal activity taking place in the building, the police arrested the individuals involved.



In any case, this is not a federal issue, and should never have even come to the Supreme Court of the United States. All such issues should be removed by Congress from the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, since they seem unable to restrain themselves from usurping state prerogatives. It would only require a simple majority vote in both houses. The president's signiture is not even required, as Federal Court appellate jurisdiction is placed by the Constitution entirely at the discretion of Congress.

So in other words it isn't results that matter but the fact that an effort was made to do something about the situation. Sounds pretty "feel good" to me. Modern liberalism at its finest.

Geez, you guys. I've never seen such nitpickery sustained for so long. Why don't you all just deem yourselves libertarian conservatives and call it good?

Dave, you are very close to the truth there. Authentic American conservatism is part libertarian, just not enough libertarian for the pure libertarians. One of the things conservatives wish to conserve, in other words, is personal liberty. One liberty interest, however, that we value and libertarians do not, is local self-government, without big brother telling us what kinds of laws we can and can't have. You could call this an interest in preserving/restoring "states rights." Libertarians do not want this, because they cannot tolerate any state having laws that do not accord with their notion of individual liberty. They give no place to local values being represented in local laws.

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson

Because I'm not nearly libertarian enough for Barak and probably not enough of a conservative for Hawkeye. Then there's Jerry who seems to be so far on the totalitarian left that I could never even acknowledge that his arguments have merit let alone agree with them.

As far as the nitpickery thing goes, English is a very rich and precise language which allows its user to express exactly the meaning that he/she is trying to convey to the listener. Anything less than the exact meaning is useless since it will not accurately portray your meaning and the listener/reader won't know what your meaning is. An example of this is the discussion Hawkeye and I had about property earlier. I'm still not sure that we agree on that one. While he seemed to understand what I was saying, the point that he was trying to make was such a subtle shade of opinion that while I believe we agree in general I'm not certain that I fully understood what he wrote and whether or not we agree in detail.

If what you said didn't express precisely what you meant then what you said wasn't what you wanted to say or was a diliberate attempt to hide your true meaning. Inaccuracy in word and meaning is one of the causes for the mess we're in now concerning our government.

Nit, nit, nit, pick, pick, pick. Nyah nyah nyah.
Hawk, I'll have to say I'm on the Barak side of you regarding local government...I draw the line at local restrictions on civil liberties. The supremacy clause has its uses if it is aimed at discriminatory allocations of freedom.
That's not saying it's a freedom free for all out there. It all boils down to what John Adams said about self government...that could only happen if citizens were moral, capable of self-government at the individual level. Otherwise the Constitution would not be successful. And we're damn near at the breaking point, aren't we?
And Skid, I understand your quibbling the fine points...if I lived in the Evergreen People's Republic with all those cops and their brown stealth cop cars and idiot speed limits and zoning up the wazoo and NIMBY's up every side street, and Lockean "government" -- AND the crazy Bullitt sisters -- I'd want to know exactly what every single good-sounding bite REALLY means.
Libertarianism could work if the Adams schema was in place in everyone's mind, the thought that one might have to account for one's acts before the Big Boss some time in the future. Or at least face oneself at the end of a life hopefully well-lived.
But there are scumbags out there who can only be reached through institutions larger than the individual. Period.
By the way, I had a nice shoot yesterday evening even with the fire smoke making the sight picture dirty.

I am not home, but visiting a friend in Florida, so don't have my copy of the Constitution with me, but from memory I know that you misunderstand the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause merely establishes that when the federal government enacts federal legislation which it is authorized by the Constitution to enact, but which conflicts with state laws, then the federal law is supreme as between them. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. What I said was that the federal government too often leglislates in areas it has no constitutional authority to legislate in, and that the US Supreme Court rules on state laws that they have no constitutional authorization to rule on. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on the federal legislature and executive, not on the states. Remember, the Federal government's powers are few and defined. This is not the case with the states. There is a strong constitutional presumption that state laws are valid, and they can only be invaldated if they conflict with legitimate federal laws, the scope of which (i.e., fed laws) is very narrow and would rarely have anything to do with state type legislation.

I think you've cogently explained your position. Cogently explaining your position, of course, is a skill that is definitely and frequently required if you intend to employ commonly-used words outside their common usage.

There may be words that I feel strongly enough about that I'm willing to explain what I mean by them every time I use them. "Conservative" is not one of them for me; but if it is for you, then I say vive la difference!

As to the rest of it, I think we're arguing past each other. You care about teleology and I care about pragmatism, but not vice versa (on this issue, anyway). Given that, I'm not sure either of us is going to get much purchase on the other.

Please don't misrepresent us like this. If you wish to be ruled by a state, libertarians want to make sure you have the liberty to make that choice, among many others. We wouldn't call your choice libertarian, but then one of the distinguishing characteristics of libertarians is that the realization of their ideal doesn't require everyone to agree with them--or act as though they did.

We don't believe that we have any right to decide what sort of society you live in; on the other hand, we don't believe you have any right to decide that for us, either. Therefore, we will continue working against the people who wish to rule us, because we do not wish to be ruled. Once we have successfully put those people out of a job, though, we're going to need to do something with them; if you and your fellow "authentic American conservatives" do wish to be ruled, then we can be of use to one another.

Libertarians can't tolerate states or laws, period. At least not in relation to them and their view of personal liberty. They would be much happier with e unum pluribus than e pluribus unum.

Two of the main problems one encounters when trying to deal rationally with libertarians are their enormous egos and their naivete in refusing to acknowledge that their personal liberty would never survive in the real world unless it was compromised to some degree to enable it to be protected by a larger entity than themselves. They think simple belief in and recognition of liberty is enough to sustain it and they seem to think all the choices are their's. Their ego won't allow them to realize that someone else's choice might just compromise their liberty completely. They just don't seem to understand that the world doesn't revolve around them, or anyone else either for that matter. In some respects they're similar to the left in that they want liberty and choice for themselves but have absolutely no respect for the liberty and choices of anyone else since those choices and version of liberity are inherently inferior and certainly should not be binding on a libertarian. They don't see a need for them to support a state or laws since they only see the danger of an authority higher than themselves and none of the benefits that a state can provide. Their answer to a state is that anything a state can do an individual can do better and more efficently while placing no demand on anyone else.

Barak, you are a smart guy, which is why I am surprised that you confuse "being ruled" with local self-government within the framework of a constitutional and representative republic under the rule of law.



Point number two: As a conservative, I would be in favor of conservative state and local government as well. What that means is I would favor little in the way of legislation other that that which rolls back previous leftist legislation, which roll-back I would very much favor. As a conservative I disfavor all collectivist schemes (and other activist and social engineering type legislation), for example, and would dismantle them. The list goes on.



It is foolish to assume that conservatives are only conservative at the federal level. Power, even at the local level, must still be internally checked and balanced, and authentic basic rights still need to be guaranteed, but the means of doing so are not found in the federal government. When it comes to states exercising their time-honored prerogative to outlaw grave vice, a conservative is in favor of not changing that situation by way of U.S. Supreme Court fiat, as the local tradition is deeply rooted in our Judeo-Christian/western culture, and to alter it by force from above will ultimately endanger our liberty, not enhance it



A conservative government at the federal level would not interfere with the natural diversity of laws traditionally encouraged in our nation by our constitution. This was intended, and for good reason. Some states are more likely to outlaw vice than others, and some states do little or nothing in this regard, and this is fine in the eyes of a conservative. We believe that this will result in an equalibrium, where the vast majority will always be able to find the kind of government they prefer at the local level, even if they do not currently hold the majority view in their community. The option of moving, within a system of diverse laws and government, in other words, is an additional check on abusive government, which would not exist if leftists had their way at the federal level.

I used the term "being ruled" to denote a system with a state that arrogates to itself the power to apply initiated force.

If you want a government (or a state, in Nock's terminology--thanks for that, by the way) to initiate force against you, then you're asking to be ruled. If you want a government to initiate force on your behalf against someone else, as you direct, then you're asking to rule another.

If you're not after either of those things, then you're a libertarian. (Surprise!)

Libertarians have laws, or at least we have things that act like laws; we simply don't apply them to anyone who hasn't agreed to submit to them. You might say that we operate a competitive free market in laws. Laws that are reasonable, fair, and just will become very powerful; laws that are stupid will simply fade into obscurity. If a need for a law makes itself felt, people will try to invent it; the version that turns out to be superior will attract the majority of adherents. In different regions, or different neighborhoods, or different interest groups--including your "authentic American conservatives"--completely different sets of laws might evolve.

Ah--but what about the person who chooses to submit to no law at all? Won't that person singlehandedly bring Libertopia crashing down?

Well, no. It may be so long since any of us has seen a good law that we have forgotten this, but laws were originally intended to be win-win propositions. You offer a law your submission, and in return it offers you protection. You submit to a law prohibiting murder, and in return you are in some degree protected from being murdered.

If you submit to no law, then you are protected by no law: you are described by the technical term "outlaw." No home-defense or law-enforcement company will contract to protect the life, liberty, or property of an outlaw; therefore there would be no penalty for killing him and stealing all his belongings, other than that which he himself could provide.

On the other hand, if you felt most comfortable choked by a stifling, suffocating blanket of laws that regulated your every move, and you could afford to pay for such laws to be interpreted and enforced, there'd be nothing to prevent you from living in southern California or New York City or Chicago; you could have people run up on charges for looking at you wrong or chopping oregano improperly (provided you could first persuade them to sign up for such laws).

And if you didn't like either extreme, you could choose any point on the spectrum between them that seemed good to you for yourself--although owing to efficiencies of scale, there'd probably be a small number of standard arrangements on which you could get particularly good deals.

The only thing you wouldn't be able to do in Libertopia is vote somebody else into subjugation to the laws of your choice without his consent. If that capability is important to you, then...well, good luck and may the best man win.

Barak, that's a fine plan, but unfortunately it has no basis in human history, that is to say, it is entirely severed from it. I cannot imagine a course of history where such an arrangement could develop naturally (nor maintain itself), and I am not a believer in man-made utopias. Having never existed, nor anything like it, I tend to think it a highly unlikely proposition. My mind remains open, however.

What you say of libertarianism is true. (Actually, what I've been describing is sort of toward the capitalist-anarchism side of libertarianism, which somewhat surprises me, since I thought I was a minarchist.)

It was also true, at one time, of automobiles, airplanes, and American-style democratic republicanism.

Develop naturally? Well, I suppose it depends on how you mean that. Perhaps historians would say that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution "developed naturally," as a reaction to the political environment from which they sprang; but there was a lot of sweat, risk, and blood required from those involved. Liberty has always required more work than slavery, which is a mind-bending concept when you think about it. But the free-market aspects of libertarianism mean that most of the work can be motivated by narrow-minded self-interest (of which there always seems to be plenty available) rather than selfless altruism, which is in much shorter supply.

All it really needs to get going, I think, is something like the Free State Project. (Have you read about it?) If we're right about the prosperity of real liberty, then it should require only a decent foothold to take hold and spread like kudzu (through capitalist competition, not violent conquest).

As to the maintenance issue, I think you have a point and I'd appreciate hearing you elaborate on it. The Constitution has turned out not to be a particularly effective guardian of liberty. I think more effective has been our national tradition of liberty, which has been dwindling to almost nothing as the generations march on. How does a people keep a tradition of liberty alive? Is there a better way to preserve liberty? What do you think?

Well, first of all, I think liberty is sort of a relative thing. It must be balanced against the legitimate need for a government which possesses some degree of coercive power. Its coercive power, so long as it operates under the rule of law, however, need not substantially interfere with liberty. Read Heyak's The Road to Serfdom for more details.



As for maintaining a tradition of liberty, we had it until very recently in this nation. One historical event that did great violence to it (but didn't nearly destroy it) was the Civil War, which largely set the stage for a massive increase in federal power at the expense of state autonomy, which autonomy was an important force for maintaining individual liberty. State power, you see, was an important check on federal consolidation of power, and consolidated federal power has always been the major threat to liberty.



After the Civil War, it seems, the federal government took its victory as one over states rights, and we really seem to have become a different system since then even if, at least in print, we retained a similar constitutional structure. The Civil War amendments, in a sense, turned our system on its head, making the federal government supreme in many respects; not by their words (necessarily), but rather (mainly) through gradual judicial interpretation, uncheckable any longer by the states, which no longer had direct representation in the central government (firstly due to half the states losing representation due to reconstruction and, secondly and more finally, by the 17th Amendment in 1913). The Constitution gradually, to a large extent, came to "mean" the opposite of what it said, via activist judicial interpretation, which was no longer checked by the states.



This point represents the start of the federal war on the American system established by the Founding Fathers. The federal government took ground little by little, after subjugating the Southern states, which previously had the strongest tradition (among the several states) of state autonomy. However, the tradition of personal liberty generally survived in the people, who had not yet forgotten their heritage stemming from the War For Independance.



Then came a succession of leftist presidents, starting with Wilson who codified into law the notion that an individual's income was somehow the business of the federal government. The Great Depression was seen as an excuse by leftist president FDR to institute the New Deal (which would not have been possible were it not for the work of Wilson). The remaining checks against this usurpation at first seemed to work (if only due to the tradition of limited government surviving in the minds of the members of the Supreme Court), but gradually Supreme Court justices retired, and others just decided to yield to the president's will, and the New Deal became law. This was followed by the Great Society of LBJ, and the rest is, as they say, history.



Few any longer even remember an America where the federal government did not pretty much run the whole show, but some do (Read, e.g., When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country by G. Gordon Liddy), and others can read about it. Our failure was, I think, a lack of perception that we were even in a war. The two major combatants were, at one time, the autonomous states (within their proper spheres of power) and the central government. The Civil War was the "hot" manifestation of this war, and the states lost. Liberty has been in a slow fighting retreat ever since. So, gradually, under everyone's radar, the Supreme Court was transformed into a check on the power of the states, instead of a check on the power of Congress and the President, as it had been designed to be. The system for preserving liberty became broken, because in order for a check to work, it has to work both ways. For example, at the federal level, the Supreme Court could check the Congress, but the Congress could also check the Supreme Court. Not so as between the Supreme Court and the States, or between Congress and the States, or between the Executive and the States. It became a one way road.



This one-way-road relationship especially became the case when Senators, in 1913, came to be popularly elected instead of being chosen by state legislatures to protect state interests in the federal government. So Senators, who were designed to be checks for the states against federal usurpation, became direct representatives of the people (subject to populist demagoguery), just like Congressional Representatives (see Article I, Section 3 and the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). No longer did enough people think it necessary for states to have any direct representation in the federal government, and we are paying the price today. The system of checks and balances which was designed to keep the power of the central government limited, and to preserve general liberty, gradually broke down. The Civil War paved the way. Populist demagoguery and judicial activism did the rest. States, as states, no longer had any direct influence on the process.



How one prevents that process from happening is beyond me (How does one, looking backwards, prevent any course of historical events?), but one thing's for certain: had we largely stuck to the program established in 1789 (with, maybe, a couple of tweaks), we'd still be a free country today. Perhaps we should never have established an amendment process for the Constitution. It's a thought anyway.



One addition to the Bill of Rights should also have been the right of state secession. This would have served two purposes: firstly, it would have preserved the union (no legislation would pass which would disenfranchise a state or group of states, for fear of secession), and secondly, the Civil War would never have happened. Our system would therefore largely remain the one we were given in 1789. Slavery would almost certainly have been outlawed in the several states by the turn of the 19th Century, as, even in the pre-civil-war South, there was a growing sense that its days were numbered. There were more active white abolitionists in the South than in the North, at that time.

This is probably the nut of our disagreement, right here. I'm curious to find out why you believe that a coercive government is necessary; but before you tell me that, there's something else I'd like to know. Whatever it is that you hope to achieve with a coercive government...if it could be demonstrated to your satisfaction that the same result (or a better one!) could be achieved without government coercion, would you be willing to get rid of the government, or would you still want it around as a backup in case you unexpectedly needed some heads busted?


The root problem seems, at least to me, that maintaining one's liberty is an expensive process. For those to whom liberty is vitally important--namely, those who have at great personal cost seized it for themselves--the price of eternal vigilance is a very small one to pay. However, for the great grandchildren of those folks, who take their liberty for granted, and whose time is largely occupied exploiting the blessings of that liberty, it's much easier to simply hire somebody else to take care of guarding liberty so as to concentrate on more interesting, profitable, or entertaining things. That, as I'm sure we agree, is where it starts.

How do we keep that from happening? Obviously, a piece of paper isn't the way to go: it's been tried.

Here's an interesting idea. Judaism has been kept alive and reasonably unified (much more unified than either Christianity or American politics) for several thousand years, by traditionally relegating its preservation to a mostly-hereditary Orthodox sect whose job it is to keep diluting and dissipating influences from corrupting the core doctrine. Reform and Conservative Jews disagree, in large part, with Orthodox theology and practice, but they're still glad the Orthodox are there, doing their thing, keeping Judaism pure for future generations.

I wonder if some sort of parallel practice would work better than the Constitution has when it comes to the preservation of liberty. Certainly there are folks around who wouldn't mind spending their lives being the "high priests of liberty," as long as they could make a moderately decent living at it.

Whatever the plan, of course, it can't be imposed from above. It can be suggested, of course, but if it's going to work it's going to have to be initiated and supported from underneath.

It is important to keep in mind that the only way humans have ever been able to rise above the state of nature (where there is no law) is under what we term government. Anyone who is not within that covenant remains in the state of nature. Now, in the state of nature, you are not protected by any law, and since you deny yourself the protection of the law, you cannot complain when someone comes to take your property. You are free to do your best to use violence in its defense, but so is the other free to use violence in its taking. In order to put a stop to this state of nature, we institute governments, which establish and enforce laws. Government would be of little use if it could not use force, or its threat (i.e., coercion), to establish or preserve order. Without governmental capacity to exercise coercive power, we are in the state of nature. So long as it is not used arbitrarily, however, it is not tyranny.

You neglect to mention here, unless you view it as errata, that FDR had to pack the Supremes in order to get much of his "New Deal" legislation to pass constitutional muster. After portions of his "New Deal" were found to be unconstitutional by the 7 member Supreme Court FDR, with the acquiescence of the Senate, increased the size of the court to 9 and appointed 2 not quite impartitial justices which ensured him a 5-4 majority vs a 3-4 minority in future challenges.

Had the Senate refused to go along with increasing the size of the court or simply refused to confirm the additional 2 justices most of FDR's ambitions wouldn't have been realized and although we would still be struggling today we would be in considerably better shape. Prior to FDR the federal government was still relitively small. FDR ushered in the modern era of "big government" and it's propensity for injecting itself in areas it does not belong.

We agree that force is sometimes necessary. But why must you have the force applied by a government instead of by a private entity? A coercive government is only required for offensive force, not defensive force.

Imagine a libertarian home and life insurance company. The policy you'd sign would constrain you in certain ways that would probably amount to you agreeing not to willfully initiate force against anyone. The insurance company would agree to provide sufficient force to prevent your property from being stolen, or your person or family attacked--in the event, of course, that you actually abode by the policy you signed. If your property was stolen anyway, the insurance company would be responsible for replacing it; if you or a family member was killed or injured, the insurance company would be liable for health care and/or income replacement, plus whatever you could get in a civil suit, if you could convince the right people that the company was negligent.

The company would have men with guns to protect its customers; it would have an investigative division to track down criminals and recover from them as much of its liability as possible; it would have a legal division to make sure its activities wouldn't get lawsuits levied against it. Some or all of these services might be outsourced from still other companies. And the premium you paid for the service would be A) less than you pay now for insurance and police protection, because there'd be less redundancy, and B) even less than that, because there'd be several companies competing to find the fastest, best, and cheapest way to earn your dollar. (Earn your dollar. Doesn't that feel refreshing, as over against politicians competing to find the fastest, best, and cheapest way to confiscate your dollar?)

There's not a single dime's worth of government in the whole picture, no taxes, and no initiated force. Everybody concerned is constrained only by free-will agreements, and pays only what he has (personally!) agreed to pay. Except for the criminals who do initiate force, of course. Those who are not either killed outright or deemed not worth pursuing would be hunted down and arrested (even today, it's legal for private citizens to arrest criminals) and processed through a privately-operated libertarian penal system. (I can describe that too, if you want, but it's long enough that I don't want to do it now.)



The problem is that since governments have the ability to legally initiate force, they are by their very natures arbitrary. Simple human nature means that power corrupts--and the power to legally initiate force is, qualitatively, just about all the power there is. You can try to keep government so small that even if it's corrupt it can't do too much damage; and that can work until the government takes for itself the power to confiscate people's money. Once that happens, as we've seen, pretty much all hope is lost.

So...if you can accomplish governmental functions in the private sector, and if you can do the job better, faster, and cheaper than government can, then why do you need government again?

Barak, here's the problem with your vision of a libertarian utopia. Since there is no higher authority than the insurance companies, there is no one preventing the more powerful insurance companies from using force to take over the less powerful. Once this is done, they can dictate their terms to you, the customer, establishing a nice little tyranny for themselves. You can't escape the need for government. Since it's necessary, might as well make it limited and divided, checked and balanced, subordinate to the rule of law and answerable to the people.

Barak, read www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/08-13-2001/vo17no17_neoconservatism.htm

I thought you were conservative! The old "evil big corporations" line is what you usually hear from liberals--who will then also go on to demand that the government be used to keep said corporations in check.

The problem, of course, is that it is government that gives evil big corporations their objectionable power. The money at the command of large corporations allows them the political influence to commit unfair business practices, such as getting an opponent's property rezoned or instituting licensing fees that are prohibitively expensive for the little guy. More government simply means more powerful evil big corporations, as soon as their lobbyists figure out how to turn the new laws in their favor.

Without government, the large company's money doesn't give it any political power over the small company. It can still do things like use loss leaders to run the small company out of business, but of course that assumes that the small company's product is no better than the large company's product...and if that's the way things are, it's difficult to make a case for why the small company should succeed.

Yes, it's possible that a large company might develop a monopoly of some kind; but in my experience, such companies quickly get fat and slow and lazy and begin to produce an inferior product, and a small, fast-moving, innovative company comes up behind them when they're not looking and eats their lunch for them. I've personally been laid off by two different large companies, in two different industries, that found themselves in just such a situation. One of them was CompuServe--eaten by America Online and Worldcom.


But how do you propose to do that? Are you smarter than the Framers? They had some pretty innovative ideas, but even they didn't work--not long-term. Do you think that if you could just start over again, using only the right kind of people, and making them promise to avoid the particular historical pitfalls you know about, you could make it work this time? I hope not: that sounds a lot like jmartin.

As a conservative, I believe that whatever you call the particular power interest, if it is unchecked, it will become abusive. You choose to call the power interest a "corporation," but if there was no government, your "corporation" would very quickly come to resemble a tyrannical form of the state. Nature abhors a vacuum. There will always be a governing authority. If you do nothing, it will be a purely parasitical governing authority. If you establish it properly, it will be less parasitical, and more a tool for sustaining ordered liberty.



As for your point about monopolies in general, I agree with Milton Freidman. If government only prevents the use of force, without giving advantage to any corporation, then it is true that monopalies will not be long lived, and for the reasons you've stated. This is quite apart from your position that there need not be a governing authority, answerable to the people, to ensure that corporations do not use force to eliminate their competition.

I didn't have time to read it from beginning to end, but I scanned it.

I wish you good fortune in your struggle, but you have to understand that the argument you're having with the neocons appears to me much as an argument between a beef fan and a pork fan would appear to a vegetarian.

Are you in favor of taxes? Taxes are statist. Just that much is enough to make it tough for you to "get me on your side," so to speak.

Are you in favor of a flat or progressive income tax? If so, then while you might not call yourself a socialist, you're socialist enough that your quibbles over who is more socialist, while mildly amusing from an academic point of view, have no intellectual or emotional traction with me.

I'm not trying to insult you or dismiss you, you understand. I find debating you stimulating and educational; I'm hardly xenophobic. But in-house arguments between conservatives pretty much fly over my head. A Jew might be interested in debating with a Christian over whether Jesus was the prophesied Jewish Messiah; but faced with a Catholic and a Protestant arguing over the doctrine of Transsubstantiation, he'd be reduced to simply shaking his head bemusedly.

Barak, you are not only smart, but funny. Unfortunately, here, you are not making any sense (even if you remain funny). Naturally, conservatives are opposed to taxes on an individual's or a family's private income and/or private property. For the federal government to operate within the original constitution, it would require very little in the way of funds, anyway. All it would need could be collected via taxes on foreign trade, that is to say, on foreign corporations who would like the privilege of trading in the United States. Call it a market access fee if you prefer. States can sustain themselves however they like (so long as they are answerable to their citizens), but naturally, a conservative would favor, in his state, that said government fund itself by taxing trade, not an individual's or a family's private property or income. A conservative state government would be so small anyway that a 1% sales tax would easily cover its expenses.



I don't mean to insult you either, but you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word socialism. Socialism is the use of government as a tool for wealth redistributioin, the goal being a leveling of society so that no one lives substantially better than anyone else. No conservative has ever advocated that (which is its opposite), so I'm afraid you're all wet there.



P.S. I cannot blame you for not actually reading the article. It would be difficult to sustain your view of the meaning of the word conservatism if you did, and it is never pleasant to be shown that one's basic presumptions were in error.

You're not addressing the issue. Obviously people find it most beneficial and efficient to arrange themselves within some sort of hierarchical structure under some form of governming authority. Many species of animals do the same thing.

But you still haven't answered my question from way back: what's magical about a coercive governing authority that makes it better than a consensual governing authority?


There's a nomenclature issue here. Without government, there can be no such thing as a corporation--at least, not as we know it today.

When you say force, do you mean fraudulent business practices, or do you mean physical force, such as killing or maiming key folks in the competing company? How would that be different from any other violent act? Why would it be more likely to succeed?

Also, keep in mind that your government also has an ugly history of killing and maiming opponents in order to eliminate competition and cover up embarrassments. Maybe libertarianism would effectively eliminate such activity, and maybe it wouldn't; but all it has to do to win over the present situation is reduce it. Also keep in mind that any company, including a large one, has to be able to persuade people to give it the money it runs on. Developing a reputation for strong-arm tactics and dishonest dealings may not bother a government, but it's no good for a company's market position.

Wow, I thought I addressed this. What you refer to as a consensual governing authority is no authority at all. It is the state of nature. How can we operate in a society where adherence to laws is strictly voluntary (i.e., the opposite of coerced)?

I apologize, then. I had no idea you were opposed to income tax. Bravo.

We still disagree, I expect, on whether coercive taxes are ever just; but not all statism has to be socialism.


Isn't that exactly what a flat or progressive income tax is? It's pretty much an incarnation of the "From each according to his ability" half of the Marxist ideology. A tax that confiscated the same amount of money from everyone, regardless of his income...that would still be statist, but it wouldn't be socialist.


Pretty shrewd of you; but I'll decline the bait, I think. Thanks anyway. Whether you're a "neoconservative" or an "authentic American conservative" or any other kind of statist doesn't affect my desire to convert you to libertarianism, if possible, or at least give you the opportunity to examine the issues involved in an unbiased manner, if not.

And I thought I addressed this.

Consensual government is not the state of nature; it's what I described above with the libertarian home and life insurance company. And it's not adherence to the laws that's strictly voluntary: it's choice of the laws.

If you want to take the responsibility of defending your own life, liberty and property completely on yourself, then all you have to do is refrain from initiating force or fraud against anyone, and you're fine. But if you want to convince someone else to help you, then you're going to need to sign some sort of a contract with him in which you agree to live within a few (or a lot, depending on your taste) more constraints. You get to decide whether or not to sign the contract, and which contract you wish to sign; but once you've signed, adherence to the contract is mandatory, not voluntary. If you break the contract, you initiate fraud, which according to the NAP is the same as initiating force. Treating a heavily-armed insurance company like that would definitely be a career-limiting maneuver. If you were smart, you'd want a contract that specified agreed-upon penalties short of death for various anticipated possible transgressions. On the other hand, if you were an insurance company trying to attract business, you'd want a reputation of dealing fairly in good faith with people who made honest mistakes.

The same, of course, applies to all other walks of life as well, not just property defense. Contract negotiations would be a highly developed art. Technology would be very useful in keeping track of all the relevant contracts and maintaining privacy and security.

Let me see if I have this straight. According to you, any advocacy of the need for government amounts to "statism". Is that correct? According to my dictionary, however, the word statism means the practice or doctrine of giving a central government control over economic planning and policy, so you could not mean that, as this is the very opposite of conservatism, which is about preserving and/or restoring free-market capitalism. Last I checked, central economic planning and free market capitalism were precisely opposite to oneanother. Are you sure you haven't confused your terminology?



Perhaps, however, you are alluding to Mr Nock's definition of the state, which is a governing authority that is parasitical in relation to society, i.e., always (by its nature) seeking to expand at society's expense. But he distinguishes this from government, does he not? Government is that system which restrains the power of the state and maximizes the power of society. It does this by strictly limiting the scope and degree of the governing authority's power in relation to society to that only which society is unable to do without a governing authority. Government is a necessary instrument of justice, while the state is a perversion of government. The state, in Nock's terminology, exists when governmental power is used to benefit some (i.e., those with political connections) while disadvantaging others (i.e., the rest of society).



Perhaps, however, you have some other meaning in mind. At any rate, I am not aware of any definition of "statism" which is in any way compatible with conservatism.

Conservatives are opposed to any form of collectivism. Funding necessary government is not collectivism, however. Government should be funded, ideally, by charging a fee for the benefits government provides. That is to say, we may only conduct business profitably because government enforces laws which create an environment in which the conduct of business is practical and sustainable. For this they charge a fee called a sales tax (and/or a tax on import). The money from this fee goes to supporting necessary government, without which said business would be impractical and unsustainable.

Perhaps the clearest dichotomy we can make is between coercive government and consensual government. We both seem to understand what both of those terms mean. Sorry to be confusing.

You say you oppose collectivism,

and then proceed to endorse it! You're saying that the government is entitled to the fruits of its collective extortion because it provides collective benefits, aren't you?

But I don't think you're really opposed to all forms of collectivism. I know I'm not. For example, my family is much closer to operating under economic collectivism than economic capitalism--internally, I mean. We all have our individual responsibilities, and when we fulfill them, everyone is fed, clothed, and sheltered. There is very little capitalist activity inside the family.

There are circumstances under which collectives work much better than capitalist competition. But they're all small--very small. Small enough that each member can know all the other members and hold them individually accountable.


It might be. Funding techniques differ, and so do people's opinions of what constitutes "necessary government."


And if you decide you don't need or want those services? Is it just for the government to assess you for them anyway? How about if you use more government services than the next guy: should you be charged more or less than he is?


Can you explain why you believe this? Why do you need a coercive government to help you conduct business?

Please look up a definition of collectivism. Then we will talk.







I believe we were speaking of governments, not families, in this context.







Yes, that's why we have representative government, i.e., so we can come to an approximation of a consensus on the matter. The more decentralized the government structure, the more likely any individual will live under a local government that shares his view of what "necessary government" is. The Constitution sets the limits for the federal government.







Well, if you are entirely self-sufficient, I suppose you will have no need to ever pay sales tax. If, however, you choose to benefit from the trade environment, then you pay as you go.







I believe we've covered this one ad nauseam already.

Why settle for the approximation of a consensus when you can work for the real thing? --especially since, judging from the arguments you make, from your viewpoint the current approximation must be really execrable.


You're telling me that if it weren't for the government I wouldn't be able to trade with my neighbor? How does that work? I barter with my friends and neighbors all the time, I don't pay sales tax, and the government has absolutely nothing to do with any of it.


...while I don't believe we've covered it at all. You've asserted that a coercive government is necessary. I have explained that it's not, using the first scenario that occurred to me, that of the insurance company. (Of course, it's entirely possible that in real life someone would come up with an even better solution and make scads of money.) You've asserted that that would never work because the evil big corporations would unfairly freeze the little guys out. I've pointed out that it doesn't work that way without a government. You expressed limited agreement with me in the area of monopolies. And suddenly you're back to repeating your assertion that coercive government is necessary, without further support.

If you'd like to stop arguing, I entirely understand. But let's acknowledge that we're going to stop arguing, rather than intimating that the argument is complete.

Complete consensus is just not possible, in the real world, on any large scale. Rather than composing my own explanation, however, let me refer you to the words of someone possessing a far loftier stature in the field of political science than my poor self, viz.,











If it were not for government, you'd be in the state of nature where your neighbor could kill you for what you have, so long as he could catch you by surprise, or overwhelm you will sufficient numbers. You seem not to appreciate this fact.







I believe that if you look at my previous posts you will see that I have addressed this. If you disagree with what I've said, that is your prerogative. There is no point in going round and round in circles on this topic. Simply put, governments require coercive power so as to enforce laws, keep the peace, prevent injustice, restrain evil, etc.,.







My part of that particular argument is complete (defense rests). If you have more to say on the matter, feel free to do so. I have certainly not conceded the point merely because I have concluded my argument.

Actually, given the title of this thread, I'm the defense. You're part of the prosecution.

I have no objection to letting things percolate for a bit...

Point taken. Although I am also a defender of libertarianism (in the sense of the classical liberal component of conservatism), just not pure libertarianism in the modern sense, as I understand it.

Actually, I was only referring to the coercive government aspect of our debate (I don't know what else I can say in that regard), but if you would like to call it quits altogether, that's fine with me. I was, however, looking forward to your response to Locke.

I can't disagree with the quote, but it's not relevant. I'm not talking about consensus among thousands of parties: I'm talking about simple agreement between two parties. We know that's possible; people sign and are held to contracts every day.

Let's see, I asserted that funding necessary government was not collectivism, after you had suggested it was. Then you said that different people will have different opinions on what functions of government are necessary, thereby implying that government by consensus was problematic. Then I said that there could be an approximation of a consensus at the local levels on that question, as conservative government is decentralized. Then you asked, wouldn't it be better to have perfect consensus, to which I answered that this was not practical in government, and provided a quote from Locke arguing the point. Then you said what is contained in the quote above. Puzzling.

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. Consensual government is government by contract. Contracts are formalized agreements between two parties. Generally, such a contract will consist of a number of separate clauses of agreement, along with prescribed courses of action should each clause be violated by one party or the other, or become irrelevant or overcome by events.

If force is initiated between two parties in a way not foreseen by their contract, and if the violation is not covered by some overarching super-contract that has also been agreed to by both parties, then with respect to one another they are in the "state of nature" you described earlier. In general that would be seen to be an undesirable situation and would mostly be avoided where possible.

Anyone who wishes to have the benefits of government has exactly as many benefits as he is willing to submit to and can afford to pay for; anyone wishing to remain in a state of nature is free to do so. Any unforeseen needs that might crop up will be quickly met by the free market, driven by the motivation to make a buck.

That's what I mean by consensual government.

Is anything still unclear?

In the event that the parties involved in the contract disagree as to whether or not the terms of the contract have been violated, how is that disagreement resolved without implied, if not actual, violence or a legal system capable of enforcing tort law?

This is a problem in need of a solution. In a real-world Libertopia, the free market would supply a range of solutions to it, some good and some bad, and the good ones would crowd out the bad ones. It's impossible to predict or control the free market (which is why socialism can never work), but various ancaps have brainstormed about this issue anyway, and come up with a number of ingenious possible solutions.

Most of the solutions I've read involve a choice: two parties with a grievance between them can decide that they will deal with it in Hawkeye's "state of nature," or they can agree on some more civilized way of resolving the conflict. Respectable arguments have been made that anyone with any sense of self-preservation at all will tend to shy away from the state-of-nature option (essentially, it's difficult or impossible ever to take revenge carefully enough to exactly "get even" in everybody's eyes, and in the state of nature, any perceived "unevenness" is enough to get you killed).

There are several more civilized options discussed in the literature. One of them, for example, would involve both parties agreeing on a particular private judge to hire, with each party paying exactly half the judge's fee (even if the parties' ability to pay is widely disproportionate). Part of the judge's contract is that the two agree a priori to abide by his decision. The aggrieved parties are motivated to hire the judge and abide by his decision by the desire to stay out of the "state of nature," and the judge is motivated to render an absolutely fair and impartial decision by the desire to maintain and enhance a good reputation so that he can get more business and make more money. He is also going to have a contract and a decision that is so painstakingly clear that it will be obvious to all concerned whether a provision of that contract is broken or not, otherwise he'll get a reputation as a judge whose decisions are appealed a lot, which will not be good for business.

Robert Heinlein has written a couple of good books about libertarian societies; probably the best is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which also contains an interesting plan for organizing a rebellion. L. Neil Smith has written a number of almost-as-good books about libertarian societies, including Pallas, Forge of the Elders, and The Probability Broach.

I don't get it. Sorry. And the thing is, I don't think I ever will, so you don't have to explain it again. Good luck with all that.

You haven't actually answered the question. Instead you've talked around it. Having discounted the "state of nature" option you've suggested several other options which all hinge on both sides argeeing as to method and being bound. Since the problem was a lack of agreement in the first place why would you expect them to agree on a method of resolving their disagreement and further to be bound by it when they can't even agree whether or not the contract has been violated?



Heinlein also espoused the opinion that only those who have served government should have a voice in it. Surely you're not saying that you agree with that.

It was late when I read your post, so excuse the surliness of my first reply. I have read your explanation multiple times, and all I see is chaos. Where is the final authority who is going to make a ruling and enforce it on the parties? That's what I don't get. The whole community has to have 1) agreed on a final authority, and 2) has to have given that authority the power to use coersion to enforce its rulings. The alternative is the "range wars" of the old west.

It's the stakes that does the trick.

Let me present a scenario. I won't even use a contract, on the premise that a no-contract situation should be even blurrier than a contractual one, so if the no-contract situation can be resolved, then any contractual issue that should crop up ought to be resolvable as well. If you disagree, we can talk further.

Imagine that you and I live near one another. I have done something to my property that you contend reduces the value of your property. Pink flamingos, perhaps, or a mirror ball, or old couches on the porch or rusty cars on blocks. Maybe something else. Anyway, my position is that I'm free to do whatever I want with my property on my property. Or maybe it's that my pink flamingos are far enough away from your place that they don't have any effect on your property value. At any rate, I disagree with you, and arguing isn't getting us anywhere. You say that me reducing the value of your property is the same as stealing from you, and stealing is an initiation of force. A finding of objective fact is out of the question, because it would require you to actually sell your property and note the selling price, which you don't want to do.

Is this a reasonable example scenario for your objection? (If it's not, I may make you come up with the next one.)

You have two choices.

You can take the state-of-nature route and apply retaliatory force to me--perhaps sneaking onto my place at night or when you're pretty sure I'm not at home and stealing my flamingos, or vandalizing my rusty cars, or whatever. This is very risky for you, though, because I am liable to perceive it as initiated force; if so, now it's my turn to "get even." Heck--I might even catch you in the act and shoot you as a trespasser. (For various reasons, it has been speculated that in a libertarian society shooting trespassers might develop into a competitive sport, with points awarded for style and poise.) Even if I don't catch you in the act, it might be tough to convince a private judge and/or a jury, either or both of which you may find yourself facing, that theft or vandalism doesn't constitute initiated force.

So if you're not making any headway with me one-on-one, but you decide it's too risky to revert to a state of nature, then you might suggest to me (in front of witnesses, preferably) that we hire a private judge to arbitrate the issue between us.

Now the situation has changed. If I say no, then it can only be for one of two reasons: either I think you're simply trying to harass me with frivolous nonsense, or I'm actually afraid you have a point and the judge will agree with you. The former is very unlikely, even if you're considerably richer than I am and can afford frivolous judge's fees, for reasons of self-interest that we can get into later, if you like. Essentially, except in extraordinary circumstances, for me to refuse such a proposal would be pretty much the same as admitting guilt--in which case I have implicitly also agreed (in public) that retaliatory force on your part is justified. I haven't signed anything, of course, but it will still look suddenly bad for me now if I were to shoot you on my property or otherwise try to "get even" for your retaliatory force. Suddenly the state-of-nature threat has flipped around and is working for you and against me. So I'm unlikely to refuse your suggestion of arbitration. At the very least, I'll probably make some sort of counter-offer ("I'd love to, but I have to clip my toenails that day, so I can't. However, I was just thinking this morning that that mirror ball would actually look a lot better in the back yard. Have you ever seen my back yard? Come on out and tell me what you think."), and negotiations will be off and running again.

If we do agree on arbitration, the judge will be very specific about exactly what he expects to be done (having his decision "appealed" to another judge for lack of precision would be bad for his professional reputation; there might even be a money-back guarantee for such cases), and we will both already have signed a contract agreeing to abide by it scrupulously. Any deviation from it on either side will be very clear and obvious breach of contract, or initiation of fraud, which is a form of initiated force, and here comes the whole specter of the state of nature again.


You're talking about Starship Troopers? That was a great book, although the movie they made from it sucked (except for Denise Richards, of course). I do reserve the right (just as I'm sure you do) to agree with some of Heinlein's opinions without being forced to accept all of them; but aside from that, I did not understand that book as an argument that the franchise should be restricted to military veterans. I understood it as an argument that universal suffrage is a dumb idea from at least a couple of different perspectives--with which argument I do agree. I believe he has a character say in the book that he's not sure the way they do it is the best way, but simply that it hasn't done too badly so far. I'm not sure what the best distribution of the franchise would be; but then I think we can do without a state entirely, and there's no need for state elections without a state, so the question's moot.

I still think that you're talking around the question instead of answering it. Part of the problem is that you seem to be judging your hypothetical opponent by your own standards and values. You seem to leave out the facts that there are plenty of people in this world who would just as soon kill you as look at you and that there are plenty of unreasonable people in this world who don't give a tinker's damn (or anyone else's for that matter) what the consequences of their actions would be. You seem to subscribe to the theory that man is inherently good and because of that things will always work out reasonably in the end. Using your example, what if I simply murdered you and your entire immediate family, firebombed or otherwise destroyed your mirror ball, pink flamingos, old couches and rusty cars and annexed your property to mine. While I may have to face the consequences of my actions somewhere down the road, that fact wouldn't do you much good, would it? Further, after demonstrating a willingness to use force and violence and an utter lack of regard for human life, the property of others and future consequences, who do you think would want to call me to task? Without a higher secular authority to restrain my actions, what makes you think that I wouldn't get away with it.

Yeah, I just keep picturing each side hiring his own private judge, and getting opposing rulings, followed by each side hiring different private police agencies to enforce their respective rulings with armed private police. Just seems like chaos to me if there is no authority that the whole community has agreed to ahead of time. Not the kind of thing that can readily be done ad hoc, seems to me.

Oh, that one's easy. (I thought you'd be interested in something a little more academic and difficult.) In that case, you simply take a bullet in the back of the head from the next guy to run across you, who is then incapable of buying his own drinks for the next couple of months. Then whatever of your property can't be returned to its rightful owner is scavenged on a first-come-first-served basis. Dangerous predators like you can't be tolerated in a polite society, and nobody will be afraid to kill you (or even kidnap you and torture you to death) because he knows everybody will agree that you had it coming.

The state of nature is a b*tch. Most people will want to stay the heck away from it; but those who don't will provide the rest of us with occasional sport.


I believe this is the third time I've said this on this thread: libertarianism is not based on the assumption that man is basically good, it's based on the assumption that man is basically interested in preserving his own skin. It doesn't work well with folks who want so badly to kill others that they're eager to die in the attempt; but then neither does anything else.


That problem is a common one to all human experience: dead is dead.

You're being unfair, and you know it. I'm surprised at you.





Predicting the free market is begging for failure, but my suspicion is that mercenary groups like that wouldn't be particularly profitable in a libertarian society. Most dispatching of predators would probably be done by local folks, because they'd be the ones convinced of the justness of their cause.





I wouldn't have a problem with such an authority, if one existed. (Obviously not: I, being part of the community, would have agreed to it!) But I think that's much more farfetched than anything I've suggested, in any community bigger than a family.

Barak, what's not fair? If it's all about the free market, what's to stop one side, after getting a "bad" ruling from a mutually agreed upon judge, from hiring another judge to get a "good" ruling to counter the first one? Are there laws to prevent this? If so, where did they come from? Even if this was some sort of contract violation, couldn't he hire a "sympathetic" police agency to enforce the new judge's ruling regardless? Who's to stop him? I am assuming that free market police agencies are free to contract with whomever they like, no? What if the wealthier party, who lost, could hire a more powerful police agency than the guy who won at the first trial? Aren't we back to the state of nature, but on a larger scale? Since the profit motive is now the supreme law, what's to prevent this?



Seems to me that greater force will always win out, if there is no government. Yes, government too is force, but it is force agreed upon by all, and limited in scope by its constitution and the rule of law, apart from which it becomes, in Nock's terminology, not government any longer, but pure state.



I know you are a smart guy, and have thought all this through, but somehow I just cannot digest it. You never know, however. It could very well be that my mind is overly rigid, and your notions are so completely alien to it that my mind just simply cannot find a place for it to settle. In other words, I still don't get it. I cannot see it working. This could, of course, be my failing, not yours but, you see, I can see real libertarianism working, because real libertarianism works within the context of limited government. It makes government a servant instead of master. What you are advocating, however, is not libertarianism, but anarchism (i.e., no government) which just, to me, seems unworkable ab initio. Maybe, however, I just don't get it. My powers of comprehension are not, after all, limitless, even if nearly so. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Life isn't fair, its just hard; and when you refuse to face reality its harder.

Your bullet to the back of the head theory is ok as far as it goes but its not exactly fool proof. Some people are capable of violence and some aren't. Some are good at it and some aren't. All it takes is a few who are good at it to subjugate the vast majority who aren't. What you continue to cling to was tried in the middle ages and it didn't work particularly well then. What makes you think it would work any better now. My response to your scenario is the response that a medieval warlord would have made. Most of them died quite comfortably in their own beds of natural causes. A fine working example of what you propose is available right now. Its called Somalia. No functioning government, no civil authority and run by private enterprise. If that's how you prefer to live, have at it. Just wanting to be left alone doesn't make it happen. There will always be someone who is perfectly willing to cause you grief. Power abhors a vacuum and some would be strongman will always try to fill it. You really need to get out and about and see what living without a functioning government is like. There are actually only two kinds of people; predator and food. Take away government and its law enforcement function and you'll soon find out which you are. I hope for your sake that you're a predator. If you're not you'd better hope no one is hungry.

It's not fair because you wrote of "each side hiring his own private judge," when you knew that the scenario under consideration was joint hiring of a (see above) "mutually agreed upon judge."

What's to stop it, of course, is that any judge who values his reputation wouldn't dream of selling his services to just one person. If he is to attract business, he has to be fair, and there's no way he can claim to be fair when he's being paid by only one party. The pronouncement of a judge who consented to such a thing would mean nothing to anyone.

And also, there's always the threat of the "state of nature" hovering just outside the door for somebody who acts in a way that can be credibly portrayed by his opponent as an initiation of force.


No. Self-interested people will avoid that course of action not because it's illegal, but because it's wasteful and stupid. Hire your own pet judge to reverse a respected decision against you, and you'll hear nothing but contemptuous jeers. Insane people might try it, but it wouldn't get them anywhere.


If he could find a band of mercenaries who were willing to take money to attack somebody they didn't know, based on hearing only one side of the story, then yes, he could do that. (Of course, you can do that today, too, if you have the money and the connections.)

But it might well be difficult to find such mercenaries. I certainly wouldn't ever think of doing that for a living. I could very easily find myself in a "state of nature" with the family and friends of one of my victims if it turned out that my client had lied to me about the behavior of his opponent. Combat may be exciting and all, but it's very costly too: if you don't have anyone paying you extortion money to assure a steady supply of weapons, ammunition, and equipment, it can be difficult to be confident of maintaining tactical superiority for very long...and if you're not confident of tactical superiority you're not going to go pushing folks around too much, especially not in a libertarian society: it's just not safe.


Not if there's any way it can possibly be helped. (And, of course, if it can't possibly be helped, then it can't be helped no matter what sort of government you have.)

The state of nature, as you point out, is very dangerous and has the potential to be extremely expensive and destructive. Almost everybody will choose, for his own self-preservation, to shun it wherever possible, even if that means compromising with his enemies. Of the few who embrace it, any who aren't hermits will quickly be killed off.

This is not a new idea. Keep in mind that it is mind-numbingly standard for states to convince their subjects to give up their liberties by threatening them with what is essentially the state of nature. "If you don't give us these powers, then terrorists will kill you / gunmen will rob you / old folks will starve / children will die in the streets / etc."


Greater force will win out whether it's government or not. But in a libertarian society, unless something huge and endemic is wrong (the Earth is being invaded by aliens, or in the grip of a global epidemic, or disappearing into the ocean at the rate of a continent a year) the greater force will always be on the side of the folks who want to avoid the state of nature. Not because they're basically good, or because they're nice guys, or because their digestion is agreeable today--but because they're liable to get dead if they don't.


No. It's the force of the many applied to the few, or the force of the strong applied to the weak, or the force of the poor applied to the rich, or the force of the indolent applied to the productive. I challenge you to show me a single national government that consists purely of force agreed upon by all. (It should be obvious that it's a contradiction in terms: if force is required, then it follows that the object of that force must not agree with its use.)


Well, nobody really convinced me of it either. People I respected planted doubts in my mind, and then I went and researched it myself (motivated by certain outside forces) and became convinced on my own.


Careful. I'm not equipped to counter your claim to the term "authentic American conservative," but I do know a thing or two about libertarianism, and your appropriation of the term "real libertarianism" is unacceptable. Libertarianism is about individual liberty and responsibility, not about government or forms of government. There are a number of different kinds of libertarian. At the beginning of this thread, I was a minarchist; now I seem pretty much to have become an anarcho-capitalist. There are also anarcho-socialists, although I don't really understand them. And there are other splinter groups and subcategories within subcategories. But they're all real libertarians, because they all place chief emphasis on individual liberty.


I think it's workable--and (potentially) insanely bountiful--under certain conditions (isolation and steady state among them). I may eventually convince myself that it's workable under a larger number of conditions as well. (How, for example, would a prosperous but small libertarian society defend itself against a surprise military attack from a poor but massive socialist neighbor desperate to take by force what it cannot produce or afford to buy? I can see some of the answers, but I haven't yet managed to retire all the questions.)

Really? Nowhere? I can name a few people in history who got quite far without respecting the rights of others or playing by the rules. Genghis Khan comes to mind.



Genghis Khan and his cronies faired pretty well.



Really? Could you provide me with an example from history?



I refer you once again to the above passage (see post #181986) from Locke's Second Treatise on Government. I cannot improve on that.



Fine, but when I think libertarian, I think classical liberal, and they were not anarchists. I don't own the word, however, so use it as you will, although you seem to differ with every dictionary I have, including ones specific to political concepts, all of which describe the characteristics of government promoted by libertarians.



You seem to be admitting that it is unworkable, considering the state of reality, so why waste time advocating it?



P.S. You continually use the phrase in quotes "authentic American conservatism" as if to insinuate that it is something of my creation, unique to me. First of all, I rarely used that combination of words. Secondly, when I did, it was 1) to identify the specific American variety (as I live there), and 2) to distinguish it from a falsification of conservatism that you had proffered. Just plain conservative is all that is required in ordinary conversation, thank you.

You're not asserting that Genghis Khan overthrew mature steady-state libertarian societies, are you?



Sure, no problem. Look around you. Look at yourself, for crying out loud. You're afraid of the state of nature, right? Most people reject libertarianism because they have been trained to connect it with anarchy, and anarchy frightens them because they think it's the same as the state of nature. As long as the forces of the state can maintain that fear in the majority of the people, it can convince them to keep it in power.


Which side are you arguing? The passage you quoted claims that complete agreement is fleeting if not impossible, right? Isn't that my point, not yours?


You're pretty quick on the trigger, eh? I'm still a baby libertarian: I'm not even five years old yet. If I didn't have any questions about libertarianism, it'd be a mark of gross immaturity.
But the cool thing about anarcho-capitalism is that it's distributed and free-market; that means you don't have any head boss guy or group that has to figure everything out ahead of time. If something needs to be figured out, it'll be spontaneously figured out by the sort of person who's the best at figuring out that particular kind of thing, as soon as he notices that there's a need for it to be figured out, so that he can start making money on his solution as soon as possible.

Not the point. The point is that there are people who thrive in the state of nature at everyone else's expense, i.e., they do not fear it, and don't mind violating the rules to achieve power, after which they are not necessarily killed by all the good guys, as you naively suggest is inevitable in an anarcho-capitalist society.



Also, would you be so kind as to provide an example from history of a mature steady-state anarcho-capitalist society." That is, after all, what you have been recently advocating, is it not? Not libertarianism, as every definition of libertarianism I have been able to find refers to the characteristics of government that libertarians favor, and this seems, on its face, entirely incompatible with any form of anarchy.



So it's all a conspiracy?



Locke correctly asserted that the consent of the majority, in any given political unit, is rightly (i.e., "in reason") received as the act of the whole, and therefore concludes every individual. Otherwise, he goes on to say, nothing but the consent of every individual can make anything to be the act of the whole, and any government formed under that requirement would be short lived, quickly reverting to the state of nature. I believe that you insist on the latter formula for consent, while I (along with Locke) accept the former.



Where government is decentralized, actual universal consent is most closely approximated, without the dire consequence of a quick dissolution of government and society, i.e., without a quick return to the state of nature that your formula for consent, says Locke, necessitates.

I'm not sure I understand your point, then. Are you saying that if the Far and Middle East had been populated by "authentic American conservatives," Genghis Khan and the Mongol Horde would have been less successful, or would have failed?

And anyway, I'm not particularly interested in discussing military operations in a thread on libertarian politics. The fact that a small sedan can't carry forty tons of cargo doesn't make it useless or irrelevant--especially if what you need is cheap transportation of one or two people.


I can't.


What's all a conspiracy? Hopefully this isn't a new or unfamiliar idea to you. At least for the last hundred years or so, governments have commonly justified their power by claiming that they need it to preserve their subjects from the state of nature. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any substantively different justification for government power that I've ever heard. (Many governments, of course, have simply not bothered trying to come up with a justification for their power.) That's the justification for government power that you use, right?


Rightly? Rightly? You feel morally justified in trampling my beliefs and preferences simply because I'm in the minority and it would be too much trouble to bother respecting them?

No--that's not morality, or even reason; it's simple pragmatism.

Locke is saying that since the burden of preserving liberty for all is too heavy for him to carry to his objective, he'll simply drop it, shrug, and claim that he's chosen "rightly," because any other choice would be inconvenient.

I say preserving liberty for all is more important than reaching his objective, which I can't really see any use for in the first place.


Universal consent is irrelevant, except as a rhetorical device, and internally self-defeating. Its only conceivable purpose for existence is to justify coercive force, yet the very presence of coercive force demonstrates the absence of universal consent. Striving for it is a complete waste of time, because A) it's unachievable in the first place, and B) it's unnecessary in the second place.

Furthermore, there is a qualitative, not quantitative, difference between universal consent and almost universal consent, just as there's a qualitative difference between pregnant and almost pregnant. Almost universal consent is oppression and enslavement of the few by the many. Do you cease to be a slaveholder when you get down to just a few slaves? I suppose you do if you're John Locke: you just "rightly" define yourself that way because getting rid of those last couple of slaves is just too much trouble.

Sheesh.

It was meant as a more general example of the principle that there are those, contrary to your assertion, who do not fear, and in fact prosper in, the state of nature. I suspect, however, your failure to grasp the principle is more than a little disingenuous, so I will not further elaborate.



Negative. That's the function of governments, i.e., it is why we establish and perpetuate them. To say it is a justification implies that the premise is a mere pretext. It is not.



The problem is that your notion of "liberty for all" amounts to a childish demand for anarchy. If this is your goal, should I sit back and do nothing to oppose you?



I will allow your words to speak for themselves, as I could not any better shed light on the defects of your position than merely to highlight your essential defense of it.

Two points here.

First, there are very few who do not fear to face it alone, unless they can achieve significant isolation from all others. When you have your Mongol Hordes behind you, you're not really in the state of nature.

Libertarianism is a tool for addressing relationships between individuals. Relationships between groups are a different kind of animal.

Second, prosperity in the state of nature is nigh on impossible. Invading armies (as well as other government services) do not create prosperity, they merely steal the results of others' prosperity. When no more pre-created prosperity remains to steal, they have to get real jobs or starve.


Okay, use whatever word you like. You're persnicketier about such things than I am. At any rate, you agree with me that governments claim to be necessary to avoid the state of nature...right?


No, it amounts to a childish demand for liberty. It appears that I have recently become an anarchist, but I'm still a libertarian. That means that I can't go around making demands on people (for anarchy or anything else) and expect to get anything but contempt. As long as people leave me alone, I have to leave them alone in return, or else I'm a hypocrite. In addition, even if it were logically consistent, demanding anarchy wouldn't work.

Say I'm a Yankees fan, and I hate the Braves. So I throw a deer rifle in the back of my truck and drive to Atlanta, and pot seven or eight of the Braves' top players. Does that mean the Yankees will now win every game they play with the Braves? Of course not. It means I'll go to prison, and the Braves will hire new players--maybe better ones--and the Yankees won't benefit at all.

Things have to be accomplished in the right way if they're going to last.


No! Sit forward and write something--something better than this:


I've come to expect this sort of thing from jmartin, but I was under the impression that you were made of sterner stuff.

This is becoming a hobby in itself, it seems.



Well, that's sort of the point. There are two ways to raise yourself from the state of nature. One is government and the other is to gather a gang of like-minded fellows around one's self and impose one's will on the rest, making a general parasite of one's self. The latter is called the state, in Nock's terminology. Since you eliminate the former alternative, that leaves only the latter.



Since this bears no relationship to anything I've ever advocated, I will not comment



That statement is too imprecise. I assert, rather, that governments ARE necessary to avoid the state of nature apart from tyranny. Society (the opposite of the state of nature) is completely dependant on the existance of government (or, its alternative, tyranny). Too much of a good thing, however, is not the solution either. This is why conservatives advocate strictly limited government, and decentralization.



Why do you still insist on the label libertarian? How about anarchist-libertine?



Who would jail you, and by what right? Has the community agreed on an authority with the power to judge and jail? If so, they've agreed to be governed, no?



I take it you are upset at what I've said.

Thanks to all for a most interesting thread.



This remark on Hitler is so rarely made that I had never heard it from sombebody else. Yet it is quite obvious that Hitler and all people with a similar project were either former socialists like Mussolini, former communists like Mosley Adams, Doriot, ... and all had a clearly hard left program.



The only substantial difference between Hitler and Stalin was on their economic views : Hitler had understood that it was much better to leave the property of production tools to individuals. Stalin had inherited a system that had nationalized and bureaucratised the production tools.



It is no accident that both had signed an alliance that was latter broken by Hitler.



In Europe, after the war, there has been a conspiracy of the leftist intelligentia to brand Hitler "rightist". It worked for a long time and, as far as I can see, it still works. It allowed the left to monopolize the moral high ground, while easily silencing all disenters.



Thanks again for a very interesting exchange.



deersmeller

Deer Smeller, thanks. Not only that, however, but National Socialism (i.e, Nazism) was, well, national, while International Communism was international. That is to say, Hitler wanted the "benefits" of socialism exclusively for Germanac peoples, while all other peoples would be reduced to the status of slaves in the service of the "superior" Germanic races. Stalin, though the worst kind of monster, didn't much care what race you were. He wouldn't think twice about murdering you, but he didn't care about your race.

Barak, I've been reading Hayek, and I think he provides an excellent answer to your question. I will just go ahead and provide the quote, since I don't know if you have access to the book.

Since you objected to my choice not substantively to respond to this, I will do so now. You are not a slave or oppressed if you are in the minority here, because you may 1) vote for a candidate/policy of your choice, 2) run for office yourself, 3) attempt to persuade others to your positions, 4), and/or if all else fails, you can move to the next town over, or the next county over, or the next state over. Why, you can even move to a different country if you like. There is no Berlin Wall here.



The more limited in scope is the central government, and the more decentralized is government in general, however, the less likely it is that you will feel compelled to move far to find a form of government that you can live with and/or have influence on. This is why conservatives are opposed to central government consolidation of local governmental functions. The more this occurs, the less a significant minority has the option of simply moving to the next town or state, and the more likely a significant minority will begin to feel oppressed and enslaved, and the more likely they are to choose revolutionary and/or terrorist tactics rather than democratic.

Given that dichotomy, I suppose you could say that what I'm advocating is government--but self-government of the consensual sort (consensual meaning "I agree with you in a limited area" rather than "everybody agrees with everybody else or we toss them in the clink"), instead of government of the coercive sort by a ruling class.


But you also think you're part of the government, right? Government of the people by the people, and all that rot. So if you're saying it, then (at least in part, from your perspective) the government's saying it...so we can both be right.


You're a little too gentlemanly. When you asked me to give you a historical example, and I said "I can't," I was really hoping you'd jump on that. Since you didn't, I have to apply the answer I had ready here, where it doesn't fit nearly as well.

Your way has been tried already, and it has failed. Government doesn't stay limited or decentralized. Limitation and decentralization perhaps slows it down and keeps it from getting a running start; but you eventually get a mighty oak tree whether you start with a sapling, a seedling, or an acorn.


You worry about what to call conservatives, and I'll worry about what to call libertarians. You know, separation of powers and all.


I was speaking in the context of present-day America.

As I've said before, I can't be sure what the free market would come up with in Libertopia, but one possibility is that the investigative divisions of the dead players' insurance companies would use the latest forensic techniques to identify me from crime-scene evidence, and then their contract-enforcement divisions would track me down. (People have come up with procedures for private criminal-court proceedings as well, but since we both know I did it, I'll leave those out for now to save space.) Since I initiated force, there's no restriction against them using retaliatory force against me, even to the point of lethal force; but more likely they'd capture me if possible, and the players' insurance companies would consult with my insurance company to see what provisions I had agreed to should I ever commit a murder. Since I don't want to be in the state of nature any more than the next guy, there'd probably be something in there with which I had tried to bribe victims or victims' families away from the state of nature; for example, I might well have agreed to be worked at hard labor to generate at least partial income replacement for the families. Maybe I'm rich, and I'm willing to give them huge sums of money to stay alive. Whatever it is, it had better be good, because if the victims decide not to accept it in lieu of retaliatory force, I'm probably screwed. I have to make sure I'm worth more to them alive than dead.

In any case, what would happen in Libertopia would have nothing to do with what the community had agreed to; it would have to do with what I and my victims had agreed to, and the folks we had hired for various purposes.


Upset? No. Somewhat surprised and disappointed. I have a lot of respect for you; it's not a tactic I expected.

Well, I'm talking about self-government too, but we apparently have different definitions of that. Self-government is when all presumptively agree to abide by the decisions of the majority, within the framework of a constitution which limits the scope of government so as not to intrude on those spheres of society not properly belonging to government. By presumptively, I mean that their choice to remain, rather than move, allows the majority to legitimately presume consent to (if not agreement with) the majority's decisions, within the scope of limited and decentralized government.



Well, thanks (and likewise), but I think the statement was so outrageous on its face (and obviously in error) as not to require a substantive response. It sort of spoke for itself. Since you took offense, I did, however, eventually respond substantively to it.

Change "coercion" to "force," and I'll sign it. "Coercion," at least to me, suggests initiated force; if that's what he means, then I disagree.


Okay. This is one thing to try. It's not the only thing to try, it's not the freest thing to try, and it hasn't worked particularly well. But yes, I agree that it has been tried.

As to the implication that whatever coercive force the government decides to apply is fine as long as it's consistent, I expect that by now you can predict what my reaction to that is: it's not fine, and it won't be consistent. I'll elaborate on either or both if you want me to, but you probably don't need it.

Thank you.





We have somebody in the majority explaining to somebody in the minority why he's not oppressed?





I haven't explained myself sufficiently, apparently. These are things that somebody in the majority does to force people in the minority to do whatever he has on his program. First of all, I'm not in the majority; second of all, I don't have a program to enforce on anybody. I simply want people to leave me the heck alone and let me do what I think is best for me without hurting anybody else.





"Love it or leave it," and you don't see that as oppression of dissidents?





Soap, ballot, jury, then cartridge; you're right. You could look at anarchism as decentralization of government all the way.

Yup.


And from my viewpoint, it's my property. I bought it, I built on it, I take care of it and maintain it. When somebody comes onto that property without being invited and informs me that I'm going to be overpowered and carted away because I have broken a mala prohibita rule that was made by somebody else for political reasons without any consultation or agreement from me, then I think that is blatantly unjust. (And it sure doesn't feel like "self-government" to me.)

People are taught to go to the government when faced with injustice; but what do they do when the injustice comes from the government itself?

On your land, in a nation that recognized property rights (ours only partially does anymore), you would not be able to commit a malum prohibitum offense. You can, however, build roads on your land, and you're free to drive through all the red lights you like on your land (assuming you went to the trouble of installing any), and so long as it did not constitute a malum in se (e.g., You saw that a private plane had crashed on your land, and just as the pilot crawled out of his cockpit, covered in blood, you accelerated your vehicle, disregarding your private traffic light,<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, in order to run him down for trespassing), you'd be ok.

Nope, coercion can also mean the threat of force designed to prevent unwanted conduct. If the government has a law that says you cannot coerce anyone, or else we will punish you, then this is a case of government exercising coercion to prevent coercion.

Well, it has indeed worked. It is its corruption that has failed. You cannot blame something for failing after it has been abandoned in its true form. Liberal government, in the classical sense of the word, has worked quite well. In fact, it is the only thing that has worked. Show me a case where anarchy has worked, and we'll talk.

Hayek is referring to the rule of law here. That is to say, government cannot act in a post hoc manner to bring about the outcome it would like to have seen. This is why our constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.

Barak, since you've been silent since the great black out of 2003, I am assuming that you are the one responsible for pulling the plug, and are just laying low for a while. Well, rest assured that you will not escape penalty. We will not stop till you have been found and brought to justice. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I've been silent because I've been in prison, and you don't get Internet access in prison. (I spend a fair amount of time in prison, probably more than the next guy.)



But I'm out now, and I'll be addressing your points as I get time. (Work (at my real job) has probably piled up while I've been inside, so I might not have a lot of free time for awhile.)



I've noticed an interesting thing: in prison, there exist definite aspects of an (admittedly distorted) anarchist society among the prisoners, including the "state of nature" if you're a child molester or an unattached homosexual or you're not in a gang. It's strange: you'd think a prison would be the last place you'd see anything libertarian at all. I'll have to think about it a little more, but I'm sure there's something I can learn from it.



It does give me an excellent alibi, though: when the power went out, I was in a close-security state prison, in a room with about a hundred other guys, under the supervision of two correctional officers. Sorry...

Holy Cr_p!! Does this have anything to do with committing a malum prohibitum -- an act which is illegal (literally, "a wrong-doing"), not because wrong in itself, but only because prohibited in law -- on your own land?

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

In what way does the modern US recognize property rights? The government can nationalize whatever property it wants whenever it wants for whatever reason it wants, as long as it can work out something with the EPA or property forfeiture or eminent domain. All property in the US is presently owned by the government; the people are but stewards of it, allowed to lease certain limited usage privileges of it from the government.

Yes, I know--there are fancy, deceptive legal terms that are used to cloud the issue when it comes up; but nobody has gotten truly free-and-clear deed or title to a house, car, or plot of land in this country for a loooong time.

But the baldest atrocity, of course, is that the government also owns all the people in this country--as evidenced by the fact that it can dispose of them in whatever fashion it wishes--control them, kidnap them, kill them--without making itself liable for any legal penalty at all. The Homeland Security Act and the USA PATRIOT Act have been instrumental in codifying the government's ownership of the American people; "Patriot Act II," now under consideration, is designed to take things quite a bit further.

Do you understand what I mean when I talk about initiated force? I realize that I haven't explained the term here before.

As it happens, we do seem to agree on the use of the word "coercion." Applying coercion to discourage unwanted conduct is indeed initiated force--providing that the conduct being discouraged is not itself force.


But it unavoidably carries within itself the seeds of its own corruption. Any coercive government will eventually abuse its powers of coercion; every coercive government in the history of mankind of which I'm aware has done so. Corruption unerringly follows a monopoly on coercion: you can't prevent it, I can't prevent it, the very best people in the world can't prevent it. With a generous helping of eternal vigilance, a people can delay it; but A) a coercive government will find its way around even eternal vigilance if it can find national enemies to fight, and B) it's a moot point, because no people will be eternally vigilant over more than three or four generations anyway.

Have you ever read any Lysander Spooner?



It's an interesting question. We need to hit on a common definition of "worked." I can show you a number of examples where steady-state large-scale anarchy prevailed until it was forcibly invaded and taken over by an outside coercive government; that's the story of most aboriginal societies.

Drawing the conclusion that any anarchy is necessarily vulnerable to outside attack, though, discounts the historical uniqueness of those examples regarding technology.

First, in every example I can think of, the technology of the invading force was considerably higher than the technology of the natives. It's not clear that it would be that way in Libertopia: technology tends to advance faster when it is less retarded by socialism, so it's at least arguable that Libertopia would tend to have the best technology around.

Second, during the age of conquest by coercive governments, advances in technology tended to help governments rather than hurt them. Today, though, there are very few entirely new technologies being developed: most "new" tech today consists of applying long-held principles in an innovative way rather than discovering entirely new principles. This sort of technology is much closer to allowing development by anybody in his own garage than it is to requiring the resources of an entire country extorted and concentrated by its government; hence current governments tend to actively retard research and development they fear will bode ill for them, rather than pushing it forward.

So the final answer is that while the Constitutional Republic has been tried and has clearly failed, the Techno-Anarcho-Capitalist Society (or whatever) has never been tried. You have to think that eventually it will be, though, if you are as compelled by Jim Bell's Assassination Politics as I am.

No, mostly it has to do with (figuratively) walking up to the door, beating on it, and hollering, "Let me in!"

I can't honestly say that I disagree with anything you've said there Barak.

Unfortunately, we live in a fallen world, and the best we can do is government. Government, in any form, is an evil, but a necessary one, unfortunately. Best, therefore, to make it limited and checked, answerable to the people and subordinate to the rule of law. Anarchy cannot work, in my opinion. The state will always arise from anarchy, and the state, apart from government, is raw and unchecked force. Governments are established to put a bit in the mouth of the state, i.e., to make it the servant of the people, instead of the people's slave master.

If you could come up with a credible way of making that happen, I would be more inclined to agree with you. But you can't make the government limited, checked, answerable to the people or subordinate to the rule of law any more than you can the weather.


I hesitate to point this out, but we're talking here about a difference of opinion--competing assertions with supporting arguments but no empirical evidence.

The statement that coercive government cannot work, however, is uncontroversial demonstrated fact, evidenced by millennia of experience.

Did you ever read the Michael Crichton book Jurassic Park? (Not the movie, the book.) The mathematician (can't remember his name now--Ian M-something, Jeff Goldblum's character) made some quite compelling arguments against the possibility of the park's success based on chaos theory. Completely aside from the repeatedly demonstrated pragmatic failure of government, those same arguments explain why government is also theoretically untenable.


Now there's an interesting assertion. Flesh that one out a little, if you would.

Or, if you get bored, answer me this: how can you be in favor of property rights and of a coercive government with the power to tax? (Every coercive government, of course, has the power to tax, even if it doesn't happen to be exercising it at the moment.) Taxation is not a balance to property rights: it's an utter abrogation of the very theory of property rights. If the government has the power to tax your property without your consent, then what you're really saying is that the government owns your property, because it has the power to decide how much of it you get the use of.

An example of the pure state, unhampered by government, would be the oriental style of king, i.e., the total monarch. There is very little if any check on his power by the people he rules. Now, the kings of England were probably never quite that, but close. When the people reined his powers in, however, and made the exercise of that power answerable to them, they were instituting government. Government is for the benefit of the people's liberty, while the state describes a parasitical relationship between the ruling class and the people. In anarchy, the strong will quickly adopt the role of the state, i.e., unchecked and arbitrary power, also called tyranny, since there is no government to restrain them.







Taxation in a conservative nation would not in any way violate property rights. Taxation would be a fee for access to the economic environment made possible by the rule of law, enforced by government, even if superior to government. Government, in other words, would be funded 100% by sales, export and import taxation, based on a percentage of the total transaction amount. This is a fee for access, not a tax on property. Just like a toll bridge or highway.



Barter is not readily taxable, but since it is rarely practical on a large scale regular basis, it would not be a very significant problem. The advantages of using money for trade are so great, that the fee would need to be extremely burdensome to motivate large scale barter, and a conservative government would never require so much in tax as to motivate large scale evasion via the barter system. If farmer Joe, therefore, would like to trade six dozen eggs for some pots and pans, this would not be problematic, as government would be more than adequately funded from ordinary trade.

Can't reply at length, gotta scram to the doctor. But briefly:


I appreciate you providing the reference to Albert Jay Nock, but so far I have not found his distinction between state and government useful.

Can you describe a scenario in which what you envision would take place in Libertopia?


We may be approaching an accommodation here. You and your coercive government lay whatever tax you like on the use of your money, and I'll just create my own form of money, with no tax (or a smaller tax) on its use, and compete with your government money in the free market.

So will your coercive government agree simply not to provide its "service" of coercion to me and everyone else who uses tax-free money, or will it kidnap us and lock us away for counterfeiting or tax evasion?

What if so many people switch to the tax-free money that the government isn't getting enough revenue to pay its goons anymore? Will your government acknowledge that it's obviously not needed, and fade obligingly out of existence?

The service provided is too general to exclude anyone. It is the creation of an ordered environment in which crimes and torts are punished, contracts are enforced, the powers of the state are restrained by the rule of law, and invaders are kept at bay. This is called ordered liberty. In order to be excluded, I guess you'd have to purchase an island, in which case you'd also have to purchase a full time security squad to defend your island from piracy, and it is quite possible you'd have to hire some guards to protect you from your guards. Of course, you could take care of your own security, but then you are likely to be outnumbered, and whatever you possess of value will likely be taken away from you, including your life. There are no free riders in ordered liberty. You cannot enjoy the benefits without playing by the rules.



Keep in mind that Nock is not the first to distinguish between the state and government. Government is something that the people impose on the state in order to make a servant of it, rather than a master (which is it's natural role among men). There will always be the state (even if it merely resembles something like the Mafia). The question is only whether or not it is reined in by the people (via the imposition of government) for the service of the people. Otherwise, it is purely parasitical, in relation to the people, for its own benefit. The state is pure force, while government is the people's way of restraining that force, and making good use of it. Eliminating the state is not possible. It is the natural state of things (no pun intended). There has never been a period in history, or a society of men, without state power.



"State" and "government" are different things, though they usually coexist to one degree or another (the only time they do not in fact coexist is in the case of the total state). The "state" refers to the supreme public power within a sovereign political entity. "Government" is the act or process of controlling the power of the state for the public good. Think of government as the governor on an engine. Well, in this analogy, the engine, naturally, is the state. The governor regulates the functions of the engine for our benefit. It no longer merely eats up gas for its own benefit. Now we can put it to work and exercise our will over it for our benefit. We have turned the tables. We have tamed the lion.



P.S. Today, the lion is becoming progressively less tame, and more inclined towards its natural tendency, i.e., it is beginning to turn the tables back on its former masters, occasionally making a meal of some of us, and intimidating most of the rest. It is beginning to dictate terms to its former masters. This does not mean that limited government is a failure. It means that the corruption of limited government is a failure. The goal should be the restoration of the government we had, which did a pretty darn good job of taming the lion, i.e., the state.

In a certain sense, an accommodation could be made here. By "alternative money," I assume you mean some form of certificate of credit, i.e., a piece of paper which states that a specific amount of a named good (could be gold, wheat, apples, or what have you) is due to the bearer, and which specifies the person or company obligated to provide it to the bearer upon presentation (also called a promissory note). If you would like transactions with these certificates to be excluded from any government fee (i.e., sales, import, or export tax), you would have to accept some conditions. First and foremost of which is that, by opting out, you would not have access to the courts should a contract be breached or repudiated. You would not have access to the courts even in the case of fraud. Would this be acceptable to you? You did, after all, wish to opt out of the benefits of government's coercive powers.

I figured there'd be some excuse. There always is.


But this is me you're talking to. Me. We may not be buddies yet, but hopefully we're at least friends. Between friends, can't we be a little more honest than continuing the age-old lie that government is altruistic? Even folks who spend almost no time at all thinking about politics are somewhat foggily coming to the conclusion these days that government cannot possibly be altruistic, as is evidenced by the sarcasm in their voices when they echo Joycelyn Elders et al.: "It's for the chilllldren." As long as the government can extort enough money to pay enough goons to secure its position, it couldn't care less whether non-governmental thieves take my stuff away from me or not. You know it, I know it; let's not pretend otherwise.


I don't need your government to punish crimes or torts against me; my friends and I can handle that ourselves--including breaches of contract. Powers of the state restrained by the rule of law? That's a laugh. The powers of the state are far more effectively restrained by a widespread standard practice of blowing body parts off trespassing revenooers and belligerent goons. As for keeping invaders at bay, I don't need to be coercively taxed for that either. (There are ways it can be done other than coercive taxation; we can talk about those in a separate message if you like, as it's somewhat beyond the scope of this one.)


I understand his distinction; I simply don't find it useful.


I disagree. A state must always be considerably weaker than the people it governs, since it has no choice but to be parasitic. If a parasite is stronger than its host, it kills the host and dies. Therefore, any state could theoretically at any time be overthrown by its people; there are only two reasons why it isn't. One is obvious: because its people are not yet angry enough at it to be willing to make the sacrifices and take the casualties that would be necessary to overthrow it. But there's another reason that isn't so obvious: the people are convinced that it is just for them to be ruled. Put another way, they have an attitude of slavery. They may arise and throw off the tyranny of King George because they prefer a different tyranny; but they have never considered the possibility that it may be fundamentally unjust simply for one man to rule another.

I watched "Everybody Loves Raymond" last night. In the episode, Deborah Barrone leaves a party, starts her car, and then decides she's had too much to drink to be able to drive safely. So she turns the car back off, calls her husband, and settles down to take a nap in the car until he arrives. Meanwhile she is arrested and charged with DUI: she was drunk, and the key was in the ignition, therefore she's guilty, and her license is revoked. The thing that struck me is that everybody thinks her arrest is unjust until they learn the wording of the law; then the reaction is simply acceptance and resignation. "We may not agree with everything our rulers decide, but they are our rulers, and it is their right to rule us, and we must do as they say."

As long as a people has that attitude, then I agree: the rise of a government, or at least a government-like entity, is inevitable. But among a group of people who believe that it is fundamentally unjust for one man to rule another, a state would have to eliminate that belief before it could be effective, or else it would be smothered in its crib immediately after birth.


That's not true. The native Americans didn't have a state until the Europeans arrived. The Australian aborigines didn't have a state until the British arrived. Bedouins don't have a state. Hunter-gatherer societies in particular can't have a state, because it can't find them to steal their property. If you're going to have a state, you have to have folks who are nailed down to particular plots of land that don't move.

Knowing libertarians, I'd guess it'd probably be a form of digital cash backed by a precious metal. (Are you familiar with the way e-gold works? That, plus a sufficiently flexible digital cash, would probably serve.)


You're kidding, right?

Barak, before I read your reply, take note of the fact that I have modified post No. 188334. I did this before realizing that you had replied. Please re-read it, as it has changed. Thanks. I will now read your reply.

I agree, with qualification. I will modify my statement to read, "There has never been a civilization of men without a state power." Technically, tribal/hunter-gatherer existance is a society of sorts, so you win that point. Now for the qualification: among the American Indians, where they had civilization, there was always a state authority. Take a look at Aztec civilization, for example.

Not that I am empowered to make this accommodation with you, but is that a yes or a no?



Keep in mind that, even with this accommodation, you are not free to pursue your own forms of "justice." If a contract is unenforceable under the law, it is unenforceable period. They are no more enforceable than a "gentleman's agreement."

The "state" refers to the supreme public power within a sovereign political entity, whose natural inclination is parasitical and/or predatory on the people it rules over. "Government," on the other hand, is the act or process of controlling the power of the state for the public good. Government tames the lion and puts it to work for its former victims' advantage. Today, however, the lion is becoming progressively less tame, and more inclined towards its natural tendency, i.e., it is beginning to turn the tables back on its former masters, occasionally making a meal of some of us, and intimidating most of the rest. It is beginning to dictate terms to its former masters. This does not mean that limited government is a failure. It means that the corruption of limited government is a failure. The goal should be the restoration of the government we had, which did a pretty darn good job of taming the lion, i.e., the state. In any event, the state and the lion make very dangerous servants but, unfortunately, they make intolerable masters, and those are the only two choices we have.

That's not a yes, that's a hell yes!


Oh no you don't. If I opt out of being coerced by your government, then I opt out of being coerced by your government. Your government no longer gets to say what I can and can't do, period--unless I say different, or unless I initiate force against it.

To which end, of course, we could draw up a contract between your government and me, if you liked, defining the ways in which I would agree to respect your government's laws as they applied to other people, and your government would agree to leave me the heck alone. It would also, of course, outline the ways in which your government would be authorized to enforce the contract on me if I broke it, and what means of justice I would be limited to when dealing with your government after it broke the contract.

In real life, of course, this contract would be the sticking point. Your government would have no motivation to give favorable terms of any sort--or even to offer such an accommodation at all. It would be motivated simply to shut down all the companies listed on the "alternative" banknotes, preferably by great show of overwhelming force--even if they were on foreign soil--and to confiscate any "alternative" money it ran across, in order to demonstrate the grave result of defying its authority. That'd be pretty easy for even a Constitutional government run by "authentic American conservatives" to justify, given that the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to coin money.

Unless we were in the middle of an Unintended Consequences-like situation, of course, where government officials were waking up dead at the rate of one or two a day and the government had to deal rather than simply applying force.

Nope, our accommodation only extended to your ability to make tax free purchases with promissory notes, assuming the promissory notes were not purchased with money (i.e., they were the result of barter only). Within this context, the courts would not be available to you, since you opted out by so doing. The public interest enters into the picture, however, when any individual decides to pursue his own forms of justice, apart from the law, and since the government is all about the public interest, this would not be permissible. You had better trust the honesty of those you are dealing with, under these conditions.



I think the typical situation would be farmer Jones obtaining the equivalent of $50 store credit for X amount of eggs supplied to the general store. The only thing that would keep the shop keeper honest, in this case, would be the desire 1) to maintain a good reputation in the community and 2) to continue dealing with farmer Jones in the future.

Keep reading.

Since I continually modify my posts until you reply, you ought to check them out again after you have replied in case it has changed. After you reply, I do not change them, except if I find a typo.

As for "Keep reading," I'm not sure what you mean. Please expand on that.

I have no reason to be even faintly interested in such an "accommodation."



Imagine if I met you on the way to school and beat you up every day, because I enjoyed it. You didn't enjoy it, so one day you offered to make an agreement with me whereby I wouldn't beat you up anymore if you agreed to, say, give me all your lunch money. So I said no, I'm going to keep beating you up, because it's my nature: but if you like, I'll sign an agreement with you that says you'll wear a red shirt to school every day, so that when I beat you up the blood won't be quite as obvious. Would you be interested? Or would you instead decide to start carrying a knife or a gun to school with you?

Here's a thread that promises to develop into a fairly highbrow, interesting discussion of anarchism:

Lies Our Forefathers Told Us

At the very least, the article at the top of it makes some of the same points I have here, but much more eloquently. It's from L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise.

My purpose in this thought experiment is to set up a free-market competition between government and anarchism. We know that government doesn't work; we don't know whether anarchism works or not. I think it will; therefore I think it will win any free-market competition. You think it won't; therefore you shouldn't be afraid of a free-market competition. So I'm willing to agree to a situation that sets up such a contest.

But I'm not willing to unconditionally accept whatever terms your government sets down (designed from the beginning to ensure government victory) and simply live with them. We already know what happens to government-distorted free markets; there's no need for more experimentation on that issue.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't say this as a rhetorical device. I really have no idea. You have some mighty loose associations.

We do? I have never agreed with that premise. Perhaps your definition of "work" is the problem. Does something only work when it works perfectly? If that's the case, I'm afraid you need to get ready for a lot of disappointments in life. This is anything but a perfect world. We are a fallen race, and this is a fallen world, and there is little that is perfect in it.



Unfortunately, what you propose is not possible. A government that can be individually opted out of is no government at all. We either have one or we don't. If we don't have one, I hope you are prepared to be the slave of some potentate, or else a potentate in your own right, because that's the only other option to government, i.e., the total state where the vast majority are considered the possessions of the ruling class, to be used exclusively for their benefit. It is only government that stands in the way of this outcome.



You seem to know very little about human nature.

My definition of "work" is pretty simple: if something works, then it successfully achieves the purpose for which it was created. Government, if we are to take our framers at face value, is instituted among men in order to secure their fundamental unalienable rights. Has our government done that? No: instead it occupies itself with abrogating and destroying those rights--and it has been doing so at least since the War of Northern Aggression. I'm sure I could find examples before that, even if we excuse slavery and the Native Americans.

(Remember: the most fundamental right of all is the right to private property, and you agreed with me (or at least were unable to disagree) that there is no such thing as private property in the US today.)

Can you give me an example of any other government that has worked either? I can't think of one, right off.


If you did the job that you were hired to do as badly as we both agree our government is doing the job we hired it to do, do you think you'd make it to the end of the week, or even the day, without being fired? That's all I'm saying: our government is incompetent, corrupt, and insanely overpaid. Let's fire it.


So you're unwilling to even think about a free-market competition between government and anarchism? Why does the concept make you so nervous?


First, if we had no government, I'd like to see some potentate try to make a slave of me. Perhaps you could describe how you'd foresee that happening. Secondly, I'm a libertarian: I have no interest in being a potentate. Thirdly, you've made that assertion a number of times (government or slavery are the only options), but I don't think you've ever supported it with more than one preliminary argument which you have then refused to discuss further.


Are you serious? I just described how we are already all possessions of the ruling class, courtesy of the government, and you were unable to disagree with me. It's government that produces this outcome. In the face of this, how am I to make sense of your assertion?

I never said that our current government does that well. In fact, it does it very poorly. The Declaration, however, speaks of the solution to this. "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...[now comes the important part], and to institute new government,laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Notice that they did not simply say to abolish government.



As I'd like to see you try to steal my lunch money on the way to school. No one can be made a slave against his will. You have to choose between death and slavery. Of course there is always the possibility of your vanquishing your captors, in which case, more power to you, Hercules. In truth, slavery is merely another angle on war. You can only be a slave if you choose to surrender. Your conqueror may then kill you or enslave you. It is both his choice and yours. If you never surrender, of course, that is the nobler course, but in that case, you might have to accept an honorable and very praiseworthy death.



Well, you can choose to stay clear of everyone, and live on your own, or in a small community in the mountains somewhere, I guess. But if you live in society, that society will either be a tyranny or one where the state power is reined in by the people. The latter type, we call government. In either case there will be a state power, just because of the nature of man. In any given community, there will always be some men who would rather not work for their own living. They'd rather intimidate you into working for them. These people are called the state power. Gradually, institutions rise up around them, and their positions get imbued with a sense of justice, i.e., "They ought to be our rulers, because God has willed it." Now, those institutions can remain raw state power, or society can begin to rein in that power for its own benefit. This latter scenario is called the institution of government. Some governments are better than others. Ours was probably the best there ever was. It's corruption over time is what became the bad government we know today. It was not that in its inception. It was never perfect, however, as we live in a fallen world and perfection does not exist here, unless you count my magnificent mind. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In other words, it doesn't work--so we agree, right?


Of course they didn't. They were planning to institute a new government, and they had every confidence that it would work. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that they were wrong. If they had known back then that even a government specifically designed to preserve individual liberty (rather than to support a ruling class in the style to which they wanted to become accustomed, or to conquer vast territories, or to eliminate crime, or whatever) would fail miserably, who is to say what they would have done?


Read it again. Nothing in that scenario had anything to do with me stealing your lunch money.


Close. There's a third option, of course: you arrange to make the slavery option so difficult or otherwise distasteful to the enslaver that he chooses not to bother. That's what our founders tried, and failed, to do.


That which you call "government" is a fleeting, temporary phenomenon, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in history. If it exists at all, it lasts only as long as it takes the rulers to figure out how to get around it.


I understand what you're saying; you don't have to say it again. But I don't understand how you envision that happening in an anarchist society. How does an anarchist freeman go from believing that no man has the right to rule another to believing, "They ought to be our rulers, because God has willed it?"


But with what we know now, we can see that it contained the seeds of corruption at the very beginning. It should no longer surprise anyone that it failed. We can see now the places where the tyranny we find ourselves under has come from. Among them are the welfare clause, the lack of judicial accountability, and the Congressional powers to tax and to coin money.

Let me ask you this: If you could be omnipotent for a week, how would you set things up?

Nope. I said that in its original form, it worked pretty well. What failed was its corruption. If I build a house, and for 50 years it protects me from the snow and rain, but after that time the roof starts leaking, and the termites have eaten away at the frame, and it becomes a danger even to the person it was built to protect, can I say that the house that was originally built was a failure? No, it was the corruption of that house that failed. I failed to keep it up.





No, they understood human nature, but did the best they could in an imperfect world. They knew that it would not last unless the people remained armed and vigilant in defense of liberty. The people failed. The Founders didn't, and neither did the government they established. Our task is one of restoration. There are no perfect systems that cannot be corrupted by corrupt people, given enough time.



Sad, but true. You cannot force a people to stay free.



Are anarchists somehow above human nature? In any given grouping of men, there will arise some who wish to live off the labors of others, and who will seek ways to do so. Usually lots of blood and death are involved, resulting in intimidation. Yes, the good guys can come to the rescue and chase off the scoundrels, but there will eventually be a successful bunch of scoundrels. History is replete with such examples. Show me a society and I will show you a state power. The only question is whether the given society has reined it in with government, and how successfully.





The seeds of corruption go further back than that. I believe it had something to do with a serpent and a piece of fruit. We can make no perfect systems in this world. We can only try to make the best ones possible, i.e., which take human nature into consideration. As for the welfare clause, it was not meant as it has been interpreted, and those that interpreted it knew that. As for judicial accountability, read Article III Section 2. Oh heck, I'll quote it: "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exception, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make." So, you see that congress is a check on the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. We elect Congressmen. Ultimately, it is our fault, we fallen men. As for the power to coin money, this is no longer in the hands of congress, but the Federal Reserve Bank, a private institution. This is unconstitutional. As for the power to tax, it did not extend to individuals until 1913, and that amendment was unconstitutional, because it did not satisfy the requirement for an amendment.





If I were omnipotent, I would probably live in a splendid palace (I'd probably have quite of few of them) with hundreds of beautiful slave girls serving my every need. Soon, I would place little value on human life, and I'd probably have people executed for looking at me funny. You don't want me to be omnipotent, or any other human being for that matter. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

All manmade government is unavoidably corrupt, from its very inception. You said it yourself: power corrupts, and that's what coercive government is--naked power.


I don't think the analogy is apt. Weather and termites are external to a house, even though they should optimally be provided for in the design. Corruption is intrinsic to a government, and cannot be provided for in the design. (Give it a try; you'll see what I mean.)


But they didn't understand human nature well enough. They understood that governments tended toward the tyrannical, but they didn't understand how intensely a governed people tends toward the ovine.


Prove it. There are no incorruptible governments, but you haven't effectively argued yet that the absence of a government is corruptible. See below.


Okay...I can't tell whether you're avoiding the issue or genuinely not understanding the question, so I'll ask just one more time. If you conspicuously refuse to address the question again, I'll settle for that, and won't press the issue further.

In a society where everyone is taught at his mother's knee that it is unjust for any man to rule another, through what specific process do you foresee a group of scoundrels convincing a much larger group to support them under threat of force? You've told us several times that you foresee such a process; we believe you and we don't need to be told that again. But you haven't told us yet what the process you foresee is.

Oh--and incidentally, nobody claims that an anarchist society would be perfect. But it would be free--its imperfections would be in areas other than coercion. Individual imperfect people would screw up their individual lives, but the screwups would be isolated: they would not have the coercive power to screw up the lives of others as well.


True; but its corrupt interpretation should have been foreseen. That, it seems from our current vantage point, should have been an easy one.


Okay--given our forefathers' "balance of power" theory that if a little coercion was good, a lot of coercion would be better, I suppose I can understand how they intended to make the judiciary accountable. Obviously, it didn't work; the three branches are pretty good at scratching each other's backs, if it gives each of them more power.


True, but irrelevant. If Congress had not started out with the power to coin money, we would not now be under a monopoly, whether public or "private."


Again, irrelevant. The power to tax is the power to control. Give somebody the power to tax anything, and he will eventually have the power to tax everything. I can explain how that works if you like, but not now--I'm late.


For a week, Hawkeye, for a week. When the week was over, you'd still have to face the people who paid for the palaces and the fathers and brothers of the slave girls. I figure a week is about enough time to set up whatever coercive government you'd like. You've been picking at anarchism for the past several dozen posts; let's have you design something better and I'll pick at it for a bit.

Government is the harnessing of state power that already exists, and which will unavoidably exist, due to the nature of man. Government is the people's restraint on that power, for the good of themselves. When it fails, the power reverts to its natural course, i.e., to be parasitical and predatory on society. This failure can happen gradually, or all at once. No government can perfectly control the state power, but ours did a damned good job of it for a while.



Corruption is intrinsic to man, and can only imperfectly be provided for in the design of government.



You may be right. It could be that every government is doomed to fail, eventually. I see this, however, as a basic failure in human nature, i.e., a large percent being sheeplike, and there just may be no intellectually generated solution to it, which is why I recommend recourse to tradition and the traditional institutions of liberty, i.e., a restoration of the traditional institutions of liberty.



Does this need to be argued? Any observant human being will take note of this fact in nature and history. Some men are naturally drawn toward power, and have a knack at acquiring it for themselves. I have also observed that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Acton). If there is no government, do you think there will arise no public power? When in history has such a power vacuum existed in any civilization?



Are you kidding? How would you establish such a universal tradition? At gun point? How long do you think it would last, even if you did? You remind me of the dialongues in Plato's Republic. The problem is inate in the nature of man. You cannot solve it with intellectually generated utopias. Even if you were able to establish such a tradition (by what process I cannot imagine), man's nature will not thereby be altered one iota. It is only by recourse to the traditional institutions which have fostered liberty in the past that we can find any refuge against the total state. Our task is one of restoration, not revolution (i.e., our task is not to wipe away the past in order to establish some never-before-seen utopia).



You'd be free for a very short time. I'm talking days, not generations. Ever read Animal Farm?



Whatever I devised would fail. Soon as I lost my omnipotence, the media would make a villain of me, and the people would demand the restoration of the paternalistic government they'd grown used to. The institutions of liberty cannot be imposed on anyone. They have to develop organically, along with a tradition of liberty among the people. A piece of paper is worthless if the mass of the people are too brainwashed to understand that liberty is better than paternalism. My argument is that we had those traditions, and our struggle ought to be for a restoration of them. I place little hope in the success of this endeavor. However, I place zero confidence in the success of yours.

If I were omnipotent for a week, I'd have the power to travel back in time. I would use this power to travel back to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, and I'd bring all kinds of media to show them what the future holds, and ask them to take it into consideration when they devised the new Constitution. Perhaps they would incorporate the bill of rights directly into it, and eliminate the amendment process. Perhaps property would be better defended with a clear clause prohibiting any tax on income or property holdings (The federal government would be funded with fees on imports). Perhaps property would be better defended by a clear statement of why the voting power should be apportioned based on property ownership. At least, this way, it is possible that liberty would have lasted longer. Perhaps the Civil War would have been averted if they knew ahead of time what was to happen, as it was this war most of all that started our rapid decline. Perhaps a lot of things. In any event, I think the best use I could make of my temporary omnipotence would be this trip to the past.

To argue this is to argue that 1) men have an acquisitive nature with regard to power, and 2) the greater the power, the greater its tendency to corrupt. How easy is that? Just open your eyes, man, and look around you.



Anyway, you wanted to know the process by which anarchy would be corrupted. Well, let us assume that your anarchy started off real nice, and that no other nation invaded your land, enslaving all the people. Heck, let's assume you moved to Mars, after terraforming it, and everyone there (let's say there was a population of 500,000) was an avowed anarchist. You'd all live peacefully together, and there'd be no public power to coerce anyone. You'd settle into your occupations, everyone pursuing his own self-interest. Considering man's acquisitive nature with regard to power, how long do you think it will be before the more successful anarcho-capitalists form a cooperative in order to advantage themselves in relation to everyone else? Once it was established, they'd probably want to retain their advantage, and even improve on it. They might even hire a small force of mercenaries to assist them in this endeavor.



Well, there you have the birth of the state power: something similar in organization to the Mafia. What's to stop it? It's power will be one of raw coercion. Naturally, other private businessmen might oppose it with an army of their own, but one or the other state power will win. Even if they fight to a draw, however, you would then have two state powers. What's to restrain them within their spheres of influence? The people, being anarchists, have established no government, so the state's power is raw and unrestrained. Am I missing something? Why is it you can't see this?

Hawk is winning.
The Martian colony needs some sort of structure or it becomes monopolistic....which is kind of what happened with the invention of capital and machinery and the concentrations of power/money it made possible.
Were it not for governANCE, and the political process, we would all live crappy lives on scrip. Even an enlightened population, knowing it could stop buying monopolistic goods, would have to collectively act -- hard to do with monopolistic suppliers of goods, infrastructure and especially communications.
Human beings suck. If we were all Vulcans, pure libertarianism might function. But we ain't and it won't. The thrust of libertarianism should be the expansion of human freedom, both economic and civil, and that is maximized by balance. Which we do not have in this nattering nannystate.

Dave, you make a good point. Businessmen have as their goal to corner whatever market they are involved in, because that way they make more money. Now, were there no government to prevent the use of force, these businessmen would even hire mercenaries to prevent competition from undercutting them. If they are a very wealthy organization of private businessmen, not even other private armies would be able to confront them. They'd become the total state, along the lines of the Mafia. Barak does not seem to understand that money is power, and power will corrupt, unchecked. One role of government is to make sure that people can pursue their interests (including the accumulation of wealth via private enterprise) without harming one another, which they will invariably do without a check on their power. The check must be something above the private sector, and answerable to the people at large. The check must also itself be subordinate to the rule of law, as a check on its own tendency to corrupt. But there needs to be a public power check on the corruption of private enterprise. As you say, this is all a complex balancing act, but it has to be attempted, or tyranny will certainly be the outcome.

Barak understands. He's just not willing to concede the point and he's having way too much fun jerking your chain.

I think he really believes the stuff he's saying, dead wrong though he is.

Thanks for the belly laugh, Skidrow. Whatever the deal is, the nature of freedom really does warrant discussion and not only in fora such as this, but on Channel Whatever on the tube, on radio, in all print media, and on street corners and in town halls. The big question is, what will the future be like if we DON'T have these discussions?
And the answer to THAT makes me want to load MORE AMMO.

Barak and Hawkeye: After having read through all this with great pains ( <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />), I understand your positions a lot better.
Hawkeye, you seem to express what I hold as my views purdy good! I did not realize that before.

Barak, I think it would behoove you to look at the feudalistic societies that existed in Europe, particularly what is now Germany. They had local laws, local morals, local governments. The problem? Traveling and trade was near impossible due to countless local restrictions and laws. Measures and weigths, as well as currency was non-standard. Everything was fractured/splintered.
Maybe you have not considered this, but a strong economy, even a strong society would be near impossible. I do realize, however, that you may not be interested in that in the first place.

This is all very interesting!! I've never seen the libertarian system broke down as it is here.

The issue of people being responsible for their actions to others within the community is very good. Under the present system the govt. or I should say the taxpayers are stuck paying the bill for those who engage in illegal activities.

We pay for the prosecution, the incarceration, medical and many other areas. I could see if it was something like roads and water and sewer. This is something that most people use. Some places in this country, there are some commonsense elected officials. I happen to work for one who has the feeling that why should people be forced to pay for something that most don't use.

I work for a Sheriff, that tries to do whatever it takes for those who have violated laws to pay themselves, versus the taxpayers in the county. Statistically 80% of the citizens in the US are those who, mind their own business, and do what's legally right. The 20% that doesn't, ends up being involved with 80% of the resources of LE.

Two of the biggest expenses, operations of criminal investigations and jail/medical expenses. One type of investigation is that of narcotics. I am not talking about the person with a roach, I am speaking reference to felony organized narcotics. It's expensive to conduct the surveillance, use of night vision cameras and other electronic equipment.

You can say it wouldn't cost squat if you didn't investigate. The problem is most people involved in organized criminal activities such as narcotics, are also theives!! and this has a direct impact upon the citizens in the community, with them stealing from their neighbors, friends and family.

We use a task force type program within the county, where all monies seized and proceeds (veh. auctions) etc.and 50% of all drug citations, go into a drug fund, that pays for salaries, equipment, weapons, vehicles etc. and those involved are tried through a special drug court, in which the prosecuter, judge, and clerks etc. are all paid through this drug fund and NO!! tax dollars are used, it supports itself. Those persons who are involved in this illegal activity pay their way through the system.

The other big expense is medical treatment while in jail. Many people have what's known as substance abuse medical conditions, liver problems-alcohol, hepititus-narcotics related, enlarged heart-result from smoking crack. The Sheriff considers this due to choices that the person made, they didn't have to put these toxins in their body and the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for their choices.

We all pay for our own medical, either through insurance or upfront or whatever. Our quest is to try and find familymembers of those incarcerated and try to get them to be responsible for their own family, we can't make them, but we allow them to make donations to that persons medical fund. If those people in the hospital have any property or anything of value, a request through civil court is made that these things be sold and the proceeds go towards medical expenses.

This may not be much, but it adds up and helps to do two primary things, one is helps lower the amount of funding that's normally collected through property taxes. I am not real fond of property tax anyway, why should I have to pay taxes on something that I am paying for anyway, mortgage, banknote, etc., but at least that money is being spent in my own county,(in TN. anyway, not familiar with property taxes in rest of US) not at the state or fed. govt. level.

The second thing that this program does is it makes people responsible for their actions, it's not going to be a free ride. For many people who have had various levels of govt. assistance, or have made their living through criminal activities. This is the first time that they have had to be responsible for themselves.

It is nice to see how some departments, such as yours, take care of expenses like that. I hope it never gets challenged as "unconstitutional" or crap like that, as that seems to be a trend these days.

As I stated earlier this libertarian is an interesting concept of govt. Are their any countries who use this type of govt. or some type of this philosophy within their govt.? Could this truly be implemented in the US, under our current beliefs of govt.?

Would a catastrophic event have to occur such as, let's say a coup, civil war, or economic depression or basically a complete failure of the current type of govt. before this could be implemented? It has truly gotten to where govt. agencies within the same branch of govt. are feuding, fighting etc. among themselves over the fact that "Mine is bigger then yours" concept. A good example of this is the agencies, within the justice dept. They can't do a darn thing together without one trying to stroke the other one. Less is basically the answer in govt.

Let's just say for instance, the libertarian party, put up a presidential candidate and this person took off like wild fire and was elected. Not by a large majority, but enough to get by. What would happen then? Would they start slicing and dicing, the established fed. govt.? How many years do you think it would take to eliminate what's in existence now? When you think that the current political parties have been in power for hundreds of years. How would you go about changing peoples philosophy about many things? such as attitudes towards one another and responsibility for your actions, without the fear of laws and all the established legal and criminal BS as it is today?

The old concept of changing someones mind and their heart will follow may have to be put into use. Many people who have the power, money etc. are fat, dumb and happy with the way things are now. Without sounding like a commie. would the newly established libertarian govt. have to retrain the people, with the implement of reeducation procedures, to those who have all been so use to the past? I damn sure don't have the answer, and I don't know how many years we'll be able to continue with the current system, before the top is blown off.

I know I don't want to see a civil war or some other terrible end to our govt. we all know it's not the best, but it's better then many. I like most of you work hard, for what we have, and wouldn't want to jeopardize, my family, my home, land and toys, boat, fourwheelers etc.(that my sound selfish to many). I do know that to get better, you have to give somethings up. I don't truly know if the change can come from the top (fed govt.) down. It may take a grassroots approach from the city/county level up to the state level and then eventually up to the feds. to implement a new idea of govt.

With an election year coming up, if you know people who have the ability and the desire to make changes in the current govt. in your city,town,county. Back them up, and get as many people behind them as you can. They may not win every decision that's made, but at least they'll split the vote, and make it harder for those who want to do things the established way.

Well, I think it's a nice concepts, albeit utopian at this point in time.
I don't think I have ever heard of a government in history that reduced itself in size.

Hey there, I just came to this site by way of internal discord on another site that I frequent.
I just wanted to say, if this is the way that y'all have discussions around here; I'll be back.
This was/is an interesting thread, thank you all.

Anytime pard.