Link to article

Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice To You
by Christopher Cantwell � April 8, 2014

People often complain about libertarians being rude and obnoxious. It�s not nearly as widespread a problem as some would make it out to be, and contrary to popular belief, this did not begin with me. To the extent that it does exist, I have become to many this sort of picture of the [bleep] libertarian who doesn't give a [bleep] about your feelings or opinions. So I figured I�d put this list together of why libertarians aren't nice to you. Even libertarians who are nice to you, I think will get a kick out of it, because despite their outward appearances, they are every bit as frustrated with your statism as we are. Feel free to bookmark it and produce it every time you hear someone make this complaint.

Libertarians Aren't Nice To You Because,

10. Ridicule works.

Believe me when I tell you, we would really prefer it if mankind were a rational creature that responded to reason and evidence. If that were the case, we would have already won this debate, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The State would not exist, and there would be no political arguments pertaining to it.

What we have observed from watching your elections and propagandists, is that there�s more of a �that guy sucks so you should support me!� type of psychology behind all of this. Leftists call everybody who opposes them fascists, and racists, and religious nuts, and homophobes, and greedy. Rightists call everybody who opposes them socialists, and enemies of God, they promote xenophobia about homosexuals, and immigrants, and foreign countries that they want to go to war with.

It�s unfortunate that this has become the nature of political discord, but that�s the reality we are met with. You folks have obtained such wonderful political success by being completely miserable towards one another, so we figure this is how to win political battles. Thus, we are sort of compelled to work within it. We make fun of you, because that is the nature of political discussions that we have been met with. We tear down your leaders and your people because they promote terrible ideas, and we don�t want people to take you seriously.

9. If you already have an ideology, we�re actually not terribly concerned with convincing you.

Most people have no concept of politics, economics, or philosophy. If they take an interest in these subjects because of something we said, or because they are genuinely interested in finding some kind of objective truth, then we have some hope of bringing them over to our side. Those are the people we are primarily interested in convincing.

Most people involved in these things aren't actually interested in finding any sort of objective truth. As far as we�re concerned, the fact that they aren't already libertarians is evidence enough of this. They chose a side for whatever reason, and they represent their team for better or worse. Liberals don�t tend to become conservatives, conservatives don�t tend to become liberals, and neither tend to become libertarians. At best for us, they try to get libertarians to assist them in their own anti-libertarian political agendas, and they've done an excellent job of accomplishing this. Trying to work with you then, generally ends up hurting us, and we've learned this lesson too many times to ignore it.

Having an ideology tends to imply some study of the subject at hand. If you have studied government, and determined that it has any potential to do anything positive, this implies you are really not very good at processing information. The failures of the State are so numerous and ridiculously obvious, that we find it difficult to believe any rational person could justify its existence. Your informed adherence to this absurdity tells us that you are pretty much beyond all hope of rescue.

So when libertarians argue with you, it�s not you we�re trying to convince. We�re doing it for the sake of others who might be watching. It gives us the opportunity to put information out there, and while you reject fact, after fact, after fact, we try to make you look like idiots so that others who may be watching have a negative opinion of you and your ideas, so that they do not join your cause and advance them.

8. We�re not trying to win elections

Any libertarian who tells you he is trying to win an election is either lying to you about trying to win the election, lying to us about being a libertarian, or terribly misinformed. As far as we�re concerned, elections are a bad thing. We�re trying to end them, not win them.

The nature of the State is to make false promises to bait support from the people it victimizes. They promise to protect you from boogeymen, they promise to solve your economic problems, they promise to carry out the will of your deity. We see this as completely ridiculous, we know it will fail, and we know that most people are stupid enough to swallow it hook line and sinker, so we can�t compete with it in a popular vote.

Libertarians are anarchists, whether they realize it or not. Even the ones who are delusional enough to think that they are going to get elected and restore the bloody republic, are little more than useful idiots who are repeating anarchist propaganda for us through channels normally reserved for government. The goal is not to win your elections, the goal is to turn a large enough minority against the legitimacy of the State as to make its continued function impossible. So there�s absolutely no incentive to work with you in promoting candidates, which is the primary function of your political activity. You�re right when you say �No candidate is good enough� for us, no matter who runs for office we will tear him down because nobody has the right to be our ruler.

7. We've already had this discussion a hundred times

If you had ever bothered to study the works of any of the great libertarian theorists, you wouldn't be asking us the questions you are asking. You ask �Who will build the roads?� or �What about defense?� you tell us �There is no such thing as utopia� and a lot of other really tired arguments. It shows us that you haven�t taken so much as 10 minutes out of your miserable life to even make the slightest effort to understand what we are proposing.

In the meantime, we are always staying tuned to the propaganda you consume so that we can counter it. We write thoughtful articles, and make informative videos, and produce compelling audio content that explains in great detail what exactly it is your politicians and propagandists are saying, and why it is wrong.

You don�t pay any attention to any of that content because it�s not coming from �your team�, and everyone on �your team� repeats the same propaganda. So every time we get into a political argument, we already know what you�re going to say as soon as we know which team you�re on. We already know what the proper response to your propaganda is, and we already know that you are going to act irrationally when we respond. This is extraordinarily frustrating, because we've actually put a great deal of effort into this, and these repetitive arguments are tiring, especially when they yield no results.

6. All those �what ifs� you�re so concerned about, they�re called choices.

The nice thing about freedom is, people get to make their own decisions. We�re not entirely sure why this bothers you so much. Every time you ask us �What if X?� we have a thousand different answers we can give you, if you don�t like the first one, we�re happy to give you another. The whole point is, you get to decide for yourself what suits you best in a market environment.

You have become so used to the State being the arbiter of all things, that you seem to panic at every uncertainty. The funny part about this is, the State hasn't provided you with any certainty at all. There�s absolute chaos in the world, governments have murdered over 260 million of their own citizens in the last century, not including war, and you�re still freaking out about speed limits.

5. I can�t teach you economics in 140 characters or less

The nice thing about the internet is, it allows us to communicate with many people very quickly. The downside is that this instant gratification has led people to believe answers will just be fed to them without any effort. If you really think that you�re qualified to walk into a voting booth and decide who will run the world and how, then you should have the common decency to study economics first.

All these discussions we�re having really boil down to economics. Your politicians and propagandists feed off of your prejudices and religious ideas and emotions because that�s the easiest way to manipulate you into acting against your own best interests. These tactics allow them to operate in a soundbite world and oversimplify matters. For us to explain to you what�s wrong with those soundbites actually requires some understanding of how human beings respond to incentives in a market environment. We produce thousands of pages of text, and countless hours of audio and video explaining these things. The best we can hope for in a tweet is to link you to some of it and hope you read/listen/watch, but you never do, do you?

4. We actually are smarter than you

The Triple Nine Society, an organization whose membership is reserved for people with IQ�s in the top one tenth of one percent, even more discriminating than Mensa, did a survey on the politics of its members. The results don�t surprise us. Members overwhelmingly supported legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and gambling. They supported gun rights, and free markets. They opposed government involvement in medicine, and income taxes.

Government is a scam, and like other scams it relies on the gullibility of its victims. We�re not falling for it, but you are, and your support of that system harms us. Your stupidity literally hurts.

3. Our moral superiority is justified

We know that you have some pretty twisted ideas on morality that stem from religious doctrines and other ancient texts, but logically speaking, morality should be consistent. If your moral platform can�t be applied universally, then it really doesn't make a great deal of sense.

That�s why your politicians, religious leaders, and propagandists are always getting caught doing things that go against the words they speak. Priests get caught having gay sex, socialists acquire vast amounts of wealth, �family values� candidates get caught cheating on their wives, gun control advocates murder millions of people. Their moral platforms are inconsistent, this makes them rather meaningless, and so there is no reason for them to adhere thereto.

Our moral platform is basically just the non initiation of force. As long as we don�t rob, assault, kidnap, and murder, we�re perfectly within our moral code. This is pretty easy for most people, since violence doesn't appeal to us, and so we rarely end up looking like hypocrites.

2. We�re not asking for much

If you want to have people threaten you all the time and tell you what to do, that�s your business. We don�t recommend it or anything, but really you�re more than welcome to submit to someone else�s authority in the absence of the State. We might talk to you about the virtues of freedom, but we�re honestly not trying to force you to be free. All we�re saying is you have no right to force us under the same authority.

By contrast, you want to take our property, force us into wars, �educate� our children, and control our business and personal relationships. You have some really weird idea in your head that this notion of �government� makes that okay, but there is no other circumstance in which you would consider that socially acceptable. We don�t believe in government, so we look at this like any other lunatic trying to do these things to us.

Seriously, what the [bleep]? Just leave me alone.

1. You always resort to violence

Polite discussion in State politics is an illusion. At the end of this discussion, it really doesn't matter who�s right or who�s wrong, the person with the superior numbers is going to force their bad ideas on everybody else at gun point. Just imagine doing this in reverse, where you start with a threat instead of ending with it. Nobody would try to be polite about their disagreement under those circumstances.

Since we know we have inferior numbers, and the minority always gets screwed and threatened by democracy, this is exactly what this discussion looks like to us. It begins and ends with the threat of violence, so the fact that we don�t shoot you in the face really speaks volumes to our civility.

You give us absolutely no option for escaping this violence. We are forced to choose between the violence of you, or the violence of someone else. You tell us �Love it or leave it!� or �Move to Somalia!� like I don�t have any right to be left in peace in my own home. The fact of the matter is, if you give us a choice of violence or violence, eventually we�re going to give some violence back to you, and making fun of you on twitter will become the least of your concerns.

DITTOS +1!

Not a huge Cantwell fan myself, but this particular article seemed worth wider dissemination.

Huh? (Re original post)

Anarchists have to post stuff like this in a pathetic effort to convince themselves that somehow, they really are relevant, when in truth, they're really completely irrelevant. When was the last time you guys won an election? Oh yeah, I forgot. Never.

Heh. Didn't read it, hey?

You're playing right into Cantwell's hands, saying exactly the sorts of things he's making fun of you for saying.

What would you think of a liberal who, when accused by a conservative of claiming that everyone who disagreed with him was a racist, said, "You're a racist!"?

Well, in this thread, you're playing the part of that liberal. Take a look at items 8 and 7 above.

The point is you are losing and continue to lose. There is literally no evidence you're on the cusp (or have even made progress) in turning sufficient people against the "state" to achieve your end goal.

So, once again, you didn't read did you? Because if you had, you would realize how stupid your particular angle of attack is here.

"Polite discussion in State politics is an illusion. At the end of this discussion, it really doesn't matter who�s right or who�s wrong, the person with the superior numbers is going to force their bad ideas on everybody else at gun point"


Yep, that's what G Washington did to us.

America is losing.

Some realize it,...some don't.

Those who do are libertarians.

It would appear that you are too.

As anarchist why would I want to win an election and became a part of the problem?

This is just as utopian as the progressives and just as based in reality.

Yep.

"Anyone who doesn't agree with me must be evil," eh?

I think Cantwell put that one in item 10, if I remember correctly.

Nope, just a candid appraisal. You're smart, but nuts.

You're ideas are as nonexistent, in reality, as theirs.

The arrogance, alone would be ideal fabric for the emperor's new clothes.

Ever look around and see what statism has done to society, American society in particular? Hard to imagine that anarchism could do any worse.

So basically any disagreement with libertarian principles is stupid, just because it's not libertarian?

Anyone who sees any use for any amount of federal, state, or local government is a statist?

Seems to me that libertarian principles are something that would be of great benefit to our current government situation, but a country governed by a system of total libertain ideals would be a short lived disaster.

uh-huh

next question

Barak what are your feelings on #3 in the list?

One of the Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Are Stupid

DITTOS +1!

I swear I opened this, wondering how there could be 10 reasons Librarians weren't nice to me!

Sycamore

And the number one reason?

The libertarian phuqing with you is using libertarianism and Aspergers as an excuse to be a dick.

Sure, Barak. Set up that straw man then beat the crap out of him.

Libertarianism as described in the OP represents a complete lack of knowledge about human nature.

I particularly got a kick out of this one...



First of all, Government happens any time people congregate, and human nature leads people to congregate.

Secondly, did anyone note that he didn't say that the triple 9's are Libertarians? They favor gun rights and legalized whatever...

Nothing can be legalized without a legal code. Legal codes cannot exist without the rule of law. The rule of law doesn't exist outside of an organized Government, mostly because there would be no law.

Triple 9's, like the founders of the United States, recognized the need for organized Government. They both also see the need to control that Government by the Masses.

The problem with Anarchy is that there is no mechanism in which to safeguard Liberty. Without such a mechanism, Liberty is always lost.

Men are not angels...

Lord of the Flies anyone?

Very well put. There a few things I agree with Libertarians about. But the problem is you can't be a true Libertarian, and at the same time actually DO anything about any perceived problems.

Not without becoming one of those "part of the problem" Libertarians.

Truth is, I respect them more. At least they're trying to do something about what they believe is the problem, rather than complain about everything on the internet (yes we all do that).

In reality, I see anarchists for what they really are. Like the child who stomps his feet and screams it's not fair. Then stomps his feet when it is fair because he didn't get what he wanted. So he sulks, in a corner, and refuses to participate. At least until it's time for cake. Then he's all smiles again.

The rest of us grew up and realized the party ain't ever perfect. But at least we're willing to try

Agreed!

Like you though, there are a lot of things that I tend to agree with in respect to Libertarian's.

It just cracked me up with the whole "I'm smarter than you, and here's why..." only to see that the examples given demonstrate just the opposite of what the author is intending to illustrate.

point #4...............

Newton was a libertarian? Jefferson? Locke?

I'm Libertarian in the context of Thomas Jefferson...

But points 3 and 4...

We are really smart so let us alone to have sex with goats?
Pot in every pot and a whore on every corner. I dunno.

I gotta go send in my dues to the WCTU and read another bio of Oliver Cromwell.(!!! LOL)

Please don't get me wrong; I lean Libertarian but like I said in a certain context.

Sometimes I'm just against that which is wrong just because it is wrong:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/suspended-sex-change-teacher-back-in-class/?cat_orig=education

Stupid? Well, no, not for people who need to be ruled.

For people who love liberty, well, yeah, pretty much. It's a definitional thing.


Again, it's kind of a definitional thing.


And you're going to apply these libertarian principles to our current government how? By voting? How has that been working out for you so far?

It makes me think of the way that governments always authorize themselves to commit the crimes that they punish others for committing, but when they commit them they give them different names to distract the peons.

When we do it, it's kidnapping. When they do it, it's arrest.
When we do it, it's sexual assault. When they do it, it's enhanced patdown.
When we do it, it's extortion. When they do it, it's taxation.
When we do it, it's murder. When they do it, it's officer safety.
When we do it, it's torture. When they do it, it's enhanced interrogation.
When we do it, it's counterfeiting. When they do it, it's quantitative easing.
When we do it, it's negligent homicide. When they do it, it's collateral damage.

Yup, yup, I pretty much had you figured for an Item 7 kinda guy. Enjoy...

Which straw man do you mean? Cantwell? Or Cantwell's article?

Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're defining your terms very irresponsibly. Either way, it's obvious that you've spent no time reading any serious liberty-oriented literature (I don't mean Alex Jones or Glenn Beck, I mean Hazlitt, Rothbard, von Mises, Hayek, Chodorov, Block, DiLorenzo, etc.).

If you're going to make fun of Cantwell for claiming that he's smarter than you, you probably ought to do at least enough study so that you recognize the concepts he's describing first. Basic concepts, like "government" and "liberty."

Man, us libertarians really are smarter than you.

I wish anarchists would stop speaking as though there are no libertarians who aren't anarchists. Libertarian principles form much of the foundation of my conservatism, and I'm certainly no anarchist.

Libertarians are against things that are wrong just because they're wrong too.

Libertarians recognize, however, that the fact that they consider something to be wrong doesn't give them the right to stick their noses (well, their governments, and their governments' thugs, and their governments' thugs' guns and badges) into other people's lives.

At least this guy doesn't have a gun:

Don't worry. If you're consistent, you will be one day.

Minarchism is a nice internally-inconsistent stopping place along the path, but a thinking man can't stay there forever.

In my opinion, a thinking man understands that human intelligence has its limits. Said thinking man understands that the human condition isn't perfectible, thus certain compromises are necessary. He understands that long standing traditions and institutions form the pillars of liberty, and that liberty is the fruit of only certain kinds of cultures, and not of others. This is what a conservative understands that an anarchist doesn't.

Part of the reason you're still a minarchist, I think, is because you don't yet have enough experience with anarchism to understand that the bolded statement is false. Anarchists understand that perfectly well, and some of it (for example, the perfectibility part) they understand better than conservatives.

But it'll come. If you don't dig it out yourself, it'll soon be forced on you--you and a whole host of other people. My prediction is that you'll be one of the ones who's open enough to receive it, while a large number of others just whimper and wring their hands in cognitively-dissonant irrationality.

Barak, your hubris knows no bounds.

Anarchism is not a subset of libertarianism it is its antithesis.

Libertarians say people may do whatever they want so long as they don�t infringe on others� right to the same. This is self-evidently just.

Anarchists say people may do whatever they want including the denial of others� right to the same. This is self-evidently immoral.

But, Barak, the good news for you is that Anarchism is the condition that�s been on earth everywhere since the Fall. I�ve read many times of how you contend that people will band together for their own self-protection and self-interest to include your high school days of beating up the out of tune band member. And that is the human condition. But guess what? Every government (which you obviously loath) is an application of that. When people band together to affect others� behavior it may go by many names, such as band, gang, organization, �our thing�, club, etc., but one of these names is �government�.

That�s right, Barak, baby, you�re living the dream! Every government that�s ever existed is simply an application your beloved anarchism in action.

But, there is a distinction between them. The governments that put rules in place to allow self-determination (i.e., libertarianism) to exist are just.

The governments that prey upon their members and deny them this right or allow their members to do so to other members unabated (i.e. anarchism) are immoral.

Hawkeye advocates the former and you advocate the later.

What a bunch of worthless drivel. I love the "I can't teach you economics in 140 characters or less"...this from a group who doesn't understand there are two separate types of economics; micro & macro.

And they're "so smart" that they just completely ditch macro and apply simplistic microeconomics to everything, dumbing it down so they can preach their vision to the mental midgets they associate with.

Don't get me wrong, I'd vote for a Libertarian WAY before I'd vote for a Democrat or Republican. But pure Libertarian politics is pretty flawed in several areas. I agree with the Libertarians on most social issues, and on more political issues than the other two parties. But their view of economics is simplistic, childish, and completely ignores the lessons of history.

Under discussion is the principle of libertarianism, not the party. Conservatism mimics it while Liberalism mimics anarchy. By voting for neither you endorse the later.

Says the party man. That's the most worn out BS line in the history of politics; and it's complete bull-sheitt!

Why do I not vote for either. Because BOTH are heading precisely in the wrong direction, and will un-do this nation. I have come to this realization and I want to be able to look my kids in the eye and tell them that I stopped the madness; that I wasn't a part of it.

When you KNOW that neither party is the right choice, how moral is it to choose what you consider the lesser of two evils? Who would you rather have kill your family, an axe murderer or a delusional who smother's them all in their sleep? The end result is the same.

Where are the glowing examples of anarchy? People fear it so much they will choose tyranny over it. As Madison said, people are not angels.

There are amazing examples of murderous Marxism because people will even tolerate that for a while. Anarchy, no.

The irony of this is that my leanings are libertarian, just not to the point of reality denial.

Someone has blown too much smoke up the little monkey's butt.

If I remember correctly, barak, you see yourself as a Christian. If so, how can you be in denial about human nature and that the Bible teaches that God gives good government as a blessing? Romans 13

Yah, I figured somebody would say something like that. But it's true: government and liberty are fundamentally incompatible, and once you've been able to divorce yourself from the appropriate childhood indoctrinations--which isn't easy--the conclusions are difficult to avoid.

And it's also true that anarchists understand the imperfectibility of humanity better than conservatives do. Conservatives believe that humans are perfectible enough to be trusted with the rule (however limited in theory) of other humans; anarchists believe they're not.

It's unfortunate that that causes offense; I wish it didn't. But there we are.

Okay, that's a fascinating assertion. Here you had my undivided attention.


But here's where it became evident that you have no idea what you're talking about...so I stopped reading. Sorry. It's that Item 7 again.

Anarchy works very well on a very small scale. Government happens as things grow larger and people quite predictably become less honest as they get less personal to others.

And I'd love to meet an An-Cap who has actually taken and passed a macro-economics class. If they have taken such a class with anything even remotely approaching an open mind, and still advocate An-Cap, then I'm just speechless...I just can't wrap my head around that kind of ignorance.

We understand that Keynesians believe there are two separate types of economics. Keynes had to come up with two separate types because otherwise he would not have been able to get anybody to accept his wild-eyed theories that plainly claimed exactly the opposite of what everyone knew to be the case from personal experience.

"Ah, yes, I understand that it seems to you as though you can never spend your way out of debt; but that's because you only have experience with microeconomics. Up in our sophisticated ivory towers, we professional economists have been to Oppositeland and brought back the theory of macroeconomics that explains how you can do it. Don't worry about the details; it's much too advanced for the likes of you."

With only a little injustice, you could probably sum up the work of Ludwig von Mises in the statement, "It's all microeconomics."

And that's one of the reasons I like the Austrian School: it makes a whole lot more intuitive sense than the Keynesian School or the Chicago School with their constant appeals to special revelation.


Big-L Libertarians are about as libertarian as big-R Republicans are conservative. I'm not interested in defending them. But small-L libertarianism doesn't include social issues, and it really has only one political issue: the Non-Aggression Principle.


Austrian economics is indeed very simple; that's one of its major attractions. And no, Austrians don't ignore the lessons of history: they merely have different interpretations of them than you do.

For example, you know the boom-bust business cycle that Keynesians relegate to superstition and "animal spirits" and such? Austrians know how it happens, why it happens, and even approximately when it will happen. That's why Peter Schiff has been so successful in predicting the economy over the past ten or fifteen years.

+1

Actually, God gave government as a curse and a punishment, not a blessing. See I Samuel 8.

Ah, the old nanny-nanny-boo-boo school of debate, the classic mark of someone unable to defend their position.

Actually, it's socialism that works very well--better than anything else we know--on a small scale. Even the most outspoken capitalists in the world acknowledge this by running their own families on a socialist model.

As groups grow larger and people can get away with more dishonesty, socialism becomes unworkable and you have to turn to capitalism. And to get the full benefits of capitalism, you have to eliminate government: government distorts capitalism and makes it less efficient.

The complexity of centralizing a population of size N is proportional to N squared. Government becomes less workable (and rapidly so), not more, as the population increases.


That's like saying you'd like to meet a cosmologist who has taken and passed a Copernican-astronomy course. Austrian economists look at Keynesian macroeconomists the way you look at witch doctors hooting and dancing around bonfires.

Pretty much made my point.

It's funny how you're right on this, and every major economist in the world is wrong. What's more, most every nation in the world is wrong.

If one person tells you you're drunk; that's an opinion. If 10 people tell you you're drunk; you ought to hand someone your keys.

It's not a debate. Before you can debate you need a position. You don't have a position; you have an incoherent pile of inaccuracies. My lunch hour is nearly over; I have better things to do. Go educate yourself and c'mon back. Here's something that's simple and clear: For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. (Free, full-text PDF. Will you read it? Will you even look at it? Let me write down my prediction. Okay, there.)

Yet most EVERY nation in the world abandons the completely "free" markets as abuses pile up and the "market" is unable to "self-correct". It fails EVERY TIME on the large scale. You know it does...you're just more interested in winning arguments to validate your pre-conceived notions.

Well CLEARLY...that's why after a decade of de-regulation in the '80's much like we de-regulated in the '90's, Austrian banks rapidly re-regulated in 1996...you know, because it worked so well.

I'll give you that economics in Austria are FAR better than those here in the US. But Austrian economics are a good light-year away from An-Cap. Their markets are regulated, and it all works because their regulators actually regulate...rather than jump in bed with the banks like ours do.

You won't read my short post but you want me to look up and read some treatise of your choosing? Quite the narcissist, you are.

Maybe libertarians aren't nice to people is because they'RE azzholes by thEIR nature. ThERE , I said it.

Actually, you're thinking of anarchists...like Barak, who brags of beating up his bandmate to get his way.

Personally I find most Libertarians to be FAR MORE nice than hardcore Democrats or Republicans. I like much of what Libertarians stand for, but their version of economics is dangerously sophomoric. They would completely de-regulate Wall Street...even after seeing that the 2008 collapse was the direct result of reckless de-regulation and reckless regulatory intervention at the behest of large investment banks.

Everything that Anarchists espouse rests on everyone accepting that their version of morality is the only version of morality; specifically the use of force. Again, it's very sophomoric.

By the way, is that what you meant to write, Mr. Strunk & White?

I've done enough reading to know that he was using a group that advocates the governing of men to attempt to demonstrate how they don't, and that makes him smart.

TFF.

What Libertarians attempt to define Liberty as is in fact freedom, not Liberty. Liberty flourishes within a stable structure that Anarchy cannot provide. Freedom doesn't need such a structure, but then again, the nature of man itself will always destroy freedom.

Since men are not angels, men will always exploit other men. That is the provable nature of man that has been lived out since the dawn of time. That is in fact why Government itself is corrupt. It consists of men. It is a reflection of mankind itself.

Man's nature is to associate with other men. This developes into social rules called norms. Man has therefore made law. Law is nothing more than agreed upon norms.

Now, in the interest of keeping things honest, when men have a disagreement on how their agreed upon norms apply to a particular situation, they seek a 3rd party, preferably a nonbiased one. They have just participated in an election.

The anarchist is not an advocate of liberty. Liberty is not Liberty without the rule of law. Remove the rule of law you have freedom. At least until human nature takes over again.

Lord of the Rings all over again...

HugAJackass,

Libertarianism and anarchism are not the same things; they are in fact polar opposites. In other words, I�m agreeing with you, I just think you mixed up the label in one instance in your otherwise excellent post.

I have read that and again all of his premises are based off of a complete lack of understanding human nature. Especially the whole concept of embracing nonagression. Mankind is aggressive at their core and in his nature. The anarchist rejects this fact.

He makes the argument that aggression comes primarily from the State but again ignores the fact that the State is a reflection of the nature of man. You can remove the State but you cannot remove man's nature, especially when it comes to aggression.

Oh, I totally agree. Barak doesn't, so, I'm using his terms to demonstrate the fallacy that he espouses.

It's funny to me how anarchist speak out against republican concepts but use them to make that very argument.

They tell us to read specific authors. They fail to see that they have elected these authors to be their representatives.

Proving again that even they are subject to the nature of man.

If we were the ancient Jews, that might actually be some sort of an answer.

I'll assume you had no answer for the rest.

Ok. Maybe a reason ......

Ah, gotcha!

And I agree with you. All correct thinking about mankind is based on the reality that mankind is fallen. That�s why mechanisms are required to keep people from harming each other. Failure to recognize that is what enables dictators to assume absolute power�

�and what provides smug little band members justification for ganging up and ambushing their bandmates and then bragging about it.

Very true! Further proof that the fall of man is a real thing and we are indeed born into a corrupt nature.

You cannot get around the nature of man as an anarchist.

A great example of naive economic policy of the Libertarian Party is their stance on the bailouts (TARP) of the investment banks. They were/are 100% against it.

And while I agree with them on principle, the fact that they don't even recognize that our position was unique, just shows they don't get it.

If we COULD have let them fail, then letting them fail would have been the best thing.

But we couldn't, and few understand that; clearly the Libertarians don't get it. I honestly think they don't understand what really happened in 2008. They stand on their principle, and they would have plunged America down on it's own sword just so they could be "right".

2008 took deep economic understanding to know that letting the banks fail meant dooming every major corporation in America; whether they had any part in the crisis or not. That's just dumb. It would also mean instant worldwide economic depression.

It could have even gone so far as to collapse our currency (although I doubt it ever would have gone that far).

Saving Wall Street was the only sane option even though it was repugnant to everyone. Where we made our mistake, was not breaking the "too big to fail's" up after we stabilized our economy.

I'm not interested in political parties that are written in stone even when they have it clearly demonstrated to them that they're wrong. We need leaders and statesmen who are adult enough to recognize and admit when they're wrong.

George W. Bush was absolutely disgusted with TARP (as was anyone with any sense of morality). But he at least had the brains to listen to people who deeply understand economics. And fortunately during that crisis we had Bernanke; one of the leading scholars on the Great Depression. Bernanke was completely appalled by a socialistic nationalizing of banks, but he was at least smart enough to recognize that it was the only viable solution.

TARP was repugnant...but the real sin was not learning from our mistakes and not breaking up the banks afterward.

This is my problem with the Libertarian party. At least the Dems and Repubs could be reasoned with when push came to shove. Unfortunately, they couldn't be counted on to to the right thing once they were out of the fire.

Kevin,

The discussion is not about the Libertarian party in whatever form it currently is or what stance they have taken on particular issue. The discussion is about the principle of libertarianism.

A) there is no escaping complete collapse; Dems & Reps merely kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with

B) Dems & Reps didn't do the right thing while holding their noses; they acted out of self-preservation (ie: greed) and any indication it was otherwise was showmanship

C) it wasn't that they "couldn't be counted on to do the right thing once they were out of the fire" but that they NEVER INTENDED TO "do the right thing"

D) just because libertarians say we should have let them fail does NOT necessarily mean they didn't recognize the possibility of collapse; maybe they just think we should stop putting off the inevitable (see A)

E) as has already been said several times, this thread isn't about the Libertarian Party but about libertarian principle

* B & C are easily proven by checking out how many power brokers in the big party (yes, singular) are connected to the financial services industry

Libertarian principle is completely un-regulated markets. For some markets, that would be a god-send. For financial markets, it should be very apparent that complete de-regulation would be a disaster.

I agree with libertarians on many principles. But the economics of the libertarian credo is just wrong. You cannot run a nation on micro-economics. There's a good reason why NO nation in the world does it.

And God don't I wish we could; I really do. Would make life so much easier. But the reality is, that a nationwide economy is far too complex for such simplistic ideas.

No it's not and just because you say so doesn't make it so. On the contrary, the evidence is clear that open markets ("unregulated", as you call them) work quite well.

You keep posting these same gratuitous assertions about the applicability of libertarian principles but don't offer any proof. Barak and I have offered alternative points of view in response to specific assertions you've made. Simply restating your assertions doesn't really make for a debate or even a conversation on the topic.

I should have added another point to those above...

F) generally speaking, regulations are made by those who have been successful enough to have gained influence and are crafted to block others from doing the same

Excellent post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tag

No.

Anarchy is simply the lack of government in a society.

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

Probably my favorite essay on the matter:

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

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

Gotta love the irony in that...

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

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

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

which one?

Which anarchist?

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

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

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

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

The anarchist seeks to head em off at the pass.

Who really is an anarchist? I can't think of one single person on Earth that lives under that 'system'.

According to Bristoe, this means that they are not, in fact, Anarchist.

You misunderstood Bristoe.

This one...



There is a whole Libertarian Party...

Very few today, I'd think.

But there's been several examples of societies existing in a state of anarchy in recent times.

Maybe not technically,...but for all practical purposes.

America's western frontier went for many years without being troubled by a centralized power.

Two points: 1) The Libertarian Party isn't any more the standard for libertarianism than the Republican Party is the standard for republicanism, and 2) You're conflating libertarianism with anarchism. Anarcho Capitalists are a subgroup of libertarians only.

What did I misunderstand?

The Libertarian party isn't representative of todays libertarians.

In fact, there's quite a bit of conflict between the Campaign for Liberty bunch and the Libertarian party.

The Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Peter Schiff type of libertarians don't even bother to acknowledge the Libertarian party.

The Libertarian party is representative of the beltway libertarian crew,..as is The Cato Institute.

They are, and always have been posers.

Maybe a few isolated Amazon tribes or African bushmen, these days.

That's my point.

Barak put up the statement that libertarians are anarchist.

I am saying that there are libertarians among the Libertarians just as there are republicans among the Republicans.

Maybe,...but when you start using the Libertarian party as an example, it's obvious that you're not informed about todays libertarian movement.

The old beltway libertarians have been kicking around D.C. for a long time.

They have nothing to do with the grassroots libertarian movement.

So, to sum up, libertarians are not Libertarians, and anarchist are not Libertarians, and Anarchist Capitalist aren't anarchist, but they are Libertarians....

Well that's simple.

Bristoe didn't say anything that contradicted what I said above.

Paulians are the new libertarians which sprung up around the campaign of Ron Paul.

Some of them are anarchists,..some aren't.

It's not complicated.

You're trying to make it sound complicated when it's not, or shouldn't be to someone with normal intelligence willing to pay attention for a few minutes.

You must have missed my comment about Rothbard's writings. I've read most of the stuff many of you guys suggest. I just don't think that it holds water when confronted with human nature, especially in regards to aggression.

You have a limited definition of aggression.

You boys need to lighten up. I know that this isn't overly complicated. I'm just making light of the terms at play when you say them out loud.

I used his definition.

*shrugg*

I'm being light about it.

I don't know about other anarchists but I don't belong to any political party any more. I also don't belong to any church for the same reason I'm anarchist.

Touche!

Don't forget that conservatives aren't Conservative (ala Isaac) and Conservatives aren't necessarily Republicans.

That makes perfect sense to me; I am leaning more & more in that direction but am libertarian and not officially affiliated with a party either.




Totally different subject; Luther's two kingdoms .

At this point, I'm just watching it all play out.

There's not going to be a good resolution to this mess.

"Totally different subject; Luther's two kingdoms."

Thanks, I thought I was alone.

Oh yeah, if your example of anarchy working is people so spread out they never see one another, that's isolation, not anarchy.

Detroit might be more like it. Similar results.

Detroit isn't an example of anarchy. It has a government.

A classic government, actually.

http://metrotimes.com/columns/how-corrupt-is-detroit-1.1285299

Last week the federal government announced that it would stop sending a $50 million annual grant to the Detroit Human Services Department due to nepotism, reckless spending and corruption. In another case, the U.S. Justice Department records allege that contractor and Kwame Kilpatrick pal Bobby Ferguson obtained $58.5 million through extortion and other illegal means as part of the alleged "Kilpatrick Enterprise." Meanwhile, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has recently formed a special multi-agency task force in its Detroit office, declaring a war on public corruption.

"The city of Detroit has been hit hard by public corruption crimes. The individuals who commit these crimes are driven by greed and have no regret for their selfish actions," said IRS-CID Special Agent in Charge Erick Martinez during a March 1 press conference announcing formation of the task force.

That sounds appropriate. When you look at the investigation into dealings at Wayne County under Executive Robert Ficano, the Mayor Kilpatrick et al. indictments, former City Council member Monica Conyers cooling it in the cooler for taking bribes, it would seem this is about as corrupt an area as you can get. Google "Detroit" and "corruption" and you'll find such choice phrases as "notoriously shady U.S. city," "reign of corruption" and (from Wikipedia) a "reputation as one of the most corrupt cities in America."

Sorry, B, dat was a joke, but not a bad example of when govt breaks down to near anarchy. It's also a pretty good rap on progressivism.

I am pretty sure Detroit would not improve if its remaining govt went away, tonight. That is, until enough folks were killed off to arrive at individual isolation. ;-{>8

I think it would improve dramatically.

We seriously, but convivially disagree.


What would ensue, would make Attila the Hun look like P T Barnum.

Me too!

I don't see why you say that.

The government of Detroit is just a bunch of powerful crooks. (like government everywhere)

Why would the city suffer if the most powerful crooks in the city ceased to exist?

I had to go look up Luther's two kingdoms as I'm not Lutheran. I'm not a dualist so I don't subscribe to dualist principles but I can see your point.

Maybe because all the Detroit gangs would take over?

Detroit's main problem is that it's full of nig gers.

See Haiti.

Actually, Detroit would improve dramatically because there would be justice something that is impossible under government.

Under anarchy it would not be full for long. The Muslims would see to that.

So,...Detroit needs the government crooks to control its non government crooks?

Ironic isn't it?

If that's a serious question, you've lead a seriously sheltered life.

Another post earlier mentioned that the frontier was without government for a while.

Both these situations are not what people think. You can romanticize it all you want. And we can look to someone's "writings" all we want. Problem is that's not reality. Anyone with one flippin ounce of common sense would know that.

What happened in the frontier and is happening in certain areas today is not romantic in the least. What's happening is that without some sort of order and rule of law, the strong survive. Some of those strong are evil.

If I want to violate you, I will if I think I can get away with it. Without rule of law, the only two things stopping me are my own conscious and fear of reprisal.

Assuming an evil person has little or no conscious, and you are not strong enough or equipped well enough to stop me, you become my victim. In any way I want.

If you think that stuff doesn't happen, take a look in our worst neighborhoods, our worst prisons, or third world countries.

People would do what they've always done. Band together for either strength or protection. Which in itself becomes some sort of government.

This is all fun to debate, but it's not realistic at all. Anarchy as a way of life is nothing more than a myth for anyone not living alone.

Yes, our government is broken. Maybe beyond repair. Whether we fix it or replace it, and how that's done, remains to be seen. But doing away completely with order and rule of law is stupid. And dangerous. Good people get hurt and killed. A true anarchist is a heartless sob in my book.

yep.

,..as a matter of fact, that just happened in Nevada a couple of days ago.

It was anarchy.

This to makes no sense to me. What you are describing is being done every day by the government and it's hired thugs. I cannot see where have a government and government thugs run things is a sight might better than having anarchy.

Really? So an organized militia is anarchy? People organizing to fight a common enemy is anarchy?

Not even close.

What happened in Nevada was a good example how we might start to change our government or replace it with a better one.

But it wasn't anarchy

Yup it sure was. The people banded together against the government thugs those paragons of law and order that many favor.

You have no idea of what anarchy is. But don't feel bad neither do 99% of the Fire.

You can't have it both ways.

Pick one.

Seems to me that's essentially the only argument being made against the OP in this thread, yes.

Is this anarchy?

Anarchy is the nonexistence of the state, but those who romanticize about anarchy don't seem to realize how the state came about to begin with. It started as soon as folks settled down and attached themselves to the land. Bands of criminals came around and forced these stateless folks to provide a certain percentage of the product of their labor to them on a regular basis so they could live in comfort without having to labor. Eventually, these criminals started calling themselves (and insisting others do so) by various titles of privilege, like king, lord, duke, and their henchmen knights, and started calling the extortion they engaged in taxation.

That's the way states came into existence. Rid yourself of them, and it starts from scratch all over again. It's inevitable, so making it abide by laws (the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, or what have you) is the best a people can hope for.

They are the same thing. When people band together their is a structure. Always is. How sophisticated it is varies, but it's always structured. With leadership positions and rules. And people who follow those rules.

Doesn't fit the definition of anarchy. But I've been told I don't know what it is.

Excellent argument. You apparently win. Congrats

Please don't take Uriah's word for anything having to do with anarchism: he is severely misinformed or deliberately misleading.

He's not arguably wrong or a little misdirected; he's doing the equivalent of telling you that bolt-action and gas-operated rifles are completely different animals because the bullet comes out of a bolt-action's muzzle but out of the gas port on a semiauto.

He's completely wrong and, it seems, not likely to be right anytime soon.

Actually,..violence on the western frontier has been greatly exaggerated.

Our highly governed cities of today are much more violent.

http://perc.org/articles/old-west-violence-mostly-myth

I agree with your analysis of the govt of Detroit. It is, however, a reflection of the people of Detroit. As any elected govt is a reflection of the people. The implication of this idea is that the folks will do nothing different, if left to themselves. The most powerful crooks would become the biggest and toughest thugs. Anarchy don't change that.

What your bands of people gonna do about Putin and his ilk. Howsabout Kim Jong nutso?

North Korea is about as strong of a case as there is to be made for anarchy.

You're not a Christian; it's an essentially Christian principle for it assume's Christ's special reign in and over His Church.

As such, Barak's citation of the passage in Samuel wherein Israel "talks God into" nominating a king, relates not to the kingdom of men (over which Christ's reign comes through the necessary evil of human gov't just as it did outside Israel in that passage's context) but to the Church. It is, in mind, what we see in congregations where the US flag flies over the Christian flag, or where they recite the pledge of allegiance (and have likely forgotten the Apostle's creed) and clap for members of the armed forces on Memorial Day.

It is right that within the Church there are varying views of right governance in the Kingdom of men. I have no problem worshipping next to Republicans & Democrats, although I do find their ability to rectify their party's (singular) actions with the teachings of Christ to be strangled, just as they likely do mine (not knowing that I am not a big-L Libertarian).

You are right that anarchy is absent of a state. The Celts did not have a state but they certainly had a government structure and were anarchists and libertarians.

However, laws without force to back them up is useless. If total force stays with the people and the state has no force than there is no need for the state. If there is a state and the state is to survive than the state must have total force on it's side. If total force is on the side of the state than criminals will eventually take over the state. It's not practical to change the state every couple of decades or centuries. Hence, I'm an anarchist.

And in that link it says over 200,000 people flocked to Ca to get rich. What prevented chaos was that the mining camps quickly establiahed rules. Paraphrased of course.

That would argue against anarchy. And in any case, 200,000 people is not that many compared to today. The link would seem to suggest that lower population densities and lower population overall is more responsible for less violence than anything else. I'd agree with that.

It's all still a form of people governing each other. Not anarchy

,...without the need for a central government.

It was anarchy.

You are absolutely right. It's amazing how few people actually carried firearms in the Wild West.

Albert Jay Nock would suggest that you were failing to draw a proper distinction between government and the state. The state, by definition, engages in the criminal application of force in order to exploit the labor and/or ingenuity of others, while its members produce nothing by their own labor and/or ingenuity. Government, on the other hand, is closer to what you describe as having taken place in the gold mining towns of the early West, i.e., the establishment and enforcement of rules for the preservation of ordered liberty.

It wasn't government by the accepted, modern definition of the term.

I don't think he cares about your argument any more than feeding his uncle to the dogs. Are you gonna argue against him, his auntie did.

I guess I need to clarify my point if possible. I don't belong to any Church Christian, Pagan, or otherwise is because all organized religions, i.e. Church, have a religious state of some sort with a government run by the religious gang of the moment. Being a anarchist that would go against my principle of free thinking.

I know you have heard of the cavalry.

It was more of a cooperative than a government.

Government is a central authority.

Albert can argue all he wants. Dont make either of us right or wrong.

It appears the definition of anarchy is the real question. DD said I didn't know what it was. But I do. What I'm gathering is that those on this board who espouse anarchy have a definition that is specific to this country in this time. If I'm understanding right, it's just the absence of the governments we have now right? Not the people per se, but the system. But that some sort of order and governing of people is ok? Hmm

Here's the anarchy definition as I've always known it and that I've been arguing with.

Main Entry: an�ar�chy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌn�r-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler � more at arch-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature � Israel Shenker> 3 : anarchism

I bet that it wasn't. I bet leaders stepped up and lead while others followed. I bet that there agreed upon representatives and agreed upon rules.

The makings of a state structure. It happens whenever people congregate.

Anarchists aren't against rules we are against the state and it's absolute force.

Given much more time or size, there would have been one.

There was no central authority.

There was no government.

Quite possible.

Given enough time, it could have become corrupt enough to call it a government.

Rules are the birthplace of a Government. Rules require consequences and enforcement.

This is the nature of man. All the required corruption was already present.

Assumed authority is the birthplace of government.

OK, let's try this. If it was so good why did it go away? Why does this supposed anarchy not take hold, anywhere, and thrive? How does it defend itself?

I think Nock's distinction is valid, and should be used today, even if today most think of government and the state as mere synonyms. They really are not.

The confusion comes from the fact that the state tends to commandeer all efforts at government. Also, the state is a larger concept than government, since government only includes those persons who draw a pay check from public coffers, while the state extends to bankers and corporate CEOs, etc., who exercise state power (through corruption) in order to criminally exploit labor (e.g., corporate welfare, favorable regulation, and even the fundamental practice of banking, which is legalized theft as today practiced).

Yep at about the same time men in positions of favor found ways to exercise their authority to their own advantage. Something tells me that the first couple of such hucksters woulda gotten some frontier justice applied forthwith.

Like what Hamilton ought to have gotten after the Whiskey Rebellion... Oh wait... Which he DID get after the Whiskey Rebellion... Just TOO LONG AFTER (Aaron Burr).

Now you understand the attraction of not having man assume the authority inherent in a government. (anarchy)

,..glad you finally see it my way.

Not all authority is assumed.

I always love that definition of anarchy. Under this definition every government out there is anarchy. There is more lawlessness and political disorder under government than lawlessness and political disorder in the absence of governmental authority.

No,...most is bought these days.

Not the birthplace of governments but can be the birthplace of the state.

Now you understand the attraction of not having man assume the authority inherent in a government. (anarchy)

,..glad you finally see it my way.



Bwahahahaha. What gives you so much faith in the men outside the govt?

They're the same.

But outside of government, they don't rule the people.

Now, on that we can agree.

Rules, consequences and enforcement don't require a government.

If you agree with that, what more need be said?

It is government, just embryonic.

The Nature of man does.

You anarchists scare me in the way that folks should have been scared by Karl Marx.


This kind of utopian crap always leads to millions dead. This is the same irrationality on the other end of the spectrum. The biggest and strongest feed on such opportunities. Thugs abhor a vacuum.

A good question. Authoritarians (power mongers, criminals, etc.) hate anarchy because anarchy doesn't allow them to control people so they convince low information people to form a state of some sort for the benefit of the people which in reality benefits the authoritarian. Government is just a system of management it's the state that's the problem.

It's not what people mean when they say "government" in the 21st century.

It didn't go away.

It was whittled away a piece at a time by the people with enough money to buy authority.

It's still being whittled away.

Which people in particular?

Yup, the Celts did not have any state but they did have a government. It's also interesting to note the gifts and what we would call welfare came directly out of the pockets of the leaders and not the people.

All authority is always assumed.

Everybody knows that it's huge.

Nobody outside of the occasional rain forest thinks of 21st century government as being embryonic.

Well, to continue with the nature of man, authority is most often assumed, but it is often due to a void.

With people, there will always be leaders who inspire and followers who actually want leaders to follow.

Authority is not always assumed, sometimes it is requested and given by consent.

And they get the rope a lot quicker.

Ignorant comment of the day.

They sure don't ask the vigilantes of Montana.

nah,...it's bought.

Want more authority,...get more money.

Anarchy is not a vacuum unless you think a state is an absolute necessity.

How so?

Absolutely!!!!

Authority can be had without money or coercion.

Read the conversation that I'm having with Bristoe.

Authority can be bestowed or even assigned as in the case of the celts that you so enjoy pointing out. It's not always assumed.

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

Other things have helped change my mind. R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii calculates that in the twentieth century alone, states murdered about 162,000,000 million of their own subjects. This figure doesn�t include the tens of millions of foreigners they killed in war. How, then, can we speak of states �protecting� their people? No amount of private crime could have claimed such a toll. As for warfare, Paul Fussell�s book Wartime portrays battle with such horrifying vividness that, although this wasn�t its intention, I came to doubt whether any war could be justified
_______________________________________

For most people, anarchy is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism � things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term state, despite its bloody history, doesn�t disturb them. Yet it�s the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can�t assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what legitimacy means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label.

�But what would you replace the state with?� The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state. Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be �replaced.�

I've yet to see an Anarchist argument on how to address aggression. The whole premise of anarchy is based upon nonagression, which is not in the nature of man.

With anarchy, the main purveyor of aggression wouldn't exist.

That right there is funny. A bunch of dorks who read political theory and talk about it on the internet for fun scare you? F'real?




What thread have you been reading? I haven't seen anyone suggesting the utopian dreams of a totalitarian. Maybe of a flower child?

You think there is a sleeper cell of "legalize marijuana" activists who are gonna get violent and plan a coup to overthrow the gov't?

We might overthrow YOU... If you have a Mountain Dew and a bag of Doritos...



Wait are you saying that thugs don't love the state we have now? There is more than a little irony here.

Which is the major area where those with your line of argumentation falls short. It's circular. You say gov't is absolutely necessary to protect us when arguing against anarchists, while in other threads you'll argue against Liberals saying that that the number one thing we need protection from these days is the gov't.

Which is it?

I am not an anarchist, but I sure do recognize the logic of their argument.

Oh yes we would.

Haven't you heard about "micro aggressions"?

lol,...

That doesn't hold water. The State is a reflection of society.

Where you see the main purveyor being the State, I see the main purveyor being man and his own nature. Your have no State without man. Man is the source of aggression, not the State.

The Celtic leaders did not have any authority. The druids did have some by virtue of being holy men. The people followed their leaders not because they had authority but because the leaders had wisdom. However, leaders could be replaced at anytime even by assassination if the leader would not leave the office. If a leader became disabled for any reason he lost his office.

Authority was never bestowed or assumed. A leader had to prove himself at all times. Because I don't handle authority well I understand what authority is.

I am unclear on this point also, but I think the idea is along the lines of the well armed society being the polite society? As in we're all armed and some sort of non-institutionalized system of Justice ensures we measure responses to aggression ie: a tooth for a tooth (rather than a life for a tooth)?

For the record, I don't believe anarchy is possible to maintain.

Humans are too rotten to stay free for very long.

But it's difficult to live under modern governments and not see the attraction of no government.

Where did you come up with that one? Nobody said there would not aggression but the real serious aggression would not exist if there was no state.

+1

This is a temporary state of grace .

Not really.

Society, as a whole, is too ignorant of the state to be a reflection of it.

Nope the state is the main source of aggression.

That works with individuals, not factions.

I don't think that humans are too rotten to stay free it's that humans are too ignorant and lazy to stay free. Hence, it's easy for a snake oil salesman to sell the concept of the state to lazy and ignorant humans.

Oh yeah, on that I agree 100%.

That's actually been the case I've been making this whole time.

Me too, actually. Glad to hear Bristoe say that.

Wrong again. Man is.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Is man's depravity the problem? Of course! Is it concentrated by way of the power inherent to systems of government? I don't think that you can make an argument that it isn't.

So the real question is whether our depravity is more dangerous when coming down from on high as with a government, or being meted out by individuals? I don't think there is an argument to be made for one side of that question, either.

I've understood you to be saying that gov't is adopted collectively to protect from the depravity of individuals but I think that Bristoe is saying that gov't is surrendered to as a capitulation by the individual to the collective depravity.

Not really the same, unless I've misunderstood your emphasis?

You would be right if you could eliminate factions. Factions are more of a threat to liberty than any individual.

The only way to limit factions is to create so many that they overlap and cancel each other out. Anarchy doesn't have a mechanism for that.

Close. My concern isn't with individuals as much as it is with factions.

That said, the approach you state as being Bristoes is one that I agree with.

Government is a necessary evil because mankind is corrupt.

Actually it would be a tribal system at that point. And as has happened in the past almost everywhere in the world, tribes came together.

Tribes themselves had laws and government. So I guess in that case, the tribal leaders became the "state." When they banded together, the new leadership would become the state. Governing more and more as the tribes became larger and more spread out.

But I guess that's not the KIND of "state" or "government" or whatever we're talking about.

It's very difficult to have this debate when definitions are made up or changed along the way.

Maybe THAT'S the real anarchy here. In that regard, well done.

A tribe is family based. Factions are purpose based. Factions depend upon a common goal.

Today, in America, we call them special interest groups or lobbies.

I agree though, some definitions have been hard to nail down.

I don't think they're being made up or changed. I think that different people mean different things by certain phrases/words. No malfeasance intended. I like the way HAJ put it:



And that's about it, and the challenge to civil discourse especially on the innaweb.

I think we did a pretty good job on this thread likely thanks as much to those who didn't show up as it is to those who did.

This sums it up pretty well. Of course there is still a majority that need to be told what to do an how to live...

Agreed. Thanks for the mental stimulus efw, Bristoe, DD, and TRH.

Always enjoy civil discourse.

YES!

Cute, but grossly naive.

Well,....the essay contained in the OP did my bitching for me in this thread.

It's no funnier than the fact that every major gun-control lobbyist in the world thinks that private ownership of modern handguns should be prohibited.

If they didn't think so, they wouldn't be major gun-control lobbyists for long. And if major government-sponsored Keynesian economists didn't advocate a major role for government in national, state, and local economies, they wouldn't stay major government-sponsored Keynesian economists for long.


Maybe. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the ten people aren't at all a random sample, and that they are members of a group that tangibly benefits from classifying people as drunk.

If there were such a group, it stands to reason that they'd be the ones most likely to call people drunk, and therefore that the people calling you drunk are most likely to be members of a group like that.

They're hardly indistinguishable from Marxists on this point. Marxism posits the development of a "new man"---the product of Communism---who will be so public spirited that government won't be necessary. Anarcho-lilbertarianisms posit essentially the same thing. Its all pie-in-the-sky utopianism. Marxism and Anarcho-Libertarianism are hardly indistinguishable, in the final analysis.

The failure you're talking about is not failure of the unrestricted free market, it's the distortions and malfunctions that the friction of government taxation and regulation imposes on a free market.


Ah...not talking about Austrian banks, or the economy of Austria.

Talking about Austrian-school economics. Originated by Austrians like Carl Menger and Friedrich von Wieser, but studied and expanded by people all over the world. Austrian economists (not economists who were citizens of Austria, but economists who were thinkers of the Austrian school) first described the Calculation Problem in economics, refuted the labor theory of value, and pioneered marginalism in price theory. Even Keynesians are familiar with these concepts.

Want you to? Of course not; I know you won't. You seem to have significant pride in your ignorance. Mostly the link is there for others with a bit more horsepower than you have.

Which is why I'm not a big fan of Chris Cantwell. He frequently seems to go out of his way to deliberately offend people, and not in a particularly productive fashion.

But this seems to be a trait peculiar to (or widely shared by) libertarians. No? Randians are the same way. The smugness, the cultish mindset. Its off-putting, to say the least.

Anarchists, and libertarians in general, do not espouse any version of morality--at least not in any political way.

Well, okay, some do, mostly idealistic noobs: it's called "thick libertarianism" and is jeered at by the veterans.

Moral imposition through politics is for statists--conservatives and liberals--not libertarians.

Barak, you're not seeing the logic of your position: even not espousing a moral position is, effectively, taking a position on moral issues by default. That is why it is logically impossible for someone's version of morality to not pervade the public square. Do anarchists suppose that a collection of different-minded individuals (some of them socio-paths and amoral) can co-exist without the use of force by anyone? When force is justified who gets to decide and based on what criteria? The majority of the anarcho-libertarians? And on what basis are they right---surely not on the basis of an election! Surely not on an a priori understanding of certain rules that society has accepted and accepted because they are true (that would be "imposing" morality heaven forbid!)! And will those charged with holding wrong-doers to account be paid for their work---or are we to assume they will do it out of the goodness of their hearts? If they are paid, whence cometh the money for their salaries since there will be no taxes? How will you get "free riders" to not ride free in this utopian system you (and Karl Marx) envision?

Just asking.

Jordan

Huh?


You seem to be talking about what I would call liberty versus libertinism. I don't think anybody on this thread is advocating libertinism.


Oh, there's a big difference between a second opinion and a government. A big difference. That's kind of what I meant about doing at least enough reading to understand the basic terms being used in the context in which they're being used, before you try to argue coherently.


Actually, anarchists tend to have a whole lot more respect for law than statists do. We think law is so important that no agent of a government should ever be allowed anywhere near it.


Rings?

Are you sure you've read it? Because that's not what he says at all.

All anarchocapitalists--at least, all the ones I know and read--understand that man is depraved. As a matter of fact, the whole concept of anarchocapitalism is based on the depravity, selfishness, and treachery of man. That's its major point of contention with statism: it's statism that believes that man is, or at least can be, angelic. Ancap expects maximum corruption from everyone, and to the extent it's wrong, it works out even better.

If you're looking for a "man is basically good" anarchism, you'll have to talk to the ansocs.

Barak...

I still object to points 3&4.

Please understand that I lean strongly to Libertarianism.

But "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." so how can the anything goes in private libertarians be the smartest people in the room?

Was Newton an anarchist?

Oh, that position is always frickin' unique, every single dang time they get us into it.

Yet another meeting of the minds...




Travis

A certain sort of culture, sure, but that culture comes only from a certain kind of people--people who regard themselves and each other as individuals and who are constitutionally comfortable with personal responsibility. And for those people, liberty is a perfectly natural and stable state. Try to rule them, and you'll find out just how natural and stable.

In a free society, I can't give myself authority over you. A majority vote can't give me authority over you. The decree of a king or a senate can't give me authority over you. Only one person in the world can give me authority over you, and that's you. And once you've done it, you can undo it, anytime you please, for any reason or no reason.

Furthermore, that's actually the case in every society, not just free ones. When the government puts a badge on somebody's chest and a gun in his holster, or a Congressional pin on his lapel, or a long black robe on his shoulders, and claims to give him authority over you, that's a lie. He has no authority over you unless you give him that authority yourself. What he does have over you is power: power to initiate force against you without penalty from the government.

But power isn't the same as authority, unless you make it so.

So, could you answer my post above asking questions about how this all plays out, practically speaking?

The Libertarian Party is a bunch of minarchists (obviously they can't be anarchists if they're seeking political power) that used to be a whole lot more effective than they are now.

Back when they had candidates like Harry Browne, they actually had something to say. Harry Browne was the first Libertarian I ever really listened to. At the time I was a Dittohead, so I was astonished to see that Rush had been lying about libertarians. I wasn't ready to give up the conservative label yet, but the obvious dissonance between Browne's thoughtful, quiet, reasoned arguments and Rush's "long-haired dope-smoking maggot-infested FM types" accusation was probably the beginning of what became my present disgust for Rush.

But nowadays they've been running people like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson and have lost all credibility not only among anarchists but even among most minarchists.

Found this on the web. Very appropriate.

"Imagine a world where Sir Isaac Newton, after getting bonked in the head by an apple, proclaimed, �Gravity is the ENEMY!�

Imagine a world where, from that initial proclamation, legions of potentially highly constructive, productive beings devoted their lives (time) and resources to shouting down and vilifying the enemy, gravity. Imagine if those folks pursued the ultimate defeat of the force of gravity and its continuous imposition on our worldly experiences. What kind of person could actually construct a life that revolves around the faith that gravity can, and should, be defeated and eliminated? I don�t think it really takes any special characteristics beyond the pre-existing built-in human tendency to react to challenges to faith with blind outrage and definace, even in the face of reason which obviously exposes the futility of such wastes of the most precious resource any individual possesses, their time here on earth.

Fortunately, Newton did not paint gravity as the enemy�but as a force that exists in our reality that we can learn about and understand. Science then set about understanding gravity and it�s interactions with the rest of our experience.

Murray Rothbard on the other hand, after some metaphorical bonk on the head by consequences of government proclaimed THE STATE is the ENEMY! From that day forward his sycophants have wasted their potential trying to defeat that �enemy.� If Rothbard had been as wise as Newton, he would have recognized, as L.v. Mises had decades before, that the State is a force that exists in our reality as a consequence of the law of human action. It is a permanent, pervasive force that can be understood and dealt with through constructive human action to either amplify it�s effects or to dampen those effects. Rothbard�s faith that government was the enemy and could be defeated blinded him to the Misean view that government/bureaucracy exists as a result of the interactions of humans through the law of human action. As long as 2 or more individuals are vying for control of the same limited resources there will be government. In other words, always.

Mr. Rothbard was dead wrong and blind to it. Sadly, horrifyingly, his err has cost the defense of liberty dearly as an entire generation or more of potentially constructive political defenders of liberty have wasted their potential on shouting down a boogeyman. Many have devoted their resources and time to this futility politically by abandoning GOP into the hands of those whose driving motivation is to INCREASE the force of the state in an ever-accelerating manner. Abandoning the most powerful tool for limiting the growth of the state is an ridiculous strategy for the defense of liberty. Murray Rothbard was wrong about that, too.
The State is no more the enemy than is gravity.

The unlimited growth of the state is the enemy; just as unlimited growth of the force of gravity would spell doom, so to does the unlimited growth of the state.

Wasting decades fighting the wrong enemy is a burden Mr. Rothbard�s legacy will bear forever. In the long run I think it is likely his great economic thinking and wonderful writing style about vast topics will be overshadowed by his personal responsibility for the damage government has done to liberty for the past several decades and for many more to come."

Seriously: you need to take some time and understand what you're talking about. I'm beginning to be embarrassed for you. You're not stupid, but you're making completely ridiculous arguments because you don't understand your terms.

Banding together for strength or protection is not a government.

Here's a good definition of government. A government is the entity enjoying a legitimized monopoly over the initiation of force in a given geographic region.

To have a government, you have to have initiation of force. The presence of the sort of retaliatory or defensive force your voluntary band of people would apply for protection is not enough to qualify as a government. Even if they were to preemptively invade or raid other groups, that wouldn't make them a government, because the other groups would grant them no legitimacy.

In order to be a government, one group of them would have to threaten or attack another group of them while a third group looked on approvingly--for example, the way the BLM attacked Bundy & Friends while lots of Campfire folks nodded and jabbered about how they deserved it.


Again: you're way off base. Anarchists--ancaps, anyway--value order and law probably more than you do, which is why you're willing to let a government destroy them and we aren't.

Ansocs generally foresee a hopefully-limited period of bloodshed and violence while they appropriate for the collective all the property individuals have mistakenly assumed belongs to them; but even ansocs value order and law, although they expect it to look a little different from what you're used to.

Structure is not government. Leadership is not government. Rules are not government. Lawful people are not government.

Legitimized initiated force is government.


Good call.

Actually, anarchism has served pretty well at various times in history; for example in Iceland (for longer than the US has been in existence) and, to a lesser extent in Ireland. There's a form of ordered anarchism in many prisons, and it continues to exist because A) it's impossible to completely eradicate it, and B) it can make life considerably more pleasant for everyone, prisoners and correctional officers alike. Anarchism in Somalia produced nearly the highest technology of any black-run African nation. The underground Polish legal system under Communism had significant anarchistic features.

But you have to have the right kind of people.

Americans, today, are not the right kind of people.

"Here's a good definition of government. A government is the entity enjoying a legitimized monopoly over the initiation of force in a given geographic region.

To have a government, you have to have initiation of force. The presence of the sort of retaliatory or defensive force your voluntary band of people would apply for protection is not enough to qualify as a government. Even if they were to preemptively invade or raid other groups, that wouldn't make them a government, because the other groups would grant them no legitimacy.

In order to be a government, one group of them would have to threaten or attack another group of them while a third group looked on approvingly--for example, the way the BLM attacked Bundy & Friends while lots of Campfire folks nodded and jabbered about how they deserved it." Barak


Complete idiocy. Jeeze, where do we start to disentangle this confusion? If a group of people get together and agree upon a set of rules to govern the behavior of each and of the group and cede a portion of their natural sovereignty to that group on the basis of their belief that this arrangement (these rules) will best maximize their safety and happiness, that is government. It is based on the consent of the governed. Hence its legitimacy in origination, is consent based on natural equal rights, not force. This is the social contract theory of government (in a state of nature) upon which (in part) this nation was founded. Where in any of this is the "initiation of force" or any force at all?

You have to smuggle force into the definition of the inititaton of government (quite illegitimately) because anarcho-libertarians are compelled, by their utterly false originating assumptions and ideas that any modicum of government (even very limited) is evil. Not because such is actually the case, but because they are compelled to think that it is.

Of course, as the person I quoted above stated, the burden Rothbardian anarcho-libertarians will have to carry is the destructiveness of their misplaced idealism on libery, not any limitation on government they might otherwise have achieved, had they been rational. The whole enterprise is a giant fraud.

More utter bullshit. Give us a relevant example---such as the modern industrial world---not some romantic, utopian, hunter-gatherer/nominally agrarian society of a thousand years ago living geographically largely isolated from the rest of humanity. And of course, if anarchism was working so well in these examples (as you claim) why in hell did they abandon it?

The ancap method for dealing with aggression is to spread it out so that it's really thin. Somebody gets out of hand in a free society, you get a couple of guys together and take him out back and have a word with him; suddenly he's back in hand. Or if he's not, maybe tomorrow morning he winds up stacked at the curb with your trash, and you can't buy your own beer for a week.

The statist method for dealing with aggression is to institutionalize it, concentrate it, amplify it, and tax the people to give it thugs and heavy weapons.

A man, even a really aggressive man, operating on his own, can only kill a dozen or so people before folks begin to object and kill him back.

Governments, on the other hand, can kill over 200 million people in one century.

Then go away.

And who decides if someone has "gotten out of hand"? These enforcers will be so morally and judgmentally pure they will never err in deciding who is and is not guilty, right? What if he winds up "stacked on the curb (with your garbage)" not because he committed a crime, but because of a mob mentality devoid of rules (or a moral code). Where is the "liberty"---the "due process" in that???

And I notice your solution is to "spread it out (aggression) so its really thin". How do you propose to accompish that? Will People be told where they can and can't live so the "aggression" is "spread out"? What does this jargon mean, practically speaking? More pie-in-the-sky utopia with no real solutions or answers is what it means. Give us a real solution to how anarchy will "solve" the problem of societal violence---without any rules, no County Sheriff,
no prosecutors, no defense attorneys, no judges, no place to house the socio-paths, no courtroom (because all these things cost money and remember, their won't be any taxes to pay for it) and no rules of evidence. Please, do tell how such an anarchic "system" leads to a net increase in anyone's liberty, let alone an increase in their safety and happiness.

Let us concede that government is too powerful and has exceeded its rightful limits. The problem is that your "solutions" turn out to be no solutions at all.

That attitude is why you are losing---and actually harming the true cause of liberty.

Doesn't address factions just individuals.

Again, individuals against factions.

Yes, actually, it is exactly what he says. In the section of the book covering Problems.

He also offers no mechanism with which to address aggression. There isn't a mechanism in Anarchy. Sure, you can deal with an individual, but you cannot address aggression from factions.

There's a lot that's valid about that piece, but Rothbard himself admitted that he didn't think a truly stateless society was possible. He illustrated his justification for aiming at one by calling to mind the way an archer aims his arrow at his target from a distance, i.e., the arrow is pointed much higher than the target he intends to hit.

His real goal, in other words, was to minimize the power of the state to the extent practicable, but realized that even the most successful efforts to reduce state power resulted in a mere decrease in the velocity with which the state increased in power. The only hope for actually reducing the power of the state, therefore (he concluded), was to shoot for its complete elimination.

In his case, then, anarchism was a mere strategy for reducing the power of the state, which is a goal agreed with by his predecessors in the Austrian School. It was a mere tactic, not an actual goal he expected was possible to achieve. So in actuality he was more of a pragmatist than most give him credit for being.

Jordan you gotta read the OP man. Saying that an anarchist is losing because he is "mean" (ie direct) is like asking when a masochist will relent from the pain.

That and the fact that it really is hard to judge accurately whether they're in fact losing. I mean, have you seen the share of people who actually actively participate in voting? One could argue (though I am not) that this suggests their loss is not as clear as you imply.

In point of fact, you'd get further at a good conversation w/ the OP if you focused less on style (ie "the way he comes across") and more on substance (ie content of the theory he espouses).

I think there is a lot to be said in favor of a good rational defense of these ideals without concern for photo-ops. That was something that connected me to Ron Paul.

Good post, Rob. But while Rothbardian anrarcho-libertarians may well possess misplaced idealism, as I indicated earlier, Rothbard himself was more of a pragmatist than he's generally given credit for.

RobJordan,

Please remember that Barak has taken the time to educate us and we must show proper respect, appreciation and reverence. Questioning him, engaging in discussion, holding views contrary to his�really, it is very poor form, bordering on impudence.

That makes far more sense than complete elimination of the State.

Those who are always looking to eliminate regulations and governmental interference are just way too quick to forget why government interfered in the first place. An un-regulated market is just as dysfunctional as an overly regulated market. The capitalist mantra of "the market is always right" is the biggest lie perpetrated in the history of economics.

Capitalism flourishes when regulation is at a minimum; then capitalists can innovate and make magical things happen. But when they do flourish, they gain power. The problems come when they decide what to do with that power. Most will use it to further innovation and marketing. But some will use that power to crush their competitors through market manipulation, rather than innovation. That type of activity will un-balance and crush market innovation far worse than government intervention.

Capitalism is great; I'm a capitalist. But in it's purest form it's subject to corruption just as much as every other "ism". The art of government is finding the right mix of pure capitalism and market regulation to keep things moving forward and healthy. There are times when we de-regulate too much; which brought about 2008.

There are times where government intervention is too much, and it cripples markets.

We rarely get the mix "just right", but overall we do a decent job. I fully support the kinds of regulations that keep markets healthy and heading in directions that is best for the overall good of the market and the country.

I 100% oppose regulation that is punitive in nature, and seeks to punish business.

Kevin, the proper role of the law is to punish actual victimization, and no more. Currently, that's far from the case.

Again, your beginning point is off.