Greetings -
First, thank you for these scholarly forums -- it is a time when clear thinking is again needed at the forefront of politics and economics.
WANTED POLITICAL/ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHERS: Is it time for a "Liberty Manifesto?" <-- click to download PDF. We will publish the finished Manifesto in book form in time for the 2010 elections. Essays needed too.Debate the Manifesto here, or go help shape it at link in document.In Liberty -Scott
Hey look,
Conservative idiology. I don't think I agree with a single tenet in this PDF.
I particularly like 2C
'All representatives of Government shall be required to swear this as an oath of office in the samespirit that our citizens under arms do swear allegiance in the defense of our nation.'
Put your hands over your heart and swear allegiance to a social construct people.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
True. Of course it would be better than what we have now, but yeah, that's not saying much.
Hello -
Thanks for your review and comment. Isn't the Constitution a "social construct"? If so, I take it you then would swear no allegiance to it.
What then, sir, are you left with for allegiance? Certainly not anarchy, because it would be difficult to swear allegiance to "a state of society without government or law", since there would be no governing body in existence to receive such an oath.
Run wild in the fields?
- Scott
not having anything to swear allegiance to is a particular kind of problem.
a not-at-all-a-problem.
ohnoes! there is nothing to swear allegiance to! ....eeeek
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Hi - Followed your link to http://r3vo.org and saw it is a site for Ron Paul. Interesting. Didn't Mr. Paul himself publish his own manifesto, and doesn't the Libertarian party, of which Ron Paul is a member, pubiish a platform which would require allegiance in order to affect change and governance?
Laughing Man -- please check your labels... you will find that what you label "Conservative" might agree perfectly with "Classical Liberalism". See:
Perhaps this is the ambiguity you are seeking as you argue against allegiance to a particular cause?
LibertyPatriot: Certainly not anarchy...
Certainly not anarchy...
lol... not laughing at you, laughing at this statement cause here it comes!
In american history befor the constitution and before the revolutionary war colonists were pretty much property owners who operated outside of the British governmental control. It was pretty much an organized state of anarchy. People operated as nothing more then property owners. Heavy policing and other rediculous social programs were not needed as just about every person in every household were well trained riflemen. There was not much crime as property owners protected their land with strong diligence. Only idiots would tresspass back then, men in general respected private property that much more.
It's because of this lack of government that every single time a tax was imposed or anything government related imposed over the colonists by the british these objets were so much more transparent to colonists. Colonists knew and were aware of every litle tiny thing the british government took from them and their property.
Seeing how they lived a pretty much anarchist society of men who owned nothing more then property and operated with nothing more then consenting voluntary contracts history proves that they didn't run around and frollock in the grass as you would claim. Only a child could think of something so fantasy based. You are a socialist, you cannot fathom life without social control. I recommend you moving to a third world country and live out of any major city where government is non existent. You will see how peaceful and organized things really can be.
Also bringing up the topic of pledging allegience to a government on this forum shows how ignorant you are of the beleifes here. Most of us are Anarcho-capitalists. Some are not but I have a point to bring up to you.
Our gov officials and military operatives already swear an oath to the constitution and just baout 99% of them do not live up to it. What makes you think your little oath will do any better?
There is a site out there, "http://oathkeepers.org/oath/" where members of the military can go and agree to stand firm in their protection against the constition over some upper official. I have confirmed from various military sources that this site is banned on most government areas. The oath they swear is simply to appease us civilians and keep us happy but doesn't hold any real weight. I think our current president is enough of an example for that.
lets play find the quote!
"true conservatives can only be radical libertarians, and they must demand the demolition—as a moral and economic distortion—of the entire structure of the interventionist state."
please be an anarchist.
go on.
please.
LibertyPatriot:If so, I take it you then would swear no allegiance to it. What then, sir, are you left with for allegiance?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
LibertyPatriot:Is it time for a "Liberty Manifesto?
What is wrong with this Libertarian Manifesto: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto ?
filc: In american history befor the constitution and before the revolutionary war colonists were pretty much property owners who operated outside of the British governmental control. It was pretty much an organized state of anarchy. People operated as nothing more then property owners. Heavy policing and other rediculous social programs were not needed as just about every person in every household were well trained riflemen. There was not much crime as property owners protected their land with strong diligence. Only idiots would tresspass back then, men in general respected private property that much more.
Could you (or anyone here) please recommend any books related to that period and place of american history?
LibertyPatriot: Thanks for your review and comment. Isn't the Constitution a "social construct"? If so, I take it you then would swear no allegiance to it. What then, sir, are you left with for allegiance? Certainly not anarchy, because it would be difficult to swear allegiance to "a state of society without government or law", since there would be no governing body in existence to receive such an oath. Run wild in the fields?
I think you need to do some reading.
Why anarchy fails
yoshimura:In american history befor the constitution and before the revolutionary war colonists were pretty much property owners who operated outside of the British governmental control. It was pretty much an organized state of anarchy. People operated as nothing more then property owners. Heavy policing and other rediculous social programs were not needed as just about every person in every household were well trained riflemen. There was not much crime as property owners protected their land with strong diligence. Only idiots would tresspass back then, men in general respected private property that much more.
Probably one of the most entertaining time periods of american history though I have my bets that much of it is exagerated to some extent. At any rate here's a fun one to start.
Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fisher
Thanks for your counter points here. As you have noted, the Liberty Manifesto (not completed - the debate has just begun) is not about anarchy, so I will not have much time to debate you on that ground.
You have, however, made a series of errors that bear correction:
The bottom line is that the founders declared independence from one form of government, and then created another -- to which you may choose to swear allegiance or not -- as long as it is a free country. There was no time of anarchy -- even during the Revolutionary War, the colonies were organized, and so not in a state of the self-contradictory, "organized anarchy" you suggested.
So, I appeal again to some of the more clear thinking members who wish to stand as Patriots for Liberty.
my computer dictionary gives this definition:
anarchy:
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, fromanarkhos, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler.’
----
without chief, ruler...
some food for thought.
LibertyPatriot:So, I appeal again to some of the more clear thinking members who wish to stand as Patriots for Liberty.
Many of us are very clear thinking. You are not.
This is not a good site to advertise minarchism, as it isn't very popular. Many of us agree with Rothbard that the governmnet "is a gang of thieves, writ large". We're ancaps, because it is the only ideology fully consistent with liberty. When you're ready to be fully consistent with liberty, then you are welcome to become an ancap, but for many of us becoming a "Patriot of Liberty" per your manifesto, would actually be a step backward from true liberty, and closer to real tyranny.
Juan wrote: "You need to learn that freedom is about individual rights to life, liberty and property - nowhere comes government into the picture except as a criminal entity."
For Juan and other "anarchists" here who claim they stand for Freedom... I am free, and I do not "need to learn" your interpretation of history, governments, oaths and political philosophy. It is humorous, however, to see those advocating for no control whatsoever, so stridently suggesting control in what is to be thought.
And I would submit to you sir, that if you are suggesting it is possible to form a community without a government, defined simply as "system of rule", that your fantasy is not in historical evidence starting with cavemen on forward.
"The Truth, when it comes to words, is always a matter of interpretation." - Tom Brown.
In Liberty -
Scott
LibertyPatriot:stridently suggesting control in what is to be thought.
oh, that old chestnutt, that truth and right-thinking is a 'mental straightjacket'
pull the other one.
1. I don't need to recite the oath taken into office to you here thats a rediculous question to ask. In short it's "I blah blah blah solomnley swear to uphold and protect the constitution". They recite that before anything else. Proving this to you is like proving the sky is blue, I don't need to waste my time.
2. It was a generalization yes but I'd bet a few bucks an acurate one. Let me better answer your question with a counter question. What was the last president we had that defender and upheld the constitution as a first priority?
3. You are correct. I too often consider Anarchy in my terms whicih means lack of government. Your understanding of anarchy is a fantasy based definition where meteors fall from the sky, men run around durranged with blood lust, or perhaps you have an equally obsured and also ficticious view of a mad max situation. At any rate your definition of Anarchy is a fantasy based that follows no reason or logic. The anarcy I speak of is one that lacks real government. For the colonists this was absolutely the case. In today's day government is so overwhelming we don't know when taxes fluctuate a small percent or care very little about it. Since things were much more transparent in the colonists era and there was much LESS in the way of taxation then the colonists were aware of every little thing the british tried to do. It's amazing they went to war for a fraction of the government oppression we face today.
4. This is general history. The colony's were colony's. Some of them had no british occupation what so ever. Others had very little, others had alot. The british had to travel long distances to replenish army's and their moral sucked terribly. I don't need to argue general history with you. I don't have to be too concerned with revisionism on this one. It's widely accepted and explained the roles of the colonists and the british historically in new england.
and according to the definition of anarchy that I've provided you therefore need a ruler - somebody to rule over you which smacks of tyranny.
Which therefore the obvious question is why does somebody need to dictate/rule over you? It's philosophically immature.
LibertyPatriot: I am free
No, you are a slave to democracy.
LibertyPatriot:and I do not "need to learn" your interpretation of history, governments, oaths and political philosophy.
And we don't need your political pamphleteering for the state. You're no closer to liberty than an Obama voter from our point of view.
LibertyPatriot:It is humorous, however, to see those advocating for no control whatsoever, so stridently suggesting control in what is to be thought.
Anarchy is not about no control. It is about voluntary control. Ron Paul also speaks about Lysander Spooner, the author of "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority". I find it humourous that you are an ideologue who doesn't understand his own ideology.
And lastly, no one is suggesting control in what is to be thought. You're not for liberty. You are for statist reform. We're simply asking you to be accurate with your labels.
Sir -
You do yourself no honor in debate to simply state your conclusion about an argument made without first responding to each point in the argument -- the four points from which you drew conclusion with no premises.
So, for the sake of clarity... what are your specific counter points to items 1-4 above?
Upon reading your responses, then perhaps it will be found that one or the other of us has been unclear. Let the readers be the judge of that.
nirgrahamUK: Clever ruse you throw, but not very clear when you state: "oh, that old chestnutt, that truth and right-thinking is a 'mental straightjacket'"
That is because it is quite easy to see your implication that your viewpoint, sir, is "right-thinking."
Too easy. Please try again.
I can't be embarrassed about being right.
one day you'll look back and you'll laugh at what you said when you first met other anarchists.
and you will say similar things to people that dont yet understand liberty, in your turn.
LibertyPatriot:Anarchy, by definition, cannot be "organized".
You bolded this, but apparently did not look up the definition. As wilderness pointed out, anarchy means "without leaders."
You may say, "Society cannot be organized without leaders." Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Or, if you'd like to know how society can be organized without leaders, read.
LibertyPatriot: I am free, and I do not "need to learn" your interpretation of history, governments, oaths and political philosophy.
I am free, and I do not "need to learn" your interpretation of history, governments, oaths and political philosophy.
I'm sure there are those in communist russia or Nazi Germany who beleived they were also free. You should send your photo to Webster dictionary so they can post it next to "Coersion" since you are obviously the coerced.
At any rate I'm glad you think your free but I am not. 30% of my labor is done in slavery to a state I disagree with. My form of currency and protection is decided for me. What wars I chose are decided for me against my will Soon my healthcare and energy rights will be decided by another as well.
Are you here to tell us that you agree with everything the government does? And if not how can you justify paying those swine throught taxation(theft)?
LibertyPatriot:And I would submit to you sir, that if you are suggesting it is possible to form a community without a government, defined simply as "system of rule", that your fantasy is not in historical evidence starting with cavemen on forward.
IDK sometimes I thinkt he cavemend didn't have it so bad. But to answer your question, yes. I am contending that life without government is grand. I've personally lived it outside of the US in unstable country's. Most third world country's governments have no presence in their rural regions which makes for great retirement locations. :D
Some of the most peaceful, most productive times of my life were lived in those rural regions of third world country's.
LP:For Juan and other "anarchists" here who claim they stand for Freedom... I am free, and I do not "need to learn" your interpretation of history, governments, oaths and political philosophy.
Liberty Student:
I am for Liberty via the reform of the State. I have no problem admitting that. What you are for, remains unclear, illogical and not based on any historical examples. Run free in the fields? A fantasy. Is there anyone here who can cite real world examples of what you preach? So far there is noone here that seems to choose, or be capable of honorable debate, point by point, in the best spirit of education. Let me know when you wish to try your hand at it.Or maybe your mind is already made up, and now your objective is forcing others to agree. So much for your work as a "moderator".In Liberty -Scott
LibertyPatriot: I am for Liberty via the reform of the State. I have no problem admitting that. What you are for, remains unclear, illogical and not based on any historical examples. Run free in the fields? A fantasy. Is there anyone here who can cite real world examples of what you preach?
I am for Liberty via the reform of the State. I have no problem admitting that. What you are for, remains unclear, illogical and not based on any historical examples. Run free in the fields? A fantasy. Is there anyone here who can cite real world examples of what you preach?
you can find the real world examples... but as to your fantasy mention think of it this way, those stinking founding fathers fantasized about a republic and to be rid of England's rule. I mean they had no real world examples of a U.S. republic. They really believed in fairy tales didn't they?
LibertyPatriot:So far there is noone here that seems to choose, or be capable of honorable debate, point by point, in the best spirit of education. Let me know when you wish to try your hand at it.
You can ignore the definition of anarchy or you can go on believing in your statist version of liberty. First - define liberty. I'll wait for your response.
LibertyPatriot:Or maybe your mind is already made up, and now your objective is forcing others to agree. So much for your work as a "moderator".
As if you didn't come in here posting looking for others to critique your 'book' and now the critique has started and you whine. oh well.
Liberty Student,
I think it's just that "elders" over here run into similar situations often. I was a Ron Paul supporter, now leaning towards anarcho-capitalism. I do appreciate what Ron Paul and that movement have done to attract people to sites like Mises Institute.
So yeah, stick around and continue debating because you have everything to gain :-)
As nirUK said, you probably will be laughing at your old posts, all in good fun!
Guys - I think there is a need to clean up the act in interacting with newcomers.
And is it really essential to be absolute sticklers for voluntary society?
Yes, personally, I am a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist, however there are people who are close to these positions and just need nudging in our direction, instead of repulsion.
Juan Wrote: "...you really don't fully grasp political philosophy and yet you act as if you did."Sir, the implication, that you DO grasp political philosophy remains unproven. Simply because you hang out with some peers who subscribe to your interpretation of political theory is no evidence of either political acumen, or clear thinking.For the record, I still have much to learn, but from what I have seen here -- not much from you.I wish you the best in the circular oxymorons which you continually present without logical premise, and without confining your debate to the specific points at hand.In Liberty (where logical, honest, and just organization is for the good of all) - Scott
You presuppose that I must swear allegiance to anything or anyone beyond my ideals and my reason.
LibertyPatriot: Laughing Man -- please check your labels... you will find that what you label "Conservative" might agree perfectly with "Classical Liberalism". See: Classical Liberals: http://bit.ly/hZCc5 <-- stress individual freedom, free markets, & limited government (Wikipedia.org) Also: "neo-liberals" vs. "classical liberals" http://bit.ly/kmKZS Perhaps this is the ambiguity you are seeking as you argue against allegiance to a particular cause?
Conservatism is a reactionary movement based on military aggrandizement, complusory social norms and nationalistic blindness.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
NewLiberty: Guys - I think there is a need to clean up the act in interacting with newcomers.
If people want to advance liberty in even the smallest ways, interacting nicely with newcomers is highly recommended.
LibertyPatriot: I wish you the best in the circular oxymorons which you continually present without logical premise, and without confining your debate to the specific points at hand.
I wish you the best in the circular oxymorons which you continually present without logical premise, and without confining your debate to the specific points at hand.
Of course I started from small and showed you the definition of anarchy. Then I asked you to define liberty. But if that's not confining the debate then I guess I don't know what is.
Wilderness wrote: "First - define liberty. I'll wait for your response."I am first waiting for a respectful response to the four points above, which were specific responses to one of the first posts here. Why? Because that is what those who are following a chronological order in a debate, and have specific and logical replies, do when they choose to debate with honor.Who should go first? Maybe it is in your anarchist creed that you will impose the order, but I will instead wait for your reply in the chronology set by this forum.
Hmmmm... neither the chronology of the forum structure, nor your attempt to impose arbitrary order that serves only yourself, seems to have very much to do with "anarchy" does it? That is unless you are attempting to be an anarchy unto yourself. Must be frustrating for you.In Liberty -Scott