Now, before I was exposed to the libertarian ideology I was a big Ron Paul fan... and before that I was a huge statist Democrat. I firmly believed that the state was good and that the state was purely legitimate. I'm more of a minarchist myself. I'm not an anarchist. But one thing that I saw back when I was a huge statist Democrat was seeing all these conservatives cry socialism all the time. I thought it was immature. Before I was exposed to libertarian thought- and the libertarian thinkers... I thought these people were nuts. I still think these people are nuts because they're just saying this stuff unintelligibly and they're still continuing state interference- and now that I know- that conservatives aren't for small government like they claim- they're for in fact just the opposite. My question to you is do conservatives discredit us by acting in such a complete immature way and at the same time parroting off of what Ludwig Von Mises and Henry Hayek and Carl Menger says to try to appear as if they're free market when they're really just demagogues and loyal servants to the state?
I hate it when they appeal to Henry Hayek as an authority.
SilentXtarian:and now that I know- that conservatives aren't for small government like they claim- they're for in fact just the opposite.
Yes social conservative and neo-conservatives do not support limited government. But there are many fiscal conservatives who do. The Republican party was once a battle of ideologies between social conservatives and libertarians, it is now dominated by neo-conservatives and social conservatives. This confusion is causing a lot of problems.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
what do you mean by discredit? I'm guessing that you mean does our ideology get misrepresented by sharing some points with the republican party? To this I answer no simply because all the examples I've seen of people misunderstanding libertarianism come from our association with ayn rand. This is obvious by the fact that some accuse us of being selfish, egoistic, the children of rand, etc. So the common thread among these denuciations is randian philosophy and ayn rand herself. Also libertarians are called crazy libertarians which means that libertarians are attacked qua libertarianism (only once have we been attacked qua republicanism; when we were called neocons). So I think that ayn rand is more a part of it than the republicans. We must also not rule out how badly libertarianism is viewed in the republican party too and partly for the same reasons.
Yes, people like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Steve Malzberg make us look like fucking racist morons.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
People who call themselves conservative are largely responsible for socialism remaining popular despite its logical and empirical emptiness. Their tendency for weak arguments based on classical religious and imperialist flim-flam constitutes their scary alternative, too easily dismissed on reasonable grounds and crowding out more widely acceptable alternatives.
That is a good point but Randians call themselves Objectivists and not necessarily libertarians. Limited government libertarians (Minarchists; Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Cato, Reason) only get attacked as neo-cons by anarcho-capitalists (Rothbardians). I've stated this is not helpful only to be continually called a neo-con. The people who use the word cannot even define.
But I would not right off the Republican party as Ron Paul is a member.
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."
Juan:Sure. Nationalists and militarists who claim to be libertarians is the worst that can happen to libertarianism. Poptech is a prime example.
It also doesn't help when they advocate destroying the Muslim world.
Yes I am well aware you don't support anyone who is not an anarchist. But I am a limited government libertarian who supports the United States existing and having an all volunteer military to defend itself.
Minarchists are allowed to exist and there is nothing you can do about it.
Esuric: It also doesn't help when they advocate destroying the Muslim world.
Yet I haven't. I actually explained that it was our military presence in Saudi Arabia near their holy cities that led to 911, not that it justifies it. Nor do I lose sleep over the death of Al-Qaeda members since retaliation was justified for the murder of over 3000 innocent American civilians.
Poptech: Esuric: It also doesn't help when they advocate destroying the Muslim world. Yet I haven't. I actually explained that it was our military presence in Saudi Arabia near their holy cities that led to 911, not that it justifies it. Nor do I lose sleep over the death of Al-Qaeda members since retaliation was justified for the murder of over 3000 innocent American civilians.
I wasn't talking about you, I don't know you.
Juan:You are a sick apologist of the american military. Stop lying.
Yes I always support the members of U.S. Military but not always their mission, least of all nation building and being a police force.
You are just plain sick.
Esuric:I wasn't talking about you, I don't know you.
My name was in your quote, I just wanted to clear that up.
Poptech:Minarchists are allowed to exist and there is nothing you can do about it.
Are minarchists allowed to violate my rights by stealing tax money to fund their government? I really don't care if they "exist" so long as they don't propose to take anything from me by force or coerce me into action or inaction.
Juan:Poptech, your routine is basically this : 1) you declare you are a libertarian (since anyone can pretend to be anything on the internets...)
I declare to be a limited government libertarian.
Juan:2) you declare you don't support 'nation building' (or was it empire?)
I don't support nation building, it is a waste of money and lives, the U.S. military is not a police force.
Juan:3) you proceed to justify the crimes of the government and the military.
I don't justify "crimes" I provide inconvenient facts that disrupt your ideological agenda.
Juan:Please enlighten me, Poptech dear, how many 'defensive' wars did the murderers of the american military fight ?
The American Military are not murders and WWII was a defense war. I realize you hate the United States because you live in a third world country that lacks much of what we have but jealousy is no reason to lie.
SilentXtarian:My question to you is do conservatives discredit us by acting in such a complete immature way and at the same time parroting off of what Ludwig Von Mises and Henry Hayek and Carl Menger says to try to appear as if they're free market when they're really just demagogues and loyal servants to the state?
I forget where I read this particular thing today, but I read some austro-libertarian making the point, that they thought that the Chicago-ites were compatible because they claimed to be free marketers as well, but in the end that alliance was toxic just like alliances with other incompatible groups.
I can understand the well intentioned conservatives who have trouble getting past the mental hurdle between minarchism and anarchism. Sorta like you. You're not ready to take the plunge, and yet if you had anarchy, I bet you wouldn't go out the next day and organize a minimal government, because you would see no need for it. But there are the people who believe in the state, ideologically or otherwise. It's a form of rent seeking for them. The scientists and intellectuals who rent seek for the "good of society". The soldiers, and contractors, the educators and union members, the corporatists and lawyers. The state, even a minimal state, gives them opportunities they would not have in a free market.
Unfortunately, well intentioned people like you, who are still stuck on minarchism, are helping to enable all of those rent seekers by condoning minimum violence, instead of zero violence.
I try to give the C4L a pass. But I notice how little promo they get on LRC, and that's indicative of the fact that liberty flows from C4L to LRC,and not the other way around.
The fight between anarchists and minarchists is somewhat ironic because these days we have neither.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
The American Military are not murders
liberty student: SilentXtarian:My question to you is do conservatives discredit us by acting in such a complete immature way and at the same time parroting off of what Ludwig Von Mises and Henry Hayek and Carl Menger says to try to appear as if they're free market when they're really just demagogues and loyal servants to the state? I forget where I read this particular thing today, but I read some austro-libertarian making the point, that they thought that the Chicago-ites were compatible because they claimed to be free marketers as well, but in the end that alliance was toxic just like alliances with other incompatible groups. I can understand the well intentioned conservatives who have trouble getting past the mental hurdle between minarchism and anarchism. Sorta like you. You're not ready to take the plunge, and yet if you had anarchy, I bet you wouldn't go out the next day and organize a minimal government, because you would see no need for it. But there are the people who believe in the state, ideologically or otherwise. It's a form of rent seeking for them. The scientists and intellectuals who rent seek for the "good of society". The soldiers, and contractors, the educators and union members, the corporatists and lawyers. The state, even a minimal state, gives them opportunities they would not have in a free market. Unfortunately, well intentioned people like you, who are still stuck on minarchism, are helping to enable all of those rent seekers by condoning minimum violence, instead of zero violence. I try to give the C4L a pass. But I notice how little promo they get on LRC, and that's indicative of the fact that liberty flows from C4L to LRC,and not the other way around.
I don't favor the use of violence and coercsion. I think that you anarchists need to stop confusing the people that just say they're minarchists who are really statists with the people who are minarchists who just don't want anarchy. I used to be an anarchist. However, I've come to a realization that if the government was very small and could provide some services through voluntary donations perhaps it wouldn't be so bad. I am not a fan of violence myself. I just wish that you people would stop assuming that because you want limited government somehow means you're a statist, etc. It just means that we see things differently.
SilentXtarian: I used to be an anarchist. However, I've come to a realization that if the government was very small and could provide some services through voluntary donations perhaps it wouldn't be so bad.
Which part of this would require the label of government instead of non-profit organization?
Juan:Of course sonny. Now, I'm sure that a few real & american libertarians won't put up with your stupid lie that WWII was a 'defensive' war.
Yes child it was.
Juan:Hell, even a mainstream conservative like Buchanan doesn't parrot your party line.
You think Buchanan is a mainstream conservative? LMAO! What party line would that be?
Juan:Yes sonny, they are.
No child they are not. Your brainwashing from your third world schooling has been effective though.
SilentXtarian:I think that you anarchists need to stop confusing the people that just say they're minarchists who are really statists with the people who are minarchists who just don't want anarchy.
I thought I explained the difference in motivations. The outcome however, is the same. Violence.
SilentXtarian:I used to be an anarchist.
My friend, every time you post, you have switched from one ideology to another. Like a leaf blowing in the wind. I hope when you land, it is on the side of peace.
SilentXtarian:However, I've come to a realization that if the government was very small and could provide some services through voluntary donations perhaps it wouldn't be so bad.
But that is not possible. It is Utopian fantasy. A government that provides services by voluntary donations, has no authority over those who do not donate, and so, it is just another private service provider.
SilentXtarian:I just wish that you people would stop assuming that because you want limited government somehow means you're a statist, etc.
Well, government is the state. So you are a limited statist. Does that really make you feel better?
SilentXtarian:It just means that we see things differently.
No, it just means you don't have any principles. You switch around on emotionalism. Justice by feel.
SilentXtarian:I am not a fan of violence myself.
Commit to a principle. Is the initiation of violence justified or not? Once you answer that, everything falls into place.
Stolz25: SilentXtarian: I used to be an anarchist. However, I've come to a realization that if the government was very small and could provide some services through voluntary donations perhaps it wouldn't be so bad. Which part of this would require the label of government instead of non-profit organization?
It would actually have to protect our liberties. That's all it would be required to do. All it would do- is to preserve the bill of rights. That's why it would have the label of government. I'm sorry... but I'm just not ready for anarchy.
SilentXtarian: I just wish that you people would stop assuming that because you want limited government somehow means you're a statist, etc. It just means that we see things differently.
When you can get this point across let me know.
SilentXtarian:It would actually have to protect our liberties. That's all it would be required to do. All it would do- is to preserve the bill of rights. That's why it would have the label of government.
But the only way you could create this would be to violate rights.
SilentXtarian: I'm sorry... but I'm just not ready for anarchy.
I don't see this as any reason the rest of us should be oppressed. How about if you want, the rest of us live peacefully, and you can hire someone to coerce you into things?
liberty student:Well, government is the state. So you are a limited statist. Does that really make you feel better?
Actually no statist is defined as socialist. He made no statement in support of government control and planning of the economy. This is another misuse of a word.
Statism (defined) - "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
Student of Liberty, I don't favor violence or coersion. I don't switch based too much on emotionalism. I just decided that I wasn't ready for anarchism. I just feel that a government should be there... albeit a very small one but that it should do some things. I don't think that it should interfere in market practices. If it were voluntary than I think it would solve the problem with coersion. I'm not a statist as I don't believe it should use force to achieve its goals. I just view it as perhaps a necessary evil.
Stolz25: SilentXtarian:It would actually have to protect our liberties. That's all it would be required to do. All it would do- is to preserve the bill of rights. That's why it would have the label of government. But the only way you could create this would be to violate rights. Only if you see it that way. Private courts within the principle of libertarianism would help protect those liberties. SilentXtarian: I'm sorry... but I'm just not ready for anarchy. I don't see this as any reason the rest of us should be oppressed. How about if you want, the rest of us live peacefully, and you can hire someone to coerce you into things?
Only if you see it that way. Private courts within the principle of libertarianism would help protect those liberties.
I never said that you would be oppressed. Just that I don't want anarchism yet.
SilentXtarian: I just view it as perhaps a necessary evil.
And Mises agrees.
"Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved. It is a means to cope with an inherent imperfection of many, perhaps of the majority of all people. If all men were able to realize that the alternative to peaceful social cooperation is the renunciation of all that distinguishes Homo sapiens from the beasts of prey, and if all had the moral strength always to act accordingly, there would not be any need for the establishment of a social apparatus of coercion and oppression. Not the state is an evil, but the shortcomings of the human mind and character that imperatively require the operation of a police power. Government and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d'etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimination of man's innate impulse to violence, only by recourse to violence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent."
- Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (PDF)
SilentXtarian:Only if you see it that way. Private courts within the principle of libertarianism would help protect those liberties.
This isn't government.
SilentXtarian:I never said that you would be oppressed. Just that I don't want anarchism yet.
These two statements are mutually exclusive.
SilentXtarian:It would actually have to protect our liberties. That's all it would be required to do.
Goldwater explained it, but I don't think people understood how his idea works even under a reductio.
A government to give you what you want, is big enough to take it away. In other words, a government big enough to protect your liberties, is big enough to take them anyway. That is why limited government is a myth. Some people say that limited government was lost with Lincoln, but in truth, it was gone when Hamilton got George Washington to march around enforcing the whiskey tax. The US never had a minimal government that protected rights, Lysander Spooner has documented this.
SilentXtarian:All it would do- is to preserve the bill of rights.
But it can only do that, by violating the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is a slave contract. No one signed it, and yet everyone born under it is assumed to have agreed to it. Again, read Spooner, "Constitution of No Authority". If you oppose individual secession, then you oppose liberty, because it is a fundamental human right to secede.
At least that is honest. And I can emphasize with it. Because it took me time too. But when confronted with pro or against violence, that was the decision maker for me. There is no government without violence.
you think Buchanan is a mainstream conservative ?
Poptech:Statism (defined) - "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
Right, that is statism. Which is government. All rights are property rights (libertarianism 101) so any government power, has to be a power over property, and thus, economy.
Your external definitions are meaningless here, as I indicated to you earlier this evening. However, in this case, you made my point.
SilentXtarian:Student of Liberty, I don't favor violence or coersion.
What does "favour" mean? Why are you being so vague? Either you do support the use of it or you do not. Which is it?
SilentXtarian:I don't think that it should interfere in market practices.
A government cannot act, without influencing market practices.
SilentXtarian:If it were voluntary than I think it would solve the problem with coersion.
So you support individual secession as Mises did?
SilentXtarian:I'm not a statist as I don't believe it should use force to achieve its goals. I just view it as perhaps a necessary evil.
You are the master of double think. In the first sentence, you were doing so well, and then in the second sentence, you completely undermined the first one.
liberty student:Right, that is statism. Which is government. All rights are property rights (libertarianism 101) so any government power, has to be a power over property, and thus, economy.
Statism is not government, it is government control over the economy. Government can exist to merely arbitrate and enforce private property rights. Calling someone a "statist" when they do not advocate for government control and planning of the economy is a misuse of the word.
liberty student:Your external definitions are meaningless here, as I indicated to you earlier this evening. However, in this case, you made my point.
Is English not spoken here? If not what is and how do you expect to communicate with the rest of the English speaking world using freely defined words? My definitions of words from the English language come from dictionaries.
Poptech:And Mises agrees.
Here is some more Mises.
No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.
If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.
This one is particularly relevant to your appeal to authority
Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations; just as it is indifferent towards the state itself, so the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them.