Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

libertarian critique of the Articles of Confederation?

rated by 0 users
This post has 5 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290
No2statism Posted: Thu, Nov 8 2012 6:44 PM

There were a few things wrong with it, but I see no reason a voluntaryist could not be satisified with it.

What do others think was wrong with it other than that it established a nation?

I heard Stephan Kinsella didn't like it, so if anyone could link any of his commentary on it then that would be nice also: )

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 432
Points 6,740
Groucho replied on Thu, Nov 8 2012 7:44 PM

Well for one thing it created a centralized government, albeit a much weaker one than the federal government of the Constitution.

Check out Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty, vol. 4, chapter 44 and 45.

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

What Groucho said. Any Voluntarist will detest a central government no matter how big or small it is, however it is definately much more closer to Voluntarism than many of the governing documents I've seen.

I honestly don't think the AoC combined with Benjamin Tucker's "unterrified Jeffersonianism" would be such a bad idea.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Thu, Nov 8 2012 8:19 PM

the articles of confederation are bad because it's government and government is bad.

"binding themselves to assist each other", assistance is bad

"The taxes..." bad

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 907
Points 14,795

"binding themselves to assist each other", assistance is bad

Assistance per se is not bad. What is bad, is when person A pledges to assist B, and uses this pledge as an excuse to aggress against C. Having your own obligations is never an excuse.

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sat, Nov 10 2012 10:45 AM

I thought I'd celebrate OP's proper use of voluntaryism as opposed to SkepticalMetal's (and most people's) misuse of voluntarism. Not as anything personal against or in favor of skepticalmetal, OP, or anyone.

Voluntaryism is a normative term, a prescriptive philosophy about how things should be, specifically how all interpersonal relations should be voluntary.
Voluntarism is a positive term, a descriptive reference to the use of voluntary behavior, not necessarily implying a philosophy about how all interpersonal relations should be voluntary.

So voluntaryists engage in voluntarism, but they hold it as a value. Whereas voluntarism is a value-free term, it's not a belief system.

As with most things, considering a prison clears it right up. Prisoners/guards may engage in voluntarism, but the relationship between them is not voluntaryist since it clearly rejects the principle that all interpersonal relations should be voluntary.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS