Stranger: Sage: Actually, that's exactly the analogy I use. I even made up a "Tree of Statism": That is a good illustration.
Sage: Actually, that's exactly the analogy I use. I even made up a "Tree of Statism":
Actually, that's exactly the analogy I use. I even made up a "Tree of Statism":
That is a good illustration.
It is almost like the Marxian historical materialism concept
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: wilderness: The Libertarian Party did this, but I believe it went this way: Rothbard was part of establishing it and recognized it left its roots and so he left the L. Party. He went back to "The American Heartland" as he put it and left behind trying to go through government to achieve what he saw as his goal. He went back to the people to mingle in his ideas, spread, and potentially have them grow that way instead. At least that's the way Hoppe discussed it in the 'introduction' to, I think it was, "Ethics of Liberty". Now how much Rothbard left trying to go through the government, I don't know. I've seen posts here say he voted, but I don't know if gave up voting latter in his life for what I described above was latter in his life (ca. late 80's, early 90's). Or maybe he voted until he died. I don't know. Anyways, that's the Libertarian Party and to strive of liberty only to give up on the originally stated efforts and to fall back into statist, miniarchist wheel-spinning is not a new occurrence within the 'Liberty Tradition' as noted in this article on the First Leftists. So was that a long paragraph basically saying 'Yes I agree with you'?
wilderness: The Libertarian Party did this, but I believe it went this way: Rothbard was part of establishing it and recognized it left its roots and so he left the L. Party. He went back to "The American Heartland" as he put it and left behind trying to go through government to achieve what he saw as his goal. He went back to the people to mingle in his ideas, spread, and potentially have them grow that way instead. At least that's the way Hoppe discussed it in the 'introduction' to, I think it was, "Ethics of Liberty". Now how much Rothbard left trying to go through the government, I don't know. I've seen posts here say he voted, but I don't know if gave up voting latter in his life for what I described above was latter in his life (ca. late 80's, early 90's). Or maybe he voted until he died. I don't know. Anyways, that's the Libertarian Party and to strive of liberty only to give up on the originally stated efforts and to fall back into statist, miniarchist wheel-spinning is not a new occurrence within the 'Liberty Tradition' as noted in this article on the First Leftists.
The Libertarian Party did this, but I believe it went this way: Rothbard was part of establishing it and recognized it left its roots and so he left the L. Party. He went back to "The American Heartland" as he put it and left behind trying to go through government to achieve what he saw as his goal. He went back to the people to mingle in his ideas, spread, and potentially have them grow that way instead. At least that's the way Hoppe discussed it in the 'introduction' to, I think it was, "Ethics of Liberty".
Now how much Rothbard left trying to go through the government, I don't know. I've seen posts here say he voted, but I don't know if gave up voting latter in his life for what I described above was latter in his life (ca. late 80's, early 90's). Or maybe he voted until he died. I don't know.
Anyways, that's the Libertarian Party and to strive of liberty only to give up on the originally stated efforts and to fall back into statist, miniarchist wheel-spinning is not a new occurrence within the 'Liberty Tradition' as noted in this article on the First Leftists.
So was that a long paragraph basically saying 'Yes I agree with you'?
Well with you saying this (the answer is...):
Laughing Man: What I meant by warped is thus: Libertarianism essentially meant an order of no authority (ie. Liberty) however it was taken over by small government utopianism. It tried to establish that we can have liberty and little government.
What I meant by warped is thus:
Libertarianism essentially meant an order of no authority (ie. Liberty) however it was taken over by small government utopianism. It tried to establish that we can have liberty and little government.
No, I don't agree with you. Arguably, somebody calling themselves a radical libertarian, then they, arguably, disagree with little government is the limit to liberty, but would argue that no government involves more liberty. Or maybe the radical libertarian calls him or her self a libertarian, but defines their position as no government.
wilderness:No, I don't agree with you. Arguably, somebody calling themselves a radical libertarian, then they, arguably, disagree with little government is the limit to liberty, but would argue that no government involves more liberty. Or maybe the radical libertarian calls him or her self a libertarian, but defines their position as no government.
Perhaps I should clarify, I believe that when Rothbard is called a radical libertarian then it is in a sense a traditional libertarian before the term libertarian was taken over by the Libertarian Party which tried to establish that government can be involved in liberty.
Laughing Man: wilderness:No, I don't agree with you. Arguably, somebody calling themselves a radical libertarian, then they, arguably, disagree with little government is the limit to liberty, but would argue that no government involves more liberty. Or maybe the radical libertarian calls him or her self a libertarian, but defines their position as no government. Perhaps I should clarify, I believe that when Rothbard is called a radical libertarian then it is in a sense a traditional libertarian before the term libertarian was taken over by the Libertarian Party which tried to establish that government can be involved in liberty.
Throwing Rothbard into the mix brings up unanswered questions I have. As I stated in that "long paragraph" post, Rothbard is said to have voted or agreed with voting. Rothbard helped Reagan get elected, but later called that conservative movement with Newt Gingrich "Sell-outs" cause they abandoned liberty. Yet as I stated Rothbard may have stopped voting when he went back as he stated, "To the American Heartland". Also calling them "Sell-outs" brings up another question. Did Rothbard conceive that the Libertarian Party would do what this Reagan conservative abandoned, which is abolish aspects of the government?
As I stated, just going through the motions with somebody in dialogue that calls themselves a libertarian may lead anybody to find out what they define a libertarian as. It does have multiple meanings and it's history shows that as the article I linked can profess.
wilderness: Also calling them "Sell-outs" brings up another question. Did Rothbard conceive that the Libertarian Party would do what this Reagan conservative abandoned, which is abolish aspects of the government?
Yes. In his speech 'The Current state of Affairs' given in the early 90's, he said that the councilmembers in the LP would stab their mother's in the back for $5. He also said the libertarian movement was lucky to survive Reagan.
wilderness:As I stated, just going through the motions with somebody in dialogue that calls themselves a libertarian may lead anybody to find out what they define a libertarian as. It does have multiple meanings and it's history shows that as the article I linked can profess.
I don't think there is multiple meanings to the concept of liberty. There may be different enactings of liberty through subjective desires but before this, there is no contest.
Laughing Man: wilderness: Also calling them "Sell-outs" brings up another question. Did Rothbard conceive that the Libertarian Party would do what this Reagan conservative abandoned, which is abolish aspects of the government? Yes. In his speech 'The Current state of Affairs' given in the early 90's, he said that the councilmembers in the LP would stab their mother's in the back for $5. He also said the libertarian movement was lucky to survive Reagan.
And so there's many labels people identify with to bring instant recognition to what they are talking about. Libertarian, at least to me, still sounds anti-statist and wants to rid all government. But as I said there are other libertarians that are gradualist and may even be miniarchists. I've seen people clarify their position by calling themselves anarch-libertarian. So dialogue reveals what a libertarian means is all I originally was saying.
Laughing Man: I don't think there is multiple meanings to the concept of liberty. There may be different enactings of liberty through subjective desires but before this, there is no contest.
I agree and that's why I said I still see libertarian meaning anti-State. I'm for liberty all the way.
GilesStratton:This.
Great article.
Its one of the essays in Anarchy and the Law, also a great book.
Peace
JonBostwick:Great article.
What did you like about Hasnas' article?
I'm not sure I want to include it in the list, because Long's "Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism" has the same basic insights (and much more) about the nature of legal systems.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Sage: JonBostwick:Great article. What did you like about Hasnas' article? I'm not sure I want to include it in the list, because Long's "Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism" has the same basic insights (and much more) about the nature of legal systems.
I remember Hasnas' was one of my favorite essays in a book with many great essays. I loved his presentation, very straight forward. His pointing out of double think is very important, as that is required for the state to exist, as it is a institutionalized contradiction. His First Amendment example is also powerful.
I'm not sure if its a great introduction(but it probably is), but certainly its an important essay for any anarcho-capitalist, (or Objectivist!)
Let me read Long's article and I'll get back to you.
Laughing Man: revolutionist:All I do is that I sell the message in a way that people wouldn't know I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but I still use the same arguments of any anarcho-capitalist Purposely deceptive, anyways I thought you were a Constitutionalist in politics but an Ancap in 'academia'? Now you are saying you use AnCap arguments without calling it such.
revolutionist:All I do is that I sell the message in a way that people wouldn't know I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but I still use the same arguments of any anarcho-capitalist
Purposely deceptive, anyways I thought you were a Constitutionalist in politics but an Ancap in 'academia'? Now you are saying you use AnCap arguments without calling it such.
"I don't support the institutionalization of theft. Do you? Nor the re-distribution of wealth. I support the voluntary actions between individuals who do not violate each others private property with aggression."
There is a different slant you can give it all. Over all I think it is more positive, than negative and thus more effective.
i.e Institutionalization of theft = taxation. Re-distribution of wealth = taxation. Voluntary actions. Private property. Non aggression principle.
liberty student: revolutionist:In any case, why can't there be market-anarchist societies as well as minarchist "micro-states"? Minarchy is still statism. revolutionist:The state is a cancer that you have to shrink the matastisis before you operate on the mother tumor. Constitutionalists/minarchists are the chemotherapy, anarchists are the surgeons, but if the surgeons operate before the tumor is shrunk by the chemotherapy, the patient dies. However, the anarchists are fully qualified to administer the chemotherapy because it's just a simple IV drip, but in adminsitering the chemo, the surgeon does not give up his ability to do surgery. Wow. Wow. Who is the patient? This either is a bad analogy (patient dies) or it is paternalism.
revolutionist:In any case, why can't there be market-anarchist societies as well as minarchist "micro-states"?
Minarchy is still statism.
revolutionist:The state is a cancer that you have to shrink the matastisis before you operate on the mother tumor. Constitutionalists/minarchists are the chemotherapy, anarchists are the surgeons, but if the surgeons operate before the tumor is shrunk by the chemotherapy, the patient dies. However, the anarchists are fully qualified to administer the chemotherapy because it's just a simple IV drip, but in adminsitering the chemo, the surgeon does not give up his ability to do surgery.
Wow. Wow.
Who is the patient? This either is a bad analogy (patient dies) or it is paternalism.
I'd rather have minarchy than what we have now. Of course, I'd keep fighting for the total elimination of the state.
The patient that I'm refering to is the liberty movement. I think an attempt to eliminate the state right now in a political situation would kill the liberty movement due to the image it portrays to the general public.
I'd like to add that I think reformism is the only way to acheive a large-scale libertarian society. Seasteading and Microsecession are things that I totally support for those who wish to pursue those options, but that will only create small pockets of libertarian societies throughout the world. It is great for libertarians who want liberty right now but this high time preference comes at a cost: you can no longer work to bring liberty to the rest of the world. Maybe some of you don't want to. . Maybe you just want liberty for yourself (That is a perfectly honorable position to hold.), but I want more. I want liberty for everyone.
If you want to bring liberty to everyone, you have to work to undermine the state at large. That process is slow and painful. Some people won't be able to handle it, and I don't blame them, but for those who want to stick it out, reformism is the only option. (Agorism has been thoroughly demolished by Rothbard, so I don't think that's an option either.)
In short microsecession and seasteading is great for those who choose to do it, but I don't think I consider myself one of those people. Maybe I'll grow weary of reformism in a few years and give up, but I'm young now, and I still think reformism has a fighting chance to seriously cut back, and eventually eliminate, the state.
Where I come from, the women don't glow, but the men definitely plunder.
wilderness:But as I said there are other libertarians that are gradualist and may even be miniarchists.
Individuals falsely thinking that government will limit itself or too scared to carry out the logic conclusions of the theory they propose.
wilderness:I've seen people clarify their position by calling themselves anarch-libertarian. So dialogue reveals what a libertarian means is all I originally was saying
But there should be no dialogue as to what libertarian means. We do not sit around and argue what the definition of 'car' means. When we open the door to subjective interpretation of the plain meaning of words then we invite nihilism.
revolutionist:I'd rather have minarchy than what we have now.
That's a second best. It's meaningless in the context of this discussion. Needless to say, we all would rather be shot once than twice, be beaten by one cop than 2, pay half taxes instead of full.
revolutionist:Of course, I'd keep fighting for the total elimination of the state.
Voting and politics institutionalizes political action. Let's say political action and democracy rolls back the state. What will you tell your comrades, who you encouraged to vote and politic when it is time to get rid of the state? That's presuming you are sincere that minarchy is unacceptable because you accept that any state monopoly is still immoral.
revolutionist:The patient that I'm refering to is the liberty movement. I think an attempt to eliminate the state right now in a political situation would kill the liberty movement due to the image it portrays to the general public.
Why, oh why oh why, would anyone care what the general public thinks? If you really believe your liberty is tied to their opinions and the power of their votes, then you will never be free.
liberty student: Why, oh why oh why, would anyone care what the general public thinks? If you really believe your liberty is tied to their opinions and the power of their votes, then you will never be free.
Unfortunately, their votes have the power to further enslave me or give me a bit more freedom. I choose the latter. I don't expect to be truly free in my lifetime, but I sure as hell will try my hardest to. It's going to be a slow process.
revolutionist:Unfortunately, their votes have the power to further enslave me or give me a bit more freedom. I choose the latter. I don't expect to be truly free in my lifetime, but I sure as hell will try my hardest to. It's going to be a slow process.
p://jim.com/treason.htm
When encountering an enemy, make him react to your strategy, not you to his. I think I am be paraphrasing Sun Tzu there.
Conza88: "I don't support the institutionalization of theft. Do you? Nor the re-distribution of wealth. I support the voluntary actions between individuals who do not violate each others private property with aggression." There is a different slant you can give it all. Over all I think it is more positive, than negative and thus more effective. i.e Institutionalization of theft = taxation. Re-distribution of wealth = taxation. Voluntary actions. Private property. Non aggression principle.
I am a common man. I do not invent new jargoon for words already established.
Laughing Man:I am a common man.
You can say that again...
Laughing Man:I do not invent new jargoon [sic] for words already established.
Yeah, I think you meant phraseology. And why not? The left does it very effectively. Why discard the power of words? You are a complete fool if you do and make it harder to sell Liberty, convert others, convince them of your point and the need for the removal of the State. Fight smarter, not harder.
Laughing Man:I think I am be paraphrasing Sun Tzu there.
"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." ~ Sun Tzu "Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." ~ Sun Tzu
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." ~ Sun Tzu
Conza88:You can say that again...
Is there something contempable with being common?
Conza88:Why discard the power of words? You are a complete fool if you do and make it harder to sell Liberty, convert others, convince them of your point and the need for the removal of the State. Fight smarter, not harder.
Oddly enough I don't feel the need to sell someone the idea that they are free to carry out their will in a manner they see fit while being inline with the NAP. I feel it is already instinctually within them. The idea that we need to convert others into doing what we want in order to carry out what they want seems counter intutitive and sets up the premise that we are their keepers. Are you implying that we are better then they in knowing what is best for them??
revolutionist: The patient that I'm refering to is the liberty movement. I think an attempt to eliminate the state right now in a political situation would kill the liberty movement due to the image it portrays to the general public. I'd like to add that I think reformism is the only way to acheive a large-scale libertarian society. Seasteading and Microsecession are things that I totally support for those who wish to pursue those options, but that will only create small pockets of libertarian societies throughout the world. It is great for libertarians who want liberty right now but this high time preference comes at a cost: you can no longer work to bring liberty to the rest of the world. Maybe some of you don't want to. . Maybe you just want liberty for yourself (That is a perfectly honorable position to hold.), but I want more. I want liberty for everyone. If you want to bring liberty to everyone, you have to work to undermine the state at large. That process is slow and painful. Some people won't be able to handle it, and I don't blame them, but for those who want to stick it out, reformism is the only option. (Agorism has been thoroughly demolished by Rothbard, so I don't think that's an option either.)
All due respect dude....
One thing you completely leave out...
If Anarchism is the best option, it will succede, if it succedes it will do more to change the world than telling people how great it is....
Those micro communities will do more good than converting people to LP voters, because those voters will bring their baggage with them and unfortunately will destroy the LP from within....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
revolutionist:Unfortunately, their votes have the power to further enslave me or give me a bit more freedom.
Then you are screwed. I have never heard of an ancap who accepts the authority of others to exercise power of others to his life and property.
That is exactly what voting is. By voting and playing the political game, you are using the same mechanism the state gains authority from for your own ends. You are exercising democratic, majority power to the detriment of any minority that might oppose you. Not to mention that the entire election process and serving in government in the first place is a coercive business. You necessarily have to profit from state theft and violence.
I just can't see how any kind of serious ancap can support a little stealing now for electoral success (and presumably more stealing later). It's completely an ends justify the means argument, which every libertarian rejects when he accepts the NAP.
Laughing Man: Conza88:You can say that again... Is there something contempable [sic] with being common?
Is there something contempable [sic] with being common?
If by common, you mean the mass man. Sure... Mencken's quotes come to mind.
Laughing Man: Conza88:Why discard the power of words? You are a complete fool if you do and make it harder to sell Liberty, convert others, convince them of your point and the need for the removal of the State. Fight smarter, not harder. Oddly enough I don't feel the need to sell someone the idea that they are free to carry out their will in a manner they see fit while being inline with the NAP. I feel it is already instinctually within them. The idea that we need to convert others into doing what we want in order to carry out what they want seems counter intutitive and sets up the premise that we are their keepers. Are you implying that we are better then they in knowing what is best for them??
You don't feel a need to point out to someone, make it clear for them, with your choice of words - what is actually in their self interest? That was exactly my point. "Sets up the premise"? Haha, negative. I'm implying anyone, is a fool when it comes to tactics and strategy, if they completely rule out choosing phrases that help make clearer the immoral actions of the state. It is an anti-social institution. You know that, so why hold back on the rhetoric that makes it more evident? They are the ones with the gun to our heads. Show it. The point is they are advocating coercion, we're not.
liberty student: revolutionist:Unfortunately, their votes have the power to further enslave me or give me a bit more freedom. Then you are screwed. I have never heard of an ancap who accepts the authority of others to exercise power of others to his life and property. That is exactly what voting is. By voting and playing the political game, you are using the same mechanism the state gains authority from for your own ends. You are exercising democratic, majority power to the detriment of any minority that might oppose you. Not to mention that the entire election process and serving in government in the first place is a coercive business. You necessarily have to profit from state theft and violence. I just can't see how any kind of serious ancap can support a little stealing now for electoral success (and presumably more stealing later). It's completely an ends justify the means argument, which every libertarian rejects when he accepts the NAP.
It's not that I recognize that authority, not by a longshot. I just don't want to get thrown in jail, so I comply. If I can vote for a more benevolent master, I will.
Harry Felker:he heart of the matter is, if I am going to break ties with the government because of the unjust power over my life, why am I going to hand the power to another group of individuals?
And this, everybody, is the very heart of the matter. What do you know, Robert Nisbet is right once again. Now, once you've got rid of religion, the family and tradition, unfortunately for you, the road to serfdom will be nicely paved. Which leaves you with a dilemma, given that hierarchy is naturely, which one do you want?
Harry Felker:I am sure you are under the supposition that Christianity will fit the ends of a stateless society, but what do you do if it does not, do you accept totalitarianism in the name of religion?
Statelessness is very conducive towards religion, this holds in both theory and practise. But would I advocate totalitarianism in the name of religion? No more than the hippies on these forums would advocate totalitarianism in the name of their PC agenda.
Harry Felker:This is a blatant attempt to scare those who do not agree with dogmatic ties to go away, and you should be ashamed, it shows intellectual dishonesty in the best case...
I shouldn't be ashamed of anything. Fact is, these forums are provided by people who are, by and large, Christians and traditionalists. Some people tend to forget this and launch their usual snide Randian attacks on religion.
As I've said, if you want to do that sort of thing, Cato only has open arms for you.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
For a New Liberty:The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice estimated in 1969 that government police cost the American public $2.8 billion a year, while it spends $1.35 billion on private protection service and another $200 million on equipment, so that private protection expenses amounted to over half the outlay on government police.
Does anyone have any recent numbers?
Laughing Man: wilderness:But as I said there are other libertarians that are gradualist and may even be miniarchists. Individuals falsely thinking that government will limit itself or too scared to carry out the logic conclusions of the theory they propose. wilderness:I've seen people clarify their position by calling themselves anarch-libertarian. So dialogue reveals what a libertarian means is all I originally was saying But there should be no dialogue as to what libertarian means. We do not sit around and argue what the definition of 'car' means. When we open the door to subjective interpretation of the plain meaning of words then we invite nihilism.
Good points!!
Your right. Thanks
revolutionist: liberty student: revolutionist:Unfortunately, their votes have the power to further enslave me or give me a bit more freedom. Then you are screwed. I have never heard of an ancap who accepts the authority of others to exercise power of others to his life and property. That is exactly what voting is. By voting and playing the political game, you are using the same mechanism the state gains authority from for your own ends. You are exercising democratic, majority power to the detriment of any minority that might oppose you. Not to mention that the entire election process and serving in government in the first place is a coercive business. You necessarily have to profit from state theft and violence. I just can't see how any kind of serious ancap can support a little stealing now for electoral success (and presumably more stealing later). It's completely an ends justify the means argument, which every libertarian rejects when he accepts the NAP. It's not that I recognize that authority, not by a longshot. I just don't want to get thrown in jail, so I comply. If I can vote for a more benevolent master, I will.
But you do recognize their authority. That's what voting is. By voting you are saying the State is legitimate. Voting is the illusion that the State is giving you a choice in the States existence. Benevolent master or not, the master is taking your freedom and you are saying it's ok - cause you vote and keep the statist process going. I mean at least in voting you are not being coerced to vote or not. So you voting is totally your free-will on keeping the statist process.
GilesStratton:And this, everybody, is the very heart of the matter. What do you know, Robert Nisbet is right once again. Now, once you've got rid of religion, the family and tradition, unfortunately for you, the road to serfdom will be nicely paved. Which leaves you with a dilemma, given that hierarchy is naturely, which one do you want?
I do not see how having a dogma I do not agree with having power over my life is going to be any better than a government I do not agree with...
GilesStratton:Statelessness is very conducive towards religion, this holds in both theory and practise. But would I advocate totalitarianism in the name of religion? No more than the hippies on these forums would advocate totalitarianism in the name of their PC agenda.
GilesStratton:Fact is, these forums are provided by people who are, by and large, Christians and traditionalists. Some people tend to forget this and launch their usual snide Randian attacks on religion.
Now I am sure this will not make it in your reply, because how can someone that does not advocate religion as government interference believe this, but I do appreciate the lessons learned in the bible, that is the basis for life in a community, do not murder each other, steal, rape, and such, it is the dogmatic inconsistency that people advocate that I have an issue with...
revolutionist:It's not that I recognize that authority, not by a longshot. I just don't want to get thrown in jail, so I comply. If I can vote for a more benevolent master, I will.
Compliance is one thing. Voting and politics is another. The very same system that would throw you in jail, is the one that gains consent when you vote for and participate in it.
The great myth of western society is that the people own the government and can change it.
liberty student: revolutionist:It's not that I recognize that authority, not by a longshot. I just don't want to get thrown in jail, so I comply. If I can vote for a more benevolent master, I will. Compliance is one thing. Voting and politics is another. The very same system that would throw you in jail, is the one that gains consent when you vote for and participate in it. The great myth of western society is that the people own the government and can change it.
"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
liberty student:I just can't see how any kind of serious ancap can support a little stealing now for electoral success (and presumably more stealing later). It's completely an ends justify the means argument, which every libertarian rejects when he accepts the NAP.
Knight_of_BAAWA:There's the self-defense line of Spooner and Rothbard, arguing that the voting process pits person and voting bloc against each other, so you defend yourself by voting for the person who's going to steal the least from you.
Ok. I guess my issue is that the LP is not a defensive organization.
@LPers, did anyone listen to Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root on Iraq?
Knight_of_BAAWA: liberty student:I just can't see how any kind of serious ancap can support a little stealing now for electoral success (and presumably more stealing later). It's completely an ends justify the means argument, which every libertarian rejects when he accepts the NAP.There's the self-defense line of Spooner and Rothbard, arguing that the voting process pits person and voting bloc against each other, so you defend yourself by voting for the person who's going to steal the least from you.
How in the world do you figure out what politician will steal the least from you? The conservative compassionate Bush? small government Reagan? Obama who's not about foreign intervention? lies... all lies.
Harry Felker:I do not see how having a dogma I do not agree with having power over my life is going to be any better than a government I do not agree with...
You're missing my point, you can feel free to advocate this hyperindividualism you desire, just as the folks over at Cato do. However, when it comes to it, the only way you're going to get this is to lobby the state for it. As Hayek and Nisbet have pointed out, there are various institutions that have their position between the state and the individual, if you want to get rid of the state these institutions are essential, if you want your "individualism" these institutions are inadmissible.
Harry Felker:All you are saying about natural hierarchy is that it is man's nature to dominate one another, all you are doing is looking to replace government with another government, and call it religion, are you an ancap?
It's man nature to need leaders, whether they be familial or spiritual. The fact of the matter is that only a few people are meant to be leaders of any sorts, and whether or not you like it, they will be just that. Now, they can be leaders of the Church and the family, or they can be leaders of the secular state.
Harry Felker: This still does not answer, having the Christian religion as your religous state interference is conducive to statelessness, what stops them from becoming the state?
This still does not answer, having the Christian religion as your religous state interference is conducive to statelessness, what stops them from becoming the state?
Well, I'd rather have a theocracy than modern democracy to begin with, so if we do abolish the state only to see the rise of religious states, we've seen a step foward. In any case, your question proves far too much, but the answer is that the other institutions in society stop them from "becoming a state" (whatever the means).
You'd do well to do some research on how states have usually arisen and so why your theory doesn't match the "reality" you Randians are so fond of.
Harry Felker:I personally disagree, as it is not very profitable, but that is my opinion
The state has done everything it has to either coopt religion or outcompete it, neither of which is difficult considering the funding the state has access to. Nonetheless, the Church has not fared too badly.
Fact is, once parents are allowed to actually teach their children, you'll see religion gaining ground.
Harry Felker:So majority is right?
No, I've said that perhaps you'd be better off over at Cato.
GilesStratton: Well, I'd rather have a theocracy than modern democracy to begin with, so if we do abolish the state only to see the rise of religious states, we've seen a step foward.
Well, I'd rather have a theocracy than modern democracy to begin with, so if we do abolish the state only to see the rise of religious states, we've seen a step foward.
I'm all for religion, but that whole pope thing and the inquisition is a bit too much for me.
wilderness: GilesStratton: Well, I'd rather have a theocracy than modern democracy to begin with, so if we do abolish the state only to see the rise of religious states, we've seen a step foward. I'm all for religion, but that whole pope thing and the inquisition is a bit too much for me.
Why are you saying this to me? I've said it a million times, I'm not Catholic. In any case, when the state appeals to religion for legitimacy, they'd best abide by the rules of that religion: most often religions tend to look down on the wanton murder of millions of the country's own citizens.
See, Hitler's regime was not too dissimilar to those of Mussolini, Franco and Salazar. Difference is, the last three were "all in the hands of the papacy" (as Hitler said, wrt why he hated Mussolini and Franco), the other difference is that Hitler killed more than the last three combined.
GilesStratton: wilderness: GilesStratton: Well, I'd rather have a theocracy than modern democracy to begin with, so if we do abolish the state only to see the rise of religious states, we've seen a step foward. I'm all for religion, but that whole pope thing and the inquisition is a bit too much for me. Why are you saying this to me? I've said it a million times, I'm not Catholic.
Why are you saying this to me? I've said it a million times, I'm not Catholic.
My apologizes. I wasn't saying you are Catholic. I'm pointing out the theocracy bit.
GilesStratton: In any case, when the state appeals to religion for legitimacy, they'd best abide by the rules of that religion: most often religions tend to look down on the wanton murder of millions of the country's own citizens.
In any case, when the state appeals to religion for legitimacy, they'd best abide by the rules of that religion: most often religions tend to look down on the wanton murder of millions of the country's own citizens.
The catholic church, muslims, and hebrews each have stories of aggressive warfare. Having to travel far to get to their destination of conflict. Again, I'm not against religion per say, but their hands are not clean. I'd rather focus on not having war.
GilesStratton: See, Hitler's regime was not too dissimilar to those of Mussolini, Franco and Salazar. Difference is, the last three were "all in the hands of the papacy" (as Hitler said, wrt why he hated Mussolini and Franco), the other difference is that Hitler killed more than the last three combined.
And a murderer that kills only one is somehow off the hook now cause Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar killed more than the lone murderer? I'm not sure of your point here.
You know how wildly exaggerated the whole Inquisition is, don't you?
wilderness:How in the world do you figure out what politician will steal the least from you? The conservative compassionate Bush? small government Reagan? Obama who's not about foreign intervention? lies... all lies.
sicsempertyrannis:You know how wildly exaggerated the whole Inquisition is, don't you?