The question libertarians just can’t answer

[OODA_Loop]

Citizen's United vs FEC affirms 1st Amendment protections.

 

[PaulS1950]

If the libertarian method is so great why hasn't anyone ever tried it before?

How imbecilic can you get? It has been tried and was successful for a long time - right here in the USA. To live by the controls and checks and balances of a constitution without stepping on the rights and freedoms of the states and the people? That is what made this contry great!

When the federal government started ignoring the constitution and assuming powers not granted by the constitution is when this country began to fail. Free people, governed by laws, are better at making life good than any government.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

NONE of these were 'imaginary' or 'hobgoblins.' READ it. These were the brave men upon whose shoulders the middle class and unions were built on. Some were beat to a pulp, some of them were killed, but they refused to relent.

'Civilization' throughout history is RARE. The history of humankind is filled with the divine right of kings, monarchies, plutocracies, oligarchies and dictatorships. Until the most liberal and enlightened men of their day created a democratic republic. It was not a perfect union, it is still not a perfect union, but we have through enlightened leaders that followed made it a better union, a more inclusive union, a more colorblind union. And we have been able so far to avoid facing the fate of Robert Frost's hired man: the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

Less than a month before his brutal assassination, a very enlightened and brilliant man said:

Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.

Therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I am confident that you will respond.

Robert Frost said:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

I hope that road will not be the less traveled by, and I hope your commitment to the Great Republic's interest in the years to come will be worthy of your long inheritance since your beginning.

I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.

I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.

Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:

Take human nature altogether since time
began . . .
And it must be a little more in favor of
man,
Say a fraction of one percent at the very
least . . .
Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so
increased.

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
President John F. Kennedy

"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient." - Albert Jay Nock

Well at least we know who and what you really are Kevin.

Albert Jay Nock describing himself as a philosophical anarchist, Nock called for a radical vision of society free from the influence of the political state.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Citizen's United vs FEC affirms 1st Amendment protections.

I found you a new avatar, and you're welcome!

 

[OODA_Loop]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

 

[Bfgrn]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your hatred of Hillary, liberals and Democrats has totally blinded you to the egregious malfeasance of democracy this ruling sets in motion. I sure hope you learn to love polluters and cartels, because it puts them ultimately in power.

We knew the dangers 100 years ago...

The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

 

[OODA_Loop]

Your hatred of Hillary, liberals and Democrats has totally blinded you to the egregious malfeasance of democracy this ruling sets in motion. I sure hope you learn to love polluters and cartels, because it puts them ultimately in power.

Government can't tell me or limit how I can express my political thoughts in print or other
1st Amendment protected media.........

is not malfeasance of democracy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

NONE of these were 'imaginary' or 'hobgoblins.' READ it. These were the brave men upon whose shoulders the middle class and unions were built on. Some were beat to a pulp, some of them were killed, but they refused to relent.

'Civilization' throughout history is RARE. The history of humankind is filled with the divine right of kings, monarchies, plutocracies, oligarchies and dictatorships. Until the most liberal and enlightened men of their day created a democratic republic. It was not a perfect union, it is still not a perfect union, but we have through enlightened leaders that followed made it a better union, a more inclusive union, a more colorblind union. And we have been able so far to avoid facing the fate of Robert Frost's hired man: the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

Less than a month before his brutal assassination, a very enlightened and brilliant man said:

Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.

Therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I am confident that you will respond.

Robert Frost said:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

I hope that road will not be the less traveled by, and I hope your commitment to the Great Republic's interest in the years to come will be worthy of your long inheritance since your beginning.

I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.

I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.

Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:

Take human nature altogether since time
began . . .
And it must be a little more in favor of
man,
Say a fraction of one percent at the very
least . . .
Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so
increased.

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
President John F. Kennedy

"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient." - Albert Jay Nock

Well at least we know who and what you really are Kevin.

Albert Jay Nock describing himself as a philosophical anarchist, Nock called for a radical vision of society free from the influence of the political state.

Thanks for playing.

Was this a game?

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarian 'laissez-faire' will certainly create an aristocracy. A new Gilded Age.

Again, explain why Libertarianism worries you but parasitism, fascism and socialism do not.

.

 

[kaz]

Libertarian and anarchist are not mutually exclusive, despite whatever kaz thinks.

I do think that, and it's my right since I'm only speaking for kaz. As for mutually exclusive:

Republicans and libertarians - agree gun ownership should not be restricted by government, not mutually exclusive

Democrats and libertarians - agree that abortion should not be restricted by government, not mutually exclusive

Anarchists and libertarians - agree that government should not forcibly confiscate and redistribute money, not mutually exclusive

So I agree with your statement, but I don't see where it gets us.

It means that one can be both a libertarian and an anarchist at the same time.

So you can be by your logic an anarchist, libertarian, Republican and Democrat at the same time. What is the relevance of any of them then?

 

[kaz]

So I'm not a libertarian, interesting. Are Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe also not libertarians?

The term anarchist or anarchno-capitalist perfectly defines your view while libertarian makes it completely muddy because people think you support limited government instead of no government, so why don't you just use the term that doesn't confuse anyone?

As to your question, they all primarily referred to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, which is actually clearly anarchist. So unlike you they were clear. I've seen you use the term, but you generally use the word libertarian, then get into confusing arguments because you just argue for anarchy.

However, anarchy doesn't maximize my liberty any more than socialism does. With socialism, at least I have the option of turning my mind off, staying out of politics and succumbing and living my life in peace. With anarchy, while the word politically means no government and not chaos, it would actually result in chaos. I'd be far too busy trying to survive and avoiding armed gangs to even try to have a stable environment to develop a home or have a family.

No, they all had no issue referring to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but they still referred to themselves as libertarian as well. That people have a mixed up view of what being a libertarian is is not really my issue. The fact is that one can be a minarchist libertarian, or an anarchist libertarian.

But you're ducking the question. You said I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarchist, so is it your contention that three of the most important libertarian thinkers in history, that I've already named, aren't actually libertarians?

You say I'm ducking your question, but since I asked mine first why don't you answer that first? Why do you call yourself a "libertarian," which most people in this country today thinks means you want little government, not no government, when if you just said "anarchist" or "anarchno-capitalist" people would know you mean no government?

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian. They all to my understanding all went through the path of little government to get to no government. To my knowledge, they were all also Austrian economists who focused on lack of government control in the economy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, I think you and some other get it though your closing analogy is flawed here..

Social contract is NOT taking property or rights from one citizen in order to benefit another. Social contract is a MUTUAL agreement for MUTUAL benefit. Any time one group of people will benefit while others do not but are required to shoulder the burden, it is not social contract but is moving into the area of marxist or facist totalitarianism.

There is a way to dispense benevolence via social contract. Many a not-for-profit organization is a social contract of individuals who formally band together for the purpose of dispensing benevolence. But, unless they solicit government funding, they coerce nobody. Once they start taking tax money to operate, however, it is no longer social contract but coercive theft.

I objected to President Bush's faith based initiatives on that principle. If the government was going to dispense the money anyway, it made sense to do it through organizations that already had staff and infrastructure in place. But doing it at all was, in my libertarian mind, an illegal use of the taxpayer monies.

But back to local benevolence, another example of social contract was in a Kansas town in which a number of us were working for private agencies who were being inundated with the same people going from place to place milking the system. And so many of these were doing so unethically we held a meeting to see what we could do about it. And we came to an agreement that we would each help support and staff a central clearing house where people could go for food, gas, cash or whatever provided they would identify themselves, sign up for the relief, and be willing to be checked out for need, etc. The city gave us a vacant space they weren't using and the police agreed to do the background checks. Worked like a charm. Before long it was only the truly needy who were receiving our limited resources. That is social contract at its best.

All that is well and good with me as long as:

1) Nobody attempts to pass a phoney contract based on charity or altruism. ESPECIALLY when the govt is involved.

2) The social contract doesn't violate the principles of paying for common services.

3) I don't have to go to intermittable meetings to defend my part of the contract and the scope is generally accepted and patently obvious..

I actually didn't support Faith based initiatives, but my heart did. Because I know that local PERSONAL help is the most valuable altruistic currency.. What Bush NEEDED to do -- was to help CREATION of new local programs, not fund existing ones. And even that -- stretches my libertarian spine to pain..

BTW: Gore also supported them. And made some bible thumping statements that most of his party animals would find "primatively religious".

I understand your heart being with the faith based programs--as I said, if the government was going to distribute the money that way anyway, it made sense going through existing infrastructure and staff. I disagree that the federal government should have set up even more agencies to do that though. The libertarian view is that charity begins at home and a moral society does take care of the truly helpless. But in order to respect unalienable rights, charity must always be voluntary or via social contract, and never the government confiscating wealth from one person and giving it to another.

Each time ballot initiatives to support city run homeless shelters comes up, I always vote yes. But I can justify that because the money comes out of the sales taxes and fees that we pay rather than extracted from our income. So theoretically nobody has to pay the sales taxes if they don't buy anything. And when you get out there and look, the city does a much poorer and less compassionate job of it than do the private charities, thrift shops, soup kitchens, and homeless shelters. And those get a large chunk of my charitable giving.

Way I see it, if the govt is tossing 100s of Billions to promote windmills, oil, car companies, crop production, I'd rather a large percentage of that goes to stuff that DOESN'T already exist on the market. Like encouraging formation of PRIVATE charities. There's a Small Biz Association already. Let them accept proposals and issue grants. Don't need a huge addition or a new agency..

I know it's not cap-L Libertarian of me. But then again, it's just a PREFERENCE, not a policy. Just like I'd rather see all those handouts I mentioned die and "some" of it go to REAL R&D.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The term anarchist or anarchno-capitalist perfectly defines your view while libertarian makes it completely muddy because people think you support limited government instead of no government, so why don't you just use the term that doesn't confuse anyone?

As to your question, they all primarily referred to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, which is actually clearly anarchist. So unlike you they were clear. I've seen you use the term, but you generally use the word libertarian, then get into confusing arguments because you just argue for anarchy.

However, anarchy doesn't maximize my liberty any more than socialism does. With socialism, at least I have the option of turning my mind off, staying out of politics and succumbing and living my life in peace. With anarchy, while the word politically means no government and not chaos, it would actually result in chaos. I'd be far too busy trying to survive and avoiding armed gangs to even try to have a stable environment to develop a home or have a family.

No, they all had no issue referring to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but they still referred to themselves as libertarian as well. That people have a mixed up view of what being a libertarian is is not really my issue. The fact is that one can be a minarchist libertarian, or an anarchist libertarian.

But you're ducking the question. You said I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarchist, so is it your contention that three of the most important libertarian thinkers in history, that I've already named, aren't actually libertarians?

You say I'm ducking your question, but since I asked mine first why don't you answer that first? Why do you call yourself a "libertarian," which most people in this country today thinks means you want little government, not no government, when if you just said "anarchist" or "anarchno-capitalist" people would know what you meant?

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian.

Well since you asked your question in response to my question, I'm not sure how you figure that you asked your question first.

The reason I rarely refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist is because it's never been relevant. Libertarian perfectly describes my political beliefs, and so that's what I go with. Though in my signature it does say "Voluntaryist," so it's not like I was hiding this fact.

Now, are you really trying to excommunicate three of the most important libertarian thinkers in the history of the movement?

 

[Foxfyre]

The term anarchist or anarchno-capitalist perfectly defines your view while libertarian makes it completely muddy because people think you support limited government instead of no government, so why don't you just use the term that doesn't confuse anyone?

As to your question, they all primarily referred to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, which is actually clearly anarchist. So unlike you they were clear. I've seen you use the term, but you generally use the word libertarian, then get into confusing arguments because you just argue for anarchy.

However, anarchy doesn't maximize my liberty any more than socialism does. With socialism, at least I have the option of turning my mind off, staying out of politics and succumbing and living my life in peace. With anarchy, while the word politically means no government and not chaos, it would actually result in chaos. I'd be far too busy trying to survive and avoiding armed gangs to even try to have a stable environment to develop a home or have a family.

No, they all had no issue referring to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but they still referred to themselves as libertarian as well. That people have a mixed up view of what being a libertarian is is not really my issue. The fact is that one can be a minarchist libertarian, or an anarchist libertarian.

But you're ducking the question. You said I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarchist, so is it your contention that three of the most important libertarian thinkers in history, that I've already named, aren't actually libertarians?

You say I'm ducking your question, but since I asked mine first why don't you answer that first? Why do you call yourself a "libertarian," which most people in this country today thinks means you want little government, not no government, when if you just said "anarchist" or "anarchno-capitalist" people would know you mean no government?

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian. They all to my understanding all went through the path of little government to get to no government. To my knowledge, they were all also Austrian economists who focused on lack of government control in the economy.

Yup. LIbertarians accept government only big enough to secure our unalienable rights and function effectively and mutually beneficially as one government, one people.

But among Kevin's stated heroes:

Definition: Anarcho-capitalism is the polar opposite of pure socialism. Instead of having everything under collective ownership, anarcho-capitalism as a system would have everything under private ownership. All military, law enforcement, and social services organizations would be privately owned and operated, and could compete with one another for customers.

Founder: The argument could be made that anarcho-capitalism is the default form of government, arising in any situation where despotism has not arisen or has not yet arisen. The first so-documented historical example of an anarcho-capitalist society might be that of ancient Israel in the years leading up to the monarchy ("In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." -- Judges 21:25), other examples being medieval Iceland and the American Old West. But the first person to formulate anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy was the 20th-century Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, who found his inspiration in the pre-Revolutionary but semi-postcolonial, trade-oriented governments of 18th-century North America.
Anarcho-Capitalism - Definition of Anarcho-Capitalism

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I do think that, and it's my right since I'm only speaking for kaz. As for mutually exclusive:

Republicans and libertarians - agree gun ownership should not be restricted by government, not mutually exclusive

Democrats and libertarians - agree that abortion should not be restricted by government, not mutually exclusive

Anarchists and libertarians - agree that government should not forcibly confiscate and redistribute money, not mutually exclusive

So I agree with your statement, but I don't see where it gets us.

It means that one can be both a libertarian and an anarchist at the same time.

So you can be by your logic an anarchist, libertarian, Republican and Democrat at the same time. What is the relevance of any of them then?

I'm not sure you can be a Republican and a Democrat at the same time, unless you have two identities.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, they all had no issue referring to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but they still referred to themselves as libertarian as well. That people have a mixed up view of what being a libertarian is is not really my issue. The fact is that one can be a minarchist libertarian, or an anarchist libertarian.

But you're ducking the question. You said I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarchist, so is it your contention that three of the most important libertarian thinkers in history, that I've already named, aren't actually libertarians?

You say I'm ducking your question, but since I asked mine first why don't you answer that first? Why do you call yourself a "libertarian," which most people in this country today thinks means you want little government, not no government, when if you just said "anarchist" or "anarchno-capitalist" people would know you mean no government?

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian. They all to my understanding all went through the path of little government to get to no government. To my knowledge, they were all also Austrian economists who focused on lack of government control in the economy.

Yup. LIbertarians accept government only big enough to secure our unalienable rights and function effectively and mutually beneficially as one government, one people.

But among Kevin's stated heroes:

Definition: Anarcho-capitalism is the polar opposite of pure socialism. Instead of having everything under collective ownership, anarcho-capitalism as a system would have everything under private ownership. All military, law enforcement, and social services organizations would be privately owned and operated, and could compete with one another for customers.

Founder: The argument could be made that anarcho-capitalism is the default form of government, arising in any situation where despotism has not arisen or has not yet arisen. The first so-documented historical example of an anarcho-capitalist society might be that of ancient Israel in the years leading up to the monarchy ("In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." -- Judges 21:25), other examples being medieval Iceland and the American Old West. But the first person to formulate anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy was the 20th-century Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, who found his inspiration in the pre-Revolutionary but semi-postcolonial, trade-oriented governments of 18th-century North America.
Anarcho-Capitalism - Definition of Anarcho-Capitalism

Or, libertarians think that all government is immoral and reject it completely.

 

[Contumacious]

[

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian.

In 1789 , the US Constitution created a limited federal government where its powers were specifically enumerated .

In 2013 we have a behemoth welfare/warfare state where the government routinely ignores our rights.

Versus

Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism,[1] market anarchism,[2] private-property anarchism,[3] libertarian anarchism,[4]) is a libertarian political philosophy that advocates anarchy in the sense of the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.[5][6] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics."

.

 

[kaz]

It means that one can be both a libertarian and an anarchist at the same time.

So you can be by your logic an anarchist, libertarian, Republican and Democrat at the same time. What is the relevance of any of them then?

I'm not sure you can be a Republican and a Democrat at the same time, unless you have two identities.

Oh vey, logic is not your strong suit. I was very specific in addressing your point that since anarchism and libertarianism are mutually exclusive, one can be both. I went on to show Republican and Democrat are not mutually exclusive either by your logic they can all be libertarians. You didn't get that? Seriously?

 

[kaz]

No, they all had no issue referring to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but they still referred to themselves as libertarian as well. That people have a mixed up view of what being a libertarian is is not really my issue. The fact is that one can be a minarchist libertarian, or an anarchist libertarian.

But you're ducking the question. You said I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarchist, so is it your contention that three of the most important libertarian thinkers in history, that I've already named, aren't actually libertarians?

You say I'm ducking your question, but since I asked mine first why don't you answer that first? Why do you call yourself a "libertarian," which most people in this country today thinks means you want little government, not no government, when if you just said "anarchist" or "anarchno-capitalist" people would know what you meant?

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian.

Well since you asked your question in response to my question, I'm not sure how you figure that you asked your question first.

The reason I rarely refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist is because it's never been relevant. Libertarian perfectly describes my political beliefs, and so that's what I go with. Though in my signature it does say "Voluntaryist," so it's not like I was hiding this fact.

Now, are you really trying to excommunicate three of the most important libertarian thinkers in the history of the movement?

If you disagree with what I said, address it and say what your follow on from what I said would be. Don't ignore it and ask the question again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You say I'm ducking your question, but since I asked mine first why don't you answer that first? Why do you call yourself a "libertarian," which most people in this country today thinks means you want little government, not no government, when if you just said "anarchist" or "anarchno-capitalist" people would know you mean no government?

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian. They all to my understanding all went through the path of little government to get to no government. To my knowledge, they were all also Austrian economists who focused on lack of government control in the economy.

Yup. LIbertarians accept government only big enough to secure our unalienable rights and function effectively and mutually beneficially as one government, one people.

But among Kevin's stated heroes:

Definition: Anarcho-capitalism is the polar opposite of pure socialism. Instead of having everything under collective ownership, anarcho-capitalism as a system would have everything under private ownership. All military, law enforcement, and social services organizations would be privately owned and operated, and could compete with one another for customers.

Founder: The argument could be made that anarcho-capitalism is the default form of government, arising in any situation where despotism has not arisen or has not yet arisen. The first so-documented historical example of an anarcho-capitalist society might be that of ancient Israel in the years leading up to the monarchy ("In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." -- Judges 21:25), other examples being medieval Iceland and the American Old West. But the first person to formulate anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy was the 20th-century Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, who found his inspiration in the pre-Revolutionary but semi-postcolonial, trade-oriented governments of 18th-century North America.
Anarcho-Capitalism - Definition of Anarcho-Capitalism

Or, libertarians think that all government is immoral and reject it completely.

I'm a Libertarian, but I am no anarchist. There must be government of some sort, because nature abhors a vacuum.