[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One or the other is false. Either people don’t always pursue their self-interest, or self-interest doesn’t lead to libertarianism.
Either way, you have done your best to spout off as an intellectual who has answers, only to refute yourself by your own commentary.
[/quote]
People learn. You can’t always assumes the theories they are learning are correct. All you can do is keep submitting those theories to intense inquiry and test to see if those theories hold under application.
That said, we had to learn about liberty. It was not just divined to us from on high. We are still in the process of learning.
If you think anarchism never existed you are wrong! It was the only existence until we discovered the notion of rule. Government is not an inherently understood concept. The founders understood this. You, unfortunately, do not.
People learn. You can’t always assumes the theories they are learning are correct. All you can do is keep submitting those theories to intense inquiry and test to see if those theories hold under application.
That said, we had to learn about liberty. It was not just divined to us from on high. We are still in the process of learning.
If you think anarchism never existed you are wrong! It was the only existence until we discovered the notion of rule. Government is not an inherently understood concept. The founders understood this. You, unfortunately, do not.[/quote]
Let’s do a quick reckoning:
Absolute liberty existed a while back, until we discovered the notion of rule.
Now we are learning about liberty when we didn’t know about it before.
So, now we are re-learning liberty, even though we never forgot. Just awful.
And I am especially tickled at your reference to the “Founders” - you have been a libertarian for, say, a week or so, and you can lecture on what the Founders thought?
News flash, dumpling - the Founders weren’t libertarians, not in your vein. The Founders were very, very nervous about the excesses of liberty devolving into license and didn’t believe liberty existed as a permanent End. They knew that liberty pointed in the wrong direction led to a state where liberty couldn’t exist - liberty couldn’t be separated from virtue, otherwise liberty extinguished itself.
That, of course, is the opposite of your LewRockwellian liberty, which says liberty - no matter what results it leads to for an individual, no matter how wicked, sloppy, or self-destructive - is the ultimate goal.
The Founders rejected your premise from the get-go - and we are all thankful that they did.
They dreaded and feared the exact society you and your fellow Lew Rockwell gnomes support - so don’t lean on the “Founders” for support.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
They dreaded and feared the exact society you and your fellow Lew Rockwell gnomes support - so don’t lean on the “Founders” for support.[/quote]
And neither should you. Following word finally getting back to the US that the French Revolution had deteriorated and heads were rolling in the street, Jefferson wrote back to Abigail Adams claiming that “The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest. [the french rev] Rather than it should have faild, I would have seen half the earth desolated.”
He may well have been a hipocrite, but Jefferson’s beliefs were rather consistent. Jefferson was excited by the Whiskey and Shay’s rebellions. You are no more entitled to refer to “the founders” as a collective than the libertarians are.
And neither should you. Following word finally getting back to the US that the French Revolution had deteriorated and heads were rolling in the street, Jefferson wrote back to Abigail Adams claiming that “The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest. [the french rev] Rather than it should have faild, I would have seen half the earth desolated.”
He may well have been a hipocrite, but Jefferson’s beliefs were rather consistent. Jefferson was excited by the Whiskey and Shay’s rebellions. You are no more entitled to refer to “the founders” as a collective than the libertarians are. [/quote]
Wait - Jefferson represents the voice of the Founders, especially in light of the disdain Americans had for the excesses of the French Revolution? To the point the word “democrat” became an insult?
What is your point?
The Founders weren’t anarcho-libertarians - it is as simple as that. You have a knack for revisionism - revisit the nonsense you post about the Civil War - but the Founders, as Lifticus would like them to be, simply didn’t exist.
And neither should you. Following word finally getting back to the US that the French Revolution had deteriorated and heads were rolling in the street, Jefferson wrote back to Abigail Adams claiming that “The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest. [the french rev] Rather than it should have faild, I would have seen half the earth desolated.”
He may well have been a hipocrite, but Jefferson’s beliefs were rather consistent. Jefferson was excited by the Whiskey and Shay’s rebellions. You are no more entitled to refer to “the founders” as a collective than the libertarians are.
Wait - Jefferson represents the voice of the Founders, especially in light of the disdain Americans had for the excesses of the French Revolution? To the point the word “democrat” became an insult?[/quote]
Can you clarify what you’re saying here? Are you claiming that Jefferson doesn’t rate as one of the founders or are you saying that Jefferson was anti-French rev? Neither situation was true.[quote]
What is your point?
The Founders weren’t anarcho-libertarians - it is as simple as that. You have a knack for revisionism - revisit the nonsense you post about the Civil War - but the Founders, as Lifticus would like them to be, simply didn’t exist.
[/quote]
My point is that the founders were as varied in their beliefs as many of us are. You cannot use them in the collective. Sure, most of them had some similar ideas policy-wise (such as gun-control), but they certainly did not think as a hive mind, which is what is suggested when they are lumped together. Hell, Hamilton wanted a president that served for life. How do you think antis like Patrick Henry felt about that? How can you claim that no founder (including Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Henry or Monroe) could fit into a libertarian mold? I won’t assert that they do, but I also won’t pigeonhole the entire lot into one belief.
You accuse me of revisionism. Explain. Does not agreeing that every founder was a staunch federalist make me a revisionist? I think you are making a fallacy that most Americans make:
Truth A- Our founders were great men, perhaps the greatest generation mankind has seen.
Truth B- America is a great nation, perhaps the greatest that has ever existed.
Fallacious argument- Because A is true and B is true, then A wanted B to happen.
Oh yeah, and what’s this about the Civil War. I openly admit I don’t know too much about that war. If you’re talking me calling Lincoln a tyrant, that’s a different argument.
All individuals pursue their own self-interest at all times
Throughout history, no society has ever asserted their self-interest to live by anarcho-libertarian principles - as in, they have, historically, always exercised their freedom to not be libertarians.
So, over time, people have routinely decided that acting in their self-interest means rejecting the very theory you suggest is supposed to stem from such an attitude.
[/quote]
Lets lay this down Bedrock style for you…
You cannot make a value judgments on what “self-interest” is. You seem to be arguing a case that self-interest leads to chaos. It does not. It is precisely because man has a self-interest to “get more stuff” that ultimately leads to social cooperation. Man cannot be self sufficient, living off the land and get where we are today without cooperation. Government did not provide these things.
Anarchism is the earliest form of natural law – it predates government. Government is an institution specifically to rule over cooperation that has always existed. At first when government was conceptualized the only method of rule in existence had been familial – or even tribal. They were authoritarian because dominant animals always dominated.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of years later, we have barely scratched the surface the idea of self rule and how best to institute government to bring it about. The government that we have today is the result of an ancient ongoing experiment (thanks to the “founders”).
However, I’m a skeptic – the idea of government coexisting with self rule is doomed to failure. Mankind will eventually realize it. It is a long learning process.
I believe we have to eventually relearn how to live by self-rule.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap, are you unfamiliar with the libertarian approach to environmental issues? I mean, have you never been exposed to this point of view before? Ron Paul is just giving the standard LP response here.
You should read Rothbard. This subject has been breached many times.
…
So let’s see here. If his environment may have been hurt, a libertarian calls on…the police!!! Who adjudicates this? What law? Oh, that’s right, since there is no legality to administrative law, justice is all derived from The Axioms of the Austrians! (written on parchment or clay tablets somewhere)
Now, having read Rothbard, I can attest that I have seen more clarity in the ravings of the denizens schizophrenia ward at the county hospital.
Really?
…
C) The ethical side of libertartianism is pretty sound, to compare them to the ravings of lunatics means not to have studied them.
D) And again, you are attacking an ideological platform that has roots that are hundreds of years old, dismissive uninformed posts like this might earn you the nickname Mick29, if I were into such displays of immaturity, but otherwise they just won`t do.
(I will be charitable to you. You seem to need a little kindness.)
You must be referring to someone’s else’s post, since I as commenting on what I read in Rothbarts hysterical scree, and your comments are referring to something else entirely.
And just two more questions:
if a “platform” is hundreds of years old, is it not true that parts will have been adopted, or parts rejected because they are impractical or just wrong?
And question 2: I grant you a fairy wand and Ron Paul is president on 1/20/09. At 1 pm his able to do…what? He has no following in congress, no party (even the Republicans hate him), the committee heads owe nothing to him, he can’t buy them off because he will not have the poltical currency to do so; he can’t finance the purchase of a shoelace, and the State Department will look on him as a drooling idiot.
Nothing this man thinks or theorizes will see the light of day on 1/21/09. And his ideas moulder with him. ( See Perot, Anderson, Wallace, Thurman…)
But I guess I am the immature one here.
[/quote]
First, I would be looking forward to an orgy of vetoes as Dr No, turns into President No.
Then, I´d either like the Republicans to rediscover their roots, or to be replaced by Republicans with a strong libertarian streak, or, much more likely, to get that the political landscape has changed and adjust their ultra flexible spines accordingly.
Also, I would be looking forward to interesting debates, like Federal income tax to finance an empire or to get rid of both.
And of course the Democrates would shit themselves, those spineless wankers. I want Nancy Pelosi in tears just for not going after Bush and Cheney. I still would want that little pushover to be the majority leader in a Ron Paul presidency though.
[quote]orion wrote:
I want Nancy Pelosi in tears just for not going after Bush and Cheney. I still would want that little pushover to be the majority leader in a Ron Paul presidency though.
[/quote]
First, I would be looking forward to an orgy of vetoes as Dr No, turns into President No.
Then, I´d either like the Republicans to rediscover their roots, or to be replaced by Republicans with a strong libertarian streak, or, much more likely, to get that the political landscape has changed and adjust their ultra flexible spines accordingly.
Also, I would be looking forward to interesting debates, like Federal income tax to finance an empire or to get rid of both.
And of course the Democrates would shit themselves, those spineless wankers. I want Nancy Pelosi in tears just for not going after Bush and Cheney. I still would want that little pushover to be the majority leader in a Ron Paul presidency though.
[/quote]
No, sorry, Orion; sorry, Lifty. And nothing hoped for here is “brilliant.” The fairy wand only granted you one wish, a Ron Paul presidency, and not an entire alternative universe.
A government is not lead by vetoes. One proposes and compromises and legislation happens.
Pres. Ron Paul will not have a budget until 01 October 2009. Vetoes don’t change government and we do not have a line item veto. So exactly which of his vaunted “principles.” will he trade away?
Which Mighty Warrior will stand for him in the Committee Room, or in Congress, and will debate income tax for him?
Withdrawing ALL troops? Ending the Federal Reserve? The gold standard? Emptying the pork barrel by which they all survive?
Even if one happens to like a few of his ideas, Ron Paul is not the sharpest tool in the shed; do you really think he could deliver on any one of his ideas, leave aside the question their intrinsic merit.
This fantasy is proposed to deliver a point. An individual, a third party candidate, or Ron Paul, may be attractive for his thin promises or programs. But ideology–especially such an impoverished one as Ron Paul’s–is a poor excuse for practicality.
And don’t fool yourself into thinking that he–or you–will be a martyr for liberty.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
A government is not lead by vetoes.
[/quote]
It is when unconstitutional bills are presented.
We don’t want more legislation. We want less.
Good! No more legislation. No more regulation. No more do-good, well intentioned, but poorly thought out rules to stifle the free.
None.
He will have the press at his beck-and-call. He will have the ability to call out congress. He will have a mandate with this election. I already plan on voting for a congress person who reflects his ideals and understands why things must change.
I’m not going to comment on specific posters here as I do not know them well enough.
However, I am really surprised to see people I know who call themselves leftists, even if they’re RATM-blogger-wannabe-leftists express support for this man.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
A government is not lead by vetoes.
It is when unconstitutional bills are presented.
One proposes and compromises and legislation happens.
We don’t want more legislation. We want less.
Ron Paul will not have a budget until 01 October 2009. Vetoes don’t change government and we do not have a line item veto.
Good! No more legislation. No more regulation. No more do-good, well intentioned, but poorly thought out rules to stifle the free.
So exactly which of his vaunted “principles.” will he trade away?
None.
Which Mighty Warrior will stand for him in the Committee Room, or in Congress, and will debate income tax for him?
He will have the press at his beck-and-call. He will have the ability to call out congress. He will have a mandate with this election. I already plan on voting for a congress person who reflects his ideals and understands why things must change.[/quote]
Thank you! You have proven my points:
–the blindness of the ideologically driven
–the mistakes made by the anhistorical devotee
–the desperation which drives the “true-believer” from any verifiable reality
I will stand down now for a while: you and Orion and Nominal Prospect may continue to make fools of yourself, freely, and ad libitum.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
–the blindness of the ideologically driven
[/quote]
Right now people want ideology. They want to know where the candidate’s beliefs come from. They want to know he has principle. What you try to spin as a bad thing, I only see as a good thing. I know what he believes and I trust him. (oh and, he does actually understand a thing or two about economics; which you seem not to.)
There were no mistakes. As if you’d know.
Your value judgments won’t work here. You don’t know what motivates every single individual. Verifiable reality is only a requirement for science – Don’t even go there…you’ll get waxed Mr. Nobel Prize!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
–the blindness of the ideologically driven
Right now people want ideology. They want to know where the candidate’s beliefs come from. They want to know he has principle. What you try to spin as a bad thing, I only see as a good thing. I know what he believes and I trust him. (oh and, he does actually understand a thing or two about economics; which you seem not to.)
–the mistakes made by the anhistorical devotee
There were no mistakes. As if you’d know.
–the desperation which drives the “true-believer” from any verifiable reality
Your value judgments won’t work here. You don’t know what motivates every single individual. Verifiable reality is only a requirement for science – Don’t even go there…you’ll get waxed Mr. Nobel Prize![/quote]
Can you clarify what you’re saying here? Are you claiming that Jefferson doesn’t rate as one of the founders or are you saying that Jefferson was anti-French rev? Neither situation was true.[/quote]
I am saying Jefferson’s comments are important, but not representative of the Founders.
Actually, you can, and many do. The reason: we can get a sense of the mood, temperment, and values from the documents they left behind, and then get a broad sense of what they were after.
If you read carefully - and you didn’t - I said the Founders completely rejected the Lew Rockwell looneytarian version of libertarianism that the dim bulb Lifticus espouses. That is particularly specific - and no doubt Jefferson and Paine represented a kind of libertarianism.
But no Founder thought this version of libertarianism - don’t forget, you labeled them (aptly) Jacobins - the way to go. In fact, they said the opposite, and most importantly, built a government that rejected it.
If you think Lincoln was a “tyrant” - you don’t much about the Civil War.