Wit and Wisdom of Harry Browne

Little Al and Warriorsage keep talking about how horrible this country is. How it’s turned into a ‘social democracy’.

I feel like a freakin democrat listening to this way, way radical right-wing love fest between them and Browne.

Where is Hspder to give us some Euro-centric point of reference in this discussion?

Have you two looked around at some other countries on the map? The U.S. is hardly the shit hole you guys fashion it to be. Maybe you guys would do well to go to Europe and live for a while. Hell, just head north and live in Canada where the PC police have taken over. I bet your ideals would really go over well served up with a side of fries and gravy

It ain’t so bad here. But you guys keep posting soundbites from your out-of-touch guru and thinking your way is the only way. You’ll keep losing elections, and becoming more cynical.

It makes no matter to me. It would be nice however if, in Browne’s libertarian manifesto, there were consequences for ill-mannered, loud-mouthed children.

[quote]Warriorsage wrote:

Nine years old and your parents (I assume) had you working on a conservative republicans campaign. You think this may of determined the outcome of your future decisions?

.[/quote]

no. I don’t know what my father was for, he never really said, but my mother was in favor of Anderson.
I liked Reagan all my self from reading and stuff.
Like I said, a hobby of mine.
That’s why I get annoyed when Al comes on attacking everyone. He’s not going to get all the experience you say he should get if he doesn’t open his ears, mind and eyes and shut his mouth.
Because I know he wouldn’t say this stuff to any of us in person…not at 140#.
As Jack Palance says in City Slickers “I’ve crapped bigger’n [Al]”.
BTW, that quote about how we couldn’t be black and white about stuff was from you. Cause you sounded pretty black and white about how we needed to tolerate Al.

[quote]Warriorsage wrote:
The aware know that to give someone power is the ultimate power. The ability to let someone make there own decisions and live there own life requires courage and belief in ones own self. They must believe that when the one who grows beyond them and where they have been that they have given the greatest gift they can of themselves and that is the gift of self-determination. It is what we fought for in the revolution. It is what the south fought for in the Civil War. (Parenthetically, Lincoln broke almost every Constitutional law there was in place at the time, according to the constitution the states had the right to determine their own laws; No matter how repulsive we may find them today).
[/quote]

Want someone to argue with your points? Try almost every historian not from well south of the Mason-Dixon line about those subjects, as well as many southern historians as well.

Don’t try to make out the Confederacy to have been some noble cause – somehow the ONLY law those states were unable to negotiate around or work within a federalist framwork were those of slavery.

The South saw the writing on the wall – opposition to slavery had been building in the rest of the country for decades, as had been predicted by many of the framers of the Constitution. Remember, they didn’t wait for the decades-long process which would have preceeded Constitutional abolition of slavery. The goddamned INSTANT an anti-slavery Northerner was elected and the South lost its de facto hold on power that it had been exercising by threatening seccession and forcing the election of candidates that would kowtow to Southern demands, they left. Frankly a few more Andrew Jacksons – who told the South that if they didn’t stop their bullying threats that he would invade immediately (they believed it and basically shut the hell up for a decade) – and a few less Buchanans – the worst president in American history, who enabled the future Confederacy to an amazing degree with his “leadership” – might have helped to allay the disaster that was the Civil War.

The Confederates were fighting not only for slavery for institutionalized anarchy, as Lincoln pointed out on a hundred occasions. Had the South succeeded, than any municipality or political entity would have been able to withdraw if they didn’t like the legislative will of the majority. So if your county, state, town government, or whatever felt like they weren’t going to win an important vote, pull out! Abolish the government because you don’t agree with even the distant threat of the majority’s disagreeing with you!

It was the most reckless, shortsighted, dangerous, morally and legally despicable decision ever taken by a group of Americans. Had the Confederates been allowed to succeed, in their wake you would not have had a CSA and a USA, you would have had the USA and the CSA and twenty different nations created after the precedent of the CSA, and the bloodshed and inernecine wars of a thousand years (see Europe).

Also, if you would like to keep arguing the “state’s rights” apologist crap about the Confederacy I am going to keep posting the “laws” which enabled seccession, in order, until you stop. I would be interested to know what “rights” had been violated, including I might add the right to own slaves (which Lincoln said he would not do anything about because he didn’t see that as the President’s job when he was first elected, and before the states secceeded).

Here’s the first:

South Carolina

"[Copied by Justin Sanders from J.A. May & J.R. Faunt, South Carolina Secedes (U. of S. Car. Pr, 1960), pp. 76-81.]

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.


The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.


We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.


Adopted December 24, 1860"

[quote]Cream wrote:
Don’t try to make out the Confederacy to have been some noble cause – somehow the ONLY law those states were unable to negotiate around or work within a federalist framwork were those of slavery.
[/quote]

It doesn’t really matter that we look back at slavery as being an evil; it was still a matter of states’ rights at that point, and several states chose to ignore their duties under the full faith and credit clause.

And perhaps your hometown would seek to rebel if the government sponsored some crazy activist, so that he could come into your town, take over your armory, and shoot your fellow townsmen.

[quote]Cream wrote:

Don’t try to make out the Confederacy to have been some noble cause – somehow the ONLY law those states were unable to negotiate around or work within a federalist framwork were those of slavery. [/quote]

They fought to uphold the constitution, period. The Confedracy was the last ditch effort to preserve the Republic. The Republic ended with Lee’s surrender in 1865. Since then government has steadily grown to a point that it is laughable to call the U.S. a Republic.

A cursory look at U.S. History from about 1820 (the first time secession was seroiusly brought up) to the 1861 would show that A civil war was going to occur, it was inevitable. It was just a matter of time.

People look at the South as “evil” yet ignore the ridiculous tariffs, taxes, demands, and exploitation by the Union on Southern states who were feeding and clothing the nation.

If the anit-slavery (you mean abolitionist) movement had been building as you say, it was moving at a snails pace. The anti-slavery and abolitionists were two different camps. Robert E. Lee was against slavery, John Brown was abolitionist. The abolitionist movement was a small minority, even in the North.

And, contrary to our pathetic education system, Lincoln never intended to free the slaves. He made this abundantly clear. Emancipation became a political ploy to try and rally around a cause in the Union, which wasn’t all that successful (see draft riots). I think more than anything else, freed slaves provided several million troops to fight for the Union.

Dustin

Warriorsage,

“The aware know that to give someone power is the ultimate power.”

Yes, yes, Lord Acton and so forth.

“They must believe that when the one who grows beyond them and where they have been that they have given the greatest gift they can of themselves and that is the gift of self-determination.”

Self-determination is not a gift - it is earned. I am not trying to play semantic games here, but it is important to realize man’s “natural” state is not absolute freedom - the freedoms we enjoy now were carved out of struggle.

“It is what we fought for in the revolution.”

Aye.

“It is what the south fought for in the Civil War.”

Nay. The South wanted self-determination, but they didn’t want to play by the rules of popular government. Slavery was going to be ended by ordinary republican means - and the South knew it. In every democracy, there are winners and losers, and the time of the South’s privilege of slavery was coming to a head - and, btw, Lincon was fine with that solution.

You don’t get to join the Union and then drop out when the national law is written a way you don’t like. That’s a prescription for anarchy. Southern states didn’t like way politics were headed for its cherished institution of slavery, so they decided to take their ball and go home.

That is antithetical to any organized republican government. Once having joined the nation in perpetuity, an act against a federal instutution is rightly considered insurrection.

Moreover, it is important to remember that ‘self-determination’ and ‘freedom’ as natural rights of man do not permit an institution where people are chattel.

“(Parenthetically, Lincoln broke almost every Constitutional law there was in place at the time…”

This is utter garbage. Which one? Suspension of habeas corpus? The right to suppress insurrections and rebellions? I don’t doubt that Lincoln stretched the fabric of executive power, but firstly, that is always a consequence in wartime, and secondly, this war was unique, since it was a civil war.

Moreover, if you want a study in tyrranical government, brush up on Dred Scott.

“…according to the constitution the states had the right to determine their own laws…”

Not all of them. Since the ratification of the Constitution, states have had their powers restricted.

“…No matter how repulsive we may find them today).”

But States never had complete autonomy. And when they got wind that they were going to lose powers they had previously - by perfectly legitimate, functioning lawmaking - they decided that the rules of republican government weren’t so great after all, ie, with rights come responsibilities.

Btw, just for the record, I say all this as a conservative and a Southerner.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Cream wrote:
Don’t try to make out the Confederacy to have been some noble cause – somehow the ONLY law those states were unable to negotiate around or work within a federalist framwork were those of slavery.

It doesn’t really matter that we look back at slavery as being an evil; it was still a matter of states’ rights at that point, and several states chose to ignore their duties under the full faith and credit clause.

And perhaps your hometown would seek to rebel if the government sponsored some crazy activist, so that he could come into your town, take over your armory, and shoot your fellow townsmen.
[/quote]

Bringing in John Brown is a red herring. What has that got to do with the election of Lincoln spurring seccession? Why didn’t they rebel after Harper’s Ferry, if that was the real reason?

What ONE issue was Lincoln occasionally vocal about that they opposed so strongly that his mere election caused them to secede? If any of his oppponents had won, would seccession have happened? What state right of the South was being ignored or trampled on?

Read what I posted from the South Carolinians. I’ll post Mississippi tomorrow. Keep saying it wasn’t about slavery while the people that were there thought it was, if that makes you feel better about Maryland’s pathetic stance. Way to hide out.

Read about the previous 50 years of American history. The South enjoyed a virtual monopoly of influence in branches government that was not supported by votes. The minute they started losing their unmandated influence to Northern States they started rumbling about seccession.

[quote]hedo wrote:
dond1esel wrote:
hedo wrote:
No wonder you idolize him. You need him like a ho needs crack. It validates you.

Burn.

ahhh…ok.

Sure dude.

[/quote]

It seemed like a good burn to me.

Unless the problem is you’re unfamiliar with the term. It comes from Kelso (Ashton Kutcher) on That 70’s Show. The noun form means simply “insult”, so the interjection means “good insult”. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
They fought to uphold the constitution, period. The Confedracy was the last ditch effort to preserve the Republic. The Republic ended with Lee’s surrender in 1865. Since then government has steadily grown to a point that it is laughable to call the U.S. a Republic.[quote]

They fought to uphold what right in the Constitution? What Article? Is it Article XXX that says if your unmandated grip on power is affronted in any way, then you may violently secede? You may fire on federal installations if in 30 years you might lose a vote?

[quote]A cursory look at U.S. History from about 1820 (the first time secession was seroiusly brought up) to the 1861 would show that A civil war was going to occur, it was inevitable. It was just a matter of time. [quote]

Hmmm… Put the Albany legislature in Charleston and you have no Civil War. Leave Andrew Jackson in office and no Civil War. Take away the idea that says if I don’t like even the hint of a law, I can get out my gun and leave the Union.

Well, my state is overwhelmingly republican, conservative, and religious. But, the shithole part of my state voted for John Kerry. Now that was an outright offense. Should my part of the state leave? For Christs’s sake they almost elected a guy that would have practically invited further attack. How is that not more offensive than electing a guy who had no power or inclination to rid the country of slavery?

Another great example is that my state voted overwhelmingly to oppose gay civil unions. I voted for this amanedment to the state constitution. Can my house secede? Can I shoot my brother who voted against it? Even worse, what if the federal government made a constitutional amendment banning gay civil unions? Would it not be my right to pre-emptively attack the local National Guard Base and lob explosives over the wall? Again, how is that not a more direct infringement than the election of a man who said he would not free the slaves, especially if it would preserve the Union?

[quote] People look at the South as “evil” yet ignore the ridiculous tariffs, taxes, demands, and exploitation by the Union on Southern states who were feeding and clothing the nation.[quote]

Ever hear the phrase “Corn is King” that was popular in 1850? Where did and does the corn grow, pray tell? The Everglades? The bayous? The Ozarks? West Texas? Would you like me to go to the trouble of proving that Iowa could have fed the entire nation by itself? Do you really think that Indiana and Ohio – which contain some of the most fertile land on the planet – needed Arkansas to feed it? Lincoln spoke on multiple occasions to the free small farmers and used their overwhelmingly higher output to prove that slavery wasn’t even neccessary from a numbers perspective.

[quote] If the anit-slavery (you mean abolitionist) movement had been building as you say, it was moving at a snails pace. [quote]

Really? Ever hear of the 3/5 clause of the constitution? How about the abolition of the African Slave Trade? When did that happen? How did Uncle Tom’s cabin do?

Now I would be the last guy to argue that the northerners’ sole reason of fighting the south was slavery. Many of the soldiers did not give a shit about the slaves. They wanted to fight the anarchists (see S Carolina and Al Shades) and the basement-cowering, troop-murdering cowards (see Maryland).

[quote] The anti-slavery and abolitionists were two different camps. Robert E. Lee was against slavery, [quote]

Hey that’s news to me! Although he advocated arming the slaves at the very end, he owned 63 himself.

Here he is in 1856. Lee apologists like to quote the first sentence without reading the rest. “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”

Lee did indeed free his slaves. He inherited them from his father-in-law who had mandated in his will that Lee was legally required to do so in five years from his father in law’s death. Lee filed for their freedom five years and TWO MONTHS after. By that time they were already in control of the evil union.

[quote]John Brown was abolitionist. The abolitionist movement was a small minority, even in the North.[quote]

That’s right he was an abolitionist. However, I have found it a good rule of thumb to steer clear of guys that hack their idealogical opposites to death with machetes.

[quote] And, contrary to our pathetic education system, Lincoln never intended to free the slaves. He made this abundantly clear. Emancipation became a political ploy to try and rally around a cause in the Union, which wasn’t all that successful (see draft riots). I think more than anything else, freed slaves provided several million troops to fight for the Union.

Dustin[/quote]

This is from memory, but Lincoln said “If I could free the slaves and save the Union, then I would. If I could free some of the slaves and not others and save the Union, then I would. If I could free none of the slaves and preserve the Union, then I would do that”. Did you read my first post? Who are you arguing with? Do you feel special about your knowledge? Did anybody learn anything about history in high school?

DUSTIN, HERE’S THE QUESTION THAT YOU CAN’T DODGE: If Lincoln was not at least perceived as being strongly anti-slavery, then WHY SECEDE? Was it his position on orange tariffs? Was the south deeply anti-marfans? Was it his views on the expansion of the railroads? Was it because he was originally a southerner himself, or that he was married to a southerner? Was Richmond piqued that his pre-inauguration tour missed them? Was it because the federal government hung John Brown? Was it because Buchanan did everything that he was told by the southern states? Were they strongly anti-beard?

FOR DUSTIN AND NEPHORM:

Here’s Robert E. Lee agreeing with Lincoln and me:

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.

?Robert E. Lee, letter, 23 January 1861"

Great general, shitty cause.

[quote]dond1esel wrote:
hedo wrote:
dond1esel wrote:
hedo wrote:
No wonder you idolize him. You need him like a ho needs crack. It validates you.

Burn.

ahhh…ok.

Sure dude.

It seemed like a good burn to me.

Unless the problem is you’re unfamiliar with the term. It comes from Kelso (Ashton Kutcher) on That 70’s Show. The noun form means simply “insult”, so the interjection means “good insult”. Sorry for the misunderstanding.[/quote]

My bad. I am so out of touch with the hot TV show’s these days.

Ashton is banging my fantasy girl Demi Moore…the prick!

[quote]hedo wrote:
dond1esel wrote:
hedo wrote:
dond1esel wrote:
hedo wrote:
No wonder you idolize him. You need him like a ho needs crack. It validates you.

Burn.

ahhh…ok.

Sure dude.

It seemed like a good burn to me.

Unless the problem is you’re unfamiliar with the term. It comes from Kelso (Ashton Kutcher) on That 70’s Show. The noun form means simply “insult”, so the interjection means “good insult”. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

My bad. I am so out of touch with the hot TV show’s these days.

Ashton is banging my fantasy girl Demi Moore…the prick!
[/quote]

I think it’s actually an expression from the 1970s – at any rate, I remember it from the early 80s (I was only 5 when the 70s ended…).

Like nephorm, I find a lot to like in a libertarian (meaning classically liberal) outlook.

However, the capital “L” Libertarians tend to take it way too far – at least those Libertarians who are true ideologues and would remove every government function save courts, police and army (though apparently the army would be restricted to staying on our border) – and the other Libertarians tend to only be interested in drug legalization…

The problem with the ideologues isn’t just that they take things so far – wherever you draw the line, there will be someone saying you take it too far. The real problem is that they tend to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and are unwilling to work for compromise solutions that might be workable, or for piecemeal improvements.

[quote]Cream wrote:
Bringing in John Brown is a red herring. What has that got to do with the election of Lincoln spurring seccession? Why didn’t they rebel after Harper’s Ferry, if that was the real reason?

What ONE issue was Lincoln occasionally vocal about that they opposed so strongly that his mere election caused them to secede? If any of his oppponents had won, would seccession have happened? What state right of the South was being ignored or trampled on?

Read what I posted from the South Carolinians. I’ll post Mississippi tomorrow. Keep saying it wasn’t about slavery while the people that were there thought it was, if that makes you feel better about Maryland’s pathetic stance. Way to hide out.

Read about the previous 50 years of American history. The South enjoyed a virtual monopoly of influence in branches government that was not supported by votes. The minute they started losing their unmandated influence to Northern States they started rumbling about seccession.[/quote]

Amazing. You didn’t even read what I wrote, did you? I never denied that slavery was a key issue in secession. Where do you get the idea that I was trying to dispute that? I have no great love for Maryland (ooo, you know what state I live in!) that compels me to lie on its behalf. I only argue that the issue was over more than slavery, and that the anti-slavery sentiment in the North was recklessly indifferent to the economic dangers of abrupt abolition.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
It doesn’t really matter that we look back at slavery as being an evil; it was still a matter of states’ rights at that point, and several states chose to ignore their duties under the full faith and credit clause.

And perhaps your hometown would seek to rebel if the government sponsored some crazy activist, so that he could come into your town, take over your armory, and shoot your fellow townsmen.

Amazing. You didn’t even read what I wrote, did you? I never denied that slavery was a key issue in secession. Where do you get the idea that I was trying to dispute that? I have no great love for Maryland (ooo, you know what state I live in!) that compels me to lie on its behalf. I only argue that the issue was over more than slavery, and that the anti-slavery sentiment in the North was recklessly indifferent to the economic dangers of abrupt abolition.

[/quote]

“…Anti-slavery sentiment in the north was recklessly indifferent to the economic dangers of abrupt abolition”. So what? Was Lincoln proposing abrubt abolition? Which majority of Congress was seriously discussing this? Could he have gotten the consent of enough states to ratify that without the Civil War?

The South’s rebellion and its destruction was the only reason that emancipation happened as quickly as it did. So their answer to the North’s reckless indifference was to opt for the solution that would leave their countryside destroyed, their slaves free, and hundreds of thousands dead and displaced.

I’m in the process of fashioning a lengthy and comprehensive reply to this thread, but in the mean time, I’d like to steer your attention to this archive regarding Lincoln, his policies, and Southern Secession:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

Lincoln was, indeed, a tyrant.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The US never has been a libertarian society. I don’t mind libertarians calling for change to move into a new era, but doing so under the premise that we will be returning to some libertarian utopia we once had is erroneous and dishonest.

As a conservative, I can get on board with some of the criticism - that the government reach has gone farther than expected or needed, etc. - but Harry Browne’s America has never existed.[/quote]

What’s all this ill-informed chatter of utopia and “an America that never existed”? Bullshit, I say. And history stands behind me. I bet you didn’t care to know that Harry Browne uses precedent as the basis for every single political change he advocates.

Please, read the following article and educate yourself a little. Don’t make blind assumptions. This nation has undergone drastic changes since the beginning of the 20th century, and they haven’t made it richer, freer, or more secure.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/StatueOfLiberty2.htm

Here’s a summary for the people who refuse to click on the links that I post (and therefore insist on rehashing issues that have been repeatedly dealt with):

"In 1886 America had an open hand to the rest of the world. America didn’t fear anyone and no one feared America. Today Americans live in a state of siege.

The idea of invading the Philippines or bombing the Sudan or intervening in Nicaragua or overturning a government in the Dominican Republic or starting a war with Iraq would have seemed ludicrous to the American people in 1886. As John Quincy Adams put it, America didn’t go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. Today America has troops in over a hundred foreign countries."

“In 2003 the maximum personal income tax rate is 35%, plus 15% for Social Security tax. In 1886 the maximum income tax rate of any kind was 0%.”

“In 1886 the federal debt was $1.40 per person (adjusted for inflation to dollars of 2002 value). In 2002 the federal debt was $21,564 per person.”

“In 1886 there was no Securities & Exchange Commission, no Food and Drug Administration, no Interstate Commerce Commission, no Federal Trade Commission, no federal regulatory agencies of any kind. In 2003 every conceivable thing in America is regulated in some way by some level of government.”

There is much, much more.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/Journal0501.htm

Read his first entry, and check out the website he mentions - where you can see actual products that were marketed at the beginning of the century and contained a wide variety of currently illegal substances.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Al, keep dreaming of Harry Browne’s Libertarian Utopia. That is all it ever will be, a dream.

Yes, the current governemnt of the United States is horrible for many reasons. It is also the best government in the history of the world.

These talking points you posted are amusing, but so far off reality it is not worth debating.[/quote]

I’m not the one who is dreaming. And least I am capable of reading:

  • Utopian Thinking: Robert Bork has said that Libertarians have an unrealistic “sweet view of human nature,” and that is why they oppose government attempts to impose morality. He has this matter precisely backward. It is because there are evil, incompetent people in the world that we must never give government the power to enforce morality, economic equality, or any other social goal. The coercive power of government is always a beacon to those who want to dominate others – summoning the worst dregs of society to Washington to use that power to impose their will upon others.

So, why don’t you explain how any of my beliefs qualifies as Utopian?

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
The coercive power of government is always a beacon to those who want to dominate others – summoning the worst dregs of society to Washington to use that power to impose their will upon others.
[/quote]
This passage gives me pause. Have you ever been treated for paranoia? The role of government is not to “dominate”, Al. This is NOT The Matrix.

The real world is full of rotten apples, and I get to see them all the time as they roll through my hospital in various states of crazy, drunk, high, vomiting, shrieking, fighting… the list goes on and on. Some people are just f’d up. The fact that some injustices are committed by some folks who take advantage of their position is a function of human nature.

I could just as easily set up an argument where I can prove that Public Service attracts the most capable, intelligent, and civil-minded of us. The examples of this are just as shining as any rotten apples you could sniff out in Washington. Government is not there to keep you down, bro. It’s there to keep your liberties available to you so that you can make something of yourself.

I think your problem is that you look around and see a cage, when you should be seeing a stairway. If that’s not too metaphorical.

Al Shades,

“Please, read the following article and educate yourself a little.”

End this nonsense. I know who Harry Browne is. I’ve read his material.

When Browne was at the peak of his powers - the 2000 election - you were thirteen and I was reading all about third party candidates, trying to see what they were about.

I know exactly what Harry Browne is about, so spare me this charge of ‘getting educated’ by reading the tracts of a fringe thinker over and over. It’s a bad argument. I’ve read it, think its hooey, and so let’s get on with it.

The Founding Fathers were not interested in libertinism. Moreover, state governments had all kinds of laws that are antithetical to libertarian thought but were perfectly constitutional. The federal government couldn’t punish you for sodomy or adultery, but states certainly could and did.

The states themselves - to whom libertarians seem to want to return power - were the least liberatarian of the levels of government in the early days of the republic.

Harry Browne is not taken seriously. He is a utopian in the exact same mold as a naive Marxist - he assigns a materialist perspective to every event he reads about and promises that a paradise lies ahead if only we would do what he says. No thanks.

He is also naive to history - he thinks capitalism is a God-given right. Nope. It is a political economic system, chosen by people acting in their best interests. It is the best of all systems. However, should people begin to feel that it is ‘inequitable’ or ‘unfair’ based on their value systems, they will get antsy to want to replace it.

That was the situation in the early 20th century. Thus, modifying capitalism - introducing some order to the law of the jungle - is what saved capitalism from being replaced by something far worse.