Wit and Wisdom of Harry Browne

Al

Somalia is a libertarian society right now. No government at all to speak of. Everyone does what they want to whomever they want.

Why don’t you move and enjoy your Utopia now!!

You and your little Harry Browne-Star!!!

Al you are such a pathetic pus pimple.

Have you ever considered reading prior to posting.

I read a few sentences, and then I can’t stand it.

I’ll just refute one today.

HBS (Harry Browne-Star) wrote:

"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.

Really?

“The first step towards acquiring Hawaii came in 1886, when American businessmen in Hawaii forced the ?Bayonet Constitution? on the Hawaiian monarchy. This constitution decreased the power of the Hawaiian monarchy and the rights of the Hawaiian people. By January 1893, as protests against this constitution had continued to increase, a political coalition overthrew the monarchy and Hawaiian government after threatening military action by U.S. Marines.6 This new government then proposed annexation to the U.S.; however, President Cleveland was convinced by Hawaiian representatives (including Princess Ka?iulani, the crown princess) not to recognize this new government. Eventually, Congress and the President finally gave into pressure and in August 1894, they recognized the new ?Republic of Hawaii.?”

I’ll bet the Hawaiian Government of 1896 “feared” the United States in a big way.

Keep trying, douche bag.

JeffR

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.
[/quote]

This is exactly correct, and one of the benefits of the collapse of federalism was the Supreme Court applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well (particularly the parts about “Congress shall pass no law”).

I do subscribe to the notion that a democracy is best when it represents a “plurality of regimes,” which the federalist model embraces. And I also think that the federal government is too large, and too much in control. And the fact of the matter is that congress holds the states by the short hairs by refusing federal funding if they don’t adopt certain laws (see “the drinking age”). The federal government regulates things that it should have no authority to regulate, but we allow it to go on and on. It will only get worse.

But Harry Browne can’t make it better.

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
…I’m not the one who is dreaming. And least I am capable of reading: …
[/quote]

Al, if you are somehow implying that I am illiterate you are again sadly mistaken. Reading is one of my favorite things to do. I usually knock off a book every 2 or 3 days, so given your young age I am sure I have read and comprehended far more than you have.

As you grow older you will also grow wiser and recognize this Harry Browne bullshit for what it is.

Now go outside and play, or if it is too cold for you, go lift some weights.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Al, if you are somehow implying that I am illiterate you are again sadly mistaken. Reading is one of my favorite things to do. I usually knock off a book every 2 or 3 days, so given your young age I am sure I have read and comprehended far more than you have.[/quote]

To read and to comprehend are two different things. You obviously didn’t read the quotations I posted, so you couldn’t have possibly comprehended them. There’s absolutely no reason for you to be on this thread. I created it specifically to put a stop to the bullshit that I was hearing on other threads while advancing libertarian viewpoints (the “utopia” nonsense). For you to dismiss and ignore the numerous refutations of your tripe that have just been presented - then go right on shoveling it in my face - is downright infantile.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
As you grow older you will also grow wiser and recognize this Harry Browne bullshit for what it is.[/quote]

Words cannot describe the pretensiousness and folly of such a statement in light of your complete refusal to address facts that are made plain as day.

Please, spare me your predictions about what I will and won’t believe in as I grow “older and wiser”. First, I’m not going to get any wiser, ever, because wisdom is something that people are either born with or develop in the early stages of their lives. Second, your pathetic line of reasoning singles out Harry Browne as some deranged social pariah, sharing his views with no one else. That’s pure crap. There are MILLIONS of libertarians and traditional conservatives in this country who would lend their support to a great deal, if not all, of Browne’s ideas. To dismiss Harry Browne as some lunatic on the “fringe” is to summarily dismiss the entire Libertarian, anti-interventionist, and traditional conservative movements as well, not to mention the opinions of thousands of leftists, rightists, and independants. As I said: pure, unadultered, garbage.

Even some of your fellow clueless chickenhawk posters, who merely pose as conservatives, have acknowledged the validity of Browne’s contentions in a few areas. The debate, then, is obviously one of degrees. To try and diminish it into a black-and-white issue, with Browne on one side and “everybody else” on the other, is not only completely and utterly wrong, but juvenile to the extreme. Your comments are laughable. You should get to know the extent of your own idiocy. It would amaze you.

What amazes me is that, in two pages of debate, hardly anyone has bothered to address Browne’s points - yet most insist on the right to contradict them with every post! On the issue of “degrees,” mentioned above, Browne is firm and concise:

  1. If we cherry-pick which unauthorized functions of the government to eliminate, it is only a matter of time before they regrow to their present size - or worse yet, become larger. Knowing this is crucial to understanding the nature of government: you must eliminate the root, for the branch will always regrow no matter how many times it is cut off. It’s common sense; this country didn’t turn overnight into the huge, deficit-ridden welfare state it is today from having a pint-sized national debt and no income tax in the 1800s.

Libertarians understand this. Republicans and Democrats don’t. The latter groups prefer to engage in politically-motivated and largely trivial debates over where and how to cut government - or expand it, as the case may be, rather than looking at the big picture. And even when they claim to be in favor of smaller government, they always end up expanding it, as Browne points out.

Naturally, the pro-government establishment deems all true Libertarians and conservatives [see Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), the only true elected conservative in the Republican party] as “extremists” for being consistent in all of their views, rather than swaying to the winds of political influence. The ill-informed constituents of the two major parties - YOU PEOPLE - buy this shameless propaganda lock, stock, and barrel, and proceed to espouse it on forums such as this one without a second thought.

I would like to reiterate that I posted this article for a very good reason - I felt that it was called for and it’s ideas needed to be heard by the majority of this board. Clearly, this has not yet occured. So STOP trying to marginalize Harry Browne or me, and read the damn piece already. I’m getting tired of quoting and requoting the same passages:

  • Republicans and Democrats: The Democrats say a particular crisis is so severe that they must take another $300 from you. The Republicans say, “No, it’s not that bad; we need to take only $200.” Or the Republicans say a threat is so great they must take away three more of your civil rights. The Democrats counter by saying, “No, that’s too extreme; destroying two civil rights will be enough.” Whatever the issue, both sides agree it’s a reason for more government, and that you should pay for it. And no matter what price or intrusion they eventually agree upon, within a few years the cost will always be far greater than either side had asked for originally.

  • Government: We elect a Republican president and government gets bigger. We elect a Democratic president and government gets bigger. We elect a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress and government gets bigger. We are told “the era of big government is over” and government gets bigger. Welfare is reformed and government gets bigger. We’re told that Congress has made “tough budget cuts” and government gets bigger. Whatever happens, government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

  • Libertarians: I don’t agree with the idea that a libertarian is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It is a mistake to define libertarians in terms of conservatives or liberals. Conservative politicians are as fiscally imprudent as liberals, and liberal politicians are as contemptuous of individual rights as conservatives. Libertarians stand for individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. Conservatives and liberals each sometimes take positions similar to libertarians, but – unlike libertarians – there is no consistent principle running through all their political positions.

  • 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.

  1. To those arguing over the Civil War, Federalism vs. States Rights, Lincoln, and other interesting, yet outdated topics, I would like to draw your attention to the following journal entry by Harry Browne:

http://harrybrowne.org/Journal0409.htm#907

Limited government vs. anarchy: It seems to me that a lot of time is wasted by libertarians who argue whether it’s possible to have a society without any government at all.

What’s the point?

Right now, we’re $2.3 trillion away from no government, and about $2.2 trillion away from limited government.

That means that until we trim $2.2 trillion from the federal budget, the issue of limited government vs. anarchy is moot. I can only presume that both sides would be pleased as punch (and then some) to reduce the federal government by $2.2 trillion. So that’s what we all should be working toward as the first goal.

If we can get the federal government down to $100 billion, I’ll lead a drive to raise the money necessary to rent the New Orleans SuperDome for three months ? so we can all get together and argue over how much further the federal government should be reduced.

Those who want no government at all can continue working to reduce the size of government. Those who want limited government can fight to keep the federal government at $100 billion ? or work to reduce it slightly more ? or even work to increase it slightly.

But none of it is relevant until we reduce the government dramatically from where it is now.

As to the question of whether a society without government is possible, today we try to answer it with limited knowledge. If we can ever make government very small, we will undoubtedly find that plenty of people ? people with more creativity and imagination than we have ? will find it profitable to devise ways to do things privately and voluntarily that today seem possible only through government. Until those creative people have an incentive to put their minds to the question, we’re contemplating the issue without knowing all the possibilities.

But so what? The question is moot.

In the meantime, there are two things we know for sure:

? Government is force, and we want to reduce the use of force to the absolute minimum.

? Government doesn’t work, and so we want to remove as many activities as possible from government.

And no matter which side of the limited government vs. anarchy you’re on, when someone asks you what size libertarians think the government should be, you can answer:

"Libertarians want to reduce government to the absolute minimum possible, and we can’t really know what size that is until we get there.

"In the meantime, don’t you agree that government is way too big, way too powerful, way too intrusive, and way too expensive?

“If so, please help us reduce it to the absolute minimum possible.”

================================

Don’t make half-assed rants about “anarchy” or “utopianism” and try to pin them on either myself, Harry Browne, or the LP. That’s a say-nothing, know-nothing argument for losers. If anything can be said about Browne, it is that he has thought each and every one of his proposals through to the maximum extent of reason. You will NOT corner him intellectually by conjuring up a fictional society based around his ideals (most likely bastardizing them in the process) and then denouncing it. So save everyone a bit of time and use it educate yourself rather than flinging the intellectual equivalent of cow dung.

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Al, if you are somehow implying that I am illiterate you are again sadly mistaken. Reading is one of my favorite things to do. I usually knock off a book every 2 or 3 days, so given your young age I am sure I have read and comprehended far more than you have.

To read and to comprehend are two different things. You obviously didn’t read the quotations I posted, so you couldn’t have possibly comprehended them. There’s absolutely no reason for you to be on this thread. I created it specifically to put a stop to the bullshit that I was hearing on other threads while advancing libertarian viewpoints (the “utopia” nonsense). For you to dismiss and ignore the numerous refutations of your tripe that have just been presented - then go right on shoveling it in my face - is downright infantile.

Zap Branigan wrote:
As you grow older you will also grow wiser and recognize this Harry Browne bullshit for what it is.

Words cannot describe the pretensiousness and folly of such a statement in light of your complete refusal to address facts that are made plain as day.

Please, spare me your predictions about what I will and won’t believe in as I grow “older and wiser”. First, I’m not going to get any wiser, ever, because wisdom is something that people are either born with or develop in the early stages of their lives. Second, your pathetic line of reasoning singles out Harry Browne as some deranged social pariah, sharing his views with no one else. That’s pure crap. There are MILLIONS of libertarians and traditional conservatives in this country who would lend their support to a great deal, if not all, of Browne’s ideas. To dismiss Harry Browne as some lunatic on the “fringe” is to summarily dismiss the entire Libertarian, anti-interventionist, and traditional conservative movements as well, not to mention the opinions of thousands of leftists, rightists, and independants. As I said: pure, unadultered, garbage.

Even some of your fellow clueless chickenhawk posters, who merely pose as conservatives, have acknowledged the validity of Browne’s contentions in a few areas. The debate, then, is obviously one of degrees. To try and diminish it into a black-and-white issue, with Browne on one side and “everybody else” on the other, is not only completely and utterly wrong. Your comments are laughable. You should get to know the extent of your own idiocy. It would amaze you. [/quote]

wow.
This kid’s really really asking for an intervention.
Al, have you ever heard about catching more flies with honey? Here’s some free advice: stop insulting the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you. Simply disagreeing with you in no way makes us stupid, dumb, illiterate, incapable of comprehension etc.

YOU are demonstrating a disturbingly large number of these things, however.

Continually asserting your own superiority is indeed some sort of mental illness.

Being as I’m so close to Boston, I think it would almost be a pleasure to pay you a visit. I’d like to see you SLDL with 245, 100 pounds higher than your own weight. Do you have to brace your heels in some way to keep from tipping over?
Alas, I’ve crapped bigger’n you, to steal a quote from a movie, and don’t have the time.
But please, post pictures, I’d love to see it!

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Please, spare me your predictions about what I will and won’t believe in as I grow “older and wiser”. First, I’m not going to get any wiser, ever, [/quote]

you know, I actually believe this part.
Ever ever ever.

Sad.

Joe Weider, a quick reply:

First, read the edit to my last post - I wasn’t done yet. It will go a long towards refuting the tripe you just posted.

Second, I’m going to continue pointing out flagrant ignorance and arrogance when it is thrust upon me. So long as people on this forum (yourself included) continue making unjustified remarks about my age and “wisdom,” then I will be far from the only person on here with a superiority complex, by any standard.

Third - come to Boston when you get the time. Don’t talk about it, just do it. I’ll probably be SLDLing 300 for reps by the time you get around to it. We can hit up the gym, then go somewhere for a bite to eat and a thorough dissertation of Libertarian, anti-interventionist, and free market principles.

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Joe Weider, a quick reply:

First, read the edit to my last post - I wasn’t done yet. It will go a long towards refuting the tripe you just posted.

Second, I’m going to continue pointing out flagrant ignorance and arrogance when it is thrust upon me. So long as people on this forum (yourself included) continue making unjustified remarks about my age and “wisdom,” then I will be far from the only person on here with a superiority complex, by any standard.

Third - come to Boston when you get the time. Don’t talk about it, just do it. I’ll probably be SLDLing 300 for reps by the time you get around to it. We can hit up the gym, then go somewhere for a bite to eat and a thorough dissertation of Libertarian, anti-interventionist, and free market principles. [/quote]

See, that’s just not true. Making a comment about someone’s age and wisdom is in no way trying to show a superiority complex. A lot of us started out by politely telling you we thought you were incorrect, and where. By continually discounting and ridiculing what we’ve had to say, you’re the one trying to set yourself up as superior.

About those SLDL’s…I’ll believe it when I see it. Post pix!
About lunch: nothing personal, but I believe there could be only two possible outcomes from that dissertation: either my head would explode–or I’d choke you.
Since I don’t want either of those things to happen, I think I’ll stay up here.

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
First, I’m not going to get any wiser, ever, because wisdom is something that people are either born with or develop in the early stages of their lives. [/quote]

I hope somebody buys you a dictionary for Christmas. Wisdom, enlightenment, nirvana, sophos… all words to describe a state that may only be achieved through study, dedication to improvement, and careful attention to the world. That’s something you can’t be born with, unless you’re God. And I seriously doubt you want to make THAT claim.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
unless you’re God. And I seriously doubt you want to make THAT claim.[/quote]

don’t push him too hard…(rolling eyes)

“First, I’m not going to get any wiser, ever, because wisdom is something that people are either born with or develop in the early stages of their lives.”

This ends it - this is the most asinine statement uttered in the history of Western civilization.

Wait, it’s actually two statements - and both tie for most asinine ever uttered in the history of Western civilization.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Al Shades wrote:
First, I’m not going to get any wiser, ever, because wisdom is something that people are either born with or develop in the early stages of their lives.

I hope somebody buys you a dictionary for Christmas. Wisdom, enlightenment, nirvana, sophos… all words to describe a state that may only be achieved through study, dedication to improvement, and careful attention to the world. That’s something you can’t be born with, unless you’re God. And I seriously doubt you want to make THAT claim.[/quote]

Al Shades wrote:
“First, I’m not going to get any wiser, ever,…”

Unfortunately, an attitude like this one is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don’t know why I bother posting on Al’s threads, he clearly doesn’t get it.

First he says his logic is infallible, and then he says he will never be any wiser.

Either he is just goofing around or he seriously needs help.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Either he is just goofing around or he seriously needs help. [/quote]

Somewhere, on the other end of a keyboard, is a very, very drunk Noam Chomsky, going “tee hee, tee hee.”

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Either he is just goofing around or he seriously needs help.

Somewhere, on the other end of a keyboard, is a very, very drunk Noam Chomsky, going “tee hee, tee hee.”[/quote]

“Al Shades” does live in Massachusets. Coincidence?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
First he says his logic is infallible, and then he says he will never be any wiser.[/quote]

The two statements aren’t contradictory. Keep trying. The rest of you, too.

Eight replies and counting without a single attempt to reply to my defense of Harry - this is awesome. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a greater mass upset in all of my forum posting, nevermind caused one. Present any statement to me and I can tell you whether I agree or disagree with it and why. But that seems to be too hard for most of you. You’re left floundering like pigeons in a pond because you simultaneously know that Harry Browne is right and there’s nothing you can say to get around it. So you ignore it and change the subject, all the while ramping up your attacks on my supposed sanity and intelligence levels.

This is a pattern that I have seen many, many times before. In fact, I know it like the back of my hand. I am no stranger to internet message boards and the ignorance found within.

Al: I still don’t owe you a dollar. The link you posted as proof didn’t help your cause at all.

I’ll try one more time:

When you go spouting off about how superior you are, it’s going to be hard for a bunch of guys like us to accept anything you post at all. This is not due to our collective ignorance, as you might imagine, it’s the fact that you do little but offend our sensibilities, and we feel a sense of right in putting you in your place. Which is pretty damn low, so far.

The arrogance which you accuse all of us possessing is quite squarely resting on YOUR shoulders. I will not bore everyone to tears by cutting and pasting the plethora of instances where you proclaim your infallibility and superiority… let’s just take that as a given, shall we?

As to the Harry Browne thingy, well, honestly he is a crackpot. Look back at all the posts we have made showing you this. You refuse to see it in a very “17 year-old teenager” fashion, and that’s okay. Hell, I was your age once, and I thought I knew everything back then, too. Much to my surprise, I found out that I DID get wiser as the years went by, and now like everybody else who was ever young and full of themselves, I can look back and laugh at what a dumbass I was.

That is what we are doing right now with you. We are laughing, because we all know EXACTLY where you are coming from. We’ve been there. You remind me of… me. And it’s funny as hell.

What’s even cooler about all of this is if you read this post I already know that you will be saying to yourself: “That dude might think that he got wiser, but that won’t be me. How could getting older do anything to change MY mind about anything?”

Hahahahahaha!

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
This is a pattern that I have seen many, many times before. In fact, I know it like the back of my hand. I am no stranger to internet message boards and the ignorance found within. [/quote]

I don’t doubt it. So why do you keep coming back?

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Al Shades wrote:
This is a pattern that I have seen many, many times before. In fact, I know it like the back of my hand. I am no stranger to internet message boards and the ignorance found within.

I don’t doubt it. So why do you keep coming back?[/quote]

nephorm: I’m guessing the pattern he’s so familiar with involves emerging onto a message board with a proclamation of his superior intellect because he agrees with something that some guy wrote. Then, some folks point out that what the article he’s agreeing with has some major flaws in it. Like, oh say… the basis or history of the article being completely wrong. Then, Al will come back and remind everyone that he is smarter than the rest of us because we are all retards, and then he sits back and complains at all the ad hominem attacks on himself. And somehow… that’s ignorant of US.

I wish I could say that I was never so much of a smart-ass jerk as this.

You give respect, you get respect. Plain and simple. It only took me ten years to figure that out. Maybe Al will do better than I did.