LIB-ertarian Johnson has Lib Meltdown

[jrodefeld]

So you avoid my Reply #31 and go after what you consider low hanging fruit and call someone a racist because they spoke the truth?
None of what he said was derogatory in any way, Mexicans crossing the Rio Grands were given the term wet back because they had to swim to "ILLEGALLY" enter the US, Muscums will not follow our laws because their religion trump's our laws, so both statements were spot on.

But I'd like to address something else, your claim that you have:
Libertarian is Right, you moronic LIB-ertarian! It's foolish libs like you that are destroying the Liberatrian movement.
The movement is nothing more than a stripped down version of Republicanism, the very thing TEA stands for, it's your ignorance of the movement and its core ideals that do it disservice, that keep libs like Johnson in power and keep the movement from getting more than 10% notice.

Now go back and address my reply or find another forum to shit your leftist bull on.

Libertarianism is neither left nor right.  I am perfectly happy to align myself with the most socially conservative and the most socially liberal people as long as they oppose the State and oppose the initiation of force against peaceful people. 

Frankly, I think it's nothing more than a contemporary myth that libertarianism is "a stripped down version of Republicanism", as you describe it.  It is a fallacy to think that libertarianism is some quirky off-shoot of the Right.

I think you and I would both agree that libertarianism is based upon the belief that government should either be limited to a few basic functions (defense of property and person, dispute adjudication, national defense) or that it should be abolished entirely to be replaced by the spontaneous order of a free market.  If libertarianism is a naturally ally of the Right or of Republicanism, then it should stand to reason that the Right would have SOME success in rolling back Big Government, right?

Were is that success?  Who was the "small government" Republican president in the last seventy years or so?  Not Nixon.  Not Reagan.  Not either George Bush administration.  What have Republican congresses ever done to concretely roll back the size of government?

The truth is the Republican governments have done as much as any Democrat to expand government and trample on the liberties of Americans. 


Furthermore, Republicans have in the last half century or so, been the biggest champions of an expansive military empire, a buildup of Nuclear arms during the Cold War and an advocate for "American Exceptionalism" and an iron-clad "special relationship" with the nation of Israel that flies in the face of the admonition of the Founders to avoid "entangling alliances". 

Randolph Borne correctly observed that "war is the health of the State", which means that supporting a large military and unnecessary wars does more than anything to expand government.  As the great Robert Higgs correctly observed in his classic "Crisis and Leviathan", there is a "racket effect" whereby every "crisis" precipitated by government creates a great expansion in State power.  After the crisis is over, the power may retract slightly, but never to the level it was before the crisis began.  After a repeated series of crises, government power grows and grows.

War is the greatest pretext government could ever want to expand it's power.

I'd love to hear a rational explanation as to why libertarianism should be aligned with modern conservatism or the Republican Party given this inexcusable record. 

[Solar]

You're wrong about this. 

No, I am not! I've been studying all movements since long before you were born. Just because you glommed onto what you consider to be the heart of a movement stolen by pissed off leftists, does not lend credence to your claims. In this case, the squeaky wheel gets the LSM mic, a small but vocal group of Millennial, but in no way anywhere near majority are attempting to hijack the movement.

The tradition of liberty dates back far further than the recent manifestation of libertarianism that emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

So what, that in no way supports your bogus claims!

The true intellectual heritage of the modern libertarian movement is the Enlightenment-Era classical liberals and individualist anarchists who emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries.  Starting with John Locke and early economists such as Adam Smith, liberalism was a philosophy which recognized the concept of Natural Rights and strictly limited government, or the absence of government entirely.  Important early thinkers included Lysander Spooner, Frederick Bastiat, and Benjamin Tucker, among many others.

Oh cut the bull shit, all party's can make the same claim.

Also important to the development of modern libertarian thought were the Austrian School of economics.  Founded by Carl Menger in the middle of the 19th century, and subsequently developed by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk and, most importantly, Ludvig von Mises who wrote vital and important denunciations of Socialism and Central Banking during the first half of the 20th century.
The most important libertarian figure of the second half of the 20th century was undoubtedly Murray Rothbard, who was Mises's most important student.

More bull shit! Just because some cult follower stated it, does not make it true.

There was a strain of libertarianism that emerged in the late 1960s that comprised, essentially, "hippies of the Right".  This is how Ayn Rand described them and, though I am no Randian, this caricature has merit.

But this hardly describes all, or even most, libertarians. 

This "Strain" as you call it, is the actual beginning of the current party and it's more recently bastardized platform.
Here, learn something!
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/history/here's-the-original-libertarian-platform-from-1972/msg310046/#msg310046

Libertarianism is a philosophy which is primarily concerned with the proper role of coercion in society.  It is the belief that coercion is essentially only morally defensible as a means of self defense and that aggression, which is unprovoked force applied to peaceful people, is inherently unjust. 

Different groups of libertarians attach very different social and cultural values to this view.

Which is exactly my point, many leftist groups are trying to change the party's original platform, (Enter Leftist Johnson)

Thus, there are very socially conservative libertarians and very socially liberal libertarians.

Wrong again! There is no social component to the Libertarian movement, that was the beauty of the movement in the first place!

There are fundamentalist Christian libertarians and radical atheist libertarians.  There are libertarians who engage in "alternative" lifestyles such as libertine drug use and sexual conduct.  There are others who follow very socially conservative habits and personally reject social liberalism and leftist viewpoints.

Once again you prove my point as to how the movement is being usurped by groups refusing to share the inclusiveness of the party platform.

What all libertarians agree on is that they reject the use of aggression against others.  And thus, all libertarians either support a VERY limited State (minarchy) or the total abolition of the State (anarchy).

With the exception of self defense and property rights.

In regards to immigration, what business is it of yours if someone moves onto property that you don't own as long as they don't harm anyone in the process?  Libertarians believe in freedom of association.  National boundaries are merely arbitrary lines drawn on a map by an illegitimate political authority.  If there are employers in this country and workers in another country who want to associate with each other, then why should any third party have the ability to stop them from doing so?

"In regards to immigration, what business is it of yours" what individual States deem illegal?
You see, as I pointed out earlier, you claim out of one side of your ass that govt needs to stand aside and respect individual rights, while you talk out the otherside of your ass claiming govt should force individuals to accept illegals as neighbors.

It's this bastardization of the platform that I am totally against and why I am exposing your hypocrisy as a lib!

[Hoofer]

Solar, you are absolutely right.  Thanks for the link, good refresher to contrast today with what once was a pretty good platform.

[walkstall]

Solar, you are absolutely right.  Thanks for the link, good refresher to contrast today with what once was a pretty good platform.

I think most platforms started out with good intentions, not all.  Then along came the free loader and corrupt politicians takeover. 

[Solar]

Solar, you are absolutely right.  Thanks for the link, good refresher to contrast today with what once was a pretty good platform.

Exactly! I'm sure you remember the day the movement started, I know I do, and I also remember the mood of the country at the time in context to their pronouncement. It was viewed as destructive at the time because Nam had just ended and a bunch of hippies were without a cause. Neither the Dims or GOP hated the country, both had Conservatives at the heart of the party's.
It was a time when you could tell by an individuals attire where they stood politically, and I distinctly remember looking at them and thinking they were nothing more than a bunch of pissed off idealistic reformed hippies.

I was right in hindsight, but with history in the reflective light of today, had this same movement started within the last few years as its platform stood in the 70s? We might all be voting with a big (L) on the ticket and telling the GOP to take a leap, instead, we're Hell bent on stealing the GOP from the leftists.

But as long as libs are determined to overtake and rewrite the platform, there is no way in Hell it'll ever garner more than 12% of the vote.

[Hoofer]

Well.... maybe it's time we'll considered Gary Johnson a "real" candidate, and started listing a few questions that might help highlight some talking points for the MSM.


a.  Do you practice concealed carry WP?  (water pipe).
b.  When you say you're a "Jobs President" - is that "work or papers, or... ?
c.   Twinkies or Pretzels with a beer chaser?
d.  Denny's or IHOP for 2 am breakfast after partying?
e.  Ever get so high it triggered an LSD flashback?
f.   Are you in favor of subsidizing Big Dope, or Independent growers?
g.  Would you be in favor of FDA quality assurance to guarantee Oregano stays 'out-of-the-stash'?
h.  I've heard several of your commercials on Radio recently, like with the screaming guitars, were you high when you picked out the music?
i.  Part of the New Deal was 40 acres, a mule and a chicken in every pot.   Would a Johnson New Deal allow something along the lines of 40 ounces per mule of pot from Havana?

[Billy's bayonet]

Well.... maybe it's time we'll considered Gary Johnson a "real" candidate, and started listing a few questions that might help highlight some talking points for the MSM.


a.  Do you practice concealed carry WP?  (water pipe).
b.  When you say you're a "Jobs President" - is that "work or papers, or... ?
c.   Twinkies or Pretzels with a beer chaser?
d.  Denny's or IHOP for 2 am breakfast after partying?
e.  Ever get so high it triggered an LSD flashback?
f.   Are you in favor of subsidizing Big Dope, or Independent growers?
g.  Would you be in favor of FDA quality assurance to guarantee Oregano stays 'out-of-the-stash'?
h.  I've heard several of your commercials on Radio recently, like with the screaming guitars, were you high when you picked out the music?
i.  Part of the New Deal was 40 acres, a mule and a chicken in every pot.   Would a Johnson New Deal allow something along the lines of 40 ounces per mule of pot from Havana?

Give that man a Kewpie doll!

[Billy's bayonet]

As I recall, the Libertarian movement was spawned by elements of the SDS which didn't want to get that radical....the Anti war movement....some VVAW (Viet Nam Veterans against the War (Kerry's outfit) and your run of the mill Vermont sytle Liberals.

One thing these people had in common is their absolute hatred of war, the military, the Police and ANY type of Authority

Problem is that translates into a weak military that signals other nations and of course terrorists, like blood in the water attracts sharks.

It's real hard to reason with these types who are convinced that all we have to do is disarm, withdraw from everywhere and scale down the military, do away with half of the Cops in the US and everything will just be cool.

[jrodefeld]

No, I am not! I've been studying all movements since long before you were born. Just because you glommed onto what you consider to be the heart of a movement stolen by pissed off leftists, does not lend credence to your claims. In this case, the squeaky wheel gets the LSM mic, a small but vocal group of Millennial, but in no way anywhere near majority are attempting to hijack the movement.

So what, that in no way supports your bogus claims!
Oh cut the bull shit, all party's can make the same claim.

More bull shit! Just because some cult follower stated it, does not make it true.
This "Strain" as you call it, is the actual beginning of the current party and it's more recently bastardized platform.
Here, learn something!
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/history/here's-the-original-libertarian-platform-from-1972/msg310046/#msg310046
 
Which is exactly my point, many leftist groups are trying to change the party's original platform, (Enter Leftist Johnson)
Wrong again! There is no social component to the Libertarian movement, that was the beauty of the movement in the first place!
Once again you prove my point as to how the movement is being usurped by groups refusing to share the inclusiveness of the party platform.
With the exception of self defense and property rights.

"In regards to immigration, what business is it of yours" what individual States deem illegal?
You see, as I pointed out earlier, you claim out of one side of your ass that govt needs to stand aside and respect individual rights, while you talk out the otherside of your ass claiming govt should force individuals to accept illegals as neighbors.

It's this bastardization of the platform that I am totally against and why I am exposing your hypocrisy as a lib!

Okay, we are talking past each other a bit.  I've read the original Libertarian Party platform and I agree with nearly all of it, with the exception that I am a bit more radical as an anarchist.  Like Ron Paul, I consider myself to be a Misesian, Rothbardian libertarian.  In fact, Murray Rothbard himself was instrumental in the creation of the Libertarian Party and basically wrote much of their original platform.

I also don't want to give the impression that I'm a Gary Johnson fan or that I think he's a good libertarian.  The only reason I'd vote for him is that he is the best out of a bunch of bad choices.  There's no way in hell I'd ever vote for Donald or Hillary.

But the trouble with Gary is not that he supports generally free immigration, supports gay marriage and smokes marijuana.  The problem is that he is a buffoon who doesn't understand the important principles that underpin libertarianism and so the positions he espouses seem arbitrary and ad hoc.  He seems like a somewhat fiscally conservative Republican who happens to hold a handful of Leftist viewpoints and he equates this with being a libertarian. 

When I said that there are socially conservative and socially liberal libertarians, I meant that people can have any views they want on social, religious and personal conduct and be consistent with libertarian principles.  I agree that libertarianism, in and of itself, does not endorse or reject any personal private conduct. 

But this thread is about Johnson and his position on immigration.  I contend that the proper libertarian position is to favor the free movement of people as long as they don't trespass on private property against the wishes of the property owners.  Conservatives don't "own" the entire United States of America.  Building a wall, deporting millions of people, hiring more border patrol and imposing bureaucratic and cumbersome barriers to free travel is not even close to what libertarianism is about.

I'm not saying all of you support all of those positions, but some of you have suggested that you have some sort of right to prevent a Mexican or a Muslim from moving into your neighborhood.  Unless you have a contractual agreement, a homeowners alliance or other pre-established precedent you don't have any right to prevent your neighbors from either selling or renting their property to whoever they see fit.

Furthermore, if you all are so keen on the original Libertarian Party platform, how does that comport with your views on military and foreign policy? 

[jrodefeld]

Exactly! I'm sure you remember the day the movement started, I know I do, and I also remember the mood of the country at the time in context to their pronouncement. It was viewed as destructive at the time because Nam had just ended and a bunch of hippies were without a cause. Neither the Dims or GOP hated the country, both had Conservatives at the heart of the party's.
It was a time when you could tell by an individuals attire where they stood politically, and I distinctly remember looking at them and thinking they were nothing more than a bunch of pissed off idealistic reformed hippies.

I was right in hindsight, but with history in the reflective light of today, had this same movement started within the last few years as its platform stood in the 70s? We might all be voting with a big (L) on the ticket and telling the GOP to take a leap, instead, we're Hell bent on stealing the GOP from the leftists.

But as long as libs are determined to overtake and rewrite the platform, there is no way in Hell it'll ever garner more than 12% of the vote.

Let me get this straight.  You're reject libertarianism because you think a bunch of hippies started the movement?

I don't blame you if you don't want to support Johnson.  Lots of libertarians oppose him.  There have always been factions within the Libertarian movement that argue and fight with each other.  There are indeed Left-libertarians who try to bring on board "social justice warrior" baggage, political correctness and other Leftist nonsense.  But there are a great many, probably still the majority, of libertarians who don't fall for this. 

You can choose to be a libertarian without necessarily supporting the Libertarian Party.  But I'd argue that the Libertarian Party has actually fielded some pretty excellent presidential candidates in recent memory.  By nominating Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party essentially chose to compromise on it's principles in order to gain mainstream attention.  Nominating two former governors generates a superficial air of legitimacy.  So they made a mistake this time.

Here are the recent Libertarian Party nominees who were either solid on libertarian principles or excellent:

1988 - Ron Paul. 

Ron Paul has done more for the libertarian movement over the past thirty or forty years than anyone alive today.  He is certainly an excellent libertarian.

1996 and 2000 - Harry Browne

Harry Browne was one of the most impressive Libertarian Party presidential candidates in the history of the party.  He was completely solid on libertarian principles and he was certainly no "leftist".

2004 - Michael Badnarik

I'd place Michael in the "solid" category as opposed to the "excellent" category that I place Harry Browne and Ron Paul.  Nevertheless, Wikipedia describes him like this:

Badnarik's political philosophy emphasizes individual liberty, personal responsibility, and strict adherence to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. All of his positions arise from this foundation. In economics, Badnarik believes in laissez-faire capitalism, a system in which the only function of the government is the protection of individual rights from the initiation of force and fraud. He therefore opposes institutions such as welfare and business regulation.

This hardly differs from the Libertarian Party platform you linked to, right?  In fact, I don't think the stated platform of the Libertarian Party has changed much at all over the years.  Various candidates have, at various times, strayed from that platform in their public pronouncements.


In fact, in 2008, the Libertarian Party foolishly nominated Bob Barr who, like Johnson, is not really a libertarian.  In fact, I'd wager Barr is less of a libertarian than Johnson is.  But Barr was really a Republican and on the right.  So this recent nomination flies in the face of your claims that the Libertarian Party is overrun by Leftists.

Hippies have been involved in the Libertarian Party and continue to be.  So what?  Being counter-culture or a "hippie" does not run counter to libertarian principles, so what's the problem?

[jrodefeld]

As I recall, the Libertarian movement was spawned by elements of the SDS which didn't want to get that radical....the Anti war movement....some VVAW (Viet Nam Veterans against the War (Kerry's outfit) and your run of the mill Vermont sytle Liberals.

One thing these people had in common is their absolute hatred of war, the military, the Police and ANY type of Authority

Problem is that translates into a weak military that signals other nations and of course terrorists, like blood in the water attracts sharks.

It's real hard to reason with these types who are convinced that all we have to do is disarm, withdraw from everywhere and scale down the military, do away with half of the Cops in the US and everything will just be cool.

Have you ever heard of Ludvig von Mises?  He was the most important Austrian School economist of the 20th century.  He wrote mainly between 1910 and 1960 and died in 1972 in his 90s.  He opposed central banking and carried on the Classical Liberal tradition as much of the world turned towards Socialism in the early 20th century.  He wrote in favor of the free market and explained how central banks artificially setting the interest rate distorts the economy and creates the business cycle.  He favored a Gold Standard.

He didn't officially create the libertarian movement because that word didn't even exist in his heyday.  He was known as a "liberal" and referred to himself as such.  The true libertarian heritage is not some disgruntled hippies in the 1960s, but rather the classical liberals and individualist anarchists of the 19th century.  Although Mises was not an anarchist, he kept alive the liberal tradition as the world devolved into socialism.  The American Libertarian movement was spawned largely because of his work and influence.  Mises's most important student, Murray Rothbard, essentially created the libertarian movement through his writings.  He was a founder of the Libertarian Party and wrote dozens of books espousing it's principles including "For a New Liberty" and "The Ethics of Liberty".

What Libertarians are opposed to is the State.  They are opposed to the initiation of force.  If "authority" is voluntarily consented to, there is no problem with it.  The trouble is that State authority is not voluntarily consented to.  Every Libertarian should be opposed to war, and be opposed to most of the things military and police do if they follow this principle.

Having a military that is primarily concerned with having the capability for defense from any actual national security threats would logically mean that we'd cut our military spending by many times.

We could EASILY cut 50-60% of Defense spending, close down all foreign bases and be better able to respond to any national security threats than we currently are with a bloated, bureaucratic and insane foreign policy.

[Billy's bayonet]

What Libertarians are opposed to is the State.  They are opposed to the initiation of force.  If "authority" is voluntarily consented to, there is no problem with it. 

Having a military that is primarily concerned with having the capability for defense from any actual national security threats would logically mean that we'd cut our military spending by many times.

Two points.

First let me preface the issue of submission to authority with what I've heard from Libertarians that goes something like this. If two parties are in conflict, say a dispute where one rendered services and was not paid by the other party, rather than involving police to arrest for criminal fraud etc they should work it out through an ombudsman, the offending party would be presumably subpeoned and report to a civil court to have the case heard, then presumably fined or ordered restitution.

Now here is the problem I have with that, being a student of Human nature.

First I tell you to fuck yourself  with your subpeonea, beat the living dog shit out of anyone trying to serve me and tell the judge i'll blow a tunnel through his head if he decides against me. Then for good measure I kill you for even daring to make a beef against me. I do these terrible things because there is no one in authority to FORCE me to comply with the law.

If all submission to authority is VOLUNTARY, it only works in a society where people have a sense of honor, community and justice, in other words a society of Mr Rodgers neighborhood.

MAN IS ANYTHING BUT.....the Libertarian ideal does not conform to human nature not in the area of interpersonal conflict vis a vis rule of law. The State must have it's agents enforce laws and KEEP THE PEACE, because people are generally incapable of doing this on their own.

What you are indeed fostering is anarchy and in ANARCHAL SITUATION's THE STRONGEST MOST VIOLENT PEOPLE RULE....having seen this up close and personal in several foreign third world countries I know what I'm talking about trust me.

Second your statement about the Military cutting the budget perhaps by 50% and still be able to respond or adequately meet any national security threat seems rather mutually exclusive. In today's world our enemies are growing stronger and increasing their weaponry, aggressiveness and technology....to me this is just pure foolishness or likely wishful thinking.

What qualifies you to make such statement? How would you know what cutting the defense budget would do in regard to our readiness to meet hostile threats? Show me how you arrived at these conclusions based on what or whom?

[Solar]

Let me get this straight.  You're reject libertarianism because you think a bunch of hippies started the movement?

I don't blame you if you don't want to support Johnson.  Lots of libertarians oppose him.  There have always been factions within the Libertarian movement that argue and fight with each other.  There are indeed Left-libertarians who try to bring on board "social justice warrior" baggage, political correctness and other Leftist nonsense.  But there are a great many, probably still the majority, of libertarians who don't fall for this. 

You can choose to be a libertarian without necessarily supporting the Libertarian Party.  But I'd argue that the Libertarian Party has actually fielded some pretty excellent presidential candidates in recent memory.  By nominating Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party essentially chose to compromise on it's principles in order to gain mainstream attention.  Nominating two former governors generates a superficial air of legitimacy.  So they made a mistake this time.

Here are the recent Libertarian Party nominees who were either solid on libertarian principles or excellent:

1988 - Ron Paul. 

Ron Paul has done more for the libertarian movement over the past thirty or forty years than anyone alive today.  He is certainly an excellent libertarian.

1996 and 2000 - Harry Browne

Harry Browne was one of the most impressive Libertarian Party presidential candidates in the history of the party.  He was completely solid on libertarian principles and he was certainly no "leftist".

2004 - Michael Badnarik

I'd place Michael in the "solid" category as opposed to the "excellent" category that I place Harry Browne and Ron Paul.  Nevertheless, Wikipedia describes him like this:

Badnarik's political philosophy emphasizes individual liberty, personal responsibility, and strict adherence to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. All of his positions arise from this foundation. In economics, Badnarik believes in laissez-faire capitalism, a system in which the only function of the government is the protection of individual rights from the initiation of force and fraud. He therefore opposes institutions such as welfare and business regulation.

This hardly differs from the Libertarian Party platform you linked to, right?  In fact, I don't think the stated platform of the Libertarian Party has changed much at all over the years.  Various candidates have, at various times, strayed from that platform in their public pronouncements.


In fact, in 2008, the Libertarian Party foolishly nominated Bob Barr who, like Johnson, is not really a libertarian.  In fact, I'd wager Barr is less of a libertarian than Johnson is.  But Barr was really a Republican and on the right.  So this recent nomination flies in the face of your claims that the Libertarian Party is overrun by Leftists.

Hippies have been involved in the Libertarian Party and continue to be.  So what?  Being counter-culture or a "hippie" does not run counter to libertarian principles, so what's the problem?

You are one seriously obtuse individual!
My point was, and if you had any historical reference, which you do not, you'd have realized the early 70s were nothing like today, where the two party system is now leftist, but still had America's best interests at heart back then.
It was for this reason the Libertarian party was viewed more as divisive than anything, and if you even had a clue what the hippie movement was all about, you'd know that it was created by Marxists with one goal, creating distrust and division in AMERICA.
"Anyone over 30 was the enemy", and no, that was not just some harmless saying, it was an ax strike between patriarchy and the next generation, add in the Libertarian movement to the equation and one can easily surmise what was driving the movement.

However, that does not detract from it's Founding principles which I posted, but with an understanding of the historical connection to the times and the movement itself, it's safe to assume distrust in its agenda, especially considering the age of those pushing the idealist program and the division between the generations at the time.
Yes, the generation gap was an impediment at the time, and if you had been exposed to the era, you'd see just how much damage the Marxists did to the Baby Boomer generation, and why we despise anything tied to the left.
You yourself even posted a brief timeline of the party's decay to the left with it's short history of candidates.
This is the point I'm trying to make, the movements platform was never meant to be an anarchist movement, but that's the direction the Millennial want to take it because they despise both party's, they think they can somehow magically remove govt from the picture and we'll all live in Utopia.

If the left had not done as much damage to the nation as it has, and had the nation rejected the policies of Marxists, the libertarian party might have take a more legitimate place in politics, but moving it left was no accident. The GOP needed it to be an incompetent force, hence Johnson, and the Marxist Dims need it to go away because it's syphoning off their base with it's anti govt approach.
In other words, anyone that supports its leftist drift, is nothing more than pawns by the party's in power.

I'd be willing to bet John Stossel is in total agreement with what I'm saying. He's the type of Libertarian you want to be attracting, not a bunch of pissed off lib kiddies.

[walkstall]

Two points.

First let me preface the issue of submission to authority with what I've heard from Libertarians that goes something like this. If two parties are in conflict, say a dispute where one rendered services and was not paid by the other party, rather than involving police to arrest for criminal fraud etc they should work it out through an ombudsman, the offending party would be presumably subpeoned and report to a civil court to have the case heard, then presumably fined or ordered restitution.

Now here is the problem I have with that, being a student of Human nature.

First I tell you to fuck yourself  with your subpeonea, beat the living dog shit out of anyone trying to serve me and tell the judge i'll blow a tunnel through his head if he decides against me. Then for good measure I kill you for even daring to make a beef against me. I do these terrible things because there is no one in authority to FORCE me to comply with the law.

If all submission to authority is VOLUNTARY, it only works in a society where people have a sense of honor, community and justice, in other words a society of Mr Rodgers neighborhood.

MAN IS ANYTHING BUT.....the Libertarian ideal does not conform to human nature not in the area of interpersonal conflict vis a vis rule of law. The State must have it's agents enforce laws and KEEP THE PEACE, because people are generally incapable of doing this on their own.

What you are indeed fostering is anarchy and in ANARCHAL SITUATION's THE STRONGEST MOST VIOLENT PEOPLE RULE....having seen this up close and personal in several foreign third world countries I know what I'm talking about trust me.

Second your statement about the Military cutting the budget perhaps by 50% and still be able to respond or adequately meet any national security threat seems rather mutually exclusive. In today's world our enemies are growing stronger and increasing their weaponry, aggressiveness and technology....to me this is just pure foolishness or likely wishful thinking.

What qualifies you to make such statement? How would you know what cutting the defense budget would do in regard to our readiness to meet hostile threats? Show me how you arrived at these conclusions based on what or whom?

I would say he would not be alive, as a good amount of people would tell him to just F-OFF, and walk right over the top of him.   Remember all a lock does is help keep an honest person honest.   

[jrodefeld]

Two points.

First let me preface the issue of submission to authority with what I've heard from Libertarians that goes something like this. If two parties are in conflict, say a dispute where one rendered services and was not paid by the other party, rather than involving police to arrest for criminal fraud etc they should work it out through an ombudsman, the offending party would be presumably subpeoned and report to a civil court to have the case heard, then presumably fined or ordered restitution.

Now here is the problem I have with that, being a student of Human nature.

First I tell you to fuck yourself  with your subpeonea, beat the living dog shit out of anyone trying to serve me and tell the judge i'll blow a tunnel through his head if he decides against me. Then for good measure I kill you for even daring to make a beef against me. I do these terrible things because there is no one in authority to FORCE me to comply with the law.

If all submission to authority is VOLUNTARY, it only works in a society where people have a sense of honor, community and justice, in other words a society of Mr Rodgers neighborhood.

MAN IS ANYTHING BUT.....the Libertarian ideal does not conform to human nature not in the area of interpersonal conflict vis a vis rule of law. The State must have it's agents enforce laws and KEEP THE PEACE, because people are generally incapable of doing this on their own.

What you are indeed fostering is anarchy and in ANARCHAL SITUATION's THE STRONGEST MOST VIOLENT PEOPLE RULE....having seen this up close and personal in several foreign third world countries I know what I'm talking about trust me.

Second your statement about the Military cutting the budget perhaps by 50% and still be able to respond or adequately meet any national security threat seems rather mutually exclusive. In today's world our enemies are growing stronger and increasing their weaponry, aggressiveness and technology....to me this is just pure foolishness or likely wishful thinking.

What qualifies you to make such statement? How would you know what cutting the defense budget would do in regard to our readiness to meet hostile threats? Show me how you arrived at these conclusions based on what or whom?

Okay, let me clarify my statements.  You criticized libertarians for being against "authority" and in particular having a knee-jerk opposition to war, the military and the police.  Actually, libertarians are opposed to STATE initiated aggressive war, STATE military who fight these wars, and STATE police.  States must necessarily coercively tax people to fund these institutions and they use these instruments of force to commit mass murder (in the case of the Iraq and Vietnam wars) or otherwise deprive the citizens of their liberties.

For a libertarian, force is legitimate to enforce JUST law.  Without the State, there will still be courts, police and security forces and law.  As Frederick Bastiat observed, a legitimate law does not compel individuals to act, but rather prohibits them from acting in ways that violate the rights of others.  Therefore, if a person commits aggression against another person or violates their property rights, then that person has voluntarily given up their right to be left alone and force can be used against that person to pay restitution to the victim, serve a prison sentence or other form of punishment provided it is proportional to the crime committed.

So it doesn't matter if some people don't want to voluntarily submit to the common law which prohibits them from committing aggression against their fellow man.  If they choose to act in violation of libertarian law, the private police and courts WILL use force to restrain them and compel restitution from them, and rightly so.

We are speaking about a hypothetical anarchist society, but much of the same holds true for a minarchist society.  With a VERY limited State that abides by libertarian principles, the State institutions of police and courts would be exclusively concerned with acts of aggression.  They would not be involved in hassling private and peaceful individuals into complying with government regulations, preventing people from ingesting the drugs or supplements of their choosing or locking people up for not paying income taxes.

Everything you conjecture about a Stateless society is even more true about a Statist society and we can observe it every single day.  The "strongest and most violent people" rule us THROUGH the State.  The most corrupt, duplicitous and vile people in society are attracted to government because of the immense potential for legally sanctioned domination of others, theft of their property and military conquest of foreign lands.

There will be a percentage of the population in a Stateless society that will have criminal inclinations, no doubt.  But the last thing we should ever want to do is to give these criminally inclined people the immense power of the State to act out their criminal actions. 

One of the best talks I ever saw in support of anarchy is this one by Robert Higgs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8


Check it out when you've got the time.


As for the military, look at the following chart which compares US military spending with the next seven countries who spend the most:

http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense-comparison-full.gif


The US Government spends more money on it's military than the next seven countries combined.

The next country on that list is China, and if we cut our military budget in half, we'd STILL be spending more money than China by a considerable margin.  Furthermore, our economic inter-dependency with China makes it highly unlikely that we'd enter into any sort of military confrontation with them.  Remember, when goods cross borders, armies don't.

Who are you so afraid of that you don't think we could stand to significantly cut our military spending?  Don't tell me your honestly afraid of terrorism?  Yep, I guess ISIS warrants an annual expense of $600 Billion to adequately defend against. 

Even this new obsession with Russia is overblown.  They have Nuclear Weapons which makes any provocation or confrontation with them absolutely insane.  But still, look at how much Russia spends on it's military compared with the United States on that chart.  If we cut our military spending by half, we'd still be spending more than five times as much annually as Russia does.

Back to Nuclear weapons, what we SHOULD be doing is fostering an improved relationship with Russia and working towards an orderly reduction and eventual elimination of Nuclear weapons.  A nuclear exchange could wipe out the human race, or decimate it to an unfathomable extent.

You're contention that our legitimate national security threats warrant anywhere close to the military spending we currently have is unsupported by the facts. 

What happened is that during the Cold War, hardliners instituted such an arms buildup that we have a perpetual and out of control military industrial complex that profits from war and by selling unnecessary airplanes, tanks, missiles and other tools of destruction.  It didn't abate after the Cold War ended, as it should have.