Constitution = Collectivist

[Conza88]

I'm glad that Kade and I finally agree on something else other than Congressman Paul's credentials as the best candidate for President. As I've stated before, collectivism, in the general sense, is inescapable for any person. An individual's last name easily classifies him or her as a collectivist. Think about it.

This

 

[Theocrat]

Reinstating My "Collectivist" Convictions

Your definition of collectivism seems to be so vague and blurry (wrong), that all humans can be categorized as collectivists just by merely being social creatures.

The most pro-individualist persons on the planet could be called collectivists according to such a definition.

So there we have it Theo, individualists are collectivists, and 2 + 2 = 5.
Perhaps you are just looking for an excuse to send your Godly storm troopers after me (to promote the general welfare of the nation of course) for looking at porn.

Your response is so laughable that I don't even know if I should reply to it. Your whole disagreement with me is based on the fear that I'm going to get you to stop looking at porn?! Are you kidding me? Is that all you care about? Porn, prostitution, and pot. You libertines never cease to amaze me.

Yes, I am saying that all humans are collectivists. We're not just individuals. Sure, we have personal responsibilities for our individual education, careers, and health (among other things), but those are not the only things which define us as humans. God created us, not to be alone as mere individualists, but to be engaged in relationships with each other. That's one reason why God blessed mankind with the institution of marriage, for example.

You fail to remember that before you realized your "individuality" in this world, you were a "collectivist" as a baby, depending on your parents to nourish you and teach you every step of your infanthood and childhood, as well. The failure with people like you is that you take one concept (individualism), and you run with it without considering the societal, political, and religious implications and exemptions that it has in the living world.

So let me just say this: I believe that humans are both individualists and collectivists, depending on the context of the human institutions they are part of. For me, it's not an "either/or" issue; it's "both/and." That was the point of my first post.

 

[BeFranklin]

Your response is so laughable that I don't even know if I should reply to it. Your whole disagreement with me is based on the fear that I'm going to get you to stop looking at porn?! Are you kidding me? Is that all you care about? Porn, prostitution, and pot. You libertines never cease to amaze me.

Yes, I am saying that all humans are collectivists. We're not just individuals. Sure, we have personal responsibilities for our individual education, careers, and health (among other things), but those are not the only things which define us as humans. God created us, not to be alone as mere individualists, but to be engaged in relationships with each other. That's one reason why God blessed mankind with the institution of marriage, for example.

You fail to remember that before you realized your "individuality" in this world, you were a "collectivist" as a baby, depending on your parents to nourish you and teach you every step of your infanthood and childhood, as well. The failure with people like you is that you take one concept (individualism), and you run with it without considering the societal, political, and religious implications and exemptions that it has in the living world.

So let me just say this: I believe that humans are both individualists and collectivists, depending on the context of the human institutions they are part of. For me, it's not an "either/or" issue; it's "both/and." That was the point of my first post.

This really started with Ayn Rand and her "virtue of selfishiness". I've read all of Ayn Rand's books, *and* her objectivist newsletters, which most of the posters on here that even like Ayn Rand probably have not. Ayn Rand was a hypocrite. She decried hippies for doing drugs, and did speed. She talked about marriage and had affairs. She was a rabid anti-Christian. I use to defend her works from being similar to Nietzsche. But on reflection on her purpose and fruit, I've changed my mind.

Like you said, her philosphy can not work in the real world. It is however, ideal for sophistry. Its a logical system, but incomplete and fails to be able to reach objectives in the real world (notice the use of objective and real world). In fact, its probably the worst philosophy in the conservative movement today, it endlessly allows you to talk and sound like you are doing something, and not do anything practical. It sounds like the philosophy of the founders, but its a poor imitition. The young particually fall for this.

The root of the Ayn Rand's sophism is a false dichotomy in the golden rule. It is not enough to attack redistributing wealth (something all conservatives have believed), but *all* altruism is wrong. Giving someond a sandwhich on the street who is hungry is evil according to Ayn Rand. You could use the sandwhich or money more. We're not talking about being forced to do that. Ayn Rand says its wrong for you to do it even if its something you want to do on your own. All altruism you want to do is wrong. All "self sacrifice is wrong". Everything is either "selfishlessness" or "selfishness". And selfishness is a virtue

Every wrong thing I've seen in the world has flown from lust of money and selfishness. This virtue is
not one that needs to be taught because everyone already has it, Good Lord!

The golden rule is neither selfless or selfishness. Love your neighbor as yourself does not say to love your neighbor *more* than yourself (selfless) or *less* then yourself (selfish). It is a balance.

Yet Ayn Rand was able to write her books on the subject, and attack >>voluntary carring for others<< as wrong, all based on deconstructing the golden rule into a false dichotomy.

Although Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand disciple, and wrote an essay in her book "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal", so one might wonder if Alan Greenspan was really the snake he appears in causing the economic bubble or was "just pulling the plug on the paper money system" - another "atlas shrugged", there is a deeper way to read that, with the attack not being on physical money, but "altruism" and "the golden rule". Pull the plug on people's motives, and you can really screw the world!

And to answer the first question, Alan Greenspan was a snake, and did help cause the current problem and *knew* it. For the same reason, Ayn Rand was also a snake, and is causing the current problems with her imitiation philosophy, and also *knew* it. Snakes nest together.

Possibly the only book of Ayn Rand's I still like is her Romantic Manifesto. But it isn't perfect, and I probably could write a better one. For similar reasons, I don't like CS Lewis much anymore.

 

[BeFranklin]

Ah, is that why the Bible is featured and mentioned so frequently and prominently in the US Federal Constitution? Which principles are those again?

Got it!

And yet you say elsewhere you want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. You know that the US Constitution wasn't what we originally had from our revolutionary founders, it was the Articles of Confederation.

And here is how the Articles of Confederation end:

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

 

[BeFranklin]

It's bad 'cuz G. Edward Griffin says so!

Ok that proves it. What did that prove

 

[BeFranklin]

And the anarchists overtake the board.

Speaking of Ayn Rand.. :o Although she was a minimal government advocate, her movement did awaken the anarcho-capitalist movement.

As said above, there is a limit to how much you can ignore the basis of why governments are instituted (see: Declaration of Independence), and that any society, even a community without a formal government, works out of a sense of duty, which is impossible as you take a "virtue of selfishness" to its logical conclusion - and Atlas Shrugs, and the United States falls.

I believe in a very minimal government. Under the english common law, there is an idea of being "outlawed". What this means is you are outside the law, and therefore won't be protected (also where we get the word "outlaw"). Nothing to do with jails or anything else. They're just outside the law and won't be protected.

I once argued with an anarchist. I said people form together governments because they find them useful, so you will always have governments. He said well what if I don't want to join and pay your taxes, or perform a duty to be in the milita, etc. I said, fine, and under this system you wouldn't be punished if it isn't a real crime, but you would still be an outlaw, and you wouldn't like that any better. And then I explained to him what an outlaw was.

He was really upset. What, you would do that to me? I said yes, if you won't protect me, I am not going to protect you. If I or anyone in the local city government saw someone robbing you on the highway, we wouldn't help you. He was incessed. I just kept saying if you won't help us, we won't help you . The concept of being an outlaw is powerful one.

Just an illustration of how an argument that sounds really good in a sophist/libertine/anarchy sense might not work in the real world.
Also it illustrates a freeloader principle, and how a community might deal with it.

 

[Truth Warrior]

And yet you say elsewhere you want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. You know that the US Constitution wasn't what we originally had from our revolutionary founders, it was the Articles of Confederation.

And here is how the Articles of Confederation end:

Theology AIN'T my reason for preferring the AoC. The Federalists betrayed the American Revolution with their 1789 coup power grab, is the reason.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Speaking of Ayn Rand.. :o Although she was a minimal government advocate, her movement did awaken the anarcho-capitalist movement.

As said above, there is a limit to how much you can ignore the basis of why governments are instituted (see: Declaration of Independence), and that any society, even a community without a formal government, works out of a sense of duty, which is impossible as you take a "virtue of selfishness" to its logical conclusion - and Atlas Shrugs, and the United States falls.

I believe in a very minimal government. Under the english common law, there is an idea of being "outlawed". What this means is you are outside the law, and therefore won't be protected (also where we get the word "outlaw"). Nothing to do with jails or anything else. They're just outside the law and won't be protected.

I once argued with an anarchist. I said people form together governments because they find them useful, so you will always have governments. He said well what if I don't want to join and pay your taxes, or perform a duty to be in the milita, etc. I said, fine, and under this system you wouldn't be punished if it isn't a real crime, but you would still be an outlaw, and you wouldn't like that any better. And then I explained to him what an outlaw was.

He was really upset. What, you would do that to me? I said yes, if you won't protect me, I am not going to protect you. If I or anyone in the local city government saw someone robbing you on the highway, we wouldn't help you. He was incessed. I just kept saying if you won't help us, we won't help you . The concept of being an outlaw is powerful one.

Just an illustration of how an argument that sounds really good in a sophist/libertine/anarchy sense might not work in the real world.
Also it illustrates a freeloader principle, and how a community might deal with it.

"A limited government is a contradiction in terms." -- Bob LeFevre

 

[BeFranklin]

Theology AIN'T my reason for preferring the AoC. The Federalists betrayed the American Revolution with their 1789 coup power grab, is the reason.

Yeah, but you might consider who was on which side back then on the religios issues too. Alexendar Hamilton mocked Ben Franklin for wanting to include prayer in the Constitution convention - and Ben Franklin's speech was one of the most stirring I've heard, and some of the anti-federalists were doubtful about the intention of the constitution on exactly those grounds, which is why we have the 1st amendment.

 

[Conza88]

Herein lies the problem with the distinction you're going to such pains to make: Philosophically, you're correct, but structurally, anarcho-capitalism is exactly the same as every other type of anarchism. It's entirely stateless (at least for a time, depending on its stability) and without any clear rules except those which "enough" people agree upon via social contract that order spontaneously arises to enforce them. How, then, are you going to make sure that if we ever fell into anarchy, it would be anarchy of a desirable and stable kind, where the unwritten rules would be based upon the non-aggression axiom? There is only one way: You must use a gradual approach of slowly scaling back the state as you educate people about why!

Nope, fail. Anarcho-capitalism is a subset of Libertarianism. Non Aggression axiom + respect for property rights.. Sorry mate, that ain't the same as the other types of anarchism.

13. Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?
No, but it's close. Just as anarcho-capitalism is a subtype of anarchism, it is also a subtype of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief that liberty is the primary political virtue, conjoined with the belief in capitalism. But libertarians don't necessarily deny the legitimacy of the State as an institution - most believe that a minimal State is necessary to provide defense services. This minimal State, sometimes called "the nightwatchman State," is a government that provides only three things: police, courts, and defense against foreign invasion. This means that no government redistribution of wealth or regulation of the market is allowed. Anarcho-capitalists, therefore, hold the same values as minarchist libertarians, but take it to the logical conclusion: even a minimal State is too authoritarian. If government monopoly is bad for all other services, how can it suddenly be okay for the provision of defense? In short, an anarcho-capitalist is a radical libertarian. He rejects minarchism for anarchism.

You don't think people are able to defend their property and that they have no incentive or easy means too? You think people don't know stealing is bad? LOL.. Insurance companies won't have an incentive to defend their clients property from destruction or theft? There won't arise private security firms? The people who own the roads won't have an incentive to defend their property? Those who own apartment blocks, or a community have no incentive to make their areas safe? Even though crime in an area REMARKABLY lessens the value of those propertys...

You really have no understanding of anarchy do you? Be honest... Anarchists attack private property potentially more than they do the state. They believe the STATE is the vital PROTECTOR of private property, and private property is evil and immoral. Thus so is the state. They arrive at the same conclusion, for the wrong reasons. They see capitalism as being a form of authoritarianism.. to anarchists - "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron... check out an anarchists perspective: here.

Recommendations for you:

The Anarchists
- Robert LeFevre :o

The Anarchist Society vs. the Military State: The Insignificance of the Free Rider by Vedrun Vuk


12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts

An Anarchist Legal Order by Roderick T. Long

To use similar hyperbole, I'd also argue that attemping to abolish the state all at once is also "clinically retarded," along with the idea that anarcho-capitalism would ever be the result of a sudden government collapse. After all, just consider the mentality of about 95% of people in America: Even if I were ready to accept the idea, they are obviously nowhere near ready for even strictly limited government, let alone anarcho-capitalism! Because of that, any kind of anarchism if attempted today would turn out very ugly. The only way you could ever possibly accomplish your stated goal of anarcho-capitalism is with a gradual approach, as mentioned above: You must educate people enough to have more and more libertarian views, as you chip away at the state and dismantle it one piece at a time...and of course, you must strip away each piece of the state in such a way that everything goes smoothly and there isn't a reactionary shift back towards statism.

Yes... and you think I've presented or hold different views on this? -> i.e abolish state.

NEW BANNER: What would be the purpose of a libertarian party?

ROTHBARD: I think if there were a libertarian party – and I don't want to make it seem as if this is a realistic thing at this time – if there ever were a strong libertarian party it could do several things. Tactically, we could have a balance of power. Even better as an educational weapon. If we had ten guys in Congress, let's say, each of whom are constantly agitating for libertarian purposes – voting against the budget, etc., I think it would be very useful.

Also, we have a long-range problem which none of us has ever really grappled with to any extent. That is, how do we finally establish a libertarian society? Obviously ideas are a key thing. First off you have to persuade a lot of people to be anarchists – anarcho-capitalists. But then what? What is the next step? You certainly don't have to convince the majority of the public, because most of the public will follow anything that happens. You obviously have to have a large minority. How do we then implement this? This is the power problem. As I've expressed this in other places, the government is not going to resign. We are not going to have a situation where Nixon reads Human Action, Atlas Shrugged, or Man, Economy and State and says "By God, they're right. I'm quitting!" I'm not denying the philosophical possibility that this might happen, but strategically it's very low on the probability scale. As the Marxists put it, no ruling class has ever voluntarily surrendered its power. There has to be an effort to deal with the problem of how to get these guys off our backs. So, if you really have a dedicated group in Congress or the Senate, you can start voting measures down or whatever. But I don't think this is the only way. I think maybe there will be civil disobedience where the public will start not paying taxes or something like that. If you look at it, there are several possible alternatives in dismantling the state. There is violent revolution, there is non-violent civil disobedience and there is the political action method. I don't know which of these will be successful. It's really a tactical question which you can't really predict in advance, it seems to me that it would be foolhardy to give up any particular arm of this.

It's incumbent upon people to come up with some sort of strategic perspective to dismantle the state. For example, Bob LeFevre somehow works it out that it's almost impossible to get rid of the state – from his own point of view. He is against violent revolution – okay, now that is a very respectable position; he's also against voting; he's against political parties – it becomes very difficult to really see how one can get to the state at all with this kind of procedure. I don't see why we should give up something like political parties. It might be a route eventually to dismantling the state or helping to dismantle it.

If all government (federal and state) were ever demolished too quickly - in some kind of violent revolution of the mob, for instance - anarcho-capitalism would not just spontaneously result from the aftermath. There would be anarchy for a time, but it would be the violent sort of anarchy resulting from a leviathan state collapsing into a power vacuum. Some of the uneducated mob would take advantage of the confusion and disorder to loot and pillage, and the rest of the uneducated mob would scramble together some kind of iron-fisted government to bring back order. After all, how many times have you seen the fall of one government spontaneously turn into peaceful anarcho-capitalism?

Again, never presented anything to the contrary. You are talking about people who have no respect for property rights and employ VIOLENCE and coercion - you've just made the distinction between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists lol. Or do you contend that anarcho-capitalists don't respect the foundations of their ideology? And that they have no qualms breaking the principles of non aggression and property rights?

Edit:
Somalia is doing good.. and this is from a people in Africa who traditionally have no respect for property rights at all... What would happen in the US with a profound tradition of entrepreneurship and enterprise?...........

In such a scenario, we would have no choice but to deliberately come together and form the most limited government we possibly could, while mustering up grudging support from the reluctant "centrist" masses. Otherwise, they would take charge and form another government with a Constitution much more explicitly collectivist than the current one. After we formed the most limited government we could, we would then have to resume our work of educating people, limiting the new government, and downsizing it until the "appropriate" size is reached. In your eyes, the appropriate size is "nonexistent," but you must still first pass through minarchism to get to any kind of stable and orderly anarchism, let alone anarcho-capitalism in particular.

Lol, so many assumptions. The government collapsed? Why? How? Those that were in power are kicked out, but others of a different persuasion get in?

If just the US government collapsed but state governments remained, that would be the optimal situation, since organized law enforcement could still keep order and quell the violent looting, pillaging, rioting, etc. of the shellshocked masses during the immediate aftermath. Certainly, it would be much easier to subsequently limit and scale down state governments than the federal government, assuming the federal government were already out of the way. In that case though, we're once again back to gradually limiting and downsizing a government.

Do you see where I'm going with this? No matter how you slice it, the only way you can ever successfully achieve anarcho-capitalism anyway is with a gradual approach, and that is inherently an excercise in simultaneously limiting and downsizing government. To explicitly restate the implications of this necessarily gradual approach, I will quote something I said to you a few weeks ago (that I never got a real response to) :

A gradual approach? Wow... so Fabian of you..

The real question is; Do you Hate the State? by Murray Rothbard... The difference being, I am a Radical and an abolitionist and you, are a conservative and gradualist...

"The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

It should be noted here that many of Milton’s most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money – are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.

His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.

And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement."

In other words, achieving anarcho-capitalism pretty much REQUIRES you to be wrong about your assumption that no checks and balances could ever restrain a state! If you actually want to achieve anarcho-capitalism, then you more than anyone should be interested in what Constitutional checks and balances might actually work well enough to keep government limited for a very long time.

Nope. This is what I have previously said:

The state is a weed.

You can stunt it's growth for a short period of time; but eventually it becomes immune to the poison (the Constitution)..

Once immune as we now so evidently see, the 'limiting' factor has no effect what so ever.

Instead of trying to find a new poison or actually continue to apply the same poison forever... Anarcho-Capitalists... take the pragmatic and pro-active approach...

Why don't we pull the weed up at the roots? Kill it.

Why would you want to reestablish a flawed concept / experiment? You don't care about the generations to come? Your childrens, children? The US.. we'll say lasted roughly what... a decade before Washington issued an executive order on Foreign Policy matters. It set the precursor. It is irrefutable - the state won't remain limited. Pure minds don't seek power. Collectivists gravitate to the power centers because they want to impose their will on others. If you were to establish another limited state; it would also inevitably - end up as tyranny if the hearts and minds of people abandon liberty. Which to the products of welfarism and public education and the 4th estate - THEY HAVE. Essentially, there WILL be a need to have a revolution down the track; after generations have become used to and accustomed to the FABIAN and gradualist approach / growth of the state. They'll have to fight for their rights again, all because you failed to learn from history. Why should you care though, you'll be long gone right?

Can I ask - what books have you actually read on the subject?

Strategy: Secession, Privatization, and the Prospects of Liberty by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah, but you might consider who was on which side back then on the religios issues too. Alexendar Hamilton mocked Ben Franklin for wanting to include prayer in the Constitution convention - and Ben Franklin's speech was one of the most stirring I've heard, and some of the anti-federalists were doubtful about the intention of the constitution on exactly those grounds, which is why we have the 1st amendment.

Nope I don't, because it's TOTALLY irrelevant. An illegal and unauthorized coup is simply that.

Put the lipstick on the pig however you want to. It's still just a pig with lipstick.

 

[BeFranklin]

Trying to call me and my neighbors coming together to form a possee "the state", and that that ought to be contracted out to a private insurance company apart from me and my neighbors is ridicoulous.

Unless everyone is equally part of using "the force", the other entity becomes the state. Anarcho-Capitalism has a lot less to offer then our historical traditions, and also by the same token, no history of it working.

 

[BeFranklin]

Nope I don't, because it's TOTALLY irrelevant. An illegal and unauthorized coup is simply that.

Put the lipstick on the pig however you want to. It's still just a pig with lipstick.

The pig may have been wearing lipstick, but if it was it was oinking we're anti-christian.

The reason the US Constitution doesn't make overt references to God may be, as some anti-federalists suggested, because they wanted to establish or control religion. Considering how things have been devolving to Hamilton's side, the anti-federalists may have been right.

Benjamin Franklin:

Mr. President:

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other -- our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own wont of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

Alexendar Hamilton's Reply to this stirring speech.

"It was no time to seek foreign aid". Sounds like something the devil would say.

You may be right about about the Constitution. But the side you'd be on would be the athiests at that time.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Trying to call me and my neighbors coming together to form a possee "the state", and that that ought to be contracted out to a private insurance company apart from me and my neighbors is ridicoulous.

Unless everyone is equally part of using "the force", the other entity becomes the state. Anarcho-Capitalism has a lot less to offer then our historical traditions, and also by the same token, no history of it working.

Please try to stay on track.

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

 

[Conza88]

30. TOWARD A THEORY OF STRATEGY FOR LIBERTY
The ETHICS of LIBERTY by Murray Rothbard

"It might be thought that the libertarian, the person committed to the “natural system of liberty” (in Adam Smith’s phrase), almost by definition holds the goal of liberty as his highest political end. But this is often not true; for many libertarians, the desire for self-expression, or for bearing witness to the truth of the excellence of liberty, frequently takes precedence over the goal of the triumph of liberty in the real world. Yet surely, as will be seen further below, the victory of liberty will never come to pass unless the goal of victory in the real world takes precedence over more esthetic and passive considerations.

If liberty should be the highest political end, then what is the grounding for that goal? It should be clear from this work that, first and foremost, liberty is a moral principle, grounded in the nature of man. In particular, it is a principle of justice, of the abolition of aggressive violence in the affairs of men. Hence, to be grounded and pursued adequately, the libertarian goal must be sought in the spirit of an overriding devotion to justice. But to possess such devotion on what may well be a long and rocky road, the libertarian must be possessed of a passion for justice, an emotion derived from and channelled by his rational insight into what natural justice requires.3 Justice, not the weak reed of mere utility, must be the motivating force if liberty is to be attained.4

If liberty is to be the highest political end, then this implies that liberty is to be pursued by the most efficacious means, i.e., those means which will most speedily and thoroughly arrive at the goal. This means that the libertarian must be an “ abolitionist,” i.e., he must wish to achieve the goal of liberty as rapidly as possible. If he balks at abolitionism, then he is no longer holding liberty as the highest political end. The libertarian, then, should be an abolitionist who would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty. Following the classical liberal Leonard Read, who advocated immediate and total abolition of price-and-wage controls after World War II, we might refer to this as the “button-pushing” criterion. Thus, Read declared that “If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage-and-price controls instantaneously I would put my finger on it and push!” The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push a button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty—not something, by the way, that any utilitarian would ever be likely to do.5

Anti-libertarians, and anti-radicals generally, characteristically make the point that such abolitionism is “unrealistic”; by making such a charge they hopelessly confuse the desired goal with a strategic estimate of the probable path toward that goal. It is essential to make a clear-cut distinction between the ultimate goal itself, and the strategic estimate of how to reach that goal; in short, the goal must be formulated before questions of strategy or “realism” enter the scene. The fact that such a magic button does not and is not likely to exist has no relevance to the desirability of abolitionism itself. We might agree, for example, on the goal of liberty and the desirability of abolitionism in liberty’s behalf. But this does not mean that we believe that abolition will in fact be attainable in the near or far future.

The libertarian goals—including immediate abolition of invasions of liberty—are “realistic” in the sense that they could be achieved if enough people agreed on them, and that, if achieved, the resulting libertarian system would be viable. The goal of immediate liberty is not unrealistic or “Utopian” because—in contrast to such goals as the “elimination of poverty”—its achievement is entirely dependent on man’s will. If, for example, everyone suddenly and immediately agreed on the overriding desirability of liberty, then total liberty would be immediately achieved.6 The strategic estimate of how the path toward liberty is likely to be achieved is, of course, an entirely separate question.7

Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being “unrealistic” when, in the 1830s, he raised the standard of the goal of immediate emandpation of the slaves. His goal was the proper moral and libertarian one, and was unrelated to the “realism,” or probability of its achievement. Indeed, Garrison’s strategic realism was expressed by the fact that he did not expect the end of slavery to arrive immediately or at a single blow. As Garrison carefully distinguished: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.”8 Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

Gradualism in theory, in fact, totally undercuts the overriding goal of liberty itself; its import, therefore, is not simply strategic but an opposition to the end itself and hence impermissible as any part of a strategy toward liberty. The reason is that once immediate abolitionism is abandoned, then the goal is conceded to take second or third place to other, anti-libertarian considerations, for these considerations are now placed higher than liberty. Thus, suppose that the abolitionist of slavery had said: “I advocate an end to slavery—but only after five years’ time.” But this would imply that abolition in four or three years’ time, or a fortiori immediately, would be wrong, and that therefore it is better for slavery to be continued a while longer. But this would mean that considerations of justice have been abandoned, and that the goal itself is no longer highest on the abolitionist’s (or libertarian’s) political value-scale. In fact, it would mean that the libertarian advocated the prolongation of crime and injustice.

Hence, a strategy for liberty must not include any means which undercut or contradict the end itself—as gradualism-in-theory clearly does. Are we then saying that “the end justifies the means”? This is a common, but totally fallacious, charge often directed toward any group that advocates fundamental or radical social change. For what else but an end could possibly justify any means? The very concept of “means” implies that this action is merely an instrument toward arriving at an end. If someone is hungry, and eats a sandwich to alleviate his hunger, the act of eating a sandwich is merely a means to an end; its sole justification arises from its use as an end by the consumer. Why else eat the sandwich, or, further down the line, purchase it or its ingredients? Far from being a sinister doctrine, that the end justifies the means is a simple philosophic truth, implicit in the very relationship of “means” and “ends.

What then, do the critics of the “end justifies the means” truly mean when they say that “bad means” can or will lead to “bad ends”? What they are really saying is that the means in question will violate other ends which the critics deem to be more important or more valuable than the goal of the group being criticized. Thus, suppose that Communists hold that murder is justified if it leads to a dictatorship by the vanguard party of the proletariat. The critics of such murder (or of such advocacy of murder) are really asserting, not that the “ends do not justify the means,” but rather that murder violates a more valuable end (to say the least), namely, the end of “not committing murder,” or nonaggression against persons. And, of course, from the libertarian point of view, the critics would be correct.

Hence, the libertarian goal, the victory of liberty, justifies the speediest possible means towards reaching the goal, but those means cannot be such as to contradict, and thereby undercut, the goal itself. We have already seen that gradualism-in-theory is such a contradictory means. Another contradictory means would be to commit aggression (e.g., murder or theft) against persons or just property in order to reach the libertarian goal of nonaggression. But this too would be a self-defeating and impermissible means to pursue. For the employment of such aggression would directly violate the goal of nonaggression itself.

If, then, the libertarian must call for immediate abolition of the State as an organized engine of aggression, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory to the overriding end (and therefore impermissible), what further strategic stance should a libertarian take in a world in which States continue all too starkly to exist? Must the libertarian necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not, since realistically there would then be no hope of achieving the final goal. It is therefore incumbent upon the libertarian, eager to achieve his goal as rapidly as possible, to push the polity ever further in the direction of that goal. Clearly, such a course is difficult, for the danger always exists of losing sight of, or even undercutting, the ultimate goal of liberty. But such a course, given the state of the world in the past, present, and foreseeable future, is vital if the victory of liberty is ever to be achieved. The transitional demands, then, must be framed while (a) always holding up the ultimate goal of liberty as the desired end of the transitional process; and (b) never taking steps, or using means, which explicitly or implicitly contradict that goal.

Let us consider, for example, a transition demand set forth by various libertarians: namely, that the government budget be reduced by 10 percent each year for ten years, after which the government will have disappeared. Such a proposal might have heuristic or strategic value, provided that the proposers always make crystal clear that these are minimal demands, and that indeed there would be nothing wrong—in fact, it would be all to the good—to step up the pace to cutting the budget by 25 percent a year for four years, or, most desirably, by cutting it by 100 percent immediately. The danger arises in implying, directly or indirectly that any faster pace than 10 percent would be wrong or undesirable.

An even greater danger of a similar sort is posed by the idea of many libertarians of setting forth a comprehensive and planned program of transition to total liberty, e.g., that in Year 1law A should be repealed, law B modified, tax C be cut by 20 percent, etc.; in Year 2 law D be repealed, tax C cut by a further 10 percent, etc. The comprehensive plan is far more misleading than the simple budget cut, because it strongly implies that, for example, law D should not be repealed until the second year of this planned program. Hence, the trap of philosophic gradualism, of gradualism-in-theory, would be fallen into on a massive scale. The would-be libertarian planners would be virtually falling into a position, or seeming to, of opposing a faster pace toward liberty.

There is, indeed, another grave flaw in the idea of a comprehensive planned program toward liberty. For the very care and studied pace, the very all-embracing nature of the program, implies that the State is not really the enemy of mankind, that it is possible and desirable to use the State in engineering a planned and measured pace toward liberty. The insight that the State is the permanent enemy of mankind, on the other hand, leads to a very different strategic outlook: namely that libertarians push for and accept with alacrity any reduction of State power or State activity on any front; any such reduction at any time is a reduction in crime and aggression, and is a reduction of the parasitic malignity with which State power rules over and confiscates social power." Continues...

Care to respond Mini Me?

 

[Theocrat]

Rand Refuted

This really started with Ayn Rand and her "virtue of selfishiness". I've read all of Ayn Rand's books, *and* her objectivist newsletters, which most of the posters on here that even like Ayn Rand probably have not. Ayn Rand was a hypocrite. She decried hippies for doing drugs, and did speed. She talked about marriage and had affairs. She was a rabid anti-Christian. I use to defend her works from being similar to Nietzsche. But on reflection on her purpose and fruit, I've changed my mind.

Like you said, her philosphy can not work in the real world. It is however, ideal for sophistry. Its a logical system, but incomplete and fails to be able to reach objectives in the real world (notice the use of objective and real world). In fact, its probably the worst philosophy in the conservative movement today, it endlessly allows you to talk and sound like you are doing something, and not do anything practical. It sounds like the philosophy of the founders, but its a poor imitition. The young particually fall for this.

The root of the Ayn Rand's sophism is a false dichotomy in the golden rule. It is not enough to attack redistributing wealth (something all conservatives have believed), but *all* altruism is wrong. Giving someond a sandwhich on the street who is hungry is evil according to Ayn Rand. You could use the sandwhich or money more. We're not talking about being forced to do that. Ayn Rand says its wrong for you to do it even if its something you want to do on your own. All altruism you want to do is wrong. All "self sacrifice is wrong". Everything is either "selfishlessness" or "selfishness". And selfishness is a virtue

Every wrong thing I've seen in the world has flown from lust of money and selfishness. This virtue is
not one that needs to be taught because everyone already has it, Good Lord!

The golden rule is neither selfless or selfishness. Love your neighbor as yourself does not say to love your neighbor *more* than yourself (selfless) or *less* then yourself (selfish). It is a balance.

Yet Ayn Rand was able to write her books on the subject, and attack >>voluntary carring for others<< as wrong, all based on deconstructing the golden rule into a false dichotomy.

Although Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand disciple, and wrote an essay in her book "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal", so one might wonder if Alan Greenspan was really the snake he appears in causing the economic bubble or was "just pulling the plug on the paper money system" - another "atlas shrugged", there is a deeper way to read that, with the attack not being on physical money, but "altruism" and "the golden rule". Pull the plug on people's motives, and you can really screw the world!

And to answer the first question, Alan Greenspan was a snake, and did help cause the current problem and *knew* it. For the same reason, Ayn Rand was also a snake, and is causing the current problems with her imitiation philosophy, and also *knew* it. Snakes nest together.

Possibly the only book of Ayn Rand's I still like is her Romantic Manifesto. But it isn't perfect, and I probably could write a better one. For similar reasons, I don't like CS Lewis much anymore.

You've given an interesting perspective, BeFranklin. I agree that "selfishness as a virtue" is another flaw from those who argue exclusively for individuality as the most important aspect of human identity. Deeply rooted in that faulty belief is the forgotten notion that men are inherently sinful, and thus, they need to be redeemed from that evil nature, first.

In any case, thanks for the response.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You've given an interesting perspective, BeFranklin. I agree that "selfishness as a virtue" is another flaw from those who argue exclusively for individuality as the most important aspect of human identity. Deeply rooted in that faulty belief is the forgotten notion that men are inherently sinful, and thus, they need to be redeemed from that evil nature, first.

In any case, thanks for the response.

I agree that man is naturally flawed. I would say that enlightened study is sufficient to fix it, tho. (JMHO)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You've given an interesting perspective, BeFranklin. I agree that "selfishness as a virtue" is another flaw from those who argue exclusively for individuality as the most important aspect of human identity. Deeply rooted in that faulty belief is the forgotten notion that men are inherently sinful, and thus, they need to be redeemed from that evil nature, first.

In any case, thanks for the response.

I agree that man is naturally flawed. I would say that enlightened study is sufficient to fix it, tho-plus extreme restraints that prevent man from gaining authority over other men. (JMHO)

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I agree that "selfishness as a virtue" is another flaw from those who argue exclusively for individuality as the most important aspect of human identity. Deeply rooted in that faulty belief is the forgotten notion that men are inherently sinful, and thus, they need to be redeemed from that evil nature, first.

Sorry, but individuality IS the most important aspect of human identity. Otherwise there would be no 'I', there would be just a 'we'. As for the second charge, Homo Sapiens evolved on a hostile world where survival was the name of the game. That, more than anything else, is the reason all humans have violence of some type ready to burst forth. Its also why The Founding Fathers didn't mess with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

[BeFranklin]

Sorry, but individuality IS the most important aspect of human identity. Otherwise there would be no 'I', there would be just a 'we'. As for the second charge, Homo Sapiens evolved on a hostile world where survival was the name of the game. That, more than anything else, is the reason all humans have violence of some type ready to burst forth. Its also why The Founding Fathers didn't mess with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I may be an important word, but we is also important. As in "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union," or "We hold these truths to be self-evident,".

Ayn Rand wrote a whole book - Anthem, decrying the word we. While read alone it makes a pretty good read when compared to socialist collectivist societies like the Soviet Union, but when compared to the rest of her writings, it becomes somewhat telling when compared to what the founders wrote.

The founders definitely beleived in the concept of duty, and civic community. Rand's philosophy is a perversion of it, and sophistic in nature (and I'm using that in the real sense here, not as an insult). She may have single handedly poisoned the conservative movement if it doesn't move beyond her. Alan Greenspan in my opinon does truely represent this philosophy - hypocrisy and the use of sophistry for power. And its yet to be seen if Alan Greenspan has caused a world wide economic collapse *1.

Edit: And to get back on track, if I is the most important word for human identify, I doesn't reproduce, so the species dies. Among other things, Randian philosophy has problems dealing with families and children. And more to the point, Theocrat is right about the inherit sinfullness of man, making I and egoism not very relevant. I'm just trying to shake the tree to show you that this philosophy has problems, without pointing to God yet, but I am a Christian, and that is the ultimate problem with philsophy rooted in man's goodness. Man is by nature sinful since the garden of eden and the fall.


http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952
Capitalism the Unknown Ideal:
Ayn Rand (20 articles total), Nathaniel Branden (2), Alan Greenspan (3) and Robert Hessen (1).