I am NOT a fan of Rothbard

[green73]

Most people are conditioned in their schooling into believing that the state has noble beginnings, is noble, and is a necessity, and your initial reaction to Rothbardian ideas is normal. That's because these ideas aren't propagated in schools and by the Establishment as they are a direct threat to the Old Order (aka The New World Order). The oligarchs rely on the state, and especially the democratic state (as that fools the people into thinking they "are" the government) to maintain their position on top of the heap that is humanity. From there they can hobble the rest of us in innumerable ways.

The truth is that everything can be privatized and run magnitudes better, especially law enforcement. Have you ever seen government operation run well (save for murdering and looting)? Just start reading Rothbard. You're at the minarchist point so I know you'll get it. Start with For a New Liberty. Read Hoppe's Democracy, The God that Failed too. Hoppe is regarded right up there with Rothbard.

 

[TheGrinch]

Again, why then did our founders feel it was so important to include all of those basic rights in the constitution?

The issue is that the government has become unconstitutional and too powerful to where corruption and no accountability run rampant. You need to take away their unchecked power, not take them away so that someone else can seize that unchecked power. With no state, those with the means are the state.

This is why the constitution is important to ensure basic human rights and protection of property (that do not exist in a truly free society, except for those with the means for protection to exploit those who don't). Blackwater does this already by not being bound to international law. I don't trust them to help me protect my property and self from intruders and threats, however.

The system needs to be reformed to be limited, local and accountable. This is how you take the power away from those who wish to use force with a large unaccountable central entity, not by giving them free reign to exploit whatever they want with little recourse.

Having no state is just not pragmatic, when you will always have those with the means who will use force and violence (or even those without the means too). What you need are responsible and accountable leaders like we're trying to put into place, to let the free market handle msot things, but also hold it accountable if it infringes on liberty.

The issue here is how much power we've given the government, not what rights we've asked them to protect.

Most people are conditioned in their schooling into believing that the state has noble beginnings, is noble, and is a necessity, and your initial reaction to Rothbardian ideas is normal. That's because these ideas aren't propagated in schools and by the Establishment as they are a direct threat to the Old Order (aka The New World Order). The oligarchs rely on the state, and especially the democratic state (as that fools the people into thinking they "are" the government) to maintain their position on top of the heap that is humanity. From there they can hobble the rest of us in innumerable ways.

The truth is that everything can be privatized and run magnitudes better, especially law enforcement. Have you ever seen government operation run well (save for murdering and looting)? Just start reading Rothbard. You're at the minarchist point so I know you'll get it. Start with For a New Liberty. Read Hoppe's Democracy, The God that Failed too. Hoppe is regarded right up there with Rothbard.

 

[green73]

Also, why was this moved to off-topic? Why not Political Philosophy?

 

[TonySutton]

People are murdered, raped and robbed everyday. How is it you feel the police are protecting us? There are many people everyday who are victims of crimes who disagree with you.

 

[TheGrinch]

People are murdered, raped and robbed everyday. How is it you feel the police are protecting us? There are many people everyday who are victims of crimes who disagree with you.

I am not arguing for a police state like we currently have, but under the constitution, they protect us by charging those who infringe our liberties (and only our liberties/property), and protect them with due process, a fair trial and other safeguards to ensure it's innocent until proven guilty... They saw these rights as important enough to be protected, because they saw how things were when they weren't... Things could be a lot worse without the constitution, and it's the unconstitutionality and unchecked power that are the current problem, not what a constitutional government under good leadership can do.

Just because the current system is messed up, doesn't mean that no system isn't going to be messed up (triple negative aside)... I'm all for reform and massive changes/cuts to how much power the centralized government has and letting the free market handle most things, but it's about bringing it back to constitutionality, accountability and locality. How can private enterprise possibly guarantee those two things that our founding fathers found so important to want the government to protect? It can't and has a conflict of interest not to.

 

[No Free Beer]

Again with the absence of rules mumbo jumbo. You know, instead of explaining theory and logic and history for the umpteenth time (it's not like you can't find these answers on this board all ready...), I'll just link to this and you can read it and come back a little more informed so then we can have an educated quorum.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Take your self-righteousness to another thread...

I'm tired of people like you

 

[No Free Beer]

Then why do you think the founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights then? Probably because they saw how rights can be stripped, not just by a government entity, but anyone in a postion of control or force, because they have a desire to do so... Eliminating government is not gonig to stop those who seek control and force and have the means from doing so.

If you have a constitutional government, then there is nothing at all contradictory about an entity guaranteeing to you that no one will infringe on your god-given rights to life, liberty and protection of your property. How is it "in it's nature a violation of them" if you have an accountable government that doesn't abuse it's power (being accountable). If the police protect my property from intruders and don't infringe on my liberties or property, how can't the two be mutually exclusive? They can if they're as local as possible and accountable, but private industry cannot guarantee the same accountability when they have massive conflicts of interest not to.

Not to mention, as I already have plenty in other threads, that handing over security and trials (that are supposed to be by your peers, not hired jurors that may have a conflict of interest or be corrupted) to private industry is an absolutely terrifying concept.

The writers of the consitution gave very limited powers to the government, and that is because they saw how terrifying it was when the government did not guarantee those basic human rights, and let any powerful entity exploit them just the same as they do with excessive "safeguards".

this.

 

[green73]

Take your self-righteousness to another thread...

I'm tired of people like you

Aww, that's sooo sad. I hope you get some rest soon. Perhaps you can come back and ask us something else that's been covered ad nauseum, like What's the deal with private property?

 

[Travlyr]

Then why do you think the founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights then? Probably because they saw how rights can be stripped, not just by a government entity, but anyone in a postion of control or force, because they have a desire to do so... Eliminating government is not gonig to stop those who seek control and force and have the means from doing so.

If you have a constitutional government, then there is nothing at all contradictory about an entity guaranteeing to you that no one will infringe on your god-given rights to life, liberty and protection of your property. How is it "in it's nature a violation of them" if you have an accountable government that doesn't abuse it's power (being accountable). If the police protect my property from intruders and don't infringe on my liberties or property, how can't the two be mutually exclusive? They can if they're as local as possible and accountable, but private industry cannot guarantee the same accountability when they have massive conflicts of interest not to.

Not to mention, as I already have plenty in other threads, that handing over security and trials (that are supposed to be by your peers, not hired jurors that may have a conflict of interest or be corrupted) to private industry is an absolutely terrifying concept.

The writers of the consitution gave very limited powers to the government, and that is because they saw how terrifying it was when the government did not guarantee those basic human rights, and let any powerful entity exploit them just the same as they do with excessive "safeguards".

This.

 

[Travlyr]

Most people are conditioned in their schooling into believing that the state has noble beginnings, is noble, and is a necessity, and your initial reaction to Rothbardian ideas is normal. That's because these ideas aren't propagated in schools and by the Establishment as they are a direct threat to the Old Order (aka The New World Order). The oligarchs rely on the state, and especially the democratic state (as that fools the people into thinking they "are" the government) to maintain their position on top of the heap that is humanity. From there they can hobble the rest of us in innumerable ways.

The truth is that everything can be privatized and run magnitudes better, especially law enforcement. Have you ever seen government operation run well (save for murdering and looting)? Just start reading Rothbard. You're at the minarchist point so I know you'll get it. Start with For a New Liberty. Read Hoppe's Democracy, The God that Failed too. Hoppe is regarded right up there with Rothbard.

Until stateless advocates specifically address how they will handle land ownership (not property ownership ... land ownership) their philosophy is simply for nomads.

 

[Travlyr]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book by Murray N. Rothbard - "The Mystery of Banking"

 

[LibertyEagle]

Rothbard wrote many good things, in my opinion. That doesn't mean I agree with him on everything and I don't. I don't agree with him on anarchy, for example. But, that doesn't mean that I can't value many of his points. His book on the Great Depression is really the best work on the subject and he totally outed the Federal Reserve in other pieces.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Again, why then did our founders feel it was so important to include all of those basic rights in the constitution?

They didn't-the Anti-Federalists demanded them after the document was written. (that's why they're amendments, not articles)

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Take your self-righteousness to another thread...

I'm tired of people like you

...and I am tired of folks who having not read any of the material loudly proclaim things from which they have zero knowledge. Do you normally go into debates like a fool? I like to have an educated back and forth, with reasoned critiques upon the material and theory of both sides, but you first have to know something about the other side.

That's ok though. You are not interested in back and forth, or the material at all, or the reasoning, criticisms, etc. The entire point of this thread is to brow beat regardless of the arguments presented by those you don't like -- you even admitted it yourself. That's just fucking stupid to be honest. I take my leave of this idiotic thread. Adieu.

 

[Travlyr]

They didn't-the Anti-Federalists demanded them after the document was written. (that's why they're amendments, not articles)

And then all but one of the Anti-Federalists worked for Constitutional ratification. The Anti-Federalists won.

 

[No Free Beer]

...and I am tired of folks who having not read any of the material loudly proclaim things from which they have zero knowledge. Do you normally go into debates like a fool? I like to have an educated back and forth, with reasoned critiques upon the material and theory of both sides, but you first have to know something about the other side.

That's ok though. You are not interested in back and forth, or the material at all, or the reasoning, criticisms, etc. The entire point of this thread is to brow beat regardless of the arguments presented by those you don't like -- you even admitted it yourself. That's just fucking stupid to be honest. I take my leave of this idiotic thread. Adieu.

I suggest you read my original post again.

Why do you even bother to comment on a thread which brings you so much disdain? I don't get it. Oh yeah, I remember, because you like to try and make yourself feel and sound smart at the expense of someone else. Typical. I know your kind. And frankly, I'm tired of it.

There are others on here who wrote back, despite disagreeing with me, in a very respectful way. You could learn a thing or two from them.

Please leave this thread alone if you don't can't bring any positivity to this thread.

 

[No Free Beer]

Rothbard wrote many good things, in my opinion. That doesn't mean I agree with him on everything and I don't. I don't agree with him on anarchy, for example. But, that doesn't mean that I can't value many of his points. His book on the Great Depression is really the best work on the subject and he totally outed the Federal Reserve in other pieces.

Yeah, I've read some things on Mises that I agreed with. It was more or less his view on the role of government with regards protecting contracts and property.

In my opinion, what he was advocating would lead to mob rule.

 

[erowe1]

Now, I already know what I am going to hear, "you are a statist", which I obviously am not, due to the fact that I am a RP supporter.

Lots of RP supporters are statists. If you advocate the state, doesn't that make you a statist?

 

[erowe1]

In my opinion, what he was advocating would lead to mob rule.

What's the difference between mob rule and the state?

 

[The Binghamton Patriot]

as pure marxism is the wet dream to the socialist left/obama/francois hollande; anarcho capitalism is the wet dream of the ideologically delusional right. both are impossible.