Libertarian Minarchism

[Tomahawk]

imported post

NaT805 wrote:

After 10,000 years of government failure we're still debating whether it should exist? :celebrate

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein

Well, it's hard to rid yourself of organized crime. Like prostitution, it's always been there and probably always will.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

NaT805 wrote:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

No. Rita Mae Brown, "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results." Sudden Death, Bantam Books, New York, 1983, p. 68.

 

[NaT805]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

NaT805 wrote:

After 10,000 years of government failure we're still debating whether it should exist? :celebrate

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein

Well, it's hard to rid yourself of organized crime. Like prostitution, it's always been there and probably always will.

Organized crime only happens when governments make things illegal.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

NaT805 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

NaT805 wrote:

After 10,000 years of government failure we're still debating whether it should exist? :celebrate

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein

Well, it's hard to rid yourself of organized crime. Like prostitution, it's always been there and probably always will.

Organized crime only happens when governments make things illegal.

I was referring to government.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

:lol:

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

NaT805 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

NaT805 wrote:

After 10,000 years of government failure we're still debating whether it should exist? :celebrate

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein

Well, it's hard to rid yourself of organized crime. Like prostitution, it's always been there and probably always will.

Organized crime only happens when governments make things illegal.

I was referring to government.

Trust Tomahawk to come up with the really good ones.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

This article is quite relevant to this thread, in enough ways that I recommend anyone interested simply read it:

Rights, Liberty and Community

 

[marshaul]

imported post

bump because I referenced this thread.

 

[NaT805]

imported post

For A New Liberty
Murray Rothbard.

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Here's a great read, if a bit long and perhaps not exactly going with the flow of this thread; it's about Mencken and Neitsche and the dynamics of the "Old Right".

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_old_right_and_the_antichrist/

This is a quote from Mencken, who was a most prolific generator of good quotes, if he was nothing else:

All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both.”

By the sound of that you might think Mencken is a sort of anarchist, but read the article, and you see that he was anything but. He was, in fact, a sort aristocracist.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Interesting article and comments, although I have a different perspective (broadly) than some of the commenters.

• Jeffersonian liberalism isn't part of the "Old Right", or paleoconservative.

So, thank you Mr. Spencer for this passage:

“Mencken’s support for an “ideal anarchy” is more instrumental than normative; that is, a free society is justified in that it allows the “natural aristocracy” to rise and rule”

Excellent. While recognizing the inherent inequality of man, it also recognizes the ability of the People to see and raise their betters to their natural, rightful state above them. It is an expression of a libertarianism that does not reject outright a natural aristocracy, a natural order, the meritocracy.

I've always found the idea of a "natural aristocracy" to be flawed. If certain individuals are inherently "superior", then why should they require "the people" (the authority of whose will is implicitly manifest through governmental power) to "raise [those individuals] to their natural, rightful state above [the peole]"? Such a justification of an implicitly statist aristocracy (or meritocracy) is inherently circular in reasoning. Superiority is self-sustaining, or it does not exist. A libertarian society enables the "superior" to flourish without allowing them to "rule" over anybody (whatever the justification).

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

A libertarian society enables the "superior" to flourish without allowing them to "rule" over anybody (whatever the justification).

Well, that's the idea, certainly, but is that achievable in practice? 200+ years of American history says "no, not yet at least".

The most aggressive people always rise to the top, despite all the checks and balances. If you pick out any random sample of people and isolate them, natural leaders will emerge. They may not be the smartest, wisest, nor have any respect for other peoples' rights, but they will be the ones the others defer to, usually to their bitter regret.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Well, if history is irreversibly cyclic and invariably predictable, then what is the point of studying past mistakes?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Well, if history is irreversibly cyclic and invariably predictable, then what is the point of studying past mistakes?

See it coming and buy gold and precious gems.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Well, if history is irreversibly cyclic and invariably predictable, then what is the point of studying past mistakes?

See it coming and buy gold and precious gems. 

I don't think history supports the buying of gold. Rejection of the USD, yes. Gold, no.