Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline

[KazooSkinsFan]

Anarchist libertarians believe that governments are unnecessary because people unfettered by governments, which are unnatural institutions, will flow in harmony with the natural world and naturally form self-governing groups complete with customs and codes and bonds. These groups will also naturally bond with each other.

Such writers as Rousseau, Thoreau, Emerson, and Wordsworth emphasized man's capacity to draw law from the comtemplation of nature and their own inborn consciences. Institutions were seen as perverting influences, primarily those of governments and churches. This anarchist strain in English thought goes all the way back to John Donne, John Hume, etc. and reached a pinnacle in the poetry of Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson around the turn of the century. It is still very much present in our society at large and continues to find much expression in our art and thought.

"One impulse of a vernal wood teaches more of moral evil and of good than all the sages can." William Wordsworth.

"You've got to play your own game, Michael." Saturday Night Live

There are a group of people who believe in NO government in this country and they call themselves "anarchists." I know one, he's not a libertarian, he doesn't call himself one, he's an anarchist. He wants NO government.

There are a group of people who call themselves libertarians. Yes, people calling themselves libertarians have many different views, I realize that would be surprising to liberals. Most oppose Iraq, some like Neal Boortz support it. We have different views on immigration, taxes and a variety of other issues. But at the core of the belief of the people using that word is "limited" government. A term you might know from our founding fathers that the Left and Right of this country have little use for.

Going back into history of the use of that word or finding someone who uses it is IRRELEVANT. Libertarians of today support limited government. Anarchists support NO government. Liberals support nothing BUT government except for the right to get an abortion and curse on television.

Maybe I'll coin the term for people who don't cut their grass, "liberal." Sure, I can do that, but there's no point.

[Irn-Bru]

Going back into history of the use of that word or finding someone who uses it is IRRELEVANT. Libertarians of today support limited government. Anarchists support NO government. Liberals support nothing BUT government except for the right to get an abortion and curse on television.

Maybe I'll coin the term for people who don't cut their grass, "liberal." Sure, I can do that, but there's no point.

Saying that historical context doesn't matter makes any argument on this matter ridiculous.

I'm saying that the core of libertarian belief has to do with rights and aggressive force, and that the discussion of government only comes after that—that is the order as seen in the declaration of independence and the philosophy of the founding fathers of the U.S. Rights pre-exist governments and are something separate from it, no?

If that's true, then it must be possible for someone to believe in the core of libertarianism and have a view on government that is so radical that it cuts it out of the picture all together. You are trying to make libertarianism into a philosophy of American government: the history of the philosophy is far wider than that and begins before governments are even a question.

Your assertion is "Anarchists can't be libertarians because libertarians support limited government." Says who? That's begging the question.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Your assertion is "Anarchists can't be libertarians because libertarians support limited government." Says who? That's begging the question.

First of all I don't believe I said that quote as stated. But it's not begging the question. If I were to be arguing that you can't use the term libertarian to describe an anarchist, then I would in fact be begging the question by saying what you said I said in my statement. However,

- That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that based on how the word has been used in the past is irrelevant to the people calling themselves libertarians today use the word, which is for limited government. Just as how the people who call themselves "liberal" today where liberal means "socialist" is so totally different then how liberals of the past used it to mean they were "open to new ideas and to change." You can't conclude that because people calling themselves liberals in the past were open to new ideas and change those calling themselves liberal today are, because clearly they are not. THAT is a fallacious argument. I'm not arguing history is irrelevant. I'm just arguing you can't use it in that way.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Your assertion is "Anarchists can't be libertarians because libertarians support limited government." Says who? That's begging the question.

First of all I don't believe I said that quote as stated. But it's not begging the question. If I were to be arguing that you can't use the term libertarian to describe an anarchist, then I would in fact be begging the question by saying what you said I said in my statement. However,

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that based on how the word has been used in the past is irrelevant to the people calling themselves libertarians today use the word, which is for limited government. Just as how the people who call themselves "liberal" today where liberal means "socialist" is so totally different then how liberals of the past used it to mean they were "open to new ideas and to change."

You can't conclude that because people calling themselves liberals in the past were open to new ideas and change those calling themselves liberal today are, because clearly they are not. THAT is a fallacious argument. I'm not arguing history is irrelevant. I'm just arguing you can't use the historical use of words in that way.

[Irn-Bru]

First of all I don't believe I said that quote as stated.

It wasn't meant to be a quote, but I do think it sums up the substance of your argument as I understood it at the time. It seemed to me like you were saying that anarchists can't be libertarians and vice versa because libertarians by definition support limited government. And I agree with you that if that's the argument, then it is question-begging. (I have to accept the conclusion as a premise. . .in other words, whether "libertarian" in fact means supporting limited government will be a separate discussion.)

However, I'm saying that based on how the word has been used in the past is irrelevant to the people calling themselves libertarians today use the word, which is for limited government.

Suppose, then, that I pointed you to a self-professed libertarian who helped found the Libertarian Party (they met in his living room, although he later criticized them and disascociated himself from them because he believed they compromised their principles), who wrote a book subtitled The Libertarian Manifesto, who is widely quoted as a libertarian by libertarians (whether or not they agree with everything he says). . .

. . .who also called himself an anarchist in the sense of supporting society without government?

That, to me, seems like it would be a sufficient counter argument to your claim: would you agree?

[crazyhorse1]

Anarchist libertarians believe that governments are unnecessary because people unfettered by governments, which are unnatural institutions, will flow in harmony with the natural world and naturally form self-governing groups complete with customs and codes and bonds. These groups will also naturally bond with each other.

Such writers as Rousseau, Thoreau, Emerson, and Wordsworth emphasized man's capacity to draw law from the comtemplation of nature and their own inborn consciences. Institutions were seen as perverting influences, primarily those of governments and churches. This anarchist strain in English thought goes all the way back to John Donne, John Hume, etc. and reached a pinnacle in the poetry of Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson around the turn of the century. It is still very much present in our society at large and continues to find much expression in our art and thought.

"One impulse of a vernal wood teaches more of moral evil and of good than all the sages can." William Wordsworth.

"You've got to play your own game, Michael." Saturday Night Live

There are a group of people who believe in NO government in this country and they call themselves "anarchists." I know one, he's not a libertarian, he doesn't call himself one, he's an anarchist. He wants NO government.

There are a group of people who call themselves libertarians. Yes, people calling themselves libertarians have many different views, I realize that would be surprising to liberals. Most oppose Iraq, some like Neal Boortz support it. We have different views on immigration, taxes and a variety of other issues. But at the core of the belief of the people using that word is "limited" government. A term you might know from our founding fathers that the Left and Right of this country have little use for.

Going back into history of the use of that word or finding someone who uses it is IRRELEVANT. Libertarians of today support limited government. Anarchists support NO government. Liberals support nothing BUT government except for the right to get an abortion and curse on television.

Maybe I'll coin the term for people who don't cut their grass, "liberal." Sure, I can do that, but there's no point.

You're arguing that your definition of "Libertarianism" is the consecrated one is little different from Pat Robertson insisting that all adopt his version of Christianity.

The 5% of freeloaders that you are so unhappy about are not a permanent group of folks, except for those who can not work. People move out ot welfare, as a rule, and others move in. Those who attempt to stay in for an undue time are moved out. Are there cheaters and real screw ups? Sure. But its ridiculous to assert that their numbers are anything like 5%.

The damage the goof-offs do to the economy doesn't belong in the same league with the damage done by corporate rip-offs. Dare I mention Halliburton. Why are you always so incensed by the pennies given to the poor and so quiet about the plunder of billions by the rich?

Your moral compass can't seem to find true north.

[Deadskins]

The damage the goof-offs do to the economy doesn't belong in the same league with the damage done by corporate rip-offs. Dare I mention Halliburton. Why are you always so incensed by the pennies given to the poor and so quiet about the plunder of billions by the rich?

Because the corporate-owned, "liberal" media emphasizes the one while de-emphasizing the other.

[Countertrey]

Irn-Bru said:

Not only is it wrong in principle, though (), it's simply empirically false.

My bad, FFA... this is a personal philosophy, which is (admittedly) "US-Centric", as RIC called it in another thread. It focuses on the primacy of individual rights over the state in areas of personal behavior and the market, as defined in the Constitution.

I failed to mark that with a disclamer... It is a personal definition, a debating point, not intended as a statement of acknowledged fact. As a debating point, it does seem to have stirred the pot a bit...

I am also aware that "libertaire", the root of libertarian, was coined by French anarchists in order to skirt laws prohibiting publication of anarchistic literature.

Libertarian anarchists are the naive innocents of the libertarian world. Were their wishes to come to pass, they would be extinct in a matter of weeks, as the parasites, sociopaths, and predators (including the rest of the more id driven anarchists) of the world discovered their vulnerabilities. It is those predators who make government necessary.

[Irn-Bru]

My bad, FFA... this is a personal philosophy, which is (admittedly) "US-Centric", as RIC called it in another thread. It focuses on the primacy of individual rights over the state in areas of personal behavior and the market, as defined in the Constitution.

I'm not even arguing for an international view of libertarianism (or whatever). . .I'm pointing out that some of the most prominent members of the libertarian movement, past and present, in America and in libertarian circles, etc. are also anarchists.

The only way you could exclude anarchists from libertarianism in the way that you have is simply to state "they can't be libertarian." Uh, OK. . .but I reject that assertion, and if it's proposed as an argument then it begs the question.

Libertarian anarchists are the naive innocents of the libertarian world. Were their wishes to come to pass, they would be extinct in a matter of weeks, as the parasites, sociopaths, and predators (including the rest of the more id driven anarchists) of the world discovered their vulnerabilities. It is those predators who make government necessary.

No offense, but this sounds to me like you may not understand the position of libertarian anarchists very well. They are advocates of just self-defense, for example, and would promote systems in place to take care of crime—including with deadly force. In fact, they are claiming that this would happen with better respect for justice, life, property, and with far better efficiency than what governments are capable of.

Let me draw an analogy. Suppose we transport ourselves 70 years from now when universal health care is not only the norm but has been for some time—to the extent that many self-professed libertarians support it as a given. Now, you and I begin to argue that, in fact, the government's provision of health care is by definition unjust, inefficient, worse than it could otherwise be, etc.

The reply comes back to us: "Health care privatizers are the naive innocents of the libertarian world. Were their wishes to come to pass, they would be extinct in a matter of weeks, just as soon as they caught their first deadly disease and the greedy insurance companies weasled out of paying for it, or they broke their leg and. . .etc. It's those predators that make the government necessary." OK. . .so I guess I'm not going to get far in that conversation with people holding that viewpoint.

But how strangely unsatisfying it was to go from raising the question, to an ad hominem, to assertions that, frankly, only hold water because there is a popular consensus backing them. Have they really shown that no libertarian supports private health care?

[Deadskins]

I am also aware that "libertaire", the root of libertarian, was coined by French anarchists in order to skirt laws prohibiting publication of anarchistic literature.

Actually the root of the word is "liber" from Latin, meaning free. It is also the root of the words liberty, liberation, and liberal.

[crazyhorse1]

Many Libertarians support the the undeniable notion that mechanisms that limit incomes and promote economic equality free the individual from the tyranny of bosses, underpaid labor, economic slavery, results of big money buying votes and influence, corporate power, the costs of justice in courts.

They hold that everyone is gifted with a piece of the world's economic pie at birth and that government's chief function should be to level the field rather than allow the intelligent to ride herd over the stupid, etc. In short,
such Libertarians hold that freedom is the highest value and promotes a true democracy as opposed to the one we have, which allows laws to be written by the highest bidder.

I've got one foot in this camp. I fear the corporate state and the power of the rich to enslave most of us is as much to be feared as a threat to freedom as an oppressive government. Unfortunately, our present corporate state has found its jackboat in the form of GW Bush and displayed its extention into the fascist state. A Libertarian government would control the predatory nature of the rich and corporations, not serve them in exchange for power.

Today in America we have the most awesome threat to American liberty ever to install itself like a malignant growth in the body politic, and its come from the right, not the left. It is absolutely inconsistent for a Libertariann to rail against the Liberal establishment and FDR and not call for the removal of GW Bush from office.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Suppose, then, that I pointed you to a self-professed libertarian who helped found the Libertarian Party (they met in his living room, although he later criticized them and disascociated himself from them because he believed they compromised their principles), who wrote a book subtitled The Libertarian Manifesto, who is widely quoted as a libertarian by libertarians (whether or not they agree with everything he says). . .

. . .who also called himself an anarchist in the sense of supporting society without government?

That, to me, seems like it would be a sufficient counter argument to your claim: would you agree?

I would have to concede to YOUR point that it's a pretty good argument.

I would not concede to Crazyhorse though who keeps using actual examples of no government as "arguments" against my views which are mostly in line with the Founding Fathers and the Libertarian party and are not in favor of a lack of government but a limited one.

All I'm trying to do is put a label to it. Labels SAVE TIME! You're mucking that up. I gotta respect that. But tell me what YOU want to call a quest for "limited" government if you object to using the term "libertarian" for that.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You're arguing that your definition of "Libertarianism" is the consecrated one is little different from Pat Robertson insisting that all adopt his version of Christianity.

The 5% of freeloaders that you are so unhappy about are not a permanent group of folks, except for those who can not work. People move out ot welfare, as a rule, and others move in. Those who attempt to stay in for an undue time are moved out. Are there cheaters and real screw ups? Sure. But its ridiculous to assert that their numbers are anything like 5%.

The damage the goof-offs do to the economy doesn't belong in the same league with the damage done by corporate rip-offs. Dare I mention Halliburton. Why are you always so incensed by the pennies given to the poor and so quiet about the plunder of billions by the rich?

Your moral compass can't seem to find true north.

Government, congregation, is the Solution to our problems.

- Amen

I can't hear you, I say GOVERNMENT is the solution to ALL our problems!

- AMEN

You sound like a bunch of Republicans to me. I can't hear a word you're saying. You have corporate greed blocking your ears. You have the WEIGHT of the richeous rich weighing down your tongues. You are listening to the devil, I say the devil in George Bush and Haliburton over the sainted virgin Hillary. GOVERNMENT, I say GOVERNMENT, is the SOLUTION to our PROBLEMS. WHat do you SAY!!!!

- AAAAAAAMMMMMMMEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNN!

Halelujah, not that's what I"m talking about!

[KazooSkinsFan]

It is absolutely inconsistent for a Libertariann to rail against the Liberal establishment and FDR and not call for the removal of GW Bush from office.

Um...OK. Besides if you mean me I do. I keep offering to support removal of the guilty, including both President and Vice-President and you keep passing because you'll only support removing the Red and not the Blue criminals. So you have to explain how it's a contradiction to rail against FDR and support holding all the criminals in DC accountable rather then just the ones who belong to the party "we" oppose because "we" want MORE FDR programs from the ones "we" support.

[Countertrey]

I am also aware that "libertaire", the root of libertarian, was coined by French anarchists in order to skirt laws prohibiting publication of anarchistic literature.

Actually the root of the word is "liber" from Latin, meaning free. It is also the root of the words liberty, liberation, and liberal.

Liber is to "libertaire", as "libertaire" is to "libertarian". That one, I WILL assert to be fact. If your point is to pick nits, you will loose on that one.

[crazyhorse1]

It is absolutely inconsistent for a Libertariann to rail against the Liberal establishment and FDR and not call for the removal of GW Bush from office.

Um...OK. Besides if you mean me I do. I keep offering to support removal of the guilty, including both President and Vice-President and you keep passing because you'll only support removing the Red and not the Blue criminals. So you have to explain how it's a contradiction to rail against FDR and support holding all the criminals in DC accountable rather then just the ones who belong to the party "we" oppose because "we" want MORE FDR programs from the ones "we" support.

You do have an excellent point there. You have supported removal of all the criminals in DC just as I have supported the removal of all dems, especially Pelosi and Reid, who are criminals.

Actually, the most I expect from the coming all dem congress and government is a half way job of crawling out of the holes that George W. has dug.

[Irn-Bru]

All I'm trying to do is put a label to it. Labels SAVE TIME! You're mucking that up. I gotta respect that. But tell me what YOU want to call a quest for "limited" government if you object to using the term "libertarian" for that.

I'm fine with calling that libertarian. I was only scratching my head once the "anarchists can't be libertarians and vice versa" talk started up. Libertarianism is a pretty big tent. I do think that, at the core of it, libertarianism isn't really about some particular view on government (per se), but rather an adherence to the principle of not aggressing against people and their property, which I think permits minimum-government types without a problem.

It does, however, rule out crazyhorse's heroic attempt to call socialism a libertarian position.

By the way, Murray N. Rothbard is the guy I was referencing in the last post. Hugely influential as a libertarian—but also an anarchist.

[KazooSkinsFan]

By the way, Murray N. Rothbard is the guy I was referencing in the last post. Hugely influential as a libertarian—but also an anarchist.

I am wondering though how an anarchist can start a political party. Isn't that a contradiction with his being an anarchist? He wants ORGANIZED anarchy?

[GSPODS]

By the way, Murray N. Rothbard is the guy I was referencing in the last post. Hugely influential as a libertarian—but also an anarchist.

I am wondering though how an anarchist can start a political party. Isn't that a contradiction with his being an anarchist? He wants ORGANIZED anarchy?

Anarchy is the abscence of government, not the abscence of organization.
The United States has a government. I wouldn't call it organized.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You have supported removal of all the criminals in DC just as I have supported the removal of all dems, especially Pelosi and Reid, who are criminals.

Actually, the most I expect from the coming all dem congress and government is a half way job of crawling out of the holes that George W. has dug.

The DEMS are going to have to crawl out of BUSH'S hole. This is the point. You do not support going after the guilty, only a couple sacrificial lambs. In fact in Pelosi's case you support getting her for not blaming Bush alone.

I am not looking at this through a party prism. I say remove the guilty of both parties and let them be replaced with people who are not guilty and the example of what happens to the guilty lest they go. I'm not looking at how I can leverage this to get more socialists in Congress to ineptly care for me.

[KazooSkinsFan]

By the way, Murray N. Rothbard is the guy I was referencing in the last post. Hugely influential as a libertarian—but also an anarchist.

I am wondering though how an anarchist can start a political party. Isn't that a contradiction with his being an anarchist? He wants ORGANIZED anarchy?

Anarchy is the abscence of government, not the abscence of organization.
The United States has a government. I wouldn't call it organized.

I am wondering though how an anarchist can start a political party. How do you have a political party without government? Irn-bru said he was a founder of the Libertarian party.

[Irn-Bru]

Because direction is as much a part of the strategy of any cause as its final aim. The United States was formed under the assumption that a people who found the government acting outside of their own interests had the right to reform or dissolve their relationship with the government. So, even for someone who thinks that voluntary associations are sufficient for society's organization, there is merit in working within that kind of system to bring about favorable change.

Not only did Rothbard help form the LP, he worked for Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign, and advised or worked for several political campaigns in later years. All along the way he would have told you that he supported X insofar as they were against aggressive wars, or for personal liberty, etc., and that he didn't support many of their other political views.

I guess I don't see a contradiction in principles there.

[GSPODS]

By the way, Murray N. Rothbard is the guy I was referencing in the last post. Hugely influential as a libertarian—but also an anarchist.

I am wondering though how an anarchist can start a political party. Isn't that a contradiction with his being an anarchist? He wants ORGANIZED anarchy?

Anarchy is the abscence of government, not the abscence of organization.
The United States has a government. I wouldn't call it organized.

I am wondering though how an anarchist can start a political party. How do you have a political party without government? Irn-bru said he was a founder of the Libertarian party.

Good question. My first thought is that, unlike Democrats and Republicans, the Libertarian Party has no definitive line to tow. The Dems and the GOP have the "luxury", if you want to call it that, of establishing their party lines by being as far in disagreement with each other as possible. The Lib party doesn't disagree with either the Dems or the GOP purely for the sake of disagreement. The Lib Party disagrees because people who tow party lines without any independent thought are idiots.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Because direction is as much a part of the strategy of any cause as its final aim. The United States was formed under the assumption that a people who found the government acting outside of their own interests had the right to reform or dissolve their relationship with the government. So, even for someone who thinks that voluntary associations are sufficient for society's organization, there is merit in working within that kind of system to bring about favorable change.

Not only did Rothbard help form the LP, he worked for Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign, and advised or worked for several political campaigns in later years. All along the way he would have told you that he supported X insofar as they were against aggressive wars, or for personal liberty, etc., and that he didn't support many of their other political views.

I guess I don't see a contradiction in principles there.

From what I'm reading I'm not sure I'm seeing it your way that an anarchist libertarian is an anarchist. They are more a combination of the two where they believe in government provided by the private sector. I haven't had a lot of time to read up yet. But it appears to call Rothbard an anarchist isn't actually accurate.

I'm sure crazyhorse would go for that, he has a deep trust of companies and would totally trust them to run our country. That is if he's not moving to Lakota anyway.

[Irn-Bru]

From what I'm reading I'm not sure I'm seeing it your way that an anarchist libertarian is an anarchist. They are more a combination of the two where they believe in government provided by the private sector.

That depends on what you mean by those terms. Take, for example, "government." Apart from the services that the government provides: roads, education, courts, police, health care,legal representation, money and banking, etc.—and what exactly is left? Each of those services is just that—a service—and each of those I have mentioned (as well as any service that any government has ever provided) has at some point been taken care of privately at one point or another.

(There are few areas where the government hasn't tried to step in to provide services. Hell, religion has been a function of the state in many socieites. And we would get indignant at that as though we are on a moral high ground there. )

OK, add to what I've just said the belief that voluntary association is infinitely more moral, far more efficient and effective, and exponentially more compassionate in providing those services. The logical conclusion becomes clear. There is no sanctified "role of government" that rises above the ordinary needs of ordinary people.

One might argue that people left to their own devices aren't capable of organizing those services in a given society, but that's missing the point: all I'm saying is that government is nothing but those services. There's no set-apart role that is metaphysically unique to governance. "Governance" outside of the conglamoration of those activities doesn't exist.

I haven't had a lot of time to read up yet. But it appears to call Rothbard an anarchist isn't actually accurate.

In what way? No matter where he was in his activity, if you had asked him: "Do you believe that voluntary association is sufficient for human society?" he would have answered "yes." He thought government was by nature unjust—but that didn't stop him from advocating his views through whatever means he could, including political activity. I'm still not seeing the contradiction.

(Rothbard didn't like public roads, but he still drove to work on them every day.)

That is if he's not moving to Lakota anyway.

I saw that, and I'm pulling for them.