The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Irn-Bru wrote:

Kazoo wrote: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.

Irn-Bru wrote:

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

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

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


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

Countertrey wrote:

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


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

Can either of you expound?

crazyhorse1 wrote:We, the Sioux, are not driven by some demonic force to follow and obey our leaders even though they're insane

welch wrote:How about back to the our constitutional tradition?

Unfortunately I have no better solution

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

welch wrote:How about back to the our constitutional tradition?

While it was under assault, FDR seems to have successfully done away with that. The greatest power we had was granting government "Enumerated Powers." Today Congress has no limit at all as that basic premise of the document is ignored and "the people" seem to be fine with 9 people voting majority to change anything else in the Constitution they choose. In what possible way is the inability of me, the Swiftboat Veterans for truth or MoveOn.org's to take out ads stating our political views leading into elections not just a blatant violation of our free speech rights? What is unclear about the right to bear arms "shall not be abridged?" What possible "public use" is New London confiscating private property and giving it to private companies "public use?"

The only party advocating the constitution all the time, not just for their own special interests is the Libertarian party and even though I usually vote for them they undercut themselves by being totally nuts.

I have been learning a valuable thing. Democracy and freedom are not the same thing. The Right use the power of government to control our bodies, the Left to control our wallets. Neither is freedom. So far humanity has only come up with temporary instruments of freedom and they are in fact democratic. But democracy seems to inherently lead to the majority using the ballot to inflict their desires on the rest and it apparently doesn't phase them they don't like that for the issues in which they are the minority.

I used to deeply believe in Democracy. I now deeply believe it doesn't work. Unfortunately I have no better solution.

Countertrey wrote:

Unfortunately I have no better solution

I do...






Put me in charge.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

welch wrote:How about back to the our constitutional tradition?

While it was under assault, FDR seems to have successfully done away with that. The greatest power we had was granting government "Enumerated Powers." Today Congress has no limit at all as that basic premise of the document is ignored and "the people" seem to be fine with 9 people voting majority to change anything else in the Constitution they choose. In what possible way is the inability of me, the Swiftboat Veterans for truth or MoveOn.org's to take out ads stating our political views leading into elections not just a blatant violation of our free speech rights? What is unclear about the right to bear arms "shall not be abridged?" What possible "public use" is New London confiscating private property and giving it to private companies "public use?"

The only party advocating the constitution all the time, not just for their own special interests is the Libertarian party and even though I usually vote for them they undercut themselves by being totally nuts.

I have been learning a valuable thing. Democracy and freedom are not the same thing. The Right use the power of government to control our bodies, the Left to control our wallets. Neither is freedom. So far humanity has only come up with temporary instruments of freedom and they are in fact democratic. But democracy seems to inherently lead to the majority using the ballot to inflict their desires on the rest and it apparently doesn't phase them they don't like that for the issues in which they are the minority.

I used to deeply believe in Democracy. I now deeply believe it doesn't work. Unfortunately I have no better solution.

I'm right there with you on that last statement, my friend. Have a fine Holiday season and try to chill out for a few days. There'll be plenty of gut -wrenchng news after the first.

Countertrey wrote:Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays, all.

Let's all hope that George gets a clue from Santa, and the candidates demonstrate a semblance of commitment to the Constitution (including ALL of it's ammendments) and not themselves or their party, in the new year.

Bad things are brewing in Pakistan.

Protect our Republic. It may be imperfect, but it is ours.

JSPB22 wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

welch wrote:How about back to the our constitutional tradition?

While it was under assault, FDR seems to have successfully done away with that. The greatest power we had was granting government "Enumerated Powers." Today Congress has no limit at all as that basic premise of the document is ignored and "the people" seem to be fine with 9 people voting majority to change anything else in the Constitution they choose. In what possible way is the inability of me, the Swiftboat Veterans for truth or MoveOn.org's to take out ads stating our political views leading into elections not just a blatant violation of our free speech rights? What is unclear about the right to bear arms "shall not be abridged?" What possible "public use" is New London confiscating private property and giving it to private companies "public use?"

The only party advocating the constitution all the time, not just for their own special interests is the Libertarian party and even though I usually vote for them they undercut themselves by being totally nuts.

I have been learning a valuable thing. Democracy and freedom are not the same thing. The Right use the power of government to control our bodies, the Left to control our wallets. Neither is freedom. So far humanity has only come up with temporary instruments of freedom and they are in fact democratic. But democracy seems to inherently lead to the majority using the ballot to inflict their desires on the rest and it apparently doesn't phase them they don't like that for the issues in which they are the minority.

I used to deeply believe in Democracy. I now deeply believe it doesn't work. Unfortunately I have no better solution.

I'm right there with you on that last statement, my friend. Have a fine Holiday season and try to chill out for a few days. There'll be plenty of gut -wrenchng news after the first.

Democracy is the worst system of government on earth...

































except for all the other ones.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays, all.

Let's all hope that George gets a clue from Santa, and the candidates demonstrate a semblance of commitment to the Constitution (including ALL of it's ammendments) and not themselves or their party, in the new year.

Bad things are brewing in Pakistan.

Protect our Republic. It may be imperfect, but it is ours.

I'm in total agreement with this post. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

crazyhorse1 wrote:I'm with you on some of our points, but, if your wishes were fulfilled in regard to at least four of the above, the result would be less freedom rather than more.

Your problem is your only thinking of freedom from government. There are other threats to freedoms to worry about. You can also lose freedom as a result of:

increased corporate power
wide spread crime
economic slavery
class distinctions and preferments
inequality at court and at the polls
inequality of educational possibilities
inequality of resources
destruction of the environment
pollution
the greater physical and/or intellectual strength of you neighbor or competitor.
being poisoned by store bought food and killed by bad cars

Etc.

Frankly, as I've pointed out to you before. I am superior to almost everyone-- physically, intellectually, financially-- and mean. If unchained, I would empty your pockets one way or the other, befoul your kitchen sink, convince the public to pull my corrupt cousin into office, lower your wages by collusion with other of my kind, write new law favoring me, withdraw your children from school, carry automatic weapons, dork Ann Rand, steal your trophy wives, and kick your dog.

What are you going to do about it?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:I'm with you on some of our points, but, if your wishes were fulfilled in regard to at least four of the above, the result would be less freedom rather than more.

Your problem is your only thinking of freedom from government. There are other threats to freedoms to worry about. You can also lose freedom as a result of:

increased corporate power
wide spread crime
economic slavery
class distinctions and preferments
inequality at court and at the polls
inequality of educational possibilities
inequality of resources
destruction of the environment
pollution
the greater physical and/or intellectual strength of you neighbor or competitor.
being poisoned by store bought food and killed by bad cars

Etc.

Frankly, as I've pointed out to you before. I am superior to almost everyone-- physically, intellectually, financially-- and mean. If unchained, I would empty your pockets one way or the other, befoul your kitchen sink, convince the public to pull my corrupt cousin into office, lower your wages by collusion with other of my kind, write new law favoring me, withdraw your children from school, carry automatic weapons, dork Ann Rand, steal your trophy wives, and kick your dog.

What are you going to do about it?

You're funny. That's why I like debating you.

The thing is that if you want some of those things even though they are against the Constitution, if you ignore it, then Bush can point to he's ignoring too because dying by terrorism isn't doing much for your freedom either. You keep bringing up the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you can't have it both ways. So the question remains, do you want those things I pointed out that are just blatantly Unconstitutional ended unless you can get the Constitution changed by the prescribed process (2/3 both houses, 3/4ths of the legislatures) or are you going to hand Bush the justification you use to just ignore it? Those are your choices.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Great question. Makes me think and very much to the point. This is the best answer I can come up with: I am Libertarian enough to change the Constitution to bring about the greatest possible freedom, but am not Libertarian enough to change the Constitution by any but the prescribed process. Also, I support our Constitution right to impeach our President for ignoring the Constitution.