James Bovard notes the love/hate relationship many tea party people have with state power: “Many “tea party” activists staunchly oppose big government, except when it is warring, wiretapping, or waterboarding. A movement that started out denouncing government power apparently has no beef with some of the worst abuses of modern times.”
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12547/the-mix-up-culture-of-the-tea-party/
The Mixed-Up Culture of the Tea Party
Previous post: Oh How Glorious and Mighty Is This Piece of Paper
Next post: C. Lowell Harriss, R.I. P.
{ 113 comments }
When warring, wiretapping, or waterboarding? That isn’t the half of it. The Palin end of the Tea Parties support the worst of the Welfare State in addition to the Warfare state. Many of them believe that the current tax rates are “FAIR”. This is silly and really the Tea Parties are silly. The programs the TPs support: War, Anti-medicare, Anti-social In-security are all bankrupt and paid from debts. This system is breaking down as we speak.
There was a “Tea Party” in Florida that was not angry about the Mostly Socialized Health Care Program, New taxes in the health care program, taxes in general, the welfare state or the warfare state. These folks were mad about reductions in the rate of future increases for the NASA: Never Accept (public or free individuals) Space Access, budget. They were the worst of the Bureaucracy: White Collar Welfare Recipients.
Yeah, some of those whacky tea-partiers actually believe that defending the American people from being blown up, flown into large buildings, hit with large airplanes, etc., is among the legitimate acts that the US government is allowed to undertake according to the Constitution. Some even go so far as to think that it is even the government’s responsibility to do so! Wow, the crazy ideas that some people get into their heads!
Some of them even think the state should exist. Which is indeed nuts.
Nothing government does is legitimate, by virtue of the fact that what they do is conducted by force, and is not voluntary.
Russ: the Constitution is a big-government document. See Kenneth W. Royce’s tour-de-force book on it.
Or Lysandor Spooner’s No Treason #6 – The Constitution of No Authority
Always with the lame strawmen. Not crazy, Russ, ignorant. It was your supermen being in charge that precipitated (through their massive incitement of the criminals, and then by their incredible incompetence in security) the event which has apparently turned your mind to guacamole.
How did that statist defense thing work out on 9-11 again? Please enlighten us!
Give it time. The movement started out in response to the bailouts; that could be agreed upon by all of them. The movement is new, it’s huge, many people are confused because, let’s face it, the people in power do everything in their power to keep people confused. The elderly want their Medicare because they have been paying in all their lives and the Govt COMPELS them to go on Medicare when the turn 65. Of-course they don’t want it cut in the name of socialized medicine, which does seem disingenuous, but what are they supposed to do? Bogart, your comment about NASA is interesting. Do you really think that we should hitch a ride with the Russians when we go to the space station?
Space like any other place is not owned by government nor does government have any moral right or Constitutional power for that matter to steal money for its exploitation of space. Entrepreneurs should have every right to explore space with funds coming from investors like any other project. If these entrepreneurs can exploit space then they should be able to establish property rights to it through homesteading. If these entrepreneurs desire to work with the Russians or anyone else for that matter then that is up to them.If the Russians or anyone else steal money from their poor citizens to explore and exploit space then that is up to them as well. I wish they would not do this but if the governments of Russia or China or any other nations attempt to deploy aggressive weapons in space then the US Government should first ask them to stop, negotiate with them terms under which they should stop, ATTEMPT TO PAY THEM TO STOP, and if all else fails act to deploy defensive measures to counter this. This process is significantly cheaper than using NASA technology to build space weapons when there is not legitimate threat from any other nation in this area. That is simply wasteful.Totalitarian Socialism/Communism is dead. Both the governments of Russia and China are just more Fascist than that of the USA. Of course the USA is moving towards more Fascism faster than Russia and China are moving towards freedom which bodes poorly for the citizens of all three nations.
going into space is nothing but a service
nasa has taken too much resources from the private space exploration and also regulates that too
@Russ
Sarcasm fail.
It’d be funny – if you weren’t wrong.
Nate,
How so?
@Jaycephus
As RWW commented below, the Constitution has no legitimate authority.
Unless by “legitimate authority” you mean “supported by Americans who will kick your teeth in.”
Well that was good for a chuckle.
Yeah, Sherman chuckled all the way to Savannah. The FBI had a few laughs taking their trophy photos at Waco, too.
You keep coming up with these non-sequiturs. I think you’re just a clever web-script. You haven’t passed the Turing Test yet, but you’re clever.
That *would* have been interesting if the “Turing Test” was tried out when the victims at Mt. Carmel were talking to the FBI negotiators. Truly not evil, whipped to a robotic state.
Right, let’s attack the closest thing to a libertarian uprising since… when?
The main theme of the TEA party is anti-tax, and appears to be united around the fear that taxes will have to rise to unprecedented levels to pay for all existing policies, never mind the proposed policies still to be enacted. This has drawn activists from conservatives and independents, and possibly not a few moderate-liberals. Of course their views on other subjects are going to be a hodge-podge.
It should however be notable that their opponents seem to be united on a theme of statism, be they from the left or the right.
Libertarians should be encouraging and educating the TP, not scoffing at it like Aesop’s Fox. As it is, some genuine libertarians are going to be elected to office by the support of the TP. Getting behind this movement and attempting to influence it in a libertarian direction make sense to me.
Maybe the TP could be the fulcrum for levering the Republican party out of the neo-con grasp.
Of course with libertarians writing stuff like this, maybe libertarian philosophy is truly self-defeating. It would explain a Libertarian Party that has gone exactly nowhere in over four decades.
Just wondering what you’re objections were towards Dr. Block’s little essay specifically/
Jay,
If you believe that a philosophy is self-defeating because it cannot lie, manipulate and coerce itself into a position of control over other peoples’ lives, then you don’t understand libertarianism at all.
Today’s libertarianism is self defeating.
From a real world perspective libertarians would sooner split hairs amongst their different camps than align themselves behind and support common interests. Objectivism broke itself up into two camps, nevermind the bickering between Objectivism and the other libertarian movements. On this site alone battle lines are drawn between minarchists and anarchists, even if the two follow each other on the same philosophical trail for nine-tenths of the way.
Libertarianism has a culture of individualism. You are not going to see a libertarian take a stand against the state because they are smart enough to know that, as an individual, they are going to suffer many times more than they benefit. It is pretty obvious no one here likes the state yet every year they gladly hand over a portion of their income to it. Apparently as bad as they say the state is and how big crooks they are they don’t think it is so bad to leave or fight back! Has anyone here grabbed a dredger and went out to the seas to make their own little Minerva on Earth? Left to the unclaimed zones of the Antarctic? Pulled out your guns and defended your territory? Show of hands…? No one?
Expected.
Sovy,Your comment reminds me of a political science professor I had in college who disparagingly questioned me on how there could be a political party of individuals. Needless to say, I understand your frustration but you’re confusing the political movement/philosophy with its ideals. This is the same mistake my college professor made.Through discussions with most of my friends and associates, I find they are sympathetic with most libertarian positions but few would describe themselves as Libertarian. Liberty is inherent to the human condition not unique. Libertarian ideals are alive and well and growing. The Tea Party, though imperfect, carries some of those ideals.I recently read a newspaper article that described people who registered as Independent as “leaning toward libertarian ideals” This group, ages 35-55, was largest non-voting group in the last election. They could have tipped the election in a different direction. It is assumed that they will vote in mass in the coming elections.So remember Mises.org and other libertarian sites discuss the philosophy and debate within those parameters. And as with any ideology, there are perfectionists whose pursuits (though not necessarily unworthy) become self-defeating to the cause. Do not confuse the intellectual convolution with the essence of Libertarian ideals.Oh…one last thing…libertarianism is not “self defeating”…it is self-liberating. Embrace it and manifest a lifetime of discovering truth. Good luck with your journey:)
Sovy,
Your comment reminds me of a political science professor I had in college who disparagingly questioned me on how there could be a political party of individuals.
Needless to say, I understand your frustration but you’re confusing the political movement/philosophy with its ideals. This is the same mistake my college professor made.
Through discussions with most of my friends and associates, I find they are sympathetic with most libertarian positions but few would describe themselves as Libertarian. Liberty is inherent to the human condition not unique. Libertarian ideals are alive and well and growing. The Tea Party, though imperfect, carries some of those ideals.
I recently read a newspaper article that described people who registered as Independent as “leaning toward libertarian ideals” This group, ages 35-55, was largest non-voting group in the last election. They could have tipped the election in a different direction. It is assumed that they will vote in mass in the coming elections.
So remember Mises.org and other libertarian sites discuss the philosophy and debate within those parameters. And as with any ideology, there are perfectionists whose pursuits (though not necessarily unworthy) become self-defeating to the cause. Do not confuse the intellectual convolution with the essence of Libertarian ideals.
Oh…one last thing…libertarianism is not “self defeating”…it is self-liberating. Embrace it and manifest a lifetime of discovering truth. Good luck with your journey:)
Has anyone here pulled out their guns and committed suicide? Show of hands…? No one?
Expected.
- – - – - – - – - – - – -
Dagnytg,
Your touching faith in elections is what is always eventually self defeating.
- – - – -
Jaycephus,
Libertarian? Hodgepodge? A majority of “Teapartiers” and conservatives like Russ here are just as Bovard describes them.
That attitude is the perfect example of what I was talking about. Thank you for proving my point.
My pleasure, agent provocateur or clueless juvenile.
Right, the only libertarian worth the name, that I know of, is Irwin Schiff. (Of course, he’s also the least-free libertartian I know of as well.)
There are some in this thread who have the gall to get pissy over TP members who take SS, or GOD-FORBID, support the CONSTITUTION, but undoutedly these oh-so-’moral’ anarcho-’libertarians’ continue to dutifully pay their taxes and CAN’T EVEN BE BOTHERED TO STAND WITH THE TP TO PROTEST THOSE TAXES.That’s. Just. Sad.
Irwin Schiff is an idiot, bless his heart.
Yes, we can not stand with those who want taxes for the Welfare State *or* the Warfare State.
It is self defeating when it advocates a position against the Tea Party’s push for lower taxes/opposition against higher taxes on the grounds that this will ultimately increase government revenues (via Laffer curve), leading to an increase in government power and a loss of liberty. (I made the self-defeating comment in reference to Block’s article. I usually love Block’s articles, books, and speeches, but that article was just so wrong on multiple points.)
The logical extension of Block’s argument would be that libertarians should support 100% taxes. Thus govt revenues would be reduced to zero, and the village would be saved by its unfortunate but necessary destruction.
Why even bother claiming to be a libertarian any more?
Summation of the libertarian position I’m seeing:
“Oh, those TEA grapes are sour. That’s not the popular uprising you’re looking for. Move along.”
Those “tea grapes” are conservative. That is why they are as clueless or rotten as Bovard describes them. They sum themselves up thus: 57% favorable opinion of George W. Freakin’ Bush.
I love how Russ mentions the Constitution — as if the Constitution has any legitimate authority. And Jaycephus brings up the Libertarian Party — as if the Mises Institute is somehow related to it.
Then what is it that they are actually opposing ? Taxes ?
In fact, as I recall, the Boston Tea Party was not even about taxes per se, it was about representation.
No taxation without representation and it was much more a declaration of independence from England than it was a tax protest.
Ironically, those who go to tea parties today denounce the taxes but they are all fully represented.
The Boston tea party was not about protesting taxes, it was about letting England know it did not represent America. It was a political protest, not an economic protest.
There were many issues culminating in the Boston Tea Party. Taxation without representation was surely one of them, as Cybertarian points out, but the tax itself, with or without representation, was also an issue. The colonists did not want to be taxed with representation, as one might infer from Cybertarian’s comment; they wanted to be untaxed with representation. The two facts — they were taxed, and they were not represented — cannot be decoupled easily, despite Cybertarian’s cavalier comment to the contrary.
Interestingly, Cybertarian claims that today’s Tea Party protestors are “fully represented.” That, however, is not quite true. The Constitution established a House of Representatives wherein every 30,000 people would have one representative. The federal government abandoned that clause in the early 1900s, and today, each representative has around 700,000 constituents. Instead of the “one man, one vote” ideal, our representative system today resembles “one man, 1/233 of a vote.” One can hardly call this fully represented. In fact, this is perhaps even less representation than the colonists themselves had, if we take the number of British MPs in the 1770s and divide by the population of Britain and the American colonies at the time. A competent historian with access to these data might find that the colonists were overrepresented relative to our situation today.
Ah yes, that representation sure came into play when 95% of constituents calling in about the bailouts of the banks opposed them, and their representatives completely ignored them (at least the second time around days after the first). I would hardly call that fully represented, when trillions of dollars can easily go to things the vast majority of people oppose.
Agree with Jeremy. But you have to go back to TARP and the bailouts that were clearly opposed by an overwhelming majority of the population, and passed anyway. Sure, we were ‘represented’, but do you think those of us who opposed TARP, the bailouts, healthcare un-reform, etc. FEEL represented anymore? It was these excesses that started the TEA parties.
And now we have the example of a 3-term, 76-year-old, incumbent Republican Senator, normally a shoo-in, levered out of his seat in conservative Utah by the TEA Party. He voted for TARP, bailouts, various pork, & a bad healthcare bill amendment. What’s not to like?
How is it that there is a massive reporting relative to the economy improving? Why are economic indicators up?
Because the funny money has finally made it to the economy and we see the prices of tangible assets increasing, we see the DOW increasing to well above 11,000 points and all seems rosy from here.
If you ask me, it looks like 2007 all over again. This current stimulus is starting to create a fake boom, especially in the stock market since productivity in the real economy hasn’t really increased and the FED won’t lower the interest rates because the economy isn’t really improving.
I would bet that we are due to another crash, more inflation, gold spiking up even more and maybe some major tensions with Iran and the middle east.
I don’t think that the economy is getting better amidst the new regulations and government takeover of the health care system and other taxes and reforms in Europe.
The economy is only getting better on paper, not in reality.
Keep in mind that “up” is strictly relative. Suppose that some economic statistic starts at 100, and then falls to 96 in year 1, 93 in year 2, 91 in year 3, and then hits 90 in year 4. That is a decline. Suppose it now climbs to 91. That is a recovery. Yet, that “recovery” still means that the situation is as bad as it was in the third year of the decline.
The “recovery” that government economists describe does not mean that things have returned to normal, or to where they were before the decline. It only means that some indicator is ever-so-slightly higher than it was in the previous reporting period. Government economists and pro-government journalists are quick to look at such a statistic and say that the recession is over even though things are still bad. To say that the recession has ended is different from saying that things are back to normal, or that things have returned to where they were before the decline.
I am wondering if things ever were “normal” in this country. For as far as I can see, there has always been some form of distorsion of the markets.
Economic indicators are up because personnel and inventories have been cut to the bone and are running at peak efficiency. Ask yourself a simple question, Is anyone hiring in the poisonous climate we find ourselves in? Not in any meaningful way. No one in their right mind is hiring right now excepting government contractors and direct employment.
Don’t forget the estimated, assumed, 188,000 new-hires by the small-businesses that have been estimated, assumed to have come into existence, but can not yet be verified. Remove this assumption, and the new IRS and temporary census hires, and you may actually be in negative territory.
BTW, I’ve heard from census workers who went to training, and then never got called to do any work. But once they took the job, they are in a ‘pool’ of on-call census workers, and can not claim un-employment benefits though they are unpaid and effectively unemployed. It really ‘looks’ like the census-worker numbers are grossly inflated by tricking unemployed people to come in for training and then not using them at all. The training is proceeding at full speed, though there is a large pool of un-utilized workers. How many people have been pulled off of the unemployment rolls (switched from the 9.8% unemployed segment to the 17% ‘underemployed’ segment) with this trick?
A movement that started out denouncing government power apparently has no beef with some of the worst abuses of modern times.
People have differing levels of tolerance for increasing government control of their lives. Let’s be glad that not just a few are reaching the end of it.
A Big Problem With Tea Partiers:
Neoconservatism
This seems to stem from
a lack of knowledge, and stances based upon misinformation, disinformation and bias built upon
a poor philosophical foundation.
Philosophy matters and is important. Ayn Rand was correct about that particular issue. (and many others)
They all need to examine the philosophies that their positions grow out of:
The branch of neoconservatism leads back to a tree of ultranationalism and Trotskyite socialism.
The Tree is deeply rooted in Authoritarian and Totalitarian Philosophy.
At its core its Caesarism (worship of an all powerful leader)
That is why for years the neocons constantly pushed for an all powerful executive branch.
It also explains their fetish for Lincoln.
Many Tea Partiers sadly glom onto neocon talking heads and blindly take their words as gospel truth.
Many Tea Partiers profess to be Christians but support issues and ideas contrary to Christian Teachings:
Lets Compare Christian Philosophy with Neoconservative Philosophy:
Christian: ‘Let us do good so that good may result’
Neocon: ‘let us do evil so that good may result’
Christian: ‘Doing good makes right’
Neocon: ‘Might makes Right’
Christian: ‘Doing evil is unjust’
Neocon: ‘The ends justify the means’
Christian ‘Overcome evil with good’ (Bible)
Neocon: You must become the Devil to Defeat the Devil’
Christian: ‘God comes first’ (Bible)
Neocon: ‘Nation comes first’
Christian: ‘war as a very last resort…if ever’ (Just War Theory + Pacifism)
Neocon: ‘never met a war I didnt love’ (pro war pro ‘preemptive strike philosophy of Bush et al.)
Christian: ‘Promote peace’ ‘Jesus is the Prince of Peace’, ‘Blessed are the Peacemakers…’ (Bible)
Neocon: ‘peace is for wimps, sissies, and the naive’
Christian: ‘We should be concerned about the Rights of others’
Neocon: ‘The Constitution is an outdated document, people who fuss about losing Constitutional Rights are crazy’ (Often said when their great leader is running the show)
Notice a difference here?
These are just a FEW examples. Everyone should think of more examples and ask themselves:
‘Do I believe any of that neocon garbage?’
ALL Tea Partiers should switch off FOX News on their TV and go read a good Book.
Such as reading a Book by Ron Paul
A Christian who displays Christian philosophy.
Rather than blindly buy into the pablum puke that the neocons are peddling as so many do.
Neocons worship war and they conflate and confuse true strength with being a reckless belligerent d-bag. Also Unlike our Founders, they want an Empire not a Republic.
They swoon for the might of Ancient Rome. (The same one that crucified all those Christians)
If Tea Partiers rejected all aspects of neoconservatism and vomited its venom out of their lives they would be far better off for it.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of the tea party are Christians. It is the socialists who are predominantly atheists. As regards “Bomb-Iran”, IMHO this is as stupid a policy as expecting that the problem can be solved by a speech-writer and a teleprompter.
Good points.
The tea party movement needs a unifying development in personal philosophy. They say that they have no love for big government. I should think that sound monetary theory could bring things together.
I have spoken to people who frequent such events, many of them are not as ignorant on the study of economics as the media would have you think.
A lot of Tea Party Patriots want to eliminate welfare state and minimize government. they tell me the are active in doing it. Then, I ask them to give up their Social Security and other government hand outs; all I get in return is a blank stare. Most of them have no idea what they are asking for.
Well, I am a Tea Party Patriot and if I had the choice of giving up my Social Security I would do it in a New York minute! I’d like to have the money I paid in back and take my chances. Naturally, I expect to get a refund of what I’ve paid into it so far. We all know that’s not going to happen, as this pyramid-ponzi scheme has already spent it. It’s not sitting there waiting for me to use it. I’m actually to the point that I think it’s better to cut my losses and not pay more into it anyway, nevermind what I’ve already lost. So FYI, the blank stare is not because they don’t want to give up this “great benefit,” (which we know we’ll never get anyway), but more like “I’ve been had, is there any way to get out without losing my shorts?”
I would like to give it up also and invest as i see fit. It is unfortunate though that those that have to rely on it would be in total shock if it was eliminated. I had several conversation at the Sacramento Tax Party on the 15TH and I have found that a lot of senior citizens can not grasp the concept of not having it at all. No safety net is hard to digest.
I’ll say. Give me the contribution so far into the Social Security system, otherwise known as the general budget and i’ll make better decisions regarding what I need as opposed to the Government doing so for me.
Ditto.
Throw in the fact that inflation (and criminally under-reported inflation at that) IF all goes according to plan — OR the collapse of the dollar in the case that it doesn’t go according to plan — is simply going to reduce my eventual SS benefit to practically zero, and why exactly should I want to keep paying in to SS?
Currently, my personal retirement calculations factor in SS not at all.
Of course seniors living on SS only are going to look at you like you’re crazy if you ask them to give it up. But I would hope gen-Xers would give a different response.
Whew — I just finished reading an article in New American Mag about Austrian economics. I agree with the concept and, with some excitement, I logged on the Mises site. I was fine until I read the comments. Reading them I thought I was in space somewhere. Three of them made normal sense and were coherent, however the others very weird. Do liberians have some sort of code language? It may be because I am an old-fashion Conservative. No offense meant.
There are a lot of newcomers on the Tea Party threads… for a better overview of mises.org you could look up posts on other topics that interest you or look at some of the daily articles.
“Whew”, back at ya. You hit it on the head, Malcomb. Libertarians use a different language than the one your masters provided you with.
Ahhh, a perfect example of the lovely reception newbies get.
A better approach might be to use the phrase ‘our masters’, sarcastically if you like, as Tom Woods often does. It also has the added benefit of being quite a bit more HONEST, since I note that ‘we’ have not thrown off ‘our’ masters as yet.
But mainly, it avoids being an insulting ass.
If one doesn’t love his master as you and Malcolmb do, one reserves different names for him.
If you and Malcomb can’t catch, don’t throw.
Thanks for the unsolicited advice. Here’s mine: go to a Sarah Palin forum so you’ll feel more comfortable. Or maybe the one over-run with your troglodyte comrades calling Bovard a commie because of his spot on article here.
Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a conservative over the age of 19 to become a libertarian. My goal here is to purge your stink off us. 57% for W!?!
Somehow you think I’m a Palin supporter? What gave you that idea? That I don’t worship your opinion, apparently.
Are you completely moronic? You are attacking a libertarian!
Granted, I’m not the superior, highly-evolved, anarchist kind. (yeah, I do sarcasm) I’m the kind that thought the Libertarian Party was a pretty good idea when I first read about it 27 years ago. I’m the kind that will support ANY libertarian running for office, even if they run as Republican, like the Pauls or Schiff.
Obviously, to you, I’m a freaking neocon statist, personally responsible for 100 million deaths throughout the 20th century, as are Ron, Rand, and Peter. (Hey folks, I know that sentence is ‘crazy’, but it’s practically a direct quote from mpolzkill.)
Call me crazy for thinking that adding my voice to a rally against taxes was a good thing, something libertarians were SUPPOSED to do. What was I thinking? Obviously its better to despise them for their evil, statist beliefs and go back to reading intellectually-mastabatory material about how cutting taxes will actually increase the power of the state and induce Martians to attack and enslave the earth, making any actual attempt to increase liberty futile and counter-productive.
Anyone want my Gadsen T-shirt? How about my Battle of Gonzalez ‘Come and Take It’ flag? I’m trying to get rid of all my ‘statist’ paraphernalia.
You came here attacking libertarians. You were wrong about the LP. Rand and Peter *are* worthless tools (war supporters). You *are* a fool to vote. You and your fellow dupes are responsible *en masse*. Ron Paul is basically a misguided saint but was great and instrumental in conclusively showing the absolute futility of politics. There is no despising of Ron Paul as he never attacks more consistent libertarians, as you do, and he never whines as you do.You can’t get there from here.
The Tea Party is worse than useless. Most will go home in November after GOP
electoral victories, the rest will whine and protest that they’re not racist and
that their policies are good for minorities, etc. And of course, let’s not even
talk about their foreign policy positions.
http://www.toqonline.com/2010/04/patrick-buchanan-on-rising-white-racial-consiousness/
WHEN HAS RACE COME UP DURING ANY TEA PARTY EVENT??? Liberals always play the Race Card when trying to discredit an organization that disagrees with their spread the wealth around Obama-economics which is clearly Socialistic. Discourage those that pay all the taxes in this country, and all of the social goodies dreamt about by the Left will disappear when our debt cannot be sold at a reasonable price in the world. Beefcake, we will see how useless this grass-roots org is when they throw lots of bums in Congress out into the unemployment lines in November, mark your calendar. Could this be why the unemployment benefits are now at record lengths???!!! The USofA rules more for minorities in this country than any other country in the world. QUIT YOUR WHINING, WORK YOUR BUTT OFF, AND SMILE THAT YOU LIVE IN SUCH A FREE AND GENEROUS COUNTRY.
I wish you were right, I really do. But what I’ve seen thus far from interacting with
actual TP’ers, I am not encouraged.
How about we try to stick to the topic of the original post? Race comes up every time Sarah Palin joins her ex-running mate for another chorus of “Bomb-Iran”. The USofA rules more “minorities” (brown people) than any other country in the world.
Did any of the “conservatives” on this forum even read Bovard’s article? It was really good (57 percent of “Tea Partiers” have a favorable opinion of W ?!?). Conservatives: spare us your lectures on how we need to appear mainstream and then get bent; we need you like we need a hole in the head. Libertarians are not wayward or wacky conservatives. It’s more like you’re wayward or wacky Democrats. That’s how McCain got to the left of JFK. How does a Dem become a “conservative”? He just stands still for 10 years.
The more I read from you, Mpolz, the more I enjoy your posts.
When the Austrian strain of libertarianism scares off newbies, the fault lays with the newbies for not being open-minded and honest with themselves, or in other cases for simply being incapable of understanding pure economics.
Maybe if people who claim to be libertarians were not so offensive, newbies wouldn’t be scared off. Then maybe, and I’m spit-balling here, just maybe, the Libertarian Party, or philosophy, would gain an adherent. Something I’d like to see happen once in a while. You know, just so it doesn’t completely die out?
You know what’s really offensive, Jaycephus? Sarah Palin and her promises of perpetual idiotic warfare on people who have never attacked us. You study up, don’t harp at us to dumb down.
And libertarianism is based on philosophical truths, not popularity. It will never die out like the Repub ship the Tea Party rats are scurrying from, thanks for your concern.
(Maybe one “rat” out of a hundred would be stung by that enough to think and study. We’ll take him. The rest aren’t worth any effort.)
Your attitude is welcome here? Insult the very people who are TRYING to study and learn?
OK. That makes no sense.
I didn’t tell you to dumb down.
You did that to yourself all on your own.
You’re really getting to be a complete jackass. You’ve ascribed beliefs to me I don’t hold, while distorting the facts all along to fit your personal worldview. I’ve nevered uttered a word of support for Palin, and neither has anyone else in this thread, but for some reason that is the club you use to beat everyone who doesn’t fall in line with your particular sliver of the philosophical landscape. I think you are the only one who’s even mentioned Palin in this entire thread. The only things I’ve said is that the TP should be engaged with by libertarians, MAYBE even supported by them since the LP is getting exactly nowhere in 40 years. But you have the attitude of a snob, an intellectual elite, too proud to have any dealing whatsoever with those hicks and neanderthals, even if some are so inquisitive as to end up at mises.org wondering what all this ‘liberty’ stuff is all about.
A remarkable percentage of the TP are people who have not even been politically involved AT ALL, outside of voting for the same party for which their parents voted, if that. If any of them end up here wanting to know more about Austrian economics or libertarianism, then count it as a blessing, a freaking miracle, frankly, and do everything you can to guide them to the Water mises.org provides.
I don’t think you’ve bothered to actually address or engage on a single one of the points in any of the posts of mine that you’ve responded to so far, but instead go off on an insulting, anarchist rant such as the one above. When someone cannot understand how a utopia could exist, maybe the best approach is NOT to compare them to Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot or place on them the blame for the deeds of those men.
Here’s what I think: You’re a bully and a jackass. You are, in at least one way, falling far short of a ‘libertarian’.
I’m sorry, Jaycephus, I didn’t know you were a sensitive student, I thought you were a political player. I hope you’re not a sensitive political player, you think this is rough…
The subject is the Tea Party. Sarah Palin IS the Tea Party. Hicks and neanderthals need to know their place in the world. Your masters have deliberately confused them, and Sarah, and you as to what that is. Here’s how the political world works, Jaycephus: there are the players and the played. You are the played and the players can only win when they fool enough of you into thinking you’re players.
Your place: mind your own business, don’t try to get in a game with the slicksters and never, never take candy from strangers.
Wow. What a shriveled little soul mpolkill has. I get it now. It’s all about being in the elite little philosophical club of the anarcho-libertarian, I guess, and absolutely nothing else.
“You there, quit trying to actually effect change! You sad, deluded fool. You’ve forever proven yourself unworthy to join our elite circle. Now scram and go back to your job of licking the boots of your masters, fool!”
Yeahhhh, I don’t think that’s what this site is all about. Though I’m pretty sure mpolzkill has probably turned off quite a few newbies. Good job, there, dude.
No, all are invited to mind their own business and not be fooled.
Your faith in your religion of the Demos is touching (truly, I feel sorry about the barren world you were thrown into), but it is a false religion and a snare. I suggest you give up politics and try a real religion.
If most of the members of this organization do not fully understand what I’m on about, the Mises Institute will be sucked up, just as Reason, Cato and Sarah Palin were.
It used to be that for Libertarians, the choice was between the Democrats, except that we disliked the fiscal policy and the Republicans where we disliked the social policy. Now we have a choice between the Democrats, where we oppose both the social and the fiscal policy and the Republicans where we also oppose both the social and the fiscal policy. At least with the Tea Party. half a loaf is better than no bread at all.
But it doesn’t reach a half a loaf, Walt. They have no principles (the majority of them). Bovard said it all: “If tea party activists cannot vigorously oppose torture and other high crimes, then counting on them to stalwartly resist any government policy that doesn’t mulct their paycheck is folly.”
- – - – - – - – -
Mr. Staib,
Thankyou, sir, and right on with your points.
“But it doesn’t reach a half a loaf, Walt.”
The Democrats, the Republicans and the Tea Party are all crap sandwiches. However, the Democrats and the Republicans definitely have no bread. So a vote for the Tea Party may be a “hold-your-nose vote” but it is a better choice than the other two.
https://sites.google.com/site/theamericandreammyth/
We don’t need your class warfare bull any more than we need Sarah Palin’s brand, thanks.
Libertarians, Misians, Free Marketeers need to interact with the Tea Party if we want to see this social movement reflect our understanding of liberty. I’ve been doing a bit of this, posting on the Tea Party ning.com social networking site, arguing for a more consistent freedom stance. For example, this posting that I put on both Campaign for Liberty and ning.com – http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34940. I don’t know where the Tea Party is going, but we need party with ‘em if we can! So hop onto ning.com and engage! http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profile/RalphFucetola.
That a “Tea Party” exists is a healthy sign that two-party tyranny may be coming to an end – the first of many steps in the right direction!?!
I’m always surprised, how much difficulties people have, with understanding the reasoning of others and why they end up with different opinions.
Here i think it can be shortly explained:
Teapartiers assume:
1. in war government is more efficient than private solutions.
1.1 you cant win wars without your hands getting dirty
2. never being aggressive or interfering with other nations will not ensure, that other nations will never be aggressive against oneself
2.1 helping Israel is a necessary interference, which overall reduces the risk for the US, because islamistic nut heads will only be emboldened, if Israel falls and go for the next bigger target.
3. Except for war, police and justice system government is more inefficient than private solutions
If i would assume this things to be true, i would favor a state, which doesn’t do much except policing and courts. When some enemy, who cannot be dealt otherwise with, appears, the state deals with him in whatever way necessary to discourage or destroy him – i think most teapartiers would love such a state.
As most here probably disagree with some or all of this assumptions (except for the last), they would dislike such a state. But i cannot understand, why it is so incomprehensible to understand the differences.
carn,
Please tell me the time anyone (other than the British) was aggressive towards D.C. and America first (If you are thinking Pearl Harbor or the WTC, think again). We have never been attacked unprovoked. It it ever happens I’ll be on your side.
A further explication of our differences (assuming you are a minarchist or “Tea Partier”): 1. your assumptions are just that, and wildly wrong. 2. Minarchism is Utopianism. 3. Your advocation of the State, en masse, has and will always lead us to where we are. 4. All Statists force their difference of opinion on us. Furthermore, leftists are absolutely correct to mock your hypocrisy and cluelessness (57% favorable opinion of W !??!!) and to inevitably redouble their own evil efforts in response to yours.
These differences are massive and irreconcilable, therefore well-informed libertarians reject the “Tea Party” along with all philosophies of coercion.
“Please tell me the time anyone (other than the British) was aggressive towards D.C. and America first (If you are thinking Pearl Harbor or the WTC, think again).”
Hitler? Or is the act of declaring war without actually launching an attack non aggression. What military action did the US take against Japan before Pearl Harbor? Were the Japanese the first neo-cons, launching a pre-emptive strike to protect against a US attempt to cut off their oil supply?
I heartily agree with the princples you out lined in the post. MAkes perfect sense to me.
History did not begin in 1933, or so. D.C. gangsters insanely attacked German gangsters in 1917 which directly lead to WWII (what should be called The Great War, Pt. II). Also, FDR was helping British gangsters in any way he could, that was aggression.
Your comment on Japan was supposed to be sarcastic I guess, but it was actually pretty close to the truth. Yes, Japan was imitating D.C. They wanted to do to China what D.C. had done to Latin America, and of course D.C. had aggressive plans and actions against that. They messed with Japan for over a decade before Pearl Harbor; their constant M.O., you’ll see it in their genocidal campaigns against the Aboriginal Americans. Always keep the pressure on, cause the hot heads to stay at or rise through to the top of the target’s ranks, get a pretext to wipe them out. Washington has never been in any trouble they didn’t go looking for.
“Washington has never been in any trouble they didn’t go looking for”.
I think you are close to the truth. You have better examples – WWI, where American involvement in a “Seinfeld War” led to victory for the allies instead of a stalemate. Also, Winston Churchill and the CIA overthrowing the socialist government in Iran and installing the Shah led to a lot of the trouble we are having now.
@mpolzkill
“Please tell me the time anyone (other than the British) was aggressive towards D.C. and America first (If you are thinking Pearl Harbor or the WTC, think again). We have never been attacked unprovoked. It it ever happens I’ll be on your side.”
I cannot show it for the US (mainly because it would be a very long discussion about the definition of “unprovoked”), but unprovoked attacks do happen. Most obvious example is Spaniards 15th century, the people living in south america did not know about the existence of spain and were technically unable to influence spain in any way.
Another possible example are muslim conquests in southern france and india in 7 and 8th century. In both cases they had little influence on the middle east, although from there the conquest was started.
India did probably do little to provoke Alexander the Great, nevertheless he attacked them or got so close with his force, that they felt the need to stop him.
The mongols very likely attacked someone, who didn’t provoke them, simply because they attacked anyone they could reach.
Some of the tribes attacking the roman empire 3-5 th century, were pushed by other tribes out of their homeland and then at least sought land near or inside roman borders, which ended in wars. It is not provocation, if A denies entry to B, who is left without land, because C attacked him. So some of these wars were wars without the initial provocateur.
But the requirement “unprovoked” is not very useful, because when there a tensions, which might lead to a war, the enemies will normally provoke each other in the time before the war, because they hope to intimidate the enemy and embolden their own people. But one cannot conclude from this, that the provocation is always a cause for the war, because in some cases it is just as the war an effect of the underlying tension, which leads both to provocation and war.
“A further explication of our differences (assuming you are a minarchist or “Tea Partier”):”
I’m living in Germany (50% of GDP officially controlled by state, more through regulations), hostility between people who argue for a state only consisting of military, police and justice system (about 15% of GDP) and people who want no state (obviously 0% of GDP) seems both amusing, sad and crazy to me. And if they dont even seem to understand the reasons for their differences it looks even more strange.
“1. your assumptions are just that, and wildly wrong”
How can you be certain about 1, 1.1 and 2?
“2. Minarchism is Utopianism.”
And anarchy isn’t?
But unlike anarchy, there have been for some periods stable near minarchist societies.
Hong Kong, US for some decades of its existence.
carn, You’re right, this is too big a subject, but as quick as I can:
All your examples are gangster on gangster. The great con-job of the modern era and *the* cause of the far greater modern wars is the ultra rich and the banksters with their hoods and court intellectuals fooling the masses of common men into thinking they have a stake in wars.
Your examples are mostly of the the bigger or the biggest gangs attacking or provoking (of course those “Roman borders” weren’t achieved without massive coercion). Back to D.C., there is nothing particularly evil about them other than their supplanting the London gang as the biggest one in the world.
Ignorance and unchecked desires leading to crime on a mass scale, that’s always the cause of war.
I have hostility against crime. To your percentages: every Statist just wants a slice, they all add up. You want your State for what you think you need, you get it; but all the non-Minarchists always end up with slices too. The chunk of stolen pie gets pretty big, doesn’t it?
What you’re assuming in 1, 1.1 & 2 is the inevitability of war. Yes, States are good at battling other States (here in America everyone is so proud that “our” State beat “your” even more evil and idiotic State in “The Good War”. Big deal, I says). But business is always booming (sorry) because they always supply their own demand.
No, anarchy is not Utopianism, it is the opposite. Utopianism = planned society. Anarchy is all around us, as is crime. Anarchy exists in every voluntatry transaction. We simply want more anarchy, less crime. We simply exhort all to abandon the political method.
Your examples are not and were not “Minarchies” (ask, if you could, an escaped slave sent back to his plantation master due to the Fugitive Slave Act).
We really don’t have a fight if Minarchists leave us alone. Tell you what, you go ahead and make Germany into a Minarchy and then I’ll beg you to let me immigrate to your Utopia. I won’t hold my breath.
Our irreconcilable difference: anarchists believe that all positive change in the world comes from working on one’s self, all evil comes from working on others or on coercive systems. This is not Utopianism, we are not “system men”.
Bovard’s hate-mail from a gaggle of our great allies:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard76.1.html
Note the uniform and absolute bifurcation of their worldview. Nothing good can ever come from such politically corrupted minds.
“All your examples are gangster on gangster.”
Everybody attacked by the mongols were gangsters?
All wars fought in colonialism were wars against gangsters?
Then such a large percentage of mankind are gangsters, that anarchy can never work.
About Rome the point was not, that Rome wasn’t coercive, but that they weren’t coercive towards some of the tribes they were attacked by. The Huns lived initially north of Caspian sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#History
Look at the map. The Romans never got there, they never coerced the Huns. Nonetheless the Huns started wars towards the west for unknown reasons most likely seem lust for plunder or food production problems. They conquer first some other tribes and then attacked he Romans.
Even if Rome had remained a peaceful anarchistic city and not turned into an empire and would have become even more rich(due to more freedom), the Huns in the end might have still attacked them, because the cause for the Hun aggression did not lie within what the Romans did or didn’t do. Therefore even absolute correct behavior cannot exclude being attacked.
“The chunk of stolen pie gets pretty big, doesn’t it?”
I know, that Minarchism might have the inevitable flaw, that the state always will grow. But a minarchy even for a few decades would be a blessing and better than the alternative.
In case you didn’t notice, even although West Germany was not a minarchy, East Germany still had to build a wall to stop a large percentage of its population to move towards west germany. East Germany would have run out of people to enslave.
For you they seem like the same bunch of criminals and in some sense you are right. But i care for the practical effect and if hundred thousands of people are in principle ready to move from one place to another and virtually no one moves the other direction, then i trust the individual decisions and conclude that one land has a much much preferable political system. And if i cannot get the perfect one, i settle with the preferable one and try to think how to improve it.
“What you’re assuming in 1, 1.1 & 2 is the inevitability of war.”
Only for 2, 1 and 1.1 are about how war itself should or should not be fought, which in itself contains no assumption about whether wars are inevitable.
“No, anarchy is not Utopianism, it is the opposite. Utopianism = planned society.”
I assumed the normal definition as found on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia
“Capitalist utopias of this sort are generally based on free market economies, in which the presupposition is that private enterprise and personal initiative without an institution of coercion, government, provides the greatest opportunity for achievement and progress of both the individual and society as a whole.”
And sorry, but isn’t a world without wars a unrealistic dream? There wasn’t a month in human history in which no war was fought somewhere.
“Ignorance and unchecked desires leading to crime on a mass scale, that’s always the cause of war.”
A single explanation of all wars looks questionable.
“anarchists believe that all positive change in the world comes from working on one’s self, all evil comes from working on others or on coercive systems.”
The assumption, that changing a coercive system (which is a subcategory of “working on coercive system”) always only can lead to evil is stupid.
Take north and south Korea, both coercive systems. In north they are starving, in south they can life quite nicely. You would call it an act of evil if someone changes the coercive system of the north into a copy of the south one?
The linked reactions show quite nicely, how often people misunderstand the reasoning and motives of people with differing opinions. They see a commie, although there is none. In the other direction the watchers see statists as evil as any out there.
Oh, I didn’t see the Mongol part. That’s not war, which was the subject. All governments are Mongols, some more, some less wise in how they acquire and husband their livestock. This is the oldest shell game in the book and you are truly employing slave logic here suggesting that one master is preferable to another.
Of course anyone, no matter their behavior, can be attacked by criminals (a strawman of yours, unconscious, I believe), my only point is, don’t join a band of them because you think they are less evil criminals. And never as a citizen believe you have any more influence on them than a cow does over his farmer. When these “Tea Partiers” moo, the Repub gangsters are attentive exactly as a farmer is.
I just don’t have the time or ability to surmount your Statist indoctrination. Stupid? North Korea is a perfect example of what I’m failing to describe to you. North Korea didn’t come into existence because all the silly and evil Koreans decided to move north in the ’40s and try some new experiments in governing. North Korea wouldn’t exist today except for the insane policies of Washington (and without British and American meddling, China wouldn’t have been in the state it was in to do its part in creating that abortion ). Same thing with East Germany and the Soviet Union before that. Bah.
On anarchy and Utopianism, Kinsella describes it best: according to your logic, those who oppose murder are Utopian fools because there never has been and never will be a time without murder. You’re just not going to get it with the language you speak (though your standard English is great; this always shames me, being a typical monolingual American, haha).
Every action has a reaction. How many “Tea Partiers” realize that the clown in the White House they hate so much wouldn’t even be there if not for the clown (the incredibly evil clown) 57% of them still amazingly approve of? They see a commie in Bovard, I just see woeful ingnoramuses in them (behold the products of the American State “education” system. Any concept of democracy breaks down with such rampant imbecility, which was the plan from the start). I see boneheads in Vegas, or at the gas station playing lotto. That is what “Democracy” is exactly like; what the invitation to the great mass of simpletons is. They’re promised the chance of great gain, but the house always wins, the house knows the angles, and the house doesn’t exist without all the marks.
“The linked reactions show quite nicely, how often people misunderstand the reasoning and motives of people with differing opinions. They see a commie, although there is none. In the other direction the watchers see statists as evil as any out there.”
carn,
Whose descriptions were closer to reality? Bovard’s of the majority of “Tea Partiers”, or the “Tea Partiers” of Bovard?
Did you not see blatantly totalitarian impulses and worse in many of those postings? They are so clueless in their rage that they went and proved every one of Bovard’s points.
in the literature section, benson writes about customary law that flourished in the absence of state, and which lasted over time.
neither anarchism nor minarchism can avoid conflict, but when the state has been responsible for more deaths of its own citizens in the twentieth century alone, why would anyone have faith in it as a violence mitigation structure?
given both minarchism and anarchism face long odds, why settle for the former’s logical contradictions?
“Oh, I didn’t see the Mongol part. That’s not war, which was the subject.”
As always definition is a key issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
“The primary feature of this behavior pattern is a certain state of organized violent conflict that is engaged in between two or more separate social entities.”
According to this criteria, the mongols did wage war.
“you are truly employing slave logic here suggesting that one master is preferable to another.”
And?
Agreed, it is not salvation from evil, but i think there were some arguments, that salvation for man by man is impossible.
Therefore i settle for the possible and see it positive if a system like in north kroea or east germany (which btw was a lot less bad, than north korea is) is replaced with south korea or west german system and hope that in more places a system like hongkongs will be realized.
“Of course anyone, no matter their behavior, can be attacked by criminals (a strawman of yours, unconscious, I believe), my only point is, don’t join a band of them because you think they are less evil criminals.”
Above you criticized my position 2, now you seem to say, that it is a strawman, which nobody actually denied. Can wars be completely avoided by not making foreign policy mistakes?
(Having an institution, that is able to pursue a foreign policy could of course be also a foreign policy mistake.)
“North Korea is a perfect example of what I’m failing to describe to you. North Korea didn’t come into existence because all the silly and evil Koreans decided to move north in the ’40s and try some new experiments in governing. North Korea wouldn’t exist today except for the insane policies of Washington (and without British and American meddling, China wouldn’t have been in the state it was in to do its part in creating that abortion ). Same thing with East Germany and the Soviet Union before that. Bah.”
That looks like hubris, the fate of people thousands of miles away is not solely determined by what Washington does or does not do. If there was a foreign influence for establishing the Soviet Union it was primarily Germany helping Lenin to get into Russia and funding him to weaken Russia from the inside. And Germany did that only because US had an active neutrality aiding France and Britain?
Without that Germany would not have done that?
And without German help there would not have been a communistic revolution in Russia?
We cannot know that for sure. So you just have the opinion, that all that evil would not have happened without Washington. Other have other opinions and therefore different conclusions.
“Every action has a reaction.”
No. (At least if you mean it in the sense, that it is often used, that every coercion causes a counteraction meant to stop the coercion.)
German and Japanese reaction towards US leveling their cities was in the end “Please save us from Soviets, good friends.” (This does not say anything about the morality of the US action, it only shows, that some actions do not have counteraction.)
“That is what “Democracy” is exactly like;”
I did not say i think democracy is great.
I just think that one cannot avoid having a state or something similar, because war cannot be always avoided and a state has a “virtue” important for war – its good at killing people.
“Whose descriptions were closer to reality? Bovard’s of the majority of “Tea Partiers”, or the “Tea Partiers” of Bovard?”
Bovard is less of, though both are far of. But i do not see, why that should be important. In German discussion forums people often associate me with Nazis, in part because i think its not comforting, that some mobs (and a good chunk of politicians applaud them) in effort to stop the next Hitler have to riot, pillage, incinerate cars and break bones of some policemen (this weekend again in Berlin, last year count were at least 400 injured policemen and 1 innocent bystander with 3rd degree burns). Obviously the real Nazis also argue, that those mobs are criminals, who should be stopped, which somehow causes many people to think, that i sympathize with the Nazis.
Such “you use an argument/tactic/policy, which X uses, therefore you are as bad as X” is unfortunately a common mistake.
About the murder always happens, its a misleading statement, as murder is illegal killing in violation of someones rights.
My position could be more described by:
Those who oppose violence are Utopian fools because there never has been and never will be a time without violence and some violence can only be ended with violence. War is just organized violence and stopping organized violence by unorganized defensive violence does not seem a good idea, so some state is unavoidable.
@newson:
“neither anarchism nor minarchism can avoid conflict, but when the state has been responsible for more deaths of its own citizens in the twentieth century alone, why would anyone have faith in it as a violence mitigation structure?”
No faith, i just notice, that there are states, that murder their own people less than others. If a state cannot be avoided, it should be one, which murders less.
“given both minarchism and anarchism face long odds, why settle for the former’s logical contradictions?”
As i said, i see practical contradictions for anarchy. If the “mongols” come, they will kill anyone who opposes them including their children and the rest will bow to their will and the anarchy is done.
And the odds are not that long. East Germany was finished, because everybody knew, that live in the west was better. If there are countries with vastly differing degree of freedom migration patterns will in the long run either bankrupt the less free states or force them to change. I am just thinking of Singapore, which in the midst of this “terrible market failure” faces the “problem” of low unemployment and therefore increasing wages and possibly increasing inflation.
On the other hand, since Greek is going bankrupt a lot of those “we want a better world, lets have more state” idiots in Germany are at least admitting, that a retirement age of 55 is not a grand idea.
Therefore i like the tea party, they might not be consistent or advocating a state, that cares about Geneva conventions, but at least they want a state, that is different from what we have in Europe and if they succeed in some way and the differences persist long enough even people here might realize, that less state could be a good idea. (Our foreign secretary was some months ago termed right wing – one step before Nazi – because he voiced the cruel and insane idea, that the state should not pay too people without work so much money, that they no longer feel poor compared to people who have work.)
If the state does everywhere the same, mankind is doomed to end in socialism.
You are one slippery character, haha.
If Mongols move into a city, or the FBI surrounds a church, only one side is truly organized for battle. Not war.
I just can’t explain this. Each country isn’t some isolated system playing itself out on some sort of Platonic field. You are intoxicated by ideology (though I’m sure you’ll have a clever rebuttal to that, hehe). There isn’t some North Korean model that looks like North Korea that millions of nuts are following. North Korea exists *exactly* as it does in major *part* because of the massive pressures exerted from powerful Chinese and American nuts (*among others*).
“Hubris” because I was born in North America? The U.S. war machine is an idiotic, lumbering colossus. Of course there are a billion other causes for the Soviet Union’s birth, but among the very large ones were British and American banksters duping the lunatic Wilson into joining the first episode of the Great War. The war *most* probably would have ended in a draw otherwise. Beyond that, the U.S. bribed the Czar to stay in the fool exercise. *Then* U.S. troops invaded Russia and tried to help the Whites until 1920. Insanity! (And beyond *that*, everything German gangsters did outside Germany was an attempt to compete with the British Empire.)
I didn’t say every action has a perfectly known or an exactly opposite reaction. You mean the Germans and Japanese said, “please save us from your allies”; and thus was the birth of a brand new game. Stalin was the only real victor in “The Good War”, thanks *in the greatest part* to the two stooges at Yalta.
War can almost aways be avoided save for millions of suckers and sophists. You are the problem (en masse).
How was Bovard way off? Almost none of you righty rank and file are Nazis, you are dupes (and those posting troglodytes, frighteningly corrupted ones). Nothing but death and corruption comes from “systems”; everything positive comes from family, faith and work. What you call the American or West German “systems” are in actuality legalistic fleecing operations. It is the traditions and natures of the gangsters victims’ which cause the wealth and natural human structures. It is the varying characters and strengths of peoples which causes the varying natures and strengths of the fleecing operations.
Reject systems and the thugs and sophists that peddle them. If even half the people of the world would figure that out the Mongol days would be over.
“You are one slippery character, haha.”
And you are impolite.
“If Mongols move into a city, or the FBI surrounds a church, only one side is truly organized for battle. Not war.”
What definition of war do you have?
The mongols did both fight armies thousands of kilometers away from their homeland (cannot be the reaction to some action) and took cities without resistance and integrated them into their empire. If what the mongols did, was no war, then what is war?
“Each country isn’t some isolated system playing itself out on some sort of Platonic field.”
Nonetheless different political systems exist in different countries.
“North Korea exists *exactly* as it does in major *part* because of the massive pressures exerted from powerful Chinese and American nuts”
Whatever caused the North Korean system to evolve, is only of limited relevance to the question, in what North and South Korean systems differ and what effects this has upon the living conditions.
““Hubris” because I was born in North America?”
No, Hubris because you implied, that all that crimes that were committed by Nazis and Commis would not have happened if Washington had not been so dumb to interfere. If US would truly been isolationist, the Soviet Empire might have still been founded and Germany might have still lost WW1 and might still have suffered from an idiotic peace treaty.
“War can almost aways be avoided save for millions of suckers and sophists. You are the problem (en masse).”
Now i am responsible for all wars?
You know, i perfectly understand, how tea party people could mistake someone like you for a lefty. When i listen to their explanations about wars and other suffering in the world, it always also ends with the conclusion that i am partly responsible because of my mindset.
But you conceded, that war can almost always be avoided, which means, that sometimes it cannot be avoided. In case you do not know, practically every successful military action since the dawn of mankind was achieved with a command structure, that was hierarchical, tyrannical and controlled by a small group – a kind of state. Since everybody resorts to such structures in war, it is likely, that it is an efficient structure for war, because otherwise someone sooner or later would have find a more efficient structure and everybody would have copied it.
How can an anarchic society avoid using such a structure in war?
If they cannot avoid this, they are not truly anarchic, as at least while the structure exists, it will be sort of a government.
“What you call the American or West German “systems” are in actuality legalistic fleecing operations.”
You cannot understand it?
I do not think those legalistic fleecing operations can be avoided. Therefore the task boils done to make them less harmful.
What is inconceivable about this reasoning?
“It is the traditions and natures of the gangsters victims’ which cause the wealth and natural human structures. It is the varying characters and strengths of peoples which causes the varying natures and strengths of the fleecing operations.”
Wrong. While the characters and strengths of peoples are important, the system has effects as well.
West and east Germans were nearly identical 45 and still the economic development was very different. The explanation for this have to lie in the system and in external political factors (Soviets and US used their power over Germany differently) .
“If even half the people of the world would figure that out the Mongol days would be over.”
Again a delusion i normally see on the left.
You think governments are all thugs?
Ok, who do you think is best qualified to explain, what governments enables to continue their theft?
Maybe the thugs themselves know best, what they need to prevail?
Then lets listen to the greatest thug of all:
“Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
You do not need a majority to rob anyone. At most you need a majority among weapon wielders. And considering, that outnumbered forces can win as well, you can even try with a minority to take on the rest.
While convincing half the world, that a lot less or no state at all is good, it would not ensure the end of wars.
Barely more impolite than you. You opened it up:
“The assumption, that changing a coercive system always only can lead to evil is stupid.”
And I am always amused to hear advocates of violent coercion complain about impolite speech.
You have completely gone off the rails; what leftists believe that the only things people need are family, faith and work? They have their bogeymen, just as you have yours. Identify the bogeymen and you identify the brand of Statist.
This has grown tiresome, I won’t repeat myself again and again and yet again. You are the hopeless result of a thorough State indoctrination. Let those interested and not so lost see how narrow your view is, where you’ve misunderstood and misinterpreted throughout this discussion. Goodbye.
to carn:
“the myth of national defense” goes far in rebutting most of the objections you raise. both history and theory are used to illustrate that it is not a given that the state is the optimal vehicle for defending civilian populations.
http://mises.org/books/defensemyth.pdf
I will say one (I hope) other thing about West and East Germany (I can’t tell if you’re sometimes very obtuse or very dishonest. For instance, why do you think I made a point of adding “en masse” when I said that you’re the problem? Why do you ignore it?): this is a very special case. Germany was decimated, or worse. (the women of the East far worse, courtesy of “our” gallant allies). The effects of rebuilding under the domination of Soviets vs. Corporatists would be very pronounced after nearly being knocked back to the Stone Age.
@newson
As far as i understood, the argument boils down to “guerrilla is effective vs armies”. That is true only, if such armies have compunctions about picking a city where resistance is strong and slaughter every human being there.
I know, such tactics are currently political risky, but they are for most only risky, because such behavior would give excuse for the US to attack the offending nation. Which in my eyes makes this safety concept rely upon US remaining a military super power, which is contrary to the whole idea of anarchy.
@mpolzkill
While i am not a complete fan of Kant, his idea, that ones behavior should be such, that the world is not doomed if many copy it has something. So if i am en masse a problem for world peace, i am a problem.
About west Germany, as far as i know, the economic system was at first influenced by ordoliberals, wiki names some peole like Ecuekn and Hayek. Ok, for you probably also statist, but between them and today economic mainstream is a lot of space. With today economic regulations i am highly skeptical, that west germany would have recovered visibly faster than east germany.
I can’t believe anyone buys the guerrilla warfare argument. It’s a completely falacious one. You would think the American Indian experience would settle it.
In modern times, you must also factor in the support for guerilla warfare that got placed in the Geneva conventions, which of course would be readily ignored by a Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.
Can anyone provide a true guerilla warfare success in modern times that didn’t have massive STATE support, such as $1B in aide, including 500~2000 $150K-a-piece Stingers for the almost-defeated mujahideen?
I have to say, I find the anarchy arguments in this thread completely ineffective.
Is ‘libertarian’ now supposed to be synonymous with ‘anarchist’?
As we find your reactionary arguments completely ineffective.
In the 20th century your model (there is no way to restrain a State’s unwanted growth, contra minarchist Utopianism) accounted for at least 100 million individuals being murdered by their own governments while today your government has us completely by the short and curlies as it senselessly massacres innocents abroad, provoking millions of potential nuts to attack us suicidally. Nice protection.
The monsters you are frightened of are created by your “protectors”.
Would you actually address my post, or at least something in the thread above, intsead of going into an anarchist epileptic seizure? ‘K? THX!
I’m on topic, you are either ignorant or deliberately trying to narrow the spectrum to an “either/or”: State army protection vs. guerrilla army protection. Neither is protection and that’s my only point here.
What’s “anarchistic” about the facts I clearly laid out?
You failed to address anything I actually said, and made an absolutely moronic statement, equating my views, of which you know literally nothing about, to the death of 100 million people. That’s an epic fail.
BTW, given that anarchy appears to always lead invariably to the establishment of a state, it should be clear that, ultimately, anarchy is to blame for the 100 million deaths in the 20th century.
That was the dumbest thing I’ve heard in some time, congrats. In what way does minding ones own business lead to creating a gang to claim a monopoly of violence over a given area?
Got to go, can’t wait to see what you’ll come up with next.
Just using your own ‘logic’, buddy. I know I use the term ‘logic’ very loosely in your case.
Here, try some more logic.
When a group of people, minding their own business, PERMIT a gang to take over their area or run their life, then it follows that they support the gang, OR that your brand of libertarianism is something like a unicorn. A faciful beast that, if it ever existed, is now extinct forevermore. If on the other hand, those people organize to oppose the gang, then they’ve almost certainly become the ‘statist pigs’ you despise, or will in time.
Are you kidding? This is really too silly. If they willingly permitted that, they aren’t anarchists, they’re born slaves or statists. And no one has to organize anything, there just can’t be too many slaves and statists for liberty to flourish. We try to educate you, but we don’t have the same kind of resources as your masters.
You don’t have a grasp of what anarchy is, so you should really stop using the word as a pejorative. Anarchy is in every transaction where coercion isn’t used. Anarchy (voluntary interactions) surrounds us, is the reason we still limp along, and *only* in the mind of the reactionary is it imagined that it can not occur without a policeman’s cudgel threatening both parties.
At the risk of offending your democratic/egalitarian sensiblities I suggest that before speaking about libertarianism you better familiarize yourself with libertarian literature (that goes for you too, Russ, if you’re reading). La Boetie’s discourse on voluntary servitude is crucial, and this might help you out of the dark:
http://www.panarchy.org/spencer/ignore.state.1851.html
Or don’t study and keep typing and foolishly attacking, and keep getting ridiculed, it’s up to you. Bullying! What a laugh.
@ mpolzkill
“The linked reactions show quite nicely, how often people misunderstand the reasoning and motives of people with differing opinions. They see a commie, although there is none. In the other direction the watchers see statists as evil as any out there.” – carn
I’m pretty sure that carn was not referring to Bovard, as you mistakenly presume (something you are really good at), but about you specifically.
Likewise, you have repeatedly assumed, incorrectly, that I am your direct opposite, that I support Palin, that I approve of GWB’s performance, and so on. After more than a dozen replies, this last one is the FIRST post in which you’ve attempted to make a substantial effort to address any point in my post, and not just resorted to a mere attack against an ‘evil statist dupe’. Although you still can’t resist making the same unfounded attack here, you did finally reply with something resembling an argument.
“If they willingly permitted that, they aren’t anarchists, they’re born slaves or statists.”
Yes, that was what I was implying, or in other words, that was the point I was making.
“And no one has to organize anything, there just can’t be too many slaves and statists for liberty to flourish.”
Logically, unassailable. Of course, there are in fact plenty of ‘slaves’ and plenty of gangs. Big ones. Small ones. And they’re not going away any time in the next few centuries. If one of the big ones collapse, plenty of smaller ones arise and start fighting to take its place. So given that they exist, and that they appear to be a function of human nature when you get right down to it, I think that, logic notwithstanding, the sentence above is complete bunk.
So, while I am completely familiar with the concept of anarchy, I just don’t see it as a viable state of existence. Like a soap bubble, if it ever comes into existence on it’s own in nature, it’s rare, and it doesn’t last long, and for it to last for even the briefest of moments, it requires shelter from the elements.
Your own words spell it out: “there just can’t be too many slaves and statists.”
Yep.
Good luck with that.
Jay
1. This is not a formal debate, or courtesy class
2. “Evil statist dupe” ? That makes no sense (and you assume a fair amount yourself). Evil-*doing* statist dupe, like the Wikileaks video murderers, but not *as* blood-soaked.
3. I don’t know how much you personally support the sad woman who embodies the group you’re trumpeting. A majority of said group explicitly does, and that says a lot about them.
4. Fear is not an *over-ruling* function of human nature. Fear does not have to be ascendant, as it seems to be today. And if it must always be ascendant with homo sapien sapiens, nothing precludes me from describing a better state of being or urging others towards that.
About east germany, when the reunification was done, there was a lot of talk about a possible new “wirtschaftswunder” in the east.
But people of course missed, that the conditions, which caused the “wunder” in the firt place had long since been changed and that the new conditions of massive social welfare allowed only a rather sluggish growth in the east.
I have to give the Tea Partiers a pass. I mean, literally. Have you ever tried talking with one, and reasoning with one? I understand reasoning is not encouraged, and that’s why I have to give them a pass. It’s like arguing with a wrong-answer automaton, and I’d rather not.
At least they are protesting something, even if they don’t quite know what it is.
For a good laugh, check out this Tea Party article…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-16/infiltrating-the-tea-party/
Carn wrote:
“In case you do not know, practically every successful military action since the dawn of mankind was achieved with a command structure, that was hierarchical, tyrannical and controlled by a small group – a kind of state. Since everybody resorts to such structures in war, it is likely, that it is an efficient structure for war, because otherwise someone sooner or later would have find a more efficient structure and everybody would have copied it.
How can an anarchic society avoid using such a structure in war?
If they cannot avoid this, they are not truly anarchic, as at least while the structure exists, it will be sort of a government.”
Why does such a structure require a state?
Why can’t a private defense firm adopt such a structure?
In a free society, most people would have some kind of ‘invasion insurance’. They would contract with their defense agency to protect them if such a scenario unfolded.
It would not “be sort of a government” because people have voluntarily paid for the service.
Comments on this entry are closed.