For Minarchists and Classical Liberals the leap from Small Government to No Government can be a leap too far. They like what we have — that is, Government — but want less of it. They justify the coercion of taxation as being utilitarian and what must be paid to have a fair and safe society. Minarchists like Democracy. They may even support Conscription in some circumstances.
Anarcho-Capitalists essentially take the ethical position, believing that Taxation is Theft at any level, and that Government Coercion (in any form) is Slavery. AC’s take the moral and ethical position in regard to Self Ownership, that a person owns his life and the justly acquired products of that life, and that no individual or group has the right to infringe on that life, that Self Ownership. AC’s typically distrust Democracy as being just another form of coercion — but by The Majority.
In essence Minarchists take the Utilitarian road, while Anarchists take the Ethical and Moral road.
Anarchism does not stand for chaos, as many would believe; it stands for a world without rulers — not without rules — that allows for each individual to formulate voluntary contracts with other willing parties. …
As anarcho-capitalists, we’re also voluntaryists, meaning that anyone in our stateless society can form a commune if they decide, so long as they don’t impede on our preference for capitalism. …
The two most basic tendencies of human nature match up perfectly with anarchism. If people are good, there’s no reason to have rulers govern them. If people are bad, there’s no reason to risk putting one of them in the position of absolute power to invade foreign countries.
And, let’s face it, when it comes to most things, we’re living under a dictatorship. Don’t pretend as if you’ve ever gotten to vote for a foreign policy measurement. Unless you count voting for the Libya-bombing, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama as a functioning democracy.
The government is not a conspiracy. It’s not a ploy to take over the world. It’s a simple pattern of thought that the world can be controlled by some centrally-planned, manual mechanism.
It ends in slavery and hunger and death — always has, always will. The continuity of elections is our fashionable way of slowly but surely committing suicide.
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent… The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (via statehate)
She doesn’t understand the consequences of her actions.
She has no real responsibilities.
She sometimes throws temper tantrums when she doesn’t get exactly what she wants.
She’s into baby animals and finger painting.
She’s driven by her feelings.
She’s bad at math and logic.
At least she’ll grow out of it. I mean, she already understands that “sharing” doesn’t mean taking something that belongs to someone else.
I might have another reason!
She’s a she and thus probably a uterus bearer and therefore probably not likely to be lovin’ up on libertarians (since they can’t seem to decide if they’re anti- or pro-choice) or republicans (since they’re decidedly misogynistic) because they don’t value her worth as a person worthy of making her own decisions about her own body?
Just a thought.
That interesting, cuz that sounds like republicans, not democrats, emphasis on the bad at logic and driven by feelings (aka misinformation) part.
If she was in the habit of starting fights, sticking her tongue out at our South American gardener, and telling her friends to “Just Say No” to juice-boxes, then I may have thought she was a Republican.
“Every human being who is not devoid of feeling and common sense is inclined to Anarchism. Every one who suffers from wrong and injustice, from the evil, corruption, and filth of our present-day life, is instinctively sympathetic to Anarchy. Every one whose heart is not dead to kindness, compassion, and fellow-sympathy must be interested in furthering it. Every one who has to endure poverty and misery, tyranny and oppression should welcome the coming of Anarchy. Every liberty and justice-loving man and woman should help realize it.”—Alexander Berkman
“Democratic politics relies on deception. Without deception of the voters on a comprehensive scale, there could be no politics above the local level, where people know the deceivers personally and are therefore less easy to fool.”—Gary North
“Any fool can and will live DOWN to the standards of socialism. Our challenge is to inspire people to live UP to the far loftier requirements of liberty. The question every human being needs to ask of himself is this: ‘Am I worthy of living in freedom or am I just another loser with lousy character who can’t keep his h…ands off other people’s lives and pocketbooks?”—Lawrence Reed (via jessarmentrout)
“As Americans have come to accept the notion that the government must take from one group in order to “help” another, lest you be a selfish-greedy- ne’er-do-well, it evinces a purposeful design to alter the very essence of right and wrong whereby literal theft is passively accepted as “coerced-compassion.” Moreover, it changes how we view ourselves, by disconnecting our very tangible labors and what we receive in exchange for them, i.e. wages as our personal property and replaces it with a nationalistic indentured servitude whereby our work is for the benefit of the state first and our families or selves second. Thus, should a man come to your home, threaten you with violence at gunpoint, rob you of your possessions, and on his way out the door decide to let you keep a pittance of what he stole, you should smile, and thank him for the generous “tax cut”.”—Statism: The Acceptance of Theft by Government Proxy Erodes Liberty | Public Transcripts (via combattant-de-la-liberte)
Free trade can be fair, but agreements that open some markets to powerful producers where they can use their market power, while keeping others closed and uncompetitive, are neither free nor fair. The little guy (the consumer, the small producer, the poor farmer, the developing country) gets hurt.
When nobody has special treatment and the field is truly level, then free and fair will mean the same thing. Competition may be tough on the level playing field, but political power and legal leverage tilt it further. Free trade is fair trade when it is truly free.
Beware of cheap imitations.
Free trade is fair trade when it is truly free.
what the fuck are you talking about? the entire point of free trade is for large firms from more developed nations to swoop into more primitive markets and force out smaller local producers with the lower prices they can afford because of economies of scale. and it isnt as though free trade is instituted and then some local elite stops ‘playing fair’ and misuses it to enrich himself. The corruption is instrumental to getting free trade established in the first place when that local elite receives favors in the form of development loans or whatever. once its in place no one has to break the rules in order for people to be displaced and impoverished its the whole point of the system. and dont say that just because some specific company or whatever has acted in good faith at some point or another then the entire system is fair. capital in the aggregate is completely amoral and any economic system that ignores that is bound to lead to incredible inequality. you fuckin noob.
So, in other words, you are concerned that poor people in “less developed nations” will have access to a wider variety of goods and services at cheaper prices? And that established businesses will provide employment and inject wealth into a “developing” area?
“I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. … [T]he president has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country … unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that– but I would lead an effort to impeach him.”—Joe Biden, 2007
“Why don’t we say what’s on the mind of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should have been impeached.”—Rep Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio (via bushranger)
Governments love to interfere and get involved in people’s lives. They find ways to make themselves “needed”. Governments regulate and seek to control to bring about an end they deem to be desirable, or at least politically and electorally popular. Promises of hand-outs, regulations, subsidies, Commissions, and Authorities, buy votes. They use other people’s money to favour their chosen groups and constituents.
They never work, these Commissions, Authorities, subsidies and regulations. The Unintended Consequences outweigh and negate any benefits that the intervention may bring. But the Commissions, Authorities, new government departments, armies of bureaucrats, even though they never succeed in accomplishing their goals, never go away. They fail, but they don’t disappear. In fact, failure is very important to a government program. If a government program succeeded in its goal, if it achieved its end, it could be dissolved because it had “succeeded”. But then all these bureaucrats and officials would be out of a job! So it is important that all government programs fail. The failure gets blamed on “insufficient funding”, “inadequate resources”, “lack of power and authority”. And thus more funding, a bigger budget, some new regulations are sought; the bureau or department can thus grow, employ more bureaucrats, become more important and, of course, get higher salaries.
Thus, you see, it is important that Government Does Not Work. Government will never work. Government must fail. Then it will grow and prosper, at the expense of course of everyone else. Government will grow, taxes will increase, the private sector will shrink under the burden, “Market Failure” will get the blame and the system will grind itself into stagnation.
“The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power… it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself;’ it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.”—Murray Rothbard
In response to a scandal involving fabricated and unconstitutional drug searches by plainclothes San Francisco police officers, Golden Gate University law professor Peter Keane explains “Why Cops Lie”:
Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.
Keane, a former San Francisco police commissioner, cites three reasons for this state of affairs: unsympathetic suspects, judges who bend over backward to admit evidence except when the signs of falsification (such as the surveillance footage feeding the current scandal) are impossible to ignore, and the incentives created by the war on drugs:
It is simply additional collateral damage from using the American criminal justice system as the battlefield of that war. It stands alongside the wasteful wreckage of hundreds of thousands of imprisoned Americans locked up for drug use, and the destruction of Mexico as a functioning state because of criminal cartels enriched through outlawed American drug use. The corruption of America’s police officers as the most identifiable group of perjurers in the courts is one more item on that list.
The video, shot with a hand-held camera, shows brawny Miami police officers breaking down doors and hauling handcuffed African-American suspects off some of the city’s toughest streets. “We hunt,” one officer says in the five-and-a-half-minute clip. “I like to hunt.”
But it was not a source of embarrassment for Miami’s police chief, Miguel A. Exposito. The video was part of a reality television pilot, “Miami’s Finest SOS,” a project with the enthusiastic backing of Chief Exposito. “Our guys were proactively going out there, like predators,” he says during his cameo in the video, which surfaced online in January.
A few weeks later, a Miami police officer shot and killed a black man during a traffic stop at North Miami Avenue and 75th Street in the Little Haiti neighborhood. The man, Travis McNeil, 28, was unarmed and never left the driver’s seat of his rental car when he was shot once in the chest, members of his family said.
Mr. McNeil was the seventh African-American man to be shot and killed by Miami police officers in eight months. …
Community leaders also expressed outrage that a 12-year veteran of the city’s gang unit, Ricardo Martinez, shot and killed two men within nine days last August. Officer Martinez returned to his job six days after fatally shooting one man, then shot and killed another three days later. Before the shootings, he was under investigation for allegedly selling seized phones.
About 100 antiwar protesters, including Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame, were arrested Saturday outside the White House in demonstrations marking the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. It’s a far cry from the Bush years, when hundreds of thousands or millions marched against the war, and the New York Times declared “world public opinion” against the war a second superpower. Will President Obama‘s military incursion in a third Muslim country revive the antiwar movement?
On a street corner in Washington, D.C., outside the Cato Institute, there’s a metal box that controls traffic signals. During the Bush years there was hardly a day that it didn’t sport a poster advertising an antiwar march or simply denouncing President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. But the marches and the posters seemed to stop on election day 2008
Maybe antiwar organizers assumed that they had elected the man who would stop the war. After all, Barack Obama rose to power on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. But after two years in the White House he has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars….
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that antiwar activity in the United States and around the world was driven as much by antipathy to George W. Bush as by actual opposition to war and intervention.
I just heard Rand Paul say on CNN that he can’t think of any situation in which he would approve of military intervention to stop a genocide… That is an embarrassment to humanity.
So then you would condone the following:
Government: “Oh no. Those people over there are in trouble!”
[Looks around. Points guns at own citizens.]
Government: “You! Give me money to fight those bad guys. And you! You’re young. Here’s a uniform, go beat their asses. If you die, just think what an honor it was to serve your country!”
Government: “OK. If you refuse, I will take your money anyway and throw you in a rape-cage away from your loved ones. Now do my bidding, slave.”
The more ethical and efficient method to help those in need is to allow people to choose to do so freely. It’s not charity if it’s coerced. Plus, when people use their own money, there is more accountability that the money is used as intended. Further, there’s typically an inverse relationship between how much a country extracts from its citizens and how privately charitable they are.
“Congress should debate a declaration of war over intervening in Libya. But the White House has not sought even the type of congressional authorization for the use of force that President George W. Bush did before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be ironic to say the least if Mr. Obama waged war with less legal backing than his predecessor.”—Washington Times (via evilteabagger)
So, are we broke-broke, or just screwed-broke? Call it what you want, but pretending that the mismatch between government revenues and government expenditures at every level isn’t a major issue is delusional. Or that the past decade’s massive growth in spending didn’t happen. Or that we simply can’t return to early levels of government expenditures without being reduced to living in Hoovervilles and wearing pickle barrels for clothing.
Is it possible to both oppose Gaddafi and oppose a war on Gaddafi? Absolutely. This is a position that all Americans should adopt. In the same way, it is possible to oppose the Obama administration but also oppose having a foreign army oust him in order to liberate us.
In the early days of the protests in Libya against Gaddafi, the protesters held up signs opposing any foreign intervention. This is still the right approach. There should be no war, no blockades, no impositions of a “no-fly zone,” or anything else. The US has been a supporter and backer of Gaddafi for a decade. That damage is already done. Going to war would only compound it.
For the sake of freedom and human rights, we must say no to war. We must also say no to all forms of foreign intervention that support dictatorships until they become too politically embarrassing to Washington, D.C.