| |
11/20/08
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
October
23, 2006 Bringing our fellow Americans to a greater understanding of the evils of a government-dominated society and the virtues of a free society has always been difficult and frustrating work. It's no wonder that Albert Jay Nock likened it to Isaiah's job. People are easily misled by promises of government salvation, especially when they are consumed by fear for their physical safety or their economic security. Making matters even more difficult is the state's co-optation of a large number of people who have discovered that in the United States the rise of Big Brother offers enormous opportunities for personal enrichment – fascism's greatest advantage over socialism. The potential for making off with such loot has long been appreciated in connection with the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC), and recent years have witnessed another great bonanza there. Between the fiscal years 2001 and 2006, Department of Defense (DoD) outlays, excluding payments to military personnel, increased from $217 billion to $366 billion, or by 69 percent (49 percent after the DoD's generous allowance for inflation). Nearly all of this money finds its way into the pockets of the owners, employees, and suppliers of military-contracting companies. We are not likely to win many converts to the cause of liberty in this crowd. (Read the rest here - click back button to return to The Price of Liberty)
Complaint #1: Using "libertarian" to mean "anarchist" or where one should use anarcho-capitalist is confusing (as in confusion with those who smashed windows at the WTO gathering in Seattle, WA a few years ago). I defined market anarchism in three separate articles, culminating with the piece in question. However, I do not actually worry that a libertarian (in the purest sense) and an anarcho-capitalist are all that different anyway. It seems to me that a lot of people want to call themselves libertarians when they really are not. I, like Anthony Gregory, am a proponent of libertarian purity. I favor what Walter Block would refer to as "plumb line libertarianism," i.e., not conservative or liberal, but based directly upon the non-aggression axiom, and all it conveys. It is high time for people to stop trying to water down libertarianism so that the mainstream might better accept it. Further, and at the risk of seeming condescending, it is simply ignorant and/or naïve to think that the quasi-famous vandals in Seattle were legitimate examples of anarchists or that they exemplify what would happen if the government ceased to exist. It is disingenuous to imply so. I will address this "warlords-will-take-over" objection further below. There are, for anyone who is interested, many places from which one can obtain further information regarding the definitions of phrases such as Market Anarchism. A list, although certainly not exhaustive would include: * A
definition of Anarcho-Capitalism from Wikipedia; For my purposes, I think this definition from Stefan Molyneux’s "Market Anarchism: Are You Guys Crazy or Just Nuts" is as good as any. He defines Market Anarchism as: "…
a broad term referring to the theory that voluntary free market relationships
can – and should – replace all existing coercive state relationships.
It is derived from taking the principle of the non-initiation of force
to its ultimate conclusion, and accepting that if using violence is wrong
for one person, then it is wrong for every person. If stealing is wrong
for me as a private citizen, then it is also wrong for everyone –
including those in the ‘government’." (Read the rest here - click back button to return to The Price of Liberty) |
Trial
By Jury In Danger Of Extinction Afghanistan:
Time for Truth
| ||||||||||||||
|
Submit
Feedback
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
