[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: More Than a Libertarian
Source: International Man
URL Source: http://www.internationalman.com/art ... ey-on-anarchy-and-voluntaryism
Published: Dec 22, 2017
Author: Doug Casey
Post Date: 2017-12-23 12:08:28 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 980
Comments: 29

You’re likely aware that I’m a libertarian. But I’m actually more than a libertarian. I don’t believe in the right of the State to exist. The reason is that anything that has a monopoly of force is extremely dangerous. As Mao Tse-tung, lately one of the world’s leading experts on government, said: “The power of the state comes out of a barrel of a gun.”

There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other, either voluntarily or coercively. And the State is pure institutionalized coercion. It’s not just unnecessary, but antithetical, for a civilized society. And that’s increasingly true as technology advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible, in oxcart days, for bureaucrats to order things around. Today it’s ridiculous.

Everything that needs doing can and will be done by the market, by entrepreneurs who fill the needs of other people for a profit. The State is a dead hand that imposes itself on society. That belief makes me, of course, an anarchist.

People have a misconception about anarchists. That they’re these violent people, running around in black capes with little round bombs. This is nonsense. Of course there are violent anarchists. There are violent dentists. There are violent Christians. Violence, however, has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is simply a belief that a ruler isn’t necessary, that society organizes itself, that individuals own themselves, and the State is actually counterproductive.

It’s always been a battle between the individual and the collective. I’m on the side of the individual.

I simply don’t believe anyone has a right to initiate aggression against anyone else. Is that an unreasonable belief?

Let me put it this way. Since government is institutionalized coercion—a very dangerous thing—it should do nothing but protect people in its bailiwick from physical coercion.

What does that imply? It implies a police force to protect you from coercion within its boundaries, an army to protect you from coercion from outsiders, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to coercion.

I could live happily with a government that did just those things. Unfortunately the US Government is only marginally competent in providing services in those three areas. Instead, it tries to do everything else.

The argument can be made that the largest criminal entity today is not some Colombian cocaine gang, it’s the US Government. And they’re far more dangerous. They have a legal monopoly to do anything they want with you. Don’t conflate the government with America—it’s a separate entity, with its own interests, as distinct as General Motors or the Mafia. I’d rather deal with the Mafia than I would with any agency of the US Government.

Even under the worst circumstances, even if the Mafia controlled the United States, I can’t believe Tony Soprano or Al Capone would try to steal 40% of people’s income from them every year. They couldn’t get away with it. But—perhaps because we’re said to be a democracy—the US Government is able to masquerade as “We the People.” That’s an anachronism, at best. The US has mutated into a domestic multicultural empire. The average person has been propagandized into believing that it’s patriotic to do as he’s told. “We have to obey libraries of regulations, and I’m happy to pay my taxes. It’s the price we pay for civilization.” No, that’s just the opposite of the fact. Those things are a sign that civilization is degrading, that the society is becoming less individually responsible, and has to be held together by force.

It’s all about control. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The type of people that gravitate to government like to control other people. Contrary to what we’re told to think, that’s why you get the worst people—not the best—who want to get into government.

What about voting? Can that change and improve things? Unlikely. I can give you five reasons why you should not vote in an election (see this article). See if you agree.

Hark back to the ’60s when they said, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?” But let’s take it further: Suppose they gave a tax and nobody paid? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted? What that would do is delegitimize government. I applaud the fact that only half of Americans vote. If that number dropped to 25%, 10%, then 0%, perhaps everybody would look around and say, “Wait a minute, none of us believe in this evil charade. I don’t like Tweedledee from the left wing of the Demopublican Party any more than I like Tweedledum from its right wing…”

Remember you don’t get the best and the brightest going into government. There are two kinds of people. You’ve got people that like to control physical reality—things. And people that like to control other people. That second group, those who like to lord it over their fellows, are drawn to government and politics.

Some might ask: “Aren’t you loyal to America?” and “How can you say these terrible things?” My response is, “Of course I’m loyal to America, but America is an idea, it’s not a place. At least not any longer…”

America was once unique among the world’s countries. Unfortunately that’s no longer the case. The idea is still unique, but the country no longer is.

I’ll go further than that. It’s said that you’re supposed to be loyal to your fellow Americans. Well, here’s a revelation. I have less in common with my average fellow American than I do with friends of mine in the Congo, or Argentina, or China. The reason is that I share values with my friends; we look at the world the same way, have the same worldview. But what do I have in common with my fellow Americans who live in the trailer parks, barrios, and ghettos? Or even Hollywood, Washington, and Manhattan? Everyone has to be judged as an individual, but probably very little besides residing in the same political jurisdiction. Most of them—about 50% of the US—are welfare recipients, and therefore an active threat. So I have more personal loyalty to the guys in the Congo than I do to most of my fellow Americans. The fact we carry US passports is simply an accident of birth.

Those who find that thought offensive likely suffer from a psychological aberration called “nationalism”; in serious cases it may become “jingoism.” The authorities and the general public prefer to call it “patriotism.” It’s understandable, though. Everyone, including the North Koreans, tends to identify with the place they were born. But these things should be fairly low on any list of virtues. Nationalism is the belief that my country is the best country in the world just because I happen to have been born there. It’s most virulent during wars and elections. And it’s very scary. It’s like watching a bunch of chimpanzees hooting and panting at another tribe of chimpanzees across the watering hole. I have no interest in being a part of the charade—although that’s dangerous.

And getting more dangerous as the State grows more powerful. The growth of the State is actually destroying society. Over the last 100 years the State has grown at an exponential rate, and it’s the enemy of the individual. I see no reason why this trend, which has been in motion and accelerating for so long, is going to stop. And certainly no reason why it’s going to reverse.

It’s like a giant snowball that’s been rolling downhill from the top of the mountain. It could have been stopped early in its descent, but now the thing is a behemoth. If you stand in its way you’ll get crushed. It will stop only when it smashes the village at the bottom of the valley.

This makes me quite pessimistic about the future of freedom in the US. As I said, it’s been in a downtrend for many decades. But the events of September 11, 2001, turbocharged the acceleration of the loss of liberty in the US. At some point either foreign or domestic enemies will cause another 9/11, either real or imagined. It’s predictable; that’s what sociopaths, which I discussed earlier, do.

When there is another 9/11—and we will have another one—they’re going to lock down this country like one of their numerous new prisons. I was afraid that the shooting deaths and injuries of several hundred people in Las Vegas on October 1st might be it. But, strangely, the news cycle has driven on, leaving scores of serious unanswered questions in its wake. And about zero public concern.

It’s going to become very unpleasant in the US at some point soon. It seems to me the inevitable is becoming imminent.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

The growth of the State is actually destroying society.

And what will open borders do, Mr. Libertarian? Legalized drugs, gambling, prostitution and porn? Laws limited only to that behavior which harms others?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-23   14:13:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#1)

And what will open borders do, Mr. Libertarian?

Although I can't speak for Deckard, I don't believe Deckard is a "Libertarian." He is a "libertarian." The distinction is important to understand.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-23   14:19:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: buckeroo (#2)

The distinction is important to understand.

Oh I understand the distinction, all right. It allows him to claim to be a Libertarian, but gives him the wiggle room to deny certain aspects of it.

That's like claiming to be a small "r" republican because you favor abortion, high taxes, a pathway to citizenship, bigger government and a smaller military. Other than that, you're a true-blue Republican.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-23   14:29:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#3)

Oh I understand the distinction, all right.

No you don't.

It allows him to claim to be a Libertarian, but gives him the wiggle room to deny certain aspects of it.

Not true. The lower case "l" is a philosophy of life whereas the upper case "L" is a political party. The two are not mutually co-existing at all.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-23   14:40:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: buckeroo (#4)

The lower case "l" is a philosophy of life whereas the upper case "L" is a political party.

Next you'll be telling me that it's merely a coincidence that the Libertarian political party platform is identical to the lower case "l" philosophy of life.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-23   17:57:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#5)

Absolutely not! They share the same political concepts and direction as your Republican/Democratic party. It is all about power and authority. All of them have little concern about Laissez Faire, as an example, in fact they all ignore such a position.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-23   18:06:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: buckeroo (#6)

Then tell me how the Libertarian political party platform differs from the lower case "l" libertarian philosophy of life.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-23   18:16:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite, buckeroo (#5) (Edited)

Libertarian political party platform is identical to the lower case "l" philosophy of life

Many GOP politicians become Libertarian Party candidates, Bob Barr, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul ('88).

Many Libertarian Party politicians switch to become Republicans for purely political reasons, Ron Paul, Austin Petersen, Augustus Sol Invictus...

2016 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Austin Petersen, switches to Republican US Senate candidate.

Libertarian Party IS different from libertarian philosophy, which many Republicans share,

Hondo68  posted on  2017-12-23   18:28:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: hondo68 (#8)

Libertarian Party IS different from libertarian philosophy,

Ah, someone who knows! Then please, tell us the differences between the Libertarian political party platform and the lower case "l" libertarian philosophy.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-23   18:33:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#7)

Then tell me how the Libertarian political party platform differs from the lower case "l" libertarian philosophy of life.

For any action to take effect, they require consensus. Its the good ol' Marxist way that the Republican/Democratic Party taught them.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-23   19:01:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: misterwhite, small l libertarians MAGA (#9)

tell us the differences

The Libertarian Party is not willing to battle the mainstream GOP globalist leftists in hand to hand combat in smokey back rooms, caucuses and conventions, even if it takes running as a Republican to do so.

The Libertarian Party are chickenshit puzzays, but small l libertarians will get in your face and tell you that you suck!

P.S. YOU SUCK!

Hondo68  posted on  2017-12-23   19:20:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: buckeroo (#10)

For any action to take effect, they require consensus.

So all 323 million Americans must agree on a course of action, otherwise nothing is done. Got it.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-24   10:45:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: hondo68 (#11)

but small l libertarians will get in your face and tell you that you suck!

Yeah, and that's all they do. They can't even tell me how the Libertarian political party platform differs from the lower case "l" libertarian philosophy of life.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-24   10:47:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite (#12)

So all 323 million Americans must agree on a course of action, otherwise nothing is done. Got it.

Not at all. You are presenting some form of Utopia in misterwhite's limp wristed lingoe. It has nothing to do with reality.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-24   10:49:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: buckeroo (#14)

It has nothing to do with reality.

Libertarianism has nothing to do with reality if they expect to govern by consensus. Stupidest thing I ever heard of.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-24   11:04:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwhite (#15)

Nowhere in any libertarian's lexicon is a word: consensus. The concept is a horror story depriving us of our individual dignity, rights, liberties and freedoms.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-24   11:10:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: buckeroo (#16)

Nowhere in any libertarian's lexicon is a word: consensus.

You brought it up in your post #10.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-24   11:16:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: misterwhite (#17)

You don't understand the libertarian spirit. There is no forceful government requirement to steal our money and create false promises.

The principles are fairly simple to understand.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-24   11:24:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: buckeroo (#18)

You don't understand the libertarian spirit.

Not if it relies on getting a consensus.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-24   11:28:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: misterwhite (#19)

The concept of a "consensus" was originally a Marxist idea and later approved by your US Republican/Democratic Party.

Consensus is not apparent in most libertarian's lexicon other than to shy away from; why?; as you do not know who forms the consensus to begin with.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-24   11:37:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: buckeroo (#20)

as you do not know who forms the consensus to begin with.

Sure you do. By definition, a consensus is everyone. If you have a consensus, everyone agrees.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-24   12:04:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: misterwhite (#21)

Not within political circles that shape national polices and procedures that determine your personal capabilities that include liberty, freedoms and rights. Consensus within American politics is just a pile of elected assholes by an ignorant electorate that regard themselves as GODS; they are invincible from the restraints of the US Constitution.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-24   12:15:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: buckeroo (#22)

Consensus within American politics is just a pile of elected assholes by an ignorant electorate that regard themselves as GODS

No, that's called a representative republic. The people deserve who they elect.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-26   10:27:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: misterwhite (#23)

No, it is called a "democracy." A true representative government based on the US Constitution has been long wiped out by ignorant folks like you.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-26   11:00:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: buckeroo (#24)

A true democracy is majority rule. We have a representative republic.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-26   11:16:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: misterwhite (#25)

A true democracy is majority rule.

What do you think the USA is all about, dumbfuck. Case in point, the 17th Amendment: Established the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. This was one of the worst travesties ever perpetrated on the USA.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-26   11:26:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: buckeroo (#26)

Established the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote.

And those Senators vote on issues, not the people.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-26   11:41:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: misterwhite (#27)

Take Roy Moore as a contemporaneous example of the federal government trampling states' rights as a result of "popular elections." Mitch McConnell stated he would censure Moore, if he was elected.

As for your comment:

And those Senators vote on issues ...

is silly at best.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-12-26   11:47:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: misterwhite, buckeroo, Y'ALL (#7)

misterwhite, --- tell me how the Libertarian political party platform differs from the lower case "l" libertarian philosophy of life.

A libertarian philosophy of life: --- "Libertarians are diligently plotting to take over the world, (in order) to leave you alone".

Libertarian political party platform: --- "Libertarians are diligently plotting to take over the world, (in order) to leave EVERYONE alone".

tpaine  posted on  2017-12-26   12:35:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com