What is your political philosophy?

[Lazarus]

Please answer the poll question above FIRST!

Then. please take the survey at the following site, and tell us all whether the results you received matched your self-identification expressed in your answer to the poll!

http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml

If you take the survey first, then report its results here, then you are allowing a machine to run your life and make your decisions for you. Were you surprised by the results you got at the site?

If you wish, you may identify your political philosophy.

I am a Centrist. I come at that point of view from a Libertarian ideology.

Your thoughts?

If you would like to discuss any of the issues in the quiz, then I will offer my point of view (justify my answers).

Dammitt!

I voted that I was a libertarian but the survey said I was a right-conservative.

But the little red dot was only one square away from libertarian.

Good thread LAZ. It was fun.

[Lazarus]

Dammitt!

I voted that I was a libertarian but the survey said I was a right-conservative.

But the little red dot was only one square away from libertarian.

Good thread LAZ. It was fun.


I think it may be a way to introduce ourselves. I am a registered Democrat, but a Republican-spy. ;)

[fellingus]

100/100 libertarian, although no longer "big L" Libertarian.

[fellingus]

Also, no longer registered to vote and not planning to register again (it's not an oversight).

[Lazarus]

100/100 libertarian, although no longer "big L" Libertarian.


So. it would be perfectly alright with you, say, if 600,000,000 Chinese moved into America along with 400,000,000 Asian Indians? ???

[fellingus]

Short answer: yes, you bet.

Long answer:

What do you mean by "America"?

I don't recognize the self-declared authority of any "government", any more than I recognize the self-declared turf of any other type of criminal gang. My property is mine and mine alone, and I have the right to invite whoever I want on it. The same goes for my neighbor.

To say otherwise is to say that my property, while nominally mine, is not fully under my control. That's the dictionary definition of fascism.

As a practical matter, while it would be greatly beneficial if 1,000,000,000 Asians moved to North America (see Julian Simon's work), it won't happen. Relatively few people have the initiative to leave behind their friends, neighbors, jobs and extended family to move 10,000 miles away to a place with a different culture and different language. The ones that do are to be admired.

As for me, I'm moving out, but only across the artificial border between Texas and Mexico; I'll still be in Aztlan.
So it won't be a big move.

[Lazarus]

Short answer: yes, you bet.

Long answer:

What do you mean by "America"?

I don't recognize the self-declared authority of any "government", any more than I recognize the self-declared turf of any other type of criminal gang. My property is mine and mine alone, and I have the right to invite whoever I want on it. The same goes for my neighbor.

To say otherwise is to say that my property, while nominally mine, is not fully under my control. That's the dictionary definition of fascism.

As a practical matter, while it would be greatly beneficial if 1,000,000,000 Asians moved to North America (see Julian Simon's work), it won't happen. Relatively few people have the initiative to leave behind their friends, neighbors, jobs and extended family to move 10,000 miles away to a place with a different culture and different language. The ones that do are to be admired.

As for me, I'm moving out, but only across the artificial border between Texas and Mexico; I'll still be in Aztlan.
So it won't be a big move.


==>Well, as long as you are leaving, then it is not really any of your concern, is it? ;D My thinking is perhaps from a slightly different perspective, and it is that if so massive an influx of people were to come to America, then the government would doubtless fall into the hands of people with a decidedly UN-libertarian ideology. Indeed, these folks would be primarily socialists, and would use the power of the government to redistribute the wealth of the people who are the present "owners" to those who newly arrived.

Basically, there would not be a blessed thing that might be doe to stop the redistribution of wealth. So, while I might agree that in an IDEAL world, a world without borders is desirable, I am not so ideologically blind that I fail to recognize some of the more serious consequemces if an "open borders" policy--and that point is ever so more underlined by the infiltration of America by people who intend to terrorize the people here. Your views on immigration policy lack the requisite pragmatism that would enable the American culture to survive and to thrive while accepting as many or more immigrants than any other country in the world.

Indeed, it is on just such issues where I recoil from the consequences of ilibertarian deological purity. That being said, I must point out for the record that I am married to an Asian immigrant. Thus, I am not opposed to ALL immigration, but "open borders"? Ha, yeah, that'll work--NOT! ::)

[fellingus]

The threat of one type of government repression is not an excuse for another type of government repression. State socialism does not excuse fascism, and vice versa.
The answer to any problem arising from government is to get rid of government. And I don't think most immigrants would be socialist, nor do I think nearly as many would want to be in North America as you think.

As for terrorism - if your government was not out there practicing imperialism, it wouldn't be facing terrorism. They ain't attacking the Swiss. Yet another problem created by government. Just get rid of it.

Oh yes, government is still my concern....just because I'm moving from the territory that is for the moment claimed by the Gambinos to one that is presently claimed by the Luccheses does not mean I stop caring about the abuses perpetrated by the mob. Same with the "US" and "Mexico".

[Lazarus]

The threat of one type of government repression is not an excuse for another type of government repression. State socialism does not excuse fascism, and vice versa.
The answer to any problem arising from government is to get rid of government. And I don't think most immigrants would be socialist, nor do I think nearly as many would want to be in North America as you think.

As for terrorism - if your government was not out there practicing imperialism, it wouldn't be facing terrorism. They ain't attacking the Swiss. Yet another problem created by government. Just get rid of it.

Oh yes, government is still my concern....just because I'm moving from the territory that is for the moment claimed by the Gambinos to one that is presently claimed by the Luccheses does not mean I stop caring about the abuses perpetrated by the mob. Same with the "US" and "Mexico".


Well, first I question your assumption that protecting the borders (National Sovereignty) and defending this country from invasion by a horde of humanity is "repression". Convince me that exluding most people from immigrating here is "repression".

The answer to any problem arising from government is to get rid of government.

==>Another anarchist? ::) Sorry, deal with reality.

"The answer to any problem arising from government is to get rid of government. And I don't think most immigrants would be socialist, nor do I think nearly as many would want to be in North America as you think."

==>But the premiss of my question was what IF they wanted to come and did come, not just from Asia but from everywhere, trampling down and chewing up everything in their wake like a plague of locusts. Saying that the premiss is flawed does not relieve you of explaining how this country, this nation, this people would maintain its heritage of freedom and limited government. Confronted with a poor mass of humanity and a rich economic minority, the result is either the Fremch Revolution of the Boshevik Revolution. What could not be won on a field of battle would taken away within a generation away through the ballot box.

"As for terrorism - if your government was not out there practicing imperialism, it wouldn't be facing terrorism. They ain't attacking the Swiss. Yet another problem created by government. Just get rid of it."

==>Oh, a blame America first for the terrorist attacks upon it member, eh? Gee, felingus, your credibility is declining rapidly. First, America's government should be eliminated (like all governments), and America's government is responsible for the yerror attacks made upon the American people, right? ::) What do you do for an enchore? I mean yours is one tough act to follow for its ideological purism, er, I mean pukism. And your solution is the overthrow of the U.S. government?

"Oh yes, government is still my concern....just because I'm moving from the territory that is for the moment claimed by the Gambinos to one that is presently claimed by the Luccheses does not mean I stop caring about the abuses perpetrated by the mob. Same with the "US" and "Mexico". "


==>So you liken the U.S. Government to one of the "five families" of the Mafia. Interesting take on it. While I do agree that in many respects the government has grown too large and too intrusive, it is still better than 99% of the rest of the governments of this world. And your idea of some utopia of complete anarchy is borderline delusional. Everyone would be enslaved to mobsters that are far worse than the present governments, IMHO.

You are entitled to your views, but I would venture that the folks in Mexico would be less tolerant of your views than the folks in America. Take care--and don't let the gate hit you in the arse on the way out. :)

[backlash]

I took the test and scored Right Conservative, which didn't surprise me. According to the breakdown, I'm in a 7.2% minority out of 1.6 million respondents, which did. These results seem to indicate the majority of the country is libertarian. As libertarians are all borderline anarchists, I doubt if very many Americans would support their platform. To eliminate government in the face of our enemies would be insane.

[truelies]

Definitions from smallest political quiz ever-


Political Philosophies
Libertarian
Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity.

Left-Liberal
Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.

Centrist
Centrist favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty.

Conservative
Right-conservatives prefer self-government on economic issues, but want official standards in personal matters. They want the government to defend the community from threats to its moral fiber.

Authoritarian
Authoritarians want government to advance society and individuals through expert central planning. They often doubt whether self-government is practical. Left-authoritarians are also called socialists, while fascists are right-authoritarians.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dang where do those of us who are more of a Populist slant fit in. The Quiz says I am a right conservative.

I think also that the Quiz ignores the very large group of people whose political views are flavored by Race/Gender politics.

[Satan]

I'm 100% libertarian (small "l") philosophically. But I do understand that reality makes 2 of my answers on this quiz seem utopian.

It would be nice to think that if we were invaded by hostile forces, every man would take up arms to defend us without question or hesitation. It ain't gonna happen, at least for any extended period of war. The draft may well become a necessity in such times, and to decide during peaceful times that it should be abolished is foolish.

In a perfect world, I'd also like to see open borders. I'd like to have the freedom to move about the world, and so I hardly feel that I should disallow others the same freedom. Of course in a perfect world, everyone would take on the responsibility of supporting themselves. There's a reason we lock the doors to our houses at night. Not to keep out our friends, but to keep out those who would steal from us or do us harm. It's ridiculous that the US is so often characterized as The Snob of Nations just because we don't invite beggars and vagrants to sleep in our living room.

[Julia]

Exactly as expected:

"According to your answers, your political philosophy is on the border of libertarian and left-liberal."

Here's another good political compass, but it's a little longer:
The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)

I score a little differently every time I take it, but I am always in the lower/left quadrant. Today I scored:

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.59

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper poltical analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftiist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

[truelies]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.50
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 7.08

Right in there with Margaret Thacher.

[Jethro Tull]

Both quizzes betray biases. The posted one is an LP site, which is designed to lure people to their party. The bias of the politcal compass site is evident in the phrasing of a number of questions from a leftist perspective, and their placing of Thatcher as near to Hitler on their scale, and Jack Straw as to the right of center.

The LP site rated my conservative positions as 70/80 libertarian. I wasn't surprised. Nor was I surprised by the 5.62/0.62 ratings by the compass.

That the LP site places me so close in philosophy to fellingus, who is an avowed anarchist (at least for this week), shows that the quiz is designed to lead people to believe that their beliefs, no matter what they are, are compatible with LP. Perhaps a good strategy for party-building, but not for truth-in-labeling!

Laz ~ You correctly point out fallacies in the anarchist blatherings of felli, but why not just be blunt about it: If he got his wish for an anarchic "society," he would likely be shot as a troublemaker by someone's private army in short order.

[Satan]

Julia, I couldn't get the page you linked to load. Is this the same test?

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=1

I'm still a slightly right-leaning libertarian.

Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.10

I'm probably a little more libertarian than that, on the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale (and maybe even a bit more to the right on economic issues), but a lot of the questions were as heavily loaded as "Do you still beat your wife?".

[Satan]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.50
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 7.08

Right in there with Margaret Thacher.


And, oddly enough, Adolf Hitler. ;D

[Slipped Mickey]

I am a Libertarian. I vote for whoever I think will act more libertarian in office than not. In the last election I voted Libertarian, Republican, Democrat and Independent.

I might add that I am sick and damned tired of paritisan politics. With the exception of one or two talk show hosts and a hand full of callers all you hear is how bad the other party is and what the other party did wrong. No one including Rush Limbaugh talks about AMERICA and what's good for AMERICA anymore. I fucking hate partisan politics. :-*

I like Harry Browne and I like Ron Paul.

[Julia]

Julia, I couldn't get the page you linked to load. Is this the same test?

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=1

That's the same one.


...but a lot of the questions were as heavily loaded as "Do you still beat your wife?".


I agree many of the questions are somewhat slanted. I think it's kind of cool, though, 'cause it gives a broader perspective than just left vs right, liberal vs conservative.

[Lazarus]

I'm 100% libertarian (small "l") philosophically. But I do understand that reality makes 2 of my answers on this quiz seem utopian.

It would be nice to think that if we were invaded by hostile forces, every man would take up arms to defend us without question or hesitation. It ain't gonna happen, at least for any extended period of war. The draft may well become a necessity in such times, and to decide during peaceful times that it should be abolished is foolish.

In a perfect world, I'd also like to see open borders. I'd like to have the freedom to move about the world, and so I hardly feel that I should disallow others the same freedom. Of course in a perfect world, everyone would take on the responsibility of supporting themselves. There's a reason we lock the doors to our houses at night. Not to keep out our friends, but to keep out those who would steal from us or do us harm. It's ridiculous that the US is so often characterized as The Snob of Nations just because we don't invite beggars and vagrants to sleep in our living room.



It is exceptions just like those you mention that drive me into the "centrist" camp.

"Ideally, I would like...BUT in reality, the consequence of that would mean our downfall."

To every rule there is an exception, and when it comes to foreign policy and issues that span borders, you may count me as a Nationalist. ;D

[sodaknomad]

I'm a Conservative, and both of the polls proved it. On the second poll mentioned, I was +0.97 Authoritarian-Libertatian--+3.88 Left Right.

[Lazarus]

Exactly as expected:

"According to your answers, your political philosophy is on the border of libertarian and left-liberal."

Here's another good political compass, but it's a little longer:
The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)

I score a little differently every time I take it, but I am always in the lower/left quadrant. Today I scored:

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.59

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper poltical analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftiist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)


==>My results:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.62
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.00


That is I am on the Libertarian side of the divide socially, and on the right side of the divide economically. BUT, if one were to inscribe a a central circle in that chart with a radius of just "3" squares, my response would be in the bull'e eye. I am a Centrist.

[Lazarus]

Both quizzes betray biases. The posted one is an LP site, which is designed to lure people to their party. The bias of the politcal compass site is evident in the phrasing of a number of questions from a leftist perspective, and their placing of Thatcher as near to Hitler on their scale, and Jack Straw as to the right of center.

The LP site rated my conservative positions as 70/80 libertarian. I wasn't surprised. Nor was I surprised by the 5.62/0.62 ratings by the compass.

That the LP site places me so close in philosophy to fellingus, who is an avowed anarchist (at least for this week), shows that the quiz is designed to lead people to believe that their beliefs, no matter what they are, are compatible with LP. Perhaps a good strategy for party-building, but not for truth-in-labeling!

Laz ~ You correctly point out fallacies in the anarchist blatherings of felli, but why not just be blunt about it: If he got his wish for an anarchic "society," he would likely be shot as a troublemaker by someone's private army in short order.


Right you are. But why shoot him when he can be enslaved and made to work? ???

[wendy]

I'm not really crazy about the ambiguous questions on either quiz but The Political Compass has some really slanted questions:

A government must give its citizens as much social freedom as possible.

This question PRESUMES that freedom is GIVEN by government instead of protected by government.

I can't even answer that quiz because I disagree with the premise of so many of the questions.

[sodaknomad]

You might be right, Wendy. Some of the questions, especially on the social issues were misleading.

[Poppa Bear]

I did both of the tests and they seem to be telling me that I am a barbarian or something like that. I think that I was discriminated against! >:(

[sodaknomad]

Barbarian, PoppaBear? Or are you just a Tennesseean... ;D

[fellingus]

http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~schwartb/justinposter1flat72.jpg


Lazarus) Well, first I question your assumption that protecting the borders (National Sovereignty) and defending this country from invasion by a horde of humanity is "repression". Convince me that exluding most people from immigrating here is "repression".

Fellingus) First of all...I don't care what you are convinced of. You are the one who thinks TIPS and Total Information Awareness and the rest of it is "constitutional" and justified, so it's pretty clear that you are severely delusional and way beyond help. As for your "country"...I don't give a shit about that either. It's just some turf that is claimed by a
gang which is no more legitimate than if the Crips claim my neighborhood. Neither they, nor the so called US gov't has any right to tell me who I can or can't have on my property.

To say otherwise is to claim that I don't really own what's mine.

But I do. The Crips don't, the mafia doesn't, and the USSA regime doesn't.

None of them mhave ANY right to tell me what I can or can't do on my own land, whatever they may claim.

L==>Another anarchist? : Sorry, deal with reality.

Fellingus) DUH, we've been over that before. Sorry, you deal with it.

L==>But the premiss of my question was what IF they wanted to come and did come, not just from Asia but from everywhere, trampling down and chewing up everything in their wake like a plague of locusts.

Fellingus) Your sentence lacks logical or grammatical cohesion.

Your statement is contravened by evidence. Before WWI immigration was almost completely open ; and no such imagined "trampling and chewing" took place. In fact, immigrants made the North American economy expand quickly. And that is still the case, to the extent that immigration is allowed.

L) Saying that the premiss is flawed does not relieve you of explaining how this country, this nation, this people would maintain its heritage of freedom and limited government.

Fellingus) It's too late for that.

Your government is not limited, and nothing will help you at this point except to get rid of it root and branch.


L) Confronted with a poor mass of humanity and a rich economic minority, the result is either the Fremch Revolution of the Boshevik Revolution. What could not be won on a field of battle would taken away within a generation away through the ballot box.

Fellingus) It already has been and you are too blind to see it. They've snowed you but good.

What you fail too see is that freedom can't be preserved by repression. When you expand one part of government, such as the INS, other parts expand too. Whenever you give government the power to do the things you want, you also give it the power to do things you do not want. It's like feeding an animal; you can't grow just one part while shrinking the rest.

So, "conservatives" are tricked into supporting expansion of certain parts of government in order to maintain economic freedom, while "liberals" are tricked into supporting expansion of other parts of government to preserve social freedom and civil liberties.

Neither works; the inevitable end result of all such compromises is a government expanding on all fronts, and that's just what you have.

So, your freedom is already gone, not that you ever had it to begin with. And you're not even going to have the illusion of the ballot box for even close to a generation - not that it would matter, since it's been nothing but a sorry assed scam. You'll be better off with the certain knowledge that you live under a dictatorship, which you will have soon.

A few more manufactured national crises, two years - no more.

L+ > Oh, a blame America first for the terrorist attacks upon it member, eh?

Fellingus) Of course. Terrorism is the inevitable result of imperialism.
And further repression and imperialism is the result of terrorism.
You're caught in a vicious cycle, sort of like a turd that is being flushed.
You're headed for the sewer, and you have about two years before the centrifugal force
is to strong to escape. I'm making my way out now, and as for you -
listen to me now, believe me later.

L+ > First, America's government should be eliminated (like all governments), and America's government is responsible for the yerror attacks made upon the American people, right?
Fellingus) Right.


L+ > What do you do for an enchore? I mean yours is one tough act to follow for its ideological purism, er, I mean pukism.

Fellingus) At this point, vomiting out the toxic ideas infecting your mind may be your
best hope.

For an encore, I will pull a rabbit out of my hat.


L+> And your solution is the overthrow of the U.S. government?

Fellingus) You sure are quick on the uptake.
How many times do I have to repeat myself?


L+> So you liken the U.S. Government to one of the "five families" of the Mafia.


Fellingus) Yes, except much worse.

L+ > Interesting take on it. While I do agree that in many respects the government has grown too large and too intrusive, it is still better than 99% of the rest of the governments of this world.

Fellingus) I disagree. I think it's the worst one of them all.


L+> And your idea of some utopia of complete anarchy is borderline delusional.


Fellingus) You are the one who is delusional, and I don't believe in utopias.

L+> Everyone would be enslaved to mobsters that are far worse than the present governments, IMHO.

Fellingus) That's why everyone has one. But on the other hand governments killed 200 million of their own "subjects" in the last 100 years, and that's not counting wars. Mobsters haven't racked up nearly that body count. And as for your regime....it was created out of genocide of the Indians and mass chattel slavery of millions of blacks, and quite likely also genocide in the middle passage. It commited genocide in Japan and ethnic roundups of Japanese-Americans during WW2, within the lifetime of people who are still alive today.
It has supported dictators and terrorists all over the world, including today's bogeymen - Hussein and Bin Laden - who were both put in their position by the CIA. It has imported tons of cocaine while at the same time putting millions in the prisons for "drugs". And that's just the tip of the barrel. And this is the organization you want to trust to protect your freedom? Good luck.

L+ > You are entitled to your views, but I would venture that the folks in Mexico would be less tolerant of your views than the folks in America.

Fellingus) You would venture incorrectly. I travel to Mexico all the time, and the only time
I ever get hassled is when I cross north across the Rio Grande.


L+> Take care--and don't let the gate hit you in the arse on the way out.

Fellingus) I always take care, and don't let the gate hit you and lock you in.

Backlash) These results seem to indicate the majority of the country is libertarian.

Fellingus) Only of the people who take the test online, which is a self-selecting
sample of a subpopulation that is more libertarian on average than people who are not
online or don't explore political matters when they are.

B) As libertarians are all borderline anarchists, I doubt if very many Americans would support their platform.

Fellingus) Not all libertarians are even close to being anarchists; certainly not those that
score, say, 70-70, which is "libertarian" by the definition of the test.


B) To eliminate government in the face of our enemies would be insane.


Fellingus) Government is your biggest enemy, and not to eliminate it is insane.

Truelies) Dang where do those of us who are more of a Populist slant fit in. The Quiz says I am a right conservative.

I think also that the Quiz ignores the very large group of people whose political views are flavored by Race/Gender politics.

Fellingus) Generally "populists" tend to be authoritarian, as are those whose political views are flavored by Race/Gender politics. They may be right authoritarian or left
aurhoritarian, or towards the authoritarian end of right or left.

Sky -- do you really think in the event of an actual invasion you would need a military draft? The only times when a draft has ever been needed is during times of unpopular foreign adventures. It's also called slavery, which is presumably what you want to stave off an invasion to avoid.

JT - If you think the LP quiz leads everyone to score libertarian, try giving it to your congressman.

"That the LP site places me so close in philosophy to fellingus, who is an avowed anarchist (at least for this week),"

When have I ever indicated anything different? As for our alleged closeness, that's only when compared to the universe of views out there; even a 100/100 isn't necessarily an anarchist, so the test is just a broad indicator.


"Laz ~ You correctly point out fallacies in the anarchist blatherings of felli,"

He has done no such thing.


" but why not just be blunt about it: If he got his wish for an anarchic "society," he would likely be shot as a troublemaker by someone's private army in short order."

You're completely wrong, although you lack the level of intelligence that would make explaining it a worthwhile pursuit.

L+> Right you are. But why shoot him when he can be enslaved and made to work?

Fellingus) Right you are. One of those fates awaits you as reward for being lackey
boys for the Bush World Order.

Wendy) This question PRESUMES that freedom is GIVEN by government instead of protected by government.

I can't even answer that quiz because I disagree with the premise of so many of the questions.

Fellingus) Bullseye!

Anyway, enough of this foe now....


Politics never solves any problems, and political discussions probably don't either.

Have fun in Koncentration Kamp Amerikkka, I'll be on the beaches of Mexico laughing at y'all.

In the meantime, enjoy........

http://194.126.101.78/cameltoe2/xjs1i106.jpg

[MADG]

I said "Centrist," and that is how I scored. (Of course, one is not a registered Centrist.) I think I've taken this test before. It showed me as a Centrist, somewhat leaning toward the split between Liberal and Libertarian. THIS time, however, it shows a stronger lean:

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 80%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 50%.


I'm not sure that I'm as much of a "government purist" as some. I'm not quite so anal about that. Whatever you want to call what we got, it's apparently one of the best and biggest on the planet. Not perfect, of course... Utopia was a work of fiction. What we have is an experiment that, thus far, is hugely successful. We have strong tradition that is still tempered by spirited debate. It's a Good Thing.

I voted that I was libertarian, and I turned out to be libertarian.

[fellingus]

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/poltheor.html

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/

[Lazarus]

Lazarus) Well, first I question your assumption that protecting the borders (National Sovereignty) and defending this country from invasion by a horde of humanity is "repression". Convince me that exluding most people from immigrating here is "repression".

Fellingus) First of all...I don't care what you are convinced of.

==>Sure you do, or you would not bother to reply. Next time, please make sure that your actions match your words. :)


"You are the one who thinks TIPS and Total Information Awareness and the rest of it is "constitutional" and justified, so it's pretty clear that you are severely delusional and way beyond help."

==>What is "TIPS"? It woulf be wonderful if I had a clue about what your accusation means to you, but alas, this one must have gone whizzing past my head. The only "TIPS" program I am aware of is one that is used "To Inform Police Services"--basically a crime-stopper tip line. What's wrong with that? It seems to have led to the capture of the DC-area snipers.

"As for your "country"...I don't give a shit about that either."

==>I think you have made that abundantly clear.

"It's just some turf that is claimed by a
gang which is no more legitimate than if the Crips claim my neighborhood."

==>Might makes right. ;D

"Neither they, nor the so called US gov't has any right to tell me who I can or can't have on my property."

==>"Rights" are something that individuals have. Power is something that many groups wield. AUTHORITY is something that governments obtain from the consent of the governed. If you are a non-consenter, then that does not automatically deligitimize all governments. You do not have that right, that power or that authority.

"To say otherwise is to claim that I don't really own what's mine."

==>You really own what is yours. BUT if the government wants to take it from you and use it for a public purpose they have the power and the authority to do that, BUT, in the United States, the government is obligated to compensate you fairly for your property that it takes under its powers of eminent domain.

"But I do. The Crips don't, the mafia doesn't, and the USSA regime doesn't."

==>If the government wants to convert your land into a firehouse, then it most ceraintly can take your property for that purpose provided it pays you the fair market value of your property.

"None of them mhave ANY right..."

==>Again, people have rights, but governments have power, and some have authority. So, while your statement may be "true" it is only because it is founded upon the false premiss that governments have "rights".

"... to tell me what I can or can't do on my own land, whatever they may claim."

==>They have the power and the authority to limit your use of your land. However, they are constitutionally obligated to compensate you fully for the fair market value of any property that they have deprived you of.

==>Another anarchist? : Sorry, deal with reality.

Fellingus) DUH, we've been over that before. Sorry, you deal with it.

==>When and where? There really is no point in discussing matters with somebody so far from any reality that will ever exist.

L==>But the premiss of my question was what IF they wanted to come and did come, not just from Asia but from everywhere, trampling down and chewing up everything in their wake like a plague of locusts.

Fellingus) Your sentence lacks logical or grammatical cohesion.

==>No it does not. It happens to be perhaps above your level of reading comprehension, but it is quite correct from a grammatical perspective. ::) And your trying to avoid the issues you cannot deal with. What it boils down to is that you are advocating national suicide based upon some theory that apart from government all people will be "linberated". However, taking your desires to fruition means that what you will have liberated is the evil contained in the hearts of a powerful few by casting down the institutions that have defended liberty in this land for hundreds of years. Your "cure" is worse than the disease.

"Your statement is contravened by evidence."

==>Really? This should be rich.

"Before WWI immigration was almost completely open ; and no such imagined "trampling and chewing" took place."

==>Before World War II, we were a second rate power, backward, isolationist and caught in the throes of a Great Depression. After World War II, were were one of the few nations in the world that had not been severely scared by the war, and stood as the sole superpower because we had the atomic bomb while others did not. Today, we are the world's only superpower, not because of an overpowering nuclear arsenal, but because of a $10 Trillion annual economy and the ability to buy bigger sticks than those who might want to oppose us. Therefore, your "evidence" is quite dated so as to be irrelevant to the situation at hand.

"It's too late for that."

==>For you, perhaps? ;D

"Your government is not limited, and nothing will help you at this point except to get rid of it root and branch."

==>The leftists/socialists/liberals must be defeated first, then the libertarian not anarchists may compete for power against the right/conservatives. You are advocating the overthrow of the government, but offer nothing to replace it. You say (because you have a "theory") that everyone will be better off without a government. Indeed, that may be true if everyone would be better off dead, but that is the case you would need to make. I remain unconvinced.


"It already has been and you are too blind to see it. They've snowed you but good."

==>Rubbush.

"What you fail too see is that freedom can't be preserved by repression. When you expand one part of government, such as the INS, other parts expand too. Whenever you give government the power to do the things you want, you also give it the power to do things you do not want. It's like feeding an animal; you can't grow just one part while shrinking the rest.

"So, "conservatives" are tricked into supporting expansion of certain parts of government in order to maintain economic freedom, while "liberals" are tricked into supporting expansion of other parts of government to preserve social freedom and civil liberties.

"Neither works; the inevitable end result of all such compromises is a government expanding on all fronts, and that's just what you have.

"So, your freedom is already gone, not that you ever had it to begin with. And you're not even going to have the illusion of the ballot box for even close to a generation - not that it would matter, since it's been nothing but a sorry assed scam. You'll be better off with the certain knowledge that you live under a dictatorship, which you will have soon.

"A few more manufactured national crises, two years --no more."

==>Again, while I do not like the seeming endless expansion of government, the total abolition of government that you advocate is both asinine and absurd. What I desire is smaller and more limited government. But to call for its complete overthrow or abolition is pie-in-the-sky-idealistic-dreaming-turns-into-a-nightmare-nonsense!

"Of course. Terrorism is the inevitable result of imperialism."


==>No it is not. And show me the "empire"? What-- Pierto Rico? --Guam? Be serious.

"And further repression and imperialism is the result of terrorism."

==>No it is not. Terrorism is the consequence of wacked out Islamic fundamentalism. Christian "fundamentalists" generally don't go around ramming airplanes into office buildings, but there have been three recent indicents where radicalized Islamic fundamentalists did do just that. That you are even unwilling to acknowledge the source of recent terrorist attacks suggests that you are not dealing with reality with any attitude that approaches objectivty. And, to be perfectly clear, the U.S. government does not intend to "repress" the people who are responsible for attacking the American people. Rather, the U.S. intends to kill them and/or make them wish that they had never been born. Repression implies a certain level of functioning as a human being would remain. I see no indication that this suggested consequence is even on the table for consideration.

It is the function of the U.S. military to kill people and to break things. It is not its function to repress them. :)

"You're caught in a vicious cycle, sort of like a turd that is being flushed. You're headed for the sewer, and you have about two years before the centrifugal force
is to strong to escape. I'm making my way out now, and as for you - listen to me now, believe me later."

==>Pathetic rubbish. In the past, the Republic and the country survived one party rule because people respected the laws. While there are many disturbing tendencies recently to cast the laws aside, you are on the side of that disturbing trend--seeking to make it happen--by advocating anarchy. Hence, your "forebodings" ring hollow and your concerns seem to be more that of the typical hypocrite, who says one thing but really thinks or does another thing.


L+ > First, America's government should be eliminated (like all governments), and America's government is responsible for the terror attacks made upon the American people, right?

"Fellingus) Right."


==>We are done, but for one thing...

"In the meantime, enjoy........"

http://194.126.101.78/cameltoe2/xjs1i106.jpg

==>Thanks, but there are plenty of skankwhore images available for free on the internet, and I do not need to be concerned with yours. 8)

[Lazarus]

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/poltheor.html

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/


31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.

==>Doubtful. Extremists light plenty of fires yet fail to shed much light. ::)

[stealthy]

I've taken this poll many times in the past, I always come out right-conservative and Tull is right, it's biased.

Duh, like who wouldn't make one that made themselves look good or their opposition bad.

The idea that conservatives want government to "impose" a moral code is bassackwards. We want liberal activist Judges to stop imposing a moral code.

Basically, we want to be left the hell alone by government but think there are responsibilities of government, national defense being foremost.

The biggest difference imho, is that conservatives like what our country stands for, we're proud of our history, our way of life, others see nothing but problems and failures and coulda woulda shoulda crappola.

Expecting perfection is a set up for failure. Conversely, you'd have to want failure, to expect perfection.

[Satan]

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/poltheor.html

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/


31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.

==>Doubtful. Extremists light plenty of fires yet fail to shed much light. ::)


'Doubtlessly'. ::)

[Jethro Tull]

I scored 55, "moderate libertarian," on this one. I had maybe two "no" answers on the first segment, more on the second, and most of my answers on the last were "nos."

Notice that to be a "perfect" libertarian, you have to buy into all of the most extreme beliefs. This is the problem the LP has. Most LP members don't hold those beliefs, any more than most Republicans are wacko rightists or most Democrats are wacko leftists. But the LP leadership, and party organization, will not repudiate the extreme views, because of the "theoretical" fealty to principle the extremists can claim.

So, whether it is complete abolition of immigration law, or refusal to acknowledge a need for federal child pornography statutes, or a complete disengagement from foreign policy, or privatizing roads and local police and fire service, LP officers and members have to be concerned with not sounding "libertarian enough" by showing some tiny vestige of common sense and opposing these extremist views. The wackos are pure anarchists, and they hold the moral high ground, such as it is, over the LP structure. Which is why 1% is about all an LP national candidate can expect.

[fellingus]

Lazarus==>Sure you do, or you would not bother to reply. Next time, please make sure that your actions match your words.


Fellingus_ I'm not concerned with what you are convinced of, as I am sure you are not concerned with what I am convinced of. I write for amusement.

==>What is "TIPS"? It woulf be wonderful if I had a clue about what your accusation means to you, but alas, this one must have gone whizzing past my head. The only "TIPS" program I am aware of is one that is used "To Inform Police Services"--basically a crime-stopper tip line. What's wrong with that? It seems to have led to the capture of the DC-area snipers.

Fellingus) Have you really beeen living in a Bora Bora cave?

TIPS is a Stasi-like proposal by the Bush regime to employ twelve million Americans as internal spies for the regime, informing on their neighbors.

==>Might makes right.

Fellingus) That's the same theory gangsters and dictators have always operated on. I don't agree with it.

++> AUTHORITY is something that governments obtain from the consent of the governed.

Fellingus) Cool! Then I do not consent to be governed, and I have that right.

==>You really own what is yours. BUT if the government wants to take it from you and use it for a public purpose they have the power and the authority to do that, BUT, in the United States, the government is obligated to compensate you fairly for your property that it takes under its powers of eminent domain.

Fellingus) So says the gang of criminals which calls itself the government. I don't agree. Further, no compensation is being offered for the loss to the value of my property from numerous regime actions. As for eminent domain, it is increasingly being used for *private* purposes by government-connected corporations, and "compensation," to the degree it is offered, is grossly inadequate.

==>If the government wants to convert your land into a firehouse, then it most ceraintly can take your property for that purpose provided it pays you the fair market value of your property.

Fellingus) We were discussing immigration. I own my land, and have the right to say who can or can't be on it, regardless of whether your regime considers them an "immigrant". If you say that they have the right to tell me who I can or can't have on my land, which they have not compensated me for, that means I do not have full control of it while retaining nominal titles. That is the dictionary definition of fascism.

==>Again, people have rights, but governments have power, and some have authority. So, while your statement may be "true" it is only because it is founded upon the false premiss that governments have "rights".

Fellingus) The problem here is word choice, not premises. Government does not have the authority, if you prefer. You, and they, claim that they do, and I disagree.

==>They have the power and the authority to limit your use of your land.

Fellingus) I never gave them that authority, so they do not have it.

++> However, they are constitutionally obligated to compensate you fully for the fair market value of any property that they have deprived you of.

Fellingus) Your constitution is not in effect. If it were, your regime would not be able to do most of the things it does. If they were to compensate everyone for the fair market potential of all the property they have deprived us the use of, that would lead to a paradox as that amount of wealth does not exist in the world. Thanks to them.


==>When and where? There really is no point in discussing matters with somebody so far from any reality that will ever exist.

Fellingus) I've stated that I am an anarchist clearly and consistently since I got here.
You've persisted in discussing matters with me. As for what will or won't exist, your crystal ball manufacturer owes you a refund.

L1==>But the premiss of my question was what IF they wanted to come and did come, not just from Asia but from everywhere, trampling down and chewing up everything in their wake like a plague of locusts.

Fellingus1) Your sentence lacks logical or grammatical cohesion.

L2==>No it does not. It happens to be perhaps above your level of reading comprehension, but it is quite correct from a grammatical perspective.

Fellingus) The reading comprehension problem is yours. Consult an English professor or professional editor. "If" must be followed by "then". What you have above is an incomplete sentence.

+++> And your trying to avoid the issues you cannot deal with.


Fellingus) Negative. I've dealt with all issues presented.


--> What it boils down to is that you are advocating national suicide based upon some theory that apart from government all people will be "linberated". However, taking your desires to fruition means that what you will have liberated is the evil contained in the hearts of a powerful few by casting down the institutions that have defended liberty in this land for hundreds of years. Your "cure" is worse than the disease.

Fellingus) Disagreed. YOUR cure is worse than the disease.

==>Before World War II, we were a second rate power, backward, isolationist and caught in the throes of a Great Depression. After World War II, were were one of the few nations in the world that had not been severely scared by the war, and stood as the sole superpower because we had the atomic bomb while others did not. Today, we are the world's only superpower, not because of an overpowering nuclear arsenal, but because of a $10 Trillion annual economy and the ability to buy bigger sticks than those who might want to oppose us. Therefore, your "evidence" is quite dated so as to be irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Fellingus) The isolationism (if that is what you mean by a policy of relatively free trade,
open immigration, and non-interventionism) is how Anglo North America became relatively prosperous. The depression only lasted a few years, and was the result of machinations by the federal reserve. The scars of war were the results of geography (Latin America was not scarred either). The "superpower" status is nothing but a liability. Open immigration only bolstered the economy, as it has always done anywhere and everywhere in the world. People do not cross oceans or move away from friends, family and culture with the purpose of being welfare bums. More likely, they are the hardest working employees and the most likely to start businesses. It's the native born Americans who are usually the lazy slackers. Around here most hard jobs are done by Mexicans because Anglos refuse to do them, slack off when they do agree to do them, and demand more money. Meanwhile the Mexicans work hard, don't complain, come in early and work double shifts, treat everyone with courtesy, and send money home. If the immigration "laws" were effective, the economy would fall apart.

f1 "It's too late for that."

==>For you, perhaps?

Fellingus) No, for you.


==>The leftists/socialists/liberals must be defeated first, then the libertarian not anarchists may compete for power against the right/conservatives. You are advocating the overthrow of the government, but offer nothing to replace it. You say (because you have a "theory") that everyone will be better off without a government. Indeed, that may be true if everyone would be better off dead, but that is the case you would need to make. I remain unconvinced.

Fellingus) And I remain unconvinced of what you claim. Yes, I offer nothing to replace government, as it does not serve any useful function. Everyone is better off without a government; that is a fact, not a theory.

Do the math:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds122.html

As for better off dead, governments excel at that.


==>Again, while I do not like the seeming endless expansion of government, the total abolition of government that you advocate is both asinine and absurd. What I desire is smaller and more limited government. But to call for its complete overthrow or abolition is pie-in-the-sky-idealistic-dreaming-turns-into-a-nightmare-nonsense!

Fellingus) No, the desire for limited government is. Governments can not be limited. Once you unleash the beast, you can not control it.

F1 "Of course. Terrorism is the inevitable result of imperialism."


==>No it is not. And show me the "empire"? What-- Pierto Rico? --Guam? Be serious.

Fellingus) Intervention in the affairs of mideast nations, in this case.

http://antiwar.com (refer especially to the Raimondo archive)

http://americanstateterrorism.com

==>No it is not. Terrorism is the consequence of wacked out Islamic fundamentalism.

Fellingus) They ain't attacking Switzerland. It's the chickens coming home to roost.


==> And, to be perfectly clear, the U.S. government does not intend to "repress" the people who are responsible for attacking the American people.

Fellingus) Actually, they are responding to USSA regime sponsored terror against their people. That's the imperialism part. The repression part refers to increasing police state activities in the "homeland" (it even sounds nazi).

==>Pathetic rubbish. In the past, the Republic and the country survived one party rule because people respected the laws. While there are many disturbing tendencies recently to cast the laws aside, you are on the side of that disturbing trend--seeking to make it happen--by advocating anarchy. Hence, your "forebodings" ring hollow and your concerns seem to be more that of the typical hypocrite, who says one thing but really thinks or does another thing.

Fellingus) As I said, listen to me now, believe me later. I will enjoy watching it from a distance. But, I am not in any sense a hypocrite.

My message is consistent.

Now, keep ramming your head into that wall, good show!

[Lazarus]

Lazarus==>Sure you do, or you would not bother to reply. Next time, please make sure that your actions match your words.


Fellingus_ I'm not concerned with what you are convinced of, as I am sure you are not concerned with what I am convinced of. I write for amusement.

==>What is "TIPS"? It woulf be wonderful if I had a clue about what your accusation means to you, but alas, this one must have gone whizzing past my head. The only "TIPS" program I am aware of is one that is used "To Inform Police Services"--basically a crime-stopper tip line. What's wrong with that? It seems to have led to the capture of the DC-area snipers.

Fellingus) Have you really beeen living in a Bora Bora cave?

TIPS is a Stasi-like proposal by the Bush regime to employ twelve million Americans as internal spies for the regime, informing on their neighbors.

==>Might makes right.

Fellingus) That's the same theory gangsters and dictators have always operated on. I don't agree with it.

++> AUTHORITY is something that governments obtain from the consent of the governed.

Fellingus) Cool! Then I do not consent to be governed, and I have that right.

==>You really own what is yours. BUT if the government wants to take it from you and use it for a public purpose they have the power and the authority to do that, BUT, in the United States, the government is obligated to compensate you fairly for your property that it takes under its powers of eminent domain.

Fellingus) So says the gang of criminals which calls itself the government. I don't agree. Further, no compensation is being offered for the loss to the value of my property from numerous regime actions. As for eminent domain, it is increasingly being used for *private* purposes by government-connected corporations, and "compensation," to the degree it is offered, is grossly inadequate.

==>If the government wants to convert your land into a firehouse, then it most ceraintly can take your property for that purpose provided it pays you the fair market value of your property.

Fellingus) We were discussing immigration. I own my land, and have the right to say who can or can't be on it, regardless of whether your regime considers them an "immigrant". If you say that they have the right to tell me who I can or can't have on my land, which they have not compensated me for, that means I do not have full control of it while retaining nominal titles. That is the dictionary definition of fascism.

==>Again, people have rights, but governments have power, and some have authority. So, while your statement may be "true" it is only because it is founded upon the false premiss that governments have "rights".

Fellingus) The problem here is word choice, not premises. Government does not have the authority, if you prefer. You, and they, claim that they do, and I disagree.

==>They have the power and the authority to limit your use of your land.

Fellingus) I never gave them that authority, so they do not have it.

++> However, they are constitutionally obligated to compensate you fully for the fair market value of any property that they have deprived you of.

Fellingus) Your constitution is not in effect. If it were, your regime would not be able to do most of the things it does. If they were to compensate everyone for the fair market potential of all the property they have deprived us the use of, that would lead to a paradox as that amount of wealth does not exist in the world. Thanks to them.


==>When and where? There really is no point in discussing matters with somebody so far from any reality that will ever exist.

Fellingus) I've stated that I am an anarchist clearly and consistently since I got here.
You've persisted in discussing matters with me. As for what will or won't exist, your crystal ball manufacturer owes you a refund.

L1==>But the premiss of my question was what IF they wanted to come and did come, not just from Asia but from everywhere, trampling down and chewing up everything in their wake like a plague of locusts.

Fellingus1) Your sentence lacks logical or grammatical cohesion.

L2==>No it does not. It happens to be perhaps above your level of reading comprehension, but it is quite correct from a grammatical perspective.

Fellingus) The reading comprehension problem is yours. Consult an English professor or professional editor. "If" must be followed by "then". What you have above is an incomplete sentence.

+++> And your trying to avoid the issues you cannot deal with.


Fellingus) Negative. I've dealt with all issues presented.


--> What it boils down to is that you are advocating national suicide based upon some theory that apart from government all people will be "linberated". However, taking your desires to fruition means that what you will have liberated is the evil contained in the hearts of a powerful few by casting down the institutions that have defended liberty in this land for hundreds of years. Your "cure" is worse than the disease.

Fellingus) Disagreed. YOUR cure is worse than the disease.

==>Before World War II, we were a second rate power, backward, isolationist and caught in the throes of a Great Depression. After World War II, were were one of the few nations in the world that had not been severely scared by the war, and stood as the sole superpower because we had the atomic bomb while others did not. Today, we are the world's only superpower, not because of an overpowering nuclear arsenal, but because of a $10 Trillion annual economy and the ability to buy bigger sticks than those who might want to oppose us. Therefore, your "evidence" is quite dated so as to be irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Fellingus) The isolationism (if that is what you mean by a policy of relatively free trade,
open immigration, and non-interventionism) is how Anglo North America became relatively prosperous. The depression only lasted a few years, and was the result of machinations by the federal reserve. The scars of war were the results of geography (Latin America was not scarred either). The "superpower" status is nothing but a liability. Open immigration only bolstered the economy, as it has always done anywhere and everywhere in the world. People do not cross oceans or move away from friends, family and culture with the purpose of being welfare bums. More likely, they are the hardest working employees and the most likely to start businesses. It's the native born Americans who are usually the lazy slackers. Around here most hard jobs are done by Mexicans because Anglos refuse to do them, slack off when they do agree to do them, and demand more money. Meanwhile the Mexicans work hard, don't complain, come in early and work double shifts, treat everyone with courtesy, and send money home. If the immigration "laws" were effective, the economy would fall apart.

f1 "It's too late for that."

==>For you, perhaps?

Fellingus) No, for you.


==>The leftists/socialists/liberals must be defeated first, then the libertarian not anarchists may compete for power against the right/conservatives. You are advocating the overthrow of the government, but offer nothing to replace it. You say (because you have a "theory") that everyone will be better off without a government. Indeed, that may be true if everyone would be better off dead, but that is the case you would need to make. I remain unconvinced.

Fellingus) And I remain unconvinced of what you claim. Yes, I offer nothing to replace government, as it does not serve any useful function. Everyone is better off without a government; that is a fact, not a theory.

Do the math:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds122.html

As for better off dead, governments excel at that.


==>Again, while I do not like the seeming endless expansion of government, the total abolition of government that you advocate is both asinine and absurd. What I desire is smaller and more limited government. But to call for its complete overthrow or abolition is pie-in-the-sky-idealistic-dreaming-turns-into-a-nightmare-nonsense!

Fellingus) No, the desire for limited government is. Governments can not be limited. Once you unleash the beast, you can not control it.

F1 "Of course. Terrorism is the inevitable result of imperialism."


==>No it is not. And show me the "empire"? What-- Pierto Rico? --Guam? Be serious.

Fellingus) Intervention in the affairs of mideast nations, in this case.

http://antiwar.com (refer especially to the Raimondo archive)

http://americanstateterrorism.com

==>No it is not. Terrorism is the consequence of wacked out Islamic fundamentalism.

Fellingus) They ain't attacking Switzerland. It's the chickens coming home to roost.


==> And, to be perfectly clear, the U.S. government does not intend to "repress" the people who are responsible for attacking the American people.

Fellingus) Actually, they are responding to USSA regime sponsored terror against their people. That's the imperialism part. The repression part refers to increasing police state activities in the "homeland" (it even sounds nazi).

==>Pathetic rubbish. In the past, the Republic and the country survived one party rule because people respected the laws. While there are many disturbing tendencies recently to cast the laws aside, you are on the side of that disturbing trend--seeking to make it happen--by advocating anarchy. Hence, your "forebodings" ring hollow and your concerns seem to be more that of the typical hypocrite, who says one thing but really thinks or does another thing.

Fellingus) As I said, listen to me now, believe me later. I will enjoy watching it from a distance. But, I am not in any sense a hypocrite.

My message is consistent.

Now, keep ramming your head into that wall, good show!








==>Thanks, yet again, for expressing your sincere concerns for me and for trying to convince me to accept your political philosophy. However, you ought to know that nobody reads these sorts of long posts, so whatever the context of it happened to be, I can assure you that I have completely ignored it or condoned it. Reason 1 for my obvious lack of intrest in what you have to say is that I already know from where you are coming and see no reason to argue with an ideolodue or an anarchist.

Have a nice day. :)

P.S., if I argue with you more, do you remove even more articles of clothing from your images (pant, pant)? :P

[fellingus]

L==>Thanks, yet again, for expressing your sincere concerns for me and for trying to convince me to accept your political philosophy.

F--> Nah, I've no such pretensions. I've been around these sorts of boards for a good decade now, and rarely seen anyone change their mind. It's just a diversion, a sort of sparring.

L-->However, you ought to know that nobody reads these sorts of long posts, so whatever the context of it happened to be, I can assure you that I have completely ignored it or condoned it.

Fellingus--> Usually I try not to be pedantic, but your use of "condoned" does not fit any normal definition of the word.

L==> Reason 1 for my obvious lack of intrest in what you have to say is that I already know from where you are coming and see no reason to argue with an ideolodue or an anarchist.

Fellingus--> LOL, I'm coming somewhere?

I'm no more an ideologue than anyone; I used to be a leftist, then a minarchist Libertarian, and now a non-partisan anarchist libertarian.

Anyway, it's more bullshit.

Politics doesn't solve anything, I just wisg the damn politicians would leave me alone and quit telling me how to live my life.

I'd post another cool pic but Lance says no porn.

I like this one (warning to prudes: she's topless, although small breasted)

http://194.126.101.78/cameltoe2/xjs1i112.html

Peace....

[sodaknomad]

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/poltheor.html

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/


31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.

==>Doubtful. Extremists light plenty of fires yet fail to shed much light. ::)


'Doubtlessly'. ::)


I scored a 92. You know what that makes me?

[Lazarus]

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/poltheor.html

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/


31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.

==>Doubtful. Extremists light plenty of fires yet fail to shed much light. ::)


'Doubtlessly'. ::)


I scored a 92. You know what that makes me?


Hard core?

[co-be]

Caplan's purity test

Your score is...

158

131-159 points: You are nearly a perfect libertarian, with a tiny number of blind spots. Think about them, then take the test over again. On the other hand, if you scored this high, you probably have a good libertarian objection to my suggested libertarian answer. :-)

I do!

No on 11 Would school vouchers be an improvement over government schools?
No on 13 Would housing vouchers be an improvement over government housing?

These are just "back door" ways for government to control private schools and private housing, aka fascism.

Yes on everything else, although on #64 I would prefer free market anarchist.
"Capitalism" is a word invented by Marxists.
It has intentionally confusing implications.

[Lazarus]

Well, in a world without governments, there is certainly slavery, involuntary servitude, lawlessness, the doctrine of "might makes right," private armies, warlords, and all manner of chaos and mayhem beyond most people's wildest imaginations.

To those anarchists amongst us, I say, you have no political philosophy because there is nothing "polite" or governing in your desired world--except the unbridled passions that lurk in the minds of the members of the vilest and most powerful groups.

If you think "anarchy" will "work," then please try imagining what life would be like in Afghanistan among and between the warring factions. That is a likely example of the consequences of "your wish" for all of us.

You are free to believe what you wish. However. I am sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution. That I will do. If you wish, please explain how anarchy leads to anything but slavery, death, mayhem, lawlessness and destruction. Then explain why whatever you are suggesting is worth the risk--and how "lawlessness = morality" in your view of the world.

[co-be]

Lazarus,

"Well, in a world without governments, there is certainly slavery, involuntary servitude, lawlessness, the doctrine of "might makes right," private armies, warlords, and all manner of chaos and mayhem beyond most people's wildest imaginations."

No, that's what you get with government. Hell, you even defended "might makes right" recently.

"To those anarchists amongst us, I say, you have no political philosophy because there is nothing "polite" or governing in your desired world--except the unbridled passions that lurk in the minds of the members of the vilest and most powerful groups."

Again - that's what you get with government.

I thought you said you have nothing to say to anarchists?

If you are interested in finding out more, there are numerous resources available.

Everything from books, to webpages, to discussion fora.

For example, you could start here

http://www.laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=li8578&aid=10141

Or here

http://anti-state.com

You can try Bryan Caplan's FAQ (at the site fellingus referenced)

or David Friedman's work, or Murray Rothbard's.

"You are free to believe what you wish. However. I am sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution. That I will do."

You have a very tangled view of the constitution. The problem with the constitution is that
over time, judges interpret it any way they want, and build on "precedent" -- so that, nowadays, the constitution "says" that any economic activity is interstate commerce, and thus the province of the federal government; that the national guard is the militia; and all other sorts of nonsense.

Over time, whatever limits constitutions place on governments disappear.

If you read what the constitution actually says, rather than what the courts claim it says, your government is unconstitutional. If you want to defend the constitution - you can't defend the present regime.

"If you wish, please explain how anarchy leads to anything but slavery, death, mayhem, lawlessness and destruction."

If you wish, please explain how government leads to anything else.

"Then explain why whatever you are suggesting is worth the risk"

I think government is not worth the risk.

"and how "lawlessness = morality" in your view of the world".

I'm not for lawlessness. I just don't think we should have a monopoly on law enforcement, interpretation or what have you.

There's a well developed body of theory, scholarship and history that backs me up. It's not some kid's idea of anarchy, nor the caricature you portray.

[Moonchild]

I regard my self as a social liberal.

The worlds smallest political quiz

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 100%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 30%.
According to your answers, your political philosophy is left-liberal.

Political Compass

I have scored between +1 to -3 on the economic axis, and -6,5 to – 7,something on the libertarian/authoritarian axis.

I have taken it several times over a period of ... i would guess 1,5 years.

[Lazarus]

Lazarus,

"Well, in a world without governments, there is certainly slavery, involuntary servitude, lawlessness, the doctrine of "might makes right," private armies, warlords, and all manner of chaos and mayhem beyond most people's wildest imaginations."

No, that's what you get with government. Hell, you even defended "might makes right" recently.

"To those anarchists amongst us, I say, you have no political philosophy because there is nothing "polite" or governing in your desired world--except the unbridled passions that lurk in the minds of the members of the vilest and most powerful groups."

Again - that's what you get with government.

I thought you said you have nothing to say to anarchists?

If you are interested in finding out more, there are numerous resources available.

Everything from books, to webpages, to discussion fora.

For example, you could start here

http://www.laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=li8578&aid=10141

Or here

http://anti-state.com

You can try Bryan Caplan's FAQ (at the site fellingus referenced)

or David Friedman's work, or Murray Rothbard's.

"You are free to believe what you wish. However. I am sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution. That I will do."

You have a very tangled view of the constitution. The problem with the constitution is that
over time, judges interpret it any way they want, and build on "precedent" -- so that, nowadays, the constitution "says" that any economic activity is interstate commerce, and thus the province of the federal government; that the national guard is the militia; and all other sorts of nonsense.

Over time, whatever limits constitutions place on governments disappear.

If you read what the constitution actually says, rather than what the courts claim it says, your government is unconstitutional. If you want to defend the constitution - you can't defend the present regime.

"If you wish, please explain how anarchy leads to anything but slavery, death, mayhem, lawlessness and destruction."

If you wish, please explain how government leads to anything else.

"Then explain why whatever you are suggesting is worth the risk"

I think government is not worth the risk.

"and how "lawlessness = morality" in your view of the world".

I'm not for lawlessness. I just don't think we should have a monopoly on law enforcement, interpretation or what have you.

There's a well developed body of theory, scholarship and history that backs me up. It's not some kid's idea of anarchy, nor the caricature you portray.


Lazarus,

"Well, in a world without governments, there is certainly slavery, involuntary servitude, lawlessness, the doctrine of "might makes right," private armies, warlords, and all manner of chaos and mayhem beyond most people's wildest imaginations."

No, that's what you get with government. Hell, you even defended "might makes right" recently.

==>In the hands of God, might makes right. Everything else is evil. That being the case, the question is (as it has always been) can human beings govern themselves? Your answer is "No" so you seek to overthrow all government, I say that there is no justification for such a course of action. Your premise that governments MUST enslave has not been demonstrated. However, there are ample examples of PRIVATE enslavement throughout history to lead one to believe that apart from the LAW making slavery contrary to public policy, then slavery would arise. And the LAW is the creation of the government. No government means an eventual enslavement of people to the capitalists. Serfdom in Russia, Slavery in the Unidted States, the Feudal system in Europe are all lesson of history of how men are enslaved in order to try to obtain "security" against oppresive tyrants and nomadic warlords. Even today, slavery exists in this world in places where there is less than adequate government to secure human rights.

"To those anarchists amongst us, I say, you have no political philosophy because there is nothing "polite" or governing in your desired world--except the unbridled passions that lurk in the minds of the members of the vilest and most powerful groups."

"Again - that's what you get with government."

==>Evidence? It seems that in the United States, the government abolished slavery. It seems that even in Tsarist Russia, the Tasr liberated the serfs. Countless examples throughout history of governments securing liberty for human beings. And evidence to support your theories? Quite lacking.

"I thought you said you have nothing to say to anarchists? "

==>I have nothing to say to anarchists. Indeed, even though we appear to be in correspondence, I am informed enough to think that you are beyond redemption from your ideoligical quagmire. I am not writing this to you, but to all who may happen to read it. If you happen to read it, then you may freely ignore it since it was not intended for you.

"If you are interested in finding out more, there are numerous resources available. "

==>I am not that stupid, but thanks for trying. :-*

"Everything from books, to webpages, to discussion fora."

==>And all a bunch of ideologues running around patting themselves on the back for reinventing the law of the jungle. Congratulations. You animal. ::)

"You have a very tangled view of the constitution. The problem with the constitution is that
over time, judges interpret it any way they want, and build on "precedent" -- so that, nowadays, the constitution "says" that any economic activity is interstate commerce, and thus the province of the federal government; that the national guard is the militia; and all other sorts of nonsense."


==>Indeed, there has been all sorts of nonsensical decisions made. Nevertheless, if those issues ever are adjudicated at the SCOTUS, then such decisions may be reversed. What does any of this have to do with the issue? Are you trying to deflect attention from the subject?

"Over time, whatever limits constitutions place on governments disappear."

==>So, it is a function of time, or of the stupidity of the people? And if the people are stupid, then don't they get the government that they deserve?

"If you read what the constitution actually says, rather than what the courts claim it says, your government is unconstitutional."

==>What makes you think that I have failed to read the U.S. Constitution many times? The law is the law until it is overturned. If you have a gripe, then sue in Federal Court. If you have standing, then appeal to the SCOTUS.

"If you want to defend the constitution - you can't defend the present regime."

==>Why not? The present "regime" was empowered pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, it seems that the case against Cheney was thrown out of court. I guess that he really did not violate any court orders, contrary to your screeds.

"If you wish, please explain how anarchy leads to anything but slavery, death, mayhem, lawlessness and destruction."

"If you wish, please explain how government leads to anything else."

==>U.S. Civil War: Consequences included the abolition of slavery. Russia: Tsar freed the serfs. You have avoided the issue. There are plenty more examples, including the U.S. government and its allies liberating Europe from the Nazis and the Fascists. The U.S. liberated Japan from the tyranny of its military dictatorship. There, you have examples drawn from history that demonstrate the government CAN serve to liberate people from tyranny. Now address the issue that you were asked to address--if you can.

"Then explain why whatever you are suggesting is worth the risk"

"I think government is not worth the risk."

==>Based upon WHAT? I will tell you: your pie-in-the-sky THEORIES. No evidence. Nothing to stand on. ZIP!


"and how "lawlessness = morality" in your view of the world".

"I'm not for lawlessness."

==>YES YOU ARE IF YOU ARE FOR ANARCHY!!! Anarchy is the ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT, thus the absence of LAW, thus LAWLESSNESS.

"I just don't think we should have a monopoly on law enforcement, interpretation or what have you. "

==>If not "WE" then who do you suggest? ::) ONE? A FEW? MANY? ALL? Or NONE? Those are your options. Settle on an answer, will you? :P

"here's a well developed body of theory, scholarship and history that backs me up. It's not some kid's idea of anarchy, nor the caricature you portray."

==>Believe me, I have not caricatured your insanity. You have done a fine job all by yourself. :o

[Lazarus]

I regard my self as a social liberal.

The worlds smallest political quiz

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 100%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 30%.
According to your answers, your political philosophy is left-liberal.

Political Compass

I have scored between +1 to -3 on the economic axis, and -6,5 to – 7,something on the libertarian/authoritarian axis.

I have taken it several times over a period of ... i would guess 1,5 years.



Hey, MC, if you are a liberal, then why haven'y you answered the poll? :o

[Moonchild]

Social liberal.

[co-be]

c)Hell, you even defended "might makes right" recently.

==>In the hands of God, might makes right. Everything else is evil.

co-be) I'm fairly sure this was not the context of the statement.

Do we have to dig it up?

L: can human beings govern themselves? Your answer is "No" so you seek to overthrow all government

co-be) Actually, my answer is "yes," which is why I seek to overthrow the involuntary "governing" of some people by others.

L: Your premise that governments MUST enslave has not been demonstrated.

co-be) Sure it has. Either theory or history demonstrate this in short order.

L: And the LAW is the creation of the government.

co-be) Incorrect. Law preceded government. In the past, it was widely understood that law was something to be *discovered*, not created, by the courts.

L)However, there are ample examples of PRIVATE enslavement throughout history to lead one to believe that apart from the LAW making slavery contrary to public policy, then slavery would arise.

co-be) Slavery is unprofitable in an industrial society, and this is the reason it has been largely eliminated in the western world - in most countries without war or acrimony. However, it is still widely practiced by governments.

L: No government means an eventual enslavement of people to the capitalists.

co-be) A common misconception, and a glaring one. The abuses of capitalism stem from several things, all of which are creations of government. Limited liability is a major one; it shields business owners behind the fictitious personhood of the corporation, and absolves them of personal responsibility for their actions. This is a creation of government.

Corporate welfare is another one. Aside from direct corporate welfare, there is much indirect corporate welfare, such as the "national defense" interstate system, military-industrial complex, and going to war on behalf of corporate interests. Furthermore, there is a systematic bias which taxes and regulations introduce in favor of large, established corporations and against startup entrepreneurs. Those corporations can afford lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to meet the regulatory burden; the entrepreneur can not. Thus, many businesses never get off the ground, and many people who would otherwise be entrepreneurs prefer to be employees.

There are too many licenses, taxes, bureaucratic hurdles and such, for many people to start businesses. Or to keep them from going under. Furthermore, taxes eviscerate many people of the startup capital they would need for their business idea.

Quite simply, the system is tilted in favor of established interests, many of whom circulate through the top levels of corporations, lobbying and the government. It's no accident that they perpetuate their power through government.

Without limited liability, and with the far greater ease of entrepreneurship, what would be the effect on the economy? Companies would generally be smaller in size, as few people would want to bear the responsibility of bearing liability for the decisions of corporate boards
which they have little direct relationship with. To encourage any vestige of such investment, corporate boards would have to be more open and honest in their dealings.

Because it would be much easier to start up businesses and expand them (in the early stages), there would be much more turbulence and growth in the economy, and thus not as much accumulation of wealth and privelege at the top. Also, employers would have to work harder to keep their employees happy, as the option of self-employment would be much more readily available, and competition of companies for employees would be greater.

Thus, income equality would be greater, not less. Workers rights and the environment would be better off, because it is only when society is wealthier - through faster economic growth - that people have the luxury of worrying about such things, and they naturally do as they develop it. There would be less need for charity, but more of it. Extended families, civic associations, and all manner of civic society would be reinvigorated (they have declined as a result of government stepping in to fill their role, and as a result of people having less time and money due to high taxes, high regulations, and the resulting stagnation of the economy).

(See ruwart.com/healing on this point)

In addition, there would be positive social effects from ending the crime and violence that result from prohibition, in bettering the education of children through a more competitive market for education, and by removing the bad moral example set by a government that relies on initiation of force.

See David Friedman's articles on this point, and Murray Rothbard's.


L)"To those anarchists amongst us, I say, you have no political philosophy because there is nothing "polite" or governing in your desired world--except the unbridled passions that lurk in the minds of the members of the vilest and most powerful groups."

c)"Again - that's what you get with government."

==>Evidence? It seems that in the United States, the government abolished slavery. It seems that even in Tsarist Russia, the Tasr liberated the serfs. Countless examples throughout history of governments securing liberty for human beings. And evidence to support your theories? Quite lacking.


co-be) See "Freeing Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" (I don't recall the author immediately, but try a web search). The means by which slavery was ended in the uS was unneccessary. Slavery ended throughout Europe and the Americas in the 19th century, and no other country except Haiti required a war to accomplish this. The fact is that in an industrial economy, productivity is naturally greater without slavery, and the wealth that an industrial economy created made it possible to do away with slavery. Government was not at all necessary in this regard. However, government was in fact necessary to enforce the fugitive slave laws, without which slavery would have been impossible to maintain.

On the other hand, government has enslaved numerous people through the military draft, and all of us through taxation. Taxation is simply part-time slavery. In the 20th century alone, governments have killed some 200,000,000 of their own subjects, and hundreds of millions more in wars between governments. They have also perpetrated far more rape, torture, mutilation, imprisonment of people who have not agressed against anyone, surveillance of the people (destruction of privacy), propaganda, plunder through taxation, pollution, and every type of evil imaginable - by far - than all private organizations put together.

If government liberated people, we might expect that more government would mean greater liberty. The opposite is the case; those governments which have had the most power have been the most bloody and disastrous. Less government has always been better.

==>I have nothing to say to anarchists.

co-be) Well, that's true. Nothing valid, anyway, as your position can not be logically supported.

L)Indeed, even though we appear to be in correspondence, I am informed enough to think that you are beyond redemption from your ideoligical quagmire. I am not writing this to you, but to all who may happen to read it. If you happen to read it, then you may freely ignore it since it was not intended for you.

co-be) Thanks for answering your own argument to fellingus. There's nothing that proves logical clarity better than arguing both sides.

And, back at you. (I am informed enough to think that you are beyond redemption from your ideoligical quagmire. I am not writing this to you, but to all who may happen to read it. If you happen to read it, then you may freely ignore it since it was not intended for you.)

"If you are interested in finding out more, there are numerous resources available. "

==>I am not that stupid, but thanks for trying.

co-be) I'm not really trying. I wouldn't expect you to fully study the logic of an argument
before caricaturing it; that would be assuming that I am dealing with a man of reason, and I know better in your case.

"Everything from books, to webpages, to discussion fora."

==>And all a bunch of ideologues running around patting themselves on the back for reinventing the law of the jungle. Congratulations. You animal.

co-be) Ah yes, the law of the jungle has been rescinded because some of the animals got power through force over others. What a fucking brilliant idea! Congratulations, we are indeed animals (it means imbued with spirit in Latin; another word of the same derivation is animated), but at least I'm not a plant. I wish your thinking process was more animated and less planted, too. But, unfortunately, that will remain a wish unfulfilled.

For evidence of the alleged civilization of governments, see Auschwitz, Hiroshima, the gulags, and countless other examples of behavior that doesn't exist in the jungle...

And the best way to prove that an argument is invalid is to be ignorant of it, as the entire history of debate and discourse shows. After all, you already know everything, and there is no chance that reading contravening points of view could do anything but confuse you.

==>Indeed, there has been all sorts of nonsensical decisions made. Nevertheless, if those issues ever are adjudicated at the SCOTUS, then such decisions may be reversed. What does any of this have to do with the issue? Are you trying to deflect attention from the subject?

co-be) No, you are. Many of those idiotic decisions were made by the "SCOTUS" - and then built on in other decisions, through precedent. And they are not reversed; they are further extended. Thus my point: You have a very tangled view of the constitution. The problem with the constitution is that over time, judges (you can read "SCOTUS" here) interpret it any way they want, and build on "precedent" -- so that, nowadays, the constitution "says" that any economic activity is interstate commerce, and thus the province of the federal government; that the national guard is the militia; and all other sorts of nonsense.

This is what comes of the absurd idea that government can be limited.

==>So, it is a function of time, or of the stupidity of the people? And if the people are stupid, then don't they get the government that they deserve?

co-be) Certainly, a great many people deserve it. The trouble is that in a "democracy" there is no exemption for those of us who don't agree. I may not be "that stupid," but if the majority of my fellows are, I have no choice but to go along for the ride, whatever its eventual destination - and, increasingly apparent, that destination is a totalitarian state and eventual collapse (the inevitable destination of all totalitarian states). And yes, it is a function of time, as power tends to coalesce over time.

You can't boil a frog by dropping it in hot water, but you can cook it by raising the temperature by degrees. Equally, the American people fought a revolution against a small tax on tea and other abuses which pale by comparison with what their allegedly constitutional government has evolved into.

==>What makes you think that I have failed to read the U.S. Constitution many times? The law is the law until it is overturned. If you have a gripe, then sue in Federal Court. If you have standing, then appeal to the SCOTUS.

co-be) If you have read it many times, tell me where it says that the Supreme Court is to say what it says. It doesn't - the court awarded itself that power in, I believe the year was 1803. You've yet to answer what happens when the "SCOTUS" is wrong (as it is most of the time). Am I to be comforted by my ability to take a case against the mob to one of their own courts? The very argument is on its face absurd..

The courts are a branch of government. To argue that the courts will agree if it can be shown that they themselves, along with every other branch of government, have been consistently violating their own charter is absurd. They won't go against precedent; they won't admit that they, and those who appointed them, are all criminals. Anyone with even half a brain can see why.

"If you want to defend the constitution - you can't defend the present regime."

==>Why not? The present "regime" was empowered pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, it seems that the case against Cheney was thrown out of court. I guess that he really did not violate any court orders, contrary to your screeds.

co-be) No, it was not. It violates said constitution at every turn, and the courts are fully complicit in this. If you wish to argue that the constitution says whatever the courts say that the courts before them said (x100) it says, (and you do) this is pure sophistry and foolishness. I've given, above, a few simple examples of how your regime constantly violates its own constitution.

Your answer was that I could appeal to this supposedly neutral ultimate authority; yet all these are cases that very court has ruled on. Checks and balances don't work when every branch of government is complicit, and that's just what you have.

So the courts have ruled: guess what, it's no surprise.

They are part of the regime. OF COURSE they will rule in favor of the regime. DUH!

==>U.S. Civil War: Consequences included the abolition of slavery.

co-be) Other consequences included the centralization of power in the hands of the federal government, leading to much misery later on, and the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Whereas slavery was abolished at the same time in scores of countries with no such consequences, and would have been abolished by letting the south secede and eliminating fugitive slave laws in the north.

L) Russia: Tsar freed the serfs.

co-be) See above. The serfs were freed because Russia was becoming industrialized. It would have only happened more quickly if the Czar's government had not existed.

L) You have avoided the issue.

co-be) I haven't avoided any issues.

L) There are plenty more examples, including the U.S. government and its allies liberating Europe from the Nazis and the Fascists.

co-be) You are full of yourself. The war was mostly fought and won by the Russians. Incidentally, these same Russian allies killed more people than the Nazis and fascists. Perhaps it would have been better to let the nazis and the communists fight it out between themselves. And, if not for US intervention in WWI, there would not have been any nazis, communists or fascists. The old powers were about to settle the war with a cease-fire that would have preserved the old order. Was what we got instead better? Much thanks to Wilson's
"war to end all wars" and the stupidity of American imperialists for intervening in Europe's wars. Their ability to do so, was thanks to the centralization of power in Washington due to the unnecessary (un)civil war.

So, once again, you have one dumb government abuse of power, which was incidentally against its own constitution since there is nothing in there to prevent states from seceding (and those powers not granted to the federal government remain with the states and people thereof), leading to more government abuse of power, which leads to 200,000,000 dead and billions enslaved, and more government growth in the US in reponse - the welfare-warfare state - and on and on.

What will the end result be? Probably a worldwide totalitarian system. And, since state socialism can not feed the people due to the impossibility of meaningful price calculation
and asset allocation by central planners, eventual mass starvation on the order of billions.

L) The U.S. liberated Japan from the tyranny of its military dictatorship.

co-be) And installed a repressive corporate-one party state.

L) There, you have examples drawn from history that demonstrate the government CAN serve to liberate people from tyranny. Now address the issue that you were asked to address--if you can.

co-be) Already done. However, you haven't shown anything, as all you've talked about is one government replacing another.

Refer to the Book of Judges, as good an exposition as any of an anarchist system, and see what happened to the people of Israel when they insisted on having a king (government). The lesson, unlearned, has been repeated over and over.

"I think government is not worth the risk."

==>Based upon WHAT? I will tell you: your pie-in-the-sky THEORIES. No evidence. Nothing to stand on. ZIP!

co-be) Wrong again. I've already referred you to the resources which document voluminous evidence for my position. Since I do not have unlimited time, I will not reprint it all here. Either follow the links, or remain ignorant.

Everything I say is supported by BOTH theory AND history.


==>YES YOU ARE IF YOU ARE FOR ANARCHY!!! Anarchy is the ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT, thus the absence of LAW, thus LAWLESSNESS.

Co-be) No, I'm not. Absence of government isn't absence of law. It's simply a non-monopoly on the enforcement of law.

On the other hand, governments have been quite lawless.

If government=law, what about Nazi Germany? Or the Soviets?

Obviously, government does NOT equal law. It is possible to have lawless government (in fact, it's impossible to have any other kind), and it is possible to have polycentric law.

==>If not "WE" then who do you suggest? ONE? A FEW? MANY? ALL? Or NONE? Those are your options. Settle on an answer, will you?

co-be) Don't be so apopletic. Numerous possibilities are discussed in great detail in the resources I pointed you to.

As for your answer...take the market as an example. How many people will own their own company? ONE? A FEW? MANY? ALL? Or NONE? Well, no one knows ahead of time.

And, in fact, no one needs to know. It'll work itself out. Central planners don't have the answers; that's already been shown.

==>Believe me, I have not caricatured your insanity.

co-be) No, but you have caricatured my views, which are not at all insane, by refusing to examine the considerable body of scholarship underlying them, which I have pointed you to.
You spend a great deal of time breathlessly demanding that I demonstrate it all for you. I'm not inclined to do so, as I have other things to do, the chances of changing your mind are small given your proven lack of interest in rationally considering the evidence, and the low benefits if I were to succeed (convinced one person? so what?).

The evidence has been linked. I have better things to do than rephrase or reprint it all here. It's already been published elsewhere; follow the links if interested.

I'll continue to post bits and pieces that illustrate my points, and am not under any more obligation to prove my entire philosophy of government than anyone else here.

However, you have indeed done a fine job of demonstrating your lack of reasoning ability.

[co-be]

Mary Ruwart is someone we can all learn a lot from...

How I Became a Libertarian
by Mary Ruwart

full original at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/ruwart1.html

(Walter Block is gathering together the stories of how libertarians and/or Austrian economists first became introduced to their present beliefs. He invites all those who have been heavily influenced by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, either personally or through their writings, to send him a bit of their autobiographies, focusing on how they were first introduced to the views on politics, economics, etc., they now hold. He can be reached at wblock@loyno.edu.)

[...]

My first introduction to hard-core libertarian concepts was in my freshman year of college when a friend insisted that I read Atlas Shrugged.

Although I enjoyed the book immensely, I was concerned with its apparent lack of compassion. Raised as a Catholic, I could not reconcile the concept of ending tax-supported welfare with Christ’s admonition to love our neighbors.

In considering this dilemma, I suddenly became aware of a pivotal point: although refusing to help others might not be very loving, pointing guns at our neighbors to force them to help those in need was even less so. Honoring our neighbor’s choice was more loving than the forcible alternative. If people needed helping, I should expend my energy to offer that help, rather than forcing others to provide it.

In the next couple of years, I quickly went from an objectivist to anarchist. In the late 1960s, Morris and Linda Tannehill lived in the E. Lansing, Michigan area, where I was going to school. Through the friend who encouraged me to read Ayn Rand’s books, I met this fascinating couple and obtained a copy of their libertarian-anarchist book, The Market for Liberty.

I was easily won over to anarchy.

[...]

December 14, 2002

Mary J. Ruwart, PhD [mary@ruwart.com] is the author of Healing Our World (new, updated edition now available) and Short Answers to the Tough Questions. Her website details her tapes, books, and free downloads.

http://www.ruwart.com/

[co-be]

Anarcho-Capitalism:
An Annotated Bibliography
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Here is the essential reading on anarcho-capitalism, which might also be called the natural order, private-property anarchy, ordered anarchy, radical capitalism, the private-law society, or society without a state. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list. Indeed, only English-language works currently in print or forthcoming are included. Please note that suggestions are welcome, especially for Section IV: Congenial Writings.



I. Murray N. Rothbard and Austro-Libertarianism
At the top of any reading list on anarcho-capitalism must be the name Murray N. Rothbard. There would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard. His work has inspired and defined the thinking even of such libertarians such as R. Nozick, for instance, who have significantly deviated from Rothbard, whether methodologically or substantively. Rothbard's entire work is relevant to the subject of anarcho-capitalism, but centrally important are:

The Ethics of Liberty, the most comprehensive presentation and defense of a libertarian law code yet written. Grounded in the tradition of natural law and in its style of axiomatic-deductive reasoning, Rothbard explains the concepts of human rights, self-ownership, original appropriation, contract, aggression, and punishment. He demonstrates the moral unjustifiability of the state, and offers smashing refutations of prominent limited-statist libertarians such as L. v. Mises, F. A. Hayek, I. Berlin, and R. Nozick.

In For A New Liberty Rothbard applies abstract libertarian principles to solve current welfare-state problems. How would a stateless society provide for goods such as education, money, streets, police, courts, national defense, social security, environmental protection, etc.? Here are the answers.

Power and Market is the most comprehensive theoretical analysis of the inefficiencies and counterproductive effects of every conceivable form of government interference with the market, from price controls, compulsory cartels, anti-trust laws, licenses, tariffs, child labor laws, patents, to any form of taxation (including Henry George's proposed "single tax" on ground land).

Egalitarianism As a Revolt Against Nature is a marvelous collection of Rothbard essays on philosophical, economic, and historical aspects of libertarianism, ranging from war and revolution to kids' and women's liberation. Rothbard shows his intellectual debt both to Ludwig von Mises and Austrian economics (praxeology) and to Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and individualist-anarchist political philosophy. This collection is the best single introduction to Rothbard and his libertarian research program.

The four-volume Conceived in Liberty is a comprehensive narrative history of colonial America and the role of libertarian ideas and movements. Rothbard's magisterial two-volume An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought traces the development of libertarian economic and philosophical thought throughout intellectual history. The Irrepressible Rothbard contains delightful libertarian commentary on political, social, and cultural issues, written during the last decade of Rothbard's life.

Justin Raimondo has written an insightful biography: Murray N. Rothbard: An Enemy of the State.

The Austro-libertarian tradition inaugurated by Rothbard is continued by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. In Democracy – The God That Failed Hoppe compares monarchy favorably to democracy, but criticizes both as ethically and economically inefficient, and advocates a natural order with competitive security and insurance suppliers. He revises fundamental orthodox historical interpretations, and reconsiders central questions of libertarian strategy. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (2nd enlarged edition forthcoming) includes Hoppe's axiomatic defense of the principle of self-ownership and original appropriation: anyone arguing against these principles is involved in a performative or practical contradiction.

The Myth of National Defense (forthcoming) is a collection of essays by an international assembly of social scientists concerning the relationship between State and war and the possibility of non-statist property defense: by militias, mercenaries, guerrillas, protection-insurance agencies, etc.

II. Alternative Approaches to Anarcho-Capitalism

The following authors come to similar conclusions but reach them in different ways and varying styles. While Rothbard and Hoppe are natural rightsers of sorts and praxeologists, there exist also utilitarian, deontic, empiricist, historicist, positivist, and plain eclectic defenders of anarcho-capitalism.

Randy E. Barnett's The Structure of Liberty is an outstanding discussion of the requirements of a liberal-libertarian society from the viewpoint of a lawyer and legal th