Greetings -
First, thank you for these scholarly forums – it is a time when clear thinking is again needed at the forefront of politics and economics.
WANTED POLITICAL/ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHERS: Is it time for a “Liberty Manifesto?” ← click to download PDF. We will publish the finished Manifesto in book form in time for the 2010 elections. Essays needed too.
Debate the Manifesto here, or go help shape it at link in document.
In Liberty -
Scott
Hey look,
Conservative idiology. I don’t think I agree with a single tenet in this PDF.
I particularly like 2C
‘All representatives of Government shall be required to swear this as an oath of office in the same
spirit that our citizens under arms do swear allegiance in the defense of our nation.’
Put your hands over your heart and swear allegiance to a social construct people.
True. Of course it would be better than what we have now, but yeah, that’s not saying much.
Hello -
Thanks for your review and comment. Isn’t the Constitution a “social construct”? If so, I take it you then would swear no allegiance to it.
What then, sir, are you left with for allegiance? Certainly not anarchy, because it would be difficult to swear allegiance to “a state of society without government or law”, since there would be no governing body in existence to receive such an oath.
Run wild in the fields?
not having anything to swear allegiance to is a particular kind of problem.
a not-at-all-a-problem.
ohnoes! there is nothing to swear allegiance to! …eeeek
Hi - Followed your link to http://r3vo.org and saw it is a site for Ron Paul. Interesting. Didn’t Mr. Paul himself publish his own manifesto, and doesn’t the Libertarian party, of which Ron Paul is a member, pubiish a platform which would require allegiance in order to affect change and governance?
Laughing Man – please check your labels… you will find that what you label “Conservative” might agree perfectly with “Classical Liberalism”. See:
Perhaps this is the ambiguity you are seeking as you argue against allegiance to a particular cause?
lol… not laughing at you, laughing at this statement cause here it comes!
In american history befor the constitution and before the revolutionary war colonists were pretty much property owners who operated outside of the British governmental control. It was pretty much an organized state of anarchy. People operated as nothing more then property owners. Heavy policing and other rediculous social programs were not needed as just about every person in every household were well trained riflemen. There was not much crime as property owners protected their land with strong diligence. Only idiots would tresspass back then, men in general respected private property that much more.
It’s because of this lack of government that every single time a tax was imposed or anything government related imposed over the colonists by the british these objets were so much more transparent to colonists. Colonists knew and were aware of every litle tiny thing the british government took from them and their property.
Seeing how they lived a pretty much anarchist society of men who owned nothing more then property and operated with nothing more then consenting voluntary contracts history proves that they didn’t run around and frollock in the grass as you would claim. Only a child could think of something so fantasy based. You are a socialist, you cannot fathom life without social control. I recommend you moving to a third world country and live out of any major city where government is non existent. You will see how peaceful and organized things really can be.
Also bringing up the topic of pledging allegience to a government on this forum shows how ignorant you are of the beleifes here. Most of us are Anarcho-capitalists. Some are not but I have a point to bring up to you.
Our gov officials and military operatives already swear an oath to the constitution and just baout 99% of them do not live up to it. What makes you think your little oath will do any better?
There is a site out there, “http://oathkeepers.org/oath/” where members of the military can go and agree to stand firm in their protection against the constition over some upper official. I have confirmed from various military sources that this site is banned on most government areas. The oath they swear is simply to appease us civilians and keep us happy but doesn’t hold any real weight. I think our current president is enough of an example for that.
lets play find the quote!
“true conservatives can only be radical libertarians, and they must demand the demolition—as a moral and economic distortion—of the entire structure of the interventionist state.”
please be an anarchist.
go on.
please.
You need to learn that freedom is about individual rights to life, liberty and property - nowhere comes government into the picture except as a criminal entity.
Individuals don’t need to swear allegiance to government. If anything, politicians should be the servant of ‘the people’ and the ones swearing allegiance, not masters to whom allegiance is owed.
What is wrong with this Libertarian Manifesto: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto ?
Could you (or anyone here) please recommend any books related to that period and place of american history?
I think you need to do some reading.
Probably one of the most entertaining time periods of american history though I have my bets that much of it is exagerated to some extent. At any rate here’s a fun one to start.
Hello -
Thanks for your counter points here. As you have noted, the Liberty Manifesto (not completed - the debate has just begun) is not about anarchy, so I will not have much time to debate you on that ground.
You have, however, made a series of errors that bear correction:
Oathkeepers DO swear to the Constitution: “Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and not to any political party. In the long-standing tradition of the U.S. military, we are apolitical.” Since the Constitution is a “social construct” it is the wisdom of this group to recognize that and their allegiance is to the people (remember that… “We, the people”?) and not to politicians.
Please state your source for the statement that “…military operatives already swear an oath to the constitution and just about 99% of them do not live up to it.”? Where do you get that number? Isn’t your citing of the Oathkeepers itself proof that your statement is false?
You have presented an oxymoronic statement that at the time of the revolution it “was pretty much an organized state of anarchy.” Anarchy, by definition, cannot be “organized”.
You state that the founders “lived pretty much anarchist society”. Can you support that with solid premises? I think not, because in fact, a number of laws, courts, and thus agreements were in place among them at the time.
And to declare independence from the King, they banded together and formed “social constructs” including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights which included the swearing of an oath “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” See: http://64.203.107.114/alexander/edition.asp?id=620 You are correct that oaths are not the stuff of anarchists, and so neither the founders of the US, nor the Oathkeepers you cite were anarchists in any stretch or sense of the term.
The bottom line is that the founders declared independence from one form of government, and then created another – to which you may choose to swear allegiance or not – as long as it is a free country. There was no time of anarchy – even during the Revolutionary War, the colonies were organized, and so not in a state of the self-contradictory, “organized anarchy” you suggested.
So, I appeal again to some of the more clear thinking members who wish to stand as Patriots for Liberty.
my computer dictionary gives this definition:
anarchy:
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, fromanarkhos, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler.’
without chief, ruler…
some food for thought.
Many of us are very clear thinking. You are not.
This is not a good site to advertise minarchism, as it isn’t very popular. Many of us agree with Rothbard that the governmnet “is a gang of thieves, writ large”. We’re ancaps, because it is the only ideology fully consistent with liberty. When you’re ready to be fully consistent with liberty, then you are welcome to become an ancap, but for many of us becoming a “Patriot of Liberty” per your manifesto, would actually be a step backward from true liberty, and closer to real tyranny.
Juan wrote: “You need to learn that freedom is about individual rights to life, liberty and property - nowhere comes government into the picture except as a criminal entity.”
For Juan and other “anarchists” here who claim they stand for Freedom… I am free, and I do not “need to learn” your interpretation of history, governments, oaths and political philosophy. It is humorous, however, to see those advocating for no control whatsoever, so stridently suggesting control in what is to be thought.
And I would submit to you sir, that if you are suggesting it is possible to form a community without a government, defined simply as “system of rule”, that your fantasy is not in historical evidence starting with cavemen on forward.
“The Truth, when it comes to words, is always a matter of interpretation.” - Tom Brown.
In Liberty -
Scott
oh, that old chestnutt, that truth and right-thinking is a ‘mental straightjacket’
pull the other one.