That the Constitution protects your liberties, even to some extent, is a myth. It has served the State’s agenda very well, while the individual has been forced to sacrifice more and more of his freedom, all in the name of the Constitution.
The mere existence of this document is no proof that it is responsible for any of the liberties that you think you still have, anymore then airbag mandate regulations is proof that you are safer in your car.
If the PDA that becomes the State knows what is best for it, it would also adopt some constitution so that it could foster the illusion of legitimacy on its subjects. Then there will be some document that is worth dying for.
I think certain individuals associated with LewRockwell.com and the LvMI do a lot of damage to libertarianism/classical liberalism with their treatment of supposed “Beltway” libertarians and the scholars associated with George Mason University.
I think that libertarians know that no one owns a reputation, and certainly no one owns a belief system or political ideology.
So the notion that someone can damage it, seems sort of alien to me.
There is another debate going on where a REAL [sic] intellectual claims that any attempt to clearly define a phrase or term is an attempt at using private language, since words only mean what people want them to mean. In such a situation, it doesn’t matter what LRC or LvMI do because by default, whatever people do under a banner, is that banner. In fact, his argument reduces to anything said by anyone at any time is a definition, and so no objective definitions are possible. But I digress…
Now obviously, I think this REAL [sic] intellectual is out to lunch, so lets take the other side. Let’s assume “libertarianism” and “classical liberalism” are terms with specific meanings. If they are, then whatever LvMI or LRC contributors do which is not consistent with that definition, is not actually that thing.
I don’t understand why libertarians are so concerned with image, when most of them have little understanding of marketing. What LRC or LvMI does, good or bad, doesn’t reflect on any libertarian as an individual unless they are the one participating in what it is LRC or LvMI is doing.
Thanks. I’ll read it when I finish all my work. Though my problem with his statement is that he is implying that we’re some sort of tyranical dictatorship.
Excellent post, thanks. This was ground breaking for me anyway.
There really is no divide between the anarchist and minarchist IF the state is regarded as a mortal enemy by each. The divide occurs when one or the other regards the state as being good, but less of a state would be better. Rothbard’s position is that the state is not in any way good, it is very bad, dangerous, and it is the enemy of mankind. Hence the divide from minarchists who don’t regard the state as a threat, rather, the state is regarded as being merely less optimal.
He points out that minarchists have a history of viewing the state as an enemy, but these folks are hard to find today (1977 when he wrote that).
I made the challenge once before to point out where radicals garrote minarchists. Nobody met it. Then I pointed out that the garroting is all the other way. There is a Rettoper laying in ambush around every corner.
People that call themselves conservatives spend more effort trying to rid the world of libertarians than they spend on any of the so-called “practical” things they claim to do.
The best known and wealthiest libertarian in Canada was recently sentenced to 5 years in a US jail. Stephen Harper could have vetoed the extradition. Go conservatives!
