Why Libertarians have more integrity and intellectual honesty than Republicans and Democrats

"Throughout the ages, the emperor has had a series of pseudo-clothes provided for him by the nation's intellectual caste. In past centuries, the intellectuals informed the public that the State or its rulers were divine, or at least clothed in divine authority, and therefore what might look to the naive and untutored eye as despotism, mass murder, and theft on a grand scale was only the divine working its benign and mysterious ways in the body politic. In recent decades, as the divine sanction has worn a bit threadbare, the emperor's "court intellectuals" have spun ever more sophisticated apologia: informing the public that what the government does is for the "common good" and the "public welfare," that the process of taxation-and-spending works through the mysterious process of the "multiplier" to keep the economy on an even keel, and that, in any case, a wide variety of governmental "services" could not possibly be performed by citizens acting voluntarily on the market or in society. All of this the libertarian denies: he sees the various apologia as fraudulent means of obtaining public support for the State's rule, and he insists that whatever services the government actually performs could be supplied far more efficiently and far more morally by private and cooperative enterprise.

The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the State among its hapless subjects. His task is to demonstrate repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the "democratic" State has no clothes; that all governments subsist by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse of objective necessity. He strives to show that the very existence of taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled. He seeks to show that the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to accept State rule, and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded subjects.

Take, for example, the institution of taxation, which statists have claimed is in some sense really "voluntary." ANYONE WHO TRULY BELIEVES IN THE "VOLUNTARY" NATURE OF TAXATION IS INVITED TO REFUSE TO PAY TAXES AND SEE WHAT THEN HAPPENS TO HIM. If we analyze taxation, we find that, among all the persons and institutions in society, only the government acquires its revenues through coercive violence. Everyone else in society acquires income either through voluntary gift (lodge, charitable society, chess club) or through the sale of goods or services voluntarily purchased by consumers. If anyone but the government proceeded to "tax," this would clearly be considered coercion and thinly disguised banditry. Yet the mystical trappings of "sovereignty" have so veiled the process that only libertarians are prepared to call taxation what it is: legalized and organized theft on a grand scale."

- Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto


Tags: libertarians, republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, right wing, left wing, government, politics, economics, socialism, tax

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• libertarians
• republicans
• democrats
• liberals
• conservatives
• right
• wing
• left
• government
• politics
• economics
• socialism
• tax

[magiccat12]

A republican wants the government to leave him alone. A libertarian wants the government to leave everyone alone. Libertarians, unlike republicans, understand that if you support the right to intrude into other people's lives, you are inviting them to intrude into your life.

[bitbutter]

@schmoborama "how do liberatarians expect to pay for fire departments and garbage collection?"

I expect that this would happen much the same way as private fire services work right now. Google "Fire-Fighting for Profit" to read about one very successful example.

"I used to be an anarchist, *until I confused appeals to ignorance for knowledge*"

Fixed it for you. The fact that you can't imagine how X can be achieved without gov, doesn't mean X cannot be achieved without gov.

[mrktjobs]

Actually, "libertarians" are more like adolescents who scream "STAY OUT OF MY LIFE! I DON'T NEED YOU! GET LOST!" and then, admit, quietly..."eh, but can you take me and my friends to the mall first?"

Similar to the "libertarian" who drives on the roads we all chipped in for. Or the "libertarian" who calls the police when he sees shifty characters outside his door. Or the "libertarian" who assumes that the person helping him on the phone with his software issue learned without a teacher, etc.

[MabusZero]

mfw OP can Triforce.

[a46475]

Axiom?

[ftorresgamez]

"There are restrictions on everything."

You're begging the question, N. It's not that PP should be restricted because everything else is restricted, that's circular. You're only restricted by the rights of other people, i.e. you cannot steal.

"I believe in consensus"

Consensus only means rule of the mob, the 50% plus one. The concept of rights serves to avoid such pitfalls as every individual is the same in his right to liberty and property, no "consensus" required.

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

@ftorresgamez I'm not having anything both ways. I was only speaking to the idea that all libertarian believe in unrestricted private property. That is not true. I do not hold the position that land is only yours if you actively use it. I'm saying that there are libertarians who do. I do believe in private property but not the notion of it been unrestricted. There are restrictions on everything. I believe in consensus and a whats the best for the social welfare as well as the individual.

[ftorresgamez]

@N0g0dzN0masterz "But does not apply if you are not actively using it. "

Same with the car example, N. Again, you can't have it both ways and you cannot apply Special Pleading arguments, unless you want to tell me you're a Marxian polylogist as well: "MY logic is just as valid as YOUR logic!"

[ftorresgamez]

@N0g0dzN0masterz "Or if I'm not using the car because I'm sleeping or working?"

Does it matter? Remember, you're using Proudhon's definition: Property is what you use, not what you possess.

"If you are parking your car and going to work you still are going to use it later so it is still been used"

Same with land, N. You can't have it both ways.

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

@ftorresgamez I give "Private property" that definition based on what I see and understand. Also reading Proudhon (the original libertarian).

The claim that is an extension of self protection would be correct if you are speaking of an area that you are actively using ie farming or building etc. But does not apply if you are not actively using it. Like banks owning fore closed homes that they will never use. They just restrict access so they will have serves and peasants. or people in debt.

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

@ftorresgamez " If you don't use your car, does that mean it ain't yours? It has AREA." If I am not using a car how? like if I live it parked for years on the street? Or if I'm not using the car because I'm sleeping or working? even though this argument does not apply. Because I was referring to land. If you are parking your car and going to work you still are going to use it later so it is still been used. If you abandon your car you will probable not see it again. further more.

[ftorresgamez]

@N0g0dzN0masterz ,

"Private property as defined in our time is a form of aggression. "

Defined by whom?

"Private property is the right to force people out of a given area."

No, it's the right to keep property. Forcing people out of a "given area" is simply an extension of the right to self-protection, if the 'given area' happens to belong to you.

"Even if the given area is not been occupied or been used by its "owner"."

If you don't use your car, does that mean it ain't yours? It has AREA.