[Rushtalk] Myth and Truth About Libertarianism
notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
Thu Sep 27 12:05:14 MDT 2012
At 05:22 AM 9/27/2012 -0700, you wrote:
>On 9/26/2012 7:53 PM, Steven Laib wrote:
>>I think that one of the problems with part of this discussion is
>>the premise that the opposite of statism is anarchy. This further
>>assumes that any government is "statist." My understanding of
>>statism is that it envisions a state centered system such as state
>>socialism, communism, or any other authoritarian state centered
>>system that denies civil liberties and individual rights.
>Incorrect. Political scientists describe statism as the belief that
>government should control economic or social policy or both to SOME
>extent. Note emphasis on "some." You are describing an extreme form
>while the founders envisioned a mild form. That is, only what is
>necessary, thus the premise of the Constitution of enumerated
>powers. This is precisely the opposite of anarchism.
And I agree that the founders wanted a very limited central
government and that it didn't work.
The way to fix this broken system in my opinion is to tear up the
document that formed the federal government thereby voiding it (the
government) and, if need be, have a national debate as to whether
another one is even necessary today.
In the mean time with no federal US government, we'd still have order
from the 50 state governments and the untold number of county, city,
parrish, etc. governments that still exist.
The ONLY viable reason to keep the federal government is to provide
jobs for all the bureaucrats.
>>A system of popular sovereignty is not, in my opinion, statist
>>because it places the citizen about the state or government. Of
>>course that does not assure anyone that the system is self
>>maintaining, as we are seeing in practical application today.
>It still grants the government SOME control over economic and social
>policy thus it meets the definition of statism.
>>On 9/26/12 3:02 PM, Paf Dvorak wrote:
>>>At 01:03 PM 9/26/2012 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>At 12:48 PM 9/26/2012, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>>>>>Actually, as much as it pains me to agree with Paf, he is
>>>>>technically correct, using the proper definition of statism.
>>>>>Statism is essentially the opposite of anarchy. Therefore, other
>>>>>than those that want the Somalia model, we are all statists, including Ben.
>>>Yep, Dennis is correct: there are only two choices. Liberty &
>>>slavery and various degrees in between.
>>>Somalia is a country in turmoil. Various factions are vying to be
>>>the government...nobody is trying to build a libertarian free
>>>market in Somalia that I know of.
>>>As Dennis Jr suggested, I too don't get why you people keep
>>>bringing up Somalia as an example of why freedom is bad.
>>>But maybe one of you will fill in that blank for me.
>>>> What bakes my biscuits is his using the term as a
>>>> pejorative.........unbridled freedom carries with it a serious responsibility.
>>>Statists are pro-state. Libertarian-anarchists favor no
>>>government. It seems your position is that the more "state" we can
>>>get the freer we'll all be and I simply disagree (as do most
>>>thinking people.) I know that the government that governs least
>>>will provide for the freest possible option.
>>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk