Why Government Must Be Abolished

LewRockwell ^ | 12-08-03 | Brad Edmonds

[MegaSilver]

I thought it was a very interesting article. I'm not a fan of Buchanan - usually quite the opposite - but I thought it raised some interesting questions that most people are a bit timid to approach.

Interesting, sure... but that doesn't make it any less scary.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Actually, I couldn't resist.

I know - that's why I pinged you. Because you're intelligent.

While I agree with him that disagreeing with the statement "the US Constitution is an irrelevant, ineffective mistake" is a Republican position, and while it is probably true that neo-conservatives also would disagree with him on it, I don't think that disagreeing with that asinine comment by him makes one a Republican nor a neoconservative.

It doesn't get any more succint than that.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Interesting, sure... but that doesn't make it any less scary.

What, specifically, did you find scary about it?

[Cathryn Crawford]

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Uh oh. This is going to turn into one of those drug threads. LOL

[freeeee]

Until a bunch of guys from across the river decide they want to come and take my stuff because it would be too much work to make their own stuff.

Hate to break it to you, but that's what happens now. Only you get the privilidge of paying the guys salary that robs you. But you got the river part right - they call it the Patomic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
--Alexander Tytler

[Jokelahoma]

The real opposite of communism is anarcho-capitalism, under which there is no forcible government, and no adult is ever forced to do anything he doesn’t agree to. This extends even to criminal justice.

So anarchy is the answer, eh? I've always wondered... if, in an anarchy, a person were to decide to burn down every single business in competition with his own, should that person be punished? And if so, how? For one, they've broken no laws, since we wouldn't have "forcible government". Second, all that person was doing was what they wanted, or more accurately, they don't have to do anything they DON'T want, and this person didn't want to compete with others, so they eliminated the competition. And if they were to be punished, who would punish them? No one has any authority over anyone else, right? So who can do the punishing?

What say we get Bradley here and a few of his friends, and let them establish their own little anarchy on a few acres somewhere. It would be interesting to see how long it would take before they had SOME form of "forcible government", SOMEone imposing their will on others to keep things flowing.

Brad Edmonds may not be a naive little college boy, deep in the midst of the "I know all the answers" phase of adolescence, but he sure writes like it.

[AdamSelene235]

Claude Cockburn, interviewed Al Capone in 1930:

'Listen,' he said, 'don't get the idea I'm one of these goddam radicals. Don't get the idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system . . .' As though an invisible chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of 'our heritage'. He referred with contemptuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. 'My rackets,' he repeated several times, 'are run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way.'

[Ohioan]

Republican representative democracy is not the opposite of communism. Under our system of government in the US, everyone is encouraged to vote for what he wants. Then, government aims its guns at the minority who didn’t agree with the majority, and forces the minority to pay money (or do more) to support the outcome they didn’t want. ......Even in our early days, when senators to the US Congress were not popularly elected, but were appointed by state legislatures (therefore, ostensibly, appointed by the best and brightest), our form of government was just a dressed-up version of mob rule.

This is simply not true. The Constitution does not provide for mob rule, but only a limited exercise of Government for the "Common defence and general welfare," that is, giving words their ordinary meaning, Government for the whole people, not for the views or interests of factions. What the writer suggests is directly contrary to the intentions of the Founders. It might help if he had ever read any of the Federalist Papers--such as #10, where Madison specifically addresses the prevention of the very evil that the writer claims is possible under the Constitution.

The fault is not in our system, but in the usurpation of power by politicians, which a dumbed down electorate fails to really understand. But writers such as this only compound the public misunderstanding.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[PISANO]

Lost me at "Minorities being persecuted". Minorities and minority OPINION run this damn country. For a good example LOOK at the US Senate or the Michigan Law school.

How about those Navtivity scenes?

Heard GOD mentioned in school lately?

[You Dirty Rats]

Oh please. Prohibition was idiotic and certainly contributed to the strength of the mob. My point is that the concept of a "market government" (i.e. based on economics not politics) would lead to uncontrolled violence, plunder, mayhem, and death.

There are areas of the world right now where there is no effective government, just armed thugs -- Somalia, Congo, etc.

The author claims any laws are bad because there is always a loser. Laws against mass murder are therefore bad because poor Charles Manson is locked up. The author is a certifiable nutcase who is too much of a savage to qualify as high as barbarian.

[x]

Don't be taken in by these guys. "Anarcho-capitalism" would be a real mess. At a minimum one needs a tribunal to ajudicate disputes. If one is free to accept or reject the judgement the result would eventually be recourse to force on a large scale. When we look at societies given wholly over to private protection agencies in action, the picture isn't pretty. Here is a brief critique of anarcho-capitalism that I googled. I can't vouch for the opinions expressed on the rest of the site, but it indicates some of the problems.

[Cathryn Crawford]

So anarchy is the answer, eh? I've always wondered... if, in an anarchy, a person were to decide to burn down every single business in competition with his own, should that person be punished? And if so, how? For one, they've broken no laws, since we wouldn't have "forcible government". Second, all that person was doing was what they wanted, or more accurately, they don't have to do anything they DON'T want, and this person didn't want to compete with others, so they eliminated the competition. And if they were to be punished, who would punish them? No one has any authority over anyone else, right? So who can do the punishing?

I agree. It always comes back to this. The arguments for anarchy, so far as I can see, are always circular.

[MPJackal]

"I do not see how we could safely exist in a dangerous world without a military, paid for by our taxes. I doubt that the military would be maintained by voluntary contributions" Sure it could. Tanks and fighters could be purchased at half the cost since government is not involved. Shoot a fighter could be had for oh $10,000,000.00.

[William McKinley]

I'm sorry Cathryn, I can't do it. I tried to read this, but it is just as foreign to me as anything that Noam Chomskey would write.

Pretty much any belief system which is utopian in nature is leftist, even if the adherents of such don't believe it (Erik Von Keunheldt-Leddhin expands on this in one of his books quite well). Such thinking just has no resonance with me.

[AdamSelene235]

What the writer suggests is directly contrary to the intentions of the Founders.

The Founding Lawyers agreed on very little. Furthermore, they were writing their future job descriptions. You better believe they planted loopholes in the document.

It might help if he had ever read any of the Federalist Papers--such as #10, where Madison specifically addresses the prevention of the very evil that the writer claims is possible under the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were propanganda designed to sell a cleverly sabotaged Constitution. Why did Hamilton and Madison conceal their authorship for decades? Why did the the Federalists shut down newspaper's that presented anti-Federalist views?

[You Dirty Rats]

I for one am not willing to take Al Capone's word for it.

He was a man of violence who believed that the law of this country did not apply to him. He corrupted cops, judges, politicians, and anyone else who was part of the American system that stood in his way.

I don't consider Capone or any other murdering son of a B to be a real American, just a common criminal who needs to be locked up tight.

[freeeee]

My point is that the concept of a "market government" (i.e. based on economics not politics) would lead to uncontrolled violence, plunder, mayhem, and death.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but please understand the example you gave disproves your theory. The market said alcohol should be sold. Politics said otherwise and the result? Uncontrolled violence, plunder, mayhem, and death.

The author claims any laws are bad because there is always a loser.

I disagree with the author in that I believe some government is needed, however it should only act to uphold rights.

Laws against mass murder are therefore bad because poor Charles Manson is locked up.

Mass murder is a violation of rights, the govenment I advocate it would harshly punish murderers.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Unfortunately anarchy leads to tiny, fractured communities who are seperately easily conquered and enslaved by larger, more organized city-states or countries.

His is just as unrealistic and unworkable as the pure communist utopia.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Well I'm convinced. Ok that's it everyone, government is hereby abolished. *waves hands* Hmm that didn't work. How to enforce this newfangled government-is-abolished policy of mine?

[Cathryn Crawford]

But you read it.

I like this quote -

I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us. If the book we are reading doesn't shake us awake like a blow to the skull, why bother reading it in the first place? -Franz Kafka

I try to read things that are foreign to me, things I disagree with, for the simple reason that the more I know, the more easily I can defend my own position. Though what I read may be opposite to my own views, if I'm ever face to face with someone that believes this, I'll be able to better defend myself and better use their own arguments to show them why they're wrong if I know what they're discussing.

Just because we disagree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be known and investigated. As a matter of fact, I believe that makes it all the more important to know it.