Why Government Must Be Abolished

LewRockwell ^ | 12-08-03 | Brad Edmonds

[Belisaurius]

Lew, you ignorant slut.

[Neets]

You know Cathryn, if Jim reads this, you could get a time out like I did. There are certain ideas which aren't allowed on free republic.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Wrong answer dipwad:

To: Cathryn Crawford Sorry, our Founders established the most workable form of government known to man. I only wish we could get back to it.

47 posted on 12/09/2003 5:59:19 PM EST by Jim Robinson (All your ZOT are belong to us.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[tpaine]

Cathryn Crawford wrote:

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 like Kafkas quote too..

Which begs the question:
- Did something in this guys article shake you awake like a blow to the skull?

I failed to find it.

[William McKinley]

I forced myself through it all. I am glad I did, and am now actually glad it was posted.

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.

Too often, those who are the faithful audience of The Anarchist Eye For The Conservative Guy try to argue that they represent the real conservatives (was just debating one today, as it happens). It is good, for once, to see a piece that instead admits the hostility to the very foundations of our nation and its traditions that is inherent in such views.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

A long winded way of saying "I want my pot to be legal?"

[autoresponder]

Logical and/or practical comments not allowed on this thread!

[djf]

Very Lysander Spoonerish in tone.

[Billthedrill]

The guy is an unsophisticated neophyte.

Yep. These are all such basic issues in political theory that you have to suspect that the fellow is attempting to reason out the entire body of knowledge from first principles rather than go to the trouble of learning how these issues have been dealt with by past thinkers.

To cite only one, the relationship between an individual and the collective - the society - in which he or she is ineluctably a part is not volitional and does impose legitimate demands. Political philosophers from Locke to Rousseau have approached that question from many angles, and the simple fact that unless you're a hermit "no man is an island," and hence derives, whether volitional or not, benefits from that membership and incurs obligations, whether volitional or not, from that membership as well. The Social Contract turns out not to be a contract at all.

The degree to which a society may lay the claim to be "free" is the degree to which those benefits and obligations are volitional. That is never complete -government is necessarily coercion and so is society. Anarchism is a cheat - it depends on deriving the benefits of membership in the collective without recognizing the concomitant obligations, because they aren't volitional and that individual isn't, in the abstract sense, "free." But no one ever is - the state of nature Rousseau started from is a theoretical construct, not a historical fact; it's an illusion for benefit of theory. The foundations of anarchism are equally illusory, and for the very same reason.

What this means in a practical sense is that anarchists may not opt out of the benefits of membership in society by simply refusing to recognize them. To be freed of those obligations they must make themselves free of the society from which those benifits are derived.

[Neets]

I don't doubt any of that..and knowing you like I do, I knew you could find something in there if there was a "something".

I was just waiting to hear what she had to say about the article.

[Cathryn Crawford]

The article itself is founded on very shaky thought processes. All in all, I disagree with it.

[Neets]

Thanks.

[aculeus]

Claude Cockburn, interviewed Al Capone in 1930

Cockburn came within a hare's breath (Bunny Wilson would like that) of arrest for treason during the Hitler-Stalin Pact period. The loyal little commie became pro-Hitler as his Soviet bosses demanded. Hitler saved his treasonous arse by double-crossing Josef.

Al Capone once beat a man to death with a baseball bat. Al was a real American.

Cockburn and Capone both cited, approvingly, on a thread discussing Loonie Lew's claim that we don't need any government.

Is this a great website or what?

[Cathryn Crawford]

No problem. Did that make you feel better? Do you think I'd advocate anarchy? Has something I've written made you feel that I'd be taking that stance? Just curious.

[William McKinley]

I try to read things that are new to me; this isn't. And I try to read things that are in a language that I can understand. While this is in English, figurative language is completely foreign.

His lips move, but I can't hear what he says.

I am familiar with the arguments; I have read many of the books he says to stock my library with. I don't find evidence in political theory. I find evidence in history books. I find things to try in theories books; try, that is, if I think they would work.

I don't think their theories would work. I see no working examples, anywhere. I see no group willing to get together and go somewhere and give it a go.

Heck, it would be a grand experiment that I think would show every flaw in the system, were they to get together and try it in some village in the US. Let them get together (sort of like the Free State Project) and declare themselves government free, even from that of the United States.

My bet is that it wouldn't work too well in the short term, and then in the slightly longer term they would be conquered by an invading force (most likely, the feds over taxes, not recognizing their declaration of independence and freedom from government). Similarly, if they tried it in Africa, or South America, or anywhere sparsely populated, it would work only as long as someone didn't decide to conquer them, and it would only work to the degree that people would be willing to pay for shares of things that the community needs that others are unwilling to pay.

[patton]

Well done - I could not have said it better. But somebody did...

"Freedom is just another word, for nothing left to lose."

[Neets]

It's not about how I feel.

We all know the agenda of LewRockwell.com.

You posted a comment about how reading things gave you ammunition, should you need it to argue your point.

Throughout your postings, you failed to state a stance either way.

So, I was just wondering what your reason was for posting the article.

[William McKinley]

I like it. Good post.

[ValenB4]

Great post! Great article. You go, girlfriend. XO

[zoso82t]

I wish we could get rid of as much government as possible, but I don't think anarchy is the answer. If there was a state of anarchy, it wouldn't be very long until someone stood up and said "Who wants to do this?" and a bunch of people said "We do!" and then all of the sudden it's not anarchy but a mob.

[JoeSchem]

If anarchy is better, how come it gets its pants knocked off every time it comes up against a government in an armed confrontation? There are 150+ governments running the world, and unless you think that Somalia is a good place to live, there are no successful anarcho-capitalist regimes anywhere.