exodus - "I am a libertarian, Ruadh, while you don't know what you believe, other than that people shouldn't hurt each other or steal."Yes, you're right.
Ruadh - Wow. Shouldn't you more accurately be claiming that YOU don't know what I believe, other than what I've posted?
**********************************
Sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive.
Nevertheless, a definition of "libertarian" that does not cover Rothbard is like a definition of "communist" that excludes LeninLenin was not a communist. Lenin was a socialist; he only used the honorable label of "communist" to justify his tyranny.
**********************************
Murray N. Rothbard - A Legacy of LibertyRothbard was right, Gingrich betrayed the Contract with America.
"... Rothbard's theory was his practice. He was involved in nearly every political and social development of his time, from Robert Taft's presidential campaign to the 1994 elections. His last article, appearing in the Washington Post, warned that Newt Gingrich is more likely to betray the revolution than lead it ..."
**********************************
Ruadh - Your distinction between libertarian and anarchist excludes one of the most prominent libertarians of the 20th century, Murray Rothbard, of all people.From what I've read on that website, Rothbard was not an anarchist.
Murray N. Rothbard - A Legacy of Liberty
"... Rothbard was called "the state's great living enemy" because he applied traditional standards of morality to government. If it is wrong for a person to demand your money or your life, it is also wrong for a band of criminals calling themselves the government to do so. Rothbard's "anarchism" only sought to make the government subject to the rule of law ..."
**********************************
exodus - "Do you really believe that your property or self would be safe with without Law to restrain aggression?"Safety is never absolute.
Ruadh - Well, they are not safe now, in any absolute sense. The real question is whether they'd be safer with or without a state (which is what I presume you mean by "Law" in this context.) I am personally conservative enough to be not easily convinced by theoretical arguments such as those offered by Rothbard. I should like to see a functioning anarchy before I buy it.
**********************************
To be precise, I don't mean "the State" when I say Law; I mean the Rule of Law, which when active, becomes government. "Law" is the human principle involved in organization, not a State, though in practice Law pretty much does mean government.
From what I've read, Rothbard didn't advocate anarchy. He wanted government to both follow and be subject to Law, just as citizens are.
There has never, and never will be, a "functional" anarchy. Anarchy is chaos, not civilization. Any period of anarchy has always, and will always be, followed closely by the organization of the weary survivors, tired of the brutality they had been exposed to by evil men, those who are always ready to take advantage of those weaker than they are.
Law both allows and protects civilization. Without Law, there is no civilization.