Posted on 12/29/2001 2:29:14 PM PST by traditionalist
I think you missed the good professor's point, which is that a Constinutional Republic is an inherently unstable system doomed to degenrate into a mob-rule democracy like ours, if it is not overthrown by some coup first. It surly didn't take much to destroy ours.
I don't think I "missed" any of the professor's points. I simply didn't agree with most of them.
Most specificly, I don't agree with the professor's solution (abolition of all government), which is not libertarian. That's anarcho-capitalism, which I think is much more unlikely than the libertarian solution of a government limited to preventing/punishing violence and fraud. In the event that the United States, or any other country, gets to the limited-government stage of libertarianism, THEN I think we could talk about whether anarcho-capitalism is preferable. But for the professor to talk about his solution, and for it to be falsely classified as "libertarian," I think makes the goal of the limited government favored by libertarians actually LESS likely to occur. The professor's solution makes libertarians seem completely out of touch with reality...rather than simply desirous of a state of affairs that the United States actually resembled for a fairly long period of time.
Mark (real Libertarian)
How do you respond to his argument that what you consider to be the orthodox libertarian ideal, i.e. a strictly limited constitutional republic, is doomed to political failure?
And no, I am not looking for an argument why the orthodox libertarian system is better. I'm looking for a response to the argument above that such a system simply cannot last and is bound to be overthrown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.