The Reluctant Anarchist

LewRockwell.com ^ | 1/22/2003 | Joseph Sobran

[JohnGalt]

If you think that FDR is the father of modern conservatism and the Martin Luther King is more important than Tailgunner Joe, you will probably just lob some one-liners and strength the belief system paleo-cons and paleo-libs already have.

To the paleo-cons perhaps we can exchange a few ideas based on this article of course on radical localism and the preservation of the American tradition in a world without borders, laws, or Christian ethics.

[uncbob]

It is easy to declare oneself an Anarchist or Liberatarian since those systems ain't never going to happen so you are able yo live in your own smug little dream world and feel good about yourself being intellectually on a higher plane than the great unwashed public

[marktwain]

At one time I would have agreed with Joe. More reading of history, however, has shown me that his assumptions are wrong.

1. Rule by thugs would have resulted in less deaths than rule by governments in the last century, which resulted in 200 million deaths. Research into the levels of violent death experienced by tribal cultures (as close to no government as you can get) shows that the percentage of deaths is even higher! than that of Nazi germany or Stalinist USSR!

2. The Constitution is a dead letter. It is true that the Constitution does not restrict the government in all the ways we wish it to. However, to claim that it doesn't restrict the government at all is wrong. It restricts the government in a great many ways. While the government has gained enormous power over time, the restrictions in place have resulted in the building of a tremendous society and technological base, which have a good prospect of spawning even more free societies in the future.

The best way to minimal government is forward toward more prosperity and freedom via the free flow of information via the internet and more advanced technologies.

[Rebelbase]

RE: #2, well said.

[fporretto]

Joseph Sobran is a fine writer, and I have no doubt that his heart’s in the right place, as it always has been. However, as a former, extremely tentative adherent to anarcho-capitalist concepts, I must disagree with at least one of his premises.

There is prospect for a Constitutional revival, even if Sobran can’t see it. The prospect is exactly the same as it was for the birth of the document – it will take great resolve, great effort, and a sincere renunciation by conservatives of those goals they have for the law that clash with Constitutional constraints.

The rest of the battle will be political. A period of widespread passive resistance to the Leviathan State may be required. The alternative is to accept the eventual balkanization and destruction of the republic, under the relentless pressure of the interest groups. Though good might eventually come from this, none of us would live to see it. Probably our children’s children wouldn’t, either.

Otherwise, it’s “sauve qui peut,” and hope for cheap space travel really soon.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[one2many]

You beat me to posting this.

Here is food for thought.

[one2many]

How about popping over to this link and alerting your readers.

Thanks

[Dumb_Ox]

The essence of the state is its legal monopoly of force.

I've never quite accepted this definition. Here in Colorado, we have what's called the "Make my Day" laws, which acknowledge the right of a homeowner to engage in legitimate, forceful defense of his home against intruders. Hardly monopolistic.

But force is subhuman; in words I quote incessantly, Simone Weil defined it as "that which turns a person into a thing – either corpse or slave." It may sometimes be a necessary evil, in self-defense or defense of the innocent...

How is force used in self-defense or in defense of the innocent a necessary evil? What's more, force is ususally distinguishable from violence--the latter implying violation.

Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be "replaced."

I suspect there's a logical fallacy lurking beneath this sentiment. Sobran notes how some states are murderous, then generalizes from this that all states are murderous. This is no more true of states than of men.

[stainlessbanner]

bump

[JohnGalt]

Unless Yankee libertarians and neo-Confederates agree to regionalize Conservatism/Americanism, preferably with our Rocky Mountain libertarian/populist Conservative friends out West, I do not see a future for the America we understand in the books I think we have all read.

[JohnGalt]

Just think, before liberal democracies, there were 'no total wars to end all wars.'

[JohnGalt]

Violence in self-defense is justified in the Old Testament (if someone comes to kill your brother, kill him), but I think the New Testament characterizes violence as a necesary evil. Clearly, Sobran is writing as a Christian not a Hobbsian, but I understand your point,

[JohnGalt]

I had read that before your link; interesting that we both pulled the same lesson from it.

[Protagoras]

It is easy to declare oneself an Anarchist or Liberatarian since those systems ain't never going to happen so you are able yo live in your own smug little dream world and feel good about yourself being intellectually on a higher plane than the great unwashed public

You are right of course, much better to embrace a system of thugs and feel smug about that. And hey, maybe you will get to share some of the plunder.

And you can even go wash and still be part of the ruling class.

[one2many]

Unless Yankee libertarians and neo-Confederates agree to regionalize Conservatism/Americanism, preferably with our Rocky Mountain libertarian/populist Conservative friends out West, I do not see a future for the America we understand in the books I think we have all read.

Shortly I will be posting the definitive Acton - Lee letters. In his letter, Acton alludes to the Confederate Constitution (the one being followed in Switzerland today) and calls it a "great Reform" of the original U. S. Constitution.

It had a number of vital differences but the greatest was the codification of "concurrent majority".

[one2many]

Indeed ;^)

[one2many]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828843/posts?page=1

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[sheltonmac]

Today, too many "conservatives" are, as Sobran puts it, "less interested in principles than in Republican victories." I believe we will only begin to see real change when we completely abandon the notion that any Republican victory is better than a Democratic victory. The real power lies with the people, not with our elected officials. As you pointed out, it may require a "period of widespread passive resistance." I wonder how many people would be willing to sign on.