Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 18th, 2014 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default The Libertarian Lens: The Nature of the State

The Night of the Long Knives: Feinstein and “the Merkel Effect”
Charles Burris

This week the heroic NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden accused the unctuous Senator Dianne Feinstein of hypocrisy for complaining about alleged CIA spying on U.S. senators while tolerating government spying on private citizens. Snowden described this as “the Merkel Effect.”

Yet ultimately all States rest on hypocrisy and myth.

From ancient Sumer to the present, all governments have been composed of elites. All states originate in conquest and exploitation, and as elite oligarchies, exercise a monopoly of crime over their subjects through war and taxation, indoctrination and propaganda, and the conscription of resources and persons. All states or regimes are characterized by the brutal struggle for power in its diverse open and concealed forms by competing elites. The most significant political division to be observed in such internecine warfare is that between the rulers and the ruled, the “ins” and the “outs,” the elite and the non-elite.

The primary object of every government ruling elite is survival — masquerading under the rubric of “national security” — the jealous maintenance of its power, prestige, opulence and privilege against all potential rivals. All governments, no matter how ruthless and despotic (or seemingly benevolent and just), rest upon the “engineering of consent” of the gullible majority, largely by propaganda beamed at the populace by the rulers and their craven apologists in the complacent and compliant news media.

The rule of the elite is based on force or fraud. This force may be hidden or threatened, and the fraud sustained by a political formula, usually expressed as a generally accepted state religion, ideology, or series of myths. But it is the physical force of the gun that lay behind it all. And it is at your mind that every government gun is aimed.
 
Old March 18th, 2014 #2
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Nigel Thornberry
Default

Utter rubbish
 
Old March 18th, 2014 #3
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

So the tea party has been hijacked by neocons, as we all know.

But now libertarianism has been hijacked by anarchists?
 
Old March 18th, 2014 #4
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Nigel Thornberry
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The Night of the Long Knives: Feinstein and
Yet ultimately all States rest on hypocrisy and myth.
The use of the word myth as synonymous with lie reveals all that we can expect will follow in this superficial 'analysis'. Yes, the state is based in myth; it is this materialist, however, who considers that fact to be anathema.

Quote:
From ancient Sumer to the present, all governments have been composed of elites.
"Elites". Indeed. What is his point? Again, he is the egalitarian who loathes the fact. Others would not agree. Of course, the word is unqualified here - just what sort of 'elite' are we talking about?

Quote:
[B]All states originate in conquest
The sword is a means to bring order from chaos. It is barbarism that is being conquered.

Quote:
and exploitation,
Notions of the metaphysical reality of such principles as duty obviously do not exist for our Libertarian. Of course, this view of history as exploitation is just a load of tripe invented by Enlightenment propagandists that bears little resemblance to civilisation in general. Why, just consider the outright lies that streamed from their pens about the Ancien Regime and the Droit du seigneur. In fact, the times at which peasants in France were subject to 'exploitation' were those times of chaos that proceeded from the collapse of the power of the Frankish monarchy before the turn of the millennium, or in other words, anarchism.

Quote:
and as elite oligarchies, exercise a monopoly of crime over their subjects through war and taxation,
This is pejorative blathering. I'd advise this ignoramus to learn the meanings of the words aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny to avoid embarrassing himself further.

Oh, yeah, let's not forget the old one about war and taxation being 'crimes' after the absolute truth of Libertarian ethics.

Quote:
indoctrination and propaganda,
Such as Libertarian doctrine ... ? Hypocrisy, what?

Quote:
and the conscription of resources and persons.
Undoubtedly. That is how civilisation is built and maintained.

Quote:
All states or regimes are characterized by the brutal struggle for power in its diverse open and concealed forms by competing elites.
That is human nature, not a phenomenon reserved for the state. Now, why don't we turn our eyes to those peoples for whom the state did not exist. What do we find but savagery? Nothing - just savages everywhere.

Quote:
The most significant political division to be observed in such internecine warfare is that between the rulers and the ruled, the “ins” and the “outs,” the elite and the non-elite.
That notion of constant class struggle is the dialectic of the revolution concocted in the 18th century. In fact, the words above could have been penned by Marx himself. Naturally, it has created its own reality by fomenting just such a struggle in the last two centuries. Prior history, however, knows little of it, and especially against aristocracies.

Quote:
The primary object of every government ruling elite is survival —
This is ideological Darwinism.

Quote:
masquerading under the rubric of “national security” — the jealous maintenance of its power, prestige, opulence and privilege against all potential rivals.
A trait of corrupt human nature that will magically disappear with the destruction of the state and its inauguration of an enlightened age of ... purposeless animalism- so the Libertarian.

Quote:
All governments, no matter how ruthless and despotic (or seemingly benevolent and just), rest upon the “engineering of consent” of the gullible majority, largely by propaganda beamed at the populace by the rulers and their craven apologists in the complacent and compliant news media.
'News media'. Aye, there were 'news media' in the ancient world. What a joke. And yet it is precisely this gullible majority', not enlightened by the doctrines of Libertarianism, that the Libertarian believes have the ability to maintain civil society without the state and a spiritual elite. Human history shows otherwise.

Quote:
The rule of the elite is based on force or fraud.
This is made up bunk - a projection of his own paranoid Liberal mentality on the whole of history of humanity.

Quote:
This force may be hidden or threatened, and the fraud sustained by a political formula, usually expressed as a generally accepted state religion, ideology, or series of myths.
It goes without saying that our Libertarian friend is also an atheist. After all, he could never have arrived at his ludicrous conclusions if he weren't. Ironically, he's discarded religion for the ersatz-myth of 'nature', but since he's also thrown out his intellect for an irrational faith in 'reason', that irony will forever be lost on him.

Quote:
But it is the physical force of the gun that lay behind it all. And it is at your mind that every government gun is aimed.
Sancta simplicitas: the complexities of human nature and spirit as they have realised themselves in world history are reduced to a simple rhetorical formula that explains everything. Just how 'gullible' does one have to be to believe the ranting of Libertarians?

The predictable, and predictably dull, Linderian reply will no doubt follow.

S.P.
 
Old March 18th, 2014 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cillian View Post
So the tea party has been hijacked by neocons, as we all know.

But now libertarianism has been hijacked by anarchists?
They resort to labels who can't refute arguments.

Deal with what he's saying - if you can.
 
Old March 18th, 2014 #6
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
They resort to labels who can't refute arguments.

Deal with what he's saying - if you can.
Nigel dealt with the article thoroughly enough when he said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
Utter rubbish
So I dealt with the title, it's not libertarianism.
 
Old March 20th, 2014 #7
Lucian A.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
The sword is a means to bring order from chaos. It is barbarism that is being conquered.

S.P.
A state isn't order, it's savagery regulated.

Your rome was a hypocritical piece of shit, Sandor. Quit dreaming.
 
Old March 20th, 2014 #8
Sam Emerson
Diversity = White Genocide
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
Posts: 2,800
Sam Emerson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
'News media'. Aye, there were 'news media' in the ancient world. What a joke. And yet it is precisely this gullible majority', not enlightened by the doctrines of Libertarianism, that the Libertarian believes have the ability to maintain civil society without the state and a spiritual elite. Human history shows otherwise.
The libertarian interpretation of states as gangs of robbers may not apply to all states at all times but it works pretty well when talking about Great Britain or the United States. In another thread I saw you defending the British Empire. Was Disraeli part of the spiritual elite? How about Winston Churchill, who along with FDR is among the most guilty race traitors of all time? Then there's Blair or Cameron...

Modern states compare unfavorably to gangs of robbers. Robbers in white countries don't try to exterminate the majority population. Every Jew controlled modern state is doing just that.
 
Old March 20th, 2014 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

re: The Scum Rises to the Top
Thomas DiLorenzo

Mike, your comment reminds me of what my old friend and co-author Jim Bennett called his ”Septic Tank Theory of Government”: The big chunks rise to the top. It’s also reminiscent of chapter ten of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, entitled “‘Why the Worst Rise to the Top.” The more pervasive “government planning” becomes, said Hayek, the greater the “opportunities” in government for the brutal and the unscrupulous, for it takes brutality and amorality to enforce the coercion that is necessary in a “planned” utopia, whether it is called communism, socialism, fascism, or the more pleasant-sounding “social justice,” “progressivism,” or “democracy.” Try not paying for all the CRAP the government claims that you want and they will send armed men to apprehend you and will force you to live in a government cage for many years.
 
Old March 20th, 2014 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
The use of the word myth as synonymous with lie reveals all that we can expect will follow in this superficial 'analysis'. Yes, the state is based in myth; it is this materialist, however, who considers that fact to be anathema.
Yeah, you religious tools are so deep. You invent things that don't exist and stamp your feet others fail to see your various peters pan.

Quote:
"Elites". Indeed. What is his point? Again, he is the egalitarian who loathes the fact. Others would not agree. Of course, the word is unqualified here - just what sort of 'elite' are we talking about?
He's not bemoaning elites, dimwit, he's mentioning a simple fact. Libertarians are against coercion not elite. Contrast their average IQ and accomplishment with any other political school - it's considerably higher. They're hardly egalitarians, they just don't like being bossed around. They like being free. That sounds kind of white to me, unlike your school, that's always sniffing jocks, looking for a strongman.

Quote:
The sword is a means to bring order from chaos. It is barbarism that is being conquered.
Yeah, ok, Conan...which fantasy video game are you channeling now?

Quote:
Notions of the metaphysical reality of such principles as duty obviously do not exist for our Libertarian.
Screw your notions, such as your fixation on things that don't exist being realer than reality, and look at how libertarians actually behave. But you won't. You're more interested in theory. The fascinating things is how come these ideological individualists, who believe in private, voluntary arrangements rather than central-state coercion, are more intelligent, more polite, and more trusting/trustworthy/better networked than those who preach collectivist approaches. But you'd rather live in the land of make believe, Theoria than condescend to notice facts. Go play your video game, budger, you can win there.

Quote:
Of course, this view of history as exploitation is just a load of tripe invented by Enlightenment propagandists that bears little resemblance to civilisation in general. Why, just consider the outright lies that streamed from their pens about the Ancien Regime and the Droit du seigneur. In fact, the times at which peasants in France were subject to 'exploitation' were those times of chaos that proceeded from the collapse of the power of the Frankish monarchy before the turn of the millennium, or in other words, anarchism.
Ok, so you're one of these catholic queers who wants to go back to the middle ages so the lord of the manor can break in your peasant woman on your wedding night. Great stuff. A place for everyone, and no one can move or think differently, or The Man will beat 'em down. What a great, spiritual world.

Quote:
Oh, yeah, let's not forget the old one about war and taxation being 'crimes' after the absolute truth of Libertarian ethics.
It may or may not be a crime, but it is certainly slavery. I'm sure you don't mind that, but you don't seem very white minded.

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 20th, 2014 at 05:48 PM.
 
Old March 20th, 2014 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Why Bad Men Rule

by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

One of the most widely accepted propositions among political economists is the following: Every monopoly is bad from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is understood in its classical sense to be an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, i.e., as the absence of free entry into a particular line of production. In other words, only one agency, A, may produce a given good, x. Any such monopolist is bad for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into his area of production, the price of the monopolist's product x will be higher and the quality of x lower than otherwise.

This elementary truth has frequently been invoked as an argument in favor of democratic government as opposed to classical, monarchical or princely government. This is because under democracy entry into the governmental apparatus is free — anyone can become prime minister or president — whereas under monarchy it is restricted to the king and his heir.

However, this argument in favor of democracy is fatally flawed. Free entry is not always good. Free entry and competition in the production of goods is good, but free competition in the production of bads is not. Free entry into the business of torturing and killing innocents, or free competition in counterfeiting or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. So what sort of "business" is government? Answer: it is not a customary producer of goods sold to voluntary consumers. Rather, it is a "business" engaged in theft and expropriation — by means of taxes and counterfeiting — and the fencing of stolen goods. Hence, free entry into government does not improve something good. Indeed, it makes matters worse than bad, i.e., it improves evil.

Since man is as man is, in every society people who covet others' property exist. Some people are more afflicted by this sentiment than others, but individuals usually learn not to act on such feelings or even feel ashamed for entertaining them. Generally only a few individuals are unable to successfully suppress their desire for others' property, and they are treated as criminals by their fellow men and repressed by the threat of physical punishment. Under princely government, only one single person — the prince — can legally act on the desire for another man's property, and it is this which makes him a potential danger and a "bad."

However, a prince is restricted in his redistributive desires because all members of society have learned to regard the taking and redistributing of another man's property as shameful and immoral. Accordingly, they watch a prince's every action with utmost suspicion. In distinct contrast, by opening entry into government, anyone is permitted to freely express his desire for others' property. What formerly was regarded as immoral and accordingly was suppressed is now considered a legitimate sentiment. Everyone may openly covet everyone else's property in the name of democracy; and everyone may act on this desire for another's property, provided that he finds entrance into government. Hence, under democracy everyone becomes a threat.

Consequently, under democratic conditions the popular though immoral and anti-social desire for another man's property is systematically strengthened. Every demand is legitimate if it is proclaimed publicly under the special protection of "freedom of speech." Everything can be said and claimed, and everything is up for grabs. Not even the seemingly most secure private property right is exempt from redistributive demands. Worse, subject to mass elections, those members of society with little or no inhibitions against taking another man's property, that is, habitual a-moralists who are most talented in assembling majorities from a multitude of morally uninhibited and mutually incompatible popular demands (efficient demagogues) will tend to gain entrance in and rise to the top of government. Hence, a bad situation becomes even worse.

Historically, the selection of a prince was through the accident of his noble birth, and his only personal qualification was typically his upbringing as a future prince and preserver of the dynasty, its status, and its possessions. This did not assure that a prince would not be bad and dangerous, of course. However, it is worth remembering that any prince who failed in his primary duty of preserving the dynasty — who ruined the country, caused civil unrest, turmoil and strife, or otherwise endangered the position of the dynasty — faced the immediate risk either of being neutralized or assassinated by another member of his own family. In any case, however, even if the accident of birth and his upbringing did not preclude that a prince might be bad and dangerous, at the same time the accident of a noble birth and a princely education also did not preclude that he might be a harmless dilettante or even a good and moral person.

In contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it nearly impossible that a good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government. Indeed, as a result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals, yet as temporary and interchangeable caretakers they will only rarely be assassinated.

One can do no better than quote H.L. Mencken in this connection. "Politicians," he notes with his characteristic wit, "seldom if ever get [into public office] by merit alone, at least in democratic states. Sometimes, to be sure, it happens, but only by a kind of miracle. They are chosen normally for quite different reasons, the chief of which is simply their power to impress and enchant the intellectually underprivileged….Will any of them venture to tell the plain truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the situation of the country, foreign or domestic? Will any of them refrain from promises that he knows he can't fulfill — that no human being could fulfill? Will any of them utter a word, however obvious, that will alarm or alienate any of the huge pack of morons who cluster at the public trough, wallowing in the pap that grows thinner and thinner, hoping against hope? Answer: may be for a few weeks at the start…. But not after the issue is fairly joined, and the struggle is on in earnest…. They will all promise every man, woman and child in the country whatever he, she or it wants. They'll all be roving the land looking for chances to make the rich poor, to remedy the irremediable, to succor the unsuccorable, to unscramble the unscrambleable, to dephlogisticate the undephlogisticable. They will all be curing warts by saying words over them, and paying off the national debt with money no one will have to earn. When one of them demonstrates that twice two is five, another will prove that it is six, six and a half, ten, twenty, n. In brief, they will divest themselves from their character as sensible, candid and truthful men, and simply become candidates for office, bent only on collaring votes. They will all know by then, even supposing that some of them don't know it now, that votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense, and they will apply themselves to the job with a hearty yo-heave-ho. Most of them, before the uproar is over, will actually convince themselves. The winner will be whoever promises the most with the least probability of delivering anything."

November 8, 2004

Hans-Hermann Hoppe [send him mail], whom Lew Rockwell calls "an international treasure," is senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and editor of The Journal of Libertarian Studies. Democracy: The God That Failed is his eighth book. Visit his website.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe13.html
 
Old March 22nd, 2014 #12
Chad Wentworth
Senior Member
 
Chad Wentworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Romania
Posts: 1,558
Chad Wentworth
Default

Quote:
Anyway, an interesting question that arises from the apoliteia-perspective is what society is the best one to live in. Social democracy, totalitarianism, theocracy? This is where libertarianism becomes interesting, as a libertarian society offers a Traditionalist the freedom to be himself and search for enlightenment/initiation in his own way. No thought police will come knocking on the door of the Traditionalist when he has dared to express his thoughts on race or gender roles. No thought police will fire the Traditionalist as soon as the media has "exposed" him as an anti-democrat (as the libertarian ideology itself is anti-democratic, i.e. opposed to the right of the majority to take away the rights of the individual). No benevolent nannies/politicians will imprison the Traditionalist as soon as he, as part of his search for enlightenment, has tried the effects of marijuana.

From this fact, there are strictly practical affinities between a libertarian worldview and a Traditional one. In many cases Traditionalists will have great use of strong libertarian lobby groups, and in fact the libertarians have use of a number of Traditionalists spreading their ideals about mature, honorable and independent people as well (for freedom to work, the human material must have some degree of quality). As a Traditionalist, one can also feel respect for the libertarians when they stand up to the state and the nanny mentality, and say: "I am a grown up, honorable person. I am fully capable of taking care of myself and answer to the consequences of my own actions. I don't need a nanny state to take care of me", as this is closer to the attitudes and human ideals of our ancestors.

Moreover, a libertarian society offers a framework which also Traditionalism can function within. But it is just a framework, which can be filled with anything, and there is a great risk that many people will use it to defend their "choices" of purely animalistic lifestyles ("eat, shit, fuck, die").
http://archeofuturist.blogspot.ro/20...lists-and.html

The Failure Of Fusionism In The Libertarian-Traditionalist Debate: Frank Meyer's Equivocation Of The Two Freedoms

Quote:
If a father breaks off all communication with a grown son because he regards him as a fornicator, that might be a consequence far more dreaded by the son than a court-ordered fifty dollar fine imposed for soliciting prostitutes.

A drug-taking stockbroker might well prefer some months in jail under governmental sentence than the loss of job and friends resulting from the free exercise of his employer's and his friends' libertarian-endorsed right to employ whom they will or associate with whom they please.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 PM.
Page generated in 0.20523 seconds.