For My Libertarian Purist Brothers

[The Bubba Effect]

...without his/her permission.

....and approval from zoning.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

....and approval from zoning.

Of course. There's at least one of our resident libertarian purists that see zoning as a legitimate function of government for it protects property owners' against harm by others.

 

[IndyDave1776]

....and approval from zoning.

If you charge for this service, you will also need a Commercial Nose Picker's License.

 

[poptab]

This doesn't strike me as a can of worms. He speaks clearly about government's role in prohibiting vices.

“For the government to declare a vice a crime is to violate those natural law guarantees of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which are enunciated in our Declaration of Independence.”

This isn't specific to the federal government. Walter E. Williams is clearly advocating the decriminalization of all vices, including drugs and prostitution.

You guys still love him? I'm reading his articles and he says mostly the same stuff I've been saying for years, but I get called an anarchist.

What's wrong with being called an anarchist?

What's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian?

 

[IndyDave1776]

What's wrong with being called an anarchist?

What's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian?

I would say that one can be a libertarian within the structure of the Constitution while one cannot be an anarchist under those conditions.

 

[steveh_131]

It's possible he's personally against the "drug war" on the federal and state levels but realizes that with deference to the 10th A, it's possible that some people might disagree and ought to have the right to govern themselves according to their conscience.

Federalism is largely irrelevant to the discussion. I am often disappointed in fellow libertarians who think the Feds should trample the rights of the states, but that really has no bearing on what Walter E. Williams was saying about prohibition of vices.

Everybody wants to call him 'practical' while crapping on the 'principled' libertarians here on INGO, or the 'purists'. And he certainly has a practical side. He makes the same arguments against drug prohibition that I've made, based on the impractical nature of trying to enforce them. And the conservatives can get on board. Heck, most of them are on board the marijuana legalization train already. Does that mean they have something in common with Mr. Williams? Sort of, but not really.

The ineffectiveness and impracticality of the drug war is a good argument, but it's not at the heart of his belief system. Morality is at the heart of it. Principles. Is it morally acceptable for me, as an individual, to break into someone's house and drag them off to a jail that I built because I disagree with whatever vice they are indulging in? No. And since it is not moral for me to personally do so, it is also not moral for us to have our government do this. That is what drives Walter Williams' stances on these issues.

So while the conservatives might applaud his 'practicality', let's keep in mind that his principles would call for legalization of all drugs. Meth, crack, heroin. All of them. I've been told that this is hugely impractical by many conservatives, and I'm curious if those same conservatives are still on board with Mr. Williams.

What's wrong with being called an anarchist?

What's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian?

They use it as a pejorative, I just see it as an inaccurate label. So while I agree with you that it is not a negative term, I also understand that they intend it to be one.

An anarchist favors zero government. [In my opinion] a libertarian favors a very limited government, one that is constrained primarily to enforcing the non-aggression principle. I think that this can be reasonably accomplished within the bounds of the constitution. So I call myself a libertarian.

 

[rhino]

Of course. There's at least one of our resident libertarian purists that see zoning as a legitimate function of government for it protects property owners' against harm by others.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

An anarchist favors zero government. [In my opinion] a libertarian favors a very limited government, one that is constrained primarily to enforcing the non-aggression principle. I think that this can be reasonably accomplished within the bounds of the constitution. So I call myself a libertarian.

In theory yes. But other, "less libertarian perfection" forms of governments are allowed within the bounds of the Constitution. I'm all for returning to a level of far less federal government intervention and allow the people of the states determine their own paths. That might mean some states might remove prohibitions against drug use, machine guns, racial discrimination, not baking cakes for homosexual weddings, they might eliminate wealth transfers, allow displays of faiths on public property or prayers in schools, etc. Some might increase certain infringements. It might cause heartburn among those that think everybody, all across the country, ought to think and act just like them but at least people would have the right to chart more of their own course and the federal government would be less of a burden-- in many different ways.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

In theory yes. But other, "less libertarian perfection" forms of governments are allowed within the bounds of the Constitution. I'm all for returning to a level of far less federal government intervention and allow the people of the states determine their own paths. That might mean some states might remove prohibitions against drug use, machine guns, racial discrimination, not baking cakes for homosexual weddings, they might eliminate wealth transfers, allow displays of faiths on public property or prayers in schools, etc. Some might increase certain infringements. It might cause heartburn among those that think everybody, all across the country, ought to think and act just like them but at least people would have the right to chart more of their own course and the federal government would be less of a burden-- in many different ways.

And it would give people the opportunity - if the state they lived in had some laws they felt they couldn't live with - to move to another state with laws more congenial to their beliefs. That's not practical at this point, where the federal government (or some unelected judge) can override state laws in defiance of the 10th Amendment and other judges will let it pass.

 

[steveh_131]

In theory yes. But other, "less libertarian perfection" forms of governments are allowed within the bounds of the Constitution. I'm all for returning to a level of far less federal government intervention and allow the people of the states determine their own paths. That might mean some states might remove prohibitions against drug use, machine guns, racial discrimination, not baking cakes for homosexual weddings, they might eliminate wealth transfers, allow displays of faiths on public property or prayers in schools, etc. Some might increase certain infringements.

I agree with you entirely on Federalism. In fact, I think even state governments should cede as much authority to localities as possible. Decentralization is key.

But once we've decided that a state or even locality should be allowed to mostly govern themselves, we still have to decide how that state or locality to govern. And Mr. Williams, like myself, thinks it is immoral for that state or locality to prohibit vices and other victim-less activities. Does that mean he thinks the Federal government should prohibit them from prohibiting it? No. But he'll still oppose it.

Mr. Williams is a 'purist' libertarian, just like many of us on INGO.

 

[ATM]

What's wrong with being called an anarchist?

Nothing.

What's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian?

They are both rather large categories, each containing a wide array of thoughts, philosophies and beliefs.

 

[MisterChester]

What's wrong with being called an anarchist?

What's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian?

One wears leather, studs, and colored hair. The other wears a suit and tie.

 

[ATM]

One wears leather, studs, and colored hair. The other wears a suit and tie.

 

[BugI02]

Rather

View attachment 40738



View attachment 40739

 

[jamil]

Tagging for future consumption.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Tagging for future consumption.

The thread or the popcorn?

 

[jamil]

The thread or the popcorn?

The thread, actually. I don't have time right now to watch the video. And I don't really want to comment on the thread until I have.

 

[Cerberus]

What's wrong with being called an anarchist?

What's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian?

There is nothing wrong with being CALLED an anarchist. But to work to implement such is folly, and will net nothing but monarchy or oligarchy. That is a certain. People can not and never will be able to live without at least some basic governance of law. To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, "to keep people from harming each other." <----Not a verbatim quote.

Once upon a time Libertarian thought revolved purely around the very unfortunate fact that some basic law is necessary in a free society, and that government does have a very limited role in our lives. Key here LIMITED ROLE.

 

[poptab]

There is nothing wrong with being CALLED an anarchist. But to work to implement such is folly, and will net nothing but monarchy or oligarchy. That is a certain. People can not and never will be able to live without at least some basic governance of law. To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, "to keep people from harming each other." <----Not a verbatim quote.

Once upon a time Libertarian thought revolved purely around the very unfortunate fact that some basic law is necessary in a free society, and that government does have a very limited role in our lives. Key here LIMITED ROLE.

You won't convince me of the necessity of government in a couple of paragraphs.

I have held views similar to your own. Do with that what you will.

The government does not prevent people from killing each other. In fact government enables mass slaughter a la the 20th century.

 

[Cerberus]

You won't convince me of the necessity of government in a couple of paragraphs.

I have held views similar to your own. Do with that what you will.

The government does not prevent people from killing each other. In fact government enables mass slaughter a la the 20th century.

Government is not there to prevent people from killing each other, that is what law is for, or at least to provide justice for the offended. Government is force and always will be, it's when people actively work to ensure that force is directed in a legitimate pursuit, IE, defending the borders and even providing courts and police locally, is when it works for the betterment of all.

And if very intelligent men writing tomes can't convince you of the necessity of some government, then I'm certainly not going to waste my time.

Also keep in mind those 20th Century mass slaughters were orchestrated by evil men that used anarchists to get their way. Anarchy does not equal freedom, it equals mass slaughter.