By the same token, why do so many right-wing conservative Christians deny evolution exists, but they embrace its principles from an economic point of view?

Beale -

Why do so many non-right-wing Christians understand that all the products they see around them daily are created and manufactured by someone for a purpose but deny that possibility when it comes to one of the most complex items found on the planet - themselves.

I dunno. I stopped reading what the author had to say after he stated that he felt it was just fine to invade another country to plunder it’s natural resources. (Not in the post you linked to) How principled can anyone be with that sort of view?

There are only three types of libertarians.
.

Dear Conde: A person might be totally offended by one who defends immigrants who are here illegally, yet be challenged to act by someone who writes about ‘peak oil’ and living off the grid.

I often see folks (usually, but not always on the right) who claim they quit reading so-and-so because of something they said in the past. I disagree with that line of thinking (left or right) generally because I think that many folks who voted for Bush have merit despite the fact that they supported a man who I sincerely believe will go down as the worst or second worst (W should thank Harding every day of his presidency) President of this century. Poor judgement in one area does not imply they are lacuna-brained in all areas of life, imo.

No, John. It wasn’t a vote cast, or a single act whatsoever. But when someone states that they believe it is ok to wage war for oil, because “we need it”, I have nowhere to go from there. It denotes a mindset that I find dangerous and therefor completely unacceptable.

Conde - my small point is that even if a person takes a position that is ‘unacceptable’ implying a ‘dangerous mindset’, they still may have things to say on other matters that have merit.

Oh. Agreed. Except to say that Toni from Bear Creek Ledger might be brilliant on matters of sports, cooking, small engine repair, what have you, I’ll never know since I find her poisonous. I’m saying that once I hit the wall,I’m done.

Environmentalism is an issue which (the right wing American version of) libertarianism can never harmoniously reconcile with their own philosophy. Problem being that environmental issues must run aground against the incredibly un-libertarian idea that one can “own” the earth itself — impossible given that all land ownership is inextricably rooted in the authority of the state.

You can’t move forward from a position that contradicts your first principles without finding “answers” that also contradict your first principles.

There is nothing in libertarianism that is anti-environment. Dumping toxins into the local stream would definitely be considered a violation of your neighbor’s freedom.
-
While a few anarchists call themselves libertarian, most self proclaimed libertarians accept rational and sound environmental regulation as a duty of government.

Yet, there’s only one type of scooter-humping loser.

As for dangerous mindsets that are completely unacceptable, sorry we are committing ThoughtCrimes, comrade. Please don’t report us to the commissar.

p.s. Your groceries don’t get to market on the back of a unicorn named Dreamz. Cheap gas is what allows you to pay outrageous prices for “fair-trade” foodstuffs to come from Outer Assholia to be dished out on your IKEA breakfast table.

WTF pissed in Anachronisto’s Wheaties?

.

Glen said: “Dumping toxins into the local stream would definitely be considered a violation of your neighbor’s freedom.”

That doesn’t coincide with some of the libertarianism I’ve run across, which is “me and mine; screw my neighbor” in its orientation. Glen’s is a Christian libertarianism, though, and that helps explain his comment? I’m just asking.

I suppose you were trying, as always, to be funny and Dennis Miller like in your obscure references, but what the fuck is your point, Sarcastro?
I know exactly how my food arrives at the market. here’s a great example on the differences between a Liberal and a Conservative approach a problem. There is a scarcity of a resource. A Liberal would say, “ok, we need to invest in looking for alternatives, and conserving, since there is little left to waste.”

A Conservative would say, “well, they seem to have alot of it over there, and since we desperately need it to maintain the status quo, we’ll just invade and take it from them.”
One approach seems mature, and enlightened, the other, childish and greedy.

In fairness, I realize not everyone that calls themselves Conservative feels this way, but enough do that i think my point is fair.

Yes, ad hominems always translate into “i think my point is fair”.

What with all the maturity and enlightenment you possess, I’m shocked that you didn’t already know that.

Conde: I’ve searched my archives and can’t find where I said “it was just fine to invade another country to plunder it’s natural resources.” Perhaps you can find it for me.

I do believe that it is appropriate to go to war to protect the flow of oil. That is not anywhere near saying that I think it is okay to “just invade and take it from them.”

“[I]nvest[ing] in looking for alternatives, and conserving” is something I whole heartedly agree with. It lessens our dependency on foreign oil making us less vulnerable to sudden drops in supply through embargo or hostile takeover of foreign oil fields. And, oil alternatives can be more environmentally friendly. (If you will recall, the environment is where we started in this discussion.) Developing alternatives to oil is something we’ve been working on for years and it will take years more to perfect those substitutes. The flow of oil can be cut off in very short order, which would plunge our economy into depression and put millions out of work.

“[S]ince there is little left to waste” is debatable. For the past 30 years we’ve been told that we have about 30 years of supply left. We’re still being told that. New reserves are being found on a regular basis and new technology to extract more oil from old fields is improving production.

Right on Michael. For as long as I can remember, we have been running out of oil, which by the way is not a fossil fuel. They wish we were running out of oil.

I’m getting a little sick of the ignorance people display in throwing around the term “libertarian.”

While a few anarchists call themselves libertarian, most self proclaimed libertarians accept rational and sound environmental regulation as a duty of government.

Many (most?) “self proclaimed libertarisns” have no concept of what the term means or its origins. The Glen Deans, Kat Cobles, and Ron Pauls of the world are what true libertarians call “Vulgar Libertarians.” They readily embrace the term, but then try to apply their own distorted, statist vision.

Mr. Dean, I realize it is pointless to even begin to try to carry on a rational discussion with a dimwit such as yourself, but the term “libertarian” is synonymous with the term “anarchist.” The fact that a few disgruntled minarchists such as yourself tarnish the term by applying it to your ignorant opinions notwithstanding.

As to the original point of this thread, Jon’s is the only response that truly applies.

True libertarians, generally speaking, are ardent supporters of environmentalism, but they do not seek coercive measures to enforce their beliefs on others.

Here’s a libertarian environmentalist idea for you: remove the state protection of corporations in the form of limited liability so individuals can be held personally responsible for the actions of companies in which they invest.

BTW Conde, thanks for the new tag line for my blog: “Taking unacceptable positions implying a dangerous mindset on a daily basis.”

Blackflag, for what reason did I deserve to be called a dimwit and what caused you to assume that you can’t carry on a conversation with me? I have no quarrel with you and your definition. You can define anything any way that you want to.
-
I would like to discuss certain things with you and others, because I enjoy it. But as for the definition of libertarian, I really don’t care that much. Someone at LewRockwell once wrote a post saying that people like Thomas Sowell, Neal Boortz, and others should stop calling themselves libertarian and start calling themselves conservative. I don’t have a problem with that. In fact I haven’t called myself libertarian in months. It just isn’t worth it to me to try and satisfy all of the angry factions who claim that term. So once again, I have no quarrel with you and wish you the best.

Oh good. A “real” libertarian gets to decide for me whether or not I can call myself a “libertarian”…

and at that moment ceases to function as a libertarian.

I love it.

and at that moment ceases to function as a libertarian.

Pointing out the repeated misuse of a term makes one cease functioning as a libertarian?

I gave you more credit than that Dean ignoramus, but it looks like I was wrong. Let me see if I can make it more clear: I don’t decide anything. You and your minarchist friends decide for yourselves when you advocate forcing others to do as you see fit whenever it is convenient. It is a stand that is simply inconsistent with calling yourself a “libertarian.” I haven’t done anything to you; you did it yourself.

Go anywhere else in the world outside the United States and tell people you are a libertarian, and they know what you mean. However, try that in this country and people think you are a disgruntled Republican. It is disgusting to those of us who fight for libertarian causes.

Mr. Dean, I wish you the best, too, until you start trying to use force against me to do what you think is right. My comments were only directed at you because you implied you were speaking for all libertarians when you have no right to do so.

Not much to add other than to say I LOVE the (second) title of this post. Made me laugh.

I still like to think that that environmentalism isn’t shackled to one political ideology or another. I’ve known people of all political stripes who have cared about the environment. It’s to the environment’s detriment when people (anybody) uses environmentalism as a political weapon.

Look who just got a C+ in Political Science during their first semester.

Way to go blackflag! Now explain to the rest of the class how anarchists are really the One True Libertarian for extra credit.

The marketplace of ideas says that libertarianism is available only at overstock.com… unfortunately. There are a few libertarian dog catchers out there in the wild west, though.
.

decide for yourselves when you advocate forcing others to do as you see fit whenever it is convenient.

Fortunately I am too lazy to impose my will on anyone other than my dog.

That doesn’t coincide with some of the libertarianism I’ve run across, which is “me and mine; screw my neighbor” in its orientation. Glen’s is a Christian libertarianism, though, and that helps explain his comment? I’m just asking.

I think it does, Joe.

As you are witness to in this fine thread, there are some battles over the libertarian ideology, with the anarchists claiming the high ground.

There are many of us who some like to disparage as “disgruntled Republicans” or “pot-smoking Republicans”. That only proves they miss the nuances of our beliefs in Individual Rights and Societal constructs.

blackflag, who may or may not be named Howie, seems to think that the only version of libertarianism is anarcholibertarianism. Also known as “a workable solution to societal function only in the philosophical sense and totally impracticle in reality.”

I can only assume that blackflag thinks the political party with the name Libertarian Party has sold out to a distorted, statist vision since they advocate personal liberty while maintaining personal responsibility. There is a great difference in practicing personal liberty and practicing personal liberty in community. One wants whatever is best for the individual no matter what(anarchy) while the other wants whatever is best for the individual in the context of other people (libertarianism).

Little pissy fights like this are why the LP will never win anything substantial, which I lament.

To the OP, the answer is yes.

“remove the state protection of corporations in the form of limited liability so individuals can be held personally responsible for the actions of companies in which they invest.”
-
With no state and total anarchy, who is holding these individuals responsible? It sounds like I am not the only one who believes in “using force against someone to do what I think is right.”
-
I do believe in the necessity of some form of government. I believe government has one purpose and that is to protect the citizens. It is not to redistribute wealth and it is not to enforce morality. Everything in a free society should be allowed, that is everything that doesn’t infringe on the freedom of another. Dumping toxic waste into the Cumberland River kind of infringes on the freedom of a lot of other people. Do I support coercive measures against somebody doing something like that. You bet your ass I do.
-
It really doesn’t matter what people label me. I am what I am. In fact, I feel more comfortable calling myself a true conservative or a classical liberal, maybe even just a plain old capitalist.
-
It doesn’t matter if I get to be liked by the “true libertarians”. A lot of those folks seem a little agitated and angry. Not my cup of tea.

One wants whatever is best for the individual no matter what(anarchy) while the other wants whatever is best for the individual in the context of other people (libertarianism).

Yet more ignorance. I am not sure why some of you insist on commenting on things when it is obvious your knowledge of the subject is lacking.

I am not sure where you acquired your information regarding “personal liberty and personal responsibility” as it applies to anarchists, but I can assure you the groups with which I am affiliated have the utmost respect for both. However, I fear your meaning of “personal responsibility” means forcing others to do what you think is best at the point of a gun. It is precisely because I regard personal liberty so highly that I also regard personal responsibility equally high. I can (and do) teach and share and work to help others within my community, but I do not support forcing others to share in my sense of responsibility.

The man who coined the term “libertarian” was an anarchist-communist. As I stated earlier, the two terms - “anarchist” and “libertarian” — are considered synonymous throughout all the world, except in the United States. I do attribute a great deal of this fouling of the term “libertarian” to the so-called Libertarian Party. I don’t think the Libertarian Party “sold out to a distorted, statist vision,” it has always been a part of a statist vision.

This isn’t a “pissy fight” for some of us. It is our life.

Ms. Coble, the term “anarcholibertarian” is redundant and absurd. I believe you when you say you are “too lazy to impose your will on anyone other than my dog,” but, based on your past comments, I also cannot help but believe you are perfectly willing to support government force to impose your will on others when it happens to suit you. That’s fairly common for people in this country. People that wouldn’t think about pointing a gun at their neighbor will gladly march to the voting booth and elect a politician to do it for them.

Mr. Dean, whatever you believe to be the purpose of government, it actually has only one purpose: “Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression.”

I believe government has one purpose and that is to protect the citizens

Ah, the “strong daddy” stater. No wonder you’re hip to warrantless wiretapping.
.

I believe government has one purpose and that is to protect the citizens

The problem is nobody can agree on what constitutes “protection.”

“it was just fine to invade another country to plunder it’s natural resources.” That’s what I wrote. You came back with I said it is perfectly acceptable to wage war to protect the flow of oil.

Well, I need to engage in an armed conflict with my bank, to protect my cash flow. Tell me the difference.

For the past 30 years we’ve been told that we have about 30 years of supply left. We’re still being told that. New reserves are being found on a regular basis and new technology to extract more oil from old fields is improving production.

30 years? So what? Thats a drop in the proverbial bucket, time-wise. Yes, Hubbert had it nailed almost 30 years ago. Geologists, energy traders, and even oil executives all admit that there is a limited supply left, and since usage has increased disproportionately, the down side of that peak will be steep indeed. Whatever remains will have to see us through until we “develop” an alternative. But if you think the U.S. is going to continue to run as it has by simply “waging war” to protect the status quo, you are myopic at best.

Perhaps your new tag line should be “waging war with the world, because only we matter.”

Jeffraham, yes if you call Al Qaeda, then I absolutely believe that it is the duty of our government to listen to that phone call. The idea that there are some who disagree with that baffles me. Our government not only has a right to do that, but a responsibility.
-
Dolphin, maybe that is so, but I don’t think anybody believes that taking from one group of people and giving to another, constitutes protection.
-
blackflag, you still never answered your inconsistency. Apparently the aggression of government is okay to bring down those evil corporate stockholders, but not okay to stop people from polluting our rivers and streams.

blackflag, you still never answered your inconsistency. Apparently the aggression of government is okay to bring down those evil corporate stockholders, but not okay to stop people from polluting our rivers and streams.

What are you talking about?!?

The “aggression of government” is not “okay” to accomplish any task. I never called for government intervention to “bring down those evil corporate stockholders.” What I advocated was ending the government protection that is afforded to stockholders via the limited liability of corporations. Let me see if I can explain it so you can understand:

You see when you incorporate in this country, you are allowed to seek investors by offering stock for sale. Through limited liability, those stockholders are generally not held accountable for the actions of the corporation. If some large corporation pollutes the stream that supplies my water, I can take legal action against the corporation, but the liability of the investors of that company bear little, if any, responsibility for the company they own. The government does not allow me to seek retribution against the investors.

This is only one way the government serves the ruling class by affording it protection. Generally, most people will behave more responsibly when they know they risk personal loss. Eliminate the government protection of limited liability, and you eliminate the basis of the corporate structure.

Furthermore, I don’t need government to protect me from “people polluting our rivers and streams.” There are many ways I can take care of that myself from boycotts and protests all the way to destroying their ability to pollute rivers and streams (in extreme cases).

yes if you call Al Qaeda, then I absolutely believe that it is the duty of our government to listen to that phone call

So do I.

What I don’t believe in is not following the law, which requires a warrant, which provides for oversight, so that we can be reasonably assured that these powers are not being used in ways other than what politicians are telling us.
.

OK, so how would one set up a nation-state to operate by anarchy?

OK, so how would one set up a nation-state to operate by anarchy?

Ai yi yi.

BOOOORING!

OK, so how would one set up a nation-state to operate by anarchy?

Bwahahahaha!

You are joking, right?

$5 says blackflag is John K. Sampson from Propaghandi. Any takers?

$5 says blackflag is John K. Sampson from Propaghandi. Any takers?

You would lose that bet, but I do think “Ordinary People Do Fucked-Up Things When Fucked-Up Things Become Ordinary” is a fantastic song title.

“Well, I need to engage in an armed conflict with my bank, to protect my cash flow. Tell me the difference.” That would be wrong. I would, however, support armed conflict to protect a bank from violent takeover by a third person.

I’d just like to thank all the libertarians who are doing such a great job cleaning up the Cumberland (and other polluted) rivers.

Not joking at all. If you are serious about it as a way to organize a society, there needs to be a way to initiate it and sustain it. Otherwise, take this pedantic True Scotsman argument back to the dorm.

Otherwise, take this pedantic True Scotsman argument back to the dorm.

I just bingo-ed!

If you are serious about it as a way to organize a society, there needs to be a way to initiate it and sustain it.

Your original question is nonsensical, since the very definition of anarchy is the complete absence of a nation-state. To question how one would establish a nation-state to “operate by anarchy” is absurd.

Furthermore, anarchism neither needs to be initiated nor sustained.

The libertarianism/anarchism (I prefer the term anarchism to avoid the confusion regarding the definition of libertarianism that prompted my entry into this discussion in the first place) of which I speak is not so much what might be as what is. Anarchism as Gustav Landauer says is not something new or some speculative vision for some far off society, “but the actualization and reconstitution of something that has always been present,” and as Peter Kropotkin wrote, “The anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception is not a utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few desiderata have been taken as postulates. It is derived, they maintain, from an analysis of tendencies that are at work already [ . . . ]” Anarchism is a mode of organization, rooted in experience that has and does exist side by side with the dominant authoritarian organization. Anarchism is a way of relating to others and organizing those relations on a wider scale for the common good. As such we need not wait for some future “revolution” when an anarchist society will suddenly spring up into being, but we need to look at those efforts which are in fact anarchist already. This does not discount that we have as our goal the complete reconstitution of society: revolution on a broad and wide scale is our goal.

It is as if there is a wide space that is crowded with the dominant mode of relations and organizing (impersonal, bureaucratic, universal, etc.) that has crowded and strangled the other ways — the ways of love and mercy, of the local and personal, etc. But those strangled and crowded ways continue to exist within this space, although they do not now take up the majority of the space. We seek to work to expand the strangled and crowded out relations and organizing (the personal, local and loving) in order to break free from the stranglehold, and to crowd out the dominant system (the bureaucratic, impersonal technical, and universal).

On the other hand anarchism is a revolt against the totality of society, which is dominated by various edifices that hold this system together (capitalism, the nation-state, religious institutions, racism and gender bias, wage systems, technology and modern sciences, etc) so that what we ultimately seek is a total restructuring of society. Sooner or later there does need to be a break with the domination system. To paraphrase the words of Peter Maurin, we are trying to create a society where it is easier to do what is good.

Anarchism is a critique of power as a repressive force. This power over others is not simply that a few elites have gained control over others and are repressing their essentially “good” natures. On the contrary the domination that anarchists critique is that which is spread throughout society existing on numerous levels, including all the dominant institutions (State, church, corporations, Universities, stock markets, etc.) but also in the way that individuals are “disciplined” to become self-policing agents in the manner in which Michel Foucault decribes in all of his works.

Anarchism already exists throughout society. Almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in shopping malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle processes of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways or grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives.

Should you come over to my home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show a passport or driver’s license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion.

blackflag, regardless of how this thread has veered, topic-wise, that last comment was a really informative read. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Indeed. That sort of discussion is a refreshing change from boilerplate glibertarian [sic] b.s., to be sure.

(I’ve always wondered why Libertarians in the US have a political party and why they run for office. Non-governance is an inherently self-contradictory platform.)

blackflag: your entry reads quite a bit like the what’s written here:http://anarchism.jesusradicals.com/FAQ.php

We seek to work to expand the strangled and crowded out relations and organizing (the personal, local and loving) in order to break free from the stranglehold, and to crowd out the dominant system (the bureaucratic, impersonal technical, and universal).

This is the part of anarchism that I like a lot.

blackflag: your entry reads quite a bit like the what’s written here:http://anarchism.jesusradicals.com/FAQ.php

It should. I provided that text for the jesusradicals site, of whom I am a big supporter. My response above was taken from a stock set of replies some friends and I wrote a few years ago to give to people who ask questions about our beliefs. It is nice to know others here visit that site, too.

I’ll admit to being turned down by Mensa, hell, I’ll admit to having been turned down by Muscogee County Community College, but damn, perhaps what is needed is a simpler explanation of true Libertarian principles for those of us not gifted with Teh Big Brain. How do you plan to attract followers, (for lack of a better term) when only a fragment of the population can understand what you espouse? I mean, are we going to overthrow something or not?!! I always wanted to participate in a coup…

more important question, BF: Henry Rollins, Dez Cadena, or Keith Morris?

perhaps what is needed is a simpler explanation of true Libertarian principles for those of us not gifted with Teh Big Brain. How do you plan to attract followers, (for lack of a better term) when only a fragment of the population can understand what you espouse? I mean, are we going to overthrow something or not?!! I always wanted to participate in a coup…

*Sigh* That “true libertarian” thing is going to haunt me it seems.

I can tell you what my principles are, but I cannot speak for all libertarians, except to say that anyone that believes government is necessary, no matter how small they think it should be, is not a libertarian in the truest sense of the term.

I believe all relations among people should be by mutual consent, and the initiation of violence against anyone for any reason is immoral and forbidden. From those beliefs, all of my other political beliefs can be derived.

A libertarian coup d’état would not be possible, since, by definition, it involves using the power of the state, or some faction thereof (usually the military), against the state itself.

On the other hand, a revolution is possible, and, as I tried to point out earlier, is already under way. Ours is not an armed revolution, but a non-violent revolution that seeks to dismantle the State from “below” through education, withdrawal of cooperation and refusal to give our tacit consent, which it requires to continue to function. The Wobblies refer to this as “building the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.”

Ron: Keith Morris, of course.

Blackflag, so it is decreed. I will stand down, and shoulder my weapon.

Seriously, not to be flippant, but I don’t actually care too much about who is or is not the purest Libertarian. I like alot of your principles, but I will always remain committed to the idea that we have to work with what we have, and that those same principles you possess can be incorporated into a (largely) competant and beneficial system of governing. But’s thats just me. I grow weary of single issue libertarians, seems it’s always taxes taxes taxes. Or, guns, or drugs. For now, I believe in smart legislation, and yes, sometimes even the best is somewhat arbitrary and indeed unfair, but asking 300 million people to “do the right thing” seems Herculean in scope. I have appreciated your patience here, though.

From what s/he’s said, I’m pretty sure blackflag rejects the “L”ibertarian Party. I see a lot of merit in many of the libertarian ideals (guns, drugs, privacy), as I do many conservative ideals (fiscal policy, present administration NOT withstanding)… but there’s too much denial of reality going on in both camps these days for me to buy in terribly far on either camp.
.

blackflag: but wouldn’t that be anarchy?

(Trying to figure out where the fine line is…)

Thanks!

that anyone that believes government is necessary, no matter how small they think it should be, is not a libertarian in the truest sense of the term.

What about those of us who don’t see government as “necessary”, but rather as an unavoidable consequence of comingled humanity, to be kept at the barest of minimums?

We don’t count, I guess.

If you want libertarians to care about the environment and endangered species…privatize them. It might sound crazy to you at first, but think about it. Libertarian environmental policy calls for privatization of public lands (which gets polluted since nobody cares enough to keep it clean or cares enough to enforce federal law). People don’t care about endangered animals because they are soley protected by federal law and are of no value to anyone. If one could own endangered species, they’re population would increase, giving people an incentive to protect them for their own financial interests. This way everyone wins.

It might sound crazy to you

You’d be right about that. Tell me, economics guy, since no endangered species that I know of lays golden eggs (or produces something of similar monetary value to capitalists), how does increasing their numbers increase the investors’ financial interests?
.

If you want libertarians to care about the environment and endangered species…privatize them…

Something along the lines of what you’re suggesting is the truly horrid “Corporaquarium” in Atlanta. What an awful experience. The corporate logos of exhibit sponsors overpower and overwhelm the exhibits themselves, and big-time benefactor Home Depot has insisted on exhibiting its whale sharks, although the endangered animals do not survive well in captivity and they’ve already killed two.

Zoos, aquariums and museums are supposed to be educational experiences for kids, but all this place screams is “UPS!” “HOME DEPOT!” “GEORGIA PACIFIC!”

No, thanks.