Posted on 03/01/2010 1:52:52 PM PST by Anarchydeluxe
With the arrival of the Tea Party movement and the growing discontent over big-government, statist solutions to societal and economic problems, people have at least begun to ask the right questions about the proper role of government in society. The problem is that many of these same people took, and still take, the question for granted. When I was what one might term a "conservative," I also took the issue as a given, which was a grave mistake. I assumed that my positions were pro-liberty and the left's views mainly anti-liberty. When I observed the practical results of my opinions, I noticed that mine were generally more correct, but I had nothing with which to compare them except the left's worldview. Many of my assumptions stemmed purely from my team spirit - if my team is team A, then team B must always be bad, even when they make better arguments in certain situations. What I mean by that is as a conservative, I rejected some very real concerns of leftists simply based on the fact that they were leftist, and this was a logical error (though it's a good starting position). It led me into confusion over why the left supports the things it often does. "How can they be so wrong and illogical all the time? Why can't they see my side at all? Are their intentions really that evil?" I used to ponder. It wasn't until I began to scrutinize my own positions that I realized many of my sacrosanct positions were also untenable.
(Excerpt) Read more at anarchydeluxe.com ...
A good place to start in Beck’s 9/12 project. Values and principles of the founders is not spelled out anywhere. If you want to figure them out you more or less need to do it yourself. Beck did a very good job at trying to recreate them.
If you don’t like what Beck did,do it yourself and share.
The way I see it - the duty of our government is to keep us safe from foreign entanglements while doing the absolute minimum in the area of infringing upon our personal freedom while guarding said freedoms and rights.
Congressman Billybob
Dude, you don’t just have Team B to compare them to. You have all of history. You have Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, the Founders of this country, the Constitution and Bill of Rights etc etc.
Do I get to rewrite your statements with their hidden meaning like you did with the “Mt Vernon Statement”?? Which I trashed as watered down, vague etc etc myself btw.
You wrote that you compared your views with those of the great authors and were found wanting. Then you use a statement that came out last week as an example of “conservatism”.
BTW, the use of the word “anarchy” in your blog handle just makes the sirens start blaring. Libertarianism is not anarchy. Libertarian is an ordered society, a self-ordered society at that, but it is not anarchy as we use the word today. Anarchy will simply lead to someone getting more buddies and more weapons and becoming a tyrant. Thats why a lot of self-described Marxists advocate anarchy.
It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t agree with a lot of your points but I think it could be packaged better.
The title anarchy is meant to be ironic, because anyone who advocates for free markets and self-rule is accused of being an anarchist with the negative connotation given to it today. Also, anarchy simply means without rulers, not rules, which is what libertarian anarcho-capitalism supports.
In any case, I was just using the Mount Vernon statement as a platform to launch the discussion. This is why such general statements are dangerous.
All criticism is welcome.
I totally understand where your coming from.
From Webster's 1828 dictionary:
2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.
It seems to me that a lot of folks seem to take the first sentence of "2" above as their main Principle of Liberty.
Some fewer include the first sentence of "3" above.
It seems to me that some folks who take "2" above as their main Principle of Liberty view any restraint (as mentioned in the second sentence of "3" above) as tyranny or oppression. If our Constitutional Republic works correctly (and I'm not saying it does), the tyrants and oppressors may be their fellow citizens who out voted them when electing the government officials who established the restraining laws.
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.