Skip to comments.Radical Rules for Radical Libertarians: Alinsky, Rothbard, and Anarchy
Posted on 10/10/2010 3:59:17 PM PDT by rdb3
Radical Rules for Radical Libertarians: Alinsky, Rothbard, and Anarchy
Posted By Lisa Richards On October 10, 2010 @ 4:00 pm In Agendas of the Left,Anti-War Movement,Big Government,Conspiracy Theories,Defining the Left,Email,Feature,Military & Defense Issues,The Feminist Hawks' Nest | 1 Comment
Radical libertarians are equivalent to leftist Saul Alinskyites. Both despise government and the Constitution, seeking to destroy America. Alinksy wanted a community government; radical libertarians want Rothbardian uprisings to destroy government and wealth altogether for communal equalty. To accomplish this, radical libertarians demand anarchy.
These so-called conservatives (leftists in disguise) claim history proves mankind took care of itself, prevented war, rape, and pillaging without police, military, and government until modern laws were enacted. Which is why history includes wars, rapes, and pillaging, making todays crimes look like Elm Street without the nightmare.
These leftists claim Thomas Jefferson fought against all forms of government, calling for anarchy. This nutty ideology stems from radical libertarians Saul Alinsky, Murry N. Rothbard, who cleverly infused classical truths with progressive craziness, seeking to:
Americans assume Human nature is so intrinsically evil and depraved that, without cops walking the streets, judges locking up potheads, and politicians buying hookers and crack in Washington, the entire world would devolve into a horrifying bloodbath. Murder and rape would run rampant as soon as the criminals, (that is, all of us, as per our shared evil nature), got word that police were no longer in the business of shooting, beating and incarcerating them. Virtually everyone and everything would be killed or destroyed
Crovellis argument is sheer stupidity. Without laws, mankind disintegrates. Society cant survive and thrive without leadership and checking and balancing leaders. Yet Crovelli claims human nature lacks depravity, man is not brutish, and society would work better without laws and with the absence of police officers.
Crovelli bases his argument on the Murray N. Rothbard book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Rothbards book details how to overthrow the state and laws and contends that state power is unworkable, immoral, and must be restricted and finally overthrown. He claims:
The Jeffersonian and Jacksonian movements, the Democratic-Republican and Democratic parties, explicitly strived for virtual elimination of government from American life. It was to be a government without a standing army or navy; a government without debt [without] direct federal or excise taxes and virtually no import tariffs with negligible levels of taxation and expenditure; a government that does not engage in public works or internal improvements; a government that does not control or regulate; a government that leaves money and banking free, hard, and uninflated
The Declaration of Independence is not anti-government; the Founders fought monarchy, but were never for government abolishment. They created a limited, central government to protect against violations of natural law.
Crovelli says Rothbard is right: The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.
Conservatives agree no one has the right to encroach on Constitutional rights, but Rothbard mixes natural rights with government elimination, promoting leftist anti-war ideology:
War is mass murder, and this massive invasion of the right to life, of self-ownership, of numbers of people is not only a crime but, for the libertarian, the ultimate crime.
Alinsky and Rothbard used social justice tacticsno one is evil except government and wealth. Government and laws create crime, not lawless people. Destroy both and all will be free. Radical libertarianism is anti-Jeffersonian conservative; it is Marxist.
By the early nineteenth century, independent thinkers across the political spectrum, from conservatives to anarchists, were alarmed at the growth of the parasitic state. This problem concerned Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Marxism contains two different views of the state it views the state as the instrument of domination exploiting classes that are defined by their position within the process of social production, e.g., the capitalists. The state is simply the executive committee of the ruling class. Marx characterized the state itself as the exploiting agent A brilliant passage occurs when Marx, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, comes to consider the state as it developed in France, and he refers to this executive power, with its enormous bureaucracy and military organization, with it ingenious state machinery, embracing wide strata, with a host of officials.
Raico says he not Marxist, yet defends Marx by incorporating Marxism into libertarianism.
Rothbards book (linked in this column) reads like Alinsky: Marxist, anti-wealth/police/military, government must be destroyed, laws and law-makers create evil.
Myles Kantor of Frontpage Magazine says of the radical libertarians who follow Rothbard: Going far beyond a sound opposition to the federal governments aggression abroad, [they have] attempted to mitigate terrorists accountability for massacring thousands of Americans.
Radical libertarians insist terrorists are not criminals. Instead, the military and police are.
Crovelli and Raico agree with Rothbard: depravity is nonexistent in mans nature. It is inexcusable that America is armed to the teeth with high-powered rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Americans are conned into assuming humans have savage sides and terrorists are evil. The true violent criminals are police and military: anyone with eyes in America [can] tell you police officers and soldiers are often the most depraved perpetrators of the very crimes they claim to protect Americans from.
That explains the violent criminal prison population: predominantly police officers.
Crovellis argument lacks credibility. Mankind is inherently flawed; war has always existed. If military and police are useless, crime never existed until laws came to be. Laws exist because bloodlust always has.
Rothbards radical libertarian anarchism undermines the Constitution, asserting nations can, and must, endure without states and central leadership. His theories destroy We the People, whose personal whims, without rules, create uprisings and power-grabbing.
Such is the magnitude of the error of dismissing the sublime idea of free-market anarchism by assuming that the geniuses in blue keep us savages from killing each other.
To convince Americans of this lie, Rothbard, like Alinsky, utilizes college students to:
Leftists despise laws, promoting uprisings against government.
Rothbard and Alinksy had solitary goals: destruction of society. To accomplish this, they combined natural law truths with anarchy. The Alinsky way says communist government control over people is best; the Rothbard way is America without government, police, military and laws.
Both are radical rules with one goal: destroy man and his right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, placing him under ideological communal control.
The author does not understand the very broad realm of libertarians.
Radical libertarians are equivalent to leftist Saul Alinskyites. Both despise government and the Constitution, seeking to destroy America.
Look for next week's installment, when the same author rails against Jews and their lust for human blood.
The author must have been absent or asleep that day when the preschool class studied the concept of “one of these things is not like the other”...
But he does have a forest of straw men to tear apart.
I’m looking down his list and I’m okay with . . . .
# Discuss unconstitutional excessive taxes
# Emphasize natural law
# Explain why inflated government is anti-people
But then he throws in . . . .
# Fight for Social Justice
And he lost me. I’ve never heard libertarians talking about social justice as a goal. They do talk about social injustice perpetuated by those in power but so do we.
I think he conflates anarchists with libertarians.
The monsters on the Right are bound and determined to minimize anyone who hates our current government but loves the Constitution. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other and haven’t for decades.
I’m re-reading the post.
“Without laws, mankind disintegrates. “
Well no duh.
He does conflate anarchists with libertarians. For the record, I’m not Libertarian but I would rather err on the side of too little government rather than too much.
That’s because the author is a low grade moron.
Okay, he’s talking about the small fringe of anarcho-capitalism. I have no idea why. The present trajectory of government is in nearly the opposite direction.
I suppose next week, the author will be castigating the errors of mercantilism or lambasting the Jacobin movement.
He falls on the liberal/anarchist side of libertarians. The social justice side makes him appear 100% statist.
The Clockwork Orange meets Lord of the Flies
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.