[Phred]

Just to throw the view of wide-ranging philosophers on the issue to get some nice articulation on the issue:

Rousseau, 1754-- "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

Rousseau was an idiot.

[...]as long as you have private property, and as long as cash money is the measure of all things, it is really not possible for a nation to be governed justly or happily. For justice cannot exist where all the best things in life are held by the worst citizens; nor can anyone be happy where property is limited to a few, since those few are always uneasy and the many are utterly wretched.

More was either an idiot or was using the term "property" in an extremely limited sense.

The division of society into a small, excessively rich class and a large, propertyless class of wage-workers results in a society suffocating from its own superfluity, while the great majority of its members is scarcely, or even not at all, protected from extreme want. This state of affairs becomes daily more absurd and – more unnecessary. It must be abolished, it can be abolished.

Engels is of course an idiot, but in this case he's not even talking about Capitalism. At least, not about post-industrial Capitalism.

Libertarianism is essentially built atop the false dichotomy of magically separating the concept of liberties into negative and positive liberties.

There is nothing false about pointing out that "positive liberty" is in fact a contradiction in terms.

But what a specious argument that is! To argue anything but the undeniable reality that one set of liberties cannot exist without the other is master sophistry.

This is gibberish. I can be perfectly at liberty with no one giving me unearned stuff seized from others, which is what the carefully-designed euphemism "positive liberty" actually boils down to.

Again, contradicting undeniable facts of reality is sophistry, cloaked in petit-bourgeois political economy.

The undeniable fact of reality is that a human's continued existence is completely dependent on that human's ability to acquire and keep that which is required to sustain her existence - her private property. The food in my refrigerator is my food, not yours. The food is the property of Phred, not the property of BATIK. The refrigerator is mine, too, not yours, not a "socially shared possession", either.

Capitalism, like a vampire, sucks the blood out of its victims.

*Yawn* Such tired old Marxist buzz phrases. Think you might want to throw in a few "running dogs" and "paper tigers" while you're at it just to polish up your Marxist street creed? The fact is of course that it is socialism that sucks the blood out of everyone.

Maybe there is no physical crack and whip, but what about the social alienation?

What does that even mean? "Social alienation"? That I cry myself to sleep each night because I don't own the stacks of iPhones in the display case behind me, I just sell them to people who find them useful and receive enough currency in exchange for performing that service that I can live a decent life working just two thousand hours a year? Why should I care that I don't own them? That's a serious question, by the way… why should I care? Because I don't, you know. I really don't. I don't feel "socially alienated" in the slightest by the fact that I'm selling someone else's stuff rather than my own. I swear I am not making this up just to win an argument - I have experienced no sense of "alienation" in any of the jobs I ever held as an employee.

Although on the surface the worker seems to be an autonomous entity, in actuality he or she is directed to goals and diverted to activities that are dictated by the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, in order to extract from the worker the maximal amount of surplus value, in the course of business competition among industrialists.

More parrot-like regurgitation of hackneyed Marxist buzz phrases. I am not "directed" to any goal other than my own - to postpone my inevitable winking out of existence for as long as I find it worth the effort. In some years that has meant working for wages, in other years that has meant working for myself, in still other years it has meant paying others to do things I can't do all by myself. At no time did the bourgeoisie ever set my goal.

The worker invariably loses the ability to determine his or her life and destiny, under the capitalist mode of production…

Nonsense on stilts. I have more options for determining which method of supporting myself suits me best in a Laissez-faire Capitalist society than in any other.

...when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of himself as the director of his actions;

Who "deprived" this guy of the right to think, and how did I and everyone I know manage to escape this deprivation? Were we just lucky?

...to determine the character of said actions;

Whatever that means.

...to define his relationship with other people;

Again, who (other than reality) is depriving you of the ability to associate with other humans? You don't get to "define" every relationship you have with another human: your mother will always be your mother regardless of what you choose to call her: that relationship is unchangeable.

...and to own the things and use the value of the goods and services, produced with his labour.

More Marxist gibberish. As a potter's assistant working in a ceramics factory I could choose to be paid in unglazed terra cotta pottery if I so chose… my employer would have no difficulty doing so. But why on earth would I want that?

Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have, in two ways, affirmed himself, and the other person. (1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and, therefore, enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also, when looking at the object, I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses, and, hence, a power beyond all doubt. (2) In your enjoyment, or use, of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature. . . . Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.

Why is it you commies can't actually put sentences together yourself? Why is the majority of your output knee-jerk regurgitations of copy-pasta quotes from your secular deities?


Phred

[BATIK]

The entire framework of your response indicates a dire lacking of heuristics. Not to mention the bold straw man, or rather misunderstanding of quite a simple concept, of conflating personal and private property.

Rousseau was an idiot.

If there ever was a brilliant use of rhetoric...

Pathos without substance.

More was either an idiot or was using the term "property" in an extremely limited sense.

The crux of your misunderstanding should be resolved in my following point: Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived. (Not a relationship between person and thing)

Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor.....

To be a capitalist, is not only to have a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society can it be set in motion.

Capital is, therefore not personal, it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

Personal property refers to items intended for personal use. Your clothes, home, etc. It does not produce capital.

This is gibberish. I can be perfectly at liberty with no one giving me unearned stuff seized from others, which is what the carefully-designed euphemism "positive liberty" actually boils down to.

Let me try and demonstrate the false dichotomy:

Positive liberty is involved in the answer to the question 'What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?' The two questions are clearly different, even though the answers to them may overlap.

Negative liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons

You cannot have one without the other. You're abusing the term 'positive liberty'. "I am slave to no man" and "I am my own master" represents the coin of liberty, the former being 'negative' liberties and the latter 'positive' liberties.

The undeniable fact of reality is that a human's continued existence is completely dependent on that human's ability to acquire and keep that which is required to sustain her existence - her private property. The food in my refrigerator is my food, not yours. The food is the property of Phred, not the property of BATIK. The refrigerator is mine, too, not yours, not a "socially shared possession", either.

You're dead right, mate. First sentence is a spot on analysis. Although when you say 'private property' you're referring to personal property, as I explained above.

Extending your own argument, particularly "a human's continued existence is completely dependent on that human's ability to acquire and keep that which is required to sustain her existence" one can see how minority ownership of the means of production forbids your wishes here.

The fact is of course that it is socialism that sucks the blood out of everyone.

Well, socialism would be an intermediary phase between capitalism as we know it and a future classless society (communism). In this phase, characterized by the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', classes would gradually be liquidated. Whether the revolution adhered to Blanquist tactics or a more Leninist approach where the Party would be directly accountable to the people, would obviously depend on specific conditions.

But, you did not know any of this. To you, socialism refers to milquetoast modern liberalism, that supports a Welfarist state. And on this matter I could not agree with you more! Such futile attempts at instating state capitalism under the pseudonym of socialism is indeed bloodsucking.

Why should I care that I don't own them? That's a serious question, by the way… why should I care? Because I don't, you know. I really don't. I don't feel "socially alienated" in the slightest by the fact that I'm selling someone else's stuff rather than my own. I swear I am not making this up just to win an argument - I have experienced no sense of "alienation" in any of the jobs I ever held as an employee.

In the Capitalist Mode of Production, the generation of products (goods and services) is accomplished with an endless sequence of discrete, repetitive, motions that offer the worker little psychological satisfaction for “a job well done”. By means of commodification, the labour power of the worker is reduced to wages (an exchange value); the psychological estrangement of the worker results from the unmediated relation between his productive labour and the wages paid him for the labour.

But even more importantly, the design of the product and how it is produced are determined, not by the producers who make it (the workers), nor by the consumers of the product (the buyers), but by the Capitalist class, who, besides appropriating the worker’s manual labour, also appropriate the intellectual labour of the engineer and the industrial designer who create the product, in order to shape the taste of the consumer to buy the goods and services at a price that yields a maximal profit.

When I say alienation, I refer to the placement of antagonism between things that are properly in harmony.

Who "deprived" this guy of the right to think, and how did I and everyone I know manage to escape this deprivation? Were we just lucky?

Let me demonstrate by using the base and superstructure analogy. Using this will also allow you a portal into fundamental Marxist thought (how we focus on how material shapes the idea)

Essentially, the current mode of production gives rise to general process of social, political and intellectual life. " It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." is a quote that echoes this idea.

So imagine society at large is a structure - us Marxists posit that the base of society - how man produces the necessities of life - influences the superstructure: the society's culture, institutions, ethics, etc. So how man organizes production - the state of technology in an economy and employee-employer relations - gives rise to society's views.

Obviously this is a very condensed view of a high pile of Marxist literature, but I think you get the general idea.

Now, these institutions moulded by the base (capitalist mode of productions) has deceived you (the proletariat) and mislead you. This is known as false consciousness: essentially a result of ideological control which the proletariat either do not know they are under or which they disregard because of their belief in upward mobility, the church (the opium of the people), etc.

Why is it you commies can't actually put sentences together yourself? Why is the majority of your output knee-jerk regurgitations of copy-pasta quotes from your secular deities?

I'll reply with a fitting quote. You seem like some sort of classical liberal...

Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker. Consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. ...

[mikema63]

Those are pretty nebulous terms. What does "position" mean in this context? What does "power" mean in this context? Ford Motor Company has no power over me whatsoever.

What qualifies as coercion in the nap? What makes aggression? Legitimate or illegitimate use of force?

We can easily define these differently.

[lucky]

In the Capitalist Mode of Production, the generation of products (goods and services) is accomplished with an endless sequence of discrete, repetitive, motions that offer the worker little psychological satisfaction for “a job well done”. By means of commodification, the labour power of the worker is reduced to wages (an exchange value); the psychological estrangement of the worker results from the unmediated relation between his productive labour and the wages paid him for the labour.

Sounds like you don't like your job. Perhaps you should quit and become an artisan or a storekeeper in your own corner store?

People generally choose specialization because it's efficient for them. They can do one task at a factory and get fully functioning complicated things like cars in exchange. It's not about capitalism, most jobs in the Soviet Union weren't very creative either.

At my job, when a task becomes mundane and repetitive, we automate it so that we don't have to do it. Again, maybe you should train for a different job if yours doesn't satisfy you.

The worker invariably loses the ability to [...] use the value of the goods and services, produced with his labour.

Depends on the job... I am allowed to use the free search engine online that I help build.

[BATIK]

Sounds like you don't like your job. Perhaps you should quit and become an artisan or a storekeeper in your own corner store?

I'm a student and I actually really enjoy the job I currently have now. Working at an aquarium and also as an oceanographer. I get to spend my time in an environment I love.

But how the fuck does my position have any bearing over general trends in the economy?

I'm glad your company gives you a degree of autonomy. But in just about every corporate model workers exercise no personal creativity. This estrangement is a definite problem of stratified society.

[lucky]

But how the fuck does my position have any bearing over general trends in the economy?

Good point, I assumed your frustration conveyed in your posts was caused by personal experience that you generalized.

In reality, there is a reverse trend. Jobs are less mundane than ever. It used to be that everybody was either a farmer or a dumb factory worker working one stupid device. Because that's what was useful for efficient production. Now much of that is automated, and the labor demand has shifted towards higher skill and more interesting positions that were extremely rare in the past.

At the same time, it's the non-capitalist outliers like Soviet Union in the past and North Korea now that are stuck with boring and back-breaking inefficient manual labor.

[BATIK]

t's the non-capitalist outliers like Soviet Union in the past

Circuit of commodity production, M-C-M was present. A dominant class was present who derived their income from the surplus product produced by the workers and appropriated freely. There was wage-labour dependency.

Society was centred on the process M → M', making money and the exchange of value that occurs at that point.

From an analytical perspective, it contained all the defining characteristics of capitalism (capital accumulation, commodity production, wage labour)

North Korea now

Yeah. . . Juche is not what anyone here is advocating.

[Voluntarism]

If you take the position that the state should play a minimal role in providing housing, healthcare, etc. and promote flat taxes that allow the concentration of wealth; then spending on healthcare will be dominated by a handful of philanthropists who can make their own decisions independently of the public. Or they could by an island in Dubai.

I'm surprised no one else has pulled you up on this issue (and indeed have supported the misperception). There are various non-coercive ways of obtaining healthcare, welfare, insurance etc not just ones "dominated by a handful of philanthropists". The simple fact that so many people would be concerned by such a situation means that there is a desire for alternatives. One simple alternative is a co-operative and indeed if you look back to history, this was the dominant form of private welfare and insurance support via the Friendly Societies.

People like Tom Palmer and John Chodes have written about the workings of the Friendly Societies and quoting:

Various forms of friendly societies have existed since ancient China, Greece, and Rome. In Britain, they arose out of the guild system. Daniel Defoe wrote in 1697 that friendly societies were "very extensive" in England. In the mid-18th century, as the Industrial Revolution hastened the growth of British towns, the friendly society system became well established. Sometimes they were called fraternal societies, mutual aid societies, or benefit clubs. Similar organizations developed in the United States in the 19th century. Friendlies usually were formed by people with a common denominator, like the same occupation or same ethnic, geographic, or religious background.

Their lengthy success reflects that they were much more than benefit institutions. Friendlies were voluntary serf-help associations, organized by the members themselves. Friendlies served social, educational, and economic functions, bringing the idea of insurance and savings to those who might not have planned for the future. The social aspect of the friendlies should not be underestimated. Their meetings included lectures, dramatic performances, and dances both to inform and to entertain members.

Nineteenth-century commercial insurance companies couldn’t compete with the friendlies, so they focused on business clients and the rich. Workers were suspicious of the companies because of their numerous failures and scandals. Besides, insurance rates were higher than those the friendlies charged for comparable benefits.

Originally, friendlies insured against "disability to work," with little distinction between accident or sickness. This also came to mean "infirmity," i.e., insurance against old age. Most friendlies paid for a doctor’s services, burial expenses, life insurance, annuities to widows, and educational expenses for orphans. They built old-age homes and sanitariums for members and their families. Even in their early stages, they offered unemployment benefits for those in "distressed circumstances" or "on travel in search of employment." The most common pay-outs were for maternity leave and retirement pensions.

Largely they flew under the radar of the centralised measured economy but before they were largely wiped out by the coercive Government welfare programs and crony capitalists-inspired regulations early last century they were prolific and the dominant method for people to receive these services. Their voluntary nature brought many social benefits and community support and automatically dealt with the standard moral hazard problems of insurance and welfare by being very local in nature in terms of the accountability. Some large ones, like the Odd Fellows, allowed members to travel internationally, rock up to the local Lodge and gain accommodation and support from local members - either as part of their ongoing travels or to find new employment etc.

The Loyal Order of Water Buffalos Lodge that Fred Flintsone and Barney Rubble were members of were an example of the Friendlies living on in American popular culture in the 1960s. I'd jump at the chance of restarting these (even if funny hats seemed to be obligatory).

I'd recommend reading up on these to help overcome some of your recent doubts about what can fill the vacuum.

[Coyote]

I was first attracted to libertarianism because the emphasis on negative rights seemed to gel with Kant's principle of never treating someone solely as a means to an end but always as an end in themselves. After a few thought experiments I realised that these positions are not synonymous.

I'm a fan of the public goods and services that the state makes available to all as commons and I am happy to contribute through taxation. When the state taxes me it violates my negative rights and treats me as a means to an end. When it uses that money to build roads, schools and hospitals it grants me positive rights and treats me as an end in myself by granting me access to transportation, education and healthcare free at the point of use.

I am also a fan of democracy. When the state makes decisions about how to spend tax revenue it is open to input and feedback from the population. When a billionaire decides to donate money to charity s/he can do as s/he pleases without taking anyone elses opinion into consideration. Libertarians wish to live in a plutocracy where spending decisions on healthcare, education, etc. are made by wealthy without input from the many.

Also the rich would have made little money if they had no access to the goods and services provided by the state as well as the positive externalities.

But the state rips you off. They provide roads, but at 3 times the cost. They provide schools, but at double the cost, with half the results. They provide hospitals that treat your minor wound, but infect you with staph.

The world is full of stupid people/ But there is nothing more stupid, more ill-equipped, than the state.

[SecretSquirrel]

It doesn't matter how well or poorly the State fulfills its goals or whether those goals are good or bad

All that matters is that the State is 100% powered by coercion and violence. And that makes every single product or service of the State a fruit of the poisonous tree

[Technology]

It doesn't matter how well or poorly the State fulfills its goals or whether those goals are good or bad

It certainly does in the near term, because if the state is the thing propping up most of the economy, then removing it suddenly would be quite disastrous.

State spending in the US, for example, constituted 19% of GDP in 2010, and that's not including transfer payments. Various forms of social support make up much of the budget and directly contribute to the consumption component of aggregate demand in the economy. A lot of the consumption of the lower classes is being subsidized by government through things like food stamps. The largest parts of government spending are the ones supporting the current system, distorted or not.

We just have to put up with government coercion, until its vital projects can be replaced by non-coercive means from within. Only then is a libertarian agenda not disastrous to the economy and alien to the interests of the poor.

[AFAIK]

I'd recommend reading up on these to help overcome some of your recent doubts about what can fill the vacuum.

Thank you for that post and link.

[SolarCross]

I'm surprised no one else has pulled you up on this issue (and indeed have supported the misperception). There are various non-coercive ways of obtaining healthcare, welfare, insurance etc not just ones "dominated by a handful of philanthropists". The simple fact that so many people would be concerned by such a situation means that there is a desire for alternatives. One simple alternative is a co-operative and indeed if you look back to history, this was the dominant form of private welfare and insurance support via the Friendly Societies.

People like Tom Palmer and John Chodes have written about the workings of the Friendly Societies and quoting:
--Various forms of friendly societies have existed since ancient China, Greece, and Rome. In Britain, they arose out of the guild system. Daniel Defoe wrote in 1697 that friendly societies were "very extensive" in England. In the mid-18th century, as the Industrial Revolution hastened the growth of British towns, the friendly society system became well established. Sometimes they were called fraternal societies, mutual aid societies, or benefit clubs. Similar organizations developed in the United States in the 19th century. Friendlies usually were formed by people with a common denominator, like the same occupation or same ethnic, geographic, or religious background.

Their lengthy success reflects that they were much more than benefit institutions. Friendlies were voluntary serf-help associations, organized by the members themselves. Friendlies served social, educational, and economic functions, bringing the idea of insurance and savings to those who might not have planned for the future. The social aspect of the friendlies should not be underestimated. Their meetings included lectures, dramatic performances, and dances both to inform and to entertain members.

Nineteenth-century commercial insurance companies couldn’t compete with the friendlies, so they focused on business clients and the rich. Workers were suspicious of the companies because of their numerous failures and scandals. Besides, insurance rates were higher than those the friendlies charged for comparable benefits.

Originally, friendlies insured against "disability to work," with little distinction between accident or sickness. This also came to mean "infirmity," i.e., insurance against old age. Most friendlies paid for a doctor’s services, burial expenses, life insurance, annuities to widows, and educational expenses for orphans. They built old-age homes and sanitariums for members and their families. Even in their early stages, they offered unemployment benefits for those in "distressed circumstances" or "on travel in search of employment." The most common pay-outs were for maternity leave and retirement pensions.--

Largely they flew under the radar of the centralised measured economy but before they were largely wiped out by the coercive Government welfare programs and crony capitalists-inspired regulations early last century they were prolific and the dominant method for people to receive these services. Their voluntary nature brought many social benefits and community support and automatically dealt with the standard moral hazard problems of insurance and welfare by being very local in nature in terms of the accountability. Some large ones, like the Odd Fellows, allowed members to travel internationally, rock up to the local Lodge and gain accommodation and support from local members - either as part of their ongoing travels or to find new employment etc.

The Loyal Order of Water Buffalos Lodge that Fred Flintsone and Barney Rubble were members of were an example of the Friendlies living on in American popular culture in the 1960s. I'd jump at the chance of restarting these (even if funny hats seemed to be obligatory).

I'd recommend reading up on these to help overcome some of your recent doubts about what can fill the vacuum.

I think you'll get your chance soon enough, welfare states are all headed for financial ruin, govs aren't just taxing the economy into oblivion to pay for their dreary gulag welfare plantations they are also borrowing feck tons of money too and borrowing just to pay the interest on the borrowings they took to pay the interest of the borrowings they took to pay the interest.... Soon or later that farce is gonna end and when it does.. Friendly societies will make a big comeback.

[SecretSquirrel]

welfare states are definitely headed for ruin, but I cannot be as confident as you are about how good things will be once they fall apart. I fear that with the disruption of the welfare state, particularly in USA and Europe, the infrastructure and logistics systems responsible for delivery of food, electricity, and communications will be destroyed by mobs. And once that happens there will be many bodies piling up in inner cities around the world.

[SolarCross]

SS - Aye there will be riots for sure, also the discontent will give opportunities for hyper-statists like fascists and communists to seduce the mobs into supporting them for power. A scenario like the collapse of the Weimar Republic or the rise of Bolshevism. But I don't think either the commies or the fascists will get enough of the support they'd need to implement their fantasies this time around. My hunch and my hope is that libertarian values emerge out of the ruin more than statism.

[Technology]

Riots?

The future is bright. There will be more welfare and less coercion.

[mum]

SS - Aye there will be riots for sure, also the discontent will give opportunities for hyper-statists like fascists and communists to seduce the mobs into supporting them for power. A scenario like the collapse of the Weimar Republic or the rise of Bolshevism. But I don't think either the commies or the fascists will get enough of the support they'd need to implement their fantasies this time around. My hunch and my hope is that libertarian values emerge out of the ruin more than statism.

Gotta keep spreading the word then

[mum]

Those are pretty nebulous terms. What does "position" mean in this context? What does "power" mean in this context? Ford Motor Company has no power over me whatsoever.

What qualifies as coercion in the nap? What makes aggression? Legitimate or illegitimate use of force?

We can easily define these differently.

Can you answer the questions asked of you first ?
Thanks

[nucklepunche]

What made me realize I was not a libertarian was the term "libertarian" itself carries a lot of intellectual baggage. The idea of libertarianism suggests that liberty ought to be the only priority, and should always trump everything else. The traditional conservative meanwhile recognizes liberty as an important social value, albeit one that must be balanced against other priorities such as social order, tradition, and national security. The problem is to be a libertarian is to embrace the term and the baggage that goes along with it.

In essence once you have said you are a libertarian, you have essentially committed to a philosophy that sees free markets as the solution in all or almost all situations. In essence being a libertarian is overly simplified because I believe that embracing the term requires one to embrace a checklist of ideas. In a sense you should be able to predict where a libertarian stands on any issue based on their self-identification.

When I was a libertarian I was a pretty strong libertarian, I didn't think there was room for much deviation because I believe that once you deviated, the first principles would be lost. I still believe this to some extent, however I no longer believe in libertarian first principles. I don't believe principles exist outside the context of society and history, whereas libertarians I think do by implication. My (traditional conservative) principles by contrast are rooted in what I view as thousands of years of observation and collected wisdom by our ancestors.

I think there are certain universal truths, and one of them is that commitment to absolutist ideology almost always leads to bloodbaths if such ideology takes power. It was true in France in the 18th century, it was true in Russia in 1917, it was true in Iran in 1979. All were animated by absolutist ideology that demands total adherence, not libertarianism, but what they all had in common was that they require purity to work, and only repression can reinforce purity. The American Revolution by contrast was a conservative revolution, a reaction against a king who had gone beyond previously established limits of his powers.

[SolarCross]

Gotta keep spreading the word then ;)

Yes mate, and not just online but out there in the real world too. I appreciate your activity on the "tax is theft" thread btw, good stuff. But what about them statists? They are proper crazy ain't they? It makes me depressed thinking about the gibberish they come out with.. like can these people really not get such obvious unadorned simple truths?