Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A "libertarian" is one seeking the benefits of the republican form (sovereignty, freedom and independence) while participating in the democratic form of government as a subject citizen. Which means that a libertarian is a misguided soul.
Ha!
So true.
As long as they are statists being a "libertarian" is chasing your own tail.
As long as they are statists being a "libertarian" is chasing your own tail.
Although I will point out... Becoming a minarchist is usually a stepping stone to understanding true freedom. I had to move from statist, to less of a statist, get to the point where I was curious about the true minimum amount of government necessary, and then I was ready.
As Larken says, minarchism is a great start but a horrible finish. A great stepping stone, but you have to keep going.
The entirety of the Democrat party wants big government in essentially every aspect of our lives. I would argue they want the government in the bedroom to promote certain behavior. They certainly want to control what people think of their pet political groups.
The establishment wing of Republican party wants big government involved in other ways. They love big military. They want government programs for things like school vouchers. They want to use government to advocate traditional family values and religion.
Both parties are corporatists who prostitute themselves out to giant corporations to that the favored corporations can use their governmental connections to crush their competition. It used to be the Republicans were seen of the party of big business prostitution, but the Democrats are just as, if not more, guilty of it now.
Although I will point out... Becoming a minarchist is usually a stepping stone to understanding true freedom. I had to move from statist, to less of a statist, get to the point where I was curious about the true minimum amount of government necessary, and then I was ready.
As Larken says, minarchism is a great start but a horrible finish. A great stepping stone, but you have to keep going.
I don't know about you, but being a "sovereign without subjects" is pretty much the whole enchilada.
SOVEREIGN - One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
Of course, if you were not informed that volunteering to be a subject citizen waived one's birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence - - -
D'oh!
Addendum: Only one nation on earth has a republican form of government. And 99.999% of its people cannot accurately define it or its source. (No, it's not a "constitutional republic.")
Although I will point out... Becoming a minarchist is usually a stepping stone to understanding true freedom. I had to move from statist, to less of a statist, get to the point where I was curious about the true minimum amount of government necessary, and then I was ready.
As Larken says, minarchism is a great start but a horrible finish. A great stepping stone, but you have to keep going.
True as well.
And I know many if not most an-caps spent a transitional period in the minarchist realm.
I sort of skipped that step myself.
It is weird to see how these terms and labels fluctuate thru time periods. Just like how you were talking about what side folks today would take if they were plopped down in the Revolutionary War era.
I think the disconnect & mistrust of government by the citizenry today is manifesting into extremists on both sides pushing hard for social control over the masses. That's why we have SJWs running amok on the Left and religious nuts doing likewise on the Right. When people feel they have no control or it is being taken from them they feel cornered and think force (on others) is the answer.
I don't know about you, but being a "sovereign without subjects" is pretty much the whole enchilada.
SOVEREIGN - One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]â€
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
Of course, if you were not informed that volunteering to be a subject citizen waived one's birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence - - -
D'oh!
Addendum: Only one nation on earth has a republican form of government. And 99.999% of its people cannot accurately define it or its source. (No, it's not a "constitutional republic.")
That sounds good to me, I think. I've always thought of it as reducing power to the individual level, so everyone is essentially their own country.
And I know many if not most an-caps spent a transitional period in the minarchist realm.
I sort of skipped that step myself.
It is weird to see how these terms and labels fluctuate thru time periods. Just like how you were talking about what side folks today would take if they were plopped down in the Revolutionary War era.
I think the disconnect & mistrust of government by the citizenry today is manifesting into extremists on both sides pushing hard for social control over the masses. That's why we have SJWs running amok on the Left and religious nuts doing likewise on the Right. When people feel they have no control or it is being taken from them they feel cornered and think force (on others) is the answer.
I think so too. Everyone knows something is wrong, but they're misdiagnosing the problems and getting caught up in fighting each other. I'm sure the two major parties like it this way. As long as people are arguing over which side gets to have tons of power, they don't care. They will care if people start questioning the need for them at all.
That sounds good to me, I think. I've always thought of it as reducing power to the individual level, so everyone is essentially their own country.
The problem with the sovereign citizen stance is that it recognizes the government by denouncing it.
I agree with Kokesh on this one. I like the self-rule notion I just don't feel like denouncing a fictional entity does anything for me and only serves the state.
Say we're in a free society and you & 3 of your friends decide to start a government (which would only rule you 4 cuz obviously we're in a free world). In this context the government would be real because all parties consented. Even in this paradigm I wouldn't feel the need to formally announce my exclusion from the entity even though I would actually consider it a legit government...just not mine.
The problem with the sovereign citizen stance is that it recognizes the government by denouncing it.
I agree with Kokesh on this one. I like the self-rule notion I just don't feel like denouncing a fictional entity does anything for me and only serves the state.
Say we're in a free society and you & 3 of your friends decide to start a government (which would only rule you 4 cuz obviously we're in a free world). In this context the government would be real because all parties consented. Even in this paradigm I wouldn't feel the need to formally announce my exclusion from the entity even though I would actually consider it a legit government...just not mine.
I'm not completely informed on the sovereign citizen stance, but what you said makes sense. I guess I'd also prefer to not legitimize the state in any way, or to treat it any differently than organized crime, which it is.
Although I will point out... Becoming a minarchist is usually a stepping stone to understanding true freedom. I had to move from statist, to less of a statist, get to the point where I was curious about the true minimum amount of government necessary, and then I was ready.
As Larken says, minarchism is a great start but a horrible finish. A great stepping stone, but you have to keep going.
Larken and other prominent Anarchist philosophers are misguided as well. You'll never go from a statist/authoritarian government to Anarchy. That's where minarchy/minarchist come into play. If Anarchists truly want anarchy - they'll have to support minarchy first (some do...which is why the LP has AnCaps that vote for the LP). Even then, i doubt we'll ever see true anarchy due to the classic back and forth debate of who enforces what rules without a "ruler". I understand the principles of NAP, but even it's flawed - which is why I never claim to be libertarian, even though i side more with libertarian principles than any other statist party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
