19 votes

Libertarians Are Not Welcome Here, Says NH State Rep

Tom Woods talks about the recent comments of Rep. Cynthia Chase, who is appalled that people who believe in non-violence are moving to her state.
http://youtu.be/XxsuYsyBzAo



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They're just Anarchists who want to destroy government

"right-anarchists, aka anarcho-capitalists"

Ancaps are just Anarchists who want to destroy government, and know that they aren't welcome. She's being honest, something an Anarchist can't be. You aren't welcome. Anarchists know that they aren't welcome and need to hide behind some other euphemism whether it's "Libertarian", or "Anarcho-garbage-of-the-week".

Murray Rothbard is an Anarchist, and you eat boogers out of his nose, and the Mises institute uses people to serve that agenda.

Lew Rockwell, founder and chairman or the Mises institute, and executor of Murray Rothbard's estate: "It would be a great thing to break up the US"

What is Lew Rockwell's and the Mises Institutes agenda? to destroy the American government?

Screw Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Tom Woods, the Mises institute, and all of you Anarchists masquerading as advocates for liberty. You are WORTHLESS to liberty, and advocates for a free market of violence serving principle of self interest where those who can buy the most muscle rule through the principle that might makes right. So please, stop talking about voluntarism and liberty. You want to buy violence and use it to serve your agenda. You are phonies and liars.

Wanna try and make that case Ron Paul is an Anarchist too? Come on, DO IT!!! Complete your work and turn Ron Paul into a joke who is rightly shunned and unwelcome along with all you foul mouthed Anarchists.

Tell me. Is Ron Paul a phony and a fraud who's been misrepresenting those who voted for him and trying to destroy the government?

What exactly is

an anarchist?

Look up the word in a dictionary

Look up the word in a dictionary, as many different dictionaries as you want, and then think back to everything these Anarchists stand for. You'll know every definition you find is filled with the truth.

Look up these words too, and you'll know exactly what an Anarchist is and what agenda they serve.

Anarchy
Anarchism
Anarchist
Nihilist
Hedonist
Libertine
Liar
Fraud

The first books an Anarchist will try and burn are the dictionaries. They'll swear up and down that those words don't have meaning, and the definitions don't fit them, but again, think back to who and what agenda they project, and remember what a nihilist is. They don't want words to have ANY objective meaning or foundation in truth because they don't accept that there is any foundation for truth. They are enemies of everything a Libertarian stands for.

anarchy -

Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos "having no ruler", from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
First Known Use: 1539

every other meaning, besides "having no ruler", is a liberal, inaccurate, interpretation of the word.

for it to mean anything else it would be a different word.
such as, annomos, "without law"

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

When you say

"who and what agenda they project"

what are you refering to?

Thanks for the word list.

One of my concerns with the displeasure with government is that it can be used by enemies to bring about change, disruption, and cleansing. Not that we shouldn't be displeased with current affairs. I have been somewhat concerned that communist subversion could be at play.

Bear, You Asked About This Last Year, Remember?

Bear, back on July 17, 2012, you titled a comment, "If You Have Time" and asked, “When I read it seems to be an accurate and a natural process and am wondering how non-government advocates would see it.”

Your offered your comment in response to Bob-45's, post, "Keys to successfully and non violently overthrow dictatorships".

There was an entire discussion presented from various individuals (including me) about what is anarchism.

My Goodness!!!

How did you remember? I went back and found your very informative comment. I have been cramming so many new ideas that I fail to hold on to them all. I am going back and reading now. Thank you for directing back to your words:

"It [current US government] must be completely removed and replaced with the individual spirit of self-government as many of the founding fathers desired for America."

The part about that that is a little scarey to me is that there are enemies that would like to remove government in order to take control and become the new government...maybe even a worse government. I guess I still fear communist revolution even though I understand that it is a dialectic used in contrast to capitalism. Do you have any thoughts along those lines?

Thanks!

His demeanor is poor, but...

There is some degree of truth here. A lot of people latch onto that label, "Anarchy" thinking it means something it does not. Anarchy is an absolute term, there are not multiple types of anarchists and you cannot be partially anarchist. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians believe in the principle of non-aggression. Rejecting the initiation of violence. Anarchy is the absolute form of no government. Zero government or enforcement of any kind.

Whether or not there are other groups of people, that consider themselves "anarchists" which do NOT believe this way, well yes there are. But the problem is, that's not what anarchy means. You can try all day long to convince me, oh but this kind of anarchy is good. Well anarchy means NO GOVERNMENT, so no, that is not a good thing. It's an absolute thing which can't be compromised, just like liberty.

Liberty and anarchy are at direct odds. It is impossible to have both. But a lot of people who call themselves anarchists are actually just libertarians. And they'd do a lot better to change how they label themselves, because for right or for wrong, the public sees anarchy as a very bad thing.

This is flatly false. There

This is flatly false. There most certainly are multiple types of anarchy. And there are multiple types of libertarians.

Would you tell Spooner, Rothbard, Hoppe, Higgs, or Molyneux they aren't anarchists?

Further right anarchists, voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, agorists, are certainly libertarians.

Right anarchists accuse left of not being true anarchists because they require state violence to achieve their ends. Left anarchists accuse right or not being aware that capital can be violence by it's very existence.

Anarcho-capitalism is merely the fullest extension of the libertarian NAP.

Minarchists say sometimes it's necessary, and moral, for some people, to initiate aggression. They consider ancaps to be impractical. Minarchists have a greater tendency to embrace political action.

Ancaps say it is never ok for anyone to initiate aggression, regardless if they wear badges or uniforms. They consider minarchists to be lukewarm and squishy on their principals. Ancaps also have a greater tendency to reject political action as inherently immoral.

Libertarianism is a really big tent. Minarchists and ancaps need to stop playing the silly 'true scottsman' game. We are all libertarians. We are all anti-collectivist.

We are no where close to being as free as any of us would like to be. There is thus no reason to squabble.

If we ever get the freedom train to the point that minarchists are comfortable but ancaps wish to go further, then minarchists may get off.

We're no where near that point.

Infighting is foolish.

Just because I disagree, does

Just because I disagree, does not mean I am unwilling to cooperate with in the interest of mutual goals. You will not find the types that I truly abhor on these boards (for the most part). So how can I argue against them here? We're not all going to agree on everything, doesn't mean we can't cooperate and be civil. Every disagreement is not necessarily divisive.

I just feel that anarchy has a meaning, and people came and tried to co-opt it to mean something different. It's an absolute term. It means _NO_ government. If you want any government whatsoever, in my mind you are not an anarchist. Just like Glen Beck is not a libertarian. Just like most atheists are not a-theist. It's an absolute term, you can't modify the definition because you feel a certain way, it is what it is. Liberty = no initiation of violence. Anarchy = No government (and, in theory, no violence, the problem I see being who is going to enforce that? but that's a whole nother topic). How can you have "some" no government? You either have a government, or you do not.

Moreover the term comes with a stigma, that you can't deny, when the general public hears you are an "anarchist" their ears close.

It is for these reasons that I am careful to distance myself from the "anarchy" label, even though you are absolutely correct that there are many overlapping goals, and I am willing (unlike a certain unnamed commenter) to associate and be civil with people who consider themselves anarchists.

Well you are right. IMO

Well you are right. IMO anarchism means you want NO government. This is the critique that right anarchists have against left. Left anarchists just want to replace government with one more to their liking (they will say it's not really a government, which is silly).

Right anarchists want none whatsoever.

I personally like the word. It also depends who you are talking to and what context. If you're talking to a leftist calling yourself an anarchist can get their attention. I consider myself an anarchist but I don't self identify as such at a Tea Party rally, for instance.

As I came to understand economics more I became more convinced true anarchy could work and work well and in fact better.

But I would be very pleased if we could just restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal system, with state competing against state, and very minimal federal power limited to what the Constitution grants would be a wonderful thing. End the fed, end the military empire, and create a free market empire.

Even that seems an unrealistically optimistic goal.

What you need to understand about right-anarchists, ancaps, voluntaryists, is that we are no threat to you. Just the opposite. Ancaps have provided a great deal of the economic intellectual ammunition libertarians and conservatives have used to win the political debate. Almost all Austrians are ancaps. Once you understand economics enough you realize it is not that government is bad and inefficient at some things, it is bad and inefficient at everything.

Ancaps are ideologically non violent. The worst thing an ancap may ever do to you is chide you for thinking political action can change things or call you weak-sauce. Most won't tho. I certainly wont.

We're on the same side.

If we ever got to the place in liberty you were comfortable and I wanted to go farther, if I can't convince you, that will be the end of the story.

Ancaps don't throw bombs, we throw parties:)

Give it a rest..

Some of what Anarchist come up with is pie-in-the-sky in my opinion but they are libertarians and damn good ones.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

He's over the top sure, but I

He's over the top sure, but I don't agree. You cannot have a world without government and still have respect for individual liberties. While I reject the initiation of violence, without the existence of some entity to protect liberty, it does not exist.

They're garbage and as you

They're garbage and as you can see, unwelcome. They aren't Libertarians. They are WORTHLESS to liberty, of no value; less than no value actually and advocate for a free market of violence while spouting off about voluntary interaction and nonviolence.

They are phonies, liars, and frauds, and as you can see; unwelcome. There's a VERY good reason some Libertarians can't operate within the Republican party, because all they want to do is destroy, and that's why they aren't welcome.

You are out of line

You're being a total asshole. If you can't have a reasonable discussion then you are just showing everyone that you are not very firm in your convictions. You are debating liberal style.

I don't care what line an

I don't care what line an Anarchist wants me to toe. What you want means less than nothing to me Anarchist, as does how you feel or what you think.

I've been having reasonable discussions with Anarchists for a long time, and Anarchists have proven to me that they are incapable of having a reasonable discussion, because all they want to do is destroy, and all they CAN do is run their foul mouths and hit the down vote when somebody makes a point they don't like or can't overcome.

I've had Anarchist garbage like you threatening to kill me and eat my liver, and now it's time for all that hate to come back full circle, so stick your imaginary line straight up your ass Anarchist.

I'm not an Anarchist dude.

I'm not an Anarchist dude. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN!?!!!? I literally have NO IDEA what makes you think I'm an anarchist, and I'm extremely confused because when I was talking AGAINST anarchy you went off on one of your angry aimless tyrades, and now you go on one saying I am an anarchist...

And no, no one that was anything like me in any meaningful way whatsoever ever threatened your life. How dare you claim otherwise? You don't know me in the slightest (for starters, you evidently think I'm an anarchist despite clear posts to the contrary and absolutely nothing suggesting I am).

deacon's picture

oops

did someone become what they purport to despise?
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

It's amazing how many people

It's amazing how many people are moving to New Hamshire and Texas! Wouldn't people be flocking to Florida, since they don't have an income tax? I wonder why they can have that option and nobody else?

juan maldonado

Seven states have no individual

Seven states have no individual income tax, including Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.
Additionally, Louisiana is now entering discussion of phasing out its individual and corporate income taxes.

Well....

Have you ever been to Florida? I have, no thanks.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

lol... reluctant +1

lol... reluctant +1

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz