0 votes

How Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard Took Liberty Down the Wrong Road

Here is a short excerpt from the latest Daily Bell interview with friend and fellow DPer, Nelson Hultberg, Founder and Executive Director of Americans for a Free Republic.

Daily Bell: You have a new book out entitled The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Can you explain briefly what your book is about?

Nelson Hultberg: When it first began in the early 1940s, the freedom movement in America was not split between libertarians and conservatives. It was one coalition unified in rebellion against FDR's welfare state. By 1970, however, the movement had become tragically bifurcated. Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard took libertarians off into anarchy, while the Burkean philosopher Russell Kirk drove conservatives into the complacency of welfare-statism. This split has created two incomplete visions (contemporary libertarianism and conservatism) that are, in their singularity, incapable of effectively challenging the authoritarian mega-state.

What must be done is to reunite these two divisions as they were in the beginning. This will require a rational theory of politics that can bring together the two philosophical streams of John Locke and Edmund Burke so as to restore the original "republic of states" that Jefferson and the Founders envisioned. It is the purpose of The Golden Mean to bring this about.

Only in this way can the forces of freedom become strong enough to check the relentless advance of modern day statism. This unity between libertarians and conservatives is the crucial missing ingredient in our fight to restore America. The Golden Mean lays the philosophical groundwork for its reinstillation.

This unity means a merging of libertarians with TRUE conservatives who believe in limited government, not with today's NEO conservatives who advocate the relentless expansion of government. Libertarians have a common ground with the "Old Republic" thinking of the 1940s, conservative minds like Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, and Frank Meyer.

The Golden Mean is much more, though, than a paean to the history of libertarianism and conservatism. It is a paradigm shifting book that will dramatically change the way one looks at political theory and the idea of a free society. It is meant for both the scholar and the educated layman.

Daily Bell: You have a new book out entitled The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Can you explain briefly what your book is about?

Nelson Hultberg: When it first began in the early 1940s, the freedom movement in America was not split between libertarians and conservatives. It was one coalition unified in rebellion against FDR's welfare state. By 1970, however, the movement had become tragically bifurcated. Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard took libertarians off into anarchy, while the Burkean philosopher Russell Kirk drove conservatives into the complacency of welfare-statism. This split has created two incomplete visions (contemporary libertarianism and conservatism) that are, in their singularity, incapable of effectively challenging the authoritarian mega-state.

What must be done is to reunite these two divisions as they were in the beginning. This will require a rational theory of politics that can bring together the two philosophical streams of John Locke and Edmund Burke so as to restore the original "republic of states" that Jefferson and the Founders envisioned. It is the purpose of The Golden Mean to bring this about.

Only in this way can the forces of freedom become strong enough to check the relentless advance of modern day statism. This unity between libertarians and conservatives is the crucial missing ingredient in our fight to restore America. The Golden Mean lays the philosophical groundwork for its reinstillation.

This unity means a merging of libertarians with TRUE conservatives who believe in limited government, not with today's NEO conservatives who advocate the relentless expansion of government. Libertarians have a common ground with the "Old Republic" thinking of the 1940s, conservative minds like Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, and Frank Meyer.

The Golden Mean is much more, though, than a paean to the history of libertarianism and conservatism. It is a paradigm shifting book that will dramatically change the way one looks at political theory and the idea of a free society. It is meant for both the scholar and the educated layman.

Daily Bell: Tell us about your book's title, The Golden Mean, what it refers to and why it is so important for freedom.

Nelson Hultberg: The Golden Mean is Aristotle's famous "doctrine of the mean" in philosophy discovered over 2300 years ago. It is one of the most powerful natural laws that govern existence, demonstrating what is virtue and what is vice in human affairs. It states that virtue consists of the rational course that lies between two opposite and natural extremes, i.e., the Golden Mean.

For example, Aristotle tells us in his Nicomachean Ethics that if a man is confronted with danger, he meets it in one of three ways. He succumbs to the extreme of cowardice or to the opposite extreme of rashness; or he chooses the middle course of "courage," which is contrary to both. In like fashion, a man can choose "liberality," which is midway between the opposite extremes of stinginess and extravagance, "self-control" between drunkenness and abstemiousness, and "ambition" between sloth and greed.

Aristotle's theory was based upon the fact that in most human action, there is a wide range of intensity, all the way from too little (defect) to too much (excess). In between such defect and excess, there lies an appropriate mean – a golden mean – which would be the good, with the two opposites of defect and excess being evils.

There are, of course, numerous values of life (other than the ones Aristotle put forth) that can also be placed on a spectrum to determine a mean. Human life entails a wide array of desires, actions, and needs, many of which can be portrayed in terms of a vice-virtue-vice relationship. Listed below are a few examples that I have put together:

Thus, midway between the defect of apathy and the excess of zealotry, there lies the rational balance of concern. Between vulgarity and prudery, there is the mean of decency. Between treason and fanaticism, there is loyalty. Between strife and humdrum, there is peace. And between tyranny and anarchy, there is a thing called freedom. Precisely how concern, decency, loyalty, peace and freedom are to be defined is often times in dispute, but what is important is that there is infused in reality a spectrum upon which such values can be placed, a spectrum where at some point men's actions become defective, excessive, or proper.

What is so beautiful about Aristotle's doctrine is that it shows all the noblest and most desired values of our existence – such as loyalty, faith, love, peace, order and freedom – to be means. All of the things we value most in life are "means" between two opposite vices. This is the way reality is constructed. Almost always there is a mean between two evils.

. . .

Daily Bell: How did libertarians come to embrace anarchism so fervently? What is the source of this philosophical misdirection, as you would say?

Read the whole interview to find out

- - - - -



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

TLTR

let me know when stef debunks this. i would love to see this guy debate stef.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

What a terrible idea. First

What a terrible idea.

First off, Ayn Rand didn't advocate a stateless society, at all. Its also completely unfair to say she didn't advocate morality. She embraced NAP pretty strongly save for that her blinders were on concerning the state. Like many, she didn't seem to get that the state is a violation of NAP by its existence.

Second, as a libertarian who also happens to look forward to a glorious golden age of humanity where we leave this barbaric and savage concept of "government" behind us, I see utterly no reason to compromise with state-worshiping conservatives.

In my opinion our goal should be to drive them out of government completely. We should completely take over our parties and make the environment utterly hostile to neocons so that they either join us or get butt-hurt and leave. I doubt we can do it though. Collectivists flock to government because they lust for power and enjoy getting into groups and screwing over other people. Libertarians abhor these things and are thus completely unmotivated to do so.

I see no benefit in becoming just a little neocon to beat the Democrats or slow down the march toward world government. We already have fully recognized world government in the form of central banks, so we won't be getting back to a Republic. The banks would start world war 3 before they let that happen. Our best bet at this point is to advance technology to the point where government becomes obsolete. Until then, ill continue trying to take over local government, but quite frankly we are outnumbered and out gunned by Tea Party psychopaths. They know about the central banks and Agenda 21 and all that, however they put all that on the back-burner to force their bible-thumping shit down people's throats and kill Muslims.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as the vast majority of politically active conservatives believe in bat-shit crazy religious garbage and are willing to jamb it down other people's throats using the force of government, the human race is doomed. We will never see freedom.

Knowledge driven by ignorance?

What is the Golden Mean in this example whereby the conclusions being drawn are based upon either ignorance or deceit?

In between the extreme of knowledge and ignorance is stupidity?

Willfully ignoring the facts so as to maintain a desire to stay perfectly in the middle of knowledge and ignorance?

The work of Murray Rothbard was an accurately measurable account of the rejection of "anarchism" in favor of "libertarian lite" or "tyranny lite" as told in Rothbard's own work:

https://mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf

And as told by one of the Austrian (free market = "anarchism") Economic professors:

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/north/north512.html

______________________________________
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.

Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.
There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation.
___________________________________________

Murray Rothbard offered that supposed "Golden Mean" solution.

As far as I know about Ann Rand, which isn't much, is the term Nihilism, or Narcissism, or "there is no right and wrong" type of thinking.

So the Topic here is based upon inaccurate information?

Here is the work of an American who was called the First American Anarchist:

http://www.anarchiwum.bzzz.net/yak/equitable%20commerce.pdf

Equitable Commerce is a concept completely in agreement with free market free banking, precisely as reported by Gary North who offers an accurate accounting of Murray Rothbard moving to some nebulous "Golden Mean," and so who makes these claims whereby Murray Rothbard moves toward some ambiguous definition of the word "Anarchism?"

Free markets = Liberty

Liberty is precisely in between criminal group A and criminal group B?

What is the golden mean between abject belief in falsehood without question and perfect knowledge?

People moving willfully toward abject belief in falsehood without question or people moving willfully in the other direction?

Example 2 (Moral Relevance?)

From the smallest lie intended to harm an innocent victim on one end of the crime scale to the other end of the crime scale whereby someone invents a virus that slowly turns all life on earth into living hell and ultimate extinction, unleashing that virus as the ultimate final crime, and in between that scale is The Golden Mean?

Perpetual suffering of the innocent at the hands of the criminals for fun and profit?

Joe

Wow what a wise and intelligent man this mr hulberg!

I want to shake his hand for A articulating what I've felt for a long time and B changing/improving some of my ideas and C motivating me to spread his ideas. This is the first experience reading Nelson Hultberg but I'm now a big fan!

Ron Paul 2012

Conservatives need Libertarians,

Libertarians do not need Conservatives.

Conservatism has been in steady decline. Libertarianism has been steadily growing. The global population has increased over the past century. There are more countries today than a century ago. As the world population and political competition increases it will continue to aid the libertarian cause.

' ... so as to restore the original "republic of states" that Jefferson and the Founders envisioned.' That is not what libertarians advocate. That is what conservatives advocate.

Let's talk about Golden Mean. Where are conservatives on evictionism which is a mean of abortion and birth. Pin drop. Conservatives come up short on the intellectual side. There has been a steady stream of individuals continuing to advance libertarian ideas. Conservatism has been intellectually bankrupt for some time. It is not going to make a comeback anytime soon without conservative philosophers, ideologues, intellectuals, etc.

Conservatives and their political parties have never been successful at repealing anything. Even if we are going to credit republicans with abolishing slavery look at their solution, civil war. Conservatives had their time in power and they were horrible. They used government force to regulate every aspect of life.

Conservatives have not even been successful in their own homes. Family values are in decline. People are more socially liberal. It is surely not that the message of Jesus is bad, but the religious right has been terrible stewards of his message. Before conservatives start forcing other people how to live they ought to fix their own dam house by pulling any planks out of their own eyes before specks in a neighbors.

Look at how conservatives run their organizations. Go back and review John Birch Society archives on the WayBackMachine.com in the middle 1990's. Bircher's oppose civil disobedience such as refusing to pay unjust taxes. To be a Bircher one must fit a certain mold. What about RonPaulForums.com? How many conservatives have been banned versus voluntarists? The way these deceitful bastards operate is hold out an olive branch so they can get in a position of power and once they get in power they will coerce the shit out of you. Conservatives exemplify the notion power corrupts or using a Lord of the Rings analogy, what it means to come under the influence of the one ring.

If conservatives want to genuinely work with libertarians they will have to give up the worship of state idols and sacred golden calf of legitimizing biggest gangs. They will have to warm up to ideas the magic, separation of power includes competition in justice and defense among more than one entity in a given geographic territory.

You know how conservatives say if the GOP is not going to be receptive to their ideas then the democrats can win in order to teach the GOP a lesson? That is how I feel about most conservatives. Let their bad ideas of legitimizing biggest gangs die a slow and painful death while libertarian ideas continue to steadily grow in popularity which equates to a rise in power. Libertarians have the ideas, intellectuals, and will to not only spread but improve them. Libertarians do not put BS in their ideas. They paint a realistic picture of human nature and greed. What do conservatives bring to the table? Small numbers, a piss poor track record, and bad ideas which have failed miserably.

Strategic short term political gains by coalition may be of benefit to libertarians but over the long haul conservatives offer nothing of liberty value. There are libertarians who are socially conservative and socially liberal and they have no problem agreeing the non-aggression principle is a good principle.

How come Murry Rothbird gets the blame and Kirk gets a pass

? Is the road to welfare-statism preferable?

Leges sine moribus vanae

I dd not read this to imply Kirk got a pass

The neo-conservative concepts are so blatantly flawed that the article did not need to bother addressing it. He seemed to be simply begging the question "why waste our breath on it?" Also, the Daily Bell tends to be libertarian to old school conservative leaning, so there was not much need to mess with it.

Why do we let these Nationalist Statist push us around?

If you don’t know the difference between Rand and Rothbard ( you nailed it Sea), how could anyone every expect you to understand the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Hint the Constitution was not the beginning of this country……it was the beginning of the end. As a matter of fact……can anyone tell me the ten main reasons we had to change from the Articles to the Constitution?
This should be an easy one…..you would think that there has to be at least ten good reasons to change the whole form of government……..Yeah …..good luck with that one.

From a historical context

it is not really hard to see, and certainly not from a statist view either. I do not think it requires 10 reasons to see something is broken, as any of the first few was sufficient, but my newborn is sleeping, my, so I will give it a try.

1. History has shown that the more international governments there are, the more wars there are likely to be. Hence, lots of fully independent states would tend to result in lots of regional wars, which

2. Various states were at significant odds with each other and there was real fear of them going to war with each other.

3. This would have destroyed everything that generation had suffered through the Revolutionary War for.

4. The American Revolution was pretty much unique in all of world history. All the others I can thing of "ate their children" as it is said, and quickly divulged into tyranny (Russian)or disintegrated into violence(Caesar in Rome), or both (AKA French Revolution)

5. If the founders had not set up some form of government, somebody else WOULD HAVE. Like it or not, there are always those looking for power. And we can see from # 4, there was essentially no chance of liberty even gaining a foothold here or elsewhere if they had not tried. Washington is much maligned here for reasons I do not understand, but the simple fact that if pretty much any other man in history had been in his shoes at Newburgh, we would not even be having this free discussion on the finer point of libertarianism, as we would still be fighting for basic liberty. Washington's Address at Newburgh may be the most important moment in the history of liberty for allowing it to occur in the first place.

6. The British and French were in the background waiting for the states to burst into war to either pick off some of the frontier states, or to end up with treaties with one or more probably ending up in a partial return to being within the sway of European powers, which would have guaranteed the wars described in #1. Several states were already trying to get aid from the British, for example

7. With no possible source of revenue of its own to create any form of national defense, the states were uniformly required to provide funding, and it is not really logical to expect each state to have identical means.

8. Historically, confederations of this type tended to eventually become dominated by one or a few players and turn into a form of tyranny, i.e. Athens (Attica) and the Delian League, or the Holy Roman Empire and what is now Germany. Fair question by this point - can you name some confederations that did not do so?

9. There was no means to judge between the states.

10. None of them really wanted to be pushed around again by bigger powers. As Federalist 15 states:
In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV., endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to FRANCE, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other POWERFUL nation?

Sorry …..but if I were your professor in Liberty class

I would have to give you and “F”. Your platitudes lacked substances. Washington was pretty much a dolt. The only reason he was involved in the American Revolution was because his family sent him to look after the family business. Are you familiar with the Ohio Company? The land assets became virtually worthless after the Proclamation of 1763. The Newburgh Address was a response to a conspiracy set in motion by Hamilton to stir up the officers under Washington to compel him to support a convention to address the Articles weaknesses…….which didn’t exist. Your national defense point lacks merit….the second amendment is proof of that. The Continental Congress despised the thought of a “standing army” because of what they had witnessed in Europe……Liberty could not exist if the “Rulers” could call on an army to defeat the citizens. This is why I don’t really support the gun crowd…..they really don’t understand the Second Amendment, if they did they would be calling for a dismantling of the military and the military industrial complex…..never going to happen. BTW, Benedict Arnold was a much better General.

As far a a confederation eating itself……what was the Civil War?.......the Nationalist State finally achieving its goal of complete control…….I would rather die for Liberty the summit to the State…….

I recommend two books

The History of banking and Money...Murray Rothbard
Hamiltion's Curse.....Tom Woods

Hamiltons curse was written Dilorenzo, Goldspan

I know you know, I was just poking fun.

Way to nail the Washington piece. What a buffoon. Have you ever looked at his clothing and furniture receipts? The man nearly went broke trying to look like an aristocrat.

Before he arrived at the Philadelphia convention, in order to look the part, he purchased a beautiful and expensive army officer uniform. It was said that it was the only reason he was chosen to lead the army. Because of an outfit and a totally put on empty stare(probably due to lack of real intellect).

All Washington wanted to do was preserve he aristocratic status and be treated with dignity by his fellow pompous british counter parts. Yet another example of how history was re-written for us. Don't tell anyone around here though. Might be lynched.

Speaking of standing armies, wasn't it Washington, as he assumed the crown of lord and protector of revolutionary financiers, wasn't he the one who led the biggest army he had ever led, and done it against the American people. Constitution shmonstitution, when your "president" can lead an army against you.

Séamusín

Seems that most want to deify the document,

and the men who wrote it, not understanding that it enslaves them……if you don’t think we are slaves, just look at your income tax statement. God forbid we actually look at who they really were…….not just what we a told they were. The religion of the State is just unbelievable in this country.

One of my favorite quotes is the definition of corruption…..by Milton Friedmen……even though I don’t particular like him.

“ Corruption….The intrusion in the free market though government regulation”

That’s the thing with humanist, logic prevail until you disagree with them, then they want to rewrite the laws to get what they want…..subjectivism,…….relativism……eventuality of Statism. There’s no code, no ethic, no honor…….that’s why RP draws such a crowd…..Honor. I long for the days when men were men and Honor among men actually meant something.

Have I ever shared this with you……..check this out and tell me what you think. I don’t want to say……I am interested in your opinion.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

You don’t have to go through the whole thing…..just check out the changes.

If you could start another thread and let’s get off this one

Thanks for pulling my foot out of my mouth with the Woods/ Dilorenzo comment.

I set up a new thread.

The daily Paul isn't quite ready for this analysis and its implications. I started them off with a brief introduction to mercantilism, with a reference to the book you got me.

With apologies, I started the topic off with my admiration for Hamilton, as misguided as he was. I mentioned before that I had sort of a man crush on him. Not to say that I worship him or believe that he wasn't a disaster for the country. Just that he is a fascinating person who has alot of admirable traits.

http://www.dailypaul.com/319024/the-constitution-that-was-ne...

Séamusín

I saw that.......not exactly what i had in mind

but you did a nice job with it and opened up the debate. It's nice to see other on here that understand the basic premise that it's the problem not the solution.

I was most interest in your thoughts regarding the Confederate Constitution stripping out the mercantilist agenda and also the placement of the “bill of rights” actually in their constitution. You ever heard the saying “The South will rise again”……I really think this is what they were referring to.
The Confederate Constitution is a much more libertarian document. I think it’s time to capture 38 state houses and nullify the US Constitution and replace it with the Confederate Constitution, of course minus the whole slave issue, but that should go without saying.

I knew you wouldn't be 100% pleased with the way i went about it

But I couldn't jump right in, talking about the differences between the confederate constitution and our US Constitution. Two many people would be turned off at the onset. Better to give them an idea of where I was coming from.

It's perceptions that we would be dealing with. Sometimes people need someone like you to beat them over the head with knowledge. Other times they need to kinda be strung along.

People have to recognize those aspects of our constitution that are wretched, before they can see how they were improved upon. Otherwise they would just see a crazy old loon bitching about stuff that wasn't important. That have to have a background in why those aspects of it were there.

Séamusín

Yes I am more of a Neanderthal ,

But what I was thinking was ……just something like…. you starting the thread and then then you and I discussing it would draw others in……but now that I have given it more thought……there probably would be much to say because we probably both see it the same way. But no…..i like what you have done here, but remember I am more of ……..the game, then the players type person……biographies bore me.

You did say that the last time i brought hamilton up to you

You are some kinda consistent.

My next post is probably gonna be the about the articles of confederation. Then we will mosey on into the confederate constitution. That will give the appropriate amount of backdrop, and weed out some of the ignoramuses.

Kinda like what I did with Hamilton. I don't know if you read the comments but there were quite a few going through the standard talking points. All hail Jefferson(you know the guy who believed in freehold suffrage and compulsory education), and Hamilton wanted strong centralized government and dictators and kings, without understanding any of his rationalization. That is really important goldspan. If people dont understand the rationale, they will automatically jump to what is nefarious and secretive. These are your conspiracy friends that you love so much. Better to put Hamilton in the context of the times.

I was kinda waiting to post something on Hamilton anyway. You gave me a reason.

Séamusín

Nice strategy……..

Then we can lead them to the solution……. nullification and returning to the original constitution…… the Articles…….if you agree that’s the solution…..nice job

Ayn Rand was a small governement imperialist

If your could imagine such a thing.

Update: For the downvoter

http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/foreign-policy/middle-east

Next you should here her thoughts and that of her cultish progeny on libertarianism.

Séamusín

I never liked Ayn Rand

and I've voted Libertarian at all levels of gov since 88.. Rothbard is the one that screwed us with the stupid letters...

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007

He is

But he is still a great man and the intellectual godfather of an awful lot of political and economic thought.

Wish he didn't screw us with those letters and paleo-conservatism, but think about it like this. If Ron never met Murray, he never would have been subject to all the harassment about the letter. That being said, if Ron never met Murray, would he be the man that he is and that means so much to the movement?

Séamusín

Ayn Rand & Jefferson

Sadly, I don't think Nelson has read Ayn Rand and doesn't really understand her philosophy. I'm sure if he really read Jefferson, he would think he was an anarchist. Compared to the conservatives of today, Jefferson and Madison were relatively anarchist!

Absolutely in love with the concept...

VERY eye opening read and am completely fascinated about its concepts and ideas.

Ron Paul 2012

Government worshipers

Small request, you people that want to be ruled, once you get a hold of that toy called power, would you mind excusing all the rest that doesn't want to participate in your great government thingy? You can keep your laws, regardless of them 2+2 will still be 4, it's just some people don't want to participate or have anything to do with your government/ruler/king/president or whatever else you want to call your system of theft and abuse. We are not trying to impose our views on you, would you reciprocate?

And therein lies the

And therein lies the conundrum.

No, of course they won't allow you to not participate, because if they did and you still benefited from certain govt activites (like true natl defense) then you'd be freeloading, and if they allowed YOU to freeload then many others would want to as well.

So no, you must submit to their govt, and thus to coercion.

And once one accepts the concept of coercion as legitimate we ultimately will end up right back where we are today.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Government worshipers

Small request, you people that want to be ruled, once you get a hold of that toy called power, would you mind excusing all the rest that doesn't want to participate in your great government thingy? You can keep your laws, regardless of them 2+2 will still be 4, it's just some people don't want to participate or have anything to do with your government/ruler/king/president or whatever else you want to call your system of theft and abuse. We are not trying to impose our views on you, would you reciprocate?

The "golden mean"...

...is a lame attempt to rationalize the practical necessity for cooperation between conservatives and libertarians. It is laughably flawed. Do not build the libertarian-conservative coalition on that quicksand, build it on a practical understanding that cooperation benefits both parties.

P.S. The author also does not understand anarcho-capitalism.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Sure he understands it. You

Sure he understands it. You sound like the old Communists, no one can possibly understand your utopia without agreeing with it, lol.

Ventura 2012

Michael Nystrom's picture

Lawrence W. Reed on The Golden Mean

"No one can read this book and not have his thoughts and conscience provoked…It is a profound and passionate effort toward healing a major schism that is long overdue."

Lawrence W. Reed, President, Foundation for Economic Education. and author of A Republic, If We Can Keep It.

He's the man.

So

Stretching credulity, this mush of humdrum treason you call freedom is nothing more than an inflation of chaos rising from concern over growing tyranny and stagnation - without honor for the cynicism over the recent strife, prudery getting the better part of puffery, this fanaticism, this pure zealotry represents a regimentation of eccentricity in your new anarchy (but when has decency or loyalty governed the uniformity of abasement you call a faith) - still yet a growth of peace based in order, with a dispassion for that vulgarity you know as your love of individuality shall be the virtue in excess to defect that mean vice.