55 votes

The Problem with Libertarianism

I was walking home one evening and came upon a clearly depressed man standing at the edge of a bridge, looking like he was about to jump. I called out to him to wait, and ran over to see what was the matter.

"It's this country," he lamented. "It's falling into ruin and there's nothing I can do about it. The election was the last straw. I don't want to live on this planet anymore."

"Well cheer up," I said. "We're all in this together. Say, are you a conservative, or a libertarian?"

"A libertarian," he said.

"That's great!" I said. "See, you're not alone. Are you a free-market libertarian or a libertarian socialist?"

"Free-market libertarian," he said.

"Me too!" I said. "Paleo-libertarian or neo-libertarian?"
"Paleo-libertarian," he said.

"Hey, so am I!" I said. "Chicago or Austrian school of economics?"

"Austrian," he said.

"Me too," I said. "Hayek or Rothbardian strand?"

"Rothbardian," he said.

"Same here," I said. "Are you a consequentialist or deontological libertarian?"

"Consequentialist," he said.

So I said, "Die, statist scum!" and pushed him off the bridge.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

As with all good satire, this

As with all good satire, this is filled with wholesome truthiness.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

clown faction


Tweeting occasionally as himself @cudnoski on the twitter.

Someone needs to apply this meme to bitcoin...

"Encrypted public wallet SGL-enabled with DCrM interlay or non-encrypted public wallet SGL-enabled with DCrM interlay?

Tweeting occasionally as himself @cudnoski on the twitter.

That was a good one. LOL

That was a good one. LOL

Let's give credit where it's due. This is an Emo Phillips joke!

As Rand discovered recently attribution is important!

A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.
~Mahatma Gandhi

Actually the original adaptation is found here


But a great post nonetheless! Nice headline.

"I'm Ron Paul." - Ron Paul

tasmlab's picture


The comments below are even funnier. I can't tell which ones are supposed to be irony or not.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

who cares?

Libertarians still want to control everyone through the use of "government", and just like all the others they think they can do it better, so who cares what type of libertarian you are?

Being a libertarian should only be a transition to becoming an anarchist/voluntaryist.


only works if everyone loves each other. some type of

government will always rise.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html


everyone can hate each other's guts.. .they just have to abide by the non-agression principle, and everything would work out fine.

Either way, voting to control others is evil, libertarian or not... if the majority of your neighbors got together and voted to take your house and car, that would make it okay, then right? After all it is the majority! Most people want it, so that makes it moral, right? What if they are all Libertarians and they vote to take your house and car? Please take 9 minutes and educate yourself, and stop voting to steal my stuff:


I notice you keep embedding videos of Larken Rose. No need--

I have already spent hours listening to his stuff. And guess what, I AGREE that the world would be a better place if everyone lived by the non-agression principle. But, as we say down south, "That ain't never gonna happen".

I had a good friend once who claimed to be a communist. He lived very simply (he checked out of the 'system' when he was a young man). When I say simply, I mean simply--He lived in a tiny camper, drove a beat up old car, lived on cheap peanut butter, corn flakes, and vienna sausages. He also saved on utilities by only taking a couple of baths a year and living without a/c, etc.. Yet, this old man would spend his social security check buying my children diapers, wipes, chocolates, and toys every month. I say all this to tell you how nice of a guy this man was. He honestly thought communism was a wonderful system--everyone gives what they are able and takes only what they need. He tried to convince me what a utopia it would be. Obviously, I could look at history to see that it would never work, and I told him so. Evil men will always rise to 'the top' in any political system because they are willing to do what it takes to get there while good men have scruples. He said, "well, it worked in Acts in the Bible". I had to point out that this system was a small group and was totally voluntary based on their LOVE for one another.

Our constitutional republic offered a certain amount of protection for innocents (probably why we've lasted over 200 years), but you can still see what has happened.

In a scenario such as Larken proposes, say we each have property. What happens when my neighbor says, "my property line actually extends past what you currently think is yours"? I say, "no", he says, "yes". Who gets to decide the correct property line--the one with the most money, friends, family, guns? You would have to have some sort of government to settle such disputes.

Love is the only answer. Until everyone on earth loves each other, there will always be some type of civil government--be it vigilante, monarchy, communism, etc.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Michael Nystrom's picture

Wrong. Without love, you'll have nothing

Love is the basis of the NAP.

The mistake in your line of reasoning is that you come from a place of fear.

You identify with "your stuff" and you are afraid that people are going to steal it.


Or else who would pick the cotton?

copy and paste, but inventive

^^ The original of that is actually a comparison of Reformation Baptist Churches if I remember correctly, but this is a nice and funny adaptation of the original.


So your name is


And you wrote a story about YOU murdering a libertarian who had a slight difference of opinion from you?

I don't get it.
And I don't get you.

Are you saying libertarians are petty ?
Are you saying libertarians are murderous ?

From an NLP perspective this is a libertarian hit-piece -- and i don't give a pass to someone with a name like yours.

You're trash.


I believed that this "herder of sheep" was couching Libertarian disdain as humor.

I called him on it and pointed out why.
I'm an expert in psychology - I posted my reasoning.

Here's further evidence that I WAS CORRECT:

"sheep herder" posted ANOTHER FISHY POST where he tries to defend a FOX NEWS "journalist" for protecting her police-connections in the Aurora Colorado FALSE FLAG event.

HAHAHA - he even Titles the Post: "Huge Win for INVESTIGATIVE Journalism".

Investigative Journalism ?

The article explains that when it comes to the needs of:

Private Citizen vs. Journalist Protection --- Journalist gets to hide SECRET POLICE SOURCES.

But the government is writing a federal law right now where:

The Needs of The Government vs. Journalist Protection --- who do you think wins ?

I told you guys his name is directed at US.
"herder of sheep, like on 9/11"
Pay Attention.

And don't let comments from the BRITISH SUBJECTS down below manipulate your thinking.
Now I'm off to watch a Ron Paul Interview.

You really don't have any sense of humor...

Do you? After you are done mourning the loss of the fictitious libertarian, try rereading the post without so much anger in your heart. The post is making a joke about how divisive our community can be, even when we have the same goals in mind.

Your comments are a prime example of what the author is expressing and also show that reading comprehension is not your strong area.

But hey, don't give up. We're here to help. As long as you keep making ridiculous inflammatory comments, we will keep exposing your ignorance.


"I'm Ron Paul." - Ron Paul

Your comment, "you're trash" -- IS pushing him off the bridge

Get it? Your reply is both petty and murderous in the sense that your comments kill any potential friendliness between you two. Why say "you're trash" to anyone, especially one's you clearly do not know from a simple internet post, and EVEN if they are "trash", why bother? More to the point, why put so much distance between your liberty loving self and another liberty loving person, all over the small difference you've found, with a vicious remark calling someone trash? That is his point, do you get it?

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Please be more Aware.

Read my follow-up comment, because I was proven correct. This guy is not one of us. He's not here "to be friendly". Look at his name --

He is here to HERD SHEEP.

You don't know what his point was.
You can't TESTIFY to what he was thinking.

All you can do is INTERPRET his words.
You take them literally - you assume his heart is in the right place.

I am more skeptical -- especially with a name like that.

What liberty-lover would EVER have a name like that ?

Then you read through his post and the punch-line is MURDER.
You give it a pass because it's CLOAKED IN what you hope is SARCASTIC HUMOR.

But why give him that pass ?

Didn't you learn anything from the 2008 and 2012 elections ?

And his next post ?

This guy is full of sht.
And look at the trolls and poor sheep who down-voted me.

That's fckin' SAD.

Get a Clue

Last name: Shepperd
Birthday: 9/11
Disposition towards you: Dismissive

Go troll someplace else, you uninformed troglodyte.


That's cool. I'm not looking to prove anything to anyone. Especially someone as inflammatory as you.

No Problem.

Yeah it's cool - i spotted you.

No skin of my nose.

I'm one of the brighter sheep you'll come across.
You on the other hand...are slightly less sharp.

See ya next time.

Hahaha! OK, that was pretty

Hahaha! OK, that was pretty funny.

I am sure a lot of people are

I am sure a lot of people are financially invested in having the movement so divided.

For example, if libertarian leader X has a show that costs 10 dollars a month, if he starts to work with and appreciate the ideas of others, his "customers" will go and listen to those other guys for $6/month...that too, all the bickering and fighting must draw a lot of web traffic.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

John Locke: Law of Nature & Constitutionalism VS Libertarianism

Into the Fray:

John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government 1689:
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...


Locke #6. But though this be a state of liberty (IN THE "STATE OF NATURE" WITHOUT GOVERNMENT), yet it is "NOT A STATE OF LICENSE";

though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions,

yet he has NOT liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some "NOBLER" use than its bare preservation calls for it.

The "STATE OF NATURE" has a "LAW OF NATURE" to govern it, which obliges every one, and "REASON", which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it,

that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker;

all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.

And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours.

Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind,

and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.


Locke #7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others' rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of Nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.

For the "LAW OF NATURE" would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, "be in vain" if there were nobody that in the "STATE OF NATURE" had a power to execute that law,

and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders; and if any one in the state of Nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so.

For in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.


Locke #8. And thus, in the "STATE OF NATURE", one man comes by a power over another, but yet no absolute or arbitrary power to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats or boundless extravagancy of his own will, but only to retribute to him so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint.

For these two are the only reasons why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment.

In transgressing the "LAW OF NATURE", the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security, and so he becomes dangerous to mankind;

the tie which is to secure them from injury and violence being slighted and broken by him, which being a trespass against the whole species,

and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the "LAW OF NATURE", every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and, by his example, others from doing the like mischief.

And in this case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the "LAW OF NATURE".


Locke #21. The natural liberty of man (OUTSIDE OF SOCIETY) is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the "LAW OF NATURE" for his rule.

(APP Note: See this exact wording in the Rights of the Colonists)

The liberty of man "IN SOCIETY" is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact "ACCORDING" to the "TRUST" (LIMITED DELEGATED POWERS) put in "it" (ORIGINAL COMPACT THAT CREATES THE GOVERNMENT).

>>>>Freedom, then, is "NOT" what Sir Robert Filmer tells us:

"A liberty for every one to do what he "LISTS" (i.e. "WANTS" - i.e. LIBERTARIANISM), to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws";

but freedom of men "UNDER GOVERNMENT" (i.e. IN SOCIETY) is to have a "STANDING RULE" to live by, "COMMON" to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it (i.e. CONSTITUTIONALISM).

A liberty to follow my own will in all things "where that rule prescribes not",

not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man,

as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint "BUT" the "LAW OF NATURE".


Locke #22. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life together.

For a man, not having the power of his own life, "CANNOT BY COMPACT" "OR HIS OWN CONSENT" enslave himself to any one,


nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases.

Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life cannot give another power over it. "


Locke: #57: "........So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.

For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws,


For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others,


and is "NOT", as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he "LISTS" (i.e. "WANTS" - i.e. LIBERTARIANISM)."

For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?

But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property "within the allowance of those laws under which he is",

and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another,

but freely follow his own. ..."


American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

DP: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Thank you for reminding me why Locke sucks

Locke has been a plague upon our existence. He was a British ninny state bureaucrat that he demonstrates all throughout his works.

Their is a reason US law schools teach Locke's crap as the foundation of our laws and it is an info weapon that constructs all room for debate into a tiny box of control justification when most of Locke's positions or presumptions are not founded in the equal liability of Law.

Equal liability answers all questions in law and Locke's confusing State is God BS is not a requirement and is actually been the prime root of confusion used in America's law schools that is attached with the notion that the State is the decider and accuser for all criminal actions which eliminates the balanced scales of justice before a any jurisdiction is exercised.

Drop Locke. He was a Nanny Stater who could not handle everyone being equally liable in all criminal and civil actions against their accused. Equal liability of every individual answers all questions in Law but if someone does not know this then one will arbitrarily cede their own power to a "government" of criminal deceivers who will gladly take that power and claim liability for exercising that power "given" to them. Locke failed to understand and likely even knew the seeds of confusion he was planting.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Incorrect. Locke establishes Historical Fact & Common Law.


The statements you have made are both incorrect and opposite to the facts of history.

John Locke Declared that royalty monarchy based on the descendants of Adam had been so long forgotten (See John Locke Par #1), it would be impossible to establish; AND AGAINST absolute power of the STATE over those "inalienable rights" long since established in Common Law; And though he did acknowledge the existence of the peoples belief Monarchical power, he set down the limits of that power as well as limited state powers in his Treatise, and the supremacy of the people and the COMMON LAW (Inalienable Rights).

His Second Treatise on Civil Government was one of the main papers the Founders relied upon in writing the "Declaration of Independence" which Thomas Jefferson drew from - almost word for word in some places.

Here are some John Locke exerts; Those principles used by the Founders for the Declaration of Independence are clearly visible and are noted below:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

Locke #137. Absolute arbitrary power, or governing "without settled standing laws", can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of Nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to "preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes", and by "stated rules of right and property" to secure their peace and quiet. IT CANNOT BE SUPPOSED that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a "WORSE CONDITION" than the "STATE OF NATURE", wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases; he being in a much worse condition that is exposed to the arbitrary power of one man who has the command of a hundred thousand than he that is exposed to the arbitrary power of a hundred thousand single men, nobody being secure, that his will who has such a command is better than that of other men, though his force be a hundred thousand times stronger. And, therefore, whatever form the commonwealth is under, the ruling power ought to "GOVERN BY DECLARED AND RECEIVED LAWS", and NOT BY "extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions"(SOLELY CIVIL LAW), for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the state of Nature if they shall have armed one or a few men with the joint power of a multitude (A TOTAL DEMOCRACY (SOCIALISM) OR MONARCHY), to force them to obey at pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of their sudden thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment, unknown wills, without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions. For all the power the government has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, that both the people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of the law, and the rulers, too, kept within their DUE BOUNDS (i.e. DELEGATED POWERS), and not be tempted by the power they have in their hands to employ it to purposes, and by such measures as they would not have known, and own not willingly."

Chapter 13: Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Commonwealth

Locke #149. THOUGH in a constituted commonwealth standing upon its own basis and acting according to its own nature -- that is, acting for the preservation of the community, there can be but one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, "THERE REMAINS STILL IN THE PEOPLE A SUPREME POWER" to "remove or alter the legislative", when they find the legislative "ACT CONTRARY TO THE TRUST" (ORIGINAL COMPACT - UNDER WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE / GOVERNMENT WAS FORMED - DEFINING THE LIMITED DELEGATED POWERS THAT GOVERNMENT WAS TO HAVE) reposed in them. For all power given with trust for the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, "THE TRUST MUST NECESSARILY BE FORFEITED", and the power devolve into the hands of those (THE PEOPLE) that gave it, who may PLACE IT ANEW where they shall think BEST FOR THEIR SAFETY AND SECURITY.

(APP Note: These words found in the Declaration of Independence)

And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of "ANYBODY", even of their "LEGISLATORS", whenever they shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on "DESIGNS" AGAINST THE LIBERTIES AND PROPERTIES OF THE SUBJECT. For NO MAN OR SOCIETY OF MEN having a power to deliver up their preservation, or consequently the MEANS OF IT, to the absolute will and ARBITRARY DOMINION of another, whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, "THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE A RIGHT TO PRESERVE" what they have not a power to part with, "AND TO RID" themselves OF THOSE WHO INVADE THIS FUNDAMENTAL, SACRED, AND UNALTERABLE LAW OF SELF PRESERVATION FOR WHICH THEY ENTERED INTO SOCIETY.

And thus the COMMUNITY (PEOPLE) may be said in this respect TO BE ALWAYS THE SUPREME POWER, but NOT as considered under any form of government, because this power of the people can never take place till the government be dissolved. "

(For This See The Dissolution of Government - Locke #211)


Locke #155. "It may be demanded here, what if the executive power, being possessed of the force of the commonwealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the original constitution or the public exigencies require it? I say, using force upon the people, without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him that does so, >>>is a state of war with the people, who have a right to reinstate their legislative in the exercise of their power. For having erected a legislative with an intent they should exercise the power of making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need of it, when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a right to remove it by force. In all states and conditions the true remedy of force without authority is to oppose force to it. The use of force without authority always puts him that uses it into a state of war as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be "TREATED ACCORDINGLY"."


Locke #168. The old question will be asked in this matter of prerogative, "But who shall be judge when this power is made a right use of?" I answer: Between an executive power in being, with such a prerogative, and a legislative that depends upon his will for their convening, there can be no judge on earth. As there can be none between the legislative and the people, should either the executive or the legislative, when they have got the power in their hands, design, or "GO ABOUT TO ENSLAVE OR DESTROY THEM", the people have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no judge on earth, but to >>> appeal to Heaven; (APP Note: This Appeal to heaven is clearly written in the Declaration of Independence) for the rulers in such attempts, exercising a power the people never put into their hands, who can never be supposed to consent that anybody should rule over them for their harm, do that which they have not a right to do. And where the >>>body of the people, or any single man, are deprived of their right, or are under the exercise of a power without right, having no appeal on earth they have a liberty to appeal to Heaven whenever they judge the cause of sufficient moment. And therefore, though the people cannot be judge, so as to have, by the constitution of that society, any superior power to determine and give effective sentence in the case, yet they have reserved that ultimate determination to themselves which belongs to all mankind, where there lies no appeal on earth, by a law antecedent and paramount to all positive laws of men, whether they have just cause to make their appeal to Heaven. And this judgement they cannot part with, it being out of a man's power so to submit himself to another as to give him a liberty to destroy him; God and Nature never allowing a man so to abandon himself as to neglect his own preservation. And since he cannot take away his own life, neither can he give another power to take it. Nor let any one think this lays a perpetual foundation for disorder; for this operates not till the inconvenience is so great that the majority feel it, and are weary of it, and find a necessity to have it amended. And this the executive power, or wise princes, never need come in the danger of; and it is the thing of all others they have most need to avoid, as, of all others, the most perilous. .."


Locke #195. I will not dispute now whether princes are exempt from the laws of their country, but this I am sure, they owe subjection to the "LAWS OF GOD AND NATURE". Nobody, no power can exempt them from the obligations "OF THAT ETERNAL LAW". Those are so great and so strong in the case of promises, that Omnipotency itself can be tied by them. Grants, promises, and oaths are bonds that hold the Almighty, whatever some flatterers say to princes of the world, who, all together, with all their people joined to them, are, in comparison of the great God, but as a drop of the bucket, or a dust on the balance -- inconsiderable, nothing!


Locke #222: "…….Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, (APP Note: See this in Samuel Adams Statement within the Rights of the Colonists, 1772: "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.") endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this "breach of trust" they "forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends", and it devolves "to the people", who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, (APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence) which is the end for which they are in society."

"…..This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing.

(***Which is opposite of your statement; It is clear Locke was for proper jurisdiction; and not arbitrary statist rule)

To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a "design"...

(APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence: " ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a "design" to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.)

…to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a >>"design", and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society who thus employ it contrary to the trust that along with it in its first institution, is easy to determine; and one cannot but see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this cannot any longer be trusted."


and compare 223-226:


Locke #223. To this, perhaps, it will be said that the people being ignorant and always discontented, to lay the foundation of government in the "unsteady opinion" and "uncertain humour" of the people (SOLELY CIVIL LAW), IS TO EXPOSE IT TO CERTAIN RUIN; and no government will be able long to subsist if the people may set up a new legislative whenever they take offence at the old one. … (i.e. CHANGE IT WHENEVER THEY WANT - i.e. TOTAL DEMOCRACY)


(APP Note: Here again, Review the following 223-226 also clearly seen and leaving no doubt as to where the foundations of the Declaration of Independence were derived:

Declaration of Independence " ...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are "MORE DISPOSED TO SUFFER", while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.")

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/independence


Now view Locke 80 years earlier (same paragraph):


Locke continued: "…To this I answer, quite the contrary.

People are "NOT SO EASILY GOT OUT OF" their old forms as some are apt to suggest.

They are hardly to be prevailed with to amend the acknowledged faults in the frame they have been accustomed to. And if there be any original defects, or adventitious ones introduced by time or corruption, it is not an easy thing to get them changed, even when all the world sees there is an opportunity for it. This slowness and aversion in the people to quit their old constitutions has in the many revolutions [that] have been seen in this kingdom, in this and former ages, still kept us to, or after some interval of fruitless attempts, still brought us back again to, our old legislative of king, lords and commons; and whatever provocations have made the crown be taken from some of our princes' heads, they never carried the people so far as to place it in another line. "


225. Secondly: I answer, such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws,

and all the slips of human frailty will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur.

>>>>>>"But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design" (>>>>See this in the Declaration of Independence)

visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected, and without which, ancient names and specious forms are so far from being better, that they are much worse than the state of Nature or pure anarchy; the inconveniencies being all as great and as near, but the remedy farther off and more difficult.


226. Thirdly: I answer, that this power in the people of providing for their safety anew by a new legislative when their legislators have acted contrary to their trust by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probable means to hinder it. …"


Locke is Also Who "SAMUEL ADAMS" wrote from in "THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF THE COLONISTS". a Summary of John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government.

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

Here is JOHN LOCKE: #138. "…"THIRDLY", the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without "HIS OWN CONSENT".

For the "preservation of property" being the end (reason) of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own.


Here is SAMUEL ADAMS: "...THIRDLY, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without "HIS CONSENT", in person or by his Representative.--

These are some of the first principles of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of all free states, and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcileable to these principles, and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense and reason, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists... "


Schools rarely if ever teach Locke who championed "COMMON LAW" (which the schools and our laws now ignore).


Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 when fighting to include the Bill of Rights - "COMMON LAW" Inalienable Rights - in the Constitution:


"…When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the "COMMON LAW" of England to be "in FORCE". That system of law which has been admired, and "has protected us and our ancestors", is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights. By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are "thrown away".

George Nicholas: But the "COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED". There is "NOTHING" in "that paper"(APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion."


You have also eluded to jurisdiction being somehow omitted in Locke's writing, this is incorrect; He carefully describes the limitations of the state, the executive (in his case the King), and the Legislative.

You seem to promote also jurisdiction over COMMON LAW - i.e. "Civil Law" over "Common Law".

This was debated time and again to establish Common Law (foundations based upon Gods Law - i.e. reason) being Supreme over Civil Law (Solely "Human" Legislation i.e. man's own determination).


The Founders followed Locke's understanding of Common Law principles:


Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

PATRICK HENRY: "….(WARNED) In this business of (Federal) legislation, your members of Congress will "loose the restriction" of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your "declaration of rights".

What has distinguished our ancestors? That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment.

But (The United States) Congress "may introduce the practice of the "CIVIL LAW", in preference to that of the "COMMON LAW"."

They may {448} introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime. They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity.

We are then lost and undone". …"


It is not the Lack of legislation that endangers you;

It is the Lack of the obedience to the principles of "COMMON LAW" by your legislatures, Local, State or federal, and those ignorant to the understanding of true representation found in the principles of free government that endanger you:


PATRICK HENRY: (WARNED) "… We are told, we are afraid to trust ourselves; that our own representatives Congress will not exercise their powers oppressively; that we shall not enslave ourselves; that the militia cannot enslave themselves, &c. WHO has enslaved France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, and other countries which groan under tyranny?

They have been "ENSLAVED" by the hands of their "OWN PEOPLE". If it will be so in America, it will be only as it has been every where else.

Mr. Corbin: "…Animadverting on Mr. Henry's observations, that the French had been the instruments of their own slavery, that the Germans had enslaved the Germans, and the Spaniards the Spaniards, &c., he asked if those nations knew any thing of "REPRESENTATION".



Here are the documents for study: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/American_Patriot_Party.pdf

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

DP: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

I agree Locke had influences on the founding but his works

lack the clarity of our founding laws. IMHO, Locke had very horrible conclusions in much of his interpretations and created a shitload of confusing gibberish that loses the essence of the Common Law itself. His work has been a death plague for American law that enabled his great confusions be built into the foundation of our laws and the legal practice generally.

Our founding laws came closer to perfection of congruency within all law and with a greater elegance than Locke was ever capable of in his rambling wiggle through his own foggy understanding of law.

If we look at further refinement and clarity in law post founding we can see a more perfect congruency in law with Lysander Spooner. Lysander Spooner found the proper lawful path above and beyond what the founder's accomplished in their writings and made Locke look like a school boy on the playground of imagination land compared to the works of Spooner.

Locke makes a prime fallacious error at his philosophical foundation in his understanding of law which carries the confusions into our law to this very day. One cannot leave a state of nature, period. This is absolutely impossible no matter what Locke or anyone else says. We are a part of nature and we have not been endowed with the right to leave nature while maintaining life. This right has been withheld from our creator and anyone stating otherwise has lost their mind and should be disregarded as irrelevant ESPECIALLY when discussing law. The Laws of Nature, governed by Divine Law, reigns as our supreme inviolate applicable law at ALL times. This is where Locke failed and the rest of his confusion can be seen once this fact is completely comprehended in how it carries into the Common Law.

Another supreme failure of Locke was in his understanding of the Common Law of Agency. His failure to completely understand a non-conflicting application of the Law of Agency to all Agents including Government Agents is very clear once proper application of this law is understood within just (lawful) powers of Government being derived from the "consent of the governed". Failing to understand the application of the Law of Agency to government agents and the common law right to face one's accuser in any court action with the protection of law requiring all elements in a valid cause of action presented by the accuser or a representative agent of the accuser means that Locke's only avenue for dealing with an out of control government is to appeal to the "heavens". This is SUPREME FAILURE in understanding REAL LAW and demonstrates his notion of giving arbitrary power to the state with NO ANSWER for remedy all while this is only necessary in a STATE of CONFUSION born of accepting the fallacious notion that one can leave a STATE OF NATURE. Isn't this obvious??

If Locke was confused and had no answer and his work is taught at the very foundation of our law schools then isn't it also obvious the source of the STATE OF CONFUSION which currently exists within our natural state?

Spooner resolved all of this because of his clear understanding of Contract Law and the Law of Agency. It is clear that Spooner realized the liability hot potato as I like to call it. Follow the chain of liability for any action and see if the last link in the chain is or has accepted liability for their OWN action. Instead of mountains of gibberish by Locke in his expose of confusion all we have to do is follow the chain of liability through any action and see if liability is consented to or not. Spooner clearly understood this well and makes Locke look like an idiot. We should have progressed beyond Spooner but it seems we keep going backwards into less clarity instead of forward with more clarity.

I really don't care what people think of me here because I realize the liberty movement for the large part embraces Locke. I have read more and found my own path that starts with one single maxim:

No law can violate any other law.

A derived subset from this maxim:

No one can break the law to enforce the law.

Use this to find all congruency (non-conflicting) application of all law and then you will find a clarity WAY beyond where Locke ever even came close to realizing and you will see why Spooner was correct and why Locke was confused and why Locke's influence has been more negative than positive.

I also think if one reads the Kentucky resolutions by Jefferson and puts it into perspective with the DOI then one can see that Jefferson was another step in evolution toward clarity in real law but still had not found the source.

So I stand FIRM on my position: Locke totally sucks and is really not very intelligent.

And no I don't advocate Roman style Civil Law in any way because it adds another confusion away from real law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I agree with all but one

Paleolibertarianism is actually more about combining libertarianism with social conservatism. Lew Rockwell is the main paleolibertarian, who has railed against everything from the sexual revolution of the 60s to Bauhaus architecture. It is pretty much the same thing as paleoconservatism.

(This was meant as a reply to Atreites)