0 votes

Is this where the Framers faltered?

Someone recommended a book called Complete Liberty in the 'read any good books?' thread. I'm almost done it.

Here's the author's view on the Framer's failure. What do you think?

1. "How do we enable the satisfaction of each person’s safety and security? This is the question that the Framers faltered on (and, obviously, most people today continue to falter on). Essentially, they assumed the conclusion—that government exists; therefore, we must have government—and they constructed a political system around that faulty conclusion, paying no attention to its negation of individual rights."

----------------------------
Also, here are some of the author's other ideas that you might like to digest:

2. "Governmental services should be no exception to the rule of
voluntarism. To make such an exception is to create a colossally inconsistent form of morality, which is only possible by abandoning rationality when it’s most needed—when it pertains to how we treat each other politically."

----------------------------------
3. "We must come to realize that government is a detrimental burden,
not the benefactor of the community, state, and nation. It doesn’t create
law and order; it creates a seemingly permanent, insidious form of
societal chaos. All of us are slowly dying from government, failing to actualize our full potential as members of an advanced civilization on a
marvelous biosphere. Government continues to make a mockery of our
self-actualization abilities, as individuals, as adults, and as a society."




Comment viewing options

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

A rare consistent libertarian

This guy is smart. He rightly sees that the state is a parasite (lives off the productive efforts of people) and that it can only hinder society, never help it.
Good to see the moral contradiction of minarchism pointed out as well.
It challenges common perception of anarchy = chaos vs democracy = order. The truth is just the opposite.
___________________________________
Ron Paul is only the beginning

Yes he is...here's the author's take on classical liberalism:

The classical liberal idea that “small government is
beautiful,” tends to contribute to our predicament—for it concedes the premise of statism to the enemies of freedom. As a direct consequence, the vital and essential message of self-ownership becomes deemphasized or ignored altogether.

Ouch.

bumparoo

Anyone takers on the above? :-)

Yes, it's true that they had the unquestioned...

assumption that it was necessary to bestow coercive power to a group called the "government."

It is also true, as the author points out, that the advocacy of a coercive entity like the State is an enormous contradiction to the philosophy of liberty and voluntarism.

See this LRC article for details...
Stefan Molyneux:The Stateless Society An Examination of Alternatives