"A Time for Choosing"

[Mark Le Comte]

Jovan has provided clarity.

No, he just agreed that anarchy means no government.

[Nockian]

Rip's own definition presupposes some level of government, though, and I think the vast majority of libertarians do as well. Calling it anarchy is a rather obvious strawman.

Murray Rothbard advocated anarcho-capitalism. It’s hardly a straw man to point out that the man responsible for the libertarian manifesto advocated anarchy. Unless you have some other explanation to what he meant ? I’ve read it many times and that’s my firm conclusion.

He owns a gym franchise, what makes you think someone who does this wants anarchy.

I sincerely hope he doesn’t.

Just because that's the only thing you can imagine doesn't make it true. Some people have more imagination than you do: Law without the State | Mises Institute
Also, it is not purely theoretic: Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government | Mises Institute

I'm sure they have. “Sometimes I believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Alice.

No, he just agreed that anarchy means no government.

I think he was more explicit than that.

[Jovan Dragisic]

I think he was more explicit than that.

I was expressing doubt at the statement you made that anarchy is rule by force. I do understand your argument about failed states, it is not an invalid one, but it seems quite arbitrary, as I pointed out from the get go. It would be fairly trivial to argue that anarchy is a natural form of society, government an imposition of force and so on. But I’m sure you are aware of that line of reasoning.

[Sib]

Murray Rothbard advocated anarcho-capitalism. It’s hardly a straw man to point out that the man responsible for the libertarian manifesto advocated anarchy. Unless you have some other explanation to what he meant ? I’ve read it many times and that’s my firm conclusion.



I sincerely hope he doesn’t.



I'm sure they have. “Sometimes I believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Alice.



I think he was more explicit than that.

So what are you talking about?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Murray Rothbard advocated anarcho-capitalism. It’s hardly a straw man to point out that the man responsible for the libertarian manifesto advocated anarchy. Unless you have some other explanation to what he meant ? I’ve read it many times and that’s my firm conclusion.



I sincerely hope he doesn’t.



I'm sure they have. “Sometimes I believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Alice.



I think he was more explicit than that.

Goddamn Satch, he really is an Objectivist. First one I've observed in the wild.

[Mark Le Comte]

I think he was more explicit than that.

I cant see that anywhere. Provide the quote from him that was more explicit.

At the moment it appears you are not even reading what people write, dropping vague criticisms/terminology, making exaggerations and logical leaps without justification.

[Mark Le Comte]

Nockian, are there any of Ayn Rand’s statements or ideas that you are aware of that you disagree with?

[Nockian]

I was expressing doubt at the statement you made that anarchy is rule by force. I do understand your argument about failed states, it is not an invalid one, but it seems quite arbitrary, as I pointed out from the get go. It would be fairly trivial to argue that anarchy is a natural form of society, government an imposition of force and so on. But I’m sure you are aware of that line of reasoning.

Government is a broad term. However, even when Government is not delimited to the specific role of defence of individual rights, it’s still superior to having no Government at all-excluding dictatorships which effectively have no form of individual rights. In the same sense that some degree of capitalism is superior to having complete collectivism. Some freedom then, being better than no freedom.

In an anarchic society can individual rights exist and be protected ? Can people be said to be free - in this sense ‘free’ means from freedom from the initiation of force by who ever takes control ? Therefore can property rights - the basis for capitalism exist under such conditions ?

In contrast, we know exactly what a Government is and it’s effectiveness in even the most corrupted version of rights protection. Today’s Western Government is trending towards authoritarianism, but it has a long way to go as yet. Do we blame ‘Government’ for that corruption and in a knee jerk reaction revert to centuries of chaos as the solution ? That appears to me to be something we shouldn’t risk.

Goddamn Satch, he really is an Objectivist. First one I've observed in the wild.

Somewhat like your own position in the strength training industry.

So what are you talking about?

The topic in question. “A Time For Choosing”. Have you read it ?

It does not call for an end to Government. In fact it still very much clings to the idea that a Government should be somewhat involved in aspects of society.
The OP wanted to know where to go having read that speech-it is an extremely important and provocative speech. The OP was pointed straight down the libertarian alleyway as if this was what was being promoted in that speech. It is not and was not.

The closest one can get is a rejection of collectivism in all its tropes. It embraces the constitution of self Governance. Of, for and by which should be noted to mean the existence of a Government with delimited powers. That’s not what Rothbard advocated, libertarians need to fess up and start being honest that this speech is not recommending libertarianism as advocated by Rothbard.

At this point, as far as the OP is concerned, there is no specific literature on the subject of the type of Government that Goldwater visualised, as opposed to Rothbards anarchic chaos.

Objectivism holds to the idea of a strictly delimited Government which defends individual rights. That means a non coercive Government which must obtain its funding voluntarily. Again, this isn’t what Goldwater advocated for, but it’s far closer than anarchy.

I would strongly suggest, as a half way house of sorts ‘Capitalism The Unknown Ideal’ by Ayn Rand. This is a collection of essays which lays out the positive aspects of Capitalism as a political system compared to socialism. This is different to say ‘Economics In One Lesson’ which is far more about the mechanics under the hood of an economic system-an excellent primer which I recommend anyone read.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Somewhat like your own position in the strength training industry.

You are the world's foremost Objectivist?

[Satch12879]

Goddamn Satch, he really is an Objectivist. First one I've observed in the wild.

They are rare in the wild. Most spend their time in the pundit class and sort of sniping from their foundation offices through magazines no one reads. That’s why they’re so uncommon. When they want to make themselves known in G.P., they will make themselves known.

The way you can tell is the almost scripted response. The talking points are formalized.