DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 24058--------------------------------------------------
Μισείς το Κρ&#
940;τος;
By: Pinochet88 Date: July 30, 2016, 2:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ακολουθεί
διαφωτιστι_
4;ότατο
άρθρο του
Πνευματικοa
3;
Ηγέτη του
Γνήσιου
Φιλελευθερ_
3;σμού
Μάρεϋ
Ρόθμπαρντ
που
αποδεικνύε_
3;
πως αυτό που
λείπει
περισσότερ_
9;
στην εποχή
μας είναι οι
ριζοσπάστε`
2;
Φιλελεύθερ_
9;ι
που
αναγνωρίζο`
5;ν
το Κράτος ως
αυτό που
πραγματικά
είναι: μια
εγκληματικ^
2;
συμμορία
κλεφτών,
δολοφόνων
και
κακούργων
που
εκμεταλλεύ^
9;ται
τους
παραγωγούς
και
επιβιώνει
σε βάρος
τους. Οι
κλασικοί
Φιλελεύθερ_
9;ι
γνώριζαν
πολύ καλά τι
είναι το
Κράτος και ο
εκμεταλλευa
2;μενος
λαός εκτιμά
κάθε
διανοούμεν_
9;
που τολμά
και
εκφράζει
τέτοιες
γενναίες
αλήθειες.
Δυστυχώς
όμως, όσο
αυξάνεται η
δύναμη του
Κράτους
έναντι της
δύναμης της
Κοινωνίας,
το Κράτος
επιτρατεύε_
3;
όλο και
περισσότερ_
9;υς
ψευτοφιλελ^
9;ύθερους
για να
αποκρύπτου_
7;
και να
συσκοτίζου_
7;
την αλήθεια
για το
Κράτος,
λειτουργών`
4;ας
ως
ελεγχόμενη
αντιπολίτε`
5;ση.
Αυτοί οι
ψευτοφιλελ^
9;ύθεροι
και τα
ψευτοδιλλή_
6;ατα
που
προπαγανδί_
0;ουν
αποτελούν
μέγιστο
πρόβλημα
για το
Φιλελεύθερ_
9;
Κίνημα και η
υποκριτική
τους
εθελοδουλε^
3;α
έναντι του
εγκληματικ_
9;ύ
θεσμού του
Κράτους
πρέπει να
απορριφθεί
μετά
βδελυγμίας.
Ζήτω η
Αναρχία και
ο
Καπιταλισμa
2;ς!
Κάτω το
Κράτος και η
Φορολογία!
[hr]
[center]Do You Hate the State?
Murray N. Rothbard[/center]
I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial
questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a
lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism
vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural
rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have
concluded that as important as these questions are, they don't
really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line
between us.
Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist
works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David
Friedman's Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major
differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and
for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman's
amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs
between nonlibertarian private police agencies. But the
difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New
Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and
pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the
conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast,
it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he
has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and
competing private police forces are a better social and economic
system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that
anarchism would be better than laissez-faire, which in turn is
better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of
political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that
anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing
political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is
no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing
American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly
as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No,
there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the
best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is
pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in
Friedman that the State — any State — is a predatory gang of
criminals.
The same impression shines through the writing, say, of
political philosopher Eric Mack. Mack is an anarcho-capitalist
who believes in individual rights; but there is no sense in his
writings of any passionate hatred of the State, or, a fortiori,
of any sense that the State is a plundering and bestial enemy.
Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical."
Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch
opposition to the existing political system and to the State
itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual
opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and
organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of
a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that
integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.
Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you
don't have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just
as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I
can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the
present day who is radical — a truly amazing phenomenon, when we
think of our classical-liberal forbears who were genuinely
radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a
beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry,
Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden,
and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past.
Tom Paine's radical hatred of the State and statism was and is
far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he
never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.
And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert
Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently
and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock's
title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings
like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the
way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a
hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the
existing status quo.
Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are
almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists, plonky
conservatives, and patriots? If the opposite of "radical" is
"conservative," where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our
limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no
splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true
division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs.
conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.
To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists are
extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered
libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people
admire the work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman
because they consider these men libertarian sympathizers and
fellow-travelers. That they are, but this does not begin to
comprehend their true importance. For throughout the writings of
Royko and von Hoffman, as inconsistent as they undoubtedly are,
there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the State, of all
politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which, in its
genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of
liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of
every syllogism and every lemma down to the "model" of competing
courts.
Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense,
let us analyze the now famous "abolitionism" vs. "gradualism"
debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a
magazine every fiber of whose being exudes "conservatism"), in
which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on
this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the
"intellectual cowardice" of failing to set forth "feasible"
methods of getting "from here to there." Poole and Friedman have
between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not
a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a
gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the
abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal,
never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal
as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will
accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that
he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a
first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear.
The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his
thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately,
if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that
alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit
of the loaf if necessary — while always preferring the whole
loaf if he can achieve it.
It should be noted here that many of Milton's most famous
"gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income
tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money — are gradual (or
even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from
liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition
to these schemes.
His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist's deep
and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and
oppression. With such an integrated worldview, the radical
libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic
button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit
calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast
and as completely as possible. Period.
And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an
abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four
Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for
reducing the State. The radical — whether he be anarchist or
laissez-faire — cannot think in such terms as, e.g., "Well, the
first year, we'll cut the income tax by 2 percent, abolish the
ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we'll abolish the
minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2 percent, and
reduce welfare payments by 3 percent, etc." The radical cannot
think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as
our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and
whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any
and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it's to
reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory
power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this
appetite until the State has been abolished, or — for
minarchists — dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.
Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important
political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists
now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common
ground, why can't the two groups work in complete harmony until
we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air
our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer
to this excellent question is that we could and would march
hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as
they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the
1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would
indeed reign triumphant within the movement.
source
HTML http://bc.vc/TsvZQZi
*****************************************************