You're A Hero: "So being an anarchist consists of never publicly standing up for your beliefs,"

The new intern isn't an anarchist then? Fuck, I'm disappointed now - oh wait, he's back and his views don't appear to have changed.

"...pretending to agree with everybody else when face to face..."

There's no "pretending," I agree with liberals on drug policy and foreign policy (among other things) for instance, and with conservatives on gun control or excessive taxation.

There's nothing fake about it. If someone asks directly I'll say it to their face what I think and they have every right to respond the same way.

"...but secretly spending countless hours cutting and pasting Cato Institute talking points into dead comment threads? Fight the power, dude."

Well, actually these are more along the lines of what one would call "market anarchist" beliefs, not just "libertarian" in general. But I agree, whenever think tanks are doing well at the thinking they do (Whether it's Cato, Mises, Brookings, Independent, CEI, the Century Foundation, really any ol' tank in general) it's good to pay some homage! ;D

I've only cited Cato like twice on here - and I'm not at fault if rational thinking happens to strongly relate to anything they say. Besides, if the comment thread was dead, why legitimize what I'm doing even further by perpetuating the activity here?

@398 - Heard you the first time, but I think I should also note here that telling the truth about anything in public these days can often be seen as the biggest act of trolling you could ever dream of.

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." -Ron Paul

herbie52: "so, be breif, to the point and don't try to impress everyone with all you know."

I'm not here to impress anyone, nor am I trying to be a burden here. If people have specific questions that go beyond the usual "how this" and "Somalia that" then I probably won't have as much to say.

heartfelt: "Time will make you wiser young intern."

It sure will, as long as he maintains a good reading list consisting of the likes of Rothbard, Hoppe, Murphy, etc. I find that half the fun of reaching a destination is reflecting back on the journey. Hence the reason why I find myself rereading the "Machinery of Freedom" when I get the chance.

David Byr: "Oh no. I just initiated force against you."

How??? Was it a DDoS attack? A death threat? Did you have an altercation with him while he was in Vancouver? Or do we need a little lesson on what force is?

"Should I just wait here while you hire your private security detail?"

No, you should just sit up and explain yourself - how exactly did you initiate force against UI?

All these libertarians need is a couple of tours in Afghanistan under their belt, and they'll realize the errors of their ways.

Pauled (@ 399) - In a nutshell would the libertarian line drawn on who has rights and who doesn't depend on whether someone can question or make the case for why certain actions are taken? Or can it be described in the context of "You respect my rights and I'll respect yours" sort of thing?

I'm not very schooled in the area of the whole "animal rights" question except to say that they are not consenting adults, and that PETA is occasionally batshit at times...

Will in Seattle: "All these libertarians need is a couple of tours in Afghanistan under their belt, and they'll realize the errors of their ways."

Dude, we're non-interventionists and don't think we should give money to foreign intel agencies to protect our "interests" anywhere around the world. We already know Afghanistan proves our point there.

One decade later and it seems like DC still doesn't care about what we have to say on that region...

Hey Matt!

I'm actually a fairly conservative "liberal." At least as far as this publication is concerned, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the more positive coercive nature of taxation versus the more negative coercion.

If you don't pay taxes, you will go to jail, yes. But if I don't pay taxes, some kid in Georgia (where they take in more Federal funding than they dish out) won't be able to eat or go to the doctor.

Now, nevermind the moral argument, I'm saying, to what extent do you think people are positively motivated by the goodies that come from central taxation and redistribution rather than the fear of violence from the state?

Does taxation and increased centralized authority come from the threat of violence so that they can wax the federal coiffers like some kind of feudal tax collector, or is it a more insidious ability to smooth out the down side of the dynamism inherent in a more community oriented legislative and taxation system?

Honestly, this isn't a leading question. I'm just curious what you think.

Hey Matt!

I'm actually a fairly conservative "liberal." At least as far as this publication is concerned, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the more positive coercive nature of taxation versus the more negative coercion.

If you don't pay taxes, you will go to jail, yes. But if I don't pay taxes, some kid in Georgia (where they take in more Federal funding than they dish out) won't be able to eat or go to the doctor.

Now, nevermind the moral argument, I'm saying, to what extent do you think people are positively motivated by the goodies that come from central taxation and redistribution rather than the fear of violence from the state?

Does taxation and increased centralized authority come from the threat of violence so that they can wax the federal coiffers like some kind of feudal tax collector, or is it a more insidious ability to smooth out the down side of the dynamism inherent in a more community oriented legislative and taxation system?

Honestly, this isn't a leading question. I'm just curious what you think.

Hey Matt!

I'm actually a fairly conservative "liberal." At least as far as this publication is concerned, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the more positive coercive nature of taxation versus the more negative coercion.

If you don't pay taxes, you will go to jail, yes. But if I don't pay taxes, some kid in Georgia (where they take in more Federal funding than they dish out) won't be able to eat or go to the doctor.

Now, nevermind the moral argument, I'm saying, to what extent do you think people are positively motivated by the goodies that come from central taxation and redistribution rather than the fear of violence from the state?

Does taxation and increased centralized authority come from the threat of violence so that they can wax the federal coiffers like some kind of feudal tax collector, or is it a more insidious ability to smooth out the down side of the dynamism inherent in a more community oriented legislative and taxation system?

Honestly, this isn't a leading question. I'm just curious what you think.

Never mind. I'm an idiot. You already answered this question, and apprently my computer thought it should post 3 times.
Fuck.
Sorry everyone.

Jumped the gun.

Three times.

@404 -- Hey thanks for reading the thread. I don't expect you to read every comment, but I've probably said at least 15 times that I enjoy being a part of various communities. Cool strawman, dude!

@ WiS -- Seriously, the Afghanistan non sequitur again? I'm starting to agree more and more with the people in the Fnarf/WiS thread about Will. In case you guys were wondering, Will just wants everyone to know that he is better than us because he did fuck-all with the Canadian Forces in the Okanagan for a couple of summers. Hoo-ah, soldier!

" Pauled (@ 399) - In a nutshell would the libertarian line drawn on who has rights and who doesn't depend on whether someone can question or make the case for why certain actions are taken?"

I would say the line is drawn by the nature of the being. Humans, as you say, can question and justify. And humans look for an ethic to apply to humans. So the line is drawn at humans.

"Or can it be described in the context of "You respect my rights and I'll respect yours" sort of thing?"

This too, which is just the ethic that is the precondition for discussing and attempting to agree on an ethic.

"I'm not very schooled in the area of the whole "animal rights" question except to say that they are not consenting adults, and that PETA is occasionally batshit at times..."

Animals, by nature, cannot claim a right, acknowledge a right, or attempt to agree to an ethic. They are incapable of assuming rights for themselves. Ergo, they simply have no rights.

Well... we all grow up someday.

I agree Bean, I still have yet to decide whether I am a Market Anarchist who advocates the Austrian or Chicago school of economic thought yet. But I still have some time to learn!

@404, Heartfelt

“This unpaid intern is another example of a healthy young man in his prime who thinks he can go it alone and make it through life unaided.”

I don’t think there is anything in his argument that suggests he has an inclination to “go it alone”. All he is suggesting is that he would like to exercise his right to go it without the “help”, as it is sometimes labeled, of the state.

“He has forgotten that he was a helpless infant and will become a helpless old man with periods of helplessness in between when life throws its hammer at him from time to time.”

No, I don’t think anything he has said indicates he has had such a lapse in memory. In anarchy there would be private institutions, family, private hospitals, and private medical practitioners, as plenty, and well priced as any market today that benefits from minimal state intervention and regulation.

“Human beings have evolved as communal creatures in order to protect each individual during the inevitable fluctuations of each life. Governments are the natural extension of this communal impulse as a method to gather resources from those in their prime and redistribute it to those during one of their helpless phases.”

Governments are institutions of aggression and irrationality. That is all that Matt has against them. If not for that, they would possibly be fine charitable organizations.

“The reason for coercive measures is because humans are born ignorant and often fail to understand the need for taxes and laws until they are older and wiser.”

Heh! That makes my day. Thanks.

“Time will make you wiser young intern.”

Time does not make everyone wiser. It requires first a certain attitude of openness to new ideas, a hatred of injustice, and an understanding of the connection between a general respect for property, and general liberty and prosperity.