Government is merely a tool. Its legitimate powers are limited to what rights we as individuals possess to grant to it and which have been outlined by our Constitution.

You asked me what we'd do if judges (presumabely in a government that is expected to adhere to the NAP) failed to act in accordance with the NAP. I responded with what I'd personally do.

If your question was what government would result if the government didn't adhere to the NAP, the answer is we'd have the government we have right now.

An improper government, to be sure.

What does the NAP say, then, about how you get to a NAP-Approved gov't, without which there will be a guaranteed level of improper force applied? And what does it say about how to maintain that level of NAP-Approval?

Would that be NAPpiness?

I think it says, we have a duty to keep a very watchful eye on government and never to allow it to step beyond its extremely limited authority lest we end up with a government that violates rights instead of defending them. We can't let government exceed it's limited authority even for what we believe is a good reason, because it opens the door for others to overstep the bounds for bad reasons.

I've told you before I believe you're thinking too narrowly. And if I were not a Libertarian, how could Murray Rothbard have had such an effect on my thinking? Were I not a libertarian, I should have rejected his ideas and turned to others, I should think. What I am is not your sort of libertarian, though this prospect does not trouble me.

More like it's internally logical than that it is so perfectly sensible. As for the reason I don't buy it, reread my above.



And the growth of the Libertarian Party demographic has been what? We've been around since 1974. We're still at one half of one percent, somebody remarked up there. There's something we could be doing better if we want libertarianism in America or anywhere else.

Yeah -- Our Enemy, The State. This is, however, a counsel of despair.Just how in hell are you going to have any libertarian influence in anything if you give in to these counsels? You want libertarianism to happen? Best you learn how to win some more elections. That's probably going to mean stumping for Libertarianism Lite. This won't satisfy either the libertarian purists or the LP's philosopher princes, but a struggling third party should always be attentive to politics being the art of the possible. It's a long road to the full goal.

There's a difference between being patient and rationalizing inaction. Taking up all your collective time with ever-more-esoteric debates on Libertarian quiddities is the plague of third parties like ours. That is developing not a political party but a debating society whose primary effect is to determine who's "more Libertarian than thee." How about some policy proposals to campaign on, of such caliber as to be salable to the great grubby electorate, even in all its fickleness? A robust political movement should be visible on the American landscape by now: we've had over thirty years. Didn't it take the early Republicans less than ten years to seat a President?


And since when have the obdurate slavemakers deserved anything better than a swift death? If they forswear slavemaking and slavemindedness, excellent, for their lives are saved thereby -- but does not humanity have to turn away from unfreedom in order to be free. Considering that humans in general will fight like dogs to gain or keep power, they are going to need pretty substantial motivation to surrender privileges they think power secures to them.

Then be especially careful to avoid even the semblance of arrogant bullying of your own, in your spirited replies. The people I think are bad, you also think are bad. When those bad people are in a position to try and snuff out libertarian ideas in their bailiwick, they present libertarianism with a difficult problem. Tyrants do not fall because benevolent philosophers radiate moral indignation at them; they fall by the bullet. But fall they must, if you want libertarianism in any form. And you know it won't be homogenous.

How many times must I repeat that I understand this? What the force is for is to remove the obstacles presented by the antilibertarianists, of whom tyrants are the malignant form, and the least curable by calm and reasoned argument.

The fact that you agree with some of what Murray Rothbard says does not make you a libertarian. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of libertarianism you want to believe in and still be a libertarian. What if someone says they're a Christian but they don't believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" or "Thou Shalt Not Steal"?

What you are is a Republican who happens to agree with libertarians on a few issues. You're a dishonest person who claims to be a libertarian. Don't worry, there are plenty of other dishonest morons out there like Eric Dondero. You and him would be good buddies. He lies about being libertarian and also badmouths the party.


No, it makes sense internally, externally, and in every other way. It's irrefutable and your position is untenable.


The growth of the party has been slow, but it would have been much higher if we didn't have so many non-libertarians like you claiming to be libertarians so people get mixed messages. Many people don't know what a libertarian is because they hear non-libertarian war-mongers like you claiming to be one. If we had a unified, clear, and absolutely libertarian message being said the same way by everyone, we'd have more people joining the party, and more people giving the party.

There is no "libertarianism lite". There is libertarianism, and there is everything else. Having continuity in our message and our delivery will help us grow by leaps and bounds. Getting people like you to stop falsely claiming to be libertarian is one way to accomplish that.

If you were a member of the LP (which you've said you're not), you'd have signed the pledge that you will NEVER initiate force for political gain or social engineering, and you'd be violating that pledge if you supported the wholly unconstitutional, unreasonable, and totally unprovoked war in Iraq.

It's not our party. It's MY party and the party of real libertarians and that excludes you and your ilk.

The Republican Party got lucky and it was 145 years ago. Lincoln was the first guy they ever got elected and what a winner he was. He murdered 600,000 people, violated the Constitution, started the first income tax, violated habeas corpus, told the Supreme Court to fuck itself, etc. Lincoln should be remembered along names like Pol Pot.

Times are different now and a lot more dirty. That's why the Republicans fit in so well. They are filthy scumbags and thrive on dirty politics and dirty money. They love to work against the principles that built America and made it great.

I'm sure if the Libertarians sold our souls, and started taking dirty money, and violating our principles, we'd get elected pretty quickly too. Would it be worth it? Not at all.

The LP is guilty of anything other than inaction. We do a tremendous amount considering our resources. We've had our candidate on the ballot in all 50 states for the last presidential elections. Well 3 because the state of New Hampshire has a bunch of people like you who lie about being libertarians called the FSP who didn't file the papers even though we had enough signatures. They were at a fund raiser for the Republican Governor.


Since when are you or the U.S. government imbued with the authority to make that decision?

More idiotic, jingoistic, claptrap in an effort to disguise your bloodthirst and desire to commit unprovoked murder while calling it "defense" because YOU decided they are "slave makers" or "evil".

Really? You think of yourself as bad? You think of George W. Bush and all who support the insane and unconstitutional war in Iraq as bad? You think of anyone who makes excuses for murder in the guise of "security" is bad?

I am ready to take up arms and stand up against anyone who would try to snuff me or libertarianism. Tyrants do fall by force, and we should use that force against our own tyrants. It's neither the duty, nor the prerogative of the U.S. government to rid anyone else of their tyrants or to dictate how people will be treated in other nations.



You can repeat it until you die, but it will never justify your support of launching unprovoked wars and committing murder in the guise of security. It will never be America's job to police the world, determine the policies and forms of government of other nations, to settle disputes among other nations, or to overthrow the "tyrants" of nations that have not attacked us.

How many times must I repeat that? How many times must I repeat that you can't be a libertarian and an Iraq war supporter at the same time.

I can find no better sentence to illustrate the wrongness and futility of your thinking on this. You are preventing the growth and effectiveness of libertarianism. If you want libertarianism as much as you say you do, it's OUR party. Don't talk yourself into not having an effect on history because you got excluded. That would be [dramatic O'Reilly pause] ridiculous.

And to move the topic from "Are not!" "Am too!" -- just how much governmental intervention and governmental power is one willing to accept to guarantee the Non-Aggression Principle's force?

Our own tyrants? I ain't convinced we have any. We've got wannabes, not effective tyrants, thanks to the American habit of keeping power limited in both scope and time. Even the worst the regrettable Bill and Hillary Clinton could manage was "tyrants manqués."

I can think of no better way to tell you that you are not a libertarian. In fact you are very anti-libertarian. I'd love the party to grow by leaps and bounds, but I'd rather have it destroyed completely if it means allowing those with your jingoistic, backward, views into the party merely for the sake of growth.

We want all the libertarians we can find, but if you don't support military non-interventionism, neutrality in all disputes, and never initiating force against those who haven't used force against you, especially for social engineering or political gain such as overthrowing nations you don't think are up to snuff.

If the party never ever grows but keeps out bullies who don't recognize the sovereignty of other nations, and who want to misuse the U.S. military like you, I'll be a very happy man.

Yesterday while at the quarterly Executive Committee Meeting for the Libertarian Party of the state of California, I had to fight it out with a few of your ilk. But in the end with 5 minutes to go, I got enough support together to pass a resolution against the war in Iraq. We had three peace resolutions and the 2 better ones were shot down, but when they tried to close the meeting I forced it on the agenda.

Here's the wording of the one that passed:

That's why I didn't vote for Badnarik last general election -- he wouldn't have been able to address the evil that is totalitarianism. The sort of thing contained in that resolution leaves tyrants unmolested, and an unmolested tyrant will do everything in his power to stymie libertarianism. Who in the LP would want that?? Ridiculous.

I say again it is hardly Libertarianism to leave slavemakers in their stations. People under tyrants are unfree. Libertarianism is all about freeing the peoples, or it is about nothing at all.

You either have a political party that does something, or you have a debating society where the philosopher princes of the LP don't actually do any libertarianism, but lose themselves in contemplating its beauties. I think you know what I want to see.

And I cannot, after thought, bring to mind any such Constitutional requirements as the resolution references.

None.

We have no tyrants? Tell that to the people in Iraq who were murdered by the Bush regime. Tell it to Americans who have been locked up without charges or access to a lawyer and kept in jail for years. Tell it to all of America who have had their civil rights attacked. Tell it to the families who lost their bread winners in an unconstitutional war started by a military deserter. Tell it to the families who lost thier bread winners and who have become homeless because of the drug war.

Tell it to me, who was arrested on tax day for handing out pamphlets on government property, which I'm entitled to be on and my activities are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The United States is responsible for tyrants within our borders, and nowhere else. The Military of the United States is for defending U.S. soil and ships and nothing else. The limited authority of the U.S. military ends where the U.S. borders end. The limited authority of the president doesn't include any war making powers.

I wish freedom for all people. And if you want them to be free so much, send your money, guns, and even yourself there to help fight for their freedom. But whatever you do, don't use the U.S. military to do it. You can get together a militia, buy a bunch of guns or other weapons, and organize a resistance in those nations, and I will applaud your efforts. But the second you use the U.S. military to attack anyone who has not directly attacked American ships or soil, you and I are going to have a big problem and it might get ugly.

Everyone who is genuinely a libertarian would want it. This explains why you don't...because you are NOT a libertarian.

I say again, you're not in a position to say what is or isn't libertarianism because you're not one and don't seem to ahve a clue about it. People under tyrants are unfree. I wish them freedom and I hope they can overthrow their tyrants as we did. I think people who want to fight for their freedom should be allowed to do it as long as they don't use the U.S. military to do it.

We do have a political party that does something. We get people elected to reduce the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of our own government and demand that it adhere to the limits placed on it by the U.S. Constitution. We change public policy in our own country and hope for others to do the same.

The U.S. Constitution (The highest law in the land)says that ONLY Congress has war making powers. This means if we are going to take part in a war, it must be declared by Congress.

Breaking a tyranny is not the action of a tyrant, Radar. It seems to me more the action of an anti-tyrant.