In troubled times I always turn, for spiritual rejuvenation and insight, to the writings of H.L. Mencken. Here’s a letter that I sent recently to the Washington Post – a letter obviously inspired by Mencken:
Fred Hiatt hits the nail squarely: John McCain’s campaign is short on
ideas (a happy fact, by the way, when one considers the few ideas that
the Senator does offer) and long on appeals to patriotism ("What McCain
Hasn’t Tried," October 13).
Whenever I encounter such
flag-waving, I recall this wise warning from H.L. Mencken: "Patriotism,
though it is based upon the natural and indeed instinctive love of
home, has been elevated in the modern world into an unparalleled
congeries of imbecilities. What it demands of the individual citizen,
as a practical matter, is that he yield not only his judgment but also
his property and even his life to whatever gang of scheming politicians
happen to be in power."
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
The Mencken quotation is from H.L. Mencken, Minority Report (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997 [1956]), pp. 115-116.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 50 comments }
The signature I use on my posts to a political board I participate on is a Mencken quote:
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
Marcus,
Yours is a fine quotation from Baltimore's Bard. My personal favorite (but, omigosh, there are so many!) is this:
"The saddest life is that of a political aspirant under democracy. His failure is ignominious and his success is disgraceful." [from A MENCKEN CHRESTOMATHY]
"Every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods."- H.L. Mencken
I've honestly never seen this quote before (shocking.) Glad to come across it. Thanks!
I am always suspect of claims of patriotism as well. Yet I do consider myself a patriot to a degree because I see this country as good as any in the modern day and through all of history. And because I believe it can be improved still.
But libertarians seems to have little regard for the concept of patriotism. I would argue that is just one thing about the ideology that makes its goals Quixotic. With no devotion to country and only self regard any attempted libertarian society will quickly fall prey to "rulers".
I would wonder of all the countries past and present to which a libertarian would choose to be born into assuming a random placement among the population.
Answering my own question I would not pick this country as my random chance of being born into poverty would be greater then many and the chance for upward mobility would be far less then in other countries. So yeah I'm a patriot but it's not because I think this is the best country but because I believe it can be.
If Mencken is right, why do people keep voting for the same politicians? People get what they deserve.
Right. The country that's about to elect a black man, who was raised poor President of a country who's Capital city elected a known crackhead Mayor lacks upward mobility.
That's hilarious.
Muirgeo,
Why do you suppose that no regard for country means something other, at least for libertarians, than simply no regard for government? And why do you assume that no regard for country (or for government) means having a regard only for one's self?
I love my family. I cherish my friends. I care very much about my neighbors. I try hard to be the best teacher I can be for my students. I contribute to several charities.
What's with the assumption that if I don't care about "my country" as government defines the contours of that caring, then I care only about myself? That conclusion makes no sense, either logically or empirically, for me or for anyone else.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
Muirgeo must have missed this most insightful quote. Spot on. Talks right to his leftover 1960's political dogma.
Muirego's comment reminds me of something I heard a libertarian say at a "Future of Freedom" conference in Long Beach back in the late 70's (I was 15 years old, I think.) I believe the man's name was Robert Hess and he said "Love the country, loathe the nation".
I believe he was a Nixon speech writer at some point in his career. I seem to remember him calling himself a "welder" at the conference (that being how he contributed the most value to his community. I could be remembering this all wrong…If someone knows what I'm talking about, let me know!)
But libertarians seems to have little regard for the concept of patriotism. I would argue that is just one thing about the ideology that makes its goals Quixotic. With no devotion to country and only self regard any attempted libertarian society will quickly fall prey to "rulers".
– Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 14, 2008 3:09:05 PM
More strawmen. Again, there is nothing about Libertarianism which says you cannot love your country. It means that you don't have to love your country because I say you should.
If you'd think your thoughts through you'd realize that's rather infeasible anyway. Devotion isn't something that can be commanded.
Muirego's comment reminds me of something I heard a libertarian say at a "Future of Freedom" conference in Long Beach back in the late 70's (I was 15 years old, I think.) I believe the man's name was Robert Hess and he said "Love the country, loathe the nation".
I believe he was a Nixon speech writer at some point in his career. I seem to remember him calling himself a "welder" at the conference (that being how he contributed the most value to his community. I could be remembering this all wrong…If someone knows what I'm talking about, let me know!)
"With no devotion to country and only self regard any
attempted libertarian society will quickly fall prey to rulers."
Yes, you are right. The reason we have Mugabe and Kim Jong Il is because of waaaaaay too
much libertarianism in their societies.
Muirego's comment reminds me of something I heard a libertarian say at a "Future of Freedom" conference in Long Beach back in the late 70's (I was 15 years old, I think.) I believe the man's name was Robert Hess and he said "Love the country, loathe the nation".
I believe he was a Nixon speech writer at some point in his career. I seem to remember him calling himself a "welder" at the conference (that being how he contributed the most value to his community. I could be remembering this all wrong…If someone knows what I'm talking about, let me know!)
It is because I care about what is possible in this country that I have found my self pushed more and more libertarian.
Just because I love my country does not mean I have to surrender all I am to it. Not even my family can demand that, though they would get more than government would.
Government is just leadership I might argue that country is more abstract than the people in office.
"But libertarians seems to have little regard for the concept of patriotism."
This is only true if you buy into the fact that patriotism is directly proportional to size of and affection towards government.
But libertarians seems to have little regard for the concept of patriotism. I would argue that is just one thing about the ideology that makes its goals Quixotic. With no devotion to country and only self regard any attempted libertarian society will quickly fall prey to "rulers".
Read Don's Menchen quote again.
This is a common mistaken critique that many make of libertarians.
1. Humans are social animals
2. libertarians are humans
3. libertarians are social animals
The libertarian critique is not of community, but of the nature of the relationship.
Libertarians support a non-coercive relationship between individual and community.
Others seem to support a coercive relationship between individual and community.
Our critique: if the relationship is coercive, then the community neither earns nor deserves the allegiance of the individual.
If Mencken is right, why do people keep voting for the same politicians? People get what they deserve
This reminds me of another quote (I paraphrase);
"Democracy is a system where the people get what they ask for and they get it good and hard".
I don't know to whom I should attribute it.
I'm sympathetic to Muirgeo's question, though I accept Don's rejoinder. But surely there must be degrees of libertarianism, no? Doesn't a libertarian accept some role of coercion by government to "ensure domestic tranquility"? Can't a libertarian support the existence of police, laws, and courts, all designed to coerce? Or when I say I'm a libertarian, must I be an anarchist? Seems to me we're talking degrees, kind of like the answer to the joke about the woman who will sleep with a man for a million dollars but not for just one (who do you think I am?).
Sam, would you agree to revise your point to "if the relationship is coercive when it is wrong to do so…"? But then the devil is in the details of right and wrong, which is what we're really arguing.
Can't a libertarian support the existence of police, laws, and courts, all designed to coerce?
To coerce or to maintain rule of law?
Just to be clear on what I mean by rule of law:
(1) the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power; (2) equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts; and (3) the law of the constitution is a consequence of the rights of individuals as defined and enforced by the courts.
I also happen to think that it is the proper role for the state to protect minors and adults who are such invalids they can't reasonably care for themselves. Yet, I believe I can call myself a libertarian. Little "L".
Yes, you are right. The reason we have Mugabe and Kim Jong Il is because of waaaaaay too
much libertarianism in their societies.
Posted by: sanjiv
Arguably yes. When their is no ruling power some one, not so nice, will often step in to fill the void.
tribalism as Don seems to suggest worked well for the Indians and Arabs of years ago. Now days it's not practical. Better to have a country to provide a common defense. That's just being rational…practicle. Which I suggest libertarianism is not.
Yeah sure don't love your governemnt… but then don't complain about the Mugabe and Kim Jong Il or Pinochets that step in to fill your libertarian void.
Muirgeo, you are aware that Libertarianism is not anarchism?
Here is a political system that comes closest to libertarianism. Of course, they are just the opposite of Libertarianism when it comes to economics. This nation, located smack in the middle of Europe, has never been invaded by a foreign force for the last couple of 100 years. Not even during the 2 World Wars.
Muirgeo,
You have an unusual fondness for yanking conclusions out of your hat, based upon either nothing at all or on gross misunderstanding. Please point me to one place where I suggest that "tribalism worked well for the Indians and Arabs years ago."
You are, as a wag note, entitled to your own opinion. But you're not entitled to your own facts — a fact that you seem dubious of.
mcwop,
I have a very hard time seeing a distinction.
Lets start by making our own society.
Whats the first thing required for a libertarian society?
I'll start. Some land and some people who believe in the principles of libertarianism.
OK if anyone wants to play along what do we do next now that we have some land and some libertarians? How do we set up this society. Note there are some bad guys just over the border… as there always are.
Note there are some bad guys just over the border… as there always are.
Okay, I'll play along.
I'd send you over the border. I can think of no more effective WMD.
Methinks, what do you mean by "regular law"? For example, are the laws requiring CAFE auto mileage standards regular law? They were legislated by a majority of elected representatives, right? Should a little "l" libertarian support CAFE laws, or am I misunderstanding you?
OK if anyone wants to play along what do we do next now that we have some land and some libertarians? How do we set up this society. Note there are some bad guys just over the border… as there always are.
– Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 14, 2008 5:36:29 PM
Are there any non-coercive ways to organize?
Methinks:
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. "
Also Mencken.
I believe the man's name was Robert Hess and he said "Love the country, loathe the nation".
His name was Karl Hess. He also advised libertarians to be good neighbors.
Can't a libertarian support the existence of police, laws, and courts, all designed to coerce?
Libertarians generally allow that any government that may be required must be limited to the defense of individual rights, hence laws and agency for effecting said defense may be supported.
Many libertarians tout common law as sufficient in this regard.
Are there any non-coercive ways to organize?
Of course. The U.S. is the land of voluntary association.
Of course. The U.S. is the land of voluntary association.
I was asking muirgeo in relation to his question.
marcus,
That's a good way to phrase it. Contracts and agreements between 2 people are easy. Add 299,999,998 more people and it's difficult.
So I would say no there is no non-coercive way. There are less coercive ways but all involve some loss of liberty. Milton Friedman admitted as much. The best way IMO is democracy but you still see tyranny in that. I only complain that it is usurped by people with money. I am OK living under our representative democracy because most of the time the peoples wishes are reasonable. And Sam yes I agree ultimatly to live here is voluntary. You can either try to change the rules democratically or you can live with the results or one can leave.
Bill, I think what is meant by "regular law" is that the law applies to all equally, so that there are no special laws to which some are subject to but not others. My limited understanding is that CAFE standards would be considered "regular law" because they apply to all equally. However, the constitution itself can prevent such laws being passed – or at least remaining on the books. Thus, I don't think CAFE standards are a Rule of Law issue. I think the challenge in writing constitutions is to allow enough flexibility to allow the country to adjust to a changing world without providing so much that liberty can be stripped by subtle means the way it has been in the United States.
Henri, thank you.
Of course. The U.S. is the land of voluntary association.
Is it? The U.S. government taxes the earnings of people who renounce their citizenship and leave the country for 10 years after renouncement. Congress just recently passed a law (which Bush signed) that levies a capital gains tax on all assets held in the United States upon the renouncement of citizenship and then again when the assets are actually sold. This particular law may not stand up to constitutional challenge as it's pretty clear double taxation, but first it must be challenged.
Nothing about any of that screams voluntary association to me. This is very much a milder version of the Soviet Union keeping its citizens locked in the country.
Thanks for muirpidity #28
"Answering my own question I would not pick this country as my random chance of being born into poverty would be greater then many and the chance for upward mobility would be far less then in other countries.
Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 14, 2008 3:09:05 PM"
Is it possible that our muirduck grows progressively more stupid as time goes by? Look at the collection and you tell me:
MUIR(STU)PIDITY OF THE (muir) DUCK
All of these are stands alone stupidity. Context is not necessary to understand that the person who created these is mentally defective.
1. “The rising income discrepancy is what prevents people from obtaining affordable housing.”
Posted by: muirgeo Nov 2007
or
2. “If you are advocating a free market system say for schools you need to show one that works.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 10, 2008 7:24:41 PM
or:
3. "Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 11:29:41 AM"
or
4. “Planning and tinkering will definitely have a place in creating a strong competitive market. The invisible hand……YOU'RE FIRED!!!… well or at least demoted.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 9:13:45 AM
or
5. “Natural cycles will often effect(sic) conditions on a short term basis but will not effect the larger man made trends.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 10:15:41 AM
or
6. “I honestly believe the principles I support would increase our liberty not decrease it.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 6:57:16 PM
or
7. “5,000 year old vegetation has been found in multiple areas around the world in the paths of recently receding glaciers.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 7:00:43 PM
or
8. “First , the idea of climates "natural course" is invalid. There's no magic here climate responds to things we understand pretty well.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 9:02:34 AM
or
9. "When some one says the climate is warming because it is following its natural course they need to be more specific. That's all I'm saying. Is it warming from the Sun, El Nino…. what? And provide evidence."
Vidyohs… your ego so controls you. You should learn how to tame it. You'll be a happier person.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 10:28:10 AM"
or
10.”I compete with other doctors for my patients and market forces are somewhat in effect. A government single payor(sic) system could actually increase consumer choice and market competition.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 21, 2008 9:10:06 PM
or
11. “ If I was(SIC) to summarize my position it would be that I believe we need more democracy not less ( ie. a government represents the needs of its people more then(SIC) of its economic institutions).
I believe in competitive markets but understand they work best with good regulation.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 26, 2008 12:56:01 PM
or
12. “Seriously, the only historical reference I can think of was back in the days of the feudal system. Then the markets were completely unencumbered. Property rights were strictly observed and all property was held by a minority of wealthy people with everyone else an indentured servant.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 26, 2008 2:48:31 PM
or
13. “Poorly worded. Maybe qualifies for a murpidity but it's a fact that there is no "natural state" of climate. Indeed it's always changing.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 1:30:17 PM
or
14. There will always be regulation. The key is to make it minimalist but effective. The biggest danger to effective regulation is allowing the regulated too near the process of making regulations and too near the process of enforcing them.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 31, 2008 1:41:01 PM
or
15. Hardworking people are whining because the fruit of their labor has been stolen by the financial wizadry of wall street paper pushing assholes making pyramid schemes and calling them fancy names like derivatives. That's not free market economics it's common thievery and it's the end result of allowing unfettered greed run our markets and assuming beyond all reason that the invisible hand will slap these bad boys when they get out of line. – Muirgeo, March 27 2008
OR
16. I'm no Jefferson but like he I'm as interested in maximizing liberty contrary to what you all claim. It's a cheap shot when you claim force is being used to steal your liberty when in fact it is being used to spread liberty. Yes force for liberty! There is NO other way. I'm a pragmatist and a reductionist and THAT is what I suspect you all dislike of my post. You don't get to tell us about your beautiful ideology with out telling me how it plays out in the real world as Karl Marx so aptly described. Posted by: muirgeo | Aug 16, 2008 1:26:52 AM
OR
17. I'm not a libertarian. I'm a pragmatic promoter of liberty in the real world. My views would provide health care for all as part of the social contract that recognizes a right to life and health. We all recognize a right not to be attacked by a foreign invader and thus we impose a military cost to all. Why not also recognize a right to health care a lack of which has killed millions more then any foreign invader of our country. Posted by: muirgeo | Aug 16, 2008 3:45:53 AM
Or (muriduck’s answer to muirpidity #1)
18. It's called Gentrification. It's a well described social economic / market phenomenon.
" Rising housing costs in gentrifying districts may ensure that poor residents who do move leave the neighborhood, rather than settle elsewhere in it. Since their places usually are taken by more affluent, better educated people, the neighborhood's character and demographics change."
gen•tri•fi•ca•tion
Pronunciation:
\ˌjen-trə-fə-ˈkā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1964
: the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents
or
19.
I'm pro-democracy. Not a socialist or a communist by any definition. Posted by: muirgeo | Aug 18, 2008 8:46:04 PM
Or
20.
Now, I have to be honest. Like the Founding Fathers I fear even legally gotten massive accumulations of wealth. I struggle with this but my guess is even when the means to wealth is set on an even playing field we might all, at the start of the game have to agree that those of us through luck and hard work fortunate enough to prosper disproportionately will have to pay back disproportionately to the system that allowed us to succeed. Likely it doesn't have to be a massively progressive tax structure but I'm pretty sure it can't be done with out some progressively.
Posted by: muirgeo | Aug 23, 2008 12:37:37 PM
Or
21.
Maybe because before the law existed and Wall Street did what it wanted we had a GREAT FRICKING DEPRESSION! That was no fun. Wall Street then as now proved free-markets a bogus dangerous concept.
Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 9, 2008 10:24:08 AM
Or
#22
"Seperation of church and state…separation of money and state
Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 10, 2008 2:22:21 PM"
Or
#23
"Having tasted this easy way of living the people wanted more and ever more."
Posted by: vidyohs
YEP! And that's why you will never get rid of the welfare state so the best you can do is to optimize it's efficiency… like FDR, Kennedy or Johnson or Clinton did.
Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 11, 2008 10:29:56 AM
Or
#24
The market won't bring these changes on its own since the Invisible Hand has shown itself to have no eyes to plan for what is ahead of it. The idea that we should go blindly into the future is what lemmings do ( I saw them in the Arctic) it's not what evolved intelligent social beings do. Our ability to plan the future is what has raised us above all the beast. To deny that is to wish a return to living like beast.Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 20, 2008 5:55:38 PM
Or
#25
"It may have been Vidyohs that made the statement some time ago that the country should be split into two: one for those that value personal responsibility and freedom and the other for those that want to live their lives in a nanny state where big brother does the thinking and guides the Stepford citizenry through life.
Posted by: Babinich
I'm all for that. I sometimes wish we'd have just let the southern successionist have their way. Of course it'd just be another border problem issue with all those rednecks wanting to come work in our productive economy. Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 28, 2008 3:09:20 AM"
Or
#26 (In reference to FDR)
And he wasn't packing the court he was unpacking the court. You need to review the history a little more. Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 27, 2008 7:47:03 PM
Or
#27
"I'm not in favor of totalitarian health care. I favor single payor (basically Medicare for everyone). One of the big reasons IS because it would increase competition making doctors able to return to small practice only having to compete mano to mano with other doctors.
Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 2, 2008 1:59:44 AM"
Or
#28
“Answering my own question I would not pick this country as my random chance of being born into poverty would be greater then many and the chance for upward mobility would be far less then in other countries. So yeah I'm a patriot but it's not because I think this is the best country but because I believe it can be.
Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 14, 2008 3:09:05 PM”
Methinks is refers to the US as a "milder version of the Soviet Union"; what is needed here is a reminder of what McCloskey pointed out regarding empirical analysis: namely magnitude matters. The US and the former USSR are so different that the term Methinks chooses "milder" suggests an ignorance of McCoskey.
My introduction to Mencken, oddly enough, came from readin Hemingway's novel The Sun Also Rises. Hemingway, using a metaphor, describes the writing of Mencken as crap. After trying to figure out what Hemingway's refernce was about, I decided to investigate who Mencken was. After seeing the ideological difference Hemingway had with Mencken, I decided to look at the background of Hemingway (the book was a college reading assignment and I knew nothing of Hemigway or Mencken beforehand). Turns out that Hemingway was an anti-capitalist and bi-polar drunk who lived abroad for many years while bashing the American way of life…not too much different than the ideological opposites of Mencken today!
Two quotes from Heinlein:
"What I fear most are affirmative actions of sober and well-intentioned men, granting to government powers to do something that appears to need doing."
"to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn't forbidden."
Methinks, I was speaking of all the voluntary associations that Americans participate in.
Churches are but one type.
There are many others.
Methinks is refers to the US as a "milder version of the Soviet Union";
No, I refer to a specific policy as a milder version of the one the Soviet Union had. Sorry if that wasn't clear. One of the Soviet Union's policies regarding immigration out of the Soviet Union was to rob immigrants on the way out the door. This seems similar to me. If you don't think so, I'd love to know why.
Methinks, I was speaking of all the voluntary associations that Americans participate in.
Churches are but one type.
There are many others.
I know you were, Sam. But shouldn't one of those voluntary associations be citizenship and the protections and burdens that are associated with it? We are free to renounce citizenship and its protections, but not its burdens.
I'll tackle the CAFE question from my own libertarian (small 'l') philosophy:
CAFE standards are a nanny-state interference with my ability to purchase the car I want. While it may be accurate to claim that it applies to all manufacturers, it doesn't negate the fact that it's an unnecessary regulation of a highly competitive market and has reduced choices in the marketplace.
The rise in oil prices caused more demand for fuel-efficient cars and many manufacturers responded to that demand. If Ford or GM are too poorly-managed to respond to that demand, then no CAFE law can save them. All CAFE has done is make it more difficult (to damn near impossible) to build a car that has the power and acceleration that I want at a price that I can afford.
CAFE laws fall in the same leftist mentality discussed above; that only The Anointed can determine what the plebes need.
But shouldn't one of those voluntary associations be citizenship and the protections and burdens that are associated with it? We are free to renounce citizenship and its protections, but not its burdens.
We can wish, hope, or work for it.
Muirgeo, here is a simple difference for you to explain teh basic difference between a more Libertarian governmnet and your governmnet. This incident happens all the time in Baltimore, and this was 1 block from my house.
Armed Robbery of Non-Affiliates – 100 Blk. E. 28th St. – On Oct. 13th at 4:00 PM, three non-affiliates were approached from the rear by two unknown male juveniles, approximately 11 and 15 years old. The older male grabbed a purse and the younger male grabbed a wallet from the victims. After a struggle, two wallets were relinquished to the suspects when the older male displayed a handgun. The juveniles were last seen running south on Hargrove Street and then east on 27th Street. Baltimore Police responded. The area was searched with negative results. See Security Bulletin FA-2 at http://www.jhu.edu/~security.
In your society thugs are given second third and fourth chances to do harm, and there are few repercussions for juveniles , which is why gangs use them to do teh dirty work. Law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry guns for defense (denied by your government), and even if I shot one of these jerks in self defense, your government makes me the criminal. A Libertarian society would allow me to carry, and shoot these thugs – DEFEND myself. Your government cares more about teh criminal than the victim.
Methinks,
Thanks for clarifying; I thought you were making that case generally. Thanks again.
Mcwop,
What are you talking about? Who said anything about gun control. I'm for back ground checks but I have no desire to ban guns.
In fact, since the Wall Street anarchist have cracked the pillars of modern society I've been meaning to go buy a few soon before society breaks down and marshall law is declared.
If we ever have a libertarian society guns, tobacco and alcohol are where I'll invest my money. Of course a libertarian society wouldn't likely have much of a stock market.
since the Wall Street anarchist have cracked the pillars of modern society
So now they're anarchists? Do you even know what anarchy is? I know you don't. But I'll be entertained to hear you try explaining it.
More Mencken quotes…
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
H. L. Mencken
Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.
H. L. Mencken
Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven.
H. L. Mencken
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
H. L. Mencken
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken
Don't overestimate the decency of the human race.
H. L. Mencken
Each party steals so many articles of faith from the other, and the candidates spend so much time making each other's speeches, that by the time election day is past there is nothing much to do save turn the sitting rascals out and let a new gang in.
H. L. Mencken
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
H. L. Mencken
Muirgeo, here is what I am talking about.
You constantly rail about how we need government to do this and that, and that Libertarians are stupid anarchists. I was trying to make a point about the difference in a Libertarian belief system (and that can include a government, but a limited one), and the belief system you support – more government controls.
So, the system of more controls that you support prevents people from defending themselves. A Libertarian system would allow people to defend themselves. If you support the Democratic Party (and I am pretty sure you do), then you support limiting the right of self defense as that is a core party platform.
I cannot support most any candidate in either major party, as both stands for overbearing government. When November comes, I am writing in Ron Paul.
This example is not limited to self defense; you can apply the logic to tons of other government policy.
"In fact, since the Wall Street anarchist have cracked the pillars of modern society I've been meaning to go buy a few soon before society breaks down and marshall law is declared.
If we ever have a libertarian society guns, tobacco and alcohol are where I'll invest my money. Of course a libertarian society wouldn't likely have much of a stock market."
So, can we put you on record as predicting the fall of US society? Would you care to put a date on the declaration of martial law, or do you want to leave it open? Either way, I would be willing to put forth a friendly wager on the subject.
And what makes you think that libertarians would not be interested in trading ownership shares in companies? It seems to me that market would function just as well under a free market system, and considering the fact you have been claiming that the stock exchanges have been wildly free markets, I would think you would have to agree…