- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,408
- Reaction score
- 67,624
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That is a serious national problem, IMO.
We need a better people.
They must learn "compromise", its meaning and use..
That is a serious national problem, IMO.
We need a better people.
They must learn "compromise", its meaning and use..
I don't.
Direct voting is the only way to go.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” - Churchill
Nonsense. What possible "compromise" can be made when one party wishes to grant 11 million people amnesty after violating our immigration laws and the other party does not? These 11 million people did not simply "slip through the cracks" they were allowed to remain unmolested by design. Our immigraton "enforcement" consists mainly of 20K border patrol agents to cover 2% of the nation and 5K ICE agents to cover the other 98% of the nation. It is rediculously easy for any illegal alien to get a job, send their kids to school, get free emergency medical care, rent/buy property and even to get a driver's permit.
According to 'libertarian' Hans Herman Hoppe, monarchy is the best form of government. Lol.
This is why I don't trust the label of "libertarian." It means whatever anybody wants it to mean.
According to 'libertarian' Hans Herman Hoppe, monarchy is the best form of government. Lol.
In conjunction with the privatization of all assets according to the principles outlined, the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law for the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible: Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between private owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person's infringement on them is subject to lawful prosecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and strict liability.
As implied by this constitution, then, all existing wage and price controls, all property regulations and licensing requirements, and all import and export restrictions should be immediately abolished and complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced. Subsequently, the government, now propertyless, should declare its own continued existence unconstitutional -- insofar as it depends on noncontractual property acquisitions, that is, taxation -- and abdicate.
No. According to Hoppe, the preferred system of governance would be as described in his book Democracy the God that Failed:
Hoppe's ideal form of govt:
In a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting life-styles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, Transaction Publishers, 2001, pp. 216-218
But our arguments are based on the same premise; our population is neither informed, nor is it motivated to become and remain informed. Couple this with the fact the main sources of information provide skewed viewpoints, often in support of one side or the other of our current two party system, nothing will change.
There simply aren't enough people who do try to stay informed to sway the rest by our efforts. I was asking HOW under such circumstances. Your response was by going out and informing. That's why I replied people who try don't have the resources to compete with those in power who do have such resources. They may try but it's like a mouse squeeking in the middle of a thunderstorm.
This quote does not, as did mine, describe the government suggested by Hoppe nor describe it's Constitution. If you want to know what sort of government Hoppe supports to back and read what I quoted, in which he specifies what the constitution for such a government would look like.
Pretty much agree with this, but is it the desire to control others, or a desire to set one self up? In other words, would many of these people truly care what others do as long as they get everything they can for themselves? Or, is the control the means to the end of setting themselves up?No political system ever devised has succeeded in changing human nature. That nature involves creating societies of unequal power and influence, motivated by greed, selfishness and the simple desire to control others, and so about all that a political system can ever accomplish is to temper this nature to some degree. I think ours does about as good a job in this regard as any other in theory, what with its system of checks and balances, but the problem lies in the way it is currently practiced and the lack of vigilance in maintaining that temperence.
I did read the quote, and to the undiscerning eye it looks quite good. But then you read: Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property.
This is where my Hoppe quote comes in. One would think the two quotes contradict each other. But as a believer in landed property first and foremost, he sees no problem in the owners of a territory (whether its a covenant, guild, individual, etc) dictating to others living in that territory.
Do you deny that he believes that a strictly religious territory should have the authority to physically remove those who do not conform?
Who would nominate them?- SC judges shall no longer be appointed by the respective President, but elected by a two/third majority of House and/or Congress (limiting partisanship of judges; professional expertize should count and respect for what the Constitution actually says)
No, I don't deny that his position is that a property owner has may exclude whomever he wishes from his property.
BTW, I don't think the two quotes contradict each other.
I disagree. I think the root of our problems is that some people think that their choices should be forcibly imposed on otherwise uninvolved third parties.
Then you have confirmed: Hoppe believes the best form of govt is monarchy.
That's always been part of American politics.
Follow the money and you'll see where all our problems lie.
Did I miss the part of the OP where these poll results were linked to?
Yes, that's why I consider it the root of our problems. People want to use violence to impose their choices on others.
The system is inherently violent, and has been from day one.
Every person who owns a house is not a monarch. You are making up definitions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?