/forums/webwar/p/2788 on gopher.createaforum.com

	Return Create A Forum - Home
	---------------------------------------------------------
	WebWar
	https://webwar.createaforum.com
	---------------------------------------------------------
	*****************************************************
	Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
	*****************************************************
	#Post#: 24058--------------------------------------------------
	Μισείς το Κρ&#
	940;τος;
	By: Pinochet88 Date: July 30, 2016, 2:56 am
	---------------------------------------------------------
	Ακολουθεί
	διαφωτιστι&#95
	4;ότατο
	άρθρο του
	Πνευματικο&#97
	3;
	Ηγέτη του
	Γνήσιου
	Φιλελευθερ&#95
	3;σμού
	Μάρεϋ
	Ρόθμπαρντ
	που
	αποδεικνύε&#95
	3;
	πως αυτό που
	λείπει
	περισσότερ&#95
	9;
	στην εποχή
	μας είναι οι
	ριζοσπάστε&#96
	2;
	Φιλελεύθερ&#95
	9;ι
	που
	αναγνωρίζο&#96
	5;ν
	το Κράτος ως
	αυτό που
	πραγματικά
	είναι: μια
	εγκληματικ&#94
	2;
	συμμορία
	κλεφτών,
	δολοφόνων
	και
	κακούργων
	που
	εκμεταλλεύ&#94
	9;ται
	τους
	παραγωγούς
	και
	επιβιώνει
	σε βάρος
	τους. Οι
	κλασικοί
	Φιλελεύθερ&#95
	9;ι
	γνώριζαν
	πολύ καλά τι
	είναι το
	Κράτος και ο
	εκμεταλλευ&#97
	2;μενος
	λαός εκτιμά
	κάθε
	διανοούμεν&#95
	9;
	που τολμά
	και
	εκφράζει
	τέτοιες
	γενναίες
	αλήθειες.
	Δυστυχώς
	όμως, όσο
	αυξάνεται η
	δύναμη του
	Κράτους
	έναντι της
	δύναμης της
	Κοινωνίας,
	το Κράτος
	επιτρατεύε&#95
	3;
	όλο και
	περισσότερ&#95
	9;υς
	ψευτοφιλελ&#94
	9;ύθερους
	για να
	αποκρύπτου&#95
	7;
	και να
	συσκοτίζου&#95
	7;
	την αλήθεια
	για το
	Κράτος,
	λειτουργών&#96
	4;ας
	ως
	ελεγχόμενη
	αντιπολίτε&#96
	5;ση.
	Αυτοί οι
	ψευτοφιλελ&#94
	9;ύθεροι
	και τα
	ψευτοδιλλή&#95
	6;ατα
	που
	προπαγανδί&#95
	0;ουν
	αποτελούν
	μέγιστο
	πρόβλημα
	για το
	Φιλελεύθερ&#95
	9;
	Κίνημα και η
	υποκριτική
	τους
	εθελοδουλε&#94
	3;α
	έναντι του
	εγκληματικ&#95
	9;ύ
	θεσμού του
	Κράτους
	πρέπει να
	απορριφθεί
	μετά
	βδελυγμίας.
	Ζήτω η
	Αναρχία και
	ο
	Καπιταλισμ&#97
	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
	http://bc.vc/TsvZQZi
	*****************************************************