Fake libertarians.
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nsa-surveillance-perspective
define( 'DB_CHARSET', 'utf8mb4' ); define( 'DB_COLLATE', 'utf8mb4_unicode_ci' );
". . . a republic, if you can keep it."
Fake libertarians.
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nsa-surveillance-perspective
www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/
I’m actually responding to a friend who cited the article and says that he’s visited “libertarian” countries in Africa and SW Asia. I think it may be beyond the ability of these people to understand, but I wrote back anyway:
Afghanistan and Congo are not libertarian. Look for private justice and private security. Medieval Iceland is an oft cited example, albeit an imperfect one – people voluntarily chose clans for their protection.
Another is the Not-so-wild West which had a lower murder rate than most modern American cities. Wagon trains had private constitution. The original meaning of the term “outlaw” was someone declared to be outside the protection of private law. Meaning, private security would not protect him. This seems like a much more sensible means of punishment then *Forcing* victims to pay for the food, lodging and entertainment of their aggressors.
In the not-so-wild west civilization grew faster than the state, but unfortunately, the state and its many psychopaths caught up. So if you want honest example looks there, or to Medieval Iceland, the clan structure of Ireland, the thousands of kingdoms of Germany prior to Bismark and unification.
If you just want to call libertarians childish, as the article does, I would say: fuck you. What’s childish is thinking that a man with a gun can solve all the world’s problems. Health? The government will do it. Education? The government will do it. Consumer protection? Government. Raising children? Restricting commerce? Delivering little pieces of paper back and forth? Deciding whether I can put raw milk in my own body? Government. Government. Government. Government. That’s a very mature and nuanced perspective.