On Lew Rockwell, Jack Perry had this to say about the actions of Trump thus far:
I’ve tried to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and have applauded some of his actions. However, I can’t do that anymore. What I’m seeing is the same thing I couldn’t abide about Obama: The executive order dictatorship. We have invested the president with the power of passing policy without the proper actions of Congress and Senate. Mark my words, this is going to bite all of us. What, he sends an executive order telling SecDef to hand him the wish list of military spending? Ships, planes, and other weapons they want? Oh, I’m sure this is going to cost us, too.
Sorry, readers, I cannot support this man in good conscience. I am seeing the same executive order end-runs around due process of law that Obama did. Again, we are headed into tyranny with this. One man is not supposed to have this kind of power. I didn’t agree with Obama doing it and I’m darn sure not going to be a hypocrite and support Trump doing it, no matter what reasons are given. So, that said, I cannot support this man. What he’s doing is not right.
Now, it is certainly possible to criticize the very specific ends that Trump is looking to reach with the means of executive actions. But is Jack Perry REALLY suggesting that executive action as a means is intolerable no matter the ends? Continue Reading
Just a small conversation between an anarchocapitalist (AC) and a constitutional libertarian (CL):
CL: “The Non Aggression Principle you AnCaps believe in so much is stupid. How are you gonna force people to abide by it? Better to have a Constitution.”
AC: “We would insist on our NAP-derived rights and liberties through the supreme right to self-defense and by hiring the services of protection agencies that work in the free market, and thus need satisfied customers to flourish. How are you going to force people to abide by a piece of paper written centuries ago by elitists who had no societal unanimity for the document, and who were hypocritical slave owners?” Continue Reading
Spanish Economist of the “Austrian School” Jesus Huerta de Soto explains why Classical Liberalism has failed, and almost must fail, because freedom and any state, no matter how ”limited”, are a logical, moral and above all practical contradiction in terms. The state cannot be limited, and the growth of its power not curtailed.
The only society guaranteeing liberty, the curtailment of widespread aggression through the state and private property rights, is the society that is Anarchocapitalistic — or if one prefers: private property anarchism.
Jesus Huerta de Soto, author of the article, has left the Classical Liberal position and has embraced Anarchocapitalism as the only consistent and feasible form of libertarianism.
I don’t really have the time i would need to involve myself more in-depth than this with the current discussion involving Robert Wenzel and Walter Block about any need or requirement of an “overruling body” in an anarchocapitalist society. But there are some things that can be commented on quickly, simply on the basis of logical reasoning.