Defining Libertarianism (was Defining Terrorism)

Russel Caldwell caldr704 at
Wed Jun 26 15:01:55 MDT 2013

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Lonnie Olson <lists at> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Jessie A. Morris
> <jessie at> wrote:
> > The other answer I can give you is, "I have no clue what things will be
> like,
> > but the market will provide a way."
> I really like a lot of these ideas.  I think we should mix a lot of
> them into our existing system to make for a more balanced approach.
> However, I still disagree that a 100% non-regulated socioeconomic
> system would last long in this large interconnected world.  There will
> always be economic disparity between people.  This disparity increases
> over time, basic economics.  Those that can produce a surplus have the
> ability to produce more, and this effect snowballs.  As the disparity
> increases, two classes emerge, those that control the mode of
> production, and those that perform the labor.  This creates a power
> imbalance.  Left unregulated leads to abuse of power until a crisis
> point is reached and the people revolt.  This is not the kind of
> society I want to be a part of, moving from one oppressive regime to
> another.  It's not legitimate force by a Gov't, it's illegitimate
> force by those in control of the mode of production, but still force
> all the same.  I would rather have those in power subject to the
> people.

What makes government force so legitimate? As was pointed out earlier most
people are disillusioned with the system to the point that there are more
and more of us that see no point in participating in the political process.
In a free market every transaction is freely entered into by both parties.
When the government does something most of us have no idea what transpired,
and we cannot possibly know. There is not enough time in the day to keep
track of what these jokers are doing. Just look at the Obamacare mess. How
many, even in congress, really know what is in that bill, much less what
the consequences will be. In my mind, destructive monopoly power is derived
from the government. Software patents come to mind here. I see only one
purpose for software patents and that's to keep a thumb on those with
innovative ideas that might compete with big money.

"The legitimate purpose of formalization lies in the reduction of the tacit
coefficient to more limited and obvious informal operations; but it is
nonsensical to aim at the total elimination of our personal participation."
-- Michael Polanyi

More information about the PLUG mailing list