Most libertarians are coming out against the Arizona bill. I have been saying we have to observe the rule of law and it is illegal for immigrants to come here without going through a proper procedure. We have the right to know that new people are not running from the law, carrying drugs, or on some terrorist watch list. We welcome those who want to do things the right way.
I am not the only one.
Part of the Summation from Hyscience:
... the central fact that rule of law is necessary in creating a free society. If we didn't appreciate the role of law and order in protecting civil liberties, we'd be anarchists. A free society can not exist in a world where the law of the land is routinely flaunted and the responsible government authority merely shrugs. A free society depends on a limited government that proactively fulfills the few responsibilities it does have, and the Arizona bill is nothing short of the people of Arizona twisting the arm of the federal government to get it to live up to its responsibilities.
http://americasright.com/?p=4530
We can and will find a compromise to this issue. But our soverienty must be protected in the process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
just so y'all can see what we see in our papers...
http://azstarnet.com
If we didn't appreciate the role of law and order in protecting civil liberties, we'd be anarchists.
"Probably the single most persistent criticism of anarchism is the assumption that where there is no government there is no law. This view of anarchism as inherently lawless permeates public choice analysis. Both Buchanan and Tullock refer to anarchism as "the Hobbesian jungle." According to Tullock there can be "no serious reason for trading" in an anarchy since "the
stronger can seize anything he wishes". And Winston Bush comments that "rules concerning property rights are better than anarchy," clearly implying that anarchism is incompatible with such essential components of security as rights and law.
This view is, of course, not lited to public choice theorists. It pervades nearly all the critical literature, professional as well as popular, on the subject. Richard Taylor, for example, maintains that anarchism is contradictory because while the goal of anarchism is individual freedom, "freedom is possible only within a legal order or, which is the same thing, only within a vastly powerful state." Peter Crosby says that "since the anarchist eschews all talk of law; constitutional, statutory or even common," there would be "no way to legally guarantee anything." John Hospers points out that "law is a necessity for any form of social organization," and then adds that "since there is no government, there is no law." The result, he believes, would be chaos and civil war resulting, eventually, not in freedom but rather in the tyranny of
the strong. Similar quotations could be provided almost indefinitely.
These criticisms would indeed be devastating were it not that, rather than an
opposition to law, one finds in anarchist literature continual references to "natural law," "objective law," "common law," the "libertarian law code," "enforcible custom," etc. It is clear from any careful reading of anarchist literature that what anarchists oppose is not law but legislotion. Not only do anarchists recognize the crucial importance of the rule of law, but persistently argue that it is government legislation, with its ability to change old laws and to create new laws on the spot, that generates precisely that legal uncertainty that violates a true rule of law."
this brought to you by the free market geniuses of The Mises Institute.
Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue:
Law, Courts, and the Police
don't argue with something that you don't know anything about, please.
Excuse you? Arrogant much Doc? Now you want to point to how that meandering muse quote you just posted has anything to do with the subject at hand?
Yes we are a nation of laws and when the federal government refuses to do their job, then the people have to.
It also has to do with the 10th amendment. Take your own advice.
BTW Doc, kinda hard for Gochez to be practising blowback when that video is from freaking 2007!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yes i am arrogant when people misrepresent anarchists and their law wholesale.
and if you didn't want me to comment about it why did you include it in posting? are you going to relegate me to some free speech zone like the democrats, the republicans and the tea partiers do?
i would argue with you about the 10th amendment but i know that you would say that it "...has anything to do with the subject at hand?".
Maybe your view of anarchy is different. To most of society it IS undesirable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy."
You aren't even a true anarchist as you supported health care.
Even the founding fathers recognized anarchy wouldn't work and moved away from it so if you want to support it that is your problem. It's the other end of the spectrum from socialism and just as bad.
Now back to the point of the post, I was quoting another libertarian's view of the Arizona Bill, so the original writer must have had a problem with anarchist but brings me back to "arrogant much". Take it up with him. I certainly didn't include it just to get a comment from you.
"Maybe your view of anarchy is different. To most of society it IS undesirable."
i think for myself. :O)
"It's the other end of the spectrum from socialism and just as bad."
Just as bad? How?
i thought that the other end of the spectrum from socialism was freedom?
You think? Sometimes I wonder. Sometimes I think you just like to argue for arguments sake.
As far as political philosophies go, anarchy is on the far right end of the spectrum, but then I'm sure you know that.
Now, do you have anything to say about the article itself other than his brief reference to anarchy.
Post a Comment