Hey, why does spontanious order bring freedom, (does it?) and what if the State is the end of the market? The free market, as I have said in the past is, in my opinion… is an abstract conception, it is in the air and disconnected.

I believe in freedom, as much as we can get, but I don’t know what this “truly” free market economy is. Is there one or has there been one? Is this not a static way of looking at politics, and governing, does this not need a little injection of Heraclitus? Is this a form of rationalist utopianism?

I remember Walter Block in one of his speeches a while back saying he was trying to convince some neo-nazi’s that the anarcho society was better for them. I think he was joking, but you can never tell. I wonder how their protection company would turn out? As for the state being the all evIl I pretty much agree, though I would say we need government. Aristotle’s polis was never supposed to be a state, the state does destroy community because it takes away government (local governing). The state and government should be looked at as opposites.

As for community, I would have to ask what kind of government puts in place the prerequisites for a community that can sustain a strong sense of freedom? We often hear that conservatism is the opposite of freedom, but I don’t know if this is true. For instance, is there some parts of liberalism that counteract holding onto freedom? For instance, can prosperity, technology and liberalist individualist ” ideoligies, lifestyles” that induce “bread and circuses” also be community destroyers? I think the media itself can help form and destroy community, and this is a form of technology. Freud and Edward Bernays, I think, were both major influences on progaganda, they knew way back how powerful the media was.

The modern banking system is also a big community destroyer with inflation by making everyone work harder for less.

Now, when I think of community I am thinking along the lines of communites that can help sustain freedom and the nuclear family. I guess that is a question to someone.

Locke’s two treatises of government was written also for a constitutional monarchy, not just republicanism. Which is better?

Remember, when americans were actually most free, was also when they were pretty god fearing, and self reliant.

Some time back, I used to be somewhat of an Objectivist, now I think it’s funny in that I would just love to see an Objectivist try and convice the averge person without using rhetoric, that’s what politics is, and that is what sustains freedom. People look for leadership. Not just people that can think using logos, but using emotion and rhetoric to convince people.

I believe the problem with many libertarians is they may have bought too much into that reason itself can convince. It can in some respects, I believe in using reason to convince intellectuals or someone who generally cares about ideas. But not everyone does, and the greeks and the romans knew this. This is why rhetoric was so important.

What I mean by this , is, your ideas mean shit if you can’t express them in a powerful, emotionally convincing way. We can see freedom is appealing, just look at Ron Paul. My only problem with Ron Paul and Harry Browne R.I.P. ( I think both are great people and very intelligent) is they’re not mean enough. Ron Paul has to really attack those pieces of shit up there, because that is what they are, they deserve nothing, and he has to show how much they are shit.

He has to get people mad, mad that they are being used and abused, because they are. They are going broke from a bunch of parasites who are living off of them and killing people all over the world. I think one person who is good at this, maybe better then anyone I’ve seen is Jacob Hornberger, probably because he used to be a lawyer.

As for rights, they can’t be proved in the sense of the physical sciences, but neither can free will nor existence itself, but we also presume them, and so does almost every physical scientist. There are some strong arguments that exist out there, and I think they show that it is true in the sense that they are strong arguments.

I also think the Declaration was written more for a rhetorical piece to unite the colonies for war rather then anything else. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t believe it (the rights part) , they did, but, this is why they used loose rheotorical emotional language.