Subnostr

The actions of those with the state designation are not directed by constitutions. They are restrained only by the same thing that gives them life: the willingness of the people in their territory to tolerate them. Perhaps state aggression is like a liquid: something that flows when it is not contained. Perhaps it is enough to say that aggression will always flow to the point where it is contained by the recalcitrance of people's desire for freedom. Thus, those with the state designation can do anything they can get away with, with or without constitutional authority. And if those with the state designation are restrained only by the wills of those in their territory, we can see that in order to change government one must first change the way people think about government.

In summary, there are no states as they have been previously conceived. There is only the willingness of some to place the actions of certain people in a special category of human action. And the limits of people's willingness to accept aggression are constantly changing. Since states are created and directed by the boundaries of what people will accept as proper, since they exist only in the vacuum created by the public’s tolerance for aggression, the only lasting way to change the state is to persuade the public to rethink the program."

dr.fred 2y ago

no one gave a shit about the constitution

in the last 3 years

it is worthless

now officially voided by the criminal organization world hoax organization

signed over by the terrorists who have hijacked the administration of the us corporation

wake up

Replying to

Michael Matulef

"if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place"

The Rothbardian perspective is distinctive because he refuses to interpret the actions of states as belonging to a special class of human action. Rothbard holds all people to the same standard of conduct, whereas others give the actions of states special moral considerations. For instance, if one person who is not designated as possessing state authority threatens another person with violence in order to take their property it is considered criminal. However, the very same action if committed by those with state authority is not considered criminal. Nobody can deny that the actions are the same, even if the intentions are different. The difference in these actions is simply a matter of how the actions are interpreted. When the state commits acts of aggression, they are generally interpreted as acceptable. When anyone else commits acts of aggression, they are generally interpreted as unacceptable. But the actions are the same.

https://mises.org/library/rothbard-and-nature-state

dr.fred 2y ago

of course it is a criminal organization

part of a larger criminal organization

the high table

or trilateral commission owning every corporation

or mafia

or narcos

or cia

all the same criminal organization on a different level