Response to Baruch

I am going to write a semi-response to Baruch Pelta to what he wrote here.

Most people would call me an anarchist though the label I to put on myself is a "political nihilist". I believe that all systems will end up being failures, because human beings are a failed species when it comes to the issue of governance. I also believe that anyone who believes in improving the world with a political system is mostly being utopian. There is only one way to improve
the world and that is through education in philosophy and virtue. You would probably see Benzion and I as being the same politically but I read some of what he wrote and I seem to be quite distanced from him in methodoloy and argumentation - though our conclusions
are mostly the same.

My question is why do you use the term "hard libertarianism"? Libertarianism by itself is quite extreme and radical. The so- called moderates libertarians are not really libertarians, they
just want to cut back the government, a little, but they are far from this radical and extreme way of thinking.

I do not understand what is the problem with extremism? People say extremism is wrong. But why is it? Science is extremist. Science will not give way to any idea unless it can be supported by the scientific method. Mathematics is extremist. Mathematicians will not support any theorem as proven unless it can be proved no matter how many empirical results support it. Saying that extremism is bad is itself an extremist statement against all forms of extremism. Atheism is extremist also. I do not understand what kind of an argument it is to say that libertarianism is extremist therefore that is a problem with it? It is radical also.
Again, so what? Most ideas in history that have been eventually accepted were at one point radical. Calling a philosophy extreme is a silly criticism.

A better way to see the difference between libertarianism and statism is by examining the positions of both philosophies towards violence. Which one is the more violent philosophy? Libertarians try to move as far away from violence as possible. Statists do not. Statism by its nature is a violent philosophy. A libertarian might say that education should be provided through the market, while a statist would imply that children must be kidnapped from their parents in a violent manner if the parents refuse to send their children to public schools. Statists in the end advocate a legalized form of kidnapping. It is for this simple reason why statists scare me a lot more than libertarians.

In your post you link to Mike Huban's site. Do you by any chance know of David Friedman? He is a famous anarchist within the libertarian movement. He wrote a rebuttal to this site on his
website if you are interested to read it here.

"Unlike Benzion, they do not have emunah that things would work out if society just operated on bitachon the free market system.":

This seems to imply that the public education system now "works" and that is "educates" the children. I disagree, I think the current system is nothing but an embarassment. Furthermore, I am willing to bet a lot of money that if instead of a public education system there was a private education system that was as terrible as the current system of education, the statists would immediately object and call in for government take over education.

"(Hence the tendency to see civil rights legislation as just another unjustified expansion of federal power)":

I wrote a post against why I am against the Civil Rights Act back here. There I dismiss the myths statists say about civil rights.

"All three of these belief systems (libertarinaism, anarchism, Marxism) require their adherents to accept on faith their economic theories, views of human potential, and philosophical constructs. What could be easier than accepting such simple theologies?":

On the contrary, I am an anarchist (not my own label but that is how most people call me) because I do not have a final vision of the world. Because I do not think people have any extraordinary virtues. It is statism that believes in benevolent angels that are in power. That is what is a utopian about mainstream beliefs. Anarchism is rather complex, also. There is nothing simple about it. I am constantly learning more and more. Statism is the easy way out. Basically, "just use a gun whenever you want to get your way". What can be easier than using violence to get your way?

"What happens if Christian conservatives were to take over? Imagine that they somehow managed to evangelize the majority of the population. Now can the government teach that atheism is evil, just as I maintain that the public schools cannot teach Holocaust Denial? The answer to this question is that I here have no choice but to rely on the courts.":

The answer is not relying on courts (which take 10 years to settle one issue). The real answer to your question is: nothing. There is nothing you can do about it. You are fucked. The courts will not be on your side. They will be on the side of the Christians. The Christians have the power and they can control you. It is a big error to believe that the government actually cares about you. It cares about those who are in power and those who control it. If the Christians have control over the government there is nothing you can do and be fucked. This is why a monopoly on education is dangerous, precisely for this reason. You just made a case for decentralized education without even realizing it.

"I cannot help but wonder why he has not moved to a more libertarian state as a matter of conscience.":

Let me answer your question with another question. Let us say I come over to your business and demand protection money. You never agreed, you never consented, you gave me no premission at all. I ask for protection money. If you refuse I will use violence against you. You object and tell me "I do not agree and I want to be left alone". So I will ask you, "if you do not like it, why not just leave?".