tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post4849690811523227436..comments2024-03-26T04:21:43.535-05:00Comments on Free Association: Barnett Still Has It WrongSheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-13985024606702557262007-08-03T07:50:00.000-05:002007-08-03T07:50:00.000-05:00Thanks, Darren! I'll check out No Coercion.Thanks, Darren! I'll check out No Coercion.Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-30136214639063728712007-08-02T13:10:00.000-05:002007-08-02T13:10:00.000-05:00Sheldon,Great post. I'm a new reader of your blog,...Sheldon,<BR/>Great post. I'm a new reader of your blog, and I like it so much I've added it to my own blogroll at No Coercion. Keep up the great work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-13644622393584537212007-07-30T09:13:00.000-05:002007-07-30T09:13:00.000-05:00Sheldon--I agree. The 14th is now part of the Cons...Sheldon--I agree. The 14th is now part of the Constitution. And it did centralize. I just think it didn't centralize to the radical, broad extent its libertarian suporters say.Stephan Kinsellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07986650653184633661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-365391068258512662007-07-30T04:53:00.000-05:002007-07-30T04:53:00.000-05:00Thanks Stephan and Matt.Stephan, the problem for u...Thanks Stephan and Matt.<BR/><BR/>Stephan, the problem for us is that the 14th Amendment exists. We can no more rationally deny it than others can rationally deny the 2nd Amendment exists. What do we do about it?<BR/><BR/>Given that the Constitution itself was a move toward centralization (away from the decentralization of the Articles of Confederation), I see the 14th Amendment as just another step along a bad path.Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-79084939835352130812007-07-29T20:06:00.000-05:002007-07-29T20:06:00.000-05:00Mr. Richman-I believe this was an excellent post o...Mr. Richman-<BR/>I believe this was an excellent post on your part. It is hard to understand how a libertarian can not help to be a "radical" libertarian and oppose war? If we look at all the wars that were faught in our own history, war has only help to enhance the power of the state's power. So interfering within a foreign state would only enhance that state's internal hold on its people. Japan and Germany are perfect examples. Japan convinced their own citizens to to their lives in front of the American advancement. Germany killed their own citizens as they fled the destruction. <BR/><BR/>Mr. Kinsela's point about the War of Southern Independance is a great point of opposition of war. By challenging the citizens of the foreign countries to over throw their own state's power we have provided them independance. Had the war between the states never occured Northern Abolisionist would have continued force the intellectual and philosophical discussion of abolition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-14051865263045351192007-07-29T14:43:00.000-05:002007-07-29T14:43:00.000-05:00Excellent analysis, Sheldon. Re this point: "This ...Excellent analysis, Sheldon. Re this point: "This historical controversy aside, what does it have to do with libertarianism and foreign policy? Not much. While it is true that the most substantial libertarian thinking about foreign policy embraces the principle of nonintervention in other countries’ internal affairs, libertarian noninterventionism is not founded on the principle of national sovereignty. How could it be?<BR/><BR/>"Only the individual is sovereign. That being the case, no radical libertarian is guilty of reifying the state. Thus, there is no incoherence in the radical-libertarian position. Nice try, Professor Barnett, but no cigar."<BR/><BR/>Yes, quite. This is exactly why some of us libertarians oppose the War to Prevent Southern Independence--not because the South had some "sovereignty" or "right to exist"--but because the libertarian wants all states to be limited and unable to do things like wage wars on other countries, etc. It's the same reason many libertarians look favorably on the old doctrine of "states' rights"--not because states actually have rights, but because this is a useful structural mechanism to keep federal power more limited than otherwise. It's the same reason many libertarians oppose the centralization implied by the Fourteenth Amendment--not because we believe the states have some "right" to enact Jim Crow laws or to outlaw sodomy--but because there is no good reason to transfer the decision-making power about these topics further up the chain.Stephan Kinsellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070207985781079463noreply@blogger.com