I Had No Idea How Right I Was

Until supporters of unconstitutional presidential war powers began commenting on my blog threads. Not one has cited any kind of relevant source. It’s all bare assertion. Then I am expected, after having written two book chapters on this, to disprove their bare assertions. (“Show me where it says the President can’t do this,” says one critic, apparently in all seriousness.) Then it’s a lot of stuff about the impracticality of consulting Congress before our infallible leaders begin bombing. Again, completely irrelevant to the constitutional issue. It’s the usual left-wing line: the Constitution is a dusty old document, it’s impractical today, let’s proceed as if it’s been amended even though it hasn’t, repeated violations amount to an amendment, etc.

A few people have asked why I don’t delete the more abusive comments. In general I delete very abusive comments (why should I deal with ill-mannered jerks on my own site, when they can get their own blogs and be as savage as they like?) but I let merely opposing comments stand. In this case the opposing comments are so off topic, even slightly deranged, that it is a net addition to the cause of the good guys to have them there.

TANSTAAFL

WTF are “nominally pro-American indigenous rebels?”

Why in the world would anyone think arming anyone who is one partially our friend a good idea???
Anonymous

Tom,

My thesis for these responses is they don’t want to have the debate on giving the president dictatorial power. Mark Levin, and his faithful, will continue with their inveracity and illogic, even though they know they are wrong; they just don’t want to debate the real debate: an unlimited president.
William Leggett

Ridin’ Dirty, here we go again. Constitutional law is whatever the judges and lawyers believe it to be; that is, it is subjective, along with your born-yesterday views. What’s objective is what was told to the non-believers of the constitution, and in my view patriots. You don’t have to support the constitution to have a view on it; others can just as well have their view. Your pious fiction on the constitution is based on YOUR views, with no support or evidence, which is then supposed to be taken for truth. I used to think 12 am was still the same day as 11:59, until someone told me otherwise. But if you were around you would have scolded that person for being too subjective and probably a pacifist. The mythomania that is transmitted from your brain, through your nerves, to your fingers on the keyboard is set for a fable only a 5 year-old would enjoy. Come back with facts to back up your argument, until then why don’t you go back to the splendid isolation of your cave.

P.S. Are you a computer bot?
William Leggett

Jack,

Yes he is. I’m not a Rothbardian, but I see the inherent weakness of this man’s argument–which is nothing but spittle. I knew I recognized this person’s moniker and, as day turns night, RD is on Mises forums. I guess he frequents Hannity’s forums also. He’s a troll, or maybe a bot.
Dmckalip

Agreed. Mr. and/or Mrs. R. Dirty likes to set up a strawman like “Dr. Woods Advocates Anarchy” and then attack the strawman.

Rothbard and Tom Woods clearly do not support Anarchy.

Mr. &/or Mrs. R. Dirty. Please read “Ethics of Liberty” (Rothbard) and the necssity of a state structure to protect individual rights and you will see just how ridiculous you sound.

Finally, please see Mr. Obama’s quote on the subject as a candidate and senator

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

“Dirty’s” assertion that the constitution allows the president to do whatever he wants, whereever and whenever with the military is contradicted by a “pre-eminent” constitutional scholar. Senator Barak Obama.

Good Day Mr &/or Mrs. Ridin Dirty. Please troll elsewhere for fish that are not as well informed to your lures.

David
http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-C/35006467 Andrew C

He uses maximal-capitalist as well.
David McKalip

To Mr. &/or Mrs. R. Dirty talking points bot–

Please look up the facts on costs of firing about 200 tomahawk missles and re-supplying them to the military plus the costs of other ordinance and actual application of military force.

After you are done doing that, please refer to my previous comments:

“You are Just Flat out wrong!”

Good Day Sir and enjoy living in a country where the rule of man calls the shot…not the rule of law.
THAT is true anarchy.

David McKalip, M.D.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-C/35006467 Andrew C

In all fairness it seems as if Woods does support anarchy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI

Nothing wrong with that though.
Jack

We’ll he/she/it is certainly a prolific writer. I always wonder how people like this can spend so much time writing all these posts. Don’t they have jobs? Or perhaps this is their job.
Ridin’ Dirty

Reply to Woods,

Predictably, you are seriously ignorant regarding my position on these issues. Let me clarify for your benefit and education:

1) Contrary to your repeated misrepresentations, I do not believe that government is trustworthy. By definition, government is coercive, wasteful, corrupt, and inefficient.

2) In contrast, mechanisms exists within the free market – competition and freedom — that require private enterprises to comply with consumer preferences that do not exist within a government framework.

3) The greatest longstanding threat to our life and liberty has always been a popular and charismatic President who is likely to assume absolutist power during a crisis. Secondary to this threat is the present entitlement regime.

4) Vital American interests that cannot be maintained by peaceful means can best be advanced with the least cost in human, political, and economic terms by leveraging our technological prowess in conjunction with indigenous ground forces to remove brutal and destabilizing statist regimes.

5) Nonetheless, I acknowledge that the most effective method to promote US interests is through free market, peaceful, and mutually voluntary means.

6) Hence, I do not advocate the large-scale use of conventional US ground forces without a declaration of war, overwhelming material support for accomplishing the mission, and a clearly defined and firm exit strategy.

Now to correct a few of your myriad fallacies:

By any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure — the net benefit of American conflicts in the promotion of life, liberty, and private property has far exceeded the costs. For example, Europe, the Asian Pacific Rim, and Western Hemisphere are far more peaceful, free, stable, and prosperous than at any time in their tumultuous despotic pasts as a direct result of benevolent American hegemony. Indeed, with the proliferation of democracy worldwide, for the first time in history the possibility of substantive and lasting peace is within reach. This is empirically and logically supported by the recent example of the 50+ higher order democracies that have been utterly peaceful with likeminded societies.

Moreover, it is misguided, hyper-pacifist, isolationism to assert that the present action in Libya is anything but appropriate and measured. Indeed, the first Libyan invasion by US forces under Thomas Jefferson was far more costly in both human and economic terms as a percentage of national GDP.
In contrast, your favored system — anarcho-capitalism — has never produced anything other than ‘hot air’. Moreover, the promotion of anarcho-capitalism in favor of Constitutional Federal Republicanism is dangerously irresponsible and naïve. The few short-lived experiments with maximal-capitalism have ended disastrously soon followed by absolutism. In sum, your favored system is most favored by statists seeking to gain power in the absence of limited government. In contrast, Constitutional Federal Republicanism has provisions to continually monitor, decentralize, and balance the elements of coercion.

To criticize the established political order is a virtue. Moreover, to criticize brutish applications of US power at home and abroad is the duty of every patriotic American. However, when that criticism comes from extremist ideologues intent on destroying our civil and political order and replacing it with a demonstrably failed system — this must be exposed and challenged.

In sum, promoting a system that is logically and empirically proven to be unsustainable and supremely vulnerable to the emergence of absolutism at the expense of the most effective system known to man for addressing statist abuses is neither moral nor rational.

You stand corrected.
Ridin’ Dirty

The afghan muj. were not even nominally ‘pro-american’ and our support for them was materially responsible for the downfall of one of the most murderous, dangerous, statist regimes in the history of mankind. One in which tens of thousands of nuclear tipped missiles were pointed at US population centers.

cast aside your misguided, hyper-pacifist isolationist lunacy. The action in Libya which leverages indigenous ground forces with US air power is far less costly in both human and economic terms than the first US invasion of LIbya commanded by Thomas Jefferson.
Ridin’ Dirty

by any objective, independent thinking, and rational measure — the effort to remove a murderous statist dictator that killed over 180 innocent Americans, not to mention thousands of his own people, is moral equivalent to the attacks on 9/11.

indeed, this lunacy defines you and Tom and contrasts your fringe ideological views with mine and mainstream decent Americans..
Ridin’ Dirty

correction “not moral equivalent” to the preceding post.
Ridin’ Dirty

absurd, if the President can’t do what Thomas Jefferson did 200 years ago with less risk and cost in both human and economic terms to undermine a leadership in Libya that has murdered far more innocents, Including 180+ American men, women, and children, then the Barbary pirates —-

then why would the founding fathers even propose creating an executive branch?

indeed, your views and Tom’s are hyper-pacifist fringe.

If by some freak of history ideologues like you and Tom ever realize your own soveriegn piece of real estate, let me know. I will conquer it on a three day weekend with some assistance from my friends at the American Legion Post.

Hence, you are supremely naive and ignorant of statist intentions and capabilities. Perhaps that is one of the myriad reasons why anarcho-capitalism resides on the ash heap of history.
Ridin’ Dirty

The costs of the campaign in Libya is 200 cruise missiles at $600k a pop.

That is less than 6 hours of spending by the Federal government.

In contrast, the first invasion of Libya by Jefferson was far more costly in both human and economic terms. Moreover, by any objective,rational, and independent thinking measure Gaddafi is far more brutal and murderous (do you discount the murder of 180+ American women and children?) then the anarchist barbary pirates.

It is pure faith-based hyper-pacifist fringe lunacy that guides your ‘thinking’ on this matter.

You stand corrected.
Ridin’ Dirty

Coleman,

gaddafi is a murderous dictator who ordered the deaths of over 100 American women and children.

Moreover, if the USA didn’t use the advantageous situation that now exists to facilitate his demise than the deterrent effect of American power is laughable. It would inspire more attacks against US interests worldwide for years. Indeed, bin laden attacked the USA precisely because he considered us a ‘paper tiger’

tom’s ideological viewpoint that coercion is always retailitory is absurd. Statists use force whenever the opportunity presents itself — and that best opportunity arises when free people reject peace through strength and the will and means to use force to preserve life and liberty.

with a decline in the will and means to use force to defend liberty comes a corresponding increase in the threat level from expansionist statist forces at home and abroad.

Note that the costs and risks of the first Libyan invasion commanded by Thomas Jefferson far exceed those of the current operation. Moreover, the crimes of humanity by gaddafi far exceeds that of the barbary pirates.

criticising our President when he clumsily and inhumanely exercises US power is a virtue — but criticism in this case is more a demonstration of hyper-pacifist isolationist extremism.

By any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure — the present campaign that has cost less than 6 hours of normal government spending at the ‘cost’ of two pilots with some minor abrasions is measure, appropriate and will stand without being contested by the legislative branch.

you and Tom destroy what little credibility you have on these matters by your shrill fringe views over so trivial a matter when compared to far greater indiscretions committed by past Presidents and Legislatures.

Try focusing on the entitlement regime for one.
Ridin’ Dirty

its not my, or Tom’s, opinion. It’s the opinion of James Madison, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, and a long list of other Framers and Ratifiers and early presidents. It’s not just some random assertion, but the clear intention of the adopters of the Constitution. Read the history. — Brian

Read the Constitution AND history.

over 120+ incidents in the past reflect the political and civil society’s interpretation of both intent and Constitutional law. which debunks your fringe view, hence US forces will continue to engage a murderous dictator who killed over 100 AMerican women and children over Lockerbie and Congress will continue to fund the effort.

In sum, your ‘logic’ that INTENT is superior to actual WRITTEN LAW is debunked in practice yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Ridin’ Dirty

leggett,

It is amusing that ‘experts’ and authorities on the US Constitution like you and tom have so little sway and influence in its actual practice.

In contrast, those that you claim as ignorant on Constitutional law have weilded it so expertly and effectively to achieve desired ends.

And who is delusional ?

Lastly, there is nothing subjective about the powers bestowed on the disparate branches. Indeed, Congress has mechanisms to address Presidental indiscretions that they have not and will not use in the responsible, measured, and appropriate exercise of Executive force now being practiced in Libya.

And who is spewing ‘pious fiction’ ?

Indeed, the 1st libyan invasion orchestrated by T, Jefferson was far more provocative and costly inboth human and economic costs than the present campaign ..And today’s enemy who is responsible for the murder of over 100 innocent American women and children is far more brutal and inhumane than the barbary pirates.

In sum, it is not surprising that YOU are fringe and marginalized on this issue
Ridin’ Dirty

I am neither a troll or a bot. And you apparently wouldn’t know ‘spittle’ if it rolled down your chin.

And use to frequent Mises.org until I was censored from my own thread for far less severe indiscretions than those who inexpertly challenged me:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/19720.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/22579/396628.aspx

Moreover, I am fortunate to have job and a skill set that enables me to post while at work without consequences or adverse effect on my job performance.

Enjoy, and note the hypocrisy of being banned by a group of rothbardian backbenchers who do not have the wherewithal to challenge opposing views, hence opposition is banned by these fragile ideologues.
Ridin’ Dirty

I multitask.

Writing isnt all that time consuming if you know what your talking about.

however, I am becoming increasingly disappointed in the sophmoric and weak responses from the peanut gallery to my arguments, especially tom’s evasions.

btw, tom admitted that he was an anarchist. Isnt it about time that the peanut gallery came to grips with this fact?
David McKalip

Hmmm…
Maybe you can’t read? If you can’t agree on the most basic of reproducable and highly reported facts, there is not much more to discuss.

When are you going to tell us your name and maybe your fulltime job along the way? Me? I am a small business man and neurosurgeon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-cost-idUSTRE72T6XZ20110330

“The Obama administration estimates U.S. military operations in Libya have cost about $550 million so far and will cost about $40 million a month going forward, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.
Ridin’ Dirty

hmmmm…

You still stand corrected:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/our-government-is-spending-10000000000-per-day/

The US government spends $10 billion per day.

Since your a neurosurgeon I apparently will have to do the math for you — The month long operation in Libya equates to 1 hour and 12 minutes of government spending.

In contrast, the first LIbyan invasion by T Jefferson was far more costly in both human and economic terms. Moreover, by any objective, rational, and indepedent thinking measure — the barbary pirates were not complicit in anything like the wanton murder of over 100 defenseless American women and children.

my identity, my profession, my personal history, et al are not extraordinary or noteworthy and neither support nor detract from the substance and veracity of my assertions — nor does your identity and profession have any relevance to the discussion.

In sum, I don’t care who you are, I don’t care what you do. I don’t know you, you don’t know me, lets keep it that way and stick to the substantive of the issue at hand.
Brian

Your constitutional interpretation, that the Constitution means what society happens to want it to mean at a particular moment, totally aborts the whole purpose of a written constitution, which means you can not possibly be correct.

As historian Kevin Gutzman stated, “The baseline of constitutional meaning is—must be—the people’s understanding at the time of ratification. Why else would we have a written constitution, after all, than to hold office-holders to an unchanging baseline of behavior?”

Finally, I’ll stop with Raoul Berger: “Unless the Constitution is ‘fixed,’ its limits [on governmental power] are writ on water.”
David McKalip

Andrew, I don’t see where Dr. Woods is “supporting anarchy”. I do want to be better informed on his views on anarchy, if that is his actual view.

I just don’t find his support for Anarchy. I see a screed against overgrown government and even marginally large government.

But I don’t hear him calling for no government and no legislative authority with no monoploy on the use of force for any domain. In other words, I would suggest that as a Rothbardian, Dr. Woods recognizes that there is a legitimate role for government to have a monopoly on force to – for instance- capture and punish murders (if it can do so properly…very hard) or – for instance -to incarcerate those ho engage in fraudulant behavior or who refuse to honor contracts.

His prescription is “education” as the means of addressing the problems on overgrown government so that the governed can then decide what they will give their consent to.

David McKalip,M.D.

(admittidly, the other guest on that show is a public and avowed anarchist).
Robert Coleman

Indeed, I’ll try not to be so “shrill.” Lucky for me, your meandering posts are a lesson in erudition and humility.
Jack

I don’t think his political views are in anyway hidden. There are videos on the net of him saying exactly what his views are. He’s also written books and articles that anyone can read if they so choose.

It’s just funny to read all this, though. You make assertions and people rebut them and you just pretend as if they didn’t say anything. It’s a sight to behold.

The reason (or a reason, anyway) the views of Tom and Rothbard don’t hold any sway over the public is because no one knows about them. And they don’t know about them because their views are anti-statist. It’s the state that runs the schools and media in this country, why in the hell would they allow or promote anti-statist ideas in these areas?

It makes sense to me, probably not to you. I’m sure you’ll just ignore what I said and demand that Tom come out of the anarchist closet yet again or demand to know, if Rothbard’s ideas are so good, why aren’t know by everyone.
JR Mooney

The further we veer away from the Constitution, the closer we come to disaster, anarchy and despotism. Bombing Libya and sending in covert CIA agents strikes fear in me for our nation. Thank you, Tom, for speaking out so well on this.
William Leggett

Jack,
Exactly! His address of the main issue is his subjective view on how things ought to be, not what they are. When someone points out he’s wrong, he goes on about pacifism and anarchy—something that’s not the issue. He labels anyone who disagrees with his assertion as pacifists or anarchists—again, trying to distract away from the issue. He claims no one will answer or debate the issue, yet they have. He labels me an anarchist/pacifist, which is interesting, since I never claimed I was nor would anything I typed lead to that conclusion. But logic doesn’t matter to this fellow, only diversion and sophisms.
William Leggett

Tom addressed your claim about the Barbary Pirates, didn’t you read that? You may want the president to be a king, but that wasn’t the point of having a president.

“ indeed, your views and Tom’s are hyper-pacifist fringe.”

Where’s the proof?

“Perhaps that is one of the myriad reasons why anarcho-capitalism resides on the ash heap of history.”

So, because I oppose presidential dictatorship, that means I’m an ancap? Proof please?
William Leggett

“It is amusing that ‘experts’ and authorities on the US Constitution like you and tom have so little sway and influence in its actual practice.”

Oh, I see. So it’s not a document defining and limiting the powers of the federal government; instead, whatever the government does defines the constitution? Majority opinion defines what the powers are?

“In contrast, those that you claim as ignorant on Constitutional law have weilded it so expertly and effectively to achieve desired ends.”

Did you fail comprehension skills in school? So if the constitution says A and the government does B, which your subjective opinion supports, then its constitutional? The constitution isn’t a piece of clay where craftsmen configure and mold their product into whatever desired end. It was supposed to be a rock. You may not like this, but then again, that’s not the issue.

“…YOU are fringe and marginalized on this issue”

If “fringe” and “marginalized” means understanding the constitution as defined by its friend’s, then fine. Further, whether a majority believes in something or not doesn’t mean they’re right. Logic, my friend, logic.

I’m still waiting for your proof–the obejective facts, not your colorable flimflammery.
William Leggett

“In sum, I don’t care who you are, I don’t care what you do. I don’t know you, you don’t know me, lets keep it that way and stick to the substantive of the issue at hand.”

Now that’s a hoot! You seem to know all about everyone here, including me. Let’s see, according to you, I’m a fringe anarchist who believes in pacifism. Considering this is false, your claim that you don’t care who anyone is (along with your assertions about people), and your solicitude over sticking with the issue seems hypocritical.
Ridin’ Dirty

Brian,

Your manifestly wrong,

nobody including Tom “I had no idea how right I was” Woods, you, me, Congress, or the President has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution.

What is timeless and irrefutable are the mechanisms that decide which interpretation prevails.
Ridin’ Dirty

jack,

Mises rejected rothbard and tom. IN contrast to these anarchists, Mises was a minarchist.

Moreover, Tom “I had no idea how right I was” Woods is mistaken in his belief that he does not have a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution.

In contrast, I have always been consistent in my assertion that nobody has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution — hence the mechanisms for adjudicating this impasse will be played out within the Constitutional framework as intended by the founding fathers.
David McKalip, M.D.

To Mr. &/or Mrs. “Don’t ask who I am” R. Dirty,
There is no way to disuade you and that has never been my goal since you clearly have an agenda to discredit Mr. Woords at any costs. These discussion point have been offered merely to ensure that those who DO have open minds on the subject can see your nonsensival points refuted easily.

I would say that the best way to overcome your argument that the President has unilateral and dictatorial powers to commit us to war on a whim is to reiterate this quote. It really says it all.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

Good luck living in your world of endless debt and perpetual war. The rest of us will work for a world of peace and prosperity.

David McKalip, M.D.
David McKalip

Oh, yeah, that was by Senator Barak Obama.
David
Ridin’ Dirty

leggett,

no branch or individual, including Tom “I had no idea how right I was” Woods has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. Hence, it is the President’s prerogative to interpret the Constitution as he sees fit and act on this interpretation. Similarly, Congress can do likewise. What is timeless is the mechanisms for adjudicating conflicts between the disparate branches and states. Moreover, mechanisms are in place

Tom is welcome to object to the current exercise of Constitutional power by the President, however his handwringing is largely irrelevant and discounted out of hand by those who best understand and wield power within the framework of the Constitution.

Hence Tom’s subjective, selective, and monopolistic interpretation of Constitutional Law is rejected and irrelevent. Fortunately, this issue will play out among those who still revere and hold allegiance to this document, not marginal fringe ideologues of unsustainable anarchic systems who reject it out of hand.
Ridin’ Dirty

Doc,

Your misinformed again.

Tom is an anarchist and so was Rothbard.

Ask Tom.

if he really thinks that it is the most efficacious system, then he should admit it without reservation and with conviction.

If not, then challenge him on his alternative to the Constitution which has been the framework in which hundreds of millions have realized unprecedented peace, prosperity, and freedom.

Indeed, Tom has offered plenty of justified criticism for Constitutional Federal Republicanism — however I havent heard much a viable alternative, save this fantasy regarding anarchism.

As for ‘his prescription is education’.

Virtually every elite in education, business, politics, science, and the arts reject anarchism, including the venerable Von Mises and Hayek.

In sum, how are the diatribes of ideological backbenchers like rothbard, rockwell, et al going to sway the masses regarding a demonstrably failed system like maximal-capitalism — when genius’ like Jefferson, Mises and Hayek fundamentally reject it?
Ridin’ Dirty

Is there some fact, logic, and empiricism in your post somewhere ?

I don’t mind the ad hominems, they don’t bother me and I expect them. But it would be nice if you had a point I could challenge.
Jack

Ah, you switched it up on me and pulled out your trump card of “mises rejected [anarchy]“. I’m assuming you meant that (anarchy) cuz Tom was only, maybe, a year old when Mises died and I’m fairly certain Mises held Rothbard in high regard.
David McKalip

To Mr. &/or Mrs. “Don’t ask who I am” R. Dirty,
There is no way to disuade you and that has never been my goal since you clearly have an agenda to discredit Mr. Woords at any costs. These discussion point have been offered merely to ensure that those who DO have open minds on the subject can see your nonsensical points refuted easily.

I would say that the best way to overcome your argument that the President has unilateral and dictatorial powers to commit us to war on a whim is to reiterate this quote. It really says it all.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.” Senator Barak Obama

Good luck living in your world of endless debt and perpetual war. The rest of us will work for a world of peace and prosperity.

David McKalip, M.D
AJ

The issue is not pacifism vs. prudent use of force, the issue is collectivism versus individualism. If you think Lybia should be invaded, why don’t YOU do it? YOU are the one who is being irrationally pacifistic, given your positions.
Amano

Holy shit, you ARE Retopper from the Mises forums. That explains a few things!
Matthew Murphy

I don’t like the term anarchy, since that is so closely associated with *lawlessness* (by 99.9% of the population), which has nothing to do with libertarian or Rothbardian views.

It’s obvious that Tom appreciates the moral superiority of a pure libertarian/private property society, but I must agree with Dr. McKalip, that Woods- to my knowledge- has not expressly promoted anarchy. He certainly hasn’t done so here.

The pacifist smear is laughable, I see no evidence for that whatsoever.
Thomasc

Interesting. You claim to not be a supporter of Levin’s, but then use him and his words to attack someone and supposedly back up your point. Hilarious.
Thomasc

Ridin’ Dirty: We have always been at war with Eastasia.
ThomasC

So much for your oath to the Constitution.
Anonymous

Let’s clarify a few things here:

(1) “Ridin’ Dirty” thinks the welfare state is constitutional, since it exists. That is his position. He has asked us how, if we’re right about the Constitution, there have been so many violations of economic freedom anyway. He thinks this is a coherent question, though of course it is not.

(2) This means his entire constitutional theory, if we can call it that, is even more worthless than it seemed at the beginning, when he refused to offer any sources for anything he was saying.

(3) He has still not explained why we are supposed to believe that the mode of constitutional exegesis proposed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison is inferior to the one proposed by “Ridin’ Dirty.” It is hard to ask this question with a straight face.

(4) His constitutional position has been beaten into the ground a thousand times, yet he prances around as if he is the scholar and we the morons.

(5) The fact that he was apparently kicked off the Mises forums is cited as evidence of how intolerant Rothbardians are, that they just can’t take the heat from a great mind like “Ridin’ Dirty.” Overlooked, of course, is that a person as obnoxious, ill-informed (again, no relevant sources are ever cited), and rude as “Ridin’ Dirty” would be banned from the Frum Forums or any other neocon or progressive site within five minutes. The only way the Rothbardians distinguish themselves here is not in their alleged intolerance, but in the exact opposite sense — how _long_ they put up with him.