As usual with Lew, his views are not subject to opposing opinions. Hence, the lack of a comments.

And not surprisingly, considering the ‘house of cards’ upon which Lew’s ideological worldview is constructed.

I prefer to expose the absurdity of Lew and Tom’s views on this site for now. For example,both of these fringe ideologues favor a demonstrably failed system — maximal-capitalism.

Indeed, the genius von Mises rejected this fantasy.

Equally irrational is Tom’s and Lew’s attack on a system that has bestowed more political and civil liberties than any other in recorded history — Liberal Democracy.

Of course ,we still need to severely attenuate government fiscal and monetary abuses. However these shortcomings can best be addressed within the present civil and political framework (balanced budget amendment, eliminatoin of the FED, limiting government spending to 10-15% GDP, removal of commerce clause, general welfare clause, et al).

In contrast, Tom’s far more unrealistic and dangerous view of ‘balkanization’ and destruction of the most effective system known for protecting against statist civil and political abuses at home while still being able to engage external statist threats abroad is welcomed by statist as an opening they can exploit to assume absolutist powers in the absence of the balances, decentralization, checks, and transparency present within the present system.

Tom and Lew would both be better served if they spent more time learning the practical machinations of our Constitutional Federal Republic then irrelevant and counterproductive criticism of those practitioners who wield power. For example, instead of submitting or temporarily hiding (nullification) from profligate spending liberals who have used the Constitution to further their own destructive ends — why don’t Tom and Lew use this system to further their ends ? Why not undermine statism in one fell swoop in a grand display of Federal ‘nullification’ ?

Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective in the long term to end statist economic abusesat its source in Washington rather than balkanizing the US into tiny vulnerable capitalist enclaves ?

Easy answer. Save considerable minutia and anecdotal evidence of dubious practical value, these ideologues are clueless faith-based adherents to a failed system. I have seen them on the Left as well — Marxists.

Tom can continue to sell books to impressionable young drones and old eccentrics on the extreme Left and Right.

But step aside and let the grown-ups engage statists economic abuses within the Constitutional framework that protects his right to trumpet his fantasy utopian alternatives

I advocate a balanced budget amendment, restrictions on government spending per GDP, the elimination of the Fed, removal of the commerce and general welfare clauses as possible actions to forestall statist economic abuses, and you criticize this as unrealistic.

Yet, you advocate the utter rejection of the Constitution and with it our political and civil society for the fantasy of anarcho-capitalism that even von Mises rejected, and you characterize this as ‘reasonable’ ?!

Your amusing if nothing else Tom.

And I have no problems defending my views on progressive and neocon blogs. Their views are no less contradictory and untenable as yours.

In what fantasy world are you living in? Where is this “maximal capitalism” that has allegedly failed? –cloakmanor

IN what fantasy world has maximal capitalism succeeded ?

Indeed, both Hayek and von Mises rejected this utopian absurdity.

In sum, where is this ‘maximal capitalism’ that has allegedly succeeded?

Ridin’ Dirty, the obvious reason Mises wasn’t an an-cap is because he came before an-capism was a properly constructed political philosophy (for the most part). The same may not be said for Hayek, but name-dropping Hayek and Mises won’t accomplish anything. Perhaps Mises was inconsistent in his application of his economic theorizing? Have you considered that?

Why do you rebut liberals when they are also beyond reason Tom?

And why do I rebut your untenable fringe views on how best to undermine statist abuses?

Indeed, why does a dog licks his balls?

Because we can.

for example, the means by which you offer to attack statist power is unsound. It will simply create a dynamic in which statism can re-emerge internally from a temporary hiatus with far less restaint and far more power.

Similarly, your well-intentioned, yet naive, anarchist schemes will leave the American civil society far more vulnerable to external statist threats than ever before.

The same coercive external statist threats that have undermined virtually all societies since time immemorial, and exist today outside your faith-based pacifist gaze

But I ignore people who use stupid, MSM words like “fringe.” Gee, I’m not in the mainstream? Who in his right mind would want to be?

If you’re going to spend your time posting your conventional views, at least be courteous. Is that so much to ask? You respond with indignation when people criticize you, even though I can find at least a dozen names you have called other people. Physician, heal thyself.

Speaking of questioning the veracity of anarcho-capitalist standard bearers, I’d really like to see Lew Rockwell finally post an interview in his podcast series that has a guest with whom he vehemently disagrees. Its a minor point, since he is obviously free to conduct his show in any manner he likes, but I do wonder if the lack of disagreement in his shows results from an unwillingness to participate in debate on a one-on-one basis in real time, or rather, that he can’t get anyone of import to agree to engage him. Either case would be disappointing, because there is so much potential for great discussion to be had with people who exist outside of the relatively miniscule spectrum of Rothbardian/Hoppean anarchists.