Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, May 11, 2008 09:22 PM

  If the "means," then what is the "end" to be? --

  L.W.M. --

  @QS

  The odd thing, the irony, is that in the final analysis I agree with bucky and some anarchists. I started out as an anarchist, and moved on, like most anarchists. Where we disagree is that he thinks it is the means to an end. I think it is an end, and the means have yet to be settled on. Mostly because we are just no at that place in the evolution of political consciousness. I think I'll defer to Chomsky, not Rothbard.

  It is intended, as an end, not as a "means". Or, if intended as a "means," then anarchism has yet to figure out where it is to go by that "means".

  The first known use of a term that has been translated as "libertarian" in a political sense was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque[21], who used the French term libertaire in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857.[22] The word stems from the French word libertaire (synonymous to "for liberty"), and was used in order to evade the French ban on liberty publications.

  Reminds of the right-wing extremist gun-nuts/"militia movement" mavens listing among the materials which most influenced the Founders "Frederic Bastiat".

  The last two Founders, Adams and Jeferson, died on July 4, 1826. Bastiat's first book was published circa 1850.

  Remarkable how the Founders were able to read books published in the future even after they were dead. Well, who can explain genius, after all.

  —JNagarya Read JNagarya's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel