Are Libertarianism and Anarchy Unitarian and a Matter of Semantics Clandestinely Designed to Justify Idleness and Humanism?

Are Libertarianism and Anarchy Unitarian and a Matter of Semantics Clandestinely Designed to Justify Idleness and Humanism?

As you read the following, please take care in briefly glancing upon the following lines from the immortal George Orwell novel about a future dystopia, Nineteen Eighty-Four:

Photograph of the immortal line from Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell

Libertarianism at its most puritanical base is an ideology whereby its most ardent followers are so adverse to the idea of the rule of law that they are willing to depart from the logic behind its principal founder, John Locke, who stated as part of the state's social contract with its citizens, it is to ensure that all have the natural right to own property. Hardline libertarians unwittingly proclaim absolute autonomy to the individual void of consequence, and tacitly accept the principle of moral bankruptcy and profligacy to be unchecked because in thinking that an independent third party that is granted popular legitimacy by they, the actual plebiscite who voted for them, is attempting to confiscate everything of what is theirs, to be free of an ordered society so that they may subsist of their own designs would grant them open range to an infinite acreage of available, non-demarcated land. Sadly, where they are shortsighted is once they decide to stake off their homestead as did the early settlers along the western frontiers of America or even the earliest recorded peoples who migrated from Abyssinia across the globe, no known arbiter other than that of the stronger of the two combatants ever settles a land dispute regarding an unmediated demarction by one party as theirs since in theory, it never was legally recognized as an official parcel of ownership since there is no arbiter for the peace, and ergo, the idea that they actually owned the land at all was not merely a ruse, but rather the law of the nomad who relies solely upon syphoning the lands they traveled along with their bartering for essential necessities just to survive in immaterial. It smells ripe of the sweetness of capitalism, but in the end will result only in the profiteering upon one's claim to a widget belonging to no one of the human persuasion, but rather to God, who declares that all who feed off it are the salt of the earth, and social interactions in peaceful coexistence in sharing as neighbors voluntarily is never guaranteed, nor is the possibility that a deadly struggle for his land preclusive per human nature either. To them, however, there is no God because there is no set establishment that should ever exist. In concert with the definition behind humanism, one gathers that libertarianism in its purest form and the choice to practice a path of faith are mutually exclusive.

John Locke, the father of modern Western democratic ideologies

Locke, as the centerpiece from his landmark work in political philosophy that influence the formation of the world's two oldest popular democracies, the United Kingdom and the United States, wrote the following:

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions..."

John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690  (Courtesy of The European Graduate School)

All that differs between pure libertarianism for a hardliner and communism in the spirit of Marx and Engels are the economics espoused. Communists mean to abolish the old traditional establishment in favor of a universal ownership of all their industries under the rule of a centralized authority. Libertarians, per Murray Rothbard, seek the total abolition of the state in order to engage in pure capitalism, even if unscrupulously conducted and where one who wishes to get his way over his competition may do so at the cost of the other's right to subsist or the most essential of liberties, to live, by natural law over his existence. They both are lawless except for each incorporating their own corrupt centralized figure brokering all power. For communism, it is the state by which in armed anarchic conflict, centralizes and consolidates all resources and redistributes it as it so chooses while retaining all the taxed earnings by about 99-percent for themselves, only to result in their deciding to diffuse the less than 1-percent remaining, provided for their proletarian "governors" to whom they exploited to acquire total power. And for absolute libertarianism, the centralized corrupt figure is the actual individual out to acquire his fortune and glory at the cost of others he would be willing to destroy under no consequences to be faced by himself. Such is the life of the nomad, an anarchist, who only grants himself a liberty to simply live freely to himself, always willing to unabashedly denude essential freedom to others not of their like mind or, more simply stated, not the individual himself. To him, the liberty to be oneself entails that the world be populated by an indeterminable scattering of iconoclasts, to the total abolition of any measure of necessitated interdependence.

Edmund Burke, founder of conservatism

If one insists upon claiming as a fundamental truth how Edmund Burke (1729 - 97) supported an absolute monarchy and thereby infer he opposed true liberty and human freedom, this is a major breach in philosophical comprehension of conservatism. Burke was very much pro-democracy and one of the most prominent members of the British Whigs who during the 18th Century, opposed the Tories who exalted the divine right of the Crown to rule Britannia over the plebiscites' demands. He championed the American fight for independence from the British crown due to the colonies' lack of proper representation in the House of Commons of Parliament. He imparted the importance of a nation's history and culture must not only never be forgotten, but that all mankind be free to voice and influence policy, a very British ideological tenet for which our Founders lent their ideas for our own independence, in the British culture's desiring to maintain the monarchy because it represented Britain's history and identity uniquely their own. He did not, however, support King George III's overreach in his attempt to undermine the authority of Parliament as the body politic of popular sovereignty. Burke also reviled the anarchic progression of the macabre of the French Revolution due to its excesses in shedding blood, the terror in which the Committee for Public Safety under Maximilien Robespierre who then met the same fate as their political opposition at the hands of the guillotine by their successors in totalitarian tyranny: the Directory, a more moderate governing body still guilty of murder by way of institutional terrorism. Revolutionary France, initiated by the Jacobins under Robespierre as a secret society akin to the Illuminati the general public today reads so much regarding its mystery, not only never sniffed of the foulest stench of democratic virtue, it proclaimed its policy in avoiding this unabashed and unapologetic. 

Maximilien Robespierre (1758-94), Jacobin leader of the Committee on Public Safety during the French Revolution

Such paintings championed by the Jacobins of Robespierre, himself of the bourgeoisie, who launched the unrepentant slaughter of scores of innocents to press forth their false pledges of liberty and greater autonomy as the one below are also championed by the likes of the sons of Locke's classical liberalism philosophy, the libertarians, who demand a universal peace for all time, but in the end like in France, utilized these emblematic images to spread their ideas by means of the blade, the gun and ultimately, the guillotine, and like with communism in both the Soviet Union and China, political art:

The first painting depicts the very spirit behind not simply why the French Revolution was fought, but how. The second, however, I located off a libertarian who uses as handle the same as his blog's title, Free-Man's Perspective, who wistfully declared how libertarianism has failed miserable in our world, and cited this photograph as a principal reason in how it contradicted the achievement of individualism with populist mob violence force as its measure for achieving it. If libertarianism is at heart the celebration of a world comprised of individuals peacefully coexisting, does that not imply that their argument of the individual was never sound since by "coexistence", there had to be a measure of a commonality to cohesively achieve such a goal? And again, who is the penultimate arbiter of such a brokered society of the individual where the state is abolished and, in theory, no rule of law is necessitated?

Adolf Hitler, like any well-adjusted tyrant, utilized art as a means for politicizing a totalitarian agenda to dominate to near perfection:

Nazi Germany was a socialist government that utilized stealth as a measure for subversion. Typically, political revolutions in the post-American revolutionary era have utilized such tactics in some measure; they were clandestinely planned, meticulously so, through deceit and cool-calculation. The American war for independence was supported by a wide popular consent, with delegates elected by colonial governing bodies such as the Virginia House of Burgesses in Williamsburg who then appointed them to Philadelphia during the summer of 1776 to engage in the most profound revolutionary measure in human history when Jefferson's words consent of the governed were employed alongside why he supported Locke's principle of Creator guaranteeing all people the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Locke, again, stated property, but Jefferson americanized this portion to fit within the parameters of our own cultural norms.) They were executed by those subversives who considered themselves above the rule of law in practice and in their megalomania to mislead a popular revolt without limitations to implementing change only to confiscate popular sovereignty and bestowing it upon themselves. If lawlessness manifested every revolution since "the shot heard 'round the world" April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord, would this not supported Rothbard's concept supporting anarcho-capitalism, the abolition of the state in favor of his idea of an global order which knows no boundaries, as the most pure of his invention of modern libertarianism's principles?

Below are art depicting communism's propaganda, calling for a proletariat which its revolutionaries defined subjectively as if it was an objective designation:

Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union (USSR), 1924-53

Mao Zedong, founder and leader of the People's Republic of China, 1949-76

Then, there are both of Obama's campaign slogans:

Finally, none other than Ron Paul, the preeminent public libertarian in America today, who has his own pieces of political art to bear:

Ron Paul, former U.S. Representative from Texas and father of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)

In hearkening the very quotable Hillary Clinton who recently attempted to persuade the impoverished Americans on Main Street who have suffered under her former employer, Barack Obama, who like her, works in theory for you and me, their constituency, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" For Ron Paul, the libertarian who emphasizes the individual over any collectivized cooperation either mobilized or consensual, it bears a remarkable likeness to communist propaganda and that of our sitting president's. How ironic that he feels the need to engage in populist politics to acquire popular support for a purported individualized ideal of government based upon a non-intrusive model, which he never fully expresses like most vagrant street dwellers calling themselves either communists or socialists, or libertarians, what exactly that is.

Burke was correct to oppose the French Revolution, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine's choices to support the rebellion for the first more than half decade of what materialized from a mob of sans culottes storming the Bastille prison for political enemies of the Ancien Regime to organized anarchy predicated upon irreligious, atheist ideals. Humanism was championed as the source for legitimacy for a finite order of oligarchs who proclaimed that out of a violent revolution, what would be accomplished is "liberte, fraternite, egalite." What they really meant to say to a mob of supporters who were hungry for any change from the old Estates system of feudal monarchs under the Bourbon kings, those were realized at the price of what the one justice they did enjoy - to worship God, even if it had been a systemized historical progression of events courtesy of one thousand years of the papacy's influence dating to the Carolingian rulers of Charles Martel and later Charlemagne - was denied in favor of pagan idolatries and multiple abdications of one corrupt state in favor of many others, until one day, an obscure Corsican general named Napoleon Bonaparte (In Italian, Napoleone Buonaparte) threw a coup d'etat, and following untold hundreds of thousands, perhaps even into the millions of French partisans who died in the vain attempt to achieve absolute social equity that never materialized under either the Committee or the Directory, a new, more repressive empire was formed, conquering nearly all Europe before the Corsican tyrant, always invading his neighbors to set into power puppet states of his family members and allies in order to secure his arbitration of a harsh condition for "peace", pressed too far beyond his own capacity and never defeated his British rivals across the channel, came to form, and once he was forced into his final exile at St. Helena, the old Bourbon monarchy was restored with Louis XVIII, with true change still decades away. The French Revolution in the end was the world's first experiment in left-wing totalitarianism, the spark which initiated the bloodiest epoch of bloodshed and violence and warfare in human history during the 20th Century, serving to be heavily influential to Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin, Mao and Kim Il-Sung, Castro and Ho Chi Minh and the neighboring tyrant within his killing fields in Cambodia, Pol Pot. 

Burke stated below the following within his 1774 Speech to the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll. It was noted for its defense of the principles of representative government against the notion that elected officials should merely be delegates:

"... it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

If tradition is to serve only as a source of consternation for the American people, how may one justify any support for the Americans who annually are free to celebrate Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas or Easter Sunday desiring to maintain the role of God in their lives remaining harmoniously content with this as the status quo? Certainly a lifelong resident cannot claim in agreement with the socialists on the Far Left that when John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1813 how the Revolution was fought for and won on "the general principles of Christianity; and the general principles of English liberty and American liberty" are not true and therefore, as a classical liberal of the present day calling yourself otherwise a hardline libertarian, one of the five paramount Founders knew not of what he spake as he was by then 78 years old and afflicted with palsy, too old to clearly articulate or derive his own thoughts. Even Jefferson, a noted Deist, knew well why the Revolution was fought and what lent it its legitimacy: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as endowed upon the patriots fighting the war for independence by "our Creator". All three of these ideals were based upon Locke's "life, liberty... and property" within his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1689-90). And without Locke, Edmund Burke would not have had the foundation of classical liberalism to derive his contention that tradition must be the key ingredient to grant a people their national identity uniquely their own, and why today, the European Union is on the precipice of a catastrophic economic, social and political collapse because of the euro and, again, historical nationalist differences from centuries of warfare breeding discontent then, and is again being realized as it again occurs today threatening world peace and our own general welfare as NATO trade and military protectionist partners. And if finding again that Burke's concept of tradition and culture breeding an eternity of an America doomed to discontent and misery, well, such a person is as much to blame by tacitly aligning himself with those in Washington and in state and local government nationwide of the very libertarian practice evoked by one Murray Rothbard of revising our history to fit their agenda under which the concept of anarcho-capitalism would abolish the state and in return, usher in a reversion to nomadic lifestyles and bartering for trade while no one is guaranteed the right to own property without sleeping with a mirror overhead and no reason for God to be observed since the institutions that traditionally teach of Him would also have been dissolved; and apparently, to support their policies as the landed establishment of career politicians detached from the barber on Main Street and the yeoman farmer chafing our amber waves of grain while tacitly realizing their vision for the poet and the sailor as driving their machine down the road to serfdom, comprised of the apathetic observer's own begotten designs, as the Muslim, the communist and the fascist rewrite the record books to ensure that what once was our American Dream is now their nation under the hands of an angry deity or for a godless despot.

Murray Rothbard, Austrian Economics proponent and father of modern libertarian synonymity with anarcho-capitalism

As libertarianism goes, so too would it abolish more than simply the human system itself. Mr. Rothbard was renowned for professing the abolition of the state in favor of anarcho-capitalism publicly, but such remarks as the following prove how in order to do this, much more would also be necessitated in his manner of socializing a new world order:

"If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy,’ why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighbourhood? Each block? Each house? Each person?"

And if he was content to simply stop at seceding the individual from himself, what would stop from claiming the abolition of the family unit or a core set of principles arbitered by a force greater than himself or all other finite beings - a deity - what controls does the individual possess personally? What taught him that which he knows well or values most? He stated the following in his Ethics of Liberty: 

"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers."

It appears that his choice of wording for Ethics of Liberty is among the grossest abuses of the oxymoron for a capitalist selling point in defining liberty as a persuasion of the individual in human history. To him, liberty merely entails ultimately that mankind is not merely meant to be free from the state, but rather from self-responsibility; we are each to be liberated of all necessity for personal upkeep, or even the manifestation of preserving life as with Locke's contention of it serving at the first of the three God-given rights to experience as part of essential liberty.

To read of the atheist think-tank, Quebocois Libre, on its very veiled explanation of why one should become an atheist as the article itself claimed at its start that it did not aim to do so for its readers, the following was written:

Myth 3: Atheists advocate socialism, totalitarianism, or the welfare state

          While it is true that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels did not believe in any god, atheism as such has no necessary implications in the political realm – other than perhaps an opposition to any integration between church and state, which is a stance shared by many religious individuals as well. There do exist socialist atheists and welfare-statist atheists, but there also exist conservative atheists, libertarian atheists, and atheists adhering to virtually every other political creed. 

          Indeed, atheism is much older than virtually any prevalent political philosophy of our time. The first known famous atheist was the ancient Greek thinker Diagoras in the late 5th century B.C. In more recent times, atheism was espoused by such thinkers as the Enlightenment thinker Paul-Henri Thiry, the Baron d’Holbach (1723-1789), the analytic philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), and Ayn Rand (1905-1982), the founder of Objectivism. Truly, atheists are historically represented within a tremendous range of political and philosophical movements – and it is impossible to classify all atheists under a single political or ethical umbrella. Indeed, the disagreements among atheists as to what constitutes moral behavior or a proper social order can often exceed in their extent the disagreements between some atheists and some religious individuals on these issues.

          Nothing prevents an atheist from adhering to a philosophy of individual rights, limited government, and free markets. Murray Rothbard, one of the 20th century’s most prolific free-market economists and libertarian political theorists, was an atheist – as is the psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz, who opposes state control over individuals’ “mental health.” 

          Indeed, according to columnist Alan Caruba, “American atheists are more likely to object to abuses of power by government than most people… Conservative and Libertarian political values, smaller and less intrusive government, fiscal prudence, laissez-faire capitalism, and individualism would seem to suit most, but not all, atheists better than some form of socialism or one-world government philosophy.” 

So open-ended are these explanations that when read, one cannot help but laugh and simply say, "Monkey see, monkey do." Since Rothbard was an atheist and arguably the father of modern libertarianism, should not all libertarians follow his lead? Certainly as a libertarian, he objected to egregious breaches of state power more than most. As the article stated clearly and unequivocally, "American atheists are more likely to object to abuses of power by government than most people." In specifying conservatism and libertarianism as a measure for attracting its inference to a mindful people of principle, atheism, by definition, would free the individual from a god whereby the legitimacy of one's own sovereignty which has guided mankind for many millennia in every civilization of great duration, not just of the state, but of a system of moral codes of ethics and principles which normally are not applied by mankind appropriately even by each faith's own writings and key figures within their parables, so that humanity is not at all immoral, but rather amoral. There would then be nothing to anchor the individual to a foundation of any description from infringing upon his neighbor's property or killing him in order to confiscate it; Rothbard's rearing as a Jew should have taught him in Leviticus 19:18 "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD," or for Christians in the New Testament, "... love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these", per Mark 12:31. And as the libertarian modus operandi dictates, the liberty for the individual must always triumph over the supremacy of the state. Liberty and anarchy, per individuals as Rothbard, are ideas void of rules, of scruples, and have the liberty to do so since each is void of true principles as an primal and animalistic race at heart, but never once have I read as to what he considered about them to either be inanimate and intangible, or a ethereal truth we cannot possibly grasp of its meaning. In essence, Rothbard and his scholastic contemporaries harbored designs upon a return to a virtual platform of prehistoric nomadism, whereby a war of words and the self versus the interests of the other led to death by the hand as a harsh sentence of self-arbitered justice beholden to no one but himself and the servant as righteousness to the individual (himself), but the hand of death to those he considers a threat rather than engaging in a civilized series of talks to address any problems not in end leading to another vile failure, appeasement. Of course, appeasement, relative to anarchy, only entails that any dispute's achieved end, death, is the primordial guarantee for the ultimate appeasement for the one by his liberty to self-preservation and subsistence upon the land over another under the ultimate, final sentence, as if he comprised of a statist government himself. 

Since history teaches that every successful government to have lasted did in fact lend its legitimacy upon an omnipotent supreme being, why then do so many atheists insist upon explaining God through his secular redheaded stepchild, intelligent design? Would that not entail that a contention for believing in nothing to have created the universe then states reasoning how the author of  the following highlighted link in the next paragraph stated before contradicting his own position of "an infinite regress that is inescapable?" And why the borderline religious likenesses as the following necessitated to mobilize a people who are supposed to govern none other than themselves, absolved of all things tangible or theistic, such as the apparent religiosity behind this symbol for libertarian duality?

And if the state according to Locke arbiter's property rights in order to protect the individual to their God-given right to ownership, what according to libertarians, or rather the previously mentioned anarcho-capitalists, grants the individual this right? Well, if the answer lies within the blog titled Property is Theft serves as any general answer, nothing. Because libertarians, or anarchists according to its contemporary founder Rothbard, do not believe in anything that does not involve the self. In other words, selfishness is in itself its lone virtue, greed the only law it knows not to exist even within the self's capacity to explain the phenomena behind dichotomies, much less a psychological dialectic of choices. It is, in the end, singular; a one-tracked, thoughtless void of even the definition of nothingness, or nihilism. Rothbard, in the end, just created the concept of a utopian world of people without nothing. If libertarianism, if defined by Rothbard as anarchism, necessitates that the state be dissolved, perhaps Karl Marx and him have much more in common than simple semantics with regards to why property is the very definition of theft itself by the individual. And as libertarianism's, or anarchism - you choose the term as an individual - has an offshoot such as transhumanism which calls for the abolition of all things human in favor of secularism and, ultimately, mankind's eventual replacement by artificial life in the form of machinery, man as as social creatures might have been set upon a course towards its own extinction, The Terminator be damned. He still relished America's capacity for he himself to remain wealthy while still refusing to support paying his taxes as an anarchist - or as Lew Rockwell penned upon his death in 1995 - "the founder of right-wing anarchism", a classification that as an ideologue who detested classifying anything since it would mean something, comprised of conservatism and fascism, which both he claimed to so vehemently despise. At that, what difference, indeed, does it make other than it becoming a debate over semantics? Nazism itself was a right-wing variation of socialism just as Marxist-Leninism or Maoism symbolize in history textbooks as its left-wing cousins, achieved also by playing the game of class-warfare, and always most heavily reliant upon populism embodying each of those techniques by applying fear mongering as its primary weapon. And like any good left-wing or Nazi right-wing socialist, Murray Rothbard was a major champion and himself a historical revisionist. What did not serve him well upon his digesting historical fallacies to his positions, he simply chose to rewrite so that misinformation served him as the information he demanded to be disseminated on a systemic educational series of curricula, akin to Common Core. Whether one defines Rothbard's ideas as either/or an unitarian philosophy of libertarianism or anarchy, call it what you will. It still reeks of the same old socialism or statism he so rejected as obtrusive since nomads traveled in tribes and existed not as iconoclasts, but as interdependent, socialized peoples.

As American criminal cases are decided by a jury of the prosecuted's twelve peers, they are never known as to their identity, nor even motive. And as such, this is true of government or the state in foreign nations, because justice is only blind to he who sees it and yet cannot behind its veil. Orwell knew that very well as he taught his most valuable lesson at the conclusion of Animal Farm:

"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." 

Mob rule, then, is the same any which way you watch history as it transpires. Karl Marx called for the world's workers to unite; the French Jacobins, the sans culottes to topple the Ancien Regime still abiding by a feudalist code where the three estates clearly partitioned where a person's place existed in society: the Roman Catholic Church as the first estate; the Bourbon Dynasty of monarchs is second; and the rest of the population, bourgeoisie or the peasantry in the rural countryside, within its tertiary. What left-wing radicalism never toppled in human history - a free market, capitalist society - will never occur, and in 1874, Marx himself admitted inadvertently that geopolitical communism will never succeed since the poorest in said states live better than each citizen within a communist one and that it would require still the use of force to break the proletariat when in his essay Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy, he writes at its very beginning and continues with his slope towards the communist ideology's flaw for simply being a very pernicious hyperbole taking form as a mirage:

In quoting Bakunin: 

We have already stated our deep opposition to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as final ideal then at least as the next major aim -- the foundation of a people's state, which, as they have expressed it, will be none other than the proletariat organized as ruling class. The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state.

To which Marx replies initially: 

It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened.

So long as the transformation process is forcibly hastened, where did the entire principle behind dialectic materialism fall through? Reading Marxists.org as was very useful in my course at the University of Tennessee about Mao Zedong and the Chinese revolutions, it appears to be rather malleable, frought with revisions, championed throughout the generations as the means by which to achieve the ultimate end as if any well-versed Marxist quoted the tutor Niccolo Machiavelli, who advised a Florentine prince and authored the foundation for a strong, central government in 1515 about this, aptly titled The Prince. And like communism, so too did Rothbard employ this. History is never a guarantee to even the most intellectual of people that his idea is full-proof. It takes the most grandiose narcissism akin to Marxists since 1848 and during the 20th Century with Rothbard, or Barack Obama, to demonstrate this to any good psychoanalyst, since by means of either the sword or its eternal arbiter to broker idealism using textbooks, the pen, to corrupt a people as simply a means to admit as with Janis Joplin's lyrics in Me and Bobby McGee: "Pain is just another word for nothing left to lose." Desperation, therefore, is only capable in the end to breed an eternal winter of discontent consistent with one variable of fallibility within mankind overlapping many others as we evolve.

It may be recorded in one manner and recalled the same, but in the end, only God will have the final word upon judgment day since He can never be fooled unlike mankind even if one determine God is a matter of a subconscious specter for the human conscience, where humanism has no answer to address our imperfections except to eradicate its source per transhumanism: humanity itself. Institutionally-undesirables be damned; Margaret Sanger would wholeheartedly approve, with no argument attempted for her time to waste. Such an anachronism, ergo, apparently is the ultimate answer to a future libertarianism as an anarcho-capitalist base cannot derive from its own vision nor ingenuity. If Rothbard and others cannot simply invent the wheel themselves, they will just "reinvent it" and give themselves the credit by rewriting the history books of a prehistoric incident. Any which way you witnessed history, the eye test will almost assuredly win due to common sense telling you that what looks like a duck and quack like one, usually is a duck. Then again, there are no absolute truths, unless Rothbard himself could ensure this was his fact, not the truth behind the fiction, and why he found himself at odds philosophically with Ayn Rand and his former associate within the Austrian Economics community, Ludwig von Mises, whose organization he left over such a divergence.

No thank you to pure, hardline libertarians. I will stand by John Connor until my dying breath is exhaled.