We Don't Need a President
Neither party will cut government in a way that is desperately needed. Instead, they offer a left- or right-tinged Americanized socialism or fascism. One promises domestic expansion and foreign reduction; the other promises foreign expansion and domestic reduction. The inevitable compromise: expand both domestically and internationally.
In addition, whatever the new president does will make our growing economic problems worse. The economic interventions they propose will add to our troubles, whether that means expanding inflation, taxes, controls, or debt. Another war is unthinkable, but probably inevitable. You can already detect it in the aggressive trajectory towards Iran. More business regulation can only dampen the fires of free enterprise, which are our saving grace today.
The best solution would be a government that would destroy itself. The second best solution would be a government that does nothing at all - then, at least, matters will not get worse. This is what canceling the election would do. It would introduce enough confusion and chaos to keep government from acting either domestically or internationally, which would be a wonderful thing. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (57)
Pipe-dream.
Published: March 6, 2008 8:51 AM
Been preaching this for some time now, myself. Thought this would be something to forward to others when I saw the headline, but the quality of the writing concerned me.
The web is loaded with "informal" (ungrammatical) treatment of serious topics, making the arguments less effective to more-educated people.
To lend strength to the logic and research of your argument, you might consider using a copy editor?
Published: March 6, 2008 9:22 AM
My first choice for President would be Ron Paul.
Given the other options, my second choice would be no one.
I believe that having no Government structure at all with erode the rule of law and discourage foreign investment and trade. I think there's a big difference between having a small government and having no government at all. A limited government can be of great assistance to an economy and for the prosperity of the people. Clearly a large or even moderately sized government will have negative consequences for the economy, however I believe that a small, limited government that keeps market interference to an absolute minimum will not be much of a burden.
But I have to sympathize with your viewpoint... given the options of McCain, Clinton or Obama, we may be better off with no one at all and letting it all fall to pieces so that we can start to rebuild a viable economy from the ground up.
But I think with a President like Ron Paul, he understands economics enough to be able to design a transitional phase that would be a lot more tolerable than a complete and total collapse of the entire economy. America still has enough going for it in the sense that it still prints the reserve currency backed by oil, so that a gradual dismantling of the government would be favorable to total destruction.
Published: March 6, 2008 9:49 AM
Geeeez! This reminds of an article that said (something to the tune of) even though the Y2K bug will probably turn out to be nothing more than an inconvenience at worst it'd still be nice to think that if society did lose the reins of technology it could mean for a better society as people would return to communities and community values. Hmmm so maybe if the guvmint went belly up it could be better because people would return to a quaint village mentality to continue exist in a post-guvmint age? It's never 'well the organ of modern society are lost and because a great many people now don't have consequences to their actions things are going to get a helluva lot worse because it gets better'. Or similarly, stop elections? Hmmm, better yet, the existing politicians declare themselves rulers for life without any accountibility.
Maybe diehard anarchos really should take their experiment to square one and find a patch of land and start from scratch. Is it not convenient that the privitisation of infrastructure would mean many a people getting pre-made facilities at taxpayers expense, call themselves the owners, collect rent and claim it's the free market at work? Or similar why if public land does get privatised why should it be given away rather than auctioned? Why should somone get land they wouldn't have got if the guvmint didn't put the land in the first place for a song? Or if society is totally privatised and guvmint is gone is it not convenient that Mercantilists and Imperialists laid the groundwork for the private owners in the New World?
And ultimately, how the hell is a 'privatised society' is not the beginnings of Monarchies? The land is owned by people who will rent it out to tenants, Landowners tend to get fewer and larger over time (and no I'm not talking of monolithic quasi-monopoly corporations) because some landowners fail whilst those who succeed buy up the land from those failed landowners, it's their land so they get to make their own rules and enforce it and even though there's no formal rules that an private owner has to give their property to the next descendant they probably will because blood is thicker than water, etc.
Published: March 6, 2008 9:55 AM
It is this type of rhetoric that is more of a problem for free market advocates than those who advocate socialistist concepts.
Most of those who say, "we need a little socialism", do so out of ignorance, not knowing the negative consequences the "little" amount of wealth redistribution causes or why. Much of this ignorance is not their fault because it is what they learned from childhood. When we free market advocates start educating them on economic principles and axioms, many start challenging their belief in collectivism, as being either sustainable or moral.
Then in the name of liberty comes the fantacy of doing away with government, and even more absurb, breaking up the United States, as if either will advance the concepts of free markets or the concept individual liberty.
Now we free market advocates not only have to contend with equating corporations with free markets from the socialists, we must contend with the fantacy and idealism from the "true libertarians", that the only way to have free markets is to have anarchy, or some preconceived notion of how large a country should be. (This, by the way, was never explained, much less proven)
As Mises points out, government does have functions. As Bastiat correctly pointed out, the major function of government is the use of collective force for the protection of the individual. It is ideal to think that without government, those who would rather use force than voluntary exchange to acquire wealth, do not exist, or would just somehow disappear, but reality has shown this to be an illusion. Without government (collective use of force) presidents like Bush, Carter, Clinton and Nixon would be replaced with the Al Capones and Kubla Khans.
Rather than espousing fantacies, pipe dreams and illusions that no government is a realistic answer to achieve free markets and peaceful co existance , the "true libertarians" would do better to shed their idealism, and concentrate on conveying the reality of free markets vs the illusion of collectivism.
The fantasy that anarchy is achievable, or even sustainable, is just as much an illusion that socialism is moral or sustainable.
Equating individual liberty with no government or small countries is just as illogic as equating corporations with free markets, and socialism with being moral.
With the help of this article, now we free market advocates have another hurdle to jump over.
Published: March 6, 2008 10:32 AM
The limiting factor on foreign wars right now is absence of the compulsory draft. The government has flown a few trial balloons on restoring the draft because they want and need more troops to pursue their agenda. Fortunately, the American public is not so anxious to fight the war on terror that they will go along with it--yet.
But if the government can engineer another terrorist crisis or two without ruining their credibility (or getting implicated), then perhaps public sentiment will shift in favor of a draft to supply unlimited manpower to fight the enemy. At that point, the list of enemies can mushroom and the imperialism can swallow the whole world.
Published: March 6, 2008 10:34 AM
By Tom Henderson:
Then in the name of liberty comes the fantacy of doing away with government, and even more absurb, breaking up the United States, as if either will advance the concepts of free markets or the concept individual liberty.
Sir,
I couldn't agree more. Libertarians have it right when it comes to economics, laissez-faire is the way to go. But they loose all credibility when they go down this anarchistic path. I can't tell you how many times I have tried to convince libertarians to take half a loaf, that is a laissez-faire economy, instead of arguing that we have to have anarchism before we can ever achieve a free economy. In other words, for libertarians, it is all or nothing. It is this zealotry that split the Old Right into libertarians and conservatives. The consequence of which was that Socialists were able to get the New Deal through. A united Right could defeat Socialism but as long as Libertarians insist on this pacifist fantasy world it makes a combined assault on Socialism impossible and virtually guarantees its future into the foreseeable future.
Published: March 6, 2008 11:03 AM
I wish people would read The Myth of National Defence, I really do, and stop bombarding this site with strawmen.
Published: March 6, 2008 11:04 AM
No Mr Handerson, it is positions like yours that free market advocates have to overcome.
"Rather than espousing fantacies, pipe dreams and illusions that no government is a realistic answer to achieve free markets and peaceful co existance , the "true libertarians" would do better to shed their idealism, and concentrate on conveying the reality of free markets vs the illusion of collectivism."
Sure, so let's just forget all the economic arguments against public provision of goods and let's embrace contradictions in our moral advocacy of government! At least Mises said secession should be permitted right down to the individual level. Do you other minarchists do the same? I am sick and tired of _your_ utopian fantasies, more sick than I am of Sam's constant repetition of meaningless strawmen.
Published: March 6, 2008 11:08 AM
George P, strategy as one thing, taking minarchy as the ultimate goal as another. I have absolutely no reason to respect a minarchist state violating my property rights any more than I do a larger state doing so. Downsizing the government is surely a desideratum, but not the ultimate goal...
Published: March 6, 2008 11:10 AM
Henderson*
Published: March 6, 2008 11:12 AM
So what is a "government" that cannot tax? That cannot compel the payment of their costs? That cannot compel the use of their services at all?
In fewer words, what do you call a government which presides over an entirely lazze-faire economy?
I call it, my kind of government: No governmet at all.
Actual lazze-faire and "anarchy" go hand in hand. You cannot advocate one without advocating the other.
Published: March 6, 2008 11:43 AM
"Sure, so let's just forget all the economic arguments against public provision of goods and let's embrace contradictions in our moral advocacy of government!"
Not sure where you are coming from. Free markets and public provisions of goods are contradiction in terms. Are you equating government with public provision of goods?
They are not mutally inclusive.
Also not sure what you mean by contradictions in our moral advocay of government. I pointed out Bastiat, who defines very well the purpose government. When laws are made to protect the individual from plunder, I consider this to be moral and the proper function of government. When govt is used to protect individual rights rather than be a vehicle of plunder, where are the contradictions? Where do you disagree with Bastiat?
I also supplied examples of a society without the collective use of force, where the Al Capones and Kubla Khans would rise, so I am not sure what is meant by a strawman. If I was not clear, ask me to elaborate.
Published: March 6, 2008 11:58 AM
What is the provision of law and order by government but socialized law and order? How does the calculation argument suddenly not apply to it? That is what I mean. It is in effect a public good, being provided for like any other public good, such as healthcare (according to mistaken economists.)
I don't see any moral proofs from either Mises or Bastiat being referenced to. What I am referring to is that it is implausible on the one hand to insist on an inviolable right to property, and on the other to then insist it is fine to have a coercively funded government that outlaws competition.
And it is a strawman because law and order would be provided on a subscription basis, i.e. it will be paid for by individuals (or otherwise provided voluntarily by non-profits etc.) So I'm not sure what absence of force is being alluded to, or what Al Capone has to do with anything.
Published: March 6, 2008 12:05 PM
Tom, I think you need to clarify what sort of government you envision to move the discussion further. Are you for the Randian sort of government which is voluntarily financed? The Misesian which allows unlimited secession where feasible? Or some mixture? If so, neither differs fundamentally from anarchism.
Published: March 6, 2008 12:08 PM
Ok,
At the risk of seeming excessively argumentative or sensitive,
First, a strawman, is debating a point not in contention, I believe the existence of government is very much the point of this thread.
Second, I am sure it would be more pleasing if everyone agreed but what would be the point of the forum?
Third, if indeed this is not just a forum for the cognoscenti, perhaps you could enlighten us on how it has been deductively established that the requirement for national defense is just a myth.
Published: March 6, 2008 12:28 PM
That anarchism as argued for implies a complete lack of law and order is a strawman par excellence. In Sam's case what I was referring to his this view that market anarchists want to return to some sort of pre-industrial society, something he has expressed many times, without really offering any evidence as to where we advocate this. Also a strawman.
Disagreement is fine, if it is not based on illusions as to what the other party is arguing. I referred to the book because it is a good source on what we actually advocate, as opposed to what many think we advocate, and deals with many objections that might come up.
Published: March 6, 2008 12:42 PM
A short and to the point article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
And a reading list for those who want to better understand market anarchism:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html
Rothbard's Man, Economy and State also addresses many economic arguments on the matter.
Published: March 6, 2008 12:51 PM
"So what is a "government" that cannot tax? That cannot compel the payment of their costs?" That cannot compel the use of their services at all?"
You make the same error as those who espouse utopian socialism. The socialists will point out imperfections in free markets, but will not acknowledge imperfections in collectivism. Their argument goes like this: Since free markets have imperfections, therefore socialism is sustainable and moral. Does not make sense, does it?
How about this proposition: Because all govt has imperfections, all govt should be abolished. Here the same error is made. Instead of addressing the imperfections of anarchy, along with the imperfections of govt, the argument states only that govts are imperfect. Yes, they are. But this does not mean that anarchy is perfect, does it?
Just as there are only two ways to organize an economy, free markets or collectivism, there are only two ways to organize society. The absence of all government or the creation of governments.
The absence of government will necessarily lead to the Al Capones of the world to be dominant. Your property rights will be defined by how much he decides you should have.
Likewise, in a collectivist govt, your property rights will be defined as what the "state" lets you keep.
But all govts need not be collectivists. Here is your error. You are correct that all govt functions need to be funded. Once it has been determined that the major premise of govt is to protect individual rights, the method of funding govt will find its-place. Since it has been established that in the absence of law, the lawless will rule, our quest, and yes it is a quest, is to find the proper means of funding the proper functions of govt. If we were to eliminate all wealth redistribution programs from price supports to aid to dependent dictators, the cost of govt would be so minute, as not to even be a point of debate.
Just as there are those who want to make laws based on "perfect competiton", which does not exist, there are those who want to base their beliefs on "perfect govt", which does not exist.
"In fewer words, what do you call a government which presides over an entirely lazze-faire economy?"
Not sure what you mean by "presides". If by "preside" you mean to protect the individual from being plundered or cheated, and provide for courts of law, then I would call this govt moral and just. If by "preside" you mean control the means of production and distribution, then there would be no laissez fare economy, because these are contradiction in terms.
Actual lazze-faire and "anarchy" go hand in hand. You cannot advocate one without advocating the other.
"I call it, my kind of government: No governmet at all."
And when a gang with guns come and says "all your property belongs to me", to whom are you going to turn. Make no mistake, when wealth is acquired, there will be those who would rather plunder than toil. It is against these elements that govt exist in a free society, to protect thi individual from plunder and fraud. This is the essence of Bastiat's THE LAW, is it not?
"Actual lazze-faire and "anarchy" go hand in hand. You cannot advocate one without advocating the other".
Are you not forgetting that free markets means free from govt intervention, not free from the collective use of force to protect your property. For free markets to exist, there must be collective use of force to protect the individual from plunder. Otherwise we have defaulted to the premise that might makes right, instead of might for right.
The proper purpose of govt in a free market economy is to protect trade from looters and fraud. Govt and free markets are not contradictions.
The common fantasy of socialists and anarchists is the illusion of a "perfect" society. The socialists believe that govt will produce the "perfect" society. The anarchist believe the abolition of govt will produce the perfect society. What is ignored is there is no such thing, and that too much govt results in might makes right, and no govt results in might makes right. Trying to find perfection in an imperfect world has the same results.
Published: March 6, 2008 12:52 PM
Sir,
I define anarchism the way most libertarians would, as the "absence of a state", not the absence of law and order, although I believe that would be the result if anarchy were allowed to prevail.
Governments have only one basic purpose, to monopolize force. It is the only "good" that they are uniguely able to deliver and by necessity must be limited to delivering. The danger has always been how to limit government to that single purpose. The fact that we have not succeeded does not in any way diminish the need for government it emphasizes the need to control it.
Published: March 6, 2008 1:02 PM
The absence of government will necessarily lead to the Al Capones of the world to be dominant.
Al Capone became Al Capone as the direct result of the government-imposed prohibition of alcohol.
And when a gang with guns come and says "all your property belongs to me", to whom are you going to turn[?]
To the private security provider that I pay for, either by myself or in voluntary collaboration with like-minded consumers.
This is the essence of Bastiat's THE LAW, is it not?
The essence of The Law is this:
"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."
Show me ONE organization, other than the State, that claims the right to coerce its "customers" into paying for its "services."
Published: March 6, 2008 1:11 PM
One thing I know for sure: Government is devil's enterprise.
Published: March 6, 2008 1:12 PM
Henderson,
Not sure where you are coming from. Free markets and public provisions of goods are contradiction in terms. Are you equating government with public provision of goods?
They are not mutally inclusive.
Also not sure what you mean by contradictions in our moral advocay of government. I pointed out Bastiat, who defines very well the purpose government. When laws are made to protect the individual from plunder, I consider this to be moral and the proper function of government. When govt is used to protect individual rights rather than be a vehicle of plunder, where are the contradictions? Where do you disagree with Bastiat?
I also supplied examples of a society without the collective use of force, where the Al Capones and Kubla Khans would rise, so I am not sure what is meant by a strawman. If I was not clear, ask me to elaborate.
He's coming from your idea that somehow the socialization of defense and arbitration equal a quality product.
Bastiat said that the government had a function, fine, but he did not address how government comes to exist or what government actually is. Truly, the government is the number one violator of the "law" it charges itself with the duty to "protect" - this is true everywhere and always, no matter what the size of the state.
Kubla Kahn was a member of the Mongolian Empire following the Yassa code - he was a member of the state, why is he thus associated with Anarchism?
Al Capone was not the monster men make him to be. Certainly, he was violent, but not nearly as violent as the current President of the American Empire.
Published: March 6, 2008 1:22 PM
Henderson,
You make the same error as those who espouse utopian socialism. The socialists will point out imperfections in free markets, but will not acknowledge imperfections in collectivism. Their argument goes like this: Since free markets have imperfections, therefore socialism is sustainable and moral. Does not make sense, does it?
So, you will ignore his question and appeal to an argumentum ad utopiam?
How about this proposition: Because all govt has imperfections, all govt should be abolished. Here the same error is made. Instead of addressing the imperfections of anarchy, along with the imperfections of govt, the argument states only that govts are imperfect. Yes, they are. But this does not mean that anarchy is perfect, does it?
That's not the proposition.
The proposition is that all evil should be abolished.
Government is the perfect embodiment of evil.
Thus, government should be abolished.
You're conflating perfect/imperfect with evil. There's a large difference; governments aren't just a problem, they're a cancer of the soul of all individuals residing under their ruthless reigns of racketeering and ruin.
The absence of government will necessarily lead to the Al Capones of the world to be dominant. Your property rights will be defined by how much he decides you should have.
Do you even know how Al Capone came to power? Do you know how his wars actually began? No? All you know is what the commoner knows.
Al Capone was brutal, period. What a joke!
But all govts need not be collectivists. Here is your error. You are correct that all govt functions need to be funded. Once it has been determined that the major premise of govt is to protect individual rights, the method of funding govt will find its-place. Since it has been established that in the absence of law, the lawless will rule, our quest, and yes it is a quest, is to find the proper means of funding the proper functions of govt. If we were to eliminate all wealth redistribution programs from price supports to aid to dependent dictators, the cost of govt would be so minute, as not to even be a point of debate.
For you perhaps.
Once more. Fine, establish your tyranny of illusions. How are you going to make me pay? The only number any Anarchist will give one of your taxmen is a .45
Are you not forgetting that free markets means free from govt intervention, not free from the collective use of force...
You honestly don't see what's so evil about this? Forget the "protect your property" it's impossible for the number one violator of property to protect it. You can not establish property rights with a being that first assumes they don't exist - i.e. governments assert they have as much right to your property as you do.
Published: March 6, 2008 1:32 PM
George P, just to be clear I was not accusing you in particular of setting up strawmen, even if I disagree with your position.
Published: March 6, 2008 2:44 PM
Good article. The only thing I wish it would have noted is that, though this proposal may be the "best hope we have within the framework of conventional politics," conventional politics is probably not the most important means of effecting change toward liberty. As the agorists like to point out, building alternative institutions to those the state sets up, delegitimating the state, and what might be called political acts that lie outside of the state's apparatus--such as protests--may work at least as well, given the difficulties of getting a true anti-statist elected president and the incentives for the bureaucrats and politicians to protect their turf once such a president takes office.
Published: March 6, 2008 3:22 PM
I really do wish that the Mises Institute would get wind of Agorism.
Maybe we [Agorists] could work for the Mises Institute?
I mean, so far it seems as though LvMI has a lot of good theory, but no good plan. Agorism presents that plan.
Published: March 6, 2008 5:44 PM
Tom H.,
“Also not sure what you mean by contradictions in our moral advocay of government. I pointed out Bastiat, who defines very well the purpose government. When laws are made to protect the individual from plunder, I consider this to be moral and the proper function of government. When govt is used to protect individual rights rather than be a vehicle of plunder, where are the contradictions? Where do you disagree with Bastiat?”
I’m not fluent in the writings of Bastiat, so correct me if I mis-quote him:
“As it is certain, on the one hand, that we are all making some similar request to the State; and as, on the other, it is proved that the State cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others, until I can obtain another definition of the word State I feel authorized to give it my own. Who knows but it may obtain the prize?
“Here it is:
"The State
is the great fiction
through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
“For now, as formerly, everyone is, more or less, for profiting by the labors of others. No one would dare to profess such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself; and then what is done? A medium is thought of, the State is applied to, and every class in its turn comes to it, and says, "You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take from the public, and we will partake." Alas! the State is only too much disposed to follow this diabolical advice, for it is composed of ministers and officials - of men, in short, who, like all other men, desire in their hearts, and always seize every opportunity with eagerness, to increase their wealth and influence. The State is not slow to perceive the advantages it may derive from the part which is entrusted to it by the public. It is glad to be the judge and the master of the destinies of all; it will take much, for then a large share will remain for itself; it will multiply the number of its agents; it will enlarge the circle of its privileges; it will end by appropriating a ruinous proportion.”
From this, one can hardly avoid coming away with the impression that Bastiat rightly saw the state is an implicitly criminal institution of “reciprocal plunder”. And yet, in the very same article, Bastiat concludes with this:
“For ourselves, we consider that State is and ought to be nothing whatever but the united power of the people, organized, not to be an instrument of oppression and mutual plunder among citizens; but, on the contrary, to secure to everyone his own, and to cause justice and security to reign.”
Well, which is it - reciprocal plunder, or a means “to cause justice and security to reign”? This is the contradiction and fatal flaw of the argument of the utopian minarchist. Even when he plainly sees the essential and implicit criminal nature of the state, he in the end, chooses to fail to see it after all. And that is the contradiction that anarchists have and will continue to rant and rave against.
Published: March 6, 2008 6:00 PM
I agree with Niccolo wrt agorism.
Published: March 6, 2008 6:43 PM
Henderson,
You make the same error as those who espouse utopian socialism. The socialists will point out imperfections in free markets, but will not acknowledge imperfections in collectivism. Their argument goes like this: Since free markets have imperfections, therefore socialism is sustainable and moral. Does not make sense, does it?
"So, you will ignore his question and appeal to an argumentum ad utopiam?"
You seem to want to "cherry pick" what you quote. I did not ignore the question. I earlier pointed out there were two and only two ways of organizing an economy. One is free markets, the other is collectivism. Pointing out the imperfections of one system, while ignoring the failure of the other is not sound logic, is it? The valid question would be do you prefer to live under an economic system that produces prospertity, or a system that produces proverty.
How about this proposition: Because all govt has imperfections, all govt should be abolished. Here the same error is made. Instead of addressing the imperfections of anarchy, along with the imperfections of govt, the argument states only that govts are imperfect. Yes, they are. But this does not mean that anarchy is perfect, does it?
"That's not the proposition.
The proposition is that all evil should be abolished.
Government is the perfect embodiment of evil.
Thus, government should be abolished."
If you would like to go this route, fine. But first you will have to prove two things to make your agument true. 1. That ALL govt is the embodiment of evil 2. Anarchy is the embodiment of all good. You have assumed both without proof.
The absence of government will necessarily lead to the Al Capones of the world to be dominant.
"Al Capone became Al Capone as the direct result of the government-imposed prohibition of alcohol."
Well, not quite. Although I was speaking metaphorically, Capone and his ilk came to power by employing a private security force to force their brand of morals small store owners and businesses. It was only the collective use of the force of govt that put him out of power. That collective force was govt.
And when a gang with guns come and says "all your property belongs to me", to whom are you going to turn[?]
"To the private security provider that I pay for, either by myself or in voluntary collaboration with like-minded consumers."
And herein lies the illusion, the fantasy.
By what moral standard will this private security provider give out his services? To the highest bidder. If I pay your provider more, will he now work for me, and I can now order it to take your property?
Or if I secure the services of a private agency to serve my will. Do we not now have "competing security agencies", and not the rule of law dictating justice. What if your private agency happens to have different moral standards than my private agency, by what means will this conflict be settled? If my private agency is stronger than yours, what property rights do you have. If an individual does not have the funds to buy "hired guns", how will this individual's property be protected. This is what I meant by the Al Capones taking over.
I have not even asked what is to prevent your "private agency" turning on you since it has the guns, and you do not. Who is to stop them? When force is the mandate, he who has the most force is the winner.
Under your anarchy, Instead of a society based on individual rights, our justice will now be dictated by who has the most guns and force. The individual will be forgotten, and property rights will be defined by armed security firms. Is this what you are advocating? If you are going to point out the problem of how to fund a proper function of govt, surely you will want to address how you are going to prevent competing agencies from going to war at best, and turning on those who hire them at worst.
Now contrast this to the proper function of govt, where laws, not might determines property rights.
"Once more. Fine, establish your tyranny of illusions. How are you going to make me pay?"
Why would you not want to pay for the protection of your property?
" The only number any Anarchist will give one of your taxmen is a .45"
Since you are posting on this thread and are still alive, I must assume one of two things.
1. The IRS took you to jail and you are writing from prison
2. You do not mean what you say since you are still alive and are not in jail.
"Do you even know how Al Capone came to power?"
Yes. Through the concept of hiring "private security agencies" that defined the property rights of others
"Do you know how his wars actually began?"
Yes. There were "competing security agencies" battling for the right to take control of the production of others.
"No? All you know is what the commoner knows."
Not sure how to take this. Was this a feable attempt to insult me where I should take offense, Or should I be grateful that a commoner like me is in the presence of greatness?
"Al Capone was not the monster men make him to be. Certainly, he was violent, but not nearly as violent as the current President of the American Empire."
Now we have degraded from the pros and cons of proper govt to name calling and comparing Bush to Al Capone.
Since we have left the arena of debate, I will summarize by saying it is remarks like the above that does injustice to free market advocates.
Published: March 6, 2008 7:27 PM
Some of you are taking it a bit too literally. Lew is just illustrating a point.
Published: March 6, 2008 7:32 PM
See the socialist emerge when a minarchist is pressed into justifying their contradictory nonsense. "But what about the poooooor?" Well what about them? Should we institute a global minarchist government, then? I still want to know how a voluntarily financed state allowing secession is not tantamount to anarchism. Or how anything other than this is not immoral nonsense upon stilts.
Like socialists, their knowledge of economics goes down the drain. Nevermind the fact that every single counter-argument used by Mr Henderson can be more forcefully applied to minarchism. So much for 'utopian' anarchism. He is right in one thing - we face an alternative between markets and socialism, between the state and anarchism. Both socialism and statism must be rejected for the nonsense they are.
Published: March 6, 2008 8:24 PM
Who brought up the poor, Inquisitor?
T.H. rightly pointed out outsourcing your defence to private security firms may be quite uncertain. Quite frankly it was quite interesting to read how real estate advisors actually point out the worst thing to do with property management is to outsource it to private firms, the better solutions are to do-it-yourself or to personally hire an in-house property manager. Hence it makes more sense in an anarchic society to have people defend themselves or, for those with a lot of wealth to protect, to have their own private security force on their own premises.
But the greater question is that of 'the law' who defines what is 'lawful' and when a 'crime' has been committed? There are already a situation where there's competition for laws - it's generally referred to as a nation. Different nations have different laws and the obvious way abiding by laws makes sense is the geographic boundary of each nation. Go to another nation you abide by their laws. However, I can't imagine any one believing it is right to be residing in nation A yet being arrested by for a crime that only exists in nation B by someone who is a citizen of nation B and dragging poor citizen A out of nation A for that which isn't a crime in nation A. So why would there be private law firms competing for business if they don't have any monopoly over a given area? Person B drags you to court B for a crime under law code B even though you subscribe to law code A which doesn't recognise your actions as a crime . Once again it makes more sense to say law & order is defined by the landowner (big and small) as to what goes on (hence a geographic monopoly). Though naturally most will abide by a common law to be able to peacefully associate with other landowners but they still have the right to make their own private laws on their land (a.k.a statutory law).
P.S. I don't get where some assumed my reference to Monarchies implied low-tech environments. I simply mean it as private land owning families who meet the basic definiton of a Monarch.
Published: March 6, 2008 9:25 PM
"By what moral standard will this private security provider give out his services? If I pay your provider more, will he now work for me, and I can now order it to take your property? What if your private agency happens to have different moral standards than my private agency, by what means will this conflict be settled? If my private agency is stronger than yours, what property rights do you have? If an individual does not have the funds to buy "hired guns", how will this individual's property be protected?
"I have not even asked what is to prevent your "private agency" turning on you since it has the guns, and you do not. Who is to stop them?
"Under your anarchy, instead of a society based on individual rights, our justice will now be dictated by who has the most guns and force. The individual will be forgotten, and property rights will be defined by armed security firms. Is this what you are advocating? If you are going to point out the problem of how to fund a proper function of govt, surely you will want to address how you are going to prevent competing agencies from going to war at best, and turning on those who hire them at worst.
"Now contrast this to the proper function of govt, where laws, not might determines property rights." -Tom Henderson
You are arguing that, unless the questions you put forth are answered in a more convincing manner than the imaginary answers that would be put forth by someone who comprehended the 'proper function of govt', then the opposing view can't possibly be right. The problem with your argument is that nobody must argue against the ideal form of government, only against the actual form of government.
Here are your questions filled in appropriately:
By what moral standard will this government provider give out its services? If I pay government more, will it now work for me, and I can now order it to take your property? What if your political representatives happens to have different moral standards than my representatives, by what means will this conflict be settled? If my representative is more connected than yours, what property rights do you have? If an individual does not have the funds to buy "lobbyists", how will this individual's property be protected?
"I have not even asked what is to prevent your "government" from turning on you since it has the guns, and you do not. Who is to stop them?
"Under your government, instead of a society based on individual rights, our justice will now be dictated by who has the most guns and force. The individual will be forgotten, and property rights will be defined by armed government officials. Is this what you are advocating? If you are going to point out the problem of how to fund a proper function of govt, surely you will want to address how you are going to prevent representatives from going to war at best, and turning on those who hire them at worst."
Ouch! Gosh, you ask some good questions for the statists. How do they plan to allow government to help us when government is busy trying to help itself first? If only the interests of government and the people were perfectly aligned. The only time that people's intentions are perfectly aligned is when there is profit involved. The ideal society would conflate government with voluntary profit. There is no way to do that without eradicating public government.
You ask, "How can just government correlate with profit?" We ask, "How can just government correlate with taxation?"
Published: March 6, 2008 9:33 PM
From TH: "If an individual does not have the funds to buy "hired guns", how will this individual's property be protected."
The implications are pretty clear.
Sam: "Hmmm so maybe if the guvmint went belly up it could be better because people would return to a quaint village mentality to continue exist in a post-guvmint age? It's never 'well the organ of modern society are lost and because a great many people now don't have consequences to their actions things are going to get a helluva lot worse because it gets better'."
You've mentioned (for reasons unknown to me) before that libertarians favour some sort of return to an agrarian society. Is that not what you mean here?
I'm not sure what you mean wrt outsourcing. South Africa has a pretty vibrant private protection industry, far more reliable than the government there ever could be, and Norway is increasingly coming to rely upon private protection. In neither case do only the rich use it. What forms this may take depends on what is most efficient, of course.
Published: March 6, 2008 9:41 PM
Do we not now have "competing security agencies", and not the rule of law dictating justice. What if your private agency happens to have different moral standards than my private agency, by what means will this conflict be settled?
I have news for you -- I don't know if you've seen the inside of a courtroom lately, or read a US Supreme Court decision, but the "rule of law" does not dictate justice under today's monopolistic State.
The unique feature of life and "law" under a State, however, is that there is no alternative to the State's declarations of "justice."
I don't know what it is with people who feel an all-consuming NEED to have an ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, even if it is guaranteed to be wrong most if not all of the time.
Published: March 6, 2008 9:53 PM
The governments role should more closely mirror that of a tennis referee. Everyone plays with knowledge of published rules, the refs only exist to point out discrepancies. I think we can all agree that during and after a great tennis match the ref is not even remembered. I suggest a re-read of Bastiat's "The Law."
Published: March 6, 2008 10:42 PM
Henderson,
You seem to want to "cherry pick" what you quote. I did not ignore the question. I earlier pointed out there were two and only two ways of organizing an economy. One is free markets, the other is collectivism. Pointing out the imperfections of one system, while ignoring the failure of the other is not sound logic, is it? The valid question would be do you prefer to live under an economic system that produces prospertity, or a system that produces proverty.
I "cherry pick" for space issues. What content is irrelevant is not added because it is irrelevant.
In fact, however, you did ignore the question, and though now would be a perfect time to address it, you still ignore it.
I address the questions when they are asked, whereas you create straw men to knock down.
No, ignoring the "failures" of another system, while pointing out the failures in the other, is not sound logic. However, I do not believe there to be any "failures" in the Anarchic system, partially as it does not exist and partially as I see no logical explanation to see the Anarchic system as an illogical system. You bring up emotions and Straw men, the Anarchists reply with logic, and to reply back you bring out more straw men.
It's a common method employed by your kind. I've lost most interest in it and just pick at the points that are obviously mistaken.
Like your apparent inability to understand the history of the governments you insight as examples of "failures of Anarchy."
If you would like to go this route, fine. But first you will have to prove two things to make your agument true. 1. That ALL govt is the embodiment of evil
All governments (in the sense of nation-states) rely on the disregard for individual rights to self-ownership and ultimate autarchy.
These rights are inherent in libertarian ideology.
Libertarian ideology is the only moral ideology - i.e. all ideologies are immoral ones.
Thus, if states disregard these rights, they are not of libertarian ideology - if they are not of libertarian ideology then they are not moral.
As state's possess the disregard for rights as a natural and inherent axiom of their system - they embody evil.
2. Anarchy is the embodiment of all good. You have assumed both without proof.
I've not assumed this, nor do I find where this second clause is particularly relevant towards the abolishing evil.
If you aim to abolish evil, then you aim to abolish all evil, not just private evil or political evil.
If you do not aim to abolish both, then you are at best indifferent to the existence to evil and at worst a supporter of it.
Although I was speaking metaphorically, Capone and his ilk came to power by employing a private security force to force their brand of morals small store owners and businesses. It was only the collective use of the force of govt that put him out of power. That collective force was govt.
Actually, Al Capone came to force through Frankie Uale and Johnny Torrio.
The most infamous of Capone's murders the "St. Valentine's day Massacre" occurred because peace negotiations with the rival association on the North Side of Chicago continued to hijack trucks from Capone.
Though Capone tried to negotiate peacefully, as most mafiosi do, the talks fell through and justice had to be served.
Chicago Irish tend to be too hot headed to compromise or give in to justice, so from them justice must often be won by the barrel of a gun.
Yes. Through the concept of hiring "private security agencies" that defined the property rights of others
No, it was actually when Al Capone was slashed with a razor at a club the mafiosi Uale owned. After hearing of the incident, Uale made Capone his pet project and sent him on his way to Chicago under Torrio, who was, for the most part, a legitimate counter-economic entrepreneur doing business primarily in voluntary fields and even taking care of La Mano Nera agents (the true extortionists that you are referring to ignorantly).
Under your anarchy, Instead of a society based on individual rights, our justice will now be dictated by who has the most guns and force. The individual will be forgotten, and property rights will be defined by armed security firms. Is this what you are advocating? If you are going to point out the problem of how to fund a proper function of govt, surely you will want to address how you are going to prevent competing agencies from going to war at best, and turning on those who hire them at worst.
This is exactly why Roderick Long published his answer to the ten - mostly Randroid - objections here.
Please, look.
http://www.mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf
Yes. There were "competing security agencies" battling for the right to take control of the production of others.
Umm... Kind of... More like, one man, an evil Irish man, continued to attack Capone after his appeasements. As mentioned, Irish from Chicago tend to be stubborn hot-heads; Capone was left little choice but to deal with Moran on the level that Moran initiated.
In that instance, good won over evil.
Not sure how to take this. Was this a feable attempt to insult me where I should take offense, Or should I be grateful that a commoner like me is in the presence of greatness?
Now we have degraded from the pros and cons of proper govt to name calling and comparing Bush to Al Capone.
Since we have left the arena of debate, I will summarize by saying it is remarks like the above that does injustice to free market advocates.
Wait... I was not comparing George W. Bush to Al Capone, I was more or less describing that George W. Bush is the great Satan bringing nothing but death and torment to the peoples of the world, whereas Al Capone is slightly less than that mixing good acts with evil ones for the people of Chicago, Illinois.
Anyways, from what I can see... You know less than the commoner. Even the commoner knows something about Al Capone; even the pig knows something about slop.
Published: March 6, 2008 11:52 PM
'Tis interesting to see the way such hardcore Libertarianism is the polar opposite of hardcore Marxism. It's like comparing matter to anti-matter. Every Marxist criticism of The State has a similar argument from an opposite point of view. Both look forward to the 'withering of the State' but for opposite reasons.
* Taxes = theft vs
Property = theft.
* Marxism = goodness is found in the worker vs
Libertarianism = goodness is found in the entrepreneur.
* The guvmint is the tool of the exploitive Capitalists and bourgeoisie vs the Guvmint is the tool of exploitive Thieves and Thugs.
* Both see the masses as being ignorantly bliss because they have a 'false confidence' and there'd be a revolution tomorrow. (Unfortunately for Libertarians - Marxists has had revolutions.)
Those of us who are either Conservative or Liberal are such arseholes because we won't go further in either direction and upturn society for a handful of ideologists who have it all figured out. Well some societies did for Marxism and many Marxist are still wondering why things went so horribly wrong. Who knows maybe N. Adami is onto to something with his interest in the way mini-Statist rebels caused so much problems for the Big Bad Ruling Statists for those wanting change?
Published: March 7, 2008 12:34 AM
"My first choice for President would be Ron Paul.
Given the other options, my second choice would be no one."
Sorry Adam Letalik but i can't agree, in no way.
My first choice for President would be no one.
My second choice ( given all the unfortunated circumbstances) would be Ron Paul or Lew or Bobby Higgs or Rod Long ( the best of all, isn't he a real 'solid' man? :))
Published: March 7, 2008 5:06 AM
I do not believe there to be any "failures" in the Anarchic system
There cannot be "failures" in anarchism any more than there can be failures in evolution or gravity.
Anarchy is not something that one must argue into existence. It is a description of the natural state of any society that consists of independent actors.
The institution of a State doesn't negate anarchy. It always exists, just as gravity always exists.
Anarchists aren't trying to institute anarchy. Anarchy is already and always here, whether people acknowledge it or not. We are merely trying to point out the proverbial elephant in the living room -- that this organization called the State that purports to run all our lives is just a bunch of criminals.
Libertarianism = goodness is found in the entrepreneur
Actually, anarcho-capitalism holds that "goodness" is found in ANY voluntary transaction. Voluntary trade is mutually beneficial. (If it weren't, the transaction would not occur.)
the Guvmint is the tool of exploitive Thieves and Thugs
No, the State IS a gang of thieves and thugs. Please try to get it right.
Published: March 7, 2008 9:10 AM
Except Marxist economic (and a lot of its political) theory had already been discredited, by the Austrians no less, as soon as it was developed...
Published: March 7, 2008 9:24 AM
TLWP,
We don't need you "conservatives or liberals" who are unwilling to go further - and in fact, we don't want you.
Your kind is a dying breed, and few of you will exist after our time is done.
Part of being a counter-revolutionary and a parlor revolutionary is being disillusioned by the extremism of the new generations.
You are of the dinosaurs; Anarchists are of the mammals.
Published: March 7, 2008 9:38 AM
Tom Henderson,
Your arguments make sense to me. Within any form of society, there will always be imperfections.
I think that since we post here at Mises, we understand the pitfalls of collectivism and the State. Unfortunately, nobody wants to admit that there will be imperfections within anarchism.
The most important thing to remember is that PEOPLE are imperfect, which in turn means that any society in which they operate will be imperfect.
Under anarchism, there will be those who won't respect individual rights. People who don't respect individual rights will most likely not hire security firms who do.
Until such time as the world has a massive epiphany and sheds every last vestige of imperfection, then I am for the concept of a limited government. It's role would be to protect individual rights...and there would be no wiggle room.
I know a self-styled anarchist who I suspect is the architect of a massive abridgement of my individual rights. Instead of making an effort to resolve the situation (like an adult), which of course would begin with the reason for engaging in these wrongful behaviors in the first place, this individual hides in the shadows (as cowards do) with the expressed intention of avoiding detection so that they can continue to engage in these wrongful acts in perpetuity. This individual has demonstrated absolutely no interest in a peaceful resolution to this conflict.
It is my opinion that in an anarchistic society, this individual would hire a security force consistent with his/her beliefs, and I would hire one that is consistent with mine. The result would be that the person with the most money would win. Would you call that justice?
That is why I agree with the concept of a limited government where individual rights are protected, not sold out to the highest bidder.
This may annoy many of the members here at Mises; however, I suspect that if you were in my position, you would feel the same way.
Published: March 7, 2008 11:24 AM
To Tom Henderson, the concepts of a small, decentralized government is rhetoric. It is rhetoric to him because he leads a nice comfortable life as a result of the sacrifices made by individuals devoted to the concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, hundreds of years before he was born. Those men and women, who actually risked everything, and even lost everything, for what Mr. Henderson calls rhetoric are who Mr. Henderson owes for his comfortable middle-class lifestyle. He knows nothing of Locke or Hobbes, but uses Hobbism to support his argument. The governmental processes that Mr. Henderson takes for granted are the direct result of the “fantasies and rhetoric” developed in the Age of Enlightenment.
Mr. Henderson is your typical institutionalized posts World War II pragmatist so steeped in materialism that he does not know he is in fact a socialist. His sense of history begins with Dwight D. Eisenhower, ends with the 2000 presidential election. He likes all his government goodies, but not the tax bill.
Mr. Henderson then goes on to say that it is a fantasy to think the United States can be broken up. He does not even know that, as a functioning republic, the States, for over 150 years, acted independently of Washington, D.C., Typical of his class, he views the break-up of the Soviet Union, the devolution of its centralized authority and subsequent Russian economic revival as inconsequential. Yet, outside the moribund middle-class American mind, and to the rest of the world, it was a profound event.
Given Mr. Henderson’s misunderstanding of his own philosophical precepts and US history, it is not surprising that he misunderstands Llewellyn. Llewellyn does not advocated anarchy. He never uses the word anarchy he is just stating the fact: a farmer does not need a “president” to farm, a baker to bake, a builder to build, a teacher to teach, or a physician to heal. The functions necessary for the protection of private property, contract dispute resolution, and basic law enforcement do not require a “president”.
Mr. Henderson further demonstrates his misunderstanding of history by citing “Kubla Khan”. Kublai Khan is famous as the founder of the Yuan or Mongol Dynasty of China. Kublai Khan centralized taxes and administration, improved agriculture, and established a famously splendid court at Cambaluc (now Beijing). He also welcomed foreign traders, including Marco Polo. Hence, Kublai Khan did what Mr. Henderson feels governments should do. Why Mr. Henderson used Kublai Khan as an example of venal leadership is confusing. All Kublai Khan did was invade a sovereign country and impose his form of government upon the subjected. Mr. Henderson implies he supports such militaristic activities since he cites George Bush as a noble statesman. However, that is because he is comfortable in his middle-class American world view. The people of Iraq have a different opinion, but that is because they suffered horrifying devastation at the command of George Bush. But the Iraqis would not compare George Bush to Kublai Khan, but to his grandfather Genghis Khan.
His audacious attempt to infer Ludwig von Mises and Frédéric Bastiat would agree with him because of their a priori use of the word government to describe organized social cooperation including the sanctioned use of force falls flat. Neither of these gentlemen stated a president with centralized authority was necessary for the operation of a free market. Ludwig von Mises, and Frédéric Bastiat, were well aware of human nature and its failings, as is Llewellyn Rockwell. Unlike Mr. Henderson, they realized governments are run by people with the same human failings. Mr. Henderson cites Al Capone as the bogyman that would arise without centralized government. Yet, Al Capone’s most infamous crime was the St. Valentine's Day massacre that killed 7 rival criminal gang members. Compared to Attorney General Janet Reno’s massacre of the Branch Davidians, that killed 76 people, 21 of whom were children, Capone seems restrained.
Mr. Henderson even uses Richard Nixon as an example of benign central authority. Richard Nixon, without any Constitutional authority, mandated wage and price controls. The effects of his executive order were felt immediately via shortages, increased “black market activity, and failed capital formation. His misguided economic policy helped cause the devastating inflation of the 1970s.
Another example of Mr. Henderson’s incorrect thinking is his underlying assertion that a central government protects the week against the strong. The central government, through its supreme court ruled in Kelo v. New London, that it is perfectly legal to take property from one private citizen and give it to another private citizen, if the latter will pay more in taxes. The weak in this case being a single homeowner: Kelo, and the strong a land development company: New London Development Corporation. Now, Mr. Henderson, if Kelo were still to persists in trying to keep her property, men with guns, sanctioned by the state, will come and violently take it from her. She gains absolutely no security from the state.
Mr. Henderson goes on to posit that Llewellyn is illogical equating small government with enhanced individual liberty. Mr. Henderson fails to realize it is large, centralized governments, with unrestrained use of force that do the collecting, taking and redistributing. If they were not large, centralized and well armed they could not execute their bloody policies. So, in fact Llewellyn is right. There is an absolute inverse relationship between the size of a government and the amount of personal freedom an individual exercise.
Published: March 7, 2008 11:28 AM
"Wait... I was not comparing George W. Bush to Al Capone, I was more or less describing that George W. Bush is the great Satan bringing nothing but death and torment to the peoples of the world, whereas Al Capone is slightly less than that mixing good acts with evil ones for the people of Chicago, Illin"
Gosh, this arugment changed my mind. A brilliant piece of logic. Ok, let's revolt. Who will be our leader? Wait a second, since it is anarchy there can be no leader. Confusing to say the least.
"Anyways, from what I can see... You know less than the commoner. Even the commoner knows something about Al Capone; even the pig knows something about slop."
Another brilliant argument. If stating that Bush is Satan, while implying Capone was just an ordinary man did not convince me anarchy is sustainable, then this certainly did.
I am closing this session out. Twice you have reverted to name calling, and not once have you addressed issues. Rants are not addressing issues, like if you catch somebody trespassing, what is to be done with him? If you catch somebody robbing your house, what is to be done with him. If you catch him after he has stolen from you, what are you going to do with him. If your house catches on fire, who are you going to call? (Remember, privatizing fire depts was tried. Did not work)
Just a suggestion. If you really want anarchy, you might try going the Marx route and use socialism as a means to achieve commumism. Marx also believed in the end result of socialism would be no govt. But we know this is not reality, don't we.
Published: March 7, 2008 11:47 AM
When did ANYONE say anarchism would be perfect? This is a strawman at best. Better than the state with its screwed up incentives though? You bet.
Mr Henderson, you really don't know what you're talking about, yet you persist. Why? If I may ask, what have you actually read written by an anarchist, like Hoppe, Rothbard, Long, de Molinari or the Tannehills? Nothing? Because that is the impression I get.
Published: March 7, 2008 12:06 PM
Inquisitor,
You have to admit that there are individuals here who become quite hostiile when someone so much as suggests that there are some pitfalls to anarchism. I'm not going to mention names, but I just read a posting where someone essentially said that certain groups are not welcome here.
When people speak out so vehemently against all other philosophies as well as the people who believe in them and then glance over any imperfections that may exist in anarchism...well, it looks like we can dish it out but can't take it.
I think we need to understand that people don't change philosophies they've embraced for what might be as long as 50 years without expecting them to express doubts and ask questions. Rewiring one's brain doesn't happen overnight. It may very well be that the best a socialist can do is to move over to being a minarchist. Maybe they'll move on from there--maybe they won't. I used to be a conservative (but felt like a misfit as a conservative), and then in my 40's began to move towards libertarianism. I put anarchism up to the microscope. It may be that if I wasn't going through what I'm going through right now, I'd be more open-minded about anarchism. But I'll tell you something...once I realized that I had an anarchist on my hands who'd gone rogue, I was sold on limited government.
And please don't think I'm getting all cranky on you, because I'm not. When I first came to this website, you were very kind to me, and I won't forget that. I'm just giving you the same advice that I have to give myself now and again...that we sometimes need to lighten up, or we lose all hope of anyone staying here long enough to understand our point of view.
Published: March 7, 2008 1:24 PM
Henderson,
I am closing this session out. Twice you have reverted to name calling, and not once have you addressed issues.
I actually gave you the historical information about Al Capone, the stuff you didn't know about and glossed over without even a little bit of research.
Please, do not cry if someone calls you "bad names." Politarians (political-libertarians) should have understood by now... Whining gets you no where.
Rants are not addressing issues, like if you catch somebody trespassing, what is to be done with him?
Depends on the situation. I may shoot at him or I may just ask him to leave - and if he does not comply, I will shoot at him.
Nothing immoral about protecting one's property.
If you catch somebody robbing your house, what is to be done with him. If you catch him after he has stolen from you, what are you going to do with him.
When he is in the process of doing it, I will put three rounds in his brain.
When I find him later, I may just bring him up on charges with someone affiliated with an organization like this one,
http://www.arbitrators.org/
If your house catches on fire, who are you going to call? (Remember, privatizing fire depts was tried. Did not work)
The people I've already hired to do this for me,
http://www.aigpcg.com/
Anymore?
Published: March 7, 2008 1:40 PM
IMHO,
And please don't think I'm getting all cranky on you, because I'm not. When I first came to this website, you were very kind to me, and I won't forget that. I'm just giving you the same advice that I have to give myself now and again...that we sometimes need to lighten up, or we lose all hope of anyone staying here long enough to understand our point of view.
People like Henderson or anyone else that takes the time to read Mises forums already see the door of truth and morality; they just willfully reject it.
You must understand, it doesn't matter what you say to these people - you can not debate them into agreement. All you can do is show them the door, but they have to walk through it. If these people do not do that or resist, then consider them enemies until they do. For the only purpose the "minarchist" serves is one of delay, defeat, and compromise. The "minarchist" is an invention of the state to legitimize the state; he serves no more purpose than that.
Yes, we hope that all the misguided souls find truth and happiness, but we can not actually convince them all. Where convincing doesn't work, we must merely tolerate them as the mooch that never wants to grow up.
That is why I agree with the concept of a limited government where individual rights are protected, not sold out to the highest bidder.
Fine, but if you try to get me to pay for your "limited government" I will not hesitate to draw guns. As I come from a little bit of wealth and a lot of family, there's much blood for you to spill to force me to comply.
That's the deal then - you or me. I will never bow down to you and you won't go away peacefully. So what do you think it will come to, if you are to bring about some "limited government?" Do you think I'll change if you don't?
Think again.
Published: March 7, 2008 1:57 PM
It may be that if I wasn't going through what I'm going through right now, I'd be more open-minded about anarchism. But I'll tell you something...once I realized that I had an anarchist on my hands who'd gone rogue, I was sold on limited government.
I find this sentiment to be very strange, and not at all reasonable.
1. You are having some unspecified problem with one person, who (I presume) is harassing or threatening you.
2. This criminal (or near-criminal) is a self-styled anarchist.
3. In today's America, which practices full-blown socialism in every way but name, you have very limited options to deal with this situation, and are even implicitly and explicitly threatened by the State with various penalties if you use ANY means OTHER than resort to other agents of the State to solve your problem.
4. So, rather than identify the source of your problems as either (a) one possibly deranged person, or (b) the policies of a State that severely limits your ability to deal with this problem, you choose Option C: blame anarchism and promote the continuation of the State.
If this harasser were a Democrat, would it cause you to vote Republican? Or vice versa? If he happened to be a rancher, would it make you become a promoter of vegetarianism?
Published: March 7, 2008 2:27 PM
Niccolo
"Fine, but if you try to get me to pay for your "limited government" I will not hesitate to draw guns. As I come from a little bit of wealth and a lot of family, there's much blood for you to spill to force me to comply."
It appears that anyone who doesn't agree with you will find themselves looking down the barrel of your gun. Is that not a kind of coercion? threat? intimidation? violence? Did you learn that here? I think not. Do you understand that it's the violence of your speech that will cause others to turn away from libertarianism? Your constant references to violence will encourage even more people to want limited government. You are defeating your own purposes.
That's the deal then - you or me. I will never bow down to you and you won't go away peacefully.
I have never asked anyone to bow down to me, and I've walked away from those who have tried. As for the remark about me not wanting to leave this website peacefully...what are you suggesting?
Published: March 7, 2008 2:45 PM
George,
Maybe you should read my reply to Niccolo.
Published: March 7, 2008 2:48 PM
IMHO: "You are defeating your own purposes."
Niccolo's warning of a resort to violence is clearly one of self-defense. You are suggesting that most readers of this blog are too stupid to realize that?
Published: March 7, 2008 4:52 PM
"Fine, but if you try to get me to pay for your "limited government" I will not hesitate to draw guns. As I come from a little bit of wealth and a lot of family, there's much blood for you to spill to force me to comply.
That's the deal then - you or me. I will never bow down to you and you won't go away peacefully. So what do you think it will come to, if you are to bring about some "limited government?" Do you think I'll change if you don't?"
Wow! You already live in an anarchist society N. Adami? Why, instead, do I get the feeling you're really living in a Evil Statist society thinking about how you'd live in an anarchist society? So the how-to-live in Anarchotopia has been figured but the problem still remains how to get there? If us Evil Statists rely on a top-down society then all yous have to do is disappear, go underground and start assassinating various state and federal politicians until no one is willing to run for office and us Evil Statists destroy ourselves in the inevitable confusion. Hell, it should be easy considering much trouble ObL has caused the U.S. and they still can't find him what with the might and resources of the U.S. military!
Published: March 7, 2008 10:45 PM
Kevin,
"Niccolo's warning of a resort to violence is clearly one of self-defense. You are suggesting that most readers of this blog are too stupid to realize that?"
It was no more than a week or two ago that it was suggested to me that the average newcomer to Mises was too stupid to comprehend a basic, one-page discussion of inflation written by Mises; but you're certain that they'll immediately grasp the reasons behind graphic descriptions of killing?!?
We were not all raised as video warriors. Many people consider life to be sacred and so the taking of life is not something one should brag about or take lightly.
If need be, would I defend myself? Yes. Would I brag about the gory details later? No. Instead, it would bother me that I had to commit such an act.
Published: March 8, 2008 2:58 AM
Interesting thoughts... makes me feel a little better that it really does not matter who gets elected... I hated that I felt like I had not real choice and it was the best of the worst choice... Will there be a spot on the ballot for no government???
Published: March 9, 2008 9:21 PM