Comments (122)

• Matthew Houseward

  I was thinking about what a tremendous waste it was to be spending money on missile defense and F-22's, when the U.S. is unlikely to be involved in a conventional war, and I realized: counter-insurgency is not "post-modern warfare", it's the tactic of an empire suppressing a conquered nation. I know, I know, I'm a bit late to the game.

  In regards to this article, conventional warfare is not the means by which a people defend themselves, it's the means by which a head of state defends his monopoly of force.

  Insurgency is how a population defends itself.

  That being said, I have the unfortunate opinion that people have a natural tendency to desire an overlord, strange as that may be. I view Judges and 1 Samuel as an illustration of this natural disposition.

  Published: September 23, 2009 9:04 AM

• Gil

  "Insurgency is how a populaton defends itself."

  How the difference is that how many people in Libertopia would 'link up' to become a major defensive militia force if they don't have the unity of the state? If an invading army was on the other side of the continent would you drop everything and rush there to repel the invaders because you merely inhabit the same continent as someone else or would you wait for the invaders to come "too close to home"? After all, one attack on a European nation doesn't automatically mean every country considered 'European' suddenly comes to that country's aid.

  Published: September 23, 2009 9:16 AM

• MariusAureus

  "Successful "pacification" and occupation may require a 10-to-1 superiority."

  High morale does not make anybody immortal.
  B2, MOAB and cluster bombs will quickly do the "peace".

  Times of blade and arrow are gone...

  :-(

  Libertarians as guerrillas in their own country are doomed!
  No one will help them - "proper" propaganda will take care of this.

  We have to choose another way...

  Published: September 23, 2009 9:19 AM

• mpolzkill

  Great, as usual, DG.

  Did anyone else here know all about Oppenheimer years before you ever heard his name by watching "The Magnificent Seven" 137 times as a kid? Watch all the personality types from it make their appearances now on this forum, you can pick them out. Yes, Matthew, there will aways be those who crave a strong arm.

  Interesting insight into American culture: the most fascinating part of "The Seven Samurai" is excised in the remake for American children (i.e. all Americans, ha ha). The scene where the Samurai discover that the villagers have for years been picking off, murdering and robbing Samurai one by one.

  Published: September 23, 2009 9:44 AM

• Gil

  Actually, when it comes to self-defence where the righteous few risk being set upon by the evil majority then the righteous few will want access to weapons with exceptional destructiveness. Hence Libertarians ought to be for the private ownership for nuclear weapons. Why some Libertarians are anti-nuclear yet pro-gun is beyond me. If a gun makes people equal in a one-on-one level then a nuke makes the individual equal in a one-on-100,000 level.

  Published: September 23, 2009 9:50 AM

• USA Today

  "but how can we possibly get along without this
  institution?"

  Samuel Colt solved this problem 170 years ago.

  Published: September 23, 2009 10:12 AM

• darjen

  I agree that insurgency can sometimes be useful in giving states trouble. We have at least seen this in modern day Iraq and Afghanistan. But my question is why didn't people resort to insurgency back in Roman or Greek times? These empires really did rule a huge number of foreign people for a long time.

  I would probably consider myself close to anarcho-capitalist. But, it doesn't seem like insurgency can be a complete answer to me. We still have to work hard to convince the majority of society that anarchy is the right choice. Am I missing something?

  Published: September 23, 2009 10:14 AM

• Bala

  " To be sure, S will make peace between A and B, but only so that he himself can rob both of them more profitably. "

  Somehow, this seems more like an assumption than being factual or logically derived from fundamental principles. Why is it necessarily true that S will make peace ONLY to rob both A and B? Is there missing text or missing justification? I am lost.

  Published: September 23, 2009 10:39 AM

• USA Today

  Gil,

  "Actually, when it comes to self-defence where the righteous few risk being set upon by the evil majority then the righteous few will want access to weapons with exceptional destructiveness."

  I agree.

  "Why some Libertarians are anti-nuclear yet pro-gun is beyond me."

  How about a nuclear gun ? The best of both worlds.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE2NxuaoT0U

  "If a gun makes people equal in a one-on-one level then a nuke makes the individual equal in a one-on-100,000 level."

  I agree.

  Published: September 23, 2009 11:01 AM

• USA Today

  @Bla Bla,

  "Why is it necessarily true that S will make peace ONLY to rob both A and B?"

  Who will protect A and B from S should S turn into a tyrannical scumbag ?

  But democracy turns out to be B and S forming a secret alliance to takeover A. Then when A is no more, S turns his back on B and takes over B.

  When B is no more, S invades all the A's and B's in other countries.

  Then, in foreing countries, the S's declare martial law, supposedly to protect their own A's and B's only to draft them and send them to death.

  The moral of this story, S's always looks after their own **S only and couldn't care less about A's and B's.

  S's don't know their ABC, we can deduct that from their economic illiteracy.

  That's why if I was A, I would think like Gil and I would like to own my own N.

  But since I am B, then I am not in immediate threat from S just yet. But seeing how S treats A, I know that B comes next.

  Hey Gil, do you know where I could buy my own N ? S is coming after me next and S.C. will not be enough to E things down.

  Published: September 23, 2009 11:12 AM

• Matthew Houseward

  If we're looking for a guarantee, there aren't any. Most of the world is comprised of weak nations that could easily be conquered by a stronger neighbor. Most of Europe has been conquered, re-conquered, and overturned dictators, all in the last 100 years.

  So, the question isn't, could an Anarcho-Capitalist society exist for 1,000 years because that's unrealistic for any government.

  Could an anarcho-capitalist society defend itself against the Third Reich? Probably not. An ACS, being an organic structure, would probably choose, like the Dutch, to preserve life in order to mount an underground resistance. Would they eventually prevail and restore liberty? Maybe, maybe not.

  An ACS could use deterrence, however. If we could launch a satellite into orbit, and we have nuclear power plants, we could guarantee mutually assured destruction. If we have an ornery, freedom-loving, armed population, I think we would be a pretty terrifying society to invade.

  Ultimately, an ACS isn't going to be the strongest nation. But an ACS also won't spend the last man trying to defend the state. In a way, it's weakness is it's strength.

  I can't help thinking about Nately's Old Man from Catch 22. Anybody else thinking the same thing?

  Published: September 23, 2009 11:30 AM

• K Ackermann

  This is the fundamental issue, IMO.

  The United States has supplied the roadmap for its own defeat in war: offer no resistance, let them come in, grind them down.

  No every enemy is like that. Some butcher on sight. Even if they don't, such as the US in Iraq, to really defeat them and maintain autonomous existence, things would have to get very ugly.

  Hoppe's idea of large international insurance companies that have all-seeing information and act as the dispenser of justice and security is, frankly, insane. How are they not a state? What constrains them? Certainly not competition. Competition in this case works against the goal anyway. It would fracture resources instead of pooling them.

  In their quest for profits, they would raise rates to afford better, and more lethal equipment. They would advertise that only they could be trusted to... what? Train troops in the art of warfare? It's rubbish.

  The first thing an aggressor nation would do is contact the insurance companies and negotiate safe passage lest they begin their campaign by bombing the executive suites.

  If the goal of defense is to defend, then there are better ways than a for-profit state such as insurance companies. Is there any doubt profits are driving wars now? If your insurance rate was too high, but the company used its arsenal to secure a valuable resource and lowered rates, would you go along with that? What if they didn't lower rates, and just used the arsenal for itself?

  Published: September 23, 2009 11:39 AM

• Franklin

  So much good insight, but a couple of quotes stir me.
  Matthew: "If we have an ornery, freedom-loving, armed population, I think we would be a pretty terrifying society to invade."
  And USA Today: "Samuel Colt solved the problem."

  Therein succinctly captures the essence of perfect defense.

  Nukes won't help our enemies. What benefit does a radioactive desert, a la Mad Max, provide to a bomb throwing aggressor if we pose no preemptive threat and leave others to their own devices?
  I'm reminded of the quote played by Ben Kinsley's Gandhi, "...then they will have my dead body, but not my obedience."

  And as far as deterrence goes, the U.S. nuclear arsenal hardly discouraged the demented scum who crashed into the towers.
  

  Published: September 23, 2009 12:01 PM

• DixieFlatline

  Franklin, if the attackers on the towers were demented scum, what does that make John McCain, who bombed civilians in Vietnam?

  What does that make the guards at Abu Ghraib?

  What does that make the rendition program?

  The nuclear arsenal cannot be deployed, because no one will tolerate WMDs being used, by anyone. The US was very lucky, that post WWII, they controlled the western world, and didn't have to answer for their heinous war crimes.

  Published: September 23, 2009 12:33 PM

• USA Today

  Franklin,

  "Nukes won't help our enemies."

  When you throw a nuke at your enemies, it's generally not about helping them but about destroying them.

  It's about making sure your enemies are no longer there to threaten you and to make sure you can continue on your own devices peacefully because your enemies are gone.

  It's about helping yourself. I think nuclear detterence fits pretty well with libertarianism.

  "then they will have my dead body, but not my obedience."

  With nukes you can keep your life and disobey your enemies. And it's your enemies who risk losing everything. Two for the price of one.

  Published: September 23, 2009 12:44 PM

• Franklin

  By the way, on the topic of nation state violence, from the AP now, "Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi issued a slashing attack on the Security Council and chastised the world body on Wednesday for failing to intervene or prevent some 65 wars since the U.N. was founded in 1945....."

  Sure, he's a kook, he's a killer, and would think the council was A-OK, if it were he sitting on it. But like the proverbial broken clock that's right twice a day, he does highlight a success metric with some specificity. Nice track record, eh?

  'course, the diplomacy racket is karma for those who land that cushy life: sophisticated cuisine at the finest restaurants, Armani suites and haute couture, parking tickets sliding into the shredder, a blind eye toward more illicit activity among the seedier souls in that club, luxury seats at the Giants games....

  And to think, without these civilized agents, representing the best of their countrymen and the ideals of nationhood, the world would be on the precipice of Armageddon.

  Published: September 23, 2009 12:46 PM

• Jeff

  Anarchy is a misguided idea. The notion that one government limited by a Constitution to use force only in retaliation is somehow worse than a bunch of competing governments is non sense.

  There is no objective and impartial way to solve disputes without a government.

  And since I know some will say rights protection should be put on the market like everything else i will answer that by saying you are committing the stolen concept fallacy.

  A market to exist in any meaningful sense PRESUPPOSES individual rights. There is no economic freedom or free markets without political freedom. Liberty, contractual rights protection, and property rights have to be protected before there is a market. A market is the consequence of rights protection.

  Published: September 23, 2009 12:52 PM

• mpolzkill

  Ah there's the old Ackerman:

  Calling peaceful speculation "insanity" (especially speculation on a subject that Ackerman demonstrates very little understanding of) is hyperbole.

  "How are they not a state?"

  Taxes.

  "What constrains them?"

  No taxes, being fired. Ackerman does not know what gives the State its vast powers: the consent of its victims (citizens).

  His off-the-cuff ramblings about competition were addressed in the article. He then trots out the bizarre, invented leftist boilerplate about raising prices and then further identifies himself with his fear of one of the great lefty bug-bears: advertising! Oh that evil advertising, created by Madison Avenue mad scientists, that almost no one can resist!

  I'm not saying I'm down with Hoppe on his insurance ideas (who knows what a free market could come up with or how it would work), I'm just amused by the boxes most lefties apparently can not get out of.

  Published: September 23, 2009 12:55 PM

• Franklin

  USA...
  I understand your point and can certainly rationalize, with some discomfort, a few nukes in the cupboard. But the deterrent factor (and the U.S. has one helluva deterrent factor) doesn't address all the threats, such as the Trade Center bombings.
  Poor Ron Paul was mercilessly attacked because he was trying to address the root cause of those attacks -- our meddling. And so I emphasize and paraphrase my conditionality "...if we pose no threat and leave everybody else alone."

  To DixieFlatline: perhaps I misunderstand your intent. Why do you respond with a "Oh, yeah? Well, so's your old man!" History is always written by the victors. If horror was committed by some demented scum (and they were) can't we just call them what they are and momentarily leave it at that? Or must we, without a breath taken, instantly drag out the millions of other names and evils (U.S. included) so as not to offend anybody? I think very few on this site subscribe to all the actions of the United States' political and military agents.

  Published: September 23, 2009 1:08 PM

• mpolzkill

  Wow, Jeff, thanks for showing us all the light, I've never hear these powerful arguments before.

  Why don't you check your premises?

  So you are calling for one world government? You speak nonsense because you believe that when men call themselves a government they somehow become objective and impartial. You presuppose that only the men you imagine could protect rights. These men don't exist; even when they do protect rights, they aren't the only ones who do; but they have just about made it impossible for us to do it with their laws: and lo and behold the market is chained and distorted to the point of collapse (and we are certainly not secure).

  World government will do just the trick, right? One with Randians in charge, maybe? Nonsense.

  (Nothing new from me either, I know, don't need it here.)

  Published: September 23, 2009 1:14 PM

• mpolzkill

  * "I've never heard"

  This nuke talk, now that's insane. Let's imagine Gil isn't just an unbalanced, violence-advocating loudmouth, he's also a scientist building a "WMD" in his basement. Isn't preemption the only thing to be done? This is, writ small, the plot line in "The Day The Earth Stood Still". Basically, the U.S. excuse for the Iraq massacre was the same reasoning of the film's aliens; except the aliens were good.

  I haven't thought enough about this: this is a point where my voluntarist philosophy may break down. Maybe someone can point me to an article on it, I'm sure the anarchist law theorists have an answer for it. Building weapons designed for indiscriminate slaughter is in itself an act of aggression? Is that the out here to any other voluntarists? (Please link me to one about stalkers while you're at it, haha. Jeff's magic men TODAY aren't so hot on that one.)

  Published: September 23, 2009 1:43 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  I get it, now. Rand didn't steal from Aristotle, she stole from Plato, and offered a variation on the "Philosopher-Kings" approach.

  Published: September 23, 2009 1:45 PM

• mpolzkill

  Michael,

  Oh! That sneaky moocher!

  Published: September 23, 2009 1:57 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  There is no objective and impartial way to solve disputes without a government.
  
  Third party arbitration is a simple idea that's as old as the hills, and doesn't require the coercive power of government to work--if anything, it works better without coercion, because only then can you be sure that the differing parties will truly accept the decision, and not harbor a grudge about corruption and attempt to foil the judgement or retaliate in some other fashion. If a government court system is being used to intimidate other people, then whose fault is that, and how can such a system truly ensure impartiality and objectivity?

  Published: September 23, 2009 2:06 PM

• USA Today

  Jeff,

  "There is no objective and impartial way to solve disputes without a government."

  As if Government wasn't itself a party involved in dispute.

  Government is like one powerful citizen, who is going to solve dispute in an impartial and objective way when the government itself is a litigant ?

  I'm sorry but I find that letting the government settle disputes is the most scary thing there is.

  Published: September 23, 2009 2:07 PM

• USA Today

  Mpolzkill,

  "This nuke talk, now that's insane. Let's imagine Gil isn't just an unbalanced, violence-advocating loudmouth, he's also a scientist building a "WMD" in his basement."

  Attacking the messenger instead of the message aren't we ?

  I bet all my money that a fight between you and Gil would resul in Gil winning !

  Published: September 23, 2009 2:10 PM

• Bala

  USA Today,

  Nice story, but why does it necessarily have to happen the way you are portraying it? That's where your argument is falling apart.

  Published: September 23, 2009 2:13 PM

• Bala

  Michael A Clem, mpolzkill and other confirmed anarchists,

  I asked a question which I think needs an answer because it does question something at the root of your theories. So, I am repeating it below for reinforcement.

  " To be sure, S will make peace between A and B, but only so that he himself can rob both of them more profitably. "

  Somehow, this seems more like an assumption than being factual or logically derived from fundamental principles. Why is it necessarily true that S will make peace ONLY to rob both A and B? Is there missing text or missing justification? I am lost.

  Published: September 23, 2009 2:17 PM

• mpolzkill

  You're always lost, Bala. Were not cultists like you. Ask Hoppe to answer your question. Or better yet, your being a genius, start writing some papers refuting him and get them published.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  USA Today,

  Yes, I'm attacking the apparent author and messenger of "all we righteous individuals should have our own nukes."

  Gil couldn't fight his way out of the figurative paper bag in an argument. He took me on somewhere else, got frustrated and took to name-calling, and now he's receiving a little payback. So, you must mean a fist fight. I'm sure you're both very macho. Congrats. If he feels that his honor has been besmirched and requires a duel, he can apologize for his resort to name-calling and I will do likewise.

  Published: September 23, 2009 2:45 PM

• USA Today

  Bala,

  You are implying that in some instances S could really keep peace ?

  But even if S keeps peace for some time or in some instances, is it really worth it for A and B to put themselves at the mercy of S.

  If A and B would want S to be the arbitor because A and B have the potential to harm each other.

  Isn't S now in a greater position to harm both A and B should S choose to do so ?

  You cannot cause violence and danger to disappear. By removing the power of A to harm B and the power of B to harm A, you give S the power to harm both A and B.

  Of course, it won't automatically be the case that S will harm any one.

  But now that S has tremendous power, I would hate to be A or B.

  It's never bright to let yourself be at the mercy of someone else.

  Sure a bird in a cage is protected from all the outside dangers. But now the bird is at the complete mercy of the cage owner...DANGEROUS !

  I'd rather compromise with B directly at my own risks than give too much power to S.

  Published: September 23, 2009 2:54 PM

• USA Today

  Bala,

  "Why is it necessarily true that S will make peace ONLY to rob both A and B? Is there missing text or missing justification? I am lost."

  Because of Murphy's law: All that can go wrong will go wrong and because nature seeks the path of least resistance and beause S can do it.

  Because S is now a threat. Even if S makes peace and doesn't rob A or B, he could if he wanted.

  If you can live with that danger, I cannot !

  Published: September 23, 2009 2:56 PM

• Bala

  mpolzkill,

  " You're always lost, Bala. Were not cultists like you. Ask Hoppe to answer your question. Or better yet, your being a genius, start writing some papers refuting him and get them published. "

  That's an interesting way of saying you do not have an answer.

  Incidentally, thanks for all the suggestions on what I could make of my life and career.

  Published: September 23, 2009 2:56 PM

• Matthew Houseward

  Franklin,

  Obviously, the largest conventional army to have ever walked the earth was incapable of defending its citizens against terrorists, and its efforts to wage a war on terror have all but failed.

  If the debate is whether an anarcho-capitalist society could protect its citizens perfectly, then the debate is over: it can't.

  If the debate is whether anarcho-capitalism could perform the job as well as a centralized state, or even adequately, then the terrorist matter is settled.

  After all, if the standard for protecting against terrorism is complete failure, I'm pretty sure our hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society could at least manage that.

  Published: September 23, 2009 2:57 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Why is it necessarily true that S will make peace ONLY to rob both A and B? Is there missing text or missing justification? I am lost.
  
  You're right. S will only rob A OR B, not both. S needs someone to redistribute wealth to in order to justify S's position.
  
  This is only possible if S is given the authority to arbitrate and coerce other people, of course, as in a government. Without such coercion, both A and B would have to agree to let S arbitrate for them, and if they didn't agree, then perhaps they would agree upon R or T to arbitrate instead. "Authority" would then be voluntary on A and B's part instead of forced upon them.

  Published: September 23, 2009 3:01 PM

• Bala

  Michael A Clem,

  " This is only possible if S is given the authority to arbitrate and coerce other people, of course, as in a government. "

  Possible does not mean necessary. Unless this issue is resolved, the entire theory becomes a castle built on air or rather on wafer-thin assumptions.

  Published: September 23, 2009 3:05 PM

• Bala

  USA Today,

  " You are implying that in some instances S could really keep peace ? "

  I am not implying anything. I am just identifying what I thought is a major gap in the theory.

  That said, however, I can understand your erring on the side of caution. THAT is something I can understand.

  Published: September 23, 2009 3:10 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Possible does not mean necessary. Unless this issue is resolved, the entire theory becomes a castle built on air or rather on wafer-thin assumptions.
  
  Of course it doesn't mean necessary, but it is built on an understanding of human nature, not on air or assumptions. Even the best of humans are tempted by power when it is given to them, and even in the unlikely possiblity that you could get virtual saints to run government, that might engender other problems with their view of government. And how do you prevent scoundrels from seeking the power that is made available through government? This democratic voting process doesn't seem to prevent it.
  

  Published: September 23, 2009 3:18 PM

• USA Today

  Bala,

  "I can understand your erring on the side of caution."

  I would not call that "erring", LOL ! ;-)

  And history is littered with S's who have abused their power to rob both A and B and history has shown that it repeats itself.

  And if it is not certain that any particular S will abuse his power. It is certain that some S's will do it.

  It's not a question of who, it's not a question of if, it's a question of when.

  So caution is definitely not an error.

  Published: September 23, 2009 3:22 PM

• USA Today

  Matthew Houseward,

  "Obviously, the largest conventional army to have ever walked the earth was incapable of defending its citizens against terrorists, and its efforts to wage a war on terror have all but failed."

  The job of this army is to protect the government, not the citizens.

  And since the war on terror is the pretext to give this army increased power, then to "win" this war would mean failure. Success of the military regarding the war on terror is to extend this war for as long as possible in order to maintain increased power and influence of the military.

  If they captured and killed Bin Laden, then support for the war on terror would erode and the military's increased powers would come under scrutiny.

  The strategy of the war on terror is to keep it as long as possible and to gradually increase troops, ressources and surveillance priviledges.

  As long as the war on terror continues, then the military can continue to justify it's wartime power and priviledges.

  Published: September 23, 2009 3:28 PM

• Russ

  Jeff wrote:

  "There is no objective and impartial way to solve disputes without a government."

  There is no objective and impartial way to solve disputes *with* a government, either. Governments are not magic; they are not necessarily impartial (if that's possible) or objective (if that's possible). All that governments do is fill a power vacuum, and make sure that individuals and organizations don't have to resort to fighting to settle disputes, so that there can be enough peace to have a civilization worth the name.

  Published: September 23, 2009 3:38 PM

• Bala

  USA Today,

  " And history is littered with S's who have abused their power to rob both A and B and history has shown that it repeats itself "

  Michael A Clem,

  " but it is built on an understanding of human nature, not on air or assumptions. Even the best of humans are tempted by power when it is given to them "

  I am just wondering if we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  Let me take the case of the USA, for instance. Having started on revolutionary concept of Individual Rights, the USA now stands on the threshold of Socialism (or whatever you think this hybrid should be called). Is it a flaw in the nature of Government or is it possible that the founders left a chink in the armour at the time of constituting this great country (Neither am I an American, nor have I ever lived there)?

  For instance, how would the contours of America have been if the Bill of Rights had read ".....Rights to Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness" instead of ".....Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and the same Bill of Rights had been included in the American Constitution as something binding on Government?

  I am sure my question is hypothetical but to me, what was done is like giving a corruptible person an open invitation to become corrupt.

  Just drawing a parallel.... I employ a couple of people to drive my cars for me. One of the best pieces of advice I got in the matter was "Never give your driver money to fuel up your car. Always do it yourself."

  An alternative is of course to say that since drivers are inherently corruptible, I wouldn't employ a driver.

  To me, the first one appears most sensible. Which one does to you?
  

  Published: September 23, 2009 3:40 PM

• USA Today

  Bala,

  "I am just wondering if we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

  I'm single, with no kids, I hate women, I hate babies, I can do it by myself with a high speed internet connection and/or my imagination and I take a shower !

  I think that having kids is a crime against the soul.

  In fact, humanity should go on kid strike and stop breeding until they are allowed complete economic freedom.

  Published: September 23, 2009 3:46 PM

• Martin OB

  I don't see why a libertarian country could not develop a nuclear bomb for deterrence (not for actual use against civilians). If they know a totalitarian neighboring state hates them for some reason, and this state is developing nuclear weapons, the libertarians could agree to build a nuclear weapon with the strictest safety measures against accidental deployment. Then they can tell the hostile state officials to verify the authenticity of those weapons. Then they are in a position to propose nuclear disarmament treaties, which is the real point.

  Published: September 23, 2009 4:13 PM

• Mike C.

  While I agree with the goal, the means as stated – if I understand them correctly -- seem somewhat naïve from a military strategic standpoint. IMO, guerilla tactics are fine if you are desperate and it comes down to that but there is no defensive bunker posture, that a modern sophisticated industrial libertarian society could take, that would succeed for long, in any winning sense, against an aggressive, powerful and determined modern military thug state.

  I am not opposed to the idea of private militias or the idea of cooperative insurance companies running them but any sensible modern libertarian society’s defense would necessitate that it be strong enough and fully prepared, at a moments notice, to take coordinated group action to inflict serious damage to repel and even destroy invaders. It would also need to be capable of doing so before any aggressor could do any serious looting or physical damage to its citizen’s, property, and means of production.

  If a libertarian society were too weak, loose knit, uncoordinated, and were to simply rely on bunkers, hiding, waiting, using guerilla tactics and taking pot shots at the invaders then it would be doomed from the start. Even if a libertarian society succeeded in stinging and harassing and waiting out an invader or two, when the marauders finally did decide to leave, what would possibly be left behind besides waste and destruction and the industrial capacity of a semi Stone Age society like Afghanistan?

  Also, even if they believed that the price was too high to completely subdue a libertarian society, but that it would not pay too high a price for occasional incursions then, by leaving productive capacity somewhat intact, they could always simply look on it as a harvesting opportunity… After all, what is to really stop them from leaving a weak libertarian society alone long enough for it to rebuild wealth and then simply raid it every time they see it as ripe for the picking.

  Respectfully ~ Mike

  Published: September 23, 2009 4:35 PM

• Russ

  Martin OB wrote:

  "I don't see why a libertarian country could not develop a nuclear bomb for deterrence (not for actual use against civilians)."

  Because, for a nuclear weapon to be a deterrent, other countries have to believe that you have the will to actually use it. If you don't have that will, because you are afraid it will hurt innocent civilians, there is no credible threat, and hence no deterrent effect.

  Published: September 23, 2009 7:14 PM

• 'Nuke' Gray

  I suppose Guerilla militias could work, IF county militias regularly trained together as allies with other counties. Perhaps one of the prices of voluntary citizenship could be some sort of civil service,as a militia or a fireman, etc, training a few weeks each year, and gaining the right to vote on laws for public properties. An Allied Guerilla Corps (NOT United!)

  Published: September 23, 2009 7:34 PM

• 'Nuke' Gray

  Darjen- very few people had weapons in olden days. There was also a fatalistic attitude- if the gods punished your side, the victors were meant to rule. you don't want to anger them further by rejecting their verdict, do you?
  Also, few people had the training to put them to good use. I don't know of any blacksmiths, who made those weapons, becoming rulers- because they weren't trained in the best use of the weapons. (and how many employees of weapons firms regularly win shooting contests today? Same principle.)
  What is an anarcho-capitalist citizen? Anarchotopias wouldn't have citizens, would they?

  Published: September 23, 2009 9:40 PM

• newson

  to bala:
  reversing your argument, to assume the state can act as an honourable and impartial adjudicator of disputes one must assume that, on balance, the subset of politicians, is nobler than the broader population. i have trouble in believing that politicians even reach the average moral values of society, let alone superior ones.

  Published: September 23, 2009 10:34 PM

• Houseward

  So, we've got a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist state (ACS). Is it purely hypothetical, or are we envisioning an existing country turning into an ACS? How about Japan? That's easy, they don't even have a military, and they get along just fine. Now we only have to worry about privatizing the police and the public utilities.

  Okay, Japan is too easy. Is it realistic to think that the Netherlands, or Switzerland could become an ACS and still support a military suitable to their needs? What are those needs?

  Okay, realistically, an ACS would have volunteer militias (who wouldn't volunteer, sounds like fun). Large businesses would probably employ security forces to keep high value assets secure. Ports and airports would probably contract security as well, so your ACS has warships, jets, and helicopters. Do we launch satellites into space? Any reason why we wouldn't have the capability to put warheads on those missiles? Now we've got long range missile capabilities.

  After that, you've got allies and trading relationships, which is how 95% of the world gets along today anyway.

  What's the standard here? Does an ACS have to be able to amass an American sized army? That's unrealistic. If you have to fight an American-sized army, you're better off ditching conventional methods and going guerilla.

  It's more realistic to say that our ACS should be able to fend off Hugo Chavez, but not necessarily Hitler or Stalin.

  Published: September 23, 2009 10:47 PM

• newson

  i think it should also be pointed out that "defeat" may be chosen by many of the citizens of the invaded territory. after all, the nazis didn't kill all the french when they invaded in world war two. and most of the french didn't take up armed struggle. so their liberty was less important to them than their lives is the obvious conclusion. who's to say they were wrong?

  Published: September 23, 2009 10:49 PM

• newson

  to houseward:
  invasion is only likely to pay off (in an industrial economy) if the occupied territory has small population and large physical resources, or strategic geographical positioning.

  the third reich could never have lasted one thousand years, even without private ryan & co.

  Published: September 23, 2009 10:57 PM

• Bala

  newson,

  " reversing your argument, to assume the state can act as an honourable and impartial adjudicator of disputes one must assume that, on balance, the subset of politicians, is nobler than the broader population "

  You do not need to "reverse" my argument to arrive at this conclusion. What you have stated is indeed a necessary condition for any government to be an honourable and impartial adjudicator of disputes. This infact makes your next statement very important and illuminating.

  " i have trouble in believing that politicians even reach the average moral values of society, let alone superior ones "

  So do I. However, what I would go on and add is that politicians emerge from society. Their moral framework cannot be too different from the prevalent moral framework in a society. If we keep consistently getting politicians who have a weak moral framework and whose actions (as a consequence) are not consistent with the principles of a free society, it means that the moral framework of the entire society is likely to be faulty. It would be very unfair to expect people to live in a society that works on a flawed moral framework and then blame them for imbibing it.

  The flawed moral framework I am referring to is the altruistic moral code that is best exemplified by the statement "Man is his brother's keeper". Once you accept this flawed moral code, freedom is impossible. Politicians who act by this principle are bound to turn out to be Statists who will ultimately use the State machinery to trample upon people's natural rights to Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness.

  What we therefore need, above all, especially if our wish is to re-establish and preserve freedom, is a moral revolution. We need to have a substantial number of people being ready to reject the altruistic moral creed and affirm their conviction in a rational morality rooted in the virtue of selfishness and the nature of man as a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. When (and only when) this stage of evolution is reached, we will find noble politicians emerging on the stage of politics.

  This moral revolution needs widespread education. People need to be given an anti-dote to the moral poison that has been/is being injected into their system.

  This is where I believe the Ludwig von Mises Institute, with its phenomenally brilliant understanding of most other issues, especially Economics, should take it up and make spreading such a moral framework its key mission. Without it, freedom is impossible and the LvMI would be failing in its own mission - the never ending struggle for Liberty.

  That's why I have been and still am posting comments on this blog.

  (For more clarity on why the statement that "Man is his brother's keeper" is at the root of all our problems, see my comments on the blog "Freedom is Indivisible")

  Published: September 23, 2009 11:54 PM

• K Ackermann

  Houseward, you bring up and interesting point about Japan:

  It's not accurate to say they do not have a military, but with a budget of only $48 billion, considering the size of the population, it's pretty small. They do have a strategic partnership with the US, and I'm sure that helps.

  The interesting thing is, they actually have a policy that strives to ensure their military will not become a menace to the world. They have seen it happen enough times in the past.

  That very well could be a solution: trade for military protection.

  The biggest threat would not be from without, but from within, so it wouldn't help there.

  With no state authority, there would be all sorts of security solutions. It would ensure a constant supply of power struggles. As soon as power begins to concentrate, it is seen as a threat and opposing forces would form, and then the civilian population is used as a pawn. Eventually someone claims authority, and then bad things happen.

  I don't understand the unwillingness to consider a state structure. Influence is what has chipped away at the constitution. That and courts willing to give in to influence. There are ways to restrict influence, and the first is to constitutionally mandate the amount of taxes it can collect. Starve it with a 2% cap on taxes that can never, ever be changed. It does with 2% what it can, and not a penny more.
  

  Published: September 24, 2009 12:11 AM

• Gil

  "This nuke talk, now that's insane." - mpolz.

  Why? If you a farmer in the middle of nowhere and surrounded by a huge army then having a nuke underneath the house will give the army incentive to turn away. Good luck trying to take out an army with a six-shooter.

  Published: September 24, 2009 1:23 AM

• Inquisitor

  "There is no objective and impartial way to solve disputes without a government. "

  Rofl people still believe this garbage? Yeah, there is. Just like there is a way to do so without god. Get over it.

  Published: September 24, 2009 4:12 AM

• P.M.Lawrence

  Darjen asks "...why didn't people resort to insurgency back in Roman or Greek times? These empires really did rule a huge number of foreign people for a long time."

  Sometimes, they did. But in general, it doesn't work unless outside factors also come into play, because there are many methods that are effective against it if only the counter-insurgent has a free hand, enough time and enough resources (there are trade offs between the last two; if there is enough time, it is possible to use methods that pay for themselves). Today's situation does not contradict this, it only shows the kind of obstacles to using these methods. For instance, it isn't currently practical to lay everything waste and round up and then massacre or exile local populations.

  'Nuke' Gray wrote "Darjen- very few people had weapons in olden days".

  Actually, many did - because even agricultural implements like billhooks were state of the art weapons.

  Published: September 24, 2009 4:23 AM

• Mark Jones

  Regarding parties S, A, and B.

  There is an, apparently confusing, jump in logic in reaching the conclusion that S will prey on A and B. This jump involves the statement of the problem.

  Why would A and B wish to subject themselves to S? It is stated that this is in order to derive protection from each other. Now, here is the unexplained portion of the argument: S, A, and B being essentially parties of similar constitution, S will prey on A and B in the same manner that it is assumed that A and B would prey on each other in S's absence. Thus, granting S a favorable position to control A and B, S will accept in order to better prey on A and B.

  The only way around this refutation is to not assume the predatory relationship between A and B, but, then, the problem disappears. So, in a world where this predatory relationship exists, the argument is fallacious, and in a world where the predatory relationship does not exist, it is unnecessary.

  Published: September 24, 2009 6:45 AM

• Mike C.

  Bala said, 'What we therefore need, above all, especially if our wish is to re-establish and preserve freedom, is a moral revolution".

  You are absolutely correct, the world and America in particular is using an old set of altruistic ethics which completely contradicts capitalism instead of consistently supporting it. Ayn Rand spent her life trying to teach the world this lesson however I think we are at least a hundred years or more from any real breakthrough.

  A few months ago I was listening to Rush Limbaugh pay tribute to Ayn Rand and reminded of why reality seems upside down in this society. He was trying to justify capitalism and rational selfishness, in true Christian conservative fashion, by using altruist terminology and explaining away obviously selfish acts as selfless but, considering the audience, it was probably the best explanation that he could offer.

  As long as the altruist propaganda machine dominates and defines the everday terms we use there will be no real breakthrough, the world will continue to see capitalism and rational selfishness as inherently evil and the rationally selfish capitalist will continue to be seen as nothing but a nasty necessity instead of the inherently moral being that he is.

  Published: September 24, 2009 6:57 AM

• USA Today

  K Ackermann,

  Do you really think that words written on a piece of paper will stop armed men from taking more than 2% and ruling over the world ?

  Published: September 24, 2009 7:46 AM

• USA Today

  Gil,

  I love you, you're my hero !

  Published: September 24, 2009 7:48 AM

• Dat

  Gil

  "If you a farmer in the middle of nowhere and surrounded by a huge army then having a nuke underneath the house will give the army incentive to turn away. Good luck trying to take out an army with a six-shooter"

  Sure and when farmer Joe just happens to come home and find that his wife is leaving him for rancher Dan, I can just imagine the conversation in some cases... BOOOM!!!!!.

  Unless a farmer happened to live on a deserted Pacific island there is no way that he could set off even a small nuclear explosion that would not damage or ruin others property for many miles around... and given the irrational nature of many humans under certain passionate circumstances there is no way that any sane society would allow the average individual to own nuclear weapons.
  

  Published: September 24, 2009 8:28 AM

• Martin OB

  Russ:
  "Because, for a nuclear weapon to be a deterrent, other countries have to believe that you have the will to actually use it. If you don't have that will, because you are afraid it will hurt innocent civilians, there is no credible threat, and hence no deterrent effect."

  But that's not how foreign policy works. Can you imagine a ruler telling his generals and his people at large "we are bombing those libertarian peaceniks. They have ten times as many nukes as we have, but they are too kind to use them"? No, the ruler needs to convince his people that the libertarian neighbors are a real threat. He may well believe that as well. So, they would never take the risk.

  What if they did? Besides the deterrence nuclear capacity, it would be good to have parallel strategies for a worst-case scenario. I would recommend a swarm of high-precision missiles to destroy military objectives, or even an ABM system. Yes, the way Bush was doing it was pretty useless, but I think the general idea is worth considering. Teleoperated human-sized robots would be very useful for a land-invasion. Besides non-nuclear counter-strike measures, quick evacuation plans and a gallery of bunkers against the radioactive fallout would also be a good idea.

  Why do so many people believe that a libertarian country, as good as it would be in civilian technology, would turn to third-world military techniques and warcraft?

  To those who cringe at this scenario, please remember two things: first, it would be all voluntary and market-based, no state, no coercion; second, we are talking about a peaceful libertarian country with an unusually dangerous and hostile neighbor, and no strong allies to do the dirty work. That's not a very realistic situation.

  Published: September 24, 2009 9:29 AM

• mpolzkill

  Dat,

  That is correct. Also notice what Russ last said here. He reveals [without trying] the insane ignorance of these two in a different way. Gangsters don't mainly threaten each other with nukes, they threaten each other's herds. As the U.S. gangsters showed when they vaporized, melted, burned, blasted and permanently sickened tens of thousands of innocent Japanese women and children (the second time quite gratuitously), they mean business, and the business was mainly with Stalin.

  [This is all so idiotic] Imagining that Gil could fire his missile far enough to not be harmed by it: no libertarian could really mean to threaten or deliver on slaughtering thousands of innocent women and children in retaliation for or preemption of a missile strike on his family farm.

  Notice, "Dat", how almost no one ever addresses Gil and "USA Today". If and when they do, they quickly realize why they won't again. I'm the only one around here screwy enough to forget from time to time.

  Published: September 24, 2009 9:52 AM

• USA Today

  Dat,

  "I can just imagine the conversation in some cases... BOOOM!!!!!."

  You mean, you would blow up your cheat wife with a nuke ? Damn, talk about domestic violence.

  I agree Dat, that we should not let *YOU* own a nuke.

  But if I was farmer joe, I would be married to my nukes. Me and my nukes, the perfect nuclear family. I have no use for women. So rancher Dan can have all the women in the world for himself.

  Women...YUCK ! Please ! I'm eating. You're spoiling my meal.

  Published: September 24, 2009 10:02 AM

• Dat

  mpolzkill said, "Notice, "Dat", how almost no one ever addresses Gil and "USA Today". If and when they do, they quickly realize why they won't again. I'm the only one around here screwy enough to forget from time to time."

  Thanks for the heads up.

  Published: September 24, 2009 10:17 AM

• Houseward

  Initially I said that conventional armies were primarily there for the head of state, not the people, and that insurgency was the people's warfare. I have to clarify. A conventional military in an anarcho-capitlist society (ACS) would also defend the power structure, but that power structure in an ACS would be "liberty", as opposed to a head of state. In either case, there comes a point where the power structure is abandoned, and the people fight for themselves: insurgency. In the former case, the head of state decides how many other people he is willing to sacrifice to secure his own liberty, while in the latter, it's the individual that decides which he values more: his life or his liberty.

  For me, this changes the need and the nature of the army.

  Consider Stalin defending Russia. He sacrificed 15% of his population to defend his power. What was the result for the Russian people? Were they better off under Stalin than Hitler?

  For me, it calls into question the importance of a military beyond deterrence and the ability to expel a totally belligerent moderately-sized threat.

  Being able to fight WWII might not even be desirable.

  Again, I don't really think its realistic regardless, but the discussion helps me put the warfare state into a new context.

  Published: September 24, 2009 11:24 AM

• John Mac

  Houseward,

  The advantage of an insurgency by the people is that there is no head to decapitate and that to eliminate the insurgency requires to eliminate everybody, which is realistically impossible.

  Our government is learning that expensive lesson in Afghanistan.

  Published: September 24, 2009 11:27 AM

• Bala

  It is indeed interesting to note that no one at all (especially confirmed anarchists) is addressing the important issue that I had raised - the point that the statement that "To be sure, S will make peace between A and B, but only so that he himself can rob both of them more profitably." which lies at the root of the theory dismissing the State as inherently evil is an assumption that is not necessarily valid.

  Are the confirmed anarchists (with the exception of Michael A Clem who tried) trying to avoid an uncomfortable question? Just wondering.

  Published: September 24, 2009 4:15 PM

• Bala

  oops!!! That was newson who tried, not Michael A Clem. Apologies...

  Published: September 24, 2009 4:17 PM

• Martin OB

  Bala:

  If A and B have a dispute about rights then there's a real problem to solve. That means A and B need some more "legislation" in the form of agreements.

  The idea that something is gained for peace by having a thug force the will of one of them against the other one is DOA, in my opinion, even if he does it for free.

  Published: September 24, 2009 4:55 PM

• Bala

  Martin OB,

  While I do not disagree with you on the undesirability of a thug, my question is theoretical and logical.

  If I am right, then the entire theory regarding the inherent evil nature of the State becomes false. As I see it, it (the theory) is based on an unjustified assumption. It is a possibility but not a necessity.

  Therefore, what we may need to explore is not alternatives to the State but how to prevent government from becoming a transgressor of Individual Rights (the thug you are concerned about).

  Published: September 24, 2009 5:48 PM

• Martin OB

  Bala;

  My answer, despite colorful language, was also theoretical and logical, not emotional. My point is, if you are right, that means there are selfless thugs who do the bullying for the sake of peace, not for personal gain. Ancap theory is not based on the impossibility of selfless thugs. If anything, it's based on the observation that thugs don't solve coexistence problems, they just takes sides in them. Coexistence problems are solved by agreements. Sometimes the agreement is not possible and the problem remains, whether or not thugs are added to the equation. In practice,

  I'd say the first agreements should be about homesteading, secession, pollution (defined in the broadest sense, as an activity with physically detectable effects in other people's property; this includes, among other things, fumes, noise and radiation of all kinds) and catastrophe risk (to be handled like pollution, by agreeing on acceptable levels). Notice that a fenced community may have, for instance, higher noise limits than its neighboring community, but the noise level detected in the silent community, coming from the noisy community, should be lower than the global limit. That is, the problem of pollution limits is not solved by secession alone.

  Published: September 24, 2009 6:36 PM

• Gil

  So what if a farmer shoots his wife and rancher Dan with a standard farmer's rifle? Ban all guns? There seems to be a pattern here.

  Published: September 24, 2009 7:43 PM

• Bala

  Martin OB,

  " if you are right, that means there are selfless thugs who do the bullying for the sake of peace, not for personal gain. "

  No. That's not what I mean. I am saying that the theory that the State is inherently evil is wrong and based on unjustified assumptions. I am also saying that the reason States and Governments of the past were populated by and inevitably taken over by thugs was moral corruption. I have explained my thoughts on that briefly in my post timed September 23, 2009 11:54 PM on this blog.

  You are saying that man has a Shakesperean "fatal flaw" whereas I am saying that there is no such thing and that the problems we face are due to centuries of poisoning of people's minds with an evil morality called Altruism.

  Published: September 25, 2009 12:51 AM

• mpolzkill

  Martin, you are saying that man has a Shakespearean "fallibility" (I have determined you got this crazy idea from him, and don't you know that Shakespeare was an idiot?) whereas I am saying that there is no such thing and that the problems we face are due to the centuries of suffering people have endured with an evil affliction called Bad Mojo.

  Published: September 25, 2009 1:21 AM

• Mrhuh

  "No taxes, being fired. Ackerman does not know what gives the State its vast powers: the consent of its victims (citizens)."

  Isn't that what would give competing private insurance companies their power as well.

  Published: September 25, 2009 3:11 AM

• Martin OB

  Bala and mpolzkill: guys, I'm amazed. Where did I mention Shakespeare, fatal flaws or human fallibility? I guess I should be flattered, since I'm much more ignorant of English literature than you seem to assume.

  Bala, you said that the statement "To be sure, S will make peace between A and B, but only so that he himself can rob both of them more profitably." was the key assumption behind anarchism, and then proceeded to deny it. I said I don't think that's the case, so you are hitting a strawman.

  mpolzkill, don't trust the translator, go to the original source ;)

  Guys, read again what I said and replace "thug" with "third party". Let's at least discuss real, not imagined, positions and statements.

  Published: September 25, 2009 5:15 AM

• mpolzkill

  Martin (maybe you knew I was joking and I don't get your joke?), tell me you know I was making a little parody of Bala's typically loopy last paragraph.

  Published: September 25, 2009 7:32 AM

• Martin OB

  mpolzkill:

  Oops! Sorry, pal. I can tell you that if it makes you happy, but it would be rather Kristolly of me. Anyway, maybe I do need those sarcasm tags after all .

  Published: September 25, 2009 8:55 AM

• mpolzkill

  Well yes, it would have made me happy, couldn't you have been just a little Kristolly? (ha ha)

  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  Bala could save himself so much brain burning if he would ditch Rand for Rothbard:

  http://mises.org/daily/3716

  but I believe that, like a nerd version of Tom Sizemore ("It's the juice. It's the action") in the camp classic "Heat", Bala's in it for the meandering dead-end mental gymnastics.

  Published: September 25, 2009 9:19 AM

• Bala

  Martin OB,

  " Bala, you said that the statement "To be sure, S will make peace between A and B, but only so that he himself can rob both of them more profitably." was the key assumption behind anarchism, and then proceeded to deny it. I said I don't think that's the case, so you are hitting a strawman. "

  No. I am not saying that this is the key assumption behind the justification for Anarchism. I am saying that this is the key assumption behind the identification of the State as inherently evil. I am only suggesting that since the assumption identified is not necessarily valid, there is a possibility that the State, or more so Government, is not inherently evil.

  I am also implying that the struggle for freedom may therefore not necessarily involve eliminating Government and moving towards Anarchy (though it may yet mean that if Anarchy is inherently better).

  What this implies is that, in my opinion, the debate on Anarchy vs Government is misplaced and premature. As I understand it, the real hurdle to freedom is not the State or Government but the corrupt Moral code of Altruism that most of the world's population lives by. This moral code is so evil it can turn the most moral of Governments (or even an Anarchy) into a totalitarian regime. The real fight for freedom, therefore, is a moral war to root out the Altruistic morality and to replace it with a morality of rational selfishness, the only moral code compatible with freedom and the preservation of Individual Rights.

  Published: September 25, 2009 10:42 AM

• Bala

  mpolzkill,

  " Bala could save himself so much brain burning if he would ditch Rand for Rothbard: "

  I think I would do much better by taking the best of wisdom from both. I also think the world would be a better place if a lot of other people did that too.

  Published: September 25, 2009 10:45 AM

• Bala

  mpolzkill,

  Just adding to what I said, the option of ditching Rand for Rothbard or for that matter ditching Rothbard for Rand is a false choice. When I can have both, I would be a fool to ditch either. By making this false choice, it is you who are missing a lot.

  Published: September 25, 2009 11:06 AM

• mpolzkill

  I know, but what can I do? I've got "Atlas Shrugged" on my reading list placed right after "The Agni Yoga", "The Confessions of Aleister Crowley", "Aesthetic Realism", "Fear", "Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist" and "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson".

  I kid, I don't mean to lump together the happy-go-lucky writers of those tomes with the fine lady that called all Arabs "savages". But seriously, she "has been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

  "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

  [Just thought this stuff might be like garlic to a vampire, ha ha.]

  Why not give her a rest for awhile and try some Nietzsche? No, you would have to infer things and be confronted with ambiguity then, definitely not Mr. Black and White's bag.

  Published: September 25, 2009 12:47 PM

• Russ

  mpolzkill wrote:

  "Why not give her a rest for awhile and try some Nietzsche? No, you would have to infer things and be confronted with ambiguity then, definitely not Mr. Black and White's bag."

  YOU, the guy who thinks all minarchist libertarians are statists, are calling somebody else "Mr. Black and White"???

  HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Pot. Kettle. BLACK!
  

  Published: September 25, 2009 1:22 PM

• mpolzkill

  The existence of the many ambiguities in the Universe that Bala is blind to does not preclude the existence of things that ARE "black and white". The colors black and white, for instance (for your information Bala shockingly called Israelis and Arabs: "the white and the black".) Also: pregnancy. One is pregnant or one isn't. Just as one is a statist or one isn't. You tell me where exactly this obscure line is where one becomes a statist. If it's a meaningless word to you, fine. It's not to me:

  State-ist
  State-advocate
  Russ, the guy who is forever defending the State
  Yep

  I will concede totalitarian as an acceptable word for your idea of statist. Why do you need both words? Because you are a minor-league state propagandist.

  (And I understand the common and corrupt usage of the word, why it suits you that it is and probably how it got to be that way. I read my Nietzsche)

  You're the one who has the greater problem with conceptual continuums here. You constantly think I'm calling you a Nazi when I believe you are a fairly harmless quisling. See? Shading.

  Published: September 25, 2009 1:47 PM

• Bala

  mpolzkill,

  " The colors black and white, for instance (for your information Bala shockingly called Israelis and Arabs: "the white and the black" "

  May I now state explicitly what I indicated before? That maybe you are right that the formation of a Jewish State in a region where the Arabs were the majority was an act of lunacy? That the continuing fear among the Arabs over the potential setting up of a Jewish State in the region (which eventually proved to be right) was the reason for their violent reactions of 1920-21, 1939 and 1937? That their fears might be justified because they did not want to live by laws they did not agree with and which may have forced them to compromise their faith (however irrational that faith may be)? That even Hamas which opposes the Jewish State may not oppose the idea of Jews living in that region and may also be ready to consider a non-State solution to the problem out there? The last bit is my fantasising, but not impossible.

  Could we bury the hatchet?

  Incidentally, as I understand it, ambiguity implies uncertainty of knowledge. It can only imply that one is not sure is something is Black or White. That uncertainty cannot, however, be used as the reason to infer that it is "Grey".

  Published: September 25, 2009 2:16 PM

• Bala

  mpolzkill,

  " State-ist
  State-advocate
  Russ, the guy who is forever defending the State Yep "

  IMO you are losing a lot of people and wasting a lot of time and energy by going on an anti-State tirade.

  To me, a lot of the theory that "proves" that the State is inherently evil is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption that I have tried to identify on this blog. There are 2 ways about this.

  1. Show that I am wrong. In other words, show (even if it is to convince yourself) that what I have identified is not at the root of the theory that the State is inherently evil. In this case, your tirade would be justified and you should continue it.
  2. Agree that the assumption taken to be "necessarily true" is not so, that it is key to the theory and hence, that the State may not necessarily be evil. In this case, your tirade would be meaningless and counterproductive. Stopping it would enable you to find time for the real challenges in the path to Liberty. IMO, that means working towards a moral revolution.

  I would be happy to know your position on this.

  Published: September 25, 2009 8:33 PM

• mpolzkill

  Free men don't lose statists. You've been lost since grade school. That's where you became lost.

  I was just practicing my writing. Worms aren't convinced of the benefits and then taught to be eagles.

  Published: September 25, 2009 10:14 PM

• newson

  bala says:

  "I am also saying that the reason States and Governments of the past were populated by and inevitably taken over by thugs was moral corruption."

  many bad people sit in the chamber in a big government, as indeed they do in the nascent one. the difference is only in their relative capacity to exercise their will. as per lord acton, power will always attract evil men. the more on offer, the stronger the pull.

  the only way to fight alligators is to drain the swamp. it's no good trying to identify the "good" alligator, or to tame them.
  

  Published: September 26, 2009 12:06 AM

• mpolzkill

  I wonder if Bala has ever observed the peculiar mental habits of Holocaust deniers. They many times do not arrive where they are because of any inherent "anti-Semitism" (though the pranging they are destined to receive from thousands of righteous Jews may well turn them in that direction, ha ha). There is a wobbly type of "thinker" who believes that when he finds a discrepency in the account or in the methodology of any one witness or historian of the Holocaust that this causes the entire edifice to come tumbling down from his own brilliant probing and discovery. A movie was made about one Fred Leuchter who ruined his own life when he got the bright idea that there was no Holocaust because he didn't find (over forty years after the murder factory closed shop) the residue of Zyklon-B at Auschwitz. When the amateur deep thinker find his "Eureka!" he generally run's around like a little McCarthy yelling something like, "I have documents! I have lists! I have evidence!" All the sensible people ignoring him are further proof to him that he must be right.

  Published: September 26, 2009 8:28 AM

• Martin OB

  Bala:

  "No. I am not saying that this is the key assumption behind the justification for Anarchism. I am saying that this is the key assumption behind the identification of the State as inherently evil. I am only suggesting that since the assumption identified is not necessarily valid, there is a possibility that the State, or more so Government, is not inherently evil."

  Fine, maybe the government is not intrinsically "evil" (whatever that means), but it *is* intrinsically coercive, furthermore, intrinsically aggressive, and perfectly useless in the advancement of social peace. That's because, as I said, social peace comes from the elimination of social conflict, and social conflict is only eliminated when the conflicting parties agree to a solution. Adding more participants who take sides does not eliminate the conflict, it just affects its outcome.

  I have no problem to accept that an incredibly wise and honest government could be even better than no government. For instance, it could know that a drought is coming and force citizens to save crops, even if they disagree, and they may realize later how right the government was. It could also be the case that your neighbor "borrows" (steals, actually) your property and he takes care of it better than you would, and then he gives you back much more wealth, and eventually you are glad he did. Or maybe he wants to clean your house for free, but he's too shy to ask for permission, so you could leave your door open wide at night, so that he can come and clean it while you sleep.

  Those are all wonderful possibilities we must do without, because for every person who would use the opportunity as we intend, there are thousands who would abuse it if given half a chance. That's not Shakespeare, it's common sense.

  That said, I agree that wise, honest, limited and accountable government is preferable to stupid, demagogic, corrupt and unrestrained totalitarian government. Lowering taxes and deregulating some sectors are steps in the right direction. But it's also useful to discuss where the path leads, whether the end point is desirable, and why.

  Published: September 26, 2009 11:39 AM

• mpolzkill

  Martin: "That's not Shakespeare, it's common sense."

  No joking this time, Martin, but a light-hearted admonition: you have made an absurd statement. What single individual ever created and radiated more common sense than Shakespeare?!?

  What inspired my mockery of Bala on this point was how he was calling you Shakespearean as a put down! It seems you are now accepting the extreme goofiness of his "logic"!?! Is it the modern mania for originality that is the cause of Shakespeare's being abused here and your denying him like you are Peter in the Garden? (still light-hearted here)

  Published: September 26, 2009 12:34 PM

• Martin OB

  mpolzkill:

  So I'm a Shakespeare hater now, huh? Or was it a coward closet Shakespearean? ha, ha. You would be a great smear campaign designer.

  For the record, I just meant it takes no Shakespeare to see the risks I mentioned. I'd expect him to take the reader far beyond that. It's a bit like saying "it's not rocket science, you can't travel to the moon by plane".

  Published: September 26, 2009 1:59 PM

• mpolzkill

  [sardonic smile] I take that as a great compliment.

  I understand, I was just giving you the business.

  Funny, all my previous conversations with Bala have ended with me giving a variation of, "it's not rocket science, Bala"

  Published: September 26, 2009 2:20 PM

• Bala

  Martin OB,

  " but it *is* intrinsically coercive "

  But then isn't any retaliatory use of force too coercive? By implying that being coercive is undesirable, are we then saying that there should be no retaliatory use of force? How then is an individual to handle the unwarranted initiation of force against him by another individual? And if a government engages in "coercion" solely as a means of exerting retaliatory force against those who initiated it, why would that be undesirable?

  " social conflict is only eliminated when the conflicting parties agree to a solution "

  And what does one do when one of the parties remains intransigent and refuses to agree to a solution though he may be in the wrong? What is the victim to do? How does he get justice if no form of coercion is to be practiced and only agreements are to be reached? As a specific example, how does one deal with murderers and robbers (after they are identified to have committed the said crime)?

  " there are thousands who would abuse it if given half a chance "

  Not thousands, but millions or even billions. My point too. What I am however saying is that the solution does not lie in figuring out how disputes will be settled - through a government that is granted the monopoly over the retaliatory use of force in a given geographical area or through a system of competing PDAs. Such discussions can only help a lot of free men trying to decide which is the best mechanism to institute for dispute resolution and dispensing justice. Given the miniscule population of free men on this planet, I think this discussion is going nowhere.

  I am saying that the only real solution lies in bringing that number down from the billions to a few millions and progressively to a much smaller number. The real reason there are billions who will abuse power if given half a chance is moral corruption. Many of these people who thus abuse power actually think they are being morally upright in doing so. They see their actions as justified means to morally desirable ends. The real problem is that they follow the corrupt altruist moral code. Michael Moore is a prime example of that. (Disclaimer: I have not seen any of his movies, though, because the reviews themselves sounded so disgusting.)

  " But it's also useful to discuss where the path leads, whether the end point is desirable, and why. "

  I do not disagree with you. My point is that it is also equally important to discuss the means. Ends without an understanding of the means to attain them shall always remain impossible dreams.

  I am therefore saying that addressing the moral corruption is integral to attaining liberty and preserving it. That's where, IMO, Rand's morality of rational selfishness becomes critical. Integrating that with Rothbard's ideas related to Liberty is what I am suggesting. I think rational men with a mind open to discussion should be prepared to engage in such a process unless they see something fundamentally disagreeable in the morality of rational selfishness or something in it that deeply contradicts Rothbard's ideas on Liberty.

  As far as I have seen, the two are perfectly compatible and it would be in all our interest to integrate them. I wish LvMI would take it up because they are most likely to make it happen and well equipped (intellectually) to do so.

  Published: September 27, 2009 6:01 AM

• Bala

  mpolzkill,

  " When the amateur deep thinker find his "Eureka!" he generally run's around like a little McCarthy yelling something like, "I have documents! I have lists! I have evidence!" "

  Point taken. However, may I request you to guide me as to where I could find conclusive arguments that establish that the State is inherently evil? I am here to learn and am prepared to read whatever it takes to do so.

  Published: September 27, 2009 6:07 AM

• mpolzkill

  The idea that we must live under the State unless we can prove that it is inherently evil is a pretty ridiculous false dilemma; and it's not really up for discussion, just as the most sensible abolitionists and *chattel* slaves didn't argue much, just demanded. Slavery advocates then and now (statists) never seem to realize that actually the burden of proof is completely on them. That's because of mass mental inertia and the guns on their side. But just for fun:

  Whatever cases I've heard on the State's side, I'm still not buying; but a guy with a gun will still show up at my door when I fully ignore the State. Evil in my book and (yet again) not rocket surgery.

  You tell *me* how any man is born superior or is somehow trained to be anyone else's rightful master; or how people too pathetic to make most decisions in their own lives somehow en masse have the power to pick *everyone's* master when they vote on it.

  Another thing about me (and this distinction is completely ignored in these discussions), I'm a panarchist. I wouldn't subject myself unconditionally for life to a hypothetically *perfect* human being or body; but you are totally free to subject yourselves to whomever or whatever you want. So, you can have any type of government for *yourself* that you want. I'm not telling you what to do outside of not assault or rob me. So, again, there is no burden of proof on me regarding the State's inherent evil.

  All that aside, I still *do* consider it inherently evil. I know you don't consider 100% of history to be any sort of proof (poltical masters just need some more time and recources perhaps...right.) I think I already sent this to you, but Spenser gave the historical case condemning it and a good enough philosophical case for little old me. If you all just have to play with your flags and keep your states you still must leave me the hell alone if I have not committed assault, theft of physical property or fraud; or it is *you* that is the criminal. If you feel you have to go kill or spy on some Muslims (or whoever, Commies, etc.) to feel secure, you need to sell me on it and *ask* for a donation to your cause:

  http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm

  Published: September 27, 2009 7:42 AM

• Gil

  "You tell *me* how any man is born superior or is somehow trained to be anyone else's rightful master; or how people too pathetic to make most decisions in their own lives somehow en masse have the power to pick *everyone's* master when they vote on it."

  Duh! It's easy mpolz - some people are born strong enough to be leaders while others are born weak enough to be followers. A great many people aren't strong enough to be free hence they settle so they agree to be ruled by the strong in exchange for their protection. Duh!

  Published: September 27, 2009 9:21 AM

• mpolzkill

  Thank you, Gilbert Khan. Quite: "might makes right" sure is a "duh". But then note your word, "agree" where you invalidate your own "duh." They do not agree. For example: 62 million people just forced their idiot over the 60 million who wanted their idiot, all against the wishes of the many informed enough to not want either, and the handful who don't fit either of your crude categories.

  Obama, born strong enough to lead. Hilarious. The more the population and hence society corrupts and weakens the more ridiculous the apparent leader becomes until we are faced with absolute farce.

  Published: September 27, 2009 10:17 AM

• mpolzkill

  [Why I answer your sub-juvenelia, I have no idea]

  The word was "master" you change it to "leader". There are millions of born leaders. Most of the ways they could lead have been made illegal by our MASTERS. These masters are empowered by an increasingly infantile mob. Your little schematic here is imbecilic.

  Published: September 27, 2009 10:32 AM

• Martin OB

  Bala:

  "But then isn't any retaliatory use of force too coercive? "

  Yes, you are right, "coercive" should be a danger signal, but it's not by itself a condemnation; that's why I added "aggressive".

  "And what does one do when one of the parties remains intransigent and refuses to agree to a solution though he may be in the wrong? What is the victim to do?"

  Ultimately, the victim (or their protection agency) may have to fight. I'm not denying that. All I'm saying is that fighting does not solve a conflict. The conflict is the fact that you disagree with your neighbor; if he thinks he is in the right, he won't change his mind after being defeated or coerced. When you decide to fight, you are not picking a solution to the conflict, you are either accepting the fact that you can't solve it, or deciding your neighbor is lying and there's no real conflict (he doesn't really believe he has those rights).

  I'll tell you my account of what anarchy is by comparison with other political systems.

  Every society realizes that some coexistence rules are necessary. Monarchists will argue about who is to make them; democrats will argue about how to make them (direct democracy) or how to decide who is to make them (republic); anarchists will argue about the rules themselves. Anarchists don't believe the rule-making should be delegated, and they see a genuine problem whenever the rules are left behind by the facts. They will pick the most durable, universal, timeless rules they can think of. Since they believe the key point of agreement should be the law and not the law maker, anarchy may well be the closest to the "rule of law".

  "The real problem is that they follow the corrupt altruist moral code. Michael Moore is a prime example of that. "

  Altruist? You must be speaking jargon. See this Michael Moore quote:

  "I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do."

  Ayn Rand would be proud, right? :p
  

  Published: September 27, 2009 1:52 PM

• mpolzkill

  To say that defending oneself from a criminal should or even could be called "coercing" the criminal: this is an abuse of the English language.

  Published: September 27, 2009 2:19 PM

• Bala

  Martin OB,

  While I do not disagree that discussing the rules governing dispute settlement is very important, my problem is with the objectives you have set for these processes. In your previous post, you said

  " Fine, maybe the government is not intrinsically "evil" (whatever that means), but it *is* intrinsically coercive, furthermore, intrinsically aggressive, and perfectly useless in the advancement of social peace. That's because, as I said, social peace comes from the elimination of social conflict, and social conflict is only eliminated when the conflicting parties agree to a solution. "

  You have implied here that "social peace" is what you seek to advance. This objective, to me, does not sound appropriate. I would be far more comfortable with the word "justice". Without justice, specifically a widespread belief that justice is possible in a given society, social peace is impossible and may even be undesirable. Of what value to man is peace without a possibility of justice?

  My point is that "justice" may at some stage require "coercion" and even "aggression" (By this, I mean the agent of the aggrieved party initiating force against the offender. I am calling this "aggression" since the offender never initiated force against the agent.). Without this "coercion" or "aggression", justice would become impossible and meaningless. Hence, to use ideas such as the undesirability of "aggression" to dismiss the agency that dispenses "justice" may turn out to be dismissing the very notion or the possibility of "justice". I am not prepared to do that.

  Continuing on your point about the difference between others and Anarchists, we Objectivists add that "justice" per se is a better objective than social peace which, as I have said earlier, is a by-product of and impossible without justice.

  On Michael Moore, his movies talk for him far more than his quotes do. In any case, Ayn Rand would keep rotating forever in her grave if I said that she would be proud of Michael Moore because of 1 statement of his.

  mpolzkill,

  " To say that defending oneself from a criminal should or even could be called "coercing" the criminal: this is an abuse of the English language. "

  I am here not talking of defending oneself when a criminal act is being performed but of an agent of the victim exercising retaliatory force against the accused. From the perspective of the accused, it would be seen as coercion. I fail to see how else he would see it. For instance, if you have to return stolen property, you have to physically take it away from the thief or prevent (by exerting physical force) the thief from preventing the original owner from taking it away. I am unable to understand how the accused would not see this as coercive or how you fail to see this as coercive.

  Published: September 27, 2009 6:02 PM

• Bala

  mpolzkill,

  " The idea that we must live under the State unless we can prove that it is inherently evil is a pretty ridiculous false dilemma "

  I presume this was directed at me. So I will address this myself.

  When I said that the inherent evil nature of the State is not proven, I am not saying "Let us live under the State until it is proven that it is evil."

  Rather, I am saying that by blaming the unacceptable violations of Liberty by States past and present on their "nature", we may be missing the point completely and end up barking up the wrong tree.

  You could end up with a "non-State" society and be in a much worse problem if you failed to tackle the causes that actually made the State "evil".

  It is in that sense that I have identified and continue to identify the "Altruist Morality" as our biggest enemy. That is why I believe the real batlle for Liberty will start with rooting out this vile morality from the minds of a substantial proportion of the human population. The idea is not to "emancipate" this section of the population but to "emancipate" ourselves (free men) from their tyranny by bringing them to our way.

  Published: September 27, 2009 6:09 PM

• mpolzkill

  Nothing "causes" the State to be evil, it is born from and *lives* by evil. Where it grows you will know that it is using the cover of its supposed justification to hide the fact that it is actually (its members wittingly or not, or both) propagating crime.

  Ayn Rand misidentified the roots of evil because, judging by your pitch, she was a very minor thinker. This idea you keep trying to sell is laughably juvenile. Only one who can't grow up would remain attached to it: essentially that all is permitted as long as one convinces oneself that he is purely motivated by self interest and enlightened reason. For herself, she apparently bought all the Commie propaganda rammed down her throat and was just smart enough to see what a disaster it turned out to be. If charity and programs of official brotherly love are going sour, don't blame charity and brotherly love; realize that the charity (and always State charity: coerced charity) is a cover for, as an actual thinker, Burke put it, "all the train of disorderly appetites...pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal..." (to which I would add envy, a biggie). These passions when unchecked (or when they may be satisfied under the cover of civic mindedness) lead to crime. Crime is the justification for the State, but State power is not diminished when it fails to curb crime, it is *aggrandized*. This is correct in theory, is obvious to those who will see and is backed up by all of history.

  Published: September 27, 2009 7:54 PM

• Gil

  Yes, mpolz - strength and action gets results. Weakness and bland acceptance means you'll keep getting pushed around by those who are stronger than you. Mexican Drugs Lords show what can be done to threaten a government. They have the capacity to threaten governments because they are strong. There's no other way. Hoping all the evil in life will dissipate one night because you want it so is the height of disengenuousness.

  Published: September 27, 2009 8:19 PM

• mpolzkill

  Gilbert Khan,

  ?

  Calling that a straw man would be giving you too much credit. Why not just let me do your posts for you from now on. Here goes:

  "Strength good, weakness bad. Me like strength, me good. You don't, you weak. Me worship kicking butt through strength, me in the know, you wish bad go away by self, you stupid."

  This is all I've ever gotten out of reading your sub-mental posts. This last one was the last one I read (I swear this time). Goodbye, Gil.

  Published: September 27, 2009 8:34 PM

• mpolzkill

  * as for, she apparently bought...

  On second thought: yes Bala, I have seen the light. Yes, I see now, the world has been overcome by so many people with the overwhelming desire to help and care for each other. How could I not see it?!? If this madness is not stopped, I don't know what further horrors we will be subjected to. You have convinced me, now for Rand's sake, focus all your energies on saving anyone but me from wallowing in or succumbing to this disgusting pandemic of feelings of universal brotherly love.

  Published: September 27, 2009 9:06 PM

• mpolzkill

  Damn, out of it: "For herself, she apparently bought all the Commie propaganda."

  And that would be the Commie propaganda of Eastern Bloc fascists. There are three kinds of people in the world: fascists, non-criminal adults, and children. 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" had a more elegant take: just two kinds, "those with loaded guns and those who dig."

  Published: September 27, 2009 9:16 PM

• Gil

  Golly mpolz - even the Libertarian concept of 'retaliatory force' is lost on you. I wonder what 'answers' you have - "me believe in everyone's goodness and people need more edumucation to teach them to be nice to one another so I don't get robbed anymore without having to expend any effort"? Or "leave me the hell alone whilst I occupy your land because I believe occupancy is 9/10ths of ownership"? You seem to be good at criticising others but not much more.

  Published: September 28, 2009 12:43 AM

• Bala

  mpolzkill,

  " On second thought: yes Bala, I have seen the light. Yes, I see now, the world has been overcome by so many people with the overwhelming desire to help and care for each other. How could I not see it?!? "

  Actually, it's not surprising you don't see it. That's because no one can ever live by that code and no one does either. What's happening is that people normally do lip-service to the "moral" principles of the altruist code (as preached to them by their religious preachers or texts or their social/political leaders). When it comes to their real life choices, however, they act as per their nature and act extremely selfish.

  The problem starts at a different end. While people do not live by the Altruistic moral code on a day-to-day basis, they have not rejected it either, especially its key postulates (like the one that "man is his brother's keeper"). They live a life carrying the guilt of repeatedly breaking the moral code they have accepted. The carry this guilt like a cross and, over a period of time, get convinced that they are sinners or depraved people whose only saviours are their religious/social/political preachers.

  Such people who carry guilt thus are ideal sacrificial lambs for the power hungry who seek to use the State machinery to fulfill their own ends at the expense of the very people whose rights they are supposed to protect (being in government).

  All it takes is an innocent-sounding question like "Don't tell me you are that selfish!!" (with self-righteous indignation). That's where the cumulative guilt takes its toll. Instead of saying "Damned right you are!!!", the sheep now say "No.... Not really... hum.... haw..." and on come the chains - Newer, better and heavier than any they have been trapped with before.

  If you have any doubts, check out these lines Obama is said to have said during his campaign

  **********
  Obama's speech (extracted)

  "The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month

  "John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
  ********************

  You know... that was a time John McCain and Sarah Palin should have stood up and said "You want to know when??? Ever since Man evolved on this Earth!! Damn you you maggot... If selfishness is not a virtue, then what is? Your proclaimed selfless spirit to do good for the toiling masses?"

  But that was not to be. McCain and Palin did not say it for the obvious reason - that they too have not rejected the Altruist code. But what about the average American?

  By keeping quiet at such crucial moments, they give the power-grubbers the ultimate weapon at their disposal - The Sanction of their Victims.

  The tyrants of yesteryears had to drag their victims kicking and screaming to the sacrificial altar. No wonder their tyranny never lasted too long. The yoke was thrown off frequently and freedom would bloom again till the next despot managed to take charge. The victims of today, in contrast, go to the sacrificial altar happily, thinking that it is the best thing that could happen to them. They think they are acting by their moral code at last and are grateful to their slave masters for helping them do it.

  Such indeed is the mentality of the masses today - the people who praise their chains because that's all they have seen and hence desired. No wonder the State has become such a monster.

  I am therefore saying that the only way to kill the evil that is the State is to deprive it of this most potent weapon. When you spread a selfish morality around, they will stop finding willing victims giving their sanction to their own enslavement. They will once again have to start dragging their victims kicking and screaming. When that happens, the mask will drop and the scales will fall from many eyes that have long since stopped seeing.

  Published: September 28, 2009 12:55 AM

• mpolzkill

  Bala and Gil,

  Keep addressing me if you wish to, but I've determined that you are both bonkers for different reasons and I'm not wasting any more time reading your flights of fancy.

  Published: September 28, 2009 7:26 AM

• mpolzkill

  Wow! fourth time's the charm: "As for her, she apparently bought all the Commie propaganda."

  Trying to run this one up the flag pole one more time, too:

  "There are three kinds of people in the world: fascists, non-criminal adults, and children. Sergio Leone had a more elegant take: just two kinds, 'those with loaded guns and those who dig.'"

  If even a fraction (perhaps one fifth, maybe far less) of the billions of children in the world grew up and stopped accepting treats and promises from the fascists, those millions would join us in emancipation and we would overwhelm the fascists with sheer numbers (no violence). Then we wouldn't have to work on Maggie's Farm no more. (to say this is not to say that one thinks it will happen or is counting on it)

  Published: September 28, 2009 8:57 AM

• Martin OB

  mpolzkill:

  "To say that defending oneself from a criminal should or even could be called "coercing" the criminal: this is an abuse of the English language."

  I'm using Rothbard's (and others') terminology here. I guess you don't complain when physicists define "work" as "force times displacement". Besides, the dictionary.com definition of coercion says:

  Coercion (noun):
  1) The act of coercing. Use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
  2) Force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

  It does seem to include defensive threats. On the other hand, I concede its negative connotations may be too strong. What do you propose? How about "compulsion"? "Threat of violence" is a bit too long for my taste, and anything qualified with "defensive" is not equivalent (too specific).

  Published: September 28, 2009 9:51 AM

• mpolzkill

  Martin,

  Same as last time, what I said was pointed more at your interlocutor. It happens to fall on you too because you don't seem to object too much to his wacky language.

  Your analogy is not very precise, I'll try one: If a demented propagandist wished to use the physicist's definition of "work": "force times displacement" to equate the activities of an Auschwitz oven operator to my activities feeding patients at the children's hospital: *yes*, I'd complain vigorously.

  I don't know if Rothbard abused the word or not, if he did or if all English speakers do, I still have a beef. I like Webster's (with etymology) better than your reference:

  "Middle English cohercen, from Anglo-French *cohercer Latin coercēre, from co- + arcēre to shut up, enclose — more at ark Date: 15th century

  1 : to restrain or dominate by force

  2 : to compel to an act or choice

  3 : to achieve by force or threat "

  Self defense *could* be the first part of 1. or it *could* be 3., *certainly* not 2. All three definitions are iffy and strained, as the receiver of the hypothetical violence is free to do anything else in the world he wishes other than assault the "giver" (?) of the violence. "Giver"(?) I don't know what to call that party because there would be no violence if not for the decisions of the criminal. Now someone may try to say that the state is in the position of this "giver". Bollocks. There are millions upon millions who have never committed assault , theft or fraud that are incessantly harassed by the State. (sorry for the length of this but I'm dealing with some thick-headed folks here. {not you})

  It is merely my opinion that "proportional self defense" is not consistent with the origins, connotations or spirit of the word "coercion". I don't have an opinion right now on what you should use instead. I was just bemused by your going along with this dime-store propagandist's loaded terminology.

  Published: September 28, 2009 10:35 AM

• mpolzkill

  I should add for an imagined enemy hairsplitter, that my little analogy was precise in kind, but carried (not too far really) to a reductio ad absurdum.

  Published: September 28, 2009 10:43 AM

• mpolzkill

  "to equate the activities of an Auschwitz oven operator to my activities feeding patients at the children's hospital"

  Ha ha, just realized that if this hypothetical Nazi lived a life of comfort on a Brazilian beach, and to a ripe old age where he died peacefully in his sleep (or passed quickly while frolicking in the waters of a South American beach, as in fact happened with one very famous Auschwitz worker) and I wasn't getting paid for my part-time activities; Bala shouldn't want to equate our activities at all. I am obviously the evil one here!

  Published: September 28, 2009 11:06 AM

• Martin OB

  mpolzkill:

  I won't comment on Ayn Rand's philosophy. What I've heard and read sounds so ... insane that I keep thinking I just don't get it. I mean, I'm no altruism enthusiast when they demand it of me (as Spain's Zapatero and his "solidary" tax hike), but bemoaning other people's altruism? now that's a real tour de force.
  

  Published: September 28, 2009 7:23 PM

• mpolzkill

  Martin,

  My exact sentiments. Forced altruism is not altruism. Uninformed altruism is not altruism. Of course reason is a good thing. How about a balance of rational self interest *and* freely, intelligently caring for others? Maybe I just can't get it, like you say, how could it be *so* insane? If I am getting it, Randism is completely asinine.

  Published: September 28, 2009 7:50 PM

• Bala

  Martin OB,

  " I won't comment on Ayn Rand's philosophy. What I've heard and read sounds so ... insane that I keep thinking I just don't get it. "

  Just curious to know which part sounded so ... insane. 'Coz I thought it was the easiest set of ideas in the world to understand, especially if you got past the part where she explains how the word "selfishness" has been given all sorts of connotations you would never get from the meaning of the word. For your reference, since you use dictionary.com, I checked it out for the meaning

  Selfishness
  Adjective
  1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
  2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

  I thought the simple point that every single human action aimed at enhancing life is inherently selfish and that without selfish action, man cannot live. I wonder what is unintelligible in this (unless one just does not want to accept the simple basic meaning of the word and insists that all the illegitimate connotations also be included).

  Published: September 29, 2009 3:41 AM

• Bala

  mpolzkill,

  " How about a balance of rational self interest *and* freely, intelligently caring for others? "

  This is the perfect redundancy. Rational self-interest, especially if it includes a man's long-range self-interest and not just range-of-the-moment benefits, already factors in the part about "freely, intelligently caring for others". The logic is simple - Conflict is never in a man's self-interest, especially if it can be avoided by his own actions that do not compromise his self-interest.

  Just to take a ridiculously simple example, while walking through a crowd, I have two options - push through it as fast as I can to reach where I want to directly or be polite and walk slowly, taking temporary diversions when necessary and ultimately taking more time. The first option includes the risk of triggering a stampede or a scuffle with someone I push around and thus (possibly) my own death while the second consumes more time but gives me a chance of preserving my life and well-being.

  The distinction you are making between selfishness and self-interest is both unnecessary and illegitimate. By rejecting the word, you are buying into the altruist campaign.

  Published: September 29, 2009 8:26 PM