Slashdot Mirror

nice job of selectively picking out only the things that help your point. The big difference between human beings and animals is that we are economic creatures, and can choose. We have societies, moralities, laws, cultures, histories, etc. I'm not denying that John Nash was brilliant: I'm just saying that game theory is almost useless for an understanding of human action. As I said, Friedrick von Hayek did win a Nobel Prize -- something you conveniently ignored -- and agrees with his mentor, Ludwig von Mises on the subject (whom the Nobel committee would have had no choice to give a Nobel, had he been alive when Hayek received his).

The school of Austrian economics accurately praxeology without using any of the absurdly unrealistic assumptions that game theory uses. (for a brief overview, see What is Austrian Economics? ).

By the way, pre-empting an argument is not refuting it, but is rather agreeing with it.

You can draw a line through any set of points and call it a trend-line. That doesn't mean that the straight line is particularly appropriate.

The real issue here is one over the two kinds of abstraction: precisive and non-precisive. Mainstream economists use precive abstraction, and thus specify the absence of things that actually exist. This is wrong (unless we are doing art or something like such). The meaningful abstraction is non-precisive, which, rather than specifying the absence of something, simply does not specify it. Quoting from Prof. Long's Realism and Abstraction in Economics: Aristotle and Mises versus Friedman:

precisive abstraction is one in which certain actual characteristics are specified as absent, while a non-precisive abstraction is one in which certain actual characteristics are absent from specification.

For an example, consider the following abstractions. (1) Precisive. Inflation, an increase in the monetary base, will cause prices to be higher. (2) Non-precisive. Inflation, an increase in the monetary base, will cause prices to be higher, ceteris paribus. The second statement is true, while the first is not. The second statement is saying that inflation will cause prices to be higher than they otherwise would be, or that prices will be higher (if all else is equal). It thus does not ignore the reality that all else will not be equal. The first statement ignores that reality.

It is the difference between a physicist not accounting for friction in his calculations and specifying that friction does not exist.

There are many problems with mathematical modeling of human behaviour. Firstly, economic phenomena (and we can broadly characterize all phenomena as such) are not infinitesimal. They are discrete. Thus, various operations of calculus are completely invalid, as the reality of human action is not continuous, but discrete.

Secondly, human beings can choose. The reality of game theory is that it is a bunch of humbug which is often wrong, and when it's right, doesn't do any better than common sense would. In real-life situations, the only people who behave as game-theorists predict are actual game-theoreticians.

I suggest this article on John Nash and Game Theory. I also suggest this article by Prof. Murphy, and this excellent chapter on game theory by Ludwig von Mises.

There are many problems with mathematical modeling of human behaviour. Firstly, economic phenomena (and we can broadly characterize all phenomena as such) are not infinitesimal. They are discrete. Thus, various operations of calculus are completely invalid, as the reality of human action is not continuous, but discrete.

Secondly, human beings can choose. The reality of game theory is that it is a bunch of humbug which is often wrong, and when it's right, doesn't do any better than common sense would. In real-life situations, the only people who behave as game-theorists predict are actual game-theoreticians.

I suggest this article on John Nash and Game Theory. I also suggest this article by Prof. Murphy, and this excellent chapter on game theory by Ludwig von Mises.

There are many problems with mathematical modeling of human behaviour. Firstly, economic phenomena (and we can broadly characterize all phenomena as such) are not infinitesimal. They are discrete. Thus, various operations of calculus are completely invalid, as the reality of human action is not continuous, but discrete.

Secondly, human beings can choose. The reality of game theory is that it is a bunch of humbug which is often wrong, and when it's right, doesn't do any better than common sense would. In real-life situations, the only people who behave as game-theorists predict are actual game-theoreticians.

I suggest this article on John Nash and Game Theory. I also suggest this article by Prof. Murphy, and this excellent chapter on game theory by Ludwig von Mises.

If someone steps on your property and refuses to leave, you have the right by natural law to use whatever force is necessary to remove them. If someone's threatening you, you have the right to use proportional force in response to the degree of the threat. Someone burglarizing one's home poses a lethal threat, and lethal force is justified in response. See Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution. Rothbard, Murray.

Being Indian, I have to protest against this. India is a Sovereign , Secular, Socalist country by definition. That spells out to "We won't let other countries screw us" as part of government policy. Thankfully the government seems to be keeping that promise to a large extent.

From 1950 to 1991 , India was a protectionist economy . In 1991 the globalization initiative (due to the influence of USA , no less) , hit India along with a finance minister (Manmohan Singh) who knew what he was doing. Almost all trade restrictions on exporters and importers were taken off between 1991 - 1997 . And what you are seeing today is the result of that liberalisation.

America has dished out a lot of Free Trade agreements and then screwed a few foreign industries as well - Canadian car industry would be an excellent example. America used protectionist strategies to let Detroit sell cars by raising tarriffs on Japanese cars. America too has been a protectionist economy and almost destroyed it's economy (still is trying to repeat that according to US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan).

Why is there this almost pervasive belief that changes made (during extreme times) cannot be unmade? That is that a worsening condition must asymptotically get worse? History does not bear this out.

What about Income tax?

I ask you to name me another time the US mainland was attacked to such effect by a foreign entity

Well, how about I just reference the Battles of the War of 1812. Determining which ones occured withing mainland US is an excersize left for the reader.

Okay, fact nitpicking aside....

We are in extreme times

We may or may not be, I honestly don't know. What I find unsettling is there are no clear metrics defined so that we will all know when this 'crisis' has passed.

If this 'crisis' continues until there is not a single terrorist organization that would like to do us harm, I'm afraid we're in for the long haul.

I know referencing 1984 on slashdot will get me pingeoholed, but there are certain advantages (as far as the state is concerned) to perpetual warfare, and reading about the posibility of the partiot act being extended indefinitly does not fill me with confidence.

They passed a right-to-work-for-less law...

This may be shocking to you, but some of us believe this is a good thing. And not because we're greedy corporate execs. But because we're coming from a vastly different set of assumptions.

I believe that minimum wage laws are both immoral and economically damaging for the poor. I'm happy to support the point in thoughtful debate, and I think you'll find I have not been brainwashed by the powers-that-be.

And before you condemn liberalism (in the classical sense, of course), realize that the world you see before you bears only a slight resemblance to a free market. As someone else's sig said, "corporatism != free market".

PS: Keynesianism has little to do with liberalism . Keynes advocated inflationary monetary and fiscal policy, whereas the old-school liberal (a la Thomas Jefferson) was a staunch supporter of hard money and government non-intervention.

Back in 1964 Lyndon Baines Johnson declared "War on Poverty." It isn't going so well. The problem, as we all know, has gotten worse. This seems to happen anytime government declares "war" on something.

The American Medical Association (AMA) was founded in 1847 around two propositions: one, all doctors should have a "suitable education" and two, a "uniform elevated standard of requirements for the degree of M.D. should be adopted by all medical schools in the U.S." [1] In the days of its founding AMA was much more open--at its conferences and in its publications--about its real goal: building a government-enforced monopoly for the purpose of dramatically increasing physician incomes. It eventually succeeded, becoming the most formidable labor union on the face of the earth.

The American Medical Association (AMA) was founded in 1847 around two propositions: one, all doctors should have a "suitable education" and two, a "uniform elevated standard of requirements for the degree of M.D. should be adopted by all medical schools in the U.S." [1] In the days of its founding AMA was much more open--at its conferences and in its publications--about its real goal: building a government-enforced monopoly for the purpose of dramatically increasing physician incomes. It eventually succeeded, becoming the most formidable labor union on the face of the earth.

I don't know if socialized medicine (a la 'Hillary') is the answer, but certainly our current medical/insurance industry is a problem.

I offer another point for your consideration: Medicine in the united states suffers from a state-imposed monopoly given to a certain brand of healer. Consider the following articles:

100 years of Medical Robery
Real Medical Freedom

It seems to me that ending the "Medical Doctor" monopoly seems like a better first step than socializing a broken system.

I don't know if socialized medicine (a la 'Hillary') is the answer, but certainly our current medical/insurance industry is a problem.

I offer another point for your consideration: Medicine in the united states suffers from a state-imposed monopoly given to a certain brand of healer. Consider the following articles:

100 years of Medical Robery
Real Medical Freedom

It seems to me that ending the "Medical Doctor" monopoly seems like a better first step than socializing a broken system.

As Austrian economists have been saying over and over again, simply because on event (e.g., fall in music-industry profits) follows another (e.g., online sharing of music) does not mean that the earlier event caused the later event. This is the post-hoc ad-hoc fallacy. See this analysis from Mises.org.

Like it or not, the people have spoken and they came down decisively on the side of the Bush crowd. I don't hate him, you, or anyone else. We're all brothers on the same side. If you haven't yet realized that the issue isn't me against you, but us against them, then you haven't been paying attention.

There is no "us" and there is no "them". Yes, we were attacked by a few terrorists on 9/11. It has happened before, it will happen again. NOTHING can stop that - not Bush, not Kerry, not anything. Will something on the magnitude of 9/11 happen again? No one knows - we definitely hope not. But terror & fear are a part of life.

By using the "us vs them" rhetoric, you simply reinforce the Bush administration's fear-based agenda. Keep the public afraid, keep them ignorant about Iraq and the real threats this country faces (for their own good, of course), and people will continue to give you power.

I'm really starting to admire the wisdom of our [non-Christian] founding fathers and their well-founded fear of mob-rule (aka "democracy") and demagogues.

I'll leave IBC out of this. But from the point of view of the Pentagon, I simply don't understand their statements that they don't know or even care how many enemy they kill.

I mean, how are you going to know if you're winning if you, in Rumsfeld's words, have no "metrics."
click
click

I think the Pentagon must have at least an idea, but they are unwilling to share that information with the public, for a variety of reasons that we need not debate. But if indeed the Pentagon isn't even tracking how many enemy are killed, I mean, what the fuck? Isn't knowing the size of the opposing force, and how many have been eliminated, the the easiest way to chart progress (or lack thereof)?

Healthcare in America used to be affordable, with everyone having plenty of options to choose from. These two articles go into how things got so bad.

100 years of Medical Robery
Real Medical Freedom

According to the articles, the American Medical Association (AMA) was founded with two implicit purposes: to raise their brand of healer's (M.D.s) incomes and status. So they used the government to establish "licensing laws", and worked to close 1/2 the medical schools in the U.S. in the 20th century.

Healthcare in America used to be affordable, with everyone having plenty of options to choose from. These two articles go into how things got so bad.

100 years of Medical Robery
Real Medical Freedom

According to the articles, the American Medical Association (AMA) was founded with two implicit purposes: to raise their brand of healer's (M.D.s) incomes and status. So they used the government to establish "licensing laws", and worked to close 1/2 the medical schools in the U.S. in the 20th century.

There are numerous other examples. One that I find particularly striking is Ludwig von Mises. First of all, his works consistently advocate the very economic freedom that Graham talks about as a necessary pre-condition to creating economic prosperity. And his book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis was first published in 1992 in German. He certainly saw it coming and said so.

There are numerous other examples. One that I find particularly striking is Ludwig von Mises. First of all, his works consistently advocate the very economic freedom that Graham talks about as a necessary pre-condition to creating economic prosperity. And his book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis was first published in 1992 in German. He certainly saw it coming and said so.

Regarding what I suggest, and why it would work -- as well as why US-imposed socialism and interventionism in Iraq has failed and must always fail -- see:

A Plan for Iraq: Leave. Rockwell, Llewellyn H., Jr.

The Military Option. Blackstock, Robert.

For an overview of our idiotic and misguided foreign policy in the Middle East, see:

A History of Folly. Young, Adam.

Click on the relevant links for a search for more articles using sound economic theory and understanding to analyze Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regarding what I suggest, and why it would work -- as well as why US-imposed socialism and interventionism in Iraq has failed and must always fail -- see:

A Plan for Iraq: Leave. Rockwell, Llewellyn H., Jr.

The Military Option. Blackstock, Robert.

For an overview of our idiotic and misguided foreign policy in the Middle East, see:

A History of Folly. Young, Adam.

Click on the relevant links for a search for more articles using sound economic theory and understanding to analyze Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regarding what I suggest, and why it would work -- as well as why US-imposed socialism and interventionism in Iraq has failed and must always fail -- see:

A Plan for Iraq: Leave. Rockwell, Llewellyn H., Jr.

The Military Option. Blackstock, Robert.

For an overview of our idiotic and misguided foreign policy in the Middle East, see:

A History of Folly. Young, Adam.

Click on the relevant links for a search for more articles using sound economic theory and understanding to analyze Iraq and Afghanistan.

Go look at what Republicans actually do, as opposed to what they talk about -- two completely different things (aside from one case, Ron Paul, who's actually a libertarian). The Republican party endorses the socialization of various industries; you don't hear them calling to eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, anti-"price-gouging" laws, or the rest. And of course, War is the most anti-free-market thing you can do, and Republicans have historically been all about war-monger. The Republican party is true to its roots, though, in Abraham Lincoln, who was a fascist protectionist in the mold of Hamilton and Clay. Under Republicans, the State expands even more than under Democrats.

Nice stuff. I didn't know Henry David Thoreau used to anonymously contribute to /.

you have a poor understanding of economics. For example, there has never been a monopoly that has emerged without the necessary support of State-coercion, nor could there ever be. See Man, Economy, and State: Monopoly and Competition. Rothbard, Murray On the issue of energy, I suggest:

California's Energy Meltdown. Reisman, George.

How to Create an Energy Crisis. Sennholz, Hans.

California's Enemy: The State. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

and this search for articles on energy deregulation from Mises.org

Summarily, your assertion that energy-deregulation hasn't worked is a statement made out of ignorance, for there never really was real deregulation in the first place.

you have a poor understanding of economics. For example, there has never been a monopoly that has emerged without the necessary support of State-coercion, nor could there ever be. See Man, Economy, and State: Monopoly and Competition. Rothbard, Murray On the issue of energy, I suggest:

California's Energy Meltdown. Reisman, George.

How to Create an Energy Crisis. Sennholz, Hans.

California's Enemy: The State. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

and this search for articles on energy deregulation from Mises.org

Summarily, your assertion that energy-deregulation hasn't worked is a statement made out of ignorance, for there never really was real deregulation in the first place.

you have a poor understanding of economics. For example, there has never been a monopoly that has emerged without the necessary support of State-coercion, nor could there ever be. See Man, Economy, and State: Monopoly and Competition. Rothbard, Murray On the issue of energy, I suggest:

California's Energy Meltdown. Reisman, George.

How to Create an Energy Crisis. Sennholz, Hans.

California's Enemy: The State. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

and this search for articles on energy deregulation from Mises.org

Summarily, your assertion that energy-deregulation hasn't worked is a statement made out of ignorance, for there never really was real deregulation in the first place.

you have a poor understanding of economics. For example, there has never been a monopoly that has emerged without the necessary support of State-coercion, nor could there ever be. See Man, Economy, and State: Monopoly and Competition. Rothbard, Murray On the issue of energy, I suggest:

California's Energy Meltdown. Reisman, George.

How to Create an Energy Crisis. Sennholz, Hans.

California's Enemy: The State. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

and this search for articles on energy deregulation from Mises.org

Summarily, your assertion that energy-deregulation hasn't worked is a statement made out of ignorance, for there never really was real deregulation in the first place.

And whether the Icelandic institutions did work well is a matter of controversy; the sagas are perceived by many as portraying an essentially violent and unjust society. tormented by constant feuding. It is difficult to tell whether such judgments are correct. Most of the sagas were written down during or after the Sturlung period, the final violent breakdown of the Icelandic system in the thirteenth century. Their authors may have projected elements of what they saw around them on the earlier periods they described. Also, violence has always been good entertainment, and the saga writers may have selected their material accordingly. Even in a small and peaceful society novelists might be able to find, over the course of three hundred years, enough conflict for a considerable body of literature.

The quality of violence, in contrast to other medieval literature, is small in scale, intensely personal (every casualty is named), and relatively straightforward. Rape and torture are uncommon, the killing of women almost unheard of; in the very rare cases when an attacker burns the defender's home, women, children, and servants are first offered an opportunity to leave.[45] One indication that the total amount of violence may have been relatively small is a calculation based on the Sturlung sagas. During more than fifty years of what the Icelanders themselves perceived as intolerably violent civil war, leading to the collapse of the traditional system, the average number of people killed or executed each year appears, on a per capita basis, to be roughly equal to the current rate of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter in the United States.

Outside of Borkenau, you've provided no references, and you haven't even provided a reference for him; if you do, please provide useful (online) references. Regarding Ancient Ireland, Rothbard writes:

ancient Ireland--an Ireland which persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe.

You seem to have a poor understanding of the history of Ancient Ireland, probably from reading inaccurate sources (as Pedan notes, many discussions have relied on flawed translations, and thus have no merit). The invasion and consquest of Ireland by Britain took over 400 years. Considering the military superiority of Britain, that was pretty impressive. Irish laws in the 8th century were more sophisticated concerning women than were English laws in the days of Queen Victoria. The Irish legal system was entirely outside of the bounds of any State, and was essentially propertarian, and not socialistic (as some wholy inaccurate interpretations give the impression of it being).

You provided a website, I searched through it. It only mentions the word Mises once, in Hayek's biography. I don't have time to spend listening to 6 hours of dumbed down economics from PBS, and I'm certainly not going to waste money buying the series.

Mises and Rothbard have refuted the nonsense of Popper along with that of (Milton) Friedman and the other positivists (Despite Popper's assertions, he was essentially positivist; Mises deals with him in Certainty and Uncertainty: Confirmation and

For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned...

Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part.

If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.

• Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law. Pedan, Joesph.
  
• Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government. Whiston, Thomas.
  
• The Public Sector: Police, Law, and the Courts. Rothbard, Murray.
  
• The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann; et al.
  
• Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.
  The Private Production of Defense. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.

For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned...

Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part.

If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.

• Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law. Pedan, Joesph.
  
• Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government. Whiston, Thomas.
  
• The Public Sector: Police, Law, and the Courts. Rothbard, Murray.
  
• The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann; et al.
  
• Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.
  The Private Production of Defense. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.

For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned...

Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part.

If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.

• Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law. Pedan, Joesph.
  
• Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government. Whiston, Thomas.
  
• The Public Sector: Police, Law, and the Courts. Rothbard, Murray.
  
• The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann; et al.
  
• Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.
  The Private Production of Defense. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.

For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned...

Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part.

If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.

• Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law. Pedan, Joesph.
  
• Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government. Whiston, Thomas.
  
• The Public Sector: Police, Law, and the Courts. Rothbard, Murray.
  
• The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann; et al.
  
• Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.
  The Private Production of Defense. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.

For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned...

Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part.

If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.

• Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law. Pedan, Joesph.
  
• Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government. Whiston, Thomas.
  
• The Public Sector: Police, Law, and the Courts. Rothbard, Murray.
  
• The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann; et al.
  
• Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.
  The Private Production of Defense. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.

For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned...

Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part.

If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.

• Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law. Pedan, Joesph.
  
• Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government. Whiston, Thomas.
  
• The Public Sector: Police, Law, and the Courts. Rothbard, Murray.
  
• The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann; et al.
  
• Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.
  The Private Production of Defense. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.

For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned...

Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part.

If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.

• Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law. Pedan, Joesph.
  
• Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government. Whiston, Thomas.
  
• The Public Sector: Police, Law, and the Courts. Rothbard, Murray.
  
• The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann; et al.
  
• Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.
  The Private Production of Defense. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.

For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned...

Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part.

If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.

• Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law. Pedan, Joesph.
  
• Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government. Whiston, Thomas.
  
• The Public Sector: Police, Law, and the Courts. Rothbard, Murray.
  
• The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann; et al.
  
• Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.
  The Private Production of Defense. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.

I skimmed over your rubbish, and will respond as briefly as possible.

What you call "law" is nothing more than meaningless declarations on a piece of paper. Simply because a group of men get together and write something down on a piece of paper doesn't mean it has any legitimacy. Mafia bosses could also get together and write a "constitution". Also, the Constitution doesn't protect us, because it is precisely the same State that is supposed to be limited by the Constitution that interprets it. Again, I suggest you read Hoppe's book on Democracy, monarchy, and the natural order.

The assertion that no ancient State lasted as long as the US can only come from gross historical ignorance. Among some prominent examples, I'd point to Egypt, Rome, and Greece. Also, you should note that there's a strong argument that the US was a different government after the Civil War, as opposed to before it. Oh yea, and there are Stateless societies that have lasted at least as long, if not much longer, than the US: Ancient Iceland (295 years) and Ancient Ireland (almost 1000 years). See Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law and PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE.

The corruption of the Constitution has nothing to do with the fact that some people can become much more wealthy than others. It is a predictable result of such a governmental system, where it is in the interests of all those in the government to expand it's power, including the courts that are supposed to interpret the Constitution. The theoretical "last line of defense" of the Constitution would be citizens bearing arms, but the US government has largely nullified that.

You do not seem to understand monopoly. Whenever there is a monopoly -- that is, the criminalization of competition in a certain area -- the quality of service declines while the price of service increases. This is just as true of justice, protection, and police as of anything else. Now, these things can easily be provided for absence of States. Free-market competitition provides them, namely in the form of insurance protection agencies, which allows even those not extremely rich to be able to afford it. Also, as in Ancient Iceland, the possibility to sell the right to extract restitution/retrbituion from a criminal allows even the poorest to obtain justice.

Since States never have been legitimate from the start -- but merely one person's coercsion over another -- talking about "their property" misses the boat. For an exposition of how a libertartian society would work, see For a New Liberty. For an exposition of the fallacies of the kinds of arguments your making about protection and how the State can best provide it, see Myth of National Defense. You have not refuted any of my arguments.

I skimmed over your rubbish, and will respond as briefly as possible.

What you call "law" is nothing more than meaningless declarations on a piece of paper. Simply because a group of men get together and write something down on a piece of paper doesn't mean it has any legitimacy. Mafia bosses could also get together and write a "constitution". Also, the Constitution doesn't protect us, because it is precisely the same State that is supposed to be limited by the Constitution that interprets it. Again, I suggest you read Hoppe's book on Democracy, monarchy, and the natural order.

The assertion that no ancient State lasted as long as the US can only come from gross historical ignorance. Among some prominent examples, I'd point to Egypt, Rome, and Greece. Also, you should note that there's a strong argument that the US was a different government after the Civil War, as opposed to before it. Oh yea, and there are Stateless societies that have lasted at least as long, if not much longer, than the US: Ancient Iceland (295 years) and Ancient Ireland (almost 1000 years). See Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law and PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE.

The corruption of the Constitution has nothing to do with the fact that some people can become much more wealthy than others. It is a predictable result of such a governmental system, where it is in the interests of all those in the government to expand it's power, including the courts that are supposed to interpret the Constitution. The theoretical "last line of defense" of the Constitution would be citizens bearing arms, but the US government has largely nullified that.

You do not seem to understand monopoly. Whenever there is a monopoly -- that is, the criminalization of competition in a certain area -- the quality of service declines while the price of service increases. This is just as true of justice, protection, and police as of anything else. Now, these things can easily be provided for absence of States. Free-market competitition provides them, namely in the form of insurance protection agencies, which allows even those not extremely rich to be able to afford it. Also, as in Ancient Iceland, the possibility to sell the right to extract restitution/retrbituion from a criminal allows even the poorest to obtain justice.

Since States never have been legitimate from the start -- but merely one person's coercsion over another -- talking about "their property" misses the boat. For an exposition of how a libertartian society would work, see For a New Liberty. For an exposition of the fallacies of the kinds of arguments your making about protection and how the State can best provide it, see Myth of National Defense. You have not refuted any of my arguments.

I skimmed over your rubbish, and will respond as briefly as possible.

What you call "law" is nothing more than meaningless declarations on a piece of paper. Simply because a group of men get together and write something down on a piece of paper doesn't mean it has any legitimacy. Mafia bosses could also get together and write a "constitution". Also, the Constitution doesn't protect us, because it is precisely the same State that is supposed to be limited by the Constitution that interprets it. Again, I suggest you read Hoppe's book on Democracy, monarchy, and the natural order.

The assertion that no ancient State lasted as long as the US can only come from gross historical ignorance. Among some prominent examples, I'd point to Egypt, Rome, and Greece. Also, you should note that there's a strong argument that the US was a different government after the Civil War, as opposed to before it. Oh yea, and there are Stateless societies that have lasted at least as long, if not much longer, than the US: Ancient Iceland (295 years) and Ancient Ireland (almost 1000 years). See Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law and PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE.

The corruption of the Constitution has nothing to do with the fact that some people can become much more wealthy than others. It is a predictable result of such a governmental system, where it is in the interests of all those in the government to expand it's power, including the courts that are supposed to interpret the Constitution. The theoretical "last line of defense" of the Constitution would be citizens bearing arms, but the US government has largely nullified that.

You do not seem to understand monopoly. Whenever there is a monopoly -- that is, the criminalization of competition in a certain area -- the quality of service declines while the price of service increases. This is just as true of justice, protection, and police as of anything else. Now, these things can easily be provided for absence of States. Free-market competitition provides them, namely in the form of insurance protection agencies, which allows even those not extremely rich to be able to afford it. Also, as in Ancient Iceland, the possibility to sell the right to extract restitution/retrbituion from a criminal allows even the poorest to obtain justice.

Since States never have been legitimate from the start -- but merely one person's coercsion over another -- talking about "their property" misses the boat. For an exposition of how a libertartian society would work, see For a New Liberty. For an exposition of the fallacies of the kinds of arguments your making about protection and how the State can best provide it, see Myth of National Defense. You have not refuted any of my arguments.

Ok, gotcha, there's nothing that makes what Hitler did wrong. And if 10 people get together and vote on it, they can steal from, gang-rape, and murder you, and there's nothing wrong with this -- they have the power, thus they have the "right" to do it. You make the typical fallacy of confusing might with right. There can be a conception of right and wrong outside of a context of killing those who are wrong (e.g., pacifists believe that many things are wrong, but aren't willing to kill anyone because of that). Your dismissal of argumentation ethics is merely declaratory, and has no worthwhile argument behind it.

To say that morality has no value because it won't stop a rapist from raping, or a murderer for murdering (for they obviously demonstrate by their actions that they dont' care about acting morally) is like saying that scientific truths may not be valuable, because they don't stop anyone from believing in nonsense. No, saying that murder is wrong probably isn't going to stop someone from murdering you (though it could, if the would-be-killer is hesitant). However, the way to deal with these brutes is simply to use whatever defensive force is expedient. An understanding of natural law is useful when trying to convince civilized, yet imperfect, individuals (no-one is omniscient).

Your discussion of the Liberalism is an abomination of the correct meaning of the word (see Mises' Liberalism). I'd also suggest that you read Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed. You clearly do not understand economics. States are nothing more than protection rackets, and the modern State is much worse than the ancient State (it is much larger, that is exploits its citizens much more systematically). This is precisely because it is Democratic (that is, State officials do not have normative ownership of the ruled territory, thus the incentive is to expend it quickly, not conserve it). As is easily predictable, when the State coercively prevents competitition in the provision of justice, the price of justice increases while the quality of justice provided decreases. Hoppe discusses this and the fact that Democratic States, which ceteris paribus expropriate more than monarchal States, promote a faster process of decivilization. Because individual's are systematically stolen from, their time-preferences are much higher than they'd otherwise be. Hence, savings is lower than it would otherwise be, moral behaviour is lower than it otherwise would be, and crime is higher than it otherwise would be (the person with such low time-preferences that he doesn't consider any punishment more than a day in advance will obviously commit crimes regularly, assuming he has no morals, while the immoral person of high time preference won't necessarily).

As for your talk about "equality", it is nonsense. We are unequal by nature. Even if we were all genetic twins, we'd be unequal due to different physical locations (thus different opportunities preventing themselves). The Constitution is just a worthless piece of paper, which cannot defend anything: an arbitrary declaration. It has systematically been side-stepped by politicians. Not only by the rich, but also by various special interest groups who lobby for protectionism, regulation, and interventionism. On equality, I suggest ANTIMARKET ETHICS: A PRAXEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE.

PS: My point about Afghanistan is that our initial invasion was not justified. If I wake up one morning and find that someone's murdered my wife (a horrible crime), I'm entitled to retribution and restitution against the criminal only. I'm not entitled to take out an Uzi and kill everyone I see, because that's more "expedient" than finding the guilty party. This is effectively what modern offensive warfare is.

I'd suggest you actually become knowledgeable of something before criticizing it. You obviously didn't read my claim carefully: I said that you cannot dispute the non-aggression axiom without self-contradiction (thus, any argument attempting to do so is self-defeating). This means that the non-aggression axiom meets the definition of an a priori axiomatic truth, like the action axiom (the action axiom states that "man acts"; if you try to dispute it, you are contradicting yourself because you are acting). See my summary of it in these notes. For a more elaborated discussion of argumentation ethics, see:

The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism Is Morally Indefensible
On the Ultimate Justification of the Ethics of Private Property
The Justice of Economic Efficiency
Four Critical Replies -- critical replies to Hoppe's argumentation ethics from libertarians, and a response from Hoppe.

Summarily discussing other issues, the idea of society being justified by a "social contract" shows how far removed its adherents are from reality. Where is this social contract? How in the hell did anyone consent to it? Simply by not leaving? By that idiotic reasoning, the victims of mafia-dons "consent" to protection-rackets, because they don't move. Furthermore, by the view that there is no natural law, there can be no argument that what Hitler did was wrong -- it was just something that you don't like, in the same sense that you might not like burssel sprouts (a personal preference).

Regarding the Taliban and Afghanistan, I suggest you look at history: A History of Terror. It is US foreign policy that has helped terrorism, and fueled recruitment into terrorist organizations. We've killed far more innocent civilians in Afghanistan than terrorists. For a discussion of defense, I suggest The Myth of National Defense.

I'd suggest you actually become knowledgeable of something before criticizing it. You obviously didn't read my claim carefully: I said that you cannot dispute the non-aggression axiom without self-contradiction (thus, any argument attempting to do so is self-defeating). This means that the non-aggression axiom meets the definition of an a priori axiomatic truth, like the action axiom (the action axiom states that "man acts"; if you try to dispute it, you are contradicting yourself because you are acting). See my summary of it in these notes. For a more elaborated discussion of argumentation ethics, see:

The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism Is Morally Indefensible
On the Ultimate Justification of the Ethics of Private Property
The Justice of Economic Efficiency
Four Critical Replies -- critical replies to Hoppe's argumentation ethics from libertarians, and a response from Hoppe.

Summarily discussing other issues, the idea of society being justified by a "social contract" shows how far removed its adherents are from reality. Where is this social contract? How in the hell did anyone consent to it? Simply by not leaving? By that idiotic reasoning, the victims of mafia-dons "consent" to protection-rackets, because they don't move. Furthermore, by the view that there is no natural law, there can be no argument that what Hitler did was wrong -- it was just something that you don't like, in the same sense that you might not like burssel sprouts (a personal preference).

Regarding the Taliban and Afghanistan, I suggest you look at history: A History of Terror. It is US foreign policy that has helped terrorism, and fueled recruitment into terrorist organizations. We've killed far more innocent civilians in Afghanistan than terrorists. For a discussion of defense, I suggest The Myth of National Defense.

I'd suggest you actually become knowledgeable of something before criticizing it. You obviously didn't read my claim carefully: I said that you cannot dispute the non-aggression axiom without self-contradiction (thus, any argument attempting to do so is self-defeating). This means that the non-aggression axiom meets the definition of an a priori axiomatic truth, like the action axiom (the action axiom states that "man acts"; if you try to dispute it, you are contradicting yourself because you are acting). See my summary of it in these notes. For a more elaborated discussion of argumentation ethics, see:

The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism Is Morally Indefensible
On the Ultimate Justification of the Ethics of Private Property
The Justice of Economic Efficiency
Four Critical Replies -- critical replies to Hoppe's argumentation ethics from libertarians, and a response from Hoppe.

Summarily discussing other issues, the idea of society being justified by a "social contract" shows how far removed its adherents are from reality. Where is this social contract? How in the hell did anyone consent to it? Simply by not leaving? By that idiotic reasoning, the victims of mafia-dons "consent" to protection-rackets, because they don't move. Furthermore, by the view that there is no natural law, there can be no argument that what Hitler did was wrong -- it was just something that you don't like, in the same sense that you might not like burssel sprouts (a personal preference).

Regarding the Taliban and Afghanistan, I suggest you look at history: A History of Terror. It is US foreign policy that has helped terrorism, and fueled recruitment into terrorist organizations. We've killed far more innocent civilians in Afghanistan than terrorists. For a discussion of defense, I suggest The Myth of National Defense.

I'd suggest you actually become knowledgeable of something before criticizing it. You obviously didn't read my claim carefully: I said that you cannot dispute the non-aggression axiom without self-contradiction (thus, any argument attempting to do so is self-defeating). This means that the non-aggression axiom meets the definition of an a priori axiomatic truth, like the action axiom (the action axiom states that "man acts"; if you try to dispute it, you are contradicting yourself because you are acting). See my summary of it in these notes. For a more elaborated discussion of argumentation ethics, see:

The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism Is Morally Indefensible
On the Ultimate Justification of the Ethics of Private Property
The Justice of Economic Efficiency
Four Critical Replies -- critical replies to Hoppe's argumentation ethics from libertarians, and a response from Hoppe.

Summarily discussing other issues, the idea of society being justified by a "social contract" shows how far removed its adherents are from reality. Where is this social contract? How in the hell did anyone consent to it? Simply by not leaving? By that idiotic reasoning, the victims of mafia-dons "consent" to protection-rackets, because they don't move. Furthermore, by the view that there is no natural law, there can be no argument that what Hitler did was wrong -- it was just something that you don't like, in the same sense that you might not like burssel sprouts (a personal preference).

Regarding the Taliban and Afghanistan, I suggest you look at history: A History of Terror. It is US foreign policy that has helped terrorism, and fueled recruitment into terrorist organizations. We've killed far more innocent civilians in Afghanistan than terrorists. For a discussion of defense, I suggest The Myth of National Defense.

The Lew Rockwell Column (LewRockwell.com) is widely read, an enormous site. And it is libertarian, not conservative (although Rockwell has conservative personal values, that hardly means he thinks the State should prevent non-coercive transactions, like Republicans do [e.g., drugs]).

The solution to terrorism is not to invade nations. Terrorists are not national armies. We've killed many many more innocent civilians in our attack on Afghanistan than terrorists. Our entire foreign policy has made us a target for terrorism -- militarily intervening in matters world-wide. On the topic, I suggest these articles:

Counterterrorism (by Government) is Impossible
Terrorism and the Moral Hazart
Free Markets Would be OPEC's Undoing
What Is Terror?
A History of Terror
Defending the Homeland
The Security Leviathan

The Lew Rockwell Column (LewRockwell.com) is widely read, an enormous site. And it is libertarian, not conservative (although Rockwell has conservative personal values, that hardly means he thinks the State should prevent non-coercive transactions, like Republicans do [e.g., drugs]).

The solution to terrorism is not to invade nations. Terrorists are not national armies. We've killed many many more innocent civilians in our attack on Afghanistan than terrorists. Our entire foreign policy has made us a target for terrorism -- militarily intervening in matters world-wide. On the topic, I suggest these articles:

Counterterrorism (by Government) is Impossible
Terrorism and the Moral Hazart
Free Markets Would be OPEC's Undoing
What Is Terror?
A History of Terror
Defending the Homeland
The Security Leviathan

The Lew Rockwell Column (LewRockwell.com) is widely read, an enormous site. And it is libertarian, not conservative (although Rockwell has conservative personal values, that hardly means he thinks the State should prevent non-coercive transactions, like Republicans do [e.g., drugs]).

The solution to terrorism is not to invade nations. Terrorists are not national armies. We've killed many many more innocent civilians in our attack on Afghanistan than terrorists. Our entire foreign policy has made us a target for terrorism -- militarily intervening in matters world-wide. On the topic, I suggest these articles:

Counterterrorism (by Government) is Impossible
Terrorism and the Moral Hazart
Free Markets Would be OPEC's Undoing
What Is Terror?
A History of Terror
Defending the Homeland
The Security Leviathan