Being in another party doesn't mean being unable to work with people who disagree with you. It means creating a banner for your ideas, so they're easily distinguishable from those of your opponent. Republicans and Democrats have done everything they can to prevent third parties from competing.
The only reason Ron Paul (also see his homepage bio) is officially a Republican is because otherwise, he wouldn't be able to get on the ballot. Yet, he beat the officially backed Republican candidate (Republican's opposed him, and supported another Republican) and beat the Democrats. Clearly, it's not that people don't necessarily want libertarian ideas. Its that anyone other than a Republican or Democrat is prevented from even having a chance to be elected.
Also, Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian for President, placing behind GW Bush and Ducakis (or however you spell his name, don't care to look it up).
The idea of trying to change the Democratic or Republican party from within to be more libertarian can only be made by someone who is very naive. It is much more likely that the system will change you, then the other way around.
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:
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.
the only naive idiots here are the Republicans and Democrats, who think that State interventionism and socialization of industries can solve our problems. Clearly ignorant of economics. Whether or not most people agree doesn't matter. You have very little understanding of libertarianism and the solid economic school upon which it is based (the Austrian school, composed of Menger, Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Kirzner, and Rothbard). It is precisely because the world is complex that we need free markets, instead of rigid Statism. Indeed, the only way that Statism, Interventionism, and the socialization of industries can even conceivably work is in a completely static and unchanging world.
firstly, the libertarian party is the largest 3rd party. And your suggestion is ridiculous hysteria. If we let a third person in the debate, why not just have a 400 person debate is a ludacrous leap. Maybe the top 4 contendors, or whatever.
Locking out third parties permanently prevents them from getting elected, as they can't even bring up the issues which our two Socialist parties -- the communists on the left and the fascists on the right -- won't bother with or are in agreement with eachother on. There is very little significant difference between a Dem and a Rep.: both don't think that people are capable of running their own lives, and think that they're better fit to run everyone's lives than everyone else is fit to run their own lives.
The importance here is it allows for a real debate, and for topics to be brought up that may start eroding at the cartel Dems and Republicans have created to systematically keep third parties out of contention.
talk about a convoluted way to justify evasion of justice. They did everything they possibly could to be served, then use this lame excuse that they "didn't know about it". They're nothing but worthless useless crooks.
anytime anyone cuts back the public funding gravy train, it's a good thing. What makes Congressmen so high and mighty? The fact that a few people -- who's ability to choose what they really want has been eroded by Democrats and Republicans restricting political entry and monopolizing the market -- voted for them? So what. 9 people can get together and "vote" to murder the 10th person. Big deal. That hardly makes said act legal, just, and moral.
Firstly, you have not in any way refuted D. Friedman or Pedan. Please go and actually read their articles. And if you do want to dispute them, please refer to texts available online -- I'm not going to waste time and money buying something that will most likely very well be rubbish. Also, D. Friedman addresses the Icelandic sagas. Summarily, it is likely that the Sagas were dramaticized:
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
The PBS site (as indicated by its own search engine) doesn't even say the word "Mises" outside of Hayek's biography, so it can hardly be considered to credibly discuss free-market schools of thought. Your assertion that the Irish had a State is sheer nonsense -- it was essentially a system of mutual protection agencies, as Rothbard discusses. Contrary to your ahistorical statement, the Irish fended off British attempts at conquest for hundreds of years. That you can say otherwise only shows you don't know what you're talking about. Ancient Iceland is also an example, and you can refer to an expert who's actually done historical work on it (David Friedman). I already linked to an article on Iceland (which cites Friedman's original piece), but here's an exchange between Friedman and others as ignorant of the history of Iceland as you. To say that the State can in any way improve upon the unhampered free market illustrates an ignorance of correct economic theory and praxeology. All State interventions cause problems (which of course leads to more interventions, to fix those problems). For example, it is impossible to have monopoly prices without a State -- for States coercively prevent entrance into a market. As DiLorenzo has illustrated, there isn't one case where monopolies have emerged absent State favoritism.
by the way, did you even read the site that you linked to? Specifically, the biography of Hayek, and most importantly, the parts pertaining to the information and calculation problems? Anywhere where an industry is socialist -- be it nationa defense or police protection -- there is going to be (primarily) a calculation problem, as well as an information problem, and of course also (probably of lesser significance) an incentives problem.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. I can't force anyone to see the stupidity of their ways. The simple fact is, you can't refute historical facts (it is a historical fact that Ancient Ireland and Ancient Iceland were stateless, and none-the-less did not have Hobbesian anarchy, but were on order in the sophistication of their culture with Ancient Rome and Greece). You also can't refute correct economic theory, and you certainly haven't read the books I've referenced. When you reference a book or paper available online, I'll take a look at it; however, I'm not going to waste money on crap recommended from someone who I could barely have a lower opinion of. By the way, a link to something from PBS is hardly convincing.
Ok, Republican's in the traditional sense. Let's go back to that racist bastard Abraham Lincoln, who was a Whig before the party fizzled out, and was busy tooting Henry Clay's, who followed in protectionist Alexander Hamilton's path. Lincoln was all for high taxes, the elimination of civil liberties, the destruction of property, enormous tarrifs, political deception and double- or triple-talk, effectively making himself a dictator, and sending all of those "inferior" (colored) people back to Afica. At least, unlike the current Republican party, Abraham Lincoln was honest about his hatred of the freedom and the free market.
I stopped reading after the first couple of sentences. You obviously are too stupid to understand. I provided historical examples. You have no argument against that, nor can you. It is simply a historical fact. I provided economic arguments, and linked to papers and books elaborating on such; you have no argument against that because you do not understand economics. Finally, your ridiculous assertion that "legitimate power can be used illegitimately" is patent nonsense. There is no such thing as legitimate or illegitimate power; power is simply a given. What I am talking about here is natural law, and pointing to "power" does not refute it. Furthermore, your argument would totally neuter Demcracy, as under that reasoning, the 10 people could only vote to do things that they had the right to do -- but they could have all done that anyways without Democracy; so Democracy is thus a meaningless concept, and still does not rightfully allow you to do what you want to do -- which is initiate aggression against others (you can still wrongfully do such, but the fact that it's a Democracy voting on it doesn't in any way legitimize it). Go read the references I provided. End of discussion.
Again, you continue talking nonsense. It is nonsensical to talk about consenting or not consenting to come into existence, because prior to being conceived -- you don't exist. Once you are conceived -- exluding an abortion -- you do you half of everything to come into the world, so it can hardly be said that you didn't consent to being born (either a fetus has no capacity for consenting or not consenting, in which case discussing consent is meaningless; or it does, and it chooses to continue doing the things necessary to survive in the womb). Arguing that States are the result of non-aggression when established democratically is nonsense. If 10 people get together and "vote" on stealing from an 11th person, this is hardly non-aggression or consentual. Quoting from For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.Rothbard, Murray:
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.
In short, your talk of Democratic States being consented to is hogwash (furthermore, it should be noted that the US certainly wasn't democratically consented to -- more than half the population, women and blacks -- weren't allowed to vote in the first place, and if I remember properly, only property owners could vote).
You clearly show that you do not know history by ignorant statements, and you also do not understand economics, a proper understanding of which will explain why free-market protection-agencies will always be more efficient than States. To clear up your misconceptions on Ancient Ireland, and misunderstandings of private protection, see:
I meant right in the sense of "right vs. wrong" not "right vs. left" on the political spectrum (it was a joke, left for wrong). My point is that taxes are unjust in the first place, as is all Utilitarian non-sense.
Utilitarianism runs into a performative contradiction, and is self-contradictory, as well as being nonsensical.
Firstly, the performative contradiction. The Utilitarian must assert that if it would increase "net utility" it is ok to murder someone against their will. Yet, he cannot apply this to himself. If it is he, the Utilitarian, who must be killed for society's "net utility" to be increased, then he can either consent -- in which case it isn't against his will -- or refuse to consent -- in which case, he's actively affirming that it isn't ok to murder someone against their will.
Secondly, the contradiction. Utilitarianism tries to maximize net utility. Yet, such a scheme would have us redistributing property whenever some judge arbitrarily determined that it would provide "higher utility" elsewhere. This would result in complete instability of property rights, and time-preferences would continually sink lower and lower. The process would be a decivilizaion, or civilizational decline back to barbarism.
Thirdly, the nonsense. Inter-personal utility comparisons are impossible, hence Utilitarianism is nonsense from the start.
Something is only legitimate if it is justified. No State can ever possible be justified. It is simply impossible, by the definition of what a State is. This is because they must all user coercive force to prevent competition, and must tax. What I am arguing for is known as libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, or propertarianism. Summarily, all States, by necessity, systematically violate the non-aggression axiom (which is an a priori axiomatic truth), thus are not legitimate. Your talk of "representative" is non-sense, since the US government was not consented to by all when established, and is not consented to by all today. Saying that people give their consent (hence the State's action is not the initiation of aggressioN) because they don't move elsewhere is like saying that the victims of mafia organizations consent if they don't move.
Your understanding of Ancient Ireland and Ancient Iceland is mistaken. I believe I linked to the articles on them (but am not sure, if I haven't ask for them). Ancient Ireland lasted for almost a thousand years. The fact that it no-longer exists as a Stateless society proves nothing. Throughout history, no society has lasted. The assertion that our particular form of society is the best because it is here "today" is fallicious humbuggery. Ancient Ireland existed for almost a thousand years, and withstood hundreds of years of attempts by he brutal British to conquer it (the British experienced tremendous difficulty precisely because it was stateless, thus there was no central authority to surrender; they would have easily conquered Ireland if it were a State-society). Ancient Iceland's near-Stateless society subsided precisely because it wasn't completely ridden of a state.
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:
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.
Actually, libertarians understand the Industrial Revolution better than anyone else: without the modern-day propaganda that's surrounded it. It was one of the most progressive eras in history. Afghanistan was not justified. We aren't justified in murder simply because other people murder. We've killed more civilians in that war than terrorists, and we still aren't any safer than we were before -- in fact, we're less safe, because the hatred created by the US murdering innocent civilians causes greater entry into terrorist organizations.
And much more intelligent articles have been written on the topic (I linked to them, from authors at Mises.org and LewRockwell.com in another response to someone). And Soros is only half-way intelligent: we shouldn't be in Iraq and we shouldn't have been in Afghanistan either.
Slashdot Mirror
as many as you can have while having a meaningful debate (they can give longer answers than yes/no).
Being in another party doesn't mean being unable to work with people who disagree with you. It means creating a banner for your ideas, so they're easily distinguishable from those of your opponent. Republicans and Democrats have done everything they can to prevent third parties from competing.
The only reason Ron Paul (also see his homepage bio) is officially a Republican is because otherwise, he wouldn't be able to get on the ballot. Yet, he beat the officially backed Republican candidate (Republican's opposed him, and supported another Republican) and beat the Democrats. Clearly, it's not that people don't necessarily want libertarian ideas. Its that anyone other than a Republican or Democrat is prevented from even having a chance to be elected.
Also, Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian for President, placing behind GW Bush and Ducakis (or however you spell his name, don't care to look it up).
The idea of trying to change the Democratic or Republican party from within to be more libertarian can only be made by someone who is very naive. It is much more likely that the system will change you, then the other way around.
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.
Congressman Ron Paul is a libertarian, though officially a member of the Republican party. Hardly some naive idealist.
the only naive idiots here are the Republicans and Democrats, who think that State interventionism and socialization of industries can solve our problems. Clearly ignorant of economics. Whether or not most people agree doesn't matter. You have very little understanding of libertarianism and the solid economic school upon which it is based (the Austrian school, composed of Menger, Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Kirzner, and Rothbard). It is precisely because the world is complex that we need free markets, instead of rigid Statism. Indeed, the only way that Statism, Interventionism, and the socialization of industries can even conceivably work is in a completely static and unchanging world.
The entire system has been rigged to prevent competition to the two main parties, which are cartelized. It is entirely illegitimate bs.
firstly, the libertarian party is the largest 3rd party. And your suggestion is ridiculous hysteria. If we let a third person in the debate, why not just have a 400 person debate is a ludacrous leap. Maybe the top 4 contendors, or whatever.
Locking out third parties permanently prevents them from getting elected, as they can't even bring up the issues which our two Socialist parties -- the communists on the left and the fascists on the right -- won't bother with or are in agreement with eachother on. There is very little significant difference between a Dem and a Rep.: both don't think that people are capable of running their own lives, and think that they're better fit to run everyone's lives than everyone else is fit to run their own lives.
The importance here is it allows for a real debate, and for topics to be brought up that may start eroding at the cartel Dems and Republicans have created to systematically keep third parties out of contention.
talk about a convoluted way to justify evasion of justice. They did everything they possibly could to be served, then use this lame excuse that they "didn't know about it". They're nothing but worthless useless crooks.
anytime anyone cuts back the public funding gravy train, it's a good thing. What makes Congressmen so high and mighty? The fact that a few people -- who's ability to choose what they really want has been eroded by Democrats and Republicans restricting political entry and monopolizing the market -- voted for them? So what. 9 people can get together and "vote" to murder the 10th person. Big deal. That hardly makes said act legal, just, and moral.
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:
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
The PBS site (as indicated by its own search engine) doesn't even say the word "Mises" outside of Hayek's biography, so it can hardly be considered to credibly discuss free-market schools of thought. Your assertion that the Irish had a State is sheer nonsense -- it was essentially a system of mutual protection agencies, as Rothbard discusses. Contrary to your ahistorical statement, the Irish fended off British attempts at conquest for hundreds of years. That you can say otherwise only shows you don't know what you're talking about. Ancient Iceland is also an example, and you can refer to an expert who's actually done historical work on it (David Friedman). I already linked to an article on Iceland (which cites Friedman's original piece), but here's an exchange between Friedman and others as ignorant of the history of Iceland as you. To say that the State can in any way improve upon the unhampered free market illustrates an ignorance of correct economic theory and praxeology. All State interventions cause problems (which of course leads to more interventions, to fix those problems). For example, it is impossible to have monopoly prices without a State -- for States coercively prevent entrance into a market. As DiLorenzo has illustrated, there isn't one case where monopolies have emerged absent State favoritism.
by the way, did you even read the site that you linked to? Specifically, the biography of Hayek, and most importantly, the parts pertaining to the information and calculation problems? Anywhere where an industry is socialist -- be it nationa defense or police protection -- there is going to be (primarily) a calculation problem, as well as an information problem, and of course also (probably of lesser significance) an incentives problem.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. I can't force anyone to see the stupidity of their ways. The simple fact is, you can't refute historical facts (it is a historical fact that Ancient Ireland and Ancient Iceland were stateless, and none-the-less did not have Hobbesian anarchy, but were on order in the sophistication of their culture with Ancient Rome and Greece). You also can't refute correct economic theory, and you certainly haven't read the books I've referenced. When you reference a book or paper available online, I'll take a look at it; however, I'm not going to waste money on crap recommended from someone who I could barely have a lower opinion of. By the way, a link to something from PBS is hardly convincing.
Ok, Republican's in the traditional sense. Let's go back to that racist bastard Abraham Lincoln, who was a Whig before the party fizzled out, and was busy tooting Henry Clay's, who followed in protectionist Alexander Hamilton's path. Lincoln was all for high taxes, the elimination of civil liberties, the destruction of property, enormous tarrifs, political deception and double- or triple-talk, effectively making himself a dictator, and sending all of those "inferior" (colored) people back to Afica. At least, unlike the current Republican party, Abraham Lincoln was honest about his hatred of the freedom and the free market.
I stopped reading after the first couple of sentences. You obviously are too stupid to understand. I provided historical examples. You have no argument against that, nor can you. It is simply a historical fact. I provided economic arguments, and linked to papers and books elaborating on such; you have no argument against that because you do not understand economics. Finally, your ridiculous assertion that "legitimate power can be used illegitimately" is patent nonsense. There is no such thing as legitimate or illegitimate power; power is simply a given. What I am talking about here is natural law, and pointing to "power" does not refute it. Furthermore, your argument would totally neuter Demcracy, as under that reasoning, the 10 people could only vote to do things that they had the right to do -- but they could have all done that anyways without Democracy; so Democracy is thus a meaningless concept, and still does not rightfully allow you to do what you want to do -- which is initiate aggression against others (you can still wrongfully do such, but the fact that it's a Democracy voting on it doesn't in any way legitimize it). Go read the references I provided. End of discussion.
You clearly show that you do not know history by ignorant statements, and you also do not understand economics, a proper understanding of which will explain why free-market protection-agencies will always be more efficient than States. To clear up your misconceptions on Ancient Ireland, and misunderstandings of private protection, see:
The Private Production of Defense. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann.
I meant right in the sense of "right vs. wrong" not "right vs. left" on the political spectrum (it was a joke, left for wrong). My point is that taxes are unjust in the first place, as is all Utilitarian non-sense.
Utilitarianism runs into a performative contradiction, and is self-contradictory, as well as being nonsensical.
Firstly, the performative contradiction. The Utilitarian must assert that if it would increase "net utility" it is ok to murder someone against their will. Yet, he cannot apply this to himself. If it is he, the Utilitarian, who must be killed for society's "net utility" to be increased, then he can either consent -- in which case it isn't against his will -- or refuse to consent -- in which case, he's actively affirming that it isn't ok to murder someone against their will.
Secondly, the contradiction. Utilitarianism tries to maximize net utility. Yet, such a scheme would have us redistributing property whenever some judge arbitrarily determined that it would provide "higher utility" elsewhere. This would result in complete instability of property rights, and time-preferences would continually sink lower and lower. The process would be a decivilizaion, or civilizational decline back to barbarism.
Thirdly, the nonsense. Inter-personal utility comparisons are impossible, hence Utilitarianism is nonsense from the start.
Something is only legitimate if it is justified. No State can ever possible be justified. It is simply impossible, by the definition of what a State is. This is because they must all user coercive force to prevent competition, and must tax. What I am arguing for is known as libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, or propertarianism. Summarily, all States, by necessity, systematically violate the non-aggression axiom (which is an a priori axiomatic truth), thus are not legitimate. Your talk of "representative" is non-sense, since the US government was not consented to by all when established, and is not consented to by all today. Saying that people give their consent (hence the State's action is not the initiation of aggressioN) because they don't move elsewhere is like saying that the victims of mafia organizations consent if they don't move.
Your understanding of Ancient Ireland and Ancient Iceland is mistaken. I believe I linked to the articles on them (but am not sure, if I haven't ask for them). Ancient Ireland lasted for almost a thousand years. The fact that it no-longer exists as a Stateless society proves nothing. Throughout history, no society has lasted. The assertion that our particular form of society is the best because it is here "today" is fallicious humbuggery. Ancient Ireland existed for almost a thousand years, and withstood hundreds of years of attempts by he brutal British to conquer it (the British experienced tremendous difficulty precisely because it was stateless, thus there was no central authority to surrender; they would have easily conquered Ireland if it were a State-society). Ancient Iceland's near-Stateless society subsided precisely because it wasn't completely ridden of a state.
yea, it's the radical libertarians who are right. The right and the left are, well, left.
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.
Actually, libertarians understand the Industrial Revolution better than anyone else: without the modern-day propaganda that's surrounded it. It was one of the most progressive eras in history. Afghanistan was not justified. We aren't justified in murder simply because other people murder. We've killed more civilians in that war than terrorists, and we still aren't any safer than we were before -- in fact, we're less safe, because the hatred created by the US murdering innocent civilians causes greater entry into terrorist organizations.
And much more intelligent articles have been written on the topic (I linked to them, from authors at Mises.org and LewRockwell.com in another response to someone). And Soros is only half-way intelligent: we shouldn't be in Iraq and we shouldn't have been in Afghanistan either.