One of the primary problems is that "corporations" are a legal creation, granted limited immunity by the state in trade for additional controls upon what a corporation may and may not do and how they do it.
The officers of a corporation are not personally liable for their decisions, unlike partnerships and other private business structures. That's why people form corporations in the first place.
Liberty cuts both ways. With individual liberty comes individual responsibility. There are a whole lot of people, a large majority it seems, who do not want to be liable for their actions and thus vote for people who make promises to save them from themselves.
Like, for instance, flood insurance for people who choose to build in really stupid places, paid for with tax money. Just another special interest welfare payment to buy votes.
There has been so much written on this subject it's ridiculous. I'm not surprised you've never heard about the volumes, however, because the State doesn't want you to know they exist. You won't find them in school libraries.
Even if you decide that anarchy, that is, "an-archy = without rulers", isn't for you, at least you can know better what questions you have that haven't already been answered.
I look forward to maybe seeing you ask some of those questions in the Mises blog, always an interesting place to discuss such issues and they welcome questions.
Not everyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" is in favor of government.
I am an anarchist solely because I have yet to see any government effort that could not be done better, cheaper, faster or some combination of the three, by the voluntary efforts of interested individuals.
Thus, "without rulers = an-archy". Not "without rules", since to violate the equal rights of another to live their lives as they wish has always been a crime for individuals.
I call myself a "libertarian" because I take the libertarian ideal of non-initiation of force to its logical conclusion.
It is only "rulers", government, which reserves to itself the power to initiate force with impunity. And that is just fucking wrong for anyone to do, regardless of their title.
As far as capitalism being antithetical to equality, I think you need some education in economics since "capitalism" is an economic, not political, term. You will find that capitalism is what you get when people are free to deal with others, peacefully, equally, however it is that they want to.
I see you are making the standard error of equating anarchy with chaos.
Anarchy means "without rule", that is without being told or forced. When you choose between two different gas stations, you are participating in anarchy. Choosing to post on Slashdot is an exercise in anarchy, since you can also not post.
The vast majority of interactions between you and others every day are anarchy in action. Cancel your cable because you do not wish to pay, and no one will show up at your door with guns and haul your butt off to jail for "non-payment". Try that with your property tax, and smell the jackboots on your face up close and personal.
Chaos is demonstrated by a lack of order, such as being unable to know what law is being broken because there are so many laws. Or having 5 accountants produce 5 different sums on the same tax return, because of the complexity and inconsistency of the rules.
Chaos is also the fact that the laws to which we are subjected change randomly. What was perfectly legal yesterday might be illegal tomorrow by local, county, state or federal law and there is no way to know which or when or what.
As to the difference between liberals and conservatives, why, prey tell, does the department of Health and Human Services still exist with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse? Or does this most "liberal" of departments serve a conservative cause in its regulations? Just one example.
Don't forget the armbands and bandanas. Those help with discipline and study habits too.
Oh, you didn't notice that Hitler Youths and Red Brigade looked and acted exactly the same, even though one was "right" and the other "left"?
That's the myth of "conservative" verses "liberal", "right" verses "left". They all try so hard to say how they're different from the other, but they're all exactly the same.
It's all about control. Both left and right want to run your life as they see fit.
Public education is the largest jobs make-work program that the US government runs.
It is the largest employment sector in the entire country, and I wouldn't be surprised if this were true of other countries. For every teacher there are numerous bureaucrats and fantastic levels of overhead.
But how is success measured in a bureaucracy? Larger staffs and bigger budgets.
By bureaucratic standards, the forced public schools are fantastically successful.
Oh, you child isn't actually learning how to read? That has nothing to do with it. It never did.
As Hopper says in _A Bugs Life_, "It's not about food. It's about keeping those ants in line."
If the schools improved their efficiency, actually taught, there would be less need for remedial teachers, assistant teachers, they would loose staffing! No bureaucracy wants that.
So eliminate the single biggest stumbling block preventing education: Public Schooling.
You and I are in near complete agreement on principle. This is good, because it gives us a common interest.
I was a victim of government abuse early on. Being very young, I thought that coercion was just "the way the world worked", so for exactly the same reasons you state here I thought that it might be possible to balance the forces of coercion, which I had been taught were Big Business and Tyrannical Government.
It's impossible to go to public school and not have the awfulness of monopolies, cartels, trusts and such other horrible practices of "unfettered capitalism" reiterated year after year after year. The shadow of the Soviet Union loomed on the horizon, ready to burn women and children by the millions at any moment, to be solved in exactly the same way the last big Evil Empires, Germany and Japan, had been defeated: through submission to the State.
But then something happened: the "natural monopoly" of AT&T was broken up. I learned that the only reason AT&T had had a monopoly was because the government gave them one. In learning about this, I discovered that the "evil Big Businesses" were those who partnered with Big Government to prevent competition or distort prices. All those abusive Big Businesses were able to abuse because they partnered with government to do so. See: Tarriffs, price controls, minimum wage laws (unions are a really big business!)
Then I realized that the vast majority of my time was spent not interacting with people through coercion. It was not "just the way the world worked" at all.
It didn't take very long to realize that the bomb-throwing chaosists were merely trying to get government power for themselves, and the people already in power always used this as an excuse to expand their power. Always.
Governments don't stay small. By definition, they have a monopoly on the use of force: if the kidnapper happens to be a policeman, and the place you are held is a government jail, you're stuck. No one is going to prosecute the kidnapper or his accomplices even if they are found to have taken you without good reason. That is the difference between private action and government action: Private individuals are liable, as individuals, for the results of their actions. Government is not.
Sorry, I'm rambling. Let me recap: I, too, would like a minimal government whose purpose is and remains always the prosecution of abuse. This of course would include prosecution of Big Business if it becomes abusive.
But reality is that government never stays small. Government and Big Business always join forces because doing so increases both parties power and they know it.
Anyway, that and a bunch of research led me to free market anarchy and a revulsion toward the use of force at all, which tends to alienate me from both "conservatives" and "liberals" because people who use those terms usually want to use the power of government for things *they* want, while still bemoaning how someone else uses the force of government for things the other people want. Hypocrisy? Averace? Pride? Simple Ignorance? Yeah, because they don't understand the Golden Rule.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Or in the Wiccan creed, If it harms none, do as you will. Both of these mean the same thing:
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
and that their applications are not mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, that is not correct. Socialism is based upon coercion, laissez-faire upon the lack of coercion. A "mixed economy" is an oxymoron, it is either laissez-faire or it isn't. After that, it's merely more or less socialist.
But if every road has to be profitable as a condition of it being built what happens to county road 7? Tolls would have to be terrific if roads were built between small Midwestern towns.
I wonder why so many people seem to think that every endeavor must be "profitable" or spawned from greed in order to be undertaken. Is the EFF profitable? ACLU?
The problem I see with your assertion is that it depends upon what we have now as being the inevitable result of the last hundred+ years of development. Nothing could be further from the truth. We're stuck with "roads" because government built them, undercutting and otherwise driving out any other possible technology or technique. The "infrastructure" of roads has been built entirely for political gain. Your farmers and their customers might very well have formed cooperatives to build more efficient transportation methods (maybe even roads!), the problem is we will never know. We've tried infrastructure by government, but private infrastructure is denied to us.
Didn't FedEx demonstrate anything about basic government efficiency?
I do think that it is both right, and effective to tax a portion of our income to pay for our projects. I'm ok with giving up some of mine for us.
This sentiment reiterates one of my strongest points: There are millions of other people just like you who already donate portions of their wealth for what they consider worthy causes. I wonder why you believe this would not occur if the money were solicited for programs you deem worthy rather than stolen at gun point.
My income is not yours, it is not ours. It is mine, because my life is mine. Your claim to my labor is called slavery. You may say that you don't object to the nasty terms for the policies you advocate, so why not undercut my argument entirely and use them yourself? Are you ready to openly advocate slavery?
I find the arguments that child labor was better than the alternative, and the increase of productivity of adult workers made the practice obsolete thin to say the least.
Then explain to me why the children take such low paying work. It's easy, just tell me what they would otherwise be doing.
The problem with asserting that the alternatives exist is that you present no alternatives. The problem with trying to deny that increased value of labor means less people need to work, is that there is no other source of wealth to buy the food or build the houses than productive labor.
If the work available is only worth 10 cents an hour to get done, and it is illegal to hire anyone to work at 10 cents per hour, the work simply won't get done and the unskilled labor will have to try to survive by other means. Means such as has always been available, such as begging, prostitution and simple starvation.
If buisness is given free reign it will do all in its power to increase the value to the owner.
There are two problems with this theory. History and economics. History has demonstrated that successful businesses get that way because they better satisfy their customers. The owners can only increase their personal fortune by better serving their customers. That means cheaper or better quality products.
Better quality products are made by better quality labor. Better quality labor demands higher wages. Take away the owners incentive to better his own fortune, you take away any incentive to improve anyones fortune. An examination of the industrial/labor conditions in the former Soviet Union demonstrate this in spades. If your theory had any validity, those factories would not have been squalid wastelands of poverty.
Even just in the review, many of the issues you raise are addressed.
It's not that I disagree that these are important issues, I disagree that coercive government intervention, regulation and operation through political expediency is in any way "better" than what results when interested individuals come together to solve the problems.
DaveOnNet, interesting questions. I like trying to look at things from different perspectives.
I am indeed very glad to help people. I can recall more than once in line at a store, someone ahead of me realizes they're a dollar short of being able to afford their purchases. My immediate reaction is not frustration or disgust, it's to reach into my pocket to see if I can help them out. Just looking at the billions that are donated to "charity" every year, I know I'm not alone.
"Community" services are also very important to me. If there was a playground near by, "in my community" as it were, that was maintained by donation rather than taxation, I would be happy to contribute. I also would be more inclined to patronize a utility which used some of its profits (thus making my bill higher than it otherwise would be) to provide their service to those who otherwise could not afford it.
You are correct that I do not expect anyone else to pay for a program that I approve of, just because I approve of it. I may try to convince others of the validity of the project, but to go beyond that and coerce them into paying for it by putting a gun to their head (all taxation rests on violent retribution if you do not pay) is irrational.
I do not believe for a moment that Anders would himself put a knife to my throat in order for me to put $10 toward repaving the street in front of his house. As an individual, he seems a perfectly nice guy. My hope is that I can assist him in thinking about the actions of those to whom he has deligated the power to do exactly those things he would never do himself.
To answer your last question, no, I don't see any way that someone will present an argument to me that will change my mind about robbing my neighbors. I have never been injured or "trespassed" against by Anders, or you, or most everyone else. How, then, do I justify taking your money against your will? That just makes me the criminal.
There's a problem with www.Mises.org tonight, sorry, I cannot give you a link. However, "Would the warlords take over" on Blog.mises.org was an excellent discussion, and scrolling through the blog articles (which include the daily articles too) will give ample opportunities for you.
The audio files section on "anarchy" also have some wonder material on private provision of justice. Just searching on "justice" will bring up "injustice", so take a little time and see what you think. Most of the articles in the search come with excerpts and titles in the search results, since it's a Google search being utilized.
I believe there is a great deal of problem with the bureaucrats and "private" prisons and repeat offenders. The major problem is that there are so many laws to break in the first place. Prison is hardly the place to put someone who uses politically incorrect drugs in the privacy of their own home, which would reduce the prison population (and cost) a substantial amount right there.
Then we could focus on crimes where there is actual harm done, like violent crime and robbery. Then how about working on restitution instead of "incarceration"? It may not work for the worst of crimes, like murder (how does one pay for someones life?), but everything else from a broken leg to a missing car stereo comes with a price tag. Why are we locking these people up at the expense of tax payers instead of letting them work to pay back the costs of their transgression?
My apologies on the "can't agree to disagree" repeat, I should really learn to go back and re-read before posting. Chalk it up to a wife who wanted dinner NOW so I had to hit "submit".
I do not however agree that there would be motivation for a private organization to invest in many "public works" that define modern America.
You and I agree, but for different reasons. I see many of the "public works" as being extraordinary wastes of both time and money. The "Interstate" highway system may be the most visible, corrupt one of the bunch.
So I agree that they would not have ever been produced except by large bureaucracies whose policies were set by politicians who needed to pay off their contributors and creditors.
However, I have seen cities with competing water suppliers, competing electrical, phone, cable TV and other "utilities" that most governments restrict to a single legally mandated monopoly under the theory that otherwise people would not be served. The problem being that people are served, with better service and for less cost.
You're right that the big things can be pointed to with, "Only a government could build it", but that leaves open the question of what would have been built if government hadn't taken away the opportunity for people to try to solve the problem efficiently.
That is why I pointed you to DiLorenzo's book, and _The Voluntary City_, because they discuss historical examples of people doing exactly that: Providing basic infrastructure.
The problem with assigning "the almighty buck" to civil liberties is that you have it backwards. Why did the bus system in Montgomery, Alabama, nearly go bankrupt after Rosa Parks motivated the blacks to stop riding? Because there are lots and lots of blacks in Montgomery. There are far more people of moderate means than there are rich, and selling 1,000 items at $1 profit is a far more effective road to wealth than trying to sell 100 items at $10 profit each. Ask Sam Walton.
While you assert that civil liberties cannot be supported effectively through boycot and public opinion, you're forgetting that this is a system where politicians are trying to get re-elected. If there really wasn't any public support for civil liberties, the politicians wouldn't push it because it wouldn't get them votes. The fact that it does get them votes means there are millions of people, like you and me, who would not patronize a business that said "whites only". But that does not mean I will put a gun to someones head to force them to allow people they do not want to serve.
And maybe that's the biggest difference between us. It's not that we disagree on what is "good" or "bad", but fundamentally on "right" and "wrong". Because I believe theft is wrong, and you don't. To wit:
while taxes are mandatory, I certainly wouldn't call them coerced.
So as long as it's a white majority robbing a black woman, it's ok? Oh, that's right, you're against racism. Then it's ok for a majority to rob... me? Are you really willing to put a gun to my head to take my money to pay for something merely because you approve of it?
I would like to reiterate my stance that just because it could be done better by a private group, doesn't mean that it would be done.
You say this like I don't agree with you. Of course I agree with you, it's always possible that you are the only person who believe "X" should be done, which means there is no market for it and no one else will help you. But tell me how it is that you can get a majority of voters (or at least a substantial minority) to go along with being robbed at gun point to fund "X" and still you think there is no market for it?
As far as your use of "re-distribute the wealth", on this one point you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Oh way, I cannot disagree because if I don't pay for your programs, I get to go to jail or be killed by the tax man.
Somehow you think taxes aren't coerced. Try, then, not paying the tax. See how quickly people with guns show up to take the money from you regardless of your opinion, belief or position. That, by definition, is coercion.
It makes perfect sense to me, since the bureaucrats are even more insulated from the repercussions of what happens in the prisons, when the prisons are "private". "It's not us, it's Halaberton" as I said. No matter how bad, they get to point the finger and keep their jobs.
The articles on Mises.org about the private provision of justice would likely be of some interest to you.
Good sir, it is very clear from the words you're using that you feel strongly about the various issues.
Please take a moment to consider that there are lots of other people who feel strongly about these issues also. Interested individuals, working together, are far more efficient and effective than a bureaucracy funded through coercion. While you may very well end up paying as much or more for a particular issue, such as roads, than you do now in taxes, it is a simple fact of mathematics that more of your money will go to build the roads since there will be no bloated bureaucracy living off the money. You can focus on efficiency, or convenience, or whatever it is that is most important to you by what road project you invest in. That is exactly what was happening prior to the expropriation of roads by government.
I agree with you that the present interstate system would not have been built except by a bureaucratic monstrosity with lots of political favors to pay off. How does that prove that this "system" is in any way superior to what might have been built if the government had not robbed us all at gun point to pay for it?
I submit that we, as individuals, have adapted to what has been built and not the other way around.
Going to a government site to find out how good government is doing is futile. Of course they report what they want you to believe. Read some John Taylor Gatto, or just do a Google search on his name. If his credentials and research quality are not enough to convince you, it is futile for me to try.
You and I agree about the costs and risks involved with drugs and medical research, government bureaucracy can only slow or prevent progress. Eliminate the government bureaucracy and if there really isn't any other way to make drugs than to be a gigantic multi-national, then those are what will produce the drugs.
If, on the other hand, herbs and herbal compounds that human beings have been using for thousands of years end up being actually effective as "drugs", then you must face the fact that their illegality, the vast and hideously expensive/destructive prosecution of their prohibition, served only to protect and enhance the profits of huge, multi-national campaign contributors.
WW2 was a direct result of the Progressive war mongering that helped Wilson bring the US into WW1, which allowed epic and minute regulation of the American economy, and the fact that he backed any and all idiotic and absurd provisions of the "peace" so long as his personal baby, the League of Nations, was given lip service. Hardly a triumph, and I'm sorry you don't understand what a complete cluster-fuck of government regulation the entire time period of 1912 to 1945 was.
If you're interested, there have been several books written (and articles online at Mises.org) concerning private provision of justice. If you're interested, there is a search function.
And concerning fairness: Where is the fairness in forcing a property owner at gun point to allow people to use his property without his permission? Isn't that just brutality? When a private person does it, it's assault and robbery. When government does it, it's ok but only as long as you agree with it! The problem with, as you put it, "active government intervention", is that this time you agree with it. Next time, when you don't, you'll have no standing to object. That is the double-edged sword.
Yet businesses that discriminate will go out of business by the same forces that nearly wiped out the GOVERNMENT bus system when one black woman finally said she wasn't going to sit in the back bus regardless of the LAW.
There is always recourse when the abuser is private, because freedom of association also means the freedom NOT to associate. Boycot, as it were. Government allows no such choice. It is coercive at its root and no thickness of velvet glove can hide that iron fist. Even Microsoft cannot make you use their product, the IRS does and will gleefully burn your house to the ground if you don't cowtow to wh
And anyone who wants them to is a leech and should be treated as such.
Anyone who wants to live off the income of others aught to at least have the honesty to get a weapon and rob people face to face, instead of using government thugs to do their dirty work and then, of course, to skim the profits for themselves.
I don't see how the new fad of "private" prisons is any different than saying that "it wasn't the government, it was Halaberton". They still answer to the same bureaucrats that "ran" the prisons before.
I disagree with your assigning an incentive to not have repeat offenders to the "criminal justice system". If it weren't for the endless prohibitions and repeat offenders, they'd be out of a job. Having ever increasing numbers of laws to enforce and all these repeat offenders just ensures ever growing staff and budgets, the very definition of a "successful" bureaucratic agency.
Just knowing what public schools are like gives me a clue about how awful "juvenile prisons" must be, since there aren't even the shams of PTA or "parrental involvement" to hold the wardens in check in their depravities.
Roads: Go look up "turnpike", or better yet read _How Capitalism Saved America_ by Thomas DiLorenzo. It's well written and entertaining, and he has an entire chapter on roads. Prior to governments taking over the private roads, they were indeed being built and being built well. What they were not doing was paying enough in bribes and kickbacks.
Medical: Again, the government and its agency the AMA have done their best to keep medical science as slow as possible. The FDA ensures that only the largest of corporations can produce legal drugs, and limitations on medical schools combined with restrictions on what may be taught prevent there from being enough doctors and physicians to allow for actual competition.
Police: What, prey tell, are the hundreds if not thousands of private security firms in the US alone doing, if not providing police? The fact of the existence of those many private security firms demonstrates that the government funded police do NOT serve well enough.
National Defense: What about attacking Somalia has anything to do with "defense"? Were the military actually providing defense you might have some case for your assertion, but the fact that an entirely new cabinet level department for national defense was set up within the last three years demonstrates that either the military cannot do the job, or that is not their job.
If this or any country were actually attacked, there would be no need for forced "defense" because people do not need to be coerced to defend their homes. But then, the power granted to the Fed.gov is to coordinate the various militia, not maintain a standing army. If you can agree to put the "national defense" back to that level and see if it indeed better than could be done privately, I'll go along with it whole heartedly.
Civil Rights: The greatest violator of "civil" rights is the government in the first place. Governments at all levels have used their power to deny individuals their "rights", so what about getting government out of the way would be less effective?
Or do you think the ACLU, NRA and Martin Luther King were government agents/agencies?
And as far as "public" education goes, getting government entirely out of education could not possibly be worse than what they have done to it. Just compare the litteracy rates prior to coercive "public" schooling and now. It's easy, there are lots of books on the subject, or you could just bop over to http://www.sepschool.org/
To put it politely, I have never seen any actual evidence that there is any government function that cannot be provided better and/or cheaper by private interests. Unless you are being very specific that you are only comparing "for profit compan[ies]" and therefore do not include churches, the ACLU, and the other myriad non-profit organizations that do these things.
I'll be very glad to read what evidence you have for your 6 assertions. I can recommend _The Voluntary City_ from the University of Michigan Press as a starting point for mine.
The various States pre-existed the Fed.gov. It is they that granted the Fed.gov a specific list of enumerated powers. The Bill of Rights was ratified by the States as a further restriction upon the powers of the Fed.gov.
How is allowing the states to make the choices keeping government out of our livs?
That has nothing to do with my opinion about "allowing" the States anything. The States were ensuring that the Fed.gov would stay out of State business, since the States came first and otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this new central government.
How is giving the states more power to abuse us then the federal government currently has/does "abolish the power of government to make decisions for us"?
Again, the States always had all they power they wanted, being governments of general (not enumerated) powers. Reading the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights makes that clear. All powers are reserved to the States and the People except those specifically enumerated.
My personal opinion is that the Constitution for the United States of America was a bloodless counter-revolution by vested interests who wanted to re-create the very merchantilist policies (like raising the tax on tea that was already a legal monopoly, see "Boston Tea Party"). Entering into the Constitutional compact was a severe step backwards for Liberty.
You didn't read them. The point of the "A Glut Of Saving?" article was to destroy the Keynsian myth that says that people putting money in the bank slows down the economy.
Also, the defense of bribery article was pointing out the damage that bribery causes, but the greater damage that comes from trying to prohibit bribery.
The common theme, if there is any, is that prohibition itself causes more problems than it solves.
There is no "problem" with being left alone. The problems only happen when the government interferes with people.
We have no socialiazed health care.
Medicare. Medicaid. 50 state governments with all their own programs. Plus city programs. At least.
People can only get 7 years of welfare in their entire life.
Move to California. Or New York.
Social Security is not enough to live on.
Try Mississippi or Alabama. Or, better yet, go read the law and see where it says SUPPLIMENTAL SECURITY INCOME, it was never intended to be something to live on all by itself.
But, human nature being what it is, people get lazy when they think they have a "safety net" and cry when they find out there is no such thing.
Don't confuse me with some "conservative" idiot who thinks corporate welfare is ok but personal welfare sucks. I have yet to see any government function that cannot be done better and cheaper privately, if there is any demand for the service at all....except paying bureaucrats for doing nothing. That service is in high demand, but no one is willing to pay for it without the gun to their head called "taxes".
Don't forget that the Bill of Rights was written to stop the new Federal government from infringing on the powers of the existing States.
The principles of the founding of the United States is one of "federalism". A weak central government of explicitly enumerated powers (article 1 section 8), separate from the several States, with their governments of general powers rather than enumerated.
That there were States with their own constitutions limiting their general powers is a testament to the fact that government at any level must be restrained or it will abuse its citizens.
The fact that certain states did indeed regulate speech, recognize religion(s), restrict firearms and all the other things that the Fed.Gov is prohibitted doing in the Bill Of Rights is just part of what the Founders lived with.
Some states were utterly against restricting the right of free speech, others utterly against having their power to restrict speech infringed upon. The compromise was to simply prohibit the Fed.Gov from interfering with the states one way or another at all.
Sounds like a great compromise to me. I wish we could all compromise by simply abolishing the power of government to make the decision for us. Whatever that decision is.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the primary problems is that "corporations" are a legal creation, granted limited immunity by the state in trade for additional controls upon what a corporation may and may not do and how they do it.
The officers of a corporation are not personally liable for their decisions, unlike partnerships and other private business structures. That's why people form corporations in the first place.
Liberty cuts both ways. With individual liberty comes individual responsibility. There are a whole lot of people, a large majority it seems, who do not want to be liable for their actions and thus vote for people who make promises to save them from themselves.
Like, for instance, flood insurance for people who choose to build in really stupid places, paid for with tax money. Just another special interest welfare payment to buy votes.
Bob-
There has been so much written on this subject it's ridiculous. I'm not surprised you've never heard about the volumes, however, because the State doesn't want you to know they exist. You won't find them in school libraries.
c t&Id=123
r &Id=383
You can start with Murrey Rothbard's _The Ethics of Liberty_, http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
or you could just jump right into the entire category of "Anarchy" that is available on the Mises.org web site: http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=subje
The files for Roderick T. Long are some of the most specific for anarchy, http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=autho
Even if you decide that anarchy, that is, "an-archy = without rulers", isn't for you, at least you can know better what questions you have that haven't already been answered.
I look forward to maybe seeing you ask some of those questions in the Mises blog, always an interesting place to discuss such issues and they welcome questions.
Bob-
Not everyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" is in favor of government.
I am an anarchist solely because I have yet to see any government effort that could not be done better, cheaper, faster or some combination of the three, by the voluntary efforts of interested individuals.
Thus, "without rulers = an-archy". Not "without rules", since to violate the equal rights of another to live their lives as they wish has always been a crime for individuals.
I call myself a "libertarian" because I take the libertarian ideal of non-initiation of force to its logical conclusion.
It is only "rulers", government, which reserves to itself the power to initiate force with impunity. And that is just fucking wrong for anyone to do, regardless of their title.
As far as capitalism being antithetical to equality, I think you need some education in economics since "capitalism" is an economic, not political, term. You will find that capitalism is what you get when people are free to deal with others, peacefully, equally, however it is that they want to.
Bob-
Why send sonic disrupters into the disaster area? Because that way they can be tested without pissing off too many likely voters.
I see you are making the standard error of equating anarchy with chaos.
Anarchy means "without rule", that is without being told or forced. When you choose between two different gas stations, you are participating in anarchy. Choosing to post on Slashdot is an exercise in anarchy, since you can also not post.
The vast majority of interactions between you and others every day are anarchy in action. Cancel your cable because you do not wish to pay, and no one will show up at your door with guns and haul your butt off to jail for "non-payment". Try that with your property tax, and smell the jackboots on your face up close and personal.
Chaos is demonstrated by a lack of order, such as being unable to know what law is being broken because there are so many laws. Or having 5 accountants produce 5 different sums on the same tax return, because of the complexity and inconsistency of the rules.
Chaos is also the fact that the laws to which we are subjected change randomly. What was perfectly legal yesterday might be illegal tomorrow by local, county, state or federal law and there is no way to know which or when or what.
As to the difference between liberals and conservatives, why, prey tell, does the department of Health and Human Services still exist with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse? Or does this most "liberal" of departments serve a conservative cause in its regulations? Just one example.
I look forward to reading your excuse.
Bob-
Don't forget the armbands and bandanas. Those help with discipline and study habits too.
Oh, you didn't notice that Hitler Youths and Red Brigade looked and acted exactly the same, even though one was "right" and the other "left"?
That's the myth of "conservative" verses "liberal", "right" verses "left". They all try so hard to say how they're different from the other, but they're all exactly the same.
It's all about control. Both left and right want to run your life as they see fit.
Only an idiot would be proud of that.
Bob-
Public education is the largest jobs make-work program that the US government runs.
It is the largest employment sector in the entire country, and I wouldn't be surprised if this were true of other countries. For every teacher there are numerous bureaucrats and fantastic levels of overhead.
But how is success measured in a bureaucracy? Larger staffs and bigger budgets.
By bureaucratic standards, the forced public schools are fantastically successful.
Oh, you child isn't actually learning how to read? That has nothing to do with it. It never did.
As Hopper says in _A Bugs Life_, "It's not about food. It's about keeping those ants in line."
If the schools improved their efficiency, actually taught, there would be less need for remedial teachers, assistant teachers, they would loose staffing! No bureaucracy wants that.
So eliminate the single biggest stumbling block preventing education: Public Schooling.
Bob-
Good sir,
You and I are in near complete agreement on principle. This is good, because it gives us a common interest.
I was a victim of government abuse early on. Being very young, I thought that coercion was just "the way the world worked", so for exactly the same reasons you state here I thought that it might be possible to balance the forces of coercion, which I had been taught were Big Business and Tyrannical Government.
It's impossible to go to public school and not have the awfulness of monopolies, cartels, trusts and such other horrible practices of "unfettered capitalism" reiterated year after year after year. The shadow of the Soviet Union loomed on the horizon, ready to burn women and children by the millions at any moment, to be solved in exactly the same way the last big Evil Empires, Germany and Japan, had been defeated: through submission to the State.
But then something happened: the "natural monopoly" of AT&T was broken up. I learned that the only reason AT&T had had a monopoly was because the government gave them one. In learning about this, I discovered that the "evil Big Businesses" were those who partnered with Big Government to prevent competition or distort prices. All those abusive Big Businesses were able to abuse because they partnered with government to do so. See: Tarriffs, price controls, minimum wage laws (unions are a really big business!)
Then I realized that the vast majority of my time was spent not interacting with people through coercion. It was not "just the way the world worked" at all.
It didn't take very long to realize that the bomb-throwing chaosists were merely trying to get government power for themselves, and the people already in power always used this as an excuse to expand their power. Always.
Governments don't stay small. By definition, they have a monopoly on the use of force: if the kidnapper happens to be a policeman, and the place you are held is a government jail, you're stuck. No one is going to prosecute the kidnapper or his accomplices even if they are found to have taken you without good reason. That is the difference between private action and government action: Private individuals are liable, as individuals, for the results of their actions. Government is not.
Sorry, I'm rambling. Let me recap: I, too, would like a minimal government whose purpose is and remains always the prosecution of abuse. This of course would include prosecution of Big Business if it becomes abusive.
But reality is that government never stays small. Government and Big Business always join forces because doing so increases both parties power and they know it.
Anyway, that and a bunch of research led me to free market anarchy and a revulsion toward the use of force at all, which tends to alienate me from both "conservatives" and "liberals" because people who use those terms usually want to use the power of government for things *they* want, while still bemoaning how someone else uses the force of government for things the other people want. Hypocrisy? Averace? Pride? Simple Ignorance? Yeah, because they don't understand the Golden Rule.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Or in the Wiccan creed, If it harms none, do as you will. Both of these mean the same thing:
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
- L. Neil Smith
Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the time.
and that their applications are not mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, that is not correct. Socialism is based upon coercion, laissez-faire upon the lack of coercion. A "mixed economy" is an oxymoron, it is either laissez-faire or it isn't. After that, it's merely more or less socialist.
But if every road has to be profitable as a condition of it being built what happens to county road 7? Tolls would have to be terrific if roads were built between small Midwestern towns.
I wonder why so many people seem to think that every endeavor must be "profitable" or spawned from greed in order to be undertaken. Is the EFF profitable? ACLU?
The problem I see with your assertion is that it depends upon what we have now as being the inevitable result of the last hundred+ years of development. Nothing could be further from the truth. We're stuck with "roads" because government built them, undercutting and otherwise driving out any other possible technology or technique. The "infrastructure" of roads has been built entirely for political gain. Your farmers and their customers might very well have formed cooperatives to build more efficient transportation methods (maybe even roads!), the problem is we will never know. We've tried infrastructure by government, but private infrastructure is denied to us.
Didn't FedEx demonstrate anything about basic government efficiency?
I do think that it is both right, and effective to tax a portion of our income to pay for our projects. I'm ok with giving up some of mine for us.
This sentiment reiterates one of my strongest points: There are millions of other people just like you who already donate portions of their wealth for what they consider worthy causes. I wonder why you believe this would not occur if the money were solicited for programs you deem worthy rather than stolen at gun point.
My income is not yours, it is not ours. It is mine, because my life is mine. Your claim to my labor is called slavery. You may say that you don't object to the nasty terms for the policies you advocate, so why not undercut my argument entirely and use them yourself? Are you ready to openly advocate slavery?
I find the arguments that child labor was better than the alternative, and the increase of productivity of adult workers made the practice obsolete thin to say the least.
Then explain to me why the children take such low paying work. It's easy, just tell me what they would otherwise be doing.
The problem with asserting that the alternatives exist is that you present no alternatives. The problem with trying to deny that increased value of labor means less people need to work, is that there is no other source of wealth to buy the food or build the houses than productive labor.
If the work available is only worth 10 cents an hour to get done, and it is illegal to hire anyone to work at 10 cents per hour, the work simply won't get done and the unskilled labor will have to try to survive by other means. Means such as has always been available, such as begging, prostitution and simple starvation.
If buisness is given free reign it will do all in its power to increase the value to the owner.
There are two problems with this theory. History and economics. History has demonstrated that successful businesses get that way because they better satisfy their customers. The owners can only increase their personal fortune by better serving their customers. That means cheaper or better quality products.
Better quality products are made by better quality labor. Better quality labor demands higher wages. Take away the owners incentive to better his own fortune, you take away any incentive to improve anyones fortune. An examination of the industrial/labor conditions in the former Soviet Union demonstrate this in spades. If your theory had any validity, those factories would not have been squalid wastelands of poverty.
So while it i
I am pleased that a "review" of the DiLorenzo book I recommended to you is online:
http://www.mises.org/story/1887
Even just in the review, many of the issues you raise are addressed.
It's not that I disagree that these are important issues, I disagree that coercive government intervention, regulation and operation through political expediency is in any way "better" than what results when interested individuals come together to solve the problems.
Bob-
DaveOnNet, interesting questions. I like trying to look at things from different perspectives.
I am indeed very glad to help people. I can recall more than once in line at a store, someone ahead of me realizes they're a dollar short of being able to afford their purchases. My immediate reaction is not frustration or disgust, it's to reach into my pocket to see if I can help them out. Just looking at the billions that are donated to "charity" every year, I know I'm not alone.
"Community" services are also very important to me. If there was a playground near by, "in my community" as it were, that was maintained by donation rather than taxation, I would be happy to contribute. I also would be more inclined to patronize a utility which used some of its profits (thus making my bill higher than it otherwise would be) to provide their service to those who otherwise could not afford it.
You are correct that I do not expect anyone else to pay for a program that I approve of, just because I approve of it. I may try to convince others of the validity of the project, but to go beyond that and coerce them into paying for it by putting a gun to their head (all taxation rests on violent retribution if you do not pay) is irrational.
I do not believe for a moment that Anders would himself put a knife to my throat in order for me to put $10 toward repaving the street in front of his house. As an individual, he seems a perfectly nice guy. My hope is that I can assist him in thinking about the actions of those to whom he has deligated the power to do exactly those things he would never do himself.
To answer your last question, no, I don't see any way that someone will present an argument to me that will change my mind about robbing my neighbors. I have never been injured or "trespassed" against by Anders, or you, or most everyone else. How, then, do I justify taking your money against your will? That just makes me the criminal.
Bob-
Calling me a socialist is an insult to socialists. They believe it is just fine to rob some people to benefit other people, I do not.
If you're going to fling insults, at least make then accurate insults. I am an anarchist, not a socialist, and the two are complete opposites.
There's a problem with www.Mises.org tonight, sorry, I cannot give you a link. However, "Would the warlords take over" on Blog.mises.org was an excellent discussion, and scrolling through the blog articles (which include the daily articles too) will give ample opportunities for you.
The audio files section on "anarchy" also have some wonder material on private provision of justice. Just searching on "justice" will bring up "injustice", so take a little time and see what you think. Most of the articles in the search come with excerpts and titles in the search results, since it's a Google search being utilized.
I believe there is a great deal of problem with the bureaucrats and "private" prisons and repeat offenders. The major problem is that there are so many laws to break in the first place. Prison is hardly the place to put someone who uses politically incorrect drugs in the privacy of their own home, which would reduce the prison population (and cost) a substantial amount right there.
Then we could focus on crimes where there is actual harm done, like violent crime and robbery. Then how about working on restitution instead of "incarceration"? It may not work for the worst of crimes, like murder (how does one pay for someones life?), but everything else from a broken leg to a missing car stereo comes with a price tag. Why are we locking these people up at the expense of tax payers instead of letting them work to pay back the costs of their transgression?
Bob-
My apologies on the "can't agree to disagree" repeat, I should really learn to go back and re-read before posting. Chalk it up to a wife who wanted dinner NOW so I had to hit "submit".
I do not however agree that there would be motivation for a private organization to invest in many "public works" that define modern America.
... me? Are you really willing to put a gun to my head to take my money to pay for something merely because you approve of it?
You and I agree, but for different reasons. I see many of the "public works" as being extraordinary wastes of both time and money. The "Interstate" highway system may be the most visible, corrupt one of the bunch.
So I agree that they would not have ever been produced except by large bureaucracies whose policies were set by politicians who needed to pay off their contributors and creditors.
However, I have seen cities with competing water suppliers, competing electrical, phone, cable TV and other "utilities" that most governments restrict to a single legally mandated monopoly under the theory that otherwise people would not be served. The problem being that people are served, with better service and for less cost.
You're right that the big things can be pointed to with, "Only a government could build it", but that leaves open the question of what would have been built if government hadn't taken away the opportunity for people to try to solve the problem efficiently.
That is why I pointed you to DiLorenzo's book, and _The Voluntary City_, because they discuss historical examples of people doing exactly that: Providing basic infrastructure.
The problem with assigning "the almighty buck" to civil liberties is that you have it backwards. Why did the bus system in Montgomery, Alabama, nearly go bankrupt after Rosa Parks motivated the blacks to stop riding? Because there are lots and lots of blacks in Montgomery. There are far more people of moderate means than there are rich, and selling 1,000 items at $1 profit is a far more effective road to wealth than trying to sell 100 items at $10 profit each. Ask Sam Walton.
While you assert that civil liberties cannot be supported effectively through boycot and public opinion, you're forgetting that this is a system where politicians are trying to get re-elected. If there really wasn't any public support for civil liberties, the politicians wouldn't push it because it wouldn't get them votes. The fact that it does get them votes means there are millions of people, like you and me, who would not patronize a business that said "whites only". But that does not mean I will put a gun to someones head to force them to allow people they do not want to serve.
And maybe that's the biggest difference between us. It's not that we disagree on what is "good" or "bad", but fundamentally on "right" and "wrong". Because I believe theft is wrong, and you don't. To wit:
while taxes are mandatory, I certainly wouldn't call them coerced.
So as long as it's a white majority robbing a black woman, it's ok? Oh, that's right, you're against racism. Then it's ok for a majority to rob
I would like to reiterate my stance that just because it could be done better by a private group, doesn't mean that it would be done.
You say this like I don't agree with you. Of course I agree with you, it's always possible that you are the only person who believe "X" should be done, which means there is no market for it and no one else will help you. But tell me how it is that you can get a majority of voters (or at least a substantial minority) to go along with being robbed at gun point to fund "X" and still you think there is no market for it?
As far as your use of "re-distribute the wealth", on this one point you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Oh way, I cannot disagree because if I don't pay for your programs, I get to go to jail or be killed by the tax man.
Somehow you think taxes aren't coerced. Try, then, not paying the tax. See how quickly people with guns show up to take the money from you regardless of your opinion, belief or position. That, by definition, is coercion.
The greatest flourishing of th
It makes perfect sense to me, since the bureaucrats are even more insulated from the repercussions of what happens in the prisons, when the prisons are "private". "It's not us, it's Halaberton" as I said. No matter how bad, they get to point the finger and keep their jobs.
The articles on Mises.org about the private provision of justice would likely be of some interest to you.
Bob-
Good sir, it is very clear from the words you're using that you feel strongly about the various issues.
Please take a moment to consider that there are lots of other people who feel strongly about these issues also. Interested individuals, working together, are far more efficient and effective than a bureaucracy funded through coercion. While you may very well end up paying as much or more for a particular issue, such as roads, than you do now in taxes, it is a simple fact of mathematics that more of your money will go to build the roads since there will be no bloated bureaucracy living off the money. You can focus on efficiency, or convenience, or whatever it is that is most important to you by what road project you invest in. That is exactly what was happening prior to the expropriation of roads by government.
I agree with you that the present interstate system would not have been built except by a bureaucratic monstrosity with lots of political favors to pay off. How does that prove that this "system" is in any way superior to what might have been built if the government had not robbed us all at gun point to pay for it?
I submit that we, as individuals, have adapted to what has been built and not the other way around.
Going to a government site to find out how good government is doing is futile. Of course they report what they want you to believe. Read some John Taylor Gatto, or just do a Google search on his name. If his credentials and research quality are not enough to convince you, it is futile for me to try.
You and I agree about the costs and risks involved with drugs and medical research, government bureaucracy can only slow or prevent progress. Eliminate the government bureaucracy and if there really isn't any other way to make drugs than to be a gigantic multi-national, then those are what will produce the drugs.
If, on the other hand, herbs and herbal compounds that human beings have been using for thousands of years end up being actually effective as "drugs", then you must face the fact that their illegality, the vast and hideously expensive/destructive prosecution of their prohibition, served only to protect and enhance the profits of huge, multi-national campaign contributors.
WW2 was a direct result of the Progressive war mongering that helped Wilson bring the US into WW1, which allowed epic and minute regulation of the American economy, and the fact that he backed any and all idiotic and absurd provisions of the "peace" so long as his personal baby, the League of Nations, was given lip service. Hardly a triumph, and I'm sorry you don't understand what a complete cluster-fuck of government regulation the entire time period of 1912 to 1945 was.
If you're interested, there have been several books written (and articles online at Mises.org) concerning private provision of justice. If you're interested, there is a search function.
And concerning fairness: Where is the fairness in forcing a property owner at gun point to allow people to use his property without his permission? Isn't that just brutality? When a private person does it, it's assault and robbery. When government does it, it's ok but only as long as you agree with it! The problem with, as you put it, "active government intervention", is that this time you agree with it. Next time, when you don't, you'll have no standing to object. That is the double-edged sword.
Yet businesses that discriminate will go out of business by the same forces that nearly wiped out the GOVERNMENT bus system when one black woman finally said she wasn't going to sit in the back bus regardless of the LAW.
There is always recourse when the abuser is private, because freedom of association also means the freedom NOT to associate. Boycot, as it were. Government allows no such choice. It is coercive at its root and no thickness of velvet glove can hide that iron fist. Even Microsoft cannot make you use their product, the IRS does and will gleefully burn your house to the ground if you don't cowtow to wh
And anyone who wants them to is a leech and should be treated as such.
Anyone who wants to live off the income of others aught to at least have the honesty to get a weapon and rob people face to face, instead of using government thugs to do their dirty work and then, of course, to skim the profits for themselves.
Just another reason that democracy sucks.
Very well said. Government creates chaos, since there is no way to know what will be illegal tomorrow (or legal) that is legal (or illegal) today.
Harming people has always been punishable, long before there were laws. It takes "law" to punish people for harming no one.
Bob-
I don't see how the new fad of "private" prisons is any different than saying that "it wasn't the government, it was Halaberton". They still answer to the same bureaucrats that "ran" the prisons before.
I disagree with your assigning an incentive to not have repeat offenders to the "criminal justice system". If it weren't for the endless prohibitions and repeat offenders, they'd be out of a job. Having ever increasing numbers of laws to enforce and all these repeat offenders just ensures ever growing staff and budgets, the very definition of a "successful" bureaucratic agency.
Just knowing what public schools are like gives me a clue about how awful "juvenile prisons" must be, since there aren't even the shams of PTA or "parrental involvement" to hold the wardens in check in their depravities.
Bob-
I couldn't disagree more.
Roads: Go look up "turnpike", or better yet read _How Capitalism Saved America_ by Thomas DiLorenzo. It's well written and entertaining, and he has an entire chapter on roads. Prior to governments taking over the private roads, they were indeed being built and being built well. What they were not doing was paying enough in bribes and kickbacks.
Medical: Again, the government and its agency the AMA have done their best to keep medical science as slow as possible. The FDA ensures that only the largest of corporations can produce legal drugs, and limitations on medical schools combined with restrictions on what may be taught prevent there from being enough doctors and physicians to allow for actual competition.
Police: What, prey tell, are the hundreds if not thousands of private security firms in the US alone doing, if not providing police? The fact of the existence of those many private security firms demonstrates that the government funded police do NOT serve well enough.
National Defense: What about attacking Somalia has anything to do with "defense"? Were the military actually providing defense you might have some case for your assertion, but the fact that an entirely new cabinet level department for national defense was set up within the last three years demonstrates that either the military cannot do the job, or that is not their job.
If this or any country were actually attacked, there would be no need for forced "defense" because people do not need to be coerced to defend their homes. But then, the power granted to the Fed.gov is to coordinate the various militia, not maintain a standing army. If you can agree to put the "national defense" back to that level and see if it indeed better than could be done privately, I'll go along with it whole heartedly.
Civil Rights: The greatest violator of "civil" rights is the government in the first place. Governments at all levels have used their power to deny individuals their "rights", so what about getting government out of the way would be less effective?
Or do you think the ACLU, NRA and Martin Luther King were government agents/agencies?
And as far as "public" education goes, getting government entirely out of education could not possibly be worse than what they have done to it. Just compare the litteracy rates prior to coercive "public" schooling and now. It's easy, there are lots of books on the subject, or you could just bop over to http://www.sepschool.org/
To put it politely, I have never seen any actual evidence that there is any government function that cannot be provided better and/or cheaper by private interests. Unless you are being very specific that you are only comparing "for profit compan[ies]" and therefore do not include churches, the ACLU, and the other myriad non-profit organizations that do these things.
I'll be very glad to read what evidence you have for your 6 assertions. I can recommend _The Voluntary City_ from the University of Michigan Press as a starting point for mine.
Bob-
I'm sorry you didn't understand what I wrote.
The various States pre-existed the Fed.gov. It is they that granted the Fed.gov a specific list of enumerated powers. The Bill of Rights was ratified by the States as a further restriction upon the powers of the Fed.gov.
How is allowing the states to make the choices keeping government out of our livs?
That has nothing to do with my opinion about "allowing" the States anything. The States were ensuring that the Fed.gov would stay out of State business, since the States came first and otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this new central government.
How is giving the states more power to abuse us then the federal government currently has/does "abolish the power of government to make decisions for us"?
Again, the States always had all they power they wanted, being governments of general (not enumerated) powers. Reading the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights makes that clear. All powers are reserved to the States and the People except those specifically enumerated.
My personal opinion is that the Constitution for the United States of America was a bloodless counter-revolution by vested interests who wanted to re-create the very merchantilist policies (like raising the tax on tea that was already a legal monopoly, see "Boston Tea Party"). Entering into the Constitutional compact was a severe step backwards for Liberty.
Bob-
You didn't read them. The point of the "A Glut Of Saving?" article was to destroy the Keynsian myth that says that people putting money in the bank slows down the economy.
Also, the defense of bribery article was pointing out the damage that bribery causes, but the greater damage that comes from trying to prohibit bribery.
The common theme, if there is any, is that prohibition itself causes more problems than it solves.
Bob-
There is no "problem" with being left alone. The problems only happen when the government interferes with people.
...except paying bureaucrats for doing nothing. That service is in high demand, but no one is willing to pay for it without the gun to their head called "taxes".
We have no socialiazed health care.
Medicare. Medicaid. 50 state governments with all their own programs. Plus city programs. At least.
People can only get 7 years of welfare in their entire life.
Move to California. Or New York.
Social Security is not enough to live on.
Try Mississippi or Alabama. Or, better yet, go read the law and see where it says SUPPLIMENTAL SECURITY INCOME, it was never intended to be something to live on all by itself.
But, human nature being what it is, people get lazy when they think they have a "safety net" and cry when they find out there is no such thing.
Don't confuse me with some "conservative" idiot who thinks corporate welfare is ok but personal welfare sucks. I have yet to see any government function that cannot be done better and cheaper privately, if there is any demand for the service at all.
Bob-
Don't forget that the Bill of Rights was written to stop the new Federal government from infringing on the powers of the existing States.
The principles of the founding of the United States is one of "federalism". A weak central government of explicitly enumerated powers (article 1 section 8), separate from the several States, with their governments of general powers rather than enumerated.
That there were States with their own constitutions limiting their general powers is a testament to the fact that government at any level must be restrained or it will abuse its citizens.
The fact that certain states did indeed regulate speech, recognize religion(s), restrict firearms and all the other things that the Fed.Gov is prohibitted doing in the Bill Of Rights is just part of what the Founders lived with.
Some states were utterly against restricting the right of free speech, others utterly against having their power to restrict speech infringed upon. The compromise was to simply prohibit the Fed.Gov from interfering with the states one way or another at all.
Sounds like a great compromise to me. I wish we could all compromise by simply abolishing the power of government to make the decision for us. Whatever that decision is.
Bob-