But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? 

Links to this article:
http://tinyurl.com/Warlord-takeover

Mises Daily: Thursday, July 07, 2005 by Robert P. Murphy

Follow the discussion [which was lost when Mises Daily changed its formatting, now re-posted here. I keep my own Way Back archival time machine…]

Comments (433) [Search atlasaikido [me] and or covenant, constitution etc]

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity

-9
‘s avatar – Go to profile
@PhilosoScience · 67 weeks ago

This is one clear point why libertarianism is not a philosophy of freedom. However, freedom is it’s goal, which is a necessary requirement beyond other philosophies, but not sufficient to meet the goal of freedom. Libertarianism includes many freedom “goaled” philosophies which are different and contradictory. The only philosophy with freedom as it’s goal which actually figured out how to achieve freedom due to a full understanding of the basis and philosophy of freedom is Ayn Rands philosophy of government. She was the first to figure it out, which makes her an important historical figure.

Report

Reply
2 replies · active 15 weeks ago

0
‘s avatar – Go to profile
integral · 66 weeks ago

No.

Report

Reply

+6
Libertanius Maximus’s avatar – Go to profile
Libertanius Maximus 63p · 15 weeks ago

There is no such thing as “acheiving freedom”. Freedom is the default state of existence. As the saying goes, “Liberty cannot be given, only taken.”

Report

Reply

0
‘s avatar – Go to profile
RJ Miller · 55 weeks ago

Years after I first read it, I still believe this is probably the best primer on Anarcho-Capitalism ever written.

Report

Reply

-7
Erel’s avatar
Erel · 51 weeks ago

This is all very speculative. Can you point at a single society that lives happily under an anarcho-capitalist regime and does not get abducted by rogues?

Report

Reply
13 replies · active 6 weeks ago

0
Allen’s avatar
Allen · 51 weeks ago

Hmmm. I can’t name one, but I can name plenty of States which have been “abducted by rogues” even those states set up in pure speculation…like the US, USSR, UK, etc.

Report

Reply

+1
032125’s avatar
032125 · 24 weeks ago

No, but then again, no one in 1774 could point to a constitutional republic of the nature that followed in the US. The society had however begun to explore and accept ideas that led to that new model; and that is what must come first.

If we avoided all “unproven” ideas, would we be in any way better off? If we blocked innovation with cries of “speculative!” what would our lives look like? Nasty, brutish and short methinks.

Report

Reply

-7
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

In other words, folks were freedom-minded three centuries ago. All ideas ought to be tested? Like Marxism?

Report

Reply

+1
Paul T’s avatar
Paul T · 10 weeks ago

Not get abducted by rogues like whom? The warlords who dominate Russia, China, and the USA?

You fail to understand that your objection undermines itself.

Report

Reply

-9
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Real life has then shown: the warlords have taken over. QED.

Report

Reply

0
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

For all of its problems, Russia clearly is no longer the land of Lenin. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/09/abol…

It’s possible that this dramatic volte-face (firing 200,000 policemen and significantly lowered crime) was the product of a sincere conversion. It’s likelier that President Medvedev knew which way the winds of *public outrage* are blowing (along with a citizenry that had “turned to their neighbors and to relatives and local networks to solve their problems by themselves) and HE aligned his sails accordingly….

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Thanks for that link, I’d missed the story at the time.

It gives me hope!

Report

Reply

+1
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Grigg is a really good An-Cap writer, I’m really enjoying his other posts. Thanks again

Report

Reply

0
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

A copy of the Sagra Model is also in the following link with additional supporting articles. Including the above Warlords article.

The “Sagra Model” of Privatized Security http://tinyurl.com/Sagra-model

The citizens of a small town clearly stood off the attempt by Gangster Lords to take over…

Report

Reply

-6
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Russia is now the land of Putin not Libertarians. By Libertarian reckoning Russia went from Socialist to Fascist.

Report

Reply

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Git,
Let us, just for the sake of a thought experiment, assume that your little sister, now that she’s 10 years old, refuses to consent to you “playing” doctors and nurses with her.

It’s never happened before, why should it suddenly happen now?

A naive little girl has suddenly asserted her objection to abusive behaviour towards her.
_______________________________________________________________________

By definition, the weight of parasite cannot exceed the weight of the hosts. The ordinary people will always outnumber the would be parasites who seek to abuse them, and those ordinary people will not be alone in their struggle.

Once sufficeint have opened their eyes to the abuses which are being piled on them under the name of “law”, consent will be withdrawn.

Your American TSA, is a very effective eye opener – as it seeks to play doctors and nurses with citizens in the supposed name of “protecting” them. An abusive encounter and equally abusive rationale for it, if ever there was one.

Once eyes are opened, then renewed abuse becomes all but impossible.

Report

Reply

-5
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

The question was “wouldn’t the warlords take over?” The answer has been yes. Anything that could qualify as an-cap has been short-lived and overrun.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Nope! Dear Reader, please read the prior post The “Sagra Model” of Privatized Security. My response and concurrence with Luton Ian. The answer has clearly NOT been yes to the question “wouldn’t the warlords [Gangstger Lords] take over?”

Report

Reply

-8
‘s avatar – Go to profile
Lawyer in Fort Worth · 22 weeks ago

This comment is to footnote #2.
Yes, private enterprise has the motivation to control costs (which is good for the bottom line, although often bad for development of new technologies), but you forget one important detail: private enterprise is for-profit while government is generally not-for-profit. When profit enters the picture, you have pure inefficiency — money that comes from subscribers and does nothing to increase defense.

I am not saying that governmental officials are any less corrupt than businesses — they are probably all just as corrupt. We see as much self-dealing and nepotism in private enterprise as we see in government.

What I am saying is that by switching to private defense we enter a system where pure inefficiency (profit) is tolerated.

The motive for profit would wipe away any potential gains from efficient management.

Example: in Texas, the electric companies are all privatized and you can get the competitive rates by going to a website. In Utah, there is basically just one public electric company controlled by the state. Having lived in both places, I can tell you that the rates for electricity are substantially the same between the two places, whether it is a free market approach or a state run approach.

Don’t think that by going private you gain efficiency.

Report

Reply
2 replies · active 10 weeks ago

+6
Libertanius Maximus’s avatar – Go to profile
Libertanius Maximus 63p · 15 weeks ago

The private companies you speak of are pseudo-monopolies thanks to government regulations. Nearly half of my power bill is government fees.

Regarding the security issue: Your security is your responsibility. Most people do not need private security any more than they need the fire department, useful if needed (you must calculate the risk), but not needed by most. How many times has your house burned down in your life? How many tines hsve you been assaulted in your life? If you have, a security company would not have prevented it. You have to protect yourself.

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 10 weeks ago

I get robbed every time I get paid and every time I buy something – by the state.

Report

Reply

-12
Centinel’s avatar
Centinel · 11 weeks ago

Bob’s theory is wrong.

Warlords would take over because there is no mechanism to decentralize, limit, balance, and make transparent the elements of armed force within an anarcho-capitalist system.

For example, the present geopolitical system is unquestionably anarchist, and predictably it is dominated by territorial monopolies of armed force. How does Bob rationalize this fact?

Moreover, economies of scale, specialization of labor, and the desire to reduce costs associated with competition in the defense industry will lead to the formation of peaceful territorial cartels within the defense industry.

Lastly, within anarcho-capitalist society violence will be a common feature among competing individuals, firms, and industries. How so? These simple tenets will insure that armed force will be used to acquire valued resources:

1) peaceful exchange is not possible,

2) peaceful exchange is more costly than coercion,

3) acquiring a valued resource by force will realize the ‘investor’ a net gain.

Report

Reply
72 replies · active 5 weeks ago

+4
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 11 weeks ago

What you, and those who think as you do on this issue, ignore is public opinion. States exist because public opinion sanctions legalized violence. The more violent a society is, the more legalized violence that society will have, and this determines how much state interference there is. In any system, it is public opinion which is the mechanism that determines the limits of a state or if there is a state at all. An anarcho-capitalist society implies that violence between individuals, firms, and industries is not tolerated, and nobody could overcome that anymore than Hindus could overcome Iranian public opinion which prevents a Hindu state.

It is not the case that states are instituted to mitigate violence. Rather, states are instituted to institutionalize and expand the violence which public opinion accepts as legitimate. The more violence is seen as legitimate by the public, the more violence which is seen as being illegitimate there will be as well. In the case of a relatively limited state, the limited state is not mitigating crime so much as it is sending a signal that violent tendencies in that society are lower than in others compared to it. A society with no state would therefore be an indication of minimal violent tendencies, meaning the common violence in a stateless society which you refer to would be contradictory and logically impossible.

The reason why a store, for example, can exist in relative peace is not due to the threat of government action against those who would disturb that peace. It is the culture, traditions, and world views which are what determines how peaceful or violent a society is. Governmental systems are simply a product of those views by the public. The violent society that you describe would never produce anarchism to begin with, and to say that a society peaceful enough to produce anarchism would suddenly turn violent once the state was gone is illogical. Forms of governance do not reverse what public opinion has determined. They reinforce it.

Report

Reply

-7
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

If public opinion governed, Elizabeth would be Queen of the US. It was not ‘the people’ who rebelled against King George. It was the governments of the colonies. Individuals are weak. People become powerful when they organize into institutions. Individual freedom arises from the institutional structure of a society. Legitimacy is important but only insofar as individuals are prepared to devote their loyalty to one institutional structure over another. Mere public opinion means little and is easily manipulated.

Report

Reply

+4
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 5 weeks ago

If public opinion means so little, then why do Hindus not currently rule Iran or Catholics rule Saudi Arabia? Why did the United State lose in Vietnam? Why did the Soviets fail in Afghanistan? The whole folly of neoconservatism, for example, comes from such a view that public opinion doesn’t matter, and any invasion by a more powerful force must always succeed. Even if public opinion can be easily manipulated, it still must be manipulated nonetheless if it is not on the side of those who seek to gain or hold power.

You say that legitimacy is only important to the extent individuals are loyal to one institution over another. However, such perceived legitimacy is the whole basis of an institution having any influence to begin with. Without people believing the king is divinely ordained to rule them, where does that leave the king? Without people believing their property rights can be justly voted away, where does that leave democratic parties?

Without at least the tacit support of a significant amount of the population, no political movement or system can succeed. If that were not the case, then why do you think propaganda and attempting to silence opposing views is such a central feature of any state?

Report

Reply

-9
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

Excellent reply and so succinct. I’m jealous because this is so much shorter and to the point than my intended response. What anarcho-capitalists don’t seem to recognize is that violence is a given. It is part of human nature. So we need institutions to contain and control that violence. Some of those institutions will be political. But that is the essential trick. Individual freedom is not a given. It must be created and ensured through effective social institutions. It is those institutions, not contracts, that protect liberty.

Report

Reply

+10
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

“What anarcho-capitalists don’t seem to recognize is that violence is a given. It is part of human nature.”

speak for yourself. it is not part of my nature. it is not part of my wife’s nature. it is not part of the nature of my colleagues, my employers, my friends or my family.

“So we need institutions to contain and control that violence.”

Agreed.

“Some of those institutions will be political.”

why? assuming by political you mean coercive, and political institutions seek to delineate and apply that coercion.

“It must be created and ensured through effective social institutions.”

Agreed.

“It is those [political] institutions, not contracts, that protect liberty.”

misconceived. it is not contracts that protect liberty, but the inviolability of private property. political institutions violate private property. they are only a subset of social institutions and one that i reject because they are based on aggressive violence.

Report

Reply

-8
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

I’ll bet that if you were attacked, you would become violent. Violence can be used for defense or for offense, and the fact is that some people employ it for offense which leaves all of us needing to be prepared to use violence if the situation requires it.

The state is an insitution that exists to employ violence. It’s justification is that it’s violence is defensive, but we know that that isn’t always the case. The police exist to protect you, but who protects you from the police? The answer is other institutions and primarily other political institutions. We do not have a pre-existing “right” to protection. That protection derives from the development of social and political instituions. Individual freedom is the achievement of a culture. It is not inherent to nature.

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

and when police violence is used against those trying to use the political checks and balances, as claimed by this http://freedominourtime.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/th…

what then?

how do you propose to tame the aggressive leviathan?

Report

Reply

0
Henry Cameron’s avatar
Henry Cameron · 5 weeks ago

I apologize for hijacking the conversation, but I was wondering if you have any good book recommendations? I am currently reading ‘Iceland’s Economic Collapse’ by Bagus/Howden, but I need something new for after I’ve finished it.

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

difficult question,
Are you looking for enjoyable reading like Bgus and Howden, or something dryer and more challenging?

Rothbard’s “Austrian history of economic thought” and “conceived in liberty” are good, long and enjoyable reads

For a short fast read which will have your blood boiling, Raico’s “great wars, great leaders?”

Hazlitt’s and Bastiat’s works are all good – a little heavier than Rothbard’s historical works, but certainly not as heavy as the “principals” type books

Unfortunately there just aren’t enough hours in the day or years of remaining life expectancy for me to read all the Austrian stuff that I’d like to.

I do like some of Hayek’s work, but his English prose were hard for me to follow for more than a page or two without a rest

I need a rest after a few pages of Mises for a different reason – my head is spinning from how easily insights and al;l of their implications seem to come to him, I get out of breath just reading it, he thought it first! an absolutely incredible mind.

hope that helps 🙂

Report

Reply

-8
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

It’s not necessarily an easy process. It requires the development of effective institutions. Societies where individual freedom predominate are, after all, the rare exception in human history. That was Edmund Burke’s point. You don’ t achieve freedom by tearing down the institutions that you have because then coercive force is even more necessary. We have a tradition of individual freedom in this country, and we need to return to the principles upon which those traditions were based, and we need to restore those traditions. The place to start would be to restore the power and independence of the state governments, but it would take too long to cover all the bases. But in a different society, different institutions come into play.

Report

Reply

+5
G8R HED’s avatar
G8R HED · 5 weeks ago

Might I suggest Butler Shaffer’s “The Wizards of Ozymandias”:

“The explanation for the interrelatedness of institutionalism and the collapse
of civilizations is not difficult. Because of their size and bureaucratic
sluggishness, institutions tend to become less adaptable to the constancies
of change inherent in all living systems. Life is a continuing process of
making adjustments and creative responses in a world of complicated inexactitude.
But institutions insist not only upon their illusions of predictability,
but their systems of control by which they imagine they can direct the
world to their ends. This is why institutions have always aligned themselves
with the forces of power, in order to compel the rest of nature—particularly
mankind—to conform to their interests.
But power wars against life, for power seeks to force life to become
what it does not choose to be. Because “life” expresses itself as autonomous
and spontaneous activity, it is inextricably dependent upon the liberty of
individuals. Liberty is not simply a proposition designed to placate intellectuals
who want to protect the expression of their opinions. It is, rather,
the condition in which individuals—and the societies in which they live—
can remain resilient, adaptive to changing conditions, and thus maintain
the creative impulses necessary for their vibrancy.”

Report

Reply

-8
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

First of all, the term “institutions” should not be limited to bureaucratic structures by also to accepted practices. Private property is an instituion. Marriage is an institution.

But while it is true that institutions can be bureaucratic and sluggish, they also have the ability to mobilize people and resources, and that represents far more power than individuals can assemble on an ad hoc basis. So you need some institutions to check the power of other institutions. This may produce a ponderous and inefficient government, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Report

Reply

+4
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 5 weeks ago

I do think that liberty comes from certain philosophical views held by members of society, and institutions are built which are based on those views. I agree with traditionalists like Burke on the importance of things like natural law, private property, family, churches, and a respect for the uniqueness and diversity of life. Such ideas and institutions are part of a natural order, and they are the basis for and reinforce a political system of freedom. Where traditionalists have gone wrong is in placing the state as part of that same natural order, when it is in fact contrary to it. The monarchism of traditionalists like Burke violently weakens the natural order and suppresses the “natural aristocracy” which would emerge in a competitive market for law and order. We must work to weaken and abolish the state precisely to strengthen the institutions and traditions of liberty.

Report

Reply

0
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Luton, I missed this one. Thanks!

Report

Reply

+5
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

“I’ll bet that if you were attacked, you would become violent.”

i’d like to think so. but you didn’t argue that. you said that man is by his nature violent. that is not true. i think what you meant to say is that offensive violence is a means, one means among many, available to an individual to achieve his goals. there are people in the community, most usually by virtue of their socio-economic position (usually brought about by welfare dependency), who don’t have much of a problem in adopting this means. i am not one of them. others really might not have an option. others are simply sociopathic and don’t care. but the scale of this violence shouldn’t be overestimated, as opponents of AC like to do to justify the state. there are many resources available on this site discussing policing in an AC society, and this board has many points of view on defense against an invading force. dare i suggest that you read it?

“Violence can be used for defense or for offense, and the fact is that some people employ it for offense which leaves all of us needing to be prepared to use violence if the situation requires it.”

robb, the good news is that you’ve zeroed right in on the key debate: in what circumstances is the use of force legitimate. you’ve also accurately distinguished between defensive violence and offensive violence. the bad news is that you’ve clearly ignored all the discussion below, and not bothered to inform yourself of core texts of the AC stream of libertarianism. i really am getting frustrated here, even for a man of no hope. what is it with you folks who feel capable of taking principled stands without bothering to inform yourselves of the issues? time and time again it happens. it’s audacious. but assuming good faith, here’s a chapter from Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty that you may find helpful (http://mises.org/daily/2649/FA-Hayek-and-the-Concept-of-Coercion) that discusses coercion in the context of a critique of hayek. i recommend the entire book.

“The state is an insitution that exists to employ violence. It’s justification is that it’s violence is defensive, but we know that that isn’t always the case. The police exist to protect you, but who protects you from the police? The answer is other institutions and primarily other political institutions.”

the first sentence is correct but the rest is misconceived. the state is an institution that exists to continue the exploitation of the community by a privileged elite. just before you blow a liberal fuse, i’ll add (even though its irrelevant to this discussion) that that elite just about always forms a corrupt and collusive relationship with big business. together slowly they entrench their privileges and drain the productive capacity from the community, enriching themselves at the expense of all. the institutions that form the state (the famous separation of powers) don’t protect us. they protect the state against us.

“We do not have a pre-existing “right” to protection.”

yes, we do. but the state has seized that right and violently insistent upon its monopoly to protect us.

“That protection derives from the development of social and political instituions.”

wrong. that protection derives from the sanctity of private property which has been usurped by the state. we’re then told from about the age of 4 through to 30 yrs (if you go right through grad school) that this is the only solution to issues of defense, roads, hospitals, education, charity, etc etc etc. time to unplug from the matrix, robb. welcome to the desert of the state.

“Individual freedom is the achievement of a culture. It is not inherent to nature.”

tricky point. i think i know where you’re coming from. i disagree however. an individual’s capacity to express his freedom is greater as civilization becomes more sophisticated, which is predicated by an ever-increasing division of labor and the resultant increases in productivity – this increases the means available to an individual to attain his subjective goals. but his freedom is inherent in his nature as a human being. this is the rothbard line, calling on the natural law tradition of the catholic church. it’s not necessary to adopt this line to be an AC or any other line of libertarianism, but for the difficulties encountered by its main rival (utilitarianism), see this chapter, also from The Ethics of Liberty. http://mises.org/daily/2647/

i hope you read these chapters. before you pronounce victory to one side of a debate, it’s simply good manners to investigate what the other side has to say first.

Report

Reply

+1
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Hi No hope,
Firehand has posted a copy of a very interesting piece about the debate over individuals and their right to self defence. and their right to self defence against the state. http://elmtreeforge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/in-fan…

Turn your sound off before visiting, there’s a video further down the page that auto plays!

visiting the original author’s site (he used to organize a constitutionalist militia, and he was one of the two bloggers who brought the “Fast & Furious” scandal to public attention) would likely get me into big trouble with the state over here. Firehand reposts the internationally interesting stuff, so people like me don’t end up on police watch lists.

Report

Reply

0
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Hi No Hope and Luton Ian. 21st Century militia is very effective–even without guns!

Like the Roman legions vanquished in the Teutoburger Wald in Lower Saxony in 9 AD, the 17,000 police officers that marched into the woods around the nuclear storage facility in Gorleben in northern Germany on Sunday morning looked invincible….
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=201011… http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/german…

Report

Reply

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Excerpt: Police personnel from France, Croatia and Poland had joined in the biggest security operation ever mounted against protestors against the a train carrying nuclear waste to a depot in an isolated part of Lower Saxony’s countryside. Helicopters, water canons and police vehicles, including an armoured surveillance truck, accompanied an endless column of anti-riot police mounted on horses and also marching down the railway tracks into the dense woods. Tens of thousands of anti riot police clattered along the tracks, their helmets and visors gleaming in the morning sun, and wearing body armour, leg guards and carrying batons.

But by Sunday night, those same police officers were begging the protestors for a respite.

Trapped in black, icy woods without supplies or reinforcements able to reach them because of blockades by a mobile fleet of farmer’s tractors, the exhausted and hungry police officers requested negotiations with the protestors. A water cannon truck was blocked by tractors, and yet the police still had to clear 5000 people lying on the railway track at Harlingen in pitch darkness. The largest ever police operation had descended into chaos and confusion in the autumn woods of Lower Saxony, defeated by the *courage and determination of peaceful protestors* who marched for miles through woods to find places to lie down on the tracks and to scoop out gravel to delay the progress of the “the train from hell.”

However do not necessarily expect a peaceful outcome as was the case here….

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Hi Atlas,

Nice comment!

Do you by any chance practice the art in your posting name?

I’m afraid that my knowledge of martial arts is very limited and very rusty – I used to be uke for a couple of pals at school, almost 30 years ago.

i forget the name for the process of testing out an opponent’s balance and fooling them into setting themselves up for you to execute a technique, while guarding against them doing the same to you.

The aim being to make the opponent think you are doing something completely different, so that their attempt to resist or to take you down, provides the energy and momentum for you to take them (even a much larger, heavier and stronger opponent than you) down with ease.

The state is numerically the smaller party in the conflict for freedom, and it always will be. It would be very foolish for anyone on either side to forget that.

did you read the “Waco rules versus Romanian rules” piece I linked to the other day? http://waronguns.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/guest-edi…

Fortunately, no one in the state pushed too hard after Waco. The question of what the OKC bomb and 911 were will provide arguments for decades, perhaps even for centuries, but to use metaphors, neither side perceived that the other “fired on Fort Sumpter” and unlike the Tiber, the Potomac did not “foam red with much blood”.

What is going on, is a propaganda conflict for public opinion. I’m going to link to a couple of youtubes of the late Yuri Bezmenov – a former KGB propagandist and subverter, who explains the mundane process of subversion – no James Bond stuff.

Bezmenov, is no Austrian, and I think he is pretty confused on some side issues (eg the role of state) but he is clear enough on the subversion process. I’ll also link to Yuri Maltsev, who is always good to watch – explaining the bigger picture.

Bezmenov 1 http://youtu.be/Or9CeuqcfMY

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Bezmenov 2 http://youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4

and good old Yuri Maltsev http://youtu.be/8mb5555PCfU

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Hi, Luton–Progressed and Incrementally Improved via Prototyping (work it out using Aikido and Shrugging applications). LOL

William Grigg did a beaut on “Quantum of Suffering” (Economic Hit man and Jackals(Bonds)) in real life.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/06/quan…

And LewRockwell interviewed The Economic Hit man on a podcast. Too bad Gerald Celente a black belt (Karate) did not follow his own advice and got massively hurt by John Corzone (MF’ing Justice) An Aikidoist would have dis-engaged and Shrugged the commodity paper markets. Now I bus myself around from parking lot to parking lots. LOL

What is ascribed to a certain black belt hollywood movie actor is not Aikido.
I refused the accreditation mill and became autodidact (like everything else). I forget the Japanese names but you have named the process exactly. By the way Aikidoists hate bears, Rugby p[layers AND fencers. Their knife techniques are too complex and too many motor skills under duress are problematic …But Aikido good quiver of tools to feel and see and defuse problems coming. But that means some principle got broken….

Prefer integration with Capt Chris: using the shin with a foot enclosed with steel toed boot is great way to neutralize knife attack. Keep eyes closed when head butting (stops blurring and dizziness) and absolutely do not tap on concrete brake falls etc etc

I found Capt Chris work out regime (5 to 10 minutes) is superior way to keep fit. He is a *gross motor* movement combat (not sports) instructor figured out a way to download combat fight sequences into ones head (Matrix style). Not as confabulating as it sounds…Sells the CD’s online.

Recommend LifeExtension.org PQQ biogenenis and how to keep prostate in remission and fish oil’s. I like Mercola and Mark Sisson and Primal Blueprint and so forth on LewRockwell site. Paleo diet quickest way EVER to get a Sixpack and keep it! Same people Laird Hamilton and Suzane Somers uses. Very very inexpensive way to stay young and fit. Recommend Vitc with diquercetin for Flus such as Avian) And Potassium Iodate (not iodide–kids (I have none) will throw it up and not as effec as Iodate for jamming out thyroid fall out if that comes)

Thanks for re-posting the links. I did miss them. I will add to this post….

Report

Reply

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

.Holy Smokes, Batman, $16 TRILLION? By Kung Fu Girl reprinted via my favorite guy in Argentina; http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/goodbye-us-debt-…

Report

Reply

+1
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Complete with a video at the end showing Lake Como, at the beginning of June 2006. I was about 2 miles away when that was being filmed 😉

Great links, many thanks.

Report

Reply

-6
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

I think your reply to my claims that violence is inherent to human nature simply confirms what I have said. It is an integral part of the human condition and human situation on earth. I’m not talking about some primordial blood-lust. The mere need for self-preservation can lead to the need for violence.__I have read the Ethics of Liberty. (Unfortunately the link you provided doesn’t work so I can’t reference your specific points at this time). I found it an extremely flawed book. What is especially flawed is Rothbard’s assumption of human self-sufficiency. He asks us to consider “Robinson Crusoe with amnesia” and then lists the things that he would have to learn. I would submit that it is virtually impossible that such a Crusoe would learn those things. Look at the condition of feral children. They are like animals. They learn to eat bugs and worms to survive, but aren’t able to learn much more in such short life span. (Continued in next reply)

Report

Reply

-5
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

Crusoe survived because of what he had learned from others.

We are born into dependency, and we remain in states of mutual dependency for our entire lives. That is the true nature of the human condition. The myth of individual autonomy is the fundamental error of modern political theory from the Enlightenment onward.

I agree that the state, and most other social institutions for that matter, tend toward the protection and enhancement of elites. It will always be that way in any society where the division of labor has attained any degree of significance. The problem isn’t that we are governed by elites. The problem is that our elites are doing a very bad job of it and somehow think they can correct their errors by grabbing more power. The A/C position, as well as most modern political theory, is simply too optimistic about what we can expect from human social organizations.

Private property IS a social institution, but it needs to be protected by other, more palpable, institutions, and we need to recognize that, as a social institution, is has a concrete definition in law. It is not merely an abstract concept that somehow exists as a lofty, undefinded “right.”

Report

Reply

+5
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Robb,
Who here has made any claim for isolated autonomy?

No one here will argue against people being born into families within communities and those communities within larger societies. Absolutely no one (except perhaps git).

If you have read that somewhere as a description of Austrian School methodology, then all you have discovered is a lifeless straw man.

The mental construct of “Crusoe Economics” is used, but as a useful thought experiment from which we can see that even the theoretical isolated individual has needs and wants which he/she ranks in order.

Scarce means are used to address the highest ranked wants, when the means run out, lower ranking wants remain unsatisfied, acquiring additional means will result in those lower ranked and hence less valued needs being fulfilled. They will prefer present goods to future goods, only by saving capital can they acquire producers goods (eg drying and saving fish to eat for the several days it takes to make a fishing net, and during which there won’t be time to go fishing)…

It is from such constructs that we are able to illustrate many of the economic principle at their simplest level, and from there, carefully build our more complex mental constructs, adding another individual and hence exchanges, more individuals and a medium of exchange etc.

The use of “Crusoe” to work out the basics, does not and never has implied a desire for atomised isolation. Quite the contrary – he illustrates the desperate poverty and struggle for survival when trade and hence division of labour are absent.

By using methodological individualism, and building the mental constructs (we don’t call them models – they are not miniatures of real life they are simplified thought experiments) from the simplest and adding the bare minimum of complexity necessary, we, as individuals ourselves, can spot any attempts to smuggle in un supportable ideas and concepts. It helps us avoid fallacies creeping in.

Let’s subject the idea of ownership being a “society thing” to Crusoe.

Crusoe, alone on his island, has dried some fish and stored them to eat during the several days it will take him to weave a fishing net. In the absence of “society” does that mean that he does not “own” those dried fish?

Enter Friday;

Friday (male or female) may decide to kill Crusoe, to be able to take over Crusoe’s few possessions, and (temporarily) improve his own situation, and perhaps even roast Crusoe’s carcase as a “long pig”.

alternatively, Friday may be a statist and proclaim to Crusoe that his struggles are over, now that Friday is here to protect him and rule over him wisely, and all Crusoe has to do is to pay sufficeint taxes to keep Friday in the manner to which he/she would like to become accustomed, while Friday gets on with the important work of passing laws.

As a third alternative, Friday and Crusoe may each set about doing what they do best, or, least badly, and they exchange their products with each other, reaching agreement on the various amounts, say so many fish exchanged for so many berries, that each feels he/she has benefited from the exchange.

As another alternative, they may choose to ignore each other and each take up residence at the opposite end of the island from the other, so that they never need to interact.

I think you can see which alternative will result in the highest level of physical and material well-being for either of them, and not surprisingly, it is also the greatest well-being for both of them!

Trade is not a zero sum.

But for it to work, each must respect the goods of the other, they must respect “property”

In this example, mere self interest will protect property.

The concept of “property” is less abstract in the “Crusoe + Friday” case than any institution called “Law” or “government”.

Report

Reply

+4
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

i know this is what the thumbs up scores are for, but this is an excellent summary, well done for taking the time. i know we’ve got our echo chamber going here, but when i look at the quality of the argumententation from the ACs here it seems objectively superior in content and presentation to the flip-flopping, haphazard responses/objections coming back. clearly robb, handoftruth are in a different category to the odious guest and the incapable git, but across the range, the argumentation, particularly and most importantly, the basic understanding of mises, hayek and rothbard, is very poor.

Report

Reply

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Hi No hope,
Many thanks, I’m pleased it turned out ok, I was tired and fuzzy headed when I got in last night, so it was a bit of a struggle to write.

I think one of the big advantages that Austrian analysis gives (all of) us, is the logical analysis.

I didn’t manage last night to explicitly contrast Austrian methodological individualism with the wholism and aggregation used as the basis of “analysis” by the British Classical school, and carried on by the neo classicals and the keynesians, and the ease with which false assertions can be smuggled in.

A few weeks back when we were debating with that Christian missionary bloke; his profile claimed that he had both a masters and a doctorate in physics.

I wasn’t sure whether to laugh and call BS, or to believe it and cry that someone with no understanding at all of the need for establishing logical necessity in a relationship, when using induction, and who had zero understanding of deduction, could be considered to have advanced knowledge in the physical sciences

That said, it is only with coming here in the last (almost) 2 years, that I have been exposed to an explicit logic, and in verbal form, rather than a mathematical or a symbolic form, which it would be extremely difficult and confusing to translate economic and political questions into, and out of.

Newly acquired skills with verbal logic aside, I find Anarcho-Capitalism is such an easy and clear position to argue from.

We can see protection and court services being (sort of) provided at present,

We can see what innovations and services the individuals operating in the roles of competitive market and entrepreneurship provide in other areas (iphones, computers, ham sandwiches and fancy coffee) compared to the dull stagnation, continuous failure, appalling (dis)service and ever inflating costs of individuals working in state monopoly provision.

As an An-Cap, the argument is clear.

The archists have to fall back on some sort of magical thinking to support their belief that only a collection of individuals calling themselves “a state” can provide those services, or any other

“State” does not possess some sort of divine grace from its own immaculate conception, or some mystical pixie dust.

Questions of

what such free market services would look like (what will next summer’s women’s fashions look like, when they aren’t centrally planned and enforced at gun point)?

and

Won’t the warlords take over (like why does Apple not use gangs of thugs to extort money and force iphones on us, if that is the route to business success)?

are displacement behaviours for avoiding seeing the state and its vast roll call of failures for what it is – a bunch of thieves who can only provide “bads” more effectively than the market.

If only we could teach Austro Libertarian principals to others as easily as we can argue them.

There really is no easy way without doing the reading and the thinking.

Report

Reply

-5
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Nobody argues that Apple would hold a gun to peoples’ head to forces them to buy ipads. Rather, it could argued the Apple already uses I.P. protection to muscle out the competition.

Report

Reply

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

I never claimed that apple does hold a gun to customer’s heads, if your comprehension is that poor, try reading it again.

Is apple’s use of state assertions of IP ownership and protection through state monopoly courts an argument for or against the state claims and monopoly in those areas?

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

You reminded me,

Apple’s current target in IP claims is Samsung, a South Korean company.

Why, if state control is so good, do we not have a North Korean equivalent of say Samsung?

Or of LG, the World’s highest payer?

Report

Reply

-5
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

Sorry NO hope, but I think your comment betrays a serious misunderstanding of Austrian economics as it relates to political theory. Mises took a completely utilitarian point of view on ethical issues. In Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard is taking issue with Mises. Hayek’s political view, that the state arises as a “spontaneous development” in much the same way that the market does, is much closer to my view than it is to Rothbard’s.

Anarcho-capitalism is the creation of Murray Rothbard. It is not a political theory that grows logically out of Austrian economics.

Report

Reply

+3
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

i referred you to the chapter of EoL where rothbard critiques mises’ utilitarianism! how could i then be making that error myself? nice try robb

i do agree with your last sentence, that is correct. but with one qualification: the logic of the market, on a utilitarian perspective, concludes at a stateless society, because each good/service supposedly necessarily provided by the state should be better provided by the market. so why have a state at all? the NAP is based on a natural rights perspective and starts with a stateless society. mises’s utilitarianism should conclude with it.

Report

Reply

-8
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

To No Hope:

Big error on my part. My last sentence was meant to say that Rothbard’s theory does NOT grow logically out of Austrian economics. If it did, MIses and Hayek would likely have embraced it.

My point is that you cannot use Austrian economics in support of Rothbard’s ethical theory. As to that theory itself, I have already shown it’s errors. It’s use of the concept of “self-ownership” leaves out about half the population, and it presupposes an inherent level of self-sufficiency which humans demonstrably do not possess.

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Robb,
Quite the contrary, commenter No Hope has already addressed Mises position re: Rothbard’s ideas.

Hayek, clearly and patiently explains spontanaeous order emerging throught the free operation of the market;

Then, he dumps his completely unsupported assertion that he thinks a tax funded Swedish style welfare system is a good thing.

It’s completely out of place and counter to what he was arguing, and completely un supported.

Hayek did some excellent work, but he had an unfortunate habit of smuggling in un supported statist assertions, and fudging what he had argued, in order to attempt a middle way between truth and fallacy.

Non leftist anarchist views are nothing new:

Over 2,000 years ago, Lao Tzu and his philosophical followers in China and the roughly contemporaneous Stoics in Greece, and later in Rome, had independently arrived at anarchism.

The 16th century late Scholastics, in Spain, who were in many respects independent fore runners of the Austrian School in terms of economic thought, also arrived at anarchism, most notably Juan de Mariana.

Rothbard may have been the most vocal advocate of free market anarchism in recent times, but he was certainly not the first nor was he the only one to do so.

Report

Reply

-8
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

To Luton Ian:__I am not arguing for collectivism, and your use of the term is obviously intended to divert the argument based on rhetoric. Let’s please keep this on a rational level. I am arguing FOR Mises and Hayek and against Rothbard. Mises and Hayek were not collectivists.__”You describe the skills which even an amnesiac Crusoe had acquired from others, claiming that because he didn’t make them himself, and they form a part of him, he cannot own himself. “__That is my argument. That’s Rothbards! He says that children are not capable of self-ownership and therefore must be “owned” by their parents. So Rothbard’s position is only half-libertarian from the very outset. __Rothbard claims to be arguing from natural law. If natural law is to apply, you have to have a proper understanding of human nature. I am arguing that Rothbard’s “natural man,” Robinson Crusoe with amnesia, is not capable of learning what Rothbard says he must learn without help from others. Therefore, Rothbard’s natural man is incapable of self-ownership. __True human nature is mutual dependency. Therefore any proper ethical theory must be based on mutual dependency, not on individual self-sufficiency.

Report

Reply

+6
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

again you are conflating cooperation with dependency, and from that conflation denying self ownership.

Please clarify your position on self ownership.

Is there self ownership?
or are you arguing for no property in self?
or are you arguing for some collective or common ownership of self?

What might your argued position look like?

By exchanging comments with you am I taking part ownership of you?

please explain how I can have exclusive control over my thoughts and my movements, in order to advance my argument – if I do not have sole ownership of my “self”?

Report

Reply

+8
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

so, so many wrong, wrong statements here, how is it possible? rothbard nowhere holds anyof the three positions attributed to him by this time waster, i’m sorry i bothered. i’m done

Report

Reply

-7
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

To Luton Ian:

I think that it is a stretch to call the Tao Te Ching an anarchist document. Libertarian perhaps, but not anarchist. He calls on the king to leave things alone. He doesn’t call on the kind to abdicate.

I believe that both Hayek and Mises sought to explain that their critique of central planning was reference to government interference in economic decision-making and did not apply to government-sponsored schemes of social insurance or government’s safety regulations, etc. I’m not aware of Hayek ever actually endorsing a Swedish-style welfare state. He did not oppose “poor laws” and actually used the term “safety net” long before Ronald Reagan did.
(continued)

Report

Reply

-8
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

But as I understand it, he was primarily pointing out that such programs were not what the Austrian critique referred to. Milton Friedman pointed out that a lot of the free market arguments that he used in “Free to Choose” came from Hayek.

I think Mises and Hayek were both largely concerned with emphasizing that the primary big government threat came from direct economic intervention, primarily through the central bank, and not from social security or similar programs. Unfortunately, due in part to the influence of Friedman, the Republican Party tooks its critique in exactly that direction.

Report

Reply

+5
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

“I think Mises and Hayek were both largely concerned with emphasizing that the primary big government threat came from direct economic intervention, primarily through the central bank, and not from social security or similar programs.”

Mises’ brilliant doorstop of a work, Human action extends the study of “economics” to where the early economists always wanted to take it, but were unable, due to their flawed methodologies. There is no “purely economic sphere” seperate from the rest of human life, it impinges on all aspects of life.

Hayek pretty much argues the same thing in Road to Serfdom, that there ios no seperate economic sphere and that state control of “economics2 is state control of every aspect of life, he then drops in great blocks of unsupported assertion in support of tax victim funded unemployment benefit, education and health care. He does the same thing in his constitution of liberty.

Getting back to Mises, His works
calculation on the ****alist commonwealth
****alism,
interventionism,
liberalism
Omnipotent Government
All have the basic theme that government intervention – not just as you assert:
“I think Mises and Hayek were both largely concerned with emphasizing that the primary big government threat came from direct economic intervention, primarily through the central bank, and not from social security or similar programs.”

straw man again.

Report

Reply

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

All have the basic theme that government intervention causes problems wherever it is applied.

Report

Reply

+4
free harmonics’s avatar
free harmonics · 5 weeks ago

Mises was against all social security and similar programs by his own words.

Mises states:
“The only task of the strictly Liberal state is to secure life and property against attacks both from external and internal foes.”

“By weakening or completely destroying the will to be well and able to work, social insurance creates illness and inability to work; it produces the habit of complaining… it is an institution which tends to encourage disease, not to say accidents, and to intensify considerably the physical and psychic results of accidents and illnesses. As a social institution it makes a people sick bodily and mentally or at least helps to multiply, lengthen, and intensify disease.”

Report

Reply

+7
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 5 weeks ago

Anarchism does logically flow from Austrian economics. The logic of human action tells us that a taxing monopolist will provide fewer and lower quality goods at higher prices than would be the case on a free competitive market. There is no praxeological reason why defense, security, and arbitration would be handled better by a collectivist state than by a free market.

Austrian economics is based on a method of individualism. Only individuals think and act. From this, we can know that individuals acting in peaceful cooperation and trade is more productive than violent and hegemonic action. Since the nature of human action is not changed when it comes to the enforcement of rights, anarchism is the only logical result.

Report

Reply

-5
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Another version is that Friday is a member of a tribe who owns the island and found Crusoe and say that he ought to pay “taxes” and find out what the laws of the tribe are so he can obey them. Libertarians would argue in this situation that for Crusoe to operate oblivious to an occupied island is due to the fact that the island is so big compared to the tribe that they cannot possibly claim ownership because they aren’t actively using the whole island and are really claiming ownership via fiat. Hence Crusoe ought to state that he has properly homesteaded his little corner of the island and has more claim to such ownership than the tribe and that the tribe is really representative of a government (claiming the whole island via credible threat of violence) and their taxes amount to theft.

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Would someone else owning the island alter crusoe’s behaviour in ranking his desires?

Would it mean that he used scarce means to address lower ranked desires before higher?

would it make him prefer a future good to a present good?

F+ for effort (which is still an F grade)

but you’d be better off learning the basics and creating a strong foundation of understanding, that you can build sound arguments from, rather than messing about at a higher level without knowing the first thing about what you are doing

Report

Reply

-5
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Nope, that’s pretty much how Libertarians view the government. Like Crusoe they believe they create wealth and well as by occupying certain places they have created a small pocket of Lockean homesteading in which their claim to private ownership supersedes the government. Hence Libertarian don’t care if the government institutions have existed before them.

Report

Reply

+2
eliotn’s avatar
eliotn · 5 weeks ago

It all depends on whos claim to ownership is just. Just because an organization has existed before a claim to homestead, doesn’t mean that it is just for the organization can automatically overturn the homestead because they are the government.

Report

Reply

-6
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Suppose you have a holiday house that is mostly unoccupied only to find a family has been occupying for the past six months when you arrive for a holiday? What if a court ruled that the family now owns your holiday home because your lack of use amounted to relinquishing control of your house whereas the family has effectively homesteaded through full-time usage? In other words, because these squatters have made greater productive of the house therefore they get to own it?

Report

Reply

+7
eliotn’s avatar
eliotn · 5 weeks ago

But that constructs a strawman of what homesteading really means. Homesteading is merely used as a valid claim for how people rightfully own previously unowned property. Homesteading is not a valid claim for owning a piece of property if it can be shown that there is a previous rightful owner who is exercising a claim to it. The fact that they made greater productive use of it is irrelevant. I was merely asking on whether this government in the previous scenario you described “really” owned all of the island, and that claiming that they are “the government” does not mean that they justly have control over the whole island.

Report

Reply

-6
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Then how can government be automatically invalid since they have been there longer then many private individuals? After all, suppose the natives on the island only felt they “owned” the island because they were the only ones on it for a long time and could go to any part of the island at any time. By the same real life token most natives never had any real claim against Westerners (“native title/land rights”) because they never occupied the whole land that Westerners settled and farmed.

Report

Reply

+7
eliotn’s avatar
eliotn · 5 weeks ago

“Then how can government be automatically invalid since they have been there longer then many private individuals?”

It all comes down to valid claims of ownership. Simply existing longer or “being there longer” does not by itself constitute a valid claim in terms of homesteading.

“After all, suppose the natives on the island only felt they “owned” the island because they were the only ones on it for a long time and could go to any part of the island at any time. By the same real life token most natives never had any real claim against Westerners (“native title/land rights”) because they never occupied the whole land that Westerners settled and farmed. ”

Again, occupation is not the same as homesteading, although land can become justly unowned by the owner not occupying it/exercising control over it.

Report

Reply

-6
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

So a group decides your right to ownership is invalid and you lose everything? Then again Communists decided “property is theft”. It is interesting as to what you believe “reverse homesteading” amount – in other words when ownership ceases to be valid.

Report

Reply

+4
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

no use engaging with this idiot. he’ll just keep strawmanning you to death.

Report

Reply

+1
eliotn’s avatar
eliotn · 5 weeks ago

No hope who are you referring to.

Report

Reply

+10
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

git is the idiot. no use you wasting your time on him.

Report

Reply

-4
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

To Luton lan:

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I wasn’t claiming that Rothbard bases his argument on individual autonomy. I was claiming that he presupposes it. The result is that he has to exclude children and, presumably, mentally and physically disabled adults, as being capable of self-ownership. In other words, his model has to exclude about half the population up front. He denies any obligation of parents to feed their children.

What you have put forward is a market model of a society. A market is based on contract. How can a child contract with a parent for food? What does he have to offer? The contract model does not account for human society. It only accounts for a small part of it. (continued next post)

Report

Reply

-5
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

(continuation)

But my crucial point is that humans are not self-sufficient. They are mutually dependent, and any attempt to create an ethical system based on self-sufficiency must, therefore, fail. Mutually dependency implies obligations, and Rothbard’s self-ownership principle leaves no room for obligations. He leaves the door open for “moral obligations,” but insists that that is outside the realm of political theory. But when you realize that the basis of human society and fundamental human nature is mutual dependency rather than self-ownership, you can see that obligation is inherent to that relationship. It remains then a matter of discussing what obligations can legitimately be enforced by state power and which cannot i.e. the proper role of the state, not the legitimacy of its existence per se.

Report

Reply

-4
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

How can a child contract for food from his or her parents?

Easy. Rothbard said children are guest in their parents’ home and can be booted out by their parents. Hence if children don’t do their chores then out the door they go.

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Just pray that your mother doesn’t read that

Report

Reply

-9
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

And starve to death. That is not liberty. That is servitude. Besides, that example wouldn’t apply to babies. A Roman father who was displeased with his new-born could have it exposed to the elements to die. Rothbard endorses that practice as being an ethical one.

Report

Reply

+6
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

“I have read the Ethics of Liberty… I found it an extremely flawed book. What is especially flawed is Rothbard’s assumption of human self-sufficiency. He asks us to consider “Robinson Crusoe with amnesia” and then lists the things that he would have to learn. I would submit that it is virtually impossible that such a Crusoe would learn those things. Look at the condition of feral children.”

Robinson Crusoe economics is a thought experiment. that you’ve read it this way is a pretty clear sign to me that EVEN if you’re being honest when you say you’ve read it, you’ve understood very little of it as your complaint about feral children eating bugs is completely irrelevant to anything. see mises, “the method of imaginary constructions”, section 3, ch 14, vol 2 of human action. luton ian has given a nice summary. and if you want the link to work, just remove the brackets from the address once the hyperlink has opened the window, sorry about that.

“Private property IS a social institution, but it needs to be protected by other, more palpable, institutions, and we need to recognize that, as a social institution, is has a concrete definition in law. It is not merely an abstract concept that somehow exists as a lofty, undefinded “right.”

positivist nonsense. the state does not create my rights. property rights are not lofty, or undefined. i know it irritates folks to be referred to a lot of reading material, but i’m not an educator, i just come here for a bit of fun and intellectual exercise. i encourage you to explore the AC literature, and particularly to open up the ethics of liberty again. but just to be clear, if you’re down with a reduction of existing levels of state power and a fan of the free market, there’s no animosity from me. i won’t be continuing this conversation though. its just too frustrating to discuss AC with someone who hasn’t done their homework yet.

Report

Reply

-5
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

To No Hope,

Of course it’s a thought experiment, but if a thought experiment bears no relationship to reality, it is worthless. Rothbard created the thought experiment. He cited Crusoe “with amnesia” because he apparently recognized that Crusoe was dependent on others for his competence as an adult and yet that was what qualified him for “self-ownership.” Therefore, he said that Crusoe “must learn” certain skills. What he overlooked was the inability of Crusoe, or anyone else, to learn such skills on their own in a normal human life-span. That is why the example of feral children is relevant. Under Rothbard’s model, in the real world, no one would qualify for self-ownership.

Human nature is not fundamentally self-sufficient. It is mutually dependent and the dependency spans generations.

Report

Reply

+7
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

” but if a thought experiment bears no relationship to reality, it is worthless”

absolutely incorrect. an evenly rotating economy bears no relationship to reality, yet mises puts it to great use in human action.

the rest is broken gobbledy-gook. whenever i see an “apparently” it’s a sure sign someone is stuffing their own strawman. do your homework, make a real effort to understand a writer and you won’t need any mistaken “apparently”. rothbard gives crusoe amnesia to set out certain “inescapable facts”: 1. the “the primordila fact of his own consciousness and his own body.” 2. “the natural world around him”. 3. “that, in seeming contrast with animals, he does possess any innate instinctual knowledge impelling him into proper paths for the satisfaction of his needs and desires…. all knowledge must be learned by him”. pp.30-31, 2002.

so what must crusoe do?

“he must (a) choose his goals, (b) learn how to achieve them by using nature given resources; and then (c) exert his labor energy to transform these resources into more useful shapes and places; ie. into “capital goods” and finally into “consumer goods” that he can directly consume”.

to do this he applies his reason, “man’s instrument of knowledge and of his very survival.” p. 30.

there is NOTHING here about being dependent on others to learn “technological knowledge” or “recipes” from others, and thus only acquiring self-ownership through a community. you’re stuffing straw into your preferred view of rothbard, but unhappily, i have these books on my shelves.

Report

Reply

0
No hope ‘s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

clearly, para 2 “he does possess” = he does NOT possess

Report

Reply

+4
jpmrwb’s avatar – Go to profile
jpmrwb 65p · 5 weeks ago

From you comments you obviously have a few Ayn Rand books. Good response, but he won’t get it. Never met a collectivist that was intelligent.

Report

Reply

-9
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

To No Hope:

“there is NOTHING here about being dependent on others to learn “technological knowledge” or “recipes” from others, and thus only acquiring self-ownership through a community. you’re stuffing straw into your preferred view of rothbard, but unhappily, i have these books on my shelves.”

Exactly, Rothbard completely ignores the actual history of humankind. Not only do we learn in community, that community spans generations, and technological achievements are only possible because humans possess language. It is language, far more than brain size, that has governed man’s intellectual and technological progress. Rothbard is stuck in an 18th Century view of man’s rationality derived from Descartes. But Cartesian rationalism has long ago been de-bunked.

What Rothbard’s Crusoe with amnesia would learn is how to dig for worms and scrugs and not much else. We learned to use stones as tools centuries before we learned to shape stones into tools. Human technological progress is built on a slow accretion of very minute improvements, and those improvements were then COMMUNICATED to a wider community in both time and space.

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Rationalism was not “debunked” it was denied.

Report

Reply

+6
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Robb,

There is a big difference between “cooperation” and “obligation”.

At the present time, our standard of material and social well being is dependent on cooperation in the division of labour. Break that cooperation (it was done many times and in many places in the 20th century and the result was always massive mortality and missery).

you appear to be conflating that with “obligation” and then further conflating that to arrive at some sort of Hobbesian collectivism, where because we benefit from division of labour, we cannot have self ownership, and must therefore be owned by some magical “community” spirit, perhaps finding its mystical embodiment in “just government” or “state” in which we cannot own ourselves, but instead own a bit of everyone else.

I don’t even need to refer to the Austrians to refute your confusion.

Founder of the British Classical school, and in most other respects a step backwards from his predecessors, the pre Austrians, Turgot and Cantillon:

Adam Smith.

Smith recognised that human generosity does exist, but that it is what we would term “a scarce good”, and is neither a very reliable nor effective means of organizing a specialization in the division of labour, hence the much quoted:

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” (Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2)

generosity, and feelings of obligation may get you an occasional loaf of bread, a beer, and bit of meat, but very few individuals will spend 40 or more hours a week 50 weeks a year for their adult life, out of some feeling of “obligation”

The idea was tried on over a billion people during the 20th century, and the result was drastic declines in material well being, to the point of starvation for many, declines in life expectancy (usually from an already low starting point) and eventually collapse of the “experiments”

In the media section of this site, there are several video lectures by Yuri Maltsev, who grew up in and later worked as an economist in the Soviet Union. check a couple of them out. He explains the attempts at motivating “comrades” once it was found that no one would work for “the greater good”. He also explains why the masses of city people who were trucked out to pick up potatoes on the collective farms each year, without pay, would do anything but pick up a potato.

You describe the skills which even an amnesiac Crusoe had acquired from others, claiming that because he didn’t make them himself, and they form a part of him, he cannot own himself.

Let’s look at the nature of knowledge.

Once it has been thought up, the only cost in communicating it is time, the knowledge doesn’t wear out.

To an extent, the stock of ideas and knowledge is a capital good – like the land which I farm, it was enclosed, cleared of brush and rocks and (some of it) drained and ploughed, hundreds of years ago, the stock (area) of it has been built up and is used to produce crops and graze animals, more efficeintly than can be done on un-enclosed and un improved common or range land (I farm some of that too).

but unlike land and other physical capital goods, the distribution of ideas is not limited, once thought up and communicated (the printing press, and more recently the net greatly help with that), they become “non scarce goods”

Obviously, applying those ideas, requires time, other physical goods, which are all scarce, and saved capital to support you while they are implimented.

Another Crusoe example would be a Crusoe who is a highly experienced marine engineer, who knows exactly how to build any kind of ship.

Even if shipwrecked with the stock of steel plate, gas bottles, welding torch, diesel engine, transmission prop and fuel, he’d still be foraging for fish, berries and fresh water, until he’d built up sufficeint capital (food and water stocks) to support him while he worked.

You’ve read this and hopefully learned something.

do you now belong to me?

Report

Reply

-8
robb’s avatar
robb · 5 weeks ago

I believe I’ve already responded to this but it doesn’t seem to have gotten posted here. Rothbard gave Crusoe amnesia for a reason. He understood that a Robinson Crusoe who had inherited knowledge and tools, as was the case in the actual story, would not be a man who had achieved self-ownership but rather had inherited it. And such an individual defeats his scheme because now you have an individual who is bogged down in complex relationships of dependency and mutual dependency. Rothbard’s whole natural law argument depends on his individual having ACHIEVED self-ownership and so he creates an ideal man who must re-invent the wheel.

When an individual makes a contract, he incurs an obligation. When he is born into a dependent relationship, he inherits obligations which constitute the social matrix in which matures. I don’t argue that those obligations are necessarily to the state, but the state may play a role in determining his obligations to others. What should the precise role of the state be? In my opinion it should be limited to the political function, but that is not what we are arguing about here. We are arguing about whether or not the state has any legitimate existence at all.

Report

Reply

+9
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

BS

Report

Reply

-4
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Strawman argument – everyone who won’t agree with you is advocating Soviet Socialism.

By the Crusoe reasoning I would argue of Crusoe making a basic living in a corner of an island already occupied by a tribe that practices hunting and gathering. Your reasoning would be when Crusoe carves out a small niche he homesteads unowned land because the tribe never did anything to homestead the island (terra nullius). Besides because Crusoe never got any help from the tribe and was oblivious that the tribe even existed there until a member found him means Crusoe is not beholden to any social contract the tribe has.

On the other hand, if you want to bring population into the mix – it should be noted that the Russian population kept rising under Sovietism but has been steadily declining since the fall of Communism. Go figure.

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 10 weeks ago

Re the “Free Rider Problem”

In Ireland, the competing private trash collectors, issue a (very fragile) bin tag, showing the date you’ve paid up to. It’s very cheap, it has the customer’s name and address on it and it won’t peel off without tearing into shreds.

A similar tag displayed on the insured properties will soon reveal those attempting to free ride.

Report

Reply

0
PeaceRequiresAnarchy’s avatar – Go to profile
PeaceRequiresAnarchy 45p · 6 weeks ago

“The standard objection that anarchy would lead to battling warlords is unfounded.”

It’s not just an “objection.” It’s a well-reasoned argument. All societies where people are not forced to fund a single organization’s protection services will inevitably be marked by violence and chaos as rival warlords battle each other to the death.

See Paul Krugman’s great essay “Coercive Monopoly for Security”: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/coerc…

Report

Reply
89 replies · active 5 weeks ago

-11
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Indubitably. If “anarchy” was superior then the world would have evolved towards it. Instead “anarchists” have to point to historical exceptions.

Report

Reply

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

“90 Million Americans Can’t Be Wrong”.

By and large people vote because they (wrongly) believe that government is a necessary feature of society. They are unable to envision a land that doesn’t rely on a government body to provide a court system or roads, so their only option, as far as they can see, is to vote. But a population that rejects the state will also reject the idea that voting is a duty, or a right, or, incredibly, both simultaneously.

Obviously not everyone surveyed is an anarchist who has chosen to opt out of the state, but the study revealed some encouraging data…
http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/poindexter6.1.1.htm…

Report

Reply

-10
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

That’s akin to saying “if everyone believe in and practice the teachings of Jesus Christ” then everything would be fine.

Report

Reply

+5
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Left to their own device people will not try to forcibly impose upon others but avoid violent conflicts. If there is a Government to coercively inflict their values on others they will gladly beg it to do so with no shame….

If every person who made a threat and attempted to enforce a rule had to take personal responsibility and assume the risk himself very few people would be willing to threaten their neighbors.

And yet, what of the concern of two individuals who do fight it out? Individuals have fights. We have had government for centuries and it still has not prevented this. The government only pretends to solve the problem. Governments have wars. Without government there would be no wars. Wars only happen between governments. Government solve problems using violence. It is their ONLY tool.

90 million Americans NOT VOTING for Government is indeed very encouraging.

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“Left to their own device people will not try to forcibly impose upon others but avoid violent conflicts.”

“And yet, what of the concern of two individuals who do fight it out? Individuals have fights. We have had government for centuries and it still has not prevented this. The government only pretends to solve the problem. Governments have wars. Without government there would be no wars. Wars only happen between governments(as do individuals). Government solve problems using violence.(as do individuals)”

Your statements are filled with naive assumptions. Some people do try and are sometimes successful in imposing their will on others, government or not. As for two grown men fighting, civil society should be concerned as things could get quickly out of hand and lead to murder and or involve other family members getting involved leading to blood feuds etc.. Your dismissive attitude toward individual conflicts could be equally applied to government conflicts, so your point is what again? That only government is capable of murderous violence? Not sure if your post is meant to be a parody of libertarianism or its just puerile thinking.

Report

Reply

+4
JFF’s avatar
JFF · 6 weeks ago

You’re conflating the scale of conflicts and assuming parity.

Consider two men in a bar brawl over a girl – by the way, neither one being Gil because, as he states with absolute certainty below, women are more attracted to “violent men” than nice guys, neither of which he could be regarded as – versus two states in conflict over natural resource access or perhaps milions of acres of productive land.

Consider the number of acts of private violence versus the number of acts of state violence.

Handfuls versus hundreds of millions.

Report

Reply

-13
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Actually I am not conflating anything. Its obvious government can create conflict on a greater scale than individual citizens, the point I was trying to make was that government is not the only instigator of violence since the poster AtlasAkido naively assumed “people left to themselves will just mind their own business” so to speak which is patently false. Since individuals (and groups) are as capable of committing crimes just like the government there must be some sort of judicial mechanism to deal with them instead of naively assuming everybody will just be all lovey dovey libertarian “intellectuals” engaging in honest trade. Human nature,reality and history prove otherwise.

Report

Reply

+8
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

There isn’t anyone here arguing for no “sort of judicial mechanism”

Merely against a monopoly, which like any monopoly must be coercively maintained, and like all monopolies, provides inferior service at higher price compared to competing providers.

Regarding state violence; individuals must fund their own violent exploits and accept the costs if they fail to win.

Those individuals who style themselves as “state” are able to externalise the costs and, as a result, they are much more likely to engage in conflict.

Report

Reply

-14
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

The state doesn’t have a monopoly on force. There is laws for self defense and the 2nd Amendment. In the article the author throws out ideas like “private judges”. How’s that supposed to work? Any examples?

“Regarding state violence; individuals must fund their own violent exploits and accept the costs if they fail to win.”

So basically individual might makes right? Sounds like feudalism.

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

those individuals who style themselves as “state” are able to externalise the cost of their violence,

as you and I get to pay the bill which they run up, their taste for violence is therefore much more extravagant than if they themselves were paying.

Report

Reply

0
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Good point. And a good case for sound money.

Report

Reply

0
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

What no -1, -2…? Guess its all good as long as you tow the party line comrade.

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

It’s best to ignore the thumbs up scores

they usually have more to do with a couple of trolls who have nothing better to do with their time

than they have to do with the merits of the arguments presented.

Report

Reply

+1
perilousfight’s avatar – Go to profile
perilousfight 26p · 6 weeks ago

I would “like” that comment, but I don’t want to minimise the merits of your argument!

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

a catch 22 situation indeed
🙂

Report

Reply

0
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

That “externalization” of costs associated with state violence made all the easier by fractional reserve central banking.

Report

Reply

0
D-sub’s avatar
D-sub · 6 weeks ago

Which is created on top of YOU because it is a consequence of legal tender laws, which force YOU to ONLY use the government’s money sound or unsound

Congrats 🙂

Report

Reply

-1
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Not really you don’t have to use the fed’s money, there is barter, exchange etc… Even some regions use their own currency. And as I am sure you know the fed is even above the government being owned by private individuals.

Report

Reply

-12
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

You could even say the fed is anarchist since they are not subject to the U.S. government. And are not coerced by the government to do anything they don’t want.

Report

Reply

-8
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

The fed, central banks, politicos like John Corzine etc… are above the law and are not coerced by the government for their crimes as laws don’t apply to them, fine examples of anarchism I would say.

Report

Reply

+6
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Hardly anarchism,

a specially privileged and sheltered bunch of cronies, living in mammy state’s undies, a sort of “witches familiar” suckling on the “devil’s tit”.

a central bank would not last long on a free market.

As with any cartel (a central bank is a cartellizing device) the more efficient members feel held back by the less efficient members, and seek to break free, when they do, the cartel collapses and the less efficient go bust.

Check out what happened to the “tin council” cartel, in the 1980’s – the cartel collapsed and the price of tin collapsed too, and stayed down. the least efficeint tin producers went out of business, and have stayed out.

Report

Reply

+3
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

You could even say the fed is anarchist since they are not subject to the U.S. government.

Except for the pesky little fact that the President appoints the Fed chairman.

Report

Reply

-8
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

He does? News to me. A puppet appoints another puppet. Meanwhile the anarchist puppeters look on.

Report

Reply

+2
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

News to you? The Federal Reserve was created by the government.

Report

Reply

+5
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

First, what does “worked” mean? Worked for whom? Worked how? The same can be asked about the state. When has the state (defined as the legal monopoly of force over a given geographic region) worked? Worked for whom? How?

For those who don’t want to be under the threat of coercion, inherently anarchy works. For those who prefer peaceful means of relationships, anarchy works. For those who believe the initiation of force is wrong, again anarchy works. For such people, in fact it is the only form of structuring society that “works.”

For those who believe it is right that man lords over man, anarchy does not work. For such people, the state certainly works. For those who believe that the same act could be either legal or illegal, depending on the employer of the actor, the state works. For those who believe that force and coercion is the proper means by which to order society, the state works.

But where has the state worked in regards to those areas of our lives the state says it is working on? The state has taken on many challenges, supposedly for the benefit of its subjects: managing the economy, peaceful coexistence with others in the world, elimination of poverty, teenage drinking, illicit drugs, health care, etc. Can any of these endeavors undertaken by the state be deemed successful? The list of state failures is exactly as long as the list of state-run programs. Should the burden of proof of the benefits of considering anarchy and opposing the state really be on the proponent of anarchy?

Let us look at the Judicially Authorized Rape: The Newest Weapon in the Prohibitionist Arsenal http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w262.html

I answer the difference between a private judge and a govt one in the above guest’s double post at the bottom of this thread… Look for “Here are some of the ways a free market system differs fundamentally and completely from a govt system of any sort..”

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

The “Nurse Ratchet” character in the link, needs to be struck off.

Application of a medical intervention for none therapeutic purposes.

I remember, about 25 years ago, a nurse telling me of the day’s drama at work. A student nurse had attempted to catheterise a male patient.

All hell broke loose, the hospital policy was that only doctors were allowed to catheterise males, because of the danger of causing injury.

Medical professionals participating in “punishment” of any kind is a big no no.

It is up to all individuals to refuse to participate and for colleagues to refuse to have any dealings at all, with any who do participate in such abuses.

Report

Reply

-9
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“When has the state (defined as the legal monopoly of force over a given geographic region) worked? Worked for whom? How?”

Why all the time not perfectly of course but the state does some good. Throwing out extreme statements that the state does no good and never serves society is not exactly convincing.

Report

Reply

+5
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

there are a couple of very important short phrases which give some insight into the workings of the violent fiction that is “state”.

First is by Vladimir Lenin; “Who, whom” – who does what to whom, who does what for whom.

the next explains the absolute arbitrariness that is “law”:
“Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”
Full text of the speech is here : http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/a…

Perhaps a better thinker than me can better define what “due process” might consist of.

The best interpretation I can make of it is an ipse dixit

It’s legal, because due process was followed and due process was followed because he, himself says that it was due process, therefore it’s legal.

Or as Clinton presidential aide Paul Begala, put it:

“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”

To claim that a state does “nothing” which is “good”, is as you say, untenable.

The question comes back to what it does for whom, and what it defines as “good”.

as an example, to an ardent watermelon, perhaps Pol Pot cured the rush hour traffic congestion problems in Phnom Penh.

“good” is individual, subjective and ordinal.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

The solution to injustice and tyranny was not the Herculean task of creating some new institution under the sun. The solution was to clear away the obstacles to the institutions of freedom that already existed; overwhelmingly, this meant clearing away the State. In this task, “good” men who lent their respectability to the state were, arguably, among the worst obstacles. At minimum, they were among those who made the obstacles function, and they produced injustice.

And, so, to the woman who says, “My husband is a good man!” I must reluctantly answer, “It does not matter.” http://www.mises.org/daily/5439/Its-Not-Personal-…

Report

Reply

-9
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

You don’t know what I meant when I said , ” How does that work?” Are you being specious or is it just becuase you have no concrete answers? I suspect its the latter.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

You see only what is legible but fail to understand (so far) there are oral systems and why. Why is there so little documented and available information of people living outside of the organizing power of the state? Two thoughts are offered:

First, those outside of the control of the state didn’t bother documenting much of anything. Why would they? No need for a census, birth certificates, tax records, W-2 forms, etc. No rulers bent on documenting or fabricating a legacy. A lack of documentation results in a lack of recorded history.

Second, what benefit is there to the state (the gatekeeper for much of the education of the world) to educate people on the true history of those who lived outside of the state? We are taught that living in a civilized manner outside of the state is not possible. Why would the state teach anything else?

The rest of the article was posted at the end of this thread….

Report

Reply

-6
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

I understand “oral systems” AND written. The fact remains there has always been some kind of authority structure even if its in a tribal context.

Report

Reply

+3
jpmrwb’s avatar – Go to profile
jpmrwb 65p · 6 weeks ago

I find it interesting that whenever there is discussion about anarchy the obvious example is found in the bible. If you look at the bible as a historical document only you can find the anarchy of the Jews in the Old Testament. For a period of 400 years they did not have any ruling authority over them. As you say there was only a minimal authority structure of a tribal context. They were free to live their lives. Then something happened, they decided they needed a king. So is the example in the bible a good test case to assume that eventually the individual will ask for the authority over him? Is there something in human nature that eventually drives us to be controlled?

Report

Reply

-8
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

And hypocritical since the very same anarchists don’t believe the bible and are actively hostile to Christianity. The devil uses scripture for his own purposes and all that.

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

If you’re going to construct a straw man, at least try to put some straw in it.

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Except it isn’t a straw man but it makes you sound like you know what you are talking about.,

Report

Reply

+5
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

attributing a position to a debating opponant which they do not hold, then attacking that falsely attributed position.

Straw man fallacy.

It works a little better if you use straw

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

That’s right keep up the denial. You wouldn’t want to offend your clique Mr.Christian.

Report

Reply

-7
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“Mr.Christian”

Report

Reply

-7
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

And another thing there was some pretty bad stuff happening during those “glorious anarchist days” in the bible. See Judges 19 for an example.

Report

Reply

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

what, like wars in the middle east, and predator drones launching missiles at wedding celebrations and funerals?

220 million+ citizens murdered by states outside of war in the 20th century, another 160 million killed in wars in the 20th century, the fire bombing of Hamburg, Dresden and Coventry, the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, while the Japanese government was already suing for peace…

Yeah, we should be glad to have benevolent states with great leaders, shouldn’t we?

Just don’t go accepting any invitations to weddings in Pakistan or Afghanistan, lest the beneficence of the US Federal Government and residency is reigned down upon you.

Report

Reply

-9
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Correlation-causation.

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

exactly, you’re getting quite good at this, git.

Report

Reply

-5
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Suing? What’s that mean? Lawyers in wartime? If the Japanese Government wanted peace then they should’ve unconditionally surrendered. Instead they were training children for battle expecting a mainland attack force.

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

They were negotiating, through the soviets.

the sticking point was the position of the emperor.

IIRC the offer of a truce was there, the US refused to take it, kept fighting and then nuked.

As things worked out – the US retained the emperor – the post war settlement was the one which the Japanese were offering before the two cities of civilians were nuked.

here’s some background reading for you, and you can email any queries to Prof Raico : http://mises.org/document/6046/Great-Wars-and-Gre…

Report

Reply

-8
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Monopolies need not be government. Real private monopolies aren’t large companies but an isolated service provider, e.g. being on a cruise ship. Don’t like it jump overboard.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

There is a difference between coercive monopolies (govt driven by initiating force and ratcheting fear and power) and free market monopolies (profit motive, supply demand, attracting customers).

In fact a would be tyrant’s customers–in a free market–would be an obstacle to him.

He could not extract taxes from them, as govt does, he could not even force them to buy his service at all. A market relationship is a free relationship. If a customer does not like a company’s service–(including defensive), or mistrusts its goals, he is free to take his business elsewhere or to start his own competitive service or to do without the service altogether and provide his own.

Report

Reply

0
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

OR: You could simply wait until the cruise is over and never use that cruise line again.

Report

Reply

-9
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Thanks akin to saying “if you don’t like the company town – leave, but you have to extinguish all debts and obligations first and if you got stuck where your pay barely services the debt so you’ll be old and frail by the time you can rightfully leave well tough luck.” But for some reason Libertarians don’t like leaving countries which is supposed solution to keeping private states honest.

Report

Reply

+2
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

No, it’s not akin to saying that.

Report

Reply

-4
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

No, it never like that.

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Gil,

have you, or anyone you’ve ever heard of been coerced into getting on a cruise ship?

company town

what, like the dem-publican company town / plantation you live in?

like the Fianna Fáilure company town I quit?

“yes Massa”

Report

Reply

-8
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

So lets say you get a romantic how wonderful being on a cruise ship then find out it’s horrid but they’re not reaching land for another 3 years. So you were enslaved for 3 years? No you make a really bad choice but get to go your way 3 years later.

Report

Reply

+9
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

Your example sounds like voting to me.

“Just wait another four years and vote the bums out!” Meanwhile, what damage do they do in those four years? Good job, Gilly boy!

Report

Reply

+1
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

Since individuals (and groups) are as capable of committing crimes just like the government…

The government is nothing more than a group of individuals.

Report

Reply

0
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Shock and horror, I agree with you. 😐

Report

Reply

-8
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Like it or lump it, violent prisoners have groupies too.

Report

Reply

-7
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

If there’s truth to that notion then it would have occurred by now. But then by definition those who initiate violence aren’t likely to accept responsibility for their actions. And don’t expect women to chip in as they’re more attracted to violent men than nice guys.

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

git, commented:

“And don’t expect women to chip in as they’re more attracted to violent men than nice guys.”

That tells us so much about you, and none of it is a surprise.

1) it is a post hoc and truly sour grapes rationalization to save you from facing the real reasons why you have zero success in getting on with women.

2) it tells us that you are very, very immature

3) all women? or just some women? how did you arrive at that aggregate of “women”? especially when the only women you know are your mother and sister. actually, no, I’m almost willing to put money on it that you’re an only child.

4) “Nice guys” ROFL; that certainly wouldn’t describe a dim witted, obnoxious and immature , frustrated little virgin that lives in its mother’s basement – like you, would it?

Report

Reply

-8
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

You wish so then women could go all globally Lysistrata and bring men to heel.

In reality:
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/do-women-who-really-enj…
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/should-men-who-want-to-…
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/is-happiness-a-turn-off
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/do-muscular-men-have-mo…
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/is-being-tall-sexy
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-u…

Report

Reply

+5
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Git,
Until you can understand the difference between the concepts of “all” and “some”, and then learn to use those very simple concepts in formulating logical arguments,

you are;

wasting your own and everyone else’s time by commenting here.

Displaying to all, your adolescent immaturity.

Your links tell us much about your reading habits, and your personal/social insecurities.

Report

Reply

+7
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

Indeed. Gilly boy is one frightening individual.

Report

Reply

-10
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

The truth hurts doesn’t it? Women are primary attracted to men via visceral reasons instead of logic. Getting sex from women is one of the great motivators for men to achieve hence when it’s shown women are attracted to many traits befitting the evil statist men then there’s a great barrier for Libertarianism to emerge.

Report

Reply

+4
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

Why do you hate women so much?

Report

Reply

-8
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

You should be a teacher getting to girls young so they hate men who aren’t anarchist thereby creating a Libertarian society via sexual revolution.

Report

Reply

+1
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

Great idea, gilly boy!

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Git,

Would you deny that;

a) “Women” are individuals?

b) those individuals have free minds and make their own free choices?

c) just like external appearance, those free minds and free choices can be very different for each individual?

d) sure, we all get “urges”, but we control them, do you see humans shagging in the street like dogs?

Humans ACT, we choose between ranked subjective preferences.

Sour grapes git, sour grapes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grap…

Report

Reply

+1
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

I’ll now repeat CRS’ question

Why do you hate women so much?

Report

Reply

-9
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

But really the majority of women attracted to statist men have signed their death warrant when you and pal start the Revolution. Only Libertarian women will be around afterwards.

Report

Reply

-8
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Have you heard of “Holmies”? Young women fans of James Holmes. Hence Holmes becomes MORE attractive to women by committing a violent, heinous act.. How’s those apples? Why aren’t these women showing their disgust for his act and sending a message to all men that violence is despicable and is sexually repulsive?

But I’m sure you find women rewarding violence is an example of a statist society and a public schooling system because that wouldn’t happen to women in a Libertarian society.

Report

Reply

+4
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

Seriously, you are a ****ed up individual.

Report

Reply

-8
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

What? Those women are rewarding the violence not me. Those particular women are the sick ones.

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Help yourself to popcorn and soda, this is entertaining.

No, I wasn’t offering you any popcorn gil, don’t stop your commenting.

Report

Reply

0
Henry Cameron’s avatar
Henry Cameron · 6 weeks ago

“if there’s truth to that notion then it would have occurred by now”

I was unaware that August 24, 2012 was the pinnacle of all physical/intellectual human evolution, and that beyond this point, nothing can happen that has not already happened.

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“I was unaware that August 24, 2012 was the pinnacle of all physical/intellectual human evolution, and that beyond this point, nothing can happen that has not already happened.”

You wouldn’t know it by the condescending tone of the typical libertarian.

Report

Reply

-9
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Well there’s three or more centuries of individual rights philosophy and societies that are moving further away from such freedom.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Nope again! ICELAND – No news from Iceland?… why? How come we hear everything that happens in Egypt but no news about what’s happening in Iceland?

In Iceland, *the people have made the government resign*…it was decided to not pay the debt that the banks created with Great Britain and Holland due to their bad financial [government] politics and a public assembly has been created to rewrite the constitution.

*And all of this in a peaceful way. A whole revolution against the powers that have created the current global crisis*. This is why there hasn’t been any publicity during the last two years: What would happen if the rest of the EU citizens took this as an example? What would happen if the US citizens took this as an example?

Have we been informed of this through the media? Has any political program in radio or TV commented on this? No! The Icelandic people have been able to show that there is a way to beat the system and has given a democracy lesson to the world! http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread842279/…

And the government of Iceland is STILL consigned to the ashcan of history…

Report

Reply

-7
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

One country out of 200+. Wow. A success rate of less than 0.5%. But then the Communists sacked the Russian rulers in 1917 but that only made things much worse. Likewise the French Revolution occurred because people had had enough but that’s not viewed as a step towards freedom either (despite their motto).

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

yawn

Report

Reply

-7
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

Yes point to one piddly win and ignore thousands of losses and pretend your on the verge of victory.

Report

Reply

+6
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Anarchy and Agoras: Welcome to Wenzhou, where the mountains are high, the emperor is far away, and *people are busy actually creating their own economic miracle*.] http://www.bradleymgardner.com/2011/11/16/wenzhou…

And eeeek the Wenzhou Model is Spreading…

The government may not allow Wenzhounese to invest freely abroad, but they do it anyway. Across continental Europe and in much of the emerging world, people from Wenzhou are by far the largest component of the Chinese diaspora. Wenzhounese make up the majority of Chinese restaurant owners from Madrid to Vienna, and in some places they have recreated the Wenzhou experience on European soil….

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

another great article, thanks!

I’ll be printing it out for my mainland Chinese relatives 😉

Report

Reply

+4
JFF’s avatar
JFF · 6 weeks ago

Ah, the “prove a counterfactual” fallacy.

Try again.

Report

Reply

+2
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-t…

Report

Reply

+2
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-t…

Report

Reply

+6
PeaceRequiresAnarchy’s avatar – Go to profile
PeaceRequiresAnarchy 45p · 6 weeks ago

Regarding my previous comment above:

I rarely ever post sarcastic or humorous comments, but Bob Murphy’s lecture The Market for Security made me wonder who if anyone had ever really taken the time to make a case for the state/government (i.e. a “coercive monopoly for security”) rather than just assume it to be necessary and try in vain to justify it in retrospect. I decided that the thought of Paul Krugman giving a lecture called “Coercive Monopoly for Security” to argue for the opposite position of Murphy’s position was so unbelievable that I thought it was hilarious enough to share here despite how I usually refrain from making such sarcastic comments on such serious subjects as this.

I apologize, as it appears I attracted a troll. Perhaps I should stick to always being serious. One (admittedly probably unnecessary) comment (I apologize in advance–I just want to say it, probably like the people I’m critiquing) on the troll thing though: no need to feed the trolls. Pointing out that his statement was a fallacy (and pointing out that my post was not serious for those for whom it was not obvious) and leaving it at that would have been enough.

Report

Reply

-9
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“Perhaps I should stick to always being serious…”

Surely you’re not serious. What troll? There’s no troll around here!

Report

Reply

+3
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 6 weeks ago

hard to avoid a conclusion that you’re a troll, when it’s screamingly obvious you’ve blundered in here, dismissing ideas that you’ve made no effort to come to terms with. you’re doing a great job of tearing up your own strawmen.

suggest the troll be left alone to play with his toys

Report

Reply

-7
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Gee that sounds real “open minded”. And what pray tell “ideas” have I made no effort to come to terms with? It sounds like the anarchist cult are the ones that haven’t made much of an effort.

Report

Reply

-9
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“Left to their own device people will not try to forcibly impose upon others but avoid violent conflicts.”

“And yet, what of the concern of two individuals who do fight it out? Individuals have fights. We have had government for centuries and it still has not prevented this. The government only pretends to solve the problem. Governments have wars. Without government there would be no wars. Wars only happen between governments(as do individuals). Government solve problems using violence.(as do individuals)”

Your statements are filled with naive assumptions. Some people do try and are sometimes successful in imposing their will on others, government or not. As for two grown men fighting, civil society should be concerned as things could get quickly out of hand and lead to murder and or involve other family members getting involved leading to blood feuds etc.. Your dismissive attitude toward individual conflicts could be equally applied to government conflicts, so your point is what again? That only government is capable of murderous violence? Not sure if your post is meant to be a parody of libertarianism or its just puerile thinking.

Report

Reply
25 replies · active 5 weeks ago

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Here are some of the ways a free market system differs fundamentally and completely from a govt system of any sort..

Govt employees are legally protected from suffering personal consequences as a result of all but the most blatant acts of the aggressive acts which they perpetrate “in the line of duty”. Such functionaries as police officials, judges and revenue agents can initiate force with immunity by taking protection under such cliches as “I don’t write The Law; I just enforce it” or “that’s a matter for a jury to decide” or “this statute was passed by duly elected reps of the people”. But employees of a free market defense company would have no such legal immunity from retaliatory force; they would have to assume responsibility for their actions…

Personal conscience plays a huge role in justified defensive force absent the belief and immunity of “just doing my job” authoritarian protection rackets…

Without a belief in govt, communities would almost certainly develop rules which at first glance would resemble what are now called “laws’. But there would be a fundamental difference. It is still legitimate to write and publish for all to see statements about consequences of doing certain things.

Here is one: instead of *We* hereby make the following illegal, the “warnings would fit into this template ” *I* believe that if you do this, I have the right to respond in this way”

The point is not that people will automatically think and behave properly if there are no rulers, but that such malicious tendencies in human beings would be LESS dangerous and destructive without the blind belief in just doing my job obeying authority to legitimize them.

Report

Reply

-6
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“The point is not that people will automatically think and behave properly if there are no rulers, but that such malicious tendencies in human beings would be LESS dangerous and destructive without the blind belief in just doing my job obeying authority to legitimize them.”

Ok so some of these human beings become LESS dangerous but you still haven’t addressed how your theoretical framework deals with that proportion of humanity that would STILL be dangerous.

“But employees of a free market defense company would have no such legal immunity from retaliatory force; they would have to assume responsibility for their actions…”

Which means what? That if they kill someone accidentally or maliciously it would be fine if another party
avenged/revenged them? Again you are just saying might makes right in so many words and then you turn around and criticize government for operating under the exact same paradigm.

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Apparently you disagree that:

Left to their own device people will not try to forcibly impose upon others but avoid violent conflicts. If there is a govt to coercively inflict their values on others they will gladly beg it to do so with no shame….

If every person who made a threat and attempted to enforce the rule had to take personal responsibility and assume the risk himself very few people would be willing to threaten their neighbors.

Would YOU? Please elucidate!

How is that the same paradigm as your govt? How is YOU doing it different than your govt doing it. (Other than YOU would probably would Not do the things they do….)

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“Apparently you disagree that:
Left to their own device people will not try to forcibly impose upon others but avoid violent conflicts.”

Of course I disagree because its not reality. Like I said before, people impose their will sometimes violently on others all the time, just pick up your local big city newspaper and read the police report section.

You’re anarchist position is not libertarian and is nothing but some hippy BS that would never work in light of humanities history of stealing,killing and destroying each other.

And your mindless droning on over and over again that if people had to “accept personal responsibility” that would somehow stop them from committing violence in a society with no rules and no law enforcement is asinine.

Report

Reply

+7
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Ah, an enlightened advocate of statist violence, come to teach us about reality with the examples of straw men?

what is a “state” composed of if not of individuals?

What magic statist incantation renders those individuals calling themselves “state” more competent at running other people’s lives, than those people are themselves?

No one here suggests that somehow violence will cease, that thieves will somehow be less tempted to steal, that abusers will be less likely to abuse – if you disagree – show me where

What is being argued for, is the following;

One law to cover all.

a state badge and uniform currently allows aggression in the form of kidnap, murder, robbery and sexual abuse to be inflicted legally, and that behaviour is rewarded

Is it any surprise that we keep seeing more and more of it?

a monopoly, by definition, provides lower quality and higher priced goods and services than competing providers, show me an exception to that statement

what statist incantation is necessary to make provision of defence and protection services, along with conflict resolution services work? tell me

In the absense of your answer – why do you think they cannot be freely bought and sold by competing providers and freely choosing customers? why should they be monopolised?

why, if not the better to abuse us?

detailed and reasoned answers, to all points

Otherwise disappear back to where you came from, sneering, sneaky little apologist of a statist.

Report

Reply

-8
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

What renders a PDA more efficient than a lynch mob? Any PDA that makes a highly visual example as to what consequences they will bring onto criminals they catch would bring in more business than another that slaps others on the wrists.

Report

Reply

+9
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

what renders some of our fat blue line any more efficient, or any less of a menace to the public than a lynch mob?

ever tried calling them when you needed help?

they’re a lot more reluctant to face a possible beating or get shot at than they are to issue traffic, jaywalking and dog fouling tickets.

as the saying goes; if your life hangs by seconds, the cops are only minutes away. They’ll document the crime scene when the bad guy has safely left.

Want an example?

Aurora cinema shooting.

I’ve a load more if you want them.

Cops have no duty to protect citizens. on the other hand cops appear to assume that citizens have a duty to act as human shields for cops.

cops are paid, around 3 times the median US wage, on the supposed basis that they have such a dangerous job, protecting the crap out of us.

Sure it is more dangerous than sitting behind a desk, but, apart from my time at college, every year since I left college, I’ve faced a higher probability of death at work than a US cop.

Farming, quarrying, forestry, construction, deep sea fishing, all carry a higher annual per capita risk of serious injury or death than the murderous, raping tax and doughnut munchers do.

Git we have been through the consequences to be faced by over violent PDAs many times, and your sniping has been thoroughly refuted. are you going to remember that, or do you need links to those threads for everyone to see?

Report

Reply

-4
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Yeah, a violent PDA will oust its competitors and become a new dictatorial government.

Report

Reply

+2
Bob Robertson’s avatar
Bob Robertson · 5 weeks ago

So, Gil, your assertion is that Warlords would in fact take over.

Just say so and walk away. Certainly you’ve presented no logical basis for it. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect your opinion, you are welcome to it.

Report

Reply

-6
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Many Libertarian would argue that’s exactly what happened to the U.S. You know warlords chipping away at an initially (mostly) free society like Washington, Lincoln, F.D.R. Bush 1&2, Obama, etc.

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Guest1. Indeed “Mindless” *Droning” [your words} is what your WAR Lord position has *inexorably* brought you to defending and exemplifying, not my position!

If there is a govt to coercively inflict [your statist ] values on others [via “droning” etc you] will apparently gladly *beg it* to do so *with NO Shame*…

Peace officers are a whole different cup of tea to *”Mindless”* “Law Enforcers”. In fact in a free market you would not have ANY need to target and “Drone” so called “hippies”, “gypsies”, jews, citizens etc .

“If every person [such as you] who made a threat and attempted to enforce the rule *had to take personal responsibility and assume the risk himself* very few people [you perhaps] would be willing to threaten [his/your] neighbors.

Left to their own devices individuals will not try to forcibly impose upon others but avoid violent conflicts. The power to tax IS precisely something you nor a would-be-free-market tyrant would have. Only govts tax AND have wars remember?

SOOooo…

Report

Reply

-9
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“Left to their own devices individuals will not try to forcibly impose upon others but avoid violent conflicts.”

Again another example of your mindless repitiveness. There is plenty of examples everyday in society of violent INDIVIDUALS imposing their will on their helpless victims. And surprise surprise many times the state via the cops helped them. Like I said you’re mindless AND conscienceless (same thing). Because its obvious you wouldn’t do a thing to help them.

Report

Reply

+5
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Apparently Trolls enjoy using shock-value statements to get angry responses from others.

Trolls are immune to logical arguments. True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is.

~The reason posters responding to a site troll were getting NO real answers is because they were “talking” to an updated version of ELIZA (a computer program written in the 60’s), complete with screen scrapers, extensive data bases and AI “learning” tools (including “Abuse” program capabilities that verbally abuse users based on their input). https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/EL…

~Human trolls have a different but eerily similar feel to troll bots: See Homeland Security Trolling We Won’t Fly Blog http://wewontfly.com/homeland-security-trolling-w…

~Of course you can’t reason with Barney Fife on steroids. We are NOT talking about Matt Dillon. But the equivalent of a British Sheriff of Nottingham. http://mises.org/daily/5651/To-Serve-and-Protect-… And Rand Paul found this out himself at the airport. A mere mundane would have ended up in jail.

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“Trolls are immune to logical arguments. True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is.”

Apparently you (as usual) have no reasoned argument on the superiority and merits of an anarchist society so play the troll card. Yes there are trolls out there and some of them are dangerous and without conscience *gasp* and yes don’t respond to logical arguments. Welcome to the real world Aikido. What will you do when they attack you and yours? What would an anarchist do? LOL.

Report

Reply

0
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

I am not interested in those comfortably numb . I post for those who are disarmed by such. Now they know.

Report

Reply

-9
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Thought so.

Report

Reply

-7
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

You best stay in Japan, in the countryside because you can’t play this game.

Report

Reply

+5
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

By his works you shall know him.

Profile of a Sociopath This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths. http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Qualities:

1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. *May state readily that their goal is to rule the world*

Report

Reply

-8
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

It has been noted that most criminals don’t meet the definition of psychopathy In other words most psychopaths are not criminals and most criminals are psychopaths. Stick to the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Offendin…

Report

Reply

+4
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Trolls consider themselves above social responsibility.

“You best stay in Japan in the countryside because you can’t play this game” is ALL about being a troll.

“Love it or leave it” admits that the government is a monopoly that claims ownership of us all. This ultimatum is not compatible with free market beliefs. It advocates settling for mediocrity and a coercive monopoly. Worst of all, it’s a false choice since the very government we are urged to love will not allow anyone to leave its jurisdiction. That doesn’t fit within any definition of ‘patriotic’ I’m aware of. Does it fit yours?

Report

Reply

-9
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Yeah I was trolling big deal? Let me guess you have never trolled in your life? LOL.

As for “social responsibility.” Adhering to a lawless dogma in the face of human nature is the height of social IRRESPONSIBILITY.

Honesty, you should try it sometime.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Sometimes trolls work as packs like the SW AT team in Tucson that murdered a marine who served two combat tours. They did so as a pack because individually they are cowards. Trolls fear exposure, which is why Wikileaks is constantly under attack and why they don’t like being photographed nor challenged. See From the Right To Resist the ‘Duty To Submit’ by William Norman Grigg as it relates to Austin Police Brutality Against Army Ranger Captain For Taking Photos Of Cops Abusing Woman In Cuffs http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w242.html

16. To further understand the language of sociopaths and how to undo that at the language level I recommend the Anatomy of Slavespeak http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07a.shtml

Report

Reply

-7
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Anarcho’s hit #1 right off the bat and a bunch of other ones.

Report

Reply

-5
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“By his works you shall know him.”

Wait where’s that quote from again? Oh yeah that book you don’t believe in. LOL.

Report

Reply

+4
Bob Robertson’s avatar
Bob Robertson · 5 weeks ago

Your assertion requires “helpless victims”.

Having the state providing monopoly “defensive” services fosters helpless victims. So your assumptions belie your assertions.

Report

Reply

+1
Thomas cartwright’s avatar
Thomas cartwright · 6 weeks ago

The most powerful indigenous Somali movement/institution since the decline of the dreadful Marxist despotism of Siad Barre (and he didn’t have much of a movement) was/is the ISLAM COURTS MOVEMENT. The Somali people yearn for LAW, rather than government. The US/Ethiopian/Kenyan vultures are desperate to impose some external despotism, totally lawless like their own states, upon the Somali people…..Murphy does not recognize that Somalia is an example IN HIS FAVOUR….

Report

Reply

+4
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

I have come to appreciate [and concur] that the underlying objective of the WARS of the West [The State] over the last 100 years and more is for control. Not for oil, not to stop the spread of Communism, not to make the world safe for democracy, not for women’s rights, not for WMD. Just control…

[Indeed] The Art of NOT Being Governed – Anarchy: The Unknown Ideal http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/03/anarch…

The following is addressed:

Anarchy: It Can’t Work Here and There Are No Examples in History

The Historical Record…

The Fight for Control…

Anarchy is Uncivilized?

Creating Subjects…

Zones of Refuge

State-Accessible Product…

Population Increases and Control via Slavery…

The Defense Benefits of Being a Non-State…

State-ordered Society is a Civilized Society?

Report

Reply
2 replies · active 5 weeks ago

-5
manny15’s avatar – Go to profile
manny15 -54p · 6 weeks ago

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could point to an anarchistic state that exists in this world? It could provide a template for us to point to and emulate.

Report

Reply
1 reply · active 6 weeks ago

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

“I can confidently point towards a nonviolent society that you’re *intimately aware of* – YOU. I am guessing that you do not use violence directly to achieve your aims. It seems likely to me that you did not hold your employer hostage until you got your job; I also doubt that you keep your spouse locked in the basement, or that you threaten to shoot your “friends” if they do not join you on the dance floor. In other words, you are the perfect example of a stateless society. All of your personal relationships are voluntary, and do not involve the use of force. *You are an anarchic microcosm* – to see how a stateless society works, all you have to do is look in the mirror.”

LOL…

“When people dismiss the possibility of anarchy out of hand by saying, “Oh, but how would roads be provided?” what they are really saying is that they support war, genocide, tax enslavement and the incarceration and rape of the innocent, because they themselves cannot imagine how roads might be provided in the absence of violence. “People should be murdered, raped and imprisoned because I am concerned that the roads I use might be slightly less convenient.” Can anyone look at the moral horror of this statement without feeling a bottomless and existential nausea?

Now, imagine that the reality of the situation is that roads will be provided far more efficiently and productively in a stateless society?

If that is the case, then the practical considerations turn out to be the complete opposite of the truth – that we are accepting murder, genocide and rape for the sake of bad roads, rather than good roads!”

A couple of passages from “Practical Anarchy” by Stefan Molyneux.

Question: How many *Me* and YOU’s are out there? I would say more than can be or ever need to be counted But the point is?

Clearly some who ask for proof of a stateless society–focus on the “We” and completely MISS (and perhaps blank out) the self evident criteria of what is one’s own authentically anarchic identity].

Report

Reply

-9
manny15’s avatar – Go to profile
manny15 -54p · 6 weeks ago

atlas, I agree that …I…wouldn’t rape murder or steal. But I’m a product of a State that gave me a safe environment to grow up in, and a “free” education. The State invested money in me. If I were born into a barbaric territory 3000 years ago…I don’t know if I would feel the same way as I feel today. I might rape, rob and murder like everyone else.

Warlords ruled back then. just as they do in government-less Somalia today. Wouldn’t it be great if we could point to a peaceful, safe, educated prosperous, anarchistic country today?

That’s my point.

Report

Reply
13 replies · active 6 weeks ago

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

A Handout for Statists: In the interests of efficiency, I have decided to distill every argument I have ever had with your average statist, so that I can hand it out to those who argue that government is voluntary, *taxation is not violence*, etc. http://strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyneux4….

Report

Reply

0
‘s avatar – Go to profile
bionic mosquito · 6 weeks ago

Atlas, thank you for linking to my post in this thread (and elsewhere, if I recall correctly). As to a query for the statists, I humbly offer the following:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/06/matthe…

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Good afternoon, Atlas and Bionic Mosquito.

Many thanks for the interesting and enjoyable reading.

Report

Reply

0
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Good afternoon, Luton Ian and Bionic Mosquito.

Indeed many many thanks for the interesting and enjoyable reading….

Report

Reply

+4
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

You contradict yourself by saying warlords rule in government-less areas. A warlord’s rule is a state. By definition, there can be no rule of warlords in an anarchist society. Warlords are a statist problem. Not an anarchist one.

You say that you don’t commit violence because the state does it on your behalf. This illustrates the point that I always try to make, which is that the state exists to institutionalize and legalize violence and not to combat it. The reason why anarchy doesn’t prevail at the moment is because a critical mass of people believe, as you do, that violence is legitimate. You say that without the state, you might resort to crime. It is this criminal mindset which keeps the state going.

As far as I know, there is no state program that provides people with sex, yet you say you do not rape. Therefore, concerning that, you are in a state of anarchy. If you refrain from rape even without the state forcing people to have sex with you, then why couldn’t you also refrain from theft and murder if there was no state to do that for you as well?

Report

Reply

-4
manny15’s avatar – Go to profile
manny15 -54p · 6 weeks ago

freeharmonics, you said: “A warlord’s rule is a state”. I disagree. In Somalia Mohammed Aideed had thugs riding around in pickup trucks robbing and shooting and looting people. His gang of thugs were not a govt.

If you dumb down the definition of govt to anyone who exerts control over other people then the rapist is a govt., drug gangs are the govt., the mafia is a govt., murderers and kidnappers are governments. All of these, like warlords, exert power over people…but they’re not governments.

Report

Reply

+5
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Why are you claiming that “mafia”, “warlords” etc are not forms of government.

On what basis?

Where is the distinction?

Report

Reply

-7
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Like I said, for anarchists might makes right. And if you don’t have any “might”. You’re SOL in an anarchist “utopia.”

Report

Reply

+5
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

who’s proposing a “utopia”?

Report

Reply

+2
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

You need at least the tacit support of public opinion to have might. This is why propaganda is so important to states or would be states. Under anarchy, there is no public support for anyone to have might over others. By definition, warlord rule under anarchy is not possible.

Report

Reply

+5
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

A state is a criminal gang which has managed to gain enough legitimacy for its actions in the minds of the public to have its criminality legalized. Warlords typically rule over small areas where their rule is more powerful than any other group’s in that area. The difference between a warlord state and any other criminal gang such as the mafia, is that other criminal gangs do not have the legitimacy of public opinion. Therefore, their criminal acts are considered illegal since they go against the wishes of the publicly backed gang, which is the state. Now, to the extent that a warlord does not have firm control over an area, this is do to public support for any one gang being fractured enough to where no one group can gain consistent control. This is not anarchy but civil war between rival statists. There is virtually always a civil war going on somewhere in the statist world, with individuals from different sides all calling those from other sides warlords and themselves government.

To sum up, the difference between criminal gangs and the state is that the state is a criminal gang which is sanctioned by enough of the public to be able to legally rule over them. When no criminal gang has enough public support for this to happen, this is statist civil war, which is a common feature of statist societies. Not anarchy.

Report

Reply

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Is your good behaviour because of, or in spite of?

The nearest town to where I grew up, has had, from the closure of the nationalised heavy industries of coal mining, steel making and ship building over 30 years ago, the highest welfare dependency rate (now well into its third generation who’ve only ever known welfare dependency), the lowest house prices and some of the most infantile displays of petty criminality and antisocial behaviour, you’ll find anywhere on the mainland UK. The only noticeable difference compared to say Detroit – almost all the faces are white.

I can draw a very convincing causative link to state actions.

Don’t worry yourself about it though, the residents of that area mostly suffer Stockholm Syndrome too.

Report

Reply

+7
Silver Bullet’s avatar – Go to profile
Silver Bullet 58p · 6 weeks ago

You are confusing government with society.

Report

Reply

-6
manny15’s avatar – Go to profile
manny15 -54p · 6 weeks ago

OK, here’s a question for the anarchists here: Why do men form governments?

Von Mises felt that men were rational and responded to the basic economic principles that improved their lives. Von Mises was not an anarchist, and spent most of his life working for governments. Why are there so many anarchists on the Von Mises website….when Von Mises himself was not an anarchist?

The first really BIG attempt at govt was the Roman Empire. It built roads, kept the sea ports safe for merchants, provided the rule of law, protection of commerce, etc. But for this, the Romans also imposed taxes, enforced laws that not everyone agreed with, and used a fiat currency that the population accepted. Why? You can say anything you want in response, but please answer the question first:

Why do you think men voluntarily form themselves into governments?

Report

Reply
102 replies · active 5 weeks ago

-7
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

I don’t know where all these anarchists came from but they’re not making any sense and its doubtful Mises or even Rothbard were for absolutely no government.

Report

Reply

+2
ABR’s avatar
ABR · 6 weeks ago

Government or governance? If you mean the State, then obviously you’ve never read Rothbard.

Report

Reply

-8
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

You might try explaining the difference between the two or are you just into sound bites posing as retorts? And yes I have read Rothbard but not all his works as he was a prolific writer.

Report

Reply

+5
ABR’s avatar
ABR · 6 weeks ago

Men form governments to wield power over the masses. As for voluntary governance, something like that took place in Ireland prior to Cromwell.

The logical conclusion from Mises’ works is anarchism. The fact he wasn’t an anarchist merely shows that even the great ones have blind spots.

Report

Reply

-5
manny15’s avatar – Go to profile
manny15 -54p · 6 weeks ago

ABR, “men” in the purality….ARE….the masses. So you say that men form governments to wield power over themselves? Each man already has power over himself…why would he form a govt to wield power over himself?

Do you think that man links up with other men and forms a govt so that the property and citizenry will be protected? So that roads will be built so he can get his goods to market? so there is a court system so that if he signs a contract he has a place to go to get his contract enforced? To build sewer and water systems that he couldn’t build on his own?

Why do you REALLY think men form governments?

Report

Reply

+8
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

Everything you mention could and would be provided by the market if there were no state.

People form and use the state to benefit at the expense of others. It should be clear from basic observation that with the state there are net winners(looters) and net losers(victims). There is no collective “man in the plurality”, although such leftist thinking is common among statists like yourself.

Report

Reply

-6
manny15’s avatar – Go to profile
manny15 -54p · 6 weeks ago

Freeharmonics, in effect you’re saying “privatize everything”. private little police forces for each small community that can agree on hiring a police force, and only the coastal communities will even care if we have a navy , coastal communities won’t care if western farmers have dams to manage and water their crops…..etc etc etc. Basically, you’re saying we should go back to the middle ages.

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I think me willfully form govts because at the end of the day, they find them more beneficial than having no govt.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Nope. Look at what you have wrought:

1. During the past decade, the crime rate in the United States has declined, terrorism has been all but nonexistent – and the country has been transformed into a fair approximation of a high-security prison, complete with full-spectrum surveillance of the population and undisguised militarization of “local” police departments.

Nope. Look at what you deny is possible let alone exists:

2. At the same time, the political elite in charge of the former Soviet Union is addressing a legitimate crime crisis by *drawing down the police force and recognizing (however tentatively) the right of citizens to armed self-defense*.

It’s possible that this dramatic volte-face was the product of a sincere conversion. It’s likelier that Mr. Torshin knew which way *the winds of public outrage* are blowing, and aligned his sails accordingly. In any case, Torshin’s proposal is tangible evidence of a growing — and thoroughly commendable — Russian citizen contempt for the very institution of government…

For all of its problems, Russia clearly is no longer the land of Lenin. For all of our advantages, it’s just as clear that the United States of America is no longer the Land of the Free. …

Sunday, September 18, 2011
Abolish the Police, Arm the Citizens: The “Sagra Model” of Privatized Security http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/09/abol…

Report

Reply

0
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

The citizens of a small town clearly stood off the attempt by *Gangster Lords* to take over…

Report

Reply

+9
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

Yes, I am saying to privatize everything. When I talk of anarchy, that is what I mean. Societies can be organized on two mutually exclusive principles: private property or the state. Private property is social organization based on morality, justice and reason. The state is a society based on violence and injustice. To the extent you support one, you negate the other.

Under a totally private property society, police forces would tend to serve the market and not specific geographical areas. Different defense and judicial companies would compete all over for consumers just as fast food restaurants or any other market provider of goods does now. They would be as large and serve as many different areas as consumers demanded. I maintain that since the existence of an anarchist society means that legalized violence has been rejected, this also implies a minimum of illegal violence as well. Therefore, even with the market providing superior services for the defense of private property, such services would be much less needed than they are now, and the cost of it would be such that it would not be much of any concern to most people. This as opposed to under a state where “protection” can lead to the expropriation of well over half a person’s income.

Coastal communities should be the ones most concerned with coastal defense. A person who lives more inland should not have to pay for the security of those who live on the coast. If the coast is particularly dangerous, then that will be reflected in coastal property values being lower to offset the higher cost of defense. The same is true for farmers in the west. They should pay for their own dams just as everybody else must pay for their own business expenses. In the Middle Ages, the problem wasn’t private property but the fact that some people could legally violate the rights of others. In case you weren’t aware, states existed during the Middle Ages, so that is an argument against you and not me. Collectivizing the state through a republic does nothing to change that. It just makes it more publicly acceptable and less able to rationally calculate.

Since this issue concerns the use of violence, we cannot agree to disagree. The nature of the argument means only one of us can have our way at any particular time.

Report

Reply

-8
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 6 weeks ago

The second question is a very good one, and this web site should really consider re-naming itself. Von Mises was not an anarchist. The authors and bloggers appear to all be anarchists, and more time is spent on political philosophy of anarchism than Austrian economics. The great error of these anarchists is they believe having a government necessarily implies a violation of non-agressions principles. This is a false conclusion and their position undermines the cause of liberty. They also do not understand the nature of a monopoly, just as mainstream economists do not understand monopoly. If men voluntarily gravitate to monopoly in some cases (they do when it makes sense to do so), then there is nothing inherently wrong with it. This is the case with national defense, for example. A nation choosing to select a single entity (monopoly) to defend itself is the most efficient market solution to national defense.

Report

Reply

+5
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Which fallacy to start upon?

Certainly, Mises is not on record as having set out an explicitly anarchist position, though there are passages in his writing where it is clear that he is struggling with the cognitive dissonance of having advanced an argument which logically leads to an An-Cap conclusion, but he fails to countenance it.

The more revealing evidence is from mises’ widow’s memoirs.

In them, she recounts Mises whole hearted endorsement for the work of his student and disciple, the Anarcho – Capitalist, Murray Rothbard.

At the end of his long life, Mises was implicitly endorsing Rothbard’s explicitly An-Cap analyses.

As a self described An-Cap, I’m a huge admirer of Mises, and his work. I’m guessing that the other An-Caps who write and comment here are too. I’m happy to study and celebrate Mises’ achievements.

Mises’ work, and it’s advancement by Rothbard and continuing advancement by the small group of brilliant scholars who fall under the very broad and diverse heading of “the modern Austrian School”, logically leads to Anarcho Capitalist conclusions.

Rothbard’s work on monopoly, shows that a monopoly cannot survive on a free market, it requires statist violence to create and preserve it. Sure, if a monopoly did arize on a free market (highly unlikely), it would not be a bad thing, but, incalculability and competition will ensure that it is soon faced with new competitors. Only state violence can prevent that.

Now, kindly explain to me how and why you believe tax is not an act of agression?

Report

Reply

-6
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 6 weeks ago

Compulsory tax is indeed an act of agression. I do not disagree with that. If the state is restricted to only those services that protect individual liberty, actual taxes would be quite low, and could be voluntary. The same principal that applies to anything we else we pay for would apply: people are willing to pay for things from which they benefit. If you disagree, then how would any co-op work for defense? Anarchy does not make the need foor defense go away, nor its cost. Comppulsion is no more required in government national defense than it would be anarchy. Furthermore, just as today, one is still free to arm himself, or co-op with others to do so, or hire a security agency.

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Some of the pre 1860 German city states had volountary taxes, where the money was deposited in anonymous envelopes into a chest.

Unfortunately, this still had the major dis advantage compared with private provision, that the payment was seperated from provision and performance of the individual services, there was therefore still the knowledge problem and the calculation problem.

There was no way to determine which services citizens actually wanted and in what quantity (I’d like a Bentley sports car – but I’ll never actually be in a position to buy one, what people say they would like in surveys and what they actually choose to buy with their own limited funds are often very different)

The British Cooperative wholesale society made that mistake a few years back, it is Britains largest corporate farmer, and on the basis of customer questionnaires, converted a significant proportion of its capacity to “organic” production. it hadn’t cross checked the questionnaires against the checkout records – the organic produce didn’t cover costs.

That brings us to the calculation problem:

monetary calculation allows us to determine whether we have turned scarce inputs which society values less highly, into products which society values more highly, and in quantities which society values more highly.

Unless each seperate service or product is marketted and sold seperately, then there is no way to determine whether greater value has been created or destroyed. Competition between different providers becomes necessary if the most efficeint way of providing the most prefferred form of that service is to be found.

To solve the knowledge and calculation problems, state provision, really has to become competitive and for profit provision.

at that point, why have a state?

Report

Reply

-7
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

There are many ways to handle voluntary tax systems, and to overcome the issues of disintermediation. It’s somewhat ironic to have those espousing anarchy use the very same arguments that are usually directed toward anarchy…against limited government. I read and digested everything posited against my points on this subject last night, and not one single objection raised against my points could not also apply to someone positing anarchy. Anarchy can not escape the same reality that faces limited government and in most cases it simply makes the case even more challenging and creates new challenges. The only conceivable way to defend against a large scale invasion (fighter jets dropping bombs, etc.) is with similar fire power. The only way to afford this is through mass scale economies, and that brings in the very same objection you just raised.

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

“Anarchy can not escape the same reality that faces limited government and in most cases it simply makes the case even more challenging and creates new challenges. The only conceivable way to defend against a large scale invasion (fighter jets dropping bombs, etc.) is with similar fire power. The only way to afford this is through mass scale economies, and that brings in the very same objection you just raised.

How is a free market in goods and services incapable of providing goods and services which consumers are willing to pay for?

how can a free market suffer incalculability?

How can a free market suffer from the knowledge problem?

the free market is the only known answer to those problems

what is this evidence which you claim?

Report

Reply

+4
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Re: “The only conceivable way to defend against a large scale invasion is with similar fire power”.

~And yet under even a limited government, the machinery of mass subjugation is ready and waiting to be seized…

This is certainly not the case with anarchy (self-rule)…

(Communities living under a State degenerate into civil war all the time. We should remember that the frequently cited cases of Colombia and now Iraq are not demonstrations of anarchy-turned-into-chaos, but rather examples of government-turned-into-chaos).

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

If a constitution, written with the sole purpose to defend liberty is a meaningless document, then why would contracts be effective in anarchy? If a constitution is inherently, by its nature, going to be wiped out by men, why would these same kind of men not try to take control in anarchy? The answer to your last question is the proper reason to have a state is the protection of individual liberties in the most efficient way possible under the rule of objective law. There is no way to enforce non-agression except through force. Force itself must be used, whether it is a security agency or a government. I read below about how government “forces its subjects to adhere to its edicts.” Hmm, well how on earth will you have someone adhere to edicts in anarchy? Non-force? Sweet talking? If two parties can not resolve a property dispute, and one will simply not live up to his contract, what does the other party do? He ultimately must use force to enforce the contract. So if government enforces this contract it is wrong, but if an agency enforces it is right?

Report

Reply

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

There is a big difference between “We” and “I”. All I see from we-ists is wanting to control others but not about how they–YOU–will face consequences without govt? .

Now if your own personal moral obligations are NOT important enough to write down–as if YOUR own writings here are in dispute by your own reckoning, who knows?

–And if it is not for you to know explicitly and improve on; **And for others to explicitly to know YOU**–without binding them down then of course nothing regarding a *personal inter-relationship* Covenant–an agreement, about how YOU will act with others to do or not do something specified– could filter thru…

Report

Reply

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Hi handoftruth. It occurs to me that your points would be better presented if you forwarded the Swiss Model and took it from there.

Freedom vs Force
Why The Failing US and EU Should Follow the Swiss Government Model! http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland14.1.ht…

These issues are covered.
National Expansion By Voluntary Association (Swiss) vs Force (US Govt)

Competing Currencies (Swiss) vs Currency Monopoly (US govt)

Ultimate Citizen Control (Swiss) vs Political Establishment (US govt)

Time To Look At A Successful Political Model (Swiss)

Tax Competition (Swiss) vs Forced Tax Harmonization (US govt…)

Now I will add that the Swiss did NOT have a Hamilton nor a Lincoln (Mercantilists) to contend with. Nor did the Swiss people loose the Unanimous Consent power. Remember that the US *legal process* (so-called was to amend) not gut the document). It was gutted from the get go!

AND since the rest is history how does one get back to the issue of Unanimous Consent? To me it is important. By moving to Switzerland is one way for some. (Perhaps). But for me it is by adopting it at the personal inter-relationship level.

Now before I go there, again I would look to the Swiss Model (for obvious reasons).

Report

Reply

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

I should remind that when I say “But for me it is by adopting it [A Covenant Of Unanimous Consent] at the personal *inter-relationship level*”. Not no rules but self-rule i.e. anarchy.

1. When I Stopped Using An Authoritarian Collectivist Formula–of, “We hereby make the following illegal”–and *STARTED using “*I* believe that if you do this, I will do this—using my own moral code (the skin game) my own interpersonal rules and my own security–in this way” I am using Direct Alternatives* and this IS “How I Found Freedom in an UnFree World” by Harry Browne….

2. When I Stopped Asking for Permission (essentially begging, raising my hand, pleading, voting )–(an Indirect Alternative that I do not control)–I stopped playing into the hands of tyrants and their wannabes. The only way to achieve freedom is first to achieve mental freedom and *fiber* which comes by realizing *No one has the right *to rule another*, which means govt is NEVER legitimate*. Paraphrased from “The Most Dangerous Superstition” by Larken Rose

3. When I actually Make the Rules and Warnings–and Decide what retribution I personally feel justified in inflicting on those that harm me–then I ALONE will bear the actual *responsibility and the risk* for making and enacting such warnings. Picture you and I talking and you do x. I will only do what is in my *maximized rational self interest short AND long term to do.

4. When I do Not Require any election or lawyers or other group traps then I become less vulnerable. Free! The warnings would not be seen as “the will of the people” but only as a statement of the intentions that I actually issue.

Etc etc…

There is a difference. It is called the skin game.

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

5. When I decide the Legitimacy of such warnings and judge not by “Who” made the rules but by whether the consequences in the eye of the observer and are appropriate for the wrong. LewRockwell.com, Mises.org and Stephan Molyneux provides great insights on free market insurance arbitration

6. When I realize that such warnings would not pretend to alter morality, make new crimes nor would imagine such warnings to be legitimate simply because they were issued the way people now view authoritarian laws then instead such warnings would simply constitute statements about what those making the restitution believe is justified.

7. When I see that a dispute resolution is flawed–by free market natural law standards–such as retribution is too high or a person is innocent then I act accordingly. The Trial of Hank Rearden: Part 1 of 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1-_k6mKSxk

etc

Report

Reply

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Re: Handoftruth “And so If a constitution, properly created, can not bind men in action, how can contracts?”

I addressed the fact the Constitution was not properly created in the US. But much better in Switzerland. You can debate whether the US will end up following the Swiss model but it makes no sense to expect such if you cannot do it yourself. And I began to address the clear advantages of a personal Covenant of Unanimous Consent in a prior post as did No Hope etc…

Report

Reply

+4
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

I am going to move the following post here where it belongs. And then I will comment on a breakthru for me.

Re: handofthruth “To Luton Ian and Atlas Aikido, I appreciate your thoughts. I doubt we’ll come to any agreement but I enjoyed the conversation. [I bet] Ultimately, I think the use of force has to be under the objective, explicit control of a constitution”.

All of their issues have already been refuted by such as Roderick Long (Why Objective Law Requires Anarchy), the Tannehill’s Market for Liberty and Spooner’s points on the Constitution being unable to stop what we have and or making it possible etc etc.

Ultimately handoftruth actually does NOT need my agreement to disagree nor anyone else, ONLY the pretense of such in order to appear “Swiss” like when in fact the Swiss kept their *Articles of Confederation* AND *strong states* AND a* very weak central govt*, whilst the US was reduced to the obverse. Indeed it was a coup d’état!! (via Hamilton and Lincoln–we are ALL slaves now)

I therefore dub handoftruth and his ilk Constitution Trolls.

Constitution Trolls misdirect by attacking anarchy (or whatever) hoping no one will notice that there is The Swiss Model. Which is CERTAINLY not what the US has!

Freedom vs Force
Why The Failing US and EU Should Follow the Swiss Government Model! http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland14.1.ht….

PS If a Constitution Troll points to the Swiss Model they might have some credibility. But to do so would make it glaringly obvious that the US system is but a *”Hologram of Liberty”* (See James Royce’s book). It is not consent they need (certainly not Unanimous Consent) but the complicity and sanction of victims (divide and conquer).

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Control Through Fear “I [YOU] want everyone to remember why they [the rest of us] need [YOU and your masters]! Media propaganda indeed… .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_30-8ZlmQ

Report

Reply

+5
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

The fundamental question is this: under which system—market competition or government monopoly—is abuse of power more likely?

But the problem is not one of evil motivations alone. Even a state run by saints would face an informational problem. Just as the most well-intentioned central planner would be unable to make objective decisions about economic production, consumption, and distribution, because the information generated by the spontaneous market order would be inaccessible to him, so without the competitive, evolutionary process through which law originated and developed before the state, a centralized legislature would be unable to make objective decisions about which legal rules and procedures work best.

Report

Reply

-3
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

I appreciate your responses and the thought you put into them. But I don’t see the actual questions being answered. If a constitution, properly created, can not bind men in action, how can contracts?

Again, with respect to evil motivations: it is not only evil from which one needs to be protected, but resolution of disagreements in which evil motivations are not the role. Force ultimately still must be used against those who do not accept the edict of presumably “competing arbiters.” I suppose we can go round and round because I keep returning to the same point that the objections I keep seeing are not escaped at all via anarchy and new ones are created.

Report

Reply

+8
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

“If a constitution, properly created, can not bind men in action, how can contracts?”

contracts are agreed by the parties to them and are enforceable between those parties. constitutions are not agreed to by individuals, they are imposed on them – there is no social contract – but more importantly to my mind, constitutions have been ineffective at controlling the state, which seeks to appropriate more and more power to itself. even though i think any compulsory tax breaches the natural rights of each indivdiual to his person and property, i would be very pleased to live under a minimal state, with a compulsory but very low tax. but i think such a minimal state is more fanciful than an AC society. if we’re talking theory, about what the utlimate goal should be, i go for AC, for the reasons i have put forward and also the thinking of atlas, freeharmonics and luton ian.

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Agreed No Hope. Well said! And ditto on freeharmonics and luton ian [and crs]. For the reasons I stated in a prior post regarding a personal Covenant of Unanimous Consent.
http://tinyurl.com/Covenant-and-Galts-Oath

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Security agencies are not governments with a guaranteed supply of tax revenues. They depend on their customers, and so are much more responsive to customer demands. War is an expensive means of settling disputes, and even the most belligerent customer may think twice on receiving his monthly bill. Security agencies that settle their disputes by force rather than through arbitration will have to charge higher premiums, and so will lose customers to their competitors.

Does this guarantee that a system of competitive security agencies will never break down into warfare? No, nothing can guarantee that. All I am making is a comparative claim: competitive security agencies are far less likely than monopoly governments to resort to force.

Excerpts from Why Objective Law Requires Anarchy
by Roderick T. Long

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

Okay, I don’t agree with that conclusion, but I will say this is the first time I have seen a workable argument raised, that indeed security agencies are perfectly capable of abusing power just like a government, but that are less likely to abuse it. So let me go one step further: why wouldn’t such abusers continue to gain more and more power? Some men (just like today with those who use a government) will use force to get their way. In a limited government, specifically with a constitution, the entire point of the constitution is to put FORCE under control, to limit it explicitly, to prohibit the government (the agency of force) from abusing its role. In anarchy, so such explicit limitations exist. You are hoping “competition” will do that job yet we are not dealing with butter and bread and clothes and computers, we are dealing with force. Although one might assert that empirically, even the US constitition was overun and the government uses great force. On the other hand, in contrast the the rest of human history, it’s actually remarkable things lasted this long given the loopholes and huge vagaries that existed in the constitution.

Report

Reply

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Why Objective Law Requires Anarchy
by Roderick T. Long

Outline
Introduction
What is Objective Law?
Objective Law Requires Competition
Law Without the State
Is Limited Government a Genuine Alternative?
Resistance is Feudal
Anarchy and Gang Warfare
Biographical Note

http://tinyurl.com/4hm9r2v

Report

Reply

0
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

Thanks, i will be interested to check this out

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Dear Reader, the tacit assumption that they–natural laws–do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men they must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is UNOBJECTIVE and misses *value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations*. This market price *breakthru came from Mises’s 1920 paper refuting Socialism*.

References:
1. The Market for Liberty
9781610162456
Morris and Linda Tannehill http://mises.org/resources/6058

2. Book review–Freedom Naturally http://alpha.mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Natural…

Report

Reply

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Re: “The answer to your last question is the proper reason to have a state is the protection of individual liberties in the most efficient way possible under the rule of objective law”.

Nope.

Actually it’s the other way round…

Natural laws are objective and compulsory (they cannot be passed). The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is unobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). This market price breakthru came from LVM’s 1920 paper refuting Socialism.

The Market for Liberty
9781610162456
Morris and Linda Tannehill

Report

Reply

+8
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

The great error of these anarchists is they believe having a government necessarily implies a violation of non-agressions principles.

Government, by its very nature, is an entity composed of individuals granted the exclusive power of FORCING its subjects to adhere to its edicts. If I do not agree to pay taxes, and I resist to a certain point, what could potentially be the final result?

Report

Reply

-7
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 6 weeks ago

No, it’s not by its very nature. The nature of government can be defined by those who construct it. That assertion you make is begging the question. You are embedding into the concept of government necessarily non-agression violation, when it is not necessarily the case.

The final result is then you have no right to use/benefit from those services. That’s it. Yes, it is entirely possible some might benefit (free rider question) unhistifiably, but there are ways of dealing with that. You are still free to arm yourself, oor co-op with others to do so. A government confined to it sproper services is just that: a co-op effort to protect lliberties.

Report

Reply

+3
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

The nature of government can be defined by those who construct it.

True. How was it defined by the founders, and what has happened since then?

You are embedding into the concept of government necessarily non-agression violation, when it is not necessarily the case.

Give me an example of a government that allows citizens to opt out from its rule and we will go from there.

You are still free to arm yourself, oor co-op with others to do so. A government confined to it sproper services is just that: a co-op effort to protect lliberties.

You mean form a militia? The religious cult in Waco armed themselves for protection, and how did that end? Also, how does a government get confined? By voters? By written words?

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 6 weeks ago

Yes, I am using today’s existence of militia merely to concretize the theoretical possibility that even with a national self-defense, there can exist individual or cooperatiive defense. I am noot adocating today’s government. You are using the contemporary US government’s behavior (Waco) to argue against a theoretical concept of government limited only to the scope of protecting liberty.

How does it get confined, yes, by constitution. It should be clear that in the United States, the constitution did not go far enough nor was it explicit enough, and in some cases (such an intertstate commerce regulation), iit was explicitly in violation oof non-agression principles.

Report

Reply

-6
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 6 weeks ago

Taking the US as an example of failure of limited government is a questionagle argument for two fundamental reasons. First, while a fundamentally massive change relative to prior governments in history, it still contained several elements of statism that violated non-agression principles, and in other cases, it simply was not explicit enough. My personal view is the necessary checks and balances while a concept of great wisdom, was constructed with some fundamental weaknesses.

Second, as a first experiement in limited government, as compared to all prior government in all of human history, even given its great weaknesses, contradictions, how did the US do? Actuallly not tooo shabby for a faiirly long period of time. Not ideal, not utopia certainly, but it terms of human liberty, standard of living, peaceful coexistence amongst fellow countrymen, let’s just say it was a game changer.

Report

Reply

+3
Henry Cameron’s avatar
Henry Cameron · 5 weeks ago

This theoretical non-violent ‘state’ you are speaking of, how does it feel about competition?

Report

Reply

-6
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

Perhaps you missed some of my prior posts. I am assuming you ask that with respect to defense? First, the term “non-violent” state is accurate. If I asked you “are you non-violent”, you would be thinking yes but what you presumably mean would be “only violent in defense”, or not initiating violence. And ppresumably, the defense gencies that you postulate would be the same: you would be delegating to it (or them) the same function: protecting your liberty, not initiating force on others. And how would such a gency adjudicate a crime and incarcerate a criminal? It would have to use force, but technically it would be in defense or retaliation. The same applies to a government reduced to its proper scope. To your question, as I stated before, there would be nothing preventing individuals from bearing arms, weapons. And nothing preventing them from having a militia if they so chose.

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

I mean to say I would not use the term “non-violent” state. It must be violent at times…in defense or retaliation. Just as you or I can be. I am saying I would not want to use that term because it could be confused with “pacifist”. Different meaning.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

I agree completely with all of Bastiat’s principles. However, what he calls “the law” is merely a collection of protective rules for restitution of property to deter crime and plunder. Such rules can either be voluntarily agreed to by those they affect, or they can be forced upon the population from the time they are born *(which paradoxically then makes them part of the crime and plunder they are designed to deter)*.

A natural civilization can have rules which protect individuals from plunder voluntarily and contractually, and this kind of “law” will be fundamentally very different than the legal systems we know today. Vahram G. Diehl.comments on History’s Most Elaborate Ad Hoc Hypothesis at Strike the Root

Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime
The Market for Liberty
Linda and Morris Tannehill http://mises.org/document/6058/The-Market-for-Lib…

The whole book deals with difference between govt and free market justice.

In fact a would be tyrant’s customers–in a free market–would be an obstacle to him.

He could not extract taxes from them, as govt does, he could not even force them to buy his service at all. A market relationship is a free relationship. If a customer does not like a company’s service–(including defensive), or mistrusts its goals, he is free to take his business elsewhere or to start his own competitive service or to do without the service altogether and provide his own.

There is a difference between coercive monopolies (govt driven by initiating force and ratcheting fear and power) and free market monopolies (profit motive, supply demand, attracting customers).

this has already been covered and teased out on this thread…

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

So far no one has actually rebutted what I have said. You are offering one example of the United States (an already very established statist government), you are arguing against something I am not advocating. We are in the theoretical here. Given that you e all espousing anarchism, I am assuming this is perhaps one place in which people are capable of differentiating between the theoretical, and misapplications of the theoretical. On th eother hand, I could cite the Michigan Militia, which is armed, organized, and exists. I will have to repeat this for you as well since no one gets this: I am not advocating today’s US government. Merely pointing out (to concretize the abstract), that arms and militia can co-exist with a central, government military.

Report

Reply

+4
crs’s avatar
crs · 5 weeks ago

I will have to repeat this for you as well since no one gets this:

No we get it because we’ve seen the same unoriginal argument a million times. We just don’t agree with you. If you don’t accept that we don’t accept what you are advocating, then too bad.

Report

Reply

-6
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

If you understand the difference, and you still offered the argument you did, that is simply a confession of intellectual dishonesty, or at best, poor argumentation. That is precisely the kind of argument that draws a lot of whining on this site: individuals fallaciously offering as a rebuttal a concrete misapplication of the theoretical.

Report

Reply

0
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Yes humans and cancer co-exist! SOooo….

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

I should have been more explicit: I was referring to handofthruth : “Merely pointing out (to concretize the abstract), that arms and militia can co-exist with a central, government military”.

I explain in the next post….

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

When it comes to the most important things in life, when it comes to our family and friends and to deciding how we spend the precious time we have with them, we’re all anarchists. It’s high time we took the statist (cancer) shackles off the rest of our lives and started acting like it.

No, don’t tell me this has nothing to do with: Iceland (no State); 90 million *not voting* in USA; Sagra Model In Russia (200,000 law enforcers jobs taken off market, crime drops significantly, individuals protect themselves, ward off Drug Lord etc); Wenchou Province Model (Anarchic) spreading around the world etc etc….

In this thread these issues are covered including what is the actual context.

Report

Reply

-4
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

And in anarchy if I refuse to live up to a contract what would be the final result? Are you aware that force in retaliation (or the threat of force) is the only way to enforce a breach of contract? This is irrespective of whether it is anarchy or there is government.

Taxes, can be voluntary. The concept of a voluntary tax system is nothing new. The basic principle is simple: those who do not pay will lose most of the benefit of such taxes. The provider has no obligation to those who do not pay for the services used from the taxes.

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Re: And in anarchy if I refuse to live up to a contract what would be the final result? Are you aware that force in retaliation (or the threat of force) is the only way to enforce a breach of contract?

Nope. A paradigm shift.

Using direct alternatives: A choice available to you that requires only direct action by yourself to get a desired result.

Without using Indirect alternatives: A choice available to you that requires that you induce someone else to do what is necessary to achieve your objective.

Don’t get into situs with others where you run after others to force them to pay you.

It is actually more productive to let people copy ideas than chase after them (There is a very strange tendency of some capitalists to misdiagnose the source of their profits in a world of Intellectual Property, spending far more on beating up pirates than they would have earned in a free market innovating).

Fascinating short comments by science fiction author Neil Gaiman on how he came to realize that there was nothing wrong with people copying his books: “Nobody who would have bought your book is not buying it because they can find it for free. What you’re actually doing is advertising. You’re reaching more people. You’re raising awareness.”
http://blog.mises.org/15647/gaiman-on-copyright-p…

And here is Lessons from fashion’s *free culture* [already existent]: Johanna Blakley on TED.com] http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/25/lessons_from_fa/

If You Believe in Intellectual Property, How Do You Teach Others? http://mises.org/daily/3864

Etc etc…Direct alternatives (self rule)

PS Stephan Molyneux’s Handbook to Statist..”In the interests of efficiency, I have decided to distill every argument I have ever had with your average statist and ministatist, so that I can hand it out to *those who argue that government is voluntary*, if I don’t like it I can leave, taxation is not violence, etc… http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyne…

Report

Reply

+3
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

They also do not understand the nature of a monopoly, just as mainstream economists do not understand monopoly. If men voluntarily gravitate to monopoly in some cases (they do when it makes sense to do so), then there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

I have never read any of the contributors to this site say that a “natural” monopoly is not right. What you would read is that if a natural monopoly develops, and then that entity uses the force of government to maintain it (by keeping competitors from entering the market, usually by regulations), then consumers are the ones that suffer.

This is the case with national defense, for example. A nation choosing to select a single entity (monopoly) to defend itself is the most efficient market solution to national defense.

A nation chooses a single entity to defend itself because the people have have only that one choice.

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 6 weeks ago

“A nation chooses a single entity to defend itself because the people have have only that one choice.”

Really? Even today in the US one can arm himself. Men can form a militia, train together, etc. As it should be. There is nothing preventing them from doing so and there should not be. However, if a society must defend itself from outside invasion, do you believe many such agencies will have more success than a coordinated defense?

Report

Reply

+1
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Where I’m commenting from, on airstrip one, all “legally” held guns are centrally licensed, with serial number, maker, calibre and type recorded.

I’m not allowed a breech loading pistol, or a semi auto rifle bigger than .22rf

I’m also required to give “good reason” for each gun, and places where I want to use it. “self defence” has not been accepted as “good reason” since 1947

Despite the history of the British Volunteer movement in the 19th century, If i typed the M word, I’d have cops breaking my door down and helicopter overhead within the hour.

Needless to say, all the crooks have Uzis, MAC10s and AKs, and use them, despite the bans.

That is the perspective which I type the words “violent monopoly” from.

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruh’s avatar
handoftruh · 5 weeks ago

You are confusing the United States today with the abstract concept of limited government I am sugggesting. The same error is made today by those who argue against capitalism and then point to today’s crony corporatism and say “see capitalism does not work”. I am siimply using the fact that today there is privately held arms, and militia (Michigan militia, for example)…I am citing these as examples to concretize the abstract. I am not advocating for liscenced guns, serial numbered weaons. So you are arguing against something I am not advocating. It is an error to assume any government must evolve into what you are suggesting. That is not a logically conclusive conclusion. It can be otherwise.

Report

Reply

+2
crs’s avatar
crs · 5 weeks ago

Minarchists believe that human beings, without a deterrent, will naturally seek to loot from and kill other human beings. But yet, they want to grant a monopoly of power to those same human beings.

Do you seriously believe that words on paper are going to limit those power-seeking individuals? No matter what is written, those in power will convince those that give them power that just a little more control is needed to combat the evilness of other men.

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

You have defined a narrow, and also inccurate concept of limited government and drawn a very large strawman. First, we can depart from the theoretical with history to demonstrate that some, not all, but a small minority of men will by their nature (those men) indeed seek to loot and potentially kill other human beings. Megalomaniac sociopath types such as Hitler, Napoloean,etc. And no, advocates of limiuted government are not advocating to give those same men “power”. Do you doubt the power of words on a paper? Are you advocating the elimination of binding contracts?

Do you propose eliminating contracts? Or do those pieces of paper hold a different power over men?

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

‘There was a time when those in positions of legal authority were literally regarded as beings of an inherently superior order, entitled to a special status exempt from ordinary moral rules. That doctrine was known as the divine right of kings. Nowadays we profess to have given up that doctrine; the Declaration of Independence boldly declares that “all men are created equal.” But *we* [too many] are still all too quick to treat the bearers of *official power as a breed apart*’. Excerpted from an article from Roderick Long

The Milgram experiment IS being played out now by agents using mobile torturing devices (tasers) and exercising the divine right of kings.

The problem with misplaced power is not in the chain of command; it is in The Chain of Obedience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcLNoxiPBk

This is entirely different from: Rules do not have to be enforced if the people they apply to want to follow them, just as one does not have to be forced to buy an airline ticket if it is what he wants to do. The paradox of the state mechanism is that it uses crime to end crime, plunder to end plunder, and force to end force. In a voluntary society, no one has to be a part of that society, no has to engage in commerce, etc. *The rules in effect in any given proprietary societal venture will be those agreed to by all parties involved or they simply won’t participate. Preventative measures will naturally be taken to defend against those tiny minority who don’t want to play along from hijacking the system, just as measures are taken to keep bank robbers out of banks. Since this is all voluntary (no one forces the bank robber to threaten the banker and get shot by the security guard as a result), it is not considered “force” as I used the word. It is defense, and it is entirely voluntary*.

Excerpts from Vahram G. Diehl.comments on History’s Most Elaborate Ad Hoc Hypothesis at Strike the Root.

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

More specifically: Man’s nature to avoid unpleasant things gives him a natural incentive to not associate with anyone who harms him. This gives everyone a natural disincentive to harm others (if they wish to be a functional member of society–if not then let them run to the forest for all I care). In a natural social structure wherein no one is compelled to associate with anyone else, only those who treat each other ethically will gain access to all the benefits that society has to offer. If an offender wishes to regain his good standing in society, he will have a natural incentive to make restitution for his crimes. Otherwise, he faces social ostracism and a significantly lower quality of life or possible starvation. No enforcement is necessary, this is natural to man’s tendency to only contract and associate with individuals he trusts. Excerpts from Vahram G. Diehl.comments on History’s Most Elaborate Ad Hoc Hypothesis at Strike the Root.

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

That’s interesting history. But none of it is an argument against limited government as I am espousing it. So far I continue to see the same fallacy over, and over, and over: that government by its nature…inherently…will use force as the initiation of aggression. And that is done so that that argument never occurs, that it is considred to be a foregone conclusion.Yet it is not a foregone conclusion, and the argument is here and now. You can not simply beg the question. Government can quite easily be conceived by men to be a protector of liberty, whose only use of force is in retailiation against those who are initiating it.

Report

Reply

-4
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

It’s of course a circular argument. History has shown the bad guys can indeed win and lord over others as king, emperor, president, etc. It’s perfectly theoretically possible that a minimalist government could exist for some time before falling apart. It’s also perfectly possible that an anarchist society could be quite prone to outbreaks of crime and violence because many people don’t want to recognise the rulings of private arbitrators. Maybe AtlasA & co. would prefer the latter because even if it’s statistically more dangerous the average person has the freedom to be heavily-armed and deal with criminals their own way. In other words, the greater amount of freedom to deal with the perils of such a society beat government-enforced safety.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Re: Government can quite easily be conceived by men to be a protector of liberty, whose only use of force is in retailiation against those who are initiating it.

….there is the inconvenient fact that no such voluntary formation of a State ever occurred.

And on and on…

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Re: However, if a society must defend itself from outside invasion, do you believe many such agencies will have more success than a coordinated defense?

In this instance, no speculative or “probable” solution is needed. Iraq and Afghanistan have provided REAL WORLD ANSWERS.

Report

Reply

+7
eliotn’s avatar
eliotn · 5 weeks ago

First of all, this is a false dilemma. Its possible to have many agencies involved in defense that coordinate their defense services.

Second of all, all wars can do when answering these sorts of questions is provide empirical evidence, they cannot provide REAL WORLD ANSWERS, because the war only fully answers the question of what happened in a particular scenario.

Third, the advantage of many small agencies is that they are not swamped with the realities of managing a big force, and can instead concentrate their resources on winning the small battles near them in a cost-effective way, literally forcing the army to retreat as it loses through a thousand cuts.

Report

Reply

-6
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

We are talking theoretical. Obviously, with respect to your postulating anarchy, you are doing so from a theoretical perspective. Correct? This means we are comparing two alternatives: one that I am postulating which is a governent that is limited to only those services that protect individual liberties. And two, no government at all. I have focused on the concept of defense of a society from foreign aggression. Therefore, based on your last statement, we look at what will people “choose” in these scenarios? And you believe that individuals seeking to protect themselves from foreign aggression, you believe they will be inclined o NOT choose a single, coordinated effort to defend against such aggression? Is that what you are asserting?

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Your “governent that is limited to only those services that protect individual liberties.”

even if volountarily funded, must either violently maintain its monopoly, or compete on an open market for those services, at which point, it ceases to be a state and becomes just another competing provider.

If it remains a monopoly, it suffers from the knowledge problem and the calculation problem.

therefore, its violent supression of competitors in those fields, leads to it not being able to know what services to provide, in what quantity, how and at what price.

Furthermore, it cannot calculate whether it is using the scarce goods of capital, time, labour etc to create something of greater value, or whether it is taking those scarce inputs and turning them into something less valuable than the inputs were.

Mises.org is a debating society, a publisher and seller of books and an educational organization – it is one of many in each of those fields – that does not make it a state

your “limited” state can either violently defend a monopoly of become one of many providers of freely bought and sold services – perhaps still with a debating society attached. at which point, it ceases to be “state”

that is the core dichotomy

Violet monopolist called “state” or free market anarcho capitalism.

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

or state monopolists called “Violet”

oops
🙂

Report

Reply

+10
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 6 weeks ago

“Von Mises was not an anarchist.”

I’ve dealt with this elsewhere. It’s questionable in any case (see his writings on secessionism down to the indivdiual and his endorsement of Rothbard’s writing on monopoly, which according to Mrs Mises, Ludwig adopted entirely).

“The authors and bloggers appear to all be anarchists, and more time is spent on political philosophy of anarchism than Austrian economics.”

the solution is in your hands, friend. pen an article on ABCT or start a comments thread on a purely economics thread. that the most interested commenters come out to defend AC against the strawmen of vacuous ignoramuses who can’t even concern themselves to read Rothbard or Hoppe has nothing to do with you taking positive steps to create other conversations in which you’re interested. i’m not obliged to create a discussion thread that ticks your boxes.

“The great error of these anarchists is they believe having a government necessarily implies a violation of non-agressions principles. This is a false conclusion and their position undermines the cause of liberty.”

this was asserted by a recently-deceased fly-by-nighter, mayfairtempo. i hope you’re more willing/able than he was to explain why. that would be an interesting and worthwhile thread.

“They also do not understand the nature of a monopoly, just as mainstream economists do not understand monopoly. If men voluntarily gravitate to monopoly in some cases (they do when it makes sense to do so), then there is nothing inherently wrong with it.”

Unhappily this is all mere assertion (and all reminiscent of the one thread where mayfairtempo did set out his reasoning – has there been a change of handle??), and overlooks the fundamental, crucial aspect of a state monopoly: force. you are correct that there is nothing wrong with a sole supplier, as long as that sole suppleir’s monopoly is not brought about or sustained by aggressive force.

“This is the case with national defense, for example.”

Prove it. Oh heck, just explain why.

“A nation choosing to select a single entity (monopoly) to defend itself is the most efficient market solution to national defense.”

define “nation”. why is it relevant? if relevant, how is it a superior expression of “choice” over the free market?

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Very well reasoned 🙂

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 6 weeks ago

“Prove it. Oh heck, just explain why.”

Generally speaking, with respect to the defense of a society from outside invasion, do you believe it is more efficient for there to be multiple and potentially many defense agents defending the society? As opposed to a coordinated effort of defense?

Report

Reply

+2
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

In a free market for defense, what would prevent a coordinated effort among numerous defense agencies?

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 6 weeks ago

Logically, there is nothing to prevent such a coordination. But how would that actually look in practice? It would be precisely what I am saying: it’s called a government. You can call it whatever you want, but you just made my point. A single, coordinated entiity for the purpose of an entire society’s defense is a natural choice. Dozens, hundreds, or thousands of private agencies are not going to simply band together to fight a foiregn invasion spontaneously. Such cooperation would have to be done well in advance of any actual confliict. Who would command such an effort? How would this coordinnated effort be structured? Who would select the personell? What would that entire system look like? Oh…and to your question: who would pay for it? And what if members did not pay?

Report

Reply

+6
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 6 weeks ago

have you come across Nock, Our Enemy, the State ? he distinguishes government from the State. i’ve recently read it and recommend it to you, i really enjoyed it.

continuing, a free society based on private property rights in all likelihood (indeed, it’s difficult to conceive contrariwise) develop institutions to solve governance problems. some might be “on-market”, but as long as their voluntary nature is preserved there is no obstacle to off-market institutions emerging either. they might be said to govern, but they do not form a state. see nock. also oppenheimer, the state.

another commenter (JFF or something? too lazy to scroll up and check) has raised an important issue about the scale of conflict in a stateless world. even assuming a totalitarian state intent upon invading its neighbours, it cannot be assumed that the division of labor and thus the surplus won from nature in such a totalitarian state will be sufficient to overwhelm the resources available to a population in a geographical area where private property is the only institution legitimatising force.

the coordination problem is certainly a real problem. but again it cannot be assumed that it is insurmountable. the private sector, when left alone by the parasitic state, is capable of overcoming incredible problems that to an earlier or different age would seem insurmountable. as from the bronowski quote above, the whirlwind is empty: the predator feeds on the surplus won by civilized, settled communities. he has no other source of resources. i think you make an unsurportable assumption that the scale of violent means available to the predator necessarily outstrips the resources available to a stateless society.

if the population living in such a geographical area refuse to pay, they will quickly bear the consequences. as i do when i don’t pay my phone bill, or settle my credit at the grocery store or bar. such is life.

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

That is the same point I made it applies every bit as relevantly as it does to your anarchy concept. Thus far no one has successfully provided a rebuttal to my point. Do you really believe in a society of millions of people, there can be any kind of coordinated national military effort to defend against foreign aggression? Unless there is an entity that serves as the coordinating agency (which is called a government), how is it even conceivable? Has anyone actually gone that far in their “anarchist” thinking? Let me be sure I understand the assertion here: potentially dozens or hundreds of agencies that are competiting…let me repeat competiting…are going to simultaneously compete for defense of the society, and cooperate with others for the defense of the society? So competitors are simulaneously non-competitors?

Report

Reply

+2
crs’s avatar
crs · 5 weeks ago

Do you really believe in a society of millions of people, there can be any kind of coordinated national military effort to defend against foreign aggression?

How are goods and services provided in the global market today? How are goods from California supplied to people in Maine? Hundreds of agencies compete for business in the same industries today, yet people get the goods and services they desire. Why should that be any different for defense? Imagine if EVERYTHING were centrally planned like you want for defense.

Report

Reply

-6
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

The answer to your question is relatively simple: When goods from California are supplied to Maine, or any such example, the entities involved are the only ones that need to be involved. Let us chooose any good, say fahsion clothing. It is not necessary for the competitors all competing for that Maine account or accounts to simultaneously compete and cooperate. They don’t cooperate at all, in fact. You are evading the fundamental difference between the two concepts, which is why the question was not answered: do you believe the defense agencies will be competitors and no-competitors simultaenously? There is no analogy to the California/Maine example: the suppliers are not cooperating with one another AT ALL.

Report

Reply

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

You are splitting off on a tangent from the argument.

Competing suppliers do not need to cooperate with each other at all

They need to cooperate with their customers.

The market allows customers to select the suppliers best able to serve their needs,

profit and loss accounting and the communication by the price system allows service providers to coordinate their activities with the competing desires of the entire society.

your central coordination idea removes those communication and coordination mechanisms and replaces them with the dumb violence of arbitrary orders. sure, they may be optimal – but in the unlikely event that they are, it would only be by a freaky accident.

Take a look at the six counties that make up northern ireland, and then tell me that a small group cannot completely bugger the plans of one of the top five militaries in the world, for decades.

to anyone who says “ah but they lost”

explain the position of Martin McGuinness, as “deputy” first minister – deputy in name only, he holds equal powers to the “first minister”

The thugs who were and are the IRA, were not part of the “state”, they were outlawed and pursued by both Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

Report

Reply

-4
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

I am not splitting off on a tangent. In response to my previous question of whether competiting defense agencies would somehow cooperate for national defense, CRS asserted an analogy of the market for goods going from one coast to another as an example of how well it would work.

Actually I would use your IRA example to make my case: decades of nearly endless conflict, as a way of life. If that’s your idea of how defense might look.

Since anarchists think the use of force can be sold like any other good or service, then try to find any single industry in which all of the “competitors” are also somehow operating together in a common effort against an enemy. And therein lies the problem and naivite of anarchy (and why Mises was wiser than Rothbard), the use of force is not simply another product or service, and the notion of “competing” entities means not one entity that is limited by a constitution, but many limited by nothing except each other’s force. No objective, philosophically driven limitation on their power, only brute force.

Report

Reply

+1
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

No, the IRA is not my idea of how defense might look, merely a recent example of how small a group with access to very limited resources, can tie up one of the five most effective armies in the World, even when that army is backed by one of the five biggest economies in the world.

I’ll make it clear, I fundamentally disagree with Sinn Feinn, and their aims to seize control and coercively centrally plan the island of Ireland.

Unfortunately such long wars have occurred.

In the Netherlands, it took 40 years of war for the locals to get the Spanish occupiers out, and another 40 years of war to persuade them to stay out. The Spanish empire stayed on much longer in Flanders, the Flemmish speaking part of what is now Belgium.

The IRA and Shinners are a far cry from PDAs.

I’ve lived places where PDAs operate with limited remit within a state. South Africa is one of those places.

You could have a contract with a PDA for security patrols and for armed response if you pressed your panic button.

I met the boss of one of the PDAs a few times, it was a family run business, providing domestic security and security for shops, businesses and cash deliveries. They also did security training and training for CCW permits, unfortunately the exchange rate of the Rand made it un-economic for me to stay in South Africa, so I never completed my own CCW training…

The guy was committed to providing his customers with a friendly (to them) responsible and efficient service. There were three or four competitor PDAs operating in that one town.

Even without a state, PDAs would still need to carry insurance, and they would need to subscribe to a respected courts service.

Far from each others brute force being the the limitation of each one’s power, the following checks would exist:

most people are decent – I, certainly would not subscribe to a service provider who employed dirty harry type tactics of excessive force – the sort of force I’ve seen and heard first hand, being used by state cops in the fourth world, and read about being used by cops in Britain and the US.
Such excessive force would loose the PDA customers – fast.

Any PDA using excessive force will quickly begin running into problems with its own insurers and court services when the insurers and legal representatives of people whom it has injured or killed begin claiming damages.

In a free market, we can expect there to be ambulance chasers

court and insurance providers will be anxious to preserve an image of fearless integrity, without that image they will loose customers. such providers will not want to be associated in the minds of their potential customers with any sort of irresponsible operators.

Unlike a state, which is constantly aware of how thin the tissue of lies which it clothes its own “legitimacy” in, really is, PDAs have no incentive to disarm their clients. Quite the contrary, they are likely to encourage their clients to become proficient at self defence, and to encourage responsible gun ownership, as it is far easier for the PDA to arrive and collect an already surrendered criminal than for them to have to catch the crook,

even better if the PDAs sign on the gate and the prospect of an armed and profficeint householder (trained by that effective PDA) deter the crooks from even trying.

Families of profficeint and competant shooters will also provide a pool of potential future employees for the PDA

Without a state granting special privilage, many PDAs are likely to be locally based, the operators and employees are likely to be members of the community they serve, with kids in the local school, wives, friends and relatives all living, working and socializing in the area.

Sure, there’ll be big operations too, but just like with any other business, the local guys have their attractions for customers.

Report

Reply

-5
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Who’s saying the PDAs are going to hurt their clients? More likely their job is to rough up the enemies of their clients. “Not willing to enforce our orders of roughing up those we don’t like? Well we find another business that will.”

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Get a clue Gil….

Paramilitary police are a relatively recent state invention. They’ve metastasized into a domestic occupation force, enhancing government, institutionalizing injustice, plundering with permission, Tasing with perversion, cloaked in full immunity, and not protecting people. Whatever you do, don’t call 911. As a mundane, your home is no longer your castle.

204. Police Epidemic
On June 1, 2011, In Podcast, By admin http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/…

And that’s not even the half of it.

A Prison State, If Not a Police State
by Paul Craig Roberts

One out of every 142 Americans is in prison — and this does not include military prisons or INS jails…

The US has a unique distinction: It is the world’s greatest prison state.

The US, “the land of the free,” has the biggest prison population in the world and the highest rate of prisoners per capita of all countries — including countries that President Bush believes need liberating by US armed forces.

Even China, with one party rule and a population that is 4.5 times larger than the US population, has 30% fewer total prisoners than the US. China’s per capita rate is a small fraction of the US rate.

The US prison population per capita is three times higher than “axis of evil” country Iran, five times higher than Tanzania, and seven times higher than a civilized European country like Germany.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts43.html

Report

Reply

+4
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

“That is the same point I made it applies every bit as relevantly as it does to your anarchy concept. Thus far no one has successfully provided a rebuttal to my point.”

be more specific. which point? and what content are you giving to my “anarchy concept”? and what is the point on which you’re seeking a rebuttal? the coordination problem? assuming that it is (as you spent the rest of your reply on it) i gave two separate but connected responses already, which i could’ve expressed more clearly and will try to do so now.

(1) the coordination problem becomes more severe in degree to the scale of the foreign aggression. i do not think it reasonable to assume a cold-war superpower level of threat – even the “hyper-states” of the USA and then-USSR kept the war cold. at a more realistic scale of threat, i do not see why the coordination problem (to the extent it arises on a realistic scale of threat) becomes unmanageable.

(2) that war is not a productive activity: it steals the surplus won from settled, civilized communities. i do not think it reasonable to assume that the resources available to a foreign aggressor are greater than those available to an AC society, characterized by a very high division of labor and the immense productivity unlocked by that division of labor.

i do not understand the difficulty you are having with the assertion (for that is what it is, i readily admit) that competing suppliers of defense services are unable to coordinate. there is no need to assume that all suppliers provide services at all “scales”. there might be many providing neighborhood and property-specific services. others might provide more potent defense services to owners of power stations and server farms. still others might maintain really heavy firepower – to the extent that inhabitants of an area are interested in paying the insurance premiums necessary to fund their development and maintenance – in the face of a grave enough threat there need be no coordination problem, or a very low one. further,
competitors do cooperate, when it serves their interests to do so. this is the essence of the free market. i’m not trying to be glib here. states cooperate all the time, as do industry groups! frameworks are worked out in advance, protocols established. i’d be much more willing to pay an insurance premium to a heavy-hitting PDA who can show that arrangements are in place to coordinate with other PDAs in the event of large-scale foreign invasion.

This is all conjecture of course – i think the better point to make is that you have as much a problem in saying “the market can’t solve this problem” as i do in proving that it can. of course, on my side is the market’s incredible success over the last 10,000 years in solving many, many problems.

Report

Reply

0
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

5th para, “unable to cordinate” should be “able to”.

Report

Reply

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Hi No Hope,

Looking at the epistemology of this, I was struck by the other day’s uninvited, unwelcome and unwanted’s demands for an explanation of “how”

With a bit of thought (and far too late to stick it on the critter), its question is like asking us to describe in detail, the range of phones/ computers and their features and software, or female fashions, ten years into the future

They’ll exist, and the market will have created them, but short of being a central planner and laying prescriptive standards (e.g. Girls fashion for autumn 2020 WILL BE FLARED TROUSERS, computers will use windows 3.2 and phones will be Nokia 3210s) and violently imposing those standards, we have no way of knowing what the market will produce and consumers choose.

There is no hocus POTUS which makes something achievable only by the state, if it can be done, the private sector will do it – but only if society considers it is worth doing and paying to cover the costs of doing.

The market can do it, and do it better and cheaper, all without a loud fanfare of statist unicorn farts
;^)

Report

Reply

+1
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

yes, at risk of being accused of running an echo chamber or circle jerk i agree. it’s impossible to describe beyond mere assertion/conjecture what market solutions would be provided for any set of goods or services – all that can be said of defense is that which can be said of any good or service: suppliers will seek to provide those services, in kind and quality, that meet the demands of consumers for which consumers are prepared to pay the price charged. that’s it. if a community fails to properly assess the threat of invasion and is not prepared to pay for adequate defense services, it *might” be overrun by an aggressor. but so what? the state as an institution has proved near useless as a guarantor of safety from external threat. the one factor that seems to have been most successful at establishing peace is – trade.

but you know, there’s no problem with handoftruth. i would’ve insisted on the necessity of the state not so long ago. in any case, we can all get on board with any momentum in the community for less state and more free market – i have NO HOPE that the AC discussion will ever be more than theoretical, but i like freeharmonics emphasis on the role of public opinion, and you change public opinion one opinion at a time.

(should freeharmonics read this, i’m still thinking through a response on the children and rights board. i keep running into problems. bear with me.)

Report

Reply

+1
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Hi No Hope,

The risk of echo chamber / circle jerk accusations is about to increase further.

Totally agreed, I usually get allong well with minarchists, and other fellow travellers on the personal journey to explore libertarianism,

and I’m happy to accept “handoftruth” as a fellow traveller, who’s perhaps on a differnt stage of a libertarian journey, and has probably taken a different route to me, and seen some things which I haven’t.

I came to libertarianism via the mutually contradictory influences of Quakers (big on individualism and non aggression) and gun rights which opened my eyes to the abuse which is state.

I already self described as individualist anarchist, before I worked in some of Africa’s worst trash heaps, where the true nature of state is there for all to see (I met some amazing libertarians those places),

but its only in the almost 2 years I’ve been coming here that I’ve picked up the logic behind the position.

I don’t want to become one of the “more libertarian than thou” bores.

I do tend to react very badly to characters who try to dissuade people from exploring the full logical conclusions of liberty.

Without mentioning names, there was the fraud we had a big dust up with a week or two back, who claimed to be a Hayekian, but didn’t know the first thing about floppy Freddy, and who sought to close down any discussion of AnCap, without offering reasoning for why not to go there.

I haven’t seen that fraud post a comment here since then, but, as the gist of his comments was

“don’t ever explore those thoughts, you’re an irresponsible idiot if you do”

IMHO the board is a better place without him

Agreed, there is no quick way to An Cap, it’s an individual journey, and it takes a long time and a lot of work to follow the logic which leads here.

I don’t expect to see it in my life time, and I wouldn’t be too surprised if it ends by the state deep sixing me for my writing.

Report

Reply

+1
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

According to academic sociologist and historian Robert H Churchill, in his book “to shake their guns in the tyrant’s face” there is pretty good communication and information sharing between the US constitutionalist militia groups.

Also, as they are locally based, they have far better knowledge of their area of operations and what goes on there than any centrally planned group can.

It’s something of a Knowledge problem question.

For empirical examples, check out the six counties of Northern Ireland, during “the troubles”, or any of the more recent US adventures, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Invading forces are confined to “green zones” the costs of venturing beyond those zones are prohibitive.

It doesn’t take many determined adversaries (a couple of hundred can do it) to tie up one or more of the world’s top five militaries, for years on end, in a conflict costly in lives and money, and which cannot be won.

With out a state, there is no Martial Petin, or Vidkun Quisling to sign the surrender documents. Aggressive war therefore becomes prohibitively expensive, and best avoided.

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

Let me just clarify: are you suggesting all of these competitors in their “market”, they will simultaeously cooperate on a mass scale? They are going to cooperate and coordinate to defend a society, yet also compete with one another? And these competitors who happpen to be the entities with the guns, bombs, fighter jets, they are going to cooperate with one another in a peaceful way while they are competing with each other for the job?

Report

Reply

+3
crs’s avatar
crs · 5 weeks ago

are you suggesting all of these competitors in their “market”, they will simultaeously cooperate on a mass scale?

Yes.

Deprogramming your brain from the statist training its received is difficult to achieve.

Report

Reply

-5
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

Ad hominen aside, you have no argument to offer. Lots of rhetoric, no substance.

Report

Reply

0
crs’s avatar
crs · 5 weeks ago

Oh I’ve offered an argument.

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

I’ll disagree with CRS

It is actually far better and far more threatening to a potential aggressor if they do not cooperate

i need to go do some work, but you can get some idea of why from this video

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

To continue;

Niccolo Machiavelli

(“old nick” apologist for statist evils in the name of “necessity” the excuse used by every evil actor ; they had to do it, there was no choice, their hand was forced, etc etc etc… all BS)

in his book “The Prince” gives some valuable insights. He contrasts the differing organization of then contemporary (16th century) Turkey and France.

He notes that for an invader, France would be easier to gain a foothold, by corrupting one of the many barons and nobles, compared to centralized Turkey, where all owed their position to the Caliph.

However, should the Caliph’s army be defeated, then the battle was over, all power and territory belonged to the victor.

In less centralized 16th century France, defeating the king, did not secure power, quite the contrary, one then had to navigate through a mass of constantly changing allegiances and alliances of nobles and commoners.

we see this repeated time and again, here are a few examples;

In 1812, Napoleon’s army routed the Russian imperial army on the way to Moscow, but was harried all the way back out of Russia by bands of peasants and irregulars

The wermacht’s invasion of Jugoslavia succeeded, but occupation was costly, as differing bands of militias, partisans and chetniks produced danger for the invaders, wherever they tried to go.

More recently still, the latest invasion of Iraq quickly toppled Saddam, his army hardly offered any opposition, but with saddam out of the way, the various militias and alliances which sprang up were much more difficult to deal with. “Blitzkrieg” just doesn’t work when there is no concentrated central target to attack.

Taking this to a US example from the dark days of the early 1990s and the Clinton Regime’s murderous abuses:

“And the first thing we noticed was that the FBI became very much more solicitous of our sensibilities and sought at every turn to avoid a flashpoint. During each little potential Waco– the Republic of Texas, the Montana Freemen, etc– the FBI would seek out local militia leaders and ask their advice, seeking their opinions with what sounded like real concern.

The best answer that I recall to one of these FBI queries came from Bob Wright, commander of the 1st Brigade, New Mexico Militia. When asked if he and his friends would actually go to the scene of a future Waco in another state to assist the potential victims, Bob replied, “Why would I want to do that? There’s plenty of you federal SOBs around here.” This was a perspective the Fibbie had not considered before, and it showed on his face.”

Although the author, Mike Vanderboegh (used to – since returning to Britain, I am unable to follow his current position) professes a minarchist /constitutionalist position, I think his piece explains very well why:

1) warlords would not be able to take over
and
2) how it is pretty amazing that the state still exists.

an un stated sub text to to the piece could easily have been the Mises quote, that the struggle against despotism is not so much against dictators and tyrants, but against the despotism of public opinion which allows them to exist.

Here’s a link to the whole piece http://waronguns.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/guest-edi…

I recommend the piece, and his other writings.

Report

Reply

-6
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

To Luton Ian and Atlas Aikido, I appreciate your thoughts. I doubt we’ll come to any agreement but I enjoyed the conversation. Ultimately, I think the use of force has to be under the objective, explicit control of a constitution.

Report

Reply

+2
At;lasAikido’s avatar
At;lasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Your sleight of hand does NOT need my agreement to disagree nor anyone else, ONLY the pretense of such in order to appear “Swiss” like.

If you pointed to the Swiss Model you might have some credibility. But to do such would make it glaringly obvious that your system is but a “Hologram of Liberty”. It is not consent you need but the complicity and sanction of a victim….

Freedom vs Force
Why The Failing US and EU Should Follow the Swiss Government Model! http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland14.1.ht…

Report

Reply

-6
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

No they won’t – there no such greater conglomerate called “society”. Then again Libertarians would argue because there’s no centralised defence system there’s no “head” to die for the “body” fall. So instead of the invaders facing one army there’s instead 1000 small guerrilla forces making life for the invaders very difficult.

Report

Reply

+2
No hope ‘s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

would you quit trying to make my arguments for me? you’re always wrong, probably because you’re an idiot.

Report

Reply

-5
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

Nope it’s the standard view of Libertarians – “4G war”. No centralisation so there’s no leader to capture and be forced to order to his troop to stand down.

Report

Reply

+3
No hope’s avatar
No hope · 5 weeks ago

*facepalm*

there is no central party manifesto or even organisation of libertarians. and not one of them could anticipate the defense services provided by the market. all is speculation/conjecture/assertion. the most that can be said is that guerilla warfare from independent cells would likely be faced by an invading force. this has nothing to do with the discussion of the coordination problem faced by PDAs, the severity of that problem, and whether it invalidates market solutions to defense making the state a necessary institution.

Report

Reply

-4
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

* facepalm! *

That’s why I wrote – there would be no central organisation. The common, modern has been to have to capture the leaders of the opposing statist army and force them to order their troops to surrender while expecting to be occupied. An anarchist has no leader and no one to capture but have a society like the Swiss – everyone owns weapons and know how to use them.

Hence the story during WW2 goes:

“What will happen when the Nazis invade?”

“Since we outnumber the number them 2 to 1 and we all have a gun and know how to shoot – we will all only have to shoot twice.”

Report

Reply

+2
Inquisitor’s avatar
Inquisitor · 5 weeks ago

Hi asshole, how goes it?

Report

Reply

-12
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Its obvious all these anarchists live in some sort of bubble. When someone not connected with the state imposes their will violently on them let see how beholden they are to their nonsense.

Report

Reply
62 replies · active 5 weeks ago

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

yawn!

Report

Reply

-11
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Not surprising since you have no rebuttal.

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Guest1 or 2? “Nor can we ignore the history of the state in visiting upon humanity the very death and destruction that its defenders insist upon as a rationale for political power. Those who condemn anarchy should engage in some quantitative analysis.

In the twentieth century alone, governments managed to kill – through wars, genocides, and other deadly practices – some 200,000,000 men, women, and children. How many people were killed by anarchists during this period? Governments, not anarchists, have been the deadly “bomb-throwers” of human history!”

From a Butler Shaffer article…

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

I don’t see you attempting to answer my reasoned questions. Why should I not yawn at bs accusations which I see almost daily?

are you going to answer my questions? troll

Report

Reply

+9
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

I’ve noticed that when they can’t refute your argument, they pretend you never made it. By the way, thanks for the heads up a while back on not using the “S” word when commenting on here.

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Hi Free,

Good to see a friendly and very able commenter 🙂

Yeah, their selective reading certainly suggests that their motive for coming here was neither to learn nor to debate.

That more obscene of the two “s” words is an unfortunate handicap.

I’m considering setting up a members only blog or forum, where we can compare notes off site. the dozen or so of us who comment here regularly are easy enough to identify by our commenting styles and knowledge of different subject areas, so one use only email accounts would be adequate to protect real identities, and weed out any interlopers.

Would you (Free, and the other regulars) be interested?

Report

Reply

0
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

Yeah, that sounds good Luton. I always like reading and learning from what you and the other knowledgeable commenters have to say. Thanks for the invite.

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

I’ll pull my finger out and get something going over the next week or so, and will try to put the word around the other regulars.

I see No Hope is doing some excellent work here today.

Has anyone seen anything of VV lately? is he taking a summer holiday? or has he (heaven forbid) lost interest in this site?

Report

Reply

-11
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

That’s right circle the wagons because your arguments can’t stand alone and neither can you.

Report

Reply

0
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

I would say VV got tired of the angry, bitter pricks that show up here on a regular basis.

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

I wouldn’t blame him if he did. we seem to be getting more and more of the critters, allong with our usual n’ere do wells like cootee and cringing indignity.

we must be showing up on a few radar screens,

not a good place to be.

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Now the condescension turns to anger. Another “enlightened” anarchist. /s

Report

Reply

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

content free comments from the latest in a long line of trolls

Yawn

Report

Reply

-13
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Alot of yawning maybe you should get some sleep dumbass. Wait, you already are.

Report

Reply

+3
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

How often do states prevent people from violently imposing their will on others? In the most crime ridden areas, there is no shortage of state police.

If in an anarchist society, a person was robbed, at least it wouldn’t be by the state. Meaning, at least their right to defend themselves from the criminal would be recognized. If you’re so concerned with violence, then why do you support the legalization of it?

Report

Reply

-10
manny15’s avatar – Go to profile
manny15 -54p · 6 weeks ago

freeharmonics, if you’re arguing that the state police (policemen), don’t make arrests and thwart crime then you’re wrong. they don’t stop every crime and don’t catch every criminal but I do believe that if there were no policemen on the street (employed by “The State”, if you like), we’d have much more crime than we have now.

But I know you’ll disagree. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

To add to freeharmonics point: It is also worth noting that much of the success of organized crime in our present society is due to alliances which crime bosses are able to make with govt officials in nearly all levels. From the $50 payoff to the local cop to the $10,000 contribution to a senator’s campaign fund organized crime regularly protects itself by buying off govt opposition.

In a free market society aggressors would not only be scattered but weak and unorganized they would find it next to impossible to buy off free market protection and arbitration agencies. Customers of a defense company don’t have to keep patronizing it if they find out its employees have been accepting payoffs from aggressors.. They are free to do what citizens can never do–find some other agency to protect them. A free market agency could not afford to have under- world connections even with the small and unimportant underworld of a free market…When the news media revealed its shady dealings its customers would desert it…

Furthermore customers of a free market defense company are not imbued with a citizen’s patriotic fervor and obedience and thus are much harder to lure into foolish collectivist endeavors (such as national unity). Free men don’t leap like fools and sheep to defend a flag or sacrifice themselves for the cause of politicians. These are some of the ways a free market system differs fundamentally and completely from a govt system of any sort…

Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime p111, 114 p115
The Market for Liberty
Linda and Morris Tannehill http://mises.org/document/6058/The-Market-for-Lib…

Report

Reply

-12
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Don’t expect a reply manny. At best you’ll get some twisted denial that the state stops any crime.

Report

Reply

+4
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

The state police do arrest people. They arrest a lot of people actually. Many of them have committed no crime, but merely broke some unjust law. In terms of the times they arrest actual criminals, what happens? The cost of arresting, trying, and imprisoning them is put on the taxpayers, which includes the victims of the criminal themselves. Therefore, not only are people victimized by the criminal, they are further victimized by having to pay for the criminal’s incarceration at the price of a good portion of their income. Where is the justice there? When a crime is being committed, what the state police often do is what they call “forming a perimeter”. This means they stand around until the criminal is finished killing whatever innocents they are going to kill, and then they go in to perform their shoddy investigations. Now, when it comes to upholding laws not aimed at defending innocents but aimed at defending the state itself against non violent people(tax evasion, drug possession, etc), the morale of the police suddenly gets much higher. In which case they brutally crack down on any and all violators. The state police, military, and courts work above and beyond anything else for the benefit of the state itself.

Without the state, there would be far less crime. Most of the crime committed is committed by the state, so by eliminating it, much of all crime would be done away with by that alone.

The idea of agreeing to disagree means that each of us leaves the other to go their own way in peace. This is an anarchist idea. Try extending the principle a little further.

Report

Reply

-13
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Come on harmonics you can do better than that. The police arrest people just because of “unjust laws”?

Report

Reply

+7
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

A troll with the idea he can order other commenters around. A truly statist sense of entitlement showing itself.

Troll, you have not attempted to answer my question of what magical statist incantations are needed to imbue those individuals who call themselves “state” with the seemingly supernatural powers which you ascribe to them, and you apparently deny those powers and grace to any who are not “state”

Looking at this logically, which is better incentivised to promote protection:

an agency which is a monopoly, which operates above the law, which is part of the same organization which has a monopoly of courts and law making, and which is paid, regardless of results, as its payment is obtained coercively and is totally separated from its performance, or lack of. If it effs up, it doesn’t get penalized, the tax victims do.

A competing agency which attracts or loses its customers on the basis of its performance, which can only charge what the potential customers are willing to pay, which must pay for any mistakes which it makes out of its own income (it cannot punish the tax victims for mistakes it makes), and which is equally subject to the conflict resolution and competing justice services as everyone else is.

Now, get yourself to arguing logic, instead of fallacy and ipse dixit assertions, or crawl back under the statist rock you slithered out from under.

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Luton Ian And No Hope. Another excellent post. Well said!

Report

Reply

+3
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

If you read past line two of my comment, you’ll see I answered your question before you asked it.

Report

Reply

-9
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

I’ll overlook Luton Ian typical asinine comments because he’s obviously an idiot. And no harmonics you didn’t answer, reread your own post you didn’t acknowledge the state being a deterrent to crime WHATSOEVER but launched into a diatribe about “unjust laws”. As if all laws are bad and therefore everybody in government is bad. Black and white thinking. State bad, we good.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Excellent reply freeharmonics. Gave you a thumbs up.

On Lewrockwell recently:

Ruby Ridge and the Age of State Terrorism
Oh, and OKC, too. Article by Will Grigg.

Cops Shoot 8 Innocents
Eric Peters on the NYC gang that can’t shoot straight.

The Psycho-State Targets Brandon Raub
Raub’s lawyer, John Whitehead, talks to Lew Rockwell about Soviet America.

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“If in an anarchist society, a person was robbed, at least it wouldn’t be by the state.”

Gee that makes it better. /s

“Meaning, at least their right to defend themselves from the criminal would be recognized.”

Really so you can engage in a gun battles with the robber because it would be “recognized?” *rolls eyes*

“If you’re so concerned with violence, then why do you support the legalization of it?”

You should be asking yourself why do you support more of it? In other words chaos. As someone said before if anarchism was such and ideal model it would have been tried before but for some strange reason it hasn’t.

Report

Reply

+7
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

As Spooner said, being robbed by a highwayman is worse than being robbed by the state. At least the highwayman doesn’t claim that they are doing it for your own good. At least they tend to leave after robbing you and don’t follow you home to make sure you are doing this or not doing that.

People often shoot people trying to use violence against them. In fact, most crime, when it’s stopped in the act, is stopped by the victims or citizens witnessing it rather than being stopped by the state police. If they try and shoot agents of the state trying to rob them, they are thrown in prison. Your right to fight off muggers or not is the difference between a free man and a slave.

In terms of your concern of anarchy leading to chaos, I would point you to pretty much every post I’ve made where I’ve addressed that.

In terms of anarchy not being widely practiced, right is right regardless if people recognize it.

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“If they try and shoot agents of the state trying to rob them, they are thrown in prison.”

That’s not true. If you were being robbed by a cop you at least would be able to prosecute. In an anarchist society you would have to take the law into your own hands when it came to criminals. And you would only be “successful” if you got the drop on them and had superior fire power. That sums up all your other contortions of logic.

Report

Reply

+6
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

There is an extreme disconnect between the public and the police when it comes to preventing violence. The public cries, “That’s your job!” The police reply, “Tell it to the judge.” *And American judges have consistently ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you*.

At one time, a significant portion of what is now America was protected by *PRIVATE policemen* who were paid by — and, so, responsible to — the community where they served. The Western sheriffs did protect people and property; they did rescue schoolmarms and punish cattle rustlers. Their mission was to keep the peace by preventing violence.–Modern policemen still bask in the glow of that legacy even as they betray it by taking state salaries and institutionalizing an indifference for the person and property of those they purport to serve.

–The modern policeman is, in fact, the antithesis of Marshal Dillon and an expression of the stereotypical British sheriff — a civil servant responsible ONLY to government and governmental policy. http://mises.org/daily/5651/To-Serve-and-Protect-…

Meanwhile in America and England and Japan even a person with a normally calibrated moral compass (a non-sociopath) often *cannot see through clouds of propaganda that have been spewed over police officers and politicians and soldiers*. The answer is, quite simply, that the defense of people’s lives and property is a job just like any other, and it ought to be provided on the free market just like every other good and service by people who are held to exactly the same moral standards as the rest of the civilized world. The uneasiness that the *normal person* feels when confronted with the existence of a group of fat blue-polyester-clad thugs who are not bound by normal moral standards is completely understandable and justified. There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to!

–The provision of bread and chairs and computers does not require exempting anyone from moral standards, or empowering them to beat people up and order them around. All that is required is to open the door to competition, and people fall over backwards trying to please customers in their quest to make money. The same is just as true of defense services, which can and ought to be opened to competition between private providers so that consumers of these services can choose what kinds of defense services they want to purchase. In that case, the providers of the services can be held to exactly the same moral standards as everyone else. Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property – not to enforce arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on unwilling strangers. See: The Horrific Life of the Police Officer http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli58.1….

Report

Reply

-13
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Despite all your rhetorical hand waving the fact is the anarchist in an anarchist society would have to be judge,jury and executioner all by his lonesome. BUT the anarchist believes nobody would abuse that “privileged”. What a joke.

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

what magical incantation makes an individual employed by “state” and granted the privilege of being above the law,

any better a performer in those roles than an individual competing in a free market, and subject to the same norms as everyone else?

I’ll make a suggestion to help you start your answer:

Stockholm Syndrome.

Report

Reply

-9
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“and subject to the same norms as everyone else?”

What norms? They have “norms” in an anarchist society?

Report

Reply

+5
No hope ‘s avatar
No hope · 6 weeks ago

lol you idiot. you’ve read rothbard, huh? liar. nasty little dishonest fake. **** off, troll

Report

Reply

-12
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

And you would know this how? You’re psychic too? More like psycho.

Report

Reply

+7
No hope ‘s avatar
No hope · 6 weeks ago

you prove your ignorance with every comment! i had you figured out yesterday. you’re a silly little prick, arrogant enough to dismiss ideas which you’re too lazy to explore. christ, you don’t even know enough to exercise caution or any restraint at all!! you just post away, not even understanding the basic, entry-level nature of your erroneous caricatures and straw-men. you’re doing a great job of ripping down what you *think* is AC’ism, and i can see how terribly proud you are of your efforts, but it’s just storm and fury.

trollilo-trollilah

Report

Reply

-11
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

And all you prove is that you’re just another cult member who thinks ad hominem is a form of rebuttal or sign of intelligence. Again just like the leftists you criticize. Carry on with your little echo chamber of ignorance.

Report

Reply

+3
No hope ‘s avatar
No hope · 6 weeks ago

haha oh darling have i upset you? don’t like the ad hom? poor widdle troll-troll! well listen you dry your eyes princess, your arrogance will return in a few minutes and you’ll see that it’s all gonna be ok

trollilo-trollilah

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Aw, poor wittle trwoll

can’t find anything to bite so it starts projecting.

aw, just look at that widdle bottom lippy wippy, wobbling away, poor thing.

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Lol. Who’s the trolls now? You clowns are pathetic.

Report

Reply

+2
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

Yes sir. We are pathetic! Thank you!

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

nasty ancapsez, they stoled it fwom us,

my pwecious

Report

Reply

+3
crs’s avatar
crs · 6 weeks ago

We love our little echo chamber!

Report

Reply

+2
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

and suddenly, everything was quiet again

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property…”

Yeah unh hunh and if they didn’t, who is going to stop them?

Report

Reply

-9
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 6 weeks ago

In case you’re wondering, Libertarians prefer to have criminals getting away with their crimes every now and then than to have a government and police force every time.

Report

Reply

-11
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Every now and then!? Seems they are all for criminals running loose all the time as long as it didn’t affect them. And if it did, none of them have any explanation on how they would deal with the criminals.

Report

Reply

+6
Silver Bullet’s avatar – Go to profile
Silver Bullet 58p · 6 weeks ago

And you prefer to have the “elected” criminals rule over you, making laws that affect every aspect of your life, and start wars in your name.

Report

Reply

-8
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Yeah because everybody in government is a “criminal”. *rolls eyes again*

Report

Reply

+3
Silver Bullet’s avatar – Go to profile
Silver Bullet 58p · 5 weeks ago

Every single person in the government receives a paycheck via coercion.

Report

Reply

-7
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to!”

Again what moral standards??!! They are lots of people in society that have no moral standards and don’t care to get them. Like I said you guys are in a theoretical bubble of your own making. You keep assuming all people will have moral standards.

Report

Reply

+3
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Actually it’s the other way round…

Natural laws are objective and compulsory (they cannot be passed). The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is UNobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). This market price breakthru came from Mises’s 1920 paper refuting Socialism.

The Market for Liberty
9781610162456
Morris and Linda Tannehill http://mises.org/resources/6058

Report

Reply

+4
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

I was referring to state agents enforcing taxes, eminent domain, drug laws, or any of the other myriad of ways the state rips people off. Theft is bad, but legal theft(state theft) is worse than bad. It is slavery. The19th century abolitionists did not go nearly far enough. They only sought to abolish the private plantation states. What we need today is a new abolitionist movement to finish the job by opposing the state in all its forms at all its levels root and branch.

Report

Reply

-3
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

Ok harmonics I understand what you meant. But the fact remains you are going to have to pay somebody to deal with the criminals.

Report

Reply

+8
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

no one here has denied that criminals will continue to exist and that they will need to be dealt with.

The question is,

are we forced to pay the fee the provider sets for a bunch of fat and specially privileged monopolists.

or, do we choose our security providers in a free and competitive market, from providers who can only gain paying customers for providing effective service at competitive price, and who have the huge dis-incentives of loosing customers and paying out of their own funds, if they make mistakes, act abusively, or get plain fat and lazy.

Without a state and its petty bans, revenue gathering duties, and its “wars on”, whole areas where criminals currently hold sway will disappear.

The expense of a crimminal gang cannot compete with a normal entrepreneur, once the stupid prohibition is gone.

If you want a beer or a whiskey, do you still need to deal with the likes of an Al Capone?

– only in the sense that the murderous thugs called “state” still extract duty from the transaction.

Report

Reply

+4
Silver Bullet’s avatar – Go to profile
Silver Bullet 58p · 6 weeks ago

+1,000

Report

Reply

0
Bronowski, Jacob’s avatar
Bronowski, Jacob · 6 weeks ago

In a later episode, “Harvest of the Seasons,” Bronowski demonstrates that there could be no real civilization until humans ceased to be nomads. There was no room for innovation when humans, like the Lapps of the north or the Bakhtiari in Persia, simply followed herds of animals. Theirs were lives without futures because every day was like the last: a never-varying routine. It was only when humans began to farm wheat that they created surpluses beyond their immediate needs, and it was only from such surpluses that civilization could begin to take root and grow.

Bronowski then contrasts the creator with his nemesis, “the predator,” defining the age-old conflict between the producer and the looter. “[T]he predator poses as hero because he rides the whirlwind. But the whirlwind is empty” because whether it carries “Genghis Khan or Hitler or Stalin, it can only feed on the labors of other men.” Bronowski rejects the premise that warfare is something we can’t help. “War, organized war, is not a human instinct. It is a highly planned and cooperative form of theft, and that form of theft began 10,000 years ago when the harvesters of wheat accumulated a surplus and nomads rose out of the desert to rob them of what they themselves could not provide.” Later, “Genghis Khan and his Mongol dynasty brought that thieving way of life into our millennium. From 1200 to 1300, they made almost the last attempt to establish the supremacy of the robber who produces nothing and who…comes to take from the peasant, who has nowhere to flee, the surplus that agriculture accumulates. Yet that attempt failed.” Such looters eventually “became settlers, because theft—war—is not a permanent state that can be sustained.”

Report

Reply

-5
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

“The question is…”

The question is how? Since I have asked it over half a dozen times by now.

Report

Reply

-10
Guest’s avatar
Guest · 6 weeks ago

You keep bringing up the same stupid arguments about buying services from some “security providers”. What about those that can’t afford “services” or the ones that don’t want them or about the criminals that will fund their own “private security forces” to demolish your security forces? And after they wip out your little private security force and come after you personally what will you do then. Ok start dancing.

Report

Reply

+5
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

nothing like adding a personal value judgement, is there?

why ask questions if you have already decided in your infinite statist wisdom that we are “stupid” and “bubble” dwellers?

What is the magic pixie dust or unicorn fart which allows something to be done by those calling themselves “state” but prevents it being bought and sold by individuals not calling themselves “state”

for an empirical example of how a little security force can prevent a larger, and much better financed one from prevailing, you only need look at any US military adventure since 1945:

World’s largest economy and largest military by an order of magnitude. Fought to a truce in Korea, beaten in Vietnam, retreated from Somalia, confined to “green zones” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Little third world basket cases, not advanced economies, yet the US, with its productive base of tax payers to steal from and its central bank to print yet more money, couldn’t prevail against a few impoverished guerillas,

what makes you think a bunch of private crooks will prevail

sure, what jig are you going to perform for us, “Stupid” “bubble” dwellers?

and to what tune? unicorn farts?

Report

Reply

+3
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 5 weeks ago

Good points. The military examples you bring up illustrate the point that the political organization of a society ultimately comes from public opinion and not from those with the biggest and most guns. Propaganda is more important to rulers than physical weapons.

What the followers of the myth of Hobbes(and what an unfortunately enduring myth it is) think is that people outside a state are incapable of being anything other than raping, pillaging, murdering brutes. To them, the state, like as you appropriately say, is either like a magical pixie dust which turns the brutes into civilized people, or people see they have the most weapons and so everyone just obeys them on that fact alone. Of course, this myth is incapable of explaining how it is that states are ever overthrown. They constantly express the concern that under voluntary defense and legal agencies, criminal groups will over throw them and take over. However, if gangs and warlords can overthrow voluntary defense and legal agencies, why can’t they not also be able to overthrow states? The existence of states does not alleviate such a concern in the slightest.

The fact is that public opinion determines a society’s form of political organization as well as providing superior resources to reinforcing and maintaining it. Only a shift in public opinion can change what has been established. If public opinion determines there should be a state, then there will be one. If opinion changes to rejecting the state and having a total private property society, then that is what will be established and what will prevail.

Report

Reply

+7
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 6 weeks ago

So, you have to pay someone then. What’s your point Guest? You have to pay someone to provide you with food, a car, a house, and everything else people buy in the market. In fact, because of market competition in the area of defense and judicial services, and because the providers of such services can have the criminals themselves pay for the costs of dealing with them, the price of justice in the market would be quite low. Perhaps such providers would insure themselves against cases where the criminal could not pay. Perhaps insurers themselves would provide police and legal services in order to minimize claims due to things like stolen or criminally damaged property. Whatever the form such a market would take, people would certainly not have to pay over half their income to fund it even as crime is still a significant problem like it is under the state.

Report

Reply

+5
G8R HED’s avatar
G8R HED · 5 weeks ago

freeharmonics –
“..being robbed by the state is worse than being robbed by a highwayman.”

FTFY 😉

Report

Reply

+3
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

A little light hearted fun, and some very good observations on Stockholm syndrome

From the early 1970s, Monty Python’s Piranha Brothers sketch http://youtu.be/2jmnspyj-eY

Report

Reply

+6
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Ok, I’m satisfied that I’ve fed the new troll enough for today,

and that it is, at last, providing a display of its true colours now.

IMHO, it’s come here to disrupt and annoy, rather than to debate, or to share knowledge and insights.

Feel free to encourage its performance, if you so desire.

Report

Reply
12 replies · active 5 weeks ago

+1
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 6 weeks ago

Luton Ian, No Hope, freeharmonics…

~Most recently a computer program swarmed and overwhelmed http://www.strike-the-root.com/ posting and responding to almost every article and reply with non sequiturs and abuse–until the site finally banned it (But ONLY after the following article was posted).

~The reason posters responding to a site troll were getting NO real answers is because they were “talking” to an updated version of ELIZA (a computer program written in the 60’s), complete with screen scrapers, extensive data bases and AI “learning” tools (including “Abuse” program capabilities that verbally abuse users based on their input). https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/EL…
http://tinyurl.com/Troll-Watch

Report

Reply
2 replies · active 5 weeks ago

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 6 weeks ago

Thanks Atlas, I’ll check that out.

I think this one is an individual. some we’ve had so far have been teams.

This site is pretty good at closing down comments if activity gets too hot, and I’ve tried accessing it through proxies, it’s pretty good at detecting them too.

This one’s beginning to get desperate and is certainly showing its lack of home work, suggesting that it’s not a particularly experienced one.

Report

Reply

+1
D-sub’s avatar
D-sub · 5 weeks ago

Recently, Tom Woods has been attacked by the Max Keiser trollbot

Report

Reply

+4
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 5 weeks ago

One of the arguments used by critics of anarcho capitalism is that disagreements between private defense agencies over legal decisions and enforcement of those decisions will lead to war and violence between them. Those who advocate for democracy claim that its virtue is that it enables disputes and changes in power to be settled peacefully through the voting process. However, under democracy, those in power may care little if they have, say, 70 percent of the vote versus 52 percent of the vote. Either way, they have the power to tax the same amount. Under anarchism, on the other hand, a private defense agency would care a great deal whether they have 70 percent of security customers voluntarily paying them versus only 52 percent since any small difference matters in terms of their revenues. Such agencies, therefore, have a much greater incentive to make legal and enforcement decisions in ways which are agreeable to the largest amount of the public possible.

Now, suppose that two competing defense agencies represent two different groups of paying customers who are uncompromisingly opposed to the other one’s methods of decision making and enforcement. Under democracy, the slightly smaller group is supposed to accept the rule of the slightly larger group while being also forced to fund the group’s rule they find disagreeable. Under anarchism, the two sides would negotiate a peaceful agreement. What, the critic might ask, would keep the two sides from going to war with one another rather than coming to an agreement? Well, if, as under democracy, the slightly smaller group is willing to be totally dominated by the slightly larger group, then how much more would they be willing to get some of what they want in negotiation without being forced to fund any of it if they chose not to. If the two groups wished to fight and kill their neighbors, co workers, and customers while also each person voluntarily chooses to pay the huge financial costs that would entail, then they would also go to war under any other system, which includes democracy. Two groups so violently opposed to one another would refuse to recognize any election outcome, and either war or the two groups separating into separately governing regions would be the only possible outcomes. In fact, under democracy, war in such a situation would be more likely since, unlike under anarchy, not every individual would have to want to go to war. Meaning the democratic state could tax and conscript all individuals.

I argue that under anarchy, war and violence between groups would be far less likely to take place than under any other form of political organization. It is the form of social organization with the minimal of violence and the maximum of peace.

Report

Reply
4 replies · active 5 weeks ago

-3
handoftruth’s avatar
handoftruth · 5 weeks ago

To your points: proponents of “democracy” might well take the vew you describe, but that is very different than the concept of constitutional republic, in which the givernment is limited to protecting liberties. In other words, “democracy” is only a tool to choose men, not to choose policy. The constitution (theory) would not allow a majoroty to vote away individual liberties. Even if you wish to argue the weaknesses of such a system, it’s quite a different concept than “democracy.”

Agencies competing for market share, as you suggest…wouldn’t the same problem arise, that some men will choose agencies specifically for their ability to unjustly acquire power? What is there other than competition to protect against the rogue from simply using their force to acquire power over others? Perhaps it is an over-simplification, but I often divide men into two categories: those who seek to gain values through production and voluntary association, and those who choose to do so with force. I fail to see how the latter will be minimalized in anarchy versus a constitution.

Report

Reply

+2
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 5 weeks ago

Democracy is an inherent feature of a republic, whether it be a relatively limited one or a totalitarian one. All democracies are republics. A republic is a social state and is therefore completely consistent with the collectivism of democracy. It then follows that a republic is completely inconsistent with private property. Because the rulers under republics are not private owners but merely temporary caretakers, they have no incentive to increase the capital value of the government through far sighted policies as any private owner would. Their incentive is to take as much as they can while they can and to play to the short terms desires of special interests who help put them in power. The result is continually higher taxes, debt, inflation, and war designed to maximize their short term gains.

Also, under a republic, the supposed virtue of a democracy is shown to actually be one of its greatest flaws. This being the supposed virtue that democracies allow for the peaceful change of power of which is supposedly open to everyone. Since a republic supposedly belongs to “society”, it then logically follows that every individual be allowed entry into being a possible ruler themselves. However, by making the seeking of state power open to everyone and by making it relatively risk free, anyone with a desire to rule over others are encouraged to attempt to do so. Also, since under a democratic republic, we supposedly “all rule ourselves”, the resistance to the rule of others is significantly reduced as the distinction between who rules and who is ruled becomes blurred in the eyes of the public. The result is not only a state which is bad but one which is worse than bad.

All relatively limited republics inherently degenerate into democracies, and all democracies tend towards totalitarianism. The very nature of republics undermines any constitutional limitations places on them. By breaking away from not just private property but even the attempted appearance of legitimate private property, all republics are inherently limitless regardless of any illusions to constitutions or the balancing of powers.

If there is enough public support for an agency to acquire unjust power, then we are no longer talking about anarchism. Such a society has degenerated into some form of statism. A democratic republic will not prevent a gang with significant public support from taking over. They will either be voted in or take over through force. An example of that is the Bolshevik takeover of republican Russia. If a constitution says a popular group can’t acquire unjust power, then that group can simply ignore it. If peace and justice cannot be maintained under anarchism, then it cannot be maintained under any system.

Report

Reply

-4
Gil’s avatar
Gil · 5 weeks ago

The opposite of a Republic is a Monarchy – private land ownership. This is what Libertarians want – land is held and owned by private individuals who then unilaterally rule over it. Maybe land will be owned by small families maybe it will be owned by a wealthy family or a business conglomerate that provides in-house security and arbitration, i.e. a private city-state. Either way the land is held in private hand and regardless of what happens it is, according to Libertarians, the most efficient system possible.

Report

Reply

+2
freeharmonics’s avatar
freeharmonics · 5 weeks ago

Under a monarchy, the state is privately owned. It is a private monopoly on legal decision making and enforcement under the monarch. As such, there is no possibility that anybody else can rule without receiving the monarch’s estate, such as in the form of inheritance. As a result, the public is far more suspicious and resistant to the monarch’s rule. In other words, the class consciousness of those being ruled is far more clear, and the state’s legitimacy is more tenuous. The monarch is limited by having to rule in at least some semblance to the laws and customs which govern everybody else in terms of private property, family, religion, traditions, etc., and they must be careful that their extralegal status does not step too far outside their already dubious and peculiar claims. Also, since they are not just mere caretakers but private owners, they will tend to have a more farsighted approach than presidents and prime ministers do. The more far sighted a person is, the more they will be able to see their best interests in line with the best interests of others. This, therefore, becomes itself a moderating factor under monarchy. Under a republic, there are no such inherent limiting factors. A republic is inherently unlimited. For these reasons, monarchy is less bad than republicanism.

The opposite of a republic is actually anarchism. As Hoppe says, anarchism is a totally private law society based on law which is discovered and exists as part of the nature of things anywhere and at all times. A republic, on the other hand, is based on created legislation which is often contrary to private law.

Report

Reply

+8
eliotn’s avatar
eliotn · 5 weeks ago

Some men might choose to form/patronize agencies that unjustly grant them power/wealth. The question then is, at what cost. Current governments manage to make this cost-efficient for its supporters by soaking wealth and commanding power over other people.

handoftruth, what it ultimately comes down to is how easy it is to expand power under both systems. Under a constitution, the smart rogue realizes that the best solution is to co-op the support of the state. This can range from bribing state officials to look the other way, to compelling politicians to pass a new law that may not be considered constitutional. A constitution is not a big barrier, as long as people’s perceptions of how government should work, or what the constitution really means are manipulated, the rogue will be successful. After all, the big part of the rogue’s work, having a framework of coercion to manipulate, is done.

But not under anarchy. Establishing a state framework, even when a sizable minority supports it, is really time-consuming and hard, especially when people and organizations work to protect the people the organization is trying to exploit and none of the exploited buy into the rhetoric.

Report

Reply
4 replies · active 5 weeks ago

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

Agreed eliotn.

…Private security is already a greater bulwark against violent and property crime than many people realize. As of 1997, according to the Economist (as cited by Robert Higgs):

There are three times as many private policemen as public ones…. Americans also spend a lot more on private security (about $90 billion a year) than they do, through tax dollars, on the public police ($40 billion). Even the government itself spends more hiring private guards than it does paying for police forces.

For a decade and a half, we have had three times as many private guards as public ones, yet it is an oddity indeed to hear about their abuses, unlike those of the police that make the papers every day – and that’s just counting reported offenses. It should be no wonder. As market actors, private security guards are generally heroic defenders of property, commerce and life, and are liable for the wrong they do, unlike the state’s armed agents, who work for an institution of monopoly, theft, kidnapping, rape rooms and murder.

Can we really survive without government police? When we consider how much they do to disrupt civil society, it would seem obvious that we can. The police, on balance, are a force for decivilization and disorder. They commit massive violations of person and property. They enforce gun and drug laws that basically create organized crime and breed gang activity. Most of what they do encourages, rather than diminishes, violence. Despite all this, America remains a fairly civilized place. If we survived this long with the police, just imagine how much better off we’d be without them.

May 26, 2011
Abolish the Police
by Anthony Gregory http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html

Report

Reply

+1
eliotn’s avatar
eliotn · 5 weeks ago

Great article. Its sad to realize that the police are this huge criminal organization, and no-one believes you.

Report

Reply

0
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

eliotn Your post pretty much sums up the whole of the Tannehill’s Market for Liberty. Superb!!

Report

Reply

+2
eliotn’s avatar
eliotn · 5 weeks ago

I never read that book, but I have read others on anarchy, such as Chaos Theory. How coincidental!

Report

Reply

-1
manny15’s avatar – Go to profile
manny15 -54p · 5 weeks ago

This comment has been deleted by the administrator.

Report

1 reply · active 5 weeks ago

+3
eliotn’s avatar
eliotn · 5 weeks ago

Well in that circumstance, there would be incentives for people to make railroads that allowed cars to not switch standards. Consider that people driving railroad cars do not want to waste time switching (remember, they want to deliver goods sooner and with less effort), so any railroad company that bypassed the forced switch would have an inherent advantage. Government force isn’t required when its advantageous to have a standard, rather people will naturally gravitate to one on their own.

Report

Reply

-4
manny15’s avatar – Go to profile
manny15 -54p · 5 weeks ago

Eliotan, if you invested $20 million dollars in Missouri to built a narrow gauge system and narrow gauge locomotives in 1801, then you have an economic incentive that all trains run on narrow gauge (otherwise…your tracks and machines are worth nothing). However, if you spend $30 million dollars in Iowa building a wide gauge system and wide gauge locomotives, then you have an economic incentive that all trains run on wide gauge rails.

If you owned the narrow gauge rail, wouldn’t you think that the “smart” thing would be for the wide gauge railroads to shut down their operation, or do you think you should shut down your operation and lose your $20 million dollars. Personally, I think you’d decide that the “smart” thing to do would be for them to lose their $20 million dollars. And if the local population who governs that little area resists….simply remend them that you employ 10,000 people in that are and you’ll fire them all if they vote to switch to a wide gauge rail system.

No, somebody has to step in and settle the dispute. Yes we could watch them build competing systems for 100 years until one finally loses…but we’d all be losers. It would set back economic development in this country for 100 years. Instead of having the biggest, most prosperous economy on earth…..we might be on an economic par with Bulgaria.

Is that what you want?

Report

Reply

+4
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Cootee alert

Looks like I missed the critter, Admin must have cleared up the mess before logged in.

It appeared to be a cosey chat /circle J***/echo chamber with Manny and Couter, posting as his “spooner” identity.

It’s 11pm here, too late for me to work through them tonight, but If anyone else, further west, has the time or the inclination to check manny’s comments for the tell tale signs of it being another couter ID – you’d be doing everyone a favour.

Report

Reply
5 replies · active 5 weeks ago

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Didn’t take long,

what do other regulars think of this? http://mises.org/daily/1855#IDComment428655468

It looks suspiciously like cootee

Report

Reply

0
Luton Ian’s avatar
Luton Ian · 5 weeks ago

Too suspiciously like cootee http://intensedebate.com/people/manny15

Report

Reply

+3
Rick’s avatar
Rick · 5 weeks ago

Yes, I think you are right.

Report

Reply

+2
AtlasAikido’s avatar
AtlasAikido · 5 weeks ago

This thread and Murphy article IS indeed attracting trolls. See Constitution Trolls in a prior post. Good alert Luton!.

Report

Reply

+1
eliotn’s avatar
eliotn · 5 weeks ago

Good point. At least there is some interesting discussion on here.

Report

Reply

Post a new comment

•AtDCheck Spelling

Enter text right here!

Comment as a Guest, or login:
•Login to IntenseDebate
•Login to WordPress.com
•Login to OpenID

Name

Email

Website (optional)

Displayed next to your comments.

Not displayed publicly.

If you have a website, link to it here.

Submit Comment

Subscribe to

• Get articles and news in your inbox

Browse the Daily
•Album View of Mises Daily Articles
•List View of Mises Daily Articles
•Mises Authors

•Subscribe to the Daily Audio Podcast
•Subscribe to the Daily Daily Feed
•Subscribe to the Daily Daily Full-Text Feed

About the Author

Photo of Robert P. Murphy
Robert P. Murphy
View Author Archive

Robert Murphy is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, where he teaches at the Mises Academy. He runs the blog Free Advice and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the Study Guide to “Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market,” the “Human Action” Study Guide, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, and his newest book, Lessons for the Young Economist. Send him mail.

The last comments for

Ten Ethical Objections to the Market Economy – Murray N. Rothbard – Mises Institute

Tom

Point number nine is amazing. Though brief, it is the greatest defense of the market economy I have ever…

» 1 hour ago

The last comments for

Why I Pay with Two-Dollar Bills – Briggs Armstrong – Mises Institute

Chuck

Want to have more fun? If you can collect a stack of $2 bills take them to a print shop and have them…

» 1 hour ago

The last comments for

Krugman’s MMMF Question – Joseph T. Salerno – Mises Daily

Graham

I agree with you the government has no moral justification for monopolozing the production of money and…

» 1 hour ago

The last comments for

Drugs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – Mises Media

copropertytax 1p

Need more dailys.

» 1 hour ago

The last comments for

Krugman’s MMMF Question – Joseph T. Salerno – Mises Daily

Graham

Well perhaps you didn’t see his earlier comment.

Bob sadi: “JFF, if I may clarify your…

» 1 hour ago

Comments by IntenseDebate

Featured in our Store

featured

Engelbrecht, H.C.

Author:
$18
Here is the archetype of all post-World War I revisionism of a particular variety: the hunt for the people who made the big bucks off the killing mach.. view all…

•Bastiat Blog
•User Blogs
•Forums

Bastiat Blog

•Menger’s Proto-Misesian Methodology 10/8/2012 7:07:49 PM by Daniel J. Sanchez
•Salerno in a Roundtable Discussion in New York City this Saturday (October 13). Admission is Free. 10/8/2012 11:48:28 AM by Daniel J. Sanchez
•MMMF, Intermediation and Bad Policy 10/8/2012 9:11:37 AM by John P. Cochran
•Should Government Promote Entrepreneurship? 10/8/2012 3:55:11 AM by Peter G. Klein
•Government Can Be Prevented! Repelling States: Evidence from Upland Southeast Asia 10/3/2012 8:40:03 PM by Mises.org Quotes
•QE Infinity as a Hail Mary 10/3/2012 12:47:04 PM by John P. Cochran
•An Exciting New Appointment 10/2/2012 1:19:09 PM by Daniel J. Sanchez
•More Evidence on the Impact Regime Worsening on Slow Recovery 10/2/2012 11:03:02 AM by John P. Cochran
•Historicism and Epistemological Problems of History 10/1/2012 12:07:40 PM by Mises.org Quotes
•Mises University in 8 Minutes 10/1/2012 11:21:24 AM by Daniel J. Sanchez
view all… mises blog rss

Upcoming Events
rss
• Event Image
• Event Image
• Event Image
• Event Image
view all…

The Quotable Mises

Ludwig von Mises: “Continued adherence to a policy of compulsory education is utterly incompatible with efforts to establish lasting peace.” – Liberalism

•Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought by Murray N. Rothbard
•Ideas on Liberty: Essays in Honor of Paul L. Poirot by Robert G. Anderson
•Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics by Murray N. Rothbard
•Principles of Ethics: Anthology by Herbert Spencer
•Credit Policies of the Federal Reserve System by Charles Hardy
•Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises
•Review of Austrian Economics, Volume 9 by Murray N. Rothbard
•Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
•Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism by Jeff Riggenbach

•How does US foreign policy relate to US banking? by Murray N. Rothbard
•How do you sum up Menger’s contribution to Austrian Economics? by Murray N. Rothbard
•Who has been generally credited with “founding” Austrian economics? by Murray N. Rothbard
•Scott Horton Interviews Thomas E. Woods, Jr. by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
•A Libertarian Gallop Through American History by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
•350 Years of Economic Theory in 50 Minutes by Mark Thornton
•An Anarchist Legal Order by Roderick T. Long
•Robert Nisbet and the Conservative Intellectual Tradition by Alan Stone

•Labor Unions and the Minimum Wage: A Debate by Walter Block
•An Interview with Mark Thornton by Mark Thornton
•2007 Mises Entrepreneurship Award by Mises Institute
•Crime and Drugs by Walter Block
•Man, Economy and Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard
•Banning the Ivory Trade by Walter Block
•The Role of Freedom in Economic Well Being: A Look at Evidence by Walter Block
•Rights and Income Security by Walter Block

“Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law . . . economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.”

— Ludwig von Mises, in Austrian Economics: An Anthology

LvMI Ludwig von Mises Institute
518 West Magnolia Avenue • Auburn, Alabama 36832-4501 • Phone: 334.321.2100 • Fax: 334.321.2119
Contact Us contact@mises.org • webmaster@mises.org • Save to MyMises • Site Map • Open Source •