Libertarian polity?

[GPDP]

Since we have a new influx of libertarians, I thought it would be appropriate to spark a discussion on a topic I hear little about from their ranks.

I trust we're all familiar with what ancaps and other libertarians argue for in terms of economics. However, how would the actual administration of society function? What would form the body politic of this new libertarian society?

From what I understand, libertarians oppose single, minority, and majority rule all at once, at least in theory. Meaning, you oppose dictatorship, oligarchy, and democracy. Does this mean you favor some kind of abstract, fourth-way "rule of the individual," wherein every individual in society merely tends to their own individual concerns and desires without anyone, whether it be a single person, a small group of people, or society at large infringing upon those concerns and desires? Would this, then, mean that the ideal polity is merely one wherein the sole authority lies in individual contracts and property rights? A polity based on market principles, perhaps?

I suppose the answer would also vary between "minarchists" and "anarchists." For minarchists, who would make up the ideal minimal state? Would those that make up the state be elected? Appointed? How would these minimal states deal with one another, say in terms of trade? For anarchists, would everything merely be handled by private agencies? Competing private courts for handling justice, for instance?

I suppose the most important question is, how would any of this come to fruition? Since you guys seem to detest the initiation of violence as you call it, would you then be opposed to overthrowing the current government through revolution? Would you rather capture state power and diminish it or abolish it? Or would you rather convince everyone that the state is illegitimate, and thus somehow have it wither away? What kind of organizations would you favor in order to make this happen?

Lots of questions, I'm afraid. Like I said, I seldom hear anything from your kind on these points. Plenty about economics and such, but not much about how the society would address grievances and such.

[trivas7]

Lots of questions, I'm afraid. Like I said, I seldom hear anything from your kind on these points. Plenty about economics and such, but not much about how the society would address grievances and such.
Stefan Molyneux, who I would call an ancap, promotes privately owned dispute resolution organizations. DROs are companies that specialize in insuring contracts between individuals, and resolving any disputes that might arise. For instance, if I borrow $1,000 from you, I may have to pay $10 to a DRO to insure my loan. If I fail to pay you back your money, the DRO will pay you instead. Obviously, as my credit rating improves, the cost of insuring my contracts will decline. Check out his Practical Anarchy (http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/) for more details.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

...and please see my essay where I criticize precisely those kinds of private security agencies as being identical to the state in all but name:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-empty-t84983/index.html

To be more exact, they are identical to a state based on oligarchy, not democracy.

[nerditarian]

Since we have a new influx of libertarians, I thought it would be appropriate to spark a discussion on a topic I hear little about from their ranks.
Glad to oblige.


I trust we're all familiar with what ancaps and other libertarians argue for in terms of economics. However, how would the actual administration of society function? What would form the body politic of this new libertarian society?

I'm an anarchist. No one, no organization, no group, no nothing "administers" society. The whole idea sounds terribly totalitarian and grates on my ears. YUCK!


From what I understand, libertarians oppose single, minority, and majority rule all at once, at least in theory. Meaning, you oppose dictatorship, oligarchy, and democracy. Does this mean you favor some kind of abstract, fourth-way "rule of the individual," wherein every individual in society merely tends to their own individual concerns and desires without anyone, whether it be a single person, a small group of people, or society at large infringing upon those concerns and desires?

I am an anarchist, so I can't represent the minarchists. First of all, I'll trust your familiar with the typical market beats government stuff of the everyday libertarian/minarchist. Now the libertarian anarchist takes it a step further: why everything BUT defense of property and courts? So we believe in private services providing for mediation between parties as well as protection of person and property.


Would this, then, mean that the ideal polity is merely one wherein the sole authority lies in individual contracts and property rights? A polity based on market principles, perhaps?

A polity that is not a polity. Anarchy in the truest sense. But yes contracts and property rights are the foundation. If your truly interested there are much better explanations of all these things on mises.org. I would encourage you to see the responses you get to these questions on that side and lurk around a bit. Who knows, we might even change your mind! :p


I suppose the answer would also vary between "minarchists" and "anarchists." For minarchists, who would make up the ideal minimal state? Would those that make up the state be elected? Appointed? How would these minimal states deal with one another, say in terms of trade?
N/A


For anarchists, would everything merely be handled by private agencies? Competing private courts for handling justice, for instance?

Sure why not? Both sides would deal with whatever company insured them. If there is no dispute there would be compensation. If there is a dispute they could choose an arbitrator or private court to mediate it and decide who pays whom, etc.


I suppose the most important question is, how would any of this come to fruition? Since you guys seem to detest the initiation of violence as you call it, would you then be opposed to overthrowing the current government through revolution? Would you rather capture state power and diminish it or abolish it? Or would you rather convince everyone that the state is illegitimate, and thus somehow have it wither away? What kind of organizations would you favor in order to make this happen?

On some level all States rely on consent. Consent under duress, yes. Consent under under ideological brainwashing, yes. Consent offered only begrudgingly because the State is viewed as inevitable, a thousand times yes. But if tomorrow 65% or 50% or even 40% of Americans or citizens of any other country said, "we will no longer support you government, we're embracing anarchy! to hell with you!" and stopped paying taxes, etc. what could the State do?

Another possible strategy, whilst winning the battle of ideas is important, is the strategy of microsecession. In other words, to take a small island in the tropics, develop it, secede from whatever banana republic it's part of and create the anarcho-capitalist paradise of every libertarians dreams. If it succeeds we have proven a point to the world about the success of libertarianism. If it doesn't then we're all failures and should go home and kick ourselves and cry in a corner. :p


Lots of questions, I'm afraid. Like I said, I seldom hear anything from your kind on these points. Plenty about economics and such, but not much about how the society would address grievances and such.

Hope I clarified.

[nerditarian]

...and please see my essay where I criticize precisely those kinds of private security agencies as being identical to the state in all but name:

[revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-empty-t84983/index.html

The basic concept your not grasping is that libertarians are opposed to the State because of it's monopoly enforcement status. A monopoly in this field would be extremely costly-war against all the other insurers is expensive and no one would be willing to pay for the attendant increase in premiums. It would be prohibitively costly, risky and unadvantageous to establish and maintain a State in this manner. After all, in this post-State future the State as an institution would obviously be delegitimized and it would be quite hard to convince someone to pay up on ideological platitudes, spent nationalist rhetoric and ideology of servitude to the community.


To be more exact, they are identical to a state based on oligarchy, not democracy.

Not accurate at all but 1st things 1st:
What's to be admired about democracy qua democracy? Hitler was elected by democracy. Psst...he liked his own little form of central planning and controlling peoples lives too..

[trivas7]

...and please see my essay where I criticize precisely those kinds of private security agencies as being identical to the state in all but name:

I never mentioned private security agencies.

[Plagueround]

Would right-libertarians seek to correct the wrongs of the previous establishment to discourage an oligarchy of the old order's politicians and businessmen, or would they just let those people keep everything and hope everything turns out?

Also, for the sake of consistency, do native americans get all their land back?

[nerditarian]

Would right-libertarians seek to correct the wrongs of the previous establishment to discourage an oligarchy of the old order's politicians and businessmen, or would they just let those people keep everything and hope everything turns out?

Also, for the sake of consistency, do native americans get all their land back?

If an individual native american could prove his ancestors had title to the land, then he would be entitled to either the land or some restitution imho.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If an individual native american could prove his ancestors had title to the land, then he would be entitled to either the land or some restitution imho.
"Title to the land?" That thing granted by the government, you mean?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The basic concept your not grasping is that libertarians are opposed to the State because of it's monopoly enforcement status. A monopoly in this field would be extremely costly-war against all the other insurers is expensive and no one would be willing to pay for the attendant increase in premiums.
Throughout all of human history, millions of people have volunteered their own lives to fight wars of conquest, and you think it will be difficult to find people willing to give money to finance such wars?

Have you consider that war, although risky, also promises enormous rewards to the winners? If you win, you get to take all of the enemy's property, and maybe even enslave their people too. Gold, land and slaves... no one would ever take risks to get those things, right? It's not like it ever happened before, right? :rolleyes:


After all, in this post-State future the State as an institution would obviously be delegitimized and it would be quite hard to convince someone to pay up on ideological platitudes, spent nationalist rhetoric and ideology of servitude to the community.
Oh, I see, your society is made possible by the fact that everyone will magically agree with you in the future.

That explains everything. :rolleyes:

Sarcasm aside, bear in mind that even if the vast majority agreed with you, all it takes to finance a war is a wealthy minority.


What's to be admired about democracy qua democracy?
Since the purpose of government is the greatest happiness for the greatest number, it is best to leave the running of government to the greatest number of people - since they are most likely to know what will make them happy.


Hitler was elected by democracy.
No, he was constitutionally chosen to lead a coalition government after his party won a minority of votes (a large minority, but a minority nonetheless).

[krazy kaju]

Minarchists, generally speaking, advocate a kind of constitutional republic the USA is supposed to have but doesn't, since it was hijacked by nationalists and monarchists like Madison and Hamilton.

Anarchists generally use the failure of the US Constitution as evidence that minarchism is not sustainable. Furthermore, anarchists claim that free market security agencies would be superior to government security. Roderick Long tackles most myths about anarchism in his "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections," which can be found at mises[dot]org or lewrockwell[dot]com. Here are some of the most pertinent:




(2) Hobbes: Government Is Necessary for Cooperation

Probably the most famous argument against anarchy is Hobbes. Hobbes’ argument is: well, look, human cooperation, social cooperation, requires a structure of law in the background. The reason we can trust each other to cooperate is because we know that there are legal forces that will punish us if we violate each other’s rights. I know that they’ll punish me if I violate your rights, but they’ll also punish you if you violate my rights. And so I can trust you because I don’t have to rely on your own personal character. I just have to rely on the fact that you’ll be intimidated by the law. So, social cooperation requires this legal framework backed up by force of the state.

Well, Hobbes is assuming several things at once here. First he’s assuming that there can’t be any social cooperation without law. Second, he’s assuming that there can’t be any law unless it’s enforced by physical force. And third, he’s assuming you can’t have law enforced by physical force unless it’s done by a monopoly state.

But all those assumptions are false. It’s certainly true that cooperation can and does emerge, maybe not as efficiently as it would with law, but without law. There’s Robert Ellickson’s book Order Without Law where he talks about how neighbors manage to resolve disputes. He offers all these examples about what happens if one farmer’s cow wanders onto another farmer’s territory and they solve it through some mutual customary agreements and so forth, and there’s no legal framework for resolving it. Maybe that’s not enough for a complex economy, but it certainly shows that you can have some kind of cooperation without an actual legal framework.

Second, you can have a legal framework that isn’t backed up by force. An example would be the Law Merchant in the late Middle Ages: a system of commercial law that was backed up by threats of boycott. Boycott isn’t an act of force. But still, you’ve got merchants making all these contracts, and if you don’t abide by the contract, then the court just publicizes to everyone: "this person didn’t abide by the contract; take that into account if you’re going to make another contract with them."

And third, you can have formal legal systems that do use force that are not monopolistic. Since Hobbes doesn’t even consider that possibility, he doesn’t really give any argument against it. But you can certainly see examples in history. The history of medieval Iceland, for example, where there was no one center of enforcement. Although there was something that you might perhaps call a government, it had no executive arm at all. It had no police, no soldiers, no nothing. It had a sort of a competitive court system. But then enforcement was just up to whoever. And there were systems that evolved for taking care of that.

(3) Locke: Three "Inconveniences" of Anarchy

Okay, well, more interesting arguments are from Locke. Locke argues that anarchy involves three things he calls "inconveniences." And "inconvenience" has a somewhat more weighty sound in 17th century English than it does in modern English, but still his point in calling it "inconveniences," which still is a bit weaker, was that Locke thought that social cooperation could exist somewhat under anarchy. He was more optimistic than Hobbes was. He thought, on the basis of moral sympathies on the one hand and self-interest on the other, cooperation could emerge.

He thought there were three problems. One problem, he said, was that there wouldn’t be a general body of law that was generally known, and agreed on, and understood. People could grasp certain basic principles of the law of nature. But their applications and precise detail were always going to be controversial. Even libertarians don’t agree. They can agree on general things, but we’re always arguing with each other about various points of fine detail. So, even in a society of peaceful, cooperative libertarians, there are going to be disagreements about details. And so, unless there’s some general body of law that everyone knows about so that they can know what they can count on being able to do and what not, it’s not going to work. So that was Locke’s first argument. There has to be a generally known universal body of law that applies to everyone that everyone knows about ahead of time.

Second, there is a power-of-enforcement problem. He thought that without a government you don’t have sufficiently unified power to enforce. You just have individuals enforcing things on their own, and they’re just too weak, they’re not organized enough, they could be overrun by a gang of bandits or something.

Third, Locke said the problem is that people can’t be trusted to be judges in their own case. If two people have a disagreement, and one of them says, "Well, I know what the law of nature is and I’m going to enforce it on you," well, people tend to be biased, and they’re going to find most plausible the interpretation of the law of nature that favors their own case. So, he thought that you can’t trust people to be judges in their own case; therefore, they should be morally required to submit their disputes to an arbitrator. Maybe in cases of emergency they can still defend themselves on-the-spot, but for other cases where it’s not a matter of immediate self-defense, they need to delegate this to an arbitrator, a third party – and that’s the state.

So Locke thinks that these are three problems you have under anarchy, and that you wouldn’t have them under government or at least under the right kind of government. But I think that it’s actually exactly the other way around. I think that anarchy can solve all three of those problems, and that the state, by its very nature, cannot possibly solve them.

So let’s first take the case of universality, or having a universally known body of law that people can know ahead of time and count on. Now, can that emerge in a non-state system? Well, in fact, it did emerge in the Law Merchant precisely because the states were not providing it. One of the things that helped to bring about the emergence of the Law Merchant is the individual states in Europe each had different sets of laws governing merchants. They were all different. And a court in France wouldn’t uphold a contract made in England under the laws of England, and vice versa. And so, the merchants’ ability to engage in international trade was hampered by the fact that there wasn’t any uniform system of commercial law for all of Europe. So the merchants got together and said, "Well, let’s just make some of our own. The courts are coming up with these crazy rules, and they’re all different, and they won’t respect each other’s decisions, so we’ll just ignore them and we’ll set up our own system." So this is a case in which uniformity and predictability were produced by the market and not by the state. And you can see why that’s not surprising. It’s in the interest of those who are providing a private system to make it uniform and predictable if that’s what the customers need.

It’s for the same reason that you don’t find any triangular ATM cards. As far as I know, there’s no law saying that you can’t have a triangular ATM card, but if anyone tried to market them, they just wouldn’t be very popular because they wouldn’t fit into the existing machines. When what people need is diversity, when what people need is different systems for different people, the market provides that. But there are some things where uniformity is better. Your ATM card is more valuable to you if everyone else is using the same kind as well or a kind compatible with it so that you can all use the machines wherever you go; and therefore, the merchants, if they want to make a profit, they’re going to provide uniformity. So the market has an incentive to provide uniformity in a way that government doesn’t necessarily.

On the question of having sufficient power for organizing for defense – well, there’s no reason you can’t have organization under anarchy. Anarchy doesn’t mean that each person makes their own shoes. The alternative to government providing all the shoes is not that each person makes their own shoes. So, likewise, the alternative to government providing all the legal services is not that each person has to be their own independent policeman. There’s no reason that they can’t organize in various ways. In fact, if you’re worried about not having sufficient force to resist an aggressor, well, a monopoly government is a much more dangerous aggressor than just some gang of bandits or other because it’s unified all this power in just one point in the whole society.

But I think, most interestingly, the argument about being a judge in your own case really boomerangs against Locke’s argument here. Because first of all, it’s not a good argument for a monopoly because it’s a fallacy to argue from everyone should submit their disputes to a third party to there should be a third party that everyone submits their disputes to. That’s like arguing from everyone likes at least one TV show to there’s at least one TV show that everyone likes. It just doesn’t follow. You can have everyone submitting their disputes to third parties without there being some one third party that every one submits their disputes to. Suppose you’ve got three people on an island. A and B can submit their disputes to C, and A and C can submit their disputes to B, and B and C can submit their disputes to A. So you don’t need a monopoly in order to embody this principle that people should submit their disputes to a third party.

But moreover, not only do you not need a government, but a government is precisely what doesn’t satisfy that principle. Because if you have a dispute with the government, the government doesn’t submit that dispute to a third party. If you have a dispute with the government, it’ll be settled in a government court (if you’re lucky – if you’re unlucky, if you live under one of the more rough-and-ready governments, you won’t ever even get as far as a court). Now, of course, it’s better if the government is itself divided, checks-and-balances and so forth. That’s a little bit better, that’s closer to there being third parties, but still they are all part of the same system; the judges are paid by tax money and so forth. So, it’s not as though you can’t have better and worse approximations to this principle among different kinds of governments. Still, as long as it’s a monopoly system, by its nature, it’s in a certain sense lawless. It never ultimately submits its disputes to a third party.

(4) Ayn Rand: Private Protection Agencies Will Battle

Probably the most popular argument against libertarian anarchy is: well, what happens if (and this is Ayn Rand’s famous argument) I think you’ve violated my rights and you think you haven’t, so I call up my protection agency, and you call up your protection agency – why won’t they just do battle? What guarantees that they won’t do battle? To which, of course, the answer is: well, nothing guarantees they won’t do battle. Human beings have free will. They can do all kinds of crazy things. They might go to battle. Likewise, George Bush might decide to push the nuclear button tomorrow. They might do all sorts of things.

The question is: what’s likely? Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, "I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!" But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, "I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence." Whereas, governments – first of all, they’ve got captive customers, they can’t go anywhere else – but since they’re taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don’t have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can.

(5) Robert Bidinotto: No Final Arbiter of Disputes

One common objection – this is one you find, for example, in Robert Bidinotto, who’s a Randian who’s written a number of articles against anarchy (he and I have had sort of a running debate online about this) – his principal objection to anarchy is that under anarchy, there’s no final arbiter in disputes. Under government, some final arbiter at some point comes along and resolves the dispute one way or the other. Well, under anarchy, since there’s no one agency that has the right to settle things once and for all, there’s no final arbiter, and so disputes, in some sense, never end, they never get resolved, they always remain open-ended.

So what’s the answer to that? Well, I think that there’s an ambiguity to the concept here of a final arbiter. By "final arbiter," you could mean the final arbiter in what I call the Platonic sense. That is to say, someone or something or some institution that somehow absolutely guarantees that the dispute is resolved forever; that absolutely guarantees the resolution. Or, instead, by "final arbiter" you could simply mean some person or process or institution or something-or-other that more or less reliably guarantees most of the time that these problems get resolved.

Now, it is true, that in the Platonic sense of an absolute guarantee of a final arbiter – in that sense, anarchy does not provide one. But neither does any other system. Take a minarchist constitutional republic of the sort that Bidinotto favors. Is there a final arbiter under that system, in the sense of something that absolutely guarantees ending the process of dispute forever? Well, I sue you, or I’ve been sued, or I am accused of something, whatever – I’m in some kind of court case. I lose. I appeal it. I appeal it to the Supreme Court. They go against me. I lobby the Congress to change the laws to favor me. They don’t do it. So then I try to get a movement for a Constitutional Amendment going. That fails, so I try and get people together to vote in new people in Congress who will vote for it. In some sense it can go on forever. The dispute isn’t over.

But, as a matter of fact, most of the time most legal disputes eventually end. Someone finds it too costly to continue fighting. Likewise, under anarchy – of course there’s no guarantee that the conflict won’t go on forever. There are very few guarantees of that iron-clad sort. But that’s no reason not to expect it to work.







(7) Organized Crime Will Take Over


One objection is that under anarchy organized crime will take over. Well, it might. But is it likely? Organized crime gets its power because it specializes in things that are illegal – things like drugs and prostitution and so forth. During the years when alcohol was prohibited, organized crime specialized in the alcohol trade. Nowadays, they’re not so big in the alcohol trade. So the power of organized crime to a large extent depends on the power of government. It’s sort of a parasite on government’s activities. Governments by banning things create black markets. Black markets are dangerous things to be in because you have to worry both about the government and about other dodgy people who are going into the black market field. Organized crime specializes in that. So, organized crime I think would be weaker, not stronger, in a libertarian system.

(8) The Rich Will Rule

Another worry is that the rich would rule. After all, won’t justice just go to the highest bidder in that case, if you turn legal services into an economic good? That’s a common objection. Interestingly, it’s a particularly common objection among Randians, who suddenly become very concerned about the poor impoverished masses. But under which system are the rich more powerful? Under the current system or under anarchy? Certainly, you’ve always got some sort of advantage if you’re rich. It’s good to be rich. You’re always in a better position to bribe people if you’re rich than if you’re not; that’s true. But, under the current system, the power of the rich is magnified. Suppose that I’m an evil rich person, and I want to get the government to do something-or-other that costs a million dollars. Do I have to bribe some bureaucrat a million dollars to get it done? No, because I’m not asking him to do it with his own money. Obviously, if I were asking him to do it with his own money, I couldn’t get him to spend a million dollars by bribing him any less than a million. It would have to be at least a million dollars and one cent. But people who control tax money that they don’t themselves personally own, and therefore can’t do whatever they want with, the bureaucrat can’t just pocket the million and go home (although it can get surprisingly close to that). All I have to do is bribe him a few thousand, and he can direct this million dollars in tax money to my favorite project or whatever, and thus the power of my bribe money is multiplied.

Whereas, if you were the head of some private protection agency and I’m trying to get you to do something that costs a million dollars, I’d have to bribe you more than a million. So, the power of the rich is actually less under this system. And, of course, any court that got the reputation of discriminating in favor of millionaires against poor people would also presumably have the reputation of discriminating for billionaires against millionaires. So, the millionaires would not want to deal with it all of the time. They’d only want to deal with it when they’re dealing with people poorer, not people richer. The reputation effects – I don’t think this would be too popular an outfit.

Worries about poor victims who can’t afford legal services, or victims who die without heirs (again, the Randians are very worried about victims dying without heirs) – in the case of poor victims, you can do what they did in Medieval Iceland. You’re too poor to purchase legal services, but still, if someone has harmed you, you have a claim to compensation from that person. You can sell that claim, part of the claim or all of the claim, to someone else. Actually, it’s kind of like hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. You can sell to someone who is in a position to enforce your claim. Or, if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded.

[trivas7]

Krazy Kaju --

Have you any thoughts re Stephan Molyneux's Despite Resolution Organizations (http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/)?

[krazy kaju]

From what I understand, Molyneux's DROs aren't much different in substance from other ancap conceptions of private security agencies and insurance agencies.

[nerditarian]

"Title to the land?" That thing granted by the government, you mean?

So what? Roads are currently provided by the State too. Just because I don't want roads to be provided by the State doesn't mean I'm anti-road.

Likewise, because titles are now provided by States doesn't not imply that an anti-statist is anti-title

Similarly, you're anti-corporation and corporations currently make cereal. By your logic that would mean that the socialist utopia is one without cereal :thumbdown:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So what? Roads are currently provided by the State too. Just because I don't want roads to be provided by the State doesn't mean I'm anti-road.

[...]

Similarly, you're anti-corporation and corporations currently make cereal. By your logic that would mean that the socialist utopia is one without cereal :thumbdown:
No, it means that cereals do not rightfully belong to those corporations. They should be taken from them and given to someone else.

The same applies to your views regarding government property, like roads. It should be taken from the government and given to someone else. The question is, who is that "someone else"? What would you like to do with the roads? Sell them to the highest bidder? Then who gets the money from the auction?


Likewise, because titles are now provided by States doesn't not imply that an anti-statist is anti-title.
Titles are not a product, like roads or cereal. Titles are a recognition of your ownership of land. In the past, and to a lesser extent in the present, the state has/had the power to grant titles of land in ways that you deem illegitimate. Furthermore, you don't think the state had any right to decide who owns what land in the first place.

Most (if not all) land titles were illegitimately given by an entity that had no right to give them. By your own philosophy, they should be null and void.

[Little Red Robin Hood]

If an individual native american could prove his ancestors had title to the land, then he would be entitled to either the land or some restitution imho.

:rolleyes:

Most Native Americans--like most other cultures around the world that were pillaged by the Europeans--did not grant titles and did not believe in private ownership of land. So your "solution" privileges people who believed in private ownership and invented the idea of revering a piece of paper, and punishes those who didn't believe in that. You know this about the Native Americans (they teach it in fourth grade), so why are you being disingenuous?

In short, this:


Most (if not all) land titles were illegitimately given by an entity that had no right to give them. By your own philosophy, they should be null and void.

There wasn't a government in North America, and then there was. And you, an "anarchist", are siding with the people who brought it in, and in fact are claiming that only what they did has legitimacy over against the real, existing prior system that had no government (what you claim as your ideal).

[nerditarian]

Throughout all of human history, millions of people have volunteered their own lives to fight wars of conquest, and you think it will be difficult to find people willing to give money to finance such wars?

Have you consider that war, although risky, also promises enormous rewards to the winners? If you win, you get to take all of the enemy's property, and maybe even enslave their people too. Gold, land and slaves... no one would ever take risks to get those things, right? It's not like it ever happened before, right? :rolleyes:

People's insurance companies will not necessarily represent people connected geographically or ideologically. Without these ties its hard to see one insurance company defeating all the other ones and setting up another State.



Oh, I see, your society is made possible by the fact that everyone will magically agree with you in the future.

That explains everything. :rolleyes:
How else would there be an anarchist society without the population being mostly anarchist?



Sarcasm aside, bear in mind that even if the vast majority agreed with you, all it takes to finance a war is a wealthy minority.
I do think the cost would be higher under the condition of having no home State, no ability to "tax more" ad inifitium without people saying to hell with you, it being easier than before for people to jump ship and having no geographic or (likely) ideological identity. Likewise you would be finding many enemies who are also geographically separated and pulling resources together. The odds of est. a State in one region are slim. The odds of then maintaining this from the onslaught of neighboring ins. companies are nonexistent in my opinion.



Since the purpose of government is the greatest happiness for the greatest number, it is best to leave the running of government to the greatest number of people - since they are most likely to know what will make them happy.
What happens if it made the greatest number happiest to kill all redheads?



No, he was constitutionally chosen to lead a coalition government after his party won a minority of votes (a large minority, but a minority nonetheless).
Touche. Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not an expert in his rise but, he was elected by people who were democratically elected, no? Doesn't that show how likely democratically elected officials are to make good decisions.

[nerditarian]

No, it means that cereals do not rightfully belong to those corporations. They should be taken from them and given to someone else.

The same applies to your views regarding government property, like roads. It should be taken from the government and given to someone else. The question is, who is that "someone else"? What would you like to do with the roads? Sell them to the highest bidder? Then who gets the money from the auction?
Personally I usually believe that privatization should be done by turning the assets into a corporation with all taxpayers as equal shareholders. That seems simplest to me.



Titles are not a product, like roads or cereal. Titles are a recognition of your ownership of land. In the past, and to a lesser extent in the present, the state has/had the power to grant titles of land in ways that you deem illegitimate. Furthermore, you don't think the state had any right to decide who owns what land in the first place.
Some of those were legitimately earned in a neo-Lockean context some not. Some of the land settled had to be empty at the time- how can a judge tell which is which now?


Most (if not all) land titles were illegitimately given by an entity that had no right to give them. By your own philosophy, they should be null and void.

Suppose someone steals your rolex watch. Then that person sells it to me with no knowledge on my part. Have I committed a wrong against you? No. In the case of the watch the person can give the watch back and walk away. But in the case of the land it's more sticky because a lot of innocents can be damaged from property owners vacating their premises. So if a Native American can prove his tribe had the right to a piece of land and find someone responsible for this suffering they should be entitled to compensatory funds.

[nerditarian]

:rolleyes:

Most Native Americans--like most other cultures around the world that were pillaged by the Europeans--did not grant titles and did not believe in private ownership of land. So your "solution" privileges people who believed in private ownership and invented the idea of revering a piece of paper, and punishes those who didn't believe in that. You know this about the Native Americans (they teach it in fourth grade), so why are you being disingenuous?

In short, this:

There wasn't a government in North America, and then there was. And you, an "anarchist", are siding with the people who brought it in, and in fact are claiming that only what they did has legitimacy over against the real, existing prior system that had no government (what you claim as your ideal).

I meant title as the concept. As in they should have to show that it was their family/tribe that lived on this plot, it was stolen from them by person X. Then person X's descendants (not necessarily the current residents) should pay compensation. The beneficiary of the theft's descendants should pay the descendant of the victim. All I said was that they would have to prove who dun it. But that's any tort. You can't just sue "duh whitiez". Why is that so unfair? Why is that anti-anarchic?

I don't equate tribalism with no State. Did not the Chief and the elders control the rest of the tribe?

[krazy kaju]

No, it means that cereals do not rightfully belong to those corporations. They should be taken from them and given to someone else.

The same applies to your views regarding government property, like roads. It should be taken from the government and given to someone else. The question is, who is that "someone else"? What would you like to do with the roads? Sell them to the highest bidder? Then who gets the money from the auction?

Via homesteading. The vast majority of roads would simply be turned over to the neighborhoods, blocks, towns, and cities with which they have proximity to.

Only long distance roads could have the possibility of ultimately becoming private.


Titles are not a product, like roads or cereal. Titles are a recognition of your ownership of land.

That is why they should be turned over to private institutions, not a monstrous bureaucratic monopoly.


In the past, and to a lesser extent in the present, the state has/had the power to grant titles of land in ways that you deem illegitimate. Furthermore, you don't think the state had any right to decide who owns what land in the first place.

Most (if not all) land titles were illegitimately given by an entity that had no right to give them. By your own philosophy, they should be null and void.

As explained elsewhere in this forum, stolen property is just that: stolen property. However, most property that has been stolen in the past (e.g. the former Iroquois land in West New York) does not have any original proprietors that can be identified. Because of that, that land has essentially fallen into "disownership" and has been rehomesteaded by those proprietors currently living on that land.

[Little Red Robin Hood]

you can't just sue "duh whitiez".

Try not to make it so obvious that you have utter contempt for any memory or acknowledgment, much less rectification, of oppression, and maybe people won't think that you hold to your "philosophy" only to apologize and provide theoretical cover for ill-gotten privilege.

[laminustacitus]

Try not to make it so obvious that you have utter contempt for any memory or acknowledgment, much less rectification, of oppression, and maybe people won't think that you hold to your "philosophy" only to apologize and provide theoretical cover for ill-gotten privilege.
Libertarians are obviously only libertarians because they have benefited from capitalism. Absolutely no libertarian has possibly read Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Paul, ect. and decided that their views were true. :rolleyes:

[Plagueround]

I meant title as the concept. As in they should have to show that it was their family/tribe that lived on this plot, it was stolen from them by person X. Then person X's descendants (not necessarily the current residents) should pay compensation. The beneficiary of the theft's descendants should pay the descendant of the victim. All I said was that they would have to prove who dun it. But that's any tort.

The thief was the U.S. government acting on behalf of homesteaders and businessmen, so it would likely be impossible to track down the descendants of individuals, and it would be absurd and ironic you would punish someone's individual ancestors for the crimes committed by their past government. What you propose is simply a loophole to sweep the wholesale slaughter and reservationism of an entire race under the rug. It's ok, it's nothing new.


You can't just sue "duh whitiez".

That comment just reeks of ethnocentric and condescending rhetoric. Are you from mises.org or stormfront.com?


Why is that so unfair? Why is that anti-anarchic?

Because you would seek to impose the hierarchies of the previous regime and leave these people at a huge economic disadvantage. Like most right-libertarians/neo-feudalists, you propose nothing to help correct the gross imbalance the previous system created.


I don't equate tribalism with no State. Did not the Chief and the elders control the rest of the tribe?

That question is far too generalized for a simple answer. However, I can tell you most concepts of "chiefs and elders" you probably entertain are false, based on the perspective applied by European states trying to explain diverse and numerous cultural groups from their perspective.

[nerditarian]

The thief was the U.S. government acting on behalf of homesteaders and businessmen, so it would likely be impossible to track down the descendants of individuals, and it would be absurd and ironic you would punish someone's individual ancestors for the crimes committed by their past government. What you propose is simply a loophole to sweep the wholesale slaughter and reservationism of an entire race under the rug. It's ok, it's nothing new.
All I'm saying is that the original homesteaders' and businessmen's descendants are the heirs of those who benefited from the theft not the people who may have come to this country a hundred years later and brought the property from the thieves. I think their the ones who oughta face punishment.




That comment just reeks of ethnocentric and condescending rhetoric. Are you from mises.org or stormfront.com?
I'm from Mises. I think they'd kill me at stormfront :tt2:.



Because you would seek to impose the hierarchies of the previous regime and leave these people at a huge economic disadvantage. Like most right-libertarians/neo-feudalists, you propose nothing to help correct the gross imbalance the previous system created.
I do propose ending a lot of the laws I hate the most also victimize Native Americans more than whites.




That question is far too generalized for a simple answer. However, I can tell you most concepts of "chiefs and elders" you probably entertain are false, based on the perspective applied by European states trying to explain diverse and numerous cultural groups from their perspective.
While maybe not all tribes had State apparatus from what I understand most tribes did. Although I could be wrong. I haven't read enough on the topic to make a general statement.

[Little Red Robin Hood]

Libertarians are obviously only libertarians because they have benefited from capitalism. Absolutely no libertarian has possibly read Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Paul, ect. and decided that their views were true. :rolleyes:

I was only talking to one specific libertarian (and it wasn't you, I might add).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

People's insurance companies will not necessarily represent people connected geographically or ideologically. Without these ties its hard to see one insurance company defeating all the other ones and setting up another State.
No, I think insurance companies will represent people connected geographically. An insurance company relies on a credible threat of force to deter potential aggressors - and that requires the ability to transport armed men to defend the homes of its customers. Transport costs are lower if you're defending a whole bunch of homes in the same area than if you're defending homes spread out all over the country. Insurance companies who try to get geographically connected customers will have lower costs than others, so they will be more competitive and dominate the market.

Also, there is a phenomenon called network monopoly. You can see it with computers. Why do so many people use Windows? Because, if all your friends use Windows, you want your OS to be compatible with theirs, so you'll use Windows too. If all the people around you are on network X, you will prefer network X over network Y (all other things being equal between X and Y).

Assuming that dealing with someone insured by a different company is more of a hassle than dealing with someone insured by your company (which is a very reasonable assumption), people will want to be insured by the same company as their neighbors. Therefore companies that form geographical concentrations will be more in demand, so - again - they will be more competitive.


How else would there be an anarchist society without the population being mostly anarchist?
Most people, most of the time, don't care about politics.

If your society can't work when the majority is apolitical (i.e. doesn't feel attached to any political or philosophical ideals at all), then your society cannot work.


I do think the cost would be higher under the condition of having no home State, no ability to "tax more" ad inifitium without people saying to hell with you, it being easier than before for people to jump ship and having no geographic or (likely) ideological identity.
An important part of my argument was that many people - and, crucially, many rich people - may voluntarily contribute large sums of money to a war of conquest in exchange for a share of the spoils. Many of the most brutal campaigns of conquest and enslavement in history were carried out by mercenaries looking for nothing but gold.

If anything, a modern democratic government is less likely to start a war than a private security firm, precisely because a government must finance a war through taxation. And people don't like to be taxed. But a modern government doesn't have the option to look for voluntary contributions - it can't say "hey, who wants to invest in our war of conquest and plunder?"

Also, it seems that a majority of public opinion is generally against wars of conquest. Thus, a democratic government will be held in check by this majority opinion. But a private security firm doesn't have to listen to majority opinion. All it takes are a few rich warmongers, and it can start a war.


What happens if it made the greatest number happiest to kill all redheads?
First of all, please note that my answer is irrelevant for all practical purposes, since the odds of your scenario ever happening are zero.

Now, my answer is this: The happiness of the majority has to be weighed against the extreme unhappiness of the redheads being killed. Obviously, total happiness does not go up if two people are slightly amused by the bloody death of a third - their slight amusement is not nearly enough to outweigh the suffering of the third.

Weighing happiness is difficult because "happiness" is an abstract concept that cannot be measured. So, as far as possible, I propose to only compare each type of happiness with itself. A life for a life, a dollar for a dollar, a smile for a smile and so on - not a life for X amount of dollars or a dollar for Y smiles.

As such, killing is only justified when it saves lives - specifically, only when the number of lives being saved is certainly greater than the number of lives being taken. It would be justified to kill all redheads if - and only if - this was the ONLY way to save a number of lives greater than the total number of redheads.

(obviously, we must seek to have Pareto optimality in happiness, as it were; if an action causes more happiness than suffering, but we have the alternative to cause the same happiness without any of the suffering, we should go with that alternative - if you can save 100 lives by killing two people or by not killing anyone, it would be evil to use the method that involves killing as long as the other is available)


Touche. Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not an expert in his rise but, he was elected by people who were democratically elected, no? Doesn't that show how likely democratically elected officials are to make good decisions.
Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the conservative President Paul von Hindenburg. According to the constitution of Germany at the time, the Chancellor was to be appointed by the President, not directly elected. The President himself was directly elected - and Hindenburg had been elected a few years earlier.

Germany at the time had a parliamentary system (as it also does today). It was not enough for a Chancellor to be appointed by the President; in order to govern, he needed a majority of votes in the Reichstag (the German Parliament). The Nazis never had a majority, but following the elections of November 1932 they made a deal with three conservative parties for support - these were the Catholic Center Party, the German National People's Party (DNVP), and the much smaller German People's Party (DVP).

In opposition to this right-wing coalition stood the Social Democrats and the Communists. The Social Democrats came second and the Communists came third in the election. The complete election results were as follows:

Nazis: 33.5%
Social Democrats: 20.7%
Communists: 17.1%
Center Party: 11.9%
DNVP: 8.9%
DVP: 1.9%
Others: 6%

Together, the Nazi-Center-DNVP-DVP coalition had 56.2%. Enough to form a government. The small DVP was unnecessary, but the Nazis, Center Party and DNVP were all essential; two of them alone would not have been enough.

President Hindenburg did not like the Nazis and did not want to appoint Hitler Chancellor, but he was persuaded by Franz von Papen, the leader of the Catholic Center Party. Papen made a deal with Hitler: Hitler would get to be Chancellor, but Papen would get to be Vice-Chancellor and the Center Party would get most of the ministerial seats in government. This seemed like a good deal to Papen - after all, his party won far less votes than the Nazis, but it would get the largest slice of the pie. Except the Nazis made sure they got precisely those ministries that controlled the police, the army, and the other organs of state violence.

So Hindenburg was persuaded, and Hitler was appointed Chancellor... but that's not nearly the end of the story. A Chancellor is not a dictator. Hitler had no more power at first than any of the other perfectly constitutional Chancellors before him. It took several more months for Hitler to make himself dictator. To make a long story short, the Reichstag building was set on fire, Hitler blamed the communists and said he needed emergency powers to deal with an imminent communist revolution that would endanger democracy and the constitution. A bill called the Enabling Act was proposed. It would "temporarily" suspend the constitution until Hitler dealt with the "communist threat."

Communist Party leaders - including those who had been elected to parliament - were arrested or killed right away, without waiting for the Enabling Act to pass. This left the Social Democrats alone as the sole party of opposition. They did everything they could to stop or at least delay the passing of the Enabling Act, but it was too late. When the vote came, the Social Democrats were the only ones to vote against. Every other party (minus the now-banned Communists, of course) voted for the Enabling Act, and Hitler was made dictator.

The "temporary" Enabling Act remained in force until Germany's final defeat in 1945. The Social Democrats were banned, and their leaders arrested or killed right after the Act passed. The rest of the non-Nazi parties - the ones who supported the Act - were also banned a year later, and many of their leaders were also jailed. The cowards didn't even manage to save their own skin.

President Hindenburg died of old age in 1934. Hitler praised him a lot - even named an airship after him - and then took over the post of President for himself, adding it to the office of Chancellor and creating a new title for the President-and-Chancellor combination: Fuhrer.

Franz von Papen was ousted from government, but the Nazis spared his life and gave him some insignificant post - ambassador to somewhere, I think. He survived the war and lived happily ever after. He even tried to get back into politics at one point, but no one wanted to have anything to do with him because they weren't sure if the human race could survive another one of his bright ideas. I think he's a serious candidate for the title of History's Biggest Tool.

So, did Hitler ever win anything close to majority support among the general population? No. He did win the approval of a majority of elected representatives - though I must add that many of them voted in favor of the Enabling Act literally at gunpoint (there were armed Nazi stormtroopers in the chamber).

Is that an argument against representative democracy? I don't really support representative democracy as it exists today, so I wouldn't mind if this was a failure of the system, but I don't know. Would the Enabling Act have passed if Hitler hadn't illegally eliminated the Communists? If he hadn't illegally ordered the police to let his stormtroopers "guard" a session of parliament with loaded weapons? Would Hitler have gotten the office of Chancellor in the first place if Franz von Papen hadn't been an absolute idiot, or if Hindenburg hadn't been stupid enough to listen to him?

The one thing this whole story proves above all, I think, is that constitutional safeguards mean nothing when the people in charge of enforcing the constitution don't feel like doing their job - or when they are outgunned. Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was constitutional. The Enabling Act a few months later, on the other hand, was unconstitutional... But who would dare tell that to Hitler, when the Nazis had more guns than anyone else by that point?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Via homesteading. The vast majority of roads would simply be turned over to the neighborhoods, blocks, towns, and cities with which they have proximity to.
Free-for-all! Bring on the endless lawsuits about who gets to own which piece of road...


Only long distance roads could have the possibility of ultimately becoming private.
So that poor people can no longer make long distance journeys?


As explained elsewhere in this forum, stolen property is just that: stolen property. However, most property that has been stolen in the past (e.g. the former Iroquois land in West New York) does not have any original proprietors that can be identified. Because of that, that land has essentially fallen into "disownership" and has been rehomesteaded by those proprietors currently living on that land.
So if I steal some land, then destroy all evidence of its original owners, in a few generations you will say that my heirs rightfully own that land?

Excellent. So, if the state takes over all property, in a few hundred years people like you will be morally obligated to say that all property rightfully belongs to the state!

Make note, comrades: All we have to do is establish socialism and hold out until evidence of pre-socialist ownership has been lost, and then we will have neutralized libertarianism forever.


Personally I usually believe that privatization should be done by turning the assets into a corporation with all taxpayers as equal shareholders. That seems simplest to me.
But... that's exactly what public ownership is. "A corporation with all taxpayers as equal shareholders" is exactly the kind of entity that I want to put in charge of all the means of production.


Some of those were legitimately earned in a neo-Lockean context some not. Some of the land settled had to be empty at the time- how can a judge tell which is which now?
This may be a problem in North America, but it's not a problem in other parts of the world.

For example, over here in Europe, every little patch of land was taken by force numerous times over the past few centuries. And in many cases we have records of ownership going back that long. Specifically, we have records going back to the time when all land was owned by kings and feudal lords.

So does libertarianism advocate that all land in Europe should be given back to the living heirs of medieval kings and lords?

Should we give all land in Russia back to the Tsar? There is clear evidence that it used to belong to the Romanov family. All of France to the Bourbons? All of England to the - no, wait, the Queen still technically owns all the land there, I guess you want to give her absolute power then. All hail Libertarian Feudalism!

The same thing applies to much of Asia, by the way, as well as parts of Latin America - the former Inca, Mayan and Aztec territories. Basically, it applies to every part of the world that had writing - and therefore written records - going back a few centuries. In most cases, all the land used to belong to one guy.


Suppose someone steals your rolex watch. Then that person sells it to me with no knowledge on my part. Have I committed a wrong against you? No. In the case of the watch the person can give the watch back and walk away. But in the case of the land it's more sticky because a lot of innocents can be damaged from property owners vacating their premises.
Since when do you care about damage done to innocents? I thought all that mattered was the application of your principles, consequences be damned.

[nerditarian]

No, I think insurance companies will represent people connected geographically. An insurance company relies on a credible threat of force to deter potential aggressors - and that requires the ability to transport armed men to defend the homes of its customers. Transport costs are lower if you're defending a whole bunch of homes in the same area than if you're defending homes spread out all over the country. Insurance companies who try to get geographically connected customers will have lower costs than others, so they will be more competitive and dominate the market.
I do think that a lot of insurance companies will be localize (it's always hard to predict a market) but I disagree that they will have localized monopolies. Why would everyone in neighborhood A choose Jones Insurance over Smith? It makes no sense to me.


Also, there is a phenomenon called network monopoly. You can see it with computers. Why do so many people use Windows? Because, if all your friends use Windows, you want your OS to be compatible with theirs, so you'll use Windows too. If all the people around you are on network X, you will prefer network X over network Y (all other things being equal between X and Y).
This doesn't happen with fire insurance. Or life insurance. Or any other form of insurance. While the State does regulate these away from a competitive state (no pun intended) people do not do this. Why is Windows different? Windows maintains an unfair position through intellectual property laws. Windows provides a working basis for a lot of other exchanges. In order for me to email you or trade with you or do anything else with you it would not require the same insurance policy. If there was an insurance disagreement there would just be a different overview.


Assuming that dealing with someone insured by a different company is more of a hassle than dealing with someone insured by your company (which is a very reasonable assumption), people will want to be insured by the same company as their neighbors. Therefore companies that form geographical concentrations will be more in demand, so - again - they will be more competitive.
It's an insurance against crime and war. Why would you assume that whoever steals from you or assaults you would be stupid enough to be your neighbor? That would make it kind of obvious. Because you don't know whose going to be the criminal/aggressor you don't know what insurance company to buy in order to have the same insurance company. So, if you catch my drift, your points are irrelevant.



Most people, most of the time, don't care about politics.

If your society can't work when the majority is apolitical (i.e. doesn't feel attached to any political or philosophical ideals at all), then your society cannot work.
If most people are apolitical they take the status quo as a given. Hence, they support wherever they are ipso facto. And of the people who do care it will be hard to



An important part of my argument was that many people - and, crucially, many rich people - may voluntarily contribute large sums of money to a war of conquest in exchange for a share of the spoils. Many of the most brutal campaigns of conquest and enslavement in history were carried out by mercenaries looking for nothing but gold.
On a free market there will be so many insurance companies with armies that it will be unprofitable for one group of rich people to attack them all. There would be no chance of winning. Think about how much money iraq costs. And its still a quagmire! Without the ability to tax the peasants, with no odds of winning, who could do that kind of investment? And that's just for a small piece of property!!


If anything, a modern democratic government is less likely to start a war than a private security firm, precisely because a government must finance a war through taxation. And people don't like to be taxed. But a modern government doesn't have the option to look for voluntary contributions - it can't say "hey, who wants to invest in our war of conquest and plunder?"
I disagree. GWB could say start a war with other peoples money and use it to drum up nationalistic support for himself politically and kill innocents. He can raise taxes. He can, and did, inflate the money supply and use the inflation tax. He can, and did to a LARGE extent, borrow the money (people love to lend to governments because in the short run they can always tax to get the money) or promise to tax/inflate later. OTOH, a private firm has to KEEP investors. If the war of conquest starts looking crappy they can bail. And a private firm would have to keep that in mind before they planned such a war.


Also, it seems that a majority of public opinion is generally against wars of conquest. Thus, a democratic government will be held in check by this majority opinion. But a private security firm doesn't have to listen to majority opinion. All it takes are a few rich warmongers, and it can start a war.
Seems to me like the majority is for conquest so long as it just involves murdering foreigners and not too many Americans or other people on the home team get hurt. That's why neither Bush nor Kerry were hard anti-Iraq in 2004. That's why Mad John was pro-slaughter and as soon as BO got the Dem. nod he made it obvious we wouldn't be leaving Iraq anytime soon. All it takes are a few clever demagogues and they can start a war for special interests--with Boobus Americanus cheering. You've seen it with your own eyes I'm sure, whether you've realized it or not.



First of all, please note that my answer is irrelevant for all practical purposes, since the odds of your scenario ever happening are zero.

Now, my answer is this: The happiness of the majority has to be weighed against the extreme unhappiness of the redheads being killed. Obviously, total happiness does not go up if two people are slightly amused by the bloody death of a third - their slight amusement is not nearly enough to outweigh the suffering of the third.

Weighing happiness is difficult because "happiness" is an abstract concept that cannot be measured. So, as far as possible, I propose to only compare each type of happiness with itself. A life for a life, a dollar for a dollar, a smile for a smile and so on - not a life for X amount of dollars or a dollar for Y smiles.

As such, killing is only justified when it saves lives - specifically, only when the number of lives being saved is certainly greater than the number of lives being taken. It would be justified to kill all redheads if - and only if - this was the ONLY way to save a number of lives greater than the total number of redheads.

(obviously, we must seek to have Pareto optimality in happiness, as it were; if an action causes more happiness than suffering, but we have the alternative to cause the same happiness without any of the suffering, we should go with that alternative - if you can save 100 lives by killing two people or by not killing anyone, it would be evil to use the method that involves killing as long as the other is available)
Because I'm not a Utilitarian I have to ask you this before continuing- how do you compare different people's subjective happiness in any objective scale?



Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the conservative President Paul von Hindenburg. According to the constitution of Germany at the time, the Chancellor was to be appointed by the President, not directly elected. The President himself was directly elected - and Hindenburg had been elected a few years earlier.

Germany at the time had a parliamentary system (as it also does today). It was not enough for a Chancellor to be appointed by the President; in order to govern, he needed a majority of votes in the Reichstag (the German Parliament). The Nazis never had a majority, but following the elections of November 1932 they made a deal with three conservative parties for support - these were the Catholic Center Party, the German National People's Party (DNVP), and the much smaller German People's Party (DVP).

In opposition to this right-wing coalition stood the Social Democrats and the Communists. The Social Democrats came second and the Communists came third in the election. The complete election results were as follows:

Nazis: 33.5%
Social Democrats: 20.7%
Communists: 17.1%
Center Party: 11.9%
DNVP: 8.9%
DVP: 1.9%
Others: 6%

Together, the Nazi-Center-DNVP-DVP coalition had 56.2%. Enough to form a government. The small DVP was unnecessary, but the Nazis, Center Party and DNVP were all essential; two of them alone would not have been enough.

President Hindenburg did not like the Nazis and did not want to appoint Hitler Chancellor, but he was persuaded by Franz von Papen, the leader of the Catholic Center Party. Papen made a deal with Hitler: Hitler would get to be Chancellor, but Papen would get to be Vice-Chancellor and the Center Party would get most of the ministerial seats in government. This seemed like a good deal to Papen - after all, his party won far less votes than the Nazis, but it would get the largest slice of the pie. Except the Nazis made sure they got precisely those ministries that controlled the police, the army, and the other organs of state violence.

So Hindenburg was persuaded, and Hitler was appointed Chancellor... but that's not nearly the end of the story. A Chancellor is not a dictator. Hitler had no more power at first than any of the other perfectly constitutional Chancellors before him. It took several more months for Hitler to make himself dictator. To make a long story short, the Reichstag building was set on fire, Hitler blamed the communists and said he needed emergency powers to deal with an imminent communist revolution that would endanger democracy and the constitution. A bill called the Enabling Act was proposed. It would "temporarily" suspend the constitution until Hitler dealt with the "communist threat."

Communist Party leaders - including those who had been elected to parliament - were arrested or killed right away, without waiting for the Enabling Act to pass. This left the Social Democrats alone as the sole party of opposition. They did everything they could to stop or at least delay the passing of the Enabling Act, but it was too late. When the vote came, the Social Democrats were the only ones to vote against. Every other party (minus the now-banned Communists, of course) voted for the Enabling Act, and Hitler was made dictator.

The "temporary" Enabling Act remained in force until Germany's final defeat in 1945. The Social Democrats were banned, and their leaders arrested or killed right after the Act passed. The rest of the non-Nazi parties - the ones who supported the Act - were also banned a year later, and many of their leaders were also jailed. The cowards didn't even manage to save their own skin.

President Hindenburg died of old age in 1934. Hitler praised him a lot - even named an airship after him - and then took over the post of President for himself, adding it to the office of Chancellor and creating a new title for the President-and-Chancellor combination: Fuhrer.

Franz von Papen was ousted from government, but the Nazis spared his life and gave him some insignificant post - ambassador to somewhere, I think. He survived the war and lived happily ever after. He even tried to get back into politics at one point, but no one wanted to have anything to do with him because they weren't sure if the human race could survive another one of his bright ideas. I think he's a serious candidate for the title of History's Biggest Tool.

So, did Hitler ever win anything close to majority support among the general population? No. He did win the approval of a majority of elected representatives - though I must add that many of them voted in favor of the Enabling Act literally at gunpoint (there were armed Nazi stormtroopers in the chamber).

Is that an argument against representative democracy? I don't really support representative democracy as it exists today, so I wouldn't mind if this was a failure of the system, but I don't know. Would the Enabling Act have passed if Hitler hadn't illegally eliminated the Communists? If he hadn't illegally ordered the police to let his stormtroopers "guard" a session of parliament with loaded weapons? Would Hitler have gotten the office of Chancellor in the first place if Franz von Papen hadn't been an absolute idiot, or if Hindenburg hadn't been stupid enough to listen to him?

The one thing this whole story proves above all, I think, is that constitutional safeguards mean nothing when the people in charge of enforcing the constitution don't feel like doing their job - or when they are outgunned. Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was constitutional. The Enabling Act a few months later, on the other hand, was unconstitutional... But who would dare tell that to Hitler, when the Nazis had more guns than anyone else by that point?
I agree that constitutions are meaningless when people are set on being unconstitutional. Of course, I'm not an expert on German history so i defer to your knowledge and apologize. However, suppose Hitler had instead ruled a country of anti-Semitic Nazis. Suppose 80% of Germans are White Supremecists Stormfront types who agree with him. Suppose in a plebescite (sp?) they all voted to do the Holocaust. Would the fact that it was done democratically make it excusable?

[nerditarian]

But... that's exactly what public ownership is. "A corporation with all taxpayers as equal shareholders" is exactly the kind of entity that I want to put in charge of all the means of production.
You miss my meaning. This isn't a goal for it to stay like that. Transitorilly I'd have the stock certificate in the schooling company. And then I could sell it. And be free. Where is that ability in your system? You want a monopoly to be paid forever.



This may be a problem in North America, but it's not a problem in other parts of the world.

For example, over here in Europe, every little patch of land was taken by force numerous times over the past few centuries. And in many cases we have records of ownership going back that long. Specifically, we have records going back to the time when all land was owned by kings and feudal lords.

So does libertarianism advocate that all land in Europe should be given back to the living heirs of medieval kings and lords?

Should we give all land in Russia back to the Tsar? There is clear evidence that it used to belong to the Romanov family. All of France to the Bourbons? All of England to the - no, wait, the Queen still technically owns all the land there, I guess you want to give her absolute power then. All hail Libertarian Feudalism!

The same thing applies to much of Asia, by the way, as well as parts of Latin America - the former Inca, Mayan and Aztec territories. Basically, it applies to every part of the world that had writing - and therefore written records - going back a few centuries. In most cases, all the land used to belong to one guy.
If a party can't be determined who is the rightful owner of land x it is considered unowned and the current owner is considered to be rehomesteading it. I believe Kaju's mentioned this.



Since when do you care about damage done to innocents? I thought all that mattered was the application of your principles, consequences be damned.
Yes and I'm applying them. My principles dictate that current property owners should not be expropriated unless they have committed a crime. The descendants of those who stole a lotta land in the old days are now the WASP elite of this country. Sue them!

[Jack]

I agree that constitutions are meaningless when people are set on being unconstitutional. Of course, I'm not an expert on German history so i defer to your knowledge and apologize. However, suppose Hitler had instead ruled a country of anti-Semitic Nazis. Suppose 80% of Germans are White Supremecists Stormfront types who agree with him. Suppose in a plebescite (sp?) they all voted to do the Holocaust. Would the fact that it was done democratically make it excusable?

Then you run like hell. If they reach 80%, there doesn't need to be a vote, there's going to be some lynching no matter if there is democracy, dictatorship, socialism or capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts)

You don't need an elected govenrment, or even a majority of the populace to agree with you to do harm to others. We just believe that the 20% of non-nazis is better off banding together with the help of others and fighting the nazis themselves than hiring (if they have enough money, which is 80% of business owners are nazis as well is unlikely) a private army to do it for them.

[AnthArmo]

I agree that constitutions are meaningless when people are set on being unconstitutional. Of course, I'm not an expert on German history so i defer to your knowledge and apologize. However, suppose Hitler had instead ruled a country of anti-Semitic Nazis. Suppose 80% of Germans are White Supremecists Stormfront types who agree with him. Suppose in a plebescite (sp?) they all voted to do the Holocaust. Would the fact that it was done democratically make it excusable?

Nobody said Democracy was perfect. Democracy is the worse system there is, except from all the other ones :tt2:

What if the Monarch was a Fascist?

Or more accurately, what if all those Capitalists who controlled those private defense agencies of yours were Fascists who wanted to violently eradicate all non-white races? goodness, they not only have a large stockpile of money, but a large stockpile of arms with which to go on a killing spree :scared:

Democracy, it isn't perfect but nobody knows whats best for the people better than the people themselves.

[nerditarian]

Nobody said Democracy was perfect. Democracy is the worse system there is, except from all the other ones :tt2:
Not necessarily. Comparing to the number of people who died by regimes who had some form of election in the 20th Century versus those killed in the previous 5 centuries by those that had hereditary leadership, I would say monarchy is a safer bet for peace.


What if the Monarch was a Fascist?
Real possibility, which is why I do not believe anyone or organization should have a monopoly of power.


Or more accurately, what if all those Capitalists who controlled those private defense agencies of yours were Fascists who wanted to violently eradicate all non-white races? goodness, they not only have a large stockpile of money, but a large stockpile of arms with which to go on a killing spree :scared:
As I've said several times there would be more profit in not doing that than in doing that because violence is expensive and the other people are insured. Also, one wouldn't be able to disarm the populace a la Hitler, Mao and Stalin. A free society is an armed society. An armed society is a polite society. :thumbup:


Democracy, it isn't perfect but nobody knows whats best for the people better than the people themselves.
You're absolutely right that "nobody knows whats best for the people better than the people themselves." I concur. However, that's not what democracy says. Democracy says that the majority of the people voting can determine what's best for the minority of the people. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[nerditarian]

Then you run like hell. If they reach 80%, there doesn't need to be a vote, there's going to be some lynching no matter if there is democracy, dictatorship, socialism or capitalism[or implicitly other economic systems like mercantilism or fascism].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts)

But that's my point. You can't put morality to a vote. You can't say that what the majority does is right, that would be an argumentum ad populum. It's obvious that democracy has failed to create a more peaceful world (I'm assuming you, me and even miss America :p can agree that world peace is a good goal). So where to go from here? Libertarians have an answer. Some of the Anarchist-Communists to some extent have answer. I'll give them that. I disagree with it, but it's there. Do you? Or will you continue praising an anachronism.


You don't need an elected govenrment, or even a majority of the populace to agree with you to do harm to others. I agree but likewise having an elected government or an elected anything is no safeguard.


We just believe that the 20% of non-nazis is better off banding together with the help of others and fighting the nazis themselves than hiring (if they have enough money, which is 80% of business owners are nazis as well is unlikely) a private army to do it for them.
If the money is available why is hiring some aid to beat back the evil nazis? Afterall, the nazis are kind of a big deal. Their bad guys.

Are you talking about in Weimer Germany? Because personally none of the people I know, business owner or worker or unemployed, are nazis. We're both defining nazis strictly as followers of Adolf Hitler, right?

[Spideyv]

Since we have a new influx of libertarians, I thought it would be appropriate to spark a discussion on a topic I hear little about from their ranks.

I trust we're all familiar with what ancaps and other libertarians argue for in terms of economics. However, how would the actual administration of society function? What would form the body politic of this new libertarian society?

From what I understand, libertarians oppose single, minority, and majority rule all at once, at least in theory. Meaning, you oppose dictatorship, oligarchy, and democracy. Does this mean you favor some kind of abstract, fourth-way "rule of the individual," wherein every individual in society merely tends to their own individual concerns and desires without anyone, whether it be a single person, a small group of people, or society at large infringing upon those concerns and desires? Would this, then, mean that the ideal polity is merely one wherein the sole authority lies in individual contracts and property rights? A polity based on market principles, perhaps?

I suppose the answer would also vary between "minarchists" and "anarchists." For minarchists, who would make up the ideal minimal state? Would those that make up the state be elected? Appointed? How would these minimal states deal with one another, say in terms of trade? For anarchists, would everything merely be handled by private agencies? Competing private courts for handling justice, for instance?

I think you have very valid questions. I think a stateless society will only come about with an invention that either eliminates scarcity, makes everyone invulnerable, or makes everyone super-powerful. A replicator as seen in Star Trek would eliminate scarcity. Some kind of power suit that is impenetrable would make everyone invulnerable. Inexpensive personal nuclear weapons would make everyone super-powerful.

Until such time (if ever) one of these happens, I think society will continually change from state's of no governments to extremely large governments.


I suppose the most important question is, how would any of this come to fruition? Since you guys seem to detest the initiation of violence as you call it, would you then be opposed to overthrowing the current government through revolution? Would you rather capture state power and diminish it or abolish it? Or would you rather convince everyone that the state is illegitimate, and thus somehow have it wither away? What kind of organizations would you favor in order to make this happen?

I think most are against a violent revolution. I myself think the Free State Project is the most popular option (freestateproject.org). They are trying to create a free state through both non-compliance and by taking over the government to eliminate it.

[Spideyv]

Democracy, it isn't perfect but nobody knows whats best for the people better than the people themselves.

As long as everyone has full veto power, sounds good to me!

[Octobox]

Slavery is 100% Taxation - 100% Travel Control - 100% Business Ideation Control (No Start-Ups) - 100% Currency Authority -- 0% Self-Rule -- 0% Property Rights

Corporatism (what we have in America) is 80-90% Taxation (direct and indirect) - 5% Travel Control - 5% Business Ideation Control - 100% Currency Authority -- 10-20% Self-Rule -- 10% Property Rights (Immanent Domain - Currency Manipulation - Rent Controls - Control over Interest Rates)

Travel Control and Business Ideation Control refers to the ease of travel (the freedom) and business ideation is the speed at which one can get an idea to market or start a new business.

Ron Paul's Minarchism is 7-12% Taxation - 0% Travel Control - 0% Business Ideation Control - 0% Currency Authority -- 88-93% Self-Rule (taxed income knocks this down) -- 0% Property Rights (as enforced by Gov't)

Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism 0% Taxation - 0% Travel Control - 0% Business Ideation Control - 0% Currency Authority - Voluntary Mediation Authority over Private Contracts (the latter is privatized) -- 100% Self-Rule (right to pass or fail) -- 0% Property Rights (enforced by gov't)

Anarcho-Communism 0% Taxation - 0% Travel Control - 100% Business Ideation Control - 100% Currency Authority -- 0% Self-Rule (or very low -- communalism) -- 100% Property Rights (enforced by voluntarism -- oxymoronic). A-Com's can't start their own business and cannot have currency -- the "authority" for this in a voluntary society does not exist so I don't know how it would be enforced.

Help me spruce up these definitions -- any thoughts / corrections

Octobox

[nerditarian]

Slavery is 100% Taxation - 100% Travel Control - 100% Business Ideation Control (No Start-Ups) - 100% Currency Authority -- 0% Self-Rule -- 0% Property Rights

Corporatism (what we have in America) is 80-90% Taxation (direct and indirect) - 5% Travel Control - 5% Business Ideation Control - 100% Currency Authority -- 10-20% Self-Rule -- 10% Property Rights (Immanent Domain - Currency Manipulation - Rent Controls - Control over Interest Rates)

Travel Control and Business Ideation Control refers to the ease of travel (the freedom) and business ideation is the speed at which one can get an idea to market or start a new business.

Ron Paul's Minarchism is 7-12% Taxation - 0% Travel Control - 0% Business Ideation Control - 0% Currency Authority -- 88-93% Self-Rule (taxed income knocks this down) -- 0% Property Rights (as enforced by Gov't)

Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism 0% Taxation - 0% Travel Control - 0% Business Ideation Control - 0% Currency Authority - Voluntary Mediation Authority over Private Contracts (the latter is privatized) -- 100% Self-Rule (right to pass or fail) -- 0% Property Rights (enforced by gov't)

Anarcho-Communism 0% Taxation - 0% Travel Control - 100% Business Ideation Control - 100% Currency Authority -- 0% Self-Rule (or very low -- communalism) -- 100% Property Rights (enforced by voluntarism -- oxymoronic). A-Com's can't start their own business and cannot have currency -- the "authority" for this in a voluntary society does not exist so I don't know how it would be enforced.

Help me spruce up these definitions -- any thoughts / corrections

Octobox

I would correct Rothbardianism. Why is it assumed the property rights must be enforced by a State and cannot be enforced by nonstatist mediation? Or why is it assumed that having a private insurance agency protect ones property is the same as having no rights in property

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Not necessarily. Comparing to the number of people who died by regimes who had some form of election in the 20th Century versus those killed in the previous 5 centuries by those that had hereditary leadership, I would say monarchy is a safer bet for peace.
Have you taken into account the fact that there were far less people alive over the previous 5 centuries in the first place? Monarchies certainly killed less in absolute numbers, but they killed more as a percentage of the people alive at the time.

Also, the definition of democracy is not "a regime that has some form of election." Many absolute monarchies - not to mention modern dictatorships - had "some form of election" too. Saudi Arabia has "some form of election".


As I've said several times there would be more profit in not doing that than in doing that because violence is expensive and the other people are insured.
Violence was always expensive, and the other people always fought back. This did not stop privately funded wars in the past.


Also, one wouldn't be able to disarm the populace a la Hitler, Mao and Stalin.
They would not need to. You may be armed, but are you armed with tanks? Rocket-propelled grenades? Sniper rifles?


You can't put morality to a vote. You can't say that what the majority does is right...
But you can say that what the majority does is good for the majority.

And if you follow a system of ethics that defines morality as doing the greatest good for the greatest number (as I do), then whatever is good for the majority, is moral.

And anyway, you can't enforce morality against the will of the majority anyway. If most people want to act immorally, how do you plan to stop them?


Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
If there is no other food available, then yes, the wolves should eat the sheep. Or would you prefer that all three of them starve to death? Better to kill the sheep than to let everyone die.

On the other hand, if there is other food available, then no vote is necessary. The wolves can go eat the other meat available, and the sheep can graze.


It's obvious that democracy has failed to create a more peaceful world
What democracy? Most governments in the world have nothing close to democracy. And the few government that are somewhat democratic operate under the very flawed system of "liberal democracy".


(I'm assuming you, me and even miss America :p can agree that world peace is a good goal).
Only with certain qualifications. As Rousseau said, there is peace in dungeons, but does that make dungeons desirable?

Justice and equality are more important than peace. If the enemies of justice and equality cannot be defeated by peaceful means, then let there be war!


I agree but likewise having an elected government or an elected anything is no safeguard.
Nothing can provide a 100% safeguard.

[Octobox]

I would correct Rothbardianism. Why is it assumed the property rights must be enforced by a State and cannot be enforced by nonstatist mediation? Or why is it assumed that having a private insurance agency protect ones property is the same as having no rights in property

Property Rights (in the long-run) must be enforced by someone #1

A-Cap believes in 100% Identity Protection (ZERO ID's of any kind -- No Gov't searchable databases either -- Credit History from Corporatism ERASED)

On the day we transition from Corporatism to A-Cap (Rothbardianism) what private businesses get the rights to Gov't Deed-Title Databases? Who gets the rights to Fed Banking Cartel Deed-Title Databases?

The answer in A-Cap is NO ONE.

There were 900,000 foreclosures in 2nd quarter of last year -- alone.

According to A-Caps the reason for this was the destruction of the dollar and credit rates -- owing to Gov't Spending and Fed Reserve Fiat Credit Manipulation -- therefore whose database and accuracy do you trust the day after Corporatism as we enter into A-Cap; futhermore, what non-hired non-mediated contracts (in the free-market) can be enforceable?

Agains - According to A-Cap philosophy the answer is "none."

If a man says Gov't or Fed databse regarding his property and his neighbors was in dispute (yesterday) then what privatized court has the right to proceed? First, that court would have to be hired. 2nd no private court or company would have access to Gov't or Fed databases (they'd be destroyed -- because it's the management and accuracy of said databases that A-Caps are overthrowing). Therefore, there can be "no meditation" and thus gangsterism forms.

For there to be an A-Cap transition all land disputes would have to be solved prior to the end of Corporatism -- during that time Fed Bankers would seize as much assets as possible.

Thus -- A-Cap must let go of long-run property rights. If not for the above reasons -- how about for this one.

Yesterday Corporatism -- Today A-Cap

Who gets all the public land -- who has the right to transfer titles -- where do the profits go?

My belief is that there needs to be a long transition through Minarchism prior to any form of Anarchy would ever work -- if you want a non-violent transition and non-retalitory.

[DixieFlatline]

Democracy, it isn't perfect but nobody knows whats best for the people better than the people themselves.
Nobody knows what is best for me, but myself. Not my peers.



@Octobox, you post a lot of false information about Ancap.


A-Cap believes in 100% Identity Protection (ZERO ID's of any kind -- No Gov't searchable databases either -- Credit History from Corporatism ERASED)
No, Ancap believes in 100% choice by voluntarism. If someone wants to give up their identity, that is their choice. No one should have a right to force someone into a database, or force them to reveal anything about themselves.



On the day we transition from Corporatism to A-Cap (Rothbardianism) what private businesses get the rights to Gov't Deed-Title Databases? Who gets the rights to Fed Banking Cartel Deed-Title Databases?

The answer in A-Cap is NO ONE.
This is also false. I have an unpublished theory on how to deal with de-socialization (how to deconstruct the state) via a market mechanism that rewards everyone with a claim for property justice. All state property must be disposed of, with the victims of the state being the highest claimants on said property or the value of such in sale.


For there to be an A-Cap transition all land disputes would have to be solved prior to the end of Corporatism -- during that time Fed Bankers would seize as much assets as possible.
No. They could seize property, but people would still put in claims against it, as any property acquired through the state is not legitimate.

There is a big difference between the state looking over a voluntary transaction, and a coercive exchange. The former is legitimate. The latter is not.


Who gets all the public land -- who has the right to transfer titles -- where do the profits go?

My belief is that there needs to be a long transition through Minarchism prior to any form of Anarchy would ever work -- if you want a non-violent transition and non-retalitory.
Minarchism is impossible. As long as there is a monopoly on force, it will be wielded to increase power, not to decrease it. Mises cleverly said, "There is no third solution". There is the market, or the state. All centrist propositions are inherently statist.

[Octobox]

DixieFlatline -- No, Ancap believes in 100% choice by voluntarism. If someone wants to give up their identity, that is their choice. No one should have a right to force someone into a database, or force them to reveal anything about themselves.

Dixie -- 100% Identity Security -- is 100% Voluntarism; the 100% Security (in regard to indentity) means there is no gov't oversight - no gov't databases - no drivers licenses - no soc sec. I never said that a person can't use their name or a fake name for that matter; how, was my statement false? I don't know what you are saying here.



DixieFlatline: This is also false. I have an unpublished theory on how to deal with de-socialization (how to deconstruct the state) via a market mechanism that rewards everyone with a claim for property justice. All state property must be disposed of, with the victims of the state being the highest claimants on said property or the value of such in sale.

I said who gets the Gov't Databases or who gets the Fed Bank Databases regarding Deed-Titles, Debt, or Convictions? I said in an A-Cap "no one gets it" -- then you say that I stated a falsehood; how absurd. I've read every position paper written by Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Thomas Woods, Art Carden, Walter Block, and Hoppe. I know my A-Cap philosophy and NO ONE get's to control Gov't or Fed Databases the day after we transition from Corporatism to A-cap. Otherwise they'd have an authority -- it can't be voluntary if identity is sold or bought.

You say you have a "mechanism" -- please send it too me. I was trained as an economist and have been following Ron Paul since '88 -- Mises is not Rothbard is not Ron Paul. I have come to realize (as I meditated) that there is no way to "enforce" some of the philosophies of A-Cap or A-Com in the long-run -- in the short-run voluntarism and mediated contracts can be enforced -- but you can't pass on laws in the long-run regarding property rights (A-Cap) or zero currency philosophy (A-Com). There are other short comes, mostly on the A-Com side.


DixieFlatline: No. They could seize property, but people would still put in claims against it, as any property acquired through the state is not legitimate. There is a big difference between the state looking over a voluntary transaction, and a coercive exchange. The former is legitimate. The latter is not.

There is no "gov't" to seize property in an A-Cap. Individuals would have to hire "privatized mercenaries or security" to seize property and that is not an "anarchist" (non-violent - non-authority - voluntary) society.

There is "no state" in A-Cap -- in Minarchism there is, but not in A-Cap not according Rothbard himself; EVERYTHING the gov't does now Rothbard believes can be privatized -- with free-market competition. Meaning if you hire security against me - I can hire security against you. There is no mechanism to stop the coersion; because there is ZERO Tax - ZERO Regulatory Authorities in an A-Cap. You don't know your Rothbard my friend.


DixieFlatline: Minarchism is impossible. As long as there is a monopoly on force, it will be wielded to increase power, not to decrease it. Mises cleverly said, "There is no third solution". There is the market, or the state. All centrist propositions are inherently statist.


Dixie -- You've never read Ron Paul's Minarchism -- I'll break it down for you using my own version that is close to Ron Paul's but is a little closer to Anarchism then his.

Transitionary Meritocracy (in between moving from Corporatism to Anarchy -- this would likely be a 15 to 30 year process).

A 24-team Meritocracy (for the purpose of): 1) Naval Oversight and 2) Federal Highways -- (one-term - 6-yrs); hired by a revolving team of philosophically opposed "experts" -- in the fields of: weaponology, economics, accounting, project analysis, architecture (building, freeway, and ship design analysis), structural engineering, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering. They will be paid based on a rubric: cost reduction, weapon innovation, communications, anti-piracy record, federal highway bidding analysis, repair and contruction efficiency, and injury/fatality record. The Central Meritocracy will be paid by a 1% National Sales Tax. They have ZERO Currency Control, ZERO Tax Authority, ZERO Market Regulatory Authority, ZERO Foreign Waters Aggression Authority (a hefty import tax for any country harboring pirates), and ZERO Court Authority. They will receive 3% National Sales Tax where 100% goes to pay off Foreign Debt. The latter is a temporary tax -- obviously.

A 24-Team State Meritocracy (for the purpose of): Army and Air Guard Oversight AND State Highway and Bridge Oversight. They will be paid an incentive base similar to the rubric as above -- only in regard to border patrol and search and rescue. They will have a 3% State Sales Tax budget -- the remainder (given they prove the rubric) is their commission.

A Judicial Meritocracy (5% Import/Export Tax on specific goods/products/services -- this is a 6-yr temporary tax -- outside the control of the Meritocracy). Same sort of rubric. It is a transition from Gov't Court to Privatized. The sole goal -- the only cases they will hear is regarding property disputes. Banks and Gov't must privatize all property (they cannot buy property) and they must sell to highest bidder. Disputes that are not resolved in 6-yrs will be awarded to the civilian on property. Their incentive will partly be based on speed of resolution. The loser of legitimate suits will be given bidding advantages over others at the sale of Gov't or Bank properties. Civilians will have bidding advantages over corporations or former bankers/billionairs. No property confiscations or seizures during this period. The import/export tax will allow for high skill tradesman get back to work; as Corporatism and Gov't Lobbied Unions drove jobs overseas.

That means 7% Taxation in total. No other forms of tax in the above Minarchy (mini-anarchy). No health tax -- No Corporate tax -- No inheritance tax (et al.). No Drug Wars -- No "War On's" of any kind. No Foreign Militarism. No Foreign Military Bases. No Foreign Gov't Welfare. No troops on foreign soil (ever - not by Meritocracy Authority -- people can volunteer to join "foreign legions" -- never by force).

Consumer and Producer Anarchy in all markets -- no regulatory advantages for either (buyer and producer beware).

The rational to naval and military oversight and the decentralization of army-air guard is for zero foreign aggression, to prevent privatization of the most powerful weaponology into the hands of the de-throwned Banking Cartel and Corporatists. Also, federal highways and state freeways are very hard to privatize. People are used to paying 60-80% in direct and indirect taxation (opportunity costs and entrepreneurial inefficiency regarding prior gov't monopolization and contracting). If you ask them to pay a few percentage points regarding highway maintenance until we can figure out how to privatize them they wont mind -- given all the freedom this form of Minarchy gives.

After the transition we can move into an A-Cap society or A-Com society or a Combination of Anarchies -- given that voluntarism is required in each, people will chose how they want to live as long as no force is exerted on the other groups / individuals.

Octobox

[DixieFlatline]

Octobox, I PM'd you, but I can't reply to your post at large. The posting style is super hard to read, and past 1:00 AM, I am just not up to it.

I think you are missing the point on identity. After the state, no one needs to conform to their state IDs. The information in the database is largely useless. But I was speaking about state property at large not strictly information which is not property in the first place (I don't believe in the state fiction called IP).

I am fairly familiar with Ron Paul, but I have no use for minarchism. I will agree with the communists on one thing, change has to be wholesale and swift. There is no third solution. There is no middle road, that middle road leads only back to the state.

It seems to me like you find the state too useful in deconstructing the state, when you should be looking to the market (presuming you are a market anarchist, I'm not really sure what you are).

Read my ideas, you can PM me back if you want to discuss them. I'm not sure the RL crowd would be interested in my ideas on desocialization particularly since they concern property right's justice.

[AnthArmo]

Nobody knows what is best for me, but myself. Not my peers.

well I would rather have an equal say in what I want produced/what laws are made then leaving it up to a Capitalist to decide what is produced/what laws are made.

And don't give me that "Vote with your dollars" crap. That's not real democracy, that just places the consumption of Capitalist's above the needs of everyone else.

[Octobox]

well I would rather have an equal say in what I want produced/what laws are made then leaving it up to a Capitalist to decide what is produced/what laws are made.

And don't give me that "Vote with your dollars" crap. That's not real democracy, that just places the consumption of Capitalist's above the needs of everyone else.

Communist - Corporatist - Anarchist are all consumers during some point in their day. When they vacation they are consumers, when they shop, eat, trade, barter -- they are consumers.

A "True" Capitalist Business Revenue Generator (where their wealth comes from): 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest

That's it -- there are no other means to gain wealth in a "truly" capitalist society.

In a Corporatist Society (where "capitalist" seek gov't subsidization) their revenue generator is thus: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't Lobbied (Subsidization, Regulatory Advantages, Tax Loopholes, Bailouts, Fiat Credit, and Judicial Rulings)

If the consumer does not like the product or the corporate philosophy he can't vote them out in a corporatist society.

In a "truly" free-market-anarchy (true-capitalism) he would be able to -- by definition.

Therefore maybe the ideal society would be Consumer-Anarchy ;-)

[Octobox]

It seems to me like you find the state too useful in deconstructing the state, when you should be looking to the market (presuming you are a market anarchist, I'm not really sure what you are).

Read my ideas, you can PM me back if you want to discuss them. I'm not sure the RL crowd would be interested in my ideas on desocialization particularly since they concern property right's justice.

Aghhh it's good for 'em - hahaha.

I am not using the state to deconstruct the state -- I don't believe simply voting or protesting will ever or has ever worked.

We need to study how the senior politician, the banker, the lobbyist, and the unionist (long-run involuntary unionist) all derive their power -- once we educate people on that and create real-time webservices to help coordinate a consumer-union we will be able to take it all over -- putting the gov't in place that gives us as much consumer-anarchy ("no authority over the consumer") as possible yet just enough state to protect our borders, our waters, and search and rescue (maybe bridge and highways).

We live in a Corporatist (fascist corporate) Society.

The Corporatist Revenue Stream is thus: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't Sought-Lobbied (Subsidization, Regulatory Advantages, Bailouts, Fiat Credit, Union Brokering, and Judicial Rullings)

In the Consumer-Anarchy I suggest the revenue stream is thus: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest

Which, society gives the individual the greatest authority?

That's it -- the profit-driver is the consumer.

The great thing about this is that the worker, the union-worker, the sub-contractor, the boss, the owner, the politician -- they are all consumers (they work for consumption wealth or to pass on consumption wealth).

Therefore the individual (the only individual) is the consumer.