How Would You Describe Your Political Views?

[Husker_x]

Also, I forgot to add that in a free society individuals could also voluntarily pay to be protected by an army. In fact if enough people demanded that type of protection one can only imagine the kind of competition that would ensue to take advantage of that demand and the profits that follow. And remember that in a free market, one free of coercion, there will only exist goods and services that people are willing to pay for, or to a degree which they are needed, so if nobody feels the need for an army they simply don't pay for it.

 

Not only is this pure speculation, it's downright fantasy. Humans don't behave this way except in the minds of philosophers. Humans accrete power. The phrase "Might makes right" exists for a reason. Without some kind of unified protection plan we're just going to get overrun by our enemies. And if you agree with the concept of unified protection, you're simply exchanging one form of government for another. Either way, you have government.

 

I skimmed the discussion here, thought I'd chime in on this point.

 

To go along with what knapplc is saying, fantasy is a kind word here. Let me present you with a scenario.

 

Let's say I'm in a new 'free' America as SOCAL would call it. There is no government of any kind anywhere on what used to be U.S. soil. I live in a community of a hundred people. I purchase a building with two floors in it (never mind how we establish a currency in the first place) and open a butcher shop on the first floor and live upstairs. But of course the world is still a dangerous place. Human nature hasn't changed in the absence of government. One day I spy this private army contractor walking down the road. He tells me he's heard about burglars in the area and in addition to his anti-foreign invasion business, he does basic police work. But I'm a gun owner, so I tell him that in my community of a hundred people we take care of our own security.

 

His face falls. "You sure about that?" he asks. "Aren't you the least bit worried that a tank might roll over your butcher shop?" By this time I'm feeling nervous. The army contractor leans over the counter and continues, pleasantly: "You know the last butcher I came across a few miles down the road had something just like that happen. Tragic. Real tragic. Tell you what though, I'll be back in a week to see if you've changed your mind." He smiles and leaves the shop, but not without saying, "Anyone you tell about this is your responsibility."

 

Okay, so now what do you do? This the the question I'm not hearing the answer to. What happens when someone with a bigger stick than you starts to put the screws to you? Who do you talk to? There's no FBI to put you in witness protection; there's no army to swoop in and save your shop. There's nothing but you and your 99 friends in your community toting shotguns against a private army contractor who may even be packing nukes. You might say try to get ahold of another army contractor to defend you, but forgetting even the inherent risks of that, who's to say Contractor A hasn't already wiped out Contractors B, C, and D? Who's to say they aren't just as bad or worse than A? The mafia worked like this for years. Pay up if you wanna stay healthy. But unlike a government which is bound to a Constitution and ultimately responsible to an electorate, the army contractor can say f*ckall and do whatever he wants.

 

First of all, are you asserting that government prevents this from happening? Since it doesn't and shake downs still occur, and in fact most are done by the so-called "protectors," I don't see how this scenario does anything except prove that government is and always will be a complete and utter failure. You say that a government is bound by the Constitution and is responsible to the electorate, but I still have to ask, are you serious? If that's the case, why is the United States facing so many of the problems it is facing today? Why does it continue to start wars? Why is it in debt? Why are individual rights violated daily? Why do those in government do as they please? Seriously, how can they break laws and pervert it in their favor if they are bound to a piece of paper? Also, you bring up the mafia, but did it ever occur to you that nearly all the successful one's bribed or in someway used those with governmental power to achieve their ends? How is the government, other than being legitamized by voting, any different then the mafia?

 

With that being said, and while this scenario is intriguing and brilliantly crafted, it is simply a false dichotomy. To create situations in which the only options are to give in or die is to deny the reality of alternatives. You have mentioned several in your speel including arming individuals as well as the introduction of competing protection agencies. These resources, along with whatever market creations arise should be more than enough if that is all that the market demands. If someone is running around extorting and knocking off people, it is guaranteed that individuals will find it in their best interest to stop him and demand a solution voluntarily. This is done because free individuals will always choose to be free rather than enslaved and someone always exists who is willing to risk money and ideas for the benefits they may receive if successful. Since that is the case, how is this contracter finding enough individuals willing to aggress against others, for the risk vs. reward is mighty steep, and how is he planning on keeping those individuals happy once the task is complete? How can he stop his own men from turning on him?

 

Also, how did this one man come upon on all the knowledge and wealth needed to conquer the world? In a free society, capital accumulation is much more spread out due to the fact that there are no regulations on the type of work that individuals can partake in. This ensures employment for whoever chooses to work and means that the chances of a criminal acquiring enough workers or wealth to enslave or extort a society are slim to none. Also, is he the only one in the world with nuclear weapons? If so, how did he manage that? If he plans on using nuclear weapons, what is his motivation? If he plans to use it, does he plan on saving himself? And if he does how will he survive beyond the poverty of a hermit if nobody else is alive?

 

Besides all this, does fear, driven by someone's subjective opinion, somehow justify the theft and violence that are forced upon other individuals in order to achieve an end that cannot be obtained?

 

1. Of course no law enforcement agency is capable of preventing every crime or shakedown from happening; but at best you've just given us a banner example of irrelevance. Your private army contractor would fare no better (but unlike a governmental agency bound to the Constitution would be able to search and/or seize anyone you claimed attempted to shake you down whether it actually happened or not). And yes, I am serious when I say that we hold regular elections in the United States wherein the people of a given congressional district or state can, at their discretion, replace existing representatives. The reason the United States has problems is the same reason every nation has problems––there are people in it. I would go you one further and say that a host of our fiscal woes comes from the delusion that it is the role of the government to secure happiness and wealth for its citizens. (By the way, what is your definition of a successful mafia, and why would government be necessary to make it so? Considering that made guys rarely pay taxes or vote, and are constantly being incarcerated for various crimes, I fail to see the connection.)

 

2. Your second paragraph entirely misses the point. The reality of life is when someone sticks a gun in your face––an army contractor––and tells you to pay him or die, those are your options. It's in the person's best interest to try and stop the army contractor? Please. The risks involved in trying to lead a campaign against a man who in this theoretical situation could be armed to the teeth with any kind of destructive weaponry makes the 'best interest' remark an epic fail. It's in your best interest to stay alive, and if that means paying a little protection money to a guy who's just extorted you, then that's what most people are overwhelmingly likely to do. My argument is made that much stronger by the simple fact that these sorts of marauding groups exist all over the world. The mafia is simply one form. Look at the militias sprouting like weeds in Africa, the terrorist cells in the Middle East, the drug cartels in South America. Why do people usually coalesce around one figure and engage in tyrannical behavior? Because they can for one. Because it's lucrative for two. And it makes you powerful. Never underestimate greed and human depravity.

 

3. I never said the man had conquered the world. And nor would he need to. For my scenario to be valid as an argument against anarchy, all I need him to be is powerful enough to extort my town of 100 people. A man with a single tank would be able to do this against a town armed with shotguns and rifles. The nuke questions really have nothing to do with the scenario either; in fact the entire point of mentioning them is that during the moment he's sitting in my butcher shop, I have no idea what he's packing. He doesn't have to use the nukes because merely possessing the threat of using them (whether real or imagined) is enough.

 

I have no idea what your last sentence was asking. If you'd rephrase it I could give it a whack.

[jnkyrdoff6]

I've read the private law section now, and it didn't really help. I'd already agreed that private law agencies would work. The military is still my hangup. Do you really think a voluntarily funded military would continuously spend money on weapons, weapons research, training, etc. when there is no threat or reason to do so? Why would it? Wouldn't that money be better spent somewhere else in a free-market? Only our government would do that.

A company that wishes to stay in business would spend whatever it took to keep their customers happy. Why would any business, especially one that relies on voluntary customer satisfaction, which a coercive monopoly does not because it gets its money by force, risk everything so that someone else would come along with more efficient weapons and training and take all their customers?

 

The beauty of the free market is that it is self-regulating, meaning that the profits and loss signals ensure that there will always be just the right amount of supply that the demand requires. Losses are signals to show the demand has been exceed by supply or that you are losing customers, and could be a signal for competition to dwindle. Profits mean that demand is up, you are doing good business and is an invite for competition to enter the market and increase the supply.

 

Because individuals do make decisions based on their own self interest there will always be those who invest and take risks for the benefits and those who agree to pay for goods and services. Only the individual knows what their own best interest is, no one else does, and it is due to this fact precisely why a regulated market, one in which the profit and loss signal are distorted or that is funded by force, can never bring stability, can never be properly gauged and can never bring about prosperity.

The company would spend whatever it took to keep its customers happy, but consider this. There hasn't been a war in 50 years, or maybe 100 years. What society would adequately fund the military agency when there is no prospect of war on the horizon? The only reason a society would continue to fund the military agency is because there is, theoretically, always the prospect of war. I just can't see many societies being this paranoid. I think they'd, for the most part, gradually decrease military spending until war broke out, increasing spending on things that seem more pertinent at the time. While the military agency that is funded would, undoubtedly, be be as efficient as possible, I still don't think that'd be enough to bridge the gap the decreased spending would cause.

 

This has always been the snag that's caught my eye when presented with a complete lack of a government. I just think this is the one case where a free-market is flawed. It's because its very nature is counter-productive to having a good standing military. I understand that this logic somewhat implies a government knows better than the market in regards to producing a standing army, but it's not meant to. Because the government is so inefficient, it unintentionally produces a better standing army.

 

With a government that is only in charge of the military, and has no other privileges, the government would be able to properly gauge profit and loss. If it can't control the reserve, it can't sustain a failing business model. If the only tax that funds it is a sales tax, the money isn't stolen from the peoples' hands. It is voluntarily given to it.

 

---edited---

 

This is the only link I found at your site to backup your argument. The insurance argument is somewhat convincing.

 

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf

[SOCALHUSKER]

The company would spend whatever it took to keep its customers happy, but consider this. There hasn't been a war in 50 years, or maybe 100 years. What society would adequately fund the military agency when there is no prospect of war on the horizon? The only reason a society would continue to fund the military agency is because there is, theoretically, always the prospect of war. I just can't see many societies being this paranoid. I think they'd, for the most part, gradually decrease military spending until war broke out, increasing spending on things that seem more pertinent at the time. While the military agency that is funded would, undoubtedly, be be as efficient as possible, I still don't think that'd be enough to bridge the gap the decreased spending would cause.

 

This has always been the snag that's caught my eye when presented with a complete lack of a government. I just think this is the one case where a free-market is flawed. It's because its very nature is counter-productive to having a good standing military. I understand that this logic somewhat implies a government knows better than the market in regards to producing a standing army, but it's not meant to. Because the government is so inefficient, it unintentionally produces a better standing army.

 

With a government that is only in charge of the military, and has no other privileges, the government would be able to properly gauge profit and loss. If it can't control the reserve, it can't sustain a failing business model. If the only tax that funds it is a sales tax, the money isn't stolen from the peoples' hands. It is voluntarily given to it.

 

---edited---

 

This is the only link I found at your site to backup your argument. The insurance argument is somewhat convincing.

 

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf

You're right, a free standing army is counterproductive to the prosperity of the free market because it means that individual's time, money and energy are being spent on a threat of destruction, whether it exists or not, instead of on tasks, goods or services that are actually productive and beneficial. Destruction never equates to prosperity.

 

You also say that a sales tax is voluntary, but to who? The consumers, because you believe they have a choice whether to buy a product or not? What products are not taxed? For something to be voluntary it must come from free will or free choice. Is a sales tax really a free choice or a coerced option? Wouldn't free choice be the ability to voluntarily purchase goods or services with a sales tax, those without, or no goods or services at all? Also, what about those who run the business? Is it still voluntary when they are forced to turnover money they have rightfully earned? Do they not expend energy, against their own free will, to comply or in efforts to evade? Do you not think that the consumers are also charged more for products when a company is forced to comply with or works to evade regulation not consistent with normal business practices? Since any tax, no matter what you call it, is always carried out under the threat of violence, how can a tax be voluntary?

 

Since a tax is not voluntary and a government, even one only in charge of an army, cannot exist without a tax, how is it that you suggest a coercive monopoly, which a government is because it is funded by coercion and is the sole arbiter on justice/defense, can properly gauge profit and loss? Since a coercive monopoly is not funded by voluntary payment, but rather on the funds stolen from other people, profit and loss cannot be measured and therefore they can never know how much service is too much or too little. The only way to measure supply and demand is through the signals of profit and loss and because this is true; no business, a coercive monopoly especially, can ever run anything efficient without funding from voluntarily paying customers. What makes you believe the market of defense or an army would be any different? What incentive does a coercive monopoly have to provide the best possible service for the lowest possible price? It does not and it cannot.

 

Excellent article BTW, I had not read it yet. Thanks for posting.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Really? Would you instead suggest the more prosperous government solution of running up astronomical debt funding an unlimited amount of wars, completely debase a currency, restricting individual liberty and steering money away from productive measures into ones of death and destruction?

 

Or how do you suggest security be handled?

 

Why do you labor under false assertions? You are not making any kind of rational point. You're, apparently, saying that every country with a standing army runs up "astronomical debt" and engages in "an unlimited amount of wars." That's ludicrous and patently false.

 

I ask you, does Portugal have a standing military? How many wars have they been engaged in lately? How about Japan? Or Ecuador? Or Canada? Or Italy?

 

Security should be handled with a common military paid for by common funds, derived from a fair tax. It should be efficient, sufficient and proficient. It should not waste, it should not engage in superfluous wars, it should not instigate wars, it should not attack a peaceful nation, and it should serve the common good when not engaged in war.

You are right, what I did assert was incorrect and absurd, other alternatives do exist. Not every civilized community needs or employs a standing army or is engaged in armed conflict, both of which you have provided examples for and I agree with. However, this evidence merely proves exactly the point I am getting at. For if all the examples you have shown can and do exist in relative harmony and prosperity without the need for a standing army or warfare, why is it that you assert that the worst will happen unless you and I are forced, at gunpoint nonetheless, to fund and live with one?

 

As Murray Rothbard states,

The Argentinian, for example, lives in a state of anarchy, of nongovernment, in relation to the citizen of Uruguayor of Ceylon. And yet the private citizens of these and other countries live and trade together without getting into insoluble legal conflicts, despite the absence of a common governmental ruler. The Argentinian who believes he has been aggressed upon by a Ceylonese, for example, takes his grievance to an Argentinian court, and its decision is recognized by the Ceylonese courtsand vice versa if the Ceylonese is the aggrieved party. Although it is true that the separate nation-States have warred interminably against each other, the private citizens of the various countries, despite widely differing legal systems, have managed to live together in harmony without having a single government over them. If the citizens of northern Montana and of Saskatchewan across the border can live and trade together in harmony without a common government, so can the citizens of northern and of southern Montana. In short, the present-day boundaries of nations are purely historical and arbitrary, and there is no more need for a monopoly government over the citizens of one country than there is for one between the citizens of two different nations.

 

It is all the more curious, incidentally, that while laissez-faireists should by the logic of their position, be ardent believers in a single, unified world government, so that no one will live in a state of anarchy in relation to anyone else, they almost never are. And once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible anarchy, why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Security should be handled with a common military paid for by common funds, derived from a fair tax. It should be efficient, sufficient and proficient. It should not waste, it should not engage in superfluous wars, it should not instigate wars, it should not attack a peaceful nation, and it should serve the common good when not engaged in war.

This statement falsely assumes a few things. First, that the subjective fallacy of the "common good" actually exists. Second, that that YOU know what the "common good" is. Third, that any tax is "fair." Lastly, that a coercive monoply can and will provide the services you desire.

 

Read my post about why a coercive monopoly cannot provide, efficient, sufficient or proficient service. For in order to do so requires the signals of profit and loss, which cannot exist if funds are extracted coercively.

[knapplc]

You are right, what I did assert was incorrect and absurd, other alternatives do exist. Not every civilized community needs or employs a standing army or is engaged in armed conflict, both of which you have provided examples for and I agree with. However, this evidence merely proves exactly the point I am getting at. For if all the examples you have shown can and do exist in relative harmony and prosperity without the need for a standing army or warfare, why is it that you assert that the worst will happen unless you and I are forced, at gunpoint nonetheless, to fund and live with one?

 

The fundamental flaw in your premise here is that they exist in "relative harmony and prosperity without the need for a standing army." They do not. They exist in relative harmony because they have a standing military. Further, each of the countries I listed has mutual-defense military treaties with other countries to support them in a time of crisis if their own military were insufficient for the need. Each of these militaries exists under the umbrella of a unified government, who has authority from the masses to negotiate these treaties. Without a central government, such treaties are impossible. Concert cannot be achieved without unified purpose; the government negotiating such treaties is simply the tool created by the intent of that purpose.

 

You are essentially right that you are "forced at gunpoint" to fund a military. Where you are wrong is in who you think holds that gun. It is not the military of your own country holding that gun, or the government apparatus that created it. No, it is the enemy at the gates who holds that gun, it is the enemy who makes it not only prudent that you contribute to the common defense, but who makes it absurd that you think you ought not. If you assert that no enemy foreign or domestic will take from you what is yours by force of arms, you are delusional.

 

As an American you are a joint owner of mineral rights that alone are worth trillions, making invasion of America not a possibility if we had no army and no defense treaties, but an absolute certainty. And that's only one aspect of the wealth this country holds that makes it a target.

[knapplc]

Security should be handled with a common military paid for by common funds, derived from a fair tax. It should be efficient, sufficient and proficient. It should not waste, it should not engage in superfluous wars, it should not instigate wars, it should not attack a peaceful nation, and it should serve the common good when not engaged in war.

This statement falsely assumes a few things. First, that the subjective fallacy of the "common good" actually exists. Second, that that YOU know what the "common good" is. Third, that any tax is "fair." Lastly, that a coercive monoply can and will provide the services you desire.

 

Read my post about why a coercive monopoly cannot provide, efficient, sufficient or proficient service. For in order to do so requires the signals of profit and loss, which cannot exist if funds are extracted coercively.

 

Common good does exist, obviously so. Simple example: American mineral rights are worth trillions of dollars. Without a military, we would be conquered for those mineral rights. It is in the common interest of every American, therefore, to voluntarily provide for the common defense to prevent enslavement by a foreign power. Your post about a coercive monopoly was false, and I showed you how.

[SOCALHUSKER]

The fundamental flaw in your premise here is that they exist in "relative harmony and prosperity without the need for a standing army." They do not. They exist in relative harmony because they have a standing military. Further, each of the countries I listed has mutual-defense military treaties with other countries to support them in a time of crisis if their own military were insufficient for the need. Each of these militaries exists under the umbrella of a unified government, who has authority from the masses to negotiate these treaties. Without a central government, such treaties are impossible. Concert cannot be achieved without unified purpose; the government negotiating such treaties is simply the tool created by the intent of that purpose.

 

You are essentially right that you are "forced at gunpoint" to fund a military. Where you are wrong is in who you think holds that gun. It is not the military of your own country holding that gun, or the government apparatus that created it. No, it is the enemy at the gates who holds that gun, it is the enemy who makes it not only prudent that you contribute to the common defense, but who makes it absurd that you think you ought not. If you assert that no enemy foreign or domestic will take from you what is yours by force of arms, you are delusional.

 

As an American you are a joint owner of mineral rights that alone are worth trillions, making invasion of America not a possibility if we had no army and no defense treaties, but an absolute certainty. And that's only one aspect of the wealth this country holds that makes it a target.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said and took it to mean that Portugal, Japan and Canada did not have standing armies. Nonetheless, my point is still valid. For if all those individual countries, which are comprised entirely of individual people, can act, trade and negotiate in a mutual manner with other countries, which are also comprised entirely of people, while maintaining a relatively peaceful and prosperous state and without being forced to, at gunpoint, by a coercive monopoly that controls the entire world; then why is it not logically possible for states, counties, cities, communities, and individuals to also do the same? Since there is not one coercive monopoly for the entire world and individual countries do act in a state of anarchy, as it pertains to their relationships and actions with other countries, why could individuals, which each country is entirely comprised of, not do the same?

 

Also, I have never inferred or stated that people/countries who are willing use force to take from myself and other people do not exist. I know they do, which is exactly why I would probably pay to have some type of protection. Whether or not that includes an army of trained soldiers or merely my own weapons should be decided and based entirely upon my own subjective preferences and values and paid for with my own money. Do you believe that everyone has your same fears, preferences and values? Since they don't, do yours somehow trump everyone else's? Do you believe it moral, just or even logical to initiate violence and theft against other people so that YOU can satisfy YOUR fears, values and preferences of being protected against those who rob or aggress against others? How can you even justify the contradiction of the protector who aggresses against those who he is supposed to protect? The philosophy of anarchy is not that law and protection do not exist, but that they exist in a logical and non-contradictory manner that does not require initating violence and theft against other individuals to pay for it.

 

You say that "American's" are joint owner's to the continent's mineral rights, however ownership presupposes the idea of property rights. From what would you suggest every American's supposed "right" to this property is derived? Property rights are based on two premises, the first being the absolute ownership of one's self and the absolute right in material property of the person who first finds an unused material resource and then in some way occupies or transforms that resource by the use of his personal energy. By which way is joint ownership claimed? What happens if an owner wishes to sell off his portion of the rights or acquire more? Since this idea that Americans somehow jointly own the mineral rights is completely baseless and patently absurd, why then should they be forced to pay for the protection of those rights? Besides this, you also assume that if the government doesn't steal from people to pay for defense or other services, that those services would not exist? Do you really believe this to be true? And if so, on what basis?

[knapplc]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said and took it to mean that Portugal, Japan and Canada did not have standing armies. Nonetheless, my point is still valid. For if all those individual countries, which are comprised entirely of individual people, can act, trade and negotiate in a mutual manner with other countries, which are also comprised entirely of people, while maintaining a relatively peaceful and prosperous state and without being forced to, at gunpoint, by a coercive monopoly that controls the entire world; then why is it not logically possible for states, counties, cities, communities, and individuals to also do the same? Since there is not one coercive monopoly for the entire world and individual countries do act in a state of anarchy, as it pertains to their relationships and actions with other countries, why could individuals, which each country is entirely comprised of, not do the same?

 

Let's not say these people can act, rather let's say they could act if society were set up that way. But society is not, nor has it been in the modern era. In modern times, trade treaties negotiated with other countries by a single, unified source (government) acts on behalf of an agglomeration of individuals. You seem to be ignoring the very basic concepts of modern trade in your arguments. One individual shopowner is NEVER going to out-negotiate terms against a unified body. That's why trade agreements between nations exist – by unifying disparate goods/services into one body, they can negotiate better terms.

 

The kinds of trade you're talking about are simplistic, one-on-one trades involving one person to one person. You have a country of individuals making trade agreements across borders with other countries, while I have a unified government negotiating treaties on behalf of a conglomeration of business owners offering a myriad of goods and services, and my unified government is going to bury your individual negotiators every time. This is why Wal-Mart pushes out the little guy mom-and-pop shops – based on volume, Wal-Mart can undercut anyone's prices and drive them out of business.

 

Any time you start to agglomerate disparate entities in order to negotiate better terms, you're inevitably going to have to have a control mechanism in place, a system for granting and overseeing authority to negotiate, etc. All of these things are the basic nuclei of government. It doesn't matter what you call it, that's what it is. No matter how you slice it, you end up at some form of government every time.

 

Also, I have never inferred or stated that people/countries who are willing use force to take from myself and other people do not exist. I know they do, which is exactly why I would probably pay to have some type of protection. Whether or not that includes an army of trained soldiers or merely my own weapons should be decided and based entirely upon my own subjective preferences and values and paid for with my own money. Do you believe that everyone has your same fears, preferences and values? Since they don't, do yours somehow trump everyone else's? Do you believe it moral, just or even logical to initiate violence and theft against other people so that YOU can satisfy YOUR fears, values and preferences of being protected against those who rob or aggress against others? How can you even justify the contradiction of the protector who aggresses against those who he is supposed to protect? The philosophy of anarchy is not that law and protection do not exist, but that they exist in a logical and non-contradictory manner that does not require initating violence and theft against other individuals to pay for it.

 

No, of course these values aren't set up on MY fears, or any other single person's fears. They're set up to alleviate the most common fears that the majority feels (in a democracy, at least).

 

And this whole notion you have that because a person acknowledges the need for governance that they tacitly approve of abuse of power is absurd.

 

Look at cancer. Cancer is avarice, and chemotherapy is government. Nobody likes chemo – it's poison. It is, unfortunately, a necessary evil to treat cancer. Nobody thinks chemo is good, in fact, most people hate what it is and what it does to people. But for every bit of harm chemo does, it does more good, and the net result is good, or designed to be good. That's what government is. It's a system that engenders every human failing, yet is supposed to have net good. And many do, which is why a system of governance has been the society of choice for humans since beyond recorded history.

 

You say that "American's" are joint owner's to the continent's mineral rights, however ownership presupposes the idea of property rights. From what would you suggest every American's supposed "right" to this property is derived? Property rights are based on two premises, the first being the absolute ownership of one's self and the absolute right in material property of the person who first finds an unused material resource and then in some way occupies or transforms that resource by the use of his personal energy. By which way is joint ownership claimed? What happens if an owner wishes to sell off his portion of the rights or acquire more? Since this idea that Americans somehow jointly own the mineral rights is completely baseless and patently absurd, why then should they be forced to pay for the protection of those rights? Besides this, you also assume that if the government doesn't steal from people to pay for defense or other services, that those services would not exist? Do you really believe this to be true? And if so, on what basis?

 

You're right, it is absurd to have used the word "ownership." My apologies, because that didn't convey what I meant. Rather than "ownership," let's us the word "associated." *I* don't own the mineral rights to the resources in America, but I am associated with them because someone, somewhere here in America does, whether that be the government, an individual or some corporation. Because I live in the borders of this country, I am associated with those minerals, or widgets, or whatever thing of value you want to call it. Because of that association, I am at risk from those who wish to acquire them from the actual owner by means of force, as is anyone else living within the borders of this country. Hence my point. Sorry for not being more clear about that and forcing the "ownership" tangent.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Security should be handled with a common military paid for by common funds, derived from a fair tax. It should be efficient, sufficient and proficient. It should not waste, it should not engage in superfluous wars, it should not instigate wars, it should not attack a peaceful nation, and it should serve the common good when not engaged in war.

This statement falsely assumes a few things. First, that the subjective fallacy of the "common good" actually exists. Second, that that YOU know what the "common good" is. Third, that any tax is "fair." Lastly, that a coercive monoply can and will provide the services you desire.

 

Read my post about why a coercive monopoly cannot provide, efficient, sufficient or proficient service. For in order to do so requires the signals of profit and loss, which cannot exist if funds are extracted coercively.

 

Common good does exist, obviously so. Simple example: American mineral rights are worth trillions of dollars. Without a military, we would be conquered for those mineral rights. It is in the common interest of every American, therefore, to voluntarily provide for the common defense to prevent enslavement by a foreign power. Your post about a coercive monopoly was false, and I showed you how.

So instead we can be enslaved by a domestic power? Maybe one bound to a piece of paper written over 200 years ago?

 

You keep assuming that no defense would exist in a free society, why is that? How economically illiterate can one be to not know that when a demand exists, that individuals who wish to benefit, will rush to fill it? Can one really be so blind, that they are unable to notice the fact that self interest and the profit motive is what drives human beings?

 

And no, the common good, does not exist. What is good to you? Does everybody agree on what is good? Is good what the majority suggests or those who have the most money and political pull? Is stealing from one person and giving to another good for the person who was stolen from? Society, also known as the common, only consists of individuals. Therefore, the only way for society/the common to get better is for the individuals, who make up that society. to get better. If one person in society is stolen from or aggressed against so that someone else can feel safe, how is society getting better. Society is in fact not getting better but is in fact getting worse. Not only is the individual who was stolen from worse off, but the individual who was the recipient of theft has been introduced to the idea of dependancy, which breeds both irresponsibility and further dependancy for himself and others.

 

Also, what made my post about the coercive monopoly false? I fail to see how anything you may have written can refute the fact that because a coercive monopoly does not have profit or loss signals, that it cannot possibly know supply or demand. Because this is true, a coercive monopoly cannot be counted on to provide or sustain efficient, proficient, sufficient, wasteless, or any other productive benefit other than politically motivated aggression and destruction.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Let's not say these people can act, rather let's say they could act if society were set up that way. But society is not, nor has it been in the modern era. In modern times, trade treaties negotiated with other countries by a single, unified source (government) acts on behalf of an agglomeration of individuals. You seem to be ignoring the very basic concepts of modern trade in your arguments. One individual shopowner is NEVER going to out-negotiate terms against a unified body. That's why trade agreements between nations exist – by unifying disparate goods/services into one body, they can negotiate better terms.

 

The kinds of trade you're talking about are simplistic, one-on-one trades involving one person to one person. You have a country of individuals making trade agreements across borders with other countries, while I have a unified government negotiating treaties on behalf of a conglomeration of business owners offering a myriad of goods and services, and my unified government is going to bury your individual negotiators every time. This is why Wal-Mart pushes out the little guy mom-and-pop shops – based on volume, Wal-Mart can undercut anyone's prices and drive them out of business.

 

Any time you start to agglomerate disparate entities in order to negotiate better terms, you're inevitably going to have to have a control mechanism in place, a system for granting and overseeing authority to negotiate, etc. All of these things are the basic nuclei of government. It doesn't matter what you call it, that's what it is. No matter how you slice it, you end up at some form of government every time.

 

Better terms for who? The only people that government trade agreements help are the politically connected and the government itself. Any time government involves itself in trade whether through regulation, licensing, tariffs, or taxes the end result is always higher prices and less prosperity. Who does that benefit?

 

And I'm not saying that trade has to be simplistic or non-unified, but rather that it be voluntary and does not violate other individuals rights. Since the individuals of countries already do this, why could they not continue? Or, why not make a trade person to person? Your assuming that an organization like Wal-mart could even exist in a free market, when in reality corporations are a fiction created by government. Show me a successful corporation and I'll show you a gravy train to the government filled with bribes, legislation in it's favor, price fixing and all other kinds of evils that would destroy a business in a free market.

 

Sorry for the short response, gotta cut it short. I don't have time to finish, but I'll be back.

[knapplc]

Hey, if we could pause this for the weekend that would be swell. Gonna be crazy busy.