Brainpolice:I find this kind of akward. Deception of the people is justified as a defense against government aggression? Do the ends justify the means? Or do the ends not justify the means quite simply because the means employed determine the nature of the ends?
To me, its just the defensive use of coercion, of fraud. The voters deceived have tried to force their socially conservative agenda on others using the democratic process. Of course, I cannot know what his ends and means really are, only he knows that. He's not as two-faced as most politicians, but his message is not completely consistent on social issues.
Brainpolice:Treating the nation-state as if it were the legitimate private property of the government, or the people's common property (tragedy of the commons, anyone?), opens up a huge can of worms that could imply some highly questionable things if we consistantly applied it.
This is true. But considering that there is government ownership of land, and its certainly not going away any time soon, whats the best way to make use of it? Turning that land into commons where no one could exercise any ownership or control over it would be a complete disaster. I would take democratic control over land over true commons.
Brainpolice:Either way, all such charges that are thrown at immigrants apply equally if not more so to domestic citezens, who vote for socialism and beg for welfare all the time. Are we therefore justified in kicking domestic citezens out of the country for driving on the public roads and sending their children to public schools? Or should we strike at the root, the welfare state itself, rather than using the welfare state as a rationale for violating people's rights and implementing new or expanded government interventions?
Well, Paul has stated on a few occasions that the immigrants are not the problem, the welfare state is. He certainly does not demonize them. He's stated he wants to get rid of the welfare state (especially for illegal immigrants), but realizes this just isn't going to happen in the short run. He seems to fear what will happen when Medicare and Social Security are really shown to be as insolvent as they are. I rather fear it as well. If the worst happens, we may end up with more government control, ala the New Deal. If any sort of disaster should come, I think its vital that the feds (who are already extremely unpopular) allow states to seceed.
Government has assumed many unjust powers in society, but I don't think its fair to say that advocating or voting for the use of these powers in more sensible and productive fashions is in any way immoral. Clearly the federal government can do useful things. Its an unjust, coercive monopoly, but even unjust coercive monopolies can provide useful services, even if those services are inferior to what might be offered in a free society. Sure it would be nice if government would relinquish its unjust powers, but that is rarely a real option.
I think any government action really comes down to the "lesser of the evils", and Ron Paul is clearly that.
Jim OConnor: The Federal constitution delegates very limited powers to the Federal government. Please show me where the Federal government is given authority to say anything about what goes on within the states other than that they must have a "republican form of government." The limitations in the Constitution are all on the Federal government. If a state wanted to institute worship of the peanut there would be nothing that the Federal government operating in the bounds of the constitution could do about it.The states were very protective of their distinctiveness and individual authority and wouldn't have ratified anything which enabled the SC to swoop in and re-order their society. Spooner makes interesting arguments that slavery was unconstitutional that have some merit, however, I think he is stretching. I think his argument that the constitution has no authority is better. The Constitution isn't what we want it to be, it is what it was written as, by those who wrote it, and those who ratified it.
The Federal constitution delegates very limited powers to the Federal government. Please show me where the Federal government is given authority to say anything about what goes on within the states other than that they must have a "republican form of government." The limitations in the Constitution are all on the Federal government. If a state wanted to institute worship of the peanut there would be nothing that the Federal government operating in the bounds of the constitution could do about it.The states were very protective of their distinctiveness and individual authority and wouldn't have ratified anything which enabled the SC to swoop in and re-order their society. Spooner makes interesting arguments that slavery was unconstitutional that have some merit, however, I think he is stretching. I think his argument that the constitution has no authority is better.
The Constitution isn't what we want it to be, it is what it was written as, by those who wrote it, and those who ratified it.
You write, "Please show me where the Federal government is given authority to say anything about what goes on within the states other than that they must have a "republican form of government." The limitations in the Constitution are all on the Federal government. If a state wanted to institute worship of the peanut" --(Carter's Georgia?)-- "there would be nothing that the Federal government operating in the bounds of the constitution could do about it."
The authority is given in Article IV, Sec.2 which states, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states." In other words, the Bill of Rights applies to the states, therefore the Federal government is given the authority to say something about what goes on within the states. The limitations in the Constitution are not all on the Federal government contrary to what you claim, as this illustrates. So the States cannot do things prohibited by the Bill of Rights. They could not establish Carterism, based on the worship of the peanut, as an official Georgian state religion, as much as he'd like it.
Therefore the immunities in the Bill of Rights apply to state law. When you execute me you violate my 1st amendment right to free speech, free press, and right to petition for grievances. If I was innocent, you murdered me and stole my inalienable rights, and by your own law, you deserve to be put to death. You also violated my 4th Amendment right to be safe in my person from unreasonable seizure, since murder of ones body would be the most unreasonable seizure of all. You also violated my 8th Amendment right against suffering a cruel punishment. I doubt there are many waiting to be executed who do not think it cruel, especially if they are innocent. If men did not think murder cruel, they would not punish it with murder.
Finally, you violated my 9th Amendment rights which enable me to retain other rights not innumerated in the Constitution. I would take these to be at the least the inalienable rights listed in the Declaration: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Well, how can an anarcho-capitalist vote and still stand on principle? Probably it isn't possible. The case for a Ron Paul presidency is pragmatic at best, and I have struggled with it for a long time. I agree with PP who have said that the expectations of his supporters that he will "save the country" are probably a bit excessive.
That said, there are a few things that I do pragmatically, even if it irks me. I pay my taxes. I could fight it, but I am not willing to make the social sacrifices that action would entail. It is in this line of thinking that I can vote for Ron Paul. I am tired of paying for so much death. Ron Paul will end the carnage. He would have the authority to, and he always does what he says. Does this fly in the face of the "lesser of two evils is still evil" argument? Probably. However, I think that there are certain situations where compromise of principles can be justified. If a person believes that a baby is a baby when it has a heartbeat, does that person have a moral obligation to cease all relations with a friend who has had an abortion? I don't think so. The foundation of an anarcho-capitalist society, IMO, is the community that creates our moral bonds with each other. Cultivation of these bonds is primary to me. It is in this spirit that I will vote for Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul. After this, I'm done.
I realize that this is a little off-topic of the current discussion, but it is relevant to the OP.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
thompsonisland:Well, how can an anarcho-capitalist vote and still stand on principle? Probably it isn't possible.
Stopping needless wars aren't part of market anarchism? How about domestic wars against drug users? You're never going to find a system (even anarchism needs social systems, even those based on spontaneous order) you feel is perfectly just, period.
We don't even know if anarchism is really sustainable. It may not be a viable option, but only an ideal to strive for.
Grant:We don't even know if anarchism is really sustainable. It may not be a viable option, but only an ideal to strive for.
Any system that has enough power to defend itself can work. The US would not exist if it had failed to repel the British. The southern Confederacy does not exist today because it failed to repel the invaders from the north. The south had every right to peaceable leave the union. However, its' right to leave was not adequately defended. The people of Iraq have every right to defend their oil, but the fact that the US is more powerful means that the US can steal without regard for the sovereignty of individuals.
Anarcho-capitalism will only work if people are educated, responsible, carefully selected, and have the ability to defend the system via intellectual, monetary, and physical means. Carefully selected means that members of an anarcho-capitalist society must prove that they understand and can act in accordance with the principles of that society i.e. be responsible. They must also be financial independent and capable of self-defense. In essence, you have to earn the right to be free.
"The authority is given in Article IV, Sec.2 which states,"
Your interpretation of that clause isn't unique, but it also isn't the one which seems to flow most naturally from it, as at the time there was no such thing as a citizeon of the United States, you were a citizen of one of the individual states, and other states had to treat you the same as if you were a citizen of their own state. I believe this is a most accurate reading given the historical context.
Your argument against capital punishment makes punishment of any crime unconstitutional since punishment is an abrogation of rights, by definition. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime..." If there is no such thing as a crime punishable by capital punishment then there can't be a capital crime.
The Constitution is what it is. Trying to force it to say what you think it should say is what the judicial activists to.
Jim OConnor: "The authority is given in Article IV, Sec.2 which states," Your interpretation of that clause isn't unique, but it also isn't the one which seems to flow most naturally from it, as at the time there was no such thing as a citizeon of the United States, you were a citizen of one of the individual states, and other states had to treat you the same as if you were a citizen of their own state. I believe this is a most accurate reading given the historical context. Your argument against capital punishment makes punishment of any crime unconstitutional since punishment is an abrogation of rights, by definition. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime..." If there is no such thing as a crime punishable by capital punishment then there can't be a capital crime. The Constitution is what it is. Trying to force it to say what you think it should say is what the judicial activists to.
My interpretation of Art.IV, Sec.2, certainly seems to flow most naturally from it to my mind. The argument that there were technically no U.S.Citizens at the time the Constitution was being drafted seems a big sophistical as they were clearly aiming to form"a more perfect union", a federal entity where all would both be citizens of both federation and state, nor would it matter to a strict constitutionalist since he is reading the words of the constitution as they apply to the case in hand,today, as has been true with every case brought before the Supreme Court for the last hundred years or so.. The argument that the states can pretty much do what they want, irregardless of the Bill of Rights and Art.4,Sec.2, was tried for a century by the Southerners in trying to defend their crime of slavery which was clearly unconstitutional,, and their contorted sophistry is laughable today if you go back to read their arguments.
You say, "Your argument against capital punishment makes punishment of any crime unconstitutional since punishment is an abrogation of rights, by definition." I disagree. When you are punished by imprisonment for theft, your Right to Liberty is not abrogated or annulled. It is restricted, severely limited within the "contract" you made, or better had imposed on you, when society says through the law, "We will restore you to your full Right after completion of this expiatory sentence." Within jail, your Right to Liberty is not annulled, but restricted. You have a right to a certain sized cell. If your behaviour is not disruptive to the jail, you cannot be strapped to a guerney, or shackled and placed in a straight-jacket. This would be true annulment of the Right to Liberty. Here, the Right is only restricted, and with a sunset clause. However, when you legally murder someone through the State, you have annulled their Right to Life permanently.
The clause that mentions capital punishment might merely refer to the fact that it was, unfortunately, a common practice in virtually all the uncivilized nations of the earth at that time. Given the bloodthirstiness of man throughout history, I'm sure there were many amongst the drafting congress who enjoyed a good hanging as much as the next sadist. But the fact that it is mentioned as a possibility does not imply that it was therefore necessarily constitutional; perhaps the clarevoyant Fathers foresaw a time when a collectivist tyrant would use the death penalty as it always has been used throughout history by state-fascists, to shut up the opposition or plunder their estates. This clause was a further safeguard in case of an attempted coup-by-undermining-the-constitution as we are seeing now, with only Ron Paul speaking out loudly against it.
I feel very strongly that I am strictly viewing the words of the Constitution as written, and it seems to me that you are contorting its words to confirm to a judicial activist agenda. Maybe I'll see you on the Court Bench.
Did you all catch Dr. Paul's interviews with Woodruff/PBS and Wash.Jnl/C-Span? He was great again.
Your argument about the nature of the Constitution is along the same lines Lincoln made. While there was a minority of people at the time of the ratification of the Constitution that wanted to create a national, as opposed to federal, government, Tom Woods has some great lectures which point out the historical reasons that wasn't what was intended.
With regards to "your right to liberty is abridged when you society says through the law..." is no different than that your right to life is abridged when society says through the law...
I am in principle not against the death penalty when someone commits pre-meditated murder as it seems to me to be the only just punishment since there is no possibility of making the victim whole (always my preferred path). However, I don't trust the federal government, or many of the state governments to exercise that power.
All you accomplish by making the federal government the uber-enforcer of "libertarian" values is make sure that every decision it makes wrong will affect as many people as possible. Centralization of power is in itself an evil. The Founding Fathers were (for the most part, Hamilton and his ilk notwithstanding) very afraid of centralization, which is why they made the Federal government so weak. It couldn't even make states send soldiers to fight the war of 1812. They assumed that the states could leave the union at any time to avoid any federal power grabs, but we lost that restraint as well.
Jim OConnor:The Federal constitution delegates very limited powers to the Federal government. Please show me where the Federal government is given authority to say anything about what goes on within the states other than that they must have a "republican form of government." The limitations in the Constitution are all on the Federal government. If a state wanted to institute worship of the peanut there would be nothing that the Federal government operating in the bounds of the constitution could do about it. The states were very protective of their distinctiveness and individual authority and wouldn't have ratified anything which enabled the SC to swoop in and re-order their society. Spooner makes interesting arguments that slavery was unconstitutional that have some merit, however, I think he is stretching. I think his argument that the constitution has no authority is better. The Constitution isn't what we want it to be, it is what it was written as, by those who wrote it, and those who ratified it.
The Federal constitution delegates very limited powers to the Federal government. Please show me where the Federal government is given authority to say anything about what goes on within the states other than that they must have a "republican form of government." The limitations in the Constitution are all on the Federal government. If a state wanted to institute worship of the peanut there would be nothing that the Federal government operating in the bounds of the constitution could do about it.
The states were very protective of their distinctiveness and individual authority and wouldn't have ratified anything which enabled the SC to swoop in and re-order their society. Spooner makes interesting arguments that slavery was unconstitutional that have some merit, however, I think he is stretching. I think his argument that the constitution has no authority is better.
Oh right... I forgot... A Napoleon type dictator is ok as long as he's only the Napoleon dictator of Ohio... Gotcha!
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Jim OConnor: Your argument about the nature of the Constitution is along the same lines Lincoln made. While there was a minority of people at the time of the ratification of the Constitution that wanted to create a national, as opposed to federal, government, Tom Woods has some great lectures which point out the historical reasons that wasn't what was intended. With regards to "your right to liberty is abridged when you society says through the law..." is no different than that your right to life is abridged when society says through the law... I am in principle not against the death penalty when someone commits pre-meditated murder as it seems to me to be the only just punishment since there is no possibility of making the victim whole (always my preferred path). However, I don't trust the federal government, or many of the state governments to exercise that power. All you accomplish by making the federal government the uber-enforcer of "libertarian" values is make sure that every decision it makes wrong will affect as many people as possible. Centralization of power is in itself an evil. The Founding Fathers were (for the most part, Hamilton and his ilk notwithstanding) very afraid of centralization, which is why they made the Federal government so weak. It couldn't even make states send soldiers to fight the war of 1812. They assumed that the states could leave the union at any time to avoid any federal power grabs, but we lost that restraint as well.
I don't believe I used the term "your right to liberty is abridged when you(?) society says through the law", but used the terms "abrogated" "annulled" and "restricted". When you are imprisoned for theft, your Right to Liberty is abridged; when you are executed, your Right to Life is annulled or abrogated ---that is, wiped out permenently. That's a huge difference. Since you introduce the new term "abridge" into the Rights discussion, let's note that the Webster's New Collegiate defines it as "to reduce in compass, leaving still relatively complete". This is exactly what happens when you are imprisoned for theft, but not strapped down in the cell, and are released after your sentence is served, and is basically the same as what I refered to as "restriction". Your Right to Life is "abrogated" or "annulled" when you are executed, not "abridged" , since its permanently wiped out, so executing someone for murder is not parallel to jailing someone for theft as you claim.
There is another argument that occurred to me against capital punishment that I've never heard put, and that is its violation of the capitalist property-rights of the next of kin of the victim. It seems to me that the labour-potential of someone who has been convicted of, let's say, 1st degree, really heinous, murder and is given the death penalty, should be able to be "claimed as the personal property" of either the next of kin or "society". Now I would claim that first priority should be given to the next of kin, say wife and kids, who would have a claim or lien on the"fruits of the labour" of the convicted. Considering how many hours there are in a person's life, this could add up to a small fortune for the children say of the victim, to put them through college, or buy a house. Add to this the fact I've heard bandied about that the typical execution cost $1million. Put this money in the bank at $5% and the $50K generated comes very close to the figure I hear for typical incarceration costs for one year, so the costs of continued live incarceration would be equal to the costs of execution to the taxpayer.The "fruits of the labour" clause could further be divided between going to prison costs, and financial accrual to next of kin (50-50). The next of kin would benefit, the taxpayer would benefit, the constitutional Right to Life would be maintained, and the murderer could find some redemption in the fact that he was contributing to society, even if he didn't want to. This would be a much fairer, cost-effective answer to what to do with homicidal psychopaths, and would give some sense of redemption to the truly penitent, while providing a pretty miserable existence for those who you want to truly punish, since I'd have them working 12 hour days, 6 days a week. washing dishes or crushing aluminum cans.
Thanks for the historical clarification on national citizenship, and the reference to Tom Woods' material. I shall take a mental bowsaw to it at first opportunity.
I agree that stopping needless wars is an activity that is morally consistent with anarcho-capitalism. However, both these wars that you mention are problems created by government, and requiring action by government (elimination of bad policy) to cease. Not starting wars is an act of free society, but stopping stupid and destructive actions taken by government in our names requires a government solution. Only politicians can end these two wars, because they are government actions. That is why I think it is morally consistent for an anarcho-capitalist to vote for Ron Paul, but inconsistent with the principles of anarcho-capitalism. Does that make sense?
Adding "abridged" to the conversation -- sorry about that. Trying to do this while other things. Probably a bad idea.
When you are imprisoned your right to liberty is a lot more than abridged. You can be released from prison, while being released after execution is pretty meaningless (in all but one case), I'll admit. In the case of someone who malevolently took someone else's life I'm not partiuclarly concerned. As far as the property rights of next of kin of the criminal -- the criminal violated those. If next of kin have property rights in a meaningful way then you could never go on vacation or partake in dangerous hobbies because you'd be violating your dependents' property rights to the money foregone. This is the difference between a sequence of actions initiated by the earner and those that happen to him.
When you sign a mortgage do you allow for the note holder to have an evolving understanding of the contract? If there is no meeting of minds then there is no contract. If one party can change the contract without agreement from the other party then you don't have a contract, you have slavery to the party with the power to change the terms. See the Principles of '98.
It's been fun.
You're defending states. Whether you're defending small states over bigger states you're still defending states.There is no defense of a state. No defense of a constitution. To hell with both of them.
If you were presented with two slave masters, one cruel and one kind, and you were told to choose, would you choose the kind one or would you say, "No, you choose for me."
There are not only two possible states of existence, utopia and destitution. If we can win ourselves a better condition, even if only slighty so, that is worth seeking.
Voting does not legitimize the state. The state is always a myth, a construct of our mind.
Voting has the potential to prevent certain manifestations of state violence, and even end the State all together.
A vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for the State, the State will continue on regardless. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against war, the health of the State.
Peace
Niccolò:Oh right... I forgot... A Napoleon type dictator is ok as long as he's only the Napoleon dictator of Ohio... Gotcha!
Oh you silly Europeans.
If there is a dictator of only Ohio, who am I, a Californian, to try to expel that dictator? I have no more authority to overthrow their dictator than Bush has authority to overthrow Saddam. If I can achieve freedom for myself, good for me. Ohioans are no worse off than they were when everyone was a slave.
However, an increase in federalism reduces the chance of dictators. The American government system was created by people who, though they did not understand markets or anarchy, did truly hate tyranny. They knew that federalism empowered the people and weakened government.
Anarchy is most likely to be achieved through federalism. By abolishing government starting at the top and working down to the local until every person has sovereignty over himself.
JonBostwick:If there is a dictator of only Ohio, who am I, a Californian, to try to expel that dictator? I have no more authority to overthrow their dictator than Bush has authority to overthrow Saddam.
Why don't you? If you saw someone being mugged in the street, would you have moral authority to beat up the mugger? I hope so. You certainly don't have any moral grounds to tax someone else in order to hire police who will stop muggings, and you certainly don't have any obligation to stop the muggings yourself, but doing so wouldn't be immoral. The problem with interventionism isn't that its immoral in and of itself (although it can be, depending on the nature of the intervention), its that taxing 3rd parties in order to intervein is immoral.
Grant:Why don't you? If you saw someone being mugged in the street, would you have moral authority to beat up the mugger?
Why don't you? If you saw someone being mugged in the street, would you have moral authority to beat up the mugger?
Good question. The only person who has "moral authority to beat up the mugger" is the victim. Of course, through mutual consent and voluntary relationships, this right can be transferred. The victim can hire a body guard, or accept a charitable donation of protection. Someone shooting, "Help!" is soliciting protection services.
If the victim chooses to surrender his wallet rather than accept your protection, you do not have the ability to disagree with his choice.
Your analogy assumes the muggee does not consent, but this is not the case with governments.
The people of Iraq definitely had the right to resist Saddam, but they did not choose to do so. Neither George W. Bush, nor the American people, are justified in resisting Saddam out of their own initiative. They can do it only as employees, hired or volunteer, of a person with a specific claim against Saddam.
For example, George W. might parachute into an Iraqi home and defend it from Saddam's tax collectors.
But going into a foreign country and assassinating the leader is not much different from walking into a church and shooting a corrupt minister. You may think people will be better off without him, but you have no right to impose your values on others.
JonBostwick:Your analogy assumes the muggee does not consent, but this is not the case with governments.
Thats what a mugging is, a robbery by force. The lack of consent is presupposed, or we'd call it something else, like charity or gift-giving.
JonBostwick:The people of Iraq definitely had the right to resist Saddam, but they did not choose to do so. Neither George W. Bush, nor the American people, are justified in resisting Saddam out of their own initiative. They can do it only as employees, hired or volunteer, of a person with a specific claim against Saddam.
Saddam didn't take kindly to people who resisted his rule, so that was hardly an option for most Iraqis. There was undoubtedly a sizable segment of the population which wanted US intervention and could be said to be yelling "help!".
JonBostwick:But going into a foreign country and assassinating the leader is not much different from walking into a church and shooting a corrupt minister. You may think people will be better off without him, but you have no right to impose your values on others.
"Corrupt ministers" are hadly mass-murderers. If you saw this minister killing someone who clearly did not want to die, you wouldn't have the right to intervene and shoot the minister?
The USA's invasion of Iraq is immoral and stupid on many grounds, but that doesn't make all instances of defense-by-proxy immoral. The difficult part is not recognizing that heads of states are murderers (most are), but rather how to bring them to justice without cause even more injustice. Saddam couldn't be removed without something even worse taking his place, and everyone involved should have known that.
Grant: JonBostwick:The people of Iraq definitely had the right to resist Saddam, but they did not choose to do so. Neither George W. Bush, nor the American people, are justified in resisting Saddam out of their own initiative. They can do it only as employees, hired or volunteer, of a person with a specific claim against Saddam.Saddam didn't take kindly to people who resisted his rule, so that was hardly an option for most Iraqis. There was undoubtedly a sizable segment of the population which wanted US intervention and could be said to be yelling "help!". JonBostwick:But going into a foreign country and assassinating the leader is not much different from walking into a church and shooting a corrupt minister. You may think people will be better off without him, but you have no right to impose your values on others. "Corrupt ministers" are hadly mass-murderers. If you saw this minister killing someone who clearly did not want to die, you wouldn't have the right to intervene and shoot the minister?
As I said, violent defense needs to be on behalf of a person with a specific claim against Saddam. It also needs to be carried out during the commission of the crime. Otherwise it is not defense, but justice. And after-the-fact violent retaliation is not libertarian.
George W. Bush has no right to drive a tank through Iraqi backyards to get to the house to defend it from the tax collectors. His mission of "Defense" does not negate his duty of peaceful interaction with every other person.
War never fulfills these requirements.
Grant:The USA's invasion of Iraq is immoral and stupid on many grounds, but that doesn't make all instances of defense-by-proxy immoral.
War is not defense by proxy. War does not fit the requirements I listed. War is solely an instrument of the state, it is fought only on behalf of the State, it can have no other client.
Now an IED blowing up Hummers as they are on their way to invade a neighborhood might be justified.
People support Ron Paul for different reasons, and are at many different levels of understanding his ideas. Whether you're conservative, liberal or econo-anarchists, there is something in his message that seems tomake sense. People will vote for him because they support the gold-backed dollar, because he opposes income tax, or because they truly understand the implications of a central banking system. Others will vote for him because he's pro-life, because he's honest about foreign policy, because they truly want to end the war, because they're disillusioned by Democrats and Republicans, or simply because they want to keep their guns. I honestly don't care why people vote for him, as long as they do. Otherwise, the American empire will continue to grow until it collapses and our liberty and prosperity goes down with it.
JonBostwick:War is solely an instrument of the state, it is fought only on behalf of the State, it can have no other client.
Am I the only one who worries that with the rise of private security companies, it seems that in essence, corporations now have the capability to wage war?
Otherwise, the American empire will continue to grow until it collapses and our liberty and prosperity goes down with it.
Why shouldn't we want it to collapse? I thought that was the whole point really. To end the empire, not keep it stable.
measles: JonBostwick:War is solely an instrument of the state, it is fought only on behalf of the State, it can have no other client. Am I the only one who worries that with the rise of private security companies, it seems that in essence, corporations now have the capability to wage war?
This is the fruit of giving corporations equal rights with the individual. We need a supreme court that will once again place the rights of the individual above the rights of any corporation. The Declaration and Constitution were revolutionary documents designed to promote the liberty and the worth of the individual. They have nothing to do with corporations. The Ron Paul Revolution must once again champion these individual rights. Corporations. for the most part, are a group of capitalist lemmings who huddle together for collectivist comfort, and gang up on the individual. Dr. Paul and the Jeffersonians who will get elected in his wake must and will bring individual action to the forefront. And this is the promise not only of the Bill of Rights, but also of praxeology. Individual human action is the highest importance.
The world is 98.8% collectivist. The only island of capitalism exists in the minds of a few Ron Paul supporters and Libertarians. We must take back the world for free-market capitalism.
The love of money is the root of evil
We don't have to choose between money and morals.
Ron Paul looks good if you only consider economics. But even on the issue of abortion he is at least politically pro-choice. He says "Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters" (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Abortion.
Alan Keyes looks good if you only consider economics. But consider the issue of abortion He says "Our rights, including the right to life, are unalienable. If we kill ourselves or consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our right to life. We act unjustly. We usurp the power that belongs solely to the Creator, and deny the basis of our claim to human rights." http://www.alankeyes.com/issues_list.php#abortion
We don't have to choose between money and morals and we shouldn't.
tu ne cede malis
I have wondered if it is best to let evil eat it's self up, or to fight it at every instance.
My illogical preminition is that power replaces itself with more bad power. Like a perversion of "Grisam's Law". So, my feeling is to keep speaking out against the control of others by others. Gee, a candidate just doesn't come about and say why don't we try the Articles of Confederation in Perpetuity. That would be the representative I'd want. The case is he would sound like a madman.
I see no double agenda in Dr. Paul. I don't see him advocating a system of private courts, and private police. However, I don't see that as being contrary to classical liberal ethics. Law should not be monopolized, as for my means, but others do not see that as just means, though we seek like ends, and that is attaining the most peacefull, and wealthy society. It is easy to abstract away what is just for all, but until the actual practice of any system, history does not know.
I can say that he is no sophist, and for that I advocate his assension. Perhaps if we can start to win as many small battles as possible, we will be able to utilize our means to gain that wonderfull dream of a free society.
Individualism Rocks
Microsoft should be given a software monopoly, because if it isn't, rich people will buy up all the software companies.
Bell should be given a telephone monopoly, because if it isn't, how will the phones connect to each other? Plus all the rich people will buy all the telephone companies. There will be anarchy!
Surely you cannot only believe in markets except when it comes to protection of property rights. The free market: Serve and Protect. Plus how will this property "protection" be paid for? Thru theft?
A monopoly on justice is no more necessary than a monopoly on software. Goods and services are best provided by the free market, with no exceptions.
No profit motivated organization will engage in open warfare. Its just not worth it.
War is funded either by theft or donation. In the case of Iraq, Americans use theft and the "terrorists" donations.
These "private" security companies are just another branch of government, minus democratic oversight. Another example of corporatism, and not at all related to markets.
JonBostwick: measles: JonBostwick:War is solely an instrument of the state, it is fought only on behalf of the State, it can have no other client. Am I the only one who worries that with the rise of private security companies, it seems that in essence, corporations now have the capability to wage war? No profit motivated organization will engage in open warfare. Its just not worth it.
I don't really think that matters, because a great many organizations are not motivated by monetary profit. Governments, for instance, are full of individuals motivated by power. Those individuals won't change if they go to work in the private sector. The only hope is to change the mindset of the public. Currently, war is legitimized violence. Even in illegitimate wars, such as the current one in Iraq, no one is held accountable for the vast numbers of innocents killed for what has amounted to no reason at all. Unless the public sees through the state's veneir of legitimacy, they never will be. And as long as the people with the ability to work violence are not held accountable for their actions, you can be sure they will continue to work violence, whatever their motives might be.
Grant:I don't really think that matters, because a great many organizations are not motivated by monetary profit. Governments, for instance, are full of individuals motivated by power.
I don't really think that matters, because a great many organizations are not motivated by monetary profit. Governments, for instance, are full of individuals motivated by power.
Its not a matter of individuals, its a matter of organizations. No corporations that sells a service will engage in warfare, because of its adverse effects on its legitimate business.
Individuals may be motivated by power but they would be prevented from using market entities by market forces.
People could try to form organizations specifically dedicated to ethnic cleansing or whatever, but they would resemble charities not for-profit corporations.
I'm no anarchist, I want to see if the U.S.Constitution can work first.
What is the role of the government?
I may be wrong when seeing the aggregate of every man's heart, the desire to be free.
What is a public good? Who, or what can possibly provide one?
Peace may be a good for the public, but how can one or many justify it's means? It is not peaceful to violate anothers property, without a just cause. What can this jurisprudence by a collective do, but to provide for property. Civil rights, derive from property rights. Action tends to have externialities. Perhaps by proper means these intended or unintended consequences may be favorable. Value is a personal marginal utility scale. Perhaps society needs a system, one provicated by the will for liberty. To have freedom, one must act with responsability, or loose this natural right. Do we all need to be forced into aggregate insecurity? Can any system stand to reason with freedom? Can freedom be regulated systematicly?
Do or die, but don't force me to do anything I don't want to, or I may have some right to stop you from doing so.
Monopoly can exist by force, or by superior enterpriser-capitalistmanship. Is there any other way one can flourish?
Only laissiz faire can allow truly free enterprising. Resources are not allocated correctly by any other means.
Since everyone consumes, wealth does not last unless maintained. History has proven that even abject power can not sustain wealth long term. Men, all of whome consume, will desire liberty.
All the animals on the farm can share freedom, or destroy themselves.
Bank Run:I'm no anarchist, I want to see if the U.S.Constitution can work first.
It can't. It has proven that it can't. Everything that the people who wrote the constition said would not happen, has happened.
Returning to the Articles of Confederation is the only option open to a libertarian.
Yesterday, Nov. 5, 2007, marked the beginning of the death of the Democratic-Republican Communist Party. Finally.
As was touched on by someone above, it already has been shown to not work. It was defied almost from day one and the post-civil-war federal government, and especially the post WWI federal government, essentially has little to no resemblance to the document. The constitution already has failed, so I don't see the logic in trying the exact same thing again. Clearly, the document can either be interpreted in a manner that implies the opposite of its original intent or meaning, or outright defied anyways. The document was flawed in the first place (not to mention that it was expansive in comparison to the document that preceded it, namely the AOC). And, furthermore, the document did not represent an actual voluntary contract with the people in the first place, it was designed and signed by a small band of men, irrespective of the consent of those living at the time.
The idea of a contract that I never signed that binds me to the authority of the state from birth, is akin to slavery from birth. I never signed no stinking contract. How is it that I am binded by this document for merely being born within the territory? How is it that I am obligated to serve a particular band of men for merely being born within the territory? How can a document be self-enforcing? It cannot, it must be created and enforced by flesh and blood individual men. How can the law rule all on its own? It cannot. The rule of law is more often than not a concept meant to, or that at least functions to even without such intent, disguise what is really the rule of men. For all of the reasons stated so far, I reject the idea of the social contract, at least as it is commonly understood and advocated. The state can not be contractual. If such an institution truly is contractual, it ceases to be a state in any rational definition of the word.
Not only can the constitution not work and has been empirically shown to not work, but it cannot be ethically justified to begin with.