you are using 'political leader' equivocally.
could they establish an organisation for defence under voluntary principle and somehow avoid you label of 'political' ?
and are they defending 'the public' or individuals who are their customers in the city?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Please see my new post "confused and seeking help." That will explain why I am even having this debate in the first place :)
"Then I noticed your statement about Mr. Griffin and had an emotional response, since he has had a huge influence on me and I have a lot of respect for him. In my opinion, he has a very deep understanding of political philosophy."
No worries. I apologise for not employing more tact. It appears you've got some intellectual honesty and are willing to question your premises, you're searching for the truth and that I can respect.
"Also, to be honest, I am a newbie who is somewhat intimidated by your brand of fiery debate. You are not afraid to to tell people flat out that they are wrong, which is a good thing. But it is intimidating, since I have not engaged in much debate of political philosophy."
The reason for this is because I once held the exact same position. I discovered Ron Paul, then slowly went through the whole process - always questioning my position, I knew I was ignorant (still am) and that's generally the biggest step (knowing that you don't know something). I knew nothing about political philosophy or economics, so I had a lot to consider. And I did, went through mises.org lectures, bought a lot of books (The Creature from Jekyll Island being one of them), lurked here for quite some time - and only started to speak up when I thought I was correct & could back it up. I never attacked the concept of truly free society (I just knew I had a lot to learn about the position and what it is), so when folks come here (not you btw) and dismiss the concept, whilst still clearly being in a state of ignorance - they have no intellectual honesty, they haven't considered the position, so I tend to dismiss them and not bother wasting any time with those of closed minds [cut straight to the chase].
Anyway, here is a video I made back in the day - http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Conza88#p/u/4/zIOX9IQhL3M
With props to G. Edward Griffin.
"I agree completely with that passage by Kinsella. But there is a condition: "When the state is defined in this manner." G. Edward Griffin defines the state differently."
Yeah I understand. Which is why, all we are really doing is discussing semantics.
Me: "If you would prefer that defense be organized by private institutions, they why do you conclude that it must be organized by the state?"
Mr. Griffin: "I did not mean to give the impression that it MUST be organized by the state. However, my judgment is that it always WILL be. Why? Because if it is organized privately, it will not be long before the private defense organization will BECOME the state. In the final analysis, that is a pretty good definition of a state: An organization authorized by the citizens to use coercion on their behalf. Even if we insist that it is private, it will act as the state."
Except it won't. All he has done is made assertions, there are no valid arguments. His proposition is exactly the same minarchists, limited state folk and that who support a 'night watchmen' state, such as Ayn Rand... and Nozick. Mr. G. E. Griffin it seems just calls it a "protectorate" instead, as if it's a new concept. There are a myriad of sources out there debunking that notion. And it seems he is completely unaware of them.
- Society without a State by MNR
"In attempting to outline how a "society without a state" – that is, an anarchist society – might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not "really" anarchism.
This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics."
.......... cont.
- Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State by MNR
ROBERT NOZICK’S ANARCHY, STATE, and Utopia2 is an “invisible hand” variant of a Lockean contractarian attempt to justify the State, or at least a minimal State confined to the functions of protection. Beginning with a free-market anarchist state of nature, Nozick portrays the State as emerging, by an invisible hand process that violates no one’s rights, first as a dominant protective agency, then to an “ultraminimal state,” and then finally to a minimal state.
Before embarking on a detailed critique of the various Nozickian stages, let us consider several grave fallacies in Nozick’s conception itself, each of which would in itself be sufficient to refute his attempt to justify the State.
- Would anarchy create governments?
- The proof of anarchy
But really, it seems like - in part, an effort to re-package the material so it is "sellable". That has nothing to do with the truth though. And if thats the case, call it "voluntarism" instead of anarchy, anti-monopolism etc.
"So there are no limits on state power in the Constitution?"
The Inner Contradictions of the State - MNR
...
Calhoun goes on to point out that a Constitution will not be able to keep the government limited; for given a monopoly Supreme Court selected by the self-same government and granted the power of ultimate decision-making, the political "ins" will always favor a "broad" or loose interpretation of the wording of the Constitution serving to expand the powers of government over the citizenry; and, over time, the "ins" will inexorably tend to win out over the minority of "outs" who will argue vainly for a "strict" interpretation limiting State power.[14]
But there are other fatal flaws and inconsistencies in the concept of limited, laissez-faire government. In the first place, it is generally accepted, by limited-government and by other political philosophers, that the State is necessary for the creation and development of law. But this is historically incorrect. For most law, but especially the most libertarian parts of the law, emerged not from the State, but out of non-State institutions: tribal custom, common-law judges and courts, the law merchant in mercantile courts, or admiralty law in tribunals set up by shippers themselves.
Anatomy of the State - MNR
....
"True, the power of the ruling elite did increase with the Constitution vs. the AoC. But their power was still limited."
What has it managed to limit? Where does the growth of the state not exist? What part of society? The US is a world empire. The parts it currently has little access to, it is developing means to do so.
No, it limited nothing.
The Anti-Federalists were Right - Gary Galles
"One of the most insightful of the Antifederalists was Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution. Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching was particularly insightful.
Brutus asserted that the Supreme Court envisioned under the Constitution would become a source of massive abuse because they were beyond the control "both of the people and the legislature," and not subject to being "corrected by any power above them." As a result, he objected to the fact that its provisions justifying the removal of judges didn't include making rulings that went beyond their constitutional authority, which would lead to judicial tyranny."
... cont.
"The ruling elite of the American colonies created the popular will of the day. By articulating the principles of individual freedom and natural rights, they motivated thousands of soldiers to risk their lives on the battlefield."
The natural elite were joined together against a common enemy, King George III and thus Great Britian.
"Once the Revolutionary War was won, the elites had the power to establish whatever sort of rule they wanted."
No. The AoC was already established.
"Though those who opposed the Constitution actually wanted a more purely federal system (as the Articles provided), they were more or less forced into taking the name "Anti-Federalists." These men had many reasons to oppose the Constitution. They did not feel that a republican form of government could work on a national scale. They also did not feel that the rights of the individual were properly or sufficiently protected by the new Constitution. They saw themselves as the true heirs of the spirit of the Revolution. Some very notable persons in United States history counted themselves Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, George Mason, George Clinton, and Luther Martin." -
The debate then took place afterwards; the 'federalists' versus the 'anti-federalists' [these would have been the Ron Paul supporters]. Trying to convince the public.
"In every state the opposition to the Constitution was strong, and in two states — North Carolina and Rhode Island — it prevented ratification until the definite establishment of the new government practically forced their adherence. Individualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt. In Rhode Island resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788, when anti-federalist members of the Country Party led by Judge William West marched into Providence with over 1,000 armed protesters.[1]" ---
"Rather than bashing our Founding Fathers, I seek to acknowledge their positive and negative contributions, and learn from their mistakes."
"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us."
There is a difference between natural elites and political / power elites. And no, it hasn't been the case throughout history.
"I believe our Founding Fathers provided a model that involved limiting state power."
It's time you accept that they didn't. Because quite clearly, if that was their goal - they failed. The obviousness of this is beyond question. Take a look around.
"I do not think that anarcho-capitalists have such a historical model to point to."
That's because you haven't looked. Will you now, or should I? Let us know what you find.
"Kinsella writes"
Not everyone is as pessimistic as him.
Conza88:
Thanks for the video! :)
I live in Massachusetts, and right before the special election to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate, I watched that speech by GEG. It inspired me to vote for Joe Kennedy, a libertarian with no chance of winning, instead of jumping on the bandwagon and voting for Scott Brown. Since then, Brown has voted against Ron Paul's audit the Fed bill!
I will definitely be going through your channel to see what your more recent videos look like ;)
~ Benjamin Franklin, quoted in Rebirth of Liberty, Carl Watner, 11 July 2005
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Thank you, Conza, for all the food for thought. I will do some more reading/watching, and bring up the arguments you have presented the next time I contact GEG.
Could you specifically debunk this argument by Griffin?:
The issue of voluntary seccession is at the heart of any free society. I am a strong advocate of upholding that right. If organized defensive coercion is carried out by a private institution, the right of acceptance or rejection of the protection is straightforward. Much like hiring a security service for our home, we can purchase it or not, as we wish. That would be ideal, although it would be difficult to administer at the level of active crime intervention. For example, if we were to enroll in a local security service and if we were accosted on the street by a mugger, we would expect to have the nearest security officer come to our aid as close to immediately as possible. The security officer, on the other hand, would either have to ask to see our enrollment card before springing into action or he would have to take action regardless of our enrollment. If I were running such a service, I would instruct our officers to do their best to protect the life, liberty, and property of all people regardless of whether or not they were subscribers. I think the practical effect and the public relations impact of such a policy would insure the success of our service and bring nearly everyone voluntarily into the ranks of subscribers. The same would apply to fire protection. If I were running a private fire department, I would instruct my firefighters to respond to all fires and do their best, even if we knew the homeowner whose house was burning was not a subscriber to our service. Back to the question of freedom to participate or to decline. In my view, this right should be preserved whether services are provided by private institutions or by the state. Most people assume that, if the state is involved, everyone would be forced to participate through taxation, but that is not necessarily true. If the law is written properly, the option of participation can be made entirely voluntary, exactly the same as if provided by a private company. Our minds are easily clouded by the old way of thinking. In the past, the state always has required compulsory participation, but there is no force of the universe that requires it to be so in the future. The state has become oppressive in the past because it never has been effectively limited to a purely defensive function. The American Republic came pretty close to it and, in fact, performed well for the first 80 to 100 years. Unfortunately, there were serious loopholes in the Constitution and cracks in the structure that allowed the predators to seize control. But it need not always be that way. I am firmly convinced that, with the essence of The Creed of Freedom hard wired into the next attempt at building a free state, it can be done. In any event, if it cannot be done with the state, it cannot be done with private institutions, either. Whenever any group is given the right to use force, the danger will exist. The problem is similar to gun ownership. When guns are in the home, there is always a danger that accidents could happen. Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them. The only thing more dangerous than delegating our right to self defense to a community-wide or nation-wide force is not doing so. Without organized self defense, organized predators will always prevail – and that is the problem with anarchy. The solution to managing that danger is, not to refrain from organized self defense, but in organizing it properly (making sure it is used only for the protection of life, liberty, and property) and - most importantly - in creating a perpetual watch-dog movement (Freedom Force may serve that function) to keep the original intent from being subverted over time.
The issue of voluntary seccession is at the heart of any free society. I am a strong advocate of upholding that right. If organized defensive coercion is carried out by a private institution, the right of acceptance or rejection of the protection is straightforward. Much like hiring a security service for our home, we can purchase it or not, as we wish. That would be ideal, although it would be difficult to administer at the level of active crime intervention.
For example, if we were to enroll in a local security service and if we were accosted on the street by a mugger, we would expect to have the nearest security officer come to our aid as close to immediately as possible. The security officer, on the other hand, would either have to ask to see our enrollment card before springing into action or he would have to take action regardless of our enrollment. If I were running such a service, I would instruct our officers to do their best to protect the life, liberty, and property of all people regardless of whether or not they were subscribers. I think the practical effect and the public relations impact of such a policy would insure the success of our service and bring nearly everyone voluntarily into the ranks of subscribers. The same would apply to fire protection. If I were running a private fire department, I would instruct my firefighters to respond to all fires and do their best, even if we knew the homeowner whose house was burning was not a subscriber to our service.
Back to the question of freedom to participate or to decline. In my view, this right should be preserved whether services are provided by private institutions or by the state. Most people assume that, if the state is involved, everyone would be forced to participate through taxation, but that is not necessarily true. If the law is written properly, the option of participation can be made entirely voluntary, exactly the same as if provided by a private company. Our minds are easily clouded by the old way of thinking. In the past, the state always has required compulsory participation, but there is no force of the universe that requires it to be so in the future. The state has become oppressive in the past because it never has been effectively limited to a purely defensive function. The American Republic came pretty close to it and, in fact, performed well for the first 80 to 100 years. Unfortunately, there were serious loopholes in the Constitution and cracks in the structure that allowed the predators to seize control. But it need not always be that way. I am firmly convinced that, with the essence of The Creed of Freedom hard wired into the next attempt at building a free state, it can be done.
In any event, if it cannot be done with the state, it cannot be done with private institutions, either. Whenever any group is given the right to use force, the danger will exist. The problem is similar to gun ownership. When guns are in the home, there is always a danger that accidents could happen. Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them. The only thing more dangerous than delegating our right to self defense to a community-wide or nation-wide force is not doing so. Without organized self defense, organized predators will always prevail – and that is the problem with anarchy. The solution to managing that danger is, not to refrain from organized self defense, but in organizing it properly (making sure it is used only for the protection of life, liberty, and property) and - most importantly - in creating a perpetual watch-dog movement (Freedom Force may serve that function) to keep the original intent from being subverted over time.
I am perfectly aware that the Constitution failed, the anti-federalists were right, and that we now live under complete tyranny. This does not change the fact that the Constitution did limit state power for 80 years or so, and that there would be more freedom if the document were followed as written. If the goal of our Founding Fathers was tyranny, why did they bother with the whole Revolutionary War? When the colonies won, why didn't they just declare themselves eternal dictators? Why did George Washington step down after two terms when the public was clamoring for him to be their next king? It was because many of them believed government to be a necessary evil.
In the words of George Washington: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master."
Did Ben Franklin actually believe anarchy could work and that he was screwing over the public by helping to establish a new government? Is there more evidence of this?
What is the difference between natural elites and political/power elites? Which group were the Founding Fathers in?
Even though the Founding Fathers failed, it is not a myth that they helped usher in many years of relative freedom and prosperity in America. I am grateful because of this. I live an extraordinarily privileged, comfortable life because of this. It seems like you see America's founding simply as a battle between the elites in the colonies and the elites in Great Britain, and that both sides were evil. Yet, even Rothbard argues that the Revolutionary War was a just war, and that our founding is an example of a libertarian revolution.
This argument has been around a long time (I think it was even in Jasay's The State). The logic of comparative advantage applies equally well between households as between nations. In the same way, the argument about the instability of anarchy applies equally to individuals as it does to states.
It is a problem for minarchists that claim that anarchy is unstable or unworkable because states themselves operate in a context of global anarchy. The is no final arbiter of justice between China and Japan, but they don't seem to be converging into a single government nor are they warring against eachother or reneging on their mutual contracts).
States aren't constantly at war with eachother and even regularly conduct peaceful trade most of the time. If this is true of states (that they don't kill eachother and usually trade peacefully) why isn't it also true of individuals or households? The is even more reason to believe anarchy is viable between individuals than states, since the principal agent problem isn't quite so large (the men who start wars don't usually fight them, but individuals that start fights often have to pay the cost in their own blood).
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
For those who have agreed with my argument, would you say it is hypocritical for minarchists not to be calling for a world minarchist state, or by not doing so, they are making a concession to the anarchist position (of sorts)?
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
Those states, to some degree or another, emerged naturally because of some common bond and a shared culture. Furthermore, states are not like individuals; they differ in both degree and in kind, so the logic is simply not sound. States get their authority from the majority (they have legitimacy, perceived or otherwise), have functional economies (usually), and they have armies (The "MAD" principle). Therefore, there is a check amongst states, where there wouldn't be amongst individual's and/or households (again, because of the legitimacy, economic relationships and interdependency, and military might).
Strong states have frequently invaded weaker states in order to expand their wealth, take over natural resources, ect. This is the condition one should expect if every individual was able to create his own private army. The stronger private armies would form coalitions with other private armies, they would destroy the weaker armies, and some sort of state would emerge. Essentially, we would restart human civilization.
Anarchy, therefore, is self-defeating (minarchy may also be self-defeating, but this does not help the anarchists position).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Those states, to some degree or another, emerged naturally because of some common bond and a shared culture.
Households and neigborhoods have an even stronger bond than nation states. How strong is the bond between Hawiians and Rhode Islanders; really? Do I need mention the Arabs and Kurds in Iraq?
Furthermore, states are not like individuals; they differ in both degree and in kind, so the logic is simply not sound.
Yes, they differ in both degree and kind. All anologies do; but in this case, I am not saying that individuals are like states, I am saying the relationship between individuals and the relationship betweens states are similar enough in form to make a good analogy.
States get their authority from the majority (they have legitimacy, perceived or otherwise), have functional economies (usually), and they have armies (The "MAD" principle).
Individuals need no authority over themselves, and households often have unanimous consent in important decision making. Individuals and households have functioning economies (what do you think makes up the economy of the state?; apply some methodological individualism here). Individuals and households can also arm themselves and the cost of attacking other (armed) individuals or households often costs the ultimate price (the attackers life).
Strong states have frequently invaded weaker states in order to expand their wealth, take over natural resources, ect. This is the condition one should expect if every individual was able to create his own private army.
Individuals and households sometimes steal and murder, but would probably do so less often then states because the principal agent problem is diminished. If the state's army attacks another state the army may die, but the president probably will not. If an individual attacks another individual, the brain does not hope to outlive the body.
The stronger private armies would form coalitions with other private armies, they would destroy the weaker armies, and some sort of state would emerge. Essentially, we would restart human civilization.
There is no need to restart civilization. Most of the disntinct institutions that would be needed in anarchy are in existence now or have been in the past. Private post offices (modern Germany), private law enforcement (Iceland in the Middle Ages and The Southwest U.S. in the 19th century), private court systems (Law Merchants of the Middle Ages and modern international arbitration firms), private roads (parts of modern Singapore), etc... If we were to privatize these institutions, civilization would not need to reboot; it would merely bring together institutions that previously have only existed seperately.
Some states artificially tie certain regions together which should be seperated, or Balkanized if you will. I would like to see the Balkanization of the entire world.
No, because you're ignoring a very important variable, namely leverage. Nations have military or economic leverage, and this prevents or mitigates chaos.
Whether individual's need authority or not is entirely immaterial. They willingly give authority to states for whatever reason. All governments rule by consent of the majority, even this one. Furthermore, households are not functional economies, they are mini communist economies that centrally plan. Households and individuals form firms and begin exchanging amongst themselves, and economies emerge. States can forcefully implement various barriers to trade. And finally, it is the state's police force that disincentivizes inter-household aggression (not prevent). You mention other mechanisms but ignore the state's police force.
When a private army attacks another private army, the army may die, but the leader may not.
If we were to privatize these institutions, civilization would not need to reboot; it would merely bring together institutions that previously have only existed seperately.
The problem is that states would reemerge and alter such institutions. The central problem here is that democracy is unavoidable and, at the same time, inherently self-destructive. We are stuck in a prisoner's dilemma.
"This does not change the fact that the Constitution did limit state power for 80 years or so"
That is news to me. When Did the Trouble Start? - Kinsella.
I'm down with the revolution - just not the replacement of power in the aftermath. And really... The Constitution by its very essense is an INCREASE IN STATE POWER!
The only way you can claim it limits anything, is to assume it's existence as zero point & ignore the immediate history of its inception.
But even assuming that, it lasts nothing even close to 80 years. More like 11years? *claps* lol.
"and that there would be more freedom if the document were followed as written."
Nope. Instanteously less freedom compared to the Articles of Confederation, a document - they also chose to ignore! Are we beginning to see a pattern emerge here? lol. Compared to today? Sure - but how is that relevent or even a worthy point?
How is that logical? They gave themselves more power, and installed a centralized government - which resulted in the framework for the nation-state to become a world empire and tyrannical state. You can't say they were ignorant - the anti-federalists consistently made this exact point... the president would become a king, a power unto himself - and they were right.
"If the goal of our Founding Fathers was tyranny, why did they bother with the whole Revolutionary War?"
You need to stop putting them under the one banner. It leads to fallacies. Who are the founding fathers? Eh? Because otherwise I'm sure not sure how this question makes sense. Lets break it down simply to this, though there would be other stakeholders naturally.
"If the goal of A (federalists) & B (anti federalists) was tyranny, why did they bother with the whole revolutionary War?"
The goal of B wasn't, imo. Of A, yes. But seriously, why on earth does it matter what their goals were? That is irrelevent. Some folks want peace... that is their goal. Except world government is the way they think it should come about... it ends up as a one world government - tyranny.. so much for their "goals".
The outcome of the Constitution is crystal clear. Again, you need to get over the mythology. "Consent of the Governed" is a myth. They knew it back then, and there was mass opposition to it.
"When the colonies won, why didn't they just declare themselves eternal dictators?"
When it is the rulers vs. the ruled. The rulers [in it for their self interest, be it power or money] have no problem joining together in a world government for example. They don't give a $*(# about their "nation", they can about power and themselves. If they can increase both of that by selling out their "constituents" and joining the other parasites in world government, where they get more power and wealth - by golly they are going to do it. And that is what is pretty much happening right now around the world. Anyway, I disgress.
It was TRIED! The Bill of Rights was a concession to ratification, YEARS later. The anti-federalists had to fight tooth and nail. There were those at the constitutional convention that WALKED OUT and REFUSED TO SIGN. Naturally there are those that were against it all together.
It's Time to End Hamilton's Curse - DiLorzenzo
And what does "Hamilton’s Republic" look like, from a government policy perspective? It is one that is run by a dictatorial chief executive with king-like powers, for one thing. At the Constitutional convention Hamilton presented his real agenda: a "permanent" president who would appoint all the governors, and who would have veto power over all state legislation. "A king!" is what his Jeffersonian detractors accused him of asking for, and they were right. He failed at the convention, but few could deny that modern American presidents are every bit as king-like as Hamilton wanted them to be – and more. How else could one describe a president who can bomb any country in the world at will, and without the least bit of congressional approval?
Hamilton lied through his teeth in The Federalist Papers when he spoke favorably about states’ rights and federalism, for his proposal for a "permanent president" would have all but destroyed any semblance of true federalism or "divided sovereignty," as James Madison labeled it.
"Why did George Washington step down after two terms when the public was clamoring for him to be their next king? It was because many of them believed government to be a necessary evil."
lol! Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard (excerpt from Concieved in Liberty - 4 epic volumes about the American Revolution..)
So really... the tyranny started even before the revolution was won (naturally since even the AoC weren't remotely libertarian). And this is just another myth many others were taught in grade school.
"What is the difference between natural elites and political/power elites?"
What Must be Done - Hoppe (#The Disappearance of Natural Elites)
"Even though the Founding Fathers failed, it is not a myth that they helped usher in many years of relative freedom and prosperity in America."
Nope. They didn't usher in any freedom. They subverted and decreased liberty. Oh what could have been.
"Yet, even Rothbard argues that the Revolutionary War was a just war, and that our founding is an example of a libertarian revolution."
Yeah and in no way does it follow that the Constitution had anything to do with liberty, as it didn't. Nor the Articles of Confederation - to start with. As Rothbard argues and notes.
"Thank you, Conza, for all the food for thought."
No worries. These are generally the things that convinced me.
"For example, if we were to enroll in a local security service and if we were accosted on the street by a mugger, we would expect to have the nearest security officer come to our aid as close to immediately as possible. The security officer, on the other hand, would either have to ask to see our enrollment card before springing into action or he would have to take action regardless of our enrollment.
"Enroll" - huh? The very first site that comes up when I type that into google - is the state's electoral commision. It's like he's devised a hybrid system, he's still stuck partly in the statist mentality. He gives the organisation of government, the new name of 'protectorate', says what it SHOULD be like (limited to negative) - yet neglects the fact it will never remain so, since it has a monopoly. Where is the learning from history here?
And when he says he wouldn't be against private defense, I guess his conception is merely individuals with guns? What exactly is new with this model?
You don't "enroll" with a PDA, you purchase their services. There is competition, there are other private defense agencies competing for your dollars. And there are actual CHECKS and BALANCES...
No More Military Socialism by MNR
Furthermore, the purely free-market, stateless society would contain within itself a system of built-in "checks and balances" that would make it almost impossible for such organized crime to succeed. There has been much talk about "checks and balances" in the American system, but these can scarcely be considered checks at all, since every one of these institutions is an agency of the central government and eventually of the ruling party of that government. The checks and balances in the stateless society consist precisely in the free market, i.e., the existence of freely competitive police and judicial agencies that could quickly be mobilized to put down any outlaw agency.
It is true that there can be no absolute guarantee that a purely market society would not fall prey to organized criminality. But this concept is far more workable than the truly Utopian idea of a strictly limited government, an idea that has never worked historically. And understandably so, for the State's built-in monopoly of aggression and inherent absence of free-market checks have enabled it to burst easily any bonds that well-meaning people have tried to place upon it. Finally, the worst that could possibly happen would be for the State to be reestablished. And since the State is what we have now, any experimentation with a stateless society would have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
If you want to learn more about how it would work.. there are resources available if you want to look for them.
http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/
There is just one.
But really, those who own the property, be it the shopping center or side walk - or folks in the neighborhood be it a gated community or not, would possibly hire PDA's for their property. The reason being it is in their self interest - lower crime rates = higher property values. Naturally store owners want a safe environment for people to shop etc.
There would be lower premiums charged by insurance companies for those who carry a gun for self defense. Naturally these folks can step in they are in the right place at the right time. There doesn't need to be this need to hope for benevolance on the part of some organisation.
"If I were running such a service, I would instruct our officers to do their best to protect the life, liberty, and property of all people regardless of whether or not they were subscribers. I think the practical effect and the public relations impact of such a policy would insure the success of our service and bring nearly everyone voluntarily into the ranks of subscribers. The same would apply to fire protection. If I were running a private fire department, I would instruct my firefighters to respond to all fires and do their best, even if we knew the homeowner whose house was burning was not a subscriber to our service."
There are costs involved. Naturally the more fires they put out for free - the higher costs will be imposed on the current subscribers. The less competitive the fire fighting organisation will be against it's competitors.
This is basic economics... all they are doing is encouraging the 'problem of the free rider'. Imo, on the market - the model would be - if you are subscriber, via insurance or whatever - you'd be 'hardwired' for access. The firefights could have blueprints on your house, the materials, etc. the info you want to give them. They can use this in designing the strategy to put it out, should they be called to your house. Everything counts right? Well if you're not a subscriber, there would also be a call out fee. Or fees to put out the fire. You call them, so you agree to accept costs. Or they do it and insurance covers it. (There would naturally be massive premiums if you aren't signed up to a fire service).. it's in the insurance companies interest & your own,.. not to see your house get burnt down.
"Back to the question of freedom to participate or to decline. In my view, this right should be preserved whether services are provided by private institutions or by the state. Most people assume that, if the state is involved, everyone would be forced to participate through taxation, but that is not necessarily true. If the law is written properly, the option of participation can be made entirely voluntary, exactly the same as if provided by a private company."
What type of law is he talking about? Natural law? Doesn't sound like it. He's thinking positive law. Common law? I dunno, sounds like legislation to me.
"The state has become oppressive in the past because it never has been effectively limited to a purely defensive function."
Thats because a state has always had a monopoly on justice, and the final arbiter even over disputes involving themselves. When you are the umpire and playing the game - you even CREATE disputes!
The American Republic came pretty close to it and, in fact, performed well for the first 80 to 100 years. Unfortunately, there were serious loopholes in the Constitution and cracks in the structure that allowed the predators to seize control. But it need not always be that way. I am firmly convinced that, with the essence of The Creed of Freedom hard wired into the next attempt at building a free state, it can be done.
I addressed that above. 80 years is fantasy. When Did the Trouble Start? - Kinsella. lol, no it can't be done. "Building a state" ? Does he not get that liberty is natural to man, as per Rothbard quote you liked. It doesn't need to be built by elites or whatever... it will spring up when folks stop trying to socially engineer their "solution" and impose it on others, not matter how well the intentions.
"In any event, if it cannot be done with the state, it cannot be done with private institutions, either. Whenever any group is given the right to use force, the danger will exist."
Talk about a non sequitur. Stateless Dictatorships - stefbot (How a Free Society Prevents the Re-emergence of a government)
"The problem is similar to gun ownership. When guns are in the home, there is always a danger that accidents could happen. Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them. The only thing more dangerous than delegating our right to self defense to a community-wide or nation-wide force is not doing so."
lol...
Society Without A State - Rothbard
"This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives.
Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: "We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other."
I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of "who will guard the guardians?" becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence."
Essentially, the "solution" is to hand over all our guns to the one family. That is what I call dangerous.
"The only thing more dangerous than delegating our right to self defense to a community-wide or nation-wide force is not doing so. Without organized self defense, organized predators will always prevail – and that is the problem with anarchy."
What's funny is that the American Revolution was won by guerilla warfare. Contrary to Washington's attempts to impede it and make the typical 'statist' army and mould of European ways, Congress too. It was the "un-organized", the actual self organised that were the most effective... not the politically centralized organised, at all!
The Anarchist Society vs. the Military State: The Insignificance of the Free Rider by Verdun Duk
"The solution to managing that danger is, not to refrain from organized self defense, but in organizing it properly (making sure it is used only for the protection of life, liberty, and property) and - most importantly - in creating a perpetual watch-dog movement (Freedom Force may serve that function) to keep the original intent from being subverted over time."
Sigh... I still respect him. A remarkable man. He however, needs to read some books / sources on the matter. I understand the need to try re-brand the concept, but its the same thing that has failed and will fail again. It doesn't address the long term problems at all. Those representatives, or people elected to run the thing - full time positions. Everyone else must go about their business, being productive citizens. The vast number of special interest groups try to clamour for that power, or lobby to subvert it. Control the power. The worst in a democracy / republic always rise to the top. These "laws" that get written are interpreted by the same power..
Whats also disconcerting is the total vagueness of the detailed structure of what it would be like. He even admits that would have to be worked out? Eh? Faith.
'Reign Of Witches' (It’s Back!) by Tim Case
The election of 1796 was close, but in the end the final electoral vote was 71 for John Adams and 68 for Thomas Jefferson. (Bache and his paper had warned the American people of the deadly intentions of Adams who had no desire to be president, but rather sought to seize the reins of power as king. Those supporting Jefferson were not wrong! Adams had addressed this subject to Benjamin Rush on June 9, 1789 when Adams wrote: "America must resort (to) hereditary Monarchy or Aristocracy…as an asylum during discord, Seditions and Civil War.")
The supporters of Thomas Jefferson had once again lost the argument, but the election of John Adams – who Bache identified as the "Old, querulous, Bald, blind, crippled, Toothless Adams," – had made them some powerful, if not eternal, enemies.
What the Americans had after the election of 1796 was not a new president but a haughty and fault-finding scholar; a narcissistic Harvard graduate and Massachusetts lawyer; an argumentative, ugly, short, belligerent bully who wanted more than anything to be king.
Those who knew John Adams have said of him: "in some things (he is) absolutely out of his senses" – Benjamin Franklin; "sometimes (he is) absolutely mad" – Thomas Jefferson; "sometimes wholly out of his senses" – James Madison; "(He is) liable to paroxysms of anger, which deprive him of self command" – Alexander Hamilton; "a brute in manners and a bully in his family" – John Adams’ nephew Thomas.
On July 6, 1798, just a little over a year after taking the oath of office (March 4, 1797), the U.S. Congress under the leadership of John Adams enacted two pieces of legislation which were the very mirror of the president’s personality: An Act Respecting Alien Enemies which has become known as the Alien Act of 1798. Then eight days later on July 14, 1798 an addendum labeled: An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States" which is commonly called the Sedition Act of 1798. Today we refer to these two pieces of legislation as the "The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798."
Historians always give an altruistic reason for the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 by referring to the XYZ affair along with the Quasi War with France and the need to "increase military preparations," or to "enact a series of internal security measures." I prefer to accept these acts for what they were and as defined by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Stephens Thompson Mason dated October 11, 1798:
"…I consider those laws as merely an experiment on the American mind, to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of the Constitution. If this goes down, we shall immediately see attempted another act of Congress, declaring that the President shall continue in office during life, reserving to another occasion the transfer of the succession to his heirs, and the establishment of the Senate for life… (Emphasis mine) That these things are in contemplation, I have no doubt; nor can I be confident of their failure, after the dupery of which our countrymen have shown themselves susceptible..."
Then in November of 1798 Vice-President Jefferson writes to John Taylor:
"…It is a singular phenomenon, that while our State governments are the very best in the world, without exception or comparison, our General Government has, in the rapid course of nine or ten years, become more arbitrary, and has swallowed more of the public liberty than even that of England. (Emphasis mine) I enclose you a column, cut out of a London paper, to show you that the English, though charmed with our making their enemies our enemies, yet blush and weep over our sedition law…"
No, the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 was the result of a conscious, premeditated attempt on the part of the Monarchists/Federalists to destroy the Constitution, purge the states of the Irish using racial hatred, while at the same time silencing by prosecuting, beating, murdering, or deporting any critics, and the Aurora’s owner B.F. Bache, was at the head of the list.
This attempt rested on a fabricated, undeclared war, and the delusion (Jefferson’s word) called the XYZ Affair. It was in the words of Thomas Jefferson the "reign of witches"; an organized, orchestrated reign of terror on the part of the Federal government!
It is impossible in a short article like this one to portray all the events that encompassed the four years of the Adams administration. Nor, can one artfully depict the horror and brutality people experienced during the reign of terror. Spies were everywhere, lamented Jefferson.
Those early Americans faced much the same tribulations as we do today: impending war; national debt; higher taxes; and a government that identified the citizens of the United State who opposed Federal policies as potential terrorists.
What had occurred was not a single isolated event. Instead those four years are the foundational norm for the actions of the Federal government in domestic and international policy to the present day. This was the crisis point for the American constitutional experience.