What are the general thoughts on WWII here on Mises.org?
Were the Allies justified in fighting WWII?
What would have happened if the US wouldn't have gotten involved in the European theatre? Should they have?
I have always been interested in this time period, so I was curious what you guys thought on the issue. Any articles or books discussing the war from a Libertarian standpoint are very welcome.
JonBostwick: Jacob Bloom:And with no cops, no courts, no laws, no enforcers, the anarchist would have to be his own enforcer. Welcome to the Mises.org forum, hot bed of anarcho-capitalist theory. You might have noticed one of our many discussions about polycentric law. There would indeed be all of those things, they would however be private, voluntary, competitive, and all those other nice things.
Jacob Bloom:And with no cops, no courts, no laws, no enforcers, the anarchist would have to be his own enforcer.
Welcome to the Mises.org forum, hot bed of anarcho-capitalist theory. You might have noticed one of our many discussions about polycentric law.
There would indeed be all of those things, they would however be private, voluntary, competitive, and all those other nice things.
I have noticed that anarchy seems popular here. I can't really understand it. I think...it's silly to imagine a world totally without government. Now, a world with minimum government I can imagine.
Jacob Bloom:1.) Hitler had every intention to eliminate the Jewish population from the Earth. He would've done it with or without a war. To think otherwise is naivete in my opinion.
Again, note the difference between intent and opportunity.
Jacob Bloom: Also, privatizing militaries is....unwise, it would lead to all sorts of problems.
Like what, war? I see State armies have solved that problem... err, wait, I thought they war was necessary.
Jacob Bloom: Death in service to one's country is an honor if the death was for the right thing.
I'm sure those people are all very happy that Hitler gave them the opportunity to recieve that honor.
Peace
1. I'm trying to say that odds are Hitler would have killed as many Jews as he could with or without a war. We can't go back and replay everything to find out, but I think given his whole mission statement in Mein Kampf and how he explicitly talks about doing it...I think he would've done the death camps 9 times out of 10.
2. I was thinking more of like private wars. So like warfare where you've got factions against other factions, probably on home turf. Which would be scary. Not that that couldn't happen with a public army where maybe the president declares martial law or something (which is certainly possible, don't get me wrong) it just seems like private military lends itself to in state fighting in a way a public army does not. But let's be honest here, armies are a dangerous thing, no matter who controls them. But they are necessary, in my opinion.
3. I can't be sure how all those men felt about dying in that war. I'm sure a lot of them were unhappy about it. And I'm not trying to say I'm happy they died I'm just saying I think they died for the right things. But ultimately, that's not my decision, just my opinion.
Jacob Bloom:I can't really understand it.
Next time you come across it think about this.
Everyone of us, at some point, felt the same way as you about the state vs voluntary society. We've internalized all the same pop culture, government educated myths about what government is and should be.
You are in the mainstream. Every objection you present, we have already considered and rejected.
But if you are open to new ideas, you will thoroughly enjoy your time here.
Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty by Murray Rothbard.
Lol, if there's one word I WOULD NOT use to describe myself it would be: mainstream. I just don't believe human beings are capable of living TOTALLY without rules. But I do think they are capable of living mostly without rules. If you think about it on a spectrum 1 being anarchy 10 being total state control, I'm like a 2 or 3. So mainstream is probably 6 to 8.
Jacob Bloom:2. I was thinking more of like private wars. So like warfare where you've got factions against other factions, probably on home turf. Which would be scary. Not that that couldn't happen with a public army where maybe the president declares martial law or something (which is certainly possible, don't get me wrong
Civil War
Jacob Bloom:it just seems like private military lends itself to in state fighting in a way a public army does not.
I'd say the opposite.
Jacob Bloom: But let's be honest here, armies are a dangerous thing, no matter who controls them. But they are necessary, in my opinion.
James Madison, himself not even an anti-federalist, didn't think so.
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
*Ding-Ding*
*Takes Jon to the red corner*
You're hitting him hard Rock! EYE OF THE TIGER SON!
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Jacob Bloom:Lol, if there's one word I WOULD NOT use to describe myself it would be: mainstream. I just don't believe human beings are capable of living TOTALLY without rules. But I do think they are capable of living mostly without rules. If you think about it on a spectrum 1 being anarchy 10 being total state control, I'm like a 2 or 3. So mainstream is probably 6 to 8.
Then why do you keep using the mainstream definition of anarchy as lawlessness?
It is government that is lawless, in that it holds it self above the law. Libertarianism is simply the belief that everyone has natural rights, and that no one, not even politicians, judges, policemen, tax collecors and soldiers are entitled to violate them.
Government is an assault on natural property, if you wish to defend property you must oppose government.
1. Civil wars seem...more likely with private armies. Because ya know...one group says "this is mine" and another group says "no it's mine" and now you've got the seeds for a private war.
2. We'll just have to agree to disagree here.
3. I think you make some really good points. That's a good quote. But the problem with your position is that it's idealistic. I'm a realist. I think what the quote doesn't say is how a state without an army is very vulnerable to a state that has an army.
JonBostwick: Jacob Bloom:Lol, if there's one word I WOULD NOT use to describe myself it would be: mainstream. I just don't believe human beings are capable of living TOTALLY without rules. But I do think they are capable of living mostly without rules. If you think about it on a spectrum 1 being anarchy 10 being total state control, I'm like a 2 or 3. So mainstream is probably 6 to 8. Then why do you keep using the mainstream definition of anarchy as lawlessness? It is government that is lawless, in that it holds it self above the law. Libertarianism is simply the belief that everyone has natural rights, and that no one, not even politicians, judges, policemen, tax collecors and soldiers are entitled to violate them. Government is an assault on natural property, if you wish to defend property you must oppose government.
You still need some means of validating property. I mean...that's what most of the law is about: who owns what. And you're right, government has a tendency to overextend itself...but it doesn't ALWAYS over extend itself. I didn't join this website because I think governments shouldn't exist. I joined this website because I wanted arguments for why LESS government was a good thing. I think you've taken it too far. And I think you've forgotten that if you can't protect your property, it won't be yours for long.
Jacob Bloom:You still need some means of validating property.
Well we do have natural law/rights.
It also occurs to me that our difference of opinion may be rooted in our different take on human nature. Which might lead one man to say "every man is capable of totally and completely governing himself" and another might say "every man is mostly capable of governing himself, but not completely."
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:You still need some means of validating property. Well we do have natural law/rights.
Yes, but those laws and rights require enforcement. A law without enforcement is no law at all.
Jacob Bloom:2. We'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Was Hitler more capable of killing Jews as a private citizen or as Dictator?
Jacob Bloom:I think what the quote doesn't say is how a state without an army is very vulnerable to a state that has an army.
True, states are very vulnerable to invasion. A decentralized, or better yet stateless, region is much harder to conquer.
Jacob Bloom: Which might lead one man to say "every man is capable of totally and completely governing himself" and another might say "every man is mostly capable of governing himself, but not completely."
Your opinion leaves open arbitary definition. Like Jon pointed out, why is the military acceptable for taxation but not food, shelter, clothes? Certainly you feel these are as necessary to an army are they not?