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.
Jacob Bloom:Yes, but those laws and rights require enforcement. A law without enforcement is no law at all.
And as Jon pointed out, law can be established without the state. The forums are well aware of such a matter.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8184.aspx
There you are Jacob. A member named Sage put this list together and I think you will find it very interesting and a compelling argument as to the unnecessary nature of the state apparatus.
Jacob Bloom:You still need some means of validating property.
That's where the Natural Rights come in.
Jacob Bloom:And I think you've forgotten that if you can't protect your property, it won't be yours for long.
You've yet to show how subjugating yourself makes you more secure in property.
Peace
JonBostwick: 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: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.
1. I dunno, I guess it was easier for him as dictator.
2. So let's say you've got your decentralized region. And I've got my state and my army. So basically, I can run you guys off your land anytime I want and take whatever you've produced and make it mine. And then I wait until you guys recollect or whatever. And then I run you guys off again. Eventually all the land is mine and now it's checkmate. I mean...it would be like if we played chess and all you had were pawns to start out with and I had a full set of pieces. The odds are I'll just run you around and eventually destroy you.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Yes, but those laws and rights require enforcement. A law without enforcement is no law at all. And as Jon pointed out, law can be established without the state. The forums are well aware of such a matter.
I think you're right, I think they can be. But eventually you will need a means of arbitration. So you'll set up a court.
Jacob Bloom:I think you're right, I think they can be. But eventually you will need a means of arbitration. So you'll set up a court.
Most certainly. Are you contending that courts cannot be private companies? If so why not?
JonBostwick: Jacob Bloom:You still need some means of validating property. That's where the Natural Rights come in. Jacob Bloom:And I think you've forgotten that if you can't protect your property, it won't be yours for long. You've yet to show how subjugating yourself makes you more secure in property.
1. What you've got there is a pamphlet of ideas you think should be enforced. But without some means to enforce them, all you've got is a list.
2. It is true that governments, especially big governments, can seize large portions of private property whenever they feel it necessary. HOWEVER, if government remains small, then it becomes much more difficult for your property to be seized. Additionally, if the law of the land is just and if property law is clear and concise and fair, it stands to reason that property owners will be more secure in their property than they would be if, as you suggest, there were no laws at all. Property, like all things, is something that can be taken away. So something has to protect it. Just like life. Armies are protectors of property if used properly. If not used properly, they are not. I agree with you on that.
Jacob Bloom:2. So let's say you've got your decentralized region. And I've got my state and my army. So basically, I can run you guys off your land anytime I want and take whatever you've produced and make it mine. And then I wait until you guys recollect or whatever. And then I run you guys off again. Eventually all the land is mine and now it's checkmate. I mean...it would be like if we played chess and all you had were pawns to start out with and I had a full set of pieces. The odds are I'll just run you around and eventually destroy you.
The Myth of National Defense By Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Alright, I think you've got enough homework for now.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:I think you're right, I think they can be. But eventually you will need a means of arbitration. So you'll set up a court. Most certainly. Are you contending that courts cannot be private companies? If so why not?
Sure, they could be. But then you've got a problem. Whoever hires the court and pays for the services of said court will probably find favorable ruling by said court. There's a clear conflict of interest is what I'm saying. Not that judges aren't for sale now.
Jacob Bloom:HOWEVER, if government remains small, then it becomes much more difficult for your property to be seized.
What ensures the limit on the size of government?
JonBostwick: Jacob Bloom:2. So let's say you've got your decentralized region. And I've got my state and my army. So basically, I can run you guys off your land anytime I want and take whatever you've produced and make it mine. And then I wait until you guys recollect or whatever. And then I run you guys off again. Eventually all the land is mine and now it's checkmate. I mean...it would be like if we played chess and all you had were pawns to start out with and I had a full set of pieces. The odds are I'll just run you around and eventually destroy you. The Myth of National Defense By Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Alright, I think you've got enough homework for now.
Alright, well I've got one for you then, since you intend to run behind your books. Read War by Azar Gat.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:HOWEVER, if government remains small, then it becomes much more difficult for your property to be seized. What ensures the limit on the size of government?
We're supposed to. By voting for the right people.
Jacob Bloom:Sure, they could be. But then you've got a problem. Whoever hires the court and pays for the services of said court will probably find favorable ruling by said court. There's a clear conflict of interest is what I'm saying. Not that judges aren't for sale now.
One: A possibility however this court would then be labeled as corrupt and lose business.
Two: conceding point one, do you think the government being its own judge and jury is objective?
Jacob Bloom: We're supposed to. By voting for the right people.
That supposes that everyone has something to lose, no one has anything to gain by enabling government and that all voters are in agreement as to the size and scope of government at any given time. This also supposes that government will actually listen to you and actually carry out what they were voted in for which they are under no obligation to do yet retain the power as your supposed representative.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Sure, they could be. But then you've got a problem. Whoever hires the court and pays for the services of said court will probably find favorable ruling by said court. There's a clear conflict of interest is what I'm saying. Not that judges aren't for sale now. One: A possibility however this court would then be labeled as corrupt and lose business. Two: conceding point one, do you think the government being its own judge and jury is objective?
1. I think that sounds nice but that you're going to keep running into the same problem over and over again.
2. Absolutely not. But we the people are supposed to be the final judge of the government. We've obviously been doing a lousy job lately since guys like Ron Paul remain third party candidates.