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.
Anarchist Cain: 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.
Jacob Bloom: We're supposed to. By voting for the right people.
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.
It's true that there are lots of assumptions in my arguments. But there are lots of assumptions in yours. My bet is that people will do whatever they think is in their own personal interest. And maybe I'm naive, but I think that means voting for people who advocate minimal government. But then again, that hasn't happened lately. So maybe your "it's a 1 or a 0" argument sort of makes sense. But I think the correct solution will be somewhere approaching the middle. Although still leaning towards a 2 or 3.
Jacob Bloom: I think that sounds nice but that you're going to keep running into the same problem over and over again.
Well free will. Nothing is guaranteed
Jacob Bloom: 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.
Ron Paul is a swell guy on ecomonics however his social philosophy is truly lacking. It is simple logic to exclaim that a monopoly on the system of law by the government will always rule in favor of the extension of powers
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Jacob Bloom: 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.
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.
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.
Run behind books? I assumed that was a genuine question and not a rhetorical device.
Peace
JonBostwick: Jacob Bloom: 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. Run behind books? I assumed that was a genuine question and not a rhetorical device.
Yeah, run behind books, because instead of give me your answer, you delegated the argument elsewhere. What do you honestly think would happen if you had a decentralized colony?
Jacob Bloom: It's true that there are lots of assumptions in my arguments. But there are lots of assumptions in yours.
It's true that there are lots of assumptions in my arguments. But there are lots of assumptions in yours.
By all means please point them out.
Jacob Bloom:My bet is that people will do whatever they think is in their own personal interest. And maybe I'm naive, but I think that means voting for people who advocate minimal government.
People act on their subjective desires. Socialists vote for more government, Conservatives for theocratic. It is a falsehood to assume that everyone wants minimal government.
Jacob Bloom:But I think the correct solution will be somewhere approaching the middle. Although still leaning towards a 2 or 3.
Give the articles I linked you a read. They are truly compelling. Small government individuals stumble on here frequently and they are usually in agreement with us in a week. My personal favorite is Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. I was in the Ron Paul movement [like I assume you are now] and after reading that I instantly proclaimed myself an anarchist.
Jacob Bloom:What do you honestly think would happen if you had a decentralized colony?
Look at the history.
Compare the Roman occupation of Germany, stateless, to the American occupation of Germany, with a state.
Invaders capture states and yield them against their citizens. An invader into a stateless region does not have that privilege.
Anarchist Cain:
1.) I think the first assumption you have wrong is that human nature works well with anarchy. I mean, plain and simple, I think it doesn't.
2.) How are you going to eliminate the socialist desire to have a state that governs in your decentralized region and how is said region going to defend itself from the human desire to escape death which ultimately leads to the desire for religion? And how, also is it going to defend itself from the military state that hasn't decentralized. You've got the prisoner's dilemma here.
3.) I promise I'll look over what you guys have showed me here. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything. I just think that when you say something like "we should never have fought Hitler" it comes off as...very disrespectful.
JonBostwick: Jacob Bloom:What do you honestly think would happen if you had a decentralized colony? Look at the history. Compare the Roman occupation of Germany, stateless, to the American occupation of Germany, with a state. Invaders capture states and yield them against their citizens. An invader into a stateless region does not have that privilege.
Ok, well, they'll still take your land. And then you'll have to start all over. And then, when you've built yourself up again, someone will invade you. You will need defense of some kind, don't you think?
Jacob Bloom: Ok, well, they'll still take your land. And then you'll have to start all over. And then, when you've built yourself up again, someone will invade you. You will need defense of some kind, don't you think?
You mean like a militia or a voluntary, privately funded army? Yeah, I agree.
Jacob Bloom:I think the first assumption you have wrong is that human nature works well with anarchy. I mean, plain and simple, I think it doesn't.
Why doesn't it?
Jacob Bloom:How are you going to eliminate the socialist desire to have a state that governs in your decentralized region and how is said region going to defend itself from the human desire to escape death which ultimately leads to the desire for religion? And how, also is it going to defend itself from the military state that hasn't decentralized. You've got the prisoner's dilemma here.
If Socialists want to have their little utopias I care not. However, they cannot compel me to join in them. That is the point of the Anarchy we preach, volunteerism. Religion does not worry me and who will conquer a decentralized people?
Jacob Bloom: I promise I'll look over what you guys have showed me here. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything. I just think that when you say something like "we should never have fought Hitler" it comes off as...very disrespectful.
That's fine. I admit that when I first heard Walter Block speak about libertarianism I thought the man was vulgar in its usage. However, when you ponder the question further you see the point that is being expressed.
Jacob Bloom:1.) I think the first assumption you have wrong is that human nature works well with anarchy. I mean, plain and simple, I think it doesn't.
If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.
JonBostwick: Jacob Bloom: Ok, well, they'll still take your land. And then you'll have to start all over. And then, when you've built yourself up again, someone will invade you. You will need defense of some kind, don't you think? You mean like a militia or a voluntary, privately funded army? Yeah, I agree.
So you've got a band of mercenaries. Well, I just...I don't think that's gonna cut it.
Jacob Bloom:So you've got a band of mercenaries. Well, I just...I don't think that's gonna cut it.
Other then pretty uniforms...what is the difference?
Human nature is selfish. We are programmed to think of ourselves first. Ultimately that leads to property. Who owns what. And that's best settled in a free market. But you need laws to prevent people from violating contracts. Who is going to enforce contracts in your decentralized region?
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:So you've got a band of mercenaries. Well, I just...I don't think that's gonna cut it. Other then pretty uniforms...what is the difference?
I think mercenaries tend to be cowards or tyrants. They either run from the first sign of battle or they take over the people they were supposed to protect. You can't trust mercenaries. Well actually, are you going to be hiring mercenaries from inside your decentralized region or from outside?