I know I am probably looked on as a glutton for punishment at this point, with all the conversations involving a wide variety of topics...
But I like the clarification that I am getting on these points, it helps me formulate better the ideas I have and the economics of such (which is my weak point)...
What I am posting this for is really the extrapolation of the economic stance of freedom, into a society...
We will take an individual to start with and will try to expand it to larger groups with your interaction (help)...
The questions I would like ot seek answers for is:
I will thank you all for your input, and try to keep on top of replies...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker: What level of government, if any at all, suits a purpose to a community of individuals? If there is one, how does it operate? If there is not, how does the market solve the issues a community faces?
1 & 2 are completely subjective and would require someone being able to plan or predict the future. "Suits a purpose" is not very specific.
How is this community arranged socially? Entrance, leave, participation etc. Then, what are their needs? Is it possible to have a communal need that is not first an individual need? Is a communal need just a combination of most or all individual needs? Is there any advantage to bundling needs in this manner? Are there any downsides?
3. That's what we talk about here all of the time. There is an increasing amount of scholarship on this as time goes on. Still, no concept is worthwhile without a market test. Or at least that is what I believe from a free market perspective.
The thread title might be misleading. What is ideal for you might not be ideal for me, and likewise. Universal ideals seem to be more likely as a coincidence than a persistent condition.
As you already know, for me no government would be what I wish. But then I still have to figure out how this voluntary government system works. It may be more realistically feasible. I am anxious to read the replies....
liberty student:Still, no concept is worthwhile without a market test.
If it is flexible, then it should be able to adapt easily.
marquise:If it is flexible, then it should be able to adapt easily.
Adapt or die.
liberty student: marquise:If it is flexible, then it should be able to adapt easily. Adapt or die.
*gulp*
liberty student:Adapt or die.
Hehehe.....
You may want to read this by Roderick Long. URL = http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
Political Atheists Blog
Those questions are merely the result of the conversation, I am looking toward a goal, we need to begin the conversation first, before we can get to the points of the questions...
liberty student:How is this community arranged socially?
lets say...
We have a group of individuals, and we will make this as fantastic as possible, they unanimously agree to be free, they agree amongst themselves that no one is permitted to "aggress" anyone else, and in the case that someone does, they may not evade estoppel...
This community must be large enough to constitute a town, that is, large enough to be self sufficient, now I understand that each individual can be self sufficient, but we are working on a group of individuals and seeing where logically we can go...
liberty student:Entrance, leave, participation etc.
The only way in is to own property inside the community, the only way out is to sell said property, and participation beyond that is purely voluntary
liberty student:Then, what are their needs?
Well...
Is this community going to only deal with itself in bartering commodities, or will it interact with the markets outside itself? If so, how does it deal with money from without? Or external markets wanting to do business within the community?
How is the common defense provided, since this is a community and will have a real boundary to where the community ends and the rest of the world begins?
liberty student:Is it possible to have a communal need that is not first an individual need? Is a communal need just a combination of most or all individual needs? Is there any advantage to bundling needs in this manner? Are there any downsides?
All valid questions, I answer yes to the first two. Bundling some needs is advantageous as it sets a standard, the need provided by the NAP is advantageous to bundle as it sets the standard that all people in the community (which can be expanded to all people) have equal rights against aggression, others, not so much, this is a point of the discussion, to find where the ideal lies.
I do not see this tatic as feasable as there is no place left on earth to have such a test, though I would surely agree to be part of such an experiment if there was a place to have it.
liberty student:The thread title might be misleading.
Well I want to know what your ideal is from you, and other individual's ideals from them, so I believe that it is a correct title.
I will be honest, I am a proactive person, and always looking for a way in which I can turn ideas into reality, but before I can achieve a goal, I must know where the goal lies. No, I am not proposing my ideal community will be yours, or anyone's ideal, nor am I proposing that I will find mindful way to enact all people's ideal societies, what I am proposing is to explore where the ideals are and possibly (slim chance) derive an acceptable combination, therefore have a goal...
This is 100% acceptable, it is either a winner or a loser, that is all there is...
Harry Felker:Is this community going to only deal with itself in bartering commodities, or will it interact with the markets outside itself? If so, how does it deal with money from without? Or external markets wanting to do business within the community?
Exchange the same way Japan does with the US, or Korea does with Canada.
Harry Felker:How is the common defense provided, since this is a community and will have a real boundary to where the community ends and the rest of the world begins?
Are there barbarians and tanks waiting just outside town? If all of the property is individually owned, then security and defense also would be on an individual level. That doesn't mean there won't be cooperation, but not everyone in town will be expected to participate (because it is voluntary).
Harry Felker:Bundling some needs is advantageous as it sets a standard
But not necessary.
It's very tough to deal with ideals, because everyone has different needs and wants, they all have different means with which to pursue their ideals.
I can understand the desire to want to take action, to develop plans, but freedom doesn't rely on a plan. In fact, one could argue that freedom only exists in the absence of master plans.
Thanks for the link
liberty student:Exchange the same way Japan does with the US, or Korea does with Canada.
By this do you mean just trade goods?
liberty student:Are there barbarians and tanks waiting just outside town? If all of the property is individually owned, then security and defense also would be on an individual level. That doesn't mean there won't be cooperation, but not everyone in town will be expected to participate (because it is voluntary).
I do not know, there could be barbarians in tanks, it is not for the immediate need of defense but the contingency should such a need arise...
Of course I would not think compulsory service should be adopted, let it be voluntary...
liberty student:But not necessary.
Never asked if it was necessary, you asked if it was advantageous, which it is... in some cases...
liberty student:It's very tough to deal with ideals, because everyone has different needs and wants, they all have different means with which to pursue their ideals.
It is tough, but to get the foundation of what it is that is the core of your society we can logically extrapolate all other parameters to see if it is agreeable in enough aspects to be considered viable...
If it is not, maybe a combination is....
liberty student:I can understand the desire to want to take action, to develop plans, but freedom doesn't rely on a plan. In fact, one could argue that freedom only exists in the absence of master plans.
One could argue if you are a slave one day you will be the master, it does not necessarily make it true, one thing I can say is, knowledge is a great thing, but without the will to put that knowledge to use, it is as impotent as a poor man with E.D....
The problem with that argument is that freedom usually comes about from under the thumb of tyranny, action is usually requisite, the oppressed do not sit around and talk about how one day they hope their oppressors get tired if the power and allow them to be free and freedom is realized, it more often than not requires action, and to insure that oppression is not replacing oppression, one must be mindful of where one is going...
Eric: liberty student: marquise:If it is flexible, then it should be able to adapt easily. Adapt or die. *gulp*
Your thoughts?
Freedom does not need a plan, but apparently it needs understanding....
It is not a matter of developing plans, but to define the concept, which includes to establish where my liberty ends and where yours starts in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Harry Felker: liberty student:Exchange the same way Japan does with the US, or Korea does with Canada. By this do you mean just trade goods?
No. The same way international exchange is handled now between different economic sectors with different currencies and languages. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Harry Felker: I do not know, there could be barbarians in tanks, it is not for the immediate need of defense but the contingency should such a need arise... Of course I would not think compulsory service should be adopted, let it be voluntary...
It has to be voluntary if you are in a free society. Which means you might organize a militia training session on Saturday at 9:30 AM, and no one shows up. Or I might organize one at the same time with free coffee and donuts, and everyone shows up to my training session, but not to militia-ize, but to scam some free food.
In a free market, you have to be able to sell your ideas. You can't start with a premise and then expect people to conform to it. For example, the premise of an organized community defense. Maybe only a couple folks want that. Maybe none.
Harry Felker:It is tough, but to get the foundation of what it is that is the core of your society we can logically extrapolate all other parameters to see if it is agreeable in enough aspects to be considered viable...
It's not "my society". It's just people choosing to interact without violence at their own discretion. Nothing more, nothing less. If we can extrapolate all parameters, we could plan a society, which would mean we would bypass free choice, which is the opposite of a free society.
If you're coming around to non-aggression, the tough part is understanding "who will do what" in a free society. The answer for me was this.
The government is inherently immoral. So from a moral standpoint, I am set. But on a practical level, the government takes care of the poor, handles defense, provides a body of law. How can we do that in a free society? Note, this is different than trying to establish ideals, this is asking if anarchy can do what government does.
I eventually realized, everything the government does (that we need, so skip the stealing and violence) can be done privately. There is nothing particularly SPECIAL about the government that lets it do anything morally just that individuals could not do on their own. In fact, because it has no competition, it's quite easy to imagine that markets in defense, law, etc would be MUCH cheaper MUCH more efficient, and MUCH more productive.
Harry Felker:One could argue if you are a slave one day you will be the master, it does not necessarily make it true, one thing I can say is, knowledge is a great thing, but without the will to put that knowledge to use, it is as impotent as a poor man with E.D....
Action without understanding is ultimately wasted. Understanding has to come first, or whatever is built will not be maintained.
Harry Felker:The problem with that argument is that freedom usually comes about from under the thumb of tyranny, action is usually requisite, the oppressed do not sit around and talk about how one day they hope their oppressors get tired if the power and allow them to be free and freedom is realized, it more often than not requires action
People have been acting for ages and getting nowhere. I think it's because they wanted to go back to Constitutions, or get their guy in power, or to reform. What we're talking about is much more radical, and the prospects for it happening quickly are contingent upon mass education, which is a form of action.
You may see it as sitting around and talking, but I don't. We're precisely in this pickle because people chose to act emotionally and not think rationally. More of the same will not yield a different result. This is a battle of ideas, not political structures or physical force.
I should tell you that this is about understanding first, I am not going out tomorrow and building the LS community, when I said your society I meant your ideal as opposed to anothers, since you are the only one talking here, I would like to pursue this line of thought, someone else appears then I will talk to them independently, I am not going to say "but LS said"...
liberty student:No. The same way international exchange is handled now between different economic sectors with different currencies and languages. No need to reinvent the wheel.
So how does this community derive a currency to deal with external markets? Is it done by free market, and if so, how would the potential for change effect the external market?
liberty student:You can't start with a premise and then expect people to conform to it.
But you can start with a premise and sell it, and if you fail, you fail. I am not in contention with this at all. If not everyone decides to "defend the community" that is fine, nay, expected. What I want to know is if the market will produce defense contractors, bidding to defend individual's property, or will the solution more likely be voluntary action of the individuals to do this? I am asking for your opinion, and further asking you to back it up with factual analysis, you cannot be "wrong". This is purely a politically theoretical discussion...
liberty student:If we can extrapolate all parameters, we could plan a society, which would mean we would bypass free choice, which is the opposite of a free society.
No, we are not saying you live near our society so be in it or feel our wrath, we are building the ideal, in your eyes, and seeing where it logically puts us, if we were to "real world" test this, I would think the answer is quite natural, if you own the land, large enough piece, to constitute a town and sell it with the understanding that no nations laws are applicable here, meaning there is no benefit from a "state", and to live here you are rejecting any "state" benefit, you are giving the free choice to be involved or not...
liberty student:Action without understanding is ultimately wasted.
That is the other hand of the statement I made...
liberty student:What we're talking about is much more radical, and the prospects for it happening quickly are contingent upon mass education, which is a form of action.
Well how does one propose to educate people in the direction of "freedom" when you have drastic differences in opinion (I saw the "gay debate")?
Harry Felker:So how does this community derive a currency to deal with external markets?
Voluntary exchange. I'm not sure I understand the question. How people trade now between the US and Japan, it might look something like that. It's one possible approach.
Harry Felker:Is it done by free market, and if so, how would the potential for change effect the external market?
Who else would do it? I don't understand the potential for change bit.
Harry Felker:What I want to know is if the market will produce defense contractors, bidding to defend individual's property, or will the solution more likely be voluntary action of the individuals to do this?
We don't know. We cannot know. We only know that where there is a demand for something in the market, and thus a potential to profit, someone will try to satisfy that demand.
Harry Felker:we are building the ideal, in your eyes
I don't have an ideal except freedom. I don't care what society looks like as long as there is as little aggression as is possible. I do like science fiction, so hopefully someone produces that. But if they don't, then maybe I broaden my horizon and take in something different.
Harry Felker:Well how does one propose to educate people in the direction of "freedom" when you have drastic differences in opinion (I saw the "gay debate")?
The debate on homosexuality, Giles is not preaching aggression, he's making the point about his market preferences, and his belief that the market will punish the behaviour he does not prefer through competition and profit/loss. We may differ on outcomes, but we don't differ on the need for a market, or the moral and pragmatic justifications for non-aggression.
For me, it is all about non-aggression, which requires voluntary exchange, which leads to free markets. That's my freedom message. Non-aggression.
liberty student: Harry Felker:So how does this community derive a currency to deal with external markets? Voluntary exchange. I'm not sure I understand the question. How people trade now between the US and Japan, it might look something like that. It's one possible approach. Harry Felker:Is it done by free market, and if so, how would the potential for change effect the external market? Who else would do it? I don't understand the potential for change bit.
Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by how the people trade between the US and Japan...
Potential for change, this means that if the free market derives the currency, there would be competition in the optimal case, with this competition there will be changes in the prevailing currency (one used most) and others that are still in use, how would this effect the external market, theoretically of course, in turn how can the free market deal with the influx of foreign currency, as the local market will be seeing a lot of it if you community produces and sells to the external market?
liberty student:I don't have an ideal except freedom. I don't care what society looks like as long as there is as little aggression as is possible.
Well, I would like to go deeper than we have freedom through non aggression and ideal society just erupts...
What I am looking for is how this ideal deals with issues delegated to communities in current societies, I knew before posting this that your particular ideal is Archano-Capitalist with the NAP foundation, but how does the free market deal with these things?
Are they individual responsibility and the ideal is that people will see the profit in helping each other, or is it more along the lines of contracted assistance?
Harry Felker: liberty student:I don't have an ideal except freedom. I don't care what society looks like as long as there is as little aggression as is possible. Well, I would like to go deeper than we have freedom through non aggression and ideal society just erupts... What I am looking for is how this ideal deals with issues delegated to communities in current societies, I knew before posting this that your particular ideal is Archano-Capitalist with the NAP foundation, but how does the free market deal with these things? Are they individual responsibility and the ideal is that people will see the profit in helping each other, or is it more along the lines of contracted assistance?
I don't understand your question. How does the free market deal with non-coercion? Is that what you're asking? If so, then I'd say it would flourish. War and thuggary isn't about voluntary exchange. Markets get bombed in conflicts and nobody has much time to tend the fields, which leads to hunger so applying creativity to a piece of wood for let's say, furniture, would probably be the last thing on anybody's mind.
wilderness:How does the free market deal with non-coercion? Is that what you're asking? If so, then I'd say it would flourish.
OK....
wilderness:Markets get bombed in conflicts and nobody has much time to tend the fields, which leads to hunger so applying creativity to a piece of wood for let's say, furniture, would probably be the last thing on anybody's mind.
This is understood...
Shall we talk about what your ideal society is like.... Following the primary post in the conversation...
Harry Felker:Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by how the people trade between the US and Japan...
Well the Japanese have Yen, and goods we want to buy, and we (assume I am an American for a moment) have dollars and goods we want to sell.
I buy Japanese goods with dollars, and they buy my goods with Yen, and then we swap currency back (clearing) so we both have our own domestic means of exchange. We don't HAVE to do it this way, but in complex examples you will want to, because the village will be trading with Japan, not one person, and the odds that what a person has to sell will be what the Japanese want in return for their goods is unlikely. It is called a coincidence of wants in a barter society.
That is why we use money. To avoid having to look for coincidences of wants. We can make half of the exchange in currency, then use that currency later to get the good we really want.
But I don't know that is exactly how that will happen, but it is a natural market solution from the past which is fundamentally sound, so it may be used again in the future under a completely free market scenario.
I think this answers the potential for change question, at least partially. Feel free to write back on money and markets. That's the stuff I really enjoy!
Harry Felker:Well, I would like to go deeper than we have freedom through non aggression and ideal society just erupts...
It might not just erupt.
This is going to be an unsatisfying answer for you but it is an honest one. I don't know what the future will be, and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. Part of Austrian theory is that Mises exposed a flaw in socialism, namely that under central command, an economy cannot freely exchange, and thus cannot determine prices.
Without these rationally derived prices generated in the market, the central planners will be unable to determine what the optimimum wages, production capacities, goods etc are needed to keep the economy flowing smoothly. They can't allocate scarce resources, which will lead to malinvestment (waste and shortages).
These errors, like a cancer replicating, will lead to compound bigger errors based on lack of knowledge, and ultimately the economy will collapse. This is the theory behind the collapse of the Soviet Union, although Mises came up with it much much earlier.
Anyway, the idea of predicting the free market is sort of like the calculation problem. Without millions or billions of free people interacting, making choices, being creative, producing and consuming, there is no way to rationally determine with any real degree of precision, what a free market society will look like. Who will be in it, what their houses will be shaped like, or how many weeks vacation they take per year.
I have suggested many times (no one has contradicted me yet, but if I am wrong I hope someone would) that IF WE KNEW what the outcome would be, that is to say, how we would get there and what we will be doing, then it is an argument AGAINST Mises's theory about economic calculation.
In other words, if we can predict the future, then we can plan the future. And if we can plan the future, then why don't we just leave it to the central planners who are all seeing, all knowing and can predict the outcome of millions or billions of individual choices?
So generally, I try not to be a planner. Great to come up with ideas, but I am loathe to pretend I have a vision or a plan, or a working model, or necessary technologies or social structures. I don't and I can't. I am not God.
Hopefully that helps you understand better.
I know you want a plan, you want to act, we gotta work together, we need to stay focused etc.
I don't want to work together unless I can see a productive outcome that benefits me from doing so. In other words, I think if we're going to defeat statism we will need a damn good plan, and the damn good plan will come from competing plans, and one or some or none of them working.
If I have to provide an ideal society, it's one where Gabrielle Union and I find a coincidence of wants. Without aggression of course.
Harry Felker: wilderness:How does the free market deal with non-coercion? Is that what you're asking? If so, then I'd say it would flourish. OK.... wilderness:Markets get bombed in conflicts and nobody has much time to tend the fields, which leads to hunger so applying creativity to a piece of wood for let's say, furniture, would probably be the last thing on anybody's mind. This is understood... Shall we talk about what your ideal society is like.... Following the primary post in the conversation...
I forgot, unintentionally, that I asked you these questions. I'm glad you took the time to respond.
I don't have an ideal outside of the NAP. I live an ideal now except for the State screwing things up and so the State increases the danger to what I already ideally live. I was just curious what you meant that's all. Thanks.
liberty student:I think this answers the potential for change question, at least partially.
Partially, for example: you use A as your choice currency, I use B....
A currency is stable, the comparative value is predominantly stable, B currency is not, it has highs and lows...
Let us say there are a few more currencies on our free market (irrelevant but there)...
Lets say there is an individual (J Ind) that like to do business with each of us from another community (from Japan), and you happen to by 5000A worth of goods from J Ind, now the J ind has 5000A and needs my products, but I do not accept the A, worse yet there was news that A was being misprinted and now is worth 1/10th of B and you do not either. Logically, If I do business with J Ind, he will be recieving by far fewer goods than he released for the 5000A, which may curb him from doing business with the community, this is the real potential for change question, with the absence of a standard currency with a stable value (like using gold as currency), there is a risk that some may view as unreasonable and therefore there will be consequences....
Is the free market answer the community must adapt or perish without a stable standard?
liberty student:I have suggested many times (no one has contradicted me yet, but if I am wrong I hope someone would) that IF WE KNEW what the outcome would be, that is to say, how we would get there and what we will be doing, then it is an argument AGAINST Mises's theory about economic calculation.
Fortunately I am asking your opinions not for you to know....
liberty student:In other words, I think if we're going to defeat statism we will need a damn good plan, and the damn good plan will come from competing plans, and one or some or none of them working.
Fair enough, I am game, I can play this one...
Competing plans to defeat statism....
liberty student:If I have to provide an ideal society, it's one where Gabrielle Union and I find a coincidence of wants. Without aggression of course.
Nice choice....
wilderness:I forgot, unintentionally, that I asked you these questions. I'm glad you took the time to respond.
It is ok... I was offline for a couple days, I had to replace the floor in here....
Harry Felker:there is a risk that some may view as unreasonable and therefore there will be consequences....
What consequences?
If people view risk as unreasonable, then they will not take it. The determination of risk is subjective. It varies from party to party. Some people are viewed as "risk takers" but frequently, they are taking advantage of an opportunity they see as somewhat risky but with an upside in the favour. Those are the people who are capable of looking at what is seen, and what is unseen and making critical analysis based on that.
liberty student:What consequences?
I thought it was obvious, the consequences of curbing trade.....
Harry Felker:I thought it was obvious, the consequences of curbing trade.....
My second paragraph addresses that to a degree.
If we understand that all voluntary exchange in a free market is subjective then more or less trade is largely an irrelevant concept. People will trade when they want/need to, and the price is right. If a particular trading partner fails to deliver a particular good, alternate sources or goods will move in and consumption patterns will shift.
Maybe say the Japanese have a defective currency no one will trade with, then the people of Libertia might request the Japanese get Swiss Francs and trade in those. Or that the Japanese deal in gold, or silver. The Austrian perspective is, in a free market for money, it is likely a commodity money will come out on top. The Free Bankers believe otherwise, but I don't agree.
Money is just a means of exchange. Money doesn't dictate trade or curb trade per se. I mean, a faulty means of exchange could cause problems, but those problems are pretty much a non-issue with market selected money, because people will just shift to another medium.
liberty student:Money is just a means of exchange. Money doesn't dictate trade or curb trade per se. I mean, a faulty means of exchange could cause problems, but those problems are pretty much a non-issue with market selected money, because people will just shift to another medium.
Precisely what the potential for change is....
Theoretically, how does the market deal with those trading in currency A if currency A goes away leaving certain people with useless currency?
Again I am looking for opinions...
The way I see it, and I could be wrong, it looks as if you are saying buyer beware, but with a market selected money, with no boundaries, you can really offer no guarantee to the trader that you are paying, that the medium of exchange, you use now, will be in existence in the near future...
It is sort of like what we see going on with the US Dollar, the currency mandated is going down the toilet, and other communities(countries) are trying like hell to get out from under it, because these investments come under question if they will be honored if, or when, the dollar goes the way of the dodo.
I do agree that a commodity based currency is the only proper means of exchange, as it has a value that can be derived in real property, as opposed to a promisary note, which has no real backing...
Harry Felker:Theoretically, how does the market deal with those trading in currency A if currency A goes away leaving certain people with useless currency?
They go bust.
Harry Felker:The way I see it, and I could be wrong, it looks as if you are saying buyer beware, but with a market selected money, with no boundaries, you can really offer no guarantee to the trader that you are paying, that the medium of exchange, you use now, will be in existence in the near future...
Well, that's based upon a narrow definition of money. An ounce of gold today will be an ounce of gold tomorrow. What value that has in exchange is never fixed in a free market. But it is still an ounce of gold.
Of course buyer beware. We all have to be grownups if we want freedom. We have to be selective and intelligent, we can't just take things at face value of follow the crowd. People will have to become engaged with their lives again, instead of zoning out in front of a TV living vicariously through a reality show.
Harry Felker:It is sort of like what we see going on with the US Dollar, the currency mandated is going down the toilet, and other communities(countries) are trying like hell to get out from under it, because these investments come under question if they will be honored if, or when, the dollar goes the way of the dodo.
Right, but it is highly unlikely you would see that in a free market, because the incentive is to trade in something real, in a transparent manner, and there is no monopoly of a global reserve. The US dollar is going to bring down America because the government will not allow control of the money to return to the market.
Harry Felker:How does the market solve the issues a community faces?
I highly recommend Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I think it is the book you need.
To understand how a free society might work in those industries more difficult to envision - defense, protection, law, etc - check out some of the articles collected in this book, many of which you can find online. Like Roderick Long's Defending A Free Nation.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
1. Confederations of states
2. By protecting sentient individuals against interference (though permitting some interference against children and certain sentient non-human animals)
liberty student: Well, that's based upon a narrow definition of money. An ounce of gold today will be an ounce of gold tomorrow. What value that has in exchange is never fixed in a free market. But it is still an ounce of gold. Of course buyer beware. We all have to be grownups if we want freedom. We have to be selective and intelligent, we can't just take things at face value of follow the crowd. People will have to become engaged with their lives again, instead of zoning out in front of a TV living vicariously through a reality show.
liberty student:Right, but it is highly unlikely you would see that in a free market, because the incentive is to trade in something real, in a transparent manner, and there is no monopoly of a global reserve. The US dollar is going to bring down America because the government will not allow control of the money to return to the market.
That is a very convincing argument for free market currency, thank you
Truth and Liberty: I highly recommend Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I think it is the book you need. To understand how a free society might work in those industries more difficult to envision - defense, protection, law, etc - check out some of the articles collected in this book, many of which you can find online. Like Roderick Long's Defending A Free Nation.
Thank you for the reference materials, I will be sure to check them out....
nick.ryan: 1. Confederations of states 2. By protecting sentient individuals against interference (though permitting some interference against children and certain sentient non-human animals)
OK, go back to the Articles of Confederation....
Can you explain point 2 for me please?