Was it made up of mainly private, non-government financed militias?
Player: Not the one I was looking for but this post could serve as a starting point http://militantlibertarian.org/2010/02/10/did-king-george-iii-deserve-to-be-overthrown/
Not the one I was looking for but this post could serve as a starting point
http://militantlibertarian.org/2010/02/10/did-king-george-iii-deserve-to-be-overthrown/
I guess, when you get down to it, one form of government can be just as bad as another. They both have to steal from people to survive. And they both will use deadly force to do it.
Does it really matter one way or another?
I think what people want, without knowing it, in alot of cases, is no government.
The idea of noone being able to steal from them.
A few more...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/029113.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/029470.html#more-29470 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/kolkey3.1.1.html
It is irrelevant if the injusticies suffered by the colonists were small or large or if they were exagarrated or not. Men are entitled to defend against small wrongs as much as against great wrongs. There is no watershed moment when the aggression reaches such proportions that taking up of arms is permissible, but not before that.
If anything it is to the great credit of the colonists that they were so freedom minded that they thought it worthwile to rise up in response to comparatively small injustices already. It is droll to ask wether some ruler deserved to be overthrown. Every ruler deserves to be overthrown and the act of overthrow of any ruler is to be greeted and celebrated. Rothbard is right to say that rebellion as such is always a libertarian act. Also while we know that the USA did not in the end work out all that well (just ask the Philipinos, the Koreans and the Vietnamese) this is a matter of what is seen and what is unseen. Who is to say that a British Empire which continued to incorporate what became the United States would not have been even more disasterous for itself and for the world than the amputated British Empire and the US were individually? In fact we have good reason to belive it would have been be since it would combine the power of the both of them and therefore been far more powerful.
Seriously, monarchy > self-government? Seriously... are you that deluded?!
Well, you did say you sympathize with fascists so....
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
"Self-deluded" Kinsella answered that knee-jerk response here:
http://blog.mises.org/10218/happy-we-should-restore-the-monarchy-and-rejoin-britain-day/
When I suggest it was a mistake to secede from Britain, libertarians–brainwashed by both Saturday morning Schoolhouse Rock propaganda (No More Kings; Fireworks; Three-Ring Government; The Preamble) and Randian pro-America mythology–freak out. “You want us to have a king? How terrible?!” or “But Britain is more socialist than we are!” Well, first, I don’t want us to have a king. I’d prefer we have no state: no kings or congresscritters or revenuers. But we have a king now, under another name; he can tax and murder us, just like the dreaded monarchian boogey-man; the state is overlord of all our property, as in feudalism. And rejoining socialist Britain now would be terrible–but would the European monarchies have become democratic socialist states if America had never left Britain?
America’s secession led to a constructivist new utopian order based on a “rational, scientific” paper document and the rejection of traditional, unwritten limits on state power, thus setting the world on the path of democracy and democratic tyranny, and all the evils of the 20th Century-WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the Cold War, Communism, Naziism, Fascism, Great Depressions I and II (see Goodbye 1776, 1789, Tom for links). America’s reckless utopianism corrupted its mother state, rendering it unfit to rejoin. But had we never left? One percent tax paid to a distant King over the ocean sound appealing, anyone? (See Would YOU sign the Declaration of Independence?)
No. It soudns immensely unappealing. I prefer a system where some blowhard cant change the law any day on a whim, tyvm.
Democratic/republicanism has its drawbacks. But if you think monarchy is a better solution, I really doubt whether you believe in liberty at all.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: I prefer a system where some blowhard cant change the law any day on a whim, tyvm.
I prefer a system where some blowhard cant change the law any day on a whim, tyvm.
Monarchy
Seriously, monarchy > self-government? Seriously... are you that deluded?! Well, you did say you sympathize with fascists so....
Are you saying that majority rule is self-government? If not, what country do you know of that actually has "self-government"?
"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