A free people do not need an army to protect them.

[tremendoustie]

We'll put it this way, then. To those of you that promote a stateless, voluntary society without a government and certainly without a government's military, what do you do when the hyper-wealthy emerge, and some (or even just one) of them purchases his own military, his own power, and begins to bend people to his will?

Why do you think that doesn't happen now?

Because the combined power of average people, currently wielded by the government, dwarfs that of any random rich dude.

I'm suggesting average people continue to wield that power, they just do so using other means.

A scenario for this could be the hyper-wealthy head of a biotech firm. This biotech firm engineers a deadly, slow acting virus, and the cure for this virus. They control distribution via a private military that they've purchased, and clandestinely begin to infect certain strategic regions, basically gaining private rule over them with the leverage of the cure they own.

Lol ... put down the remote ... back away from the TV set ... jk .

The puny "private military" would be demolished by the combined forces of major protection agencies and militas. The cure as well as all the perpetrators' assets would be seized and distributed to victims, and the perpetrators would spend the rest of their lives paying further restitution (assuming they did actually cause enough damage to necessitate this).

There are no courts or governmental forces they MUST contend with, and no one is powerful enough to stand in their way once they get the ball rolling.

There's your false assumption. A central state is not the only way for the general public to wield power, any more than a government bread line is the only way for them to get food.

 

[Kojac]

The people combined don't equal the power of one rich dude. I'd assume you're aware that a very very high percentage of the world's wealth is in the hands of a very very small percentage of people, correct? If you want a system that provides equal opportunities for everyone to climb between social strata, you may want to consider that these people, given the resources they have, enough malevolence, intelligence, and no obstacles from government--these people WILL tear freedoms away from others in their own self interest.

On top of which, advocating the seizure of property by private parties is arbitrary and very nearly anarcho-communist, so if you want to keep your anarcho-capitalist reputation, you might want to re-think that one.

 

[tremendoustie]

The people combined don't equal the power of one rich dude.

Total wealth in the US is around 62 Trillion. Bill gates, the richest man in the US, has less than a thousandth of that. Plus, you have to take manpower into consideration. "Average people" are themselves a 300 million man army.

Think for a second ... if what you say were true, government as we know it could not stop the scenario you describe either. All the resources the current government has are taken from "average people". If one person were more powerful than everyone else combined, they would be more powerful than the government also.

I encourage you to describe a specific hypothetical scenario, including the distribution of wealth, who's diabolical, who's good, etc, and show that a central state can succeed where a free society cannot. I think you'll find the flaw in your reasoning ... and if you can't, I'll help .

The government's power IS derived from the people. That's why it's so powerful. I'm just suggesting the people use a different, more effective, more accountable, and more moral means to exert their power.

I'd assume you're aware that a very very high percentage of the world's wealth is in the hands of a very very small percentage of people, correct?

Sure, the top 15 million people in the US, together, have slightly more wealth than everyone else in the US put together.

Are you suggesting that they're all going to join together in a giant conspiracy to enslave everyone else?

Here's the question: If they did so now, who would stop them?

If you want a system that provides equal opportunities for everyone to climb between social strata, you may want to consider that these people, given the resources they have, enough malevolence, intelligence, and no obstacles from government--these people WILL tear freedoms away from others in their own self interest.

Why is the state capable of stopping these people? That's the same reason my form of government is capable of stopping them.

You're like a Russian who proclaims, "No bread lines!! Than how shall we eat!?". It's not surprising that this would be your initial reaction, because it's what you're used to, but a central state is not the only way to stop those who would harm others. There's demand for protection -- you want it, I want it, and we're going to pay for it whether there's a central state or not.

The question is, what is the most effective model for an organization to meet this demand, and provide this service? Would it be an organization which must compete with others for our business, to which there is recourse if it goes rogue?

Or would it be one monopoly, which can force us to subscribe against our will, even if we consider it to be acting immorally or ineffectively, and to which there is no recourse if it goes rogue?

You fail to recognize that those who would harm and control others will (and do) use the state itself to do it. What happens when it's the state itself that becomes diabolical? How do you defend against that?

On top of which, advocating the seizure of property by private parties is arbitrary and very nearly anarcho-communist, so if you want to keep your anarcho-capitalist reputation, you might want to re-think that one.

I'm advocating that justice be based on restitution. I perhaps skipped a few steps for the sake of brevity, but there would be a trial for those responsible, and if convicted, they would be responsible to make restitution for all the damages they have caused.

I don't think having perpetrators sit idle and get free room and board in jail, with the victims being forced to pay for their upkeep, is just.

 

[Kojac]

In short, your failure is that you're advocating a system that relies on all people to desire complete independence.

You do so incompletely, though. You want a justice system set up to your standards, which doesn't make sense in your magical world where everyone wants to rule their own lives without government. Justice and morality are to be decided by what? Majority rule? External standards? Religion? You've already denounced those premises and taken away their influence.

Furthermore, you think that the hyper-rich and powerful won't see that they are the only ones that can stop each other, and that they won't become a class of their own. Oligarchy will be the easiest solution for these people, and no one else will ever have a fighting chance for freedom.

You don't NEED government to hurt other people. It is, in fact, a lot easier to do so when you can be completely autonomous. Observe, for instance, how effective criminal activity is before it is stopped by authorities. Theft and extortion result in immediate gains for those that perpetrate it. Murder results in the immediate removal of obstacles when it is done in a practical manner.

 

[tremendoustie]

In short, your failure is that you're advocating a system that relies on all people to desire complete independence.

I don't even want complete independence .

I just want people to apply the same standards of morality they use for every day life -- e.g., don't attack someone who isn't harming you -- to "political" interactions.

You do so incompletely, though. You want a justice system set up to your standards, which doesn't make sense in your magical world where everyone wants to rule their own lives without government.

As I say, I support government -- I just don't believe that government is magically exempt from rules for moral decency that apply in other contexts.

The second I call my group "the government" it doesn't give us the right to act as if we own everyone and everything. Groups of individuals don't magically gain the right to do things that would be immoral for each of them outside of the group.

Justice and morality are to be decided by what? Majority rule? External standards? Religion? You've already denounced those premises and taken away their influence.

I am sure all of these things would have an influence. Personally, I'm religious.

I think it's important to recognize that a large majority will always get their way. This is true in any society, not just a democracy -- it's just a fact. They're more powerful.

I'm not suggesting that this be changed. I'm only suggesting that the majority apply certain moral standards to their behavior -- namely, the ones they adopt in the rest of their lives. I wouldn't go break into my neighbor's home, pawn his TV set, and use the proceeds to help fund my junior college tuition, my favorite charity, or a war someplace.

We need to stop imagining that such behavior is ok, if I use the "government" to do it.

Or, to put it another way, the constitution is supposed to imbue into the majority of the populace the belief that even if they would prefer to, they have no right to dictate to another person what religion they may have, for example.

I want a stronger constitution -- one that says, "No individual, whether acting on behalf of an organization or not, may initiate violence or coercion against a person who hasn't harmed others. Violence may only be used in self defense"

Furthermore, you think that the hyper-rich and powerful won't see that they are the only ones that can stop each other, and that they won't become a class of their own. Oligarchy will be the easiest solution for these people, and no one else will ever have a fighting chance for freedom.

Once again, why do you think they do not organize in this way now? Please describe, specifically, why they do not.

You've ignored my points, and you're letting your imagination get away from you here. Again, it's not suprising, because most of us got 12 years of indoctrination telling us how wonderful the state is, but it's just not true.

Forced monopolies are not better than free choice. They're not. They're less accountable, less effective, more prone to abuse, etc. To think that to make protection the sole domain of one monopoly racket will fix problems is insane.

You don't NEED government to hurt other people. It is, in fact, a lot easier to do so when you can be completely autonomous. Observe, for instance, how effective criminal activity is before it is stopped by authorities. Theft and extortion result in immediate gains for those that perpetrate it. Murder results in the immediate removal of obstacles when it is done in a practical manner.

Yep, which is why we need people to stop these things. I still feel as if you're not really listening to what I'm saying. I support police who will arrest people for these offenses, and I support systems of justice to hold them accountable for the damage they have caused. I just think the general public can implement these things more effectively -- and ensure that the servant does not become the master -- by allowing themselves the freedom to choose between various options.

Which is more likely to become corrupt? A police force which is the only option available to the public, and which the public is forced to pay, year after year, whether they like it or not? Or, police force A, which must retain subscribers based on the quality of work they do at an affordable price -- and who would immediately loose all business to police force B, at the slightest hint of corruption or incompetence?

In a different context, you're effectively proposing that we eliminate all restaurants but one chain, force everyone to go there once per week whether they want to or not, and suggesting that that will somehow improve the quality and safety of the food!? It's really insanity.

 

[Jace]

Everything you write is from the perspective of a "statist". And everything you say is correct - for a statist society, controlled borders are essential. What you did not address is : why would open borders be detrimental in a free society?

Open borders are detrimental because a massive and sudden influx of poor and desperate immigrants can overwhelm a free society, and in a short time the poor and desperate can become politically powerful enough to confiscate through force the property of people who are prosperous and free.

If the Founding Fathers were for open borders, why did they fight the Redcoats and the British Empire? The British wanted to confiscate the property and restrict the rights of American farmers who were growing wealthy in a prosperous land. But the farmers defended themselves from the invaders.

I happen to appreciate the fact that George Washington and the Continental Army chased them out.

I also appreciate the fact that Andrew Jackson stood up to th invaders at New Orleans and drove them out. And the fact that Jackson chased Nicholas Biddle back into his hole brings a smile to my face.

I understand how you guys are trying to equate open borders with freedom, and maybe you actually believe this, but in reality open borders are a goal of Central Bankers. Open borders will not bring us freedom here in our counrty. Open borders mean more taxes, more poverty, more welfare state and more police state. We have open borders in California and it has been a disaster for people who value property rights, low taxes, limited government and the culture and traditions of this country.

Ask the Tibetans how they feel about borders. The Han Chinese are genociding those peaceful people, claiming there is no border and no Tibetan people.

Here in California, we have illegal aliens who are uninsured driving around drunk killing people, crashing into cars and homes, and we pay for it and they just post bail and move away. Who are they? Who knows? They use different names everywhere they go.

If someone rear-ends me at a stoplight, am I supposed to call my neighborhood militia? Or do I grab my 9mm and wave it around until I am compensated for the damages? I work 8-10 hours a day and I have a family and I don't have time to organize and train with some suburbanite militia.

The purpose of the cops and the courts is to assist in property disputes without me having to get into a duel when my neighbor's tree falls on my roof. Back in the days of Benjamin Franklin, there was government to resolve property disputes.

Ron Paul is not for abolishing the government and the military. He is not for open borders. He is for limited government, sound money, non-interventionism and following the Constitution. If to some, those are just platitudes, then I disagree. I think they are values to fight for -- powerful values that attract people to Ron and what he's all about.

I know there are subversives on this site. Why wouldn't there be? Anytime powerful ideas threaten the plutocracy, they pay their thugs to subvert and confuse.

Ron Paul has powerful ideas, but the disinformationists are here to muddle the message.

Hey, Ron Paul supporters, these Emma Goldman open borders, no government folks are not following our traditions, but instead are following ideas that were generated by Eastern European Zionist socialists and their bankster masters.

Non-intervention abroad. Limited government at home. Defend the borders. Kill the Fed.

Don't let the subversionists muddle the message!

 

[tremendoustie]

Open borders are detrimental because a massive and sudden influx of poor and desperate immigrants can overwhelm a free society,

What do you mean by "overwhelm" specifically, and how would this play out?

and in a short time the poor and desperate can become politically powerful enough to confiscate through force the property of people who are prosperous and free.

He said free society ... there is no central state set up to enable people to vote themselves "political power" over others.

If the Founding Fathers were for open borders, why did they fight the Redcoats and the British Empire? The British wanted to confiscate the property and restrict the rights of American farmers who were growing wealthy in a prosperous land. But the farmers defended themselves from the invaders. I happen to appreciate the fact that George Washington and the Continental Army chased them out.

The Redcoats were part of an army employed by the British government, for the purposes of threatening and using violence against people in order to extort money and arbitrary obedience from them, which they did so continually.

If you start advocating going after anyone who wants to confiscate money, your position would have more credibility. Instead, you want to attack immigrants whether they're trying to take people's stuff or not, and you want to ignore the millions of people right here who do want to steal people's stuff.

It'd be like if you advocated going after not just the redcoats, but anyone from Britain, even if they're peacefully minding their own business -- and you didn't advocate going after the roving domestic groups doing the same exact thing as the redcoats.

One would begin to suspect that the theft wasn't what you had a problem with -- it was the fact of being British.

There are many people who immigrate peacefully and simply try to work for a living. As long as you're suggesting going after those people, your position is absolutely unjust and absolutely immoral.

You're trying to cast these innocent people as some sort of army, when it's completely untrue. They have not attacked anyone.

I also appreciate the fact that Andrew Jackson stood up to th invaders at New Orleans and drove them out.

Once again, people who were actually trying to attack others. Self defense against attack: good. Assaulting and kidnapping people simply because they are working for a living without begging your permission: bad.

It's not rocket science. You're trying to compare peaceful immigrants with violent armies in order to excuse your violence against them. It doesn't fly.

You're going after these people not because they attacked someone, which in most cases they didn't, but because they didn't wade through a bunch of bureacratic BS before getting a job, fill out reams of paper, or send a bunch of cash to the government.

Frankly, you're the extortionist in this case.

And the fact that Jackson chased Nicholas Biddle back into his hole brings a smile to my face.

I'm glad he beat the bank too

I understand how you guys are trying to equate open borders with freedom, and maybe you actually believe this,

It's quite obvious if you think about it Do you own your property? If so, you have a right to decide who you allow on it.

You don't have a right to dictate to your neighbors who they may and may not allow on their land, or who they may hire, or demand that anyone they do let on their land jump through your hoops and send you cash -- because it's not your land, and it's not your business.

but in reality open borders are a goal of Central Bankers. Open borders will not bring us freedom here in our counrty. Open borders mean more taxes, more poverty, more welfare state and more police state.

Giving government an iron grip on renting and hiring in this country, so that noone can do so without their approval, IS a police state.

You don't get more freedom by handing huge amounts of power to the government. If you want more freedom, fight welfarism, not immigration.

For example, why have I not seen a bill that would prohibit "illegal" immigrants from receiving government benefits? That would be at least a small step in the right direction. Instead, innocent workers are assaulted and kidnapped.

We have open borders in California and it has been a disaster for people who value property rights, low taxes, limited government and the culture and traditions of this country.

California was socialist long before Mexican immigration.

Ask the Tibetans how they feel about borders. The Han Chinese are genociding those peaceful people, claiming there is no border and no Tibetan people.

Genocide: Bad. Crossing a border and getting a job without begging government permission: Good

To not see this difference, you've got to be willfully, unbelivably blind. I mean really ...

Let me know when the Tibetan monks start lighting themselves on fire because some Chineese immigrant got a job. Unreal

Here in California, we have illegal aliens who are uninsured driving around drunk killing people, crashing into cars and homes, and we pay for it and they just post bail and move away. Who are they? Who knows? They use different names everywhere they go.

I suggest if someone kills someone, bail should be set a LOT higher.

I also suggest you stop assuming every person from Mexico is some reckless homicidal person, because a handful are.

You get pissed about a reckless driver, and so go kidnap some poor person working at McDonalds, simply because they have the same race or country of origin? On what planet is that sane behavior?

If someone rear-ends me at a stoplight, am I supposed to call my neighborhood militia? Or do I grab my 9mm and wave it around until I am compensated for the damages? I work 8-10 hours a day and I have a family and I don't have time to organize and train with some suburbanite militia.

Oh ... that discussion. *Sound of switching gears

Probably, you could just take down insurance numbers (as most do now). But, if you're worried about them not paying, you call your protection agency (very much like police), which would get the information (much like police do now), and follow up in case there are any problems -- including providing representation for you in court/arbitration, if it comes to that.

Militas are not for law enforcement -- they're for defense against wide scale attack.

The purpose of the cops and the courts is to assist in property disputes without me having to get into a duel when my neighbor's tree falls on my roof. Back in the days of Benjamin Franklin, there was government to resolve property disputes.

Yep, I agree that we need people to enforce rules against harming other persons or property, and courts/arbitors to settle disputes. If you have questions about the nuts and bolts of this, I'd be happy to describe the details of how I believe this might work.

In this sense, you might say I believe in "government". I just don't believe in an aggressively violent, central state.

Ron Paul is not for abolishing the government and the military. He is not for open borders. He is for limited government, sound money, non-interventionism and following the Constitution. If to some, those are just platitudes, then I disagree. I think they are values to fight for -- powerful values that attract people to Ron and what he's all about.

Other than the immigration issue, I agree with Ron Paul's goals -- and even on immigration, he's said he supports open borders in the absence of a welfare state.

If your purpose is to hike from LA to Boston, you're going to need to pass through NY. I ultimately support a voluntary society, but we're not going to evolve to that point tomorrow. Restoring the constitution, sound money, non-interventionism, are all important things to do today, so that people are more free now, but also important steps to take if we're ever going to evolve to something better.

RP absolutely has my support -- and he should have the support of anyone who believes in liberty.

I know there are subversives on this site. Why wouldn't there be? Anytime powerful ideas threaten the plutocracy, they pay their thugs to subvert and confuse.

Ron Paul has powerful ideas, but the disinformationists are here to muddle the message.

Hey, Ron Paul supporters, these Emma Goldman open borders, no government folks are not following our traditions, but instead are following ideas that were generated by Eastern European Zionist socialists and their bankster masters.

Wow, your ignorance is astounding. The you mean the socialist Emma Goldman, who advocated violence!?

"Eastern European Zionist socialists" ... riiiight I'm a sneaky zionist socialist who's disguising myself by opposing foreign aid to israel and all forms of wealth redistribution.

Non-intervention abroad. Limited government at home. Defend the borders. Kill the Fed.

Three out of four aint bad, I can't fault you too much .

Don't let the subversionists muddle the message!

Once again ...

 

[osan]

A free people protect themselves.

Meaningless statement. Try clarifying.

 

[osan]

Tell that to the Afghanis,

Heavily subsidized by third parties.

the Swiss

Heavily subsidized by tax money

the Vietnamese

Heavily subsidized by Soviet Union

the Japanese

Heavily subsidized by tax money

Had the Vietnamese not had very serious Soviet support, they would have folded like a cheap suit in no time. Even with the support, had the US mission been to kick ass and take names rather than "containment" (idiots), we would have pile driven them into submission before 8 weeks were out. We kicked the living snot out of them in EVERY military direct conflict, including Tet.

The Afghans are similarly supported in material terms. Out of which Afghan butthole do you think all that bang comes? Right. It doesn't. It ALL comes from somewhere else.

I am no fan of standing armies, but other nations have huge ones that can move on short notice. Invasion is unlikely, but not out of the question. There is some value in deterrence.

 

[Theocrat]

Having an Army and a "Arm Me"

A free people protect themselves.

Why can't a free people both protect themselves and be protected from foreign enemies by an army?

 

[LibertyWorker]

Why can't a free people both protect themselves and be protected from foreign enemies by an army?

Those foreign enemies you speak of are enemies of the government not me.

 

[Vessol]

Don't let the subversionists muddle the message!

I wasn't aware Thomas Jefferson was a "subversionist"

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet.

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]."

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven."

"If no check can be found to keep the number of standing troops within safe bounds while they are tolerated as far as necessary, abandon them altogether, discipline well the militia and guard the magazines with them. More than magazine guards will be useless if few and dangerous if many. No European nation can ever send against us such a regular army as we need fear, and it is hard if our militia are not equal to those of Canada or Florida."

--Thomas Jefferson

 

[nayjevin]

The Redcoats were part of an army employed by the British government, for the purposes of threatening and using violence against people in order to extort money and arbitrary obedience from them, which they did so continually.

You don't have a right to dictate to your neighbors who they may and may not allow on their land, or who they may hire, or demand that anyone they do let on their land jump through your hoops and send you cash -- because it's not your land, and it's not your business.

In this sense, you might say I believe in "government". I just don't believe in an aggressively violent, central state.

Enormously insightful thread. Reading a book by Mr. Tremendoustie might have been a more direct route to truth, IMO, without the potential ill will and on-guard defense mechanisms.

 

[Number19]

The idea I've had in mind over the years is one of a very small core of "professional" forces backed by a "home guard".

As a deterent against nuclear attack, I would support an adequate nuclear submarine force. I would support a strong coastal, surface navy.

I would support an adequate air force, comprised largely of fighter jets and not so much long range bombers.

I would support a very small unit of tactical special forces trained in surgical strikes, capable of hitting anywhere in the world within a matter of hours.

I would support a small unit, maybe a division, of the army, supported by a brigade of artillary, a tank brigade and a brigade of combat engineers. As these men served their enlistment, many of these would enlist in, and form the core of, the home guard.

I would support a very strong intellegence unit.

And finally, I would support a "war college" to maintain and train those who would be called on to lead our nation if the need ever arose.

This represents a politically practical, and not a theoretical, plan that could be presented to scale back our military budget and our overseas militarism. The military budget for 2010 is on the order of $1 trillion. With all the infrastructure already in service, the dollar cost to provide my proposal should be well below $100 billion and would be more than adequate to safeguard our freedom and our constitutional national interests in the reality of today's world.

 

[JustinTime]

Coordination can now be achieved by a single man with a laptop and access to a satellite-phone or cellphone. That's your headquarter's unit right there.

So? I never said command and control couldnt be done easily. I just said you need it.