I am NOT a fan of Rothbard

[heavenlyboy34]

as pure marxism is the wet dream to the socialist left/obama/francois hollande; anarcho capitalism is the wet dream of the ideologically delusional right. both are impossible.

Anarcho-captialism is neither left nor right (neither is Marxism, btw)-nor impossible. Now, "limited government"-THAT is impossible (though a nice theory).[h=1]An American Experiment in Anarcho- Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West[/h]

 

[No Free Beer]

What's the difference between mob rule and the state?

The government should be there to protect and ensure contract rights, when they need to be protected. If there aren't laws to support property rights, there wouldn't be any property rights, because one would not be defined. Therefore, what's stopping the strong from taking advantage of the weak?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The government should be there to protect and ensure contract rights, when they need to be protected. If there is no law to support property rights, there wouldn't be any property rights, because one would not be defined. Therefore, what's stopping the strong from taking advantage of the weak?

"ought" =/= "is".

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

 

[muzzled dogg]

he, like the constitution, was wrong on IP

other than that he's a legend

 

[mczerone]

Then why do you think the founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights then? Probably because they saw how rights can be stripped, not just by a government entity, but anyone in a postion of control or force, because they have a desire to do so... Eliminating government is not gonig to stop those who seek control and force and have the means from doing so.

If you have a constitutional government, then there is nothing at all contradictory about an entity guaranteeing to you that no one will infringe on your god-given rights to life, liberty and protection of your property. How is it "in it's nature a violation of them" if you have an accountable government that doesn't abuse it's power (being accountable). If the police protect my property from intruders and don't infringe on my liberties or property, how can't the two be mutually exclusive? They can if they're as local as possible and accountable, but private industry cannot guarantee the same accountability when they have massive conflicts of interest not to.

Not to mention, as I already have plenty in other threads, that handing over security and trials (that are supposed to be by your peers, not hired jurors that may have a conflict of interest or be corrupted) to private industry is an absolutely terrifying concept.

The writers of the consitution gave very limited powers to the government, and that is because they saw how terrifying it was when the government did not guarantee those basic human rights, and let any powerful entity exploit them just the same as they do with excessive "safeguards".

But the constitution wasn't written to increase the govt presence in the people's lives, it was written to bind the states from intruding on the live of the people in other states. And the bill of rights was written to further limit the federal govt.

Besides, if we go back to the declaration of independence, the right to alter or a plush the govt was enshrined on behalf of the people. So it was recognized ab initio that the people hold absolute sovierenty and the govt is but a means to try to protect it. If the govt fails, and it has, the honus lies with the people to devise something better.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Now, I already know what I am going to hear, "you are a statist", which I obviously am not, due to the fact that I am a RP supporter. I would ask people to be respectful and have a good discussion and I hope some can change my mind.

- NFB

Take your self-righteousness to another thread...

I'm tired of people like you

LOL...

You want to have a civil discussion and then get the red ass when people question it?

And I happen to agree with you, at least in this regard:

"Policing" and "prisons", if they must exist in any form, must never have the natural efficiencies of market forces and profit motive attached to them.

 

[green73]

LOL...

You want to have a civil discussion and then get the red ass when people question it?

And I happen to agree with you, at least in this regard:

"Policing" and "prisons", if they must exist in any form, must never have the natural efficiencies of market forces and profit motive attached to them.

AF, I'm going to facilitate your progression down the logical path to statelessness.

Starting with this offering of Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Australian national radio:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2012/01/cpt_20120123_1605.mp3

 

[TheTexan]

A Constitution is just a piece of paper. If the People want a law, they will make it happen. The Constitution can at best slow down the progress towards tyranny. Which if you argue is the point, then I may agree with you. But if that's the case, why start with a Constitution at all? Isn't that just giving the society a head-start towards tyranny?

Human nature is such that most people are inclined towards tyranny, to varying degrees. This isn't to say that it is impossible to create a permanently free society... just difficult.

All societies may be inclined towards tyranny, and so any free society is most likely going to be temporary. I do believe we have a chance at a lasting free society though, and you do this by accepting nothing less than full freedom (voluntaryism), and raising your children to accept nothing less than full freedom.

This is the flaw with minarchy. By accepting government as a necessary evil, it instills a mindset that government is ok. Once a little government is ok, what's a little bit more? Slippery slope etc.

In any case, I'll be happy with a "temporarily free society" as long as it lasts long enough. The Constitution served that purpose well enough... it created a mostly free country for those that earned it, but not their children, and certainly not their grandchildren.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

LOL...

You want to have a civil discussion and then get the red ass when people question it?

And I happen to agree with you, at least in this regard:

"Policing" and "prisons", if they must exist in any form, must never have the natural efficiencies of market forces and profit motive attached to them.

Indeed. "Policing" as we know it is an "offensive" activity. The goal should be to take a defensive approach. I just can't defend the notion of "police" and "prisons" in any rational or meaningful way. :o I've heard every rationale for police (I'm pretty sure), and they just don't stand up to logic and real world practice.

 

[TheTexan]

Indeed. "Policing" as we know it is an "offensive" activity. The goal should be to take a defensive approach. I just can't defend the notion of "police" and "prisons" in any rational or meaningful way. :o I've heard every rationale for police (I'm pretty sure), and they just don't stand up to logic and real world practice.

Yes... maybe it's residual indoctrination, but for some time I've been trying to rationalize the idea of prisons. Try as I might, I simply can't justify throwing a person in a cage.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is kinda off-topic, but I thought I'd point out that Misesian micro-secession is a good starting point for putting these sort of ideas into practice in the modern era.

 

[TheTexan]

This is kinda off-topic, but I thought I'd point out that Misesian micro-secession is a good starting point for putting these sort of ideas into practice in the modern era.

A quick google led me here: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5509.aspx

Cool idea.

 

[No Free Beer]

LOL...

You want to have a civil discussion and then get the red ass when people question it?

And I happen to agree with you, at least in this regard:

"Policing" and "prisons", if they must exist in any form, must never have the natural efficiencies of market forces and profit motive attached to them.

I don't have a problem with people discussing the issue and having opposing views. In fact, there are quite a few in here who have brought up points that I disagree with. What I do have a problem with is when people write something in response to my or anyone elses thread, just to say it with their chests. I hope you understand what I am saying.

 

[No Free Beer]

But back to my other comment, no one answered. I really did mean it in the format it was presented, as a question. I want good dialogue.

 

[mczerone]

Yes... maybe it's residual indoctrination, but for some time I've been trying to rationalize the idea of prisons. Try as I might, I simply can't justify throwing a person in a cage.

I think there's a time and place for involuntary detention. The first case I can justify is if someone demonstrably wants to do violence and can't be persuaded not to. Of course they need to take some affirmative step toward completing that action or otherwise be close to an imminent harm before they can be apprehended.

The second case would be someone who has demonstrated that they are willing to use violent means unjustly in the future by having used them in the past.

Both of these are judgements made by people subjectively, and thus should be open to market forces with supporters and defenders being able to "buy" (or argue) his incarceration or freedom while taking a share of the liability for their actions.

In either case, though, a square cinder-block cage isn't what they'd likely be detained within (at least not for long). If they've committed a crime, it would be best if they made restitution through a monitored work program. If they're hell-bent on committing a crime, it would be best if they were given counseling to help them find forgiveness and peace while incentivizing them to live productively.

 

[kuckfeynes]

How can one have a good dialog about something the other person has not read?
No one on this board is going to be able to defend Rothbard as well as Rothbard.
Go to the source... Trying to piece it together through Wikipedia and forum posts is like trying to drink a milkshake through a coffee stirrer.

 

[green73]

How can one have a good dialog about something the other person has not read?
No one on this board is going to be able to defend Rothbard as well as Rothbard.
Go to the source... Trying to piece it together through Wikipedia and forum posts is like trying to drink a milkshake through a coffee stirrer.

This. Read him ffs.

 

[mczerone]

Lately, I have been seeing quotes from him pop up, and I must say, I am not too much of a fan.

We could start by just discussing these quotes. Which ones have you seen that you didn't appreciate?

Now, I will admit that I haven't read any of his books, which I plan on doing this summer.

Good for you. I generally have a hard time getting to the "opposition" literature, mostly because I barely have time to read things that I mostly agree with.

But based on what I have read about him, whether through random quotes or writings on Mises.org, I have to be honest, I think he is wrong about the role of government. Mainly when it comes to the governments role in police, fire department, etc.

He was wrong on other things, too, but that doesn't negate the bulk of his work.
Frankly, there are already working models of non-govt violence and fire protection at work in the US and other places in the world. I don't see why these would be your hang-ups, as opposed to the more controversial market court system or contract-based IP system.

Now, I already know what I am going to hear, "you are a statist", which I obviously am not, due to the fact that I am a RP supporter. I would ask people to be respectful and have a good discussion and I hope some can change my mind.

- NFB

If you want the state to do ANYTHING, you're a statist. I'm sorry if you take offense to that, but it's the truth. The difference between a minarchist statist and a communist statist is one of mere degree, not of kind.

Now I don't mean to be insulting - but I'm just defining terms. A Rothbardian would be anti-state. A constitutionalist/minarchist/cap-L-Libertarian is a statist, for they want the state to have some role. I was a statist once, and I don't think less of you if you choose to remain a statist.

But I would lower my opinion of someone who simultaneously calls for some state functions and refuses to accept that they favor some state rule.

 

[kuckfeynes]

I think there's a time and place for involuntary detention. The first case I can justify is if someone demonstrably wants to do violence and can't be persuaded not to. Of course they need to take some affirmative step toward completing that action or otherwise be close to an imminent harm before they can be apprehended.

The second case would be someone who has demonstrated that they are willing to use violent means unjustly in the future by having used them in the past.

Both of these are judgements made by people subjectively, and thus should be open to market forces with supporters and defenders being able to "buy" (or argue) his incarceration or freedom while taking a share of the liability for their actions.

In either case, though, a square cinder-block cage isn't what they'd likely be detained within (at least not for long). If they've committed a crime, it would be best if they made restitution through a monitored work program. If they're hell-bent on committing a crime, it would be best if they were given counseling to help them find forgiveness and peace while incentivizing them to live productively.

The problem is the concept of "crime." It doesn't exist in a voluntary society. You can't commit a crime, you can only commit aggression. And the only question is what is appropriate restitution for that aggression. And then you go down the private courts rabbit hole.

So, would there be debtor's prisons in a free society? Would there be slavery? I doubt it; I believe the market would come up with better systems. A true free-market society itself would be a hell of an incentive to live productively. No one is collecting restitution from slaves or prisoners. And at the end of the day I think people want restitution much more than revenge.