Police, roads, courts, army

I'm sure there are some additional things like aviation control, electricity, maybe other things.
 
I'm sure there are some additional things like aviation control, electricity, maybe other things.

that makes no sense at all. remember, those who advocate small governments primarily want them to deal with violence, so people won't just kill each other to solve conflicts.

the military makes sense, to stop violence from foreign invaders. courts make sense, so killers and thieves can go to jail after a process that reduces the number of innocent people that go to jail. the police make sense, so they can help catch the criminals.

but electricity? what the fuck?
 
Last edited:
Electricity is a huge investment just like dams for example. I'm not sure if this is something the free market can pull of.
 
Electricity is a huge investment just like dams for example. I'm not sure if this is something the free market can pull of.

why stop there? i can just say the internet is a huge investment. let the government take over!

Locke and others who argued for a small government didn't argue that the government should be small only to deal with issues of force, fraud, and big investments. just force and fraud. you have the mentality of a fascist.
 
Are you aware of any examples in the real world of electricity that is being provided by the free market?
 
Are you aware of any examples in the real world of electricity that is being provided by the free market?

Yes, The electric Co-Op that I belong to.
And the Contract I just signed for a Wind Farm.

Not exactly "free market" due to government regulations and restrictions but a step in that direction.
 
You would say certain things are 'too important to be left to the free market'. I would say certain things are too important to be left to the State.

There's obviously nothing more important than the production and distribution of food. Should we have the State take over all food production and distribution as well?

I am reminded of a story of an old woman in the bread line at the soviet union. She turns to the man behind her and says, 'This is ridiculous! This is taking much too long for such small amounts of food. I need to feed my family!' The man turns to her and says, 'Oh yeah? You think this is bad? Well, the American government *doesn't even give out food*!'

I hope you see my point. Just because you're used to certain things being run by the State doesn't mean it can only be done by the state. As ive said, the market has already provided everything the state does - but better in virtually every way.

Liberals are always the first to deride any kind of monopoly, yet for some reason they advocate a mandated monopoly on violence and tons of other things and services. The hypocrisy and ignorance behind this and their inconsistent and hypocritical justifications for it are astounding.
 
While there are many good libertarian explanations of how a free society might conceivably work (David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Randy Barnett, the Tannehills, and many more have written extensively on this subject), I think it is important to clarify that we don't know.

We don't know what a society without government involvement will look like. We can make educated guesses, some of which may turn out to be astoundingly accurate, but we can't know.

And I do not mean that we do not know; I mean that we cannot know. It is literally impossible to acquire such knowledge. If we try to design how a free society will work, we are confronted with the same knowledge problem that befuddles government planners.

The free future is unpredictable and dynamic, which is why it is so cool. We ought not desire any specific end of freedom, only the processes which operate in freedom. Virginia Postrel characterized this worldview as "dynamism," and before her, Hayek advocated it when explaining why he was not a conservative. The liberty-lover should be comfortable with the uncertainty associated with freedom.

Opposition to the state should not form out of a piecemeal assembly of policy solutions. Frankly, the major reason why the government should not provide roads is not the fact that the private market could provide superior roads for less money. It's true, but it's non-essential.

The state exists not only at the price of inferior public services, but at the expense of individual freedom.
 
Last edited:
While there are many good libertarian explanations of how a free society might conceivably work (David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Randy Barnett, the Tannehills, and many more have written extensively on this subject), I think it is important to clarify that we don't know.

We don't know what a society without government involvement will look like. We can make educated guesses, some of which may turn out to be astoundingly accurate, but we can't know.

And I do not me that we do not know; I mean that we cannot know. It is literally impossible to acquire such knowledge. If we try to design how a free society will work, we are confronted with the same knowledge problem that befuddles government planners.

The free future is unpredictable and dynamic, which is why it is so cool. We ought not desire any specific end of freedom, only the processes which operate in freedom. Virginia Postrel characterized this worldview as "dynamism," and before her, Hayek advocated it when explaining why he was not a conservative. The liberty-lover should be comfortable with the uncertainty associated with freedom.

Opposition to the state should not form out of a piecemeal assembly of policy solutions. Frankly, the major reason why the government should not provide roads is not the fact that the private market could provide superior roads for less money. It's true, but it's non-essential.

The state exists not only at the price of inferior public services, but at the expense of individual freedom.

+rep.

This, however true and beautiful, is why libertarians cannot ever win the political game: there is no "grand solution" that we can sell to the voters.
 
Let's say a lot of people that live in some city want electricity. I think it is only natural for them to join and sign a contract with some electricity company. But if the city is big, hundreds of thousands will have to sign. Do you think it is possible to assemble such large group for such a costly contract? Also try to imagine how costly will then it be to monitor free riders.
 
My question now is to the Libertarians on this forum now, not to the anarchists. What else beside courts, police, roads/dams and army should the government be responsible for? What did I leave out?

Article one , section eight of the Constitution , pretty well covers this .
 
For roads, the community can voluntarily get together and pool resources to create these. They don't have to be created from either taxation or some individual to prevent transportation on.

To do this we need to abolish government, corporatism, and consumerism and get people to start caring about the community instead of only themselves. Perhaps it is a long shot, but it is the only non-coercive solution I can think of. I don't want an individual owning the roads, but I don't want some coercive government owning them either. I want the people of the community all having a share in it.

Army just needs to be militias defending the community. A voluntary group of people in the community. If the nation is attacked, these militias can form together to defend the nation as a large body.

Courts/Police, I'm not as sure on. I don't know how that can function in a non-governmental society since each of these groups have a form of power over others.
 
Last edited:
Let's say a lot of people that live in some city want electricity. I think it is only natural for them to join and sign a contract with some electricity company. But if the city is big, hundreds of thousands will have to sign. Do you think it is possible to assemble such large group for such a costly contract? Also try to imagine how costly will then it be to monitor free riders.

Well electricity was not created in some government laboratory, it was created by the profit motive by both Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison and Westinghouse. And guess where Edison first put his products to use....Manhattan (perhaps the largest city at the time). Most power companies began as private companies and only later went into government hands. Think about power companies the same as cable or internet providers (although they are regulated thoroughly as well, but much less than power). Even now, though, i have to buy my electricity through UI (government monopoly) but i can choose my deliverer.
 
Govt is not the problem, it is those who govern and the media that sets the script

That is because "government" does not exist as anything but a term denoting a concept. There is no material reality to "government" whatsoever. There is, however, plenty of material reality to the people who govern.

The problem, therefore, is one of people and not so-called "government".

This talk of privatizing all governance is equally delusional with that of governing every time we move our eyeballs. If we privatized all governance today, there would still be widespread corruption and injustice, all else equal. It might even conceivably be worse than it is now, if one can even imagine. All of the problems of governance find their roots in the exact same source: people choosing to violate the rights of other people under the imprimatur of the ever increasingly arbitrary lie we commonly call "government". Sit awhile and quietly ponder just how utterly ridiculous that truth is - not to mention how dangerous. The key lay not in where the duty is discharged or by whom, but in how. The metes, bounds, and requirements of properly principled governance need to be re-specified in order to return our nation to one where freedom is served by the governors and not clapped into irons as is now the case.

We need SOME governance. This is demonstrably proven, whether discharged publicly or privately. Holding murderers and bank robbers accountable for their nefarious actions is an eminently right role for people holding governing office. That they, too, should be held fully accountable for the actions they undertake in the discharge of their sworn duties is equally important, if not more so. So-called "government" has but ONE single function, which is to ensure the rights of individuals by holding violators accountable for their actions.

As for police, I say the role of law enforcement should be eliminated in favor of that of criminal investigations. No power to arrest. That should lie with none but the sheriff and "ordinary" citizens. "Police" departments would be redirected to the eminently more useful and just role as local Offices of Criminal Investigations. They investigate and hand their findings over to the local prosecutor. If findings suggest warrants, prosecutor goes to a judge. If a warrant is issued, the sheriff executes it. He may deputize volunteers if he has not enough deputies on hand to do the job, forming a posse, who find the individuals in question, arrest them and hold them for questioning and possible arraignment. This can be made VERY simple and less prone to abuse than the current scheme.

While there is a legitimate role for governance - there is NO role for government because government, as commonly taken, is a LIE. It does not materially exist and therefore should not be spoken of, thought of, and acted upon as if it did. The word is nothing more than a convenient label that should be used only in the most casual of circumstances to denote those people who discharge duties of governance. Referring to "government" as an existing thing, and worse yet a living being (government's interest, government assets, etc.) serves only to legitimize tyranny and perpetuate the lies and misconceptions of what constitutes justifiable governance.

One element of the cure to many problems arising around governance operations would be to disallow professional governors. Every office is elected and every official strictly held accountable for the manner in which they discharge their sworn oaths and duties. Different offices would have different periods of effect. Sheriffs might go for 4 years whereas prosecutors and judges go only 2. Nobody can retain a given elected office for more than one term. This all would place a heavy demand for community involvement in the process of governance. It would be people governing themselves in the best of terms, with the great emphasis placed on personal accountability of ALL the people - no exceptions.

Governance should be imposed* ONLY upon those who commit crimes. Freemen who live within the expansively broad limits of their personal prerogatives of liberty should NEVER be governed by any means whatsoever. This is what it means to be FREE. Only those who have trespassed upon the rights of others should be callable with regard to their accountability, and those so calling had better do so justly lest they be called upon to account for their actions as well.

Governance, as a profession, must come to an end if there is to be any hope for us to again live freely. Governance, as a profession, must be eliminated and never again allowed. Elimination of governing-as-career (so-called "lifetime of public service") and its perpetual prohibition should be one of the cardinal tenets of freedom and rightful governance wherein the rights of all men are respected. It is one of several necessary conditions for the restoration of meaningful liberty.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

*Governance is, by virtue of its very nature, an imposition upon men, for it interferes with their intended movements. What counts is that the imposition be just, which implies it be brought to bear only where a violation of the rights of another can be credibly established as having been committed.
 
Well electricity was not created in some government laboratory, it was created by the profit motive by both Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison and Westinghouse.

Tesla wanted to give electricity away for free. That's why Westinghouse killed Tesla's final project. Note that Tesla wasn't wanting the government to pay for everyone's electricity. He just wanted to give it away free. There are more motivations in this world than the capitalist "profit" motive or the socialist "government control" motive.
 
Back
Top