Ron Paul is very clear. He is NOT an Anarcho-Capitalist

[erowe1]

You obviously did not have Professor Doctor Zoltan Kostolnik has the gatekeeper in the History Department.....

Of course, after the death of Charlemagne who had taken over the Merovingian dynasty (to the the extent there was anything is what is now France that was worth being king of...) unites the rest of the territory to be the Holy Roman Empire at is inception, is split among his sons, which while nominally are the Holy Roman Empire, start its breakup, so that by the time of the "official" death of the Empire in 1806, it was nothing more than a title claimed by a German King (of which there were several ....)

Point is that the history of western Europe until the 30 Years War is one of breakup of political entities, and the acquisition of power by those able to do so. Pretty much sucked to be anybody but the nobility, and even then some other noble would be after your head. In short, Hobbes description of life being "nasty, brutish, and short".

Things don't stabilize until the entities get big enough and large enough to maintain a balance of power, which still breaks down into a series of minor and major wars, even through the "100 Years Peace".

Lesson being - if you don't have enough power to defend what is yours, it won't be yours for long. The exception being the US from 1781 to post 1913.

It will take more time then I've spent on this to see what exactly it is that you mean to say is wrong with the wikipedia article.

But rather than get distracted on that, I still don't see where your evidence of statelessness is here.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You obviously did not have Professor Doctor Zoltan Kostolnik has the gatekeeper in the History Department.....

Of course, after the death of Charlemagne who had taken over the Merovingian dynasty (to the the extent there was anything is what is now France that was worth being king of...) unites the rest of the territory to be the Holy Roman Empire at is inception, is split among his sons, which while nominally are the Holy Roman Empire, start its breakup, so that by the time of the "official" death of the Empire in 1806, it was nothing more than a title claimed by a German King (of which there were several ....)

Point is that the history of western Europe until the 30 Years War is one of breakup of political entities, and the acquisition of power by those able to do so. Pretty much sucked to be anybody but the nobility, and even then some other noble would be after your head. In short, Hobbes description of life being "nasty, brutish, and short".

Things don't stabilize until the entities get big enough and large enough to maintain a balance of power, which still breaks down into a series of minor and major wars, even through the "100 Years Peace".

Lesson being - if you don't have enough power to defend what is yours, it won't be yours for long. The exception being the US from 1781 to post 1913.

Dafuq?

Parsing through the incomplete sentences, I'm guessing you're trying to prove your earlier point that Western Europe after the Fall was an - and I quote - 'anarchist fantasy land' by asserting that, because - according to you - Western European nation-states didn't "have enough power to defend 'what is yours'", that they weren't viable states?

Presumably then this is some kind of jack-assed, half-assed argument on behalf of the Total State? And I think I read something about the fact that Charlemagne divided his empire amongst his sons negating the legacy of the HRE?

You drinkin' tonight or what?

But rather than get distracted on that, I still don't see where your evidence of statelessness is here.

And also this. Thanks.

 

[Henry Rogue]

So, your argument is thus:

1. Human beings are too dangerous and psychotic to organize themselves in a peaceful manner on their own.
2. Therefore, we need a small group of human beings (who don't abide by this same 'human nature') to have a monopoly on violent behavior enforcement.
3. This small group of human beings are special and won't desire to dominate others. We just need to elect the "right" people.

It's ironic that you paraphrased Frederic Bastiat's quote

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

in response to a Member, who has "Bastiat" as part of his name.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

It's ironic that you paraphrased Frederic Bastiat's quote in response to a Member, who has "Bastiat" as part of his name.

There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

 

[Henry Rogue]

There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

The Unconstrained Vision

Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as "the self anointed." Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society.

The Constrained Vision

Sowell argues that the constrained vision relies heavily on belief that human nature is essentially unchanging and that man is naturally inherently self-interested, regardless of the best intentions. Those with a constrained vision prefer the systematic processes of the rule of law and experience of tradition. Compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. Those with a constrained vision favor solid empirical evidence and time-tested structures and processes over intervention and personal experience. Ultimately, the constrained vision demands checks and balances and refuses to accept that all people could put aside their innate self-interest.[3]

Well, that explains why it ends up being bipartisan when it's about the expansion of government. People sure love to put things into a dichotomy. Markets are a result of varying degrees of free interaction of imperfect human beings. The freer the interaction, the better society functions. The more manipulated the interaction, the more human imperfections are magnified. Sure, governance may be as inherent in the nature of man as the market, But whether the same rule applies to the state, well, that depends on what ones definition of the function of the state is.

P.S. Yes I used Wikipedia, so sue me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions