Hey Hector, are you married to Gwen V  ?

Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 02:11:15 PM
My heart is always with anarcho capitalists, since I would love to live in a mutually peaceful society.

Initial question, which I'm sure you've answered a million times, but how would you defend against a bunch of tanks and stealth bombers leveling your community, and keep up with the technology to counter it?

I assume you are referring to another invading country rather than an internal conflict?  In the example of an invading country, the incentive for such an invasion would be far less when you have a stateless society.  One of the primary reasons for imperialist conquest by other nations is that they desire to expand their tax base.  Those who benefit from the imperialist State stand to gain from the resources to be plundered.

But what if there is a large area of land with no State?  What if each property owner in a large geographical area is sovereign?  What if there are dozens of different defense agencies that are autonomous and independent and work for different communities?  For an invading army, the prospect for capturing the territory is much more daunting.  Perhaps they succeed in taking over one community, but what of every other independent property and community?  Each is fighting for himself or his community and therefore there is no collective that can unilaterally surrender.  Since there are no taxes and no State, then the invading country will have a much tougher time exploiting such a population. 

It is advantageous for an imperialistic nation to take over a country where there already exists a state with a population that is acclimated to being "ruled" and being taxed.  There would therefore already exist a tax revenue stream to be taken over and exploited.  If, on the other hand, a nation has embraced individualist anarchy, then that must mean that many influential opinion molders in society have rejected the legitimacy of authority.  How can a State take over a population who are so ideologically opposed to the existence of States?

As for the defensive weaponry that would be needed to secure the people from any invasion or internal threats, each competing defense agency would be constantly looking to provide the needed security for a given population, while at the same time reducing the liability and insurance premiums for maintaining expansive arms.  Much research will no doubt be done to determine the best means for deterring any invasion.

In the 21st century, all that would be required is to have a defense agency hold a nuclear weapon or two as a deterrent.  There is a reason why modern nuclear equipped States have not been invaded by other States. 

I don't know if that fully answers your question, but I'll leave it here for now.  Murray Rothbard has written quite a lot about this question.  If you haven't read it "For a New Liberty" will help answer many of these questions.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 01, 2014, 02:24:19 PM
No, I would not like to.

It's the same baited magnum opus that we see about once per week, by somebody probing our hard manly underbellies for ways to annoy us.

Maybe our reasons for posting on message boards differ, but I don't quite understand the purpose of spending time on political message boards if you are not interested in debating those that hold differing views?  Life is too short to waste on self congratulatory, bias confirming "discussion" with people who already agree with you and only serve to reinforce your existing views.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 01:46:54 PM
Islam.  What do you mean "how does it fit"?  If someone initiates violence against us then we have the right to defend ourselves.  We have the right to use force to compel restitution or punish those criminals that are proven in a court to have committed an act of aggression.  The key is that the punishment must be proportional to the crime committed.  If you steal a candy bar, you can be forced to pay the cost of the candy bar but no more.  If you destroy someones property you can be forced to pay damages.  If you murder someone, your punishment can be anything up to and including death. 

Yeah, I saw you previous explanation.

QuoteI don't know how much of a neo con presence there is on these boards,

There is none!

Quotebut I don't think I have to explain that the response of the US government after 9/11 has been horrific.  What we have done to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hundreds of thousands we have killed or displaced, is a far greater crime than what was done to us.

Bull Shit!!!

QuoteIn a different scenario, a libertarian would have advised that we do the following.  In the first place, Osama bin Laden and the dozen or so radical Islamic terrorists that were directly responsible for planning and carrying out the attacks on the World Trade Center should have been formally proven to have committing the crimes in a court of law.  The evidence should have been presented to the American people in an open manner.  After it was proven conclusively that it was indeed bin Laden and a few others who were responsible, we should have targeted those individuals specifically.

Of course you would, and under who's law would they be prosecuted and what protections would they be afforded, Our Constitution?
Yeah, Clintoon tried that BS and look where it got us, two towers leveled!
If we, as a Nation is attacked, then they WILL be charged as enemy combatant, and prosecuted under Military tribunal laws, end of story!

QuoteRon Paul argued that we should have used the Letters of Mark and Reprisal in the Constitution to target a non State threat like a dozen terrorists and then use special forces or a contractor to capture those men who were responsible and bring them to the United States for trial.  They should have been tried and then, if found guilty, put to death.

Islum attacked us, get that through your head!

QuoteWe should have used the opportunity to prove the the Muslim world that we are not the imperialist oppressors that bin Laden made us out to be.  We could have proven that we follow the rule of law, we don't needlessly kill Muslim civilians and we grant a fair trial to even the worst criminals.
The entire thing could have been over in six months, no Iraq War, no occupation of Afghanistan, no nation building, no 6000 dead Americans, no 5 trillion dollars in debt to fight needless wars and rebuild a country after we destroyed it.

You're a fool if you think they care one iota about International law.
Do yourself a favor and study Islum. If they are such a peaceful society, why isn't the rest of the M/E demanding an end to Quiadi?

Quote from: supsalemgr on August 01, 2014, 02:28:20 PM
You have already exposed your self as a TROLL. Now go away.

Can you define "troll" for me?  I am arguing in good faith and am genuinely curious as to what specific critiques you have of libertarian philosophy.  I didn't know there was a litmus test for posting on these forums?  Are people who dissent in any way not welcome?  What do you hope to learn by excluding dissenting voices?

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 03:06:25 PM
Can you define "troll" for me?  I am arguing in good faith and am genuinely curious as to what specific critiques you have of libertarian philosophy.  I didn't know there was a litmus test for posting on these forums?  Are people who dissent in any way not welcome?  What do you hope to learn by excluding dissenting voices?

Cut the crap, claiming victim status is the epitome of troll!

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 01, 2014, 02:30:29 PM
Oh, BTW, the state has been limited from aggression against the people, by the constitution, better in America than any country ever.

The US constitution also enjoys a separation of powers so wise that it is the world's best inoculation, against unwise entanglements against other countries.

Unfortunately it gets distorted, ignored, and misused in many ways.  But as written, it's really the best guiding document that a libertarian could ever hope to wield, if it's to be taken at face value and used properly.

I can write a lot of nice things on a piece of paper.  I think the only lesson that can be drawn from US history is that written constitutions prove absolutely worthless in actually restraining the growth of State power.  Even as drafted the Constitution had many problems, but I will concede that it was one of the best attempts at crafting a limited Republic.

But the most limited government ever has transformed into the largest, most expansive State and military empire in the history of the world.  It has been a total failure.

Lysander Spooner wrote about the illegitimacy of the Constitution in binding anyone living to its tenets in the 19th century.  The Constitution was ratified by a shockingly small number of people, all property owning white males.  Blacks had no say, obviously as they were deemed three fifths of a human.  Woman had no say and no vote.  And Native Americans had absolutely no say in the construction of this government.  If a written Constitution is to be interpreted as a contract between the people and their government, defining the terms of the relationship, then how can that contract be binding upon future generations that were not born when a small minority of the population established this government and ratified the constitution?

Again, I say that each individual owns himself and should be permitting to enter in any agreement he would want and none have the right to initiate violence against him.  No previous generation should have the right to bind future generations to a contract that they never consented to.

The Articles of Confederation were certainly superior to the Constitution. 

As a conservative (I assume) you must at times wonder about what exactly failed to lead to such disregard for the limitations that were supposed to be employed to limit the central government to specific delegated functions?  What if we established our society different at the founding?  Could we not have avoided the growth of central State power?

That is what I am arguing.  You are trying to make the case that libertarians should be Constitutionalists.  I think quite the opposite.  Our history and, indeed, the history of every society on earth proves that written Constitutions are as worthless as the paper they are printed on.  What we need to reject is the use of aggression.  We should hold firm to the right of self ownership, private property based on original appropriation, and voluntarism as the only civilized way to interact with one another.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 01, 2014, 02:43:35 PM
Hey Hector, are you married to Gwen V  ?

No? I'm not sure who you're talking about.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 02:58:09 PM
I assume you are referring to another invading country rather than an internal conflict?

Correct.

Quote
  In the example of an invading country, the incentive for such an invasion would be far less when you have a stateless society.  One of the primary reasons for imperialist conquest by other nations is that they desire to expand their tax base.  Those who benefit from the imperialist State stand to gain from the resources to be plundered.

Let's say the attackers don't care what state you have.  They just want your land.

Quote
But what if there is a large area of land with no State?  What if each property owner in a large geographical area is sovereign?  What if there are dozens of different defense agencies that are autonomous and independent and work for different communities?  For an invading army, the prospect for capturing the territory is much more daunting.  Perhaps they succeed in taking over one community, but what of every other independent property and community?  Each is fighting for himself or his community and therefore there is no collective that can unilaterally surrender.  Since there are no taxes and no State, then the invading country will have a much tougher time exploiting such a population.

How are you protecting against tanks and bombs?  To ask another way, how are you defending against a bigger and more powerful army?  They will level your area before even setting foot on your ground.  How do you compete with that?

Quote
It is advantageous for an imperialistic nation to take over a country where there already exists a state with a population that is acclimated to being "ruled" and being taxed.  There would therefore already exist a tax revenue stream to be taken over and exploited.  If, on the other hand, a nation has embraced individualist anarchy, then that must mean that many influential opinion molders in society have rejected the legitimacy of authority.  How can a State take over a population who are so ideologically opposed to the existence of States?

I'm asking about a scenario where a more powerful attacker wants your land, just because.  Their motive may or may not be to integrate an existing tax base (with whatever currency).

Quote
As for the defensive weaponry that would be needed to secure the people from any invasion or internal threats, each competing defense agency would be constantly looking to provide the needed security for a given population, while at the same time reducing the liability and insurance premiums for maintaining expansive arms.  Much research will no doubt be done to determine the best means for deterring any invasion.

How do you bring the resources and technology together?

Quote
In the 21st century, all that would be required is to have a defense agency hold a nuclear weapon or two as a deterrent.  There is a reason why modern nuclear equipped States have not been invaded by other States.

How are you going to build and engineer this nuclear weapon?  Where would you test it? 

Quote
I don't know if that fully answers your question, but I'll leave it here for now.  Murray Rothbard has written quite a lot about this question.  If you haven't read it "For a New Liberty" will help answer many of these questions.

I'm familiar with Rothbard.

Quote from: Hector on August 01, 2014, 02:33:41 PM
Sure, what's the alternative to printing counterfeit money?

A commodity money.  Competing currencies.  Stateless money.  No society on earth has ever voluntarily chosen fiat money.  The only reason current fiat currency is accepted is, first, it is forced upon us by the State and, second, it used to be tied to a commodity (gold).  Central banking is one of the great evils of the world, because it allows a small number of bankers to monetize national debts, fund wars, and allow the unchecked growth of State power.  All the while the expansion of credit causes price inflation, steals wealth from the poor and middle class and discourages savings and encourages public AND private debt.

Fiat money also changes peoples time preferences.  With a sound currency, people are incentivized to save their money and plan for the future.  They therefore have a low time preference because they know there money will maintain its value and they can calculate the cost of living in the future and therefore plan ahead.

In contrast, a paper money standard causes people to consume in the present and rack up huge debts.  The money is constantly losing value to people have a high time preference.  This inevitably causes society to decline as national debts are racked up, people consume in excess and forget about the future.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 03:30:32 PM
A commodity money.  Competing currencies.  Stateless money.  No society on earth has ever voluntarily chosen fiat money.  The only reason current fiat currency is accepted is, first, it is forced upon us by the State and, second, it used to be tied to a commodity (gold).  Central banking is one of the great evils of the world, because it allows a small number of bankers to monetize national debts, fund wars, and allow the unchecked growth of State power.  All the while the expansion of credit causes price inflation, steals wealth from the poor and middle class and discourages savings and encourages public AND private debt.

Fiat money also changes peoples time preferences.  With a sound currency, people are incentivized to save their money and plan for the future.  They therefore have a low time preference because they know there money will maintain its value and they can calculate the cost of living in the future and therefore plan ahead.

In contrast, a paper money standard causes people to consume in the present and rack up huge debts.  The money is constantly losing value to people have a high time preference.  This inevitably causes society to decline as national debts are racked up, people consume in excess and forget about the future.

So what commodity would you tie money to?

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 01:29:12 PM
This is a common objection to libertarianism.  However, you are misunderstanding what the non-aggression principle means.  You are likening it to something like pacifism.  You presumably are thinking that we will all voluntarily reject the use of violence and live peacefully together without any thought given to those who still choose to use violence and crime against others.

Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", as most would assume.  What it means is "no rulers".  That is an incredibly important distinction.  "An" means "no" or "against".  "Archy" means "rule".  Monarchy is rule by one person.  Oligarchy means rule by many.  Anarchy means no rulers, no people who are granted authority over others and are exempt from the universal moral principles that we all must abide by.

The non-aggression principle means only that it is unjustified to initiate the use of violence against someone who is minding their own business.  However, the use of violence itself, in certain contexts, is entirely permissible and even encouraged under libertarian principles.  In particular, it is entirely legitimate to use violence in self defense or to defend someone else from violence.  It is also permissible to use proportional force against a criminal who has been proven to have used aggression against the person or property of another.  The criminal can be forced to pay restitution to the victim or, if he or she is indeed an ongoing danger to public safety, they can be physically removed from society for a time.

So, yes, libertarians fully recognize that some people in society will always choose violence as a means of "getting ahead". 

I think your appeal to human nature as an argument against libertarianism is misplaced.  We see it entirely the opposite.  If human beings are naturally corruptible, or prone to abuse of power, then taking a small number of these same individuals and giving them great power and authority and calling it a "State" will not improve the situation.  Rather, it will make things far worse.  The capacity for States to commit violence and aggression is far greater than the means available to any individual criminal.

Whatever the moral character of a population, whether the people are mostly good, most evil or somewhere in-between, taking a small number of the people in any given society and granting them positions of authority and the ability to violently dominate the others will not improve the situation one bit.

As much as I don't appreciate the violence of the inner city gangs or the highway robber, their violence pales in comparison to the State.  The Crips may make it tough to live in Compton, but a few madmen in government could practically wipe out life on earth by precipitating nuclear warfare with Russia!

Also it is important to keep in mind what a State is.  If a group of people organize for collective defense, this is NOT a State unless there is compulsory taxation to finance it.  As long as an organization of mutual defense is voluntary, funded by contributions and paid dues by its members who participate of their own volition, then this is not a State.

It is indeed far likelier in a Stateless society that individual communities will collectively organize and contract with private defense agencies to defend the lives and property of the members of that community rather than each individual hiring their own body guard or something like that.  But every member of the community participates voluntarily.  They are free to leave at any time. 

To equate a voluntary organization for mutual defense in a community with a compulsory central State is quite foolish.  It is not collectivism, socialism, community, centralization or any of these other things that are the problem with the State.  It is the gun.  It is the violence that we object to.  If you remove the violence from the State, it becomes a voluntary organization and there is nothing left to object to.

Don't talk down to me junior! I was a student of libertarianism before you were born. I know where the principles of which you speak originate.

I said nothing about pacifism. I also said nothing about a compulsory central government or collectivism.

I'll refer you to that famous quote by Lord Acton:

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

-Darth

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2014, 03:04:07 PM
Yeah, I saw you previous explanation.

There is none!
Bull Shit!!!
Of course you would, and under who's law would they be prosecuted and what protections would they be afforded, Our Constitution?
Yeah, Clintoon tried that BS and look where it got us, two towers leveled!
If we, as a Nation is attacked, then they WILL be charged as enemy combatant, and prosecuted under Military tribunal laws, end of story!
Islum attacked us, get that through your head!You're a fool if you think they care one iota about International law.
Do yourself a favor and study Islum. If they are such a peaceful society, why isn't the rest of the M/E demanding an end to Quiadi?

You may say you are not a "neo con" but you do sound like you get a lot of your information from people who are.  Do you listen to ANY of the following people or institutions:

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, Bill O'Reilly, David Frum, Fox News, National Review?

These people would love for you to continue believing that Islam is responsible and we need to declare war on the entire Muslim world in response to 9/11.  Have you read any books by Michael Scheuer?  He was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 through 2005 or so.  He knows more about the motivation behind the attacks than anyone.

There is no question that radical Islam is comprised of violent people, but the reasons they have for attacking the United States are real and substantive.  They object to our foreign policy of imperialism, of sanctions and propping up puppet dictators in the Middle East and overthrowing elected leaders.  They object to our blind support for Israel and military support for the subjugation of Palestinians.  These grievances resonate throughout the middle east, even among moderates and very decent, moral people.

Scheuer makes the case that bin Laden and Al Qaeda would lose all their support and become marginalized in the Muslim world if they couldn't constantly point to our military occupations and dead children that we create with our sanctions and drone strikes.  A million Iraqi's died as a result of Bill Clinton's sanctions and Madeleine Albright said on national television that it was "worth it". 

What if a foreign nation did to us what our government has done to countries in the middle east?  Would you not want to take up arms against the occupying force?  You wouldn't want revenge against the people who killed your family?

There is no justification for the attack on 9/11 but I believe the each and every one of the more than one million Iraqis that have died because of the actions of the US government have just as much value as the 3000 people killed in the twin towers. 

You can continue to believe that all "those" people are savages, are worthless and that we are at war with Islam but I reject such xenophobic and offensive views that devalue human life.

Oh boy.

Quote from: Hector on August 01, 2014, 03:34:38 PM
So what commodity would you tie money to?

Gold has historically been chosen by the market as being the best money.  But it is not for me to decide.  Perhaps cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin will be the best solution in the future.  Bitcoin is tied to an algorithm where there will be a scarce number of bitcoins ever produced.  There can never be more than 21 million bitcoins in existence.  So, bitcoins will maintain there value and won't be subject to inflation.

The thing about being a libertarian is that I don't have to pretend to know the future.  A central planner might say "gold is best!  I'm going to force everyone to use a gold backed currency through threats of violence!"  But libertarians don't do that.  We want people to voluntarily decide what currency is the best. 

It is like you asking me to tell you which smartphone will be the best in five years.  How would I know?  But I can predict that through competition and free exchange the better product will usually win out.