A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants. Boundary disputes should be settled by plebiscite. -Mises from Omnipotent Goverment, p90
No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want. -Mises from Nation, State, and Economy, p34
Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations; just as it is indifferent towards the state itself, so the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them. -Mises from Nation, State, and Economy, p394
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. -Mises from Liberalism, p109
If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. -Mises from Liberalism, p109
The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest. -Mises from Liberalism, p119
Like I said, that’s about as close to being an anarchist as one can get without calling yourself one.
There are certain things that some people today can do that they couldn’t 200 years ago. There are some things people aren’t allowed to do today that they could 200 years ago. Whether or not one is more or less free depends upon what group to which he belongs. It also depends upon which activies you prefer to do.
If one earns $100,000 per year, and watches about 40-50% go to the government, that is a serious problem. After all, the colonists revolted under about 5% in taxes.
Who is more free? If the mafia came to your store, and demanded 50% in protection money, what would you call that? Freedom? If a man earns $100,000 and only gets to keep $50,000, that’s a serious dent in his freedom. His standard of living is significantly lower than what it could have been.
Those have to do with capitalism, not statism. The reason the USA still has a high standard of living is because of the already existing capital. Otherwise, all the advances in this country will eventually regress.
Really? So if I robbed you and stole %40 of your income it would not justify a violent response? After all, it was only economic violence.
I have noticed that you have decided to stop saying that us libertarians need to use violence to achieve our goals. I’m glad that I was able to make progress with you.