Do you have an argument that doesn’t involve a roving pack of strawmen?
I only ask because all your points have been discussed in depth elsewhere on this forum and if you really wanted to learn (as opposed to just sticking with your preconceived notions) all you have to do is search through the topics and see all the counter arguments.
There’s also a nifty little search box to help you out.
If you really, really wanted to learn I would suggest starting out with the free book The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard which is available in multiple formats for your learning pleasure.
Please point out my “strawmen”. For example, are you saying you don’t believe in a stateless society (often referred to as “anarchy”)? If your argument is semantic then please let me know by clarifying. Not letting me know specifically where my assumptions are incorrect creates even more problems in our communication.
I will check out that book. FYI, I have been looking around this site quite extensively and I see Mises scholars making many of the same arguments I have been. A couple examples (in the discussions):
I seriously doubt you could provide a specific reference to Rothbard (your first link) saying ‘the state will always exist’ or that the only protections we could have from a private army is government theft and coercion to ‘save’ us from private theft and coercion.
And Kinsella is anti-IP which you gave no suggestion that you are with your ‘why would they develop new software if they couldn’t have guaranteed rent-seeking’, to paraphrase a bit.
----edit----
Just noticed the (in the discussions) bit which I assume you mean the comments that anyone could post into.
Yeah, random internet people posting in a comment section doesn’t quality as ‘Mises scholars’ by any stretch of the imagination…
I meant look in the counter points in the discussion of those theories. A lot of good points are made in support of IP and the state.
I contend that a private army is just another name for a government. They both weild the same power and one can combat it with another private army, gov’t, whatever you want to call it. It’s all just semantics dressing up the same thing: The power of coercion.
I’d love to discuss IP and why it creates more value than no IP, but think it should be on a new thread.
You might remember that it was Netscape that initially was bringing major issues to Microsoft, over their alleged monopolization efforts in browsers via Internet Explorer. And, yes, Netscape had much more well-established DC ties than Microsoft. Microsoft had its offices in the state of Washington and dared to do business in America without a large base of lobbyists to back them up (perish the thought!). And what is the case afterwards? All the major players in the high tech industry have huge presence in DC. You complain of the collusion between corporations and government, but your solutions all lead to more collusion, not less.
The “pitting powerful entities against each other” theory of government has been shown to be demonstratably false. That was the great “advantage” of the branches of government, separation of powers, and all that. What has happened? The country which has implemented that most fully, the United States, has ended up with the largest and most powerful government the world has ever seen, and the cooperation in government regarding key issues is almost universal. If regulation was supposed to “pit powerful companies against each other” then that has been shown to be a failure as well. The more regulated an industry, the more the competition almost entirely fades away, and the more cartelization exists. The same old story that has always been the case remains - the powerful, the political class, collude to oppress and milk the productive class.
No, of course not. But getting rid of the state does get rid of institutional coercive power, and more importantly, legitimized coercive power. And not having a compulsory monopoly on force around would leave society free to develop much better means of dealing with whatever coercive power is left, through market processes.
There’s no reason to assume that any warlord is going to be making the rules for anyone, when everyone is free to make whatever defensive organizations they feel are necessary to defend themselves from the few criminally parasitic members of the human race.
I second the suggestion that you search for threads pertaining to this subject. It will be easier for both you and us if you take that shortcut. But in addition, I’ll offer you an essay written on this subject which sums it all up in one neat package.
Thanks for the link. I read that entire article and I’m most of the way through, “The Ethics of Liberty” as well. The more I read here, the more I’m noticing a fundemental flaw in the assumptions underpinning mainstream Libertarian beliefs (and most other socioeconomic theory, BTW): A gross over-estimation of how much mankind’s malleable rational brain influences his behavior compared to his hard-wired emotional and physical (aka, survival) brain. I’m not surprised, as our understanding of what exactly makes us tick has been improving at a quick pace. As this knowledge is acquired, so too should economic theory accordingly adjust. Since this really deviates from the OP’s question I’ll save it for another thread. In the meantime, I’ll finish “Ethics” and continue to read more on Mises, as I believe Libertarianism is still closest to the ideal system.