If that magical button was pressed and tomorrow there was no government anywhere, what would happen to the nukes? How would one not fall into the hands of an anti-social maniac who would use it to destroy the world?
How might concentration camps have come to an end without the use of force? Allowing people to be murdered in camps is evil, but using an army funded by taxation and draftees to end the killing is also evil, so how could HItler have been stopped using libertarian means?
Libertarian does not mean “anarchism”, Goverment is necesary in some ways. One, protecting us from another’s people coercion, to protect our country for foreign coercion, and to make the public structures that would not be made by any particullary group of people. When I say Protecting is not exacting “attacking”, It could be prosecuting, fining etc. So, Goverment has to delineate the distant between protecting and intervening. For an example: “to protect you from me to hurt you” is well seen in liberalism, “to protect you from hurting yourself”(safe belt) is intervention. Milton Friedman was an excellent interpreter of Liberalism, I invite you to read (or see his TV show) “Free to choose”.
We’re not saying Anarchism solves all your problems. If a crazy person got nukes that would be bad, but consider that its much harder for them to acquire nukes without the aid of a state. So far, many crazy people have nukes BECAUSE of states.
Also, you don’t need a state to break open concentration camps. The state has no incentive to anyway. Have you read the literature on PDAs/MDAs/DROs?
Well actually Libertarian does mean Anarchism, but thats beside the point.
I realize the state isn’t necessary and doesn’t have the incentive to break up concentration camps. I’m having a failure of imagination and I wonder would would happen if there was simultaneously an anarcho-capitalist society and a concentration camp state. What would be the most likely sequence of actions that members of the an-cap society would take towards the concentration camps?
I’m not sure what those acronyms mean, could you provide further reading?
Depends what the Ancaps have to gain. If the Ancaps don’t care, they won’t do anything. But this problem can’t be resolved by forming a state out of the Ancap society, because the state won’t care either.
The Ancaps will act if a small number of them decide its worthwhile. This is pretty likely considering that they’ll have better technology and more resources at their disposal.
Yup
Hoppe’s Private Defense: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf
David Friedman’s Utilitarian approach to free market Law: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html
Long’s Objective/Consistent Law: http://libertariannation.org/a/f61l1.html
Murphy’s Game Theory: http://mises.org/daily/1855
Many more here
http://www.insolitology.com/simplyanarchy/studies.htm
The nukes will have to be owned by the security agencies that will come into being And of course, there is not going to be a magic anarchy button.
As for Hitler, I would say this. It is an emotional topic. But the answer is no, I wouldn’t support taxation and drafting young men to liberate people in a foreign land. Now if some rich american industrialists wanted to raise a volunteer army to go over to Germany and kill immoral people, then that’s different.
Of course Japan attacked us, and maybe taxation is a lesser evil than seing the US become a dominion of Japan. Germany declared war on us.
But I think the real issue is that we could have avoided getting involved. FDR was posturing, the Japanese knew it, and if he had not put the trade embargo on Japan they might not have attacked us. I also think we could have stayed out of Europe had we not been so biased in favor of Britian. But all that’s history so who knows.