That is your opinion but they clearly exist and have shown to support some of the largest economies.
Clarification is important.
As opposed to what? Shock words like “violence, murderers and criminal gangs” intended to influence those who cannot see through the ploy?
So only you can state things how you “feel”?
Of course it depends on the form of government, otherwise all outcomes would be identical and they are clearly not.
Nope
Once again, how is this ANY different than the manner in which states interact? Ever read up on the bombing of Dresden, or the Firebombing of Tokyo, or for that matter, the Rape of Nanking. States are capable of atrocities that make Mob hits look like child’s play. Mobsters drew up contracts just as states do, and mobs collected protection money, just as states do.
As Roderick Long pointed out, states can socialize costs, PMC’s would only have this option of they had gained massive power in the first place via wealth. This would certainly be possible, but very difficult without a “gun in the room” to capture, or without IP laws, patents etc. that allow for royalties to increase funds.
I thought it was also your opinion? Do you think Obama is following the Constitution? Did Clinton? Bush? Is America following the Constitution?
I didn’t claim governments don’t exist. But constitutional republics don’t function as constitutional republics, they function as democracies. Again, Hoppe has written a brilliant book about this. Democracy The God That Failed.
You’re engaging in avoidance, and a zero sum debate where you win, even if it relies on the flimsiest of technical points. That’s fine, but with the exception of a couple people here, the debate is usually much more mature than that. Debate doesn’t have to be zero sum, but that requires honesty from both parties.
Violence, murderers and criminal gangs are not adjectives. Your use of adjectives is to assume away a point, without having made it.
Non-sequitur. We’re not debating the marginal differences between a Congress and a Parliament. We’re debating the incentives of governments to grow. The incentive, which is common to all governments, is monopoly.
I’m sure you can agree with this statement. All governments are monopoly, regardless of their form.
Why not?
I am not avoiding anything, I just have no interest in the tangential points you bring up to change the subject. You engage in wrong or misleading statements and then complain when I point them out. You definition of “mature” is you make whatever statements you want and no one can criticize them no matter how wrong or misleading they are. Which is nonsense. Crying semantics for being WRONG, is a misuse of the word
I never said they were but you are using the adjective argument to attempt to persuade me not to use them all the while engaging in the same sort of emotional word play with nouns. I use adjectives for clarification of the meaning of the words I choose.
In regards to growth, I do not believe this statement to be true…
" A priori, we know what the outcome of monopoly states will be."
You have avoided at least a dozen arguments from me. Would you like me to list them for you, so you can address them here and now?
Why?
Hey Blue, is this from that guy Ultimate Mind who I am debating on the dream forums? Did you see how he went from being a liberty pounding constitutional to a ‘we need government because people are metaphorical animals who can’t deal with full liberty’ It is quite astonishing.
Not really. That was my point to Juan. Many people hold positions of double think. I debate to get them to own up to it, and pick a side. If they decide that might makes right, then there isn’t much you can do about that. Does anyone really believe if they could get 15 minutes with Obama or Pelosi, they could convince them to adopt a more libertarian agenda?
Sounds to me like buddy was never a Constitutionalist. He doesn’t really support liberty. Like some of the Ron Paulies, they only support liberty with a government, not without. Stockholm syndrome.
Sorry I forgot about the Czechs and many other states…
I guess I my real point was that even Leviathan states are not safeguards against murder.
Nobody said absolute safeguards, only better than the alternative.
Better how? It is completely subjective.
And I would argue, it is not better, because the rule of law is a myth, just like the state is a myth when it comes to the protection of liberty.
Thanks. Thanks for the fully developed idea which you have scrupulously constructed from first principles. What a clear position boy-howdy.
If you think the alternative to the status quo is mass killing and looting, then maybe you are right.
If you gave thought to how a poly-centric legal system is superior theoretically and historically to a monopolistic legal system, or considered that security and order are in-demand commodities that entrepreneurs can and do produce at ever lower costs much more efficiently than the state, then you are wrong.
If you are a libertarian, utilitarianism is superseded by the NAP, you are wrong.
Thanks for posting that paper. I enjoyed reading it.
Though I can’t help but think that in his example of inflexible laws being “bad” if that isn’t rule of law, albeit an undesirable one. So there could be a rule of law if the laws were always interpreted and applied in the same way (The author rightly makes the point that laws are written in language, and there is no language that is not interpretable, hence the requirement for a static interpretation).
That’s just not true, throughout history states have protected the rights of individuals and allowed peaceful cooperation under the division of labour. Now, can stateless societies do this just as well, or even, better? It’s quite possible, but it certainly isn’t true a priori and it remains to be seen.
Is that a myth you started? As most anarcho-capitalists understand polycentrism and subjectivism.
States must engage in taxation under threat of coercion. This violates my self ownership. If there are any natural rights at all self ownership is one of them.
By definition state prohibits competition with itself, including competition that would occur through a free and voluntary association of individuals.
Monopolies have a self interest to rule in their own favor. Competing entities have self interest to serve the consumer. The only way the state could provide better service than the free market is if everyone ignored these their own self interest. If you do not think this is a priori (it follows from praxeology) it is as certain as an inductive argument can get.
No, Universal Mind and the guy I’m talking about are two different people. And yes, I’ve seen his transition. The people on that forum are ridiculous. Sometimes I don’t even know how to address them.
Also, for the people in this thread here’s some clarification: My friend’s basic argument is that Rothbard failed to account for rich people just using their money as weapons. I don’t know if that was clear in my first post.
Why ? It’s a personal matter, and as such, irrelevant.
I don’t know if all your decisions are whimsical or not and I don’t much care either way.
What I was getting at is that if one likes ice-cream (arbitrary subjective preference) then there’s is no point in arguing about it with other people.
“de gustibus non est disputandum”
The thing about tastes is not that they are subjective - it’s that they are personal.
Morality on the other hand involves discussion between different persons, other than ‘you’.
The Law Merchant arose as a market-based solution to inadequacies in the official “law” handed down by monarchs, and prevailed for centuries, if I’m not mistaken…