There is no mention of a government in what LS is saying…
I never thought that slavery is beneficial.
I can agree with that.
I know. I’m demonstrating a contradiction.
I’ll relink this.
Not to mention the fact that feudalism is all but extinct in most parts of the world.
I think that people are impatient. They are used to voting their demands, and when that doesn’t work out, voting again.
I don’t think they are ready to work for liberty for 50 years, and never see it in their lifetime. Or to engage in market competition, only to find out they are overpaid relative to their productive output. But unfortunately, it is going to take that sort of risk and effort to move and actualize a more free human condition.
You and I understand this I think.
Thank you, I will look into it 
Hmmmm…and it evolved into communism, fascism, nationalism…very far from the free trade without government society…
This is a must read.
Communism, Fascism and Nationalism existed long before Feudalism
You increase the size of the legislature so that there are more people to veto legislation. Preferably, the legislature would be made up of every citizen. But that would just be too big to try and get everyone together and no one would go for that idea. Of course, no one would probably go for my idea in the first place, since it would in essence make government ineffective.
Who said they should get paid? Voting does not take that long.
And statistically speaking, it represents the whole country. Have you taken statistics?
Why would it need to sustain itself? It is just a bunch of people casting votes every once in a while.
Listen to what? Well, it probably would not last long. Most things do not with humans.
Look, I do think people should have a “right to life” in that if someone kills another without consent, then he or she should be punished. I do not think there is some mystical right to life that is God given however. Humans punish humans for killing, not God.
Well, if the law does not hand out a punishment, then someone else probably will. The law should just be a way for humans to resolve differences peacefully. I think the idea of property rights is a good idea in that it helps us resolve disputes. But property rights can be disregarded, and they are all the time. If you steal a doughnut, do you think it is really going to be worth it to someones to prosecute you.
Well there are individuals who want to see the end of government, not keep it on life-support.
So these voting individuals have no pay, are numerous and just vote. Please appeal to me why I should follow anything these voters pass.
You are engaging a qualitative subject with quantitative determinism. So I disagree that it ‘represents the whole country.’
Again I wonder who will actually listen to these people. You seem to be establishing a government only for the sake of having a government and expect that everyone will listen to this useless form of government and decide to keep it around for the same reasons you established it in the first place. If society has evolved into a non-aggression axiom world and government is no longer used as a facade to ensure social tranquility, what then is the necesscity of voting? What would these members actually vote on that wouldn’t contradict what the Mises Institute and what you implicitly agree to by being here, propose?
When did I ever bring up God?
So there is no moral aspect to rights? Because what I am understanding from your writings is a complete utilitarian justification for property rights and law in general.
That is up to the original owner of the doughnut. However, what you cannot say with a straight face is that the theft of the doughnut is justified because the owner couldn’t defend it. Whither or not an individual can defend themself from aggression is not the basis for whither or not they are able to have rights.
If we are talking ideology, then yes.
I was referring to the social and political system. Unless I have a lack in my history knowledge…
Oks
Guys,
This line of discussion should not take place in a newbies introductory thread.
Start a new thread on the specific topic you wish to discuss.
Again, what is the difference between an ineffective government and no government? In both cases government is not interfering with your life.
The legislators in New Hampshire get something like $1 a year. That is akin to not getting paid. Elected officials should not get paid.
But in theory, you should not have to follow any government that does not have your consent. But that is not reality.
Then obviously you have not taken statistics. Statistically speaking, it does represent the whole country.
You must have missed out the comment I made pointing out this is probably just a pipe dream, just as much as your no government society is a pipe dream.
I can not see the purpose of having an ineffective government.
Fine then nature. Pick whichever you like.
Morality is subjective. Do you think it is always wrong to kill someone? Probably not. Do you think the punishment for every murder should be the same? Probably not. Do you think property lines are absolute? Of course not. So this begs the question, do you think “rights” are absolute? If so, then you are being inconsistent, because if you agree that killing someone is not always wrong, then obviously people do not always have a right to life.
Of course that would not justify it. And rights are based on whether or not society is willing to punish someone for harming another.
To keep the masses pacified.
Sorry my error… I had copy/pasted the quote function when I repied to your post and did not change the name…
Even if it is an unreleased manuscript?
A government who keeps the masses pacified is a government who is “effective” and has a certain power…correct me if I am wrong, but you are having a contradiction here…
I am just coming from the viewpoint that the masses want a government and that maybe even if they are given an ineffective one, that may be sufficient.