Out of curiosity, what is the AE (and everyone here's) position on the State of Israel and the US relation to it?

Well, I think minimal government makes a lot more sense than anarchy. Your objections, by the way, are not based on observable fact because no one is doing anarchy right now. So you’ve got this great protection because I can’t point at an anarchic region and say “this is what happens.” I’m trying to rethink a system already in place, you guys are trying to brainstorm an offshoot of communism. This is all well and good. But it’s not going to get me anywhere. I am less convinced about anarchy than I was when I first signed on here.

The reason the “warfare” state makes sense and the welfare state does not is that welfare states simply don’t work whereas publicly funded militaries do work. They are not mutually inclusive either. It’s possible to have one without the other. How is this possible? Because moral principles do not guide politics, ultimately functional principles do “what works and what doesn’t?” It’s survival of the fittest. Socialist countries will not survive but neither will anarchies.

Man, seriously… imagine the US without a military. Someone would come over here and take us over in an instant!

You might want to check out this two-part series on anarchic Ireland. As it turns out, Ireland resisted several attempts at invasion even though there was no centralized authority to coordinate defense.

I’m objecting to the utter failure that your minimal goverment is. It’s basic logic.

Why do we need a gov’t ?
To control the people - they are criminals.
Who will control and limit the government ?
The people.

Hehe. It’s painfully cleary you haven’t got a clue about how real world politics works.

That’s utter nonsense. Those were a bunch of savage pirates - and I’m not being sarcastic. If you want people to rightfully laugh at you tell them that the vikings were anarcho-capitalist.

edit : sorry!!, I misread iceland instead of ireland - But ireland was not a free society by any means, either.

I’m not really sure what to tell you. Anarchic Iceland and anarchic Ireland are the closest examples we have to a stateless society.

Nobody claims they were perfectly libertarian, but both illustrate that with competing legal and law enforcement agencies, not only can order and peace be secured, but conflict is actually minimized, compared to what the average European subject had to endure at the time.

It escapes me why you of all people would ridicule these folks as savage pirates, considering that they rejected monarchy and the state-church at a time when this was considered sacrosanct in most parts of the “civilized” world. I mean, isn’t this remarkable?

You mean the iceland guys ? http://mises.org/daily/1121

Because they were the pirates known as the vikings. And I’m not ridiculing them. I’m saying they were a criminal organization. They were the same people who invaded England and France at around 1000 - 1200. Known as the Normands in France.

Now, I’ve not researched Ireland, but it seems to me that medieval Ireland was a feudal society which included slavery. Again, hardly the sort of thing that libertarians would present as an example of ‘private law and order’.

Also, vikings and celts were pagans, not agnostics or free-thinkers…

De facto does not mean de jure. So no, I can’t. I can only show evidence of their existence by the attempts to codify them and report to you the hundreds of stories out there about first hand experiences with Israeli people.

Some points.

  1. Iceland is not currently an anarchy.

  2. A warfare state and a non-interventionist all volunteer military are two different things. I support the later.

  3. Limited Government did not destroy property rights, progressive policies and the growth of government did when it stopped resembling a limited government by any stretch of the imagination.

  4. Mises.org is a site focuses on Austrian Economics and the free exchange of ideas. Outside of economics, political philosophy here has no majority. Everyone wants less government but the limited-government vs anarcho-capitalists discussion continues. You will find many more anarcho capitalists here since it was effectively started by Rothbard but throughout the libertarian community I have seen many more limited-government libertarians. My only problem is when the anarchists try to define libertarians as anarchists only which is absolutely not true.

No one does this. We do say, though, that anarchists are the only consistent libertarians.

The implication is the same and part of the problem.

Libertarian (Defined) “One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.”

Seems like a good definition. When is the role of the state minimized?

That is the debate.

No I am saying that people who use your illogical logic of might makes right can sabotage it

Rothbard says that your are wrong…

Here is a list…

Here is an important tidbit…

Gaelic Anarchism - Died to Conquest

Icelandic Anarchism - Died to Church

Rhode Island - Died to Might makes Right

Albemarle - Died to the English Crown

Quaker Pennsylvania - Died to Conquest

Utopia Ohio - Died to Civil War

Modern Times New York - Died to Civil War and Infiltration

These communities, which were Anarcho-Capitalist in nature, did not fail, they were actively attacked, with physical force and ideological infiltration, when left to their own devices as we see in the Ireland and Iceland communities they last for centuries…

Do your homework before making baseless assertions please…

It seems to me to be a fact of mathematics.

When it does fail it will prove that a “properly limited government” is impossible, because you give the government the right to expand its limits…

If you do not give the government this right, you do not have a government…

Ahhhh, so it is all for the greater good Jakobski?

When has the federal military actually repelled invasion of the United States? The Answer is never, the only invasion of the United States to see any federal fighting was the War of 1812, where federal troops failed to repel English Forces, the civilians did what the federal military could not do, the federal military got the Presidential House Burned Down, the civilians fought and drove off the English…

It’s wonderful that you want your tax dollars to go to the military. Good for you. Can you tell me, though, by what right is the government seizing my tax dollars?

Good luck with this one, he boiled it down to might makes right for me…