That was a whole lot about nothing. My question was by what right do you establish a government under your Laissez faire system?
I don’t think about it in those terms. I simply advocate the form of government that I believe maximises freedom.
So you don’t even question the existence of an institution you deem as necessary?
I do question it, but not in those terms.
Let me tell one thing. You talk about free trade, OK? Do you need a supernational entity producing legislation at an alarming rate do warrant free trade? No. All it’s needed is the prime ministers of the involved countries to sit down at a table for a couple of hours, draft a two pages document to submit to the respective parliaments and you are good to go. You don’t need “free trade agreements” 400 pages long and you don’t need a legislative body electors cannot control (the elected EU parliament at Strasbourg is worth a couple of wooden nickels, all power is with the Soviets… I mean Commissioners!) crunching legislation at a pace nobody, not even the legislation-starved Germans, can keep up with.
Attempts at European unification have an extremely poor record: you have the Romans, Charlemagne and quite a few of his successors, Louis XIV, the Jacobines, Napoleon… a nice list of bloodthirsty tyrants. You never have countries sitting down around a table and agreeing at merging with each other: the Spanish Netherlands (now Belgium) and the United Provinces (now Holland) tried that and they were at each other’s throat in a matter of years, not to mention the attempt to unify the Netherlands and England (it became United Kingdom a tad later) under Stadtholder William III. Better to have good neighbourhood relationships than trying living under the same roof.
Frankly I believe the EU will bring about its own downfall by getting progressively detached from the real world. Being absolutely unable to confront the present economical depression (at least President Obama goes on TV and gives speeches) is all proof you need. The people at Bruxelles, for all their high sounding degrees and titles are failing to understand why their response failed to produce any result and are shocked and baffled at their incapacity of reviving what has been a moribund Continent since the '70s.
By what right does a laissez faire government exist? Perhaps your wording is different but I see it as a fundamental question to the structure of your ‘minarchist’ ideology.
Actually, the question of who to vote for in the recent European Elections was quite a conundrum to me. The parties that most favoured political and economic integration were also those that were most in favour of free trade. The anti-EU parties, such as UKIP and BNP were very isolationist. Both wanted to clamp down on what little freedom of movement (of people) that currently exists within the EU. The BNP was heavilly protectionist as well.
Meaning that those who oppose the European Union (but not opposed to voting) would have found themselves voting for very un-freemarket and libertarian principles in order to vote against the EU. As I said, quite a conundrum.
A central supra-state is not necessary to to achieve a removal of (political) trade barriers. The national states could do that on their own, step by step. Simply remove import- and other taxes.
… That’s not really what they did. EU even subsidized inter EU-country trade. They would for example pay a subsidize the transport of furniture in Spain so that it can be sold cheaper in Denmark. It goes that far that they would do so to destroy local industries favoring those that have the most influential lobby groups.
I am peronally pro-occidental, but I am certainly not in favor of a centralized eurocrazy as it is emerging now. Lot’s of the opening up has the adverse effect on stiffening other controls. i.e. they removed border posts, but on the contrary the police got more powers to put their noses into the private lives of people.
I personally hope we get out of the EU as soon as possible. In a sense, the politicians, as Daniel Hannan has pointed out, don’t really care what the people think if it doesn’t enhance centralisation. Every referendum on the EU constitution and Lisbon treaty has been soundly rejected. I think they don’t dare place one here in the UK, as I think the defeat here would be the most emphatic.
I remember my housemate brought up a useful point on this though. The Euro-skeptic parties tend to do very well in the European elections, however this is totally ineffective, as they will bear no influence on whether their country remains in the UK. Parties like UKIP, have to start more national campaigns.
Also, about the good consequences of the EU; it started off with a free trade treaty encompassing Europe. This was not part of the EU itself, but was used as a backdoor to push through centralised European regulations and eventually the EU.
I’ll admit I disagree with UKIP’s immigration stance, but they never said the were not in favour of free trade. As far as I know, their stance is that they would go back to the original free trade packed signed with the EU and nothing more. They are certainly not vile racists and socialists like the BNP(who themselves consider themselves like the “Old Labour Party”), and I don’t like how people are so ready to casually group the 2 together. i suppose this can be forgiven as they certainly don’t get the free publicity the BNP have gotten from the British press, making their election performance all the more impressive.
It was an amusement I found with a statement a housemate of mine made to me after I voted UKIP, that if i wasn’t brown skinned he would have told me that voting for them would have been the “Gateway” to supporting the BNP.
I will answer too.
I am not a democrat. The ruler is irrelevant, the nature of laws, the amount of taxes, the extent of rule matter.
No. Nothing is ever fully consensual on a societal level.
See above.
Well Scineram,
Since Fried Egg seems to want to dodge the question I proposed and you took up a question proposes to him then perhaps I can propose a question to you concerning your lassize faire government.
By what right does a lassize faire government come into existence?
Yes, the UKIP do favour open trade agreements with the EU (and elsewhere) but are very anti immigration. From their own website: “We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis.”
I’m sure that most people on this site will appreciate the fact that free trade without free movement of people is pretty hollow. Plus, they may want to remove one level of political beuracracy but they want to add another: “We will be fair to England, with an English Parliament of English MPs at Westminster. We will replace assembly members like MSPs with MPs. And we will promote referenda at local and national levels.”
I ended up voting Conservative simply because they were most skeptical (of the major parties) about increasing EU powers.
I dislike the term laissez faire government. But a govenment comes into existence through conquest or treaty, like US or UK. A state is practically unavoidable it seems to me. I am not concerned with rightfulness. I am not a believer in rights.
My good friends, allow me to put a more realistic spin on the thread.
Hulsmann in this brilliant article of his (http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_1/13_1_4.pdf) highlighted that a country willingly surrenders sovereignty (read: its ruling elite willingly surrenders power) only when absolutely forced to. That is, only when facing a hopeless financial situation.
The whole EU was created to prepare an eventual merger with the then USSR, by allowing their socio-political systems to collude at social-democracy, thus using European money to save the soviets from financial collapse. The whole idea behind Glasnost and Perestroika was precisely to have the USSR move towards a social-democratic state. The collapse was surely unwarranted.
Now back to some EU country, say the UK. By January a number of voices raised concerns about Great Britain’s ability to service the incredible debt it was resorting to “deal with” the financial crisis. Britain is broke, to put it simply.
Unwilling to let major banks go belly-up, the UK has, at least as I see it, only few choices: inflate (or hyper-inflate, as that is what it will take to pay all that debt), repudiate debt or join the EU, where less financially strained countries (most of eastern Europe) can still pour funds to pay the UK’s debt.
The growing consensus among British parties for European integration than, can be seen as the only choice open to the British elite.
Having this complication in mid, please tell me, what would you do if you where in Brown’s shoes?
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
A) right(s):
2**:** being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper
10**:** acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact
12**:** most favorable or desired : preferable
synonyms see correct
B) right(s) (same dictionary)
2**:** something to which one has a just claim
4**:** the cause of truth or justice
6 a**:** the true account or correct interpretation b**:** the quality or state of being factually correct
of right: legally or morally exactable
Rights are legitimate laws. Liberty is sustained or restored with justice.
Okay, what are legitimate laws?
read the dictionary quotes above…
Dude, I would impose libertarian values from the top down, of course. [:D]
Political centralization creates many new exciting opportunities. It means a uniform legal and regulatory code, reducing complexity and enhancing the enforceability of contracts between institutions previously under separate jurisdictions and creating equality before the law. It replaces a number of competing fiat currencies with a single fiat currency, enhancing economic calculation. It eliminates tariffs and migration barriers (in effect, open borders), and creates a truly multicultural society. It reduces interstate armed conflicts, since there are fewer states. It also reduces the ‘brain drain’ problem, since migrations which previously meant an exit of the state’s territory are now within the state’s territory. And, since the major barrier to taking action on climate change is regional selfishness, it helps us preserve the Environment.
On a more serious note, this are pretty good.
Also, there are a series of video speeches on google video. Just type in “Marlborough Research Group” and click search. Ashley Mote in particular is great. I think there is a serious chance that Great Britain may leave the European Union. They seem to be bearing a great burden and reaping none of the reward. It can’t be too popular in England.
Just my thoughts.
[:)] Refreshing, thanx
But than again, please adress my previous post.