You’re advocating fascism too but asserting that we should all obey some moral law you guys have come up with instead of public civil law. I’m advocating that you need to see the utility of the military so you no longer see it as unnecessary and thus no longer feel your will is being infringed upon. I understand that at some level, if a large percentage of the population thinks the military is unnecessary and if it still continues to exist that it’s obviously totalitarian and fascist. But you are in such a minority, such an extreme minority. There’s no way the government can make everyone happy ALL the time. I’m not sure what the polls would say, but I’m willing to bet 90 percent of Americans think having a national military is necessary. Who are you to tell all of them they’re wrong and they shouldn’t have it? Who are you to say that you shouldn’t have to pay for something that protects you?
The Nazis made it illegal to be Jewish. They persecuted a race just for being what it was. No one is persecuting you, first of all. And second of all, a lot of the Jews tried to leave, but they weren’t allowed to. You’re allowed to leave anytime you want.
You have really deluded yourself if you believe that these conservatives have a principled objection to the Fed and Welfare. Why? Because they aren’t principled strict constructionists a la Jefferson. They are political appointees of establishment men. Do you really expect all four of them to bite the hand that fed them and rule the Fed and Welfare or any other regualtory State program unconstitutional? For a man who believes in no morals and such you really are naive.
First of all Galt’s Gulch wasn’t a literal reference. Please look up the microseccession thread. But strategy is different from principles. It’s OK to work towards the repeal of the income tax/16th Amendment, for example, even though this wouldn’t result in a libertarian society so long as one keeps in mind their principles which lead towards bothe justice and economic efficiency. Otherwise one sell out leads to another and next thing you know you’re Dana Rohrabacher or Williamson Evers. A sell-out moocher.
But the market does a great job! I can point to the great job it’s doing, and has done in the past. That’s how I know it works. I can’t however, point to a private system of law that’s working. Can you?
Most of us are voluntaryists, Jacob. We do not oppose the notion of a state per se, but rather we oppose that it’s involuntary. Most of us would have no problem with the 90% of people who wanted national defense having national defense, as long as it was not coercing people unjustly.
We are not trying to force our will on the majority, but rather, we’re trying to stop the majority from forcing their will on us. To turn your question back on you, who are you to tell us that we are wrong about not wanting a military, and that we must help you pay for it?
-
Well, let’s find out, let’s bring suit against Welfare and the Fed. If it goes to the Supreme Court, and every single conservative justice rules against us, I’ll admit I was being naive and that you were right.
-
Strategy is very different from principles because strategy takes the principles and makes them real. It is very very very hard for me to imagine an anarchist region fighting off a foreign state built army. That, to me, is a serious concern. One worth thinking about. Also, your cynicism is…refreshing but I still think Ron Paul is doing the best he can.
It turns out that I can: International law. Not centralized, generally agreed upon, relatively few conflicts.
If it is so important that law be monopolized and enforced through coercion, then we should have one world government to eliminate the ‘anarchy’ between states. Would you lend your support to world government?
p.s. I’m begging you to go read those books. Really… this forum is completely pedestrian compared to what is written by real scholars. You’re doing yourself a disservice by assesing polycentric law based on your experiences here.
You’ll still get protection from it if you don’t pay for it. That leaves the rest of us holding the bag. Which begs the question: what gives you this special privilege so that you get protected by something you don’t have to pay for?
I’m advocating fascism? LoL you’ve lost it! How so? I advocate complee freedom, provided you do not violate others freedom. The size and waste in the American Empire is both unnecessary and distrubing.
What the hell is a large percentage? 70%? 20%? 60%? 15%?
The State cannot make people happy ALL the time. However, a “free market in governments” or protection services with panarchy does allow everyone to get what they pay for all the time.
Who are 90% of Americans to tell me to pay for what they want?
How cases are brought in this international court every year?
It’s not a special privledge. I did not ask to be protected, and you have no obligastion to provide any services for me. You cannot just provide a service for me and then demand payment if it was a service that I never requested.
And if you can, then you owe me money for talking to you. Why should you get the benefit of my insight and wisdom and not have to pay for it?
Yes, you are advocating fascism. You should read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, he says the defining characteristic of fascists is that they try to impose their moral rules (or set of rules whatever they may be) on others. Which you’re trying to do by telling me I’m wrong because your rules say so. You’re a fascist.
You’re a friendly fascist though, because you’d rather use guilt to make me feel bad than force. But it’s all the same to me. A majority, by loose definition is 51% or more of the electorate. An overwhelming majority is 70% or more. An almost total vote is between 80-90% and 100% is absolute agreement. Now, how many people in the US think we need a military that’s tax funded?
You’re taking advantage of the service RIGHT NOW. On your keyboard, safe to type at me all day.
And if you think I should pay, you should send me a bill. Then I’ll decide whether or not you have a real claim. I’ll also be sending you a bill for “tolerance and open mindedness” fees and for this whole time of my life I’ve taken trying to understand you and your ideas. Which I don’t really have to. I’m doing this for your benefit as much as I’m doing it for mine.
Perhaps instead of asserting things you should read the arguments we’ve posted and/or linked to about the alleged free rider problem and the rest of market anarchy and then critique our views. Just a thought.
Psst. Guess what? The primary question is insurance. The purpose of a military, allegedly, is to protect your property. Therefore, insurance companies who purchase artillery will lower the risk of invasion below that of the cost of the military and thus be able to charge lower premiums. Eventually, seperate defense firms will likely arise that will own these weapons and contract them to needing insurers by need.
Again, this is only a paragraph. Assuming you have the attention span to read 40 pages of text I really suggest reading that Chaos Theory book.
In fact, if you can read that book and offer a refutation of why it is wrong (meaning more than the facile arguments you are currently offering) I will stop being an anarchist.
Seriously, you have the time to argue with the [mostly] high school/college aged forum users but you can’t read the actual text? Even of a simply 40-50 paged monograph?
Guilt = force?
Anyone else see something wrong with this?
If you believe that I think it fair to say that don’t understand what fascism is, but considering you are reading Jonah Goldberg’s rubbish, that doesn’t come as a shock. You should read Roger Eatwell’s Fascism: A History, or any work on the topic by a reputable historian.
Hypocrite, much? If anyone is a fascist here, it’s you, unless you intend on proving that what Goldberg means by imposing a moral code also includes a “moral code” that hinders individuals from imposing their code on others via retributive/retaliatory action, i.e. hinders them from dictating how others live their lives (and which only does so to the extent that they arrogate to themselves the right to rule over others.) So please, give the name-calling and semantic tricks a rest, the only fascist is the individual who wishes to coercively impose their rule over others - not the victims who resist and repudiate the emperor with no clothes…
All you’re doing is blandly regurgitating an ad populum fallacy, except - and oh so unfortunately - it does nothing for your argument’s soundness.
Couldn’t care less since I never solicited the service - or does the provider get to unilaterally provide a service and then demand payment for it?
Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. This occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua case, when Nicaragua brought the issue of the U.S.'s non-compliance with the Court’s decision before the Security Council.[18] Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Court_of_Justice_cases (I’m not sure, but I’m guessing maybe 100 cases give or take.)
Good, and I’ll do this for your military. Problem solved; send me a bill, I’ll throw it away. Glad we solved that nonsense.