"Apply to a paper in Somalia (or start your own if there aren't any left) if you actually believe this stuff as much as you say you do."

I already gave a plethora of other links on this issue but here's a couple more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_…

http://www.mises.org/story/2701

http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/aug…

It was a basket-case to begin with when it was under the socialist control it once had and since the collapse of that regime it has slowly started to improve - at least when the transitional government and the African Union aren't meddling in their affairs.

keshmeshi: "If you can't handle living among other people who have consented to be governed, too fucking bad for you."

So you feel perfectly fine imposing something on other people but object to them wanting to opt their way out? Who are the selfish ones here, I keep forgetting...

Eric from Boulder: "People who still hold his ideas at age 30 are pretty much irredeemable."

If that's true, then it looks like it best for those of us stuck in the real world to make our case to the less indoctrinated - that's how I managed to see the light. ;D

seandr: "I really really wish I could send you to the reality you are asking for. You'd last about 24 hours."

Actually it's a little more peaceful than that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/world/…

But I have a better idea: Send two people to Somalia - one wants to impose a government on the area and the other thinks things are improving just the way they are - and then we'll see who gets their head blown off first. :D

DJSauvage: "It makes sense on the surface, but the truth is that limited government just creates a power vacuum that is filled by those even harder to hold accountable than politicians, like organized crime and/or multinationals."

No it doesn't:

http://mises.org/daily/1855

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/not-so-wi…

And besides, governments seem to not only be less accountable but more damaging as well:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.H…

"And btw, drive without a license, hit and kill me or someone I know because you don't know how to drive, and it's becomes my problem."

No shit, we oppose that sort of thing for the same reason we oppose rape, theft, and murder.

"Using free market forces to control unhealthy food distribution (your burger kitchen) is fine if you are ok deciding where not to eat by where your friends and family get sick and die."

Pretty sure market forces work just fine when people cook at home. You don't actually expect restaurants to kill their own customers do you?

Jeffrey: "Taxes are the price you pay for Civilization, if you can't or wont try to understand that you should move to Darfur or Afghanistan where you can learn real lessons of true self reliance."

Or we could be given the choice of who and how to pay for protection against coercion - here's a little intro on the subject that I found interesting:

http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

This one is next on my list, I already own it and have found the first chapter pretty engrossing:

http://mises.org/store/Enterprise-of-Law…

"What if people begin forging those licenses? Who enforces their validity?"

The same people who issue them out - no different from current government licenses except this time there is an added incentive to make sure they are valid since the ease of forging leads to people no longer trusting anyone with the license.

"What if a 'private licensing company' merely sells to the highest bidder?"

That clearly hasn't happened with the following groups that already privately test and license things:

www.ul.com/

http://www.verisign.com/

http://www.bbb.org/

...I could go on listing companies that do what you claim is impossible, but I guess you're convinced that if we just give one institution a monopoly on licensing, that will somehow lead to better service.

"When you're living in your free state paradise and someone breaks into your hovel in the middle the night to rape, steal or whatever, who will give a shit about you then?"

Something resembling the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_def…

@281:

"This whole argument about me being a hypocrite because I benefit from government services is bullshit, though. Where is the private Seattle bus system? Where are the unlicensed gypsy cabs? "

It's only bullshit to you, the hypocrite, because cannot refute it except with ridiculous straw men and excuses.

No private bus? Sure there is. They are called rental vans. Go rent one and start a private bus fleet. Oh. Noes. You have to have the mark of the beast WSDL!

So? Ok. Walk. My god your legs will touch the taxed-through-coercive-blood strewn sidewalks! But walking is not convenient enough for you? Pity all of societies conveniences have been built for you by collective action. Jesus. You're the supposed 'rugged individual' you figure it out.

The fact is you won't live your principles not becuase you can't, but becuase you don't want to - it's inconvenient.

Anarcho-libertarians are the inert gas of politics. They will never do anything except glow colors when they get excited and the second the power goes off they go dark and quiet.

To me it's less about your rampant hypocrisy than it's the sense of entitlement and undeserved privilege. This canard about being so against the violence of the state is the latest twist on the libertarian theme. It's pure unadulterated selfishness that is at the root of these movements. That and racism, usually.

Just mention desegregation and immigration to Ron Paul. Yeah! Sure. It's all about the State forcing it's might upon you and making your kids go to school with black kids or letting brown people in the borders. So. This: "hey, we're against the coercion of state" thing is just the latest flavor to get the kiddies who wanna smoke some weed on board with the same old racist-corporatist agenda. Libertarians have ALWAYS been defacto Republican voters and always will be. They are the kook Trekkie wingnuts of the right— led along by their fears of a brown planet.

This agenda will never lead to any kind of pacifist utopia but rather simply strip taxes from the rich white people so they can be even more lazy and entitled, like Unpaid Intern, and the poor will take up even more slack until the entire system decays into a worse version of our current Gilded Age of Robber Barons.

And us, the servant class, picking up the tab, fighting the wars, and cleaning up the pollution.

@277:
Q: What happens to the poor? Do they get no protection from crime/opportunity to educate themselves/etc?

A: The assumption behind the question is that men are uncharitable and greedy when free to be so, but the state reminds them of the need to be charitable and generous via taxation. The answers come on many fronts.

First, the above assumption is false. Most men are charitable, if only they were to understand that charity depends on their own voluntary charity, instead of the coerced and false “charity” derived from taxation. There is no shortage of people concerned for the poor. The problem is we’ve been taught to depend on confiscation from our neighbors to deal with them, instead of depending on our own voluntary charity.

Second, we know the poor are not well taken care of by the state. Some of us are aware that the state often even clearly creates poverty, rather than addresses it. So it is not as if we are comparing a free market that may not perfectly address the poor, with socialism that does. The market will generate more general affluence and therefore deal better with the poor by eliminating them, than any socialism is capable of doing.

Third, we simply cannot justify theft through the false pretext of generosity. The reason we as private individuals will not steal to give to the poor, is because we inherently recognize the criminal and hypocritical nature of the proposal. Adopting the concept of democracy to provide intellectual cover for the same fundamental action via the use of state agents and thugs on our behalf does not avoid these problems. It just helps us to remain muddled about what our true motives and purposes are. And self-deception is not a good thing.

Q: If a sick person shows up at the hospital, is he turned away if he has no money/user-chosen insurance/whatever.

I realize we are not the epitome of success on these issues now, but how are they handled in your society?

A: In a free society, hospitals would be privately owned with policies decided by private owners. People who wished to provide care for free could influence the boards of hospitals to adopt this policy. Donors could stipulate such policies. There are many ways in which people could show voluntary charity in such situations. It would not depend on the loaded end of a gun, but would rather be true charity.

Q: You are against patents and copyrights. How do companies and individuals return their investment on R&D, and justify it in the first place? There are many things that cost millions to research and perfect beforehand (drugs, engines, software) but are super-cheap to replicate, and other items that cost only time. How do authors make money if one copy of his book gets pirated a zillion times? How do they justify writing as a career in the first place?

A: There is a ton of literature emerging to address these questions. But tell me this: if you could not morally justify IP from an ethical perspective, would you still wish to support it on pragmatic grounds?

I'll go after you later tkc, but tomorrow I have to start from #86.

But for now I will let the hypocrisy of another comment of yours speak for itself:

"The problem with these discussions is that people end up talking past each other."

QED

UI: No doubt the govt was involved in exterminating the Natives. But why did governmenst become involved? Perhaps because of the edge case that is the Frontier? I don't consider it irrelevant especially when your assertIng that pioneers had it better than somebody in an urban area.

@294
Q. What about public beaches and the environment? I realize I could pay to use that area, but who ever owns it could be selfish and sell it to a developer, or pollute the shit out of it, or kill all the brown-striped flying newts, or whatever, and then it's either gone forever or the price of clean-up/repair would be prohibitive. All it would take is one lapse for whoever owns it, and then *poof.* Right? I may pay to keep things nice, and purchase from companies that act ethically and responsibly, but I don't trust the rest of the populace to do so. I think they'll buy what's cheap and be myopic.

A: The assumption behind the question is that men are selfish, unethical, irresponsible and short-sighted, when free to be so, but the state reminds them of the need to be honorable, ethical, responsible and far-sighted through regulation and confiscation. Again, the answers come on many fronts.

First, the above assumption is false. Most men are honorable, ethical, responsible and far-sighted. At least, they tend to be so when it is their own private capital values and property at stake. Just look at the front yards of most middle and upper class – clean and tidy, well maintained. But look at the locations owned or heavily subsidized by the state – a mess. Why! Lack of private ownership. There is no shortage of people concerned for their own privately owned environment, and maintaining the beauty and capital values of their private property. The problem is we’ve been taught that anonymous bureaucrats and conniving politicians will care for community property put in their care better. All false.

Second, we know the environment is not well taken care of by the state. Some of us are aware that the state often even clearly creates environmental disasters (not to mention war zones), rather than addresses them. So, again, it is not as if we are comparing a free market that may not perfectly address the environmental concerns, with socialism that does. The market will generate more general environmental results that people want, and therefore deal better with the environment by privately owning and caring for their environment, than any socialism is capable of doing. Agents of the state simply do not have as strong an incentive to preserve the capital values of resources they do not own, and cannot benefit from in the long run.

Third, again, we simply cannot justify theft through the false pretext of looking after the environment. When one must advocate criminal action to “attain the greater good”, one must realize they are engaged in a deception. Possibly a self-deception.

Some of you tax lovers don't really think for yourselves. "How do we?" questions are getting old coming from people who think using the threat violence is how we solve problems as simple as laying asphalt.

Society had a huge problem just over a century ago trying to figure out how to work plantations without slaves. Even then there were the "But, how do we do all this work without slaves?" question being thrown around and people who said slavery was wrong were being called immature and anti-progressive. Well, guess what: we figured that out didn't we?

Statist need to stop being so lazy when it comes to figuring out problems. Don't stop at the "how do we pave roads without taxes?" and start actually thinking of possible solutions. Continuing to rely on a failing state is social and intellectual laziness.

I find it ironic that this one writer is doing the best thing for this publication; bringing people's attention to its existence by the droves.

This is a great platform to demonstrate the intellectual destitution of the opposition of this piece. I feel the pain for people that have honesty in pursuit for understanding that have not yet understood this writer's point and try to present honest objections in the midst of the demagoguery of trolling ignoramuses.

I had to throw in my voice to let the statists know that we are not a fringe of basement dwelling shut-ins. We (at least myself and those that I know that share the writers philosophy) actually have jobs of professional and often vital in nature. I find it especially ridiculous that they try to put an accusation of young naivete to try to escape addressing the issues brought forward. I was naive once to believe the state was something other than institutionalized violence, anyone coming from a monopolized regimentation camp and child sitting service (aka public education) has good excuse to be.

Who really are the naive ones?

When intellectual honesty fails to support one's dogma, try attacking the character, maybe try a straw-man argument, anything to prevent creating an independent thought and intelligent conversation.

Well, I'll be off. Interesting thread, to be sure. A few parting points:

It's true that it's often hard to imagine a society other than the one a person currently knows, or has learned about from history. So arguments reifying what is believed to be known about societal organization, versus what potentially could be can be short-sighted and fall back on unquestioned assumptions.

That said, organizing the type of totally "free-market" (and I question whether there actually ever can be such a thing) society would require a pretty widespread agreement on how to go about doing so. Any recent look across what people actually believe and debate in the USA alone shows that people are not even using the same words in the same ways in current "national" debate. We're not successfully communicating right now, so there's a high probability that we're not going to reach any sort of anarcho-market arrangement soon. But who knows, things could evolve that way in the future. I suspect though that doing so would require a fairly highly-educated population, not prone to the dramatic emotionalism as we see today ("Terrorists!" "Murder!" "Bombs!" "Moques!" etc.).

Again, we've moved very far from the sort of cultural regulation of people's behaviours that exists in longer-established land-based societies -- and by this I mean the clan and tribe style organization. Clans & tribes enforce the rules around which the society runs via blood-ties, honor, reputation, etc. We don't have those ties any more, the "nuclear" family --while a complete abberation in terms of historical family structures, and arguably destabilizing to society in general-- doesn't extend familial control and morality very effectively. Even the neo-tribes that we are seeing arise in modern society, groups choosing to be associated based on commonalities in believe structure, are still more loosely arranged and cannot (I think) invoke strong moral adherence to a system of society. Shaming and shunning are the only real methods, and while they are effective for group membership, individuals cut loose from the group are able to do whatever they please with few repercussions (+/-).

Living in a free-market society (I would think) would require MUCH more rational engagement and agreement in how to organize things if it were to avoid the sort of social/emotional controls of previous & current societies... unless there is no problem with such controls in the viewpoint taken by UI and others here. In any case, there is no culturally normative agreement on how to arrange a culturally diverse society at this point, save for a publically-accountable set of rules and laws. Perhaps we can evolve past that, I dunno.

That said, it does appear that from an anthropological perspective that people do tend to organize into groups, and organizations, and communities, etc. and do so for mutual benefit. Traditionally because one was born into them, currently it is largely if one chooses to join and is accepted. In these groups there is division of labor, as people have different abilities and interests. Hierarchies seem to naturally develop too (although not always), often based on level of skill and ability, but as often as not, based on charisma too.

So all that said, if we were, hypothetically, to loose the USA from governmental oversight/control/violence, (and we managed to negotiate through the myriad details of property protection, useful services, skills & goods exchange, etc.), I would suspect that people would spontanously associate with the people who shared similar beliefs and lifestyles. Self-organize into groups and communities.

As different communities form and develop they will likely generate vastly different viewpoints, mutually incompatible viewpoints, with differing systems of justice and behaviour. These communities would naturally have the desire and tendancy for self-preservation in the face of an outside invader (either militant or intellectual invader..), and also from a certain amount of internal dissent. Force and some forms of violence will be employed to maintain the commonality in those cases.

Friction between incompatible groups living relatively near each other would involve serious violence... slavery, war, genocide.

It's really hard to imagine this type of society based purely on rational arrangements. I keep imagining what I know of First Nations societies in the North American continent. Each tribe working to ensure it's own survival, with cooperative social rules and gift economies, suddenly encountering another tribe who's mores and interests were different, and aggressive. But these tribes were again based on blood and mutual survival. This anarcho-free-market stuff is highly rational, and people are not rational creatures.

Another major issue is that we're all talking from a point of a post-modern society that has become familiar and comfortable with all the goods and services that have come along with the statist-capitalist adventure our foreforefore(etc)fathers and mothers engaged upon. Tap water, cars & roads, cellphones, cat litter, satellites, grocery stores all came to be under a clearly identifiable lineage of feudal-to-national control/security systems. It's hard to imagine how these would be simply transferred over to a "free" system, or evolve under a "free" system.

We're also talking about international communication and interactions. What is occuring now has no precident in the ancient world. I walk down the street in Seattle and I can personally identify people of Ethiopian, Chinese, Indonesian, Nigerian, Nordic, Mexican, Guatemalan, Argentinian, and Indian (subcontinental and NA First Nations) decent. Each coming from very different perspectives on life. This was never true in the past. Each of these people prefers to associate with others who share experiences and lifestyles, cultural norms, food.

I believe it's true that humans on planet Earth will never been unified in one homogenous cultural group. Even if we form a One World unity somehow, you will always prefer your friends and neighbors to the person who just jetted in from New Delhi, or Cairo, or Beijing. The bigger unaddressed question in this whole debate is: Can we, as humans, find a way to assume peaceful intentions with any other human on Earth?

With the move/evolution to nation-states and global interactions, we have witnessed the destruction of literally thousands of unique ethnicies, cultures, and languages. But with the blanket of assurable (statist) rules we have been able to open our personal worlds to people and ideas from all over the entire Earth. How does this anarcho-market deal with international politics and interactions? It really seems to me that these ideas ignore cultural differences,... which implies that the ideas are a very euro-american-centric, a culturally-specific set of ideas based on assumptions that are in no way universally true.

If we have a one-world homogenous rational culture that can engage in anarcho-free-market agreements, isn't that an incredible loss for humanity? Can we maintain international (and cultural) communications if we forego the relatively reliable rules of the state? Would the internet (which is a military development, I'm sorry to say.. RAND Corp. suggested, DARPA constructed) be maintainable in a non-state anarcho-free-market environment? Without international communications, can we engage in successful cross-cultural engagement with peoples foreign to us without re-inventing the fucking wheel? If groups and communities develope their own realities/norms/customs/behaviours ... then every group will have to develop negotiated arrangements with every other group. Assuming we manage to maintain international travel under this society. If we don't, then different continents will evolve culturally very, VERY differently, and we'll be back 1000 years in terms of global evolution.

If we dispense with nation-state violence and allow people to re-form into local bands and tribes... concommittant with the inevitable diversification of language, mores, customs, foods, and behaviours... where will that actually put us?

As a humanity, on the Earth?

Three untaxed and unregulated cheers for the Unpaid Intern!

For the record, there are lots (though certainly not enough) people who share your views.

Smash the state; see what happens.

This "institutionalized violence" stuff...

Yes, folks, we see the violence inherent in the system. What the realists understand, however, and what the anarchists don't, is that all order and peace is accomplished via the threat of violence. Force is at the heart of all human relationships, and anarchists simply have never even postulated a society which is untainted by the idea that the group with the most potential to exercise force will dominate those with less potential force.

No, all the anarchists do is propose a society that does away with one particular solution to the problem of the violence at the heart of human relationships. It's like saying that juries don't always reach the right conclusion, so let's get rid of the judicial system and see what happens.

The democratic state IS violent at its heart, but only because it is an intelligent and relatively successful historical attempt at managing the much more unruly violence that accompanies human relationships in general. Democracy spreads not only the responsibility for violence, but the benefits of being able to exercise force against those who would disrupt your life and livelihood.

Again, the lack of historical examples of this idealized stateless co-op is telling: as a point of fact, no such entity could survive without the sponsorship or protection of a powerful state. The point being: survival itself requires the threat of violence and force. There is no point in human history where the request to be left in peace to do one's own thing replaces the power to enforce that request against the will of those who do not wish to honor it.

@Pauled 311, 316: I do not doubt the goodness of many, but what I also do not doubt is the capacity for stupidity and short-sightedness of a significant enough population to screw it for the rest of us.

Let's say a beach is owned by a nice guy who rents it out/ allows free use/whatever for pubic use. He passes it onto his heir who passes it onto his, etc. Eventually, one of them takes a developer up on an offer because he's greedy/blew all his money gambling/didn't have the insurance he thought he did and got sick. Now it's gone, at least as far as we are concerned.

Same situation could apply to a wilderness area, except it is sold to a oil company, who doesn't care about protecting the environment, because it knows it can sell to a crowd who only wants cheap gasoline. So, they fuck up the land, kill all the nature, and kiss good-bye a chance at having a public area there in the future. These people exist. They exist now, they always will.

The state doesn't remind people to be honorable, it merely forces the protection of some of these assets for the public good.

As far as charity, I wish your argument were the case, and for some donors it is, but right now there are plenty who donate for tax purposes, and many who simply don't donate anything material. There is a significant population who depend on the state for support because current charitable alms do not meet the needs of the poor. You expect me to believe that presented with your proposal, charitable donations will magically increase?

I don't understand your question on intellectual property. Pragmatism and ethics are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They interact--but beyond that, on what ethical grounds should I denounce IP? It seems to me perfectly reasonable and ethical that a person who puts forth his time, effort, and money into a project deserve the fruits of that labor and shouldn't have that work stolen by someone who figures it out ex post.

@323: What services do these folks get from their county government? How about the state? What federal programs affect its inhabitants? Like most southern states, Georgia gets more in federal expenditures than it pays out in federal taxes.

I'll buy the idea that a small town might be able to privatize its police department and the sky won't necessarily fall. And yes, in some cases private charter schools (which, ahem, use public grants to operate, but nevermind) are much more efficient than some of the more decrepit public school districts.

Efficiency is not the point. Popularity isn't always the issue either. What government provides that private industry cannot is an accountability that is egalitarian, in principle. A democratic state is beholden to the poor and the subsistence workers just as much as it is to those who can buy private castles and security guards. That's what the anti-statists hate about it, I guess, because it provides for these people by cutting into the security guard budget of the wealthy. Or the freedom to live in fear of highwaymen, I suppose. Nonetheless, we have managed to create a society in which the wealthy have access to riches and luxuries far beyond the wildest dreams of millennia of feudal lords. The idea that our society's tax policies stifle the dreams of the innovators and entrepreneurs just seems absurd. The wealthy benefit SO MUCH more from the social programs that prevent unrest and create consumers than they ever would from an anarchy in which their private militias were battling the hordes of beggars.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Matt I never thought I'd see the day that voluntaryist principles would emerge in such a far flung region as this. I salute your courage, strength, and resilience amongst all these attacks: you have my unflagging support. Contrary to what some folks here accuse, and as you already know, you have a community.

It pains me to read a lot of these comments; they're everything I've ever encountered and more. I am constantly afraid to speak the truth for I have been attacked so much. Thanks to you and many other outstanding people I've come to know recently, (some present here) I feel a little bit stronger.

A few thoughts come to mind in response to some of the comments here, which I bet have been made a dozen times over, but i'm not going to read all the comments heretofore.

1.
Argument: "You're opposed to taxes? then don't drive on roads or go to school."

Response: This is just plain obsurd. Its actually a catch 22. We can't leave our homes without stepping onto a sidewalk or street or flying into "restricted airspace" Its like telling someone to try and leave their house when you've built a solid steel dome several feet thick around it and left the key on the opposite side of the door. Also think of it on a smaller scale. Say my neighbor sends me a letter in the mail saying "if you don't surrender half your income to me I will come over and take it and if you still resist i will lock you in my basement and 51% of the neighborhood says its ok for me to do this." So what do i do? I surrender the money prefering to live with fewer resources than none at all. So after i've done this, my neighbor decides to buy me a bus pass to get to work, which will help guarantee the source of income a little bit more. Am I a hypocrit for accepting it? Hell no. If I can get back anything that was taken from me I'm damn well gonna take it and use it. People are ignoring the fact that I still pay taxes. So if I'm still paying for it, why the hell shouldn't I be able to use it? I'm not a priviledged un-taxed individual living off your taxes. Nor am I someone who seeks a system where all others are taxed but me where I get to reap the "benefits" provided by those taxes. I get the sense that people are confusing voluntaryism with dictatorship.

2.
Argument: "But how can we get roads and schools and protection?"

Response: This is like a plantation owner in the south asking "how will we grow food without slaves?" or a renaissance italian "how will we have children without arranged marriage?" The answer is people. People do things. Governement is not a supernatural phantasm with magical powers sent from outerspace to gift bliss upon the masses. Government is people, but with guns. People can build things and provide services without guns. There are a lot of us who work in the private sector (including statists) who work and provide goods and services to people who want and need them.

Closing thoughts: Lets try to steer clear of this foggy language of "belief and opinion"
The whole point of arguing is to get to the truth. We are not all here with opinions. There are people here who are wrong and people here who are right. This isn't a poll to determine how many like vanilla and how many like chocolate. There is no objective measure for which tastes better and majority doesn't = objectivity. We are here to examine arguments for logical consistentcy and consistency with material reality.

Matt, again, thank you so much. I look forward to meeting you.

I am posting this again because for some reason it didn't post me as "registered"

Matt I never thought I'd see the day that voluntaryist principles would emerge in such a far flung region as this. I salute your courage, strength, and resilience amongst all these attacks: you have my unflagging support. Contrary to what some folks here accuse, and as you already know, you have a community.

It pains me to read a lot of these comments; they're everything I've ever encountered and more. I am constantly afraid to speak the truth for I have been attacked so much. Thanks to you and many other outstanding people I've come to know recently, (some present here) I feel a little bit stronger.

A few thoughts come to mind in response to some of the comments here, which I bet have been made a dozen times over, but i'm not going to read all the comments heretofore.

1.
Argument: "You're opposed to taxes? then don't drive on roads or go to school."

Response: This is just plain obsurd. Its actually a catch 22. We can't leave our homes without stepping onto a sidewalk or street or flying into "restricted airspace" Its like telling someone to try and leave their house when you've built a solid steel dome several feet thick around it and left the key on the opposite side of the door. Also think of it on a smaller scale. Say my neighbor sends me a letter in the mail saying "if you don't surrender half your income to me I will come over and take it and if you still resist i will lock you in my basement and 51% of the neighborhood says its ok for me to do this." So what do i do? I surrender the money prefering to live with fewer resources than none at all. So after i've done this, my neighbor decides to buy me a bus pass to get to work, which will help guarantee the source of income a little bit more. Am I a hypocrit for accepting it? Hell no. If I can get back anything that was taken from me I'm damn well gonna take it and use it. People are ignoring the fact that I still pay taxes. So if I'm still paying for it, why the hell shouldn't I be able to use it? I'm not a priviledged un-taxed individual living off your taxes. Nor am I someone who seeks a system where all others are taxed but me where I get to reap the "benefits" provided by those taxes. I get the sense that people are confusing voluntaryism with dictatorship.

2.
Argument: "But how can we get roads and schools and protection?"

Response: This is like a plantation owner in the south asking "how will we grow food without slaves?" or a renaissance italian "how will we have children without arranged marriage?" The answer is people. People do things. Governement is not a supernatural phantasm with magical powers sent from outerspace to gift bliss upon the masses. Government is people, but with guns. People can build things and provide services without guns. There are a lot of us who work in the private sector (including statists) who work and provide goods and services to people who want and need them.

Closing thoughts: Lets try to steer clear of this foggy language of "belief and opinion"
The whole point of arguing is to get to the truth. We are not all here with opinions. There are people here who are wrong and people here who are right. This isn't a poll to determine how many like vanilla and how many like chocolate. There is no objective measure for which tastes better and majority doesn't = objectivity. We are here to examine arguments for logical consistentcy and consistency with material reality.

Matt, again, thank you so much. I look forward to meeting you.

oops, looks like that issue has cleared up after hitting the refresh button... sorry for the doubleshot there.

The Seattle Times may be his next career step...

This is my last comment before I head north of the border for fun times in Vancouver. Maybe tomorrow will be the third time I get stopped for a secondary inspection by border thugs in my last four trips to Canada, whoo! You can imagine how well those experiences go down with someone like me. Anyways, it's been a helluva thread. I'd love to come back and find it still going.

@ 300 -- Regarding this subsidy issue, you really need to read @ 325. He said it perfectly. I don't know why I'm engaging you any longer, but let me just say: a. there's something incredibly rich about someone who called for depopulating the vast majority of the country calling me bitter; and b. if you still think I'm a Randian, you are just ignoring this thread.

@ 310 -- I would love to go buy a van and drive some of the same bus routes the city uses. I found the Russian marshrutka system that works in this manner to be incredibly effective during my time there. But I'm telling you, it will get shut down. Gypsy cabs don't last. The license holders hate competition.

The rest of your post is pure drivel. Can't debate someone's ideas? Project racism on them. Oh gee, how original, how impressive, how intelligent.

@ 313 -- Oh, you mean like maybe government and corrupt business interests realized they had a convergence of interests in colonizing the West? This happens all the time. Who do you think writes regulations? Big business, because it gets rid of the little guys. I don't know what you think you're proving.

I also wasn't trying to say life on the frontier was better than it was in New York City, just that the "Wild West" appellation is undeserved in comparison.

@ 314 -- You raise a good point in saying that it was awesome of The Stranger staff to let me make this post. They're great people. We may not agree politically, but no one has tried to convert me and no one has mocked my ideas. And they're amazing writers. I'm learning stuff every day.

@ 317 -- Awesome.

@ 318 -- "When intellectual honesty fails to support one's dogma, try attacking the character, maybe try a straw-man argument, anything to prevent creating an independent thought and intelligent conversation." Yes, this captures much of the thread. But I don't mind, it was fun.

@ 319 -- Quite a thoughtful post. I think you're a bit too pessimistic on humanity, though. You seem to think that: a. people from certain ethnic backgrounds will naturally prefer to hang out with people of the same background when in fact humans seem to be the only animal species that really enjoy diversity at all; and b. assuming that people stick to these "tribes," they won't find it in their mutual interest to trade with people of other tribes. Don't agree.

@ 325 -- Amazing post. The crutches-broken legs things...well, usually I don't like sayings, but damn if that one isn't effective. I loved your discussion of social contract theory. It's the one contract you didn't sign and can't break.

@ 327 -- Quite a sincere post, I like it. I'm going to quote my favorite part of your post: "Argument: 'But how can we get roads and schools and protection?'

Response: This is like a plantation owner in the south asking 'how will we grow food without slaves?' or a renaissance italian 'how will we have children without arranged marriage?' The answer is people. People do things."

Hell yeah, humanity.

@ 317, 320, 323, 326, 329 -- Anyone saying anarchists, voluntaryists, and the like do not believe in community, do not prize community, and do not understand community should read these posts. I didn't ask these guys to come here. I don't know them. They came here to offer their support because they believe in this idea and they seek some sort of similar community.

@treacle (@319)
To start I'll sympathize with the doubt of ever actually having true free market. History has shown few and very brief examples of this being sustained and I will propose the assertion why: Plunder is just too damn lucrative. When there is free trade, there is wealth, and soon to follow those that parasite off of wealth through the imposition of violence to expropriate for their (zero sum) gain. I personally believe that general humanity has been domesticated over centuries of tyranny. Those that refute violence killed, those that submit survive to serve their overlord of the current regime. It is often through moral abstractions and analysis that we get around our impulsive initial assumptions that we see the whole edifice of statism (any state) is flawed in its foundation. (I can discuss later that not only is statism a moral failure but a pragmatic one as well)

Regarding your concern for increased rational arrangement of a society, I would invite you to look at the cost of our current society. One may bring up such arguments against the free market cost similar to Ronald Coase's work (re: transaction costs) but I would argue that even he was somehow blinded to imagine simple scenarios that would render his objection moot. I'm going to give a scenario that COULD exist in the free market and given the potential infinite permutations services can take, could very well (allowed to be) superseded by a superior process. Like a managed stock account, a service could exist to find the satisfactory deals (given desired quality/cost/locality) and those that promote unsatisfactory results drop out of the system (hell we already have this in many areas thanks to 'da toobs innovations!). This could apply to schools, fire protection co-ops, police protection etc or even packages of these. But to matriculate over specifics of potential solutions I would argue would be like conjecturing over what complex life forms could arise given the knowledge of a single healthy cell (the biologic type).

I think you confuse "groups of people" with what a state or dictator would influence a group of people to do either by direct threat (see Soviet communist army) or by reward from the plundered (see US of A military). I'm not sure what incompatibility you speak of that would justify genocide. Genocide and war are usually (bring me some counter examples here) a long term side effect of immoral subjugation and rule by threat of violence. My bottom line argument: Violence begets violence (usually amplified); any society founded on immorality can only advance immorality.

A point that you could have been trying to make when mentioning "social incompatibilities" is cultural differences and varying standards of property. I think you are hinting at that this could be the seed to violence that could escalate towards these scenarios of deflating the human population. Anarcho-capitalism is founded one axiom; property rights (some argue 2 axioms with non-aggression being the other; I argue that self ownership/property to be assumed and covers that one). Humanity will naturally have disputes over ambiguous property rights and varying traditions in arbitration. Under these concerns there are several instances in history of "anarchistic" and voluntary court systems, first off hand are the merchant courts that operated since the middle ages (also see book The Enterprise of Law). We have doubts currently of operating court systems because we assume the model will be similar to our inept unadaptive court monopoly we currently have. Again we can propose services that could address these demands of varying property rights but in a market this would naturally vary to demand depending on cultural constitution (diverse or homogeneous). The bottom line: in the market for just arbitration, those that are just succeed, those that are not fail.

I cannot begin to understand any point that would try to claim that through statism there would be more cultural diversity. Through respecting of the most fundamental right (property rights) gives the freedom of interaction with or isolation/preservation of any culture. We could look at the civil unrest imposed by the governmental forcing of racial integration in the southern states. I would compare this to forcing two pissed off bullies (not saying all fell within this category) nose to nose and told to make up and being surprised that this caused a fight. Economics is racially blind and promotes cooperation within all cultures and races. To be bigoted is to limit your options (buyers/sellers) and is economic suicide to those that are not.

All in all a free system is an infinitely complex continuous feedback system that promotes success and weeds out the resource wasters in their respective fields of service. State run monopolies lock in a model of operation that can only get less efficient without the threat of being out performed by someone using less resources (yes, the dreaded evil word PROFIT).

congratulations on your internship, dude. i hope you are considering this to be an educational experience - as is the point of an internship. i think you've landed yourself in just the right place. PLEASE try to keep an open mind during your time there.

[i'm noticing as i read the thread - ive only read a little - that the unregistered comments are almost invariably in your favor. please tell me you're not pulling a sock-puppet situation, here, puppy; i know you're capable of better than that. I also notice a populous of stupid-thinking opponents. they're not your own creations, are they?]

there is an army of van mises shills who populate the blogosphere. they have probably contacted you, influenced you or given you comfort. take a look at who funds the organizations that influence them (and you?).

critical thinking, mister.

as a person who is against government (you), should i assume that you are against the civil rights laws of 1964 and their kin? you've already shown that you're a fan of ron paul, so should i assume that his son, rand, is even more in your favor? oh, i know... you dislike all politicians. what you should understand (and will) is that you cannot be neutral on a moving train (i'm plagiarizing). (... no man is an island.... please stop me!)

stopping here, since i'm a little drunk with birthday wine, but i hope there is some substance for you to glean from this blathering.

[disclaimer: it would be a very different world for me today, if 1964 had not happened. i'll go back to botswana tomorrow if rand paul comes to power]

@322

Q: Let's say a beach is owned by a nice guy who rents it out/ allows free use/whatever for pubic use. He passes it onto his heir who passes it onto his, etc. Eventually, one of them takes a developer up on an offer because he's greedy/blew all his money gambling/didn't have the insurance he thought he did and got sick. Now it's gone, at least as far as we are concerned.

Same situation could apply to a wilderness area, except it is sold to a oil company, who doesn't care about protecting the environment, because it knows it can sell to a crowd who only wants cheap gasoline. So, they fuck up the land, kill all the nature, and kiss good-bye a chance at having a public area there in the future. These people exist. They exist now, they always will.

The state doesn't remind people to be honorable, it merely forces the protection of some of these assets for the public good.

A: Ok, let us again return to the assumptions behind the question.

First assumption is, that what you happen to value most for the use of land or property which you do not own, is somehow relevant to the question of what the most justified use is for that property is. It is not. It is the owner’s right in property that gives him the right to decide what is to be done with it. Whether he allows free access to his beach, charges a fee, or disallows access entirely, it is his business. This is the only principle that is accordance with justice.

The second assumption is that what an owner chooses to do with his property may somehow not be the optimal choice. This is mistaken. Let’s say you want a martini, or a big mac, or you want to watch a movie with foul language and rude behavior. And let’s say I claim you are wrong to want a martini, eat a big mac, or watch a foul and rude movie, for all of these things may not be optimal for you in one or several ways. Who is to decide what is optimal for you? You or I? There are certain principles that apply. These principles are those of private property, and non-aggression. These same principles are what apply to the decision of what is to be done in respect to any other sorts of property.

Q: As far as charity, I wish your argument were the case, and for some donors it is, but right now there are plenty who donate for tax purposes, and many who simply don't donate anything material. There is a significant population who depend on the state for support because current charitable alms do not meet the needs of the poor. You expect me to believe that presented with your proposal, charitable donations will magically increase?

A: The principles that I am trying to emphasize to you, is that not you, nor anyone else is qualified to dictate, what is the right amount of charity for any other particular individual to “donate”. No one, not a powerful group of privileged, pretentious, dishonest and hypocritical do-gooders, nor the poor, has a right to another’s property unless it is contracted for, or voluntarily given away. This is in accordance with the principles of justice. No society that is willing to pretend to do good at the expense of performing criminal theft and confiscation, can expect justice to prevail. No rationalizations for theft succeed at justifying it. We must choose.

Q: I don't understand your question on intellectual property. Pragmatism and ethics are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

A: This is absolutely true. It is in fact the case that those actions which are contrary to justice are also contrary to the laws of economics. But this is not clear to everyone. This is why I asked in that way. However, since you know these two are not exclusive, but rather bound together, you will better understand my answer. It is mere illusion to envision that aggressively restricting what people do with their own property, which is what IP effectively, does, can possibly result in a net economic benefit to society. IP is unethical, and uneconomic.

Q: They interact--but beyond that, on what ethical grounds should I denounce IP? It seems to me perfectly reasonable and ethical that a person who puts forth his time, effort, and money into a project deserve the fruits of that labor and shouldn't have that work stolen by someone who figures it out ex post.

A: The short answer is that IP gives late-comers – holders of patents and copyrights – a partial claim against the property of early owners of scarce goods. Because you patented the idea of the log cabin, I am barred from using my property to build my own log cabin. My logs, my saw, my land, my sweat, ergo, my log cabin. But no. IP says it is your idea, so I may not build it. IP is a fraudulent and unjustifiable concept. It doesn’t matter how long it took you to come up with the log cabin idea. Either figure out how to keep the idea a secret, contract with me in advance not to use your idea, or forget about it. You do not miraculously gain partial ownership of my property by me having caught a glimpse of your idea in some way.

Well, i must hand it to the intern: He has generated almost 350 posts, which is even better than something Savage could do, so even i - a bitter, genocidal troll who is fixated on clearing out the midwest in favor of robot farmers - must give him credit,

But I think I liked the public intern better. At least he had a sense of humor.

Mother was right: Never engage an ideologue. Or was it never get engaged to an ideologue?.

Nah, Catalina - Dan's "Leave It Alone" thread is at 475 right now. It takes a lot to surpass him.

Nah, Catalina - Dan's "Leave It Alone" thread is at 475 right now. It takes a lot to surpass him.

Well 350 would still be a coup in my book UI.

Really, what a great accomplishment.

How's the weather Fifty-Two-Eighty?

@176 porcupine.

rape is not a "dictionary" word.

it is a violent sexual assault. fuck you for your cluelessness.

How's the weather Catalina Vel-DuRay?

Oh crap, here we go again. Come on guys, just a few more to get to 350.

It's cool, cloudy and overcast here in normally sunny So Cal. We're usually in the middle of fire season this time of year.

I love to join a thread when it is played out. Y-a-a-w-w-n. And Catalina @336: your wise mother was right on both counts.

Okay

How's the weather emma's bee?

my work

is done!

Didn't read the whole thing.

But I kinda like this unpaid intern guy.

One thing stands out. You're this uber anarcho-libertarian guy who wants to move to Switzerland? Uh. dude. Switzerland is the land of rules. Midwestern guy like you would go crazy.

I mean they're good rules, usually, but Switzerland is the exact opposite of the mentality for a society you're advocating.

@352

"One thing stands out. You're this uber anarcho-libertarian guy who wants to move to Switzerland? Uh. dude. Switzerland is the land of rules. Midwestern guy like you would go crazy.

"I mean they're good rules, usually, but Switzerland is the exact opposite of the mentality for a society you're advocating."

Anarchists love a particular set of libertarian rules. They love peace, cooperation, law and order. They love justice. In addition to this, there is nothing wrong with rules established by voluntary contractual covenant and we also prefer smaller more decentralized units of social organization. What we object to is tyranny in any form and all states are a form of tyranny. The tyranny we object to ranges from the socialism of Lenin and Stalin to the socialism of Hitler and Mussolini, to the tyranny of social democratic socialism that we suffer under here today. At their root, all of these forms of socialism share the same basic premise: the right of privileged political elite to tax and maintain a monopoly of the application of force within a particular geographic region. This is the unjust state.

But you are right, in some ways, Switzerland may be worse than the US. In other ways it is probably better.

#324:

“Efficiency is not the point. Popularity isn't always the issue either. What government provides that private industry cannot is an accountability that is egalitarian, in principle.”

The perception of accountability in the state is illusory and a fraud – in principle. It blindly transfers coercive powers to a small minority, who are ultimately answerable to their financial backers only, as it is almost always financial backing, above all else, that determines political success. How people can witness this fact in practice in politics their entire adult life without assimilating it in their minds is beyond me. That we can so easily be bamboozled is why propaganda never died, I guess.

“A democratic state is beholden to the poor and the subsistence workers just as much as it is to those who can buy private castles and security guards.”

I can only say: “just wow”. And some say the anarchists have their idealistic heads in the sand. Heh!

“That's what the anti-statists hate about it, I guess, because it provides for these people by cutting into the security guard budget of the wealthy.”

Heh!

“Or the freedom to live in fear of highwaymen, I suppose. Nonetheless, we have managed to create a society in which the wealthy have access to riches and luxuries far beyond the wildest dreams of millennia of feudal lords.”

And you attribute the advances leading to increased production of wealth and affluence to the existence of the democratic state. Of course you do.

“The idea that our society's tax policies stifle the dreams of the innovators and entrepreneurs just seems absurd.”

Regulations, red-tape, taxation and confiscation stifle the dreams of the smaller, less established innovators, yes. There is a reason why established industry is so keen on using the state regulatory system to set their own rules in its industry – it can squash the small and new entrants into the market with overheads, enabling more of a monopoly for itself.

“The wealthy benefit SO MUCH more from the social programs that prevent unrest and create consumers than they ever would from an anarchy in which their private militias were battling the hordes of beggars.”

Anarchists are not interested in rationalizing and bestowing special advantages, privileges or subsidies to the wealthy or any other class. We are interested in justice and the associated private property rights. The economically enlightened among us, simply recognize that where property is respected, maximum economic advancement cannot help but follow.

@290 (since I've been addressed)

You're seriously equating slavery or imprisonment to Unpaid Intern's circumstances? Seriously? I mean....really?

It is incredible - INCREDIBLE - to me that people can look at what this guy originally posted and say that he's into either libertarianism or objectivism. It is so hip to be young and hate on shit without knowing anything about it. The Stranger itself is partly to blame for always shitting on these two ideas without ever bothering to explain why they're unworkable, or that the reason people pay attention to them is that they do posess motes of value (Go ahead and point to any completely workable, universal philosophical system, political or otherwise. Forgive me if I don't wait for you.).

Oh, and being a rude piece of shit on the internet is for children. This dude is polite and most of the commentors are uncouth, ignorant assholes.

Oh DeaconBlues, you DO NOT want to read Dan's SLLOTD "LEAVE IT ALONE"! Don't read it, really, don't go there, just don't, nuh uh.

I also don't read the IA comments anymore. Any polarizing situation on the internet is nearly always a waste of time.

Libertarians. Ew.
They're anarchists that don't know how to share.

Actually, I think libertarians typically fall into one of two categories:

1) People who believe that humanity is fundamentally good. This is why they tend to blame Standard Oil and Thomas Edison on too much regulation instead of too little, and ignore basic truths about humanity when thinking about capitalism. They would rather believe that people are basically good and that when two competing companies offer identical products, they will engage in a price war instead of a war based on fucking the consumers in the most prolific and surreptitious ways possible. They ignore (or are unaware of) a lot of modern psychological research about diffusion of responsibility and what happens to ethics when one is able to place the ethical responsibility for one's decisions onto the shoulders of another group-the stockholders, in this case.

2) Pricks.

@360

Libertarianism (by which I mean market anarchism) is actually fundamentally anti-utopian. People say that if men are angels then we don't need government, but it's really that if men aren't angels then we certainly can't have government. We're all self-interested and greedy about certain things, and that applies to politicians, bureaucrats, etc. The distinction to make is how people satisfy their greed. If they do so by consensual means, that's fine, but if they rely on coercion, as all politicians do, I'd say that's a no-no.

Statism, in almost any form, is utopian in the sense that people are willing to believe that "if we could just get the right people in charge" government would somehow serve their needs. This relies on the idea that the "right" people could/would ever be attracted to politics. I would say that by virtue (or lack there of) of the fact that someone is willing to initiate force against others to accomplish whatever means, they cannot be the "right" kind of person.

Dear Matt-
I agree with you on most all things you wrote about. Seattlites are about the worst at bending over so the state can rape them financially with taxes, taxes and yes, more taxes. Some how, some way they all blindly hand over their money and allow the state to just take and take and take which is surprising for such a progressive city who is outspoken on rights of the people to live any way they choose.

Although some taxing is def needed (like many said before my slog...roads, running water etc etc)- the politicians in this state spend as though today is their last day to financially rape us and then they die. Which is probably why across the board, you don't trust or identify with any party, in any state at any time. Nobody can be trusted. I don't blame you. Rock on young one, rock on.

@359 Actually as someone who happens to be a voluntaryist, when homeless people ask for me to give them money for food, I very often offer to buy and bring them food from the nearest food source.. all while working a part-time job that doesn't even earn me 1000/month. (by choice, for i currently prefer leisure time over making lots of money) So yes with what little I have (relative to many of my peers), I am still willing to share it and all without the threat of force because I have a conscience and care about people.

@360

"People who believe that humanity is fundamentally good"

I do not argue, nor have I encountered any other voluntaryist or anarchist who has argued that humanity is fundamentally good. Such an argument is not consistent with material reality. All my life I have observed and read about some of the most horrific atrocities and the most awe striking acts kindness. Humans are flexible and diverse and have the capacity to do these things and everything in between.

Now, if one argues "humanity is fundamentally evil" then to me that should be even more evidence for why there shouldn't be a government because if thats true... then all you're going to get in the government is evil people because as i said before... government is people (with guns) not a separate race of infinitely virtuous and faltless beings. Also... for anyone who makes this argument... never assert generalizations about the human race for which you are the one exception it just isn't accurate.

So, if we accept reality and admit that humans are capable of both good and evil, again, its still just all the more reason why there shouldn't be a government. For what better place is there for an evil person to go than the largest force known to man (government: the monopoly on force) to enact his ill-intentions on others. This is a place that enables and validates theft and violence (the initiation of force) on a daily basis. War, police brutality, torture, imprisonment, interrogation, and the threats of all these things against anyone who refuses to pay taxes, register for selective service, and fill out census papers, amongst many other things.

"what happens to ethics when one is able to place the ethical responsibility for one's decisions onto the shoulders of another group-the stockholders, in this case."

You just described the way government works. Replace the word "one" with "government" and "the stockholders" with "the taxpayers." You are expressing your fear of what already exists but projecting it onto something else to distract yourself from realizing that this is the fact which is even more frightening.

"Pricks"

Oh ooodles, you got me!

That's weird, I don't recall stating any preference towards government.

Dear Intern and Pauled,
Yes, private industry could maintain the roads we have. But how do new ones get built today? The interstates exist only because the state had the power to get the land necessary to build them. Your view would have let one or a few persons with a chunk of land prevent the road from getting built.

You rightly claim that without the state, private schools and private cabs and the like would arise. Private schools existed long before public schools, and some are very good. What they aren't is universal. Harvard, Yale, Andover, or Choate don't try to educate large numbers of people, and almost no poor or middle-class. Some religious schools try, but they limit the number they take in, too, even when their endowments went up substantially. Public schools exist ONLY because the private ones failed to educate everyone. UI rightfully says that it's not fair that he be judged by where he was born, but similarly, do you really think that getting an education should depend on the accident of one's birth?
The same is true for transportation. Private companies are not necessarily more efficient than government: The New York Subway is government-run because three private companies all went bankrupt. As much as everyone likes to dump on Amtrak, its east coast line makes a profit on the very same route where Penn Central, the B&O, Eastern Airlines, New York Air and Continental Trailways all went bankrupt. Goverment Air Traffic Control exists because privately-run airliners collided over the Grand Canyon, and no private entity was willing to act as traffic cop, or let a rival airline act as such.

Should vaccines be available only to those who can pay? the more people around you who are vaccinated, the safer you are from infection. And who would pay for the CDC to identify new viruses coming in?

Pauled presents the model of the beach-its fate should be left up to the owner and only to the owner, according to him. Don't the creatures that live there get a say? They "owned" the beach before the original owner bought it (from whom)? The environment counts for nothing? Only if you have a supremely incorrect view that humans have no ties to the other lifeforms around them.

UI says that humans are generally humane and generous. Absolutely, but they are generally NOT far-sighted. UI has never seen the smog that covered our highways in the 1960's, now largely gone thanks to government enforcement. (Well, you can go to China and see it). There is little record of private industry being able to, or even desiring to prevent pollution on others' lands. Pauled says that privately owned homes have beautifully maintained lawns, without noting that the chemicals used to maintain them have killed thousands of miles of waterways. The "tragedy of the commons" has been replicated over and over. Read the Jared Diamond book "Collapse" on humans' propensity to short-sightedness to the point of human extinction.

Schools, roads, public health, defense, the environment...wherever society demands that some good or service be available for ALL the population and not just those who can afford it, private industry has failed, and government is necessary. Until you can come up with a demonstration that this can be done privately on a country-wide scale, and indeed, global scale for the case of climate change, please don't be surprised that the "statists" guffaw at your naivete and are repelled by your greed.
"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

And can we get Unpaid Intern and Alemana together for a discussion on rape by the state?

@365

Simply citing failures of the private sector and supposed successes of the public sector, is an incomplete view of all the evidence. Public and private sector are both subject to failure and success because they all consist of people who are not perfect. Now honestly, I won't attempt to account for all the instances of success and failure in both sectors to determine who succeeded more; because even if its true (which I doubt) that somehow goverment has statistically done a better job at things, it still ignores the principle at play here.

Whose venture got off the ground by threatening violence against others and stealing and whose didn't?

I think that any venture that succeeds without the immensely unfair and unjust advantage of government force is the greatest human success imaginable.

Lastly, even if a government controlled service somehow does better, that doesn't make it right. To argue its validity on that point is sickeningly Machiavellian. Success does not justify imprisoning someone who refused to contribute to it and exposing that person to beatings and rape while in prison.

@365

Dear Intern and Pauled,

“Yes, private industry could maintain the roads we have.”

Do you really think so? How or why would private industry fund the maintenance of private roads? Not all socialists can clearly see this.

“But how do new ones get built today? The interstates exist only because the state had the power to get the land necessary to build them. Your view would have let one or a few persons with a chunk of land prevent the road from getting built.”

To be clear here: You are implicitly advocating imminent domain – the process of the state confiscating private property for the greater good of a freeway. Is this right? Do you think our desire for a nice straight freeway or road, trumps your right to keep your property? How about our desire for a nice shopping center. Or a highrise. At what arbitrary point would you assert your right to property over the public’s desire to use your property for something that is convenient for it? Let’s see how deep this socialistic rabbit hole runs.

“You rightly claim that without the state, private schools and private cabs and the like would arise. [Roads too] Private schools [and roads] existed long before public schools [and roads], and some are very good. What they aren't is universal. Harvard, Yale, Andover, or Choate don't try to educate large numbers of people, and almost no poor or middle-class. Some religious schools try, but they limit the number they take in, too, even when their endowments went up substantially. Public schools exist ONLY because the private ones failed to educate everyone.”

And public schools educate everyone, and do it very well, is that what you are telling us? Especially American public schools. Yes? As always, we do two things, we tend to understate the power of the free market to provide what people really value the most on the margin, at any given point in time, with the scarce resources we have. And at the same time, we tend to overlook just how poorly the state provides those same services. If the market provides less of something than the state provides, it is because people are busy directing always scarce resources towards some other venture deemed more important to more people at that given time. For instance, if you bought your son a corolla, instead of a Lamborghini, it may be because you also valued doing other things with the difference. It means you economized in the best way you saw fit, with the resources you personally owned and had at your disposal.

Just because the state could have confiscated enough funding from enough people to provide your son both the Lamborghini and a corolla, and did so, does not mean that it was providing better services. It just meant that in a narrow field of vision, some individual or group of individuals, benefitted more than they otherwise would have. Of course such a diversion of resources to certain privileged individuals always requires someone else is compelled to pay for it. This is a problem.

“UI rightfully says that it's not fair that he be judged by where he was born, but similarly, do you really think that getting an education should depend on the accident of one's birth?
The same is true for transportation. Private companies are not necessarily more efficient than government: The New York Subway is government-run because three private companies all went bankrupt. As much as everyone likes to dump on Amtrak, its east coast line makes a profit on the very same route where Penn Central, the B&O, Eastern Airlines, New York Air and Continental Trailways all went bankrupt. Goverment Air Traffic Control exists because privately-run airliners collided over the Grand Canyon, and no private entity was willing to act as traffic cop, or let a rival airline act as such.

“Should vaccines be available only to those who can pay? the more people around you who are vaccinated, the safer you are from infection. And who would pay for the CDC to identify new viruses coming in?”

Does it ever make you wonder, with all the millions of people making similar arguments, at least in their own minds, if not at the occasional barbeque, that if these same people lived in a free market where charity depended on voluntary giving, if there would not be enough generosity to fund such activities? This love of aggression in the name of the good of mankind, I find disturbing.

“Pauled presents the model of the beach-its fate should be left up to the owner and only to the owner, according to him. Don't the creatures that live there get a say?”

Do the creatures that live there have a say? Certainly. They should speak up at their earliest opportunity. But I think before they do, there will be socialists of all stripes lining up to speak on behalf of the mute creatures, giving a hundred and one reasons and methods of how that property should be used differently.

“They "owned" [scare quotes are appropriate] the beach before the original owner bought it (from whom)? The environment counts for nothing? Only if you have a supremely incorrect view that humans have no ties to the other lifeforms around them.”

These arguments sound so awesome, moral, far-sighted and upstanding, until someone offers to turn them on the subdivision in which the person making them lives. Then we turn all silent-like on the question of what of the poor deer and owl that may otherwise have lived in that long since plowed and developed piece of land, now uninhabitable by those natural “owners”. What we must strive for is a theory of property that can be applied generally, not arbitrarily against some people, and ignored for a superior group of others.

“UI says that humans are generally humane and generous. Absolutely, but they are generally NOT far-sighted. UI has never seen the smog that covered our highways in the 1960's, now largely gone thanks to government enforcement.”

Would it be insane for me to suggest that prior to this noble government enforcement of the smog cleanup, the government was also already the monopolist of that location’s smog policy? It merely had a different policy. The point is, when the state causes or endorses pollution, and monopolizes the courts, and regulations, private individuals cannot effectively take these offenders to court. In a private society, no polluter would have a politically privileged status. He would be subject to local laws like everyone else.

“(Well, you can go to China and see it). There is little record of private industry being able to, or even desiring to prevent pollution on others' lands.”

I guess we use China as an example because it is very close to the libertarian anarchy that our fine young intern is pining for. The Chinese state is not heavily involved in policies that may influence their pollution situation.

“Pauled says that privately owned homes have beautifully maintained lawns, without noting that the chemicals used to maintain them have killed thousands of miles of waterways.”

Really. Well, I suppose this is possible, since it is the state regulatory bodies and state court systems, and state ownership of these waterways that would allow this to happen on an ongoing basis. If private owners of these waterways had access to private courts that recognized private property and infringements against private property, then perhaps it would be too expensive to use these toxins in this way due to private lawsuits. As it stands now, we must vote for people to handle this wisely. How’s that working out for you, by the way?

“The "tragedy of the commons" has been replicated over and over. Read the Jared Diamond book "Collapse" on humans' propensity to short-sightedness to the point of human extinction.”

I guess we should look to the state and its far-sightedness for hope that we will not extinguish ourselves.

“Schools, roads, public health, defense, the environment...wherever society demands that some good or service be available for ALL the population and not just those who can afford it, private industry has failed, and government is necessary.”

Uh huh. Both Bush and Obama have offered to sell you a bridge in your lifetime. From whom did you buy?

“Until you can come up with a demonstration that this can be done privately on a country-wide scale, and indeed, global scale for the case of climate change, please don't be surprised that the "statists" guffaw at your naivete and are repelled by your greed.
"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes”

As long as you believe the state has accomplished the very great things you attribute to it, it will be unnecessary for me to persuade you that the market can do the same. You have your perfectly optimum world already. I’m happy for you.

Amen Matt! And no I'm not joking. I honestly couldn't agree with you more. And considering the vast number of people on this string who just clearly don't have a clue and still think our taxes actually go toward "clean water and paved roads" saddens me. Gosh people are really clueless... Yeah, that's what our public education system (cough: indoctrination centers) have contributed to our society: willing slaves who not only don't understand the system but defend their slave owners. Wow! Well thanks for being a voice for truth. And remember the wise words once said: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Stand strong and keep speaking out. You're not alone.

Guess I gotta split my comments to save space....

Julie in Eugene: "Okay, fine, if they are self-sufficient, good for them. But... then, one of the adults apparently was molesting one of the children.

So, what to do about this if there is no government, police force, etc.?"

Here's a clue:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block16…

Reg: "Ah yes, the blissful ignorance of a 19 year old having read far too much Ayn Rand."

You don't have to be 19 to be rational. Reading Ayn Rand may help a little but it isn't required either.

dontrelle: "Ever tried walking around for an extended period of time in Beijing or Mexico City?"

Since these too are places under governments point to the specific lack of laws that makes breathing an issue there.

Reg: "Furthermore, why are you working unpaid for The Stranger? You should not let these collectivist parasites live off of the fruit of your labor. This goes against the nature of man qua man."

There is an interpretation of economic theory totally contrary to what he is advocating that would make the claim that The Stranger is living off the fruits of his labor - it starts with an "M."

Free Lunch: "Private policing? Doesn't that mean you are paying for violence? I thought that was your primary objection to taxes."

No, it means that you can choose from a variety of security options and if you decide you don't like a private police firm you can choose another one and not worry about a group like the IRS crawling up your ass for not paying for the "greater good."

"I think your real objection to taxes is this: you are selfish."

He's not claim he has a right to what other people earn and produce, so no, he is not selfish - rather he feels that being forced to pay into a monopoly on force is likely to lead to mediocre service. If UPS/FedEx/DHL can literally deliver better service than the post office, or if private telecommunications is more effective and efficient than when government takes control of the system, then I don't see any reason why security cannot be provided the same way.

Objecting to taxes isn't selfish, but saying you have a right to other people's money sure as hell is.

"I'd rather pay just one bill."

You can - just choose what you want and have it arranged as one bill - no different from bundle packages we see with TV/phone/internet companies. But if this really is an issue for you, then why stop there? Why not pay for everything from groceries to clothes to electricity to whatever in a single bill? Is it really that inconvenient or impossible for the market to deal with this kind of "problem?"

Root: "Without regulation you get robber barons working their employees to death, literally, and destroying the country while getting rich."

Study time!

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons…

http://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Sav…

http://mises.org/store/Capitalism-and-th…

http://mises.org/resources/5642/The-Case…

And for some especially necessary reading, consider the fact that most regulations are promoted by businesses themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservati…

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Ripoff-Busines…

That first one is written by a socialist if you can believe that.

At any rate, when it comes to the power and privilege it has over others, the biggest exploiter of people is government.

http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.ht…

"Without the military we get someone else in charge, who will also tax us. Without police we get vigilantes and people without weapons, or who can't draw them fast enough, being dominated by those who are faster or better armed."

Awe jeez, not this shit again....

http://mises.org/daily/1855

http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.ht…

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertaria…

And it's not like government has done a very good job protecting life or liberty over the past century:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.H…

Why the solution to the "warlord" problem is somehow solved by giving others more power over us is beyond me...

"I think he should take his perfectly nice and respectful anti-tax anti-government argument to Somalia or the Congo or any of the many nice places without any working central government for a few years and if he survives he can come back and tell us how wonderful it was."

I think you should travel to those same areas, insist to the local populace that they would live much better if they gave a select group of people authority over everyone else (which is what a government is) and see how long it takes before someone feels the need to blow your head off. Besides...

http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.ht…

It must also be noted - while Somalia is a failed state resulting from a terrible socialist experiment, it has made some pretty big improvements over the past couple decades in the ABSENCE of any government:

http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_p…

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_St…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_…

I'm betting that the continued presence of the transitional government will make things worse.

@368: Never has someone said so little with so many words.

Jesus fucking Christ, you clowns have never fucking heard of the concept of moderation, have you? Humanity and history are not so simple that you can boil everything down to "Capitalism is good" or "Objectivism is bad". Trying to do so is just downright stupid, and responding to the suggestion that certain heads of industry may have treated their employees like assholes with a list of reading material is like slapping your hands over your ears and screaming until your opponent gets bored and wanders off.

He's right - governments do more harm than good, and the bigger the government the more harm they do.

Take Taxation for example - the last thing you want to do in a depression is raise taxes. Why? The more taxes the workers and employers have to pay the less people those employers will be able to employ, thus actually lowering the tax receipts of the government. In the late 1970s Margaret Thatcher here in England actually lowered taxes and that kick-started our economy big time after the recession of the 1970s. Because more people had money left in their pockets from their wages they spent more, thus creating more demand for goods and services, which in turn meant that employers could employ more people because the taxes they had to pay on them were lower and the income was coming in. And within the first year the government's tax receipts had gone UP 20%.

Big government = big f**K up. Simple as.

The functions of the government that you so deplore are, in most cases, invisible until they go away, and when they go away everyone is always immediately desperate to get them back. Your idea is one that you will only be able to maintain if you don't actually see it realized. Hope that you never actually see your idea realized, because you will regret it. Somalia has no functioning government and it is a fucking hellhole. Ditto for the world's other various failed states. They're habitable, but they are neither comfortable nor pleasant nor safe.

Without a functioning government, the peace, prosperity and security that you and me both take for granted cannot exist. Taxes are the price we pay for those things, and though the numeric price may seem high, given the benefits it's the biggest bargain on Earth.

@367:
No, the greatest success in human history is the eradication of smallpox, a disease that killed up to 1/6th of humanity, and was eliminated thanks to a concerted effort by the U.N. World Health Organization, the U.S. Public Health Service, and brave public health workers who crossed battle lines in Somalia to make sure that both sides were vaccinated. I think that dwarfs anything you can come up with that private industry has done.

Education: There wouldn't BE an educated populace without universal public support. In the case of public health, without the threat of state coercion, a few could spread a disease like smallpox and kill millions. If preventing that means that you and I have to pay some (gasp!) taxes, well, boo hoo hoo!
And public education was not a "supposed" success, it was a supreme triumph So was the polio vaccine, the eradication of malaria in the U.S., air pollution abatement, and a whole host of others that private industry did nothing about. As long as you're going to use the most graphic distortions possible for the "unjust" machinations of government public health workers and schoolteachers ("rape while in prison"-give me a break!), you have to take ownership of the most graphic results of your greed: a lifespan of 40 years or less, more than half of babies dying before age 10, millions of women dying in childbirth, over 10% of males dying from human-on-human violence (as archaeologists have found from wounds on pre-government corpses), being eaten by animals (including parasites), and the wholesale destruction of the environment by industry, followed by mass starvation. But maybe, just maybe, you'd be safe in your private castle, so f**k the rest of humanity, right? And you would not have been taxed! Sounds like paradise!

The "principle at play" here is simply that private industry has NEVER done and CAN NEVER do anything for EVERYone in society. There is no profit in doing things for people who cannot or will not pay. Government can and should; it is the only organization that can represent society as a whole.

@368: "eminent" domain.
You'd protect the environment with private courts? Courts that can coerce, i.e. levy fines or imprison you or "shun" you to deprive you of your income? Why would a polluter agree to go to those, when they could continue to make profits by ignoring you? You've just re-introduced coercion, except now it's for-profit coercion.
Private charity had the chance, and did NOT provide schools for every child, did NOT protect the quality of food, did NOT protect the environment, did NOT provide electricity to rural areas, did NOT vaccinate everyone, and did NOT prevent widows and orphans from starving, in the richest countries in the world. More to the point, private industry didn't even try, and consistently denied these problems existed, just like it is doing with climate change and today. Good governments have demonstrably provided all of these things.

When dumbocrats attack.

@375:
I think you need to do a bit of reading on Somalia. Yes, it absolutely sucks...compared to living here, but since "going stateless" their standard of living has increased in every measurable way (life expectancy, access to water, literacy, decrease in infant mortality, etc.). They are much better off than their neighbors who are choked by states. Also, most of the pirates WERE fishermen before the water was polluted by French, U.S. and other European countries because they didn't recognize the legitimacy of Somalia without a state. Actually, Somalis (can you call them that when they don't have a state? How about the sovereign individuals currently occupying the area of land known as Somalia?) do fairly well for themselves when the U.N. isn't going in and fucking up their shit.

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_St…

@376,

"@368: "eminent" domain."

So many misconceptions, so little time and space to address them all.

Q:You'd protect the environment with private courts?

A: Yes. Private courts, private insurance, private protection, and private shunning mechanisms.

Q: Courts that can coerce, i.e. levy fines or imprison you or "shun" you to deprive you of your income?

A: Indeed. Although the latter would be of the last resort, since private courts would be interested firstly in the restitution of their clients as opposed to more general retribution, which is the emphasis of the state. The state, after all, is its own and exclusive client.

Q: Why would a polluter agree to go to those, when they could continue to make profits by ignoring you?

A: Because these courts can coerce him, depending on the contract he has with his own insurance providers, and they can initiate devastating shunning mechanisms, and withdraw insurance, which includes insurance that provides him with protection from aggression.

Q: You've just re-introduced coercion, except now it's for-profit coercion.

A: Heh! Well any statist who’s ever tried to keep up, would realize that defensive coercion was never ruled out in the first place. Only the initiation of coercion (which is otherwise known as aggression) is ruled out. And since states are aggressive by definition, and in practice, states are ruled out.

Also, I presume you are a YES for eminent domain. Well, you’re not alone. As a matter of fact, whenever I hear of a case of someone victimized by it, I try to imagine him as a typical ardent supporter of the concept in principle. That way, he is not even a real victim, and it’s not even a crime, and world seems just that much less unjust. I try to see even police tazings of non-threats in this light.

“Private charity had the chance, and did NOT provide schools for every child, did NOT protect the quality of food, did NOT protect the environment, did NOT provide electricity to rural areas, did NOT vaccinate everyone, and did NOT prevent widows and orphans from starving, in the richest countries in the world.”

I’m in awe of what statists feel the state can take credit for accomplishing, where the market fails. They even feel the state has protected the quality of food (and surely the safety of drugs). I am humbled at the power of state propaganda.

“More to the point, private industry didn't even try, and consistently denied these problems existed, just like it is doing with climate change and today. Good governments have demonstrably provided all of these things.”

“Climate change”: Skill testing question: ever wonder why the title of this phenomenon was changed from “global warming” to “climate change”? LOL! So that we can blame man for it whether the earth continues to warm, or starts to cool. I love these scams, they so reveal mass mentality and how the masses can be led by the nose by the “authorities”. Too funny. Too pathetic.

DeaconBlues: "Never has someone said so little with so many words."

*reflects on Deacon's comment

QED

"Humanity and history are not so simple that you can boil everything down to "Capitalism is good" or "Objectivism is bad"."

Indeed, the world is a bit more subjective than that - rather what we do is see what system is better than the other and draw conclusions from there.

"...and responding to the suggestion that certain heads of industry may have treated their employees like assholes..."

More specifically I was responding to the claim that business treats people worse than government. You should read the quotes I'm responding to first before making assumptions about what I was critiquing.

"...with a list of reading material is like slapping your hands over your ears and screaming until your opponent gets bored and wanders off."

I'm only trying to cure some of the ignorance perpetuated by some of the people here. Besides, choosing NOT to face the facts those works presents fits that description of yours much better. ;D

Now where was I....

N in Seattle: "If there's no government to issue money, how could he possibly be paid?"

What was the name of that shiny material that was used as money for centuries? You know, the stuff that the green pieces of paper we have today were once backed up by? Oh that's right...

http://mises.org/daily/3729

http://www.the-privateer.com/gold1.html

And there are other options too...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa017.html

smade: "In a "free" world, you have to supply your own force and that's a full time job."

"Force" is a little extreme - I think deterrence if anything is a better term for it. But then again, in a free world you can just pay people to go after the criminals - similar to what we do now except this time you're a customer, not a suspect, and the people who are cutting the return on crime actually have an incentive to do their jobs, kind of like what happened in these cases:

http://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/F06F&E4748…

http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.ht…

"Human beings aren't mean and nasty because we have laws and the means of enforcement, we have laws and the means of enforcement because human beings are mean and nasty."

Huh? So if we give a select group of people more power over us this "problem" somehow disappears? I think the origin of laws is a little different - we have laws protecting our rights because we have property and not the other way around:

http://mises.org/daily/3817

"But if you insist on staying on this land that isn't yours, you'll need to abide by our rules. Our house, our rules."

Why not the other way around?

http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.ht…

"Our house, our rules. If you don't want to opt in to the social contract you can't claim the protections guaranteed in it."

Excuse me?

http://jim.com/treason.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer1…

http://www.nolanchart.com/article979.htm…

http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davies…

"We don't owe you any more than you owe us."

So you agree that taxes - and government in general - should be out of the picture since they violate that very principle, correct?

"There is still plenty of space available out in the oceans. I'm sure an ingenious young man such as yourself can scratch out a living there."

Funny you mention that...

http://seasteading.org/

@375 "Without a functioning government, the peace, prosperity and security that you and me both take for granted cannot exist."

Let me get this straight. We need war for peace? We need to steal for security? We need bureaucrats with no show jobs and fatass pensions for prosperity? Really?

What if brutality and oppression (government) is actually bad for peace and justice?

@will2power: You seem to think I'm argruing with you. That's odd.

Unpaid Intern,

I respect your honest grappling with serious issues and your ability to politely engage with critics, but your ideas have not one bit of merit. Your society would rapidly collapse into a Hobbesian nightmare.

Your biggest mistake is thinking that without government, there would be no violence. Government was invented precisely TO REDUCE violence. We give the government sovereign authority to use coercion to prevent anarchy from taking hold. Now, this power is all too often abused, but that doesn't mean that we're still not FAR better off with government than we would be without it.

Your second mistake is in thinking that coercion equals violence. Jail might not be fun, but it's not the same thing as violence. Any philosopher worth anything knows that defining terms is a crucial step. Your definition of violence is way too broad to be at all useful. Furthermore, by your logic, private property should be abolished, as it is only maintained through the coercion of the state. Or, by the violence of property owners against non property owners. Or is it only violence by the government that concerns you?

Have you ever heard the quote, I believe from Edmund Burke, that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." I'm not trying to insult, but asking you to consider if you haven't gone a bit too far with your philosophy because you're in thrall to the idea that it is completely consistent.

I'm genuinely interested in your answers.

Hmm, I think we have two options:

Either the government keeps all the violence in the interest of the people OR the group with the biggest militia get's to rape your ass whenever it wants; as a group with no option for recourse.

Hey! All of a sudden, I feel okay with being fined $52 for non-payment of the gig-harbor bridge toll. It's a minor injustice compared to anarchic lawlessness =D

+Hawkeye

@376

Yes master! Evidence either way is irrelevant at this point. This is the reason why force is always better: so few people ever want to die, so they'll ditch their own argument/principles and do what ever the guy with the gun says just to stay alive. So you win because you have the gun pointed at me and if I act on my disaggreement with you, I am dead and its all over. Since I too prefer to live I guess I'll just have to go on being your part-time slave for your grandiose altruistic quest paved with the blood, sweat, and tears of millions who disagreed with that vision. All the millions of our own neighbors, natives, germans, japanese, koreans, vietnamese, afganis, iraqis, and so many others. Oh well, its the price you pay for civilization and getting the job "done right." "Bliss" for the homeland and hell abroad.

However, as long as I live, I will continue to help others by being both a sharing and productive individual and evincing the success and good feelings it delivers. Then anyone who has at least half a heart and mind will follow my example.

Alright, this is the last time I will talk out of turn, for I fear the blow of your truncheon and the chills of solitary confinement. I won't engage anyone who knowningly and pridefully threatens to hurt me.

Peace out.

DeaconBlues: "You seem to think I'm argruing with you. That's odd."

Was the following comment directed at someone else?

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

I figured since I cite sooo much material in one post - it had to be me you were referring to, sorry if I was wrong.

ML77- before I address some questions you've raised (since unpaid intern and I seem to pretty much agree on everything so far), I'll say that it's good to see someone trying to make an honest assessment of what Matt has said so far. In response to you, I'll throw in my two cents and once Matt (aka "Unpaid Intern") gets back on here you can get his take - though I don't think the core of it will differ much from mine.

"Your biggest mistake is thinking that without government, there would be no violence. Government was invented precisely TO REDUCE violence."

There is certainly debate about how the "state" came to be in the first place, but I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has studied that issue that can make the case for government being the product of a violent population who suddenly decided to solve their problems by creating an institution capable of even greater violence.

Here's a rundown of the theories put forth on the origins of government:

Divine Right Theory: This states that god somehow commands some to rule over many. This may have served as a way of perpetuating monarchy in many instances, but government has arisen independent of whether or not people believe some kind of higher power.

Evolutionary/Extension Theory: Supposes that government evolved as an extension to families which came about by people deciding to extend rule and control beyond just the head of the household.

Contract Theory: States that we somehow signed an agreement to let government rule over us. For some criticism of this see comment #382 where I address the idea of a constitutional "contract."

Conquest Theory: The one advocates most by libertarians (but not all) and by most political scientists that I know of. States that government arose by primarily by force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Oppen…

When you look at the different between the government and the free parts of society it's not hard to see why this theory best fits the bill:

http://www.independent.org/publications/…

"Now, this power is all too often abused, but that doesn't mean that we're still not FAR better off with government than we would be without it."

Actually, it does. For starters, consider those killed by governments...

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.H…

...and also consider the fact that two different government agencies in the U.S. (Customs and DEA) annually seize about as much property as is taken in criminal activity. It must be stressed however that these are based on FBI records, and not every crime gets reported, but also consider that when taxes alone are put into the picture, we see that the IRS ends up taking twice as much property away as criminal theft. I could go on about other agencies (in particular, the FDA) but I think I've made my point.

The other half of the picture is the fact that things don't get worse without government - if anything, they get better.

First off, the warlord/chaos objection - in a nutshell war is expensive and if you have the power to tax people you're more likely to engage in it:

http://mises.org/daily/1855

Next, the question of a private court system:

http://mises.org/daily/1874

And what about Somalia? Wasn't it far more affluent and peaceful with government in place? Not at all:

www.peterleeson.com/Better_off_Stateless…;

http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_p…

http://www.awdalnews.com/wmview.php?ArtI…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/402025…

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/world/…

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b042903.html

Despite the constant meddling by foreign nations, Somalia has IMPROVED since the time it was under a government. But sadly, with the introduction of the transitional government this progress will likely come to a screeching halt unless that government is stopped as well.

"Your second mistake is in thinking that coercion equals violence. Jail might not be fun, but it's not the same thing as violence."

It seems to me that everything in both that criticism and everything in that same paragraph you use to justify it is nothing more than an issue of semantics. In particular, I think I'll let the claim that the state protects property speak against itself in light of what I mentioned above.

Violence and imprisonment all share the same trait of violating a person's individual rights unless it is done in order to prevent further violence (like self-defense for example). But as for government, I think it is necessary to give a sense of what government is and why that should be opposed.

If you find the time, I suggest taking a look at the following:

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/rothbard.p…

I'm not asking you to read the whole thing right this second, but if you do have some spare time on your hands and are in the mood for some (anti)political science, then feel free to skim through it.

But if I wanted to give a few examples of what makes the government different from other sectors of society, consider the following : Yelling "Stop thief!" to a bank robber vs. the IRS. Or accusing Charles Manson of being guilty of murder vs. these guys who presumably got nothing more than a few sleepless nights: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

What's different between the former than the latter in both cases?

And finally...

"Have you ever heard the quote, I believe from Edmund Burke, that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.""

First, the meaning of that quote:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_%27a…

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in an essay which ironically happens to be called "Self-Reliance" was saying that people shouldn't just mindlessly follow everyone else - the opposite of what Matt Lubby is doing.

"I'm not trying to insult, but asking you to consider if you haven't gone a bit too far with your philosophy because you're in thrall to the idea that it is completely consistent."

It is consistent - it states that you may not initiate force against someone else - pure and simple.

Oh, it was directed at you. You just seem to have confused "argument" with "criticism".

Matt,

Well said. You've shown everyone that you have a spine, intellect, and heart. The Seattle democrats are not open minded or take well to dissenting views, and are prone to violence against those they think won't fight back.

“Initiative 1107 is a great example. No got the endorsement because people on our staff think the state needs the tax revenue. Not because they believe candy and soda are evil, just because they think the state needs more money to pay for the mouth-breathers who rape my life with regulations to have nice pensions.”

I need to buy you a drink or two. You channel the anger average americans all over the country from excessive regulations and taxation. I look forward to reading more of what you have to say.

Regards,

Unforgiving Conservative

Matt,

Well said. You've shown everyone that you have a spine, intellect, and heart. The Seattle democrats are not open-minded. They do not take well to dissenting views, and are prone to violent responses against those they think won't fight back.

You wrote, “Initiative 1107 is a great example. No got the endorsement because people on our staff think the state needs the tax revenue. Not because they believe candy and soda are evil, just because they think the state needs more money to pay for the mouth-breathers who rape my life with regulations to have nice pensions.”

I need to buy you a drink or two. You channel the anger from average Americans all over the country drowning from excessive regulations and taxation. I look forward to reading more of what you have to say and write in the future. I am now your fan.

Regards,

Unforgiving Conservative

ML77 @385: We that question government know full well that without government there would be violence, just none anywhere nearly so organized, effective and well funded as the state itself.

First the morality: Folks that call themselves government are wrong to steal from or hurt or oppress their neighbors just like anyone else.

Then re effects: Is the state a reducer of violence? It is unless you examine their actions, not their stated intentions or longstanding popular delusion.

How many people around the world have to suffer or how close does someone being brutalized by an agent of government need to be for you to see what happens all around us daily? The actual actions of "taxation" are the same as theft. What do you call it when someone takes from another with threat of violence? The actual behavior of war is murder, arrest (for non-crimes) is kidnapping, enforcing regulations is oppression, etc., etc., etc. People do not magically become able to morally, ethically steal, murder, kidnap or oppress because you, or 51% of voters, or a piece of paper say so, or call them "government employees" or anything else.

Defining terms? Ol' Matty here's using the term correctly. Coercion that is backed up with violence is effectively the same as violence, just as the man who orders a murder is also guilty. And the definition of coerce is "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.", and force ("use of force") is synonymous with violence.

Private property is accepted and recognized by nearly everyone from the age of 2 or 3 because it's right and true and good, not because a county councilperson says so.

I, and those that share my views, very truly want a more peaceful, just and comfortable world for every single one of our fellow man. I also see the horrible violence and injustice done by people that think it's ok to rule or own others and will spend my life working against it because I think it's the next great leap humanity will take towards real respect for each other.

Have you heard the Ghandi quote "Representatives will become unnecessary if the national life becomes so perfect as to be self-controlled. It will then be a state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler. He will conduct himself in such a way that his behavior will not hamper the well being of his neighbors. In an ideal State there will be no political institution and therefore no political power.”

@392 Right on and well said. To expand on your comment about private property... the reason why its "right and true and good" is that you cannot reasonably deny the existence of it without contradicting yourself. To argue "property rights do not exist" is a rank contradiction because you are making use of your body to express the argument. This is an implicit acceptance of self-ownership. Also by choosing to argue with someone instead of using force, you are implicitly accepting that the person you are trying to convince also owns him or herself because you recognize their ability to choose to agree or disaggree i.e. choose to change his or her behavior.

Even if one makes an argument under threat of violence, it still demonstrates self-ownership for one could choose to die instead of making such a spurious argument. Choice emerges first from within the one who makes that choice. Without that ownership of the self and subsequently the action... there is no responsibility and one could not reasonably argue that those around him or her are more than "rocks bouncing down a hill."

From here it simply follows that we own the results of our actions. That which anyone creates by automatically asserting their self-ownership belongs to him or her. So long as it was not stolen from anyone else.

Thanks for bringing that up.

As for anyone who angrily brings up "well what about other animals." Honestly, beats me. This may be part of the reason why I'm almost vegetarian. Otherwise, I'm just applying a theory for human interaction; for animals seem to lie somewhere between us and "rocks bouncing down a hill." I recognize that certain animals come staggeringly close to us relative to other animals. Oh and also what about "someone in a coma." Well, I am smart enough to recognize that that person is human and that certain circumstances have removed most of their ability to choose and act. So I adjust my own behavior accordingly; i.e. by choosing not to use this person for whatever personal use.

Can anyone else here expound on the animal question? I don't know, perhaps this is getting a bit off topic.

Sweet, stupid naif: fantasies of anarchic self-hatred indicate your glaring anti-social disorder. Look sharp, Somalia! Here comes a real fan of your work!

DeaconBlues: "Oh, it was directed at you. You just seem to have confused "argument" with "criticism"."

So I wasn't mistaken in responding to your criticism - good.

HOT PUSSY: "Sweet, stupid naif: fantasies of anarchic self-hatred indicate your glaring anti-social disorder. Look sharp, Somalia! Here comes a real fan of your work!"

Have I addressed this clearly enough already in the following comment?

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

UI: "I had a nice Trojan horse thing going at first. Every time someone in the office would talk about police brutality or the war on drugs or the anti-war movement, I would emphasize my agreement with them. Every time someone in the office would talk about expanding government or voice anything but contempt for a politician, my earbuds would go in and I would shut up."

Honestly, this sounds like an accurate summary of almost any undercover anarcho-capitalist. ;D

I go through the same exact routine - when I'm around liberals, I mention my opposition to the "PATRIOT" ACT, my support for legalizing pretty much every drug in the book (this issue is what brought me to libertarianism in the first place), opposition to interventionist foreign policy, you get the idea.

When in the presence of conservatives, I focus on other things - my hatred of taxes, my support for gun rights (I especially tend to rant against the now expired "assault" weapons ban), opposition to the minimum wage, etc.

Being a market anarchist in disguise is really just a matter of knowing your audience really.

@393

Q: Can anyone else here expound on the animal question? I don't know, perhaps this is getting a bit off topic.

A: We are definitely going far afield here in the land of thestranger. But in any case, great question. Men have rights because it is in our nature to both verbally offer up, and also request a justification for our own actions, and the actions of others. In making such assertions, we unavoidably assume these rights, as your Hoppean rights analysis nicely explains. The very thing that rational men can do, which demonstrates the undeniability of human rights, is the very thing other non-rational animals cannot do, which therefore implicitly denies that they possess rights. It is not the nature of other animals to provide, or ask for a justification of anything. Because, unlike men, they simply cannot justify, they do not ever assume rights for themselves or others.

Back from Vancouver and it's still going. Very impressive, everyone. A thread that was initially a flame war gradually became, for many people, an honest philosophical exploration. That's awesome. I just hope I get the chance to do this again. Oh, and for everyone who wants to buy me a drink and also for everyone who wants to throw a drink on me, keep your eyes peeled for the next Slog Happy.

@ 385 -- 1. I do think there would be violence without government, unfortunately. The difference is that it would be violence that would not have the cloak of legitimacy and would require real cost-benefit analysis. People would see war and coercion for what they are, not as "legitimate" functions of some imagined state they identify with. They would also have to account directly for the consequences of any violent actions, which is why someone much earlier in the thread suggested most private security and defense organizations would probably find mediation a far better solution than violence.

2. thinkchip already got to this, but it's you who has the definitional problem, I think. Outside of the occasional drunk or homeless person who actually wants to go to jail so they can get a warm place to sleep and a few meals, no one goes to jail voluntarily. Men with guns put you there and men with guns keep you there. I am gobsmacked as to how this is not violence.

I've heard the quote you mention. I've read much of small c-conservative philosophy, like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Russell Kirk. They tend to view ideology as more of a bogeyman than consistency, but then any true ideology should be consistent, I suppose. The point is, I don't agree with it. Consistency in my life makes me feel comfortable.

@266, Catalina, please stop repeating things like "As far as Cincinnati goes, it's in Ohio, which is one of the many inland states that get back more in government services than it it paid in in taxes." It's wrong, as is your comment about the Midwest in general being that way. Washington State gets more money from the federal government than Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, or Michigan do, and Ohio is still in negative-subsidy territory. See this paper for a detailed state-by-state history going back to 1981, or see this for a convenient chart.

Yo Will2Power dude:
be careful not to speak for others #388, you might misspeak.
and remember Twain "if i had had more time i would have written a shorter letter."
so, be breif, to the point and don't try to impress everyone with all you know.
there are lots of smart people on here, be a resource not a burden.
thanks for sharing but try to tone it down.

in any case i have enjoyed the passionate discourse here.
anyway, UI is back let him speak.

This unpaid intern is another example of a healthy young man in his prime who thinks he can go it alone and make it through life unaided. He has forgotten that he was a helpless infant and will become a helpless old man with periods of helplessness in between when life throws its hammer at him from time to time. Human beings have evolved as communal creatures in order to protect each individual during the inevitable fluctuations of each life. Governments are the natural extension of this communal impulse as a method to gather resources from those in their prime and redistribute it to those during one of their helpless phases. The reason for coercive measures is because humans are born ignorant and often fail to understand the need for taxes and laws until they are older and wiser.

Time will make you wiser young intern.