A Rational Choice For November 2nd

[Anonymouse]

Careful man, what your saying in and of itself is proof of your arguement against yourself.

Saying it like it is, is hardly proof against myself.

[XxgoeyxX]

I don't understand why the same arguments are going back and forth so much. You wanna vote, go vote. You don't wanna vote, don't vote. You're upset about the election results, then too bad, just be thankful he can't get another term. You like Bush, then good for you, enjoy it while it lasts.

This was my thought from the beginning. You guys can say all that you want, but neither of you will change your ways. Respect each other and let this go. Its pointless because calling each other names doesnt solve anything. And we are all going to go back to were we started. One wants to vote but the other doesnt. There is no need to go in circles. It doesnt really matter who gives the best argument or who insults the other person better. Either way I (for some of us) are going to agree with both of your ideas. The fact is, stop putting people down for their own beliefs and the reasons why they feel the government is the way it is. NOThing is going to change. Its getting worse by the minute. (Unless you make an effort to change it that is)...and feeling that voting or nothing voting causes a change then good for you.



To some of you Please dont bite my head of because I said this.

[loseyourname]

As far as Jim Crow, this is an exact episode of Statist manipulation. By assuming the idiocy of 'public law' the State was able to turn forced segretation into forced integration. There shouldn't be a forced anything.

Well, what exactly are you referring to here? The forcing of schools to accept black children? Sometimes liberty needs to be forced, even if that is inconsistent with the principle of liberty itself. I don't have a problem with forcing one party to recognize the rights of another party, because as far as I'm concerned, once you take away another's rights, you've given up your own. Now if you're referring to subsequent affirmative action and quota laws, then yeah, I agree that they were coercive as well and should never have been instituted, but that isn't the point. Many of these laws, as well, have since been removed from the books or found unconstitutional. The point is that laws can be repealed under the existing system. We just need people like you and me in there who will actually do it.

I don't think you understand the point I am making. My point is that laws are restrictive, and you cannot have free trade with regulations and non bona fide laws. The laws in question do not apply justly as they are pre emptive in nature and are there to restrict human action from what they might potentially do, not what they have done. That is the difference between a just law and an unjust law.

And tell me, what exactly have I said that contradicts any of this? You're just spelling out over and over again everything that we agree on.

Frederic Bastiat came to the conclusion 156 years ago that law should have as its sole purpose the protection of individuals from physical attack, theft and damage to property, and breach of contract, and nothing else. Anything else is an encroachment on the human individual, and liberty. A well-known Scottish philosopher (whose name escapes me) noted a couple of hundred years ago that democracy could only work until the populace realized they could vote themselves all the benefits they desired out of the public coffers. I think it is safe to say we've reached that point.

Yeah, no kidding. That is exactly the reason that we should have no public coffers. I agree with you completely on that. It is my belief that the only role of government should be to enforce contracts, protect liberty, and provide for the common defense. And more than anything, government should not be able to tax anything outside of transactions with the government.

I don't know what you are intending to prove here, but you are only stating the obvious. However, the reason that is so, is not because of my consent, it is because I have no choice. There are no competing agencies for both jurisprudence, or roads. I see you have fallen prey to the myth that only government can provide roads and private institutions cannot.

Ha, if you think that, I guess you haven't read a great deal of what I've posted in the last year. Let me make it clear again that I think roads and bridges and parks and other such services should be provided through user-fee and investor funding, as was done to perfection by Robert Moses in New York City and on Long Island for the middle part of the 20th century.

If you call yourself a moral absolutist, then how can you not understand consent? When there is no choice and others have made choices for you, and the consequence is force if you do not comply.

What force awaits you if you refuse to attend a state school and accept federal aid? And what about the citizenship? Did you or did you not apply for citizenship?

Of course violence is not going to be a part of the Constitution! Who would be stupid enough to codify a legal document on the premise of violence? We do not look to the violence of governments within legal statutes or constitutions, but we look at history and how they came to be.

Which is why we look to the failings of government as is, not the failings of government itself. If the United States was truly run in full accordance with the constitution (and really, if the consitution had been even more careful to enumerate all limitations, especially on the executive branch), the original constitution, then we would have a much better nation right now.

No government has ever come into existence by "peaceful means" or the mythical "social contract". All governments come into existence via violence, our own country being one of them. And therefore the problem is not the statute or people abusing it, it is the system itself as you noted in the beginning.

I hate to break it to you buddy, but the US government did not come into existence through violence. The British government was removed via violence. The US government came into existence via state-by-state ratification of the peacefully written constitution. That isn't to say that everyone agreed to it, but what did you want the colonials to do? If they didn't approve some form of government, especially one that provided for strong centralized decision-making and defense, they would simply have been reconquered by the British or someone else.

As far as human interaction, we are not animals, but we are subject to irrational behaviors. However, what gives us some hope is reason, and our ability to reason. Animals have no free will, and therefore no choice in the actions they pursue. Human action exists only in two forms: coercive, and voluntary. So far, the only institution consistent with the furthest development of man, is the free-market, liberty and private property.

Man is also subject to power struggles. Unless the entire world simultaneously agreed to lay down all arms and to never again use any form of force, some entity needs to be in existence that will protect the free-market, liberty, and private property. Not to say that government as is is that entity - certainly it could do a great deal better. I don't think it's doing quite a bad as you do, but even if I did, I would still have to concede that some form of governmental body must be in existence to provide for defense and contract-enforcement. Natural incentives to restrain oneself from the use of force just don't exist outside of small groups in which power is relatively equally spread.

The Constitution was one such attempt to impose those limitations. Well what happened? It was essentially nullified. The Constitution says no direct taxes shall be levied, yet we have an income tax and payroll taxes. The Constitution explicitly says that the currency of the United States government shall be gold and silver coin, yet we now have nothing but paper.

Once again, I fully agree with you that the constitution has largely been nullified and that disastrous effects have ensued. But I ask again, what else would you have the colonials do? For a very large period of time, the US required centralized decision-making as well as the help of other nations to remain in existence.

While you did not advocate slavery and genocide, the ramifications of the position you espouse eventually lead to that. If some people are meant to be ruled and have decisions made for them by the State, then their lives, their very self, property and liberty become nothing more than at the disposal of the whims of Statists.

All I was saying was that some decisions need to be made as a group, and when the group is very large, representation is the only way to ensure that a decision will actually be made, and even then, the assurance is not complete, as we've seen time and time again with the ineffectiveness in particular of the California state assembly. When I referred to people who need to have their personal decisions made for them, I was referring to children and retards and criminals and other such people that can't be trusted to make their own decisions without negatively impacting others.

The lack of accountability lies with the fact that people who are elected are not required to meet the promises they made. There is nothing legal that binds them to the promises they made. Everyone must labor for their income. Politics, government employees or any State employees do not have to since their income is extracted coercively, and no matter what they are guaranteed an income.

Yes, exactly, you are speaking my language now. That is exactly why we should privatize all government functions outside of defense and law-enforcement and require that even these functions be provided by agents that are not guaranteed funding unless they achieve results. Now the question is how do we do this? Let's say your ideal situation pans out - no one in the United States votes, except for probably the families of the candidates. One of two things happens now. The candidate registered in the larger state wins, or it goes to the House. One other thing happens. Relative panic ensues in the upper echelons of government everywhere. What exactly do you think would happen next? Every elected official would then quit and hand over power to privatized, competitive sources? I ask you this honestly about what you hope to acheive. If all you're trying to do is avoid participating in a system that you find dishonest, you know what? I can respect you for that. But as long as you keep pretending that, if your idea is universalized, we will instantly usher in a better thing, I'm going to argue. You keep arguing about making the government illegimate, but since when has illegitimacy ever stopped a government?

As far as chaos, yes, only the State can create chaos. It is this "chaos" that you are referring to that is misinterpreted as anarchy. This form of chaos is only something the State can cause. Anarchy simply means 'without a ruler'. Only a government can create "lawlessness" since it is the only entity that can unilaterally change the rules on a whim.

First off, I don't think the US government, at least, changes things "on a whim," unless you are referring to any false premise as a whim, which would be a bad interpretation of the word "whim" if you ask me. The second objection I'll raise here is your definition of the word "chaos," which is not a definition that I've ever seen before and is certanly not a common usage of the term. If all you're going to say is that only government can unilaterally change the rules, sure, I'll take that. If you're going to say that only the government can create chaos, no, I'll not accept that. A man with a homemade bomb that walks into Disneyland can create chaos. Hell, the black hand back in the day caused quite a bit of chaos.

I did answer your question and I said it would not have made a difference.

How? Are you completely blind? When one candidate is voted in that does something harmful to a large group of people, and the other candidate would not have done that harmful thing, you don't think it makes any difference to that group of people?

By the way, a note on Lincoln. He was racist in the modern form of the word. He had no intentions to free the slaves. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure." Secretary of State William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Seward was acknowledging the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion. Simply put, he wanted manpower. And no, the Civil War was not fought for slavery.

So what? I know all of this, and it has nothing to do with the question. All I asked was whether or not it made a difference to the slaves themselves. Regardless of intent, they were freed. Do you honestly think that made no difference to them? And do you honestly think it made no difference to the completely decimated and slaughtered south that the candidate that went to war (when the other would not have) was voted in? How can you even try to say that?

[Anonymouse]

Well, what exactly are you referring to here? The forcing of schools to accept ...system. We just need people like you and me in there who will actually do it.

Forcing liberty negates the idea of liberty, thus your contradiction, then it is no longer liberty, it is force, and tyranny, which only means the absence of liberty. Liberty presupposes the freedom of choice for individuals. Coercion, and in this case, forced integration, is not forcing liberty, it is forcing the hand of tyranny. What if I as an individual do not want to associate with blacks? Since the State monopolized the school system, it will force its dictates on its subjects. The associates of peoples should not be a matter of State or statute law, much less force. How would you like it if some entity forced you to associate with Christian evangelicals? My guess is you would not take kind to that, as you do not wish to associate with them. So then, force is that which coerces someone into accepting something against their will. The everyday associations of people, be it race or not, is and should be left up to individuals, if you want to uphold anything remotely resembling the twilight of liberty.

What force awaits you if you refuse to attend a state school and accept federal aid? And what about the citizenship? Did you or did you not apply for citizenship?

I do not receive nor accept Federal Aid, I am paying for this. As far as citizenship, this question is paradoxical because of the State monopoly on every social orifice of life. Whether it is citizenship, a license, a credit card, you cannot have access to anything, because the State has insured that it should have a monopoly on your being. Social security is the endpoint of this, which relegates you as an individual to nothing more than a number. As far as being a citizen, I was a kid, my parents did for me. As far as the joys of citizenship, what are they? Going to vote and pretending to hold fast to the illusion that the 'people are the government'? Hardly a joy for citizenship. If anything, it is nothing more than a measure by which the State can more regularly control individuals, and perhaps draft them in times of war, as shall most likely happen under the Bush junta.

I hate to break it to you buddy, but the US government did not come into existence through violence. ...one that provided for strong centralized decision-making and defense, they would simply have been reconquered by the British or someone else.

I hate to break it to you buddy but you haven't paid attention in American history class. Your opinion is simply a sanitized version of events. If you want to divide history into neat little segments, be my guest, but the revolt against the British was the process tied into State formation. Even if we accept your argument, the ratification of the States into the Federal was still untrue. The Constitution did not reflect the wishes of the majority of the population much less all. Nevermind that, Rhode Island was a State that did not want to ratify the Constitution, only then to have threats imposed on it in the form of a blockade. And then during the Civil War when the southern States wanted to cecede from this mythical "social contract", what happened? They were subjected to war by the north. As far as stating that "they would have been reconquered by the British", it is simply fancy, and "what ifs" in history do not concern us, for they are not history at all. At this point it is pure conjecture based on ideological bias.

Man is also subject to power struggles. Unless the entire world simultaneously agreed to lay down all arms and to never again use any form of force, some entity needs to be in existence that will protect the free-market, liberty, and private property.

You have once again gone to your old assumption that I am advocating some sort of earthly utopia. I do not, nor have I ever argued for non-violence. I believe in violence only when in self-defense. I have argued on the initiation of force, and aggression as unethical. With that said, I am perhaps the most clear on the absolute nature of man, and the primacy of his being. Belief in the individual, and liberty, are not utopian flirtations of thought, they are grounded in the most basic unit of civilization, private property. Those that do not seem to understand human nature are precisely the ones who advocate for the State, because it is they who believe human nature "can change" or that "it is good".

As far as government is necessary to protect the free market, that is a contradiction in terms. An institution such as the free market that is an open system and premised on expansion cannot be protected by an institution like the government which is a closed system based on restrictions and regulations. This is the basics of political economy, from John Stuart Mill, to Ludwig von Mises. What you are advocating is the Keynesianism, or what is popularly known as the "mixed economy". However, there are problems with this idea. All political systems no matter their ideology, are socialistic, because they are coercive and closed. Some are more socialistic than others, but all are socialistic. All mixed economies tend to tilt toward statism in the long run, and thereby become more socialistic. This sort of system is unstable, and explains why we are exposed to cycles of booms and busts ( and ironically what socialists and leftists point as the "evils" of capitalism because of these depressionary cycles ), and our own mixed economy is tilting towards statism, with more and more regulations. Today, no part of the economy is left untouched by the President's budget and the swarm of regulatory agencies. What once belonged to the market forces, is now relegated to the government. It has become it's job as "the planner" ( remind you of something? The Soviet Union was based on central planning ) to ensure "full employment" (even as federal policies create joblessness). It's "job" is to encourage technological innovation (not through markets, but through subsidies), to ensure a "fair" distribution of wealth (rewarding parasites, laziness, and the inept and punishing the productive), to manage international trade (though it needs no more management than domestic trade); and keep "public goods" out of private hands. That is hardly what I would describe as "protecting the free market".

For a very large period of time, the US required centralized decision-making as well as the help of other nations to remain in existence.

This is untrue. Why is it assumed that the colonials needed "central decision making" for a "large period of time"? Could they not have made decisions themselves? Indeed, they seemed to have made decentralized decisions when revolting against the British, and a successful revolt too. Why did they all of a sudden need centralized decision making? This doesn't show the 'great need' of how they needed it, as much as it is simply designed to justify it, but only after the fact.

All I was saying was that some decisions need to be made as a group, and when the group ... When I referred to people who need to have their personal decisions made for them, I was referring to children and retards and criminals and other such people that can't be trusted to make their own decisions without negatively impacting others.

You do not seem to understand my position. I have never said group decisions should not exist. We make group decisions every time, every day. The emphasis is on collectives versus individuals. If people want to get together to make decisions as a group, they are free to do so, provided it is voluntary, just like individuals are free to make decisions themselves. What collective thinking advocates is the subordination of individuals to the collective mob. In other words, collective decisions are forced, as in the case of democracy, or fascism, or socialism ( since all political systems are socialistic, thereby coercive ). You'll find that Statists or Socialists all want to force their opinions on everyone else; they want to force "group decisions". "Social justice" or 'income distribution" or any other socialistic statist canard is apriori accepted. It is not left to individuals to decide whether they want to decide with the group or by themselves.

As far as your argument that children, or retards, or criminals need to have decisions made for them, that is still not a legitimate reason to use State coercion to run their lives, but in the process run our lives as well. It is simple, children have families and parents. Have we all forgotten about family in our shaping? How children behave should be left up their families not government. It seems people are all too eager to have the State replace the role of parent and teacher, and be the all encompassing omnipotent earthly Godhead. As far as your insistence on retards such as my avatar for the State to exist, again falls short. How does a State that is organized coercively necessary to make decisions for retards? Most of the time, retards have private, whether familial or otherwise, caretakers, based on voluntary terms, not coercive. Again the argument for the 'great need' of government falls short. As far as criminals, why does the State need to make decisions for criminals? This thinking is incorrect. The State, by being the biggest criminal cannot uphold moral laws. It organizes wholesale murder on a scale unseen, it steals when it pleases, and it is above the law. This institution cannot be a just arbiter of the law. Because it has a monopoly on law and jurisprudence, it cannot uphold it. A better idea is to privatize even law, according to the premise of private property. You should also see my thread in the Intellectual Lounge int he Austrian Economic Thought thread about law, bona fide law, and statute law.

Yes, exactly, you are speaking my language now. That is exactly why we should privatize all government functions outside of defense and law-enforcement.....that you find dishonest, you know what? I can respect you for that. But as long as you keep pretending that, if your idea is universalized, we will instantly usher in a better thing, I'm going to argue. You keep arguing about making the government illegimate, but since when has illegitimacy ever stopped a government?

You know Adam, such a big theoretical blueprint has no space here. I would love to get into this with you elsewhere. At this point I can only refer to Hans-Hermann Hoppe who has dont more for the idea of private or natural order, than any other. With that said, circumstances force people to ideas. Nothing happens over time. The Austrian tradition speaks of correct ideas, and incorrect ideas, and it is up to us which we follow. More often than not people follow incorrect ideas. The great liberal tradition that began has all but waned and been replaced with the idea of collective thinking and Statism. Ideas endure when they become institutionalized or when they find expression in concrete policies and education. The complexities of our world also give insight into this. As the situation of America gets worse. As government regulation and State power increases, and as the cracks in the system begin to leak and become evident, people automatically begin to turn to the opposite ideas, which is liberty. All States contain the seeds of their own demise. As chaos theory goes, in a world of complexity the hierarchical systems try to place "order" in a world of chaos. This may succeed at first, but as time goes on and since most systems move toward chaos, too many complexities variables arise for the centrally organized system to control. It is with time and education and the spreading of ideas, that some ideas endure over otherse and succeed.

First off, I don't think the US government, at least, changes things "on a whim," unless you are referring to any false premise as a whim, which would be a bad ...If you're going to say that only the government can create chaos, no, I'll not accept that. A man with a homemade bomb that walks into Disneyland can create chaos. Hell, the black hand back in the day caused quite a bit of chaos.

By chaos I only meant the state of "lawlessness" that people often confuse with what we mean by "anarchy" which means, without a ruler. In that sense only the State can create that, as it can change the whims of the game, like the U.S. has done in Iraq. Alot of people were eager to point out to me how "Iraq" is evidence that "anarchy can't work". Of course, this may seem comforting, but primitive in its effrontery. Iraq is an example of what we mean by State induced chaos, and disorder. That is precisely the example of the State changing the rules unilaterally as it pleases. Individuals cannot do that.

How? Are you completely blind? When one candidate is voted in that does something harmful to a large group of people, and the other candidate would not have done that harmful thing, you don't think it makes any difference to that group of people?... And do you honestly think it made no difference to the completely decimated and slaughtered south that the candidate that went to war (when the other would not have) was voted in? How can you even try to say that?

As far as slaves, your argument that because the "government representative" known as the "president" freed slaves, that it shows voting makes a difference, is similar to your earlier argument of Jim Crow. In each case, it was the government that first imposed such unethical standards to begin with. First of all this further ignores that Lincoln never ran as an "abolitionist" because he was not. There was no way for voters to know that he was going to "free the slaves". Second of all, have you ever heard of the underground railroad? Non government entities were already succeeding in the freeing of slaves, which never gets notice. It is all too often the "noble cause" of "honest Abe" that we are force fed to remember, and how the State "Freed" the slaves. There was a whole network of liberation that existed before Lincoln and after him. What about the abolitionists in New England who wanted to secede from the south because the latter favored slavery? These are rarely mentioned.

[loseyourname]

Forcing liberty negates the idea of liberty, thus your contradiction, then it is no longer liberty, it is force, and tyranny, which only means the absence of liberty. Liberty presupposes the freedom of choice for individuals. Coercion, and in this case, forced integration, is not forcing liberty, it is forcing the hand of tyranny. What if I as an individual do not want to associate with blacks?

This issue is a lot more complex than people being forced to accept other people. What this was about was people being forced to open up services that did not belong to them exclusively to other people. If the school is a private school, then it is up to its administrators to decide who will be allowed to attend and who will not. But when the schools belong to the taxpayers of the US, including blacks in the south, then those people have a right to attend. If this right is being taken away, then those who have taken it away must be forced to grant it. Now this entire problem can be avoided through localizing and privatizing the entire school system, but simply saying that ignores the fact that there was a problem in existence at that point in time that could be only be solved through the use of force.

I do not receive nor accept Federal Aid, I am paying for this.

I hate to break it to you, but when you go to UCLA, the bulk of the school's expenses are paid by the taxpayers, not by you. You refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the state, but you seem to have no problem accepting this one handout. I know I'm getting nitpicky, but I'm just arguing that if you're going to live your life according to a certain principle, then do so consistently.

As far as the joys of citizenship, what are they? Going to vote and pretending to hold fast to the illusion that the 'people are the government'?

How about the aforementioned right to attend a state school and not pay international student tuition rates? Surely that one is working out for you.

Even if we accept your argument, the ratification of the States into the Federal was still untrue. The Constitution did not reflect the wishes of the majority of the population much less all. Nevermind that, Rhode Island was a State that did not want to ratify the Constitution, only then to have threats imposed on it in the form of a blockade.

I don't see how there is any way to know whether the Constitution reflected the wishes of the majority of the population, unless you have access to reliable polls conducted back in the day. What we do know is that is was ratified by a majority of representatives that were selected by the people, and in this case the people actually knew who these representatives were for the most part, unlike what we see today.

As far as stating that "they would have been reconquered by the British", it is simply fancy, and "what ifs" in history do not concern us, for they are not history at all. At this point it is pure conjecture based on ideological bias.

Ideological bias? I'm biased only by my knowledge of the fact that this particular period in time was dominated by powerful nations conquering less powerful nations, and also by the knowledge that the American continent was very desirable to any European nation with a maritime fleet due to its abundance of resources and land, as well as favorable soil conditions and weather. We all know very well what happened to this continents first inhabitants, who did not have collective strength or defense. It is interesting to note that the one tribal nation that did - the Iroquois nation - was the nation with the most political clout and bargaining power of any, a nation that might still be in existence today if not for its feuds with the southern tribes.

You have once again gone to your old assumption that I am advocating some sort of earthly utopia. I do not, nor have I ever argued for non-violence. I believe in violence only when in self-defense. I have argued on the initiation of force, and aggression as unethical. With that said, I am perhaps the most clear on the absolute nature of man, and the primacy of his being. Belief in the individual, and liberty, are not utopian flirtations of thought, they are grounded in the most basic unit of civilization, private property.

I have? I just asked you honestly what you think would happen if everyone decided to stay home on the next election day. I told you exactly what I think would happen. The candidate's families and campaign staffs would the only people voting, and whoever lived in the larger state would win. There would be panic in the corridors of Washington as whoever was elected realized he had absolutely no mandate to rule. Now do you think that, because of this, government would cease to exist? Would all office-holders quit? Would the American people suddenly refuse to be governed (an event that would result in war)? No, none of this would happen. I think the smarter way is to gradually decrease the size of government, continue to educate people on what makes this nation truly great (the free market), privatize certain government services until people realize that private entities do a better job and then allow for more privatization, and work from there. I ask you honestly what you think is the better way, and what you think low voter turnout can accomplish, because I can't see it accomplishing anything.

As far as government is necessary to protect the free market, that is a contradiction in terms. An institution such as the free market that is an open system and premised on expansion cannot be protected by an institution like the government which is a closed system based on restrictions and regulations. This is the basics of political economy, from John Stuart Mill, to Ludwig von Mises. What you are advocating is the Keynesianism, or what is popularly known as the "mixed economy".

Ha. I think you're reading a little too into what I wrote. I just said that some entity needs to exist that can defend liberty and the free market. I didn't say that some government needs to regulate or close anything. I'm just speaking of common defense. I don't think small bands of private security rent-a-cops would do a whole lot of good. I would, however, like to see the military eventually become privatized to a certain extent in that I would like to see them earn their pay, largely through investment and the selling of military technology for civilian uses. I would also like to see them used only for defense. Of course, some amount of regulatory work needs to be conducted just to make sure that transactions within the market don't violate contract and are not conducted fraudulently. That's all, though.

This is untrue. Why is it assumed that the colonials needed "central decision making" for a "large period of time"? Could they not have made decisions themselves? Indeed, they seemed to have made decentralized decisions when revolting against the British, and a successful revolt too. Why did they all of a sudden need centralized decision making? This doesn't show the 'great need' of how they needed it, as much as it is simply designed to justify it, but only after the fact.

They didn't need it on the battlefield because they were united by a common goal. Once the war was over, however, we saw that states again had disparate interests and had a great deal of difficulty attaining recognition and negotiating with foreign nations. They needed centralized decision-making only because that was the only way they would every be legitimate in the eyes of the European world. This isn't to say that they couldn't have survived without it.

You do not seem to understand my position. I have never said group decisions should not exist. We make group decisions every time, every day. The emphasis is on collectives versus individuals. If people want to get together to make decisions as a group, they are free to do so, provided it is voluntary, just like individuals are free to make decisions themselves.

You're going to run into some problems when the decisions of the group conflict with one of its individuals, though. Let's say that a small town needs to decide where to build a road. They get together in town hall to discuss the issue until they determine a placement that will best serve the interests of town businesses and funnel traffic in the most efficient way possible. One resident, however, thinks that the road will be too close to her backyard and is afraid that her dog, who often jumps over the fence, may escape and be run over. She doesn't want the road to be built there, but a majority of the town has decided that it should be. What would you have the town do in that situation? I'd have them build it anyway.

As far as your argument that children, or retards, or criminals need to have decisions made for them, that is still not a legitimate reason to use State coercion to run their lives, but in the process run our lives as well.

I didn't say anything about state coercion. I just said that some individuals need to have decisions made for them, not by them. I said nothing about who should be making these decisions, nor anything regarding decisions made by the rest of us.

Ideas endure when they become institutionalized or when they find expression in concrete policies and education. As government regulation and State power increases, and as the cracks in the system begin to leak and become evident, people automatically begin to turn to the opposite ideas, which is liberty. It is with time and education and the spreading of ideas, that some ideas endure over otherse and succeed.

I'd like to end here, but I will make further comments below. I'd just like you to especially notice this little section of what you've said, because it highlights very well the areas of agreement and disagreement between us. You seem to think that the only way for the cause of liberty to gain steam is for the cause of its antithesis to fail. I think it's safe to say that history has born out the argument against this hypothesis. Socialistic policies have been failing for centuries, yet they endure, and I believe they will continue to endure as long as no one has ever been presented with an alternative, in spite of the havoc that they wreak. I continue to believe, and will continue to believe, that the best way to advance the cause of liberty is to sow its seeds in every venue where it is possible to do so, including those venues that do their best to suppress it, including our bloated government. I believe that it is only when the size of government is greatly reduced, when markets are gradually opened, and when personal liberty is gradually attained, and those who have argued against it can see that these small steps have actually worked, that we can then break through. It isn't going to happen by a refusal to participate. Victory cannot be won from the sidelines. You may see a contradiction in collective action being used to advance the cause of individual liberty, and you may even be correct, but I'm not concerned so much with the consistency of ends and means so much as I am with the attainment of the ends themselves.

As far as slaves, your argument that because the "government representative" known as the "president" freed slaves, that it shows voting makes a difference, is similar to your earlier argument of Jim Crow. In each case, it was the government that first imposed such unethical standards to begin with. First of all this further ignores that Lincoln never ran as an "abolitionist" because he was not. There was no way for voters to know that he was going to "free the slaves". Second of all, have you ever heard of the underground railroad?

You're continuing to ignore the fact that the slaves freed do not care why or how. It is a fact that men were freed under Lincoln who would not have seen freedom in their lifetime had his opponent been elected. It is also a fact that hundreds of thousands of southerners lost their lives and their livelihoods under Lincoln, and would not have under his opponent. I ask only if you think his election made a difference to these people. You may continue to argue that a system of election by majority vote is an unworkable system that never leads to real change over a historical timescale, but it is an extreme view to say that no vote can ever make any difference to anyone. Furthermore, it is an incorrect view.

I can tell you personally that the enactment of Prop 13 made a huge difference to my family. They are among the people who would have been forced to move had property taxes not been capped. You might argue that taxation itself should never take place to begin with, but that is beside the point. Had we all done as you advocated and not voted, Prop 13 would never have been passed, and I would likely not have grown up in such a quiet and quaint suburban neighborhood. If you honestly think all government are equal and no amount of legislation or regime change can ever make any difference, then ante up. Move to North Korea and tell me there is no difference.

[Anonymouse]

This issue is a lot more complex than people being forced to accept other people..... was a problem in existence at that point in time that could be only be solved through the use of force.

The problem with your argument is that you are assuming this from the perspective of "public policy", better defined as "public illusions". Of course, that is the point I made. Because of the illusion of "public property", forced integration cannot be avoided, it is the logical endpoint of it. However, forcing people to integrate is not, for it is an ethical issue. That was my point. And I believe I was clear in my post that it was the government that created this situation in the first place with the idea of "public goods" and it is the government that reverse it again using coercion by forcing integration. There is no disagreement here about privatizing, because who we as individuals associate with is our choice. Currently whites are not allowed the same privelages as minorities, although here in California whites are already a minority.

I hate to break it to you, but when you go to UCLA, the bulk of the school's expenses are paid by the taxpayers, not by you. You refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the state, but you seem to have no problem accepting this one handout. I know I'm getting nitpicky, but I'm just arguing that if you're going to live your life according to a certain principle, then do so consistently.

Whether the school was paid publically or privately has no bearing on me, for I am not attending for free. I am still paying for its services. I paid taxes. My parents pay taxes. I am not getting a government handout. It was a matter of convenience. If you think that by always resorting to this ad hominem that I go to a State school that I am contradicting myself, I beg to differ. Any endeavor one goes into, has in some way the tentacles of the State reaching in it. Whether it is to get your CPA, marriage or even law, the State makes sure of it. So to try to use this as an example is fallacious.

How about the aforementioned right to attend a state school and not pay international student tuition rates? Surely that one is working out for you.

Is that the only benefit of citizenship you can offer? This makes no sense, and is, again another ad hominem since you cannot contend against the principle you nitpick here. Whether one needs citizenship to attend UCLA has no bearing, since one needs the same to attend USC. I dont see any "illegal aliens" attending USC, and the international students you so boldly speak of themselves have to show some proof that they belong to another state's citizenship. And the reason for international student rates is precisely because of the same government regulations you are referring to, namely requiring the public illusion of citizenship on its "public domain".

I don't see how there is any way to know whether the Constitution reflected the wishes of the majority of the population, unless you have access to reliable polls conducted back in the day. What we do know is that is was ratified by a majority of representatives that were selected by the people, and in this case the people actually knew who these representatives were for the most part, unlike what we see today.

The representatives were not selected by "the people". Again you are assuming things. "The people" is nothing more than an abstract holistic entity, which only means that it is not true, because we cannot factor in the decisions and views of many more individuals who outweight "the people" who decided to ratify the Constitution. Remember also that only the aristocratic white males had the privelages of voting here, so that would hardly reflect "the people". And the fact that Rhode Island wanted to abstain, just because a majority of "the people" ratified it, does not make the coercion on Rhode Island any more reasonable. You are just proving my point that the State's very existence is premised on this idea of aggression, for without aggression it cannot exist.

Ideological bias? I'm biased only by my knowledge of the fact that this particular period in time was dominated by powerful nations conquering less powerful nations, and also by the knowledge that the American ...the most political clout and bargaining power of any, a nation that might still be in existence today if not for its feuds with the southern tribes.

We can sit here and pontificate all we want, but that doesn't change anything. That because at that point history was dominated by "powerful nations", doesn't prove anything. You citing the examples of the Iroquois becoming a united entity ( indeed the only Indians to do that and inflict damage on the whites ), is then faced with the fact that a decentralized and localized people, as the colonies were, were able to ward off and defeat a centralized imperial power. That because even now the world is dominated by nation-states, does not mean anything. Look at Iraq for example. The power vacuum that the United States created by its "shock and awe" campaign of removing a central power ( Saddam's Ba'ath regime ), is now greeted with highly complex decentralized forces that are in no way manageable and cannot be pinpointed or taken out. I think, what we need to do when we look use hindsight in history, is not to blur it, or sanitize it, or cherry pick certain facts that help us out and ignore others that might disprove our point. That is what nationalist-statist history is.

I have? I just asked you honestly what you think would ....realize that private entities do a better job and then allow for more privatization, and work from there. I ask you honestly what you think is the better way, and what you think low voter turnout can accomplish, because I can't see it accomplishing anything.

As far as what would happen, it's anyones guess. But what I do know is that the government would not rule, since they would have no mandate to rule. And if you think the government would use force to make their rule possible, that is impossible as history shows. You can never force an unwilling people to be ruled, as is the case in Iraq for example. Even then the individuals will outnumbers the State representatives, employees and armies. Look at how many State officials it took to quell the L.A. riots back in 1992. Low voter turnout would only accomplish the simple point of people going back to running their own lives, as opposed to a State coercing them into running their lives.

Ha. I think you're reading a little too into what I wrote. I just said that some entity needs to exist that can defend liberty and the free market... amount of regulatory work needs to be conducted just to make sure that transactions within the market don't violate contract and are not conducted fraudulently. That's all, though.

The free market doesn't need "protection". It exists outside of the confines of any closed system. If you state you fear some others trying to monopolize, then have no fear, for the precise antithesis of monopoly is grounded in monopoly itself. The Soviet Union was the biggest monopoly and it reaped its own seeds of destruction. If the government or some other entity tries to "hamper" on the free market, it only means its creating a bigger bubble to burst, and whatever doesn't is relegated to the black market ( which only exists because the government makes it exist by regulations ). And yes you are right, military can and should be privatized and localized. Even the States had their own militias in the colonial era. You see, the problem with that is the idea that only the government can provide military and defense and that only came to exist when nationalism as a political ideology gained strength and mercenaries were replaced. Then you no longer had voluntary private or local militias or armies, you had conscripted and compulsary armies, which is why we are able to draft.

They didn't need it on the battlefield because they were united by a common goal. Once the war was over, however, we saw that states again had disparate interests and had a great deal of difficulty attaining recognition and negotiating with foreign nations. They needed centralized decision-making only because that was the only way they would every be legitimate in the eyes of the European world. This isn't to say that they couldn't have survived without it.

Again, we run into the problem of "they" because what is "they"? This is assuming that every State was thinking alike, even individuals. What's wrong with states and their own interests? The reason you have provided is conjecture at best. Again, we can sit and ponitificate all we want, it won't solve much.

You're going to run into some problems when the decisions of the group conflict with one of its individuals, though. Let's say that a small town needs to decide where to build a road. They get together in town hall to discuss the ... the road to be built there, but a majority of the town has decided that it should be. What would you have the town do in that situation? I'd have them build it anyway.

This goes into the problem of "eminent domain", which again is coercive. Now, first of all your hypothetical dilemma needs proper defined property. If the group decision of a few individuals conflicts with the property rights of one individual, it is again unethical to force him or compel him to agree to your terms. Simply, this is the illusion of "public goods" and "public choice theory". Now, as far as your argument of "efficiency", since we have established that the government is a monopoly there is no cost calculation into the cost/benefit of its endeavors. Thus there is no real way to place value on its "goods and services" thereby there is no real way of determining if it is efficient. Compared to free markets, government is unjust and inefficient. For some really awesome discussions about private roads, that I myself like, and if you have the time are:

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Internal.pdf

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=202

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=936

I didn't say anything about state coercion. I just said that some individuals need to have decisions made for them, not by them. I said nothing about who should be making these decisions, nor anything regarding decisions made by the rest of us.

Yes, some individuals need to have decisions made for them. No question. I did not disagree. Where we disagree is whether or not it should be coercive or voluntary. And as far as children, that is a bad example as they are not adults and have not developed the independence and self-reliance that is necessary to let them roam into the real world. But children eventually grow up and leave the house, and we as individuals need to grow up and leave the government.

I'd like to end here, but I will make further comments below. I'd just like you to especially notice this little section of what you've said, because it highlights very well the areas of agreement and disagreement between us....the cause of individual liberty, and you may even be correct, but I'm not concerned so much with the consistency of ends and means so much as I am with the attainment of the ends themselves.

Well, whether it is a gradual or radical approach, matters not. I do not care for the approach, I care about it's success. I think we can agree there, because quite frankly, collective mass mindedness in the form of Statism, has caused too much destruction on the lives of individuals in the 20th century, and the alternative is liberty, not tyranny.

You're continuing to ignore the fact that the slaves freed do not care why or how. It is a fact that men were freed under Lincoln who would not have seen freedom in their lifetime had his opponent been elected. It is also a fact that hundreds of thousands of southerners lost their lives and their livelihoods under Lincoln, and would not have under his opponent. I ask only if you think his election made a difference to these people. You may continue to argue that a system of election by majority vote is an unworkable system that never leads to real change over a historical timescale, but it is an extreme view to say that no vote can ever make any difference to anyone. Furthermore, it is an incorrect view.

I am not ignoring it. Nor have I denied that what the government did was not good. Indeed, the government can do some rare good things, as this is one of them. Sure. Who said it can't? I never did. This leads me to that rather humorous question of "What about all the good things Hitler did?". Can a murderer do a good thing? Sure he can. Does it still make him somehow not be a murderer? No it doesn't. And because the government can on some rare occasions do something good, does that make it any less evil? No it doesn't. I only laid question on how we view history through hindsight. And through this all things will be plausible, and how we ignore the non government ventures into the cause of liberty, and begin to believe the canard that only through government can we attain liberty, again what I would call a symptom of the Stockholm syndrome.

I can tell you personally that the enactment of Prop 13 made a huge difference to ...regime change can ever make any difference, then ante up. Move to North Korea and tell me there is no difference.

When people resort to the "love it or leave it plan", I often wonder why they vote, and how they would react when placed on the ivory tower of power. I don't believe in voting, because it is coercive. To me it does not make a difference. If you believe it does, that is entirely your choice. I argue to remove the root of the tree, which is the idea of taxation itself, so then petty voting like this would not be necessary. However, I am lenient on localized voting, such as these, as it "hits home" so to speak. Yet because I am more lenient on local representatives, that doesn't mean I myself will vote. And no, I will not move to North Korea for the following reason. America is still running on the fading flame of capitalism and liberty. And when that flame extinguishes, it won't matter where one moves, assuming if they are allowed to move to begin with.

[nunechka]

shat shat enk khosum es hartsi masin, bayts apsos menak mi kani hokie iskakanits mi ban en anum.

Khosaleh heshta, bayts votkie helneleh yev iskakanits popoghutyun arachnortele urish ban e. anony du, menak pilisopayutyun es anum, boghokum es, yev ko lutsumnereh logicaki dem en. Menk bolors el karogh enk bogokel, bayt inchpes misht boghokelov yev pilisopayutyunov voch mek artyunki chi hasel.

es hartse petk e verj tal.

[loseyourname]

Because of the illusion of "public property", forced integration cannot be avoided, it is the logical endpoint of it. However, forcing people to integrate is not, for it is an ethical issue. That was my point.

I have no disagreement with you on forced integration. I am simply defending the actions of the feds and national guard because the blacks in the south paid taxes just as the whites did and had just as much right to the public school system. There are extenuating circumstances in some cases that you just seem to write off too easily. Sometimes aggression is necessary to ensure that an innocent person's or people's rights are not being taken away.

Whether the school was paid publically or privately has no bearing on me, for I am not attending for free. I am still paying for its services. I paid taxes. My parents pay taxes. I am not getting a government handout. It was a matter of convenience. If you think that by always resorting to this ad hominem that I go to a State school that I am contradicting myself, I beg to differ. Any endeavor one goes into, has in some way the tentacles of the State reaching in it. Whether it is to get your CPA, marriage or even law, the State makes sure of it. So to try to use this as an example is fallacious.

Relax, there's no ad hominem here. I'm not attacking you. I go to a state school as well. I'm just saying that you do reap some of the benefits of the state system. Unless your family is in the top tax bracket, I can guarantee you that most of your education is being paid for by other people. You willingly chose this - the state did not force you. You could have gone to a private school, not received any federal or state aid, and you would have entirely paid your own way.

Is that the only benefit of citizenship you can offer? This makes no sense, and is, again another ad hominem since you cannot contend against the principle you nitpick here. Whether one needs citizenship to attend UCLA has no bearing, since one needs the same to attend USC.

It's a benefit, isn't it? You're paying a good deal less as a citizen than you would have as a non-citizen. In fact, you are entitled to a good deal of services paid for mostly by the wealthy citizens of this nation. Are you at an advantage compared to a non-state system with no concept of citizenship? I don't know for certain, but I think we both agree that you are not. But as you are so fond of saying, we can sit here and pontificate all we want. As it is, I'm speaking of reality as it currently stands.

Remember also that only the aristocratic white males had the privelages of voting here, so that would hardly reflect "the people".

That's a good point. I really hadn't considered that.

And the fact that Rhode Island wanted to abstain, just because a majority of "the people" ratified it, does not make the coercion on Rhode Island any more reasonable. You are just proving my point that the State's very existence is premised on this idea of aggression, for without aggression it cannot exist.

I've never argued that point. No system of control is likely to exist very long without aggression. I've only argued that aggression can be in the best interest of the people (in this case, all of the people) in certain cases.

We can sit here and pontificate all we want, but that doesn't change anything. That because at that point history was dominated by "powerful nations", doesn't prove anything. You citing the examples of the Iroquois becoming a united entity ( indeed the only Indians to do that and inflict damage on the whites ), is then faced with the fact that a decentralized and localized people, as the colonies were, were able to ward off and defeat a centralized imperial power.

Let's not forget that their military was under central control and that they also received a good deal of assistance from France. I don't think it was so much that they had no seat of power that helped them; it was that they had no stationary seat of power. They had men who were in charge, but they had no single geographic location where they assembled and centralized their affairs. I really think that's the major reason the British lost. They were able to take most of the major cities without significantly affecting the colonial chain of command. But anyway, we're straying pretty far off here if we go into this much detail about military strategy. We'll just have to disagree on this issue. I think the colonials were safer and had more international leverage after the way with a strong federal government. You either don't think that's the case, or you think it's irrelevant. Either way, it's a matter of opinion, because, as you point out, history will never tell us what would have happened had the situation been different.

As far as what would happen, it's anyones guess. But what I do know is that the government would not rule, since they would have no mandate to rule. And if you think the government would use force to make their rule possible, that is impossible as history shows.

See, this is where I just don't see much of an effect taking place. The government would have no mandate to rule, but what would they do? They wouldn't just leave office, and I can't see a popular uprising to force them out of office. Taxes would not stop being collected, and even if they were, infrastructure and basic services would go to hell, plus government debts would all be defaulted on, something that the nation's creditors would not be particularly happy with. You can't just end the public system with one fell swoop. No one would know what to do. Investor confidence would tailspin, farmers that currently rely on subsidies would go broke and our food supply would crash, prisons would go out of business and hundreds of thousands of criminals would be free to wreak havoc on a nation suddenly with no police force. You can't just do this all at once with no plan.

The free market doesn't need "protection". It exists outside of the confines of any closed system. If you state you fear some others trying to monopolize, then have no fear, for the precise antithesis of monopoly is grounded in monopoly itself.

That's not what I'm talking about. I mean that the free market, and everything else, for that matter, needs defense from attack and from fraud.

This goes into the problem of "eminent domain", which again is coercive.

Actually, I'm not talking about eminent domain. This land the road would be built on was not owned by anyone. I'm just positing a situation where all but one townsperson agrees to how the land should be used. What do you do in such a situation?

Now, first of all your hypothetical dilemma needs proper defined property. If the group decision of a few individuals conflicts with the property rights of one individual, it is again unethical to force him or compel him to agree to your terms.

But how is private property defined at all? Is it simply owned by the person that got there first? Is it owned when one person has built on it, or worked or developed the land? Is it owned because you paid money to a nation that simply claimed ownership based on a papal bull issued 500 years ago?

ome individuals need to have decisions made for them. No question. I did not disagree. Where we disagree is whether or not it should be coercive or voluntary.

If you can agree that some people need decisions made for them, then shouldn't you agree that this needs to be done, even if the individuals in question don't like it? I'm really only referring to people who are mentally incompetent and criminals. I highly doubt that Ted Bundy or John Dillinger or the like would ever voluntarily go to prison.

Wether it is a gradual or radical approach, matters not. I do not care for the approach, I care about it's success.

So do you not care about the success of the approach? Unless you can provide some form of argument that attempts to show that a radical, sudden approach would work, why should I give up my ideas of a gradual change? I can still see nothing but a greater form of chaos resulting from the sudden dissolving of state structures.

I am not ignoring it. Nor have I denied that what the government did was not good. Indeed, the government can do some rare good things, as this is one of them.

This isn't about the government doing good things. Bad things can also be brought about by a vote, as in the case of the destruction of the south. Had Lincoln not been voted in, hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of dollars of damage could have been avoided, temporarily at least.

When people resort to the "love it or leave it plan", I often wonder why they vote, and how they would react when placed on the ivory tower of power. I don't believe in voting, because it is coercive. To me it does not make a difference. If you believe it does, that is entirely your choice. I argue to remove the root of the tree, which is the idea of taxation itself, so then petty voting like this would not be necessary. However, I am lenient on localized voting, such as these, as it "hits home" so to speak. Yet because I am more lenient on local representatives, that doesn't mean I myself will vote. And no, I will not move to North Korea for the following reason. America is still running on the fading flame of capitalism and liberty. And when that flame extinguishes, it won't matter where one moves, assuming if they are allowed to move to begin with.

I just hope you're willing to admit that some forms of government are superior to others. The American form is superior to the Soviet form, or the Korean form. This isn't a love it or leave it statement. The argument runs like this:

If you really thought there was no difference between different state systems, then it would make no difference where you lived.
If it made no difference where you lived, you would gladly move to North Korea.
You won't move to North Korea.
Therefore, you must think that there is a difference.

The logic is impeccable, and the argument can easily be proven valid through a hypothetical syllogism and modus tollens. You even seem willing to admit that the liberties afforded you in this nation are greater than what you would be afforded in other nations, and that has something to do with why you live here. Now look, I want change as much as the next person does. I think I have made that clear. I'd prefer to be in a position to criticize the US and its government and to suggest those changes, but oftentimes I'm instead put in the position of defending the US against those who would have us believe that it is the bane of existence. It is not.

As far as the Prop 13 example goes, I'm again just trying to illustrate that a vote can make a difference. I would also prefer to remove the tax system entirely. But you know what? Complete abolition of all taxation wasn't on the ballot that year, and a zero voter turnout on that ballot would only have resulted in the continuation of the previous structure.

[jilbagh]

it's 6 days past nov. 2nd

[loseyourname]

It's not like that's the last vote we'll ever have.