Regarding the feasability of life without a state

[Universe Prince]

Likewise, Wal-Mart does not have thugs forcing you to shop at Wal-Mart. You are free to choose where you shop. And Wal-Mart does not force smaller stores out of business. It competes in the marketplace by offering lower prices. No one who does not like Wal-Mart is forced to shop there.

Who would prevent them from adopting such a model if we adopted your non-state?

Oh gee, I guess nothing at all. Not a single person would stand up to them. Everyone would just meekly let Wal-Mart abuse them. Yes, I was being sarcastic again. I honestly do not understand this bit where people equate anarchy with people never defending themselves in any fashion. It is as if you just assume that without government people would all be left powerless in the face of corporations, which must be invading aliens from Planet X and not actually organizations of human people. What stops Wal-Mart now from forcing people to shop at Wal-Mart? Oh duh, the police. What stops Wal-Mart from partnering with the government to pass a law stating that all people must shop at Wal-Mart? Nothing really. Whatever laws we might have to stand in the way could be rewritten. And I'm sure we could find some asinine "for the good of the people" campaign to push it through. Tell me, how could you stop it? Here's a further question, what stopped the government of England from abusing the rights of the people of the English colonies in the New World? People did. Who would prevent Wal-Mart from adopting a policy of forcing people into Wal-Mart stores? The people. Duh. Whether it's people standing up to Wal-Mart thugs or privately contracted militia groups, or an insurance company's police force, some people would seek and find a way.

Contrary to how you're trying to paint this, neither Rothbard nor I have said that an anarchist society is going to be free of people trying to do bad things. This proposal is far, far from a utopia, and so far in this discussion the only people trying to claim otherwise are people objecting to it. There are many proposals out there concerning how to handle security issues in an anarchist society. If you want to discuss one of them, I'll see what I can find and start a new thread. But let's not bog this particular discussion down in ridiculous notions that somehow no one would have a way to stand up to corporations in a stateless society.

More to the point you illustrate examples of overt coercion. What about collusion? Monopolistic practices? If Target and Wal-Mart agree to divide up certain regions and force other companies (Kohl's, Penney's, etc) out then your choices are limited without the "gun to the head" model you've provided.

You mean it would be as bad as the taxation we face now? Maybe. But just exactly how are Wal-Mart and Target going to force other companies out? Kohl's and Sears and the other stores are just going to roll over and die because Wal-Mart and Target make some sort of agreement? Collusion and monopolistic practices I expect other companies to fight.

But it's funny to me that you're asking what about monopolistic practices. Monopolistic practices by the government is exactly what Rothbard is complaining about. Why are monopolistic practices okay for government but not for anyone else?

Of course collusion and price-fixing agreements have taken place in business. For example there was a price fixing scandal among chemical companies that produced vitamin E.

And they got caught. And right now, governments have fixed the price you and I pay for police protection. And you and I cannot do one damn thing about it. If you don't like a particular police practice, say, SWAT teams being used to serve warrants or to arrest people on suspicion of possessing marijuana, you don't get to find someone else to pay. You're locked into a monopoly and you cannot choose not to pay them. If you should try not to pay them, they will come to get you. So tell me, how do you stop that?

Somehow throwing insurance companies in to replace elected city councilmen doesn't make me feel better UP. I think I could trust Bt to make honest decisions on my behalf and give me a straight answer or two when things don't go as planned. Can I trust an insurance company headquartered elsewhere with operators in India to make decisions and give me answers about my local police company? You honestly expect me to buy into that?

Well, I don't know about your insurance company. Many insurance companies, like State Farm, have local representatives. So would you trust BT to make honest decisions and give you straight answers as a local representative of government but not as a local representative of an insurance company? But the point of bringing up the possibility of insurance companies was to illustrate that there is more than one possible way to handle the situation.

And you fail to answer the question.

Who makes them stand down if they don't want to?

No, I did answer the question. You seem to be assuming that there will only be one private company for people choose. I'm suggesting there will be more than one company, and that a person will be able to hire, in one fashion or another, a second company to handle possible abuses.

Suppose the non-state hires Southern Defences LLC. to guard our border with Nutzonia. What prevents them from striking a hell of deal with Nutzonia that allows the Nutzonian military to walk right in and conquer our little utopic non-state?

Um, the answer to this seems extremely obvious to me. The answer being the other private companies. Southern Defences LLC will be in competition with Western Security, Armadillo Police Services, Damn Yankee Security, Two Gun Sam Enterprises, Washington's Army Inc., Liberty for All Services, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And of course, there will be those general citizens who have chosen to own assault rifles and other weaponry (for there will be no government telling them they can't own such things). That may not prevent Southern Defences LLC from making such a deal, but it will certainly help prevent the Nutzonian military from conquering our decidedly non-utopic non-state.

It isn't as if we have an elected assembly with even a token notion that the will of the people oppose such a move. Southern Defences LLC might become the new Nutzonian Imperial Guard or they might just want to take the non-state for themselves. Are we supposed to believe an insurance company is going to prevent that?

An insurance company, or several insurance companies if they have security forces or have contracted with security companies, yes. Even if, say, All for One Insurance has a contract with Souther Defences LLC, AOI can decide it doesn't want to do business with Southern Defences LLC, drop them and take up business with another company.

Where money in the past got its value. From precious metals. For example, the Liberty Dollar.

A pipe dream that does not reside in the economic reality of the 21st century. I don't mean that to be offensive, but the days of the gold standard and Bretton Woods are over. With the exception of a few ivory tower Austrian school folks and an occasional monetarist or two (why are they still around?) the idea of backing currency with gold (or another suitable metal) is just not a realistic notion. It is a bit like the Laffer Curve...only at least the gold standard did once exist and actually worked at one time.

You say all this, but you fail to provide a single reason why backing currency with a metal is not a realistic notion. It certainly seemed to have worked just fine. And without it we have now never ending inflation as the government just prints more and more money without any need to back it up with anything substantial at all.

The author presumes there are only two legitimate views of the situation when there are quite clearly more.

I don't recall that he said that at all. What are the other legitimate views in the context of his comments and this discussion?

No. I'm saying that intellectually he offers a poor argument. Quite clearly there were two gigantic philosophical treatises on this issue (there were more, but two that stick out to most western people today) and those are the versions of Natural Law given by Locke and Hobbes. Instead of taking Hobbes on and acknowledging that the counterpoint to his view is quite clearly Hobbes and Leviathon he decided to say: "I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge."

So you're saying the basis for the charge "that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society" comes from Hobbes? Where did Hobbes get it? Rothbard did not say he did not understand the historical existance of of the charge. He said he did not understand where it comes from because neither he nor any other anarchist he knew of held that position. Regardless of whether Hobbes said it first, last or merely most promenently, Rothbard answers the charge directly without a long, drawn out philosophical discussion.

My point UP is that his choice to do that here is academically weak. If anarchism is such a sure bet and clearly it is in this author's view, then take Hobbes on. You're accusing me of making a judgement. I'm not, I'm simply calling the author out for basically being an intellectual coward.

I'm sure Rothbard could honestly be called many things, but I am fairly certain that intellectual coward is not among them. Why should Rothbard spend a lot of time and space discussing Hobbes when the point of the article was not Hobbes or Hobbesian ideas? What you call academically weak here seems more like pertinency to me.

As for your last question, no. I think most people have the potential for good, but often refer to indifference. I think people have the ability to be devestatingly cruel and evil as well. If you'd like to discuss the Holocaust, the Dirty War, the murder of priests and nuns in El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, the Second Congolese Civil War, the Armenian Genocide, the Yugoslav Wars, the Rape of Nanking, the slave trade, the diamond trade (want to base your money on those?) and other ways humans can be evil to their fellow man, then let's do it. By all means, blame it all (or even most of it) on state institutions, but I bet I can provide some damn chilling examples of it having nothing to do with governments.

I would be interested in seeing you provide examples of the Holocaust having nothing to do with government. But if your point is that people not in government still do bad things, no one is denying that. And of course, that non-government people do bad things does nothing to mitigate the bad things done by governments. How ever bad the Mafia or drug lords might be, it does not excuse criminal behavior on the part of the state. Wouldn't you agree, even if you disagree on what constitutes that criminal behavior?

So "[t]he anarchist view holds that, given the 'nature of man,' given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society."

From where do anarchists derive their views on the "nature of man?"

From wherever the frak they feel like.

[Religious Dick]

Likewise, Wal-Mart does not have thugs forcing you to shop at Wal-Mart. You are free to choose where you shop. And Wal-Mart does not force smaller stores out of business. It competes in the marketplace by offering lower prices. No one who does not like Wal-Mart is forced to shop there.

Who would prevent them from adopting such a model if we adopted your non-state?

Oh gee, I guess nothing at all. Not a single person would stand up to them. Everyone would just meekly let Wal-Mart abuse them.

Sorry Prince, but I gotta agree with him.

After all, if this prick had it his way, and I think he will eventually, what stops him from forcing you into his Universal Health Care Plan? Sure, maybe you can refuse treatment, but let's see what happens when you refuse to pay for services you don't need or want.

And when it comes, that's exactly what will happen. Maybe a few cranks will resist. Other than that, yep, most everyone will pony up when they file their 1040's, whether they want the service their getting or not. Even if they grumble a little.

And my fellow libertarians wonder how I can be anti-immigration. Maybe it's because I know that when you let enough of these clowns who think you owe them something just for getting born on the same planet into the country, you can kiss any possibility of a libertarian society goodbye.

Even Rothbard understood that, even if Reason magazine doesn't.

[Universe Prince]

what stops him from forcing you into his Universal Health Care Plan? Sure, maybe you can refuse treatment, but let's see what happens when you refuse to pay for services you don't need or want.

Hence the argument against government.

And when it comes, that's exactly what will happen. Maybe a few cranks will resist. Other than that, yep, most everyone will pony up when they file their 1040's, whether they want the service their getting or not. Even if they grumble a little.

Perhaps. I think Wal-Mart forcing people to shop at its stores would result in a different reaction from people. Yes, I know that we have gradually marched toward socialist policy, but there are people who are trying to resist that motion, and I think it is possible that progress can be made against it, even though that too will likely come gradually.

And my fellow libertarians wonder how I can be anti-immigration. Maybe it's because I know that when you let enough of these clowns who think you owe them something just for getting born on the same planet into the country, you can kiss any possibility of a libertarian society goodbye.

I understand the objection, I just think you're blaming the wrong people. It's ridiculous to offer handouts to the public and then be offended when people you don't know want some too. People trying to get by via less effort on their part is a natural tendency in humans. And to say but we can't stop the handouts so we have to stop the strangers is exactly that tendency in action. It is easier to try to stop the symptom than it is to try to stop the source of the problem. If everyone who said they believed the problem was the handouts would stop trying to punish the immigrants and move that effort and outrage to the problem, then maybe we might see some progress. But most of them won't. And so we're left with the ugly issue of trying to stop immigration. Or just to make immigration really hard, if you prefer.

Even Rothbard understood that, even if Reason magazine doesn't.

My problem with the objection to immigration on private property grounds, as I believe Rothbard objected, is that if you're going to argue that immigration from nation to nation should be restricted to invitation only, then don't you also have to argue that immigration from state to state within the country also should be restricted to invitation only? Seems to me you would, but I never see any American libertarian making that argument. Most them would no doubt object. If you don't believe me, look at their objections to a national I.D. card. (Just for the record, I don't like the idea of a national I.D. card either.) It's okay to stop those people, but don't get in my way, apparently.

People travel everyday all over this country. I live in South Carolina, and I can drive down to Atlanta, Georgia if I so please, and no one will stop me at the border to check my papers or to make sure I'm just visiting. If I were to buy a house in, say, Wyoming, I could do so with little worry that the state government would try to stop me. And I could move myself and belongs to that house in Wyoming with little to no concern about being prevented from entering Wyoming. Is this a great wrong in our country? Should we start limiting immigration from state to state? What about from city to city? Shall we have checkpoints on all roads to make sure no one is violating this supposedly private property based objection to immigration? No, I think we should not. I think that would be an abridgment of basic liberty and result in a massive growth of both size and power of government.

By that same measure, I believe people from Mexico or wherever should have very little to stand in their way of coming to America to find work or trade. The more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen. So on this issue, I have to disagree with you and Rothbard.

And due to the nature of this thread, I feel I should point out that an anarchist society would not have a central government to oppose immigration to the nation. In that situation, then there would be private property issues involved in immigration because pretty much all land would be privately owned. But even then, I think one would be hard pressed to make a libertarian argument that someone from Mexico should be barred from freely trading with someone in America for work or for property. He might have to travel on private land to get there, but are you then going to argue that he should be any more hindered in that than you would expect to be?

There is one more thing I want to add. The notion that we ought to stop people from coming to America because of what they think ("when you let enough of these clowns who think you owe them something just for getting born on the same planet into the country") is something with which I am extremely uncomfortable. I don't want this country to get into that kind of gatekeeper/thought police mentality. That is a frightening path, and I would rather not go there, thank you very much. I know you probably did not mean your comment in that way, but I am bothered by the apparent emphasis many people seem to put on keeping immigrants out because of the political/societal philosophies of the immigrants. It seems a short step from there to another version of "yellow peril" nonsense.

[Plane]

http://www.mises.org/story/2429


I have been to arbitration or Mediation on three important occaions widely seaprated and diffret in nature.

The first time seemed to go well and seemed to be heading twards a middle ground , but the opposite side was not satisfied and we went to court and my side lost.

The second time I was in a mediation setting everything went well except for one point , and the opposite side decided to go to
court and won that point.

The thrd arbitration I was going to never got of the ground , the witnesss for both sides showed up but the Arbiter did not, seems that it was the opposite side that was responsible for telling him to come and they didn't get around to it.


Does arbitration depend on both sides being good sports?

[Religious Dick]

I understand the objection, I just think you're blaming the wrong people. It's ridiculous to offer handouts to the public and then be offended when people you don't know want some too.

We must be reading different forums. The problem isn't that we just have people showing up at the picnic for the free beer, they're also demanding the turkey dinner be made available for their consumption as well. Even the Reasonistas were (finally) forced to concede the point.

People trying to get by via less effort on their part is a natural tendency in humans. And to say but we can't stop the handouts so we have to stop the strangers is exactly that tendency in action. It is easier to try to stop the symptom than it is to try to stop the source of the problem. If everyone who said they believed the problem was the handouts would stop trying to punish the immigrants and move that effort and outrage to the problem, then maybe we might see some progress. But most of them won't. And so we're left with the ugly issue of trying to stop immigration. Or just to make immigration really hard, if you prefer.

Here's the part you need to explain - how do you propose to stop the handouts while importing a population that supports handouts? You sound as if you think a nation's political system is extraneous to it's population's values and culture. Politics doesn't occur in a vacuum. You can quote me all the fine-sounding theories of liberty you like. But as a matter of practical politics, you're proposing two mutually exclusive goals.

In any event, explain what's so "ugly" about controlling or managing immigration?

My problem with the objection to immigration on private property grounds, as I believe Rothbard objected, is that if you're going to argue that immigration from nation to nation should be restricted to invitation only, then don't you also have to argue that immigration from state to state within the country also should be restricted to invitation only? Seems to me you would, but I never see any American libertarian making that argument.  Most them would no doubt object. If you don't believe me, look at their objections to a national I.D. card. (Just for the record, I don't like the idea of a national I.D. card either.) It's okay to stop those people, but don't get in my way, apparently.

People travel everyday all over this country. I live in South Carolina, and I can drive down to Atlanta, Georgia if I so please, and no one will stop me at the border to check my papers or to make sure I'm just visiting. If I were to buy a house in, say, Wyoming, I could do so with little worry that the state government would try to stop me. And I could move myself and belongs to that house in Wyoming with little to no concern about being prevented from entering Wyoming. Is this a great wrong in our country? Should we start limiting immigration from state to state? What about from city to city? Shall we have checkpoints on all roads to make sure no one is violating this supposedly private property based objection to immigration?

Probably because it's a disingenuous argument. You might as well be arguing that because I have an obligation to support my wife and children, I also have an obligation to support your wife and children. All wives and children are equal, aren't they?

They may very well be, but my relationship to them is different. I owe obligations to my family, my religion and my community I don't owe to your family, your religion and your community. Likewise, the relationship between the states is different than the relationship between the United States and other countries.

Your analogy works only if you ignore that different relationships have different moral priorities. The relationship between the states is spelled out in the Constitution. No such relationship exists between the states and any foreign country. The governments of the states owe the citizens of the United States obligations they don't owe to citizens of other countries.

No, I think we should not. I think that would be an abridgment of basic liberty and result in a massive growth of both size and power of government.

Why? When and where has there ever been any such right to go wherever you want, whenever you want been recognized? And why is a sovereign nation's right to exclude non-citizens from it's territory any less legitimate than a private property owner's right to exclude non-owners?

By that same measure, I believe people from Mexico or wherever should have very little to stand in their way of coming to America to find work or trade. The more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen. So on this issue, I have to disagree with you and Rothbard.

Even most libertarians will concede the first and foremost duty of government is defending the shores and the borders. If the government isn't even going to do that, then there's not much point in having a government at all. Which might be all very well, but...

And due to the nature of this thread, I feel I should point out that an anarchist society would not have a central government to oppose immigration to the nation.

It isn't the central government that's opposing immigration. The central government is permitting it over the wishes of the states and the citizenry. If the federal government abdicated it's role in controlling the borders to the states, and the people, per the 10th amendment, I suspect the Texas National Guard would be a lot more efficient about putting boots to butts than the INS has been.

You're damn right there wouldn't be a central government controlling immigration in an anarchist society. If the anarchists felt strongly enough about it, I suspect they'd be chasing the aspiring immigrants off at the ends of pitchforks and burning torches, no government required.

In that situation, then there would be private property issues involved in immigration because pretty much all land would be privately owned. But even then, I think one would be hard pressed to make a libertarian argument that someone from Mexico should be barred from freely trading with someone in America for work or for property. He might have to travel on private land to get there, but are you then going to argue that he should be any more hindered in that than you would expect to be?

All very well. Except that is not the situation that exists.

There is one more thing I want to add. The notion that we ought to stop people from coming to America because of what they think ("when you let enough of these clowns who think you owe them something just for getting born on the same planet into the country") is something with which I am extremely uncomfortable. I don't want this country to get into that kind of gatekeeper/thought police mentality. That is a frightening path, and I would rather not go there, thank you very much. I know you probably did not mean your comment in that way, but I am bothered by the apparent emphasis many people seem to put on keeping immigrants out because of the political/societal philosophies of the immigrants. It seems a short step from there to another version of "yellow peril" nonsense.

Let me ask you this - would you be equally uncomfortable about excluding a population that you knew to be largely composed of communists, white supremacists, or Nazis or just plain violent criminals if they were immigrating here in sufficient numbers to skew your political system?

[Plane]

Could a change twards open borders be unilateral?


Could the citzens of the less prosperous nation cross the border to harvest the better earning condiions then return past a hard border to winter in a socilist environment?

This would see to be a sort of diode , or conveyor belt that would drain the more fair system in favor of the less fair .

[Universe Prince]

We must be reading different forums. The problem isn't that we just have people showing up at the picnic for the free beer, they're also demanding the turkey dinner be made available for their consumption as well.

Yes, I understand that. So what? That does not change my basic argument.

Here's the part you need to explain - how do you propose to stop the handouts while importing a population that supports handouts? You sound as if you think a nation's political system is extraneous to it's population's values and culture. Politics doesn't occur in a vacuum. You can quote me all the fine-sounding theories of liberty you like. But as a matter of practical politics, you're proposing two mutually exclusive goals.

For one thing, I'm not talking about importing anybody. I'm talking about getting out of the way of people coming to trade their labor and time, or coming to trade their goods, or maybe just simply looking for another place to live. I did not say we should send out buses and bring people in. I just want to stop unfairly and needlessly getting in people's way. What I propose regarding immigration is not fundamentally different than what I propose be done about ordinary domestic policy. Just leave people alone unless someone's or some group's rights as individuals are being or have been violated. My rights are not abridged by Mexicans coming to America to look for work just as my rights are not abridged by New Yorkers looking for work in South Carolina. So I see no reason to interfere with the Mexicans much more than the New Yorkers. I certainly see no reason to perpetuate a situation wherein people find facing death in the desert an option preferrable to wading through the insane amount of red tape that hinders the legal immigration process.

For another thing, I do not see anything mutually exclusive about fighting socialist policy and getting out of people's way, regarding immigration or anything else. The essence of socialist policies is to get in people's way as a means of controlling and supposedly protecting society. What are the arguments against open immigration? That we need to get in people's way so that we can control and protect our own society. I am of the opinion that the only way to protect society is to stop trying to control it. We cannot stand against the authoritarianism of socialism by being authoritarian as well, because we will be what we are fighting against. The answer to socialism is not closed borders but liberty.

In any event, explain what's so "ugly" about controlling or managing immigration?

For starters, as I said before, the more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen. That in itself is bad enough. But along with that come the arguments that opposing immigration is necessary to protect ourselves, that those immigrants are bad because they are not like the ones who came before or because they are lazy or they steal jobs or they take money out of the country or, if we go far enough down, that they are simply not like us and so therefore our very way of life is at stake. All those arguments have been made for as long as the U.S. has existed as a country. And we keep trying to both ignore the benefits of liberty and deny them to others in the name of protecting our country from those who would come here and supposedly ruin it for all of us. Nothing about that is not ugly. And I haven't even mentioned how ugly our immigration law must be to make the ugliness of death in the desert seem more attractive by comparison.

My problem with the objection to immigration on private property grounds, as I believe Rothbard objected, is that if you're going to argue that immigration from nation to nation should be restricted to invitation only, then don't you also have to argue that immigration from state to state within the country also should be restricted to invitation only? Seems to me you would, but I never see any American libertarian making that argument.

Probably because it's a disingenuous argument. You might as well be arguing that because I have an obligation to support my wife and children, I also have an obligation to support your wife and children. All wives and children are equal, aren't they?

They may very well be, but my relationship to them is different. I owe obligations to my family, my religion and my community I don't owe to your family, your religion and your community. Likewise, the relationship between the states is different than the relationship between the United States and other countries.

Your analogy works only if you ignore that different relationships have different moral priorities. The relationship between the states is spelled out in the Constitution. No such relationship exists between the states and any foreign country. The governments of the states owe the citizens of the United States obligations they don't owe to citizens of other countries.

Um, no. What I am saying is not remotely close to arguing that because you have an obligation to support your wife and children, you also have an obligation to support someone else's wife and children. I'm saying that if we're going to argue that a government should treat its territory as private property, then how can would you hold only the national government to that standard? You speak of relationships between people being different. Yes, they are, because choose to make them so. And the relationship between our nation and another nation is what it is because those who we choose for our leaders have chosen to make it so. And they can choose for it to change, as they did when they passed NAFTA. Also, I am not talking about supporting other nations. I'm talking about getting out of the way of individuals. There is a difference between actively doing something for someone else, supporting them, and merely not placing hindrance in someone else's way.

When and where has there ever been any such right to go wherever you want, whenever you want been recognized?

I am surprised that you would ask. You've been so busy defending the situation of relatively free travel within the U.S. that you have apparently forgotten what you were talking about. But let's be clear here. I did not say anything about people having a right to go wherever they want whenever they want. In fact, I would say people do not have that right. I would say, however, that people have a general right to trade with whom they choose. Which means that a Mexican has the same right to trade his labor for money that an American does. A Mexican has the same right to exchange his money for land and/or buildings that an American has. An employer has a right to choose for himself which prospective employee would be the best investment for the employer. In general terms this might be called freedom of association. A freedom that, for the most part, we have here in America. It is a liberty our government has no more business (which is to say, none at all) abridging than the freedom of religion or the right of peaceable assembly.

I'm not suggesting that people be allowed to go anywhere they please whenever they please. I'm not saying you or anyone else should be forced to house or hire or employ or feed immigrants.  All I'm suggesting is that the government ought to get out of the way.

And why is a sovereign nation's right to exclude non-citizens from it's territory any less legitimate than a private property owner's right to exclude non-owners?

First of all, we have not established that a nation has such a right. But more directly to your question, a nation is not private property. The government does not own the nation. So I question the validity of the comparison of the government to a citizen owner of private property.

Even most libertarians will concede the first and foremost duty of government is defending the shores and the borders. If the government isn't even going to do that, then there's not much point in having a government at all.

Some libertarians will concede that. But there is a difference between defending the shores and borders of the country, and building a fence of metal and laws to keep people out. A fairly significant difference I should say. Defending in this case means, or at least implies, protection from an attacking and/or invading force. The immigrants coming to work here are neither attacking nor invading. They're called immigrants because they're immigrating.

It isn't the central government that's opposing immigration. The central government is permitting it over the wishes of the states and the citizenry.

The wishes of some, perhaps, but not all.

You're damn right there wouldn't be a central government controlling immigration in an anarchist society. If the anarchists felt strongly enough about it, I suspect they'd be chasing the aspiring immigrants off at the ends of pitchforks and burning torches, no government required.

And as long as that ended at the property line of the anarchists, there would be little wrong with that.

Let me ask you this - would you be equally uncomfortable about excluding a population that you knew to be largely composed of communists, white supremacists, or Nazis or just plain violent criminals if they were immigrating here in sufficient numbers to skew your political system?

Communists, yes I would be. Nazis, probably less so, but you're not going to see me chasing the Aryan Nation with pitchforks and torches any time soon. Violent criminals are another matter. That involves more than discrimination against a person for having a different political philosophy. Violent crime involves action that violates the rights of individuals. Holding a belief in communism does not violate someone else's rights. But here again, I think you're focusing on a symptom rather than the problem. That people in mass numbers can influence the political progress of a democratic republic is inherent in the very nature of having a government with a democratic structure. It seems quite the opposite of democratic ideals to say that other people who might not vote the way we like should be kept out of the country. Some would argue this is an illustration of one of the flaws of democracy. In any case, it is as I said before, the answer to socialism is not closed borders but liberty.

[Universe Prince]

Could the citzens of the less prosperous nation cross the border to harvest the better earning condiions then return past a hard border to winter in a socilist environment?

This would see to be a sort of diode , or conveyor belt that would drain the more fair system in favor of the less fair .

But while they work here, they provide labor, which produces goods and services. You're assuming the exchange is only one way and that money is the only benefit of the exchange.

[Universe Prince]

Does arbitration depend on both sides being good sports?

After a fashion, yes, I suppose so.

[_JS]

Oh gee, I guess nothing at all. Not a single person would stand up to them. Everyone would just meekly let Wal-Mart abuse them. Yes, I was being sarcastic again.

I'm not going to debate it if we're going to degenerate into this.

what stopped the government of England from abusing the rights of the people of the English colonies in the New World? People did.

I think your history needs a little work. First, the French Government played a major role. Second, there weren't a great deal of "rights" the English were infringing upon. The fact was that the American colonies had gotten somewhat spoiled to a very hands off approach from the Crown. Third, were the first actions taken by the Revolutionaries in order to win the war? Forming a government and building an army. I would hardly use the American Revolution as an example for supporting an anarchist agenda.

Contrary to how you're trying to paint this, neither Rothbard nor I have said that an anarchist society is going to be free of people trying to do bad things. This proposal is far, far from a utopia, and so far in this discussion the only people trying to claim otherwise are people objecting to it.

Perhaps not, but it is a near-utopic vision and the language is certainly there. Look at both the author's and your discussion of maximizing the opportunities for good and minimizing the opportunities for bad. Though I agree, this is not a utopic vision, most modern political philosophies don't venture into that.

But just exactly how are Wal-Mart and Target going to force other companies out?

The Big Three did it for decades. Why would it be so difficult?

Collusion and monopolistic practices I expect other companies to fight.

And if they cannot? Who fights it then?

And they got caught. And right now, governments have fixed the price you and I pay for police protection. And you and I cannot do one damn thing about it.

They got prosecuted by government authorities. Who will stop them and prosecute them in our non-state?

So would you trust BT to make honest decisions and give you straight answers as a local representative of government but not as a local representative of an insurance company?

BT would be representing his constituents. Who would the insurance agent be representing?

No, I did answer the question. You seem to be assuming that there will only be one private company for people choose. I'm suggesting there will be more than one company, and that a person will be able to hire, in one fashion or another, a second company to handle possible abuses.

I don't assume that at all. I assume that there will be plenty of them. I'm just curious how many times people will have to get the community together with their weapons to run the assholes out when they don't want to go.

So you're saying the basis for the charge "that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society" comes from Hobbes?

*sigh*

You did read what I said about Locke and Hobbes and Natural Law. I assume we are allowed to go beyond mere literal interpretation. If not, then the phrase "academically weak" is very appropriate.

You say all this, but you fail to provide a single reason why backing currency with a metal is not a realistic notion. It certainly seemed to have worked just fine. And without it we have now never ending inflation as the government just prints more and more money without any need to back it up with anything substantial at all.

There are libraries of books on the failure of Bretton Woods Prince, if you really want to get into an economics discussion we can, but I'm not sure we need to. As for inflation, your argument is absolutely false. There most certainly was inflation during the gold standard. In the current years inflation has not been a problem (in fact it has been historically low in western economies and far stabler than under the gold standard). The truth is that modern economic expansion cannot exist under a gold standard or the similar Bretton Woods scheme. As I said, if you want to delve into the reasons why we can, but there are economics tomes written about this.

I would be interested in seeing you provide examples of the Holocaust having nothing to do with government. But if your point is that people not in government still do bad things, no one is denying that. And of course, that non-government people do bad things does nothing to mitigate the bad things done by governments. How ever bad the Mafia or drug lords might be, it does not excuse criminal behavior on the part of the state. Wouldn't you agree, even if you disagree on what constitutes that criminal behavior?

Criminal behavior is never excused, unless it is forces as a moral behavior.

From wherever the frak they feel like.

Interesting.

[_JS]

After all, if this prick had it his way, and I think he will eventually, what stops him from forcing you into his Universal Health Care Plan? Sure, maybe you can refuse treatment, but let's see what happens when you refuse to pay for services you don't need or want.

Wow, there's a way to win people to your cause. Libertarians are all about choices and rights, unless you disagree with them and suddenly "reason" has nothing to do with it. It quickly degenerates into name calling and everyone becomes a jackbooted thug.

Prince is an exception. And if you have followed more discussions you might realize that I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate in this debate. I don't disagree with all of the points (though I do with some). Moreover, you and fatman come here and whinge and cry about people who want government benefits, etc, which blatantly points a finger at the left, who often support a broader social safety net. Yet, the right wing has often been a major supporter of Government as well. Historically "Conservatives" came from monarchists and continue to this day as those who wish to see a broad Government used to provide "safety and security" against what they perceive as "threats" to the people.

Or in your case, perhaps they support a bigger state to keep out those with "undesirable views." What a sad thought as Martin Luther King Junior's holiday approaches.

[Plane]

Could the citzens of the less prosperous nation cross the border to harvest the better earning condiions then return past a hard border to winter in a socilist environment?

This would see to be a sort of diode , or conveyor belt that would drain the more fair system in favor of the less fair .

But while they work here, they provide labor, which produces goods and services. You're assuming the exchange is only one way and that money is the only benefit of the exchange.

That is so , the Georgia onion harvest shut down when the Immagration authoritys cracked down on it one year.

But the labor of Mexico remains cheap decade after decade , is thi an effect of their socialist form of government , or is there another cause?

I once dug some ditch as a scond job to improve my childrens Christmass , I don't think I could do that again for the cheapness of other unskilled labor and because my back is not as strong as it was then.

[Universe Prince]

Oh gee, I guess nothing at all. Not a single person would stand up to them. Everyone would just meekly let Wal-Mart abuse them. Yes, I was being sarcastic again.

I'm not going to debate it if we're going to degenerate into this.

Okay. I suppose I should not have been sarcastic in that manner, but frankly your question of who would prevent Wal-Mart from adopting adopting a policy of forcing people to shop at Wal-Mart in an anarchist society struck me as really lame. Why are people in an anarchist society going to suddenly all become meek lambs never doing anything to defend themselves? And why are businesses suddenly going to start forming armed groups of thugs to force people into their stores?

I would hardly use the American Revolution as an example for supporting an anarchist agenda.

You missed the point. People decided to do something to stop what they considered abuses of their basic rights, and the found a way to throw off the British government. The point being people can and probably will find a way to stop abuses of basic rights.

Perhaps not, but it is a near-utopic vision and the language is certainly there. Look at both the author's and your discussion of maximizing the opportunities for good and minimizing the opportunities for bad. Though I agree, this is not a utopic vision, most modern political philosophies don't venture into that.

It is not near-utopic either. No one is promising a perfect society or nearly a perfect society. A different society, yes, one that some people think would be an improvement. Why? Because they think it would maximize the opportunities for good and minimize the opportunities for bad. Isn't that why we have a democratic republic? Because some people thought it would maximize the opportunities for good and minimize the opportunities for bad? It certainly doesn't seem nearly so utopian to me as the idea that socialism would lead us all into a communistic anarchy of peace and love, and most socialists I've talked to tell me that is the ultimate goal of socialism. No one has said that Rothbard's idea of a stateless society would be perfect or make all men better. I believe his argument was merely that it would be better than what we have now. Is that all it takes to sound utopian?

But just exactly how are Wal-Mart and Target going to force other companies out?

The Big Three did it for decades. Why would it be so difficult?

You didn't answer my question. How are they going to force other companies out?

Collusion and monopolistic practices I expect other companies to fight.

And if they cannot? Who fights it then?

People. You keep talking as if all that has to happen is companies make an agreement and everyone else just gives up. Maybe you're right. No one seems to fight the monopolistic practices of the government. And if the government decided to nationalize various industries, who would stop them? Let's say the government decided to take over the retail industry and standardize all retail stores. At which point you would be forced to do your shopping at a monopolized business. Who would stop this? The black market would likely boom, but then the government would have to crack down on it. Would that be wrong? Would you want to stop it? Of course, all this leads me back to another question you did not answer. Why are monopolistic practices okay for government but not for anyone else? Maybe I should ask it another way. Why are monopolistic practices wrong for everyone except the government?

And they got caught. And right now, governments have fixed the price you and I pay for police protection. And you and I cannot do one damn thing about it.

They got prosecuted by government authorities. Who will stop them and prosecute them in our non-state?

Again the answer is people. There is no reason why privately owned watchdog groups could not perform their own investigations, and no reasons why private organizations could not sue the companies for abuses.

So would you trust BT to make honest decisions and give you straight answers as a local representative of government but not as a local representative of an insurance company?

BT would be representing his constituents. Who would the insurance agent be representing?

What makes you think BT or someone else in government would not be representing the interests of the government as clearly happened in New London, Connecticut? What makes you think that an insurance agent whose prosperity and job security depended keeping customers well served is not going to represent his customers?

I'm just curious how many times people will have to get the community together with their weapons to run the assholes out when they don't want to go.

I don't know. That depends, I guess, on whether Rothbard is right and the security business depends on keeping customers happy or whether you're right and people all become assholes in the absence of government.

You did read what I said about Locke and Hobbes and Natural Law. I assume we are allowed to go beyond mere literal interpretation. If not, then the phrase "academically weak" is very appropriate.

At some point going beyond literal interpretation has to be reigned in by what someone actually said. And as I pointed out before, clearly Rothbard's goal was not to write a refutation of Hobbes. Does every anarchist, every time he decides to put forth anarchist ideas, have to refute Hobbes?

There are libraries of books on the failure of Bretton Woods

And Rothbard could have written one. I did not say a return to the Bretton Woods standard. I'm talking about a return to what might be called a classical gold standard, examples of which would require going back to before World War I.

In the current years inflation has not been a problem (in fact it has been historically low in western economies and far stabler than under the gold standard). The truth is that modern economic expansion cannot exist under a gold standard or the similar Bretton Woods scheme.

With the gold standard that existed prior to World War I, as I understand it, prices generally went down, not up. And I cannot discover a single reason why modern economic expansion cannot exist in that situation. The economy would function somewhat differently, yes, if that is what you mean. But that does not mean economic expansion could not occur.

Criminal behavior is never excused, unless it is forces as a moral behavior.

Would you please clarify that statement?

[anarchists derive their views on the "nature of man"] From wherever the frak they feel like.

Interesting.

Did you think I was going to make some sort of blanket statement about anarchists? There are atheist anarchists and Christian anarchists and all sorts of anarchists. I have no way to answer a question about where anarchists derive their views on the "nature of man".

[Religious Dick]

For one thing, I'm not talking about importing anybody. I'm talking about getting out of the way of people coming to trade their labor and time, or coming to trade their goods, or maybe just simply looking for another place to live. I did not say we should send out buses and bring people in.

Look, if you don't mind spending the time to type this kind of hair-splitting, I don't mind reading it. It's your time. But effectively, what would be the difference between opening the border and actively busing people in?

I just want to stop unfairly and needlessly getting in people's way.

I still don't see where  you get "unfair". It's not like any aspiring immigrant is being deprived of anything that is legitimately his.

The right of a nation to define who may enter or who may not enter exists on exactly the same basis as any individual property right. That is, on custom and concensus. If it comes to that, where is there any inherent right to individual property? What makes one man's assertion of his right to property any more axiomatically correct than another man's assertion that all property is theft?

What I propose regarding immigration is not fundamentally different than what I propose be done about ordinary domestic policy. Just leave people alone unless someone's or some group's rights as individuals are being or have been violated. My rights are not abridged by Mexicans coming to America to look for work just as my rights are not abridged by New Yorkers looking for work in South Carolina. So I see no reason to interfere with the Mexicans much more than the New Yorkers. I certainly see no reason to perpetuate a situation wherein people find facing death in the desert an option preferrable to wading through the insane amount of red tape that hinders the legal immigration process.

Absolutely none of the above is true. Your rights are only as good as the willingness of the society you live in to honor them. Does a Mexican coming to work in America directly violate your rights? No. But given a sufficient influx of voters who don't recognize those rights as existant, guess what? At some point, government will cease to recognize them, too.

As per your example of migrations from New York to South Carolina re your rights, that's a pretty horrible example. Why do you think native residents of New Hampshire refer to migrants from Massachusetts as "Massholes"? Why do native Colorodans and Nevadans hate migrants from California? Why are natives of Indiana starting to hate the migrants from Illinois?

For the very reason that when those populations reach critical mass, they skew the local politics such that government violating the rights of the citizenry is exactly what they do.

For another thing, I do not see anything mutually exclusive about fighting socialist policy and getting out of people's way, regarding immigration or anything else. The essence of socialist policies is to get in people's way as a means of controlling and supposedly protecting society. What are the arguments against open immigration? That we need to get in people's way so that we can control and protect our own society. I am of the opinion that the only way to protect society is to stop trying to control it. We cannot stand against the authoritarianism of socialism by being authoritarian as well, because we will be what we are fighting against. The answer to socialism is not closed borders but liberty.

Let's cut to the chase here - point blank, what would be the political consequences of inviting a large collectivist minded population into the country? You have California as an example.

You support open borders in the name of liberty, but liberty for who? Certainly, it will be more liberty for the aspiring immigrants. But will the result of that policy result in an increase of liberty for American citizens? I think that anyone who was paying any attention to the actual consequences would say not. See my signature - I chose it for a reason:

When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.

This is where libertarianism, at least of the modal variety, falls apart. Yes, laws and government can be overbearing and intrusive and inhibitors of liberty. Unfortunately, they are also the tools we have available to ensure what liberty we've got. Absolute liberty is possible only on a desert island.

"I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other."
--Edmund Burke

A writer name Karl Jass once wrote that the problem with libertarianism is that no libertarian had ever proposed anything that would actually have the consequence of increasing anyone's liberty. I'm beginning to see what he means.

You are essentially proposing a political order that would self-destruct. Why even bother?

For starters, as I said before, the more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen.

Hand over what power? Every national government on earth already has the power to control it's country's borders. Governments have that power a priory. Else they usually won't remain the government for long.

As I said before, the more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen. That in itself is bad enough. But along with that come the arguments that opposing immigration is necessary to protect ourselves, that those immigrants are bad because they are not like the ones who came before or because they are lazy or they steal jobs or they take money out of the country or, if we go far enough down, that they are simply not like us and so therefore our very way of life is at stake. All those arguments have been made for as long as the U.S. has existed as a country.

Yes, and for my money, those arguments have been repeatedly proven correct.

The greatest influx of immigrants into this country was between 1890 and 1920. Guess when most of the changes in the relationship of between the citizenry and the government that libertarians find so odious occurred?

I am surprised that you would ask. You've been so busy defending the situation of relatively free travel within the U.S. that you have apparently forgotten what you were talking about.

That is correct. I have the right to unrestrained travel in the country of which I am a lawful citizen. That does not make my "right" to travel unlimited. I can't just march into China and claim a right to travel there. Nor of any other country I'm aware of. And this is fitting and proper - the governments of those countries are responsible for the interests of their own citizens - not the interests of citizens of the United States.

[Xavier_Onassis]

All this crap about the competition in the marketplace is highly overrated.

Just TRY to negotiate better terms on a rental contract or a mortgage.

Particularly on the rental contract, this never happens. It's first and last month, plus another month security deposit, and the landlord sets the rent.

The best you can do is to pay one month less than this upfront. This has been standard in Miami since the 1970's.

Competition does not affect the rental contract one whit.

With mortgages, perhaps they look competitive, but then at the end of 15 years payment, there is a huge balloon payment, or somesuch crap like that..