And how all of this is compatible with the apparently systematic decentralist position you had before, such as when you were writing among other things that “I also think shifting power up, more centrally, in the hopes that the central decision-maker will be “better” than the lower levesl of government is unlibertarian and naive.” http://blog.mises.org/3683/libertarian-centralists/ If one does not hold things ceteris paribus, it is conceivable that some central decision makers will be less oppressive than local ones. Certainly, if one thinks that things would have been better under British rule, one must certainly hold this view. But then one cannot say that expecting a less oppressive regime from centralization is typically unlibertarian and naive as a general rule. It would depend on the specific actors and circumstances involved. Otherwise, expecting nicer things from the British empire than a separated US government would be unlibertarian and naive. So what am I missing here?

Why can’t a State form voluntarily, S. Kinsella?

Well, generally, they simply do not. To avoid any confusion: We are talking about ‘The State’, as in ‘state government’, which describes the individuals that make up the machinery of the state. Military, police, politicians, judges, bureaucrats, etc.

From then on immigrants can hardly complain since they chose to move. Children can’t complain (because you don’t get to choose your birthplace let alone your parents) but they can emigrate if they like.

That sort of stuff is the exact opposite of ‘voluntary’, right? I mean except for the small group of people at the beginning, which were a minority themselves, it’s completely involuntary.

How would such a State be wrong? How would it be different from a migrant traversing a land filled with private property owners to which he must follow rules and pay rent to the private owners if he wants to stay anywhere?

Because instead of dealing with individuals and voluntary exchanges regarding their private property your dealing with a state government that violates all those people’s private property and will restrict your movement and do everything to extract taxes from you, involuntary.

There are potentially other forms of ‘government’ besides ‘state government’.

You also seem to know very little about what the crown and Parliament were actually doing towards the colonies. Taxation was the last straw that broke the colonists’ back, but it certainly wasn’t the only one. Fears of an Anglican bishopric being installed in New England, Parliament’s vetoes of certain northern colonies (Connecticut, for example) trying to ban the importation of slaves prior to 1776, the loss of due process (taking colonists to Canada or England for trials instead of having the trial in the location of the crime), writs of assistance that were written on the spot that gave royal authorities permission to search your house, raising a standing army among the people –all these non-economic issues also pressed upon the colonists to break from the realm.

As for economics, I’m not sure where your 1% figure comes from. But for someone who supposedly supports free trade, how can you endorse the mercantilist policy of the crown?

Have you ever heard of any of these Parliamentary acts?

Navigation Act of 1651
Enumerated Commodities Act of 1660
Act of Frauds 1662
Staple Act of 1663
Plantation Duty Act of 1673
Navigation Act of 1696
Act for Suppressing Piracy, 1699
Woolens Act of 1699
Amendments and additional regulations added to the Enumerated Commodities Act in 1704
Naval Stores Act 1705
Coinage Act of 1708
Post Office Act of 1710
Broad Arrow Act of 1711
Artificers Act of 1718
Amendments and additional regulations added to the Enumerated Commodities Act in 1721
Broad Arrow Act of 1722
Six-penny Duty Act of 1729
Debt Act of 1732
Hat Act of 1732
Molasses Act of 1733
Iron Act of 1750

Of course, this is followed by:

Stamp Act of 1765
Declaratory Act of 1766 (more on this)
Townshend Acts of 1767
Broad Arrow Act of 1772
Coercive Acts of 1774 (you gotta love the name of this one)

These laws required that all ships entering American ports be built in England, manned by English crews, goods from foreign countries coming into the colonies had to go through England first to pay a duty, the colonists could not buy sugar, rum and molasses from non-English colonies in the Caribbean, and when they did buy from other English colonies they still paid a duty to the crown. Certain acts, like the Hat Act, restricted how many apprentices a hat maker could have (limiting the size of his business) and banned the export of any hats made in the colonies to England. The colonies were not allowed to entice artisans to leave England to emigrate to America, the tallest trees in New England were marked and reserved to be sent to England for the ship building business there; the New England shipbuilding business had to use the trees that the royal authorities did not pick for themselves. Raw wool produced in the colonies was banned from export and intercolonial trade.

Even some of the Acts, like the Iron Act, that seems like it benefits the colonies (the iron act dropped duties on exports of raw pig and bar iron from the colonies to England) really works against them. Raw iron could be produced in the colonies, but finished iron goods were banned. When the colonists purchased finished iron goods, they had to buy them from England and pay the duty, even though the raw iron had originally come from the colonies. How anyone can argue in support of these policies is ridiculous.

The act that was most foreboding to the colonists was the Declaratory Act of 1766, which affirmed that Parliament “had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America … in all cases whatsoever.” This act was almost identical to the Dependency of Ireland Act of 1719, upon which the Penal Laws were based, and which effectively enslaved the Irish people in their own land. There was no reason to believe that two laws, which had identical wording, would lead to a different result if the American colonies acquiesced to Parliament’s power. England had long viewed the colonies as others in the realm, and not as equal English citizens.

In 1776, independence was fully justified. What happened after that independence was achieved is another story, one that is worthy of criticism. But blaming the state of things today on that one event is like blaming someone who dies in a car accident for leaving the house in the morning. It’s casually related, in the sense that each event happens chronologically before the next, but that’s the furthest the connection can be made. Leaving the house is no more the blame for a car accident victim’s death than declaring independence in 1776 can be held responsible for the wrongs that have come through the US govt.

I find it interesting, and telling, that you decided to wade into 18th c. history and make a claim, yet you have very little primary evidence from the period you are criticizing to support that criticism.

Let’s not even get started on the motto of the British monarchy, “Dieu et mon droit” (God and my right), which was the basis that the monarchy used for its power over the realm.

There are very specific methodological approaches to analyzing history and having an arguable interpretation. This blog article is a good example of what happens when you don’t follow that methodology.

CANADA, UNITED STATES MERGE!
Parliament Expands for 51 New Provinces
King Henry IX Says: “Welcome Back!”

I’m a history major and I’ve taken several African history classes, and something that is never spoken of is in 15th and 16th century England, the definition of black in addition to just being a color also included sin, evil, the unknown (as in nighttime) etc. This definition was fueled by Biblical texts that associate darkness with Hell and sin, and being the opposite of the light that God represented. So when the Englishmen began to see Africans for the first time, they associated the Biblical understanding of darkness and black with the much darker skin of these new people and unfortunately the rest is history. As much as we can view that from the 21st century in disdain, how in the world were they supposed to be tolerant in a homogeneous, religiously superstitious society?

Not much changed in thinking between the 1st contact with Africa and 18th century America. Slowly people were beginning to realize that Africans were fully and equally human, but that radical shift in opinion does not happen overnight. As for the Founders owning slaves, firstly Adams and Paine were not slaveholders, so feel free to sit down with them.

As for Jefferson, Henry, and Lee, as Virginians under the Manumission Act of 1723 it was illegal to just up and free your slaves. The master would have to make a recommendation to the courts as to the exemplary character of a slave he wanted to set free, and the courts would decide if the slave was worthy. And specifically speaking of Jefferson, the majority of his slaves were inherited through his marriage to his wife Martha Wayles. He didn’t go out of his way to buy them.

Yes I realize its very easy to judge them, and in a 21st century world they would be worthy of full disdain. But by and large, you are a product of the times you live in. The tolerance and acceptance that you speak of was no more known or understood to the 18th century world than the technology used to make the first automobile. I suppose we should judge Jefferson and Paine that they were using archaic buggies and carriages too?

Could you fix the flag?

I’m afraid the flag is the right one. It was introduced in 1707, and it contains the crosses of St. George (England) and St. Andrew (Scotland). The cross of St. Patrick (Ireland) was added later (1801).

That’s a straw man. I was not commenting the World Wars, but on his “Had we not declared independence from the British Empire, we would have suffered their paternalistic BS laws much like many other British colonies. (not to mention, now, the U.K. itself) You may not appreciate the modest measure of freedoms we have enjoyed here, but compare that to the chaos of lawless gun-restricted British colonies in the Caribbean, the ruthless gunboat diplomacy in SE Asia, and not least of all the economic calamities of African colonies, now nations” – which he omitted from my quotation above.

His ‘You mention Canada, and yet I have to wonder how you can claim they’ve made fewer “mistakes.”‘ is also a straw man.

I made no such claim. I claimed that Canada drew on US experience not as a model but as an awful warning of particular mistakes to avoid. Canada managed to avoid the structures that fed regional civil war – even though there was even more regional difference.

“Sure, things look better for Canada now that they’re paying down debts and have oil to sell, but they were hardest hit by the Great Depression and outdid the New Deal by leaps and bounds. Things were so bad Newfoundland wanted out.”

That’s plain wrong. Newfoundland wasn’t even in Canada. What Newfoundland sought then was a closer connection to the UK. It actually joined Canada after the Second World War.

“What mistake did they avoid again?” is a nonsense. Go and look, since you are uninformed and won’t be told.

I don’t agree with every point you make, but after giving them honest consideration and accepting the implications for those I cannot refute, the futility of the situation sure has me depressed.

How does one offset the feeling of helplessness that is the side affect of knowing every block used to construct one’s world view is made of sugar cubes?

How do you people cope?!?! Shouldn’t this website display some sort of disclaimer warning of possible mental damages associated with the collapse of ones reality?

When Congress, the President and the Supreme Court all agree to rape the Constitution, that leaves just the American people to defend it, and they have abdicated. They abdicated because the state bribed them with promises of taking from the rich and giving to them. Envy triumphed over morality and law. But then, that’s the history of mankind.

I too rebel against the myths that surround the Constitution. If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, why are there no punishments for passing laws in violation of it? If Congress passes unconstitutional laws, shouldn’t those who sponsored it or voted for it have to suffer some punishment?

The English Constitution (unwritten, traditional common law) does not specify the taxing powers of Parliament. Our Constitution does. It talks about direct taxes, excises, imposts, duties, all fully enshrined as Constitutional and therefore always “on the table”.

The Sixteenth Amendment only imposed income taxes as excise taxes, but no one in government wants to enforce that. Libertarians all too often throw up their hands and refuse to admit that truth. So even the Constitutional taxation distinctions are lost because a piece of paper backed up by the guns of the state cannot hold the greed back.

People go to prison defending the old rag, but politicians get reelected for trashing it.

Technology, not constitutions, are the hope for libertarians