http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html
http://notendur.hi.is/bthru/contents.html

You don’t think that desire would have affected his interpretation of the somewhat ambiguous Article III regarding judicial review? He did want stronger central government but with regard to Article III (at least based on my interpretation of his thinking in the some of the Federalist Papers) it would seem judicial review is natural. After all, he favored the judicial power over the legislative since the former would theoretically favor the people more than the latter. And the people, in his eyes, were the source of political legitimacy.

It’s also worth mentioning that without “security” subsidized by the government you’ll probably find that many more electronic devices start having built in security features that make them effectively useless if stolen. This is already possible.

I have to stress the example of the not-so-wild west here. Historically non-governmental methods of enforcement have worked. It’s not like people have never solved these problems before. I work for a company that handles arbitrations between dealers who purchase/sell vehicles on the internet. It is very rare that they go to law enforcement or the courts for problems in those deals, even though some of them involve thousands of dollars of exchange.

But if that were true, then what are you saying with the following?

“It is obvious that a free peaceful society cannot exist without law and order imposed by an entity endowed with a legal monopoly on the use of force.”

You’re still sending a gang. Why is there no counter-gang to defend
the criminal’s stash? Oftentimes, there is. Criminals do have gangs
and they often violently resist arrest. While this results in a fight,
it doesn’t lead to the end of civilization. Is it because society in general
recognizes the difference between criminals and those who fight them?

If human beings are just always violent animals, then why isn’t every
police station and prison and legislature continually bombed and
assaulted by the myriads of gangs that the billions of violent humans
may form at any time? Could it be that you are exaggerating?

And what are you saying of the monopoly gang? They already won the gang
warfare? So then there was an earlier gang warfare? And that was because
there was a lack of a superior gang to crush all other gangs? What
stops a new gang from fighting your gang? Ever hear of war, revolution,
civil disobedience, resistance?

All you’re saying is that “civilization” reduces to gang warfare, and that you
prefer it when one gang has out-ganged all other gangs, and that this
is why gangs are superior to voluntary institutions.

These arguments are ridiculously lame and irrelevant. It’s just the hobbesian
myth given the status of an axiom. But if that myth were true, civilization
could not exist because people, being the irrational violent animals they
are, would continually fight to the death for every conceivable reason
because there is no benefit to peaceful cooperative relations. Is that what
happens? No. So the whole premise is wrong, and therefore completely useless.

how long has the state been in existence compared to non-state functionings?? tribe with elder, non specific boundaries of territory, nomads for thousands of years…the state may just be a blip.
i dont see any competition…just lies .

Monopoly of force refers to the respective territories. Every state
is a monopoly provider of certain “services” within its conquered
territory which it “provides” to its captive subjects through theft
and coercion.

“There is no appreciable difference between a society and a so-called ‘anarcho-capitalist’ society.”

Uhhhhhhhh.

“looks exactly like traditional statism.”

It’s the opposite of statism.

“By generation two, everything is exactly as it is now, and we’re back to trying to limit the powers of an existing government.”

Yes, when free societies fail, they fall to gangs. And yes, as time goes
by, things change. Just look at a map of the world at any given time.
The lines are constantly changing. States rise and fall. They invade each
other or “unite”. They merge. They devolve. They split. They destroy
each other. They grow powerful, then weak. They are weak, then become
powerful. So?

If you’re “back to trying to limit gov’t,” then it means you failed to preserve
liberty. So go back to the drawing board. Or else – and this is what I hear
people saying – just give in and give up. Love tyranny. Accept thuggery.
Freedom is an illusion. Your gov’t loves you. Now shut up and obey.

No thanks.

Maybe we can do a Groupon-style system where people can sign up to, for example, not pay taxes, when the number of potential participants hits a certain number.

http://mises.org/daily/4657

I think civil disobedience only works when you have a kind of critical mass. The occasional individual not paying taxes gets hauled off to jail but a couple hundred thousand people might be too much for the prison system to handle.

True, in the sense that free societies are typically overrun by criminal gangs.
The state is precisely the institution of violence where “the strongest rule”.
Yes, anarchy tends to devolve to statehood. Statehood is the end result of
gang warfare where one gang emerges stronger than the others and thereby
rules by force. All states are founded upon violence and perpetuate themselves
through violence. The violent rule the world. The non-violent stand by, wave
flags, and mutter something about death and taxes.

The state is basically a bad anarchy. The good, peaceful people got outwitted
by the thugs. But it can go in the other direction too though since the thugs
are always fewer in number and they only acquire power when we fail to
resist them properly. This does not mean that we *must* fail, as if it were
some sort of rule. Tyrants still rely upon our consent and acquiescence. It need
not be so.

“Otherwise the thugs always rule.”

Thugs like Bush and Obama? Pelosi and Reid? Or Guido and Vito as in your
Sicily example? What’s the difference? The mob operations in a country like
the US far exceed any kind of Sicilian mafia example. Does the Sicilian mob
have a money machine where they print trillions of dollars? Do they have
the biggest baddest military on earth? How many countries do they control?

Come on, people. Wake the hell up. You all keep talking about gangs and
thugs as if the state were something *other* than gangs and thugs! This is
too easy.

How do states “compete”? All you’re saying is that up till now, it is
mostly violent gangs that have prevailed over civil society. That is
hardly an argument for the gang warfare of statism.

“anarchic society is obviously otherwise unstable or vulnerable to predation”

From gangs. IOW, states. Yes, humans are always vulnerable to predation,
and that’s why we should teach people to respect the rights of others
and advocate social relations which support and defend individual rights
against predators. We should not side with the predators because they’ve
seemed up till now to “win” more often than the good guys. What are they
winning exactly?

Right. So a free society cannot exist under the state since the state
is a territorial monopoly of force.

“an anarcho society could not possibly enforce any long range contract without resorting to some form of force.”

The prohibition is against coercion – as in the initiation of force against
the innocent. There is no prohibition against enforcing contracts or dealing
forcefully with criminals. That is retaliatory force. We have a right to protect
ourselves. This isn’t about pacifism, although you could probably go a long
way with a minimum of any kind of force applied depending upon the
circumstances.

“we can just simply call that a constitutional republic based on individual rights
and the rule of law”

Yes, you can call it that, but that’s not what it is. The very first thing you
said was that “a free society is one in which coercion between men is absent.”
But then you end by having to put “voluntary society” and “agree” in quotes
as you describe a state that forces 360 million people to be subject to a central
authority “backed up by force”.

Every defense of the state is just a mass of blatant contradictions and lies, isn’t it?

That’s pretty simple actually. Civil society, working within the free market,
has provided and will provide all of the institutions, products, and services
people need and want.

The state fights against this through incessant regulation, taxation, control,
persecution, punishment, threats, fines, ostracism, bureaucracy, fear-mongering,
etc., etc.

The insurance model for things like “social security” would work just fine in a
free market. Your return on investment after a lifetime of paying premiums would
certainly be far greater than the corrupt gov’t system. Such mutual aid societies
and insurance companies would spring up everywhere to meet the demand.

Churches, unions, and any other kind of established group could form their own
welfare or insurance institutions. Eliminate taxes, and the money would flow
to the best ones offering the best plans. Eliminate regulation, and the free competition
would protect consumers against those dreaded “large corporations” that everyone
loves to complain about. They’d all have to compete fairly and openly. There would
be no state imposed barriers to entry or ridiculous coverage mandates that now
keep prices up and competition out.

The “socialism” of a mutual aid society is easy and harmless. No goateed revolutionaries needed! We just need to be left alone so that we can manage our own money and make
our own choices for such things. The fact that we are not allowed to opt out of
things like SS shows that the intent behind it is not benevolent. It was not
provided because of a demand that the market could not meet. It was something
thrust upon us by social planners so they could think themselves superior and
be able to control the rabble.

As for the constitution, it gives (what is “it”? I never gave any such power) congress
the “power to lay and collect taxes,” so that’s the end of my and your liberty right
there. There is no right to property spelled out, but a supposed right for some
people to take by force the fruits of the labor of others. There is no “cap” or “limit”
on this supposed power. And even if there was, history has shown that no state
ever obeys a piece of paper. They operate strictly by force. The effective limit is
merely whatever they can manage to get away with. That is why they do things
incrementally, employ deception and misdirection, and write 2000 page “laws” that
no one is even able to read, let alone comprehend.

Such despicable institutions must be rejected wholesale. They should be replaced
by voluntary ones which provide services without initiating violence against
anyone. There is no reason for free people to be subject to rulers claiming to have
“power.” That kind of power is only the institutionalization of crime.

Having said that, I agree with what Fallon here, referring to Hoppe, says about
devolution. No one wants sudden widespread collapse and chaos because as
the state has usurped civil society, it has left us bereft of the wealth and the
institutions we would have had if it had not interfered so thoroughly with
progress. We just need to be left alone long enough to begin building a free
society. They basically just need to get the hell out of the way.

I think this can only happen through secession. Secession creates momentum.
At the very least, to have 50 truly independent states to choose from instead of one over-arching monolithic federal monstrosity would be a great boon to liberty.

That and the Hamiltonians had some very different ideas regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. It’s sad how even in the beginning there even existed a party advocating strong Federal power – but even the Constitution itself is a concession in that regard compared to the Articles of Confederation.

And why would anyone be inclined to agree to an adverse outcome, especially if they honestly believe they were in the right?

If the alternative is no contract, the risk of a negative outcome – especially if mediated by someone of your (and their) choosing – can be worthwhile. If this were impossible, then refereed games could not exist. But they do.

They would simply walk away and find or found another agency willing to write positive endorsements. Meanwhile, the original investors are not made whole and the injustice remains.

They could walk away and suffer the consequences to their reputation – although as you note, they have perpetrated an injustice to the original investors. Of course both parties could buy insurance if they felt it necessary.

It’s obvious that no one would invest or cooperate long range under those conditions.

It isn’t obvious at all. In fact, you assertion is likely to be false.

A contract can only function as a “contract” if its clauses cannot be unilaterally ignored without consequences. That is its purpose and its function, that is what makes it “work” i.e. it allows people to cooperate long range through time and space. A contract that cannot be enforced is not a contract it is a non-binding agreement constantly open to alteration and change (i.e. RISK), including any prior “agreement” as to how to settle “disagreements” and therefore it could not facilitate any form of long range plan or cooperation no matter how many non binding “judgments” were issued on it.

Yes and consequences do apply as I’ve already pointed out. Those non binding judgments help eliminate the dishonest individual from competing in the future and thus, contrary to your conclusion, do facilitate long range planning and cooperation.

The whole point of entering into a contract is to control the risk associated unknown factors over time, including the risk factor associated with the sometimes unpredictable actions of actual human. An anarcho state that does not enforce contracts does not control those risks so it is very unlikely that those risks will ever be taken, at least not by any rational human.

Sure, and just as most exchanges are done without fraud, so will participants in a marketplace value that and create systems that are able to deal with fraud without employing the need for aggression. Insurance and collateral are just a couple ways.

The most you could hope for would be to live in an agrarian level of production where each person lives on a self sustaining farm with a barter system and a private army.

Unfortunately if your premises are false, then your attempt to employ reductio ad absurdam fails as well.

No one would take the risk of accumulating capital if it could be appropriated by unilateral actions without consequences. If you can’t see that then you understand nothing about economics or human nature.

Again, already addressed. Take those considerations into account and maybe you’ll see how things really work.

Two questions re Madison and the Constitution:
1) Does the Constitution really reflect the ideas of Madison re the containment of arbitrary rule via politically competing factionism?

2) If “yes” to #1, how do you explain the immediate arbitrary imposition of the Whiskey Tax, and later, the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Really, like Hoppe, I tend to think Madison failed because he took Hobbes for granted on one major assumption, that there must be final monopoly power. Otherwise, Madison et al. were geniuses within the limits of their presuppositions. It really comes down to, as Mises himself had cited, answering the question that the Roman poet Juvenal first stated: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards?

Oh yes, Jim Jones. Very fascinating epoch in many ways. It shows the immense power of ideas hold over people. One could make a lowest-bar rule of thumb in analysing the human freedom factor in any system by how it deals with its members seeking exit…