Well, this comment is from the perspective of the activist who is always thinking in terms of strategery. Some of us are more interested in substantive truth of ideas and positions. We can have a division of labor.

“The first thing that we should look into is secessionism.”

You may notice that many mainstream type of libertarians are hostile to the idea of secession; they accuse those of us who favor it of being supporters of the Confederacy and slavery. I have no use for those PC dimwits.

Heck, we can even ally ourselves with more regular folks like Bill Wald who want to divide the State up into pieces.

The first thing that we should look into is secessionism. It’s simply too much trouble and work to try to reform the big, bulk mass of laws and agencies in our country. Secession works better, and, we have a better chance of abolishing things on local level than we do by convincing millions of people who are either too ignorant, unwilling, or comfortably Statist in their views to join us.

If so, then why would it exist in the first place?

Given the world in which we do live, would we all agree that states necessarily do in fact commit aggression? Taxation is aggression. And after all, the power to tax is the essence of the state.

The word “necessarily” means “in all possible worlds” in logic, not “given the world in which we live”. My claim is that States do not necessarily (= in all possible worlds) employ aggression, as I explained previously.

To this end, the USofA should be divided into at least 5 independant nations, each having access to the sea lanes.

At the left end, I have to protect my own life, liberty, and property, or hire proxies to do this for me (and worry about someone bidding higher as honor and integrity become commodities that might be best sold short). But I can do anything I am not actively prevented by someone else from doing including building a WMD in my basement.

At the right end, I can’t do anything without first getting permission from the collective, be it a dictator, or an internet democratic plebiscite.

Might I suggest that there might be a golden mean along this spectrum – somewhere close to what the Founding Fathers came up with (and we slid down the slippery slope to the right, though slowly – the French Revolution slipped left and quickly).

As to Friedman, his error is not that he is a socialist, good or bad. He is trying to get a scorpion not to sting, as in his attempt to get a negative income tax in the ’70s. He had to testify against it since it was hijacked to be worse than the original. That behavior is not accidental nor subject to remediation. Vouchers can easily end up worse than public education (think about requiring certification or other standards for homeschoolers or religious education which would not be added with vouchers). Reducing taxes 1%, while raising the defecit 2% is counterproductive. Removing 1% monetary tax, but in order to get the 1%, you must be subject to a 10% regulatory equivalent tax, you’ve lost.

Friedman is the original “trust the government” or “big government” republican – we elect them and some expected them to actually cut government. They didn’t. They won’t.

Friedman, though not unique in this, assumes “this time it will be different”.

Given the world in which we do live, would we all agree that states necessarily do in fact commit aggression? Taxation is aggression. And after all, the power to tax is the essence of the state.

The Sky is the Limit.

Secondly, States do not necessarily commit aggression. In a world in which no crimes are committed, a anarchy is indistinguishable from a minarchy. That is to say, in a minarchy where no crimes are committed, the minimal State has no reason to convict or punish anybody. This is how anarcho-liberatrianism and minarcho-libertarianism can be reconciled under the libertarian umbrella.

Otherwise what is the point of calling minarchists libertarians, if according to Mr. Kinsella they do not subsribe to the libertarian principle of non-initation of force.

Thirdly, I find Mr. Kinsella’s rigidness and doctrinariness somewhat annoying.

People are sure reluctant to come to grips with the fact that the government is not by any means of, or for the people. It is of and for itself and a small group of favored and privileged individuals. When Washington drops a bomb and kills civilians in a foreign land, you’ll hear it: well it was either “us” or “them” and “we” had to make that tough decision for “our” own self defense. The truth is the opposite. Each act of Washington initiated aggression puts the American citizen’s life at more risk and here’s the fact: Washington is quite OK with that.

So real change must come from internationalist, they have overcome the competition between states. When a mediator gets two good idea from the debators, then it has to choose not by spliting both in piece but how can you make a solution when two people have different dreams.
There are needs for martyrdom(autonomous auto-determination) and needs for socialism (shared solution to die in abundance), depending on your view of death. Both needs to become objective depending on the envirronement they face.

Socialism must come but capitalism must prove the diversity of solution by trying it before having the agreement of the competitor.
Capitalit can be an exemple of willingness to make it evolve by the way leadership is taken, socialist can be an exemple of open mind by the way they share their concerns on a common problem.

Barring arguments for whether or not the State is needed (I for one think that a decentralized State coupled with laissez faire capitalism is probably the best solution to many of the moral and economic problems in our country right now).

I suppose one could say that Friedman is more ‘pragmatic’ in how he deals with problems, but herein lies the rub where I really disagree with Boettke. You can’t argue to abolish something by doing it in incremental steps – it should be all or nothing.

If he’s arguing for reductions in the State, he’s doing a good job – and many of his articles have been about this. But it’s frustrating to see him argue on pragmatic lines – this is something that politicians and reformers do, no abolishers. It slows real changes down, as it makes compromises with people who are in the middle of the road (like politicians) and don’t want to see major changes happen, or don’t want to see major changes happen quickly.

Conservatives have gone down this line too. They really say that they don’t want public education – but since that’s ‘too far out there’ they propose reforming it. Same with the current ‘private’ social security accounts – about as nonsensical as the idea of Jewish Nazi’s.

This is excellent for politicians, as it slows down real change for minor changes that people can feel ‘safe’ with. That is one of the biggest weapons that politicians use. It’s much easier for people to struggle with problems that they already have than try to tackle the unknown.

One of the biggest problems that we have in America is the middle of the road approach. Everywhere you see, people agree to disagree on everything, setting up political compromises that only slow the wheels of change down, don’t really satisfy anyone, and betray the principles that reasonable men have laid down.

I’m not so much as angry at Friedman as I am disappointed with him. His compromises with the State only hurt real market reforms.

The biggest threat of political and intellectual isolation in the world is people like Friedman, not people who become upset for his compromises.

Ironically, given the good Professor Boettke’s statement, it’s actually Friedman who isolates poeple such as real Austrians (like Boettke) who take up classical liberal viewpoints. By trying to be the ‘middle man’ in free market ideas, Friedman has basically made anyone who disagrees with him a total radical lunatic; the press go to someone like him for a watered down view of market policies, and think him to be midly radical. What happens when Friedman is considered radical by the mainstream? People like Boettke, and other Austrians are deemed lunatics.

Friedman, in his own way, does more to isolate Austrians and their ideas for reformation in this country than a small, barely audible sect of frustrated Austrians do by disagreeing with him.

Just some ramblings… feel free to ignore them.

you say: “states necessarily commit aggression”.

Some states create MORE aggression than others.

I think the reason for that is the extent to which they are allowed to do so. In Russia, people are accustomed to a very bad state, and accept this. In the West, people aren’t accustomed to that.

The US is founded on the English liberal tradition, as well this other liberal tradition: the one of the middle empire under Lothar (on the grandsons of Charlemagne, who got the middle empire, which was hard to govern. The consequence was an emergence of small states, and a lot of freedom: the low countries, Eastern France (Lyon, Provence-côte d’Azur), Western Germany, Switzerland and Northern Italy).

A mentality of not accepting violations of rights was founded there.

Splitting of countries, and gradual promoting of this mentality is the way that should be promoted, not the immediate abolishment of the state. This wouldn’t work, as it would be immediately replaced by people not respecting rights, as the mentality hasn’t already changed.

For example, someone who wants gov’t only in the businesses of policing and education is 100% socialist in these two specific areas. This may seem like an unnecessary detail to define, but not for someone whose job is related to security or personal protection, or teaching; to such people it makes all the difference in the world.

A person who argues for such “limited” gov’t intervention either (A) wants his own job protected by the gov’t by his being employed by the gov’t (making his entirely livelihood 100% socialized), or (B) wants other people to subsidize his/her chosen good or service (making his entire supply of this good or service 100% socialized).

Therefore, an anti-socialist (anarcho-libertarian) who happens to work in one of the targeted socialized professions cannot live in a “partially” socialized world; for someone whose job has become government-owned, even if it is only one of a few socialized industries, the whole society may just as well be socialist (except that the entire society would be even more impoverished.)

– Dewaine

The withholding tax as implemented in the USA may well have owed a lot to MF, but it was not really his invention. It’s nothing more than a US variant of the British PAYE (“pay as you earn”) system, which was implemented independently. Both originated in ideas that were circulating at the time.

Concepts like negative income tax and school vouchers are not inherently socialistic, but can be used – if the political will is there – as part of a transition. The transition goes on to monetising the entitlements (using monetised vouchers for NIT too), then providing the subsidies from independent funds which get genuinely (not fake) privatised, and finally parcelling out the funds as individual or family holdings backed by institutional reforms that stop them being dissipated over generations. It’s a matter of getting the government out of the loop incrementally.

For what it’s worth, the basic income idea can be handled as part of a (clumsier) transition in a similar way, as can Professor Kim Swales’s idea of an employment tax break carried on the back of a goods and services tax. I favour a variant of the latter myself, because it is fast acting enough for the first stage of a transition; I discuss this area at my publications page http://member.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html.

Friedman may be a vocal advocate for increased economic liberty, but what about that little brainstorm of his called the withholding tax? With friends like this, who needs neo-cons?

However, advocating a voucher system is less unproblematic, since it means increasing the amoung of redistribution wealth (since more people would have their kids’ education funded by the state than in a mixed public/private system, where the private school customers are not being subsidized), and also increased state control over private school.

Using the existing statist-controlled infrastructure (e.g., post office, roads, flood insurance) is not the same as advocating these programs. It could be argued that those who oppose such government programs–i.e., libertarians–are its only victims, and thus the very ones who are entitled to use public services, welfare, and the like–it’s just restitution. Whereas, for those who support the state, they are getting what they ask for, so they are owed no restitution. It’s okay to tax a democrat, in other words; it’s not theft, because he consents to it.

I agree some try to argue against libertarians by arguing they are hypocrites for living in the real world. I would say we have no duty to be martyr. And blaming the victim is not acceptable. It is akin to these despicable liberals who go apoplectic whenever a black opposes affirmative action–how dare they oppose it, when they are beneficiaries of it, the arguemnt goes. This is one of the most evil arguments I have ever heard. It is trying to trap people not only into being subject to imposed rules, but to keep them from even objecting to it. If’s not enough for these evil people that they can force us to abide by their laws, pay tribute to their immoral causes–they want to use that against us even complaining about it. It is unacceptable. It is blaming the victim.

I, too, would love to live in a world of Milton Friedmans. But just because he is a huge improvement over the average person’s political sensibilities does not mean that he does not endorse some socialistic policies, and that this should be condemned, or at least recognized for what it is. It is a separate question about whether he has been good for liberty or whether he is a good guy or a hero to us (he is, in my view).

I will frankly admit that I believe everyone who is not an anarcho-libertarian is to an extent an advocate of socialism, statism, and public criminality. That is just a consequence of being an anarchist. Every minarchist libertarian necessarily believes that any advocate of state programs beyond the night-watchman state is to that extent an advocate of criminality. That does not mean we can’t be allies with or respect such people. It does not mean that the people near the left side of my chart can’t be considered in general advocates of freedom or allies. But it does mean that some of them unfortunately do advocate, to a small degree, the very crime they usually condemn.

I’d love to live in a world full of socialists like Milton Friedman.