Wrong. But then you should already be running down the street, arms flailing, screaming gibberish.

I mean, damn, if you want to be convicted for your conviction, just keep it up.

But thanks, thanks, for adding your 100% bullshit reply regarding “capitalism”. Go get hooked on phonix with yer kidz, if you still wanna, no, obviously you dont, be a gentleman and a scholar.

P.S. Please remove all “economicZ” refrenceZ to your understanding. How do you feel now, dumba$$?

I agree that there may be a place for many of us.
Discovering a workable system to take on agressors using volunatry and private means of defence (as discussed in Hoppe’s last book) is probably the bigest priority on my agenda. THE MARKET FOR LIBERTY and THE MYTH OF NATIONAL DEFENSE are both great books. What I want to see are theorists, like Billy Mitchell, Liddel Hart from days of old. Only, I want to see theorists come along to deconstruct modern conventional war and formulate a theory to defeat the states that use it with private voluntary means. I find the mid 20th century Communist guerilla chieftans to be useful only to a piont. Anyone out there watch the history channel and know that it’s full of it?

I agree that the prime charge of Liberty, Eternal Vigilence, cannot be delegated. The idea that it can be, is, to me, the idea, once accepted, that imperils Liberty, nay, mitigates Liberty, to its Death. Patrick Henry, brave, he was, left for us all the “Political Triangulation” we needed to understand: Liberty or Death.

As far as your feelings are concerned, I’ll posit it is due to: that you have, in fact, walked the mean streets that many, here, only experience, virtually, behind their keyboards. Easy, it is, that many of us console ourselves with the pragmatism of acquiesence, while doing our level best to empower the beast that is consuming the, potential, future fruited with Liberty. It would not be surprising that our easy words and faint deeds are reminiscent of many of the pews that fill, but one day a week.

actually, military (well, “paramilitary”) forces have a role in a free society – as a part of commercial protection against large-scale external threats (such as remaining welfare-warfare or dictatorial states) and as a check against rogue protection agencies or criminal bands attempting to form new states.

Meanwhile, changing career now is probably a good choice – there’s little sense in placing yourself in a danger for the sake of the kleptocrats’ ambitions.

Speaking as someone who used to be a liberal, and became a libertarian, this is not the book that did the trick. I suspect its primary value may be in pursuading a “deontological minarchist” that market anarchy is a more consistent worldview. Since I’ve never been one, I can’t speak to that.

Government employees would have to find jobs in private enterprise if they wanted to work. There are two major kinds of government employees — those whose services would be in demand in the free market (teachers, librarians, secretaries, firemen, etc.) and those who perform no useful function but simply keep the governmental machinery running (lawmakers, tax collectors, bureaucratic record keepers and paper shufflers, executives in the military-industrial complex, the President and the Vice President, etc.). The first kind would probably find only minor difficulties in adjusting to a free society. A forest ranger in Yellowstone National Park might find his job almost unchanged, as the Park was taken over by a private corporation to be run for profit. Those lawyers and judges whose minds were young and flexible enough to adjust to freedom instead of statutory law could sell their services to free enterprise arbitration agencies. On the other hand, men who had spent their lives as tax collectors for the Internal Revenue Service or as Federal narcotics agents would find no “demand” for their services and would have to change careers in order to survive — perhaps even to that of garbage collector or janitor (honorable work, for a change). In a sense, this would be a partial penalty for having been willing to make a career of ruling over others.

It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But such vigilance is a constant non-productive expenditure of energy, and it is grossly unreasonable to expect men to keep expending their energy non-productively out of “unselfish idealism”. There is no area of the free market which requires the constant vigilance of the entire population to keep it from going awry. We would all be shocked and indignant if we were admonished to give such attentions to, say, the dairy industry in order to have our milk delivered unsour.