“Violence and aggression are not the same thing. Until you can make that distinction, you will never understand libertarian thought. Murdering another person is violence. So is gunning down a person who attempts to murder you. Only the former is aggression.”

Good point!

Björn Lundahl

And whilst the big-time rich have helped to scale back the welfare system and reduce tax-rates they don’t seem too concerned with removing governments per se.

You seem to have missed the point that scaling back welfare and taxes are helpful actions.

Nevertheless, just what would you suggest the capitalist “big time rich” do in effort to remove governments per se?

Keep in mind, they want to remain rich and alive.

Of course, most Anarchists would be against such a proposal because they abhore violence and would claim you’re violating peoples’ right to live under dictators, like they did with Iraq.

Violence and aggression are not the same thing. Until you can make that distinction, you will never understand libertarian thought. Murdering another person is violence. So is gunning down a person who attempts to murder you. Only the former is aggression.

Retaliatory violence is acceptable if it is in response to aggressive violence. Even the state realizes this. The problem with states is that they are very good at convincing the people that their aggressive acts are actually retaliatory.

I would also question your idea that the U.S. had a moral obligation to kill half a million people so that those left alive would be “free”.

Somehow I’m sure the billionaires of the world don’t mind Libertarianist self-appointed back-stratchers telling them how they so amazing and how they shouldn’t pay taxes, take cheek from governments or trade unions, expect to fork money for welfare cheques for slackers, etc. And whilst the big-time rich have helped to scale back the welfare system and reduce tax-rates they don’t seem too concerned with removing governments per se. If they don’t mind a minimalist government system why would they get rid of that? Not surprisingly the rich and laissez faire Capitalists adhere to Mercantilism/Bullionism which originally meant you counted your wealth with how much gold and silver you had and it didn’t matter how that wealth came about. Nowadays I suppose it could also include bonds and shares and platinum, etc. and if government regulations can help you keep that wealth then that’s a bonus too. Why are they going to tip the apple cart?

Perhaps another good example is the Welfare State versus the Warfare State. The Welfare State, it would be said, are where the poor and their advocates reside. And it’s interesting to note how comparatively easy the way in which governments have been quick to respond to Conservatives, who agree with Libertarianists, and try to get back to the old-fashioned charity model. Whereas the Warfare State are where the big, strong guys live, where certain rich people and devious government goons profit from having conflicts erupt around the world. Yet because these guys ARE strong they can’t just be toppled as easily. Funny that. Try to push them and shucks if they don’t just happen to push back twice as hard.

Please inform me WHAT exactly is the magical difference that Libertarianism has that will wonderfully change the world? Laissez-faire isn’t new. Socio-economic Darwinism is the cruel harsh reality of Mother Nature. Self-ownership is a vague concept unless you are an already powerful person. What is the IT factor that even Conservatives are missing? Lest Libertarianists are merely economic-Darwinist cheerleaders for the rich?

Tim Spicer of Sandline (a Private Military Corporation) once estimated less than $1b to eliminate all armed conflict in Africa. This was based on practical experience in some of the worst affected locations: Angola, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Congo – Brazzaville, Congo – Kinshasa, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Liberia, Lesotho, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

That a credible, profit-motivated, and successful entrepreneur would be willing to bid for this implies that establishing anarchy is now well within the financial capabilities of the private sector.

Based on Spicer’s estimate, several years of enforced elimination of all armed violence within an existing African nation could therefore be purchased for approximately $50m. The scope of such a project could include defeating and disarming warring factions, armed gangs, and bandits, deposing existing despots, deterring rival tribal kleptocrats, and preventing foreign aid or other religious and political groups from disrupting recovering or emerging markets.

$50m doesn’t seem much, but it is plausible considering that most African conflicts are characterised by attacks on unarmed peasants by poorly armed, untrained, drug-addicted, criminal gangs, supporting psychopathic tribal leaders masquerading as international statesmen. Against such opposition, small forces of privately managed, professional, soldiers, with the appropriate motivation and resources, have proven highly effective.

Mercenaries (like anarcho-capitalism) are extremely politically incorrect. So, despite $50m being a relatively trivial sum in comparison to daily expenditure on the Iraq war, including mercenaries, there is no doubt that current governments or international agencies are not willing to pay for such a venture. But there may eventually be enough committed anarcho-capitalists around the world to seed sufficient private project funding – say 25,000 investors at $2000 each. In the event of under subscription, no money would be payable and little would be lost.

A PMC would not accept such a project unless success was certain. And, as a charitable contribution, such an exercise would be at least as worthy as sponsoring a child etc. As a venture shareholder, it also could be potentially lucrative long term, once the venture’s reputation was firmly established and PMCs become an acceptable form of external intervention.

Then why are you bothering to argue? Just because you think we need to hear your invaluable words of wisdom? Earth to Nelson – we’ve heard all you have too say a million times before. Repetition didn’t make it any less stupid.

So get back to your station in this life. Shut up and keep on browning your nose. Your masters just love all-wise all-accepting sheepie like yourself.

Here’s my counterargument: This whole debate is relevant. Things can change. Just look at U.S. history.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with “testing” the libertarian ideas; the U.S. was itself an experiment in self-government, admittedly for a short period of time and to greater and lesser degrees. It has been a long time since that was the case, though. Libertarians are simply the ones that are pointing out the government’s failure to do that which people in society can handle for themselves.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

It was what America was originally about. Read Bakunin or de Tocqueville and see what they had to say about the US.

Interesting reply of yours S. Radeta. You and your pals DO already have that existing right to make a new and better Union. The only problem is to create such a political party requires that the masses loooove Libertarianism (or Austrian values or whatever the correct term is) and will vote for such wonderful sweeping changes. Oops, too bad too many middle-class and rich people vote Conservative!

But I thought theories DID have to be proven. History seems to show that Conservative-type values have dominated. And besides I have to admit before I discovered the Internet I hadn’t even heard of Socio-Economic Libertarians! Sure I have heard of laissez-faire, but still. . .

Yet I have heard of that other type of Libertarian: Civil Libertarians. Their love of getting criminal soft sentences or off the hook and being all round do-gooders makes Liberals blush!

The reason I picked Zimbabwe is they used to be the breadbasket of the continent. And they used to have property rights in at least some form before Mugabe decided to forcefully redistribute the farm land. So the concept of private property is not new to the place. And they would probably be willing to go back to some kind of capitalist system given their recent troubles. I obviously doubt the Anarchist theory would actually work (it contains too many assumptions and not enough facts, imo), but if it has a chance of working anywhere, it is there. And if it turns out not to be practicable, the effort to implement it probably won’t make things worse than Mugabe has already made them.

What I would like to see is Anarchists test their theories in some place that actually has very poor government. Not the USA because we have too much to lose and for all the complaints, our government is a good one generally speaking. Zimbabwe might be a good choice for a testing ground. Good luck and let us know how it turns out.

Nelson,

Actually, we don’t want to reinvent the wheel and we don’t have any wild theories to prove. We just don’t want the strict geographical monopolistic jurisdiction of law – not the abolishment of all laws. We believe in self-determination rights and sovereignty (autonomy) of every individual – not on sovereignty based on land… That’s why we still argue that people within America have an inalienable right to form a more perfect union, without forcing anyone to become a part of it. Your socialist republic can continue to exist on voluntary basis, as far as we are concerned, and it should test its true support and improve itself in a free market competition (the most democratic elections of all).

Seriously, Nelson. If anarchists aren’t free to live their lives in the “land of the free,” then what the hell makes you think they’ll be allowed to in Zimbabwe?

Somalia is an example.

Really? You would like to seem them test their theories? Really? I doubt you would understand the results, since you apparently don’t comprehend the results of the consistently failing statist experiments.

we have too much to lose and for all the complaints, our government is a good one generally speaking

What you mean is that you have too much to lose. As a thief, you will obviously have something to “lose” when your capacity to steal is weakened. As a beneficiary of government plunder, I have no doubt that you honestly believe that the government is generally a good one. Thank you for your callous opinions.

I especially appreciate the offer of Zimbabwe. I didn’t know you held the title. How powerful you are. I suppose that I shouldn’t be surprised, since you also hold the title to all property in the US. I thought some of it was mine, but I guess I was wrong.

I must say that you are a gracious master, since you must own me as well. To allow me travel to Zimbabwe, a million praises, m’lord.