Young people thinking they know everything? Who’da thunk it?

If men were angels, government would be an effective quasi-panacea. Yet it never does. Human nature prevents any possible method for granting a monopoly of power to a handful of individuals. Additionally, one should keep in mind that power attracts the worst of said individuals.

Second, as has been noted by other anarcho-capitalists ad infinitum, utopia is an absurd belief and is not expected of anarcho-capitalists. Here is Murray Rothbard on the state.

Is this that old, “but muh warlords!” nonsense?

Or is it, “derp markets are great, except for some things! alternate nonsense?

I mean, this is so derivative and cliched, it’s not even good trolling.

The Anarchist’s Constitution

1. There is no Sovereign Immunity. Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition.
2. The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule. Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial.
3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules.
4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will.

For more see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
The above is one example of ‘rules without rulers’.

For me the basic new idea is that there is NO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. You can set up any system of criminal and civil law you want, so long as when anyone is wrongfully injured, restitution is made to whomever is harmed, preferably by the person or persons responsible for the injury. After all, we expect doctors to cure patients, and yet we hold them liable if they injure patients instead. All Anarchists are asking is that the same standard be applied to law enforcement. Is that really so difficult to imagine? No more Nuremberg Defense. No one ever again able to say, ‘I did the deed, but I am not responsible for my actions’.

As a Engineer, I can truthfully tell you that any decision making process WILL make mistakes. This is regrettable, but it doesn’t invalidate the need for criminal law, anymore than the fact that doctors sometimes harm their patients invalidates medical treatment. I would suggest that when someone turns eighteen, and wants to be regarded as an adult with the right to make contracts and such, that the eighteen year old sign a contract specifying under what standards of criminal and civil law they want to be held accountable under. Each person could purchase an insurance contract that would specify what ‘law enforcement agency’ would provide that person with police protection and arbitration services. I know this is all rather abstract, but consider this question; Is it absolutely certain that no voluntary means is available by which criminal, civil, and property law could be enforced? I am not certain, but I am hopeful that systems, imperfect but as good if not better than what governments now provide, can be designed and implemented. It should be possible to implement experiments within our Federal system first at the local level, then proceed up in scale as society grows more confident. Always remember, every system will make mistakes, utopia is NEVER an option, but can’t we strive to do better?

What would you give so your children never lived again in a world where hundreds of millions of men, women, and children, are lawfully murdered by their governments,… and then the perpetrators stand up with one voice and proclaim, “I did the deed, but I am not responsible”, “I was just following orders”, “I was just doing my job”, “I am not responsible,… only the person(s) giving the orders are responsible”. I want to live in a world sovereignty is based upon individual moral agency, and where individuals are held responsible for the consequences of their actions always. If it is appropriate to hold this standard for doctors,… why not law enforcement,… or even armies at war? Can’t we at least make the effort?

Or perhaps living in such a world frightens you? Maybe you should reconsider why that may be?

However, when I consider that even anarchist, David Friedman, had some reservations (such as national defense), I have to reconsider. See http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Reqmts_for_Anarcho_C.html

Would there be private ownership of Hydrogen Bombs perhaps? Biological toxins? Weaponized nanotech?

Would any preemptive action be justified against someone deliberately building Doctor Strangelove’s, Doomsday device upon their own private property?

How would an Anarcho-Capitalist society have prevented being overrun by German Nazis, or Russian Communists totalitarians in the 1930’s?

When the anarchist’s answer is “I don’t know,… but the market will figure SOMETHING out!”, even I am left with a not-so-vague sense of unease. That there doesn’t seem to be even one practical example of a large anarcho-capitalism society in existence ever is more than a mere trifling objection.

When a state is limited to a minarchist position of being used ONLY in response to violence already initiated by others, then it would seem viable. But over time “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” ~ Thomas Jefferson. So what to do? Ron Paul’s observation that “In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” is also spot on!

As a Engineer, the most basic insight I can offer is that EVERY DECISION MAKING PROCESS MAKES MISTAKES!!! EVERY SINGLE ONE!! This is true yesterday, today, and for all of the tomorrows, ALWAYS! Given this basic, fundamental, fact, the market answers this insight by the use of competition to parse out what the truth may be in any given situation. The truth is NOT a respecter of violence, nor of majorities, nor of good intentions, and most certainly, not of authority.

So what are we left to do? I suspect that a mathematician could offer a proof that there is no universal, stable, solution to this conundrum. Godel’s Essential Incompleteness Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) quite probably applies to the problem of how to use initiatory violence in society, as well as to construction of all truth for the set of integers. Some questions don’t have universal answers.

But, really, isn’t it only Progressives that believe in the possible existence of absolute solutions? Don’t Conservatives, with their tragic vision of existence, implicitly understand that there only exist trade-offs, and not solutions, to societies most intractable problems?

Personally, I still come down, mostly, on the side of the Anarchists. But then,… how could anything but a wildly intrusive state (using the draft, unlimited credit off of any gold standard, the willingness to build, at great cost, uranium bombs, and to then use them on civilians, all while cooperating with a totalitarian, communistic, mass murdering, Poland back stabbing, lying Soviet Regime) have won World War II, and left preserved any fraction of our liberty, for our citizens, here at home?

Trade-offs remember… No absolute solutions… Every decision making process makes mistakes…

The tragic vision of existence.

To repeat myself,… I Do Have One Hope…

that the people (not the government, philosopher kings, established authorities,…) accept completely, in their hearts and minds, as basic as breathing, that there is NO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY EVER!!!!

Never again should it even be imaginable that someone would seriously consider offering, as a defense of violence, that: I was just doing my job; I was just following orders; That I did the deed, but I am not responsible for my actions; Those in authority made me do it; God told me to kill the innocent; I was holding the gun in my hand, but the gun killed the victim, not me.

The above is the Nuremberg defense, honestly offered, and honestly believed, by the Nazis, who aggressively started a World War, and industrialized mass murder. See http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/speeches/speeches-by-robert-h-jackson/opening-statement-before-the-international-military-tribunal/ or consider Robert Jackson’s closing statement “that these defendants now ask this Tribunal to say that they are not guilty of planning, executing, or conspiring to commit this long list of crimes and wrongs. They stand before the record of this Trial as bloodstained Gloucester stood by the body of his slain king. He begged of the widow, as they beg of you: “Say I slew them not.” And the Queen replied, “Then say they were not slain. But dead they are…” If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.”

When society as a whole universally holds this self evident premise, then peace, and justice is possible,… even likely.

Without this premise, nothing effective can be done.

If you, as an anarchist, implicitly mean this as a part of anarchy, you need to make this VERY EXPLICIT!!! Rules without rulers is not part of people’s imagination, YET! WE NEED TO PUT IT THERE!

I normally don’t like using all CAPS for emphasize, but this is really all important… don’t you all agree?

I get a little irritated with people who vote. But lets get to what you are really saying. You want me to compromise my principles for the benefit of yours.

I disagree with some of the things Michael Malice said, therefore everything he says is invalid.

There. I’ve summed up most of the comments.

“but we can’t live in a peaceful society unless there is a monopoly on violence (govt).”

You think we live in a peaceful society? Everyone pillaging anyone they can through “legal” means is peaceful? Did you see the riots in Baltimore? Do you know what is causing the riots, not just the proximate cause, but the ultimate cause?

We wage war with ballots directing the bullets, but there are bullets flying nonetheless. Frankly, I think the country would be more peaceful without a group of costumed fools believing themselves above morality.

Who”s denigrating who? Ayn Rand denounced Libertarians, isn’t Murray Rothbard Mr. Libertarian. Rothbard was right to take her to task.

I attended a lot of the NBI lectures. “Mozart Is Red” is not so much an attack as it is a humorous true account of a cult that should be brought to light.

Mr. Malice is against similar minds attacking each other but then promotes “bitterness and anger” to get people to listen. I think Reason Magazine, Cato, Peikoff et al should be attacked. They all ignored Ron Paul especially his foreign policy views. How can one stand by and not attack a guy (Peikoff) who wants to nuke Iran?

Brian

I’ll admit that I groaned when I saw that it was another episode with Michael Malice, but I still listened to it, and enjoyed it, and found it stimulating.

No disrespect to anybody else you’ve had on the show, but Malice needs to be on as much as possible. Save for the Judge, he’s easily been the quickest and most entertaining guest and I like the debates you get into with him.