[marc stevens]

PT, you failed to answer a simple question and based on my experience you avoided it because you cannot answer the question and still support government in any form. Or, if you answered yes, a service should be provided at the barrel of a gun, you would be exposing an anti-social way of thinking.

Where do our facts not jibe? Do you disagree that governments are only individual men and women providing services on a compulsory/violent basis? If so, please show me where my facts are incorrect.

I guess pt and olecapt, you both must think shooting people to build roads is OK. Why you think the same services provided by government cannot be provided on a voluntary basis, is beyond me. Maybe you are unaware of the many historical examples (yes, including the 20th century and beyond) of societies & communities where fire, police, sanitation, libraries and roads were all provided privately. Maybe it's because you think people need to be controlled, threatened and killed so services can be provided and paid for, maybe for some reason you don't like the idea of people exercising choice in the services they wish to have and pay for. I don't know, for some reason just because you drive a dodge I have to.

As I always say, if government services were so valuable, so absolutely necessary for society to function, then they would be offered on a voluntary basis, brought to the market the way normal people do, voluntarily. A service's value is dictated by the number of people who voluntarily pay for it. Given that, what are government services worth?

How about this pt and olecapt, since you think government is a great idea and voluntaryism just abstract and improbable, why not come on my radio show this Saturday and explain how and why there can be a legitimate government? The show is live in Las Vegas on KLAV 1230 AM from 3-4 pm pacific time, you can call toll free (888) 202-1984.

[asik]

Marc's eloquence and reason has completely flummoxed the peasants who only believe in violence. They believe that might makes right, but forget that if there is a much needed revolution, they will be on the wrong side of might.

[Charles Wallace]

Originally Posted by ackackack

ParkTwain, weren't civilizations like the Romans and the Ottoman empire the opposite of "Small government?" Sorry, I'm just trying to stir the s@#t a bit. I don't want to get in the middle of this.

I'm not a historian, but regardless of the size of government, hasn't it basically always been the case that the strong have dominated the weak? I don't think the meek have inherited the earth quite yet -- just the dirt.

[ParkTwain]

"a service should be provided at the barrel of a gun"

I honestly don't understand why you have identified this as the crux of the problem with government. Who is threatening whom about what? "You both must think shooting people to build roads is OK" -- what the heck is THAT about?

"since you think government is a great idea and voluntaryism just abstract and improbable"

That's not what I said in the earlier post. I said that voluntaryism is incomplete as the basis of a state.

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by asik

Marc's eloquence and reason has completely flummoxed the peasants who only believe in violence. They believe that might makes right, but forget that if there is a much needed revolution, they will be on the wrong side of might.

I prefer there be almost no violence at all. But America worships violence, so I am an unhappy American citizen regarding that topic.

Libertarians also basically believe that might makes right (that is, don't you dare constrain me as a talented, ambitious, even "superior" individual!) but want those power relations to exist only (or predominantly) among private parties. How is this preferable to the alternatives, other than as a topic of superficial discussion at the country club?

[ParkTwain]

I can't take libertarianism seriously as a political philosophy. I feel that libertarianism, like Rand's objectivism, is the fruit of an adolescent mind, one immature in understanding human nature, history, and the importance and meanings of democratic citizenship and state. Citizenship, not "democratic subjecthood" (as in the U.K.) and not monadism (i.e., radical individualism). Libertarianism and objectivism emphasize the "freedom" aspect of democracy and turn it into a cult of the individual, which I feel is basically anti-democratic because (1) they despise the process of finding today's legislative compromise (which might also change later), which is so necessary and so basic to democracy, (2) democracy requires an ongoing process of interaction by political bodies and representatives to accurately reflect any changes in views of the people, (3) the political rights and status of the individual are fundamental (this is the point of having no king, that vestige of the anachronism of tribal society) and individual rights are important, but there is no absolute freedom of the individual because if so there is no state and making possible the existence of the state is the whole point.

If you're going to have a state and if other states exist out there, then there is such a thing as a treasonable act, for instance. (In opposition to marc's view.) There's no way around it. There are going to be rules, some rising to the status of laws. (See H.L.A. Hart's book "The Concept of Law.") If there is a need for shared resources within a state, and there always is, then revenue (perhaps in the form of in-kind resources) must be raised from the citizens to create those resources. That could be done on a voluntarily basis, I suppose. But what if the rich among us chooses not to contribute when in fact that person as a citizen is receiving benefits by living within the political context of the state. (My presumption, and belief from experience, is that, by definition, there are benefits to all the citizens from the existence of their state. Understanding this fact should be a key part of a citizen's education.) This implies to me that, for instance, there should be a rule applying to all the citizens about raising revenue to be used by the state for the common good.

Warren Buffett, a very successful capitalist, has been forthright in acknowledging that his wealth was built upon the foundation of being a participant, as a citizen, in the economic system implemented in the state of the United States of America. He admitted that he benefited from being a citizen of this state. If he were of a libertarian political philosophy, he would not make that statement.

If a citizen of a state fundamentally doesn't like that state's rules and perhaps also believes that the current rules won't be changed to his/her liking, that person can leave that state.

Libertarians tend to emphasize the differences among persons rather than the commonalities among all citizens. (I personally prefer to be a citizen.) This is inherently immature and retrograde in a society. A society of libertarians could never achieve great things; this actually seems to be their preference. Noble selfishness seems to be what is valued.

[asik]

The world has changed and is changing even more: the state is obsolete. The government is being ignored and when they use violence against those who ignore them, when violence is used back, the government will lose. The future for government is bleak, thankfully.
What do you think will happen if Hillary or Obama becomes president? A lot of people won't put up with that, I think you'll see.

[Chest Rockwell]

The government is being ignored and when they use violence against those who ignore them, when violence is used back, the government will lose.

This may be true in and around Baghdad, but here, not so much.

Park Twain, great post. Some people fail to appreciate the order and structure to their lives which are provided by gov't. Even ours, with all of its flaws.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by asik

The world has changed and is changing even more: the state is obsolete. The government is being ignored and when they use violence against those who ignore them, when violence is used back, the government will lose. The future for government is bleak, thankfully.
What do you think will happen if Hillary or Obama becomes president? A lot of people won't put up with that, I think you'll see.

Why do you guys feature violence? It does happen but it has little to do with practical governance. This simply your attempt to polarize?

If Hillary is elected we will have a relativfely conservative democratic regime. Likely we will eventually get out of Iraq. We will likely take some steps toward universal health care. We will likely reach some compromise on illegal immigration. Generally a little better but pretty representative of the last 20 years. Can't help but be a little better given the act she is following.

[marc stevens]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain;

"a service should be provided at the barrel of a gun"

I honestly don't understand why you have identified this as the crux of the problem with government. Who is threatening whom about what? "You both must think shooting people to build roads is OK" -- what the heck is THAT about?

"since you think government is a great idea and voluntaryism just abstract and improbable"

That's not what I said in the earlier post. I said that voluntaryism is incomplete as the basis of a state.

Of course, that's the problem with government, it's the same problem with rape, robbery and kidnapping. I almost can't believe you don't know who's doing the threatening, maybe you've never heard of people called the congress, president, prosecutors, DEA, BATF, IRS, SEC, FDA etc.

Since you support the concept of government, you support the idea of paying for it, that's through armed robbery euphemistically called taxation. Payment is compulsory, and if you don't think people are shot and killed for not paying for those wonderful government services, you only need to do a google search. You could also ask a friendly police officer what type of force may be used to execute a "warrant." Remember, the attack on the church at Waco was over a $200.00 tax.

If you look at my post, I was quoting you and another poster. Also, voluntaryism is not the basis for a state.