The Principle Behind Minarchy

[wtfk]

I think the constitution actually prohibits the states from printing money, but there's no reason private parties can't do it.  The reason the federal money is bad is because it's the de facto currency, and, they're allowed to inflate it.

[wtfk]

You can't really inflate a gold standard, at least not to the same extent. Honestly, I'm just as concerned with private printing of money as I am with the Feds doing it. States seemed a semi-reasonable compromise.

It's correct that you cannot inflate the gold standard, except by cheating, which governments have done.  It's being the de facto standard currency that allows these abuses.  I don't think it's any compromise to allow people with the power of abusive force to tell us what money is.

[wtfk]

Most people's does.  Then for my previous comments you may wish to consider government the state.

[markuzick]

Are you suggesting that the private banks should operate as independent agencies? If you are, that is a very bad idea. Take a look at the CIA, they can do whatever they want without being held accountable. The CIA has been corrupt since day one, and look! There were Bush's at the table from its creation. Surprise, surprise.

What exactly are you suggesting, Markuzick?

The Fed board is an independent US government agency that operates though a regulated private banking cartel. As with all the other agencies, it gets its power through the guns of the US government. This is what happens if you try to make a competing currency:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900993.html

"Goliath just introduced David to millions of Americans as a nationally recognized underdog," the site continues. "Just as Pepsi went up against Coke with their 'take the Pepsi Challenge' campaign, the Liberty Dollar will take it to the people to decide which currency they should use."

Norfed encouraged people to keep doing "the drop," referring to its advice to drop the coin into merchants' hands so they can feel its weight.

That could land the dropper in prison, Bailey warns, for up to five years.

[Taors]

Most people's does.  Then for my previous comments you may wish to consider government the state.

Then I think the state should be demolished and the government repaired.

FUCKING STATIST MOTHER FUCKER!

I bet you'd like CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!

[Taors]

Liar. Anyone who advocates smaller government is obviously a fascist piece of shit!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111

[BKO]

Taors, how much sugar did you have today?

[Taors]

I'm making fun of anarchists, so ask them how much sugar they've had.

[AbsurdParadox]

I personally don't believe we can solve the "problem of government" until we somehow rid ourselves of the highly suggestible "masses". Which of course, is impossible. I've just come to accept the fact that governments forming, growing, and then falling, is just a cyclic fact of human society.

One could also draw the conclussion that the world itself does exist in anarchy, however all property is controlled by extremely large force-exerting companies.

However, don't take all of this as defeatist... one must still fight to reduce the size of government. I personally love the idea of a truly free market, but I don't see it as sustainable. Hell, I just look at Eve Online (www.eve-online.com). All the space outside the non-player areas started out unconquered (much like the frontier in the 'old west'). For quite some time, people shared the space and traded freely. Eventually large alliances of literally thousands  of players began to form (after the player population increased greatly), and these alliances started warring, with one taking over large areas of space. You might say "oh its just a game, people wanna pwn people", and I do agree, but I think it makes a good analogy however... I would suggest the mercs over in Iraq see the world in that manner.

[Taors]

The United States wants to pwn people in Iraq, and they're doing that.

[wtfk]

All things considered, it seems to be the other way around.  I mean, given the advantage the US military has...

[Taors]

Well, that's the phenomenon of when the pwnerer becomes the pwned. It's a rare thing to witness, but it does happen. I would consider the insurgents in Iraq the pwnerers now.

[markuzick]

I personally don't believe we can solve the "problem of government" until we somehow rid ourselves of the highly suggestible "masses". Which of course, is impossible. I've just come to accept the fact that governments forming, growing, and then falling, is just a cyclic fact of human society.

One could also draw the conclussion that the world itself does exist in anarchy, however all property is controlled by extremely large force-exerting companies.

However, don't take all of this as defeatist... one must still fight to reduce the size of government. I personally love the idea of a truly free market, but I don't see it as sustainable. Hell, I just look at Eve Online (www.eve-online.com). All the space outside the non-player areas started out unconquered (much like the frontier in the 'old west'). For quite some time, people shared the space and traded freely. Eventually large alliances of literally thousands  of players began to form (after the player population increased greatly), and these alliances started warring, with one taking over large areas of space. You might say "oh its just a game, people wanna pwn people", and I do agree, but I think it makes a good analogy however... I would suggest the mercs over in Iraq see the world in that manner.

The "problem of government" is not related to the existence of government, as government, in it self, is not a problem, but a solution to problems. The problem is whether we attempt to solve our problems through governments that are aggressive (The State) or governments that are based upon  voluntary cooperation, within a competitive market for governments. In other words, how do we convince people to desire civilisation over barbarism.

Since we need governments to solve problems, then maybe the solution for the problem of aggressive governments are voluntary governments which would, in some way/s, provide protection and/or insurance against the State for its clients, while also providing superior private alternatives to State functions.

This is basically what the free market does, which is why the dominant trend in history has been the repeated failure of States and the emergence of ever greater and more complex organization of the free market. The danger is that the free market allows for the creation of great wealth and technological prowess, which is then squandered and/or used to make destructive weapons, in the service of irrational religions and/or ideologies. Only moral enlightenment can put a stop to this cycle of civilised order first evolving and then degenerating into the chaos of statism and war. Without a moral revolution to match Man's scientific and technological revolution, Man's extinction becomes an ever increasing possibility.

[AbsurdParadox]

The "problem of government" is not related to the existence of government, as government, in it self, is not a problem, but a solution to problems. The problem is whether we attempt to solve our problems through governments that are aggressive (The State) or governments that are based upon  voluntary cooperation, within a competitive market for governments. In other words, how do we convince people to desire civilisation over barbarism.

Since we need governments to solve problems, then maybe the solution for the problem of aggressive governments are voluntary governments which would, in some way/s, provide protection and/or insurance against the State for its clients, while also providing superior private alternatives to State functions.

This is basically what the free market does, which is why the dominant trend in history has been the repeated failure of States and the emergence of ever greater and more complex organization of the free market. The danger is that the free market allows for the creation of great wealth and technological prowess, which is then squandered and/or used to make destructive weapons, in the service of irrational religions and/or ideologies. Only moral enlightenment can put a stop to this cycle of civilised order first evolving and then degenerating into the chaos of statism and war. Without a moral revolution to match Man's scientific and technological revolution, Man's extinction becomes an ever increasing possibility.

Oh, I totally agree. I've said on this very forum here that government is inevitable as its a solution to problems.

I think our two points go hand in hand quite nicely. My claim is that there are too many stupid people for the immoral to exert power over, and your point is that we need a moral revolution. I think either one would lead to a more voluntary government... we can only hope, and work, for both.

[lordmetroid]

Monopoly organizations are always bound to fail... The only thing the can keep organizations in check is competition it has been shown over and over.