Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarcho-Capitalism  (Read 14008 times)

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #30 on: December 30, 2003, 12:32:52 pm »

Whaddya know, Mike, we finally agree on something.  :)

It may interest you to know that some folks here have claimed that any such cross-generational obligations were slavery and that the option to simply expatriate did not represent a reasonable choice.   I, on the contrary, say that anyone living in the US as a citizen must be living there voluntarily and is therefore assenting to the Constitution and indicating their willingness to work within the system for change.

RS

Well since the state constitutions were not consent agreements, the US constitutions wasn't either. a consent agreement is at least a unamious agrement of all the property owners, statehood often was only voted on by some of the property owners and by majority but not a simple majority vote of those that could vote. In Tennessee there where whole counties that voted against statehood by super majority.  Here is property owners that could not vote, women, free blacks, Indians and property owners that owned less than the minimum, which was sometimes as much as 40 acres. Representives had to own a much larger parcel and the territory govenor  at least a square mile( 640 acres) in some cases.                              
   I have seen refrences where Paine and Jeffreson said the constitution and laws should have a 30 year life so as to not bind one generation to anothers wishes. Makes sense to me.
Logged

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2003, 12:41:02 pm »

Whaddya know, Mike, we finally agree on something.  :)

It may interest you to know that some folks here have claimed that any such cross-generational obligations were slavery and that the option to simply expatriate did not represent a reasonable choice.   I, on the contrary, say that anyone living in the US as a citizen must be living there voluntarily and is therefore assenting to the Constitution and indicating their willingness to work within the system for change.

RS

Well since the state constitutions were not consent agreements, the US constitutions wasn't either. a consent agreement is at least a unamious agrement of all the property owners, statehood often was only voted on by some of the property owners and by majority but not a simple majority vote of those that could vote. In Tennessee there where whole counties that voted against statehood by super majority.  Here is property owners that could not vote, women, free blacks, Indians and property owners that owned less than the minimum, which was sometimes as much as 40 acres. Representives had to own a much larger parcel and the territory govenor  at least a square mile( 640 acres) in some cases.                              
   I have seen refrences where Paine and Jeffreson said the constitution and laws should have a 30 year life so as to not bind one generation to anothers wishes. Makes sense to me.

In those olden days, there was plenty of unclaimed lands for any who disagreed to take as their own.  Benjamin Franklin suggested those who opposed the government do just that.  :)

IAC, the issue remains.  Either one must accept the notion of covenants that cross generational boundaries in some form or another, or one cannot conceive of a society under a rule of law that lasts longer than its original signatories.

RS


Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2003, 06:41:15 pm »

Perhaps if Thomas JEfferson hadn't made the luisiana purchase we'd allready be living in an anarcho capitalist society.

Or if the Articles of Confederation had held up.


Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #33 on: December 31, 2003, 12:56:39 pm »

Perhaps if Thomas JEfferson hadn't made the luisiana purchase we'd allready be living in an anarcho capitalist society.

Or if the Articles of Confederation had held up.

Tracy

If the inalienable right of self-ownership had not been violated by legalized slavery, I think the states-rights issue would never have been an issue anyone would have been willing to wage civil war over.   The lack of universal suffrage might have still triggered a conflict, but if universal suffrage AND self-ownership had been features of the original Constitution, and the States had lived up to their agreements, then the Civil War would likely never have occurred.

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #34 on: December 31, 2003, 01:40:34 pm »

Perhaps if Thomas JEfferson hadn't made the luisiana purchase we'd allready be living in an anarcho capitalist society.

Or if the Articles of Confederation had held up.

Tracy

If the inalienable right of self-ownership had not been violated by legalized slavery, I think the states-rights issue would never have been an issue anyone would have been willing to wage civil war over.   The lack of universal suffrage might have still triggered a conflict, but if universal suffrage AND self-ownership had been features of the original Constitution, and the States had lived up to their agreements, then the Civil War would likely never have occurred.

RS


Also LVT, from local - to state - to national, was the sole form of taxation via the articles of confederation...

"Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled."

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article8
Logged

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #35 on: December 31, 2003, 02:58:36 pm »

This is entirely legitimate, since at the time, the only real job of the Confederation was national defense. Those with more property had more to lose from invasion than those with less property. A plainly obvious tax basis.
I would have much preferred to remain under the AofC. They would have prevented the Fugitive Slave Act AND the Civil War, as well as income tax and other eggrigiousness. We would have been free to use technology to make slavery obsolete.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #36 on: December 31, 2003, 03:03:25 pm »

Well, as a first step to some future world where government itself might actually be unnecessary, a return to the Articles of Confederation (with the addition of universal suffrage and inalienable self-ownership -- that means no slavery -- and some explicit limits to States power over the Individual) might be a decent goal.

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #37 on: December 31, 2003, 05:14:39 pm »

The civil war didn't have anything to do with slavery.

I suggest you read more history then that of the court historians.

Perhaps if Thomas JEfferson hadn't made the luisiana purchase we'd allready be living in an anarcho capitalist society.

Or if the Articles of Confederation had held up.

Tracy

If the inalienable right of self-ownership had not been violated by legalized slavery, I think the states-rights issue would never have been an issue anyone would have been willing to wage civil war over.   The lack of universal suffrage might have still triggered a conflict, but if universal suffrage AND self-ownership had been features of the original Constitution, and the States had lived up to their agreements, then the Civil War would likely never have occurred.

RS

Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #38 on: December 31, 2003, 06:01:39 pm »

The civil war didn't have anything to do with slavery.

I suggest you read more history then that of the court historians.

I realize, Tracey, that in the South, the War of Northern Agression is educated to be something other than how it is taught up north. Here is real history.

1850 - Fugitive Slave Act passed, which allowed any claimaint to claim any free black was theirs without demonstrating proof, and fined any federal marshal $1000 for not returning said free black to their alleged master. Blacks were denied habeus corpus.

Free states argued a states rights argument that their nullification powers prevented the enforcement of this act in their jurisdiction. This was particularly evident in the  Dredd Scott case, in which the Fugitive Slave Act was upheld and states rights were overruled.

As a result of the depradations of southern marshalls in northern states upon free blacks, even blacks who had never been slaves or set foot in slave states, individuals like John Brown decided a cheek for a cheek was acceptable policy. He fought militantly against pro-slavery forces in Kansas through the 1850's and in 1957 launched his ill fated attack on Harper's Ferry, where he was captured by Robert E Lee. At the trial that sentenced him to death, he said, "I believe to have interfered as I have done, . . . in behalf of His despised poor, was not wrong, but right. Now, if it be deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children, and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I submit: so let it be done."

Although initially shocked by Brown's exploits, many Northerners began to speak favorably of the militant abolitionist. "He did not recognize unjust human laws, but resisted them as he was bid. . . .," said Henry David Thoreau in an address to the citizens of Concord, Massachusetts. "No man in America has ever stood up so persistently and effectively for the dignity of human nature. . . ."

James Horton on Harpers Ferry:  
Q: How did Southerners react to the raid on Harpers Ferry?  

 A: It is a critical moment from the standpoint of the South, because the South uses the John Brown raid to make the point, slavery can never be safe. The abolitionists and their supporters will be always threatening this institution of slavery. Now, the North and those who were who were moderate on this issue said, "But these people don't represent the North," they said. "These are just crazy people who are acting on their own, and not at all representative of northern sentiment." That was a hard sell for the South. The South didn't believe it. They didn't trust the officials in the North. And increasingly, they didn't trust the officials of the federal government. I think that the John Brown raid was a critical moment which signals the inevitability of war, of hostility between these two sections over the institution of slavery.

You know, one of the things we need to understand is that this raid was widely exaggerated in many southern newspapers. There were southern newspapers that said there were hundreds of people. Some southern newspapers said six hundred, seven hundred, eight hundred people were involved in this raid. I mean, wild stories of major northern armies, you know, advancing on the South. Well, you know, if you're in some small southern town, what you know about this raid is what the newspaper tells you.

But even for those accounts that were more realistic, it gave southern slave holders pause. To what extent were they able to depend on the federal government to protect what they saw as their property rights? To what extent were they able to depend upon the federal government to prevent what they saw as an increasingly violent anti-slavery movement from actually invading the South? From the standpoint of the North, it was a signal that this issue, this controversy might very well end in violence. Black people in the North formed militias. There were black military groups that were formed in the 1850's that were readying their members for what they saw as the inevitability of violent conflict with the South over the issue of slavery.

Southern slave holders asked themselves, "To what extent can we depend on the federal government to protect our property, to keep us from being invaded by" -- what they saw as an abolitionist movement becoming more and more violent. They were ever mindful of the fact that in the early 1830's, Nat Turner, a slave from Virginia, had led a rebellion which had killed fifty-some-odd whites in that vicinity. They were convinced that the abolitionists, that fugitive slaves, that free blacks had as their ultimate goal the in the invasion of the South, to bring violence into the South.

In the 1850's, free blacks did, in fact, establish military companies in in in cities: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York, Boston, Cincinnati. These were military companies in which black people argued that what they were doing was preparing for the inevitability of violent conflict with the South over the institution of slavery.

There were all kinds of signs that this conflict was coming, and it would not be peaceful. From the standpoint of the South, this was very frightening.

One of the things that comes across very strongly is that John Brown was a hero of monumental proportions within the black community. You know, before his raid, he had traveled around the country, trying to raise money for his raid. And he has raised lots of this money in black communities. Blacks were very supportive. Harriet Tubman thought seriously about participating in in his raid, and and it was only at the last minute when she was unable to. So that this was not a crazy man, to black people in America. This was a person with a vision of freedom, and they wanted to participate and support that vision.

From the standpoint of the South, of course, to have this white abolitionist be in a position of being able to provide arms to slaves in the area of Harpers Ferry, was tremendously frightening. I mean, they all knew that in the early thirties, Nat Turner had staged a very successful slave rebellion in which fifty-some-odd whites were killed. Can you imagine their fear of the possibility of having Nat Turner with repeating rifles, and having them supported by an armed abolitionist band? This was the the worst nightmare for some slave holders, who were really increasingly convinced that the abolitionists were going to mount an invasion of the South." -- end quote --

Now, we know it wasn't JUST about that. But the south did secede when Lincoln was elected because he was an abolitionist. The southern claims of 'states rights' are bogus, because they fought against states rights in order to prosecute the Fugitive Slave Act in the north. States Rights claims by the south are propaganda promulgated by guilty confederates who wanted to proclaim higher principles than just keeping blacks in bondage.

We know that northern industrialists wanted access to freed black laborers to help them combat socialist leaning labor unions formed by european immigrants. So what?
 
« Last Edit: December 31, 2003, 06:02:38 pm by Mike Lorrey »
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #39 on: December 31, 2003, 08:08:19 pm »

You ASSUME I'm from the south. Technically I'm from neither. I was born and raised in Idaho.

The truth is that, it wasn't untill after the emmancipation proclimation -- 2 years after the war started -- that the New York Draft riots errupted.

People didn't fight on either side of the war to keep or abolish slavery. In fact the Northern abolishin movement wanted to sucede from the union because they then could nulify the fugitive slave act.

U.S. Grant USED slaves on the northern side to help him fight his war. Meanwhile both Jackson and Lee freed all of their slaves, before the war started. In fact a couple of the "slave states" abolished slavery early in the war.

Missouri and Georgia emancipated the slaves early in the war. Lincoln nullified this.

The Tarrif issue was the main thing they didn't want to pay. Lincoln was basically stealing money from exporters to subsidize through protectionistic polocies Northern Politically connected industry. The South was paying a good 80% of the tarrifs And lincoln raised it to horendous amounts. It trippled before succession, and Lincoln threatend use of force to make them pay -- especially South Carolina.

Lincoln didn't seem to care about abolishing slavery in the upper south states that didn't secede either.  Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee for example didn't secede untill after Lincoln's aremed and conscripted (itself a form of slavery) agression attacked sister states further south.

Sherman William didn't care about slavery at all. He would find a slave, put him/her in a hangman's nuise and demand that he tell him where the masters valuebles were. His army personally killed many slaves this way. He even addmitted that he should have been hanged for War crimes -- It's a really hard to imagine that Sherman, or Grant (Who, like I said used slaves to help him fight the war.) really cared about slavery.

In fact Lincoln and the Republicans originally tried to pass a Constitutional ammendment saying that the federal government wasn't allowed to interfear in the institutions of the several states (slavery).

In fact, their were free blacks. Who fought on the southern side. Black confederates. Apparently slavery wasn't an issue for them.

In fact in the Book "What they fought for" the author goes through the diaries of numerous soldiers on both the North and the South. Slavery wasn't the issue.

Read Dilorenzo's latest essay, and read through some of his archives.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo56.html

Also read through some of the Black Libertarian Walter Williams articles http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/archive.shtml

Specifically Black Confederates
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams012600.asp

And he's got some others.

Quote
Now, we know it wasn't JUST about that. But the south did secede when Lincoln was elected because he was an abolitionist.


And this is entirely wrong. Lincoln was NOT an abolishionist. Even his supporters recognize this. Read Constitutional Dictatorship A pro Lincoln work which mentions this. Lincoln wanted subsidies to ship the current freed blacks off to Haiti and other places. The south Seceded primarily because tarrif rates trippled.

2ndly, later on Minimum wage laws were put into effect pricesly becuase they discriminated against blacks. The North didn't like the fact that South could make some things cheeper and compete with them. The North didn't care about the south. Many in the North were opposesd to the war -- but you wouldn't know that, because Lincoln trashed and destroyed many free printing presses. He even locked up Northern political desenters.

The Northern Abolishionists advocated northern sececion, And felt Souther seccession would help put an end to slavery sooner. Lincoln definetly wasn't one of them.


Tracy Saboe

« Last Edit: December 31, 2003, 08:14:19 pm by Tracy Saboe »
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #40 on: December 31, 2003, 08:14:20 pm »

Be that as if may, wouldn't you agree that any future US constitution ought to limit the States' powers to encroach on self-ownership?

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #41 on: December 31, 2003, 08:43:12 pm »

Let's start a new thread about the civil war!

Here you go:


http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=5013




Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2003, 08:51:57 pm »

Be that as if may, wouldn't you agree that any future US constitution ought to limit the States' powers to encroach on self-ownership?

RS

Nope.

I have serious reservations about looking to a bigger bully to make a big bully behave. All it's done is enslave us all at a national level. Instead of a few people being enslave in sellected locals, now everybody is enslaved. allowing the Fed to have police powers (both to police individuals and police several states) has hurt our liberty on a national scale instead of more localized tyranny's that are much easier to move away from. This is why I'm a faily radicle decentralist. I would work to abolish both the Fed, and the State governments and let cities and towns be soveren states. Then if one citi is being tyrranical it's easier to move away. It's also easier to influence local politics. The way it curently is, you have to go a long long way to escape tyranny, and might not even then, because of expanded UN powers, that try to make all countries have an equal amount of tyranny.

Tracy Saboe
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #43 on: January 01, 2004, 12:53:33 am »

Well, it seems to me that the only justification for government at all is to secure our rights, and that a primary flaw of the US Constitution was the 10th amendment's failure to limit the State's powers.  It's not really about pitting bully against bully, it's about placing limits on the State's ability to infringe on our self-ownership.  

Like Zack says, it is the State, not the Feds, that has most of the victimless crime laws that would throw us in jail for peaceful, private activities.

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #44 on: January 01, 2004, 01:02:26 am »

The drug war is waged by the FED. And it's the most vial of the victumless crimes by far.

Also, most of the tyranny in terms of taxation the Fed takes most of it. If we didn't have federal taxes, their would be much more incentive for states to compete with each other along that line. But currently, since the Fed takes the majority of it, "what's the use" of moving to a lower taxed state. The other thing is that currently States use the excuse that the Fed's making them do it.

2ndly, most of the states that became states after the mid 1800s were forced to have in their constitutions by the Fed evils like public schooling, and such. The Fed forced new states to be more statist then they otherwise wanted to be.

Tracy Saboe
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
 

anything