Message from Ron Paul

"You and I know that once the government moves beyond its very limited constitutional mandate, it is an opponent of the people, a rip-off operation that takes our money and our freedom and our social peace, and gives us a mess of statist pottage in return."

-Ron Paul

  Nah, Ron Paul's message isn't libertarian, he's just another statist virtually indistinguishable from Barney Frank(!)

Love & Liberty,
          <<< starchild >>>

The problem being that Ron Paul is only talking about the federal government -- not state governments. If state governments want to take your money and your freedom and your social peace, and give you a mess of statist pottage in return, it's not only hunky dory, it's their right!

And if you go running to the Supreme Court to demand those pesky rights in the Bill of Rights be applied to states as well, you're encouraging tyranny!

Sorry, it takes more than pushing a couple of coded buzzword buttons to make one a libertarian. I'll go by the record, which is, sadly, unenviable in Congressman Paul's case.

Cheers,

Brian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
"You and I know that once the government moves beyond its very limited constitutional mandate, it is an opponent of the people, a rip-off operation that takes our money and our freedom and our social peace, and gives us a mess of statist pottage in return."

-Ron Paul

Nah, Ron Paul's message isn't libertarian, he's just another statist virtually indistinguishable from Barney Frank(!)

Love & Liberty,
     <<< starchild >>>

Actually, all states being communist, as long as
Federal Government sticks to 3 or 4 Constitutional
items, would be correct and legal. Vigilance and
community activism are what the founders relied on,
and expect us to rely on, to keep our native homes and
neighborhoods safe, they just wanted to keep an all
powerful federal government out of your hair when
doing so. But having all 50 states be small government
is not a "Constitutional" thing. In fact, many states
have education, welfare, income taxes, infrastructure,
and unemployment written into their Constitution,
Michigan just (just being compared to their statehood
in 1837) updated their constitution in the 1960s and
allowed for a public up or down vote on the final
draft, which included many "statist" functions of the
state government. We do have a right to move freely
between states, live where we want and the Bill of
Rights allows us ways to vocalize dissent and assemble
to fight against statist proposals by our states, but
the Bill of Rights clearly leave all other power not
for the federal government to the states.

I, personally, do not think even state's should take
so much responsibility from each individual, but I
have always been a fighter to break the biggest,
highest level, of government first as it is always
easier to fight city hall or Sacramento than it is to
fight DC.

-TJ

That's actually wrong on three counts:

1) The Bill of Rights defends the right to property -- rendering communism illegal;

2) The intent of the Founders is not the sole benchmark for Constitutional law -- even they recognized that by providing for the Amendment process. If the Founders' intent was the only thing that mattered, slavery would be legal and women couldn't vote;

3) Libertarianism has nothing to do with "constitutionalism." While the US Bill of Rights -- when properly applied as written sans "states' rights" gobbledygook -- is arguably the most libertarian governing document, libertarianism does not require any such document at all. To the degree that either the Constitution, or "creative" interpretations of it such as the "states' rights are supreme" view, contradict libertarianism, they are unlibertarian.

Cheers,

Brian

Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: Actually, all states being communist, as long as
Federal Government sticks to 3 or 4 Constitutional
items, would be correct and legal. Vigilance and
community activism are what the founders relied on,
and expect us to rely on, to keep our native homes and
neighborhoods safe, they just wanted to keep an all
powerful federal government out of your hair when
doing so. But having all 50 states be small government
is not a "Constitutional" thing. In fact, many states
have education, welfare, income taxes, infrastructure,
and unemployment written into their Constitution,
Michigan just (just being compared to their statehood
in 1837) updated their constitution in the 1960s and
allowed for a public up or down vote on the final
draft, which included many "statist" functions of the
state government. We do have a right to move freely
between states, live where we want and the Bill of
Rights allows us ways to vocalize dissent and assemble
to fight against statist proposals by our states, but
the Bill of Rights clearly leave all other power not
for the federal government to the states.

I, personally, do not think even state's should take
so much responsibility from each individual, but I
have always been a fighter to break the biggest,
highest level, of government first as it is always
easier to fight city hall or Sacramento than it is to
fight DC.

-TJ

Where is the right to property guaranteed? I read that
we are not to have property taken for public good
without just compensation, is that what you mean?

I guess you have a point, but I also feel that state's
have rights per amendments 9 and 10.

Our Constitution should not be a ticket to anarchism,
because we have seen anarchism never works (Somalia
per example). It is to be a document that protects
some key rights and renders other rights to the states
and the people in those states. Thus, I don't believe
it is wrong to have 50 totally different state laws
exist, or else we would have had just one Constitution
to cover each state and it's laws.

Am I wrong in this thinking (I know Brian will say I
am, because he is too stubborn to agree with me on
anything, but what does everyone else think?)

-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

TJ

Here's an alternative view of the "anarchy" situation in Somalia for
your consideration.

Anarcho-Capitalist

Michael Denny

The End of the Salad Days in Somalia

r.

Fifteen glorious years without a central government in Somalia! It was
typically described as a "power vacuum," as if the absence of a taxing,
regulating, coercing junta is an unnatural state of affairs, one that
cannot and should not last.

Well, now this "vacuum" is being filled, with an Islamic militia
claiming to be in control of the capital, Mogadishu.

But US officials may rue the day they hoped for a new government in this
country. The dictator Mohammed Siad Barre fell in 1991. US troops went
in with the idea that they would restore order, but thank goodness they
did not. Bill Clinton's idea fell into shambles after 18 soldiers were
killed by warlords. That seems like a low number in light of the Iraq
disaster, but to Clinton's credit, he pulled out.

Since that time, Somalia has done quite well for itself, thank you (BBC:
"Telecoms Thriving in Lawless Somalia
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm> "). But there was one
major problem. The CIA couldn't come to terms with it. The US government
likes to deal with other governments, whether it is paying them or
bombing them or whatever. What makes no sense to central planners in DC
is a country without a state.

So the US continued to talk about a "power vacuum" and secretly funneled
money to its favorite warlords - a fact which the US officially denies
but which has nonetheless been widely reported
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/08/news/somalia.php> . Officials
who have criticized the policy have been shut up and reassigned.

Aside from the downside that comes with the creation of any government,
the continuous effort to fund warlords created a problem: it left open
the possibility that at some point someone would cobble together the
resources to claim to be a government. The mere prospect kept the
Islamic militias worried and on edge. Finally, they prevailed.

As theInternational Herald Tribune
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/08/news/somalia.php> says: "U.S.
support for secular warlords, who joined under the banner of the
Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism, may have
helped to unnerve the Islamic militias and prompted them to launch
pre-emptive strikes."

That's hardly surprising. How many times have we seen the US
establishment back something to the hilt only to discover that the plot
backfires by inspiring opposition? This is one of many problems of the
US government. Its crackdowns usually end up working as advertisements
(think of drugs, for example). All throughout Latin America, we've seen
this happen with politics: US support is often the kiss of death.
Especially in a country like Somalia, with so many factions, US backing
is something to hide because it can only fire up the opposition.

But governments don't think dynamically about the long-run consequences
of their actions. They figure that if they want a particular policy,
they only need to pay for it. It is a very shortsighted viewpoint - and
a dangerous one in political terms.

Now the US has a bigger problem than ever: the possibility that a new
Taliban has been created in Somalia. Now, you might not think that this
is a problem, given that the US overthrew a secular government in Iraq
and now provides security for an Iraqi regime that includes Islamic law
as part of its governing mandate. But consistency is not the hallmark of
US foreign policy.

Still, the creation of a new state inspires us to think about
fundamental matters of political economy.

What is to be gained by the creation of a state? Well, consider what a
state does. First, it taxes, which means taking from the people and
giving to the government, which then gives money to its friends. Second,
it regulates, meaning that government tells people to do things they
would not otherwise do. Third, it creates a central bank to water down
the value of money. Fourth, it builds jails in which to put people who
disobey, including political enemies.

<http://www.mises.org/store/Speaking-of-Liberty-P173C0.aspx?AFID=1>
Well, rather than just go on with a catalog of what government does,
consider the words of the Prophet Samuel from 1 Samuel, chapter 8:11-18:

This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your
sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run
in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of
thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and
reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment
for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks
and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive
groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your
grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.
Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and
donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your
flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes,
you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord
will not answer you in that day.

The only people who are rejoicing in Somalia today are those who prefer
dictatorship to puppet government. But the real victims are average
people, who were doing just fine by scraping by. Adding a government to
the mix will do nothing but create more trouble for everyone.

So here is a good rule. When a government falls, don't call it a "power
vacuum." Call it a zone of liberty and be done with it. If some group
claims to be the government, the proper answer should be: "Yeah, and I'm
the Duke of Windsor. Get a life."

June 9, 2006

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/mailto:lew@…> ] is
president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute <http://www.mises.org> in
Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com <http://www.lewrockwell.com>
and author of Speaking of Liberty
<http://www.mises.org/store/Speaking-of-Liberty-P173C0.aspx?AFID=1> .

Copyright (c) 2006 LewRockwell.com

I know people who lived in Somaila. Many girls are
raped daily with no police or prosecutors to charge
the criminals. You have to pay a "tax" to go between
city streets and there is no one to protect you from
being scammed, even simple ones, like going to a
store, giving them 5 dollars for bread and then they
say... I didn't get any money from you..... sorry
guys, Anarchy DOESNT WORK, anywhere, unless we were
angels... but we are human and imperfect beings, we
need to have some sort of justice system to protect
us, and the only one is a system made up of the
people, by the people and for the people.... i.e. " A
Government".

You will never sell me on Anarchy..... it's a system
where those wealthy enough to hire private security
will be the powerful (warlords) and everyone else will
suffer.... how is that different than communism,
stalinism or facism?

-TJ
--- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:

TJ

Here's an alternative view of the "anarchy"
situation in Somalia for
your consideration.

Anarcho-Capitalist

Michael Denny

The End of the Salad Days in Somalia

r.

Fifteen glorious years without a central government
in Somalia! It was
typically described as a "power vacuum," as if the
absence of a taxing,
regulating, coercing junta is an unnatural state of
affairs, one that
cannot and should not last.

Well, now this "vacuum" is being filled, with an
Islamic militia
claiming to be in control of the capital, Mogadishu.

But US officials may rue the day they hoped for a
new government in this
country. The dictator Mohammed Siad Barre fell in
1991. US troops went
in with the idea that they would restore order, but
thank goodness they
did not. Bill Clinton's idea fell into shambles
after 18 soldiers were
killed by warlords. That seems like a low number in
light of the Iraq
disaster, but to Clinton's credit, he pulled out.

Since that time, Somalia has done quite well for
itself, thank you (BBC:
"Telecoms Thriving in Lawless Somalia
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm> ").
But there was one
major problem. The CIA couldn't come to terms with
it. The US government
likes to deal with other governments, whether it is
paying them or
bombing them or whatever. What makes no sense to
central planners in DC
is a country without a state.

So the US continued to talk about a "power vacuum"
and secretly funneled
money to its favorite warlords - a fact which the US
officially denies
but which has nonetheless been widely reported

<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/08/news/somalia.php>

. Officials
who have criticized the policy have been shut up and
reassigned.

Aside from the downside that comes with the creation
of any government,
the continuous effort to fund warlords created a
problem: it left open
the possibility that at some point someone would
cobble together the
resources to claim to be a government. The mere
prospect kept the
Islamic militias worried and on edge. Finally, they
prevailed.

As theInternational Herald Tribune

<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/08/news/somalia.php>

says: "U.S.
support for secular warlords, who joined under the
banner of the
Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and
Counterterrorism, may have
helped to unnerve the Islamic militias and prompted
them to launch
pre-emptive strikes."

That's hardly surprising. How many times have we
seen the US
establishment back something to the hilt only to
discover that the plot
backfires by inspiring opposition? This is one of
many problems of the
US government. Its crackdowns usually end up working
as advertisements
(think of drugs, for example). All throughout Latin
America, we've seen
this happen with politics: US support is often the
kiss of death.
Especially in a country like Somalia, with so many
factions, US backing
is something to hide because it can only fire up the
opposition.

But governments don't think dynamically about the
long-run consequences
of their actions. They figure that if they want a
particular policy,
they only need to pay for it. It is a very
shortsighted viewpoint - and
a dangerous one in political terms.

Now the US has a bigger problem than ever: the
possibility that a new
Taliban has been created in Somalia. Now, you might
not think that this
is a problem, given that the US overthrew a secular
government in Iraq
and now provides security for an Iraqi regime that
includes Islamic law
as part of its governing mandate. But consistency is
not the hallmark of
US foreign policy.

Still, the creation of a new state inspires us to
think about
fundamental matters of political economy.

What is to be gained by the creation of a state?
Well, consider what a
state does. First, it taxes, which means taking from
the people and
giving to the government, which then gives money to
its friends. Second,
it regulates, meaning that government tells people
to do things they
would not otherwise do. Third, it creates a central
bank to water down
the value of money. Fourth, it builds jails in which
to put people who
disobey, including political enemies.

<http://www.mises.org/store/Speaking-of-Liberty-P173C0.aspx?AFID=1>

Well, rather than just go on with a catalog of what
government does,
consider the words of the Prophet Samuel from 1
Samuel, chapter 8:11-18:

This is what the king who will reign over you will
do: He will take your
sons and make them serve with his chariots and
horses, and they will run
in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be
commanders of
thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to
plow his ground and
reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons
of war and equipment
for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be
perfumers and cooks
and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and
vineyards and olive
groves and give them to his attendants. He will take
a tenth of your
grain and of your vintage and give it to his
officials and attendants.
Your menservants and maidservants and the best of
your cattle and
donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a
tenth of your
flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
When that day comes,
you will cry out for relief from the king you have
chosen, and the Lord
will not answer you in that day.

The only people who are rejoicing in Somalia today
are those who prefer
dictatorship to puppet government. But the real
victims are average
people, who were doing just fine by scraping by.
Adding a government to
the mix will do nothing but create more trouble for
everyone.

So here is a good rule. When a government falls,
don't call it a "power
vacuum." Call it a zone of liberty and be done with
it. If some group
claims to be the government, the proper answer
should be: "Yeah, and I'm
the Duke of Windsor. Get a life."

=== message truncated ===

Well TJ...there are pretty bad situations going on everywhere on a daily
basis even here in SF. There question is "does central government make
things better" or "do moral and cooperative people make things better."
If you are suggesting Somalia is more peaceful now that there is again
open military conflict with foreign occupiers battling the locals...well
I can't answer that question...and it appears the rich are those with
the most guns as usual so I just don't see much of a difference. Are you
saying rape has gone away now that the country has foreign occupiers and
a puppet government? If so...please share your evidence.

I don't expect to change your mind though...just sharing information.

Mike

I didnt say rape went away, I said with no government
running a justice system how is someone to prosecute
someone who committed a crime, how do we punish
criminals, how do we protect ourselves if someone
believes we committed a crime without due process of
law? We have none of these things, and Somalia had
none of these things, w/o a government, I don't know
how it is now, I am sure it sucks cause it's a 3rd
world, but I believe what the Constitution provides
for is adequate and would not want anything less...
except maybe a private post office w/ competition of
free market, but certainly I believe in police,
national defense, fire departments, government made
currency and the court system. I think it's insane to
believe we could carry on w/o these important
functions.

-TJ
--- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:

Well TJ...there are pretty bad situations going on
everywhere on a daily
basis even here in SF. There question is "does
central government make
things better" or "do moral and cooperative people
make things better."
If you are suggesting Somalia is more peaceful now
that there is again
open military conflict with foreign occupiers
battling the locals...well
I can't answer that question...and it appears the
rich are those with
the most guns as usual so I just don't see much of a
difference. Are you
saying rape has gone away now that the country has
foreign occupiers and
a puppet government? If so...please share your
evidence.

I don't expect to change your mind though...just
sharing information.

Mike

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 10:04 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
libertarianism in each State
vs. Federal government

I know people who lived in Somaila. Many girls are
raped daily with no police or prosecutors to charge
the criminals. You have to pay a "tax" to go between
city streets and there is no one to protect you from
being scammed, even simple ones, like going to a
store, giving them 5 dollars for bread and then they
say... I didn't get any money from you..... sorry
guys, Anarchy DOESNT WORK, anywhere, unless we were
angels... but we are human and imperfect beings, we
need to have some sort of justice system to protect
us, and the only one is a system made up of the
people, by the people and for the people.... i.e. "
A
Government".

You will never sell me on Anarchy..... it's a system
where those wealthy enough to hire private security
will be the powerful (warlords) and everyone else
will
suffer.... how is that different than communism,
stalinism or facism?

-TJ
--- Mike Denny <mike@...
<mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
wrote:

> TJ
>
>
>
> Here's an alternative view of the "anarchy"
> situation in Somalia for
> your consideration.
>
>
>
> Anarcho-Capitalist
>
> Michael Denny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The End of the Salad Days in Somalia
>
>
> r.
>
> Fifteen glorious years without a central
government
> in Somalia! It was
> typically described as a "power vacuum," as if the
> absence of a taxing,
> regulating, coercing junta is an unnatural state
of
> affairs, one that
> cannot and should not last.
>
> Well, now this "vacuum" is being filled, with an
> Islamic militia
> claiming to be in control of the capital,
Mogadishu.
>
>
> But US officials may rue the day they hoped for a
> new government in this
> country. The dictator Mohammed Siad Barre fell in
> 1991. US troops went
> in with the idea that they would restore order,
but
> thank goodness they
> did not. Bill Clinton's idea fell into shambles
> after 18 soldiers were
> killed by warlords. That seems like a low number
in
> light of the Iraq
> disaster, but to Clinton's credit, he pulled out.
>
> Since that time, Somalia has done quite well for
> itself, thank you (BBC:
> "Telecoms Thriving in Lawless Somalia
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm> >
").
> But there was one
> major problem. The CIA couldn't come to terms with
> it. The US government
> likes to deal with other governments, whether it
is
> paying them or
> bombing them or whatever. What makes no sense to
> central planners in DC
> is a country without a state.
>
> So the US continued to talk about a "power vacuum"
> and secretly funneled
> money to its favorite warlords - a fact which the
US
> officially denies
> but which has nonetheless been widely reported
>

<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/08/news/somalia.php

<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/08/news/somalia.php>

>
> . Officials
> who have criticized the policy have been shut up
and
> reassigned.
>
> Aside from the downside that comes with the
creation
> of any government,
> the continuous effort to fund warlords created a
> problem: it left open
> the possibility that at some point someone would
> cobble together the
> resources to claim to be a government. The mere
> prospect kept the
> Islamic militias worried and on edge. Finally,
they
> prevailed.
>
> As theInternational Herald Tribune
>

<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/08/news/somalia.php

<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/08/news/somalia.php>

>
> says: "U.S.
> support for secular warlords, who joined under the
> banner of the
> Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and
> Counterterrorism, may have
> helped to unnerve the Islamic militias and
prompted
> them to launch
> pre-emptive strikes."
>
> That's hardly surprising. How many times have we
> seen the US
> establishment back something to the hilt only to
> discover that the plot
> backfires by inspiring opposition? This is one of
> many problems of the
> US government. Its crackdowns usually end up
working
> as advertisements
> (think of drugs, for example). All throughout
Latin
> America, we've seen
> this happen with politics: US support is often the
> kiss of death.
> Especially in a country like Somalia, with so many
> factions, US backing

=== message truncated ===

Thanks TJ....

You said "but certainly I believe in police,
national defense, fire departments, government made
currency and the court system. I think it's insane to
believe we could carry on w/o these important
functions"

I used to think this way too...but there are just too many interesting facts that don't support the position. Here are just a few articles for your review. Again...I won't try to change your mind...but it's possible you might find yourself open to at a re-evaluation or at least sympathy for those who disagree once you consider the evidence....and I have plenty more if you have any other specific interests.

Let me know...

Mike

http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121

Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government

by Thomas Whiston

[Posted December 25, 2002]

Those who claim that government is the source of social order say that in its absence there would be violence, chaos, and a low standard of living. They cite civil wars in Africa, drug wars in South America, or even Gengis Khan in Mongolia. They claim that these things, which are actually examples of competing governments, are what life without government will produce.

Another common objection to stateless legal enforcement systems is to ask for "just one example of where it has worked."

Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and well-documented historical example of how a stateless legal order can work and it provides insights as to how we might create a more just and efficient society today.

Because of Iceland's geographical location there was no threat of foreign invasion, so the demand for a national military force was absent.

Icelandic settlers held similar ideological and philosophical ideas toward the state and the law as where held by the founding fathers of the United States, including distrust of a strong central government.

The main reason the Vikings moved from Norway to Iceland in the first place was to avoid the feudal relationship between the king and his lords and serfs and thus the Icelandic settlers developed a decentralized system of governance.

Iceland did not have an executive branch of government. Instead of a king they had local chieftains. One permanent official in their system was the "logsogumadr" or law-speaker. His duties included the memorization of laws, the provision of advice on legislative issues, and the recitation of all legislative acts one time while in office.

Instead of a judicial branch of government there were private courts that were the responsibility of the godar. To solve disputes, members of this court system were chosen after the crime happened. The defendant and plaintiff each had the right to pick half the arbitrators. There was another level of courts called the Varthing. This was a Thing court in which the judges were chosen by the godar of the Thing. David Friedman has found that these courts were rarely used and not much is known about them. [1] Then there was the National Assembly or the Althing. Each quarter was represented by their own Althing. If a dispute was not settled by the private courts, the dispute would go up the ladder to the next highest court until the dispute was resolved.

There was no public property during the era of the Vikings in Iceland, all property was privately owned.

The settlers of Iceland divided the country into 4 regions. Each region had 9 godord and the godord were divided into three things. The godord were divided into groups of three and each thing had three godord.

The word 'godord' has two definitions. Godord represented a group of men. These men gave allegiance or alliance to a specific godi. A godi is the leader or chief who constructed a place of worship for his pagan followers. The godord was also a collection of rights, the right to represent the law making body of Iceland.

David Friedman states, ".seats in the law-making body were quite literally for sale." These men who were law-makers did not have power just because they held the title godord. They were powerless "unless he could convince some free-farmers to follow him." [2] This kept tyranny and injustice in check.

Jesse Byock states in his book that, "leadership evolved in such a way that a chieftain's power and the resources available to him were not derived from an exploitable realm." This was because free farmers could change allegiance between godi without moving to a new geographical location. "The legal godi-thingman bond was created by a voluntary public contract." [3] The ability to switch legal systems with out moving, is key to a decentralized system. It creates secession down the level of the individual, making all governance structures formed truly voluntary.

This unstable relationship between the godi and the thingmen in Iceland helped to keep government out of the lives of its citizens fairly effectively; law and arbitration were done justly.

How were people held accountable if they did commit a crime? In much the same way as the current United States civil court system works today. Criminals were forced to pay fines. These fines did not go to the state, but were restitution. If the criminal could not pay the fine imposed on him, then he could go to his godord or a group of family and friends, or some other alliance, and have them pay the fine for him, or if no one would represent him, he could work the fine off via slavery. The poor were at no disadvantage. The poor could sell their right to justice to someone, such as a chieftain or another respected peer, who could collect or make right upon the victim. In this respect, the right to transfer restitution acted as an equalizer for the poor. In cases where the victim did not want restitution, the guilty parties had no obligations imposed on them.

If a criminal would not pay his fine or submit to slavery, he was either outlawed or would possibly lose the support of his peers, depending on the severity of the crime, eventually discrediting himself. [4]

Even in times of war, it was understood that every man that was killed had to be paid for. [5] This kept feuds short, there were never any real wars, and the violence could be classified as either a family feud or a battle. Battles were short and lasted a couple of days at most. [6] Both parties always had the incentive to compromise and make amends because sustained violence is costly in this type of institutional framework.

Iceland collapsed in the year 1262, 290 years after it was founded.

Roderick Long points out that it only took 85 years for the United States to have its first civil war. That Iceland lasted so long is impressive.

The collapse did not occur until after almost three centuries of relatively peaceful living had gone by. Roderick T. Long states, "We should be cautious in labeling as a failure a political experiment that flourished longer than the United States has even existed."

When one truly looks at Iceland's history objectively, one can see what the real causes of Iceland's collapse was. The lack of competition and the monopolistic qualities that eventually came about when five families cornered the chieftaincy market was one reason. These five families bought the majority of chieftaincies. They controlled the court and legal system to a significant extent. This meant that there were not as many chieftains to choose from. This led to less competition, creating opportunities for increased exploitation over the free farmers, eventually leading to a revolt against the 5 families.

Roderick Long also addresses the fact that the introduction of the tithe in 1096 may have aided in the collapse of Iceland. The tithe was a tax paid for the upkeep of the Catholic Church and to pay church officials.

The only stipulation was that the money appropriated to the upkeep of the church went to the private landowner (usually a chieftain). It is also no surprise that the chieftains were exempt from paying this property tax. Chieftains had expropriated earnings from free farmers and the free farmers had no way to keep the chieftains in check.

What are the implications of the policies in Viking Age Iceland and how do we apply them to the modern world? Sure, after so much development in the last 700 years there could be difficulties in the simplicity of Iceland's political system, but with great advances in technology there is also a greater potential for coordination in a more decentralized market system.

The history of Viking Age Iceland has lessons to teach. One is the importance of a decentralized enforcement power. Iceland's decentralized legal system managed to keep its leaders on a short leash for much of its history. Chieftains only had power if they could convince people to follow them, without the use of coercion. This minimized the principal-agent problem. Who wants to voluntarily follow an incompetent or evil leader? And even if an evil leader did sucker a few free farmers into following him, in the long run he would lose credibility.

Another important lesson is to turn criminal into offenses civil offenses and make the victim's claim transferable. The victim should have a transferable property right in restitution. This helps the poor protect their natural rights. It also helps to defeat the public good aspect of criminal enforcement, by giving the victim more of an incentive to bring the criminal to justice.

Another important lesson is that private law enforcement agencies can protect people in a free market. This will enable them to use economic calculation. Public police forces do not have this guide. Rothbard states, "Its allocations of funds are then subject to the full play of politics, boondoggling, and bureaucratic inefficiency, with no indication at all as to whether the police department is serving the consumers in a way responsive to their desires or whether it is doing so efficiently."

[7]

In the public sector there is no economic indicator for success, but in the private sector firms have profit and loss accounting.

Public law enforcement, assumes absolute protection [8]. Police protection is not an infinite good that can be consumed to no upper limit.

The government police system has a limited budget derived from limited taxpayer resources. Another reason private police agencies would be more effective is the fact that private firms want to maximize profit.

How

can a firm maximize profit without fulfilling the consumers' demands?

A

government police agency gets its money coercively, so it does not have to satisfy citizen desires the same way. Any private firm that does not put profit as a top priority will be driven out of the market in the long run.

Viking Age Iceland has much knowledge to offer on the privatization of law, courts, and enforcement agencies. The Icelandic Free State lasted longer than the United States has been in existence by 106 years.

Iceland did not have a civil war in the first 300 years of its existence. It took only about 80 years for the United States to have its first civil war, and after the war, arguably was no longer the same system of government as it was before.

The public provision of law, courts, and police protection, encounter all the same incentive and calculation problems that any socialized industry does. If these services can be provided in a market setting they will be able to be more efficiently provided.

Medieval Iceland provides evidence that they can be privately provided, without violating anybody's rights, and the results were not chaos.

There

was not continuous fighting. The "Hobbesian Jungle" didn't create a state of nature that was a war of all against all, where life was nasty, brutish and short. In comparison to many governments in the 20th century, medieval Iceland could be a much safer place to live.

In a stateless society, men are selected according to their ability.

Status,

money, power, and greed, everything that the advocates for a strong central government stand for are not prerequisites for leaders. The worst are not selected to get on top. The men chosen in a stateless society are chosen because they are entrepreneurs, and those entrepreneurs who best satisfy consumer demands will be the ones whose agencies grow. In a stateless society, the only person who is "King" is the consumer.

And another thing TJ....here's an interesting quote to consider from
Benjamin Tucker...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

"There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The
anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they
simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow
from authority.... As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as
a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the
Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." -

Hopefully upon further communication you will at least consider those
who share his views are a little more grounded than your "insane" label.

:>)

Mike

I will be open to ideas on how to take care of these
functions once we get there and get all other parts of
the bloated federal government out of the way. To try
to convince the voting public (and new voters) that we
can do without these functions is insanity, and why
the Libertarian Party hasn't been doing so well. A
message like Ron Paul's or local government messages
(like John Inks for Mountain View City Council), that
speak on open government, balanced budgets, low taxes
and security (through non-intervention abroad, etc),
and privacy are what appeals to the vast majority or
these mostly government school educated voters right
now.

I also will have a hard time believing Somalia or any
other anarchal state was anything but hell. No article
will disuade me. And again, I am for small government.
Try to tell the average voter you want the USA to be
more like Somalia.... see how many votes that gets.

Peace,

-TJ Campbell

--- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:

Thanks TJ....

You said "but certainly I believe in police,
national defense, fire departments, government made
currency and the court system. I think it's insane
to
believe we could carry on w/o these important
functions"

I used to think this way too...but there are just
too many interesting facts that don't support the
position. Here are just a few articles for your
review. Again...I won't try to change your
mind...but it's possible you might find yourself
open to at a re-evaluation or at least sympathy for
those who disagree once you consider the
evidence....and I have plenty more if you have any
other specific interests.

Let me know...

Mike

http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121

Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government

by Thomas Whiston

[Posted December 25, 2002]

Those who claim that government is the source of
social order say that in its absence there would be
violence, chaos, and a low standard of living. They
cite civil wars in Africa, drug wars in South
America, or even Gengis Khan in Mongolia. They claim
that these things, which are actually examples of
competing governments, are what life without
government will produce.

Another common objection to stateless legal
enforcement systems is to ask for "just one example
of where it has worked."

Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and
well-documented historical example of how a
stateless legal order can work and it provides
insights as to how we might create a more just and
efficient society today.

Because of Iceland's geographical location there was
no threat of foreign invasion, so the demand for a
national military force was absent.

Icelandic settlers held similar ideological and
philosophical ideas toward the state and the law as
where held by the founding fathers of the United
States, including distrust of a strong central
government.

The main reason the Vikings moved from Norway to
Iceland in the first place was to avoid the feudal
relationship between the king and his lords and
serfs and thus the Icelandic settlers developed a
decentralized system of governance.

Iceland did not have an executive branch of
government. Instead of a king they had local
chieftains. One permanent official in their system
was the "logsogumadr" or law-speaker. His duties
included the memorization of laws, the provision of
advice on legislative issues, and the recitation of
all legislative acts one time while in office.

Instead of a judicial branch of government there
were private courts that were the responsibility of
the godar. To solve disputes, members of this court
system were chosen after the crime happened. The
defendant and plaintiff each had the right to pick
half the arbitrators. There was another level of
courts called the Varthing. This was a Thing court
in which the judges were chosen by the godar of the
Thing. David Friedman has found that these courts
were rarely used and not much is known about them.
[1] Then there was the National Assembly or the
Althing. Each quarter was represented by their own
Althing. If a dispute was not settled by the private
courts, the dispute would go up the ladder to the
next highest court until the dispute was resolved.

There was no public property during the era of the
Vikings in Iceland, all property was privately
owned.

The settlers of Iceland divided the country into 4
regions. Each region had 9 godord and the godord
were divided into three things. The godord were
divided into groups of three and each thing had
three godord.

The word 'godord' has two definitions. Godord
represented a group of men. These men gave
allegiance or alliance to a specific godi. A godi is
the leader or chief who constructed a place of
worship for his pagan followers. The godord was also
a collection of rights, the right to represent the
law making body of Iceland.

David Friedman states, ".seats in the law-making
body were quite literally for sale." These men who
were law-makers did not have power just because they
held the title godord. They were powerless "unless
he could convince some free-farmers to follow him."
[2] This kept tyranny and injustice in check.

Jesse Byock states in his book that, "leadership
evolved in such a way that a chieftain's power and
the resources available to him were not derived from
an exploitable realm." This was because free farmers
could change allegiance between godi without moving
to a new geographical location. "The legal
godi-thingman bond was created by a voluntary public
contract." [3] The ability to switch legal systems
with out moving, is key to a decentralized system.
It creates secession down the level of the
individual, making all governance structures formed
truly voluntary.

This unstable relationship between the godi and the
thingmen in Iceland helped to keep government out of
the lives of its citizens fairly effectively; law
and arbitration were done justly.

How were people held accountable if they did commit
a crime? In much the same way as the current United
States civil court system works today. Criminals
were forced to pay fines. These fines did not go to
the state, but were restitution. If the criminal
could not pay the fine imposed on him, then he could
go to his godord or a group of family and friends,
or some other alliance, and have them pay the fine
for him, or if no one would represent him, he could
work the fine off via slavery. The poor were at no
disadvantage. The poor could sell their right to
justice to someone, such as a chieftain or another
respected peer, who could collect or make right upon
the victim. In this respect, the right to transfer
restitution acted as an equalizer for the poor. In
cases where the victim did not want restitution, the
guilty parties had no obligations imposed on them.

If a criminal would not pay his fine or submit to
slavery, he was either outlawed or would possibly
lose the support of his peers, depending on the
severity of the crime, eventually discrediting
himself.

=== message truncated ===

it's doubtful..... all I want is an anarchist to tell
me what happens if my daughter is raped, who do I go
to for justice and then if I am accused of a crime I
didnt commit, who do I go to for defending me and
proving me innocent....

no anarchist ever explains these things to me they
just sent me more articles written by people who have
never lived in an anarchal society

-TJ
--- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:

And another thing TJ....here's an interesting quote
to consider from
Benjamin

Tucker...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

"There are some troubles from which mankind can
never escape. . . . [The
anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will
bring perfection; they
simply say that its results are vastly preferable to
those that follow
from authority.... As a choice of blessings, liberty
is the greater; as
a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then
liberty always says the
Anarchist. No use of force except against the
invader." -

Hopefully upon further communication you will at
least consider those
who share his views are a little more grounded than
your "insane" label.

:>)

Mike

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:03 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
libertarianism in each State
vs. Federal government

I didnt say rape went away, I said with no
government
running a justice system how is someone to prosecute
someone who committed a crime, how do we punish
criminals, how do we protect ourselves if someone
believes we committed a crime without due process of
law? We have none of these things, and Somalia had
none of these things, w/o a government, I don't know
how it is now, I am sure it sucks cause it's a 3rd
world, but I believe what the Constitution provides
for is adequate and would not want anything less...
except maybe a private post office w/ competition of
free market, but certainly I believe in police,
national defense, fire departments, government made
currency and the court system. I think it's insane
to
believe we could carry on w/o these important
functions.

-TJ
--- Mike Denny <mike@...
<mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
wrote:

> Well TJ...there are pretty bad situations going on
> everywhere on a daily
> basis even here in SF. There question is "does
> central government make
> things better" or "do moral and cooperative people
> make things better."
> If you are suggesting Somalia is more peaceful now
> that there is again
> open military conflict with foreign occupiers
> battling the locals...well
> I can't answer that question...and it appears the
> rich are those with
> the most guns as usual so I just don't see much of
a
> difference. Are you
> saying rape has gone away now that the country has
> foreign occupiers and
> a puppet government? If so...please share your
> evidence.
>
>
>
> I don't expect to change your mind though...just
> sharing information.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 10:04 PM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> libertarianism in each State
> vs. Federal government
>
>
>
> I know people who lived in Somaila. Many girls are
> raped daily with no police or prosecutors to
charge
> the criminals. You have to pay a "tax" to go
between
> city streets and there is no one to protect you
from
> being scammed, even simple ones, like going to a
> store, giving them 5 dollars for bread and then
they
> say... I didn't get any money from you..... sorry
> guys, Anarchy DOESNT WORK, anywhere, unless we
were
> angels... but we are human and imperfect beings,
we
> need to have some sort of justice system to
protect
> us, and the only one is a system made up of the
> people, by the people and for the people.... i.e.
"
> A
> Government".
>
> You will never sell me on Anarchy..... it's a
system
> where those wealthy enough to hire private
security
> will be the powerful (warlords) and everyone else
> will
> suffer.... how is that different than communism,
> stalinism or facism?
>
> -TJ
> --- Mike Denny <mike@...
<mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com>
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> wrote:
>
> > TJ
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's an alternative view of the "anarchy"
> > situation in Somalia for
> > your consideration.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anarcho-Capitalist
> >
> > Michael Denny
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The End of the Salad Days in Somalia
> >
> >
> > r.
> >
> > Fifteen glorious years without a central
> government
> > in Somalia! It was
> > typically described as a "power vacuum," as if
the
> > absence of a taxing,
> > regulating, coercing junta is an unnatural state
> of
> > affairs, one that
> > cannot and should not last.
> >
> > Well, now this "vacuum" is being filled, with an
> > Islamic militia
> > claiming to be in control of the capital,
> Mogadishu.
> >
> >
> > But US officials may rue the day they hoped for
a

=== message truncated ===

Tim:

Ron Getty has found for us that the San Francisco Police Department has
(if memory serves) a 6-year backlog of 1000 unsolved raped, 300 unsolved
murders, and 16,000 unsolved armed robberies. Do you really think
private police protection would be worse?

Yes.
--- "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...> wrote:

Tim:

Ron Getty has found for us that the San Francisco
Police Department has
(if memory serves) a 6-year backlog of 1000 unsolved
raped, 300 unsolved
murders, and 16,000 unsolved armed robberies. Do
you really think
private police protection would be worse?

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:36 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
libertarianism in each State
vs. Federal government

it's doubtful..... all I want is an anarchist to
tell
me what happens if my daughter is raped, who do I go
to for justice and then if I am accused of a crime I
didnt commit, who do I go to for defending me and
proving me innocent....

no anarchist ever explains these things to me they
just sent me more articles written by people who
have
never lived in an anarchal society

-TJ
--- Mike Denny <mike@...
<mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
wrote:

> And another thing TJ....here's an interesting
quote
> to consider from
> Benjamin
>

Tucker...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

<Tucker...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker>

>
>
>
> "There are some troubles from which mankind can
> never escape. . . . [The
> anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will
> bring perfection; they
> simply say that its results are vastly preferable
to
> those that follow
> from authority.... As a choice of blessings,
liberty
> is the greater; as
> a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then
> liberty always says the
> Anarchist. No use of force except against the
> invader." -
>
>
>
> Hopefully upon further communication you will at
> least consider those
> who share his views are a little more grounded
than
> your "insane" label.
>
>
>
> :>)
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:03 AM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> libertarianism in each State
> vs. Federal government
>
>
>
> I didnt say rape went away, I said with no
> government
> running a justice system how is someone to
prosecute
> someone who committed a crime, how do we punish
> criminals, how do we protect ourselves if someone
> believes we committed a crime without due process
of
> law? We have none of these things, and Somalia had
> none of these things, w/o a government, I don't
know
> how it is now, I am sure it sucks cause it's a 3rd
> world, but I believe what the Constitution
provides
> for is adequate and would not want anything
less...
> except maybe a private post office w/ competition
of
> free market, but certainly I believe in police,
> national defense, fire departments, government
made
> currency and the court system. I think it's insane
> to
> believe we could carry on w/o these important
> functions.
>
> -TJ
> --- Mike Denny <mike@...
<mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com>
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> wrote:
>
> > Well TJ...there are pretty bad situations going
on
> > everywhere on a daily
> > basis even here in SF. There question is "does
> > central government make
> > things better" or "do moral and cooperative
people
> > make things better."
> > If you are suggesting Somalia is more peaceful
now
> > that there is again
> > open military conflict with foreign occupiers
> > battling the locals...well
> > I can't answer that question...and it appears
the
> > rich are those with
> > the most guns as usual so I just don't see much
of
> a
> > difference. Are you
> > saying rape has gone away now that the country
has
> > foreign occupiers and
> > a puppet government? If so...please share your
> > evidence.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't expect to change your mind though...just
> > sharing information.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 10:04 PM
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> > libertarianism in each State
> > vs. Federal government
> >
> >
> >
> > I know people who lived in Somaila. Many girls
are
> > raped daily with no police or prosecutors to
> charge
> > the criminals. You have to pay a "tax" to go
> between
> > city streets and there is no one to protect you
> from
> > being scammed, even simple ones, like going to a
> > store, giving them 5 dollars for bread and then
> they

=== message truncated ===

Thanks TJ....but I'm not sure you are hearing the entire Ron Paul
message. He recommends abolishing the IRS, FBI, CIA, DHS, HUD, DOE and
many many more...and replacing them with nothing. If that's not your
definition of "doing without the government" relating to these
functions...then I don't know what is.

You are right....and I'm not about to use Somalia as an example of peace
on earth...I'm just saying it got better when the government was gone.
And I'm predicting it will get worse now that the "government" is back.
This is the same message communicated in the articles I sent that showed
some European city streets got safer when the laws and control signs
were removed for drivers...and a Mexican town got safer when the police
were fired.

There were many other points made in those articles that directly
referenced some of the areas you expressed particular concerns about.
You might take some time to consider them.

Best regards,

Mike

When I lived in New England, years ago, I was attending the Greater Boston Business Council meeting (the LGBT chamber of commerce for southern New England) at Club Caf� in the South End.

As I exited the club, I noticed about a block from my car that I was being followed by a group of 18 to 23 year olds (if I had to guess their age range). I was only 22 at the time.

Anyway, long story short, they chased me, I got in my car and drove off. Unfortunately, they got in THEIR car, found me a 1/2 block later (they were parked in the same garage) and gave me a chase all throughout Boston -- eventually cornering me. To get away, I ended up having to literally bang my car into theirs (and break off the driver side mirror). Fortunately, since it was an old K-Car, no real damage done!

Not long afterwards, I purchased a gun, because I realized that private protection would be far more viable than begging the police for protection (the police couldn't have cared less when I called to make a complaint).

In our neck of the woods in the Peninsula, the police are primarily revenue-collection agents, not "protection forces." Their jobs are pretty much restricted to issuing pricey parking tickets for parking too long in the train station lot, or clocking you doing 30 in a 25 (and handing you a ticket), etc. These roles could easily be done by private companies or -- even better -- eliminated altogether. There's no serious victim of doing 30 in a 25 or parking 15 minutes "too long" at the train station (especially when you've been there "too long" due to a train delay in the wonderful government-funded CalTrain system!)

Cheers,

Brian

Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: Yes.
--- "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...> wrote:

> Tim:
>
>
>
> Ron Getty has found for us that the San Francisco
> Police Department has
> (if memory serves) a 6-year backlog of 1000 unsolved
> raped, 300 unsolved
> murders, and 16,000 unsolved armed robberies. Do
> you really think
> private police protection would be worse?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:36 PM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> libertarianism in each State
> vs. Federal government
>
>
>
> it's doubtful..... all I want is an anarchist to
> tell
> me what happens if my daughter is raped, who do I go
> to for justice and then if I am accused of a crime I
> didnt commit, who do I go to for defending me and
> proving me innocent....
>
> no anarchist ever explains these things to me they
> just sent me more articles written by people who
> have
> never lived in an anarchal society
>
> -TJ
> --- Mike Denny <mike@...
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> wrote:
>
> > And another thing TJ....here's an interesting
> quote
> > to consider from
> > Benjamin
> >
>
Tucker...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker
>
<Tucker...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > "There are some troubles from which mankind can
> > never escape. . . . [The
> > anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will
> > bring perfection; they
> > simply say that its results are vastly preferable
> to
> > those that follow
> > from authority.... As a choice of blessings,
> liberty
> > is the greater; as
> > a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then
> > liberty always says the
> > Anarchist. No use of force except against the
> > invader." -
> >
> >
> >
> > Hopefully upon further communication you will at
> > least consider those
> > who share his views are a little more grounded
> than
> > your "insane" label.
> >
> >
> >
> > :>)
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:03 AM
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> > libertarianism in each State
> > vs. Federal government
> >
> >
> >
> > I didnt say rape went away, I said with no
> > government
> > running a justice system how is someone to
> prosecute
> > someone who committed a crime, how do we punish
> > criminals, how do we protect ourselves if someone
> > believes we committed a crime without due process
> of
> > law? We have none of these things, and Somalia had
> > none of these things, w/o a government, I don't
> know
> > how it is now, I am sure it sucks cause it's a 3rd
> > world, but I believe what the Constitution
> provides
> > for is adequate and would not want anything
> less...
> > except maybe a private post office w/ competition
> of
> > free market, but certainly I believe in police,
> > national defense, fire departments, government
> made
> > currency and the court system. I think it's insane
> > to
> > believe we could carry on w/o these important
> > functions.
> >
> > -TJ
> > --- Mike Denny <mike@...
> <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com>
> > <mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well TJ...there are pretty bad situations going
> on
> > > everywhere on a daily
> > > basis even here in SF. There question is "does
> > > central government make
> > > things better" or "do moral and cooperative
> people
> > > make things better."
> > > If you are suggesting Somalia is more peaceful
> now
> > > that there is again
> > > open military conflict with foreign occupiers
> > > battling the locals...well
> > > I can't answer that question...and it appears
> the
> > > rich are those with
> > > the most guns as usual so I just don't see much
> of
> > a
> > > difference. Are you
> > > saying rape has gone away now that the country
> has
> > > foreign occupiers and
> > > a puppet government? If so...please share your
> > > evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't expect to change your mind though...just
> > > sharing information.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > > On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 10:04 PM
> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
> > > libertarianism in each State
> > > vs. Federal government
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I know people who lived in Somaila. Many girls
> are
> > > raped daily with no police or prosecutors to
> > charge
> > > the criminals. You have to pay a "tax" to go
> > between
> > > city streets and there is no one to protect you
> > from
> > > being scammed, even simple ones, like going to a
> > > store, giving them 5 dollars for bread and then
> > they
>
=== message truncated ===

TJ,

  Are you familiar with the theory that on the international level, the world is essentially in a state of anarchy right now? It is a world of nation-states whose governments are constrained not by any effective international law, but only by their own power relative to that of their peers. If the country you live in is being raped by a tyrant, who do you go to for justice? If a government is accused of a crime it didn't commit, who do its officials go to for defending them and proving them innocent? Would you prefer to see a stronger United Nations with enhanced powers of criminal justice and law enforcement and the ability to take effective measures against governments that hold themselves above international law -- the U.S. government, for example?

  Personally, my answer to that question is yes -- but ONLY if the United Nations were reconstituted along the lines of a proper limited government, namely one that has no room for tyrants like Fidel Castro and Moammar Khadafy, is non-coercively funded, is subject to strict and effective checks and balances, and is representative of and accountable to its constituents. Barring such a setup, I find the international "anarchy" we have now far more "sane" than the prospect of a world government under a beefed-up version of the present UN or some similar organization.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

I agree with you on all you said, but I have to say,
w/o sounding to SCI FI, that until we reach other
alien species, and see if these ET's have one world
government and they show us that our religions are
bunk etc... we won't be able to live as one world. On
the other note, I understand what you are saying but I
don't see each city or state in relation to our
federal setup working exactly as those of the world to
the UN would or should or even do right now. I believe
our Constitution is the end all be all.... until we
get there again, then we can talk. I believe to ask
Americans for that is a lot after what they've been
taught (lied to), so I tend to moderate my message to
win votes, just as all politicians who win do. We can
be extremists and keep losing every election or we can
begin to play the political game and win. What do you,
and what does anyone else in SF want to do? That is
where I am going with this, not necessarily a debate
on the merits of anarchy but simply stating the truth
that anarchy won't sell at this time, and the
anarcho-capitalsists in our party need to work for a
little liberty vs. no liberty. They need to be more
realistic in their political game plan.

Peace,

-TJ
--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

TJ,

  Are you familiar with the theory that on the
international level,
the world is essentially in a state of anarchy right
now? It is a
world of nation-states whose governments are
constrained not by any
effective international law, but only by their own
power relative to
that of their peers. If the country you live in is
being raped by a
tyrant, who do you go to for justice? If a
government is accused of a
crime it didn't commit, who do its officials go to
for defending them
and proving them innocent? Would you prefer to see a
stronger United
Nations with enhanced powers of criminal justice and
law enforcement
and the ability to take effective measures against
governments that
hold themselves above international law -- the U.S.
government, for
example?

  Personally, my answer to that question is yes --
but ONLY if the
United Nations were reconstituted along the lines of
a proper limited
government, namely one that has no room for tyrants
like Fidel Castro
and Moammar Khadafy, is non-coercively funded, is
subject to strict
and effective checks and balances, and is
representative of and
accountable to its constituents. Barring such a
setup, I find the
international "anarchy" we have now far more "sane"
than the prospect
of a world government under a beefed-up version of
the present UN or
some similar organization.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

> I will be open to ideas on how to take care of
these
> functions once we get there and get all other
parts of
> the bloated federal government out of the way. To
try
> to convince the voting public (and new voters)
that we
> can do without these functions is insanity, and
why
> the Libertarian Party hasn't been doing so well. A
> message like Ron Paul's or local government
messages
> (like John Inks for Mountain View City Council),
that
> speak on open government, balanced budgets, low
taxes
> and security (through non-intervention abroad,
etc),
> and privacy are what appeals to the vast majority
or
> these mostly government school educated voters
right
> now.
>
> I also will have a hard time believing Somalia or
any
> other anarchal state was anything but hell. No
article
> will disuade me. And again, I am for small
government.
> Try to tell the average voter you want the USA to
be
> more like Somalia.... see how many votes that
gets.
>
> Peace,
>
> -TJ Campbell
>
> --- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:
>
> > Thanks TJ....
> >
> >
> >
> > You said "but certainly I believe in police,
> > national defense, fire departments, government
made
> > currency and the court system. I think it's
insane
> > to
> > believe we could carry on w/o these important
> > functions"
> >
> >
> >
> > I used to think this way too...but there are
just
> > too many interesting facts that don't support
the
> > position. Here are just a few articles for your
> > review. Again...I won't try to change your
> > mind...but it's possible you might find yourself
> > open to at a re-evaluation or at least sympathy
for
> > those who disagree once you consider the
> > evidence....and I have plenty more if you have
any
> > other specific interests.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let me know...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121
> >
> > Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
> >
> >
> >
> > by Thomas Whiston
> >
> >
> >
> > [Posted December 25, 2002]
> >
> >
> >
> > Those who claim that government is the source of
> > social order say that in its absence there would
be
> > violence, chaos, and a low standard of living.
They
> > cite civil wars in Africa, drug wars in South
> > America, or even Gengis Khan in Mongolia. They
claim
> > that these things, which are actually examples
of
> > competing governments, are what life without
> > government will produce.
> >
> >
> >
> > Another common objection to stateless legal
> > enforcement systems is to ask for "just one
example
> > of where it has worked."
> >
> >
> >
> > Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and
> > well-documented historical example of how a
> > stateless legal order can work and it provides
> > insights as to how we might create a more just
and
> > efficient society today.
> >
> >
> >
> > Because of Iceland's geographical location there
was
> > no threat of foreign invasion, so the demand for
a
> > national military force was absent.
> >
> > Icelandic settlers held similar ideological and
> > philosophical ideas toward the state and the law
as
> > where held by the founding fathers of the United
> > States, including distrust of a strong central
> > government.
> >
> >
> >
> > The main reason the Vikings moved from Norway to
> > Iceland in the first place was to avoid the
feudal
> > relationship between the king and his lords and
> > serfs and thus the Icelandic settlers developed
a
> > decentralized system of governance.
> >

=== message truncated ===

I don't share his views on eliminating the FBI or CIA
but I do believe in ending DOE and letting states
decide, ending the IRS and replacing with FairTax (and
eventually nothing) and ending HUD and making the DHS
a division of the military and make it about 10 times
smaller (while getting rid of DEA, FEMA, ATF and a few
other groups inside it, also, Coast Guard would remain
part of Navy as I would want to abolish Dept of
Transportation as well). My point in this, is that I
can disagree with Ron Paul and still support him
because he has a better chance of being elected (maybe
not as the R but as a third party vs. Libertarian), or
will at least get a higher vote total than no names
like Smith, Kubby, Imperato et al.

--- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:

Thanks TJ....but I'm not sure you are hearing the
entire Ron Paul
message. He recommends abolishing the IRS, FBI, CIA,
DHS, HUD, DOE and
many many more...and replacing them with nothing. If
that's not your
definition of "doing without the government"
relating to these
functions...then I don't know what is.

You are right....and I'm not about to use Somalia as
an example of peace
on earth...I'm just saying it got better when the
government was gone.
And I'm predicting it will get worse now that the
"government" is back.
This is the same message communicated in the
articles I sent that showed
some European city streets got safer when the laws
and control signs
were removed for drivers...and a Mexican town got
safer when the police
were fired.

There were many other points made in those articles
that directly
referenced some of the areas you expressed
particular concerns about.
You might take some time to consider them.

Best regards,

Mike

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tim Campbell
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:33 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Fighting for
libertarianism in each State
vs. Federal government

I will be open to ideas on how to take care of these
functions once we get there and get all other parts
of
the bloated federal government out of the way. To
try
to convince the voting public (and new voters) that
we
can do without these functions is insanity, and why
the Libertarian Party hasn't been doing so well. A
message like Ron Paul's or local government messages
(like John Inks for Mountain View City Council),
that
speak on open government, balanced budgets, low
taxes
and security (through non-intervention abroad, etc),
and privacy are what appeals to the vast majority or
these mostly government school educated voters right
now.

I also will have a hard time believing Somalia or
any
other anarchal state was anything but hell. No
article
will disuade me. And again, I am for small
government.
Try to tell the average voter you want the USA to be
more like Somalia.... see how many votes that gets.

Peace,

-TJ Campbell

--- Mike Denny <mike@...
<mailto:mike%40drinksusa.com> >
wrote:

> Thanks TJ....
>
>
>
> You said "but certainly I believe in police,
> national defense, fire departments, government
made
> currency and the court system. I think it's insane
> to
> believe we could carry on w/o these important
> functions"
>
>
>
> I used to think this way too...but there are just
> too many interesting facts that don't support the
> position. Here are just a few articles for your
> review. Again...I won't try to change your
> mind...but it's possible you might find yourself
> open to at a re-evaluation or at least sympathy
for
> those who disagree once you consider the
> evidence....and I have plenty more if you have any
> other specific interests.
>
>
>
> Let me know...
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121
<http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121>
>
> Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
>
>
>
> by Thomas Whiston
>
>
>
> [Posted December 25, 2002]
>
>
>
> Those who claim that government is the source of
> social order say that in its absence there would
be
> violence, chaos, and a low standard of living.
They
> cite civil wars in Africa, drug wars in South
> America, or even Gengis Khan in Mongolia. They
claim
> that these things, which are actually examples of
> competing governments, are what life without
> government will produce.
>
>
>
> Another common objection to stateless legal
> enforcement systems is to ask for "just one
example
> of where it has worked."
>
>
>
> Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and
> well-documented historical example of how a
> stateless legal order can work and it provides
> insights as to how we might create a more just and
> efficient society today.
>
>
>
> Because of Iceland's geographical location there
was
> no threat of foreign invasion, so the demand for a
> national military force was absent.
>
> Icelandic settlers held similar ideological and
> philosophical ideas toward the state and the law
as
> where held by the founding fathers of the United
> States, including distrust of a strong central
> government.
>
>
>
> The main reason the Vikings moved from Norway to
> Iceland in the first place was to avoid the feudal
> relationship between the king and his lords and
> serfs and thus the Icelandic settlers developed a
> decentralized system of governance.
>
>
>
> Iceland did not have an executive branch of
> government. Instead of a king they had local
> chieftains. One permanent official in their system
> was the "logsogumadr" or law-speaker. His duties
> included the memorization of laws, the provision
of
> advice on legislative issues, and the recitation
of

=== message truncated ===