VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:52:27 01/31/00 Mon
Author: jack
Subject: Re: Free-Market Anarchism
In reply to: GF 's message, "Free-Market Anarchism" on 11:43:46 01/31/00 Mon

> > Just read your response to a post of mine on the Free
> > Mind Forum, and I guess I'm talking about only a
> > portion of anarchists; I was previously under the
> > impression that this was the majority view among the
> > group.
> >
> > I think the federal gov't should be responsible for
> > national defense, interstate commerce, and foreign
> > relations (all narrowly defined). State
> > governments should be responsible for intrastate
> > commerce (to cut down on trade wars between
> > neighboring towns), and perhaps to help organize
> > projects (roads, etc.) that concern more than one
> town.
> >
> > So I wonder what I am? ;)
> >
> > Jack
>
> You have a ways to go, but there may be hope for you.
> :)
>
> I'll tackle the easy ones and leave some for others
> who might have something to say regarding them:
>
> National defense: Not necessary if sovereign
> individuals are armed. Next to impossible for an
> invading force to subdue and occupy each and every
> household of sovereign individuals. This would be far
> easier when there is a government to take over.
>
> Interstate Commerce: It's not necessary and not
> good to regulate any type of commerce between free
> sovereign individuals.
>
> Foreign Relations: All relations are foreign
> except those with oneself. Not necessary nor good for
> someone who's not directly involved to try to control
> them in any way.
>
> More on this later.
>
> Welcome to the Blue, Jack! GF

Thanks for the welcome GF! I love being part of a secret society, when do we start plotting against someone? ;)

As far as national defense, I'll be the first to admit that as soon as you've got a "national" anything, you're bound to wind up, in rather short order, with a huge federal gov't like we've got now. If we've got an armed forces of the United States, they'll want health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. So right away you'll have liberals making the case that since the federal gov't is providing these things for some people, why not for more people?

On the other hand though, if an invading nation comes at us with tanks, jet fighters, and maybe even poison gas, I'd much rather send the Pacific fleet after them than try to hold them off with my deer rifle. And, a lot of citizens wouldn't be interested in fighting for their country, but would quickly knuckle-under to whoever invaded us; a lot of those who did fight would turn out to be lousy soldiers, poor shots, quick to run from the action. They (we) need some sort of training.

As far as occupying the US, would they need to take over each and every household? Or just make an example of a few, after which the rest would fall in line? Certainly we'd offer sustained resistance (even as things stand now), guirella raids that would annoy the hell out of the occupying force, maybe we'd even manage to score an ocassional victory, but would we be able to overwhelm their bases with rifles, when they're guarded with minefields, artillery, etc? Seems we need weapons at least as good as theirs, but how does a community government purchase an incredibly expensive piece of military hardware? If we had rocket launchers and some surface-to-air guided missiles, we could probably put up a good fight, but how many people would turn into Rambo and how many would just say "well, the new communist regime is at least paying us enough to buy food...sort of"?

As far as interstate commerce, perhaps you're right. The gov't most likely screws up interstate commerce more than the states could on their own (not to even mention that the fed gov. now uses it as an excuse to have virtually unlimited power to meddle in state affairs).

And as far as international relations; we've got to look at the world we're living in. Could millions of town governments carry on trade negotiations with the European Union? If Canada were attacked by China, would we be comfortable with a communist regime on our border, or would we want to help them defend themselves (to preserve our own interests)? If Mexico decided to move the Texas border a few hundred miles north and annex the property of the American citizens in the effected area, would the rest of us mind?

Would we send thousands of teams to the Olympics?

Food for thought,

Jack

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.