Capitalism and Liberty

[Mike Renzulli]

No greater debate has taken place in the libertarian movement than the minarchy-anarchy debate. It is almost a given that at some point in their exchanges, libertarians will debate on which political position is the correct one usually leading into whether or not it is moral to vote. This can also involve the argument from anarchists that government is the root of all evil.

The biggest flaw in anarchist thought is their claim that governments always violate the very rights they are created to defend, therefore, governments must be abolished. Furthermore, anarchist libertarians see laissez-faire capitalism (rather than individual rights) as the foundation of a free and industrialized society.

Rather than debate the merits of their assertion, anarchist libertarians will oft times resort to Orwellian means refusing to identify that they follow consistency as intrinsic rather than grounded in reality. The term minarchism is attributed by Samuel Konkin III in which he used minarchist as a way to smear libertarians who subscribed to limited government. Anarchists also insult minarchists with the term limited statists. But are they?

Anarchists assert that since government has a monopoly on force that it is only in an anarchistic society that the true exchange of goods and services can be achieved. Their rejection of government is based on the premise that government is the only entity that can use force against people for the taxation enforcement, restrict trade and personal freedom, ans well as create monopolies utilizing charters, grants, and subsidies that result in unfair competition.

While it is true that government has a monopoly on force a proper government (like what is seen in the United States) protects individual rights according to objective, philosophically validated and consistent procedures from its constitution down to its laws and regulations. Reality and man's nature require a government to protect us against any kind of physical aggression including also the right to self defense in the event access to government courts or police is not available to citizens.

What anarchist libertarians fail to identify is the difference between anarchism and capitalism. While anarchism is the absence or abolition of government, capitalism is an extension of individualism that recognizes man’s right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. individual rights). What guarantees individual rights in a capitalistic society is a government made up of objective laws and a legal system along with consistent, easy to understand procedures and rules of evidence. This is the legal structure the United States and many Westernized countries have.

To the best of my knowledge, the existence of contradictory laws, customs and rules are things anarchists still have not adequately addressed. For example, whose laws shall prevail in a contract dispute or case involving an act of fraud? What standards shall be followed to determine the applicable procedures that should govern a particular case? In disputes involving a Muslim who subscribes to Sharia Law and non-Muslim which person's legal system will govern it? Can a non-Muslim petition for a change of legal system or judge(s) if they would prefer the case litigated elsewhere or by another arbitrator? What will be the court of final decision should neither party agree with the other's dispute resolution entity conclusion? How would conflicting jurisprudence among different legal systems be worked out? By what standards would conflicts be resolved?

Anarchism is not only seriously flawed due to a lack of specifics but is also a form of faith grounded in a rejection of reality, order, objectivity and justice. Aside from ignoring even obvious cases of government checking itself from encroaching on a person's liberty, by default anarchism ultimately results in giving a blank check to organized gangs and other groups who can take advantage of a state-less order so they can impose their will on others with little means to stop them. This also includes groups (such as communists and Islamists) who oppose the very things libertarians stand for. As far as Islamists and communists are concerned individual rights such as the right to bear arms, free speech or even the rights to life, liberty, and property would be put on the chopping block in order to sacrifice mankind to the needs of their collective will.

In the real world Islamists have openly stated their desire to stone, kill or enslave infidels (i.e. non-Muslims). This also includes communist and socialist groups who help them and subscribe to a similar, extreme anti-life philosophy. There is no guarantee that these groups would not seek to impose their will on the rest of us should there not be a government erected in order to stop them. The beneficence of the market can never work among men whose intent is evil.

Furthermore and hypothetically speaking, there is also nothing to stop a terrorist who hates capitalism and freedom from intentionally infecting themselves with a deadly strain of a virus (such as typhoid or tuberculosis) in order to spread it among the populace of an anarchist libertarian enclave resulting in its destruction. You can make the argument that an armed citizenry can halt such a person from doing so but by the time patient zero is identified it will be too late. The way things are now in order for a foreigner to enter the U.S. or any other country for business or leisure, the person in question is screened by government agents which is another example of how government protects people from force and fraud. If the person wishing to enter said country knowingly has a criminal background or has an infectious health condition they are quarantined until their background or health is investigated and, rightly, sent back to their country of origin if it is determined that the person or people in question pose a threat to the rights of the innocent.

The end result of anarchism isn't just the rejection of objectivity and justice or the embracement of whim-worship, as author and Objectivist Amber Pawlik rightly points out it also makes man shift his primary ability from production to protection. She elaborates further by stating:

Man qua man lives solely by means of production. It is morally imperative that a proper political-economic system is in line with man’s method of survival. It is thus that a government should exist, whose sole purpose is to protect the private property of men. It is imperative that a government exist, ensuring man that he can live in freedom: free to produce, build, and achieve, without any fear of what his neighbors might to do those things that he has produced, built, and achieved. An individual should not have to worry about defending his property.

Instead of defending anarchism in a metaphysical sense, anarchist libertarians should check their premise when it comes to what they advocate. It is one thing if anarchists would rather not vote because the candidates that are running don't meet their ethical standards or prefer to use market-based solutions to government services (such as private security or arbitration companies) in their dealings with others. However, if Somalia's experiment with anarchism is any example, anarchists cannot claim the moral high ground nor that their ideas are a true reflection or embracement of justice and civilization.

A proper constitution (like as seen in the United States) does not impose coercive demands on the citizens, or authorize the government to violate their rights. Rather, it treats man's rights as negative requiring government agents to protect individual rights while, for the most part, leaving people free to go about their affairs. With this in mind I often wonder why anarchists object to this since such an arrangement is neither coercive nor immoral.

As Robert Bidinotto correctly points out anarcho-capitalism really is a demand for the right to secede from the judgments of other people concerning the validity of one's own use of force while simultaneously denying that there is a basic need to subject any use of force to objective -- that is, socially demonstrable -- standards. In other words, anarchist libertarian reliance on market forces treats capitalism as a floating abstraction and is really an excuse for them wanting to choose their morality while simultaneously rejecting any semblance of justice and objectivity.

By default anarchists treat competition and the initiation of force as rights in themselves. But no such rights exist and a proper understanding of the nature and souce of individual rights and how they are implemented negates any idea that anarchism as an ideal or proper extension of liberty. The non-aggression principle does not negate government and, in turn, does not inherently contradict actual individual rights. Relations among humans are contextual and in the tradition of other libertarian thinkers Ayn Rand conjured it up as an ethic in Objectivism with government being a logical extension of her thought in order to protect an individual's ability to live and prosper.

The only contradiction is in the minds of anarcho-capitalists since they obviously want to have their cake and eat it too demanding recognition of their liberty, while wanting to eliminate the only means of rationally determining when an individual's rights have been violated and being able to do anything about it. If libertarians value consistency over all else then anarchism is logically not too far around the corner. However, consistency is the only thing for which anarchists can claim victory.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[syrakusos]

The biggest flaw in anarchist thought ... Rather than debate the merits of their assertion ... Anarchists assert that ... Reality and man's nature require a government to ... What anarchist libertarians fail to identify is ... To the best of my knowledge... by default anarchism ultimately results in giving a blank check ... Furthermore and hypothetically speaking, there is also nothing to stop a terrorist ... The way things are now in order for a foreigner to enter the U.S. or any other country for business or leisure, the person in question is screened by government agents which is another example of how government protects people from force and fraud. ... The end result of anarchism isn't just the rejection of objectivity and justice or the embracement of whim-worship... .... without any fear of what his neighbors might to do ... Instead of defending anarchism in a metaphysical sense, anarchist libertarians should check their premise ...

A proper constitution (like as seen in the United States) does not impose coercive demands ... As Robert Bidinotto correctly points out .... By default anarchists treat competition and the initiation of force as rights in themselves. But no such rights exist... The only contradiction is in the minds of anarcho-capitalists since they obviously ...

My bachelor of science degree (2008) is in criminology administration. I chose that because I have worked as a private security guard and did well at it, being a uniformed officer, a dispatcher, and a weapons master. I have never been a cop. I have published over 300 newspaper and magazine articles, largely about business and entrepreneurship in technology, but also about culture. The first, for The Greater Lansing Business Monthly, in 1983, was based on the idea suggested by the Tannehills, on how insurance companies could replace governments.

Since then, over the past 40 years, I discovered that "anarcho-capitalism" (so-called) is not how the world should work, but how it does work.

Completing a master's degree in social science (2010), my focus was on multi-national and transnational crime. Corporations specify whose laws their contracts will be interpreted accordingly. They shop for states, both US "states" and real nations. If no nation suffices, they have the US Uniform Commercial Code, created whole by jurists, independent of any "state" or state but adopted by many. In other words, businesses today shop for laws.

This is not new. Since you mention the Muslims - you could have mentioned the Chinese; who cares? - you probably are completely ignorant of the competing courts in Islamic law that provided vibrant and efficacious opportunities for Jews and Christians to shop for justice under contract law. I recommend Inventing Enterprise by Baumol, Mokyr and Landes, (which I reviewed here) and generally the works of economic historian Timur Kuran. I also recommend a nice biography, Making Big Money in 1600: the life and times of Isma'il Abu Taqiyya by Nellie Hanna. You might also explore the many GENIZA DOCUMENTS translated by Shelomo Dov Goitein, which reveal a rich social tapestry of trade and commerce centered on Jews in Cairo.

Basically, Mike Renzulli, you convinced yourself while protecrted from the facts.

It is not how the world should work, but how it does work.

When you digest that, we can talk about post and patrol in private security.

Best wishes,

Mike M.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[Jared Warren]

While it is true that government has a monopoly on force a proper government (like what is seen in the United States) protects individual rights according to objective, philosophically validated and consistent procedures from its constitution down to its laws and regulations. Reality and man's nature require a government to protect us against any kind of physical aggression including also the right to self defense in the event access to government courts or police is not available to citizens.

Ah… yes, a proper government. If only there were more of those. It is no coincidence that most of the world’s governments are corrupt, parasitical structures constantly fending off coups from their own military. That is why I feel more anarcho-capitalist than objectivist, to be honest.

The US is lucky that the founding fathers were relatively sane (albeit a slave-owner here and there), but what if they weren't? What if they forgot to add a few clauses into the constitution? The only time a society gets an opportunity for a new constitution is about every 200 years when the shit hits the fan. Until then, Americans will continue squabbling over what their constitution means in practice.

To the best of my knowledge, the existence of contradictory laws, customs and rules are things anarchists still have not adequately addressed. For example, whose laws shall prevail in a contract dispute or case involving an act of fraud? What standards shall be followed to determine the applicable procedures that should govern a particular case? In disputes involving a Muslim who subscribes to Sharia Law and non-Muslim which person's legal system will govern it? Can a non-Muslim petition for a change of legal system or judge(s) if they would prefer the case litigated elsewhere or by another arbitrator? What will be the court of final decision should neither party agree with the other's dispute resolution entity conclusion? How would conflicting jurisprudence among different legal systems be worked out? By what standards would conflicts be resolved?

Here is how.

In order for a contract to be upheld and enforced, parties have to stipulate which protection agency would uphold and enforce the contract. Protection agencies seeking to maximize business opportunities, would contract with other protection agencies to streamline processes for dispute resolution. For instance, protection agency X may contract with protection agency Y, to agree to enforce contracts formed by clients from either agency, provided that disputes are resolved through a particular independent private court. If a client does not participate in the designated dispute resolution, a condition may be that he receives a fine or possibly loses his protection coverage.

Protection agencies will do anything to avoid unresolved disputes with other protection agencies, because that invites the prospect of war. Why would a client tolerate a business that continually raises its premiums in order to wage war with another protection agency? Clients would flock to cheaper, peaceful agencies at the drop of a hat, bankrupting the instigator of a war. Therefore, in their contracts with their clients, protection agencies would gradually stipulate relatively uniform conditions regarding life, liberty and property. This would maximize business opportunities for their clients, whilst enabling their business remain competitive.

Whilst this may in effect resemble a conceptual libertarian society, the difference is that individuals would be able to choose their arbitration and enforcement systems, and we all know the result of that: more efficiency, cheaper costs and better service.

For example, a potential client of a health insurance provider would be unwilling to sign a contract if the designated arbitrator of disputes has a reputation for favoring businesses over consumers. Likewise, the health insurance provider would be unwilling to sign the contract if the designated arbitrator has a reputation for favoring consumers over businesses. Therefore, the only way a private court can maximize profits and stay competitive, is if it can demonstrate it is 99.9% fair in its arbitration and more.

Anarchism is not only seriously flawed due to a lack of specifics but is also a form of faith grounded in a rejection of reality, order, objectivity and justice. Aside from ignoring even obvious cases of government checking itself from encroaching on a person's liberty, by default anarchism ultimately results in giving a blank check to organized gangs and other groups who can take advantage of a state-less order so they can impose their will on others with little means to stop them. This also includes groups (such as communists and Islamists) who oppose the very things libertarians stand for. As far as Islamists and communists are concerned individual rights such as the right to bear arms, free speech or even the rights to life, liberty, and property would be put on the chopping block in order to sacrifice mankind to the needs of their collective will.

‘Rights’ are a one-size-fits-all application. Most gorillas have more intelligence than some intellectually-disabled adults. You might say that such adults have the potential to become intelligent through the use of brain implants. So do gorillas.

Morals are what uphold society, not laws. A democratic government will always be enforced by mob rule; i.e. the collective will. Hypothetically, the best individuals can do is form their own protection agency to compete with those already in existence. At least that way, individuals can keep the mob out of their pockets, thus reducing the occurrence of war.

Organized gangs will probably exist in isolated areas, because it won't be economical for protection agencies to operate there. So I don't know, maybe you should stay away from isolated areas? I don't see why protection from human-induced 'force' is so different from other risk management markets, or the need for government to be the sole provider. A thief is like a virus; it travels from person to person, latching itself onto the entity and extracting the nutrients, until finally it stumbles upon your property. I would imagine that going without protection insurance is a bit like going without health insurance; a scary thought but not really a big deal depending on your circumstances. It is only after a few years or so that the probabilities start to side with the viruses. An opportunistic thief cannot be sure if you don't have protection insurance, just as a virus cannot be sure that you don't have health insurance. You can increase your risks of death by venturing out into rural areas and the wilderness, or you can remain in the cities and towns, where it is generally safer. Furthermore, just because someone doesn't have protection insurance, doesn't mean they are a vulnerable target. Such a person is likely to be packing a revolver wherever they go, and possibly have booby traps set on their property. Likewise, someone without health insurance is likely to watch their diet and weight carefully, and possibly have an exercise routine.

Furthermore and hypothetically speaking, there is also nothing to stop a terrorist who hates capitalism and freedom from intentionally infecting themselves with a deadly strain of a virus (such as typhoid or tuberculosis) in order to spread it among the populace of an anarchist libertarian enclave resulting in its destruction. You can make the argument that an armed citizenry can halt such a person from doing so but by the time patient zero is identified it will be too late. The way things are now in order for a foreigner to enter the U.S. or any other country for business or leisure, the person in question is screened by government agents which is another example of how government protects people from force and fraud. If the person wishing to enter said country knowingly has a criminal background or has an infectious health condition they are quarantined until their background or health is investigated and, rightly, sent back to their country of origin if it is determined that the person or people in question pose a threat to the rights of the innocent.

What part of ‘20 million illegal immigrants’ do you not understand? The US border doesn’t work, nor would state borders or county borders. Perhaps a township border might work, in which case, what was so wrong about private property rights in the first place? Only property rights can effectively quarantine anything - by quarantining anything that is so demanded.

An anarcho-capitalist society would actually reflect something of a big brother society, where everything you do and say is monitored, the difference being that you can get a new big brother if you don't like you're current one. This is because protection agencies would amass data on all individuals in the competition to reduce the incidence of crime. In a state of anarchy, all individuals will come under pressure to disclose their personal information, in order to help protection agencies keep the peace. The difference here is that they will actually achieve it. Private businesses would collaborate with respectable protection agencies to portray themselves in a positive light, and to help protect their customers. For instance, toll-funded highways would restrict the movement of hazardous substances along their property. Whilst health insurance companies would discriminate with DNA information, DNA information would also enable such discriminated individuals to be eligible for charity funds. Likewise, there is no reason why a large private military cannot be funded through voluntary donation, the difference being that a private military would be more rigorously vetted for loyalty. This would be a military that a society could trust to develop powerful weapons; something governments cannot be trusted with. Thus a terrorist is unlikely to spread tuberculosis in the US, when a united voluntaryist army can potentially spread the Black Death in the terrorists' home country.

As Robert Bidinotto correctly points out anarcho-capitalism really is a demand for the right to secede from the judgments of other people concerning the validity of one's own use of force while simultaneously denying that there is a basic need to subject any use of force to objective -- that is, socially demonstrable -- standards. In other words, anarchist libertarian reliance on market forces treats capitalism as a floating abstraction and is really an excuse for them wanting to choose their morality while simultaneously rejecting any semblance of justice and objectivity.

Socially demonstrable… standards? Like beating your wife with a stick according to the rule of thumb? Like beating your child with a stick, period? I don’t think the collective will of society can ever determine the most 'correct' way of using force.

By default anarchists treat competition and the initiation of force as rights in themselves. But no such rights exist and a proper understanding of the nature and souce of individual rights and how they are implemented negates any idea that anarchism as an ideal or proper extension of liberty. The non-aggression principle does not negate government and, in turn, does not inherently contradict actual individual rights. Relations among humans are contextual and in the tradition of other libertarian thinkers Ayn Rand conjured it up as an ethic in Objectivism with government being a logical extension of her thought in order to protect an individual's ability to live and prosper.

Might is right. However, capitalism in its purest form is an arrangement that dilutes might as effectively and efficiently as possible.

[Brant Gaede]

The biggest flaw in anarchist thought ... Rather than debate the merits of their assertion ... Anarchists assert that ... Reality and man's nature require a government to ... What anarchist libertarians fail to identify is ... To the best of my knowledge... by default anarchism ultimately results in giving a blank check ... Furthermore and hypothetically speaking, there is also nothing to stop a terrorist ... The way things are now in order for a foreigner to enter the U.S. or any other country for business or leisure, the person in question is screened by government agents which is another example of how government protects people from force and fraud. ... The end result of anarchism isn't just the rejection of objectivity and justice or the embracement of whim-worship... .... without any fear of what his neighbors might to do ... Instead of defending anarchism in a metaphysical sense, anarchist libertarians should check their premise ...

A proper constitution (like as seen in the United States) does not impose coercive demands ... As Robert Bidinotto correctly points out .... By default anarchists treat competition and the initiation of force as rights in themselves. But no such rights exist... The only contradiction is in the minds of anarcho-capitalists since they obviously ...

My bachelor of science degree (2008) is in criminology administration. I chose that because I have worked as a private security guard and did well at it, being a uniformed officer, a dispatcher, and a weapons master. I have never been a cop. I have published over 300 newspaper and magazine articles, largely about business and entrepreneurship in technology, but also about culture. The first, for The Greater Lansing Business Monthly, in 1983, was based on the idea suggested by the Tannehills, on how insurance companies could replace governments.

Since then, over the past 40 years, I discovered that "anarcho-capitalism" (so-called) is not how the world should work, but how it does work.

Completing a master's degree in social science (2010), my focus was on multi-national and transnational crime. Corporations specify whose laws their contracts will be interpreted accordingly. They shop for states, both US "states" and real nations. If no nation suffices, they have the US Uniform Commercial Code, created whole by jurists, independent of any "state" or state but adopted by many. In other words, businesses today shop for laws.

This is not new. Since you mention the Muslims - you could have mentioned the Chinese; who cares? - you probably are completely ignorant of the competing courts in Islamic law that provided vibrant and efficacious opportunities for Jews and Christians to shop for justice under contract law. I recommend Inventing Enterprise by Baumol, Mokyr and Landes, (which I reviewed here) and generally the works of economic historian Timur Kuran. I also recommend a nice biography, Making Big Money in 1600: the life and times of Isma'il Abu Taqiyya by Nellie Hanna. You might also explore the many GENIZA DOCUMENTS translated by Shelomo Dov Goitein, which reveal a rich social tapestry of trade and commerce centered on Jews in Cairo.

Basically, Mike Renzulli, you convinced yourself while protecrted from the facts.

It is not how the world should work, but how it does work.

When you digest that, we can talk about post and patrol in private security.

Best wishes,

Mike M.

And all is right in the world?

--Brant

[syrakusos]

The biggest flaw in anarchist thought ...

... "anarcho-capitalism" (so-called) is not how the world should work, but how it does work.

And all is right in the world? --Brant

Of course not. How could it ever be? We live longer and better, but we all still live with ourselves and our problems. ... even when we do not suffer from cancer, or dandruff, or starvation, or hypoglycemia, or ineptitude... It is a fact that that to err is human.

The essential question is what form(s) of socity(ies) allow the most fault-tolerant opportunities for growth, progress, invention, improvement, innovation? What is a meta-stable social system? A limited constitutional government is better than a totalitarian society. The idea is to divest market entities from political power and to keep political power out of the markets. I see this as the actual mode truly now - and perhaps long since - followed by the multinational corporations we all love to hate. They shop for laws. They write the terms they want into their contracts and they negotiate with each other for the fall-back in case of (ahem) "misunderstanding." The rest of us pledge our allegiences to our flags.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5b602-Ggu4

Imagine if, while the international capitalist class held their wealth in productive resources from metals to venture investments, we limited ourselves to Federal Reserve Notes and credit cards. Oh... Well, you know what I mean...

In other words, egocentric morality is the essence of Objectivist political theory. I traveled overseas. Once. I was sent to Switzerland. Nice place. Nothing's ever going to happen there again. I came home. Best event of the trip was deplaning in New York, holding up my passport and hearing the guard say, "Welcome home, sir."

That said, nice as this place is to live, I know that I benefit from the fact that the world's real engines of production are not tied to any geographic monoopoly of law, but, as they shop for materials and seek out markets, they shop for laws and seek out justice.

... even if the sparrow falls from the tree ...

[Jared Warren]

I went overboard with my criticism; it's just what I enjoy doing, don't take it personally.

[syrakusos]

I went overboard with my criticism; it's just what I enjoy doing, don't take it personally.

I went back over your replies and found nothing personally objectionable. You engaged in no bullying. You have no need to apologize. Your counter-arguments were all logically correct, though they often failed empirically. That is an important point for Objectivists. Small-o objectivism is formally rational-empiricism; and capital-O Objectivism is special set within that school. Objectivism (small-o, large-O) holds that for something to be true it must be both evident to the senses and also logically consistent.

• The sun rises each day (true by observation); Apollo carries it in his chariot (poor explanation).
  
• Waves travel in media; light is a wave; light travels through an ether (syllogism); Michelson-Morley Experiment found no evidence of ether (falsification of theory).
  
• Altruism (bad theory); communism (bad practice).
  
• Egoism (good theory); capitalism (good practice.)
  

You provided a litany of "would" and "could." You gave no real world examples. In fact, within appropriate contexts, some of your woulds and coulds are flatly contradicted by the actual operation of people in society - praxeology versus sociology.

For example, a potential client of a health insurance provider would be unwilling to sign a contract if the designated arbitrator of disputes has a reputation for favoring businesses over consumers. Likewise, the health insurance provider would be unwilling to sign the contract if the designated arbitrator has a reputation for favoring consumers over businesses. Therefore, the only way a private court can maximize profits and stay competitive, is if it can demonstrate it is 99.9% fair in its arbitration and more.

In reality, the stronger party sets more terms of any contract. The definition of "stronger" is the party that sets more terms. When dealing with Blue Cross or Humana or Kaiser you cannot alter the terms of the contract you are handed. However, if you invent a gizmo that might make $1 million a year if it sells and if you license it to a producer of widgets with annual sales of $10 million, you probably can get all the terms you want, as will they because you are approximately equal within some order of magnitude. That said, it is also demonstrably true that in a free market society, you have more alternatives. You can avoid Blue Cross, etc., with any of a number of competitive plans, and even set your own terms, really, with a local medical practice and balance that with a catastrophic insurance policy. In socialist theory and practice, you do not have those options; the providers do not have those options. We all do as commanded by law, or become criminals, by definition. In our mixed economy, you can set your own terms in many spheres, but you are at a serious disadvantage. That is what it means to lose freedom: you are not free to choose.

However, we do have practices within capitalism that demonstrate the theory of so-called "anarchism" which is really free market law. I point to the American Arbitration Association. I point to the fact that Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation had huge armed guard forces and never fired a shot at each other in 100 years. I point to the fact that today, G4S and Securitas have more guards than most nations have men at arms, and they do not go to war to protect the wallets of their clients. (Securitas does offer "asset recovery." They have special ops. But they operate within law against the lawless.) Businesses do shop for laws. They pick the jurisdictions that have the advantages they seek. The Uniform Commercial Code was written whole by jurists and offered as a product independent of any government - though many US states have adopted it in whole or in part.

From today's news:

Microsoft was helped by an unusually low tax rate of 7 percent in the quarter, which cut its tax bill by more than $1 billion from the year before, to $445 million. The company, which gets most of its revenue from overseas, said the savings were due to a one-time tax gain and more business flowing through its regional centers in the low-tax jurisdictions of Ireland, Singapore and Puerto Rico.

("Microsoft Windows fizzles as PC fears loom" here)

Contradictions do not exist: that which is moral is practical. On this board, I met Wolf Devoon, a libertarian lawyer whose theory is that government is just one (ineffective) way to instantiate law. Law comes first. (He's a lawyer, after all.) People want law because we want predictable outcomes in our social interactions. There exists a market for law and it is the market for liberty. It looks a lot like the markets for shoes... when the large and small republics of the world are held back from interfering in production and distribution.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[Jared Warren]

From today's news:

Microsoft was helped by an unusually low tax rate of 7 percent in the quarter, which cut its tax bill by more than $1 billion from the year before, to $445 million. The company, which gets most of its revenue from overseas, said the savings were due to a one-time tax gain and more business flowing through its regional centers in the low-tax jurisdictions of Ireland, Singapore and Puerto Rico.

("Microsoft Windows fizzles as PC fears loom" here)

That's why we must protect the fat cats from breaking their nails. Cut corporate taxes to zero! Then laugh when socialist havens crumble as business moves to where it is pampered.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Jared Warren