Myth of the Tyranny of the Majority

[Darrell Hougen]

I love this manner of argument.

A: I have all the answers. We defend freedom with state enslavement of the individual. Except we make it three individuals and give them choices of enslavement. Then we discover that they are not enslaved at all and voila! We defend freedom.

B: Er... That's not freedom.

A: That's totally irrelevant. I'm not talking about freedom.

B: Yes you are. You just said so.

A: You didn't understand me.

B: You said freedom.

A: Don't be stupid.

And so it goes...

Michael

Lol!

The problem is that you're arguing about reality and she is arguing about the OP. Until you directly address the OP, she doesn't hear you. You may think the OP is silly, but she wants you to enter her world and argue about the OP, otherwise she's just not listening.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

If you think she'll then listen you're delusional. You must also accept her epistemological sans any real metaphysical propositions. It's completely imaginary.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

I don't know for sure that she'll listen, but I know the only hope of getting her to listen is to address her imaginary problem. Whether you think that is worth your time is another question entirely. Actually, Francisco Ferrer was having an interesting conversation with her. I haven't read all the way to the end though. Too many pages. Maybe I'll get there eventually.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

The trick is not to try to win an argument. Just call a spade a spade. Frisco is excellent with his logical insights and extrapolations. Naomi is no Eva and I hope she sticks around so we can keep throwing ourselves at her.

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Obviously, you and I are using different systems of logic. The fact that a small fraction of the Icelandic population was unfree does not in the least change the fact that the system of justice and defense that existed there was freely and contractually financed. To illustrate: in 2011 the number of U.S. murder victims was 12,664. Thus, those 12,664 were effectively denied the right to vote in 2012. But only someone dysfunctionally concerned with non-essentials would claim that the statistic proves that the U.S. does not allow its citizens to vote.

It was not until the late 12th century that an Icelandic state with its attendant taxation emerged. But under my system of logic, which I admit is quaintly Hellenistic, a later event does not have the power to remove an earlier event from its place on history's timeline. Iceland once had no taxation. The arrival of taxation later on does not and cannot alter that fact.

In 1984, the government of Oceania is able to delete from the historical record (in the form of newspaper articles) its earlier promise of no reduction in chocolate rations. But the power to delete records in the present does not mean the power to delete events from the past.

As I pointed out in that post, once upon a time, there was no taxation anywhere, including Iceland.

However, this doesn't disprove my point, because in only a very short amount of time, the emergence of a state is quickly followed by the introduction of taxes.

If majorities did not matter, communists authorities in Poland in 1988 could have ignored the wishes of the masses and merrily gone on with business as usual. They might have found it difficult to move around, however. Anti-government unions had shut down nearly every major industry and the streets were jammed with angry protestors.

I did not say that "majorities did not matter". I only said that, if the people that hold all the power in a society don't want to change the state, then the state won't change, even if the vast majority of people want it to. It is sometimes possible for even a small group of "commoners" to rally together and seize control of the state, and I never claimed otherwise. When they do so, however, they acquire power and become the new ruling elite. This is pretty much exactly what happened in the Bolshevik revolution.

This was in response to your claim that a state will collapse if only a majority of people want it to. This claim is obviously falsified by the numerous examples throughout history of oppressive regimes that are hated by the people they rule but that have not been overthrown.

Okay so B will prey upon more productive people in his new homeland. And the victims of his parasitism will either put up with it because they believe that parasitism (like slavery or child marriages or non-suffrage for women or bleeding sick people to cure them) is an "unfortunate reality." Or they will treat B to the Ceaușescu special. Or they will follow the unmistakable flow of the brain drain.

No, they will put up with it because there's nothing they can really do about it. Warren Buffet is exactly the kind of parasite B is and is widely reviled in this country, yet he somehow managed to escape being hung on a hook in a public square. (which is not to even mention the parasites who are currently getting away with everything)

I can't come up with one good reason. Therefore we must agree that an effective military force for national defense can be decentralized.

Switzerland's military is certainly not decentralized. It might be minimally staffed, but it sure as hell isn't decentralized.

This is a beautiful scheme, because, as we know, in the real world, although hate is a powerful force, every person would rather make an extra dollar than see someone he hates be harmed or thwarted in his ambitions. Just ask anyone on this forum if he wouldn't rather have an extra buck from Soros than see Hillary defeated in the next election.

You yourself have said that "Many people are as much motivated by seeing a wealthy man brought low as by increasing their own income." (your own words). If you'll notice that this is exactly what I was asked to model, and I believe I have succeeded in doing so.

I believe it's your turn now. Suppose that, all of a sudden, everyone in America and their mother only wants to see you dead for no particular reason. How exactly will the constitution save you?

But if you are certain that "there can be no fundamental change in crony capitalism in the foreseeable future," how would you know that a non-laissez-faire alternative would be feasible?

Do you see into the future beyond the part of it that's not foreseeable?

Again, we must be using different systems of logic.

You don't have to look at the future, you only have to look around. Each country that exists today represents a set of political institutions which actually exists, and not all of them are crony capitalist, but not one of them is laissez-faire capitalist either.

[anthony]

I got lost in all the argument, counter argument, counter- counter ...etc. Let me know the score, anyone.

Accept the cynical premise in the OP - that 'might (as numbers) is right' - and it subsides into appeals to force. How to share "might"; how to negotiate "might"; how to game it; who has it; who wants it; who deserves it - etcetc. Society like a lump of putty, twisted and pulled by the powerful

Then, appeals to historicism as though that explains man's nature, or sets a precedent for the future.

"Look around " advises Naomi who apparently implicitly accepts the is-ought dichotomy.

[Brant Gaede]

Each country that exists today represents a set of political institutions which actually exists, and not all of them are crony capitalist, but not one of them is laissez-faire capitalist either.

Excuse me. That something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't.

That we have X amount of freedom doesn't mean we can't have more or shouldn't.

Taken as such laissez-faire capitalism means an ideal worth aspiring to, not a Utopia to be achieved. The operative principle is more freedom--not just economic--as the principle--step by step, steady as you go, not the imposition of a radical vision smashing eggs to make omelets.

You seem to be a dirty Utopian: chose this or that extant system for empirical data fitting a theorectical deduction you do not talk about for it would incude actual people you never talk about. This won't lead logically to genocide for it's not powered by a purported moral ideal as was communism or Naziism (you're only another mixed economy gal/guy [guy/gal]). You'd have to mix in Objectivism which you neither attempt or even acknowledge the existence of. Nevertheless, from your ivory tower you fiddle with these constructs and looking up at you looking down (sort of) at us I have to say "____ __!" and "____ ____!"

Who died and made you King? Ayn Rand couldn't really deal with the necessary evil of government though advocating limited or delimited government for all the blather--"all" doesn't mean much here only complete as stated--about "voluntary" taxation. She tended in detail not to really go there. She centered her philosophy on the ethics or morality (or both for there's a nuance involved she never touched), but came up short there too. Again, she posited should be, ought to be (and only for the ideal man so if you weren't one get on or stay off that boat) instead of first understanding real people generally as an investigative starting point. I'm not saying she did wrong or even should have done something differently in this respect, for if she had we'd likely never have heard of her, but it's up to the rest of us not to swallow her whole then be "rational" by continuing to eat the same damn thing and getting a lifetime of belly ache in-the-head-too-ache.

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Additionally, B has the opportunity to move his business to one of two countries. One with a lower tax rate, where he can't influence the government, and another with the same lower tax rate but where he can influence the government. B will obviously choose the latter, and, therefore, that country, rather than attracting a "producer", just gets another "parasite". So we see that, just because B was productive under one set of circumstances, does not mean that he will remain that way under another set.

So obviously, this B is a moron. That is, if he beleives that he'd be the only person able to influence the government.

If B were not a moron, and were actually a producer, he'd obviously pick the country where a] nobody could influence the government, including him, and b] that government was largely tasked with scraping barnacles off of navigation bouys and painting the lines fairly down the middle of the streets, so what petty low life criminal would want to influence that right sized government to begin with? It has been properly castrated/neutered. It is staffd by honorable plumbers, not patermalistic megalomaniac emperor wannabees.

Your calculus of 'obviously' isn't even close. What fool would willingly subject himself to a] a government that sells iself and b] that has conseqeunces when it does so?

I'd say the 'obvious' answer is to castrate/neuter this thing until the 'obvious' inevitability is beat down into the cracks and crevices of petty criminality, appropriate for scumbags like LBJ or Nixon. They can argue over whose brother in law gets the order for the yellow paint in the dark all they want, then go count their stolen money in their trailers.

Or, we can fund the splendor that is DC and its suburbs with these same scum parasites.

The kind of fool who doesn't have a choice? B can't move to a country with a minarchist government because there are no countries with minarchist governments.

[Selene]

The kind of fool who doesn't have a choice? B can't move to a country with a minarchist government because there are no countries with minarchist governments.

However, he could move to an island and start one, correct?

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Excuse me. That something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't.

--Brant

But look at the context of what you quoted. Francisco didn't ask why I think laissez-faire can't exist. He asked how I know that non laissez-faire alternatives are possible.

The kind of fool who doesn't have a choice? B can't move to a country with a minarchist government because there are no countries with minarchist governments.

However, he could move to an island and start one, correct?

He could try.

[Brant Gaede]

Excuse me. That something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't.

--Brant

But look at the context of what you quoted. Francisco didn't ask why I think laissez-faire can't exist. He asked how I know that non laissez-faire alternatives are possible.

The kind of fool who doesn't have a choice? B can't move to a country with a minarchist government because there are no countries with minarchist governments.

However, he could move to an island and start one, correct?

He could try.

You can have your context, I'm into substance. I don't respect your context. Frisco does even though you missed the point of his logic in this case--that is, the illogic of your logic, not your theorectical point and look.

--Brant

which is why you seldom react to anything I say, but do with Frisco, in spades, for which I have no objection whatsoever: if our views and viewpoints were two circles (contexts) they would not overlap in the slightest

[SoAMadDeathWish]

You can have your context, I'm into substance. I don't respect your context. Frisco does.

--Brant

which is why you seldom react to anything I say, but do with Frisco, in spades, for which I have no objection whatsoever

But you have to understand the context of a statement in order to understand its meaning. Because you ignored the context, you assumed I was saying something I really wasn't. Whether or not you choose to respect the context is your business, but don't be surprised when people tell you that you misunderstood them.

I'm only interesting in responding to posters that give reasons for why they disagree. I really don't care how evil or ignorant someone thinks me or my views are.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Obviously, you and I are using different systems of logic. The fact that a small fraction of the Icelandic population was unfree does not in the least change the fact that the system of justice and defense that existed there was freely and contractually financed. To illustrate: in 2011 the number of U.S. murder victims was 12,664. Thus, those 12,664 were effectively denied the right to vote in 2012. But only someone dysfunctionally concerned with non-essentials would claim that the statistic proves that the U.S. does not allow its citizens to vote.

It was not until the late 12th century that an Icelandic state with its attendant taxation emerged. But under my system of logic, which I admit is quaintly Hellenistic, a later event does not have the power to remove an earlier event from its place on history's timeline. Iceland once had no taxation. The arrival of taxation later on does not and cannot alter that fact.

In 1984, the government of Oceania is able to delete from the historical record (in the form of newspaper articles) its earlier promise of no reduction in chocolate rations. But the power to delete records in the present does not mean the power to delete events from the past.

As I pointed out in that post, once upon a time, there was no taxation anywhere, including Iceland.

However, this doesn't disprove my point, because in only a very short amount of time, the emergence of a state is quickly followed by the introduction of taxes.

The private provision of justice in Iceland lasted nearly 300 years. As Roderick T. Long has said, "We should be cautious in labeling as a failure a political experiment that flourished longer than the United States has even existed."

If majorities did not matter, communists authorities in Poland in 1988 could have ignored the wishes of the masses and merrily gone on with business as usual. They might have found it difficult to move around, however. Anti-government unions had shut down nearly every major industry and the streets were jammed with angry protestors.

I did not say that "majorities did not matter". I only said that, if the people that hold all the power in a society don't want to change the state, then the state won't change, even if the vast majority of people want it to. It is sometimes possible for even a small group of "commoners" to rally together and seize control of the state, and I never claimed otherwise. When they do so, however, they acquire power and become the new ruling elite. This is pretty much exactly what happened in the Bolshevik revolution.

This was in response to your claim that a state will collapse if only a majority of people want it to. This claim is obviously falsified by the numerous examples throughout history of oppressive regimes that are hated by the people they rule but that have not been overthrown.

A regime cannot last without at least the acquiescence of the majority of the public. This has been proven time and again, from Louis XVI to Nicholas II to General Jaruzelski.

The Bolshevik Revolution succeeded and lasted in large part because its propaganda machine convinced the public that the alternatives to Communist Party control were worse. They managed this trick rather well until the 1980's.

"No ruler who lacks the gift of persuasion can stay in office long; it is the indispensable condition of government. It would be an idle illusion to assume that any government, no matter how good, could lastingly do without public consent." --Ludwig von Mises

Okay so B will prey upon more productive people in his new homeland. And the victims of his parasitism will either put up with it because they believe that parasitism (like slavery or child marriages or non-suffrage for women or bleeding sick people to cure them) is an "unfortunate reality." Or they will treat B to the Ceaușescu special. Or they will follow the unmistakable flow of the brain drain.

No, they will put up with it because there's nothing they can really do about it. Warren Buffet is exactly the kind of parasite B is and is widely reviled in this country, yet he somehow managed to escape being hung on a hook in a public square. (which is not to even mention the parasites who are currently getting away with everything)

I am not aware that Warren Buffet is widely hated or even widely known by the American public.

If a discontented population has no power to effect political change, then all regimes currently in power will remain so and history will be forever locked into a holding pattern. Yet there is no reason to believe that this will be the case. Ballots and bullets have caused upheavals in the past. Why shouldn't they work in the future?

I can't come up with one good reason. Therefore we must agree that an effective military force for national defense can be decentralized.

Switzerland's military is certainly not decentralized. It might be minimally staffed, but it sure as hell isn't decentralized.

Then you are misinformed. The overwhelming majority of Switzerland's army personnel sleep not on bases but in their own homes. The overwhelming majority of Switzerland's arms are stored not in government arsenals but in private closets.

Read Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II by my friend Stephen Halbrook.

This is a beautiful scheme, because, as we know, in the real world, although hate is a powerful force, every person would rather make an extra dollar than see someone he hates be harmed or thwarted in his ambitions. Just ask anyone on this forum if he wouldn't rather have an extra buck from Soros than see Hillary defeated in the next election.

You yourself have said that "Many people are as much motivated by seeing a wealthy man brought low as by increasing their own income." (your own words). If you'll notice that this is exactly what I was asked to model, and I believe I have succeeded in doing so.

I believe it's your turn now. Suppose that, all of a sudden, everyone in America and their mother only wants to see you dead for no particular reason. How exactly will the constitution save you?

It can't. As I've said often on this website and as Ayn Rand has written, the philosophical must precede the political. Rand said, "The power that determines the establishment, the changes, the evolution, and the destruction of social systems is philosophy."

A U.S. Constitution that was closer to its original version, that kept government tightly reined in by allowing for the countervailing power of state nullification, and that fully respected the sovereignty of each citizen, could only exist in a society that extensively honored individualism.

In other words, the same society that gives us such a document would not also give us trials by mob.

But if you are certain that "there can be no fundamental change in crony capitalism in the foreseeable future," how would you know that a non-laissez-faire alternative would be feasible?

Do you see into the future beyond the part of it that's not foreseeable?

Again, we must be using different systems of logic.

You don't have to look at the future, you only have to look around. Each country that exists today represents a set of political institutions which actually exists, and not all of them are crony capitalist, but not one of them is laissez-faire capitalist either.

In the middle of the 19th century no Western country allowed women to vote. By the end of the century that ban would rapidly disappear.

Therefore, pronouncements about the "foreseeable" or "feasible" based on what is observable at present are no more reliable than the laughable 1957 prediction of Lee De Forest, the inventor of the vacuum tube, that space travel is impossible.

[Selene]

Excuse me. That something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't.

--Brant

But look at the context of what you quoted. Francisco didn't ask why I think laissez-faire can't exist. He asked how I know that non laissez-faire alternatives are possible.

The kind of fool who doesn't have a choice? B can't move to a country with a minarchist government because there are no countries with minarchist governments.

However, he could move to an island and start one, correct?

He could try.

Naomi:

I know he can try.

Branson bought his own island, correct? Probably runs it pretty clean of taxation, correct? Possibly runs it in a LZ way too, correct?

However, the point for your mis-educated mind to consider, is, where, in your cute little alphabet reality game are the letters for actual people who actually create real life structures wherein real people live and think creatively.

You prefer to stay in Candyland with all it's cute little chutes and ladders all nicely tucked into a model.

Now this is a real model of a woman, I'll take that over all your alphabet people.

My nominee for Dagny ... get those tychs going back in time...

[Brant Gaede]

The Swiss have a defendable country because of mountainous terrain. They'd be much more impotent if they lived in Poland no matter how many guns they had in their homes. It has to do with the nature of armored warfare. Mountains are very effective tank barriers. Because of the topography the US cannot do to Iran what it did twice to Iraq.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Is that Ingrid, Adam? Ayn wanted a young Katherine Hepburn for the role.

--Brant

edit: yes, it is

Edited April 19, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The private provision of justice in Iceland lasted nearly 300 years. As Roderick T. Long has said, "We should be cautious in labeling as a failure a political experiment that flourished longer than the United States has even existed."

The Icelandic Commonwealth was founded in 970, and the tithe was introduced around 1100. It lasted about 130 years at most.

But what matters is not so much how long some system lasts, what matters more is why it ended. David Friedman himself states:

"A second objection is that the rich (or powerful) could commit crimes with impunity, since nobody would be able to enforce judgment against them. Where power is sufficiently concentrated this might be true; this was one of the problems which led to the eventual breakdown of the Icelandic legal system in the thirteenth century."

and

"The question of why the system eventually broke down is both interesting and difficult. I believe that two of the proximate causes were increased concentration of wealth. and hence power, and the introduction into Iceland of a foreign ideology--kingship. The former meant that in many areas all or most of the godord were held by one family and the latter that by the end of the Sturlung period the chieftains were no longer fighting over the traditional quarrels of who owed what to whom, but over who should eventually rule Iceland. The ultimate reasons for those changes are beyond the scope of this paper."

Wow, the system failed for exactly the reason I said it would? What a surprise...

A regime cannot last without at least the acquiescence of the majority of the public. This has been proven time and again, from Louis XVI to Nicholas II to General Jaruzelski.

The Bolshevik Revolution succeeded and lasted in large part because its propaganda machine convinced the public that the alternatives to Communist Party control were worse. They managed this trick rather well until the 1980's.

"No ruler who lacks the gift of persuasion can stay in office long; it is the indispensable condition of government. It would be an idle illusion to assume that any government, no matter how good, could lastingly do without public consent." --Ludwig von Mises

And how is that acquiescence achieved? Do you honestly believe that dictators are kept in power by their subject's voluntary consent? This is simply untrue. People are acquiescent because they are powerless.

Louis XVI and Nicholas II both had their armies turn against them and were opposed by other powerful groups, which seized control at the opportune moment. It's not like people woke up one day and thought "Hmm... monarchy is bad. Let's kill the king!"

I am not aware that Warren Buffet is widely hated or even widely known by the American public.

If a discontented population has no power to effect political change, then all regimes currently in power will remain so and history will be forever locked into a holding pattern. Yet there is no reason to believe that this will be the case. Ballots and bullets have caused upheavals in the past. Why shouldn't they work in the future?

That a large group of powerless, discontented people cannot effect political change in no way means that no one can effect political change. As I've said before, only those who acquire sufficient power can challenge the existing regime.

Then you are misinformed. The overwhelming majority of Switzerland's army personnel sleep not on bases but in their own homes. The overwhelming majority of Switzerland's arms are stored not in government arsenals but in private closets.

Read Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II by my friend Stephen Halbrook.

This is common practice throughout the world, in case you weren't aware. Once again, Switzerland's army is not decentralized. A group of officers appointed by the state run the military there, like in pretty much any other country.

It can't. As I've said often on this website and as Ayn Rand has written, the philosophical must precede the political. Rand said, "The power that determines the establishment, the changes, the evolution, and the destruction of social systems is philosophy."

A U.S. Constitution that was closer to its original version, that kept government tightly reined in by allowing for the countervailing power of state nullification, and that fully respected the sovereignty of each citizen, could only exist in a society that extensively honored individualism.

In other words, the same society that gives us such a document would not also give us trials by mob.

Just to be perfectly clear, are you saying that a laissez-faire system is the best form of government because that is the form of government that the most rational people want?

You also say that "The power that determines the establishment, the changes, the evolution, and the destruction of social systems is philosophy." But what determines philosophy?

In the middle of the 19th century no Western country allowed women to vote. By the end of the century that ban would rapidly disappear.

Therefore, pronouncements about the "foreseeable" or "feasible" based on what is observable at present are no more reliable than the laughable 1957 prediction of Lee De Forest, the inventor of the vacuum tube, that space travel is impossible.

The question you asked was:

But if you are certain that "there can be no fundamental change in crony capitalism in the foreseeable future," how would you know that a non-laissez-faire alternative would be feasible?

It seems obvious to me that if something exists, then it is necessarily possible for it to exist. Hence, since societies which are neither laissez-faire nor crony capitalist actually exist, then they are possible non-laissez-faire alternatives to crony capitalism.

[Francisco Ferrer]

The private provision of justice in Iceland lasted nearly 300 years. As Roderick T. Long has said, "We should be cautious in labeling as a failure a political experiment that flourished longer than the United States has even existed."

The Icelandic Commonwealth was founded in 970, and the tithe was introduced around 1100. It lasted about 130 years at most.

The Icelandic Commonwealth, under which justice was privately contracted, lasted from 930 to 1262.

The breakdown of polycentric, private law in Iceland began with the institution of compulsory church tithes.

Are people powerless under tyrants? Absolutely. Right up to the moment when they wrest the power away from the tyrant. For example the slaves of Haiti had no political power. None. And this continued for years until the day when they did have power.

The lesson is, "If the people that hold all the power in a society don't want to change the state, then the state won't change, even if the vast majority of people want it to." So if you're a slave in Haiti, you'll always be a slave until the power-holders decide otherwise. And one thing that might lead them to such a decision is "pillage, rape, torture, mutilation, and death".

As for Switzerland, I said that the military power (not the leadership) is decentralized. And it is. Its weapons and the manpower are for the most part not on military bases but in the civilian communities. If you think this is true of the U.S. military, talk to a soldier.

Laissez-faire is the best form of government because it is the only one that respects man's nature and the rights that are derived from that nature.

Philosophy is a discipline that studies the nature and meaning of man's life on earth. If it is faithful to reality, it will provide for a system of ethics that allow men to live in a free and prosperous community.

It is good to know that there are non-laissez-faire alternatives to crony capitalism. Some folks may like those arrangements. There is also the laissez-faire alternative. The fact that there is no present day equivalent to, say, the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation is no more an insuperable barrier to freedom than the absence of women's suffrage in 1880 was to winning the right to vote in the 20th century.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The Icelandic Commonwealth, under which justice was privately contracted, lasted from 930 to 1262.

The breakdown of polycentric, private law in Iceland began with the institution of compulsory church tithes.

According to the article you linked:

"Fees to support Chieftains were compulsory too, of course; but the person paying the fee was free to determine its recipient. (which is exactly what I suspected but couldn't prove until now, thank you) The following of a particular Chieftain was after all determined not by territorial sovereignty but by mutual consent; if your Chieftain were inclined to abuse his power or to neglect his obligations toward you, you could transfer your allegiance to a rival Chieftain without having to move from the district. This element of competition, remember, was what served to keep the ambition of the Chieftains in check."

So really, an entirely tax-free system of state finance never existed in Iceland.

Are people powerless under tyrants? Absolutely. Right up to the moment when they wrest the power away from the tyrant. For example the slaves of Haiti had no political power. None. And this continued for years until the day when they did have power.

The lesson is, "If the people that hold all the power in a society don't want to change the state, then the state won't change, even if the vast majority of people want it to." So if you're a slave in Haiti, you'll always be a slave until the power-holders decide otherwise. And one thing that might lead them to such a decision is "pillage, rape, torture, mutilation, and death".

No, but the leaders of the revolt certainly did. Those leaders were all educated and wealthy, and definitely not slaves themselves. After the revolution, the freed slaves still had no power, but the leaders of the revolt did. They became richer, while the average Jean remained pathetically poor. All of this supports my position perfectly.

As for Switzerland, I said that the military power (not the leadership) is decentralized. And it is. Its weapons and the manpower are for the most part not on military bases but in the civilian communities. If you think this is true of the U.S. military, talk to a soldier.

Military power is not about where the guns are, solely. Children make up all sorts of rules on playgrounds, but that doesn't mean that political power is decentralized. What matters also is organization and leadership. Two crucial things that the Swiss military has but that the citizens don't.

Laissez-faire is the best form of government because it is the only one that respects man's nature and the rights that are derived from that nature.

I would grant that the best form of government is "one that respects man's nature and the rights that are derived from that nature." But how exactly did you come to the conclusion that laissez-faire is such a government?

Philosophy is a discipline that studies the nature and meaning of man's life on earth. If it is faithful to reality, it will provide for a system of ethics that allow men to live in a free and prosperous community.

You said that philosophy determines the social system, and I asked you what, then, determines philosophy? The above response doesn't answer that question.

It is good to know that there are non-laissez-faire alternatives to crony capitalism. Some folks may like those arrangements. There is also the laissez-faire alternative. The fact that there is no present day equivalent to, say, the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation is no more an insuperable barrier to freedom than the absence of women's suffrage in 1880 was to winning the right to vote in the 20th century.

It is on you to demonstrate that laissez-faire is a possible alternative to crony capitalism.

I also never said that the absence of a laissez-faire government is proof of its impossibility (though it is evidence for its impossibility), so you're setting up a strawman here.

[Brant Gaede]

The best form of government is what we have for what is governed. It isn't the form it's the citizens who are getting what they want good and hard from the government instead of kicking their elected reps in the ass, aside from the fact that they've elected asses.

--Brant

[Selene]

Is that Ingrid, Adam? Ayn wanted a young Katherine Hepburn for the role.

--Brant

edit: yes, it is

Yes.

I would have no problem with Kate either.

Not sure Ayn was aware she was bi-sexual, however I have no idea why that would matter.

A...

[Backlighting]

Is that Ingrid, Adam? Ayn wanted a young Katherine Hepburn for the role.

--Brant

edit: yes, it is

Yes.

I would have no problem with Kate either.

Not sure Ayn was aware she was bi-sexual, however I have no idea why that would matter.

A...

I'd also toss in a young Bacall for the role of Dagny. Geez, that look!

[Selene]

I'd also toss in a young Bacall for the role of Dagny. Geez, that look!

Ah yes..."You know how to whistle, don't you Steve...you just put your lips together and blow!"

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry, but Bacall smolders too much.

--Brant

Ingrid strikes me as best

[Frediano]

Additionally, B has the opportunity to move his business to one of two countries. One with a lower tax rate, where he can't influence the government, and another with the same lower tax rate but where he can influence the government. B will obviously choose the latter, and, therefore, that country, rather than attracting a "producer", just gets another "parasite". So we see that, just because B was productive under one set of circumstances, does not mean that he will remain that way under another set.

So obviously, this B is a moron. That is, if he beleives that he'd be the only person able to influence the government.

If B were not a moron, and were actually a producer, he'd obviously pick the country where a] nobody could influence the government, including him, and b] that government was largely tasked with scraping barnacles off of navigation bouys and painting the lines fairly down the middle of the streets, so what petty low life criminal would want to influence that right sized government to begin with? It has been properly castrated/neutered. It is staffd by honorable plumbers, not patermalistic megalomaniac emperor wannabees.

Your calculus of 'obviously' isn't even close. What fool would willingly subject himself to a] a government that sells iself and b] that has conseqeunces when it does so?

I'd say the 'obvious' answer is to castrate/neuter this thing until the 'obvious' inevitability is beat down into the cracks and crevices of petty criminality, appropriate for scumbags like LBJ or Nixon. They can argue over whose brother in law gets the order for the yellow paint in the dark all they want, then go count their stolen money in their trailers.

Or, we can fund the splendor that is DC and its suburbs with these same scum parasites.

The kind of fool who doesn't have a choice? B can't move to a country with a minarchist government because there are no countries with minarchist governments.

That little bit of turn yourself inside out self-contradiction didn't take long. Just one post? Is it impolite for me to notice? Is Mr. Amazing No Short Term Memory-Itis really protected these days under the ADA?

Below are the choices that -you- originally provided. I was responding to the emperor like obviously between the choices that you asserted.

So, for example, let's say that A and B are two owners of two companies in a country with a high tax burden. Suppose that A has good lobbyists and friends in the government, and derives many benefits from the state, whereas B does not and must mainly rely on his own productivity. Additionally, B has the opportunity to move his business to one of two countries. One with a lower tax rate, where he can't influence the government, and another with the same lower tax rate but where he can influence the government. B will obviously choose the latter, and, therefore, that country, rather than attracting a "producer", just gets another "parasite". So we see that, just because B was productive under one set of circumstances, does not mean that he will remain that way under another set.

You claimed that, ceteris paribus w.r.t. low taxes, that B would 'obviously' choose the country with the government for sale, as if he believed he'd be the only person who would be able to influence the gang rape. WHat kind of producer is B? An idiot producer?

And now the Emperor wannabe genes are kicking in, and you are declaring closed season on fettered government.

Well no wonder.

And the premise of this thread is still that there are no such things as gang rapes in the world; they are a myth. And meanwhile, the tribal jungle is clawing back it's own over in the Ukraine.

Take heart; you never know; maybe the God That Failed was just taking a nap. Farming with oxen is tiring..