Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[Mikee]

I know, the cats run away and the fights over. That's the point, no more cat fight. Or, in this case, no more discussion. I think I'll just go away.

"One Who Knows"...

"The less one knows, the closer one comes to sharing with blocks of marble and bits of wood the advantage of being infallible and faultless."

-Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

(via Stephen Boydstun)

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, oh, c'mon back. I promise I won't post again on this thread.

--Brant

[Mikee]

Brant, that's so sweet. I feel all warm and fuzzy now. I just went off to get some sleep. Post away.

BTW: I fix things. That's what I do. I look at everything, I mean everything, as functions. Sometimes functions are broken. I look at our political system, I see lying self-serving people looting the country. I think of the "market" of politics. I believe markets work except where there is fraud. We have fraud in our political "market". Our constitution doesn't seem to state clearly how to keep the lying bastards out of politics, there's no function for eliminating liars. It will either be done relatively peacefully through the courts, or with guns. I prefer a peaceful solution. The worse things get, the more cynical people get, a peaceful solution becomes impossible. Dishonest people being forcefully removed from politics would make for less cynicism and better people would get involved in politics. Your absurd reply to my previous post is an example of extreme cynicism. Perhaps it's been too late for most of our lifetimes: is that what you believe?

[Brant Gaede]

My absurd reply was in response to your absurd problem-corrective position. Since that was done that is that and I've nothing more to say as it'd make no difference whatsoever. I will do it again elsewhere if you posit another absurd position, but that would be just to mark the spot and emphasize the objection.

--Brant

[Mikee]

What is absurd is the deep corruption in our present system. Perhaps suggesting a possible solution is also absurd. This sounds like a conversation that might occur in a gulag.

[Brant Gaede]

What is absurd is the deep corruption in our present system. Perhaps suggesting a possible solution is also absurd. This sounds like a conversation that might occur in a gulag.

You've got a grip on a leg of the problem, but it goes much deeper than lying. Most Congress criters and much of their staffs are bought and sold, for money or power or both. Washington is the capital of whores.

--Brant

[Xray]

Angela:

A problem generates for all government structures in that they have to be run and inhabited by men who are corruptible. Now this is not a deal breaker, however it is an incurable fault which is uncorrectable.

Adam.

Adam,

The corruptability of humans will be a problem in any system, no matter what its structures are.

Human corruptability can exist on a governmental level, it can exist in capitalism, anywhere actually where humans interact. This makes corruptability basically a 'given possibility', that imo has to be taken into account in discussions on political philosophy.

The models presented in these discussion are often about ideal governments and societies.

Political and social ideals put into to words a preferred vision of the world. They can be powerful in that they can, as positive visions, draw us upward to a higher stage of human development. But imo those ideals also have to be scrutinized in terms of how realistic they are.

The NIOF principle is an example of such an ideal. NIOF is mostly a product of cultural evolution. Basing NIOF solely on man's need for survival is problematic because its opposite, IOF (initiation of force), had been been used for many millenia by our forefathers for the purpose of ensuring their survival.

It can be assumed that none of us would exist if our stone-age ancestors had not initiated force on others and their possessions.

I'm not arguing against throwing biological argumentation out of philosophy. I'm merely arguing against basing a philosophy solely on biology.

Social Darwinism is a drastic example of how this can end.

NIOF does also have a biological foundation: the desire of primates for harmony in a group (harmony being associated with security). Gestures of appeasement, of grooming, etc. qualify as a form of NIOF.

The cultural and economical development setting in later in has given the NIOF principle more and more room.

It would be interesting to examine whether the most highly civilized societies are also those where he NIOF principle is respected the most.

[Selene]

Angela:

Good points.

As to my statement about corruptible humans in governmental structures of any kind, that is a constant.

Anarchism, for better, or worse, does not have that issue to consider.

Anarchism does, however, have the issue as to what the individual citizen in an anarchistic society does with a corrupt individual and the options appear, at least, on the surface, better than the options open to citizens in a governmental structure where the government has a monopoly on the initiation of force and the power to exercise that option.

One option is that the corrupt citizen can be isolated and shunned by all the other citizens leaving the corrupt individual with no "power" at all.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

If you hang every member of Congress, how many were innocent?

If you hang 535 convicted murderers, how many were innocent?

The first question is an argument for the death penalty, the second against.

--Brant

sticking around here for the fun

[Peter]

Brant wrote that he was, “sticking around here for the fun.” Okay. Let me wind up the toy Nascar.

Adam wrote:

One option is that the corrupt citizen can be isolated and shunned by all the other citizens leaving the corrupt individual with no "power" at all.

end quote

The righteous citizen has an option? Is that meant farcically? The initiation or retaliation by force is in the eye of the anarchist beholder. And shunning would require a consensus of a majority of like thinking anarchists, but a huge sample of all existing Anarchists was interviewed for the magazine, “Psychology Today,” and all eleven of them were found to be ornery, quick to see offense, gun toting cusses who could not agree on anything when “Psychology Today” knocked on their bunker doors.

In a real life scenario, if not sent to Leavenworth, the miscreant still has the “power” of persuasion, deception, and force. Many who violate NIOF do so selectively and are correctly termed “prudent predators.” Generally, people are afraid of them. Some shun them but some obey them or turn a blind eye to injustices perpetrated by them. Prudent Predators are experts at deceiving “the people.” I think many who call themselves “Anarchists” are prudent predators capable of this constant, yet successful deception, and they will prosper in anarchy, but decent people will not.

And shucks, unplanned or planned, Anarchy will always “try” to mimic all government functions, because those services are universally desired by “the people.” If anarchy’s discussion is meant to serve as an ideal it fails at that. If George will just explain the steps to anarchism and the steps to keeping anarchism . . . Oh, well. I don’t understand how universal, natural rights can be achieved with a planned system that has no system, and certainly nothing in writing because it can be changed by the next Yahoo who comes along. And planned anarchy has no prior, historical examples. As its finest example, the longest lived, unplanned anarchism that has historically existed, is in what I laughingly call, Ye Olde Iceland which turns out to a glamorized type of tribalism complete with “chieftains.” What a dis-topian ideal.

The argument that Objectivist Government and Planned Anarchic existence are both ideals is as preposterous as comparing, “Rule by Constitution” with “Rule by Inner Demons.” But now that I think about it, wouldn’t anarchism REALLY be “rule by our inner demons?”

Peter Taylor

[Xray]

And shucks, unplanned or planned, Anarchy will always “try” to mimic all government functions, because those services are universally desired by “the people.”

And before long, Anarchia would probably develop administrative structures fulfilling functions that no private agency could perform effectively. Just think of e. g. such essentials as a police force to ensure order. Anarchists may cringe at the mere mention of the term 'police', but can anyone image countless "privately hired agencies" performing the job of e. g. patrolling the streets and highways without any central coordinating institution?

Who would hire and pay them for providing these public safety services?

[caroljane]

And shucks, unplanned or planned, Anarchy will always “try” to mimic all government functions, because those services are universally desired by “the people.”

And before long, Anarchia would probably develop administrative structures fulfilling functions that no private agency could perform effectively. Just think of e. g. such essentials as a police force to ensure order. Anarchists may cringe at the mere mention of the term 'police', but can anyone image countless "privately hired agencies" performing the job of e. g. patrolling the streets and highways without any central coordinating institution?

Who would hire and pay them for providing these public safety services?

And shucks, unplanned or planned, Anarchy will always “try” to mimic all government functions, because those services are universally desired by “the people.”

And before long, Anarchia would probably develop administrative structures fulfilling functions that no private agency could perform effectively. Just think of e. g. such essentials as a police force to ensure order. Anarchists may cringe at the mere mention of the term 'police', but can anyone image countless "privately hired agencies" performing the job of e. g. patrolling the streets and highways without any central coordinating institution?

Who would hire and pay them for providing these public safety services?

And shucks, unplanned or planned, Anarchy will always “try” to mimic all government functions, because those services are universally desired by “the people.”

And before long, Anarchia would probably develop administrative structures fulfilling functions that no private agency could perform effectively. Just think of e. g. such essentials as a police force to ensure order. Anarchists may cringe at the mere mention of the term 'police', but can anyone image countless "privately hired agencies" performing the job of e. g. patrolling the streets and highways without any central coordinating institution?

Who would hire and pay them for providing these public safety services?

And shucks, unplanned or planned, Anarchy will always “try” to mimic all government functions, because those services are universally desired by “the people.”

And before long, Anarchia would probably develop administrative structures fulfilling functions that no private agency could perform effectively. Just think of e. g. such essentials as a police force to ensure order. Anarchists may cringe at the mere mention of the term 'police', but can anyone image countless "privately hired agencies" performing the job of e. g. patrolling the streets and highways without any central coordinating institution?

Who would hire and pay them for providing these public safety services?

This situation is addressed in the anarchist manifesto, "Old Nicks Guide to Happiness". Essentially, society would be regulated by insurance companies, because every reasonable person would insure himself against every possible eventuality. from the birth of a disabled child to the intrusions of a neighbour who lowers property values by littering and painting his house glitter pink. A reasonable person should be prepared for any eventuality,

[Dglgmut]

And I like how George brought up gangsters as an example of an illegitimate institution of force. In "Anarchia" a protection agency that does not serve individual rights would be shut down the same way a mafia run organization is shut down today... by people with even more weapons.

[Dglgmut]

And shucks, unplanned or planned, Anarchy will always “try” to mimic all government functions, because those services are universally desired by “the people.”

And before long, Anarchia would probably develop administrative structures fulfilling functions that no private agency could perform effectively. Just think of e. g. such essentials as a police force to ensure order. Anarchists may cringe at the mere mention of the term 'police', but can anyone image countless "privately hired agencies" performing the job of e. g. patrolling the streets and highways without any central coordinating institution?

Who would hire and pay them for providing these public safety services?

I was thinking about how traffic laws would work and that... and it's not even necessary to worry about every one of these things because there are countless solutions to be tried.

However, an example would be that the standard becomes to video tape anyone you catch violating a traffic law in order to claim the money for the fine. Nobody would have to pay for the service of "policing" the roads, because the tickets would be revenue for the companies doing the policing.

[Xray]

However, an example would be that the standard becomes to video tape anyone you catch violating a traffic law in order to claim the money for the fine.

Does this mean mean citizens in Anarchia must have their cameras ready all the time to catch violators in the act, or does this mean video cameras have to be set up in all places suitable for 'watching' transgressors?

If the latter, who would pay for the cameras, and what kind of staff would evaluate the data?

And I like how George brought up gangsters as an example of an illegitimate institution of force. In "Anarchia" a protection agency that does not serve individual rights would be shut down the same way a mafia run organization is shut down today... by people with even more weapons.

Again, who would decide whether an agency does not serve individual rights? A customer for example might just be dissatisfied because he has lost against an opponenet whose agency has the more savvy lawyers.

So in your scenario, private individuals would have the legal power in Anarchia then to shut a 'malfunctioning' protection agency down by using their own weapons, arrest the agents and put them in prison? But with no gun control, the private agents would be armed as well and not just sit there and let it happen.

Another issue which in the minarchist/anarchist debate here has not gone into is consent.

Whenever the problem of consent is addressed, things tend to get quite vague.

Rand in TVOS, p. 129: "The source of the governement's authority is the consent of the governed". It says nothing about how this consent is achieved. By majority rule? Or does this scenario go by the implicit assumption that a rational individual cannot but consent to this model?

If yes, there still remains the problem what to do with those who don't agree to the minarchist model. The "irrational" group, so to speak (seen from the Objectvist perspective). This group would e. g. comprise those who want more 'statism', but also those who reject any form of it, the anarchists.

If all these people cannot be persuaded in any way to consent, how would they be dealt with? In other words, what place is there for dissent in such model?

The anarchist side seems to be is just as vague. The philosophical novel that has been mentioned here (N. Dykes, Old Nick's Guide to Happiness), is referred to on the author's website as being about : "a purely voluntary society in which sovereign individuals are brought together solely by persuasion and mutual respect." http://nicholasdykes...e-to-happiness/

Again, it says nothing about how the persuasion is supposed to work, and how those are being dealt with that cannot be persuaded.

I haven't read the book (would be interesting though to go through it together here on OL) - is that an 'anarchist counter model' to Rand's minarchism?

"Brought together solely by persuasion and mutual respect" sounds to me more like another version of an 'ideal happy valley' with a "Love it or leave it" alternative rather than a society where dissent is given a productive place.

[Dglgmut]

I don't really know what I'm talking about, I'm still waiting for my first Rothbard book to arrive from amazon.com.

However, what I meant in my last two posts was that a company could take the initiative to install cameras into their patrol cars, and this way they could pull people over and fine them the same way the police do. An arbiter would settle the matter if the person facing fines wanted to fight them, and extra expenses would likely be charged to offender if they are indeed found guilty.

Why would a company go through the trouble of policing the roads? I already answered this but here's it again: because the tickets paid would be revenue to the companies doing the policing. It wouldn't go to the government, because there wouldn't be one... I don't know why I even have to say this.

As far as an unjust protection agency, crossing lines and violating rights, OTHER protection agencies would shut them down by popular demand. People may not even have to pay for this sort of service because the companies doing the abrogation would be able to seize and claim the assets of the one being shut down, as compensation for their services as deemed appropriate by an arbiter.

[Xray]

Why would a company go through the trouble of policing the roads? I already answered this but here's it again: because the tickets paid would be revenue to the companies doing the policing. It wouldn't go to the government, because there wouldn't be one... I don't know why I even have to say this.

That's where I'm getting at: with no official institution that a private citizen can immediately alert in case of a crime, and with no duty on the part of public authorities to protect the rights also of those who for example are too poor to pay for their individual protection, I'm convinced that we would indeed land in anarchy, but in a very disagreeable version of it.

Imagine for example a penniless hobo having been bashed on the head by some gang and lying there severely injured. Who is going to call for help in Anarchia? Who is going to pay for the treatment, for bringing the perps to justice, if Anarchia only basis its justice system on private citizens having to hire private companies to have their rights protected?

don't really know what I'm talking about, I'm still waiting for my first Rothbard book to arrive from amazon.com.

I wonder whether Rothbard fleshes out his book with at least some concrete examples. If yes, it would be interesting to study them here.

[Dglgmut]

Imagine for example a penniless hobo having been bashed on the head by some gang and lying there severely injured. Who is going to call for help in Anarchia? Who is going to pay for the treatment, for bringing the perps to justice, if Anarchia only basis its justice system on private citizens having to hire private companies to have their rights protected?

First of all, we shouldn't be guaranteed anything from anyone else. That's just naturally how things should be. There are risks involved in living that cannot be taken away, and being a penniless hobo is a risk someone takes if they are unwilling to work (which there would be plenty of in Anarchia). However, if someone is completely unable to work, they should rely on charity.

The more economically free people are the more they donate to charities that they choose. I guarantee there would be charity organizations that protected those who could honestly not afford it... and perhaps they could "loan" out their services so people do not abuse the system. If someone does make enough money to pay for their own protection agency, then the charity one has the right to collect for what they loaned out at any time. If someone cannot make any money, then they will not be collected from.

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

Rand in TVOS, p. 129: "The source of the government’s authority is the consent of the governed". It says nothing about how this consent is achieved. By majority rule? Or does this scenario go by the implicit assumption that a rational individual cannot but consent to this model?

If yes, there still remains the problem what to do with those who don't agree to the minarchist model.

end quote

Ah, you wicked girl, Angela: stirring the frothy pot of beans that has no flatulent bottom and no universally accepted answer. George H. Smith author of the tongue in cheek title, “Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies,” wrote:

Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem . . . . I agree with these critics. If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate.

end quote

It is a thorny issue. A problem similar to the consent issue would be The Holy Roman Church. In Christian Theology Jesus blessed his disciples by “laying his hands upon them,” thereby conferring them the special status where they could then bless others by “laying on their hands,” and those people could lay on their hands to others down throughout the centuries so that the True Priesthood is always blessed by an unbroken chain of blessed people laying on of hands up to the current day.

What a racket! Mormon’s, to their heretical misfortune, say the chain was broken until the time of their prophet, Joseph Smith, who wrote:

It clearly appears from the old Scriptures, as well as the recent revelations, that no one can act in the name of God; that is, no man can act in the Priesthood, but he that is called by revelation of God, and ordained by the hands of those holding the Priesthood.

end quote

In other words, the Mormons claim that Jesus’s “laying on of hands” granted legitimacy to the disciples who laid their righteous hands upon all subsequent priests, but somehow, over time, this legitimacy was lost. The chain was broken, until new revelations from God occurred and now the newly ordained Priesthood (The Mormons) could once again, pass on this legitimacy, this power by the laying on of hands to a new Priesthood.

The “Consent to be governed” doctrine is somewhat like that. A kid born today is assumed to give his consent.

Xray continued:

If all these people cannot be persuaded in any way to consent, how would they be dealt with? In other words, what place is there for dissent in such model?

end quote

We are a democratic republic which in this rare instance means the majority rules, since under the U.S. Constitution, being a *citizen* does subtract from “natural rights” to a small degree, but it grants you the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A Randian Constitution is primarily concerned with the protection of individual rights. Other aspects of a constitution may delegate authority and duties to different branches of government, etc., but a constitution is primarily written to ensure rights and provide justice over time. I think we DO give our consent, by living here and not complaining about those pesky, incomplete rights acknowledged to be ours through the grace of god, though it is not a *constant consent.* It is better for the dissatisfied to keep a low profile if they are breaking the law in America, but dissenters may still dissent.

I joke about the *already solved* consent issue but my jokes reflect the “common knowledge” of our time. Here is an imaginary, but possible internal soliloquy, of one of the participants who gave *original consent*.

Imaginary quote:

“I, Thomas Jefferson, after writing portions and signing this document have delegated my right to non-emergency self defense to the Federal Government. Other agencies may defend my rights but the final authority as to the rightfulness of other agency’s actions resides with the Federal Government and the Constitution . . . for now.”

end of imaginary quote

Other signors all represented various states and territories. The authority of all those representatives had been delegated to them by the people who resided in those geographical areas. Some anti-federalists and free spirits undoubtedly protested that they did not give their consent. They were free to move west or back to where they came from. They were free to continue protesting, and they were free to change the Constitution to their liking if they followed the rules to do so. But the Founders intent was to make the Constitution the law of the land.

Does that provide a proof? Perhaps not to yours or George H. Smith’s thinking, but it does provide a concrete fact of reality. Follow your own requirements for justified beliefs and objective facts. As the original colonists and founders died children were born and grew up in families, whose patriarch gave tacit or implied consent for them. When these children reached maturity they gave implied consent, and so forth, onwards until today. I give my implied consent when I reached maturity, and I did more than that. Twice, at later times, I have sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Enough of that. Would you claim consent is not present in today’s German or United States constitution? I say it is in ours. Everybody but you and a few of your anarchist friends say the Constitution is valid.

Welcome to America!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

My own, old tongue in cheek proof for The Legitimate Sovereignty of The United States of America.

Welcome to Ellis Island! Here is some background on your new home. First we must look to the beginning. The Declaration of Independence, and The Preamble could have contained a logical, justification for the rights of men and women, of all colors and historically I wish it did. But instead, the status of both documents was trumpeted as axiomatic.

The Declaration of Independence Axiom:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

end of Axiom

The Preamble to the Constitution Axiom:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

end of Axiom

Therefore, I can rationally carry on that tradition by stating my United States of America Axiom (which I won’t bracket since I wrote it):

The United States of America already exists. It is a fact. All those who might have originally consented or declined to be part of The United States of America are dead. Ever since freedom from England was confirmed, we must now start at the mid-point of a legitimate, working, “State.” A “State,” like an axiom, is not so easily discarded.

end of Axiom

Article One: America exists, covering a certain geographical location. The right of consent to be governed is automatically given by anyone who continues to live here.

Article Two: America may at some point, disband as did older Empires or more recently The Soviet Union. Occasionally, a new state may be created, with the consent of the governed, extending the geographical boundaries of America. A territory may decline the invitation, as has Puerto Rico.

Article Three: An individual, within the geographical boundaries of The United States of America MAY NOT secede from The Union. While you live here, you give your consent to be governed and you will abide by the laws of the land. Forever.

[Xray]

Xray wrote:

Rand in TVOS, p. 129: "The source of the government’s authority is the consent of the governed". It says nothing about how this consent is achieved. By majority rule? Or does this scenario go by the implicit assumption that a rational individual cannot but consent to this model?

If yes, there still remains the problem what to do with those who don't agree to the minarchist model. [end quote Xray]

Ah, you wicked girl, Angela: stirring the frothy pot of beans that has no flatulent bottom and no universally accepted answer. George H. Smith author of the tongue in cheek title, “Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies,” wrote:

Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem . . . . I agree with these critics. If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate. [end quote Ghs]

It is a thorny issue.

Indeed it is.

Imaginary quote:

“I, Thomas Jefferson, after writing portions and signing this document have delegated my right to non-emergency self defense to the Federal Government. Other agencies may defend my rights but the final authority as to the rightfulness of other agency’s actions resides with the Federal Government and the Constitution . . . for now.”

end of imaginary quote

Other signors all represented various states and territories. The authority of all those representatives had been delegated to them by the people who resided in those geographical areas. Some anti-federalists and free spirits undoubtedly protested that they did not give their consent. They were free to move west or back to where they came from. They were free to continue protesting, and they were free to change the Constitution to their liking if they followed the rules to do so. But the Founders intent was to make the Constitution the law of the land.

Does that provide a proof? Perhaps not to yours or George H. Smith’s thinking, but it does provide a concrete fact of reality.

Proof of what? How can an "imaginary quote" provide a concrete fact of reality?

Xray continued:

If all these people cannot be persuaded in any way to consent, how would they be dealt with? In other words, what place is there for dissent in such model?

end quote

We are a democratic republic which in this rare instance means the majority rules, since under the U.S. Constitution, being a *citizen* does subtract from “natural rights” to a small degree, but it grants you the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But the focus was on Randian minarchist government and anarchistic non-governmental models. I don't get the feeling that the concept of majority rule plays a role in either model.

Would you claim consent is not present in today’s German or United States constitution? I say it is in ours. Everybody but you and a few of your anarchist friends say the Constitution is valid.

I'm neither an anarchist nor a minarchist. The issue was on how anarchists and minarchists deal with the problem of consent in their theory.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm neither an anarchist nor a minarchist. The issue was on how anarchists and minarchists deal with the problem of consent in their theory.

No free speech we go to war--more or less Rand's position. Revolution was withdrawal of "consent." A government doesn't need nor can it get everyone's consent. It can only avoid revolution. Supposedly the US government was established with consent and by voting you sanction and consent to it, but that the US government was established with consent is a popular myth; it was imposed.

--Brant

we start with government and end with government

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm neither an anarchist nor a minarchist. The issue was on how anarchists and minarchists deal with the problem of consent in their theory.

No free speech we go to war--more or less Rand's position. Revolution was withdrawal of "consent." A government doesn't need nor can it get everyone's consent. It can only avoid revolution. Supposedly the US government was established with consent and by voting you sanction and consent to it, but that the US government was established with consent is a popular myth; it was imposed.

--Brant

we start with government and end with government

Witness the Whiskey Rebellion put-down in 1794. George Washington accompanied by Alexander Hamilton (the Statist from Hell) and 13,000 Federale Thugs marched into Pennsylvania to make sure the wheat farms paid a 25 cent a barrel tax on the whiskey they made. In those does there was no way to keep wheat for a long time so it was distilled into whiskey.

ruveyn

[Brant Gaede]

A Parody Outline of History

Chapter Six: The Whisky Rebellion

http://www.authorama...-history-7.html

--Brant

[Xray]

<...>

ruveyn

"Ruveyn" - is this the same as "Ruben"?

[BaalChatzaf]

<...>

ruveyn

"Ruveyn" - is this the same as "Ruben"?

my Hebrew name: Ruveyn bar Rev Yosef. Yosef was my dad's name. The Rev indicates that pop has gone on to a better place.

ba'al Chatzaf