@ AnarchoLibertine on 01/23/13 12:07 PM

"Your entire view of the state/govt. is erroneous and relies on the ridiculous notion that states/govts were created to "serve the will of the people" (btw collectives don't have wills, only individuals), or that they ever "represent the people"."

WD - Jefferson's concept of government was all about representing and serving the will of the people, including the elimination of professional politicians and bureaucrats. Unfortunately, Hamilton and the Rothschilds had other ideas. Hamilton and the Rothschilds won. That does not mean the people are powerless to return to citizen government. See my other replies for why it is the only way out.

@ dave jr on 01/22/13 11:41 AM

Just say no? Really? Try it and see how long you keep your property. Libertarian utopia is the guys you don't see living out of a grocery cart and sleeping under overpasses. They 'just said no'.

Either we contrive to take back the government from elite control or we will be next.

Reply from The Daily Bell

You wrote:

"Again, if we do not figure out a way, and soon, to resume the original 'American experiment' of absolutely limited government, the elite will continue to expand controls until it will no longer be possible."

It is ironic that you still do not understand the "original" American Exceptionalism was LIBERTARIAN.

It was not National Socialist.

It was not Hitlerian.

It did not partake of the Nazi and "people's" central banking.

It WAS

Jeffersonian.

Agrarian.

Disseminated.

Based on sound money.

The paradigm is right in front of your eyes if you would only see. It includes small, independent community focused on spirituality and independence.

These communities CAN be linked together, especially in the modern world via technology and CAN come together as necessary in a voluntary linkage involving self defense,etc.

If you and your kind would just give up the Hitler worship and the idea of a centralized paper-based economy run by a human deity there would be plenty of common ground ...

Somehow, we're not holding our breath ...

@ Abu Aardvark on 01/22/13 07:23 AM

More freedom for you also means more freedom for them and they have more assets than you. In fact they have contrived to use government to use your assets against you. Unless we take back government/law/enforcement and resume absolutely limited government (necessary to prevent their attack) we have no hope. Why government? How else can the many pool their resources to match and overcome the resources of the elite? You can not hold off a superior force without pooling an even more superior force, and make no mistake, the drive of the elite to dominate is force that will never relent or surrender.

@ Abu Aardvark on 01/22/13 06:49 AM

"While YOU, on the other hand, up to now failed to provide ANY suggestion as to HOW, exactly, you would like to 'arrange' human affairs for the better - except for passing 'better laws', which is not entirely persuading, to put it mildly."

WD - I agree, we have almost total elite control now. The original US government, the 'American experiment', was an attempt to seperate us from elite control. Hamilton and the Rothschilds behind him sabatoged the experiment through central banking, ol' hickory not withstanding.

No independence from elite control is possible as long as there is central banking. I have said repeatedly that we must find a way to insulate government or whatever organization, even anarchy, necessary to stand up to elite control, because the elite will never stop trying to dominate. They have already amassed the resources to do so. I submit that the libertarian dream of voluntary anarchy is impossible if it does not include all the muscle necessary to prevent elite control because the elite are never going to just let anarchists be. Anarchy is a beautiful dream that became impossible when we ran out of wilderness to escape to. Think you can just 'blend in' and escape elite control? Why do think they are busily eliminating cash? Why do you think they want our guns? They will eliminate bit coins and barter too if they ever come into common use. The Brave New World is upon us. Dreaming that the elite will somehow just stop is, I submit, a complete pipe dream.

Again, if we do not figure out a way, and soon, to resume the original 'American experiment' of absolutely limited government, the elite will continue to expand controls until it will no longer be possible.

@ WD

To the contrary, it is non-libertarians who are the "Utopianists"...

Folks like yourself who believe that a small group of elitists DBA "the govt", empowered w/a monopoly over the use of aggression in a geographic area, will NOT abuse this power are the ones living in "Utopialand".

Your entire view of the state/govt. is erroneous and relies on the ridiculous notion that states/govts were created to "serve the will of the people" (btw collectives don't have wills, only individuals), or that they ever "represent the people".

ACism is not based on fanciful desires for "utopia", but on simple logic and morality:

If govt. is "our" representative and serves "our" will... why does it need to impose its acts by FORCE? How can someone I've never met (let alone voted for) "serve" my needs?

If it isn't moral for you or I to initiate aggression... how is it for other people DBA "the state/govt"? If individual don't have this right how can they "delegate" it to other people?

As an ACer the idea of conscription appalls me, but w/i the context of the current statist paradigm it probably is less dangerous than large, standing, professional armies under direct control of a centralized state (effectively, in many cases, the control of a SINGLE person).

Without the existance of any "government" all armies will be private, and thus any paid volunteers will by definition be mercenaries. Surely this would not be consistantly bad but probably not better than we have now.

@ dave jr:

You might want to join this pool party as you've been there before...

Click to view link

Read through the comments...

Oops, my last post was directed to WD. Guess I forgot to pull my head out.

What the heck is 'libertarian utopia'? How is asking to be left alone, to not be coerced a utopia? Libertarians know hard work and don't want anything handed to them.

How the heck can elite money power coerce without government? All one has to do is say no thankyou. Any power that money has is what you give it. Don't like the product, don't buy it. Don't like the employment, quit. Don't like the currency, don't use it.

Without the use of government force, elite money power is harmless. When was the last time a rich person beat the crap out of you?

WD on 01/22/13 02:34 AM wrote: "I am quite aware that libertarians are not advocating "unaccountable elite control". What I am warning about is that what libertarians are advocating can not help but result in "unaccountable elite control".

--------------

Prove it. Explain the mechanism: How, exactly, does more freedom result in less freedom?

And while you're at it, match your points with the writings provided - partially many decades ago - by Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard or Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

Click to view link

Click to view link

Click to view link

WD on 01/22/13 02:34 AM wrote: "If the world adopts libertarian dreams, it will quickly devolve into control by those with the most means. That means control by elite money power"

----------------------

'control by those with the most means ... control by elite money power' - that's what we have NOW:

1,000+ US bases (elite military muscle) around the globe.

150+ central banks and the BIS on top (elite monopoly money muscle) around the globe.

Global and continental bureaucracies (elite regulatory muscle) that grab and centralize more power on a daily basis.

Elite controlled mass media, communication, science, education system, food industries, energy supply, historiography ... you name it.

Libertarians strive for freedom and non-aggressive, voluntary doings and dealings - not because of abstract, theoretical or 'utopian' dreams, but because of an acknowledgement of human nature and the ensuing fact of life, that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern."

While YOU, on the other hand, up to now failed to provide ANY suggestion as to HOW, exactly, you would like to 'arrange' human affairs for the better - except for passing 'better laws', which is not entirely persuading, to put it mildly.

I agree with everything you say until you say libertarians are not utopian. I agree that the state is, as Washingto warned "like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".

I am quite aware that libertarians are not advocating "unaccountable elite control". What I am warning about is that what libertarians are advocating can not help but result in "unaccountable elite control".

Did you answer the points I advanced. No.

If the world adopts libertarian dreams, it will quickly devolve into control by those with the most means. That means control by elite money power. Get your head out of the clouds and consider how the world really works versus the way the theorists dream it should work.

With respect.

WD, I have a little trouble following your argument. What "public control"? When I said "the legislature and the people," I was referring to an ideal--the way that a republic is SUPPOSED to work. I could have said more, much more, namely, that in the case of the USA, that republic is not working at all as it is supposed to.

In reality, all that I see are governments all over the place, including that of the USA, getting OUT of control. At least for the USA, our country is far more mercantilist than it is republican, and such a system does not bring peace or free trade, but monopoly privileges, perpetual war, and empire building.

Monetary control is ALREADY devoid of public control via the central banking systems. DB has made this perfectly clear in countless articles. I could go even further and say that government ITSELF is in private hands via the fiscal-military state (or mercantilist) now in power.

We Libertarians are NOT "utopian," and we are NOT advocating "unaccountable elite control." You need to read some Ludwig von Mises' Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War.

@ Leviathanfighter on 01/21/13 07:19 PM and DB

Leviathanfighter - "Are these volunteer forces really private armies meant to operate beyond the reach of the legislature and the people? ... .
For God's sake, where are we headed with this?"

WD - Yes! This is headed for libertarian utopia, i.e. the elite run everything unopposed be pesky 'governments' who might have other ideas being, even loosely, answerable to the people.

It is surprising the DB can see how the elite are co opting the move toward private intelligence and armies and yet can not see that they will do exactly the same thing with monetary policy once totally devoid of public control. What the utopian anarchists are advocating is making the world safe for total, unaccountable elite control. That does not mean that total government is any better, especially since it always, sooner or later, is bought by elite money power and/or arranges to be unaccountable, US regulatory 'law' being a prime example. The uncomfortable fact is, if we don't develop a way to effectively deal with elite money power as well as unaccountable government edict in some form of organization not subject to elite purchase, we will all be at their mercy forever.

It's a pity that the doctranaire of the left, right and anarchists can't seem to see beyond their own narrow paradigms except in rare cases like the present DB article. The stakes are only life or death for the majority of mankind now on the earth if the elite's record of doing what they say they are going to do is taken into account.

Public ignorance is the elite's greatest power. At some point, out of pure self defense, the non elite will have to jettison the doctranaire and get down to practicle business or be overwhelmed by the agenda of either the elite or unaccountable government or both. The internet, by the way, is no help at all if it is only used by the doctranaire to split doctrinal hairs while civilization itself is burning. Yes, DB staff, I mean you. Nero fiddled while Rome burned because he had an agenda. It is long past time to consider the agendae of the doctranaire and jettison doctrinal hair splitting.

Reply from The Daily Bell

WD - Yes! This is headed for libertarian utopia, i.e. the elite run everything unopposed be pesky 'governments' who might have other ideas being, even loosely, answerable to the people.

DB: A libertarian utopia consists of one where the power elite is not answerable to the people? No, a libertarian utopia is one where force is not used to coerce the state to grant certain privileges. If you don’t even know this basic fact, it is no wonder the rest of your arguments are equally misdirected.

-----

It is surprising the DB can see how the elite are co opting the move toward private intelligence and armies and yet can not see that they will do exactly the same thing with monetary policy once totally devoid of public control. What the utopian anarchists are advocating is making the world safe for total, unaccountable elite control. That does not mean that total government is any better, especially since it always, sooner or later, is bought by elite money power and/or arranges to be unaccountable, US regulatory 'law' being a prime example. The uncomfortable fact is, if we don't develop a way to effectively deal with elite money power as well as unaccountable government edict in some form of organization not subject to elite purchase, we will all be at their mercy forever.

DB: There is a way to deal with elite money power. Starve it. Keep communities small – tribal and clan based. The American Indians did this consciously. It works.

-----

It's a pity that the doctranaire of the left, right and anarchists can't seem to see beyond their own narrow paradigms except in rare cases like the present DB article. The stakes are only life or death for the majority of mankind now on the earth if the elite's record of doing what they say they are going to do is taken into account.

DB: What you call doctrinaire is simply our insistence that your sotto voce Hitlerian doctrines and misleading celebration of the will of “the people” (as inevitably interpreted by a sacred "chosen few") are not substituted for actual freedom and free will.

-----

Public ignorance is the elite's greatest power. At some point, out of pure self defense, the non elite will have to jettison the doctranaire and get down to practicle business or be overwhelmed by the agenda of either the elite or unaccountable government or both. The internet, by the way, is no help at all if it is only used by the doctranaire to split doctrinal hairs while civilization itself is burning. Yes, DB staff, I mean you. Nero fiddled while Rome burned because he had an agenda. It is long past time to consider the agendae of the doctrinaire

DB: Our agenda is freedom. We know how to achieve it – via a social fabric that consists of small communities empowered by Hayekian spontaneous organization. We don’t believe the national socialism (Nazi-ism/fascism) espoused by you and your cohorts is ever going to be any more successful than Marxism, socialism, etc. You want to celebrate a state that is somehow “bound” to serve the people. We want to encourage people to think of human action, self-empowerment and small, stable communities. You want a utopian Leviathan. We want a stable, self-perpetuating quasi-anarchy. You are welcome to your fascist/doctrinaire paradigm. We’ll stick with ours.

"With the force behind armed conflicts today shifting from the ground to the air, less grunts on the ground are needed."

Really? Maybe less grunts on the ground are being deployed but that doesn't mean that in actuality they're not needed.

Volunteers do their time in sandbagged posts in the Middle East and then return to the US to become part of an ever more powerful law enforcement branch of the coercion community. The tribal warriors they're ostensibly pacifying have a medieval code of honor that requires face-to-face engagement with the enemy. They regard the west, with their high-altitude bombers, cruise missiles and drones, as weaklings and cowards. Even so, western commanders can't call on troops to engage personally because of the media response to any military casualties. Eventually the west will be financially consumed by trying to subjugate tribes on their own land and retire. The most effective emirs and sheiks will be the new tribal leaders and things will go on much as they always have.

Practicality never trumps theory, because any theory that contradicts reality is false. As Ludwig Prandtl put it "es gibt nichts praktischeres als eine gute Theorie."

Conscription is wrong, and a professional, standing army is a potential threat to liberty - both propositions are true. The dichotomy presented in the article is a false one, because two options are missing from the discussion - "both" and "neither."

"Both" is the option that exists de facto in conscription countries, where conscripts prevail in the ranks while the commissioned and non-commissioned officer corps is professional.

"Neither" is the option chosen by at least one country - Costa Rica, I think - which simply decided not to have a standing army. In particular, "both" is the option prevailing in Switzerland under universal military service, because the officers - commissioned and not - were professionals and heartily hated by the citizen conscripts.

Switzerland's mixed system would likely work in wartime for the sole purpose of repelling invaders from Switzerland's territory, because the conscripts would be fighting on their own soil and for their own homes and families and that would likely overcome their visceral dislike for the officers appointed over them.

Unfortunately, an effective defense (as contrasted with a mere deterrent) requires that an army have the ability to project force outside its national territory - otherwise an invader simply has the option of withdrawing at will, licking his wounds and having another go at it when he's ready to try again.

A successful defense requires the defender to seize and maintain the initiative, especially if the attacker has a much more powerful force. I don't see the old Swiss force as capable of pursuing a fleeing invader and destroying his ability to wage war, which means that it is purely a deterrent.

To put it another way, the Swiss approach fails when the guns start firing, no matter how well the Swiss force has prepared for its limited mission. Putting it still another way, since the Swiss strategists know these realities full well: it is clear that their strategy implicitly assumes that other countries will also be engaged against any prospective invader of Switzerland (a reasonable assumption, considering the facts of geography) and that those de facto co-belligerents of the Swiss will take care of polishing off the adversary's military capability, leaving the Swiss with only direct territorial defense to take care of.

I'm not mocking this strategy: it clearly worked in World War 2, when Hitler's advisers told him he could have Switzerland, but only by sacrificing any hope of achieving his other war aims. Switzerland actually had more trouble from the Allies - who briefly interrupted food shipments to Switzerland late in the War to force the Swiss to repatriate interned Allied pilots - than from the Nazis.

Under the current circumstances it might make more sense for the Swiss at least to maintain two separate forces, namely a very small all-professional force capable of commando-style punitive operations outside of Switzerland and a much larger but voluntary citizen's militia along the old lines, with only a territorial defense mission. Neither need be trained, equipped or supplied for garrision duty, which would exclude their use in long-term operations.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Oh, come on, Piolenc. This is a great response but we take issue with your idea that practicality can never trump theory. You are providing us with absolutes! Theories, by definition, are just that. They are not perfect descriptors. They can always be improved upon and may even be misguided.

Quite so. So many of their plans look so nice on the surface, don't they? But when you dig deeper, disturbing questions start to come up.

Creatures like NATO are bad enough, but we also have the problem of the intelligence people. Many of the activities of both the military and the intelligence agencies are so completely off the radar screen of the average citizen that nobody knows what they are up to. The late professor Chalmers Johnson has chronicled much of this stuff in his books.

This has to do with the "Shadow Government" that we hear so much about. Tim Shorrock has written that 70% of the intelligence work of the US is done by private companies! What are these people up to? Who knows? We may safely assume, however, that they are much preoccupied with war and police state technologies. This is an ominous trend.

Are these volunteer forces really private armies meant to operate beyond the reach of the legislature and the people? It sure looks that way!

For God's sake, where are we headed with this?

There needs to be some comment on the suicides in the U.S. all volunteer Army. Keeping high unemployment sure keeps the military well stocked.

This is another significant issue in Greece. The so called Troika ( IMF/ECB/EU) seeks to abolish the compulsory military service with the pretext the reduction of the state expenditures.
After abolishing our money, they will also abolish our army. Because there is no money for a professional army.
Switzerland has never been involved in any war.However for Greece the armed forces consist an important factor for its integrity considering that there are mutual periods of reconciliation and hostility between Greece and Turkey.
In other words Turkish fighter jets violate the Greek airspace almost every day.
Almost every 10 years we encounter a hot incident in Aegean Sea.
The last one was on 31 January of 1996 when 3 Greek militaries lost their life. Not to mention how many Greek pilots lost their life the past years from both sides.
It is futile to deem that Europe will protect the Greek borders if there will be the necessity ever.