The Stateless Equilibrium
The stateless market society—a peaceful social arrangement based on voluntary relations among individuals in which the state is not present—is not a popular idea. Many people believe that this society would lack the capacity to define and enforce property rights, and that this would result in chaos, tyranny of the rich or in a reversal to a state. This belief has led to a widespread dismissal of the stateless society paradigm.
Murray Rothbard is by many considered the champion of the stateless society doctrine. However, even Rothbard conceded that “there can be no absolute guarantee that a purely market society would not fall prey to organized criminality.”
While it is true that absolute guarantees for any social outcome are generally inappropriate, I argue that there are good reasons to believe that outcomes like chaos, tyranny of the rich, or even “organized criminality” in the absence of a state are unlikely.
To show this, I will assess the core economic forces that govern the development of any society and ultimately hold it together. This will show how the internal economic features of a stateless society provide incentives for nonviolence and cooperation and disincentives for violence, theft, and extortion. This analytical journey will also lead us to the realization that the glue that keeps state societies together in their current form may be nothing other than fear of an imagined enemy. As far as humans can overcome this fear, they can open the path to a stateless society.
Rich People Wasting Money on Building Libertarian Islands Now
This guy is such a jackass and is obviously very ignorant about the subject matter at hand.
I can’t see how you can call your self a Libertarian and be part of the Bilderbergers. Its just a place were his other elite friends in the one world order can go.
Newt’s record on private property rights
Which, to no surprise to me, aren’t very good.
Another big government hack who chooses government over private property.
This morning on “Meet the Press,” former Speaker Newt Gingrich repeatedly insisted that he and the other candidates should be evaluated based upon their respective records. Fair enough. As it happens, Gingrich may be the only nominee who actively sabotaged an important conservative reform effort. Even though the protection of property rights was a plank in the Contract with America, and the enthusiasm of the property rights movement had been important in the GOP takeover of Congress, Gingrich personally prevented property-rights-protective reforms of the Endangered Species Act from passing the House and then gave one of the most liberal members of the Republican caucus and environmental activist groups a de facto veto over environmental legislation. These machinations were documented in an article in The Environmental Forum, a magazine published by the Environmental Law Institute — an article Gingrich cited favorably in his own book on environmental policy. Does Gingrich still believe he made the right choice? What should conservatives make of this part of his record? Are there any other candidates who betrayed conservative principles so directly and with equivalent results? I’m still waiting for the former Speaker to address this part of his record (if he has, I have not seen it).
When private industry makes a mistake, it gets corrected and goes away. As governments make mistakes, it gets bigger, bigger and bigger and they make more, more and more because as they run out of money, they just ask for more and so they get rewarded for making mistakes. In the meantime that is exactly what we are doing by subsidizing companies which are failing, we have a reverse Darwinism, we’ve got survival of the unfittest, the companies and people that have made terrible mistakes are being rewarded and other people are being punished and being taxed.
Property Rights in the 21st Century
Uploaded by LearnLiberty on Aug 25, 2011
Tim Sandefur, Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, discusses how the evolution of law in the United States has affected our property rights. Beginning with discussions of the founding fathers, Tim describes how our rights, especially property rights, have eroded as a consequence of progressive ideas and judges. To reverse this cycle, Tim states that we must strengthen the philosophical arguments of private property rights.
Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property.