ProudCapilatlist:The unification of Germany in the 19th century, as well as the division of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, illustrates the point that the relationship between nation and state is only a correlation.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
eliotn:Wait, I thought he gave it back to its original, rightful owners! Am I missing something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood#Popular_culture
It's funny. If you read the whole article, Robin Hood was probably a blood thirsty villain, but time and soft minds have turned him into a Che Guevara T-Shirt, not the cunning, blood and power hungry murderer Che.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
What came before, the nation or the state? The goose or the egg?
I am personally fervently anti-nationalist, but one of the good things about libertarianism is freedom of association.
Lets suppose the land of America were a libertarian nation (anarchy can also mean eras of intense civil war, generally that is actually what the word is used for). Im assuming it would generally be divided into autonomous units focused around certain cities, or combinations of cities. (The area from Cleveland south to Akron is entirely developed to the point where you really dont know if you're in cleveland or not) What would happen if say the Cleveland area were to conspire with Pittsburgh to dominate the Ohio River? Or to break it down even further, what if a large private security country were to join with boat manufacturers and various shipping companies to dominate the Ohio River?
Adam E Zandarski
What would happen if you were to put some thought into your questions?
Pskapompos:if say the Cleveland area were to conspire with Pittsburgh to dominate the Ohio River?
Pskapompos:what if a large private security country
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Pskapompos: I dont want to defend taxes, I just defend the idea of a Robin Hood. He lived in a corrupt era where the nobleman (govt) was robbing its people blind...
I dont want to defend taxes, I just defend the idea of a Robin Hood. He lived in a corrupt era where the nobleman (govt) was robbing its people blind...
Robin Hood wasn't the government and he was leading a honorable revolt against a government that was starving its' people via taxation and murder. Robin Hood was a good libertarian then I would say. A man and woman have the right to defend their property against aggressors.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
liberty student: Pskapompos:I dont want to defend taxes, I just defend the idea of a Robin Hood. He lived in a corrupt era where the nobleman (govt) was robbing its people blind and he stole from the rich to give back to the poor what was rightfully theres. That's not the lesson of Robin Hood. He never returned money to whom it was taken, he stole from the rich and gave to whomever he thought deserved it. Robin Hood was not a friend of property rights. He was just an ideological scoundrel stealing from arrogant bullies.
Pskapompos:I dont want to defend taxes, I just defend the idea of a Robin Hood. He lived in a corrupt era where the nobleman (govt) was robbing its people blind and he stole from the rich to give back to the poor what was rightfully theres.
That's not the lesson of Robin Hood. He never returned money to whom it was taken, he stole from the rich and gave to whomever he thought deserved it.
Robin Hood was not a friend of property rights. He was just an ideological scoundrel stealing from arrogant bullies.
I guess there's different stories of Robin Hood. I was giving my sense of Robin Hood within the context I provided. Just to clarify on this since I just posted about this same topic of Robin Hood.
Pskapompos:Lets suppose the land of America were a libertarian nation (anarchy can also mean eras of intense civil war, generally that is actually what the word is used for). Im assuming it would generally be divided into autonomous units focused around certain cities, or combinations of cities. (The area from Cleveland south to Akron is entirely developed to the point where you really dont know if you're in cleveland or not) What would happen if say the Cleveland area were to conspire with Pittsburgh to dominate the Ohio River? Or to break it down even further, what if a large private security country were to join with boat manufacturers and various shipping companies to dominate the Ohio River?
They would loose profit.
Schools are labour camps.
I meant to say a large private security company. Apologies.
And how do you assume they would lose profit? They would have absolute control of the trade routes.
Another assumption. How would that scenario obtain?
To darkness I condemn you...
If private shipping companies in Pittsburgh were to team up with Cleveland Security firms and Cincinatti shippers to dominate the Ohio river, who would stop them in a free market? Consumers would be delighted to have the cheap products provided by this arrangement. But eventually this would lead to private funded wars to try and stop it.
People will continue to do what they do, whether or not their government is a state. The greek city-states warred all the time. Even tribal peoples war with each other.
The Pskapomp: Consumers would be delighted to have the cheap products provided by this arrangement. But eventually this would lead to private funded wars to try and stop it.
Why would people start a war against a company they were delighted about?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap