[dardner]

As Porphyrogenitus suggests we might not phrase people as capable and not capable. Perhaps willing and unwilling might be somewhat better. If the USA were a largely freemarket libertarian society who would this country attract if not the willing what benefit would there be to the unwilling? In terms of open borders another countries willing would be expected to immigrate here. As some other country becomes devoid of its willing constituents it may be forced to change its policies as to attract the willing back. If the product is truly good for people at large I would expect the spread of freemarket libertarianism to equalize immigration to a large extent. If some such place becomes wildly lacking in population due to this I doubt some opportunity would not arise for use of the land, even as a commune for the unwilling.

Who should be truly not capable of supporting themselves is to further demonstrate the importance of the family dynamic and as also suggested by Porphyrogenitus the willing making eleemosynary contributions. I am personally not fond of giving to charities yet I am compelled to give from time to time.

When you consider those who wish to harm others, what is ever to stop them under any system? The best to hope for is that they would consider their freedom more important then their incarceration or death.

I think we have something pretty good with the right to life liberty and property but in order to be maintained must trump religious laws. Surely you could believe and practice whatever one chooses until the point of force on another impedes their rights.

I had not considered how we could change into such a society but Mr. johnsnow has helped me realize that this would need to start small perhaps starting with some state creating the example and how immigration and demand for living in said state could be the catalyst for change on a larger basis. I was always remiss to explain what could be done with all the expectations currently in place and how a change could be implemented outside of a complete societal collapse. So I thank you johnsnow and Porphyrogenitus for asking some important questions.

A thought on minarchism. I am not sure if a private or centralized legal/enforcement system is as key as how said system is enacted. If we could create the means to prevent the legal system from acting against a simple framework like life liberty and property then any such system should be fine.

[dardner]

As a general rule I might begin with Thomas Sowell’s three questions:
Compared to what?
At what cost?
Do you have any hard evidence?
I think this sums up the three points Sterling made and can be used generically to start to deal with most claims.
I find any example of technological advancement through the military dubious. For one any useful technologies are brought about by competition with a foreign military. And to reiterate Sterlings example from Bastiat we don’t see what was frittered away on pet ideas.

[dardner]

You’re not alone

[dardner]

The professors will know better than me but for what it’s worth i think western civ after 1500 might be more germane. I believe the roots go back to the 1800’s but this whole issue seems to start within the time of the Balfour declaration and the Sykes Picot agreement. The middle eastern jews living under the Ottoman empire did not face the kind of hatred they see today in the region. Consider if the central powers had won world war 1 and created a muslim state in the US. Compounded by the success of the jews in the region similar to the conflict of the chinese in malaysia. The effects of nation building after the first World War were not limited to Israel but can be seen throughout eastern europe to this day.

I find the idea of returning these people to their biblical promised land dubious. Genetically speaking many of the RETURNED jews had become so thoroughly assimilated over the centuries that they were Jewish by religion alone. On some level this idea of giving them a place of their own shows just as much antisemitism as Hitler claiming he would send them to Madagascar.

I can’t say that everything would be fine today but without western imperialism many of the Middle Easts conflicts would look quite different. Regardless of the Koran, Jews and muslims got on fine together as the radical fundamentalist element was quelled by the governments in the region. In my uneducated simpleton opinion to understand what is causing the problems in the east we should start looking in the west.

[dardner]

They suffer from a psychological disorder known as the Thanatos Complex.
I am in the middle of a Thomas Sowell book “Intellectuals and Society”that you may find interesting. While I’m not sure that he expounds on the specific history or some watershed where this all began, he does opine that if they were on the right (or perhaps more accurately non-interventionist) things would get on quite fine without them. Being on the left however allows them to come up with their own ideas and solutions and ultimately pat themselves on the back for showing everybody how smart they think they are.(I am paraphrasing significantly)

If you will permit me to ramble, back to my Thanatos comment. It seems to me that the left under the rather specious guise of equality or fairness is seemingly bent on their own destruction and the demise of all mankind. You can find this everywhere from their staunch position on abortion. The environmental movement demonizing man as the sole factor for everything negative under the exosphere. Marx himself was the bourgeoisie that he sought to eradicate. I am absolutely astounded by the lefts hatred of the free market, a system where the workers of the world can set their own wages and prices based on their own actions. The equality they want can only be achieved by the deceased.

[Author]

Posts