No William, I am not trying today to convince anyone of anything.

I have defended myself, and perhaps Ron Paul, from slime attacks; but to offer a world-view in this venue would be foolish. If I get a few folks to merely stop and question why they believe what they believe --- that would be enough. And if they do not; so be it.

Perhaps if I were a better man, I would not reply to all the flames coming from certain quarters. However, if you have seen these sorts of things before you know that the group dynamic is to attack the 'other' and pat one another on the back. For those with eyes to see, we have witnessed good progressives act just like a bunch of ditto heads over at lgf.

Tis a shame, of course. But politics is the disease.

What I really believe in, is the voluntary cooperation of people working together in harmony. No force, no fraud, no intimidation allowed. Democrats and Republicans hate voluntary cooperation for different reasons --- but hate it they do. I have been led to believe that Democrats do not realize that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper --- while Republicans know that all too well.

Libertarians have certain views and beliefs that they have gone over time and again, and Republicans pretend to understand (Reagan talked a good game) but do not really honor. Democrats do not even understand the lingo.

Many here would probably not know that if I mention myth of the "Minimalist State" that I was referring to the fact that governments grow in power continually --- so you can not keep them minimalistic. As they grow in power, they brutalise or murder the citizens. (not all citizens, only those currently out of favor)

You know that the USA outspends the whole world on "defence spending" and that we have an incarceration rate about 7 times that of Europe. Do we need that many guns and bombs to feel safe? Are our citizens really 7 times more criminally inclined than Europeans?

Or ... or ... perhaps it is our system that has gotten completely out of hand? Perhaps the next election is only to choose our next lord and master?

So, William; I believe in peace, love, and voluntary cooperation. (just as I did in the summer of 67) :-)

... I haven't read the book and don't plan to, but I did read that article, and, like Kitt, find the ideas absurd. Sorry. Hoppe's fear of the potential for income redistribution ignores the fact that, for most of history, it went the other way: the resources of the poor got taken out from under them and turned into trash for the rich. Still true, but democracy gives us an avenue for reversing that without violent revolution. ...

Tis best that you do not read it of course. (note: I'll drop trying to tell you what permanently poor means as no one would listen anyway)

No one is arguing that the rich have not plundered the poor in history --- see the Irish as slaves in their own land. But, pray tell, how did the rich do it? Did they outnumber the poor? Or did they use the powerful hand of government to beat down the poor?

Democracies record has been no better; see the 20th century. See the USA murder 600,000 Filipinos in a double cross of horrific proportions. 30s Germany was a democracy. So was Italy.

Hoppe does not need to disabuse you of your fear of dictators or kings --- we already fear them. He is trying to tell you that democracies are hell also. Don't believe me? Ask the folks displaced in New Orleans how well the democracy has helped them.

The problem is that many here are looking to be offended --- ask and you will receive. But, it is simple fact that democracies fail the test of both experience and theory. (Hoppe does the theory)

However, try a little softer Hoppe as he discuses Rothbardian ethics. If you disagree with that, I fear that you will not care for libertarianism at all. It does answer a question you had to a large degree.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe7.html

... I don't agree with that simplistic and insulting quote no matter if it is supposed to pertain to Appalachia, South Africa, India, Iraq or most anywhere else I can think of. Appalachia, for example, was ruled with an iron fist by the coal companies. Hard working sonsabithces got squat for their efforts in comparison to the rich, who hired thugs at any uprisings or attempts at unionizing. ...

First things first. I have no rich friends, and I know of no rich Anarco-Capitalists; certainly not a teacher like Hoppe. I hope you understand his argument, but if you do not -- hey, I can handle it.

However, you need to read up on the poor of Appalachia. We were not all coal miners, we were not all barefooted, and we damn sure disliked a "federal man."

The coal companies were evil --- and the government backed them the whole way. Have you heard the rumor that a certain Democratic President once used U.S. troops and seized railroads and coal mines?

http://www.lutins.org/labor.html

Notice all the help corporations get from our wonderful democratic government in that long list of labor woes. Then tell me that it was "just" the greedy corporations. We live in a fascist state, it just is not like Italy was, or like Germany was, --- but still fascist.

There were never many 'permanently poor' in Appalachia. Poor? Hell yes. Several generations? Sure. Permanently poor? Hell no. Of course, Dolly Parton always told that her family never knew they were poor until some damn federal man came and told them. :-)