I wish we had a short word like guy, fellow, or whatever that conveyed no sexual connotation at all. When I wrote fellow it was because I could not recall your handle at all --- not that I was guessing.

Anyway, sorry.

Government defined:

Let me begin with the definition of government: A government is a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and, implied in this, a compulsory territorial monopolist of taxation. That is, a government is the ultimate arbiter, for the inhabitants of a given territory, regarding what is just and what is not, and it can determine unilaterally, i.e., without requiring the consent of those seeking justice or arbitration, the price that justice-seekers must pay to the government for providing this service. (1) Except for some so-called public choice economists such as James Buchanan, it is obvious that such an extraordinary institution cannot arise “naturally”, as the outcome of voluntary contractual agreements among individual property owners. (2) For no one would agree to a deal that entitled someone else, once and for all, to determine whether or not one was truly the owner of one’s own property, and no one would agree to a deal that entitled this monopoly judge with the power to impose taxes on oneself. Rather, an institution such as government would normally, and from the outset, be regarded as an illegitimate and indeed criminal protection racket. And as a protection racket, this institution would tend to be brought down quickly. It is only possible for such an institution to survive for any length of time if and insofar as it succeeds in instilling in the “protected” public a myth, i.e., a false yet generally held, and hence effective, belief. In order to make the public accept, i.e., not to resist, the protection racket, it must be persuaded that without a monopoly of jurisdiction and taxation (that is, in what has been called a “state of nature”) constant warfare among individual property owners would exist. I have called this belief the Hobbesian myth and identified it as the most powerful and widespread myth of the modern world. ... (3)

http://www.univ.trieste.it/~etica/2003_2/hoppe.htm

Please note: the very mention of the masters name causes many here to forth at the mouth. But yes, that is Professor Hoppe.

And so does mine. "Government" as a monopoly on law, force, property, and everything else is simply an iron fist inside a soft glove at the best. At the worst, it is an iron first crushing your ...

I know it is hard to give up the idea of at least a little government; it was for me. I therefore understand those of you still trapped in the literal myth that big government protects you as you think your god does. It is simply false --- read history.

Thanks for the words, I'll be looking forward to your posts. I will be involved tomorrow, so I doubt I'll say much. One wonders what the local trinity will do with themselves. ;-)

I do grow a bit bored with no one ever responding with people that they are "for" or with specific political ideas that they are "for". It is as if they are afraid --- they can attack others, but not put forth anything themselves. As an example; I wrote that I supported Ron Paul. Yes, I know --- no chance in hell of winning, but I will vote for him. I have read no one else here tell me of a better candidate --- I think they all are waiting for Glenn to make a endorsement. (if true, how sad is that?)

I have been inspired by the liberal branch of the Society of Friends mainly, at least until I read the works from Nag Hammadi Library. Now, I suppose I understand inspiration comes from many works.

I have never seen words like that from him, and there is nothing like that in the archives (as best I can tell) on Lew Rockwell's site. I wonder what he would say if he knew I consider the god he worships as the flawed Demiurge? If those words were his, then he is as blind as most of the rest of the billions of religious literalists on this planet.

If you feel like calling his out, his e-mail is at the bottom of each post he makes. You may also e-mail Lew. You may also try to get Glenn to deny re-print rights to lewrockwell.com.

As for me, I think most people's religious beliefs are flawed and dangerous; and yes, that goes for you Methodists out there. ;-)

-b1

I hate to break it to you but this government monopoly on force is a figment of your imagination. If it weren't then Iraq would be totally placid as our soldiers would be the only ones with guns.

The idea of a nation-state is associated with the rise of the modern system of states — often called the "Westphalian system" in reference to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). (look it up)

You miss the point. The nation-state is the only agent that can use force in a "legal" and "moral" manner; because the nation-state decided those matters within its geographic borders. If it lets you have a gun, that is the state's right to do.

By the way, have you noticed how this "new Hitler" named Saddam let his people keep machine guns? Dummy. (or perhaps bush fed us some lines)

(Note: to the fools out there who aggressively mis-read every word of mine, that did not absolve Saddam of his manifold crimes)

Would now be an appropriate time to say, "Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ?"

If not now, when? ;-)