We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

I think I prefer Rothbard's definition (even this brief one) to Jebbie's "government is anyone with a big stick" definition.

No. It is we hate to be asked the same dick-head questions by ass-hats only looking for some drama queen "gottcha".

On the other hand, when I ask state-loving totalitarians like you what you have against voluntary cooperation I just hear the sound of one hand clapping in the forest.

That totally explains my wife's family out there. Totally. Thanks.

Ooooohhhh ...

That was a good one. I think it must be one of the best one liners at UT ever. (I see no copyright, so I'll be pretending I made that up at work tomorrow)

http://mises.org/story/1121

Keep in mind that nothing is perfect, and one can find problems in any society; but that is a good article to think over.

I am led to believe that no one lives in Idaho. I understand some exist there; but there is no life.

Can you confirm?

But that is not true. I would not mind it one bit if it were true, since it would match my spiritual outlook just peachy. However, medieval Iceland was stateless and also not egalitarian.

I note you have dislikes of the big L libertarians. I suppose you mean the Libertarian Party itself? I am no fan of that bunch.

Why?

As long as all cooperate voluntarily, there is no problem. It is only the enforced leveling at the point of a gun that is objectionable.

What part of the idea that the use of force, coercion, and fraud is immoral do you fail to understand?

There is not much chance that the central government would move against the large defense contractors and we all know that. But, just for the sake of a thought experiment, what if they did move against the defense establishment?

If no company (since they are all guilty) could make arms; might we see a halt to the present mess overseas? After all the WSJ sited a poll that says the overseas wars are driving down the popularity of this president just like it did the last president.

What would a world where the American military was brought home look like? Could we save our economy and the dollar at this late date? Could the world stand the prosperity that comes with peace rather than war?

Link@sig to poll story ...

You did not question me. You are not smart enough to formulate questions.

Say, take a logic course yet?

The audio is fine here on a Mac with Firefox and has been since the moment Glenn first posted it.

Safari, on the other hand, gives trouble at this location. I suspect it is the flash player install on these computers.

... that our contractors be honest ...

Damn fine interview. I think Alan was on top of his game with this one and you asked great questions and then let him talk.

I am ecstatic! My Horace grant you have him back on your show some other day.

Tissues? It is the little fearful ones like you who want the state to give you everything that need the tissues.

By the way; when will you be taking that course in logic?

I have met Alan Grayson and his whole family. He is a very smart cookie, and one of the few "good" politicians we have here in Florida. Thanks for the interview with him.

You may say anything your little racist heart wants to say; but I am not giving you anything since you are a total troll.

Ignorance; thy name is o-cow

... thy name is 0-cow.

Are you trying to say that only the church will help the unfortunates? I find that hard to believe.

On top of that, the poor should not need help. If the government was not talking what little they have, making things cost much more, and keeping many of them unemployed -- the poor could get along just fine.

The deeper question that you are overlooking is how in the world did mankind live for millions of years before the state and economic intervention?

You also are overlooking the point that if you give the state the power to force others to give --- that will lead to tyranny in the end. (yes, every time)

Proof?