Hans Hoppe on why he thinks limited-government is impossible

We can practice "community-economics" which forces a truly free-market.

We can agree under that banner to push for a 7-12% sales tax (no other taxes allowed).

3% for a National Naval-Mertocracy (see my links below)

1% for a State Army & Air Guard Meritocracy

3% for a Central GAO Meritocracy (to pay off foriegn debt)

....see my links below there is a list of how such a meritocracy functions (the "zeros")

We might need the additioanl 5% (over the above 7%) to help women with children and seniors to transition over to local charities.

Such a Consumer-Minarchism would eventually reduce itself to zero, in a natural way; but the miniscule 7% would be easy to pay.

The only problem with a straight to anarchy model is that the powerful will have access to vast weapons and there will be countries willing to buy them on the open market -- without a gov't or court system to stop such a mass sell-off we'd be defenseless.

You can bring troops home, but you can't disolve all the weapons.

In time the open-market strategy with zero barriers to entry will force all countries to follow suit because we will stop subsidizing the U.N and the U.S wars.

We must bring our troops to the local level.

The incentives we pay the new gov't from must be correctly applied with an open-source rubric.

There must be zero voting and lobbying.

Go see the links below

Mao Tse Tung's famous saying is that all political power comes from the barell of a gun.

Either you acquiesce to that altogether (as Hoppe has), or you can bear it in mind but work for a better world which means restoration of the Republic.

Click on the Constituion link (below) this post (it's part of this post).

I break down how we can have a minarchist-gov't with zero monopolist power.

We do need a transitionary period.

Hoppe (et al) think there's a magical anarchist light switch; which is why after 40 years they have not built one model to bring about an-cap.

They are not sollution oriented, they complain and make great arguments for liberty and sell you on nullification and other useless ideas.

You buy their books and thus they do not need to innovate or become free-market entrepreneurial.

They are kicking it old school (working in universities - getting paid by gov't or selling courses on how to be pissed in a corporatist society).

There are NO SOLUTIONS from these people.

Community-Economics is the solution -- we are building the model and it will benefit you financially by just participating.

It is a solution (now) and (then) -- Not a new political model or catch phrase to throw around: "ooooo nullification"..........."okay when's the next book come out?"

argument below. tell you what-- just find an accomplished anarchist to debate a limited government constitutionalist and cut us some slack by saving us the waste of time. if you're done with the limited government camp then leave.. we (ya i'm gonna use that term) don't have time for people we spend time enlightening and informing to turn around and fly into fantasy land.. we're busy enough trying to find new blood without having to turn around and grab people so they don't fly off. if after all those examples and at least a guarantee of 100+year of prosperity as evidence you still want something else, just do it without wasting our time. i'm sorry if people with careers and families to take care of do feel their baggage enough not to want to play with a chemistry lab that risks blowing everything up with no example of success, just because someone thought limited government wasn't exciting enough.

limited government is at least one for one. the latter failure had nothing to do with limited government.. it was the uninformed plus people like you who couch all day and divide liberty movements with all kinds of armchairs while there was still a chance. you are a contributing factor to the failure and your system has already failed even at the argument stage and the failure hurt even the genuine solution. you contributed to the failure, don't get confused please.

The framers actually understood more about human nature than most people realize, which is why the Constitution actually is written the way it is. For example, under the Constitution the Federal government doesn't have a territorial monopoly outside of Washington DC and other Federal locations (Guam, Samoa, parks, etc.). They are absolute rulers within those areas but not in the sovereign States. The element of human nature they really used to garner so much power was the average person's apathy and willingness to not take responsibility for themselves or their rights - legally! The founders probably never imagined that Americans would become so ignorant about basic legal principles.

What happened is that the federal government tricked, cajoled and bribed people into their jurisdiction voluntarily...eventually virtually erasing any semblance of the original sovereign state jurisdiction - basically eliminating their competition.. Still today if you carefully read many of the Federal statutes, like Internal Revenue for example, with an understanding of the rules of statutory construction, you will see that the most onerous statutes still do not apply outside of the original Federal jurisdiction, but they have carefully redefined terms like "state" and "include" so that it looks to average readers that don't know statutory construction that the individual states are included when the opposite is in fact true - doublespeak in its finest form - whomever controls the definitions wins! The key is to recongize that though statutes appear to be written in English, it isn't the same as the conversation English we all take for granted every day - rather its a very sneaky code designed to look like English when it's not just to fool you! I may find the time to go into the rules of statutory construction more in the future, and you can also learn about them on my new blog, liberalex.com, where I am planning a series on statutory construction over the next few weeks or months.

In the end you may still be right, limited government may be impossible - especially now that the cat is out of the bag in that department. But I don't think it was inevitable. We let it happen -- and there is still a chance, however small, that we can bring it back. But first we have to empower ourselves with the kind of knowledge and faith the founders took for granted. Without that, the founders have warned us, a constitutional republic cannot exist.