0 votes

How Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard Took Liberty Down the Wrong Road

Here is a short excerpt from the latest Daily Bell interview with friend and fellow DPer, Nelson Hultberg, Founder and Executive Director of Americans for a Free Republic.

Daily Bell: You have a new book out entitled The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Can you explain briefly what your book is about?

Nelson Hultberg: When it first began in the early 1940s, the freedom movement in America was not split between libertarians and conservatives. It was one coalition unified in rebellion against FDR's welfare state. By 1970, however, the movement had become tragically bifurcated. Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard took libertarians off into anarchy, while the Burkean philosopher Russell Kirk drove conservatives into the complacency of welfare-statism. This split has created two incomplete visions (contemporary libertarianism and conservatism) that are, in their singularity, incapable of effectively challenging the authoritarian mega-state.

What must be done is to reunite these two divisions as they were in the beginning. This will require a rational theory of politics that can bring together the two philosophical streams of John Locke and Edmund Burke so as to restore the original "republic of states" that Jefferson and the Founders envisioned. It is the purpose of The Golden Mean to bring this about.

Only in this way can the forces of freedom become strong enough to check the relentless advance of modern day statism. This unity between libertarians and conservatives is the crucial missing ingredient in our fight to restore America. The Golden Mean lays the philosophical groundwork for its reinstillation.

This unity means a merging of libertarians with TRUE conservatives who believe in limited government, not with today's NEO conservatives who advocate the relentless expansion of government. Libertarians have a common ground with the "Old Republic" thinking of the 1940s, conservative minds like Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, and Frank Meyer.

The Golden Mean is much more, though, than a paean to the history of libertarianism and conservatism. It is a paradigm shifting book that will dramatically change the way one looks at political theory and the idea of a free society. It is meant for both the scholar and the educated layman.

Daily Bell: You have a new book out entitled The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Can you explain briefly what your book is about?

Nelson Hultberg: When it first began in the early 1940s, the freedom movement in America was not split between libertarians and conservatives. It was one coalition unified in rebellion against FDR's welfare state. By 1970, however, the movement had become tragically bifurcated. Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard took libertarians off into anarchy, while the Burkean philosopher Russell Kirk drove conservatives into the complacency of welfare-statism. This split has created two incomplete visions (contemporary libertarianism and conservatism) that are, in their singularity, incapable of effectively challenging the authoritarian mega-state.

What must be done is to reunite these two divisions as they were in the beginning. This will require a rational theory of politics that can bring together the two philosophical streams of John Locke and Edmund Burke so as to restore the original "republic of states" that Jefferson and the Founders envisioned. It is the purpose of The Golden Mean to bring this about.

Only in this way can the forces of freedom become strong enough to check the relentless advance of modern day statism. This unity between libertarians and conservatives is the crucial missing ingredient in our fight to restore America. The Golden Mean lays the philosophical groundwork for its reinstillation.

This unity means a merging of libertarians with TRUE conservatives who believe in limited government, not with today's NEO conservatives who advocate the relentless expansion of government. Libertarians have a common ground with the "Old Republic" thinking of the 1940s, conservative minds like Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, and Frank Meyer.

The Golden Mean is much more, though, than a paean to the history of libertarianism and conservatism. It is a paradigm shifting book that will dramatically change the way one looks at political theory and the idea of a free society. It is meant for both the scholar and the educated layman.

Daily Bell: Tell us about your book's title, The Golden Mean, what it refers to and why it is so important for freedom.

Nelson Hultberg: The Golden Mean is Aristotle's famous "doctrine of the mean" in philosophy discovered over 2300 years ago. It is one of the most powerful natural laws that govern existence, demonstrating what is virtue and what is vice in human affairs. It states that virtue consists of the rational course that lies between two opposite and natural extremes, i.e., the Golden Mean.

For example, Aristotle tells us in his Nicomachean Ethics that if a man is confronted with danger, he meets it in one of three ways. He succumbs to the extreme of cowardice or to the opposite extreme of rashness; or he chooses the middle course of "courage," which is contrary to both. In like fashion, a man can choose "liberality," which is midway between the opposite extremes of stinginess and extravagance, "self-control" between drunkenness and abstemiousness, and "ambition" between sloth and greed.

Aristotle's theory was based upon the fact that in most human action, there is a wide range of intensity, all the way from too little (defect) to too much (excess). In between such defect and excess, there lies an appropriate mean – a golden mean – which would be the good, with the two opposites of defect and excess being evils.

There are, of course, numerous values of life (other than the ones Aristotle put forth) that can also be placed on a spectrum to determine a mean. Human life entails a wide array of desires, actions, and needs, many of which can be portrayed in terms of a vice-virtue-vice relationship. Listed below are a few examples that I have put together:

Thus, midway between the defect of apathy and the excess of zealotry, there lies the rational balance of concern. Between vulgarity and prudery, there is the mean of decency. Between treason and fanaticism, there is loyalty. Between strife and humdrum, there is peace. And between tyranny and anarchy, there is a thing called freedom. Precisely how concern, decency, loyalty, peace and freedom are to be defined is often times in dispute, but what is important is that there is infused in reality a spectrum upon which such values can be placed, a spectrum where at some point men's actions become defective, excessive, or proper.

What is so beautiful about Aristotle's doctrine is that it shows all the noblest and most desired values of our existence – such as loyalty, faith, love, peace, order and freedom – to be means. All of the things we value most in life are "means" between two opposite vices. This is the way reality is constructed. Almost always there is a mean between two evils.

. . .

Daily Bell: How did libertarians come to embrace anarchism so fervently? What is the source of this philosophical misdirection, as you would say?

Read the whole interview to find out

- - - - -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

His sentence:

"But unfortunately the myth prevails that men can somehow become angels and thrust off all need for government."

It illustrates my belief that government is a false god.

He is implying that government is needed because men aren't angels... so government can act as angels??? while operated by the men that can't become angels... but assume angel like goodness when opperating under the guise of government... It's admitting that government assumes god like authorities, a false god.

Simalar confessions?

From my Copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

In other words everyone but me is bad, so bend to my will.

Obey, and don't question obedience.

Confessions of a Monopolist anyone?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Confessions-Of-A-Monopolist/dp/127...

Joe

Hi Josf

we were having a back and forth about Chomsky and I never responded due to getting busy and leaving for a little trip, not sure now if I'll get back to it, but I did want to tell you that a) I enjoyed it and b) it was stimulating and I've thought a lot about language and it's (and my) application, so thanks for that.

Anyway, I haven't read that book (yet), but I'm not sold on original sin, or men being inherently bad. I would agree with flawed, but I don't believe it's really that relevant to the application of government. Either way, I think it is best to keep the power as spread out as possible, ideally with the individual.

Meaning

If the meaning of original sin is such that "compared to God," the human life form is imperfect, then I have no reason to question such a relative measure of "sin."

If the meaning or original sin is such that a very good liar can cover up the crimes the good liar perpetrates upon the innocent victims targeted by the lying criminal and then blame the crimes on the victims, then that meaning is merely another very good lie told by very good liars.

I hope that your trip was worth the effort.

Joe

Thanks, I hope it was too.

I'd agree with your assessment.

Garbage

If the local/national government is to exist, it's role should be limited to an impartial mediation and a common defense of the willing participants, anything else is tyranny. politicians picked at random from willing participants, with 8 year maximum service, violation of oath, personal gain or infringement by them should be punished by death, no appeal. Congress to gather once every two years, unless an emergency, House meets first for a couple of weeks, passes propositions, Senate meets for a couple of weeks, after house is finished with their business, and votes on the stuff house passed, any changes will have to wait till next session and the bill as a whole can not be passed. Idea is to make the passing of any laws as difficult as possible, take away the power from politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of others. What we have now is no different from Soviet Union, lived there, seen that, don't want any of it.

Excellent article.

Instead of keeping to the language of Locke, Ayn Rand veered off the path (probably purposefully) and chose a language anathema to the general public.

Ron Paul WAS the union!

Unfortunately neither wing jumped on board. Just us 5%ers. (10%ers?)

Excellent article. Anyone who

Excellent article. Anyone who has read my own criticisms of anarchism will see how closely we think and we independently came to this same knowledge(of course I've never read Aristotle. I discovered Hutlberg a few years ago myself.

Ventura 2012

Seems well addressed in comments

But if the book is as befuddled as the interview this isn't worth reading.

It's not as if it's hard to define what Rothbard thinks or come to the point of disagreement. The problem of course is that he can't refute the arguments, therefore a lot of confused gobbledygook about the 'mean' of on an ill defined an equally confused 'scale'.

The argument for statism has been made better by socialists I have read.

I have no problem working with statists who advocate for more liberty than we currently have.

I have no use for muddled thinkers who insist that the ideal is just a smidge more freedom then we can call it a day and let our rulers take over again.

best comment so far. +1

best comment so far. +1

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Competition in justice is an idea whose time is coming and

it can't be stopped. If there is one thing that has been repeatedly demonstrated in history it is that a monopoly on justice subject to the whims of political elites is fundamentally unjust while "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

conflict of interest

The state is the final arbiter in all conflicts involving itself and a civilian. Violent monopolies must be abolished.

This is very good overall.

The interview lays out a very good direction. I agree with with Josf though, initially [see comment below], especially since Michael's headline hones in on Rand and Rothbard. Hultberg's critique of Rand is for the most part good enough for me as it stands, but his critique of Rothbard falls short. Hultberg's critique is built on Sciabarra's. Hultberg basically advances and refines Sciabarra's misunderstanding. Neither of them make a clear distinction between moral and political philosophy. This is important when critiquing the non-aggression principle. Rothbard first makes clear such distinction and then lays out the individual's role and the state's role. He also makes distinct the difference between natural and human law. Anyone attempting to understand Rothbard's perspective would do well to first understand Walter Block's and then compare Block to Rothbard. I thoroughly enjoy allowing Block to expand my mind and potential, but Block is actually the one to whom it seems that Hultberg refers to having fallen from the mean. Robert Higgs is another example of someone who Hultberg might erroneously claim to have fallen off the map. Higgs would be my mean.

Overall, in reading the interview, Hultberg loses me here and there when his concept of the role of the state falls murkily into ambiguity. Agree or disagree with where Rothbard takes you, but one thing he never loses sight of is a clear perspective regarding the role of the state. It's been ambiguity in the role of the state that has from the beginning allowed for its tyrannical encroachment.

I'm excited though, about Hultberg's general approach in revisiting philosophy from an era preceding such splits in the Conservative and Liberty movements. What common ground did the likes of Weaver, Nisbet, and Meyer hold? Does that ground still hold true today? I personally think Rand Paul is looking for and finding that ground. Politics aside, I'm particulary excited in revisiting and advancing the perspective from Robert Nisbet. Brad stone is at the forefront of such revisitation, and this lecture has become one of my all time favorites. Michael, I think you especially will enjoy this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDoYeXCoSE

Misleading Claims?

1.
Murray Rothbard was the Statist in the group, as understood by at least Gary North here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north512.html
quote:___________________________________

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.

One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.

Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?

There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.

There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation.

There is no organized movement today to establish either free banking or 100% reserve banking. There has never been a movement to impose 100% reserve banking. It has been well over a century since a handful of economists and pamphlet writers recommended free banking.

Anyone who tells you that it would be easy to switch over to a gold standard has either no understanding of the politics of money and banking or else has been smoking some funny-smelling leaves.
_________________________________________________

Failing to understand the meaning of FREE in Free Banking is not necessarily a case of ignorance.

Like asking a criminal with a badge if the criminal with the badge has a problem understanding the meaning of "shall not be infringed".

The criminals with badges know better than to allow their victims to be armed with guns, accurate information, or sound, honest, money.

As to the Golden Mean, there are obvious contradictions and missing information along that unreasonable process.

Where the willful goal is sustainability, such as "the pursuit of happiness," the good, right, effective, powerful thoughts and actions are accurately measurable as being competitively good, adaptive, creative, efficient, effective, and moving from worse, lower standards of living and moving from higher costs of living, moving from worse, moving effectively from bad, moving accurately and measurably toward better, moving to higher standards and lower costs of living in reality.

Good proves itself to be good.

Bad proves itself to be bad.

When the criminals take over, on the other hand, good, according to them, is a steady supply of weak victims who offer the criminals something for nothing in return.

The proof of exactly how bad the criminals lies, threats, and aggressive violence upon the weaker victims are, how bad are those criminal thoughts and actions, are the inevitable consequences, intended or not, down that road, where the Laws of Diminishing Returns sets in and there are no productive people left, where the only people left are the inhuman rats, and all the rats feed on each other since the rats destroyed all the adaptive, effective, creative, power, the productive power honestly offered by all the competition, offered generously, equitably, or for an honest profit.

So...no the Golden Mean is just plain mean.

Misdirection, and probably not out of shear ignorance.

Joe

tasmlab's picture

The interview ends right where the whopper is

He cuts off right where he would refute the initiation of force type arguments, saying it is in his book. Does anyone know what it says?

I read the interview and he certainly seems knowledgeable and thoughtful, but it seems like he suggesting he knows the perfect amount of government, and as others have stated, the perfect amount of violence.

His ranges show an cap being somehow more governmenty than regular anarchism, which I don't believe is true.

"Conservative values" sort of makes my skin crawl. Is this sort of Republican apologist speak?

If Rothbard and Rand ruined libertarianism, I'm not sure what it must of been before.

I wasn't convinced, but then I'm just some dude on the Internet.

Currently consuming: Harry Browne, Free Domain Radio; JT Gatto and Holt; Wii U

anarchy is also not without violence

Anarchy does not equal freedom. Anarchy means you have to keep your own peace ....if you can....through force

the meek and weak would argue anarchy would ultimately lead to slavery or death.

Therefore until a better equalizing system is invented, some bare bones government to keep the peace and laws is necessary

I agree with Ron Paul on this

Herein lies where I disagree with Hultberg

The above graphic implies the misconception "without government, order does not exist" - ie society has no other way of organization than through government. No government does not necessarily equal no order. Government is an involuntary organization whereas valid voluntary organizations do exist. Many modern anarchists are simply for voluntary organization rather than involuntary organization.

It doesn't lend support to Hultberg's argument that he equates anarchism with "prehistoric savagery."

I agree that their exists some amount of government that would be "worth it," so to speak - that is, where the government lowered the natural level of theft and operated on less than the difference of the cost of natural theft minus the reduced theft afforded by its existence.

Further, the question naturally arises, how does a population successfully keep a government within set boundaries? What is the most nearly perfect system? Can it be done at all. Will giving government a monopoly on force always result in eventual oppression?

Michael Nystrom's picture

So, the Founding Fathers were in favor of limited government

Not in favor of "no government." They said that government was a "necessary evil." Yes, an evil, but a necessary one. And evil - all the anarchists understand why. But a "necessary" one. Why?

A necessary evil for the sake of preventing further evil.

Let's just face the reality that even with the Constitution, this is what we've devolved into. What would it be like without such a document?

History shows us that it would simply be chaos: Regional warlords fighting other regional warlords for supremacy. That is a greater evil than simply having a Constitution, and a Rule of Law. This is the Golden Mean, as Nelson puts it - between Totalitarianism and Anarchy as used in its popular sense, which (for a reason) means chaos.

I agree that their exists some amount of government that would be "worth it," so to speak - that is, where the government lowered the natural level of theft and operated on less than the difference of the cost of natural theft minus the reduced theft afforded by its existence.

From this, I take it you're not an Anarchist.

Further, the question naturally arises, how does a population successfully keep a government within set boundaries? What is the most nearly perfect system? Can it be done at all. Will giving government a monopoly on force always result in eventual oppression?

Go back to what Thomas Jefferson said: It takes eternal vigilance . Have the people of this nation been eternally vigilant?

I think not. Thus, we have arrived in the situation we're at.

But I propose that in absence of our Constitution, things would most certainly be worse.

I don't practice hagiography

The founding fathers also enshrined slavery in the original text of the Constitution. Jefferson was for the rewriting/reconfirmation of the Constitution every 20 years. However, with respect to that potential solution, the process would quickly be co-opted, and tyranny would be progressed further at each interval.

I disagree that government is a "necessary evil."

Let's just face the reality that even with the Constitution, this is what we've devolved into. What would it be like without such a document?

This question can only be answered with pure speculation. One thing that can be said, however, is that repeating failed solutions and expecting different results wouldn't say much for the sanity of mankind.

History shows us that it would simply be chaos: Regional warlords fighting other regional warlords for supremacy. That is a greater evil than simply having a Constitution, and a Rule of Law. This is the Golden Mean, as Nelson puts it - between Totalitarianism and Anarchy as used in its popular sense, which (for a reason) means chaos.

Anarchy means chaos just as legitimately as collect means Clapper's definition. It's in the interest of those in power to portray anarchy as a horrible state of existence. In reality, without government, cartel arrangements would soon fail, leaving no room schemes like central banking. That's the reason anarchy has been redefined to mean chaos over the years.

Of what history do you refer, the not so Wild West? Demonstrate to me, historically, where a well-armed populace devolved into "prehistoric savagery." Only where weapons are expensive and/or hard to come by can "regional warlords" gain a pseudo-monopoly on force.

I take it you're not an Anarchist.

I think we should aspire to anarchy. I think we should rollback the state as much as the population will tolerate until none is left, and people realize that voluntary association is a superior answer. I'm like Rothbard in this respect, "If a button existed to abolish the state, I'd blister my finger pressing the damn thing." (paraphrasing)

It takes eternal vigilance . Have the people of this nation been eternally vigilant?

It's idealistic to suggest eternal vigilance exists, and it's intellectually dishonest to say that it's O.K. to violate the rights of those people that are preoccupied with everyday life. Eternal vigilance cannot and never will exist. For that reason, governments will always devolve to tyranny.

But I propose that in absence of our Constitution, things would most certainly be worse.

Again, this is entirely speculation. I disagree, but that is speculation also; however, the Early American West leads me to believe that my speculation is more rightly founded.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thanks for the clarificiation

I am heartened to see that you realize what most people here, wedded to their principles do not: That it is all speculation. And if you believe your speculation is more rightly founded, I believe mine is.

While I agree with you that Anarchy is a noble ideal to strive for, it is idealistic and unrealistic to think that it will ever be achieved.

If, as you say, eternal vigilance cannot and never will exist, then Anarchy too is impossible, for it also would require eternal vigilance. And for that reason, anarchy will always devolve to tyranny.

Anarchy lays the foundation

for the nearest realization of eternal vigilance. It is the mere existence of the government that dilutes vigilance. Government promotes the attitude - "That's the governments job. Why isn't government taking care of this problem?" Without government, it is abundantly clear to people that they themselves are ultimately responsible for themselves.

Eternal vigilance can never exist under government because it is the government's nature to destroy it.

Looking back on history, it is true that men have always sought to institute a government when they find it inconvenient to stand up for their own rights - when vigilance begins to wane. Eventually, however, I believe mankind will (almost) universally realize the sacrifice they are making when they give a band of men a monopoly on force. In my opinion, one day stateless societies will be the norm - not because man is perfectible but because men entrusted with the power of government are imperfectible. The People will decide that it's no longer worth the headache, and "government" will become the new f-word.

Plus, if both are destined to end at complete tyranny, I would rather have a starting point of freedom than one of partial slavery.

vigilance not required

Why would you need vigilance when you have competing providers of dispute resolution services? If the consumer is not satisfied, they unsubscribe and subscribe with a competitor.

How do you unsubscribe from the federal government? In Nystrom's and Bmore's system, you can only protest, petition and vote.

Michael Nystrom's picture

And your system exists only in your imagination

where it will remain, for the duration of your life.

Yeah the fantasizing is a bit

Yeah the fantasizing is a bit much. "You just replace one security service with another" as if the laws of scarcity and supply and demand won't apply. There WILL be legal jurisdictions based on geography even in the most utopian anarchic society, Lime. If that weren't the case then one party who used a different agency (or no agency) could simply wrong a user of another agency with impunity because the second agency would have no jurisdiction to COERCE the opposing party. If you do not want to fall under a geographic jurisdiction you will need to leave, same as today. You need to really think these things through.

Ventura 2012

geography

The competing legal jurisdictions don't have to be based on geography, they can be based on subscriptions to a service (insurance or dispute resolutions organizations, etc.).

In order to "leave" that jurisdiction, you wait until your contract expires and switch over. No need to move.

I just refuted that. There is

I just refuted that. There is nothing to force you into court if you commit a tort against a subscriber of a different agency who's jurisdiction you have not consented to. Your subscription service is nothing more than an illegitimate mafia unless there is an implied consent doctrine like we have today where people in a certain geography are presumed to have consented.

Ventura 2012

Free market in law

Bob Murphy - The Market for Security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSeYEz67Se4

David Friedman:

The most serious objection to free-market law is that plaintiff and defendant may not be able to agree on a common court. Obviously, a murderer would prefer a lenient judge. If the court were actually chosen by the disputants after the crime occurred, this might be an insuperable difficulty. Under the arrangements I have described, the court is chosen in advance by the protection agencies. There would hardly be enough murderers at any one time to support their own protective agency, one with a policy of patronizing courts that did not regard murder as a crime. Even if there were, no other protective agency would accept such courts. The murderers' agency would either accept a reasonable court or fight a hopeless war against the rest of society.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freed...

Another good article explaining free market law:

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

No disagreement

Those who work to avoid crime as victim, or as criminal, agree to do so, and those who don't: don't.

If there is anyone, anywhere, working against a free market of suppliers supplying the demand for "law," so called, they are, in fact, demonstrating a conflict of interests: yes or no?

1.
The demand, and the supply, is produced according to a willful desire to be a criminal, and to make victims victims in fact.

2.
The demand, and the supply, is produced according to a willful desire to avoid any crime and therefore to avoid any production, any supply, of victims.

That is the conflict of interests.

Yes or no?

Someone claims that a free market supplier is outside of the "law," so called, because that supplier is not up to par?

Which par?

Which is the willful goal?

1.
The stated goal, the goal stated to be the goal, by those who desire a ready supply of victims.

2.
The actual goal, which is opposite the stated goal, because criminals lie so much, is a desire to make a ready supply of victims to be victimized by the criminals who define the meaning of crime by their actions, and by their false words.

3.
The stated goal, which is the actual goal, which is to avoid being criminals, to avoid any production of victims whatsoever, and progress toward the goal is measurable over time as there are less criminals, and therefore less victims, because the desired goal is worked toward in an accurately effective manner.

If there is anyone, anywhere, working against a free market of suppliers supplying the demand for "law," so called, they are, in fact, demonstrating a conflict of interests: yes or no?

Is the answer yes, or is the answer no, when dealing with anyone claiming that a free market of "law," so called, is outside of the so called law, whereby that claimant is confessing a desire to be a criminal?

Yes, as an example, yes, I confess, the confessor confesses, my desire is to make my crimes pay well, for me, and therefore my desire is to outlaw the concept of defense against crime, by anyone, ever.

Is that true or not true in demonstrable fact?

Is it demonstrable, factual, to accurately know that anyone claiming that it is against the law to offer, freely, a competitive method of defending against crime, is a crime, and the confessor making that confession produces inculpatory evidence of that crime, as that criminal perpetrates that crime, in fact.

In other words, if criminals were inspired to tell the truth, then criminals would be less able, less powerful, when criminals were working to create a ready supply of victims.

A potential criminal, telling the truth, would announce their intention to injure their targeted victims without any confusion concerning the true motive of the criminal as the victims are then made aware of the clear and present danger of criminals ready to perpetrate crime upon the victims.

Again, the concept of law, is either/or, a desire for work to be done that effectively minimizes crime, or, on the other hand, the concept of law is, in fact, a desire to make crime pay well for the criminals who produce law so as to reach that goal of crime being legal for those criminals who are effectively working to make all their targeted victims precisely victims according to whatever the criminals want at any given time.

Which is it?

1.
Law is work done by those people who desire avoidance of crime, and their work reaches that goal of making crime pay less, and if possible crime pays nothing to anyone.

2.
Law is work done by those criminals who make their crimes legal for them to perpetrate while those criminals make their targeted victims pay whatever the criminals demand at any time once the criminals take over the power of law.

3.
The person in question has no clue that there are 2 versions of law, one is criminal, one is not criminal, and confusion over their being 2 versions, not 1 version, makes crime pay well, since the victims are the one's who are confused, and the criminals are not at all confused.

4.
The person in question is a criminal, and there won't be any confessions concerning the fact that the criminal version of law (monopoly) is criminal, and the non-criminal version of law (free market) will not be acknowledged by the criminal, since the criminal knows that crime pays well only when the victims are powerless to defend against crime.

Example:

The criminal will not acknowledge the non-criminal (free market) version of law that existed between 1776 and 1788 in America, because doing so, acknowledging the fact of defensive law being a fact, will effectively "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" as confessions by criminals that their versions of "law," so called, being criminal versions, ends the POWER of that fraud.

Have a nice day.

Joe

David Friedman agrees with

David Friedman agrees with me:

1. Necessary prior implied consent to jurisdiction of courts by defense services.

2. Courts of last resort that must be adhered to coercively "or have war against the rest of society waged against it".

Where we differ is I remove the coercion from my model by having consent required as tied with the land, and Freidman says that the strongest defense forces kill to enforce court jurisdiction.

Ventura 2012