Comment: Credit is earned, not stolen.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If I understand you (see in situ)

Credit is earned, not stolen.

"If I understand you correctly, your version of a Republic is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism. Am I correct?"

I have yet to meet a capitalist, and I've met and spoken to Walter Block and Hans Hermann Hoppe; they are people.

I have my own ideas as to what is or is not capitalism, and I get my ideas from people like Carl Menger, Murray Rothbard, and Gary North.

I do not credit capitalism with anything, not a republic, since there is no connection. I think that the free market exists with, or without capitalism, and to me socialism (if I get to define it) and capitalism (if I get to define it) are ideas that exist in the free market, so your question does not appear to me as having much to do with my way of thinking.

"If I understand you correctly, your version of a Republic is more closely related to anarcho-capitalism. Am I correct?"

I think a Republic of an involuntary nature such as the one known to have existed in Roman times is criminal because it is involuntary to so many targets targeted by Romans claiming to have authority.

I think a Democracy of an involuntary nature such as the one know to have existed in Athens Greece is criminal because it is involuntary to so many targets targeted by Greeks claiming to have authority.

If the Democratic Federated Republic was as voluntary as the evidence suggests to me, in that time period between 1776 and 1788, then it is a Democracy (having sortition working) and a Republic (having a strictly defensive collective power and therefore socialistic) and it existed in a free market (having a capitalistic market price option) so in that way I guess I can say yes to your question.

If I understand your question, which is entirely to vague, and/or ambiguous, then that could only be attributable to much guess work on my part.

"There will be some taxes. Human beings are not ready for an anarcho-capitalistic society."

So, as far as I know, you agree with Machiavelli and a host of other, what is the word?

Involuntary association types?

Is it OK if I water down the terminology so that my words don't offend so much - on the surface?

As far as Shays's Rebellion is concerned the Slaves could still vote with their feet without having "The Federal Government" conscript an army of slaves to enforce the Fugitive Slave Laws.

You can share your opinion with other involuntary association types, and have a laugh, or whatever you guys share in that type of club. I'm not in the Club.

"Perhaps we are destined to have leaders who want more power as an answer to the societal problems."

My kids teach me a lot about leadership, and that my be something their kids teach them too. I don't know, I may not be around. If you and your type call crime made legal "leadership" then I suppose there is a good reason for you doing that, I don't. I'm not in The Club.

"I'm not sure how the video tries to pin minority against majority. It seems to me the video makes the case for smallest possibly government as the best form of government. Could you clarify this? Maybe I misunderstood you."

I did not watch the video. I was speaking about the Left versus Right, or Socialism versus Capitalism, or whatever color of authority is up against whatever color of authority these days, it is a working example of The Hegelian Dialectic.

Thesis - Antithesis = Synthesis.

It is more complicated since many battles are started not just two and three is often used for effect, there is a harmony to the number 3 as explained (albeit indirect?) in 1984 by Orwell.

I was speaking about the title Republic versus Democracy. There is no such thing as a democracy, other than an abstract concept of power, or if there was such a THING as a democracy, to be compared against a Republic of any kind, then one could demonstrate such a thing. I can look at the video, but why would I? Is it not going to be more of the same Hegelian Dialectic: argument for the sake of argument?

A Dog chasing his tail on command?

A flea circus?

I can look to see if I am wrong and get back with a request for forgiveness for my error, sure, but I'm not putting much money on that unlikely event - long odds.

If I don't bet, and I lose, I win, so why bet? I will look at the video.

"I'm not sure how the video tries to pin minority against majority. It seems to me the video makes the case for smallest possibly government as the best form of government. Could you clarify this?"

So as not to be guilty of evading the question, so as to be more specific, the fight between a democracy (whatever that means) and a republic is nonsense, the fight is always between criminals and victims; why call it government if the idea is to perpetute victimization of innocent victims?

What is involuntary taxation? Am I asking someone in The Club?

Those who argue, from the perspective of someone in The Club, these involuntary taxation proponents, are just so many criminals or victims fighting over access to each others throats, and more often then not the arguments are for show, they mean nothing, they are scripted events, like the flea circus.

Look what the fleas can do, under the right training?

They argue incessantly over nonsense while their power is spirited away by those people over there, and that is the cue to ask, who, who is spiriting away all that power?

No, there is no part in the scrip for following the money.

I guess the idea is that a Republic saves the day, since a Democracy is not paying off so well? I can watch the video, but after I finish this response.

Where is this Democracy?

Where is this Republic?

Was I not clear in the offer of relevant questions?

______________________________________
I guess I am also curious to know what you think is the best form of taxation for maximum freedom. I realize no taxation is maximum freedom. However, as long as we have a government, even if small, then somehow, the government has to get funded, right?

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.
______________________________________

Hamilton was a despot, so maybe that is not the most competitive word, but your question is followed by what appears to me to be an error. What do you consider to be "The founders"?

You can excuse any involuntary association any way you wish, but I'm not in The Club, so your question is meaningless to me.

I think that Shays's Rebellion proves the point as to how well a Democratic Federated Voluntary Government did work, as taxes were demonstrably voluntary and the arrangement was self regulating as tax payers could, legally, migrate away from despots and spend their way, taxing themselves, to less despotic people. Which government would have won over time in such a well designed voluntary arrangement?

EDIT:

I started the video but I can't stand it. Actually my early self teaching including a time when I joined The John Birch Society. I stopped paying dues because it was dictatorial, having only one way communication. I tried to point out the bait and switch job done on Americans with The Constitution Usurpation: few people care to know the truth.

Some do.

I look for those people.

Joe