The problem here is you are still stuck on the libertarian contradiction of Constitution Worship. At the end you talk about the right to freely associate, but then you worship a document that forces me into an association with a gov I never asked for nor wanted. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The Constitution replacing the Articles Of Confederation was the greatest centralization of power in America's history and if you haven't figured out by now that is ALWAYS a bad thing, you haven't even begun to be a libertarian. I suggest returning to step one and reading as much as you can; Rothbard, Mises, Block etc. See my sig line, even Ron Paul agrees no piece of paper can restrain gov and indeed, history shows that to ALWAYS be the case.
This should come further into focus for any libertarian once you realize what precipitated the Constitutional Convention and who financed it. Bankers had the "inconvenience" of trying to control individual currencies in individual states. So bankers did what they have always done; the caused crises in those states and had the people begging for a more centralized authority. They then financed the Constitutional Convention and then all they had to do was bide their time. They are doing the exact same thing today, except the goal is to get all the individual countries under one world gov. It's simply the bankers long term plan and any libertarian arguing in favor of it hasn't done too much critical thinking or reading.
The idea we need an entity with a monopoly on force and that somehow we are better off with it than without it is simply something people have been brainwashed to believe. The OP presents a few false dilemmas arguing for this entity with a monopoly on force because he hasn't been exposed to alternatives or worse, refuses to see them out of indoctrination and blind devotion.
Take contracts. The OP says there has to be an entity with a monopoly on force or else they are "treatise." Has the OP never heard of escrow? Of third party insurers? But who will protect you from them? Well, either you believe in free-markets or you don't. Businesses don't grow by killing or screwing their customers. These companies will be validated by 4th party rating companies who also would want to keep their reputation and validity.
Then there's the problem of funding a gov with a monopoly on force and that means TAXES. Taxes mean a gun gets put to someone's head to pay for another's great ideas. So how does any libertarian support that and if they do, how does that make them any different than the normal Dems and Repubs who want tax money for their great ideas? Hint, it doesn't. It's just a charade.
There are tens of thousands of pages of material to read and I certainly don't have time here to spell it all out. Secondly, I can't really tell you what a truly free-market would produce in terms of self-governance. That would make me omnipotent and just as self-delusional as the central planners we have today.
Again, the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist? Six months. If you really care about liberty and don't have some hidden agenda like religion or militarism, voluntarism is the only true liberty. Everything else is tyranny-lite and doomed to failure.
"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."
~ Ron Paul, End the Fed
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site m