On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
>> The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government, a >> government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as there >> can only be one army and they were the only one that could conscript men >> into it, and the only one that could make laws, and the only one that could >> collect taxers to pay for the army. > > * > And why would it be any different if the Nazi PPA decided to collect > taxes from the Jews? * > If only the Nazi PPA was allowed to collect taxes then it wouldn't be a PPA it would be a government. The entire point of anrcho-libertarianism is you don't pay taxes you voluntarily pay fees. It would be like deciding to join Netflix except that instead of deciding which movie you want to watch you decide which laws you want enforced. The more outrageous the law (I can do anything I want) the higher the fee would be. I maintain that the fee to enforce a law that said all Jews must be murdered would be very high and very very few of those 40 million Germans would be willing to pay it, the fee to enforce a law that said all Jews must be protected might be almost as high but all 6 million Jews would be more than willing to pay it. Therefore the pro Jew PPA would have more muscle than the anti Jew PPA. > > *> As long as they live together in the same area they will have to have a > lot of the same laws.* > Why? If there is a disagreement among PPA's there are 3 ways it could be resolved: 1) By violence, but that is expensive and would reduced the PPA's profits, although if it did come to that the PPA protecting the Jews would have soldiers that were better payed and better equipped than the PPA that wants to kill them because they would have collected more money in fees. 2) By arbitration 3) By avoiding it from ever happening in the first place by making sure the laws you promise to enforce were not so outrageous that violent opposition was guaranteed. > * > They worry more about corporate monopolies because (1) There are not > the checks and balances of our government. * > Checks? Like the checks the US Senate has placed to curb the outrageous behavior of the current head of the Executive branch? > *(2) Big corporations wield more economic power and influence than many > nation states,* > Baloney. In terms of percentage of the Gross Domestic Product no corporation in the history of the world was larger than Standard Oil, and yet the government broke it up in 1911. And US corporations invested billions of dollars in Cuba but when Castro took over the government in 1959 he kicked them out and confiscated all their property almost immediately. Castro was even able to do the same thing with the Mafia's property because he was the head of government. The Mafia had guns but Castro had tanks. > > *they are narrowly focused on making money. * > Yes! That's why I trust corporations much more than I trust government. If Hitler had been a CEO the board of directors would have fired him because starting World War 2 was a bad business decision that lost them a vast amount of money. >>if you took all the evil every corporation has ever done and concentrated >> it into one spot it would amount to little more than rudeness compared to >> the horrors committed by government; > > > * > You're ignoring the role that corporations have played in supporting > those governments. * > Sure, but government gave the order and the corporations obeyed not the other way around. Supporting an atrocity is bad but not as bad as initiating it. Governments can arrange things in such a way that atrocities become profitable, something that would be impossible without government. > *Mussolini said that fascism would be better called corporatism because > it was the merging of corporate and state power.* > Well yes, if you merge state power and corporate power that's just about all the power that there is, and it's all concentrated in just one place. So let's not merge them. > > Ligget and Meyers gave people lung cancer. > Yes but that's no secret, it's been scientifically accepted for over half a century and yet people still decide to start smoking. As a libertarian (small l) I think people have the right to kill themselves if they want to. *> But the Jewish PPA might have decided that it was really a good thing to > kill Palestinians and take their land.* > Who knows they might have, but if they did the results would not have been worse than what we know actually happened to the Palestinians and their land. I'm not so naive as to believe anrcho-libertarianism would eliminate all violence and injustice but I do think it would greatly reduce it. *> hatred of Jews, which went back at least to Martin Luther, waaay before > Hitler. Before Germany was even a country.* Yes but Germany was far from unique in that regard, just look at the Dreyfus affair. If you asked somebody in 1890 to guess which country would go nuts in 50 years and murder 6 million Jews they would have probably said France not Germany. But it ended up being Germany instead because government concentrates power so much that just one crazy guy can bring on disaster, and a crazy guy happened to become head of the German government. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1vUdwrFTRvVHqdwkhJ1fP9M-fEAc_UYcwW%3D3H_n4P7zw%40mail.gmail.com.
