I have never in my life listened to Limbaugh or Beck other than as a skit on the Daily Show.
Good for you, but you sound like them.
But apparently you also have not read the Constitution of the Unites States. I'll post the link now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Yes, you make an important point, one I think you may not fully appreciate: Judiciary is a social service. Libertarians and Anarchists are not anti-social. Exactly the opposite is true, they are ultra-PRO-social. Stop and think about this a minute. Libertarian and Anarchist societies can only function through voluntarism. This means if you want a Judiciary service, you'll have to peacefully and voluntarily agree to it before hand. This is done each and every day - and through trillions of dollars of international trade across the year. There is no superstate in existence. Never has been and never will be. Instead companies volunteer to agree to abide by arbitration in their legal contracts - an arbitration that cannot be upheld by force. Again, there is no superstate. When Russia defaulted on it's loans - that was that. Interest rates were raised but other than that - nothing can be done. Yet, trillions of dollars are traded internationally and all done voluntarily - without a State to coerce people into compliance.
But we are not talking about international trade, are we? We are speaking of voluntarily buying health or life insurance and paying regular monthly premiums, then find that when I get sick the insurance refuses to pay my hospital bill, or when I die, the insurance company refuses to pay out the life insurance that was negotiated 20 years before. Who is this Judiciary that will compel the insurance company to satisfy the contract? Think about that for a moment. And in your International example a slight raise in interest rates has enormous consequences for the country who has to pay the higher interest and the country who receives the benefits of the higher interest.
This is why Article Three of the Constitution provides for an independent arm of government with powers of enforcement, The Judiciary, to resolve and if necessary enforce contractual disputes over "voluntary arms length agreements between individuals and businesses".
See, the truth is, the State is a retreat away from socialism - and back into the jungle. The State is anti-Civilization (civilization is based on cooperation and voluntary trade). The Government, again, is a group of humans with the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people.
But now you are arguing against yourself. Does Libertarianism depend on social contracts (socialism) or not?
And how do you propose to initiate force against those who break their end of voluntary contracts? Assemble a posse? A lynch mob? Perhaps hire an organization like the Pinkertons? How about making a voluntary deal for protection with the Mafia?
One need only look at the fact that Workers are taxed when they work - in the USA at least, this was not the case up until 100 years ago. And across that time the USD has lost 98% of it's value. We now have parents working around the clock, putting the children into daycare at age 6 weeks (in Australia as well) and they can still barely make ends meet. This is the end result of resorting to force. Which is sad, but, there's nothing that can be done. We need to raise our children peacefully and to think logically and try to have as little contract with the State as possible. It will collapse under it's own weight soon enough.
I disagree, one need only look at the fact that most of Workers of the great public projects in those days you speak of, such as the railroads, interstate highways, bridges were not taxed because they were not paid a wage at all, also known as indentured servitude (Chinese) or the more popular practice of slavery (Blacks).
You cannot be talking about those days, are you? Are you talking about those Workers and their rights to voluntarily negotiate a fair wage? That is Libertarian?
Think about the worlds top universities - MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Cornell, etc... these are all PRIVATE universities. They have PRIVATE medical schools. There's ZERO need of a Public University to teach and train the world's best medical doctors. The AMA is a private organization as well - it certifies them. The Government isn't needed at all - not at all. The Government is an immoral poorly designed redistribution machine that hemorrhages money as it buys votes - when it's not making war or stealing money from the middle class and giving it to the top 1%. The Government HATES for you to think it's not needed. It does everything in it's power to convince you of it's necessity - but that's a lie. The problem is the AMA and other industries are using government to prevent competition. A second and bigger problem is our money - it's not money, it's fiat currency. It's literally destroying out way of life. These problems arise from the State.
No they don't. Money is merely a means of exchange. It is a promissory note backed by the "good faith" of the Nation, not the particular government in power at a given time. The US does not default on its Libertarian principle of promising value for pay.
I also disagree on your reversal of the concept of "public education". Many of these institutions receive research government grants for shared public interests such as Pollution of the Air, Water, Soil Erosion from clear cutting, Pesticides, unsound farming practices (remember the dust bowl), the melting ice-caps, you know those things which do not respect borders at all.
Nobody is responsible, so you are on your own kid. I am too busy acquiring wealth to voluntarily concern myself with this or that issue, on the other side of the tracks. This is for the "General Welfare" of the Nation.
And how many "talented" students can these private institutions accommodate? And who can afford them?
And it is ALL ABOUT MONEY. With enough money you can buy your way through many of those institutions. I believe there are plenty examples available. It helps the school with in-kind matching Federal Project Funds.
The solution is less State and more freedom not less freedom and more State.
I disagree, the problem lies not in the concept of State, but in the quality of the people's representatives who are personally corrupt. And that is where everyone is in agreement. The system is fine, the RULES need to be addressed.
This is where the SCOTUS made a great blunder, which I believe will be addressed soon, in the declaring Organizations as persons in and of themselves. This now includes the State and you are addressing the problem based on the assumption that the State is a corrupt person. But the concept and function of freely and voluntarily assembly of elected representatives is a Libertarian ideal.
But without clearly defined financial limitations on the ethical privileges and responsibilities of "elected representatives" that is where the corruption of the individuals and by extension, the corruption of the system begins. Today we have 'professional
politicians", almost always with backing from large financial corporations. Their votes on law are bought and not necessarily voluntarily agreed on. IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY.
But it was just demonstrated recently that shutting down the State (government) results almost immediately in chaos, instead of "voluntary cooperation between willing and able honest persons". That is a na�ve viewpoint which will lead us back to indentured servitude and slavery, except this time it will be colorblind. You can always find a job if you are willing to work for free. But I doubt one can call that voluntary contracts. But the Stock market is the true picture of the benefits of high unemployment, when dividends (unearned income) is taxed lower than "earned" income by workers. Ask Warren Buffet, who has publicly acknowledged that it was an unfair distribution when his secretary pays a higher percent in taxes on her income of 60,000 than he does on his income of 60,000,000 (something like that) per year.
10% of the population owns 80% of the wealth of the nation and it is not in any off-shore tax free "government" bank account, but in the hands of "individuals" (stock holders) who could not care less about your "voluntary cooperation". Remember the days of "strike breakers", you know that voluntary negotiation between Unions (a libertarian concept) and Big Business.
We are in agreement on one point. The legislative branches of government has been corrupted by unlimited anonymous donations to "individuals" who are supposed to act on behalf of the country's citizenry in an honest, competent, and prudent manner.
Unless you want to go back to pure tribalism, your idea of governance is na�ve. Did you know that the Constitution contains several governmental concept practiced by Native American tribes and with honor and voluntary cooperation.
At the time of European encounter and colonization, the original Iroquois League, based in present-day New York, was also known as the Five Nations, as it was composed of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca nations. The Five Nations are believed to have emerged as distinct tribes by the 15th century or earlier.[2] Each had a distinct territory and function within the League. Iroquois influence extended into Canada, westward into the Great Lakes and down both sides of the Allegheny mountains into Virginia and Kentucky. To reduce conflict, they came together in an association known today as the Iroquois League, which in their language was known as the League of Peace and Power. The League is embodied in the Grand Council, an assembly of fifty hereditary sachems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
It was customary for elected Chiefs to give up all their possessions in exchange for political power. They could not have both economic and political power, because it tends to corrupt ethical objectivity.
It is up to the electorate to keep the system honest. Earlier I mentioned the "Halliburton Loophole" as an example of "special treatment" or "quid pro quo" while in office. An impeachable crime, IMO.
Under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, fracking was exempted from significant EPA regulation
I am sure you know about Cheney's financial interests in Halliburton, even as vice-president. Think for a moment about the implications.
Individual Greed is the enemy, not the Social Services provided by the State (by voluntary agreement of an informed citizenry and accessible voting procedures and places). A common social service to insure an orderly growing of an enormously wealthy country, based on the principle of common ownership and have that right protected from unlawful seizure by a dictatorship of any kind. This why we have voluntary peaceful changes in the self-representation of the citizenry, not "special interest" groups.
