Somebody help me: are these people 8 years old kid geniuses posing at great economics scholars? Because their outlook of the world is unbelievably naive. I mean, this is like some hippie saying the world is all of flowers and we should love each other, when Moslem terrorists are bombing the World Trade Centers. Warlords are not presidents of companies: warlords are warlords. They don’t pay attention to law or dignity or profits or customers. They will only pay attention to finances when his finances possibly might be not enough to carry it out,, but oftentimes even that doesn’t stop them. (The only other time they really care about finances is during the war when they consider what next course of action or strategy they should take.) William the Conqueror was in horrible financial and recruiting straights when he tried to invade England, and England was a large country that could quite easily, if they had a leader ahem, fight off his relatively small army. But guess what? Against all financial and capitalistic reasons, William did it anyway. Why? Power. He wanted it, and he was gonna get it.
And how did William solve his recruitment issues? By promising all his ‘customers’ a piece of English land. Whee, law and order from capitalism.
Libertarians assume that the law-abiding corporative status of capitalistic nations is due to the private companies themselves. Ah, no, that’s because of the government that they hate so very very much. Hong Kong has a government that enforces its laws. It just doesn’t have stupid, unncessary regulations on companies. Government does create law, not men running around doing their own little thing. Anybody heard of Enron? Those guys did it despite what their customers thought of it. Does any thief think about the financial costs of his thievery? Does any rapist think about the financial costs of his rape? Does any murderer think about the financial costs of his murder? No.
They also say limited government is utopianism. Uh, no, limited government is anything but utopian: the principle of limited government realizes many things and realizes that they are unsolvable:
1) Men are evil, and this is why governments are evil and always grow.
2) A government is necessary to a free and lawful state.
3) A virtuous people is undeniably necessary for a free and lawful state with little government.
4) A government will always come into being and always attempt to grow, so we must limit it. Especially by turning men’s selfishness on each other, hence divided power.
5) A time will come when the government will not follow its set boundaries, so the people must have a way to rebel and throw off its reigns and form a new lawful government.
The Founding Fathers were not trying to make their government last forever: they knew it wouldn’t. They put the governments limits in there because they wanted it to last as long as possible and within the reigns of the people. They knew that someday their government would probably go the way it had. If they were utopian, they would’ve done as the Austrians had done: trust the law and order of the country to the people, like the French. What happened to the French?
Most people do not think in terms of blind economics, like the Austrians believe. In fact, most people hate economics and think its the devil’s pasttime or something. The populus is much more concerned with their religion (like those oppressed Muslims), their families, their government, their livelihoods, their dreams, their fears, their lusts (especially for power), and their loves. Economics is put on the farthest back burner in most people’s lives throughout history. The Austrians do not understand this, and that is why they make such childish errors as thinking that warlords dress in coat and ties and administrate a legal firm. Correction: warlords dress in body armor and helmets and shoot at their enemies with machine guns, and 99% of the time are not fighting an evil government for freedom, capitalistm, justice, and peace. The American War of Independence was the only revolution in history that, on its own, did not turn on itself and become the very dictatorship it was trying to rebel against. All others did so.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Austrians: the world isn’t nearly as pretty and economical like you think it is.
Actually, the reason the American revolution is unique amongst rebellions…
Is because it was not a revolution: it was a war between two countries. The English practically made America a country when the declared war on the Thirteen Colonies – you can’t declare war on yourself, so they were basically acknowledging that America was no longer their own, and they wanted it back.
Sort of like Abraham Lincoln’s war on the South…
Au contrair, S.A. (slap me, I used French
!)...
War was not declared on the South…but that’s another issue for another time (a past time, it’s been done on Gen J way too long now…).
You’re right, war wasn’t declared… but that didn’t make it right. You can murder a person without saying you’re murdering him, but that doesn’t mean you’re not murdering him. What Lincoln did to the South was definitely war, whether declared or not. Going in without a declaration was just another part of the unconstitutionality of it…
Sorry, I know this isn’t the place to fight that war again, but I had to get it in. :D