Freedomain Radio

Well, here we are on the eve of Independence Day. Right now, I'm updating my address book with all the appropriate emergency services numbers, so that I can recover any missing digits as quickly as possible tomorrow. But, I'm also thinking about the Declaration of Independence. I guess that's appropriate, despite not subscribing to it as a justification for the state. After all, it's nearly impossible to not think about Jesus, when December 24 rolls around in this country, no matter what your religion is.

Anyway, it occured to me, while perusing a copy of the Declaration, that if you feel like you have to ask the world - and particularly, your big British daddy across the pond - permission to leave home, then you're not really free, are you?

If you're interested in an irreverent take on the reason for the Fourth of July, read on. Otherwise, you might want to stop now...

The Declaration of Independence, then, isn't really a Declaration of Independence at all, but a subtle, and guilt-ridden admission that the founders were anything but free. They more closely resemble pre-pubescent children rebelling against a parent. The point here, is not to somehow denegrate Jefferson's towering intellect, or his skill as a political philosopher, but my own meager, pathetic, amateurish attempt at understanding the psychology of the founders, and why it is they were utterly unable to bring about a truly free society.

 Looking at the preamble, right from the start, we can see Jefferson trying to escape responsibility for his actions, by framing the whole argument in the terms of a historical inevitability:

T. Jefferson wrote:

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another,

And, of course, we can see that other leaders since have not wasted any time engaging in the same sort of "historical necessity", to justify all sorts of political chicanery.

But Jefferson does not stop there. He then presumes to speak for all men, and deigns a special insight into the will of God, in order to further insist that they were more than empowered to do whatever they wanted:

and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,

Well if nature and God say we can, then George can't tell us no --- can he?

After this bold assertion, much like a child would do, Jefferson immediately retreats into begging for permission:

a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

With such a supreme declaration of individualist philsosophy to follow, why did he feel the need to "respect the opinions of mankind", which up to this point, had been heavily laden with unrespectable, tyrranical and corrupt positions?

The founders appear to redeem themselves, of sorts, with this passage explaining their political philosophy in some detail:

T. Jefferson wrote:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

So far, so good, right? But wait! George says that God created men unequal. Tom says that God created men equal. So, let's ask God, and see what he says. Oh... yeah, we CAN'T ask God. Unable to shed the necessity of an invisible man in the sky, is it any wonder they weren't able to shed the necessity of very visible men on earth? So, George was right to be indignant, in a sense, since what Jefferson represented was not a genuinely rational objection, but simple impudence.

And, of course, since Jefferson assumed he had the power to speak for God, why should he not assume the power to speak for all men, everywhere, at all times?

T. Jefferson wrote:

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Well, if it is my right to affect the circumstances necessary to the preservation of my safety and happiness, then where does this man get off telling me I must institute a government? But, I digress...

T. Jefferson wrote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.

What does it say about men who believe it noble to "suffer, while evils are sufferable", rather than to reject them, and seek a better answer? Again, we see a psyche as yet unable to completely unshackle itself from the chains of its oppressors, despite the outward desire for rebellion. Indeed, the Revolutionary War itself, might be said to be an expression of this same pathology, but that is a discussion for another time (and one I'm surely not qualified to comment on, but I'm doing this, so what the heck?)

At long last, Jefferson, et. al., finally get to the heart of the paper. They're angry with Dad, and they want a chance to stomp their feet at him:

T. Jefferson wrote:

But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World. HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only. HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures. HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People. HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within. HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries. HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance. HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us; FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World: FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury: FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences: FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies: FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever. HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People. HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation. HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions. IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

This is not to say that their grievances aren't justifiable. But, if Stefan's message is anything like valid, then doesn't it make sense that 'confronting' King George in this way was going to be an utterly pointless effort? What good could come of making even carefully reasoned arguments with a man who is so clearly irrational? Clearly, what this document represents, is both an angry child, and a guilty one. For, they desperately desired to depose themselves of the power oppressing them, but they then shamelessly imposed the same shackles on those around them, under the rubrik of a Constitutional Democracy. How does Stefan put it -- "We are destined to repeat that which we have not acknowledged in our own past"?

So, as we're gulping our beer, and tossing those horseshoes this weekend, let's all pause at noon, and give a moment of silence for the tortured souls who, in failing to acknowledge their own pain, wreaked two centuries of subsequent pain on the rest of us.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Ok.. FLAME AWAY!

Well, you caught me with all those 'come hither' quotes of mine

But you're quite right. "We feel that a foreign govt has abused us, and so we want to set up our own govt."

I like the bit at the end

Ruler of a free People.

Hahaha, did they ask the average homesteader whether he or she wanted a federal govt?

I respect the 'step forward' that the Founding Fathers made, but oh, why not go the extra inch and ditch the state?

And how many of the above complaints would relate the new 'new George', Dubya?

Yeah. I was going out on a limb with this one, I'll admit. But, I think the idea was just to get people to look a little differently at this document. We're all so used to just assuming that it means freedom, when really it doesn't. It's an attempt at showing people what we really have to do NEXT, not necessarily to tear down the founders. But I recognize that's what its gonna sound like!

Yeah, it's funny how many of those complaints would apply to just about every Federal administration from probably Adams on. George W. for sure, is just as guilty as George III.

gmgauthi wrote:

Well, here we are on the eve of Independence Day. Right now, I'm updating my address book with all the appropriate emergency services numbers, so that I can recover any missing digits as quickly as possible tomorrow. But, I'm also thinking about the Declaration of Independence. I guess that's appropriate, despite not subscribing to it as a justification for the state. After all, it's nearly impossible to not think about Jesus, when December 24 rolls around in this country, no matter what your religion is.

Well, hope you don't mind if I sent this to my friends.  Few mispellings in word spellcheck other than that you make good points, I'll agree though on your last post that it is just an opinion but I can see your point.  I took out references to Stef at the end because this is you talking not Stef right? You even paraphrased him at the end which means he doesn't HAVE to get credit, these are your thoughts right?

Ok, brace yourself for flames from the minarchist crowd:

Jefferson believed in a deity, and in rights as having objective reality. Some people don't believe in those things. For purposes of the American colonists' desire for independence, it really didn't matter. They had a long list of practical and visceral reasons to declare, and fight for, their independence. So although Jefferson chose to invoke these abstract concepts, they weren't actually necessary as justification for the colonists' actions. Okay, that's out of the way. On to the real trash. "For, they desperately desired to depose themselves of the power oppressing them, but they then shamelessly imposed the same shackles on those around them, under the rubric of a Constitutional Democracy. Are we destined to repeat that which we have not acknowledged in our own past?" "Shamelessly imposed the same shackles"? ... Spare us this vulgar demagoguery! Excuse me while I go vomit. They did not impose "the same shackles". What they did was set up a new government, the best that has ever been set up. A governmental system that fostered the individual liberty and economic freedom that in turn created what is far and away the greatest civilization the human race has ever seen. A civilization in which unparalled progress has taken place in an astonishingly short time. A civilization with a standard of living so fantastically high that most humans - those alive now and all who have ever lived throughout our species's history - could scarcely imagine it. That, of course, is not to say that the United States doesn't face tremendous problems today. There are many, many things about our federal government and its policies that I would change if I could. If our founders could travel forward in time and see America today, I suspect that they would agree with me, and would deplore much about the state of our nation. As to whether we are "destined to repeat that which we have not acknowledged in our own past": Well, one thing that definitely helps ensure that history will repeat itself is people's susceptibility to indulgence in utopian fantasies as Marxism/communism, "statelessness-ism" and other such ideas that sound nice but are as realistic as thinking that wearing a Superman costume makes you able to fly. The idea that a peaceful, prosperous society can exist in a power vacuum is akin to those high-school physics problems with the ol' proverbial frictionless surface. You gotta get real. As Rick pointed out, real flesh-and-blood humans don't live in a widget hypo from an econ textbook. For anyone who wants to experience anarchy, there are lots of delightful destinations out there around planet Earth where you can go try it out. Send me a postcard from the rock you're hiding behind when you've scarcely eaten for a month and repeatedly avoided death only by scurrying about furtively like a cockroach. I'll be staying here, where I can work, be creative, be inventive, go for a walk in the park, or go buy food at the store without being in dire fear for my life. "So, as we're gulping our beer, and tossing those horseshoes this weekend, let's all pause at noon, and give a moment of silence for the tortured souls who, in failing to acknowledge their own pain, wreaked two centuries of subsequent pain on the rest of us." Excuse me, I have to go vomit again. Guh. What ARROGANT, IGNORANT, DRIVEL. I am SICK AND TIRED of the knee-jerk hate-America, "blame-America-first" mentality. This mentality has mostly been propagated by the whiny left; it is very disheartening to see libertarians joining the whine-fest. Anybody who doesn't like it in America can GTFO! Book themselves a one-way trip with the Baldwins, Jane Fonda, et al. to the idyllic utopian fantasyland of their choice - the farther from me the better. "Two centuries of subsequent pain"?!?!? Go live in a @#$%ing gulag or concentration camp. I'll take our "two centuries of subsequent pain", with (as I mentioned earlier) a standard of living incomprehensibly high to most other humans, present and past. Whiners about our "two centuries of subsequent pain" are encouraged to leave and go do their whining somewhere else, as soon as possible. I hope it's obvious that I don't mean that I believe that life in the United States has been perfect or devoid of suffering for 230 years. But let's get some freaking perspective, huh? How about this instead. Might be *just a little* more appropriate: "So, as we're gulping our beer, and tossing those horseshoes this weekend, let's all pause, and give a moment of silence for the sacrifice of the soldiers who died at Valley Forge in 1777-78, and all the others who gave their lives for the cause of securing independence from Britain and creating what would become the most prosperous and productive civilization ever." I don't like Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy. I don't like President George. I don't like my money being taxed to finance the prosecution of pot smokers or the Iraq war. But this is still the greatest country on earth, present or past. So happy Independence Day to all. And God bless America. (I might not believe in God but I'm saying it anyway.) Now please excuse me - I need to go vomit again. That was the most nauseating email I've received in a long time. *** Why the desire to kill even this cherished part of our history? What happens after all the ideals are dead? Are we going to live in a hypo from an economics textbook, like the lewrockwellers think?????

Notice the complete lack of curiosity on their part.  The defensiveness and attack approach they take.  Obviously you hit a BIG nerve Greg.  Any suggestions on where to start with this one? I don't even know where to begin, best thing I can do now is walk away, come back and re-read it.

Wowee-Zowee!  "I might believe in God, but I'm saying it anyway"?? What the heck is that?

gmgauthi wrote:

Wowee-Zowee!  "I might believe in God, but I'm saying it anyway"?? What the heck is that?

I'm not sure, but it's quite a venomous reply and I'm not exactly sure how, or if I should respond at all.  It really seems like I'm missing something when its personal, because my emotions are tied up in this person due to their having been my closest friend for the past few years.

Sephethus wrote:

gmgauthi wrote: Wowee-Zowee!  "I might believe in God, but I'm saying it anyway"?? What the heck is that? I'm not sure, but it's quite a venomous reply and I'm not exactly sure how, or if I should respond at all.  It really seems like I'm missing something when its personal, because my emotions are tied up in this person due to their having been my closest friend for the past few years.

Yeah, he makes a lot of the same mistakes I used to make - presuming that a democratic republic is necessarily a good thing, by comparing it to communism, but missing the broader point, that all government is evil, no matter how it is constituted. And, treating the founders as though they are untouchable political geniuses - Deities, in and of themselves.

I'll go into more detail later, but I gotta get to bed...

My reply contains SHAMELESSLY stolen quotes from Stefan on his 2 minarchism podcasts, please forgive me Stef but go figure, they refuse to listen to your podcasts!

Ok, first of all - after recovering from all the defensive attacks and left over pools of vomit let me quote the author's comment in his defense:

Greg wrote:
"Yeah. I was going out on a limb with this one, I'll admit. But, I think the idea was just to get people to look a little differently at this document. We're all so used to just assuming that it means freedom, when really it doesn't. It's an attempt at showing people what we really have to do NEXT, not necessarily to tear down the founders. But I recognize that's what it's gonna sound like!"

You said:
"Jefferson believed in a deity, and in rights as having objective reality. Some people don't believe in those things. For purposes of the American colonists' desire for independence, it really didn't matter."

So if it doesn't matter that this person believed in what you would say are fantasies, why are you defending him?  He's the one who wrote this document, and he's the one engaging in the fantasy that this deity he believes in is telling him what to do on behalf of this other entity called "the people". Well, let me say that if this deity does not exist, then neither do "the people".

You said:
"They had a long list of practical and visceral reasons to declare, and fight for, their independence. So although Jefferson chose to invoke these abstract concepts, they weren't actually necessary as justification for the colonists' actions."

So you seem to agree here that invoking abstract concepts is unnecessary, but why oh why, all throughout this e-mail, do you invoke a continuous stream of abstract concepts?  For instance, what or who is "the United States"? What, or who is "America"? What is "the people"?  What or who is "society"? Can you show me society without showing me an individual person? Can you show me a forest without showing me a tree?  It's as though you've turned these abstract concepts and your general opinion about other people into actual individual beings and have begun to make them fight together in this imaginary fantasy world.  It's no different than talking about Osiris and Isis having an argument about Horus and then saying that you're right based on the outcome of that imaginary argument.  You might as well make the Chewbacca defense your standard response. (South Park reference)

You said:
"Shamelessly imposed the same shackles"? ... Spare us this vulgar demagoguery! Excuse me while I go vomit."

There is an interesting lack of curiosity here.  You claim it is not "the same shackles" yet fail to really ask why someone would conclude that they are "the same shackles".  You fail to ask what time period he is referring to.  Is he comparing the reign of King George III with King George the VI (Bush)? If so I would say the shackles are quite similar.  You then make the following statement (why ask questions when you can just tell people things?):

You said:
"They did not impose "the same shackles". What they did was set up a new government"

How would you define "government"?  Does what they set up represent a similar pair of shackles today in 2006?


You said:
"the best that has ever been set up."

Relative to what?  How did you come to believe this notion? If what they set up is an improvement over previous governments then why did it expand after only 60 years?  If improving it is possible, and if you could cut it back to what it was by eliminating welfare, social security, shut down all the bases and cut down on defense, eliminate the public school system, eliminate the department of education, all of that, what's to stop it from expanding yet again after another 60 years? It's like trying to fight back giant ocean wave.  It's like giving someone chemotherapy until the tumor is small, but then stopping short of killing the tumor completely.  So you and I agree all the way up to the point where you say 99% of government is too big, and I say that 100% is too big right?

You said:
 "A governmental system that fostered the individual liberty and economic freedom that in turn created what is far and away the greatest civilization the human race has ever seen."

Tell me, was it the governmental system that fostered these things, or was it the "limits" on that governmental system that fostered these things?  If it was the governmental system please explain how politicians went about inventing the integrated circuit.  If it is the limits please explain how those limits were not simply bypassed and if today they are any different. Where do you think we are headed as far as this grand governmental system goes?  What of the cost benefit analysis? Did we all come out ahead or did we end up falling far, far behind?

So you've got 10,000 years of human history. Everybody's refining the state. You've got the Roman experiment, you've got the Greek experiment, you've got the Peloponnesian experiment, you have Carthage, you have the Carolingian experiment, you have King Arthur and his round table, you have the Magna Carta, you have all these developments in the technology of government and it culminates in the smallest conceivable government that has ever been known in human history. Yet after 50 to 60 years it completely self destructs in an orgy of civil war. Right after that you get the rise of state sponsored mercantilism, robber barons, the creation of the Federal Reserve and the manipulations of currency. You're saying that this is the "best form of government" and after 50 or 60 years it completely eats itself.  Sure nobody's perfect but yet somehow things continue to improve when new systems are presented.  I find it hilarious that you have YET to talk about the specific problems you see with the DRO system, you might claim you have no time and don't care yet you find the time to write this e-mail stating "how things are" rather than DISCUSSING (you made no indication whatsoever that you're up for discussing this matter) how things might have gone wrong and how they could conceivably be better. You're dead set in your opinion and anyone who tries to present another idea you shoot it down without so much as a question. The couple of times you did ask a couple of questions I couldn't give direct verbal answers but said that I'd have to research it.  You might as well ask me how to build an automatic butt-wiper without letting me research it, then deny that it could be built if I cannot answer right away.  How "arrogant" is that?

So if the "Founding Fathers" system is the best we can come up with, and all it takes is 50 to 60 years before 600,000 people are dead and so on.  If all that achieved is that and oh so much more violence then I must say that it isn't all that worth it to fight it back if we keep losing lives only to lose more lives.  If we are both agreeing here, and standing arm in arm against the bloated monstrosity we call modern government then you and I are absolutely arm and arm on the barricades there its just that what you want is a reprieve, what I want is freedom.  What you want is to beat it back for a generation or so, what I want is perpetual freedom from this hissing hydra, this choking catastrophe we call "the state". See you want fewer slaves to be owned, what I want is NO SLAVERY AT ALL. So we're close, but the difference is fairly significant.  What's funny is there is no example in history of a shrinking government, so fighting this monster called "the United States" back down to its original size is a complete waste of time and even more impossible than the anarcho-capitalist system that has been proposed.
 
You said:
"A civilization in which unparallel progress has taken place in an astonishingly short time. A civilization with a standard of living so fantastically high that most humans - those alive now and all who have ever lived throughout our species' history - could scarcely imagine it."

Please explain what you mean by "standard of living", I'm not sure I understand. This high or low scale you apply it to, how is it used and what is it based on? Tell me about the prison population which is composed of a majority of non-violent victimless offenders of the state itself (drugs), what is their "standard of living"?

You said:
" That, of course, is not to say that the United States doesn't face tremendous problems today. There are many, many things about our federal government and its policies that I would change if I could. If our founders could travel forward in time and see America today, I suspect that they would agree with me, and would deplore much about the state of our nation."

So what problems does this "the United States" face? Who is this entity " the United States"? Does it exist? 

What would the "founding fathers" agree with you about? If they could travel forward in time, and thus change something, what exactly do you think they would change?

You said:
"As to whether we are "destined to repeat that which we have not acknowledged in our own past": Well, one thing that definitely helps ensure that history will repeat itself is people's susceptibility to indulgence in utopian fantasies as Marxism/communism, "statelessness-ism" and other such ideas that sound nice but are as realistic as thinking that wearing a Superman costume makes you able to fly."

How do you suppose that what you are saying here helps history repeat itself? The last time history repeated itself, during the creation of and prior to the "United States", what was the "fantasy" being indulged in during that time period? I agree, fantasies are quite destructive, especially those fantasies about what does not exist and what cannot be confirmed or detected by the evidence of the senses within empirical reality. Considering that you're using a lot of abstractions such as "the United States", which in itself is a fantasy that doesn't exist, tell me. What is dangerous about those religious fantasies where people act on what they perceive that they are being told, and act as a representative of "the people" to the "being" that is speaking to them and then do what that "being" tells them to do regardless of how murderous, contradictory, virtue-less or irrational it is?  What about THOSE people?  Who is engaging in what is real, and who is engaging in the production of ideas that might conceivably work with human nature? Ideas you have yet to fully investigate and discuss with others yet are somehow able to claim they don't work.

The next question is: What gave you the indication that anarchy is a "utopia"? What do you consider to be a "utopia"? Above you spoke of "the United States" as though it were some kind of great utopia yet all I see is violence and imprisonment of a vast number of people.  Think Viet Nam, think Iraq.  Think: let's have our leaders kill people to free them from being killed by their leaders and tell me how much fantasy is involved in THAT kind of thinking.

I find it sort of funny that having been an anarcho-capitalist for some time now that you would think I haven't been confronted with all of this information and all these questions before. True, I'm still practicing my ability to communicate these things verbally because it really does take a lot of practice not to feel agitated and to change my entire approach towards people who feel as though everything they've put a strong emotional investment into is under attack. Had you asked questions rather than telling me "how it is" in your world, and "how it makes you feel", this might have been a more productive e-mail discussion for you.  It really helps to take the Socratic approach when discussing topics like this.  If you're going to be irrationally stuck to your view of the world then why bother replying to me at all?

You said:
"The idea that a peaceful, prosperous society can exist in a power vacuum is akin to those high-school physics problems with the ol'
proverbial frictionless surface.

I always get this, people approaching me with this denigrating sarcastic and superior smugness and saying "Well, my friend, what you have to understand about human nature is that people will always want a leader." They'll say "That’s just the nature of our species, that’s human nature, it's just the way we are configured. You could say that its part of tribal history or whatever. But if you were to get rid of the government, all that would happen is you would create this POWER vacuum you see. Then what would happen is that somebody would rush in and take over that power vacuum and then you would have another state. So it's pointless to try and get rid of government because you would have this "power vacuum"." I love how people start to misuse concepts in physics like this.  The funny thing its even a bad metaphor in physics.  The flaw in that metaphor is that the universe is 99.9% vacuum anyway.  So if "nature abhors a vacuum" it seems to have an awful lot of it.  It's only the inherent gravity of the .000001% of matter in interstellar space that keeps all the air from hissing out.

So, if I am to understand your argument here is that people will always want to be led, that people have this natural desire to have someone rule over them? Yes? So, in order to make this proposition stand you're going to need empirical proof and logical proof right?  The problem I'm having here with this statement is this.  If I naturally desire leadership, then leadership should not be required to use force.  If I say that women think I'm sexy and that I have a date every night of the week, but what I'm actually doing is going out and kidnapping women then can I really say that its just female nature to be staggeringly attracted to me?  You look at what people are forced to do and you say "well you see, that’s what people CHOOSE to do".  Interesting, if it is true that people love or naturally want leadership then I would have to ask what is the need for a state? Because the state forces you to obey and if you don't obey it tosses you into one of its many gulag rape rooms that litter the countryside or shoots you if you resist. If we love leaders, they shouldn't need to be pointing guns at us right? If they're pointing guns at us, WE DON’T LOVE THEM!

So let's just go ahead and accept that the above premise is true, that people want to be ruled over. Let's accept this and move on to the next premise.

If I grew up in Russia during the 1940's and 1950's during the raging cult of personality of Stalin was at its height and I was exposed as a child to constant propaganda about what a living walking god Stalin was.  Then would it be fair to say that I found Stalin to be of value of my own free will? I think not. I think that if you're exposed to propaganda from 8 to 10 hours a day for 5 days a week and your parents and everyone in society is exposed to that very same propaganda, then I think it’s a little harder to say that you're choosing things as freely as you would in a free society.  If people do love or want authority, then wouldn't it be fair to say that people would love or want authority in the absence of propaganda? It's amazing to me the level of depth, wisdom, intelligence and just sheer epoch cracking genius that you surely must have to be able to see "human nature" through the bloody, murky, soupy, swampy fog that now covers it because of state indoctrination (public schools) and the constant threat of violence.  To be able to say that you can see through all of this to what is true human nature from cradle to grave and claim that it desires all of this aforementioned violence funded propaganda and violence directly itself is absolutely amazing to me because that is rather an amazing claim to make.

It's easily compared to the whole Chinese foot binding thing. To have generations of this foot binding from birth, it's like someone taking a look at the end result of these feet and saying "well the original foot would look exactly the same".  If you can prove that is true, then please do so and set me free from all my passionate effort towards producing new and better ideas and talking to so many people about the fallacies of the current system. I can settle back into the matrix and forget about the red pill I took.

"You gotta get real. As Rick pointed out, real flesh-and-blood humans don't live in a widget hypo from an econ textbook."

I'd like to know what a widget hypo is before I even attempt to reply to that.  There sure seems to be a lot of complex and quite unnecessary nonsense in economics books these days considering how simple economics is on its own without the state.  If the only rule of economics is that "something is only worth what someone else will pay for it" then what other information do you need other than dreaming up or finding what it is that people will pay for and perhaps a general understanding of arithmetic so that you can keep track of all the money you're making and spending?

You said:
"For anyone who wants to experience anarchy, there are lots of delightful destinations out there around planet Earth where you can go try it out."

Where? What do you think anarchy means? Without state rule? Or does it mean chaos and violence?  I'm not aware of anywhere on earth that lacks chaos and violence, even America.  It's odd that states exist most everywhere on earth, coincidence? One state has over 800 bases worldwide.

"Send me a postcard from the rock you're hiding behind when you've scarcely eaten for a month and repeatedly avoided death only by scurrying about furtively like a cockroach."

What place is this? Why would I be hiding behind a rock? Who am I hiding from if it really is "anarchy"? If it is anarchy why can I not grow some food or hunt for it? Who is preventing me from doing so if not a state or theocracy?  Why would I not be seeking out a ruler there if that really is my human nature?

"I'll be staying here, where I can work, be creative, be inventive, go for a walk in the park, or go buy food at the store without being in dire fear for my life."

How does doing all of these things require the assistance of the state?  Why are you otherwise in fear of your life when buying food at a store?

Greg wrote:
"So, as we're gulping our beer, and tossing those horseshoes this weekend, let's all pause at noon, and give a moment of silence for the tortured souls who, in failing to acknowledge their own pain, wreaked two centuries of subsequent pain on the rest of us."

You wrote:
"Excuse me, I have to go vomit again. Guh. What ARROGANT, IGNORANT, DRIVEL."

I'm sorry this hit such a big nerve with you.  I'm curious about the possible reasons why it hit such a big nerve. What about this is arrogant, ignorant or drivel?

You wrote:

"I am SICK AND TIRED of the knee-jerk hate-America, "blame-America-first" mentality."

Interesting, who is this "America"?  Who is blaming "America"? What are they blaming this "America" guy for? What did he/she do? Why blame this "America" guy "first"? "First" is relative to what or who?

If you are saying that people always pick on "America", well then if you are in agreement about the nature of "the United States" foreign policy then you would agree that it is "the United States" who is picking on everyone else. Perhaps that is why people pick on "America" first, if indeed this "America" guy and this "the United States" guy are in fact the same person or rather - deity as you seem to portray it.  I mean, talk about anthropomorphizing labels for groups of individuals who may or may not feel that they are part of this "group".

You wrote:
"This mentality has mostly been propagated by the whiny left; it is very disheartening to see libertarians joining the whine-fest."

What do you mean by "whine-fest"?  What is being "whined" about? I was unaware of any "whining" in Greg's viewpoint on the Declaration of Independence.  How many people signed the Declaration of Independence? Was there any "whining" in the Declaration of Independence? What do you consider to be "whining"?  If my parents are beating me senseless, and I complain about it, would you still call it "whining"? I mean I know it’s a little bit exaggerated because I'm not being directly beaten here, but if I were to be caught smoking a joint by these people that is exactly what would happen. I would be thrown in a room at gunpoint where I’m likely to be raped and beaten senseless. If that’s not something to whine about, then my word man what is?

You wrote:
"Anybody who doesn't like it in America can GTFO! Book themselves a one-way trip with the Baldwins, Jane Fonda, et al. to the idyllic utopian fantasyland of their choice - the farther from me the better."

So let me get this straight, if I don't like what you think about America, then I should leave?  Do you often feel that anyone who doesn't like the current social system, and feels there are viable alternatives which you have yet to really display any curiosity or consideration for, should get as far away from you as possible? Why? What if I don't leave? Who is "America"? First you seem to indicate that this is a person, and now it is something that one can be inside of. Can you explain how I am "in" "America"?  So where exactly is George Bush's name on the deed for my house? Why should I leave if I don't like him? If he's imposing things on me which I disagree with, then I should just leave? Is that freedom? 

Tell me, if we are free to disagree then can I not withdrawal all my funding for the state? If not then maybe I am not free to disagree at all am I?

This article illustrates that point pretty well I think:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux25.html

You wrote:
" And God bless America. I might not believe in God but I'm saying it anyway."

Why? This is really quite an interesting statement. Who is "God" and who is "America"? Allow me to say it differently to try and illustrate what I mean.

"And Nog bless Gubgub.  I might not believe in Nog, but I'm saying it anyways."

Rick wrote:
"Why the desire to kill even this cherished part of our history?"

What gave you the impression that I was trying to kill something? I found it quite interesting to read a different take on this document, why were you not interested in why this person felt the way he did about each statement? Obviously you were interested in replying with this question. What is it about this part of our history that you cherish?

Rick wrote:
"What happens after all the ideals are dead?"

What ideals are you referring to? How do they die?

One final slew of questions, what happens when "the United States" runs out of money? What happens when it cannot afford to pay China back? Will you still be praising this "best government" that sold us out?

...and may Nog have mercy on your gool.

Holy cow... now THAT is comprehensive!

Next we have the first reply to the response below from the other guy, Rick

When I responded to your email re: Independence Day, I assumed that based on the fact your recipients were not bcc'd that it was intended as a group discussion.  Normally I don't reply to most of these things, but under the circumstances felt that a little defense of the Founders was warranted.   When I spoke of ideals, I mean those that were embodied by the Founders and by the Declaration.  The essay attacks several things, sometimes in a snide way, including Jefferson, the Declaration, the system of government, the American experiment, and in a sleight, theists.    Being a theist, an American, a republican (little r, albeit with libertarian sympathies) I naturally respond to the attack. The logical conclusion of the essay is that we need to toss all of those things aside, and as I assume, go to some non-state state.   My problem with the anarchists who support no-state is that they assume a world right out of an economics textbook: rational actors pursuing rational activities in efficient markets.  The world just does not work this way, and many economists will even tell you the whole 'science' is built on sand.  People are both good and evil, selfish, jealous, prone to nonsense, courageous, heroic and beautiful.    I have to agree with the gist of Mark's response, a system without government has been tried, it was called the Stone Age, life wasn't all that great, and in any case people still killed, maimed and stole from each other.  Government then was tribal.  Since there will always be a stronger and a weaker, until the end of the world (or the species) there will always be dominance and rulership.   So my point is:  the radical libertarians presume a world that does not and cannot exist.  People believe in things that are idealistic, nonsensical, and not efficient.  They are governend by emotion and reason (and sometimes lack of reason).  The existence or non existence of states cannot cancel this fact.  At best, government ameliorates these problems.  At worst it can make them better.  In the U.S., and to some extent in other Western countries, government has largely served the good.  Maybe that's a relative statement, but by comparison (in time and in space) we've had it pretty good, and better than I think we would have without some form of government.   Also, the insinuation that Jefferson was appealing to a "daddy" and therefore infantile is in itself infantile.  Anyone who knows anything about history knew that the Declaration was not a statement between Jefferson and the King, or Congress and the King, but also it was a legal document, a justification, and a notice between Congress, the American people, the people of Britain, Parliament, the King, the Canadian provinces, and foreign powers.  It was intended not only  to declare a new legal state, but to persuade in the hopes of gaining material and emotional support (which by the way worked to some extent, cf France, Edmund Burke, etc.).  To the extent that the people of American felt brotherly ties by their consanguinity to the people of Britain, it was also a form of apology, and a proper one.   The whole experiment has not worked perfectly. Nothing is perfect.  But in terms of its design, I think there have been few better.

No specific points made to anything I said, I'm not really even sure if he read my entire reply or not.

My problem with the anarchists who support no-state is that they assume a world right out of an economics textbook: rational actors pursuing rational activities in efficient markets.  The world just does not work this way, and many economists will even tell you the whole 'science' is built on sand.  People are both good and evil, selfish, jealous, prone to nonsense, courageous, he