Libertarianism Is Not Atheist, Is Not Religious

[TemplarKormac]

I am what you call a minarchist libertarian. I believe that whatever government we have should be limited to protecting our personal freedoms, through whatever force is necessary. A standing military is a means to that end. But that does not however, include launching foreign invasions. But do tell how libertarians should create classes amongst each other, I am interested in seeing how that thinking would play out, given we already have that going on in the two party system.

 

[TemplarKormac]

THE DANGERS OF A STANDING ARMY

Hornberger's Blog is a daily libertarian blog written by Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of FFF.

While Americans are rightfully concerned with out-of-control federal spending, in large part owing to the enormous burden of sustaining the vast military establishment and all its activities, Americans would be wise to reflect upon and reevaluate the fateful decision to abandon the founding principles of our nation with respect to standing armies.

See "robust national defense" for my reasoning.

The Libertarian Party is, unfortunately, hardly an authority on libertarianism.

Are you such an authority? People have to make their own variants of libertarianism to fit their views of the world. So, what really is a true libertarian? I have plenty of strict libertarian friends, including my father, who say we should stay out of others' foreign affairs, but have a military to defend against threats here on our soil. So are we suggesting we have no military at all?

What I understand here is that there is no one authority that dictates the directions of the party. Quoting Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Mises, or even Ron Paul does not make any of them the single most authority on libertarianism.

Not to toot my own horn, but far more so than an organization that puts forth Bob Barr as their candidate for President. Regardless, I'm not questioning your libertarianism, but merely pointing out that the LP is a weak source. This is another example of not all libertarians believing the same things.

I am simply drawing all aspects of my libertarian worldview from a variety of libertarian sources. I've only been one for about two years, so I have more to learn before I am a solid one. But I am getting there

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am what you call a minarchist libertarian. I believe that whatever government we have should be limited to protecting our personal freedoms, through whatever force is necessary. A standing military is a means to that end. But that does not however, include launching foreign invasions. But do tell how libertarians should create classes amongst each other, I am interested in seeing how that thinking would play out, given we already have that going on in the two party system.

Well, not to be a stickler, but I think you started creating divisions among libertarians when you said:

I am a Libertarian, with some semblance of common sense. What good are we in the face of a bona fide threat to our homeland if we cannot defend ourselves?

As if those of us who disagree with you on this issue are lacking common sense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am what you call a minarchist libertarian. I believe that whatever government we have should be limited to protecting our personal freedoms, through whatever force is necessary. A standing military is a means to that end. But that does not however, include launching foreign invasions. But do tell how libertarians should create classes amongst each other, I am interested in seeing how that thinking would play out, given we already have that going on in the two party system.

Well, not to be a stickler, but I think you started creating divisions among libertarians when you said:

I am a Libertarian, with some semblance of common sense. What good are we in the face of a bona fide threat to our homeland if we cannot defend ourselves?

As if those of us who disagree with you on this issue are lacking common sense.

I simply don't understand why people would not have a standing military who is adequately trained in defending our country, that is all. It literally makes no sense to me not to have a standing army. What good is a warrior without his weapons? Without them he is defenseless.

Heat of the moment. Mea culpa. But notice how g5 engaged in such behavior when he looked down on my view of having a standing army. He acted as if I had no clue about how to be a libertarian. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... so to speak.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't care who you are or what you believe in, if you care about your liberties, freedoms, or your very own right to exist; you will defend those things to the bitter or better end. That is why I see a need for a standing army. We can't simply say that our liberties and freedoms will protect themselves, can we?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am what you call a minarchist libertarian. I believe that whatever government we have should be limited to protecting our personal freedoms, through whatever force is necessary. A standing military is a means to that end. But that does not however, include launching foreign invasions. But do tell how libertarians should create classes amongst each other, I am interested in seeing how that thinking would play out, given we already have that going on in the two party system.

Well, not to be a stickler, but I think you started creating divisions among libertarians when you said:

I am a Libertarian, with some semblance of common sense. What good are we in the face of a bona fide threat to our homeland if we cannot defend ourselves?

As if those of us who disagree with you on this issue are lacking common sense.

I simply don't understand why people would not have a standing military who is adequately trained in defending our country, that is all. It literally makes no sense to me not to have a standing army. What good is a warrior without his weapons? Without them he is defenseless.

Heat of the moment. Mea culpa. Notice how g5 engaged in such behavior when he looked down on my view of having a standing army. He acted as if I had no clue about how to be a libertarian. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... so to speak.

Well one reason is that having a standing army means that that army is going to be used. Period. It's not just going to be built up merely for defense for long. If a military force exists then politicians will inevitably find an excuse to use it. Another reason is the expense. It costs money to train and arm and pay soldiers, and that money must then be looted from the productive sector of the economy. And, of course, when the standing army is inevitably deployed for whatever ridiculous reason the politicians can come up with, the taxpayers are looted again to fund those escapades.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am what you call a minarchist libertarian. I believe that whatever government we have should be limited to protecting our personal freedoms, through whatever force is necessary. A standing military is a means to that end. But that does not however, include launching foreign invasions. But do tell how libertarians should create classes amongst each other, I am interested in seeing how that thinking would play out, given we already have that going on in the two party system.

Well, not to be a stickler, but I think you started creating divisions among libertarians when you said:

I am a Libertarian, with some semblance of common sense. What good are we in the face of a bona fide threat to our homeland if we cannot defend ourselves?

As if those of us who disagree with you on this issue are lacking common sense.

I simply don't understand why people would not have a standing military who is adequately trained in defending our country, that is all. It literally makes no sense to me not to have a standing army. What good is a warrior without his weapons? Without them he is defenseless.

Heat of the moment. Mea culpa. Notice how g5 engaged in such behavior when he looked down on my view of having a standing army. He acted as if I had no clue about how to be a libertarian. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... so to speak.

Well one reason is that having a standing army means that that army is going to be used. Period. It's not just going to be built up merely for defense for long. If a military force exists then politicians will inevitably find an excuse to use it. Another reason is the expense. It costs money to train and arm and pay soldiers, and that money must then be looted from the productive sector of the economy. And, of course, when the standing army is inevitably deployed for whatever ridiculous reason the politicians can come up with, the taxpayers are looted again to fund those escapades.

So, how do we defend ourselves exactly?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am what you call a minarchist libertarian. I believe that whatever government we have should be limited to protecting our personal freedoms, through whatever force is necessary. A standing military is a means to that end. But that does not however, include launching foreign invasions. But do tell how libertarians should create classes amongst each other, I am interested in seeing how that thinking would play out, given we already have that going on in the two party system.

Well, not to be a stickler, but I think you started creating divisions among libertarians when you said:

I am a Libertarian, with some semblance of common sense. What good are we in the face of a bona fide threat to our homeland if we cannot defend ourselves?

As if those of us who disagree with you on this issue are lacking common sense.

I simply don't understand why people would not have a standing military who is adequately trained in defending our country, that is all. It literally makes no sense to me not to have a standing army. What good is a warrior without his weapons? Without them he is defenseless.

Heat of the moment. Mea culpa. Notice how g5 engaged in such behavior when he looked down on my view of having a standing army. He acted as if I had no clue about how to be a libertarian. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... so to speak.

Well one reason is that having a standing army means that that army is going to be used. Period. It's not just going to be built up merely for defense for long. If a military force exists then politicians will inevitably find an excuse to use it. Another reason is the expense. It costs money to train and arm and pay soldiers, and that money must then be looted from the productive sector of the economy. And, of course, when the standing army is inevitably deployed for whatever ridiculous reason the politicians can come up with, the taxpayers are looted again to fund those escapades.

So, how do we defend ourselves exactly?

Depends who you ask. Since you asked me, an anarcho-capitalist, the answer is probably outside your comfort zone. By not having a government doing horrible things to people around the world, the threats to us would be seriously minimized in the first place. Regardless, we can assume that there will still be some people in the world who might wish people harm for no reason. In that case, insurance companies would have an incentive to protect their clients and thus invest in defense of that sort. Of course, every person would obviously also have an incentive to invest in their own defense as well, be that personal weapons or hiring others to defend them. That's a short answer to a hard question, but it's enough to be going on with for now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By not having a government doing horrible things to people around the world, the threats to us would be seriously minimized in the first place.

That is by no means a certainty. Any enemy can be motivated to destroy us by different reasons, it doesn't have to be because we invaded someone.

Regardless, we can assume that there will still be some people in the world who might wish people harm for no reason

Of course, due to forces beyond our control, there will in fact be people who'll wish to harm us. That is one of the pillars of my argument. It's one thing to resist, it's another to resist in unison. A resistance is no good when it isn't coordinated.

Of course, every person would obviously also have an incentive to invest in their own defense as well, be that personal weapons or hiring others to defend them

Also not a certainty. A man can have a sword, but he is ineffective if he doesn't know how to wield it. Another thing, what hiring people for defense can or will risk is the creation of paramilitary organizations. When people use money to hire fighters, they can be motivated to turn them on innocent civilians in the general population. There's that chance we could turn into a modern version of feudal Japan.

I see so many things wrong with foisting the responsibility on the population, when we can have a standing army who can protect the people without anyone else coming to harm.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

By not having a government doing horrible things to people around the world, the threats to us would be seriously minimized in the first place.

That is by no means a certainty. Any enemy can be motivated to destroy us by different reasons, it doesn't have to be because we invaded someone.

Regardless, we can assume that there will still be some people in the world who might wish people harm for no reason

Of course, due to forces beyond our control, there will in fact be people who'll wish to harm us. That is one of the pillars of my argument. It's one thing to resist, it's another to resist in unison. A resistance is no good when it isn't coordinated.

Of course, every person would obviously also have an incentive to invest in their own defense as well, be that personal weapons or hiring others to defend them

Also not a certainty. A man can have a sword, but he is ineffective if he doesn't know how to wield it. Another thing, what hiring people for defense can or will risk is the creation of paramilitary organizations. When people use money to hire fighters, they can be motivated to turn them on innocent civilians in the general population. There's that chance we could turn into a modern version of feudal Japan.

I see so many things wrong with foisting the responsibility on the population, when we can have a standing army who can protect the people without anyone else coming to harm.

Except you completely ignored the argument whereby the fact that a standing army exists guarantees that it will be used.

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarianism doesn't make any sense. To have a nation you need science, infrastructure, r&d investment and education. You also need police and laws...

Libertarianism is like Somalia! It is bad.

Mr Dingle Berry:

You are one massively stupid ****. Somalia is what happens when a small poor country is ravaged by socialism and poor management. Somalians did not make an intelligent decision to be where they are at. Somalia is what the the US will become if you low life motherfuckers continue the present government supremacy trend.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By not having a government doing horrible things to people around the world, the threats to us would be seriously minimized in the first place.

That is by no means a certainty. Any enemy can be motivated to destroy us by different reasons, it doesn't have to be because we invaded someone.

Regardless, we can assume that there will still be some people in the world who might wish people harm for no reason

Of course, due to forces beyond our control, there will in fact be people who'll wish to harm us. That is one of the pillars of my argument. It's one thing to resist, it's another to resist in unison. A resistance is no good when it isn't coordinated.

Of course, every person would obviously also have an incentive to invest in their own defense as well, be that personal weapons or hiring others to defend them

Also not a certainty. A man can have a sword, but he is ineffective if he doesn't know how to wield it. Another thing, what hiring people for defense can or will risk is the creation of paramilitary organizations. When people use money to hire fighters, they can be motivated to turn them on innocent civilians in the general population. There's that chance we could turn into a modern version of feudal Japan.

I see so many things wrong with foisting the responsibility on the population, when we can have a standing army who can protect the people without anyone else coming to harm.

Except you completely ignored the argument whereby the fact that a standing army exists guarantees that it will be used.

Because it isn't a guarantee. My dad has a gun, but just because he has it doesn't mean he will use it. In fact he hopes he never has to. If gun owners can be responsible, so too can a government with a standing army. In fact, give the army the power to determine how it is used. Let the government hold nationwide votes on the proper use of the military. Make it a constitutional mandate. Do whatever it takes to insure the army is never used to invade another country. But, in my opinion, we need a standing army who is trained in combat, logistics, and air power to defend our shores from invading forces.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

By not having a government doing horrible things to people around the world, the threats to us would be seriously minimized in the first place.

That is by no means a certainty. Any enemy can be motivated to destroy us by different reasons, it doesn't have to be because we invaded someone.

Regardless, we can assume that there will still be some people in the world who might wish people harm for no reason

Of course, due to forces beyond our control, there will in fact be people who'll wish to harm us. That is one of the pillars of my argument. It's one thing to resist, it's another to resist in unison. A resistance is no good when it isn't coordinated.

Of course, every person would obviously also have an incentive to invest in their own defense as well, be that personal weapons or hiring others to defend them

Also not a certainty. A man can have a sword, but he is ineffective if he doesn't know how to wield it. Another thing, what hiring people for defense can or will risk is the creation of paramilitary organizations. When people use money to hire fighters, they can be motivated to turn them on innocent civilians in the general population. There's that chance we could turn into a modern version of feudal Japan.

I see so many things wrong with foisting the responsibility on the population, when we can have a standing army who can protect the people without anyone else coming to harm.

Except you completely ignored the argument whereby the fact that a standing army exists guarantees that it will be used.

Because it isn't a guarantee. My dad has a gun, but just because he has it doesn't mean he will use it. In fact he hopes he never has to. If gun owners can be responsible, so too can a government with a standing army. In fact, give the army the power to determine how it is used. Let the government hold nationwide votes on the proper use of the military. Make it a constitutional mandate. Do whatever it takes to insure the army is never used to invade another country. But, in my opinion, we need a standing army who is trained in combat, logistics, and air power to defend our shores from invading forces.

A government can be responsible? Where's the evidence of this? I put forth all of history as evidence that this is completely false. You're forgetting Hayek's dictum that the worst sort of people will always rise to the top of the political structure, as history shows over and over, because politics and government attract the worst sort of people in the first place. Nationwide votes are useless as the people are far too easily duped, and a Constitution is a piece of paper that the government can ignore because it gives itself the power to determine what the Constitution means. Again, history bears this out. There is simply too much incentive for the government and politicians to use a standing army if it exists for them to pass up for long, if at all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By not having a government doing horrible things to people around the world, the threats to us would be seriously minimized in the first place.

That is by no means a certainty. Any enemy can be motivated to destroy us by different reasons, it doesn't have to be because we invaded someone.

Regardless, we can assume that there will still be some people in the world who might wish people harm for no reason

Of course, due to forces beyond our control, there will in fact be people who'll wish to harm us. That is one of the pillars of my argument. It's one thing to resist, it's another to resist in unison. A resistance is no good when it isn't coordinated.

Of course, every person would obviously also have an incentive to invest in their own defense as well, be that personal weapons or hiring others to defend them

Also not a certainty. A man can have a sword, but he is ineffective if he doesn't know how to wield it. Another thing, what hiring people for defense can or will risk is the creation of paramilitary organizations. When people use money to hire fighters, they can be motivated to turn them on innocent civilians in the general population. There's that chance we could turn into a modern version of feudal Japan.

I see so many things wrong with foisting the responsibility on the population, when we can have a standing army who can protect the people without anyone else coming to harm.

Except you completely ignored the argument whereby the fact that a standing army exists guarantees that it will be used.

Because it isn't a guarantee. My dad has a gun, but just because he has it doesn't mean he will use it. In fact he hopes he never has to. If gun owners can be responsible, so too can a government with a standing army. In fact, give the army the power to determine how it is used. Let the government hold nationwide votes on the proper use of the military. Make it a constitutional mandate. Do whatever it takes to insure the army is never used to invade another country. But, in my opinion, we need a standing army who is trained in combat, logistics, and air power to defend our shores from invading forces.

A government can be responsible? Where's the evidence of this? I put forth all of history as evidence that this is completely false. You're forgetting Hayek's dictum that the worst sort of people will always rise to the top of the political structure, as history shows over and over, because politics and government attract the worst sort of people in the first place. Nationwide votes are useless as the people are far too easily duped, and a Constitution is a piece of paper that the government can ignore because it gives itself the power to determine what the Constitution means. Again, history bears this out. There is simply too much incentive for the government and politicians to use a standing army if it exists for them to pass up for long, if at all.

A government can be made responsible when people have more power than the government. The people have more power than they realize.

Simply put, decentralize the government, let the military be subject to the will of our population, not to a single person. Let the people select a competent leader of such a force that they can vote out at any time. Don't give government any power you don't trust it with. It's not as hard as it looks.

If I had my way, I would abolish a lot of the institutions of government, crack down on all types of corruption, make it illegal for any elected official to breach his oath of office. There are plenty of ways to deter corruption. If you inform people of how government should operate, they will most likely stop it from circumventing the law, they would know corruption when they see it.

No, I don't agree completely with Hayek in that regard. A simple government would not have much power, and not all power should be concentrated on an elite few. Delegate powers to the population, as a stern check to government activity and a check to corruption.

A little hobby of mine is imagining ways to reconstitute our government where the powers are centralized on the people, not in an oligarchic fashion.

But to be more simplistic, I more or less support the idea of a nightwatchman state as theorized by Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utiopia. The framework of such a state Nozick argued, would allow for any political system that respects fundamental individual rights. Ironically, one of the three people drove him to write this book was none other than Friedrich Hayek. The other two were John Locke and Immanuel Kant.

 

[Skylar]

Except that monopoly is merely a government grant of privilege that doesn't exist on a free market at all. You say there were all these monopolies and yet fail to include any examples.

First, monopolies would have to be universally the creation of government grant privileges. There could be no other method of creation for your argument to be valid. Your article doesn't demonstrate its conclusion. It simply argues it by showing us an example of government grant privileged and then insisting that no monopoly can be made in any other way. That doesn't follow.

That would be like me saying that the only way to get to New York city is to drive there. And to prove that assertion, I give you an example of someone who drove to NY. And then following the same pattern as your citation, conclude that driving is the only method possible. The logic doesn't follow. As an example of driving doesn't exclude any other method of getting to the city. The only thing proven by the example is that driving is possible. It says absolutely nothing to the plausibility of any other method.

And your assertion is completely dependent on no other method of monopoly being possible. Exactly what your argument doesn't prove. Leaving your methodology for checking concentrations of personal power pristinely unresolved.

Second, monopolies can be regional. You can have areas where only certain products or services are available. And every issue cited in my post would apply.

Third, monopolies were one of about a dozen system killing flaws in libertarianism. You didn't address any of them. Anti-competitive practices, no provisions to limit corruption, vast human rights abuses, economic instability, greater impact and greater frequency of economic downturns, worker and consumer exploitation, private armies, company stores, vertical integration, all of was completely ignored.

I didn't even get into the issues of product safety, the obscene environmental damage of libertarianism in practice, the pay to play legal system that ludicrously stacks the deck against anyone harmed by business, and the ridiculous disadvantage that an anarcho-capitalist society would be at in comparison to a more centralized nation in terms of infrastructure or national defense. As depending on your version of anarchy, you'd have no common projects. And no standing armies.

Your neighbors wouldn't be similarly limited. Laws and respect for liberty exist within nations. But not so much between them. In the ivory tower conceptualizations of libertarianism, direct competition militarily and in productivity aren't considered. In the real world, they absolutely would have to be. Or your neighboring country with its advanced, state funded, modern military would just come and take your shit.

And not just military considerations. In any viable application of libertarianism as a vital system in the real world would have to resolve, or at the very least address each and everyone of these issue. And demonstrate why libertarianism is better than what we have now.

 

[Skylar]

A little hobby of mine is imagining ways to reconstitute our government where the powers are centralized on the people, not in an oligarchic fashion.

Wrong focus. I wouldn't worry as much about ways to reconstitute our government where power was centralized on the people.

I'd worry more about how to keep any 'reconstitution' once you've implemented it. As libertarianism would be *at best* at least as susceptible to political corruption as any other system. And with its unchecked concentrations of private power and legal system perfectly developed to protect those private concentrations of power, far more corruptible than many.

Any 'reconstitution' would need to be sustainable. And have methods of regulating or at the very least powerfully mitigating any concentrations of power. Rather than focusing exclusively and myopically on concentrations of government power.

So far the only sustainable, long term solutions to the application of power I've ever seen...

.....is layers of inefficiency in apply it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except that monopoly is merely a government grant of privilege that doesn't exist on a free market at all. You say there were all these monopolies and yet fail to include any examples.

First, monopolies would have to be universally the creation of government grant privileges. There could be no other method of creation for your argument to be valid. Your article doesn't demonstrate its conclusion. It simply argues it by showing us an example of government grant privileged and then insisting that no monopoly can be made in any other way. That doesn't follow.

That would be like me saying that the only way to get to New York city is to drive there. And to prove that assertion, I give you an example of someone who drove to NY. And then following the same pattern as your citation, conclude that driving is the only method possible. The logic doesn't follow. As an example of driving doesn't exclude any other method of getting to the city. The only thing proven by the example is that driving is possible. It says absolutely nothing to the plausibility of any other method.

And your assertion is completely dependent on no other method of monopoly being possible. Exactly what your argument doesn't prove. Leaving your methodology for checking concentrations of personal power pristinely unresolved.

Second, monopolies can be regional. You can have areas where only certain products or services are available. And every issue cited in my post would apply.

Third, monopolies were one of about a dozen system killing flaws in libertarianism. You didn't address any of them. Anti-competitive practices, no provisions to limit corruption, vast human rights abuses, economic instability, greater impact and greater frequency of economic downturns, worker and consumer exploitation, private armies, company stores, vertical integration, all of was completely ignored.

I didn't even get into the issues of product safety, the obscene environmental damage of libertarianism in practice, the pay to play legal system that ludicrously stacks the deck against anyone harmed by business, and the ridiculous disadvantage that an anarcho-capitalist society would be at in comparison to a more centralized nation in terms of infrastructure or national defense. As depending on your version of anarchy, you'd have no common projects. And no standing armies.

Your neighbors wouldn't be similarly limited. Laws and respect for liberty exist within nations. But not so much between them. In the ivory tower conceptualizations of libertarianism, direct competition militarily and in productivity aren't considered. In the real world, they absolutely would have to be. Or your neighboring country with its advanced, state funded, modern military would just come and take your shit.

And not just military considerations. In any viable application of libertarianism as a vital system in the real world would have to resolve, or at the very least address each and everyone of these issue. And demonstrate why libertarianism is better than what we have now.

Yes, I should have just followed your "methodology" and simply stated it with nothing to back it up at all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

By not having a government doing horrible things to people around the world, the threats to us would be seriously minimized in the first place.

That is by no means a certainty. Any enemy can be motivated to destroy us by different reasons, it doesn't have to be because we invaded someone.

Regardless, we can assume that there will still be some people in the world who might wish people harm for no reason

Of course, due to forces beyond our control, there will in fact be people who'll wish to harm us. That is one of the pillars of my argument. It's one thing to resist, it's another to resist in unison. A resistance is no good when it isn't coordinated.

Of course, every person would obviously also have an incentive to invest in their own defense as well, be that personal weapons or hiring others to defend them

Also not a certainty. A man can have a sword, but he is ineffective if he doesn't know how to wield it. Another thing, what hiring people for defense can or will risk is the creation of paramilitary organizations. When people use money to hire fighters, they can be motivated to turn them on innocent civilians in the general population. There's that chance we could turn into a modern version of feudal Japan.

I see so many things wrong with foisting the responsibility on the population, when we can have a standing army who can protect the people without anyone else coming to harm.

Except you completely ignored the argument whereby the fact that a standing army exists guarantees that it will be used.

Because it isn't a guarantee. My dad has a gun, but just because he has it doesn't mean he will use it. In fact he hopes he never has to. If gun owners can be responsible, so too can a government with a standing army. In fact, give the army the power to determine how it is used. Let the government hold nationwide votes on the proper use of the military. Make it a constitutional mandate. Do whatever it takes to insure the army is never used to invade another country. But, in my opinion, we need a standing army who is trained in combat, logistics, and air power to defend our shores from invading forces.

A government can be responsible? Where's the evidence of this? I put forth all of history as evidence that this is completely false. You're forgetting Hayek's dictum that the worst sort of people will always rise to the top of the political structure, as history shows over and over, because politics and government attract the worst sort of people in the first place. Nationwide votes are useless as the people are far too easily duped, and a Constitution is a piece of paper that the government can ignore because it gives itself the power to determine what the Constitution means. Again, history bears this out. There is simply too much incentive for the government and politicians to use a standing army if it exists for them to pass up for long, if at all.

A government can be made responsible when people have more power than the government. The people have more power than they realize.

Simply put, decentralize the government, let the military be subject to the will of our population, not to a single person. Let the people select a competent leader of such a force that they can vote out at any time. Don't give government any power you don't trust it with. It's not as hard as it looks.

If I had my way, I would abolish a lot of the institutions of government, crack down on all types of corruption, make it illegal for any elected official to breach his oath of office. There are plenty of ways to deter corruption. If you inform people of how government should operate, they will most likely stop it from circumventing the law, they would know corruption when they see it.

No, I don't agree completely with Hayek in that regard. A simple government would not have much power, and not all power should be concentrated on an elite few. Delegate powers to the population, as a stern check to government activity and a check to corruption.

A little hobby of mine is imagining ways to reconstitute our government where the powers are centralized on the people, not in an oligarchic fashion.

But to be more simplistic, I more or less support the idea of a nightwatchman state as theorized by Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utiopia. The framework of such a state Nozick argued, would allow for any political system that respects fundamental individual rights. Ironically, one of the three people drove him to write this book was none other than Friedrich Hayek. The other two were John Locke and Immanuel Kant.

Government can be defined as the single organization in social life with a monopoly on the use of violence. That is inherently going to attract the worst sort of people, and they are inevitably going to abuse their power. The U.S. is a case study of this. No "limited" government stays limited for long. I would strongly favor scrapping the Constitution and going back to the Articles of Confederation as a step in the right direction, but it's easy to imagine that even the extremely limited government under the Articles would eventually grow into something unrecognizable.

In short, everything you're talking about has been tried right here in the U.S., and it's led to where we are now. The idea that the people are going to keep the government in check is utopian. It will play on their fears and their prejudices until they relent and open pandora's box.