[Skybird]

Yes, I understand what you mean here. There is only so far that unity of nations can go before it reaches a tipping point. Some people outside of Europe question the likelihood of a giant European superstate emerging, and I laugh at them, since it is incredibly unlikely that European nations could agree on something long enough to do so.

I would not laugh so early, since we see since years how the EU is widening its power and rights against what I still claim to be the majority of European people's desire. In 3 months, there will be election in Germany, and after that much of what has been objected too by Merkel, by wonder and miracle will no longer be objected too . Take me by my words. Germany will agree to legal or illegal means to finance the totally illegal (by EU treaties and EU laws) direct financing of bankrupt states via the ECB. A banking union will follow, the first steps already have been undertaken. Germany will agree to a de facto transfer union. Germany will agree to give more competences form the parliament to the EU, even if pro forma in other countries such giving up of sovereignty will be less smooth. We are being submitted to EU legislation and bureaucracy since over 20 years now, increasingly, and still there is no real resistance to it, especially in Germany.

In the end there will be the European superstate, copying the power structures and administrative structures of the Soviet Union style. Whether it then goes along peacefully or the people violently revolt, is something different. It should be clear to you that I argue that politicians do not care for what people want, and that they demand or imply that people should be accountable to politicians, not the other way around (as the election thing in the democratic circus implies). Our leaders do not owe us, but we owe to them. It is a form of neo-feudalism already.

Also, many people, honestly said, do not care about freedom, as long as they have comfort and their little share of happiness, to put it that way. That's why the sedating of the electorate by bribing it with financial gifts the states in reality cannot afford, works so well! If people would care for the future and their children's perspective, we already would have had that uprise against the EU at it'S püolciies that it enforces against the people, from Islam and migration over 50+% tax burdens to ruining the economy and the fiscal status of the state and raping even the vital essentials of state reason time and time again.

The bills will be presented one day. Then nobody will accept his share of guilt, all will claim to be helpless victims, and everybody will agree that something needs to be done, but not at his cost. Wash my fur but don't make me wet! (German phrase)

There is definitely a move towards devolution in modern society, in the United Kingdom we have the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament, both of whom have to pay lip service to Westminster of course, but it is something that did not exist a hundred years ago.
Of course, the problem lies that, if Bavaria, for example, did seperate from Germany, what would stop Poland from invading and occupying it?

Again, that note is about a situation where only one place int her world is chnaged to the “new order”, and all toher places are staying like thexy are today. I already said that the “new ways” implemente dinto the functinality and ways of going of today'S system probbaly will not work too well. The whole issue is aboiut what the world would be like if ALL the world would have changed to the “ner ways”. BTW, what stops Luxembourg or Finland's or Switzerland's neighbours to invade them today?

In a world of private law society, people would have contracts with private enterprise to provide legislative, insurance, policing and military protection services. It wold be no central state holding a monopoly for these, but it would be a business service provided for a fee, and since companies would have an interest to limit or prevent suffering costly damages, they would run legal, police and military action on behalf of their customers – private, free citizens and local/regional communities of these - in ways that emphasize prevention over allowing situation to unfold where sanction is needed. Of course, the barbarians, for example Islamic jihadists and ideologically blinded terrorists, will still be there, and the deterrence of any enterprise in these fields must be robust enough to be credible. Its just that there will be no class of politicians, and no overboarding bureaucracy holding a monopoly for this. Mind you, peoples rarely ever started wars against each others, they instead feared wears. Wars most of the time are decided and declared by governments, not the ordinary people.

Hoppe and Rothbard have written separate books just about security, war and military issues. I refer you to the lists I already provided, since many essays there address the issue as well. It is not being ignored, and got dealt well with already. Again we have the state regulating a people and the society into a state where crime is favoured due to unfavourable social factors the government creates, and wars that the government declares. Police, jurisdiction, military – you do not need a centralised, disconnected govenrment for that. Leave that to where it belongs – to the people of the land.


I read that some historians point out that this kind of conflict – separation, or enforced unifying - also probably played the dominant role motivating the American civil war. Where the war for independence was a revolt against the British who after some time of relative laissez faire wanted to impose a stricter tax system again and tighten British control over and possession of “their colonies”, and the revolt thus was a self-defence on behalf of own sovereignty and own freedom, some historians, but also Hoppe, refer to historical quotes by Lincoln that reveal that Lincoln's decision for war against the South seems to have had not much to do with freeing the poor slaves, but with enforcing a claim for centralist power by Washington not only over the North, but the South as well. I got the impression that he just instrumentalised them for his - very different - intentions, but that ending slavery was not an item he had on his radar for the worth of the very issue itself. Also, apparently the centralised power by the whole union's government should had been supported by destroying the independent currencies circulating in the South (there were several, which from libertarianism's POV, seeing money as just a trading good like any other, was perfectly okay and imo makes more economic sense than any other monetarian model I have read about or heard of, and certainly much more than the bad joke of a paper money we have today). The result was a war that ended the southern money market, destroyed the South's economy and thus it's basis for independent survival, and paved the way for the North's centralised political regime taking control not only of the northern but the southern “provinces” as well.

It is certainly an arguement that can be put forward, and from a rational viewpoint it makes perfect sense, after all 'A house divided against itself cannot stand'. If America had remained split into two entities when the First World War broke out, would either entity have intervened in Europe? Or would the war in Europe spread to America in a resumption of hostilities between the North and the South? Either way America as we know it today would be radically different, and I believe not for the better.

I am not so sure on that. At least it could not have been worse than it is today. The issue of slavery I expect to come to a resolve by itself over time, like the acceptance for it faded in Europe as well. Licoln certainly did not decide for a centralised power governing all the state because he has forseen WWI. And how the US would have reacted to WWI if North and South would not have been united, we simply do not know and can only speculate.

So, yes, a rational and calculating mind would certainly see that an empire that is united is stronger both financially and militarily than one that is divided in on itself. A civil war makes for a weakness, and a weak empire is one that is oft preyed upon by other empires. Were it not for the powderkeg like situation in Europe and the dash in Africa, would Britain have decided to invade the US again whilst they were struggling against the CSA? All situations that have been explored in fiction but certainly one cannot deny that Lincoln and those around him would be acutely aware that a divided house is politically, financially and militarily weaker than a unified one. Having the moral crusade to free the slaves makes it easier to sell to the public, and is certainly a just a noble endeavour, be it the primary or secondary objective of the American civil war or not.

Well, I cannot help but to think why you do not argue for a union between Canada and the US as well, then. And why you do not applaude the EU melting all European states together - at least by intention.

The empire-forming you mentioned by installing unity even against what the people want (and the Southerners absolutely did not seem to like it to get subjugated to Washington's claims for power ) necessarily sees a growing totalitarian control by the state over the people, this should be clear by now. The stronger an empire, the stronger its government, the less free are its people. Sooner or later you come to a point where you have to make a moral decision which side you want to join: the side claiming that freedom goes over strong imperial status, or the side claiming that the empire's needs overrule the private interest for freedom. I mentioned earlier that competing governments in the world reduce themselves in numbers, with the surviving ones becoming stronger and stringer, claiming more and more power, until their power has become so absolute one day that there will be just one world government only – and I stick to that, I tell you that will not be a liberal, free world state, but a totalitarian tyranny.