England idealised


I don’t really have a great deal of Nationalism built into me. I feel privileged to have been born in a Country that still takes care of it’s sick and injured, that doesn’t just throw its most vulnerable and poor onto the scrap heap to rot, and that has such a plethora of cultural differences from North to South; and I feel privileged to have been born into a Country with such a rich history.

Sometimes I need reminding of what it is I expressively love about England. Our southern coast is perhaps top of my list of what I love. It feels entirely different to any other coast I’ve visited. It has, almost a nostalgic heritage about it. I am reminded of the old Hovis adverts we used to get on TV years ago. The idealistic small villages with the cobblestone roads and small streams. The kid on the bike with the basket at the front. The old Georgian style cottages with broken autumn leaves covering them. Everyone knowing each other. Everyone having a Yorkshire accent, or perhaps a Somerset accent. They’re very similar accents, at entirely opposite ends of the country. We should move Somerset up by Yorkshire. That is my idealistic view of England. The reality is obviously far different; and whilst villages like that idealistic model do certainly exist across the country; we have spent the past fifty years being shoved into high rise flats so that the very wealthy can buy the beautiful Georgian cottages, price everyone else out the market, and slowly destroy the villages (see Beadnell in Northumberland).

Anyway, before this turns into a rant, I thought I would play you the song that evokes such a strong sense of nostalgia and English heritage, in me. I have this song on my iPod in my car. It is a nice relaxing way to drive home from work, and it manages to take me away from the miserable work I just left, and puts me briefly in a kind of time warp; an utterly different time and a completely different place. It sparks memories of my childhood, when I actually had no worries whatsoever, despite thinking I had every worry in the World at the time. It captures 20th Century middle class England beautifully. The song is Symphony No 9, 2nd movement, from The New World’ by Antonin Dvorák.

Advertisements

10 Responses to England idealised

  1. Black Flag says:

    Futile,

    I don’t really have a great deal of Nationalism built into me. I feel privileged to have been born in a Country that still takes care of it’s sick and injured, that doesn’t just throw its most vulnerable and poor onto the scrap heap to rot,

    As usual, the argument for theft starts with a lie.

    No People “throw the sick and injured into a heap to rot”. Even in the poorest of nations, charity exists.

    Throughout all of human history, People have paid to charities whose task is to care for the disadvantaged, and that continue –in-spite of government– today.

    Generally, the more prosperous a people, the more charitable – and as such, any ill-thought social manipulation that robs the people of their wealth will most certainly cause more suffering on the disadvantaged

    But this understanding is not what you are really talking about. You are NOT talking about someone who is suffering, or is starving, or is homeless.

    You are talking about you.

    You want stuff you didn’t earn, so you want to steal it from those that did earn.

    You can’t do that without suffering some severe consequences.

    So you pretend you are part of the suffering, disadvantaged and homeless so to avoid the consequences of your thievery.

    Your ilk pervert definitions of “care”, “need”, “suffering”, “violence”, “harm”, “disadvantage” until something fits your situation, and then you believe you nicely glide in, and enjoy the fruits of your “labor”.

    But all you are doing, Futile, is passing very heavy consequences on to your children. You will cause them to suffer, possibly homeless, and become wholly dependent on the grace of others.

    If that grace is forced by the hand of government, it will be instantly removed once the threats of government no longer exist. You are being to suffer that removal now – and hold on – governments are going bankrupt and into default, so more of it will be removed faster.

    But, as a father myself, I could not conceive of myself dealing such harm to my child as you are proscribing for yours.

  2. ARGH! I totally understand your economic point of view. You beat it into every blog I have. I simply find it vile.

  3. Black Flag says:

    Futile,

    You find free men vile.

    Such a viewpoint when it will be applied upon you will destroy you.

  4. No no, I find your idea of ‘free’ to be vile.

    If you think a businessman using this Country’s property rights and protections and an education system that he used, owes absolutely nothing back to the framework that allowed him to get to where he is, then that’s your opinion. It isn’t fact. You say it as if everything you have to say, is an objective truth. It isn’t. I don’t agree with you at all.

    Good luck protecting your property rights when the police are no more, because you’re under the ridiculous impression that taxation is theft (I have never come across a thief who has used his gain to fix a road and create a health service, but okay). Although I’d guess you advocate a private police force, where if you can’t afford it; tough, hide in a cellar with a gun, just incase. I see taxation as rent; for a system that has allowed someone to climb the framework to success.

    One could also argue that property = theft. But obviously you wouldn’t. You’d find a horribly slimey way to get around it. One could argue that inheritance = inter-family socialism.

    “I love it when I’m around the country club, and I hear people talking about the debilitating effects of a welfare society,” he said. “At the same time, they leave their kids a lifetime and beyond of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer. And instead of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds.”
    -Warren Buffett

    That’s on a fundamental level.
    On a human level, I am willing to pay tax, because I know that sometimes, circumstances overwhelm individuals, who might need a bit of extra help. I am not into this whole “it’s your fucking problem, you deal with it”. I like the idea of a fund that can protect and help those people. And it does protect and help. No matter how much you bleet on about it being an awful evil, it isn’t.

    What if I have just lost my business, and absolutely everything, what do I do about my kids going to school? How do I feed my kids tomorrow? “get a job”, immediately? What if the jobs market isn’t doing too well, what if i’ve spent 20 years being a plumber, and now there are very few plumbing jobs? What if i’ve just lost everything, am a single parent, with two disabled kids, both need constant help, and now the house is on fire? Do I need to ring my fire insurance company whilst calling the private disability nurse, but obviously I now don’t have a job, so I can’t use the phone because the bill will be too high, nor can I drive them to the private hospital because I can’t afford paying for every road I use, all whilst the house burns down, which can’t be put out because I can’t afford my private fire insurance? Perhaps it would be easier for your market haven, and less of a burden, and far less evil, if I just let the kids burn? Perhaps to you, that is the sign of a wonderfully prosperous society, and those who hit ridiculously hard times should have just “saved” money for any unforeseen events; as if many people have the ability to save enough anyway. What about a kid who is born into extreme poverty and there is very little opportunity in his area? Yet a kid elsewhere, just inherits millions of pounds? How in any way, is that perfectly fair? That kid who inherited millions will never have to work. How did he ‘earn’ that?
    If you truly believe that ‘wealth creation’ is entirely individual, and has no input from a social system whatsoever, you’re mad.
    Why is tax theft, yet you building a home on a piece of land, that you have never had the right to personally own, not theft? You are thieving the land from the rest of us. I have just as much right to the piece of land you live on, as you do. Whether you paid for it or not. Because if you take it far enough back in time, someone somewhere just decided the land was theirs. What philosophical bullshit do you have for justifying that?
    Your system, no matter how philosophical your reasoning is, no matter how eloquent you are; is a hideous idea, and I will never accept it as reasonable. It disgusts me, every time I read it.

  5. Black Flag says:

    Futile,

    And again, you demonstrate that you do not understand freedom whatsoever.

    Freedom -to you- is someone always saying “yes” to your demand, because, in your world view your demands are always “right”.

    You have no introspection – or doubt – about your opinion on matters, and willing demand that they be forced upon every one else.

    But freedom is a man who can say “no” to you. Thus, you see that as vile – the “no”, and for you, freedom is vile.

    If you think a businessman using this Country’s property rights and protections and an education system that he used, owes absolutely nothing back to the framework that allowed him to get to where he is, then that’s your opinion.

    And because of your world view, you must create strawman about my position on freedom.

    You add in your perverted world view into my position, merge them, and regurgitate the result in a spew of irrational muck.

    You argue that a man – using the protections on his freedom – must submit to enslavement.

    And I bet, you think your argument was rational.

    It isn’t fact. You say it as if everything you have to say, is an objective truth. It isn’t. I don’t agree with you at all.

    What I say is Truth and you do not have to agree at all!

    That’s freedom in action – something you want to deny and destroy.

    Good luck protecting your property rights when the police are no more,

    I do not depend on the “police” to protect my rights or defend my family. They have proven to be wholly unreliable. The best (or least-worse) attribute is that they may discover who killed your family, but they are pretty much powerless to stop the killing.

    I guess if knowing who slaughtered your family is good enough for you… (shrug).

    I’d rather not have them slaughtered, so I protect my family and do not depend on careless, care less, irrelevant thugs with badges to do it for me.

    because you’re under the ridiculous impression that taxation is theft

    It is not an “impression”.

    It is a fact – that disturbing little concept that devils and trips you constantly in your world view.

    (I have never come across a thief who has used his gain to fix a road and create a health service, but okay).

    You have demonstrated good historical knowledge. I find it hard to believe you have never learned about crime organizations building all sorts of services and stuff – so called “legitimate” businesses from their stolen loot.

    Ever hear of a city called “Las Vegas”?

    Although I’d guess you advocate a private police force,

    They already exist – they are called “Security”.

    And in almost every country, they are far more effective in preventing crime than police.

    where if you can’t afford it; tough,

    Very unlikely.

    The wall I build to protect my family costs how much more to protect you?

    And that is why “government police” is so bad. The costs of protection should fall exponentially per person to the number of people protected.

    A “cop” who guards one can guard dozens.

    But not so with government police. The costs go up, even if no more number of persons are guarded.

    There is a direct economic reason – but, you don’t care.

    hide in a cellar with a gun, just incase.

    Most of the time, that is pretty effective.

    I see taxation as rent;

    You see taxation as a lot of things, except for what it really is.

    for a system that has allowed someone to climb the framework to success.

    Freedom is the framework to climb to success.

    A man must be free to choose his own happiness.

    But you think that is vile, because it will mean a man will not choose to surrender his freedom for you.

    One could also argue that property = theft.

    You can, but only if you are irrational.

    But obviously you wouldn’t.

    I do not argue irrational points.

    You’d find a horribly slimey way to get around it.

    Freedom is vile.
    Reason is slimy.

    One heck of a world view you have.

    One could argue that inheritance = inter-family socialism.

    No, more like communism.

    Communism is not “bad” – it is simply not scalable to large populations.

    My daughter does not get her resources from me in a “trade for value” – she’d starve if that was required.

    A family works under the theory “from those who can to those who need” – because a family unit is not organized in an economic market – it is organized in an emotional relationship.

    It is the emotional relationship that those that wish to scale communism to a large population demand that every one call one another “comrade” or “brother” – a superficial attempt to create the family emotional bond.

    But it cannot be done. A person can hold in emotional relationship about 150 people – any more, then someone has to fall out of the group.

    So Communism cannot scale because emotional relationships cannot scale.

    Keep your Socialism/Communism in your home. It works.

    Keep your Socialism/Communism out of society. It does not work.

    -Warren Buffett

    Buffet is no poster boy for Free Market or Freedom.

    He is a Socialist who made rich using Capitalism. He is working hard to ensure YOU cannot do the same thing.

    That’s on a fundamental level.
    On a human level, I am willing to pay tax, because I know that sometimes, circumstances overwhelm individuals, who might need a bit of extra help.

    I do not understand you.

    You do not give to charity, but like it when your money is stolen from you.

    So why do you not give to charity, Futile? What’s wrong with you?

    I am not into this whole “it’s your fucking problem, you deal with it”.

    It is your problem, not mine
    God gave it to you, not me.

    God gave me my problems, and not yours.

    So deal with it. Complain to God if you don’t like it, but keep your grubby paws out of my pocket.

    I like the idea of a fund that can protect and help those people.

    Yet, the concept of charity is so beyond your understanding.

    And it does protect and help. No matter how much you bleet on about it being an awful evil, it isn’t.

    Theft is evil.

    You love evil because you cannot get what you want any other why (well, you can – you just don’t want to work for it for whatever reason).

    What if I have just lost my business, and absolutely everything, what do I do about my kids going to school?

    Teach them at home. Believe me, its a lot of fun.

    How do I feed my kids tomorrow?

    You failed to save any of your money? No one taught you budgeting? Saving? Planning for contingencies?

    Who the hell raised you? Morons?

    Or… you just didn’t pay attention to your parents who DID teach you.

    Now, you want me to pay for your poor attention and planning.

    My answer:
    No.

    “get a job”, immediately?

    No savings, huh? Damn your stupid.

    What if the jobs market isn’t doing too well, what if i’ve spent 20 years being a plumber, and now there are very few plumbing jobs?

    Move to where plumbers are in demand. What a few suggestions?

    What if i’ve just lost everything, am a single parent, with two disabled kids, both need constant help, and now the house is on fire?

    Boy, you’re one unlucky fellow.

    Let me guess:
    -you have no parents,
    -no brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins
    -no friends,
    -no neighbors,
    -all the charities on earth have shunned you AND
    -you owe your credit card company a zillion dollars too.

    You’re too funny.

    Perhaps it would be easier for your market haven,

    Perhaps you can stop making up fantasy stories – but probably you can’t.

    You depend on fantasy scenarios to justify your violence and theft on real people.

    What about a kid who is born into extreme poverty and there is very little opportunity in his area?

    Do you need a list of Foundations that exist all over the world?

    Oh, I forgot. You don’t believe in charity. You believe in violence.

    As I said above, all of this mush you produce is not about charity, disadvantaged people or such.

    It is about you

    You want what you do not (or cannot) earn.

    So you make up stories, or use other people’s stories and ignore all the things that free men have built and created in charity so that you can justify your theft for yourself.

    The first schools were built by free men, not government.

    The first public libraries were built by free men, not government

    The first police force were paid for by free men, not government

    The first fire dept. were paid for by free men, not government.

    The first hospitals were paid for by free men, not government.

    Free men act in ways to improve themselves, and thus, improve society – and as such, carry you forward on their back – and they are happy about that.

    You think these men are vile.

    Yet a kid elsewhere, just inherits millions of pounds? How in any way, is that perfectly fair?

    Fair? Fair to who, Futile???

    Fair is a subjective mush – all it is is an individual point of view.

    What is Right is the question, and a man has the Right to use or assign his property as he wishes.

    And as it is not your property, you have no Right to it.

    What you think is Fair is absolutely …futile….

    If you truly believe that ‘wealth creation’ is entirely individual,

    Know this truth, Futile:

    All human action is ultimately individual

    and has no input from a social system whatsoever, you’re mad.

    What “social system” exists without individuals?

    Why is tax theft,

    Because it is a taking of property and wealth by violence or threat of violence.

    yet you building a home on a piece of land, that you have never had the right to personally own, not theft?

    Huh?

    If it is my land, I build on my land. It is my right as it is my land.

    You are thieving the land from the rest of us.

    You do not own it. Go buy your own.

    I have just as much right to the piece of land you live on, as you do.

    No. I paid for my land. You did not.

    Ergo, you have no right on my land.

    Whether you paid for it or not.

    Ah!

    Your bizarre world view is that a trade of value does not trade value.

    You are one, badly muddled, human being.

    Where did you learn this stuff?
    You need to demand a refund.

    Because if you take it far enough back in time, someone somewhere just decided the land was theirs.

    True.

    What philosophical bullshit do you have for justifying that?

    Right of Arms.

    Your system, no matter how philosophical your reasoning is, no matter how eloquent you are; is a hideous idea,

    Freedom is hideous to those that demand slavery.

  6. Ushiku says:

    Black Flag you are clinging on to social, economic, political & philosophical constructs such as Libertarianism, Free-market Capitalism & individualism whilst declaring those you disagree with as evil.

    Ownership, class, race, religion, ideology are all social constructs.

    You are correct that many current tax funded institutions that began as philanthropic ventures by the wealthy.

    However human rights such as adequate housing, energy, accessible transportation in a globalised world are now in private hands after being publicly funded bodies at one point.

    You cannot claim that capitalism provides & then ignore its manipulation & abuses.

    Furthermore it was public taxes that rescued a reckless & selfish global financial system by bailing out the banks.

    How can you ever justify subjugation as fair?

    Ever since the South Sea Bubble simple economic gambling has not been rectified. When a man dodges taxes he is jailed & fined, when corporations do so it is an pft ignored slight.

    When the system truly represents supply & demand with no market manipulation & the ramifications of bankruptcy at a corporate level are equal only then is your system “free” 😀

  7. Black Flag says:

    Greetings, Ushiku.

    Black Flag you are clinging on to social, economic, political & philosophical constructs such as Libertarianism, Free-market Capitalism & individualism whilst declaring those you disagree with as evil.

    Yep, I am “clinging” to Freedom and Individualism as the forces of evil work to rip them from my hands.

    I do not declare you or Futile “evil”.

    I have been very precise and clear what I define as evil

    Evil is using violence on non-violent men.

    If you chose to enforce your belief or policy upon another man -directly or by proxy- by using violence, then that is evil.

    Your cause is completely irrelevant.
    The End does not justify the Means.
    The Means justifies the End.

    Ownership, class, race, religion, ideology are all social constructs.

    Race is not a society construct, it is a physical claim. How can a man be but his race???

    My class may depend on my daily wealth, it changes. My religion is fickle.

    But my Race does not change – ever – even after I die.

    Property is physical – it is not a social construct. The land I stand on -which I claim- is always land.

    Methinks you are a bit befuddled.

    However human rights such as adequate housing, energy, accessible transportation in a globalised world are now in private hands after being publicly funded bodies at one point.

    None of those are human rights – they are human needs or wants. You are very confused about the difference.

    A Human Right exists without causing a man to lose his Rights.

    My freedom does not destroy your freedom. For me to be free, you must be equally free.

    For you to claim you have a right to house causes the question “Who pays for it?”.

    You will steal and take from another man his property, wealth and house for you to use – you breach his Right to satisfy yours.

    Thus, your claim that it is a Right is FALSE. It is a human need or want.

    To breach Human Rights to satisfy your human needs is an act of Savagery and Barbarianism and incompatible with Civilization.

    You cannot claim that capitalism provides & then ignore its manipulation & abuses.

    I claim Free men have a Right to be Free from your designs and impositions.

    What Freemen chose to do, within their Rights is their Rights no matter how much you stomp your feet.

    Manipulation? If free from violence – then your complaint really is you are a weak minded person, and yes, you best not leave the tender care of your mother least your weakness subject you to loss.

    Abuse? Violence upon a non-violent person is a breach of civilized behavior and has no justification whatsoever. None. Zero

    Furthermore it was public taxes that rescued a reckless & selfish global financial system by bailing out the banks.

    It was your money given to rich fat cats by the government fat cats to bail out the fat cats from their own folly.

    Somehow, the sight of you slapping yourself on the back in congratulations for bailing out billionaires mercantilists is a bit perverse.

    How can you ever justify subjugation as fair?

    I don’t justify anything under the “fair” tag at all. It is completely subjective and moot to debate between people.

    Subjugation – that is slavery – is never justified.

    Ever since the South Sea Bubble simple economic gambling has not been rectified.

    As typical of those that do not understand, you make up causation without fact.

    The SS Bubble was an artifact of government-induced credit meeting government-run mercantilism business.

    The common factor: government.

    With absolutely no surprise: collapse.

    Salient points:
    Founded in 1711, the company was granted a monopoly to trade in Spain’s South American colonies as part of a treaty during the War of Spanish Succession.

    In return, the company assumed the national debt England had incurred during the war

    Do they not teach good history in school any more??

    When a man dodges taxes he is jailed & fined, when corporations do so it is an pft ignored slight.

    Yet, the reason blows through you like the wind through a wheat field.

    Corporations are an abstraction of government writ – they exist solely by government law.

    There you sit, wondering why government gives preference to its creation over a creation by God’s own breath.

    All I can say is -duh-

    When the system truly represents supply & demand with no market manipulation & the ramifications of bankruptcy at a corporate level are equal only then is your system “free”

    A free market is exists when men trade voluntarily with one another.

    No other condition required.

  8. Black Flag says:

    Futile,

    Just to put an addendum to your “who got the land” question.

    There is an established doctrine, called “CCT”, short for:

    Conquest, by force of arms –

    Cession, by treaty, or mutual agreement and

    Terrae Nullius, when there are no inhabitants and no legal system exists on the territory.

    Terrae Nullius, for example, is British claim to North America – as it is argued that the natives – did not really “occupy” the land and did not have a “legal” system.

    Of course, the natives are now arguing the opposite in their land claims … (just an aside).

  9. Interesting the Dvorak got depressive in the “best of all worlds” and went back home!

    The estate game has kicked each truly creative boeheme out of city’s who are now Potemkin façades of “entertained consumerist aliveness” without true inner spirit, and has specially in the UK made “going back to the country side”, a trivial show off of nouveaux riches parroting the old country gentry who mostly ignores them and had far better relationships with the simple folks, the nouveaux wannabe posh avoid with disdain. Time for a little revolution again!

  10. Charles says:

    “Property is physical – it is not a social construct. The land I stand on -which I claim- is always land.”

    Property implies ownership; “right of possession” and is thus a social construct. While that which is property maybe at times physical in nature. This is not always so, a written work, the property is not really the book but the ideas in the book or the story. In this example the property is not physical.

    “None of those are human rights – they are human needs or wants. You are very confused about the difference.”

    Human rights and freedoms (UN rights and freedoms) to which all humans are entitled, where agreed by lawfully by all the worlds governemts. This was agreed on voluntary by the governments of the poeple of this planet. These rights are given to us by are government and we cannot as individuals change them or give them up.

    “A Human Right exists without causing a man to lose his Rights.”

    Basically what you are saying is you cant own anything because that would cause a man to lose his right to own it as well. You are saying my right has to be equal to yours, if it was not a man would lose his rights. Apply that system of thinking to everything and you have common ownership. A system where no man loses ownership to anything and thus noone loses any rights. For one man to own something for himself, another man loses the right to own it as well. So private ownship is causing a man to lose his Right to own something and another to gain it.

    “My freedom does not destroy your freedom. For me to be free, you must be equally free.”

    Yet again your freedom to own something, prevents me from owning it mtyself. So private ownship of land is a freedom that, prevents me from owning that lands as well. One mans freedom here destorys another mans freedom. Also it should be noted that the only truely free man is a tyrant because he can do anything he wants. Everyone else is not so free.

    “For you to claim you have a right to house causes the question “Who pays for it?”.”

    See UN declaration of human rights.

    Article 22.

    * Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

    Social security includes things such as food, clothing, shelter, education, money, and medical care.

    “You will steal and take from another man his property, wealth and house for you to use – you breach his Right to satisfy yours.”

    Stealing is a unlawfull act, taxation is not unlawful so is not stealing.

    “Thus, your claim that it is a Right is FALSE. It is a human need or want.”

    Its not under the UN declaration of human rights, human need are rights. This has been agree to by the lawfully elected government of the UK.

    “To breach Human Rights to satisfy your human needs is an act of Savagery and Barbarianism and incompatible with Civilization.”

    This is not the agreed position of every country that has joined the UN. Under UN declaration of human rights, human needs are rights. Every country that has joined the UN has accepted this.

    “I claim Free men have a Right to be Free from your designs and impositions.”

    All laws are imposed on those who don’t want them, and there can never practically be a system created where everyone agrees with every aspect. So anything we create is a design and to others who don’t want it an imposition.

    “What Freemen chose to do, within their Rights is their Rights no matter how much you stomp your feet.”

    Yet you wish the right of ownership for yourself and deny the right to anything that would get in the way of ownership to anyone else.

    “Manipulation? If free from violence – then your complaint really is you are a weak minded person, and yes, you best not leave the tender care of your mother least your weakness subject you to loss.”

    Ownership can only be maintained by the threat of violence. Ask yourself why counties have armies and it will become quickly clear. How can you remove someone from your land, who is not lawfully aloud to be there without violence.

    “It was your money given to rich fat cats by the government fat cats to bail out the fat cats from their own folly.”

    and there would be no economic system without it… The rish fat cats (capitalists) being the same people who see taxes as stealing, also wanting tax payers money so they can keep the capitalism going after their rational self-interest (self defecting nature of greed) made the financial system unworkable.

    “Somehow, the sight of you slapping yourself on the back in congratulations for bailing out billionaires mercantilists is a bit perverse.”

    but they are not just bailing out billionaires they are keeping the system going. The perverse outcome of capitalism is its ideology much act in a way that contradicts itself to keep going. Capitalism contradicts itself everytime someone most intervene.

    The main problem now is how they can jusitfy socialism for loss and still keep profits private. If you pay for the mistakes, in unemployment, loss in growth and bailouts, should you not have a share in the profits as well?

    “Corporations are an abstraction of government writ – they exist solely by government law.”

    So does individual ownership of anything and all rights and I mean “they exist solely by government law.” Also laws are mantained by threat of violence, what we call the police and death/imprisonment as punishment. The use of violence to impose laws and rights is considered civilized behavior.

    “A free market is exists when men trade voluntarily with one another.”

    How can one maintain that men trade voluntarily without coercion which is what laws are and the violemce required to maintain them. If there is no enforcement maintaining that trade is voluntarily, people will act as they please.

    Somalia is a good example of a free market without a central government to maintain laws. Rights to set laws and rights to enforce them are competed for by using violence, until there is one law or one government left but as the violences stops the threat of it always most remain, to maintain order.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: