[Eran]

You don't, and never will have, the power to overrule what most people think, was my point. Doesn't matter if you think you "should" have that veto power, there is no way you can get such power. Not until you become a dictator and terrorize everybody to the point they are afraid to voice their opinions.

You are, of course, correct. The tool I propose to use to change what other people think is persuasion. I am hoping that over time, the libertarian/ancap message will change public understanding of what government actually does and how well society can function without it.

The constitution does not prevent the government from doing anything. It just puts a more stringent than usual protocol on the decision making process about some issues, because we have decided (democratically) it's good to be slow and careful about changing some of the more important things. If we thought a government religion was an awesome idea, we would change the constitution and start teaching Scientology in the classrooms. The constitution is part of the democratic process.

The Constitution (Capital 'C') is part of the democratic process. The constitution (lower 'c') isn't. The (lower-case) American constitution encompasses not just written words (the Constitution) but also the attitudes, culture, expectation and values of the American people. Those impact how government and society more generally function in ways far broader than the formal democratic processes allow.

For example, Constitutional interpretation is led by the USSC which is only remotely related to the democratic process. The Justices do, however, reflect the constitution (lc) in that they are chosen by elected officials amongst a small group of competent lawyers and judges, a pool of candidate itself both influenced by and influencing the American society's understanding of the role of government (if any).

The democratic process is merely one tool for transmitting societal attitudes to the formal process of government (through the election of particular people to specific roles). Deep-seated attitudes towards the proper role of government in different spheres of life are reflected in both the formal process of Constitutional amendments and the informal process of constitutional change through Constitutional reinterpretation by the USSC and lower courts.

Thus the role of government in religion has shrunk in the past few decades even while the role of (the Federal) government in the economy has increased. Both processes didn't follow a Constitutional amendment, but rather a gradual process of changed attitudes on the USSC, following, reflecting and shaping the American constitutional culture.

I am hoping for a similar process to lead American (or any other country's) society towards a preference for a smaller and smaller role for government. If that process does take place, it will manifest itself both through the formal democratic process and the informal process of Constitutional interpretation. For example, the Court could, in principle, reverse the changes that took place during the 1930s in the doctrine of interpreting the Commerce Clause.

This change, if it ever takes place, may be realised, in part, through formal amendments, but it doesn't have to. IT will lead to a progressively-shrunk role for government. It may or may not be marked, at some point, by formal dissolution of the US Government. Or existing organs of the US Government could be privatised, converted into non-monopoly not-for-profit service providers or eliminated altogether.

[Truth To Power]

Even if 1% controls 35% of the total financial wealth, there is no evidence that most of that control isn't exerted in commercially-reasonable manner.

There is a difference between "commercially reasonable" and "beneficial."

The wealthy didn't get to be wealthy by investing their money unwisely. Investing it wisely means funding promising start-ups regardless of who stands behind them.

Garbage.

"The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive way for a capitalist to increase his fortune, is to put all monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price" — Andrew Carnegie (1835 - 1919)

I hope, by now, you realise that I don't support state violence regardless of who it is backed by.

But you do support it if it is for the unearned profit of landowners.

Nor do I support the land ownership structure in pre-20th century England as that was based, in large part, on conquest, violence and aggression.

Landownership has always been based on violence and aggression, and usually on conquest. Can you name a private land title that isn't?

[Truth To Power]

[The private interest of those in the lending industry is to fund promising new or expanding businesses regardless of who is behind them.

No, it is to get people, firms and governments as deeply into debt as possible, so that their entire incomes are devoted to paying interest to the lender.

The issue of control of means of production is greatly overblown.

No. The issue of control of capital goods is greatly overblown by socialists and Marxists, while the issue of control of land and natural resources is greatly understated by -- with fine unanimity -- socialists, Marxists and capitalists.

The free market system is highly competitive amongst capitalists.

While landowners need not compete at all.

To the issue at hand (the ability of workers to gain independence by starting their own business)

The "liberty" to start your own business is meaningless without the liberty to access the opportunities government, the community and nature provide without having to pay a parasitic landowner full market value for them.

In practice, of course, the accumulation of wealth in a small number of hands ("small" in this context is still easily large enough for robust competition to be the rule) is a direct result of the crony-capitalist, central-bank controlled financial system. In a freed market, such concentration of wealth would be far less likely.

In a truly freed market, yes. But where land is private property, the transfer of all wealth into the hands of the landed, and the concentration of landownership itself, are inevitable effects of market forces. The feudal-like wealth and privilege of the New York patroons owed nothing whatever to crony capitalism or central banking. It proceeded inexorably from the landowners' privilege of taking from the producers and contributing nothing in return.

Most members of today's society, unfortunately, have a giant "blind spot" when it comes to state authority/legitimacy.

Talk about blind spots! You cannot see what is not only right in front of your face, but which I have been rubbing your nose in for months:

http://www.henrygeorge.org/catsup.htm

Cast out first the beam of private property in land that is in thine own eye.

An an-cap society isn't pacifist, and thus isn't devoid of violence. However, it will be devoid of aggression, i.e. the initiation of force. Any force will be used defensively, or be considered and treated as criminal.

When Crusoe has claimed the island for his "peaceful project," and then Friday washes up on the beach, the an-cap "non-aggression" principle calls it "defensive" use of force when Crusoe points his musket at Friday and says, "Get to work, or get back in the water."

[Truth To Power]

You think people will just give their money to the government because the government needs it?

I think they will give their money to government in return for what government gives to them, IF GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THEM TO, instead of just giving them those benefits for free.

Voluntary donations, instead of taxation? What a delusional fantasy that is.

Value for value received is not a delusional fantasy. We just do not currently require the wealthy and privileged who are getting the benefit of government spending to pay for it.

[Truth To Power]

Sure there is, because if something has to be provided to you by someone else then it cannot be a right.

Very astute. A genuine right is not a right to have something provided to you by others, but a right not to be DEPRIVED by others of what you would otherwise have: life, liberty, and property in the fruits of your labor. The right to life is therefore not a right to be kept alive indefinitely at others' expense, but simply not to be forcibly deprived of your life by anyone else's action. Likewise, liberty is not something others are required provide for you, but something you have naturally unless someone else forcibly deprives you of it.

[Truth To Power]

Negative rights (or perhaps the one, singular, negative right) is about being left alone. About having one's peaceful projects not physically interfered with by others.

A project that involves forcibly depriving others of their liberty to use what nature provided for all without making just compensation -- e.g., appropriation of land as private property -- is not peaceful.

[Truth To Power]

Working class have (or 'should have' in a libertarian world) a negative right to be left alone by capitalists.

But not by landowners...?

Everyone is free to use their own labor and resources to start their own firm. That's the negative right.

What "resources"? Certainly not the ones nature provided for all. Landowners have appropriated them.

"Free" to pay a greedy, idle, parasitic landowner full market value just for access to the opportunities government, the community, and nature provide?

Yep: that sure sounds like a negative right to me....

[Truth To Power]

And land owners end up having nothing to sell but their land. So what?

Landowners don't have to sell anything: they are privileged to charge others full market value for access to the opportunities government, the community and nature provide. The worker has to actually contribute his time, skill and effort to production in return for his wages, and the capitalist has to contribute buildings, machinery, etc. The landowner, by contrast, contributes exactly nothing: the land would be there, ready to use, even if he and every previous owner of that land had never existed. He is a pure taker, a pure parasite.

Can you figure out how the landowner's privilege relates to human rights and economic problems?