http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf

I had also read:

http://mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=16

and

http://mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=7

but those two links don’t seem to be working today. One of them extended the idea to private, free-market fire, police, justice, and even law. Interesting stuff to be sure.

http://mises.org/story/2874#_ftnref15

It would be very interesting to see a society of go-it-aloners such as what Ari Tai (July 18, 7:33 p.m.) wrote about try implementing such a society. Or would we need the big insurance companies, with properties spread far and wide, to implement such a society?

Bingo. Therein lies the germ of an idea. If 12-to-20 million people can live largely “outside” the system with virtual impunity, then actual citizens who want to opt out of the nanny state will have to “go underground in plain sight,” by adopting similar tactics.

I confess, though, that I have no concrete or realistic suggestions as to how to pull that off on a grand scale.

“”"”Okay, but here’s some consequences of declaring “independence”:

You’ll have to get your own electric power instead of using our transmission lines in the Commons.

You’ll need a Buck Rogers jet pack to get around so you don’t end up tresspassing on our roads in the Commons. Either that, you you need to pay a toll for every mile you drive.

If some jerks break into your house, don’t call 9-11. Maybe you can retain a private detective to get your stuff back. And pray you don’t have a fire.”"”"”

NO, you misunderstand. You actually included this quote in your post, and STILL managed to misunderstand:

“”"”"Declaring independence means you no longer want or need the government to pass laws to protect you from yourself. It means you are happy to take the risks and bear the consequences of your own, freely chosen actions.”"”"”"

One would not lose the protection of government from the criminal actions of others, and you would still get power and other utilities because that is actually a private business transaction between home-owner (or, your landlord and the utilities) and the utilities. Remember the quote is “laws to protect you from yourself,” NOT an abdication of relinquishing the most basic protections government affords you. It also means you would still be paying taxes.

the idea that one needs to “buy” these from said government means the citizen *has already lost* any right they imagined themselves to have had.

road to serfdom,indeed,wretchard.

Clarity

I think what you’ll find,
I think what you’ll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

You lost me at that point. I believe the state should be limited to its essentials: protection of its citizens via strong police & defence forces and administering the justice system.

That’s it. Everything else can be arranged peacefully, without state coercion.

You’re dreaming if you expect the state ‘to work efficiently’. On the contrary, it behoves the state to be as inefficient as possible in order to justify its grotesquely bloated existence.

http://www.lp.org.nz