What exactly is a Libertarian?

[samiam5211]

I've considered myself a Libertarian for quite some time, but everyone I run into seems to have a different definition for what a Libertarian is.

I think I am right when I say that libertarianism is summed up by the noncoercion principle which as expressed by Epicurus as:

"The justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness, neither to harm one another nor be harmed."

I interpret this as basically: I can do as I please up to the point where what I please interferes with what you please.

Unfortunately this concept seems too abstract to be useful in application. Where is the line that denotes that someone is being coerced?

As I understand it, a truly libertarian government would be a minimalist government. It would basically provide for personal and national security and little else.

There would be no economic regulation other than perhaps the management of a national currency.

Is it coercion for me to pay someone to work for me?
Is it coercion for me to invest in someone's idea in exchange for a portion of any profits their idea produces?
Is it coercion for me to fire an otherwise effective employee for calling in sick?
Is it coercion for me to form an alliance with other local businessmen where we agree not to do business with people who are Hindu, because they don't fit in?


Don't misunderstand me. I am a pure capitalist. I think the government should keep it's hands completely out of the economy.

I think that the market's self-regulatory mechanisms become retarded by government's meddling and things often end up worse for longer than they would have been if the market had been allowed to naturally purge the bad businesses.

Government meddling as created the need for government meddling. Their regulation/protection of certain industries causes those industries to take more risk than the market would normally allow, increasing failure.

I just am questioning whether I am a Libertarian or not because if the foundation of the philosophy is noncoerction,how do i merry it up with my unabated love for capitalism.

The non coercion principle doesn't just apply to government does it? Surely economic coercion is still coercion. Even if it's indirect, it's still coercion.

Anyone else had this concern and cleared it up somehow?

Also, i'd love some links to respected libertarian websites.

Anyhow, sorry for the long first post.

thanks

[Blazedone]

I think you're a great memeber of this great forum, thank you for your views on libratarianism they have enlightened me. I will look forward to more of your posts, samiam because its obvious your a tru Ron Paul supporter.

[Mahkato]

I think you'd probably like the Philosophy of Liberty: http://bit.ly/3iRr7

[MRoCkEd]

welcome!


Is it coercion for me to pay someone to work for me?
Is it coercion for me to invest in someone's idea in exchange for a portion of any profits their idea produces?
Is it coercion for me to fire an otherwise effective employee for calling in sick?
Is it coercion for me to form an alliance with other local businessmen where we agree not to do business with people who are Hindu, because they don't fit in?

None of these fall under the category of coercion. Coercion involves compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. The actions you described are all acts of freedom. It would only be coercion if you forced someone to work for you or forced someone to hire you.


I recommend these libertarian websites:
www.lewrockwell.com
www.mises.org
www.campaignforliberty.com

[samiam5211]

welcome!
None of these fall under the category of coercion. Coercion involves compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. The actions you described are all acts of freedom.


I recommend these libertarian websites:
www.lewrockwell.com
www.mises.org
www.campaignforliberty.com


But wouldn't #3 and 4 on my list fall under other forms of pressure?

in number 3 someone would be forced to come to work sick or lose their ability to provide for their family

in number 4 a group of people would be using social pressure to coerce a group to either move away, through removing them from the marketplace.

Sure, in both cases the person is free to make whichever choice they choose

The worker can go to work sick, or read the want ads while he is at home sick.

The Hindu family can move away, or do their shopping in another city.

Aren't these both really Hobson's choices?


Again, I wanna make it clear I am not saying that any of the things i listed as possible examples are necessarily something that government should regulate, I am just having trouble reconciling my philosophy with the principle that I understand to be at the foundation of Libertarianism. I know I am a capitalist, I am still trying to see if I fit with libertarianism.

[MRoCkEd]

But wouldn't #3 and 4 on my list fall under other forms of pressure?

in number 3 someone would be forced to come to work sick or lose their ability to provide for their family

in number 4 a group of people would be using social pressure to coerce a group to either move away, through removing them from the marketplace.

Sure, in both cases the person is free to make whichever choice they choose

The worker can go to work sick, or read the want ads while he is at home sick.

The Hindu family can move away, or do their shopping in another city.

Aren't these both really Hobson's choices?


Again, I wanna make it clear I am not saying that any of the things i listed as possible examples are necessarily something that government should regulate, I am just having trouble reconciling my philosophy with the principle that I understand to be at the foundation of Libertarianism. I know I am a capitalist, I am still trying to see if I fit with libertarianism.
By your definition, almost anything could be considered coercion. If I do not give you a piece of my cake, I am forcing you to live without cake. Surely you see how absurd that is.

In reality, coercion would be if I held a gun to someone's head and said I would shoot them if they did not eat the cake.

You mentioned that "in both cases the person is free to make whichever choice they choose." This is true - which is precisely why it is not coercion.

There is a big difference from choosing not to shop somewhere and holding a gun to the owner's head and making him shut down his place. Any transaction has to be voluntary on both sides - one person has to agree to sell his product at a certain price, while the other has to agree to pay that price - in order for that transaction to be valid.

When the government subsidizes a business using your tax money which you are forced to pay - now [I]that is coercion because you didn't agree to give that money up.

[Old Ducker]

Also, i'd love some links to respected libertarian websites.

thanks


Here ya go: http://www.libertarianleanings.com/2009/04/top-100-libertarian-blogs-and-websites.html

Everyone has their preferences. Mine are (no particular order)

1. Mises.org economic blog http://blog.mises.org/blog/
2. MindBodyPolitic - Lila Rajiva http://mindbodypolitic.com/
3. LewRockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
4. LibertarianRepublican http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/
5. Daily Paul http://www.dailypaul.com/

[samiam5211]

I hope i don't come off as argumentative, i am just trying to work through some things and see if I fit with this philosophy.



By your definition, almost anything could be considered coercion. If I do not give you a piece of my cake, I am forcing you to live without cake. Surely you see how absurd that is.

Right, I get what you mean.

But there is a line somewhere.

Technically, if you held a gun to my head and told me to get baptized, i would still have a choice. Once of those choices would be death, but I'd still be choosing.

Obviously, almost everyone (hopefully everyone) would consider coercion.

Where that line is drawn is a problem I have with the noncoercive principle. Who decides where coercion begins? It seems that for libertarianism to be applied there would have to be some level of agreement as to where this line is.



You mentioned that "in both cases the person is free to make whichever choice they choose." This is true - which is precisely why it is not coercion.

Yes, but I said i though it was really a Hobson's choice, which is really not a choice.



There is a big difference from choosing not to shop somewhere and holding a gun to the owner's head and making him shut down his place. Any transaction has to be voluntary on both sides - one person has to agree to sell his product at a certain price, while the other has to agree to pay that price - in order for that transaction to be valid.

Which I agree with. I think if I own a business I should be able to trade with whomever I want. If I let my personal prejudice prevent me from doing business with certain people, I am placing my view over my profits and the market will punish me in the long run.

I do think that the level of influence wealth has on a society under a capitalist economy is often coercive though. It is just coercion that I support. I feel like that doesn't really make me a libertarian who wholeheartedly embraces noncoercion.



When the government subsidizes a business using your tax money which you are forced to pay - now [I]that is coercion because you didn't agree to give that money up.

Yes...actually all taxes are coercion. Which would lead to a problem for me as well since I do think that a Libertarian government would at a minimum have to maintain a well trained and equipped standing military, which would cost money. Can't exactly rely on paypal donations to fund the military.

[samiam5211]

The ignore function seems to work.

[MRoCkEd]

Technically, if you held a gun to my head and told me to get baptized, i would still have a choice. Once of those choices would be death, but I'd still be choosing.

Where that line is drawn is a problem I have with the noncoercive principle. Who decides where coercion begins? It seems that for libertarianism to be applied there would have to be some level of agreement as to where this line is.

You are over-thinking it. Throwing you in jail or shooting you for not doing something is coercion. Choosing not to buy something from someone is not.

[Andrew-Austin]

I do think that the level of influence wealth has on a society under a capitalist economy is often coercive though.

Elaborate.

The Libertarian non-aggression axiom pertains to violence and the threat of violence. Why do you think capitalism is violent? Or if you would not say it is violent, give an example of what you mean by economic coercion. I think your fudging definitions/terms.

[samiam5211]

Elaborate.

Elaborate on how I think wealth can be used to coerce?

I assume you were just referring to why i think economic coercion is incompatible with libertarianism.

In which case...

My understanding of libertarianism has been that it's founded on noncoercion. Coercion can be accomplished through violence, blackmail, societal pressures, removing source of income, threats...ect. Coercion doesn't necessarily involve violence.



The Libertarian non-aggression axiom pertains to violence and the threat of violence.

Is it non aggression or noncoercion?

maybe that's where I am confused.

[Bruno]

Welcome to the RP forums!

You should read Ain't Nobody's Business if you Do by Peter McWilliams. When I read that book it put together many beliefs I had had for a long time.

http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

[Andrew-Austin]

Coercion can be accomplished through violence, blackmail, societal pressures, removing source of income, threats...ect. Coercion doesn't necessarily involve violence.

Is it non aggression or noncoercion?

maybe that's where I am confused.

I have always heard it called the non-aggression axiom. Regardless if you heard someone call it the non-coercion axiom, it has nothing to do with mere influence. Its talking about physical coercion.


violence, threat of violence

This is what the NAA is referring to.


societal pressures

That is just influence, no one is forcing you to do anything.


removing source of income

That isn't even coercion. It would only be against the NAA axiom if violence was used to rid someone of their source for income. If you work for me and I fire you, that is not against the NAA.


coercion - use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

[samiam5211]

I'll do some reading...

I'm sure my whole post seems a bit silly. I feel like I am trying to force myself into not agreeing with a philosophy that I subscribe to whether I know it or not.

I am not opposed to those circumstances that I called non violent coercion (or influence), yet it seems to be a sticking point for me.

I can be as stubborn as an Acorn get out the vote volunteer sometimes.

"What do you mean you ALREADY registered? Do it again, lazy"

[Bruno]

I'll do some reading...

I'm sure my whole post seems a bit silly. I feel like I am trying to force myself into not agreeing with a philosophy that I subscribe to whether I know it or not.

I am not opposed to those circumstances that I called non violent coercion (or influence), yet it seems to be a sticking point for me.

I can be as stubborn as an Acorn get out the vote volunteer sometimes.

"What do you mean you ALREADY registered? Do it again, lazy"

Here's an idea - don't try to label yourself with one category or political philosophy. It is alright to believe in some things and not others. You'll be much happier. Find your own path.

[sailor]

Samian you must understand that nobody owes you anything. But thats a good thing, because it means you don`t owe anybody nothing either.

So nobody owes you a source of income, nobody owes you to be allowed onto his property (a store) and so on. So getting fired for any reason whatsover can not be coercive, neither can be a denial to serve you in a restaraunt.

Maybe look up negative freedoms and the so called "positive freedoms". Another definition of a Libertarian could be someone who thinks the "positive freedoms" are bogus and evil and enslaving as they are coercive for at least one party.

[samiam5211]

Here's an idea - don't try to label yourself with one category or political philosophy. It is alright to believe in some things and not others. You'll be much happier. Find your own path.


Oh no...

It's not really what I am doing.

I am just trying to mesh my philosophy, which is what it is, with some form of practical application.

And for there to be practical application there needs to be a significant number with a similar philosophy. I am just trying to find a base of people who share a similar philosophy to discuss educating other people about it in hopes they will see it the same way.

Sure, I can live my own life by that philosophy as much as is possible within the system under which I am government, but... if you truly believe something, I think you have an obligation to yourself to make others aware of the merits of that belief.

If they disagree, fine, but we should at least make an effort to explain it to those willing to listen, without bullying them into agreement, or insulting them if they disagree.

But make no mistake, my philosophy of...a minimalist government who's purpose is to provide national security whether it be violent crime, terrorist attack, or invasion, and has no desire to dictate personal conduct that doesn't directly harm another, or try to pretend that people who win elections are qualified to run a business better than those who are experts at making profit ... is not going to change.

[samiam5211]

Samian you must understand that nobody owes you anything. But thats a good thing, because it means you don`t owe anybody nothing either.

So nobody owes you a source of income, nobody owes you to be allowed onto his property (a store) and so on. So getting fired for any reason whatsover can not be coercive, neither can be a denial to serve you in a restaraunt.

Maybe look up negative freedoms and the so called "positive freedoms". Another definition of a Libertarian could be someone who thinks the "positive freedoms" are bogus and evil and enslaving as they are coercive for at least one party.

Oh I know i am owed nothing.

I don't believe that the things I listed are something government should prevent. I just was having trouble fitting them under what I thought to be the fundamental principle of libertarianism was. I apparently misunderstood the principle, I have reading to do.

[MRoCkEd]

Your views on government's role are in line with our views.
Now quit arguing over semantics and join the R[3VO_l]UTION.

[Brian4Liberty]

Not that this is important at all, but it is common to use the big L "Libertarian" for things related to the Libertarian Party, and use the small l "libertarian" for libertarian views in general...

The Libertarian Party says this:


http://www.lp.org/platform

National Platform of the Libertarian Party

Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado
Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.
Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.


More info on particular issues here:

http://www.lp.org/issues

[heavenlyboy34]

I like Rothbard's "button test". :) Basically, it goes like this-if there was a button before you that would eliminate the state entirely on one push, the true libertarian would bruise his finger pushing the button! :cool::D

[sailor]

I like Rothbard's "button test". :) Basically, it goes like this-if there was a button before you that would eliminate the state entirely on one push, the true libertarian would bruise his finger pushing the button! :cool::D

Which state? :p

[heavenlyboy34]

Which state? :p

not an individual state, but the State (capitalized)-i.e. the government and its various tentacles (such as quasi-governmental agencies, i.e. the Fed).

[sailor]

not an individual state, but the State (capitalized)-i.e. the government and its various tentacles (such as quasi-governmental agencies, i.e. the Fed).

Yes, which state? Brazil, Canada, Denmark?

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, which state? Brazil, Canada, Denmark?

You still vastly misunderstand. :( Dictionary.com explains thusly:

10. the body politic as organized for civil rule and government (distinguished from church (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=church&db=luna) ). 11. the operations or activities of a central civil government: affairs of state.

[Kludge]

I expect nothing from everyone. Nobody should expect anything from me.

You do not need money. You do not need food. You do not need cloths. They are all luxuries, as life is a privilege.

I am at a great advantage to be living around so many people as it allows me to specialize (along with everyone else). I have the privilege of selling my labor to those who want it in exchange for wealth of some kind. With that wealth, I may be able to exchange it for something I can use, if I am able to find someone willing to exchange. I am entitled to nothing and no one is entitled to anything of my own. "Rights" don't exist.