A Conversation With Genghis Khan

February 16th, 2014   Submitted by Roman Skaskiw

u-genghis-khan-monumentGenghis Khan: I am Genghis Khan. Not the actual one, but the author’s imperfect allegorical reflection. I like to rape, pillage, loot, and in general, be the flail of God.

Libertarian Villager: You shouldn’t do that stuff.

GK: Hahahahaha.

LV: Seriously.

GK: Why shouldn’t I?

LV: It violates self-ownership. Every person owns themselves.

GK: No they don’t. I own them. Don’t you see me deciding who gets raped or killed? Those who live do so by my mercy.

LV: Okay, I stated that incorrectly. Everyone is the rightful owner of their body. You should respect that.

GK: Hahahahaha. I am Genghis Khan. I make my own “should” with warriors and horses.

LV: Rights are not created by force of arms.

GK: <brandishing sword> Yes. They. Are.

LV: No. Self-ownership is a universal. It’s a natural right given by nature or nature’s God. It does not and can not come from violence.

GK: Do you see this birthmark? This birthmark comes from your nature or your nature’s God. It is a sign that I am his flail. You must have committed great sins, otherwise he would not have sent a punishment like me upon you!

LV: You don’t get it. That violates universally preferable behavior. You can’t make up laws that aren’t universal. Rules for behavior must apply equally to all people at the same time.

GK: Where ever my cavalry treads, I can do whatever I want. The only rule is that rules are written and enforced by the strong. This is universal. It applies everywhere. If you were strong, you could make and enforce rules for self-ownership or whatever else, but you’re weak. Clever, but weak.

LV: You’re a barbarian.

GK: Hahahahaha. I will think about this insult while relaxing among the fountains, gold and women of my palace.

LV: I shouldn’t waste my time talking to people like you.

GK: Isn’t that what the socialists say about libertarians?

LV: Well . . . it’s just that this conversation is difficult because you don’t understand economics: voluntary cooperation, division of labor, free trade.

GK: This conversation is difficult because you don’t understand economics: opportunity cost.

LV: You’re not being rational. Anyone pursuing their self-interest will respect the norm of property rights, starting with self-ownership.

GK: I am being rational. I rape so many women that in a few generations, a measurable percentage of Asia’s population will be my progeny. How is that not in my self-interest?

LV: That’s a good point. Um. Okay, what if I told you that by doing so, you prevent the development of civilization.

GK: What is civilization?

LV: Imagine being able to talk to anyone in the world any time you want, being able to fly through the air, to live to an old age, prevent disease, build buildings that reach the clouds, have instant access to all human knowledge that ever existed.

GK: If I stopped pillaging and looting this would happen?

LV: And raping. Yes. It would happen much faster than it otherwise would.

GK: How fast?

LV: A few generations, maybe?

GK: A measurable portion of Asia’s population will be my children.

LV: Maybe civilization will happen in one generation?

GK: My time preference is not so long. I’d rather rape all those women.

LV: Okay, what if civilization would happen a week from now? Stop raping, killing and pillaging, and civilization will happen in a week — more wealth that you could possibly dream about.

GK: That seems unlikely.

LV: Let’s entertain the hypothetical. Okay? You stop raping, killing and pillaging and in just seven days things which now seem like miracles — flight, the internet, medicine — will become possible and accessible to everyone.

GK: Why do I care if they are accessible to everyone?

LV: Don’t you want wealth?

GK: I’d rather have status.

LV: But, but universalism!

GK: Haven’t we been over that?

LV: Oh, right.

GK: You are trying to trick me.

LV: No I’m not. I’m proposing laws which would create civilization and which can apply equally to all people at all times.

GK: The law of strong also applies equally. You also propose a system which gives the clever agency over the strong. I am strong. Why should I accept it?

LV: But everybody will be richer under that system!

GK: I don’t want wealth, I want status. Wealth only interests me as a signal of status, and it only works when I am more wealthy than everyone else. You also prefer status over wealth.

LV: Not true!

GK: You lie, either to me or to yourself. Why are all advocates of property rights clever, capable people? They advocate the system which gives them the most status. I do the same thing. Except I am more strong than clever.

LV: <thinking>

GK: It is time to admit that the law of the strong is no less legitimate than the law of self-ownership, and time to admit that what you call rights come from violence.

LV: Mr. Khan, the world is very large. There are rivers, oceans, forests and mountains which your cavalry does not cross. Beyond them are other peoples. If they create civilization before you do, they will have tanks, bombers, machine guns — weapons against which your cavalry is useless. They will be stronger than you. Your progeny, numerous though they may be, will be at the mercy of these civilizations.

GK: You have my attention. What do you advise?

LV: Respect self-ownership. Respect private property rights. Turn your cavalry into police men who exercise only defensive violence. Let them punish others who violate property rights. In this way, our civilization will develop first.

GK: If your rights are natural, universal, and extensions of biology, then why do you ask for my warriors to establish them?

LV: It would help against people who don’t agree with us.

GK: Against people like me?

LV: Well, yes.

GK: What else should we enforce?

LV: Only property rights. Everything is reducible to property rights.

GK: What if a clever man tricks me?

LV: Buyer beware.

GK: <thinking> . . . If a clever man enters into a contract with me or my progeny and doesn’t provide symmetry of knowledge, in other words if he hides details from me through deliberate omission, I will kill him.

LV: Whoa. Hold on. Omitting information might not qualify as fraud. That would be up to a judge. And even if it did, killing him as punishment is way out of proportion.

GK: Not only will I kill him, I will kill his family, I will kill his neighbors, and I will raze his native city and scatter lye among the ashes so that nothing ever grows there again.

LV: That violates self-ownership.

GK: If the clever steal by sagacity, our covenant is broken, and I will not tolerate my opportunity cost of recognizing property. Secondly, if two other men make an agreement between themselves, using their property which has the external effect of harming me or my progeny, I will kill them and their families and neighbors and raze their native cities.

LV: All rights are property rights. It should be their business.

GK: Lastly, everyone should have a warranty on purchases suitable to the nature of the product. If a seller refuses, I will kill him . . . and maybe his family too.

LV: These are not universal rights. They are arbitrary.

GK: My opportunity cost is very high. These norms are my price. I will cede agency not merely to the clever, but to those who are both clever and honest.

LV: But is not natural.

GK: <brandishing sword again> This is natural.

LV: On second thought, what you propose is close enough. You have a deal. At least these rights which your cavalry will begin enforcing are much closer to universal rights. They are natural extensions of our biology, and vastly superior to the arbitrary thing you call “the right of the strong.”

GK: You’re so cute.

(This allegory intends to question the universalism of libertarianism, highlight the source of de facto property rights, illustrate the incompleteness of the non-aggression principle and suggest that it’s more productive to consider property rights a social norms, one of many.)

51 Responses to “A Conversation With Genghis Khan”

  1. Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

    I fucking love you.

    Spot on.

  2. Oh. My. F’ing. God.
    You did it. You made it accessible.
    Brilliant.
    Absolutely brilliant.

    • To paraphrase the great Curt Doolittle:

      The problem we face is not imagining property rights on Crusoe’s island, but enforcing property rights amid countless Genghis Khans.

      • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

        That’s a good quote. Our philosophy shouldn’t depend on everybody in the world respecting our property, because it’s never going to happen. We’ve got to figure out how to defend our property. Period.

        • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

          What sort of weapon is consistent with free association? A sniper’s rifle seems more offensive than defensive. If I don’t want to impose my will upon you, why do I need to threaten you from a distance?

          • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

            Because Genghis Khan will use a sniper rifle on you.

            • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

              If I can repel GK without sniper rifles, despite his possession of these rifles, shouldn’t I use the less deadly alternative? I’ve read of a weapon that directs microwaves at an adversary. It creates a terrible burning sensation on the surface of the skin, rendering the target incapable of advancing without harming him otherwise. If these weapons along the periphery of a community are sufficient to repel GK’s invasion, am I bound to use these weapons instead of sniper rifles to repel the invasion?

            • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

              Here’s a description of the microwave weapon.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

              This question is more than hypothetical. A federation of sovereign, libertarian communities seems to require weapons of this sort as much as it requires the restricted use, even the abolition, of more lethal weapons. I’m not suggesting a state monopolizing lethal weapons. I’m rather suggesting communities somehow forbidden to kill members without surrendering a right to self-rule otherwise.

              • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                I think your approach is interesting. I just think that once someone tries to kill you you are well within your rights to destroy him.

                • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

                  If someone is a threat to your life, you have a right to defend yourself, but if someone was a threat to your life in the past, you have no right to hunt him down and destroy him in my way of thinking.

                  I don’t associate a right to self-defense with an absolute right to be armed. Maybe I don’t want to defend myself this way. Maybe I want to defend myself by associating with other people who don’t want to be armed. If you want to defend yourself by being armed, my friends and I still have a right to a space free of your arms. You may associate with other armed people or with people willing for you alone to be armed, and we’ll see which community attracts more members.

                  Of course, my friends and I don’t want armed people invading our space, so we’ll try to exclude these people. In reality, despite the myth of the “wild west”, frontier communities often operated this way. People often were armed in their homes but surrendered their arms to a sheriff before entering a population center like a market town. The sheriff didn’t force people to surrender these weapons. Merchants and other users of the market rather agreed that they wanted the market free of weapons, so they hired a sheriff to administer this term of use.

                  • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                    I would say it depends on who the person was because I’m going to be honest with you. There are some people that are really dangerous in the world and I don’t think it’s a good idea to show such threats mercy.

                    • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

                      I see these really dangerous people on television a lot more than I encounter them in real life, and I’m only discussing your legal rights here. You shouldn’t have a legal right to hunt someone down and kill him because he threatened you in the past in my way of thinking. If you want to do it anyway, that’s a matter of personal preference, but you then invite someone else to hunt you down. If you need to hunt the guy down to kill him, you might as well celebrate the distance between you instead, seems to me.

                    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                      Yeah, I don’t watch TV. But I agree with you that distance is good. But at the same time you have to take steps. Because psychopaths exist.

                      The United States for example I would consider the population at large to weak to consider a threat. But that’s changing.

                    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                      I guess too a big difference is experience I live in a city with a small population and lots and lots of crime (especially violent) I live in a border State on a major interstate (It’s like 200 yards from my house) and up the road is another major interstate.

                      Violence here is alot closer to the surface than it is in other places I’ve been. And yes I want to move but you know logistics suck.

                    • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

                      If your neck of the woods is extremely dangerous, because people around you continually threaten to kill you, then you should arm yourself accordingly. I have no problem with that, though as you suggest, leaving the Hobbseian woods seems a healthier alternative.

                      More to the point, I’m genuinely interested in how a libertarian movement could establish a libertarian community, effectively free of the powerfully centralized, continental states dominating much of Earth. As a practical matter, individuals carrying guns and threatening to kill anyone else violating whatever they declare their “property rights” seems an unlikely means to this end, never mind that killing someone itself violates the most fundamental propriety in most communities.

                      Suppose a few thousand free staters acquire title to a few, contiguous square miles of land in New Hampshire and subsequently declare their independence from the United States (and its vassal states), agreeing to be governed by Rothbardian standards say. Thereafter, the state sends some tax bills to members of the community, and when these members ignore the bills, state agents roll onto the land with their Bearcats to collect.

                      What happens at this point? The secessionists start shooting? Are they supposed to win this battle?

                      I don’t imagine a secession of this sort ever succeeding, but I can imagine other strategies outside of the established political process. Anarchists serious about achieving their goals discuss these alternatives rather than imagining themselves gunslingers in a spaghetti western.

              • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

                “…A federation of sovereign, libertarian communities…”

                Is this not rather a contradiction in terms? I suppose not if mini-statism is one’s mindset.

                Sam

                • Sam. That’s a good comment from the perspective of Rothbardian absolutism. From the perspective of a world-full of Genghis Khans — your rights are the rights you are able to defend.

                  That’s important to realize. Your rights and exactly the rights you are able to defend. Nothing more.

                  I don’t reject your absolutism. An intellectual defense is part of an actual defense, but ONLY a part.

  3. Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

    You forgot the part where GK lops off the head of LV shortly after “You shouldn’t …”.

    The line between a social norm and a forcible imposition is necessarily blurry, because people will join forces to overpower their neighbors and people will yield to sufficient force, so impositions often become social norms.

    Libertarianism is utopian. We imagine a world without so much coercion, even (in my utopia) without the universal imposition of specific property rights, to see where the argument takes us. We should concede this point and move on, which seems to be the author’s point, but we can’t simply concede GK’s point, even if his powerful preference seems to coincide with ours, which seems to be the author’s conclusion.

    In the liberal archipelago that I imagine, some communities would respect hereditary title in perpetuity and other communities would govern the passage of title otherwise, some communities would respect 100 year copyrights for authors, even authors outside of the community, others would not, some would tax rents to support the disabled, others not. People would leave any community at will, and a community’s resources would shrink or grow with its membership.

    In this utopia, some force necessarily compels communities to permit members to exit at will and to surrender other resources as members exit. I can’t escape this necessity, and neither can I easily imagine a state constraining communities only to this extent. This conundrum plagues every political theory. No libertarian has its solution, but neither does anyone advocating any other political system.

  4. ORNo Gravatar says:

    For me, the NAP, property rights and argumentation are only tools for co-operation. If someone sees violence more rewarding than cooperation, then he uses it, he does not need an argument for it. He can use threats to save time and effort, but threats are not arguments. Better yet, he can use lies to convince you and others, that you are the one breaking the rules of cooperation by not submitting to his will. These mendacious arguments can be overturned by logical reasoning. If this is done, the attacker will have to go back using threats and violence, that are less efficient (otherwise he would used them in first place).

    The task of libertarians is to expose the lies of statists and to demonstrate the benefits of co-operation in form of NAP, property rights and argumentation and of the civilized society, that is based on these tools. The state is based on violence and lies and is not only a separate entity from the society, but an organization directly operating against the society and it’s members.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      I don’t think populism is the answer.

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        Why not? What ism do you think is the answer? Do you think an ism is the answer?

        • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

          I don’t think an ism is the answer.

          I don’t think populism is the answer because I think it’s ridiculous to think we can compete with the State in propaganda and indoctrination techniques.

          Each situation has a unique solution. That’s my take. So in some areas I suppose we may be able to make progress with populism but overall I don’t think so.

          • ORNo Gravatar says:

            It might not work, but if a libertarian want’s to live in a free and civilized society, he has to have the population that agrees to act civilized. He can’t have a society in solitude. The more people are convinced to reject the state propaganda, the more people there are to help in building civilized society, what ever the means might be.

            • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

              “If we refuse centralisation we must go beyond the quantitative idea of rallying the exploited for a frontal clash with power. It is necessary to think of another concept of strength—burn the census lists and change reality. ”

              At Daggers Drawn with the Existent its Defenders and its False Critics by Anonymous

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      Remember the original Star Trek series, where they discovered the alternate ‘goatee dimension’? Where everyone rose to power by assassinating their predecessor? When one surrenders the philosophy that rights are inherent, and attempts to live instead by the philosophy that might makes right, one can no longer complain that others are not willing to respect one’s OWN rights. Defensive force is a simple but critical concept: My attacker has made an open declaration that he does not recognize the rights we take as self-evident, and as such I don’t have to feel badly about abusing him in ANY way I see fit, because he can’t complain about it.

  5. Jesse PorterNo Gravatar says:

    Big, physically strong people cannot be constrained by small, physically weak people, regardless how smart they may be. The first will remain first in the physical world. That is why the weak have created the idea of a spiritual world, and the logically nessessary idea of the ultimate destruction of the physical world. In the present world, size and strength realizes its position well before maturity. Libertarians last only until they come into the presence of force.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      Size has nothing to do with it. A sniper rifle can put an end to a big person in no time.

      It has to do with who’s willing to pull the trigger. If only one side is willing to pull the trigger, then they’ll always win. Until libertarians are willing to pull the trigger, they’ll always lose.

      • jesse porterNo Gravatar says:

        If I “pull the trigger” how can I remain a libertarian? Do I not then become mechanically the biggest and baddest? Unfortunately, as long as we remain in a physical world, more big, strong bullies will continue to be born. Do we shoot everyone who is stronger than we are? And do we also weed out everyone who is weaker than we are? How then are we superior to Genghis Khan?

        When I am finally alone, I will no longer have anyone stronger than I who can violate my property, nor will I be stronger than anyone so as to be able to violate their property. Some libertarian utopia!

        • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

          By “pull the trigger” I mean kill whoever violates your property rights. I don’t mean going around and killing innocents.

          • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

            If I find you in a standoff with Jesse, both of you claiming to defend the same parcel of land from the other, how do I know who is defending his property and who is threatening an innocent? Suppose neither of you violates the standards of propriety on which you base your claim. You rather base your claims on conflicting standards. How do I know which standards to accept? Do I ask you or Jesse? If I ask neither of you but instead impose my own standards with a larger gun, am I threatening innocents?

            • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

              If you find to strangers in a standoff, why do you need to know who is right or wrong? Can’t you just let them do their thing? You know, non-intervention?

              • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                BUT BUT FREEDOM DEMOCRACY!

                LOL I know Martin is far more reasonable than that I just couldn’t help myself.

            • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

              I may choose to intervene, because your bullet in another man’s head may offend my sense of propriety as much as whatever you call “a violation of your property rights” offends yours, and I may place a higher priority on the man’s life even if I agree that he violates your rights.

              In my way of thinking, you have property rights only because other people freely believe that you have them, not because you have a gun or a better aim or a quicker draw. Men with guns enforcing something they call “property rights” are just the state.

              • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

                You’re trolling again. If you don’t mind my asking, why do you come to this blog? I imagine this site sort of being by anarchists for anarchists… and prospective anarchists. You have a very contrarian view that is not likely to be changed by anything we say or do.

              • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

                You’re avoiding the issue. “Trolling” typically describes disagreement with whoever assigns the label, so it’s typically a diversionary tactic. The author of the opening post in this thread doesn’t accuse me of trolling.

                Anarcho-capitalism is a variety of minarchism rather than anarchism, strictly speaking. I decided long ago that my view is also minarchist, but it is called “anarchism” historically (and was called “anarchism” before “anarcho-capitalism” existed), and it contemplates a state with less authority, imposing fewer specific standards of propriety, than the state you imagine.

                In this sense, “anarchism” describes my view better than it describes yours. If you expect to sponsor a site named “daily anarchist” without attracting people like me, you expect more isolation than the term’s historical usage suggests.

                Specifically, the only standard imposed universally (and thus necessarily by a state) in my libertarian utopia is a right to free association, a right to decide by mutual agreement the rules, including exclusive rights to govern resources, that members of a community follow. This right to rule by association implies a right to disassociate, to exit a community at will, and the right to exit implies a right not to be killed for violating a community’s rules.

                Other than killing in self-defense, exile from a community (the loss of rights respected within the community) is the only permissible sanction in this way of thinking, so when you claim a right to kill someone violating your property rights, you explicitly violate a right to life that is the foundation for all others, including any right to property that you paradoxically claim to protect by killing.

                My “trolling” attempts to explain this contradiction between your assertion and my communitarian assumptions. I understand that you make other assumptions. I don’t suggest that your assertions contradict your own assumptions. Killing to protect property rights is only a paradox in my utopian way of thinking, but it is paradoxical in this way.

                I come here because you’ve never asked me to leave. It’s your forum. You only need to ask me to stop posting here once. I don’t need to invade the community you rule here. I have enough alternatives.

                • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

                  No, you’re welcome to keep posting here. You’re not that bad of a troll. But you’re still a troll.

                  • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

                    One good trolling deserves another then.

                  • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

                    The idea of government that Proudhon proposed was a bit more than the State. I’m not an expert on the differences, but Brock’s ideas seem to me to be Proudhonian in nature, but again I’m not an expert, Martin feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Cause you know there’s Tucker and I know nothing about him.

                    • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

                      I identified with Proudhon when I was younger, and “mutualism” still seems a decent label for what I advocate. The term has ideological baggage, but it also has complementary uses in biology that appeal to me. Of course, the market is essentially an organization for mutual aid.

                      Proudhon didn’t have much to say about forms of government when he called himself an anarchist. His anarchism was a critique of the states of his day rather than a model of some alternative. Later, he was a federalist and advocated syndicalism as a form of industrial organization, but he imagined workers and peasant farmers owning many means of production individually.

                      I thought employee owned companies a decent idea until I worked for one. The one that employed me for a while (SAIC) was practically a state agency, so it’s not what Proudhon had in mind, and it wasn’t what I had in mind either. Mondragon is possibly a decent model, but I don’t have enough direct experience with the organization to know really.

                      These days, I identify more with Chandran Kukathas, and I’m not so concerned with forms of economic organization. I don’t imagine a political system somehow commanding everyone into particular forms of economic organization. If people want essentially to be serfs on a lord’s estate, within a community enacting feudal norms, that’s not a problem for me as long as all parties to the arrangement freely choose it while having realistic options.

                      If people want to respect Rothbardian standards of propriety within the boundaries of a Rothbardian community, that’s not a problem for me either. If people want to live in a communal, eco-village with land held in common and governed by some sort of elected committee subject to an egalitarian charter, that’s their choice, not mine. I don’t imagine everyone choosing any of these options.

                      On a more practical level, I can discuss modest reforms of the state subjugating me now, like alternatives to Social Security, educational choice, a non-interventionist foreign policy, a progressive consumption tax and employment assurances. I don’t do that much anymore, because it seems even more a waste of time than more utopian speculation. I expect reforms of the state invariably to trend in a direction that I don’t like, no matter what the reformers say (and even believe) that they’re doing.

                      In terms of realizing utopian ends, I’m more interested in something like the free state project, leading ultimately to the withdrawal of a community from an established state. Is this withdrawal even possible? What sort of defense against the power of the state is necessary?

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          Initiation of violence versus defensive violence. If you think pulling a trigger automatically makes you a monster, consider if it’s your daughter in a dark alley with a linebacker on drugs, and see if you’ll see your way clear to justifying it when she puts him down.

  6. Jesse ForgioneNo Gravatar says:

    This really misses the mark.

    Individual criminals are a technical problem that is easily solved by the “libertarian villagers,” and it’s in their interest to do so.

    The Genghis Khans of the world are not individuals with super-strength. They are the “clever” ones, the confidence men who manipulate others into working against their own interests.

    Khan’s troops would all be wealthier and live longer if they were not fools supporting a tyrant, and it’s the “libertarian villagers” who try to show them that.

    No one is trying to convince Obama to stop being a criminal. That would be stupid. But everyone who knows he’s a criminal should do his best to explain it to others.

    In the end, it is ideas that move the world.

    • Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

      Indeed, but there is a market for power. If you don’t want to call it a market fine, but an exchange takes place and third parties are victimized.

  7. jesse porterNo Gravatar says:

    For a good view of what I was trying to point out, the futility of utopianism, see http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/02/17/will-we-be-the-new-viet- cong-or-is-it-too-late/

  8. BenjaminNo Gravatar says:

    I’ve really been enjoying this blog for the comments. I wasn’t let down here.

  9. Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

    A fun allegory, Roman. Especially the picture of a “libertarian” attempting to reason with “statism”.

    It is indeed an eerie spirit that drives hoi polloi to sanctify the khans and the hun rulers of the ancient world — predecessors of current phenomenon (and lifeless abstractions) called “government”.

    These were the geniuses who gave rise to the “democracy” tactic of gaining the cooperation (and the production) of conquered slaves. The brilliance of recruiting psychopaths and sociopaths from those conquered serfs to act as “overseers” (“legislators”, “prime ministers”, “presidents”) produced what we now know as “the family of nations”. Read Rothbard’s take on that. Voting is truly an act of violence, as discussed on another thread here.

    Genghis Khan did not “rape” to become the progenitor of Eurasia. Most of those were “consensual relationships” indeed. “The girls all fall in love with the guys in the band” (I think that’s a line in an old country song). We’ve read stories of rock “stars” who’ve had sex with untold thousands of “groupies”, who gleefully and willingly spread their legs to be with the rich and famous and successful “men”.

    Female rulers and stars walk a more troubled rope. It’s not cool (nor is it safe) for a female to be known to have sex with hundreds or thousands of willing partners. I’ve often commented that I no longer apologize to our lady friends for being male — I’m thankful to have not had to cope with that mysterious and perplexing “morality” that is presumed to perch like an albatross upon the necks of women.

    In the Gregorian 20th century some psychologists coined the term “Stockholm syndrome“. Little did they comprehend, since they applied it to a free-market situation, that they themselves were victims (albeit a tiny fraction as history goes) of that syndrome that was started by the khans and the rulers of old. Sam

  10. Michael HendricksNo Gravatar says:

    You’re right Martin we don’t win the war. Every war that Libertarians have fought thus far has ended in their defeat.

    Personally I think those kinds of tactics would do better in a part of the world with a less sophisticated military.

    Then again the Chechens made progress vs the Russians.

  11. salmanNo Gravatar says:

    Guess things have not much changed since the time of Ganghez Khan !!! talking about mind set here

  12. ”Rights” are the terms in which the weak couch their desire for a liberty they have not the might to secure.”–Eli Harman

    Not sure who Eli Harman is, but I came across this great quote attributed to him which conveys a central point of this allegory.

  13. pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

    Modernized:

    …LV: It violates self-ownership. Every person owns themselves.

    GK: No they don’t. I own them. Don’t you see me deciding who gets raped or killed? Those who live do so by my mercy.

    LV: *BANG!*
    …Good thing you made that clear so early, now I don’t have to feel bad about shooting you dead. Since you made it clear that only might makes right, I’m right because I stand, and you lie there, dead.