I have never understood peoples attraction to the concept of anarchy. After reading your suggested works, I still don’t. The idea that a free people will, or even can, exist peacefully with each other absent some external influence is one that has no evidence of support in the history of life on Earth.

In any area without a strong central government, let’s say modern day Somalia as a current example, regional strongmen lay down regional law without any representation by residents. Are they free? Have they liberty? Should we expect something otherwise to happen in this situation?

Take any part of the world at any time in history and find a tribal society that is at peace with all its neighbors. I don’t think you can do it. It isn’t in human nature. Even a casual examination of history shows mankind is not inherently peaceful.

This isn’t to say that the strong central government system that we have is perfect. Far from it. But there is a reason that civilization evolved to form governments. We have a taste for order and fairness, and rules that we mutually agree to operate by, with predictable consequences for choosing to violate those rules.

Our society would be vastly improved by reshaping our governing back to this fundamental concept, rather than scrapping it altogether. Tossing out the baby with the bathwater is not a step toward more individual freedom.

Bob Higgs has been writing in this vein for years and has produced some of the best thinking on the subject of the relationship between free people and the state. Certainly he is not, in any sense, the first, but by adopting this subset of the liberty/obedience problem and applying some serious intellectual rigor to it, he has given us some means of achieving clarity. His “Against Leviathan” and the most recent “The Delusions of Power” are powerful commentaries against the necessity of a powerful state.

His work is one reason why I continue to be an unapologetic Rothbardian. Rothbard would follow a logical thought to its end which is not the usual case where we hold a logically correct position but hesitate to advance it because “there there might be dragons.” His (Rothbard’s) position, summarized through my own point of view, was “government’s interests lie in the advancement of the government. As long as it has the power to advance, it will do so” leads to the meme that “if government’s interest is in its own advancement, all other interests must be subservient, and its primary goals will continue infinitely.”

My personal take is that no matter how good the effects of government are superficially in the present, the nature of the beast will lead to where its positive effects are less than its negative effects and that any external pressures on the beast will diminish in influence over time as it grows more powerful.

It’s not that “government” is bad, it’s that governments will always turn bad unless they are absolutely prohibited from doing so. There is a very recent novel written by a young lady libertarian that provides an interesting possibility on how this might be done. From Amazon “Looking Backward 2162-2012: A View From a Future Libertarian Republic” by Beth Cody.

I am glad to read your next book is progressing. I am anxious to read it.

Cheers.

I’m also not so sure about private legal systems. Those who are well-off can make it work for them, but I’m not so sure about the poor.

You said (1) The past year’s INCREASE in unfunded SS/Medicare liability could be included in the deficit, not the entire amount.
I believe the INCREASE in unfunded SS/Medicare liability is all that was added to the deficit. My post said: The real federal deficit for 2012 is not $1.1 trillion as our government claims. When unfunded 2012 Medicare and Social Security obligations are included the 2012 deficit is more than $7 trillion. That figure was calculated by someone I trust but I hesitate to assign credit until I get his consent.

You said (2) GDP growth will be about 2% for 2012. The deficit for FY 2012 was about $1.1 trillion, which increased the debt (not counting increased unfunded liabilities) by less than 10%. So debt growth is less than 5x GDP growth. That’s bad, but where did you get 21x?
By counting increased the unfunded liabilities from the paragraph above. Again the figure was calculated by the person mentioned above. When I can name the article and quote the relevant paragraph I will do so.

You said (3) 10-year projections are wild-ass guesses. No one really knows. If you want a laugh look at 10-yr projections as recently as 2001 — the debt was headed for zero!
I completely agree, but if we make no changes in budgeting it may be even worse than this projection. Increased taxes and regulation will reduce GDP further.

You said (4) The Treasury actually does publish alternative financial reports using GAAP standards (for corporations). See http://www.fms.treas.gov. Their biggest problem is evaluating assets. What’s a used B-1 worth? They don’t even try. But they do address SS/Medicare liabilities.
Warren, I had a terrible time making sense out of http://www.fms.treas.gov. but I am glad to know it is there. Would you email me the relevant page?
Of course I agree with everything else you pointed out and will no doubt agree with your corrections of my misunderstanding. I am pleased to have you helping me.
Thanks for contributing!