Yes, it was closer to a joint stock model. It was also fabulously wealthy, and allowed for the (relatively) meritocratic rotation of elites.

RE: “So, you’re a legal positivist.”
No, I just start from a different propertarian position than does Rothbard. I start with the problem of creating the institution of property, both as a norm and as the foundation for law. In that foundation, one group of people have one set of property rights (even if that means ‘none’), and another group of people have another set of property rights (even if that means ‘none’). And that for a variety of reasons (some irrational) it is impossible to reconcile those differences because of the impact on the structure of formal and informal institutions, severa and real property, contracts and promises, that represent the capital of the group. They work as a group to protect or advance their corporation against that of the other group. They resort to violence. I work forward from that problem and end with the practical reality that the world over, groups form warriors, soldiers (armies), brigands and thieves. People form organizations and corporations. Capturing members of the opposing group weakens them. Killing them opens our people to being killed, and keeping them for the duration of the conflict keeps them from harming our people, and from helping theirs. It’s terribly practical. That’s why we’ve done it for millennia. There is nothing ‘legal’ about it. There is nothing ‘ethical’ about it. It’s simply descriptive.

RE:”Ethics as a social contract”
Well, I don’t know where you’re coming from, but I take ‘ethics’, like anyone else who has studied philosophy, to mean the study of good and bad behavior given the formal and informal norms that constitute the body of rules by which a population cooperates. In perfect terms, or IDEAL terms, we seem to have finally figured out that ethical behavior would simply require observation of life, liberty, and property, an obligation for truth telling, and a prohibition against violence, theft, destruction and fraud.

However, since groups form formal and informal corporations (organizations) each with it’s own shareholder agreement – written or not, and lastly, because the interaction between all of these rules, rights and obligations is complicated, and because there are always rent seekers, the corrupt, and people at the margins, then there are both impossible circumstances, unknown circumstances, and known circumstances where people must fall back on an abstract set of rules in order to determine what ‘ethical’ action means in any circumstance. THerefore I consider ‘ethical’ to mean ‘a judgement according to the formal and informal contracts’. I suspect you would say that ‘ethical’ is an absolutist proposition, and I would possibly agree with you. But since ethical statements require action, and action must happen in the real world, then I must constrain myself to the fact that the real world exists, and that all societies have some sort of property rights, and that those systems differ, and some are beter than others, and some, unfortunately, are effectively prophylactics against development of a division of labor. So, in that sense, I would distinguish between an actor in that society acting ethically according to his norms, and the optimum ethics regardless of those norms.

Since we operate with limited information, perfect calculation is impossible. We will always have disputes.

So I do not think I am confusing the two. I’m looking at a spectrum and talking about different points on it.

Now, you might try a typical criticism here, and that would be that you believe property rights are limited to several property, and that norms are arbitrary. And I would argue that you’re trying to obtain the benefits of the local market at a discount – which is an involuntary transfer and a violation of the property rights of others – it’s just fraud.

“Myth … War on a state”
In technical terms a state is an abstract entity – a form of corporation which CLAIMS a territorial monopoly on violence within their jurisdiction. That’s a narrow definition. It is certainly possible to conduct war against non state actors. We conducted war on the american indians – a race. We conducted a war against communism – an idea. We’re certainly conducting a war against drugs – an industry, and against radical islam – an idea. And for example, the world’s leading military historian (Keegan) has written a tome for the purpose of reminding our leaders that our concept of war is particularly western, and we constantly fail to understand that the western method was a preference for resolving conflicts quickly and decisively – but it is a cultural custom of the west, not a universal human rule that we can adhere to when in conflict with others.

“Nothing to do with the thesis”
Well, since the question here is merely whether we can indefinitely detain people. And since the purpose of indefinite detention is to keep the enemy’s forces off the field without resorting to killing them. And because soldiers cannot be tried because they act involuntarily at the behest of their organization, (it would be irrational), then the only thing needed to transform a crime, that must be tried, into an act of war, which should not be, is a declaration of war.

And the point I made, was that when we transition from LAW to WAR, we move OUT of the domain of normative ethics (ideal or not), and into the domain of practicality.

“what do you think”
I think my libertarian friends are advancing an ideal. …. However, war is simply the resolution of conflict over property rights of all kinds – that’s why wars are all economic in nature. There is nothing different about one (state) corporation resolving a conflict with another, than there is one individual resolving a conflict with another. Propertarianism is the act of reducing all human rights to rights of property, and working back. And some property ‘maps’ are incommensurable and incalculable – so conflict must occur. Idealistic individualist propertarianism (Rothbardianism) is a reductio model given objective reality. Especially given that we DO have to hold land against other people who would willingly institute different property rights over ours, ideal or not. If you want to make up a religion I’m all for it. But I’m just sticking with reason for now. :)

Now, as to your final paragraph, there are far too many pronouns and not enough nouns for me to understand what you’re asking. :)

But I don’t know how you can argue with it anyway. It’s a pretty tight argument. :)

In any case, I think you mistake “ethics” for a “description of social contract.” You think that because you can describe social contract, that social contract is ethical. Is “indefinite detention” for an “indefinite war” on an ill defined concept ethical? Well…. since you went through the trouble of describing it… yes?

And what’s with the paragraph saying that it is a myth that we can only declare war on a state? You back it up with the statement:

“So, one of the virtues of a state, is that a state can be held responsible for the actions of its citizens against those of foreign states.”

Oh! Because I thought you were trying to supplement your point and not go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with your thesis.

Then you go on to say:

“If then people feel a terrible objection they can certainly move their congress, their senate and their president away from war against their own people.”

What do you think your libertarian friends are trying to do? Why do you think they express their opinion in a convincing way? Of course, once someone is elected voters can’t move shit AND there are all kind of disincentives for individuals to be informed voters (the statistical effect of their vote -very small- vs. the cost of knowledge). So there is public opinion.

But my question is… how do you argue against a description of how things are (i’m giving you unearned credit here for your accuracy in describing our system). If a simple description is necessary to justify indefinite detention, combined with some of the benefits for the state (not the people of course), how can I argue with that?

It does. IQ is not the ONLY predictor of educational or economic attainment. Class, character, impulsivity, and attractiveness also affect educational and economic potential.

Therefore, IQ is a predictor of both educational and economic attainment. It is just not the ONLY factor. It is the greatest factor. It is just not the only factor.

However the inverse is not true. People of low IQ do not achieve either economic or academic success, except as outliers – and outliers are not the topic of consideration in politics, academics, economics or ethics. That would be illogical.