The government can and should execute the will of the people in accordance with that countries laws or constitution. And this can be a very good thing. To take government out so completely is simple anarchy which I completely abhor.

Mises and Hayek never had a good understanding of how government can work. It sure wasn't good for England during Margaret Thatcher.

But, you can be an Austrian. There is better available though.

What makes you think Margaret Thatcher followed Austrian economics? She went directly against it with her price controls, wage controls, and manipulation of the money supply. Neither Mises, Hayek, nor other Austrian economists, ever advised doing those things.

That is actually fairly close to Keynesian economic policies. He is the one that said the government ought to do all those things.

Please, don't ignore my point about anarchy Gary.

1. Your hypocrisy is getting pretty deep. You have ignored the vast majority of questions I have asked you and the points I have made. Now you insist that I answer a "point" that isn't even based in reality?

2. Your "point" displays a vast ignorance of history. Was the US an "anarchy" from the colonial days to the closing decade or so of the 19th century? In those days the US ran almost a complete lassez faire economy. There was little to no government interference in the economy, and in that time period the US went from being a small collection of British colonies to an economic super power in the world. Its incredible financial growth came directly from a free market economy. There was little to no government debt, no income taxes, no government social welfare programs, and millions of people emigrated here from all over the world just so they could have the opportunity to succeed due to their own hard work. If that is "anarchy", I'll eat my hat.

Don't forget about all the government management, or interference, depending on how you look at it during the 1860's with the new type of money created by the government. It's true the 10% tax on the state currencies was unconstitutional, but, most of these economic changes were a real plus to the economy.

One again, you ignore completely what I say and the questions I ask you, and then just assert something new with zero evidence to back up your conclusion....

This is what you call honest discussion/debate?

Once again, I did not ignore your post. I responded correctly to what you posted. All because you don't understand what I say, well, then you don't get it!

But, during the period of time in US history you have been stressing, these events I mention did happen. Such as, we had a central bank for 40 years during that same period when you said there wasn't a central bank. You were wrong! I guess you missed that too.

***shakes head in amazement***

Answered correctly? Huh? I don't understand what you say? What arrogance. You have supplied nothing but unsupported assertions. And I am to just accept your blarney that has no facts, no figures, no evidence behind it? Get real.

You don't have any evidence for your beliefs because none exists! But, you refuse to admit that.

You can whine forever. I don't owe you anything.

No, you don't owe me anything, other than what one Christian owes to another: honesty, forthrightness, and respect. You know, those things that a person owes to Christ by taking His name and professing to be His follower. And that you have not done.