# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  No State vs Minarchism

## chrono187

Thoughts?

----------


## chrono187

http://youtu.be/Cpg5X1b3XCs

----------


## chrono187

For some reason it won't let me embed this video.

----------


## HVACTech

this is a subject I have been thinking about doing a post on.
but I did not see anything in the video about the subject matter.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I think you have to start with definitions of _state, govern, government, policy,_ etc.

Every collection of people has some form of governance.  Policies might be unwritten or organization less formal, but it still exists at some level.  The administrator, as one example, could be a judge or a community elder.  The idea of this not existing naturally is pushed by those who refuse to distinguish between law and order.  All of the US code regarding law, for example, was written long ago.  Most, if not all, of the code written today concerns order (smoking bans, occupational licensing, etc.).

This idea of chaos ensuing without very formalized mechanisms is false.  It does however, somewhat depend on a community's bureaucratic structure.  I have overseas relatives in a very rural area.  Formalized policing is very inconsistent and often absent.  Sometimes it's quasi military or rogue military.  Some situations can be a real life Hatfields & McCoys.  The justice you decline to take for aggrieved parties can be the result of not wanting that party to one-up you at a later date.  That mechanism is very evident in the absence of any very formalized policing.  That mechanism can be a very powerful deterrent, especially when a situation spreads beyond directly aggrieved parties.

Anarchy simply does not exist under natural conditions on earth.  It gets a negative rap as being about lawlessness.    Even the most rudimentary of societies will have basic mores or conventions that are recognized.  These rules are outlined, are interpreted, and are enforced at some level.  There is a natural order of things, even if it's crudely elementary in practice or application.

The bottom line for me then, is discussing degrees.  The US has become a country of, often, irrational order, well beyond basic laws that most recognize.

----------


## HVACTech

> I think you have to start with definitions of _state, govern, government, policy,_ etc.
> 
> Every collection of people has some form of governance.  Policies might be unwritten or organization less formal, but it still exists at some level.  The administrator, as one example, could be a judge or a community elder.  The idea of this not existing naturally is pushed by those who refuse to distinguish between law and order.  All of the US code regarding law, for example, was written long ago.  Most, if not all, of the code written today concerns order (smoking bans, occupational licensing, etc.).
> 
> This idea of chaos ensuing without very formalized mechanisms is false.  It does however, somewhat depend on a community's bureaucratic structure.  I have overseas relatives in a very rural area.  Formalized policing is very inconsistent and often absent.  Sometimes it's quasi military or rogue military.  Some situations can be a real life Hatfields & McCoys.  The justice you decline to take for aggrieved parties can be the result of not wanting that party to one-up you at a later date.  That mechanism is very evident in the absence of any very formalized policing.  That mechanism can be a very powerful deterrent, especially when a situation spreads beyond directly aggrieved parties.
> 
> Anarchy simply does not exist under natural conditions on earth.  It gets a negative rap as being about lawlessness.    Even the most rudimentary of societies will have basic mores or conventions that are recognized.  There is a natural order of things, even if it's crudely elementary in practice or application.
> 
> The bottom line for me then, is discussing degrees.  The US has become a country of order, well beyond basic laws that most recognize.


I will make no effort to defend what we have today, past the 1st ten amendments. 
what we have today bears no resemblance to what we were supposed to have. I would propose that what the founders gave us. (our Heritage) 
could be described as practical Anarchy. or Min-Archy.

this seems clear to me, but my efforts thus far are seen as attacks or rejection, (or whatever)
by Anarchists on this site. this puzzles me greatly.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I think you have to start with definitions of _state, govern, government, policy,_ etc.
> 
> Every collection of people has some form of governance.  Policies might be unwritten or organization less formal, but it still exists at some level.  The administrator, as one example, could be a judge or a community elder.  The idea of this not existing naturally is pushed by those who refuse to distinguish between law and order.  All of the US code regarding law, for example, was written long ago.  Most, if not all, of the code written today concerns order (smoking bans, occupational licensing, etc.).
> 
> This idea of chaos ensuing without very formalized mechanisms is false.  It does however, somewhat depend on a community's bureaucratic structure.  I have overseas relatives in a very rural area.  Formalized policing is very inconsistent and often absent.  Sometimes it's quasi military or rogue military.  Some situations can be a real life Hatfields & McCoys.  The justice you decline to take for aggrieved parties can be the result of not wanting that party to one-up you at a later date.  That mechanism is very evident in the absence of any very formalized policing.  That mechanism can be a very powerful deterrent, especially when a situation spreads beyond directly aggrieved parties.
> *
> Anarchy simply does not exist under natural conditions on earth.*  It gets a negative rap as being about lawlessness.    Even the most rudimentary of societies will have basic mores or conventions that are recognized.  These rules are outlined, are interpreted, and are enforced at some level.  There is a natural order of things, even if it's crudely elementary in practice or application.
> 
> The bottom line for me then, is discussing degrees.  The US has become a country of, often, irrational order, well beyond basic laws that most recognize.


This is the only nit I would pick with you.  Anarchy as a political order/paradigm is distinct from the understanding of "anarchy" resulting from semantic shift in the 19th century.  In political anarchism(the variety practiced by RPF anarchists) is all about rational law and order.  RPF/LRC/Mises U anarchists "get it" and are far more rational and thoughtful than the minarchists.  (disclaimer: I don't like to affiliate myself with any label-I just happen to agree with the various radical anti-State philosophers more than the rest)

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I don't really follow this philosophical stuff on a deep level.  I know what I know and apply it to what I see.  Many people here obviously know this stuff better than I.  I think its good to discuss these things, but I also think it makes sense to discuss these things in an applied way.  Some of these ideas will never get past academic debate.  It's still good to discuss them, but there is still only 24 hours in a day.  Where do you put your energy?

Anyway, I'll listen if someone compares the concepts with real life application.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't really follow this philosophical stuff on a deep level.  I know what I know and apply it to what I see.  Many people here obviously know this stuff better than I.  I think its good to discuss these things, but I also think it makes sense to discuss these things in an applied way.  Some of these ideas will never get past academic debate.  It's still good to discuss them, but there is still only 24 hours in a day.  Where do you put your energy?
> 
> Anyway, I'll listen if someone compares the concepts with real life application.


This is quite a can of worms!   Hope you're prepared to do a lot of reading/listening.  For the books/literature people will link you to in coming days, I suggest you use the speed reading software I posted a few days ago.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...I suggest you use the speed reading software I posted a few days ago.



Speed reading?  Oh, hell no.  I got a book for Christmas and am on page 60.  I am purposely slowing down with life activity.  This technology is out of control!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> This is quite a can of worms!  Hope you're prepared to do a lot of reading/listening. For the books/literature people will link you to in coming days, I suggest you use the speed reading software I posted a few days ago.


Well that may explain a lot?  Do you happen to have any speed reading comprehension software available to you?

----------


## HVACTech

> I don't really follow this philosophical stuff on a deep level.  I know what I know and apply it to what I see.  Many people here obviously know this stuff better than I.  I think its good to discuss these things, but I also think it makes sense to discuss these things in an applied way.  Some of these ideas will never get past academic debate.  It's still good to discuss them, but there is still only 24 hours in a day.  Where do you put your energy?
> 
> Anyway, I'll listen if someone compares the concepts with real life application.





> Anyway, I'll listen if someone compares the concepts with real life application.


I will take a shot at it..  
A "system of checks and balances"   checks and balances on what? 
I submit that this was on the accumulation or centralization of power. fact is, as originally conceived in our Rule of Law. (colloquially known as the Constitution) 
there is NOTHING in it that applies to the people. it was an agreement between the states and the fedgov. and it applies solely to them, not us! 
therefore, it was designed intentionally to limit both of them. the 9th and 10th amendments seem to make this very clear to me.

this is why the wording is so vague and so many things are left out. it was not for them to decide anyway!
this system would offer protection and permit power to be exercised in a more local manner. 

if these views expressed are correct. then it seems obvious to me that the founders saw the statists as the problem. 
and since I have now climbed out on a limb... in for a penny, in for a pound!

a MinArchist is someone who is willing to fight the $#@!ing statists, and sees them as the enemy.
and An Anarchist is someone who prefers pacifism and endless pontification.

(runs and ducks for cover...incoming!!!)

----------


## HVACTech

(((((((sure is quiet in here.)))))))

----------


## euphemia

I haven't really explored the ins and outs of it, either, but it seems to me that anarchy does not exist in a vacuum.  It only exists where there is law.  I think there has to be a form of law when groups of people live close together.

I think that people can self govern, and should generally self govern.  Minimal government is best.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I haven't really explored the ins and outs of it, either, but it seems to me that anarchy does not exist in a vacuum.  It only exists where there is law.  I think there has to be a form of law when groups of people live close together.
> 
> I think that people can self govern, and should generally self govern.  Minimal government is best.


All forms of anarchy that are explored and discussed on RPF (and, typically, in the liberty movement in general) are those that advocate law - albeit private law.

----------


## HVACTech

> I haven't really explored the ins and outs of it, either, but it seems to me that anarchy does not exist in a vacuum.  It only exists where there is law.  I think there has to be a form of law when groups of people live close together.
> 
> I think that people can self govern, and should generally self govern.  Minimal government is best.


does this mean that you will forgive me for cussing Love?
for now, I accept your judgement.






it might get worse IF HB grows a pair..

----------


## HVACTech

> All forms of anarchy that are explored and discussed on RPF (and, typically, in the liberty movement in general) are those that advocate law - albeit private law.


not bad, still waiting for HB to take his shot at my query.  
I wrote it for intelligent discussion of our common heritage. 
peace bro.

----------


## euphemia

Private law?  According to whom?  

Again, my opinion, but liberty comes with responsibility.  We help each other out so the government doesn't get involved.  We talk to each other.  "tobismom, your dog is pooping in my yard again.  Can we go see if we can find the hole in the fence?  I have a bit of extra here and we can fix the hole."  

"Liberty person, I notice your yard is getting a bit overgrown?  Is there something we can do to help?"

"Your mom is sick again?  Wow.  Would your little boy like to come over to play in the sprinkler tomorrow so you can take your mom to the doctor?"

If you notice, the bigger government gets, the more alienated citizens are from each other.  Limited government helps people reach out to each other.

----------


## HVACTech

> Private law?  According to whom?  
> 
> Again, my opinion, but liberty comes with responsibility.  We help each other out so the government doesn't get involved.  We talk to each other.  "tobismom, your dog is pooping in my yard again.  Can we go see if we can find the hole in the fence?  I have a bit of extra here and we can fix the hole."  
> 
> "Liberty person, I notice your yard is getting a bit overgrown?  Is there something we can do to help?"
> 
> "Your mom is sick again?  Wow.  Would your little boy like to come over to play in the sprinkler tomorrow so you can take your mom to the doctor?"
> 
> If you notice, the bigger government gets, the more alienated citizens are from each other.  Limited government helps people reach out to each other.


hey! wait a minute Love!
I was trying to pick a fight with the pure, hard core Anarchists first!

----------


## euphemia

I know. But I don't learn much from the fighting. 

If your cat is up a tree, I would lend you our ladder and my husband would spot for you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well that may explain a lot?  Do you happen to have any speed reading comprehension software available to you?


Supposedly, speed reading is designed for comprehension.  But for you and your issues, they may have to give it more umph.  Google around and ask some manufacturers about it.  Also ask if they can help with your punctuation issues.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Private law?  According to whom?  
> 
> Again, my opinion, but liberty comes with responsibility.  We help each other out so the government doesn't get involved.  We talk to each other.  "tobismom, your dog is pooping in my yard again.  Can we go see if we can find the hole in the fence?  I have a bit of extra here and we can fix the hole."  
> 
> "Liberty person, I notice your yard is getting a bit overgrown?  Is there something we can do to help?"
> 
> "Your mom is sick again?  Wow.  Would your little boy like to come over to play in the sprinkler tomorrow so you can take your mom to the doctor?"
> *
> If you notice, the bigger government gets, the more alienated citizens are from each other.  Limited government helps people reach out to each other*.


LMAO!!   Thanks for the lolz. ~hugs~

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Private law?  According to whom?  
> *
> Again, my opinion, but liberty comes with responsibility.*  We help each other out so the government doesn't get involved.  We talk to each other.  "tobismom, your dog is pooping in my yard again.  Can we go see if we can find the hole in the fence?  I have a bit of extra here and we can fix the hole."  
> 
> "Liberty person, I notice your yard is getting a bit overgrown?  Is there something we can do to help?"
> 
> "Your mom is sick again?  Wow.  Would your little boy like to come over to play in the sprinkler tomorrow so you can take your mom to the doctor?"
> 
> If you notice, the bigger government gets, the more alienated citizens are from each other.  Limited government helps people reach out to each other.


O rlly?  Then why do you ask the government to do your dirty work for you? (i.e. extorting money for your favorite public works and projects, institutions, etc)

----------


## HVACTech

> O rlly?  Then why do you ask the government to do your dirty work for you? (i.e. extorting money for your favorite public works and projects, institutions, etc)


why are you picking on the girls?   

heavenly*boy*?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Private law?  According to whom?  
> 
> Again, my opinion, but liberty comes with responsibility.  We help each other out so the government doesn't get involved.  We talk to each other.  "tobismom, your dog is pooping in my yard again.  Can we go see if we can find the hole in the fence?  I have a bit of extra here and we can fix the hole."  
> 
> "Liberty person, I notice your yard is getting a bit overgrown?  Is there something we can do to help?"
> 
> "Your mom is sick again?  Wow.  Would your little boy like to come over to play in the sprinkler tomorrow so you can take your mom to the doctor?"
> 
> If you notice, the bigger government gets, the more alienated citizens are from each other.  Limited government helps people reach out to each other.


I'm genuinely confused. I don't understand how any of this is an argument against ending the state. Many anarchists use these exact arguments for solving social problems as opposed to turning to the state for the cure to all ills.

Private law would be law not decided by a State. Such arrangements currently exist in tort, arbitration, and other areas of regular life. As with those aspects of law, private groups could determine and carry out law; and since these groups wouldn't have a monopoly on the use of force or the backing of a 'social contract,' they'd be more apt to succumb to public pressure and not overstep their bounds.

----------


## erowe1

No state.

----------


## HVACTech

> No state.


brilliant response.

----------


## euphemia

> O rlly?  Then why do you ask the government to do your dirty work for you? (i.e. extorting money for your favorite public works and projects, institutions, etc)


I don't really ask the government to do anything.  I would like them to do a lot less than they do.  Take the accusations somewhere else.

----------


## euphemia

> I'm genuinely confused. I don't understand how any of this is an argument against ending the state. Many anarchists use these exact arguments for solving social problems as opposed to turning to the state for the cure to all ills.
> 
> Private law would be law not decided by a State. Such arrangements currently exist in tort, arbitration, and other areas of regular life. As with those aspects of law, private groups could determine and carry out law; and since these groups wouldn't have a monopoly on the use of force or the backing of a 'social contract,' they'd be more apt to succumb to public pressure and not overstep their bounds.


But who decides?  In the US, we have a Constitution that calls for limited government.  I'm not going to arbitrarily submit decisions about my property and family to someone who is not authorized by the Constitution to have that authority.  I don't trust people in this city well enough to let them decide anything for me.

----------


## erowe1

> But who decides?  In the US, we have a Constitution that calls for limited government.  I'm not going to arbitrarily submit decisions about my property and family to someone who is not authorized by the Constitution to have that authority.  I don't trust people in this city well enough to let them decide anything for me.


Who gave the Constitution that authority?

----------


## HVACTech

> Who gave the Constitution that authority?


that authority is not in the federal rule of law. (colloquially known as the constitution)

it MIGHT be in her states rule of law. 

or are you pontificating a spoonerism?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

No libertarian who understands anarcho-capitalism would deny that it would be an ideal form of social organization *if* it worked as described. 

Minarchists, such as myself, object to it only on the grounds that it *won't* work as described. 

Why not? 

(In a Nutshell) Anarchists assume that security firms would compete with one another peacefully in a free market environment; i.e. they would not violate the NAP. But there's no basis for this assumption. If a firm or combination of firms (cartel) is capable of forcing its competitors out of business and/or forcing people to pay for its services, it will do so, because that is in its own rational-self interest - and at that point it is a state in all but name. /anarchy

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> No libertarian who understands anarcho-capitalism would deny that it would be an ideal form of social organization *if* it worked as described. 
> 
> Minarchists, such as myself, object to it only on the grounds that it *won't* work as described. 
> 
> Why not? 
> 
> (In a Nutshell) Anarchists assume that security firms would compete with one another peacefully in a free market environment; i.e. they would not violate the NAP. But there's no basis for this assumption. If a firm or combination of firms (cartel) is capable of forcing its competitors out of business and/or forcing people to pay for its services, it will do so, because that is in its own rational-self interest - and at that point it is a state in all but name. /anarchy


Firstly, let me say I'm more of "philosophical AnCap" but the reasons why I think AnCap mayn't work are slightly different.

Nonetheless, just to play Devil's Advocate if you will; I don't know how a minarchist can attack AnCap by saying security firms may overstep their bounds because as we know very well, governments always overstep their bounds, there's no basis for believing that the governments won't continue doing that in the future. So in that sense, security firms aren't necessarily worse; if anything, it's the better alternative because when the firms do overstep their bounds, they won't have the veil of legitimacy that often gets in the way of people revolting against governments. For all of its trangressions, most people in America probably won't want to revolt against the government but let's say it was just a firm then may be even some of the liberals (who love government so much) would have joined in the fight.
Let's say if America was just a geographical area owned by a for-profit firm, then people wouldn't see it as part of "us", they would rightly see it as "them". There would be no liberals asking for welfare because it is a for-profit company & not the "benevolent" government that's supposed to look after everybody; & even if they did ask for it, you could always move to somewhere else with more favorable conditions, which is not as easy to do under the current system of governments.

As far as forcing people to pay for firm's services, seriously, a minarchist who supports forcible extraction of taxes to fund government shouldn't really be arguing about this! Besides, you know, U.S. government is like one of two governments with a draconian policy of taxing its citizens' income no matter where they live, & for this, the U.S. government frequently threatens other governments.

Moreover, if you think that cartels can arise & sustain themselves on a free market then we'd have to presume that there's no point in arguing for freer markets at all, may be we all should join the liberals in their pursuit of regulationism!

----------


## HVACTech

> As far as forcing people to pay for firm's services, seriously, a minarchist who supports forcible extraction of taxes to fund government shouldn't really be arguing about this!


as a MinArchist, slapping me in the face with the 16th amendment is rather poor form. the 18th was not much better you know.
in my view, anything past the first 10 amendments needs trashed.   




> a MinArchist is someone who is willing to fight the $#@!ing statists, and sees them as the enemy.
> and An Anarchist/philosophical AnCap is someone who prefers pacifism and endless pontification.


is that what I should have wrote??    

where, Oh, where is HB! when I need him!
PLEASE come back HB!.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Moreover, if you think that cartels can arise & sustain  themselves on a free market then we'd have to presume that there's no  point in arguing for freer markets at all, may be we all should join the  liberals in their pursuit of regulationism!


Yes, cartels don't work in a free market, they can only be maintained by force. 

But that's my point - what's to stop the security firms from forming a cartel and maintaining it by force?

Anarchists just assume they won't, even though they will have the means (they are in the _business_ of using force - being _security_ firms), and its obviously profitable for them to do so. 




> Nonetheless, just to play Devil's Advocate if you  will; I don't know how a minarchist can attack AnCap by saying security  firms may overstep their bounds because as we know very well,  governments always overstep their bounds, there's no basis for believing  that the governments won't continue doing that in the future. So in  that sense, security firms aren't necessarily worse; if anything, it's  the better alternative because when the firms do overstep their bounds,  they won't have the veil of legitimacy that often gets in the way of  people revolting against governments. For all of its trangressions, most  people in America probably won't want to revolt against the government  but let's say it was just a firm then may be even some of the liberals  (who love government so much) would have joined in the fight.
> 
> Let's say if America was just a geographical area owned by a for-profit  firm, then people wouldn't see it as part of "us", they would rightly  see it as "them". There would be no liberals asking for welfare because  it is a for-profit company & not the "benevolent" government that's  supposed to look after everybody; & even if they did ask for it, you  could always move to somewhere else with more favorable conditions,  which is not as easy to do under the current system of governments.
> 
> As far as forcing people to pay for firm's services, seriously, a  minarchist who supports forcible extraction of taxes to fund government  shouldn't really be arguing about this! Besides, you know, U.S.  government is like one of two governments with a draconian policy of  taxing its citizens' income no matter where they live, & for this,  the U.S. government frequently threatens other governments.


It  may seem strange that I'm criticizing anarchism because it will lead to the  re-emergence of the state, while myself proposing that we keep the  state.

But _not all states are equal_. Some are worse (much worse) than others.

If  we create a minarchist state, well then we have the best possible  state. Yes, it will probably get worse over time, but there's nothing to  be done about it. 

Whereas, if we abolish the state, some new state will reemerge, and _who knows what kind_? It may be much worse than a minarchist state. It can't be better. And it too, whatever it is, will get worse over time.

EDIT: to return to one of your points...




> So in  that sense, security firms aren't necessarily worse; if anything,  it's  the better alternative because when the firms do overstep their  bounds,  they won't have the veil of legitimacy that often gets in the  way of  people revolting against governments. For all of its  trangressions, most  people in America probably won't want to revolt  against the government  but let's say it was just a firm then may be  even some of the liberals  (who love government so much) would have  joined in the fight.


I agree, but that's a double edged sword. Yes, the people might be more likely to revolt against a new state with no historical sense of legitimacy et al, but for precisely that reason the new state might have to be more brutal. If you look at the history of the state, it began as a terribly brutal, overtly criminal gang of robbers and murderers. Over time, as it was able to indoctrinate people, it could sheath the iron fist a bit, to the point that now people hardly realize that the state is backed by brute force. A newly formed state in the formerly anarchic society, if the people are looking like they might revolt against it, is likely to go full Ivan the Terrible on them. For a current example of what a primitive state in the process of establishing itself looks like, consider Africa. In some ways it's better than a well-established state (doesn't have the means to enforce a really totalitarian program), but it is far from libertarian in character. It's very weakness makes it vicious (out of necessity for self-preservation). 

So, again, I get your point but that can go either way.

----------


## erowe1

> that authority is not in the federal rule of law. (colloquially known as the constitution)
> 
> it MIGHT be in her states rule of law. 
> 
> or are you pontificating a spoonerism?


I can't make sense out of your post.

----------


## erowe1

> as a MinArchist, slapping me in the face with the 16th amendment is rather poor form. the 18th was not much better you know.
> in my view, anything past the first 10 amendments needs trashed.


If you're really a minarchist, then doesn't that mean that you should want the whole Constitution to be trashed? The powers it gives the federal government can hardly be called minimal.

----------


## HVACTech

> If you're really a minarchist, then doesn't that mean that you should want the whole Constitution to be trashed? The powers it gives the federal government can hardly be called minimal.





> in my view, anything past the first 10 amendments needs trashed.


methinks, you misunderstand  both our founders and our heritage.

Peace.

what separates a Democracy, from a Republic.  is that one has a rule of law. the other does not. 
we are a Republic. 

HB can tell you! that is what our Constitution is! (our version of the rule of law) 




> I can't make sense out of your post.


heh, I live in Arkansas. 
and you want *me* to use smaller words?   

tell me Sir, just what part of our Federal Constitution, applies to the people? 
can you do this thing that I ask?

I submit that our founders intent was to promote as much Anarchy as possible.
can we agree on that?

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> as a MinArchist, slapping me in the face with the 16th amendment is rather poor form. the 18th was not much better you know.
> in my view, anything past the first 10 amendments needs trashed.


But that's the point, that governments always overstep their bounds! So the minarchists' _"security firms may overstep their bounds"_ type of attack on AnCap comes off as hypocritical. As I've already said, both can overstep their bounds but the difference is that more people would be able to revolt against security firms, without any compunctions, rather than against the government.




> is that what I should have wrote??    
> 
> where, Oh, where is HB! when I need him!
> PLEASE come back HB!.


You can write what you want & believe what you want but personally, having been a minarchist myself, I just think minarchist-view just comes off as hypocritical in many ways. I STILL think that going back to the Constitutional Minarchy that existed in the early American history would be a major improvement over the present situation but I'm NOT going to pretend that that sort of a thing is either significantly more sustainable than AnCap or morally defensible. I stopped being a minarchist when I realized that, for example, I couldn't argue against welfare-robbery (without being hypocritical), if I believed in funding a minarchy through forcible extraction of taxes.

----------


## erowe1

> methinks, you misunderstand  both our founders and our heritage.


I don't misunderstand them. But I still can't tell what you're saying. Do you disagree with me? You can't possibly consider the original Constitution, even without any amendments beyond the BOR, to be minarchist.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Yes, cartels don't work in a free market, they can only be maintained by force.


You mean the way some governments work together for tax compliance & stuff like that!
But even that doesn't work perfectly & these government-cartels don't always succeed in their endeavors; therefore, private firms have even less of a chance of succeeding because they don't even possess the veil of legitimacy that governments possess.

Moreover, if you believe that, free market = no force, then that would be a ridiculous definition of a free market & if we defined free market that way then liberals would have every right to laugh at us for wanting a free market because no such thing may ever exist.
So, force would likely exist in a free market but it wouldn't be legitimized the way governments legitimize force! So there are no special rules like _"robbery is bad but it's ok if the government engages in robbery"_.




> But that's my point - what's to stop the security firms from forming a cartel and maintaining it by force?
> 
> Anarchists just assume they won't, even though they will have the means (they are in the _business_ of using force - being _security_ firms), and its obviously profitable for them to do so.


Actually, many AnCaps are very open about the possibility that SOME security firms may overstep their bounds but then governments always overstep their bounds!
The difference is what options do people have in either case.
The difference is that many more people will be willing to fight back against a rogue firm, without any compunctions, rather than against a government possessing a veil of legitimacy.

ALL states maintain their territorial monopoly by force & forcibly extract taxes from people so I don't see why existence of SOME rogue security firms can be made into an argument against AnCap. States are inherently coercive while private firms aren't necessarily so.

When you say what if they form a cartel, you're making a massive assumption that all firms will necessarily be rogue firms; it's like the assumption liberals make for gun-control; they say what if a psycho starts shooting in a crowded area, & gun-rights advocates quickly point out that any good gun-owning person in the crowd can easily shoot down the psycho. The same argument applies here. There will likely be good security firms around too.




> Whereas, if we abolish the state, some new state will reemerge, and _who knows what kind_? It may be much worse than a minarchist state. It can't be better. And it too, whatever it is, will get worse over time.


This is just fear of the unknown. I DON'T think your fear is totally unwarranted but that doesn't mean that we should base our decisions based on fear.

I mean it's like liberals who have gotten so accustomed to the welfare-state that if we ever talk of ending it or even significantly limiting it, their fallback argument is always one based on fear like - so should we throw the poor, disabled & the old people out on the streets?
For liberals (or perhaps most people in general) morality is less important than (perceived) utility, it's considered ok to sacrifice people's rights if it's supposedly going to bring about certain (perceived) benefits; on the other hand, morality is the foremost virtue for many AnCaps.
Again, I don't necessarily think that all of liberals' fears are unwarranted but personally, I believe that we shouldn't let fear dictate our decisions. If we believe in equality of rights & that robbery is wrong then we mustn't legitimize government robbery where we think it will benefit us & decry it otherwise, it just comes off as hypocritical.




> Yes, the people might be more likely to revolt against a new state with no historical sense of legitimacy et al, but for precisely that reason the new state might have to be more brutal.


A security firm is NOT a "new state" any more than Walmart is a new state.

The difference between a state & a company should be clear.
The state can send its people to extract money out of you by force to make you pay for the services you aren't even using or don't wish to use (welfare, for example), & they can perpetrate such a use of force under the guise of legitimacy that people confer upon the states.
People don't confer such veil of legitimacy & indemnity upon private firms. So Walmart can't send its people to extract money out of you by force for the services you haven't used, & if they do, then most people, even many liberals will perceive such an act as illegitimate; & you'd be deemed to be in the right in defending yourself. No such luck if you're trying to defend yourself against the state because most people legitimize such use of force by the state.

Another thing to note is that because the states possess the veil of legitimacy, even right now, Americans could be one big crisis, one executive order away from being disarmed! Of course, even the countries with worst gun-controls are proof that not everyone will give up their guns but people's right to legally own guns could be in jeopardy, especially since a significant portion of the population already believes in the legitimacy of the state to disarm free people.
A private security firm can't just disarm people at will because it doesn't possess the veil of legitimacy & would face massive emigration &/or revolts.




> So, again, I get your point but that can go either way.


Of course, it can go any way, none of us are omniscient so I'm NOT going to pretend that I know for sure. As I've said before, I don't really call myself an AnCap because I think it's a tough choice but I think AnCap is definitely the more moral choice & that's why I side with it, philosophically.

----------


## euphemia

> Who gave the Constitution that authority?


Ultimately, the state legislatures did.  Go back in history.  There are no successful civilizations existing apart from some form of government.  Those who function best have limited government with a way to defend the nation and punish criminals.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

From a biblical point of view, in practice no form of human-based governance, anarchist or minarchist, works in the long run. The real obstacles to liberty in either order is ultimately not tyranny or the State, but sin and Satan. A people that does not acknowledge God or His moral law will not find a way to navigate challenges to a anarchic system once people disagree about resolution of issues (the "who decides what private law is?" question). A lack of recognition that God is the ruler of the nations tends to defacto lead to rule by the Prince of the air and his devils, playing on the sin nature of men.

About the only successful anarchist system was the ancient Israelite history of Judges following their settling after the Exodus, which went on for several centuries before the people decided to trade it in for setting up a kingdom (in other words, due to sinfully envying their neighbors). The prophets verified their authority through miracles and correct prophecy, which helped resolve disputes without need for courts or other civil institutions. It worked because it was a theocratic anarchy based on God's law and kingdom, which the Israelites voluntarily entered into as a matter of contract or covenant (thus eliminating the issue of disagreements over private law, or authoritarian elements associated with theocracy). The millennial kingdom following the Second Coming of Christ will likely run along the same lines. 

The pattern of history is otherwise one of, with humans left to institute anarchy or government on their own, one tyranny after another, sometimes interrupted by attempts by the people to restore a free order. That order, no matter how carefully constructed or articulated in law, has tended to fall away as the people abandoned the vigilance to maintain it, or kept advancing rulers who ignored the law or limits supposedly placed on their power. Even when no order was chosen, the anarchy broke down even more rapidly, when sinful strongmen took over and seized power from within, or the land would be overrun by invaders from without. 

The lesson of world history is that 6,000 years of human civilization shows we cannot rule ourselves in a manner that _keeps people free_ either with limited civil government, or no civil government. The debate as to which is theoretically better becomes moot, in this context. God, the Author of liberty, is the secret sauce to make liberty work, in either case. In the meanwhile, a man-based minarchist government is the defacto preferred interim order from a practical perspective, as the legal limits it puts on state power tends to preserve a free order longer than a man-based anarchic order would.

----------


## euphemia

I absolutely agree with you.  I got the impression from this discussion that many of the participants are not interested in a system of self-governance that starts from faith in God, and that's why I pointed back to the limited government principles of the Constitution.  An honest look at the Constitution reveals that even the framers who did not profess faith in God recognized that inalienable rights are not something given or taken by people.

----------


## Vanguard101

In 2015, there is no conceivable or justifiable position for a minimal state on philosophical grounds. Minarchism is however the best form of government for our current world.

----------


## HVACTech

> I'm NOT going to pretend that that sort of a thing is either significantly more sustainable than AnCap or morally defensible. I stopped being a minarchist when I realized that, for example, I couldn't argue against welfare-robbery (without being hypocritical), if I believed in funding a minarchy through forcible extraction of taxes. .



well, you have not discussed defending ourselves from the statists. how would you propose that we do that?




> if I believed in funding a minarchy through forcible extraction of taxes.


it is true that "taxes" meet the definition of theft. it is also true that defending ourselves from the statists will need to be funded. 
the ONLY fair way to "steal" is to steal in the same amount from everybody. 
this was why the the 16th amendment was necessary to pass. and it was the 16th that changed everything.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by R3volution 3.0
> 
> Yes, cartels  don't work in a free market, they can only be maintained by  force.
> 
> 
> You mean the way some governments work together for tax  compliance & stuff like that! But even that doesn't work perfectly  & these government-cartels don't always succeed in their endeavors;  therefore, private firms have even less of a chance of succeeding  because they don't even possess the veil of legitimacy that governments  possess.


I'm not claiming that every attempt by security firms to form a cartel will succeed. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't. 

But the mere _possibility_ of it succeeding is a monumental revelation which calls into question the whole anarchist project.

By  way of analogy, consider what it would mean for free market economics  if it were proven that steel or sugar cartels (for instance) could form  in a free market. It would be a serious blow, wouldn't it? Yes, it  would, which is precisely why free market economists (such as Rothbard)  have  spent so much time proving that cartels cannot exist in a free market.

Yet here, when it is demonstrated that security cartels can form in a stateless society, the anarchists dismiss the revelation as unimportant. 

Do you see the double standard?

Basically,  in dismissing the possibility of security cartels as unimportant,  anarchists are moving the goalposts. Implicitly, they're no longer  saying, "anarchy will work," they're saying "well, it might work, in  some places, where cartels don't form." That's a much less appealing  vision, isn't it?




> Moreover, if you believe that, free market = no force, then that  would be a ridiculous definition of a free market & if we defined  free market that way then liberals would have every right to laugh at us  for wanting a free market because no such thing may ever exist.
> 
> So, force would likely exist in a free market but it wouldn't be legitimized the way governments legitimize force! So there are no special rules like _"robbery is bad but it's ok if the government engages in robbery"_.


Security  firms will sometimes have sufficient force, sufficient power to inflict  violence, to maintain a cartel/monopoly - legitimacy or not. 

As I touched on briefly in my last post, history (and current  events) demonstrates that it is entirely possible to maintain a state  with only the thinnest veneer of legitimacy, relying almost exclusively  on brute force. Otherwise, after all, how could the first states have  arisen? They necessarily had no legitimacy before they existed, which  means they must have come into being through violence, and only later  acquired legitimacy in the eyes of their subjects. 




> Originally Posted by R3volution 3.0
> 
> But that's my point -  what's to stop the security firms from forming a cartel and maintaining  it by force?
> 
> Anarchists just assume they won't, even though they will have the means (they are in the _business_ of using force - being _security_  firms), and its obviously profitable for them to do  so.
> 
> 
> Actually, many AnCaps are very open about the possibility  that SOME security firms may overstep their bounds but then governments  always overstep their bounds! The difference is what options do people  have in either case. The difference is that many more people will be  willing to fight back against a rogue firm, without any compunctions,  rather than against a government possessing a veil of  legitimacy.


See above. Legitimacy is not everything. 

Put legitimacy in one hand and a some bullets in the other and see which is heavier. 




> ALL states maintain their territorial monopoly by force &  forcibly extract taxes from people so I don't see why existence of SOME  rogue security firms can be made into an argument against AnCap. States  are inherently coercive while private firms aren't necessarily  so.


As I said in my last post, not all states are equal. A  state which arises from anarchy cannot be preferable to a minarchist  state (which is by definition the least bad state). As for what  proportion of the stateless society ends up under some new state, that's  impossible to say. I think it will be 100% in very short order, you  evidently think it will be a rare phenomenon for a state to arise. The  only empirical evidence we have is history, and if we look at that  record, we find that there has never been a stateless society, other  than hunter-gatherer type societies which couldn't have formed a state  had they wanted to, for lack of productive capacity to feed the  officials, soldiers, etc. In other words, we have little to go on, but  what we do have supports my prediction, not yours. 




> When you say what if they form a cartel, you're making a massive  assumption that all firms will necessarily be rogue firms; it's like the  assumption liberals make for gun-control; they say what if a psycho  starts shooting in a crowded area, & gun-rights advocates quickly  point out that any good gun-owning person in the crowd can easily shoot  down the psycho. The same argument applies here. There will likely be  good security firms around too.


For those businessmen in  business to make money (which is almost all of them), why wouldn't they  try to form a cartel, since it would increase their profits?

Are you familiar with the 19th century cartel and merger movements?  Virtually every industry in the United States was cartelized or  monopolized at some point. Of course, all of these cartels failed very  quickly, because (as we know) cartels/monopolies don't work in a free  market. But the point is that virtually all the major business owners in  the country wanted to form cartels/monopolies, for the reason  that it would increase profits. Why would the owners of security firms  in the stateless society be any different? Are we assuming that they're  all going to be zealous libertarians who put principle above profit? Is  that realistic?




> Originally Posted by R3volution 3.0
> 
> Whereas, if we abolish the state, some new state will reemerge, and _who knows what kind_?  It may be much worse than a minarchist state. It can't be better. And  it too, whatever it is, will get worse over time.
> 
> 
> This is just  fear of the unknown. I DON'T think your fear is totally unwarranted but  that doesn't mean that we should base our decisions based on  fear.


Fear has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of  looking at two possible courses of action, predicting their respective  outcomes, and then deciding which outcome you prefer. I prefer the best  possible state to a roll of the dice which at best can only result in  the same thing (minarchy), and at worst will result in Sierra Leone. 




> Again, I don't necessarily think that all of liberals' fears are  unwarranted but personally, I believe that we shouldn't let fear dictate  our decisions. If we believe in equality of rights & that robbery  is wrong then we mustn't legitimize government robbery where we think it will benefit us & decry it otherwise, it just comes off as hypocritical.


Do morticians legitimize death? Do home insurance agents legitimize lightening strikes? This is nonsensical. 

Minarchists  are not saying that the state is good. We are saying that the state is  unavoidable, so the only thing to do is work toward the least bad state.  




> Originally Posted by R3volution 3.0
> 
> Yes, the people might be more likely to revolt against a new state with  no historical sense of legitimacy et al, but for precisely that reason  the new state might have to be more brutal.
> 
> 
> A security firm is NOT a "new state" any more than Walmart is a new state.


When  a security firm (or group of firms working together) violently suppress  competition and force residents of a certain area to buy their  services, it is a state. 




> So Walmart can't send its people to extract money out of you by  force for the services you haven't used, & if they do, then most  people, even many liberals will perceive such an act as illegitimate;  & you'd be deemed to be in the right in defending yourself. No such  luck if you're trying to defend yourself against the state because most  people legitimize such use of force by the state.


The state will punish Walmart if it robs its customers (charges, trial, huge fines, jail time, etc). 

...don't you think that might the reason that Walmart refrains from this kind of behavior?

So, how does Walmart's behavior change once the state is gone?

....once Walmart itself is the entity entrusted with enforcing the law?

....once it need not fear any external authority?




> A private security firm can't just disarm people at will because  it doesn't possess the veil of legitimacy & would face massive  emigration &/or revolts.


Again, you're attributing too much influence to legitimacy. Brute forces  goes a long way toward making people do what you want them to do.

----------


## erowe1

> Ultimately, the state legislatures did.  Go back in history.


What right did those state legislatures have to do that?

----------


## HVACTech

> What right did those state legislatures have to do that?


that is a "gotcha" question. 

and then you will take the lofty position of consent,  *YOU* did not give *your* consent.
so, therefore. they had no "right" to pass such legislation. as it would pertain to *you*


looking at your sidebar, it appears that you do not support the mission statement of this site
you do not engage in activism, you do not contribute financially to the site.
and you do not support Rand. 

does that sound about right?

----------


## osan

> I think you have to start with definitions of _state, govern, government, policy,_ etc.


Without definitions, we are wasting our time.  This is, after all, supposedly a philosophical question.




> Every collection of people has some form of governance.


As does every individual, which is the unit of interest.  Collections are in principle irrelevant.




> The administrator, as one example, could be a judge or a community elder.


Best leave that to the individual, as well.




> This idea of chaos ensuing without very formalized mechanisms is false.


SACRILEGE!




> Anarchy simply does not exist under natural conditions on earth.


Depends on the frame of temporal reference.  Before Empire, anarchy appears to have been the only extant structure.  Anarchy, so far as I can see, is the natural human order.  Empire is the unhealthy artifice that has no life of its own.




> It gets a negative rap as being about lawlessness.    Even the most rudimentary of societies will have basic mores or conventions that are recognized.  These rules are outlined, are interpreted, and are enforced at some level.  There is a natural order of things, even if it's crudely elementary in practice or application.


This wanders off the farm, methinks.  "Rudimentary"?  I cannot divine the tone - is it bad?  Good?  Inferior?  "Crudely"?  Such terms seem to imply inferiority - a less-than status.  Was that your intention?




> The bottom line for me then, is discussing *degrees*.  The US has become a country of, often, irrational order, well beyond basic laws that most recognize.


This is an emotionally compelling notion, but it is fraught with hazard.  When degree is the "bottom line", as you put it, slippery-slope reasoning has an inborn toehold.  If we can apply X units of force pursuant to the attainment of goal Y, then why not X + epsilon for some arbitrarily small epsilon?  That is the very basis of salami politics.  Make the slice sufficiently thin and people will not chafe enough to act in an effective manner against you.  An examination of American legislative and policy history shows this in action, stark being the contrasts and clear the trend of ever thicker slices whose dimensions now grow asymptotically against the freedoms they violate.

The same may be said for goal Y.  If Y is acceptable, then why not Y + epsilon?  And so it goes until everyone is returned to the standard status of abject slave.

The Free Man's bottom line should be freedom, of which there are no degrees.  One is either free, or he is something else.  Freedom is absolute.  That, however, does not protect one from the hazards of his choices.  Violate the rights of another and terrible things may result with no certainty as for whom the trouble shall arise.  Those are the risks assumed when invading the territories of others.  When men come to understand and normalize those risks in their minds, they tend to amend their behavior so as to avoid being consumed by careless actions or those resulting from ill-conceived ideas.  After all, most men wish to continue living for another day, a desire that has the habit of tempering thought and, thereby, action.

Those who advocate for "government" are those who want their cake and eat it; something which can never be.  You cannot have freedom without significant and even sometimes grave risk.  You cannot have _guaranteed_ order under any circumstance, but even the illusion thereof, imposed from without by the threat of force ("government") reduces everyone, enforcers included, to the status of serf at best and abject slave in the worse case.  The resulting order, no matter how seemingly "free" is naught better than pretty slavery.  The cage may be beautifully gilt with colorful bunting, fine furnishings, good food, plenty of sex, and so forth - but it remains a cage, a prison, a container for the human animal.  The trappings are granted by third parties and may be removed with ease equal to that with which they were given.  Having been given, they are not yours in truth.  You are but the recipient and your rights under such regimes are naught but privileges, which are granted and removed in accord with the mood of the giver, who is in fact the true owner of those things and, ultimately, of you as well.

Be careful of that for which you wish and advocate.

----------


## osan

> I don't really follow this philosophical stuff on a deep level.


Then you are in deep trouble. 




> I know what I know and apply it to what I see.


If you do not understand the fundamental underpinnings of what you "know", then by what means can you claim to know it?




> Many people here obviously know this stuff better than I.  I think its good to discuss these things, but I also think it makes sense to discuss these things in an applied way.


Without the theory, there _is_ no application because there is _nothing to apply_.  There is only running about, willy-nilly, as if one's pants were on fire.  Make no mistake: beyond reflexive actions such as eating, sleeping, running toward, running away from, and getting an erection, there is no application without underlying thought.  Such thought exists nowhere without conception and concepts are theories, whether proven or otherwise.  Theory underpins everything you know, or think you know.   Therefore, theory should be afforded its due because without it you would be little more than a lump of semi-articulated meat and bone running toward food, away from lions, passing out when tired, and scratching that itch _down there_ as often as you would be able to manage.




> Some of these ideas will never get past academic debate.  It's still good to discuss them, but there is still only 24 hours in a day.  Where do you put your energy?


Always begin at the beginning.  Fundamentals first.  Without the basics, there is no point in going on because you will arrive at nothing worth the arrival, save by pure happenstance and then you will possess not the means of determining that you have landed on the correct shore.

----------


## osan

> A "system of checks and balances"   checks and balances on what?


A $64 question.




> I submit that this was on the accumulation or centralization of power.


Tell that to a progressive.




> fact is, as originally conceived in our Rule of Law. (colloquially known as the Constitution) 
> there is NOTHING in it that applies to the people.


This can be argued in splits of philosophical hairs because...




> it was an agreement between the states and the fedgov.


...in reality there are no such things as "states" nor "fedgov".  These are nothing more than mental constructs that pave the ways for scripts according to which some people expect others to act.  This is a highly problematic way of carrying on the business of living.

I would also correct you in that there was no agreement between states and the federal government because no federal government existed prior.  If we grant the existence of "states", the agreement was between them alone, the result of which was the formation of the federal government whose metes and bounds are so poorly specified in the Constitution as to be almost a cruel joke.

But in the deeper reality it is all moot, once again because "states" in sé hold no material existence of their own.  They are vapors whose sole existence is founded in the minds of men.  Remove the men and "state" vanishes _in toto et in aeternum_.




> and it applies solely to them, not us!


False distinction.  "They" _are_ "us".  Conversely, there is neither "they" nor "us".  There are only a passel of individuals scurrying about this way and that in their attempts to get from one day to the next as they see best fit.  The problems arise when that which is "best fit" runs awry and then amok in their minds, leading to conflict and the application of force that cannot be rationally justified.  This is the crux of all sad matters between men.




> the 9th and 10th amendments seem to make this very clear to me.


The Ninth Amendment is the truer utility of the Constitution.  The Tenth is an _abomination_ in diametric harness of everything for which the Ninth stands.  The Tenth is the destroyer of human freedom in America.




> this is why the wording is so vague and so many things are left out. it was not for them to decide anyway!


Cop out, complete and utter.  The Constitution may have been the best they could squeeze out upon the throne of political philosophizing in 1789, but it is not the best that can be done today.  I have heard this argument before... it was left vague because there are no definite answers for all times... BULL$#@!.  The basic principles of human freedom are immutable.




> this system would offer protection and permit power to be exercised in a more local manner.


And yet, here we are.




> if these views expressed are correct. then it seems obvious to me that the founders saw the statists as the problem. 
> and since I have now climbed out on a limb... in for a penny, in for a pound!


The Framers saw what they were able in those days.  I cannot presume to know their minds, their vision, but only the product of their efforts.  It was perhaps a good attempt, given whence they were bred as political beings.  They were raised in the world of blatant empire as serfs.  It is only understandable that their minds might wander only so far from the farm.  But we now have well over 200 years of additional empirical experience and may see with better informed eyes.




> a MinArchist is someone who is willing to fight the $#@!ing statists, and sees them as the enemy.
> and An Anarchist is someone who prefers pacifism and endless pontification.


Perhaps according to your definitions, but you never made those clear.

For me, the issues in question turn on the attitude of the individual.  Does he possess knowledge of the principles of proper human relations; of human individual sovereignty?  Does he possess the attitude of utter and vehement intolerance of that which violates the principles?  Is he willing to take personal responsibility for his choices?  Is he willing to take unequivocal action against those who act tyrannically against him and others?

Without the correct attitude, none of these discussions are worth a damn, save in their thin capacity to alert the individual to a greater truth in the even thinner hope that such truths will spur him toward the right attitude.

----------


## osan

> I haven't really explored the ins and outs of it, either, but it seems to me that anarchy does not exist in a vacuum.  It only exists where there is law.  I think there has to be a form of law when groups of people live close together.
> 
> I think that people can self govern, and should generally self govern.  Minimal government is best.


Here's your law:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5843659

----------


## osan

> Private law?  According to whom?


Meh... what is "private" v. "public"?  Methinks the concept is bankrupt in its weave.




> Again, my opinion, but liberty comes with responsibility.  We help each other out so the government doesn't get involved.  We talk to each other.  "tobismom, your dog is pooping in my yard again.  Can we go see if we can find the hole in the fence?  I have a bit of extra here and we can fix the hole."


Your dog pooing on my lawn is a violation of my property rights.  I reserve the right to make an issue of it.




> "Liberty person, I notice your yard is getting a bit overgrown?  Is there something we can do to help?"


"Eyesore" is not a violation of my property rights.  I may not like it, but I am impotent to force you to mow or allow another to.  I am well within my rights to offer, however.




> "Your mom is sick again?  Wow.  Would your little boy like to come over to play in the sprinkler tomorrow so you can take your mom to the doctor?"


This is not an obligation; it is a neighborly gesture, morally praiseworthy, but not obligatory.




> If you notice, the bigger government gets, the more alienated citizens are from each other.


Well observed.  I do believe this is the case because people get to thinking they no longer need to relate.  When something chafes, call in the armed men.  It's easier, or so it seems.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> ...


I would have liked to address some of the points you have raised but I noticed that you haven't touched upon the moral aspect; in fact, you have selectively chosen not to reply to the parts of my post that deal with morality.

So, if you're someone that believes utility is more important than morality then I think there mayn't be a point in prolonging this argument because I've come to the place I have, philosophically, because of morality. As I've said, I was a minarchist, I don't know what to call myself anymore but I stopped thinking of myself as a minarchist because I just couldn't stand the moral dilemma.

So, if you believe that it's ok to rob people to fund a Minarchy because you see utility in doing so then just remember that liberals too think it's ok to rob people to fund welfare because they see utility in doing so. So, in terms of morality, there isn't much of a difference between a minarchist & a communist because even though a minarchist proposes a system that is less onerous, it is not because he thinks it's more moral but because he thinks it provides more utility.

And, perhaps, the reason you have chosen not to reply to the parts of my post dealing with morality (and, this is just a guess) because you recognize the moral inferiority of minarchism like I did & still do.

----------


## osan

> I absolutely agree with you.  I got the impression from this discussion that many of the participants are not interested in a system of self-governance that starts from faith in God, and that's why I pointed back to the limited government principles of the Constitution.  An honest look at the Constitution reveals that even the framers who did not profess faith in God recognized that inalienable rights are not something given or taken by people.


There goes that loaded word once again... "God".

Without precise definitions, it really means little to nothing.  That said, I would offer a better term: sacred.

Whatever it is in which we place our faith to be the correct basis for living, it must be sacred and thereby largely immutable.  Without that, basically anything goes because pragmatism rules the day.  IMO it is pure and unbridled pragmatism that leads to death, destruction, disease, and abject misery, which are the only things to which arbitrary and unprincipled exercise of power ever leads.

----------


## erowe1

> that is a "gotcha" question. 
> 
> and then you will take the lofty position of consent,  *YOU* did not give *your* consent.
> so, therefore. they had no "right" to pass such legislation. as it would pertain to *you*


I don't see how it's a gotcha question. It seems like a pretty essential question to be able to answer if your position is that the Constitution is legitimate. I notice that you make no attempt to answer it.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> well, you have not discussed defending ourselves from the statists. how would you propose that we do that?


You talk of "statists" as if it's "them" but it's YOU too! And, why do I need to come up with a proposal to say that wrong is wrong? It's like a communist telling me that if I don't have a proposal to eliminate poverty & starvation in the immediate future then I must necessarily submit to his authoritarian proposal to eliminate poverty & starvation in the immediate future; & somehow I can't tell him that his proposal is immoral because I haven't offered a grand proposal of my own. (NOT saying you're a communist, just an example of a similar argument that I've gotten from communists)




> it is true that "taxes" meet the definition of theft. it is also true that defending ourselves from the statists will need to be funded.


Of course, AnCaps will have to pay to defend themselves from statists; as has been said before, they'll have to pay to security firms or, perhaps, to individuals or companies offering "residency-services" on the land that they exclusively own.

But of course, if we were to ask _"what can someone seeking more freedom do TODAY to advance freedom?"_ then obviously, there is no single answer.

That's why I'm a "philosophical anarchist" because I don't think we can just snap our fingers, make the state go away & for security firms to appear because on any market, there's a time-lag from the point that individuals show a willingness to pay for certain services to the point of those services appearing on the market; & until the demand for such services is significant, the initial purchasers looking for it are going to have to pay a high-price (how high obviously depends on how easy or difficult it is to produce the services) 
So, for example, if you were looking for a tie made up of a certain material but no such ties exist anywhere then presuming it is possible, you're going to have to pay a high price for it. But if more & more people start demanding for such ties & the market for such ties increases, the price for it will start falling.

Now, if we were to apply the same logic to advancing freedom over time then it could mean people moving to countries with less taxes & less restrictions, & thereby, creating a demand for low-tax, less-restrictive "residency-services". In fact, this has already been happening to some degree as the global mobility of people has increased, & many smaller countries & islands are catering to this demand, annoying the hell out of the more onerous countries. Obviously, it's harder for Americans to do this unless they have dual citizenship because (legally) cutting the IRS off your teat means giving up American citizenship (or one could do what Peter Schiff did & move to Puerto Rico!). As is often the case, those who don't get to vote (& those seeking freedom actually don't), should vote with their feet!

But what if a person thinks that giving up American citizenship is too high a price-premium to pay for more freedom? Well, it's an unfortunate fact of the market, not being able to pay a high price-premium denies you of better services so such Americans can only try to spread the word of freedom as much as they can & increase the demand for freedom so that it becomes cheaper to have it.

I think the argument that isn't seen frequently enough from those supporting fewer taxes is the argument that people should only pay for the services they use, which is how the private sector works, & even liberals wouldn't like to pay for the services there aren't buying from the private market. So for example, only those who support war should have to pay into "war fund", only those who support "welfare fund", paying for roads at the point of use & so on. I'm NOT claiming that it's an argument that the government will accept immediately but I think that's a slightly better way to argue than asking for a complete end to wars or welfare or whatever. It's an argument that could resonate with a lot of voters on both sides of the aisle because many liberals would love to pull the plug from the "Republican" spending & vice versa.




> the ONLY fair way to "steal" is to steal in the same amount from everybody. 
> this was why the the 16th amendment was necessary to pass. and it was the 16th that changed everything.


It would be the only "fair" way if one considers stealing in itself to be moral. I don't!

Anyway, the larger point of this post is that accepting the fact that AnCap is the morally superior position doesn't mean that one thinks that it can be ushered in tomorrow, it just means accepting that there's freedom & then there's different levels of tyranny. If you think that a little tyranny is always necessary to prevent a lot of tyranny then you're free to believe that but it would be a lie to construe it to be freedom or to construe it to be moral.

----------


## fisharmor

Osan, thanks for taking up the torch... but like apparently everyone else, I'm not up to participating in another minarchist circle-jerk when they can just open up one of a hundred threads in the last year and get unanswered rebuttals to every point brought up here.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I would have liked to address some of the points you have raised but I noticed that you haven't touched upon the moral aspect; in fact, you have selectively chosen not to reply to the parts of my post that deal with morality.


I've already addressed the moral underpinnings of minarchism - namely, it is the closest possible approximation to the libertarian moral ideal (anarchism is closer to the ideal but isn't possible). 

What else is there to say? 




> So, if you believe that it's ok to rob people to fund a Minarchy because  you see utility in doing so then just remember that liberals too think  it's ok to rob people to fund welfare because they see utility in doing  so. So, in terms of morality, there isn't much of a difference between a  minarchist & a communist because even though a minarchist proposes a  system that is less onerous, it is not because he thinks it's more  moral but because he thinks it provides more utility.
> 
> And, perhaps, the reason you have chosen not to reply to the parts of my  post dealing with morality (and, this is just a guess) because you  recognize the moral inferiority of minarchism like I did & still do.


Instead of countering my argument that anarchism won't work in practice, you make irrelevant ad hominem arguments, implying I'm immoral, implying I'm like a modern liberal, etc. Could this be deflection on your part, because you don't _have_ a counter to my argument?

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Osan, thanks for taking up the torch... but like apparently everyone else, I'm not up to participating in another minarchist circle-jerk when they can just open up one of a hundred threads in the last year and get unanswered rebuttals to every point brought up here.


LOL




> I've already addressed the moral underpinnings of minarchism - namely, it is the closest possible approximation to the libertarian moral ideal (anarchism is closer to the ideal but isn't possible). 
> 
> Very simple.


As I've said, pretending that minarchism is moral requires one to accept that it is moral to sacrifice equality of rights (since people within government have the right to rob others but not everyone else possesses that right) or accept robbery as moral & that everyone should be freely allowed to engage in it to ensure equality of rights.

Nonetheless, you can justify your minarchist morality (so long as you can, I couldn't after a certain point but good luck to you).

I believe there is a demand for freedom (as there is a demand for coercion), & as the demand for freedom increases (& it will since people generally do want more freedom but unfortunately, often at the cost of other people's freedom, which in turn creates a demand for coercion), over time, as selling freedom becomes more & more profitable, there will be more & more sellers, & the competition will drive down the price, making freedom more accessible to more & more people.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> As I've said, pretending that minarchism is moral requires one to accept that it is moral to sacrifice equality of rights (since people within government have the right to rob others but not everyone else possesses that right) or accept robbery as moral & that everyone should be freely allowed to engage in it to ensure equality of rights.


Ethics is about how we make choices. Your language implies that you think minarchists are _choosing_ to have the state. But this is not the case. I'm no more choosing to have the state than I am choosing to be mortal, or choosing the time the sun rises, or choosing to not be able to breath under water. These things are out of my control. I cannot be immortal, I cannot make the sun rise at a certain time, I cannot breath under water - I cannot _not_ have a state. We cannot choose to have a state or not, we can only choose what kind of state we shall have. And minarchists, obviously, want a minimal one. 

Anarcho-capitalism is akin to an ethics which insists that we should be able to breath underwater, with minarchists playing the role of the guy who says "well, that's impossible, so how about we go for the next best option, maybe a snorkel?", only to be called a sell-out to the cause of underwater breathing.  ....It's absurd. 

P.S. Let me ask you a question: If given the choice, would you have a preference between (for instance) Stalin-era communism and Jefferson-era American government? Both involve aggression (to very different degrees of course). So, if you do have a preference between the two, does that mean that you are endorsing aggression? I would say no, you are endorsing less aggression over more aggression, in a situation where those are the only choices. What do you say?




> I believe there is a demand for freedom (as there is a demand for coercion), & as the demand for freedom increases (& it will since people generally do want more freedom but unfortunately, often at the cost of other people's freedom, which in turn creates a demand for coercion), over time, as selling freedom becomes more & more profitable, there will be more & more sellers, & the competition will drive down the price, making freedom more accessible to more & more people.


Could you elaborate? Because it kind of sounds like you're waiting for the "New Libertarian Man" to arise...

----------


## HVACTech

> The Ninth Amendment is the truer utility of the Constitution.  The Tenth is an _abomination_ in diametric harness of everything for which the Ninth stands.  The Tenth is the destroyer of human freedom in America.


whoa dude, so even the anti-federalists are not pure enough for you huh. 

I wonder what AF might think about that?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Osan, thanks for taking up the torch... but like apparently everyone else, I'm not up to participating in another minarchist circle-jerk when they can just open up one of a hundred threads in the last year and get unanswered rebuttals to every point brought up here.


Forgive my ignorance. 

Would you point me to one of these hundred threads where it is explained why security firms cannot cartelize?

----------


## HVACTech

> ...in reality there are no such things as "states" nor "fedgov". These are nothing more than mental constructs that pave the ways for scripts according to which some people expect others to act. This is a highly problematic way of carrying on the business of living.


dude, I clicked my heels THREE times, spun around and you know what? they were still there!
(if you pay close attention, there are even signs when you cross from one "mental construct" to another! no $#@!!)
meanwhile, back at the farm...




NEVER bull$#@! a Bullshitter.

----------


## osan

> NEVER bull$#@! a Bullshitter.


I'm not bullshitting anyone.

----------


## HVACTech

> I'm not bullshitting anyone.


are you asking me Sir. if the artificial human construct of "borders" exist?

or stating that they are artificial?

who the $#@! do you think you are talking to? 

do I need to remind you, that you attacked me first?




> Cop out, complete and utter. The Constitution may have been the best they could squeeze out upon the throne of political philosophizing in 1789, but it is not the best that can be done today. I have heard this argument before... it was left vague because there are no definite answers for all times... BULL$#@!. The basic principles of human freedom are immutable.


BULL$#@!. it was NOT for them to decide in the first place.

----------


## osan

> are you asking me Sir. if the artificial human construct of "borders" exist?


I don't recall having asked you anything.  I've made no statements concerning "borders".  Is this some sort of joke?




> who the $#@! do you think you are talking to? 
> 
> do I need to remind you, that you attacked me first?
> 
> 
> 
> BULL$#@!. it was NOT for them to decide in the first place.


You respond as someone with a serious chemical abuse issue.  I have no idea what you're talking about.

"Attack" you?  Surely you jest.  I don't attack anyone, certainly not with words.  Were it my intention to attack you, I would find where you lived and put the smack upon you in no uncertain terms.  Since I have no reason to do such a thing, your perception of my having attacked you must be based upon something for which perhaps you are in need of psychiatric care.  Nowhere was I referring to YOU personally in my post.  Therefore, either you lack good reading comprehension or have psych issues.  You certainly do not have good communication habits, judging by this response and the fact that you think -rep to me will make any difference whatsoever in my life.

You have chosen to attempt to pick a fight for no rational reason whatsoever and with the wrong human being.

You have a good day.

----------


## HVACTech

> I don't recall having asked you anything.  I've made no statements concerning "borders".  Is this some sort of joke?
> 
> 
> 
> You respond as someone with a serious chemical abuse issue.  I have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> "Attack" you?  Surely you jest.  I don't attack anyone, certainly not with words.  Were it my intention to attack you, I would find where you lived and put the smack upon you in no uncertain terms.  Since I have no reason to do such a thing, your perception of my having attacked you must be based upon something for which perhaps you are in need of psychiatric care.  Nowhere was I referring to YOU personally in my post.  Therefore, either you lack good reading comprehension or have psych issues.  You certainly do not have good communication habits, judging by this response and the fact that you think -rep to me will make any difference whatsoever in my life.
> 
> You have chosen to attempt to pick a fight for no rational reason whatsoever and with the wrong human being.
> ...


it twas an abstract discussion about political philosophy.

but NOT to worry!
I am over 6'3" about 185 and you know where I live!





The words of Osan..




> Were it my intention to attack you, I would find where you lived and put the smack upon you in no uncertain terms




about "borders" those are what determines if a "State" exists or not. 



> ...in reality there are no such things as "states" nor "fedgov". These are nothing more than mental constructs that pave the ways for scripts according to which some people expect others to act. This is a highly problematic way of carrying on the business of living.


did I write that too fast for your reading comprehension?

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> P.S. Let me ask you a question: If given the choice, would you have a preference between (for instance) Stalin-era communism and Jefferson-era American government? Both involve aggression (to very different degrees of course). So, if you do have a preference between the two, does that mean that you are endorsing aggression? I would say no, you are endorsing less aggression over more aggression, in a situation where those are the only choices. What do you say?


The assumption that no better choices can be available is just that, an assumption.

But even if we pretend that those are the only two options available, living under a minarchy due to lack of choice & supporting the immorality of minarchism are two different things. Just look at us right now, living under a socialist regime; living under it in itself isn't immoral if that's the best choice available BUT justifying such a regime would be immoral & pretending that it's the best & the most moral choice available to us would mean supporting immorality; & bear in mind, many liberals do pretend that it is the best choice available, some of them propose even more socialism (or even communism) as the best choice available, based on utility rather than morality.




> Could you elaborate? Because it kind of sounds like you're waiting for the "New Libertarian Man" to arise...


Statists rely on men & those who understand the market processes rely on the markets.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The assumption that no better choices can be available is just that, an assumption.


No, it is the conclusion of a sound argument. But you stopped responding to the argument a few posts back.

Paul or Nothing II: "I would have liked to address some of the points you have raised but I  noticed that you haven't touched upon the moral aspect; in fact, you  have selectively chosen not to reply to the parts of my post that deal  with morality."

I've now answered your questions about minarchist morality.

You should now answer those points of mine that you neglected. 




> But even if we pretend that those are the only two options available, living under a minarchy due to lack of choice & supporting the immorality of minarchism are two different things. Just look at us right now, living under a socialist regime; living under it in itself isn't immoral if that's the best choice available BUT justifying such a regime would be immoral & pretending that it's the best & the most moral choice available to us would mean supporting immorality;


What if the only alternative to the status quo were Stalinism?

Would it be immoral to support the status quo for the purpose of averting Stalinism?

If not, then why is it immoral to support minarchy for the purpose of averting worse forms of government?




> Statists rely on men & those who understand the market processes rely on the markets.


Whether the markets are free depends on the character of men. There is no deity guaranteeing that market participants refrain from violence against one another. 

Again, anarchists are taking free markets as a given. They aren't.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> You should now answer those points of mine that you neglected.


I don't really think it's worth the trouble because if you can't accept the logic behind the moral superiority of AnCap then I doubt you'll accept any of my other logical pro-AnCap arguments because it just signals a denial-mode to me. Again, I know because I've been there, & I know that nobody could have told me anything that would have convinced me at the time because I guess I was just not ready. And, I think it's a leap that a person has to make on his/her own, it has to happen organically.




> Again, anarchists are taking free markets as a given. They aren't.


Even under the most authoritarian governments markets not only have worked but overthrew every obstacle put in their way, eventually leading to devastation of such regimes. Markets don't need to be free in order to work, they ALWAYS work, it's just that there's minimal carnage when they are allowed to work freely.

You seem to have a belief that the markets are this tiny little kitten that needs to be coddled & kept in cotton wool, away from force & all that but that's the liberal caricature of the markets for garnering support for more regulations & control but those who understand markets realize that markets are a brutal force of nature & the best thing to do is to stay out its way.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I don't really think it's worth the trouble because if you can't accept the logic behind the moral superiority of AnCap...


Minarchists think that anarchy will result in the emergence of a type of state worse than a minarchist state. 

If  that view is correct, then the minarchist position is ethically  justified (choosing the lesser of two evils is not unethical***). 

The debate here should be over whether that prediction (about how anarchy will work) is correct. 

If you want to have that debate, you should respond to my post that you've been ignoring. 

***If you disagree, then you must think it unethical to prefer the status quo to Stalinism, for instance, which is absurd.




> Even under the most authoritarian governments markets not only have  worked but overthrew every obstacle put in their way, eventually leading  to devastation of such regimes. Markets don't need to be free in order  to work, they ALWAYS work, it's just that there's minimal carnage when  they are allowed to work freely.
> 
> You seem to have a belief that the markets are this tiny little kitten  that needs to be coddled & kept in cotton wool, away from force  & all that but that's the liberal caricature of the markets for  garnering support for more regulations & control but those who  understand markets realize that markets are a brutal force of nature  & the best thing to do is to stay out its way.


If you're saying that market forces inevitably cause the state to collapse and be superseded by anarcho-capitalism, 

(a) how?

and (b) why has this never once happened in all of human history?

----------


## HVACTech

> The Framers saw what they were able in those days. I cannot presume to know their minds, their vision, *but only the product of their efforts*. It was perhaps a good attempt, given whence *they were bred as political beings*. They were raised in the world of blatant empire *as serfs*. It is only understandable* that their minds might wander only so far from the farm*. But we now have well over 200 years of additional empirical experience and may see with better informed eyes.


let me see if I got this right.  "but only the product of their efforts"   efforts at what?
"they were bred as political beings". thats interesting. any proof?

"as serfs".  got it, the founders were "serfs".

 "that their minds might wander only so far from the farm" yep, just a bunch of redneck farmboys.. 

what I was describing, was the architectural framework. of the founders efforts. 

other than to display your complete and utter DISGUST with both the founders as well as the Constitution.
did you have a point to make about no state Vs MinArchism?




> Perhaps according to your definitions, but you never made those clear.


those WERE my *definitions* azzhat. 

what you lack, is the mental capacity to refute them.

----------


## HVACTech

> I'm not bullshitting anyone.


did you go to the Archie Bunker school of writing? 




> The Framers saw what they were able in those days. I cannot presume to know their minds, their vision, but only the product of their efforts. It was perhaps a good attempt, given whence they were* bred* as political beings.


who BRED them for this purpose?    

inquiring minds want to know!

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Minarchists *think* that anarchy will result in the emergence of a type of state worse than a minarchist state.


"Think".

Yes, liberals too THINK that the free markets can't facilitate prosperous societies, & that's why they PRETEND that the socialist-robbery is moral.

Minarchists THINK that AnCap can't facilitate prosperous societies, & that's why they PRETEND that the minarchist-robbery is moral (well, until minarchists become AnCaps, that is )

Things like equality of rights & trying to eliminate robbery should be a given; these kind of things shouldn't depend on whether one believes free market & AnCap can work or not.




> If  that view is correct, then the minarchist position is ethically justified (choosing the lesser of two evils is not unethical***).


I've already made a clear distinction between the two but let me give it another shot:

(a) choosing the lesser evil due to limited choices (while recognizing its immorality)
(b) pretending that the lesser evil isn't immoral at all & supporting it

(a) & (b) are DIFFERENT things.
(a) doesn't entail supporting immorality.
(b) DOES entail supporting immorality.




> If you're saying that


I'm saying that your repeated assertion that _"markets without force"_ are a prerequisite to AnCap is incorrect.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> did you go to the Archie Bunker school of writing? 
> 
> 
> 
> who BRED them for this purpose?    
> 
> inquiring minds want to know!


Dude, no one has any idea what you are talking about.  That's why most of us don't respond to you.  And it's not because of the soundness of your positions... _it's because you're barely comprehensible_, not to mention a boor, and apparently mentally unstable given your bizarre accusations of being attacked, etc.  You remind me of a less articulate Travlyr.  

Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude here.  I'm just giving you a head's up.  If you want to engage in conversation here, drop the shtick.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> This wanders off the farm, methinks.  "Rudimentary"?  I cannot divine the tone - is it bad?  Good?  Inferior?  "Crudely"?  Such terms seem to imply inferiority - a less-than status.  Was that your intention?


No, of course not.  I'm speaking of the simple society versus the complexity of bureaucracy.  My relatives live in the former.  I've seen firsthand how some of their ways are infinitely better than the ways of bureaucracy.

I mostly agree with your view about consequences.  People are ultimately free to perform any action, but there are consequences.  There are earthly consequences and consequences beyond.  Some would argue that one is not really free because they are constrained by the higher consequences.  That's been discussed in the religion forum.

I was also being a little wry when discussing theory.  Yes, theory is the framework for application, but there comes a point when you have to stop pontificating and take action.  Americans read a lot of books, but sometimes have no common sense.  There are countless TV shows and books on the most fundamental activities, such as eating and exercise.  Americans are so book smart, but they need a cooking show guru or "personal trainer" to show them how to eat or exercise.  If you can't perform life's most basic functions, then you're going to have problems.  It becomes very problematic when people commission the government to do it.  Examples are the first lady's diet campaign or the president's council on physical fitness.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> No libertarian who understands anarcho-capitalism would deny that it would be an ideal form of social organization *if* it worked as described. 
> 
> Minarchists, such as myself, object to it only on the grounds that it *won't* work as described. 
> 
> Why not? 
> 
> (In a Nutshell) Anarchists assume that security firms would compete with one another peacefully in a free market environment; i.e. they would not violate the NAP. But there's no basis for this assumption. If a firm or combination of firms (cartel) is capable of forcing its competitors out of business and/or forcing people to pay for its services, it will do so, because that is in its own rational-self interest - and at that point it is a state in all but name. /anarchy


This is the only objection statists can mount anymore and it is one of hypocrisy which means it is not a real, legitimate objection.  It has already been pointed out why it is a hypocritical argument because no limited government has ever remained limited.  When confronted with this historical fact, let me repeat, a historical fact the solution statists propose is repeat history.  Then they say well ... it will work this time if the people can keep it.  It will work this time if people are eternally vigilant.  All the same crapola that has been said before.

To recap:

It is a historical fact no limited government has ever remained limited and your opinion is no free market PDA will remain non-aggressive?  Yes.
But you are saying limited government can work this time if people are eternally vigilant and can keep it?  Yes.
And you are saying limited government can only work for a moral and enlightened people?  Yes.

So here is where the anarchist takes it to another level.  The anarchist says ok if it takes faith, eternal vigilance, a moral, and enlightened people to make limited government work does it not take the same exact things to make free market anarchy work?  (Clicking light bulb)

So why shoot for second best.  Is not free market anarchy a higher bar as you have already acknowledged it to be?   But, but, but, but, but ... (sigh)

What is the difference between asking a people to exercise faith and eternal vigilance demanding limited government when they can have free market anarchy by demanding free market competition?

There is no difference in terms of faith, eternal vigilance, a moral, or enlightened people except that in one scenario people demand limited government and in the other they demand free market competition.

Then the statist says well it will take too much education to go from where we are now to free market anarchy.  Why the f^#$ do you people think anarchists support Ron Paul?  Why do anarchists say limited government would be an improvement over what we have now?  Because anarchists are not stupid and know things only happen incrementally until there are major revolutions in the thinking of people.  That is why even Rothbard helped start the libertarian party but despite any electoral or political activism Rothbard would never advocate compromising the libertarian message for one mere electoral victory.  The difference is anarchists set the goal in an entirely different place than minarchists which seems to drive the minarchists nuts.





> Yes, cartels don't work in a free market, they can only be maintained by force. 
> 
> But that's my point - what's to stop the security firms from forming a cartel and maintaining it by force?
> 
> Anarchists just assume they won't, even though they will have the means (they are in the _business_ of using force - being _security_ firms), and its obviously profitable for them to do so. 
> 
> 
> 
> It  may seem strange that I'm criticizing anarchism because it will lead  to the  re-emergence of the state, while myself proposing that we keep  the  state.


Not only is it strange to criticize anarchism because it will lead to the re-emergence of the state, while yourself proposing you can keep the state ... it is insanity of repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.  Hell even if anarchists are relying on the same faith and eternal vigilance glue for free markets at least they aren't proposing the same exact thing that has already been unsuccessfully done over and over and over.

It's a dam tragedy we are all born ignorant because if we were all born possessing the sum of human knowledge from the get go we would already have free market anarchy.

RE:




> that is a "gotcha" question. 
> 
> and then you will take the lofty position of consent,  *YOU* did not give *your* consent.
> so, therefore. they had no "right" to pass such legislation. as it would pertain to *you*
> 
> 
> looking at your sidebar, it appears that you do not support the mission statement of this site
> you do not engage in activism, you do not contribute financially to the site.
> and you do not support Rand. 
> ...


That right there is pretty much why there are no anarchists around here anymore.  They have either gotten tired of the bull$#@! from the electoral voting junkie thought police around here or have been banned by them.  But before you posted these gems:




> but my efforts thus far are seen as attacks or rejection, (or whatever)
> by Anarchists on this site. this puzzles me greatly.





> a MinArchist is someone who is willing to fight the $#@!ing statists, and sees them as the enemy.
> and An Anarchist is someone who prefers pacifism and endless pontification.
> 
> (runs and ducks for cover...incoming!!!)





> (((((((sure is quiet in here.)))))))





> hey! wait a minute Love!
> I was trying to pick a fight with the pure, hard core Anarchists first!


That is all that has ever happened around here.  Just because I am using your posts as an example doesn't mean I am picking on you because the same trend can be found in other threads.  Statists want to pick fights with anarchists and when they run out of arguments they throw the same bull$#@! at them you did about this site, its mission statement, etc.  As we can see many of those not banned have pretty much said screw this site.  And well ... look at the popularity of it/statistics/etc. compared to what it used to be.  It has burned because all of that great original content being generated by anarchists which is the heart and soul of any successful web site is now gone.  A fitting demise.

RE:




> Osan, thanks for taking up the torch... but  like apparently everyone else, I'm not up to participating in another  minarchist circle-jerk when they can just open up one of a hundred  threads in the last year and get unanswered rebuttals to every point  brought up here.


lol ...  I know your sentiment.  I'm not retaking up the torch either, just chimed in the circle jerk for one comment.  Conza, our resident human library was awesome anytime one of these threads used to pop up because that dude had a post of great reading links he would link to.  I should go through his posts and dig it back up.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by R3volution 3.0
> 
> Minarchists *think* that anarchy will result in the emergence of a type of state worse than a minarchist state.
> 
> 
> "Think".


Yes, for reasons which I've already explained in some detail - and which you've still not rebutted. 




> Yes, liberals too THINK that the free markets can't facilitate prosperous societies, & that's why they PRETEND that the socialist-robbery is moral.
> 
> Minarchists THINK that AnCap can't facilitate prosperous societies, & that's why they PRETEND that the minarchist-robbery is moral


That analogy presupposes that minarchists are wrong in their prediction of how anarchist societies would work (or not work), which is the very point in contention. 

#beggingthequestion




> Things like equality of rights & trying to eliminate robbery should be a given; these kind of things shouldn't depend on whether one believes free market & AnCap can work or not.


It sounds like you're saying that one should be an anarcho-capitalist even if one thinks that anarcho-capitalism won't work. Is that right?




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> If  that view is correct, then the minarchist position is ethically  justified (choosing the lesser of two evils is not unethical***).
> 
> 
> I've already made a clear distinction between the two but let me give it another shot:
> 
> (a) choosing the lesser evil due to limited choices (while recognizing its immorality)
> (b) pretending that the lesser evil isn't immoral at all & supporting it
> ...


I think we're talking past one another.

You think that minarchism is immoral in comparison to the _ideal_ of a purely voluntary society. 

...and I completely agree. As I said in my first post in this thread, anarcho-capitalism would be better than minarchy if it worked as described (i.e. if we consider only the ideal and ignore how it might work in practice). 

But what I'm saying is that minarchism is moral in comparison to the other real options available to us.




> I'm saying that your repeated assertion that _"markets without force"_ are a prerequisite to AnCap is incorrect.


Consider a society where a cartel of security producers use violence to force would-be competitors out of business, and force the people in a given geographical area to pay for their services - can this be called an anarcho-capitalist society?

No, of course not. It would be a state-society. The entire concept of anarcho-capitalism is that security be produced on a free market.

As soon as there is no longer a free market in security (or anything else for that matter), there is no anarcho-capitalism, by definition.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> This is the only objection statists can mount anymore


Nope, here's another: national defense is a public good. 

...meaning  that it is a service which, if being provided to anyone in a  geographical area must (not ethically, but as a matter of how the  service works) be provided to everyone in that geographical area. In  economic lingo, it is non-excludable. This means that no one in that  area has an incentive to pay for it (since they will get it regardless),  and so it is under-produced. What this means in practice is that an  anarcho-capitalist society is not going to be able to defend itself from  an aggressor state. If you have anarcho-capitalist society and states  co-existing on the same planet, the latter are going to eat the former  for lunch, outcompete them in a Darwinian sense. 




> It has  already been pointed out why it is a hypocritical argument because no  limited government has ever remained limited.  When confronted with this  historical fact, let me repeat, a historical fact the solution statists  propose is repeat history.  Then they say well ... it will work this  time if the people can keep it.  It will work this time if people are  eternally vigilant.  All the same crapola that has been said before.


It's  not true that, as a matter of historical fact, states have only ever  gotten larger. States have shrunk and moved toward laissez faire. E.G.  Most of Europe in the 18th and early 19th centuries. China and Russia  since the end of the Cold War. Many other examples. 

But, even if your claim were true, the comparison would be as follows:
--Anarchy will degenerate_ immediately i_nto a new form of statism which may be _much worse_ than minarchy
--Whereas, minarchy will degenerate _eventually_ into a worse form of statism

Note that states don't often go from Jefferson to Stalin overnight. Any decline in a minarchist society is likely to be gradual. 

Whereas, from a state of anarchy (no pun intended), anything could happen. 

Don't think that, worse case scenario, anarchy --> minarchy. No, worse case scenario, anarchy --> Sierra Leone. 




> But you are saying limited government can work this time if people are eternally vigilant and can keep it?  Yes.
> And you are saying limited government can only work for a moral and enlightened people?  Yes.


I'm not saying either of those things. 

The  behavior of the state (e.g. whether it grows or not) has little to do  with the opinions of the great masses of powerless people.

I don't expect them to keep the state limited. The best check on he growth of state power is a good constitutional design: e.g. not mass democracy. 

You  see, it's not that rulers of states always inherently want to grow the  state and oppress everyone. The state grows primarily for two reasons:  (1) it is insecure and so it has to implement repressive measures for  the purpose of self-preservation (see many of the post-colonial  governments in the third world), and (2) the rulers are not really in  control, they have to appeal to someone else to govern (like voters) and  so they implement economically destructive welfare programs to buy  their support.

Note that if the constitutional design of a state (e.g. whether it is democratic or monarchical) largely determines how/whether it will grow over time, that is another reason to prefer minarchy to anarchy. I.E. We can design a minarchist state, with certain constitutional checks built-in, and set out to implement it. Whereas, if we set anarchy as our goal and implement it, and the result in the rapid reemergence of some new state, we did not have an opportunity to design that state rationally. It may not have the built-in checks we would like it to have. It is whatever happened to randomly emerge from the chaos.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Nope, here's another: national defense is a public good. 
> 
> ...meaning  that it is a service which, if being provided to anyone in a  geographical area must (not ethically, but as a matter of how the  service works) be provided to everyone in that geographical area. In  economic lingo, it is non-excludable. This means that no one in that  area has an incentive to pay for it (since they will get it regardless),  and so it is under-produced. What this means in practice is that an  anarcho-capitalist society is not going to be able to defend itself from  an aggressor state. If you have anarcho-capitalist society and states  co-existing on the same planet, the latter are going to eat the former  for lunch, outcompete them in a Darwinian sense.


This is the same fear leftist have with getting rid of public education, welfare, etc.  To much faith in government and to little faith in individuals.  Life and liberty are much better motivators than money, so when you have to introduce the latter in order to manipulate people into protecting the former, life and liberty were probably not actually at stake.  And that is why the government should not be responsible for the military, we wind up on wild excursions fueled by money.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's  not true that, as a matter of historical fact, states have only ever  gotten larger. States have shrunk and moved toward laissez faire. E.G.  Most of Europe in the 18th and early 19th centuries. China and Russia  since the end of the Cold War. Many other examples.


Collapsed empires=/=shinking States.  None of the European or Asian States you speak of shrunk "just because".  If the Japanese Empire hadn't lost the war in the Pacific Theatre, there would still be a feudal empire in Asia-including China.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Collapsed empires=/=shinking States.  None of the European or Asian States you speak of shrunk "just because".  If the Japanese Empire hadn't lost the war in the Pacific Theatre, there would still be a feudal empire in Asia-including China.


England didn't repeal the corn laws because it was collapsing.

Russia didn't end serfdom because it was collapsing.

Etc

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> It sounds like you're saying that one should be an anarcho-capitalist even if one thinks that anarcho-capitalism won't work. Is that right?


One doesn't have to be an AnCap to accept the moral superiority of it, one only needs to put morality as the primary consideration, & that's all one needs to accept AnCap's moral superiority.

Sacrificing equality of rights & robbery are immoral things in my opinion, & they'd remain so irrespective of whether anarchy or minarchy or communism or whatever "works" or not.




> You think that minarchism is immoral in comparison to the _ideal_ of a purely voluntary society. 
> 
> ...and I completely agree.
> 
> But what I'm saying is that minarchism is moral in comparison to the other real options available to us.


Minarchism can only be deemed "moral" if one thinks it's ok to sacrifice equality of rights or that robbery can be justified. I don't agree with either.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Nope, here's another:  national defense is a public good.
> 
> 
>  This is the same fear  leftist have with getting rid of public education, welfare, etc.  To  much faith in government and to little faith in individuals.


No no, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

"Public goods" is an economic concept, it has nothing to do with any moral argument ("we should help the poor...etc")

A  public good is a good which is non-excludable. That is, a good which it  is impossible to provide to you without also providing to me - whether you want to or not. The  clearest example of this with national defense is nuclear deterrence. If  your security company is providing nuclear deterrence for the city we  both live in, then I get the benefits of that whether I pay for it or  not. You see what I'm saying? Your security company's position cannot be  "we will retaliate against nuclear attack on P3ter_Griffin but not on  his neighbor Revoution 3.0" - because any nuclear attack on me is going  to kill you too, since we're neighbors. Right? So, by protecting you, they unavoidably protect me too. This undermines the incentive for anyone to pay for the service at all, and so fewer do, and so it is under-produced. 




> Sacrificing equality of rights & robbery are immoral things in my opinion, & they'd remain so irrespective of whether anarchy or minarchy or communism or whatever "works" or not.


Well, that's the difference between us.

I think that to act morally means to choose the best of the available options.

You think that to act moraly means to choose the best option you can imagine, even if it it actually impossible.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Well, that's the difference between us.
> 
> I think that to act morally means to choose the best of the available options.
> 
> You think that to act moraly means to choose the best option you can imagine, even if it it actually impossible.


I'd already said it, minarchists choose utility over morality. They think sacrificing equality of rights or legitimizing robbery is "moral" so long as they perceive it to have utility.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I'd already said it, minarchists choose utility over morality. They think sacrificing equality of rights or legitimizing robbery is "moral" so long as they perceive it to have utility.


So you keep saying. But, as I've explained, it's not that minarchists are ignoring morality. 

We just have a different view of morality than you. 

How a Minarchist Makes a Moral Decision:
Step #1 - determine what would be ideal
Step #2 - determine what is possible
Step #3 - from amongst the possible options, choose the one closest to the ideal

How an Anarchist Makes a Moral Decision
Step #1 - determine what would ideal
Step #2 - choose that (even if it is impossible)

The minarchist view of morality is the normal one. It is how most people make moral decisions. 

The anarchist one has ever been known as "utopian." 

Ala, "reality is bad, therefore I reject reality."

This is a commonality between anarchists and the radical left.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So you keep saying. But, as I've explained, it's not that minarchists are ignoring morality. 
> 
> We just have a different view of morality than you. 
> 
> How a Minarchist Makes a Moral Decision:
> Step #1 - determine what would be ideal
> Step #2 - determine what is possible
> Step #3 - from amongst the possible options, choose the one closest to the ideal
> 
> ...


Nonsense.  Every single "anarchist" here would gladly take a smaller state than the one we currently suffer under, all things being equal.  

The difference is that when presented with propositions which would make the state obsolete, most "minarchists" around here scoff and say "impossible, and you're an idiot for even talking about it"... as tho' we're anywhere near a minarchist state, let alone statelessness.  In other words, you're as much an idiot for proposing a minarchist state as we are for proposing a society without a state; the minarchists here like to pretend they're the "practical" ones... imagine the trajectory of the state being the distance from the earth to the sun, with the current US state being the surface of the sun... Statelessness is the surface of the earth, and minarchism is near-earth orbit.  Guess what?  The "liberals" and "conservatives" are laughing at you, too.  Speaking personally, when there's such little difference at that scale, I'd just as soon aim for the (moral, ideal) target.

There's also that parable about building a house upon a foundation of rock, versus upon a foundation of sand.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The difference is that when presented with propositions which would make the state obsolete, most "minarchists" around here scoff and say "impossible, and you're an idiot for even talking about it"... as tho' we're anywhere near a minarchist state, let alone statelessness. In other words, you're as much an idiot for proposing a minarchist state  as we are for proposing a society without a state; the minarchists here  like to pretend they're the "practical" ones...


Yes, moving toward either minarchy or anarchy (which, for most of the  distance, is the same direction) is very difficult politically. 

The difference is that the end-goal of anarchy is itself impossible. If once achieved, it would immediately fall apart.

By way of analogy:

Minarchy: wanting to build a skyscraper but not yet having the money

Anarchy: wanting to build a skyscraper made out of sand and not yet having the money

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yes, moving toward either minarchy or anarchy (which, for most of the  distance, is the same direction) is very difficult politically. 
> 
> The difference is that the end-goal of anarchy is itself impossible. If once achieved, it would immediately fall apart.
> 
> By way of analogy:
> 
> Minarchy: wanting to build a skyscraper but not yet having the money
> 
> Anarchy: wanting to build a skyscraper made out of sand and not yet having the money


If the state you want (by the way, that's why refer to you guys as statists) is so achievable, just how big of a state do you want?!  

I love that you guys have declared statelessness impossible... I suppose you would have been loyalists during the Revolution.  "A government conceived of liberty for the individual??  IMPOSSIBLE!  We HAVE to have a King!"

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If the state you want (by the way, that's why refer to you guys as statists) is so achievable, just how big of a state do you want?!  
> 
> I love that you guys have declared statelessness impossible... I suppose you would have been loyalists during the Revolution.  "A government conceived of liberty for the individual??  IMPOSSIBLE!  We HAVE to have a King!"


You speak as if I've just _asserted_ that anarchy is impossible.

...as if I haven't already provided two sound arguments for why it is impossible (which none of you anarchists have refuted).

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I've jumped into the thread late, so I've not seen your arguments, but to argue that statelessness is impossible is nonsensical.  You do not have near the knowledge required to make that claim.  

You're fairly new around here so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - this "feasibility of statelessness" argument has been had time, time, time and again here at RPF's, and won soundly by the advocates of statelessness, such that many around here aren't too interested in rehashing old debates anymore.  I recommend looking up old threads in this particular sub-forum.  I'm fairly confident you'll find any arguments you may have which "prove" that statelessness is impossible well handled.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I've jumped into the thread late, so I've not seen your arguments,


Well, they're here in this thread. It's only 4 pages long, won't take you long to read.

One concerns the propensity of security firms to form cartels, the other deal with national defense as a public good. 




> You're fairly new around here so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - this "feasibility of statelessness" argument has been had time, time, time and again here at RPF's, and won soundly by the advocates of statelessness, such that many around here aren't too interested in rehashing old debates anymore.


I have no doubt that the debate has been had here many _many_ times (as I know it has on every other libertarian forum I've ever frequented), but - forgive me - I'm not going to just take your word for it that the anarchists won; let alone that they already refuted the specific arguments I'm making now (especially considering that you admit you don't even know what my arguments_ are_).

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> So you keep saying. But, as I've explained, it's not that minarchists are ignoring morality. 
> 
> We just have a different view of morality than you.


Yes, your morality includes sacrificing equal rights or legitimizing robbery. Wow! What an admirable moral stance that is! lol

Seriously, I don't have an issue if someone believes AnCap can't work or whatever but sorry, I can't take a person seriously if they believe sacrificing equal rights or legitimizing robbery is "moral". Good luck with that!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Well, they're here in this thread. It's only 4 pages long, won't take you long to read.
> 
> One concerns the propensity of security firms to form cartels, the other deal with national defense as a public good. 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the debate has been had here many _many_ times (as I know it has on every other libertarian forum I've ever frequented), but - forgive me - I'm not going to just take your word for it that the anarchists won; let alone that they already refuted the specific arguments I'm making now (especially considering that you admit you don't even know what my arguments_ are_).


It's not that important to me, dude.  And don't take that as a cop out.  I've just been around these debates here too many times... I know how they go.  At this point it's just boring.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, your morality includes sacrificing equal rights or legitimizing robbery. Wow! What an admirable moral stance that is! lol
> 
> Seriously, I don't have an issue if someone believes AnCap can't work or whatever but sorry, I can't take a person seriously if they believe sacrificing equal rights or legitimizing robbery is "moral". Good luck with that!


Okie doke...

----------


## HVACTech

> Okie doke...


the Anarchists are thick as thieves around here...  
they are all incapable of distinguishing that there is a very fine line of distinction between a minArchist and an Anarchist.

the problem that I have with that, is that Both Ron and Rand Paul are CLEARLY not anarchists. 
I have shifted gears and turned the conversation towards the Constitution. (clearly a MinArchist document)
this leads to more productive discussions for the newcomers (lurkers) and makes the Anarchists ignorance glaringly clear. 

if they are woefully ignorant of the Constitution, or are dead-set against it. 

why are they here?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> No no, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.
> 
> "Public goods" is an economic concept, it has nothing to do with any moral argument ("we should help the poor...etc")
> 
> A  public good is a good which is non-excludable. That is, a good which it  is impossible to provide to you without also providing to me - whether you want to or not. The  clearest example of this with national defense is nuclear deterrence. If  your security company is providing nuclear deterrence for the city we  both live in, then I get the benefits of that whether I pay for it or  not. You see what I'm saying? Your security company's position cannot be  "we will retaliate against nuclear attack on P3ter_Griffin but not on  his neighbor Revoution 3.0" - because any nuclear attack on me is going  to kill you too, since we're neighbors. Right? So, by protecting you, they unavoidably protect me too. This undermines the incentive for anyone to pay for the service at all, and so fewer do, and so it is under-produced.


So I decide to put up a lightning rod, and the lowest proximity effective range I can find is 1 acre.  And I need this, WE need this, for our safety.  So I am right then to divvy up the cost between my neighbors and I, whether they are willing or not?

I think you are overstating the difference between a leftist and your position.  'I want public education, therefore you have to pay for it', 'I want national defense, therefore you have to pay for it'.  Do you think they believe any less that public education is so necessary that everyone must pay for it?  You are putting your desires which you don't think can be achieved voluntarily ahead of freedom, and that is exactly what a leftist does, it is pretty much a life summary of Ralph Nader.  But these things can be done voluntarily.  And if they can't it is a sign that not enough people shared your desires, and that is no reason to carry out your desires forcefully.

----------


## erowe1

> the problem that I have with that, is that Both Ron and Rand Paul are CLEARLY not anarchists.


I think Ron probably is. Why do you say he clearly isn't?




> if they are woefully ignorant of the Constitution, or are dead-set against it. 
> 
> why are they here?


You would have to be woefully ignorant of it not to be dead-set against it. But if that's the case, then why are YOU here?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So I decide to put up a lightning rod, and the lowest proximity effective range I can find is 1 acre.  And I need this, WE need this, for our safety.  So I am right then to divvy up the cost between my neighbors and I, whether they are willing or not?


As I said, this has nothing to do with ethics. It's about whether the good gets produced or not. 

Suppose you can't afford the lightening rod on your own. You'll have to get some of your neighbors to help pay for it. So you go around explaining the benefits and asking them to contribute. They all agree it would be beneficial. But each of them will benefit from it whether they contribute or not. So why would any of them contribute? They all hope that someone else contributes, so they can free ride. Consequently, not enough people donate and it never gets built. 

Note that this is especially problematic for a large group. Suppose that the number of contributors required to produce the good is 1 million. If everyone contributes, the good gets produced. If not, not. Is it going to make any difference whether you contribute? No, you're just 1/1,000,000th of the total. You cannot meaningfully improve your chances of getting the good by contributing. So why contribute? And this is how it would be for national defense. It would have to be very large group contributing to the effort. Hence the problem. Security will be underproduced if you're relying on voluntary contributions. 




> But these things can be done voluntarily


No they can't (see above), which means in an ancap society they won't, which means security will be underproduced in an ancap society, which means an ancap society will be outcompeted militarily by a state (which can force people to pay for security and so doesn't have this problem). QED




> And if they can't it is a sign that not enough people shared your desires, and that is no reason to carry out your desires forcefully.


Whether it should be produced is beside the point. 

The point is that it _won't_ be produced, which means an ancap society cannot defend itself.

----------


## HVACTech

> I think Ron probably is. Why do you say he clearly isn't?
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to be woefully ignorant of it not to be dead-set against it. But if that's the case, then why are YOU here?


because I know what I am talking about? has THAT ever occurred to you? 
can you formulate an argument that our Constitution is NOT an anti-statist document?

(sound of crickets chirping)..

Ron supports our Constitution. 
so, does his son Rand. 
are YOU asking me for PROOF of this fact? 
your ignorance is on full display dude. 
defend thyself.

(auto neg rep for stupid Anarchists)

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> As I said, this has nothing to do with ethics. It's about whether the good gets produced or not.
> 
> Suppose you can't afford the lightening rod on your own. You'll have to get some of your neighbors to help pay for it. So you go around explaining the benefits and asking them to contribute. They all agree it would be beneficial. But each of them will benefit from it whether they contribute or not. So why would any of them contribute? They all hope that someone else contributes, so they can free ride. Consequently, not enough people donate and it never gets built. 
> 
> Note that this is especially problematic for a large group. Suppose that the number of contributors required to produce the good is 1 million. If everyone contributes, the good gets produced. If not, not. Is it going to make any difference whether you contribute? No, you're just 1/1,000,000th of the total. You cannot meaningfully improve your chances of getting the good by contributing. So why contribute?
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't (see above), which means in an ancap society they won't, which means security will be underproduced in an ancap society, which means an ancap society will be outcompeted militarily by a state (which can force people to pay for security and so doesn't have this problem). QED
> ...


Few things, first, you are trying to paint human action with an economics term, and then trying to paint how a society of such painted humans would fare.  Second, how large your standing army is, how much resources you have wasted up until the conflict starts, tells no picture of a society's ability to defend itself.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Few things, first, you are trying to paint human action with an economics term,


Not sure how that's a criticism. Economics _is_ a science of human action.




> and then trying to paint how a society of such painted humans would fare.


Yes, economics makes predictions about how human beings will act. 




> Second, how large your standing army is, how much resources you have wasted up until the conflict starts, tells no picture of a society's ability to defend itself.


You mean that whether a society manages to produce military goods and services had no bearing on its ability to defend itself?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Not sure how that's a criticism. Economics _is_ a science of human action.


Economics is the _study of_ human action.




> Yes, economics makes predictions about how human beings will act.


And when you start with a poor thesis your prediction is bound to be wrong.  'Public good' is a poor thesis.



> You mean that whether a society manages to produce military goods and services had no bearing on its ability to defend itself?


I'm saying that a society not stockpiling military weapons during a time of peace does not mean that that society cannot defend itself, which is what you are essentially saying :




> The point is that it won't be produced, which means an ancap society cannot defend itself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I think Ron probably is. Why do you say he clearly isn't?
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to be woefully ignorant of it not to be dead-set against it. But if that's the case, then why are YOU here?


 Well played, brother.  



> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again.


Sorry my +rep gun is out of ammo.  Someone plz +rep my brother erowe for me, plz.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Not sure how that's a criticism. Economics _is_ a science of human action.
> 
> 
> Economics is the _study of_ human action.]


Okay...?




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Yes, economics makes  predictions about how human beings will act.
> 
> 
> And when you start  with a poor thesis your prediction is bound to be wrong.  'Public good'  is a poor thesis.


Explain why a person would contribute toward the production of a good if:
(a) whether he contributes or not has no effect on whether the good will be produced
(b) if the good is produced, he will benefit from it whether he contributed or not

The only possible answer is - altruism. He'll take one for the team. Well, that's not much to hang the survival of a society on.

It's  like the communists thinking people will work, even though they can get  the same goods from the common storehouse whether they work or not. 

...in a society of angels, perhaps, but not here in planet Earth. 




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> You mean that whether  a society manages to produce military goods and services had no bearing  on its ability to defend itself?
> 
> 
> I'm saying that a society not  stockpiling military weapons during a time of peace does not mean that  that society cannot defend itself, which is what you are essentially  saying


1. To have any value, production of military goods and services obviously has to begin _before_  the war. Trained  men, tanks, artillery, transport vehicles, etc, etc require a long  time to produce. If you start producing them after the war begins, it's going to be over before they're finished. 

2. Even if peacetime preparations weren't  necessary, the public goods problem doesn't magically disappear once war  breaks out. Ancapistan will _still_ be unable to produce military goods and services in adequate quantities.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So you keep saying. But, as I've explained, it's not that minarchists are ignoring morality. 
> 
> We just have a different view of morality than you. 
> 
> How a Minarchist Makes a Moral Decision:
> Step #1 - determine what would be ideal
> Step #2 - determine what is possible
> Step #3 - from amongst the possible options, choose the one closest to the ideal
> 
> ...


That's just Winner's History.  Minarchism is even more egalitarian and unrealistic than anarchism.  (interesting aside: the Federalists kind of hint at this several times in The Federalist-hence the mental gymnastics they attempt.) The minarchists can't even come up with a coherent legal theory upon which to base everything else.  It's just bull$#@! on stilts.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Minarchism is even more egalitarian and unrealistic than anarchism.


How so?




> The minarchists can't even come up with a coherent legal theory upon which to base everything else.


How so?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Okay...?
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why a person would contribute toward the production of a good if:
> (a) whether he contributes or not has no effect on whether the good will be produced
> (b) if the good is produced, he will benefit from it whether he contributed or not
> 
> The only possible answer is - altruism. He'll take one for the team. Well, that's not much to hang the survival of a society on.
> ...


Simple, because they want the good produced.  Not everyone is a freeloader, people understand that if no-one lifts a finger than nothing will get done.  There are both selfish and altruist reasons for doing so.





> 1. To have any value, production of military goods and services obviously has to begin _before_  the war. Trained  men, tanks, artillery, transport vehicles, etc, etc require a long  time to produce. If you start producing them after the war begins, it's going to be over before they're finished. 
> 
> 2. Even if peacetime preparations weren't  necessary, the public goods problem doesn't magically disappear once war  breaks out. Ancapistan will _still_ be unable to produce military goods and services in adequate quantities.


1.  Rubish.  Have you ever worked in a factory?  I don't give a $#@! what you're making, with enough manpower you can make a lot of it.

2.  Why?  As I said before, people value their life more than they value money.  If money can generate the manpower hours needed to produce they military we have today, isn't it reasonable to think an actual threat would generate more?

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> So I decide to put up a lightning rod, and the lowest proximity effective range I can find is 1 acre.  And I need this, WE need this, for our safety.  So I am right then to divvy up the cost between my neighbors and I, whether they are willing or not?
> 
> I think you are overstating the difference between a leftist and your position.  'I want public education, therefore you have to pay for it', 'I want national defense, therefore you have to pay for it'.  Do you think they believe any less that public education is so necessary that everyone must pay for it?  You are putting your desires which you don't think can be achieved voluntarily ahead of freedom, and that is exactly what a leftist does, it is pretty much a life summary of Ralph Nader.  But these things can be done voluntarily.  And if they can't it is a sign that not enough people shared your desires, and that is no reason to carry out your desires forcefully.


I think most minarchists do realize that they are acting like liberals when they want to force others to pay for the services they think the markets can't produce effectively enough. So it's not like they don't "get it", it's just that they are so pre-occupied with the thought that "AnCap can't work", that just like liberals, they think it's "moral" to use force against others to provide for their selfish desires. As I've said, I was once a minarchist, & I did realize at the time the immorality of minarchism but I was too pre-occupied with the "AnCap can't work" thought.

But as years went by, I realized that as a minarchist, I wasn't significantly different than a liberal, in trying to propose a system that coerces people with the belief that "there's no better system out there". I realized that I couldn't propose equality of rights for all people under a minarchist system because obviously, the people in the government would have a right to rob others but not everyone would have that right equally; so a minarchy would have to either give up on the idea of equal rights for all or allow everyone to freely engage in robbery. And, after facing this realization & learning more about how the markets work, my views changed & I was no longer concerned about "AnCap can't work" because I realized that I must have faith in the markets, the same way that we expect liberals to have faith that in the absence of government services, markets will provide for similar & BETTER private services.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How so?


It posits that limited government is possible.  Wholly unrealistic except on a very small scale (as in neighborhoods and communities).  *Anarchists, on the other hand (especially Rothbardians), are good at creating practical models.





> How so?


I don't know.  They simply haven't bothered.  My SWAG is that it's an impossibility.  Note I linked you to "legal theory" so's you can learn about it.  ~hugs~

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> the Anarchists are thick as thieves around here...


Ok, so minarchists are the one's supporting government thievery, & yet anarchists are "thick as thieves".......




> they are all incapable of distinguishing that there is a very fine line of distinction between a minArchist and an Anarchist.


The line lies with regards to use of coercion. Either, one supports coercion against others to pay for government services that one finds desirable or one takes a moral stand on issues like equal rights & robbery; everyone from minarchists to state-communists agree on the former while AnCaps agree on the latter.




> why are they here?


Because unlike most minarchists, Ron Paul philosophically agrees with AnCap, he even supports the concept of "individual-sucession" whereby individuals can choose to opt out of the government's system, pay no taxes & give up on the government benefits. Not to mention, Ron has been close friends with many AnCaps like Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard & so on. So clearly, Ron Paul isn't antagonistic towards AnCaps so tell us why are YOU here if you don't agree with Ron Paul?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Explain why a person would contribute toward the production of a good if:
> (a) whether he contributes or not has no effect on whether the good will be produced
> (b) if the good is produced, he will benefit from it whether he contributed or not
> 
> The only possible answer is - altruism. He'll take one for the team. Well, that's not much to hang the survival of a society on.
> 
> It's  like the communists thinking people will work, even though they  can get  the same goods from the common storehouse whether they work or  not. 
> ...


I see. So a communist society (where everyone gets the same ration whether he works or not) would not have an incentive problem, because the workers would "understand that if no one lifts a finger nothing will get done," and so they'd work just as hard as in a capitalist society?




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 1. To have any value, production of military goods and services obviously has to begin _before_   the war. Trained  men, tanks, artillery, transport vehicles, etc, etc  require a long  time to produce. If you start producing them after the  war begins, it's going to be over before they're finished.
> 
> 
> 1.  Rubish.  Have you ever worked in a factory?  I don't give a $#@! what you're making, with enough manpower you can make a lot of it.


You're telling me with a straight face that a modern military can be built from scratch instantaneously on the day war breaks out?




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 2. Even if peacetime preparations weren't  necessary, the public goods  problem doesn't magically disappear once war  breaks out. Ancapistan  will _still_ be unable to produce military goods and services in adequate quantities.
> 
> 
> 2.  Why?


For the same reason that communism has an incentive problem. See above.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I think most minarchists do realize that they are acting like liberals when they want to force others to pay for the services they think the markets can't produce effectively enough. So it's not like they don't "get it", it's just that they are so pre-occupied with the thought that "AnCap can't work", that just like liberals, they think it's "moral" to use force against others to provide for their selfish desires.


The difference is that markets can produce education, or medicine, or whatever else the left wants the government to produce. Whereas, the market cannot produce security on a competitive basis. Again, as I think I pointed out to you earlier, this analogy of yours is begging the question - assuming the very point in contention. 




> As I've said, I was once a minarchist, & I did realize at the time the immorality of minarchism but I was too pre-occupied with the "AnCap can't work" thought.


Pfft, yea, who cares if it "works." What's so great about reality, anyway? 






> my views changed & I was no longer concerned about "AnCap can't work" because I realized that I must have faith in the markets, the same way that we expect liberals to have faith that in the absence of government services, markets will provide for similar & BETTER private services.


It isn't faith that tells us that markets will produce education, medicine, et al better than the state - it's cold economic reasoning. 

The same reasoning that tells us that markets _cannot_ produce security.

Truly, anarcho-capitalism is a religion for some of you.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It posits that limited government is possible.  Wholly unrealistic except on a very small scale (as in neighborhoods and communities).  *Anarchists, on the other hand (especially Rothbardians), are good at creating practical models.


Limited government has existed on a large scale and for long periods of time.

Anarcho-capitalism has never existed.




> I don't know.  They simply haven't bothered.  My SWAG is that it's an impossibility.  Note I linked you to "legal theory" so's you can learn about it.  ~hugs~


You said that minarchist legal theory is incoherent.

I asked you to explain what is incoherent about it. 

Now you say you don't know. 

....okie doke

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> The difference is that markets can produce education, or medicine, or whatever else the left wants the government to produce. Whereas, the market cannot produce security on a competitive basis. Again, as I think I pointed out to you earlier, this analogy of yours is begging the question - assuming the very point in contention.


The Left knows that markets can produce education, medicine & whatever, after all they are not blind to not see private schools & stuff but they just think that the markets can't do it effectively enough; your argument is similar, as it deals with security, that the markets can't produce security effectively enough. Both are just opinions but the fact is that the markets produce things when there's a demand for a good or a service, & people willing to pay for it.




> Pfft, yea, who cares if it "works." What's so great about reality, anyway?


Who cares about equality of rights, right? As I've said, it simply comes down to the fact that AnCaps put morality before utility.




> It isn't faith that tells us that markets will produce education, medicine, et al better than the state - it's cold economic reasoning.


Ok, so markets can produce everything else but they can't produce security? That's not "economic reasoning", it's just an opinion, that's all. In reality, markets react to demand & profits, if there's enough demand with enough AnCap individuals willing to pay for it then the markets will provide security as well.



The fundamental issue with ANY system, be it AnCap, minarchy, anarcho-communism or whatever, is whether enough people are willing to support a system, & that creates a demand & a market for that system, & makes it a viable option. For example, we're living under a significantly socialist system because enough people support it; minarchy will be possible only when enough people support minarchy & the same goes for AnCap. Historical evidence is irrelevant to future innovation, there were no minarchies before enough people believed & supported the idea, & there will never be another minarchy until enough people believe & support it, & the same holds true for AnCap, if there are enough people who believe in equality of rights then there will be AnCap communities as well as security firms.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> You said that minarchist legal theory is incoherent.
> 
> I asked you to explain what is incoherent about it.


How about the fact that people in the government are allowed to rob but not everyone else.....

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The Left knows that markets can produce education, medicine & whatever, after all they are not blind to not see private schools & stuff but they just think that the markets can't do it effectively enough


Yes obviously, that's what I meant. 




> your argument is similar, as it deals with security, that the markets can't produce security effectively enough.


Yes, the difference being that my argument is correct and theirs is incorrect. 

A rather important distinction...eh?




> Both are just opinions but the fact is that the markets produce things when there's a demand for a good or a service, & people willing to pay for it.


...as if I haven't presented an argument to support my claim (which argument has not been refuted).

And no, repeating your assertion over and over does not a refutation make. 




> As I've said, it simply comes down to the fact that AnCaps put morality before utility reality.


FIFY




> Ok, so markets can produce everything else but they can't produce security?


That's right, as I've been explaining for four pages.




> That's not "economic reasoning", it's just an opinion, that's all. In reality, markets react to demand & profits, if there's enough  demand with enough AnCap individuals willing to pay for it then the  markets will provide security as well.


Again, you're completely ignoring everything I've said and just repeating your assertion.




> The fundamental issue with ANY system, be it AnCap, minarchy, anarcho-communism or whatever, is whether enough people are willing to support a system, & that creates a demand & a market for that system, & makes it a viable option. For example, we're living under a significantly socialist system because enough people support it; minarchy will be possible only when enough people support minarchy & the same goes for AnCap. Historical evidence is irrelevant to future innovation, there were no minarchies before enough people believed & supported the idea, & there will never be another minarchy until enough people believe & support it, & the same holds true for AnCap, if there are enough people who believe in equality of rights then there will be AnCap communities as well as security firms.


Yes, if everyone were a zealous anarcho-capitalist, there can be anarcho-capitalism. Just as if everyone were a zealous anarcho-communist, there could be anarcho-communism. Put another way, anarcho-capitalism requires a New Libertarian Man, just as anarcho-communism requires a New Soviet Man. And this is all utopian nonsense, in both cases. There is only one kind of Man, and he will never behave in the way that either of those systems require him to. 

Minarchy, on the other hand, does not require a New Minarchist Man. Ordinary, everyday Man will do.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> You said that minarchist legal theory is incoherent.
> 
> I asked you to explain what is incoherent about it.
> 
> 
> How about the  fact that people in the government are allowed to rob but not everyone  else.....


That would mean that minarchist ethics (or legal theory) does not grant everyone equal rights.

That's not incoherent though. Incoherence means internal contradiction.

You just don't like it. And neither do I, for that matter, but there's no alternative. 

The only question is the extent to which the state shall aggress against people: minimally or otherwise.

There's no option for them not to aggress against people at all (i.e. there's no option for the state to not exist).

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Minarchy, on the other hand, does not require a New Minarchist Man. Ordinary, everyday Man will do.


Again, you can ignore the call of the markets if you want but the fact is that right now, minarchy doesn't exist in the U.S because there aren't enough minarchists, & if minarchy were ever to be achieved, it would require enough minarchists that believe & support the idea. So yes, minarchy does require a New Minarchist Man. And, similarly, there would have to be enough people who believe in equal rights for AnCap communities.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> That would mean that minarchist ethics (or legal theory) does not grant everyone equal rights.


I don't think I need to say anything more to defeat the idea of minarchism (or any form of statism for that matter).

----------


## CJLauderdale4

I'm glad to see a lot of folks in this thread have a decent understanding of the "State".

Yes, Anarchy (no government) is not a real form of government since at some point, someone or group will try to take control to provide the community with some sort of reliable structure and security. 

But in order to add to the original concept and discussion, remember that this country, even as distributed in power with the various States of the Union back in 1789, did have one fabric that was keeping them together that they all relied on prior to and long after the U.S. Constitution was signed:

FAITH

It was John Adams that stated that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is *wholly inadequate* to the government of any other."

With this in mind, sure, various States and People (per the 10th amendment) were able to govern themselves with very little interruption by a new Federal head. 

Fast forward 80 years (and it didn't take long), the Federal government was already trying to impose commerce and taxation laws onto all of the states that were unconstitutional. And it wasn't soon after the Civil War that the Progressives saw the vacuum that the war left, and that the innovative capitalists like Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie had grabbed hold of, and wanted to take control. 

The breakdown of the religious faith of the people in the United States has been a constant factor in the slow Federal government takeover. Without one uniting fabric, that an all-powerful God from whom all blessings flow, there needs to be someone or something that unites us. It isn't language anymore, it isn't culture anymore, and sure isn't our faith anymore. That new uniting fabric is:

GOVERNMENT

And this is why we see such a large push for President's to be "uniters". You hear it in their speeches, literature, and commercials. Everyone talks of how W and O aren't uniting the people and the Congress. In the past, knowing that our brothers in Pennsylvania who fought side-by-side with us against the British, would have the decency and moral compass NOT to invade Virginia WAS DESTROYED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. After the Civil War, everyone then turned to the Federal, giving it that much more power as the proven "uniter" of the country. Ironically, Lincoln single-handedly changed the office of President by inadvertently making the position one that "divides" the States and people, and then actually trying to "unite" them. Rather than unite them under the moral argument (FAITH) against slavery, he had States pull out their weapons against other States.

Again, we're seeing the shift of the underlying uniting cord in this fabric of the United States shift from FAITH to THE FEDERAL!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> because I know what I am talking about? has THAT ever occurred to you/


Not even once.




> can you formulate an argument that our Constitution is NOT an anti-statist document?
> 
> (sound of crickets chirping)..


Without even thinking about it - it establishes an order of government without the explicit consent of the governed.







> (auto neg rep for stupid Anarchists)

----------


## CCTelander

> Not even once.
> 
> 
> 
> Without even thinking about it - it establishes an order of government without the explicit consent of the governed.



And lets not forget that the CONstitution also grants the federal government virtually unlimited taxing authority. Nothing statist about that, right?

----------


## erowe1

> can you formulate an argument that our Constitution is NOT an anti-statist document?


Yes. It explicitly grants state powers to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8, among other places.




> Ron supports our Constitution.


He supports taking away from the federal government all those powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean that he supports granting to it all those powers that are enumerated in it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Yes, if everyone were a zealous anarcho-capitalist, there can be  anarcho-capitalism. Just as if everyone were a zealous  anarcho-communist, there could be anarcho-communism. Put another way,  anarcho-capitalism requires a New Libertarian Man, just as  anarcho-communism requires a New Soviet Man. And this is all utopian  nonsense, in both cases. There is only one kind of Man, and he will  never behave in the way that either of those systems require him to. 
> 
> Minarchy, on the other hand, does not require a New Minarchist Man. Ordinary, everyday Man will do.
> 
> 
> Again, you can ignore the call of the markets if you want but the fact is that right now, minarchy doesn't exist in the U.S because there aren't enough minarchists, & if minarchy were ever to be achieved, it would require enough minarchists that believe & support the idea. So yes, minarchy does require a New Minarchist Man. And, similarly, there would have to be enough people who believe in equal rights for AnCap communities.


1. States (minimal or otherwise) require only the passive acceptance of the majority ("can't fight city hall.."), not it's active support ("horray, the government shares my ideology, I will donate my time, money, energy to supporting them!"). A minimal state where no one outside the government is a minarchist is perfectly possible. WHEREAS, anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-communism require the active support of the majority; passive acceptance is not enough. Anarcho-capitalism requires people to subordinate their own material interests to the ideal of anarcho-capitalism, in order to overcome the public goods problem and produce adequate defense. Just as anarcho-communism requires people to subordinate their own material interests to the communist ideal, in order to overcome the incentive problem. The minarchist expectation (that a majority will at least passively accept the social order) is realistic (it is the usual situation throughought history), whereas the anarchist expectation (that a majority will actively support the social order to the pioint of sacrificing their own material interests) is unrealistic, utopian.

2. You might object - "well that explains why the state in general is easier to maintain than anarchy, but what about a minimal state in particular? How do keep a miimal state minimal if a majority of the people only passively accept it, and aren't fighting to keep it?" As I said in an earlier post, I do not believe that popular opinion is the primary determinant of the behavior of rulers. I believe that rulers' behavior is largely determined by the structure of the system (it's constitutional structure - how the government is internally organized - e.g. whether it is democratic or monarchical). My ideal state would be a non-democratic one structure in a certain way (I can go into detail later if you like), and it will stay minarchist for structural reasons; it does not need the masses to be zealous minarchists. N.B. A general point; libertaroans tend to think of the state as always inherently wanting to grow, and so there needs to be something external to check this growth (e.g. public opinion). This is wrong, IMO. The only solution to the problem of limited government is to make the state not _want_ to grow in the first place, which means you must understand the structural reasons that it grows, and amend the structure accordingly to remove those features. Democracy itself is one such structural reason for the growth of the state, for example.

3. Another possible objection - "Okay, so your version of minarchy does not require mass popular support to sustain itself, but how can we get to your version of minarchy without mass popular support, given that we currently live in a democracy?" First, I would say that we have to distinguish between means and end. Even if it were true that there were no realistic means of achieving minarchy, at least the goal itself could - if ever reached - sustain itself (unlike anarchy). As I said in an earlier post, it's the difference between trying to build a skyscraper while not having enough money (minarchy - unrealistic means, realistic end), and trying to build a skyscraper made of out sand while not having enough money (anarchy - both means and ends are unrealistic). Second, however, there is a realistic means of achieving minarchy. One option is for a non-demoacrtic solution, such a military coup d'etat. Another option is a popular movement operating through the democratic process. "But wait!", you object, "didn't you just say that a mass libertarian movement is unrealistic?" For libertarians to succeed in the democratic process, we don't have to transform the majority into zealous libertarians (thank God, because that's basically impossible). Look at what Rand is doing. Democratic politics is mostly about conning the majority into supporting you based on propaganda, not making them understand why they really should support you. There's a world of difference between herding the masses in a libertarian direction, for the purpose of an election (as we need to do to move toward minarchy through the democratic process), and maintaining a permanent majority of zealous libertarians willing to sacrifice themselves to the cause (as anarchy requires to sustain itself). Tangentially, I think that many minarchists in the liberty movement implicitly understand this, even if they don't say it this way, which is why you find fewer minarchists than anarchists in the anti-Rand "purist" camp - but I digress.

----------


## HVACTech

> Yes. It explicitly grants state powers to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8, among other places.
> 
> 
> 
> He supports taking away from the federal government all those powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean that he supports granting to it all those powers that are enumerated in it.


stunning...

you have been here for 7 years, made over 25 thousand posts...

and this is an example of your thought process's?

----------


## erowe1

> stunning...
> 
> you have been here for 7 years, made over 25 thousand posts...
> 
> and this is an example of your thought process's?


Yeah. Back when I was new here I thought like you. Getting his supporters to become enemies of the state is probably one of Ron Paul's greatest lasting influences.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yeah. Back when I was new here I thought like you. Getting his supporters to become enemies of the state is probably one of Ron Paul's greatest lasting influences.


A bunch of us were already enemies of the state even before Ron came along.  We're really glad that he joined us.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> A bunch of us were already enemies of the state even before Ron came along.  We're really glad that he joined us.


What makes you think Ron is an anarcho-capitalist?

----------


## mad cow

> What makes you think Ron is an anarcho-capitalist?


Cognitive dissonance.

----------


## euphemia

Minarchy should not bother most people.  Minarchy protects them from the small percentage of people who are out to cause harm.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Minarchy should not bother most people.  Minarchy protects them from the small percentage of people who are out to cause harm.


Except for that percentage who claim the authority to do so...

----------


## CCTelander

> Except for that percentage who claim the authority to do so...



What's that libertarian truism? Minarchy is the brilliant idea that we give a small number of people the right to harass, kidnap, imprison, steal from and kill us, with virtual impunity, so they can protect us from people who want to harass, kidnap, steal from and kill us. But it's MINarchy, so we only give them the authority to do it a little bit.

Insanity.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm glad to see a lot of folks in this thread have a decent understanding of the "State".
> 
> Yes, Anarchy (no government) is not a real form of government since at some point, someone or group will try to take control to provide the community with some sort of reliable structure and security. 
> 
> But in order to add to the original concept and discussion, remember that this country, even as distributed in power with the various States of the Union back in 1789, did have one fabric that was keeping them together that they all relied on prior to and long after the U.S. Constitution was signed:
> 
> FAITH
> 
> It was John Adams that stated that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is *wholly inadequate* to the government of any other."
> ...


This is VERY misleading.  There was never a _single_ common faith in the US.  There were official State religions, and rather frequently butted heads on matters both religious and political.  People considered themselves citizens of their respective states _first_ and the US _second_.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What's that libertarian truism? Minarchy is the brilliant idea that we give a small number of people the right to harass, kidnap, imprison, steal from and kill us, with virtual impunity, so they can protect us from people who want to harass, kidnap, steal from and kill us. But it's MINarchy, so we only give them the authority to do it a little bit.
> 
> Insanity.


Heh.  Rather like saying "rape is okay as long as it's only a little bit and not too often", isn't it?

----------


## CCTelander

> Heh.  Rather like saying "rape is okay as long as it's only a little bit and not too often", isn't it?



Pretty much exactly like saying that.

----------


## euphemia

The government would be the most governed of all.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The government would be the most governed of all.


According to whom?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The government would be the most governed of all.


The historic record rather conclusively shows this to be not so.  All a state does is grow, and it would seem the smaller it starts out, the larger and more virulent it becomes.  When you create an entity in society with generally sanctioned authority to enact force, people will ALWAYS appeal to that authority for their heart's desires, and that authority - _especially_ one supposedly created by, of and for "the people" - will ALWAYS find ways to give them what they want.  

It's damned near an immutable law of nature.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> What's that libertarian truism? Minarchy is the brilliant idea that we give a small number of people the right to harass, kidnap, imprison, steal from and kill us, with virtual impunity, so they can protect us from people who want to harass, kidnap, steal from and kill us. But it's MINarchy, so we only give them the authority to do it a little bit.
> 
> Insanity.


:thumbs:

So simple.  It's amazing the disconnect.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Heh.  Rather like saying "rape is okay as long as it's only a little bit and not too often", isn't it?


According to our less logically inclined friends here, it's not rape if the state only puts the tip in  

(I'm just joking, calm down)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The historic record rather conclusively shows this to be not so.  All a state does is grow


Not at all. There are countless examples of states shrinking and undergoing economic liberalization.

Certain forms of government have an almost irreversible tendency to grow (e.g. mass democracy), but to extrapolate that to all states is an error.

----------


## CCTelander

> Not at all. There are countless examples of states shrinking and undergoing economic liberalization.
> 
> Certain forms of government have an almost irreversible tendency to grow (e.g. mass democracy), but to extrapolate that to all states is an error.



Oh, THAT would explain why we see so much true and genuine liberty extant in the world today.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What makes you think Ron is an anarcho-capitalist?


Is that what I said or implied? I really don't think so.  You can be an enemy of the state without being an AnCap.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Not at all. There are countless examples of states shrinking and undergoing economic liberalization.
> 
> Certain forms of government have an almost irreversible tendency to grow  (e.g. mass democracy), but to extrapolate that to all states is an  error.
> 
> 
> Oh, THAT would explain why we see so much true and genuine liberty extant in the world today.


r3vo: "Sometimes fires are put out."
CCT: "But look! There's a fire over there! You're wrong!"
r3vo: ".....?...."

#nonsequitur

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Is that what I said or implied?


That's what I thought you were implying. If not, my mistake.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Not at all. There are countless examples of states shrinking and undergoing economic liberalization.
> 
> Certain forms of government have an almost irreversible tendency to grow (e.g. mass democracy), but to extrapolate that to all states is an error.


:facepalm:

The history of the United States - a state deliberately conceived with the preservation of "individual liberty" in the minds of the founders - has been one of _almost_ unremitting expansion from the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

I'm struggling to come up with any state which has willingly devolved power and authority off the top of my head, and none which have the wisdom to resist the appeal of the wants of the people.  

Setting aside, of course, the other legitimate criticisms of the state with regard to the rights of the individual, first of which in my opinion is the explicit consent of the "governed".

----------


## osan

> I'm glad to see a lot of folks in this thread have a decent understanding of the "State".
> 
> Yes, Anarchy (no government) is not a real form of government since at some point, someone or group will try to take control to provide the community with some sort of reliable structure and security.


The long history of tribal anarchies says otherwise.  It is only when the notions of Empire infect and take hold of a society that your assertions begin to assume the truth.




> It was John Adams that stated that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is *wholly inadequate* to the government of any other."


And he was precisely right, which is why the Constitution is so unrealistically written for the world in which we now live - Adams himself admits it was written for superior men.  Well, the superior man is now a distinct and very diminutive minority, the meaner out to at least four sigmas on a Gaussian severly skewed toward "stoopid, corrupt, and timid".  Things at this moment ain't looking too good for the future.  Let us hope that changes before long and before it is too late.

Good post, BTW.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The history of the United States - a state deliberately conceived with the preservation of "individual liberty" in the minds of the founders - has been one of _almost_ unremitting expansion from the time of the adoption of the Constitution.


You are aware that time did not begin in 1781 and space is not limited to the geographical area of the United States?

...which is my snarky way of saying, you should take a look at other times/places in world history. You might be surprised. 




> I'm struggling to come up with any state which has willingly devolved power and authority off the top of my head, and none which have the wisdom to resist the appeal of the wants of the people.


Then you need to read more history. I already listed several fairly well-known examples earlier in the thread.

Here's one recent and ongoing example: China. Is it more or less economically free than during the days of Chairman Mao? And this is not an example of a violent revolution. The Chinese state chose this path of its own accord, because it saw the advantages for itself.

Another modern example: Singapore.

A few historical examples: Austria and France in the late 18th century.

P.S. The history of the past 150 years or so has certainly been (on balance) the history of the growth of the state, yet even here it's not hard to find counterexamples, where's states shrank. However, it must be understood that the last 150 or so years have been unprecedented in the history of the world. It saw the rise of both mass democracy and socialism as an ideology, which very much tilted the scales toward state growth. These are responsible for the clear trend toward state growth. Prior to this period, however, there was no such trend. States waxes and waned. From say the collapse of the Roman Empire until 1700, there was no clear trend in the Western world toward growing or shrinking states. Some states grew at times, other shrank. To take the very unusual pro-state trend of the last 150 years and assume this is an inherent feature of the state is mistake.

P.P.S. I used to have the same view as you (it is in the nature of the state to always try to grow as much as possible). But the more you start thinking about why states grow, why rulers choose to grow the state in various ways, the more you'll realize that this just isn't true. In that vein, you have to remember that "the state" is not some inhuman machine, it consists of people. And what it does depends on what those people choose to do.

----------


## HVACTech

> :facepalm:
> 
> The history of the United States - a state deliberately conceived with the preservation of "individual liberty" in the minds of the founders - has been one of _almost_ unremitting expansion from the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> I'm struggling to come up with any state which has willingly devolved power and authority off the top of my head, and none which have the wisdom to resist the appeal of the wants of the people.  
> 
> Setting aside, of course, the other legitimate criticisms of the state with regard to the rights of the individual, first of which in my opinion is the explicit consent of the "governed".


that right thar, is a pretty fricking BRILLIANT assessment of our world today. 
(and also obvious to any turdhead)

the way that I figure it, restoring the Republic that was lost before we were all born.
with the 2nd version of the rule of law. (our Constitution for the jolt heads)
offers us our best shot. even today it at least serves as wallpaper for this land. 

I will ask the stupid question that no one else is. 
what are YOU suggesting sir.?  

passivism and endless pontification?

----------


## HVACTech

> You are aware that time did not begin in 1781 and space is not limited to the geographical area of the United States?
> 
> ...which is my snarky way of saying, you should take a look at other times/places in world history. You might be surprised. 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to read more history. I already listed several fairly well-known examples earlier in the thread.
> 
> Here's one recent and ongoing example: China. Is it more or less economically free than during the days of Chairman Mao? And this is not an example of a violent revolution. The Chinese state chose this path of its own accord, because it saw the advantages for itself.
> ...


this guy has a REAL problem with having even a basic understanding of the word "state"

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> :facepalm:
> 
> The history of the United States - a state deliberately conceived with the preservation of "individual liberty" in the minds of the founders - has been one of _almost_ unremitting expansion from the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> *I'm struggling to come up with any state which has willingly devolved power and authority off the top of my head, and none which have the wisdom to resist the appeal of the wants of the people. * 
> 
> Setting aside, of course, the other legitimate criticisms of the state with regard to the rights of the individual, first of which in my opinion is the explicit consent of the "governed".


AFAIK, that's only happened to States crushed by civil war or invaders.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

^^^So, you're just going to ignore the examples I cited?

China, Singapore, etc?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> that right thar, is a pretty fricking BRILLIANT assessment of our world today. 
> (and also obvious to any turdhead)
> 
> the way that I figure it, restoring the Republic that was lost before we were all born.
> with the 2nd version of the rule of law. (our Constitution for the jolt heads)
> offers us our best shot. even today it at least serves as wallpaper for this land. 
> 
> I will ask the stupid question that no one else is. 
> what are YOU suggesting sir.?  
> ...


The difference between the state-less and those like yourself who want a minimal state is that for _your side_ to come fruition you must shrink the scope and size of _their government_.  That is what they do not want.  If instead association was made voluntary with the government, the state-less could have their state-lessness while those who want a big obtrusive government could continue on like normal.  Let us get off the wheel and you guys can keep trying to 'get it just right'.

----------


## HVACTech

> ^^^So, you're just going to ignore the examples I cited?
> 
> China, Singapore, etc?


you do not understand grasshopper.
 the meaning of the word "state"

is double ought secret with these guys. 
it has magic and mystical quality's for them.

I am sad, that they missed the Halle bop comet.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You are aware that time did not begin in 1781 and space is not limited to the geographical area of the United States?
> 
> ...which is my snarky way of saying, you should take a look at other times/places in world history. You might be surprised. 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to read more history. I already listed several fairly well-known examples earlier in the thread.
> *
> Here's one recent and ongoing example: China.* Is it more or less economically free than during the days of Chairman Mao? And this is not an example of a violent revolution. The Chinese state chose this path of its own accord, because it saw the advantages for itself.
> ...


Might want to rethink that one.  Religious minorities are still actively persecuted in China by the State.  Not a good example of "freedom".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> ^^^So, you're just going to ignore the examples I cited?
> 
> China, Singapore, etc?


China is more economically free, but not truly free.  It's still a command/control economy in many ways.

Gerald Celente writes:



> When the Panic of ’08 hit,  the United States — the financial and military police of the world  — led the charge to stop the spread of economic terror. Under the  command of US Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson, orders were given to  save too-big-to-fail banks and over-leveraged financial institutions  drowning in red ink. On Oct. 3, 2008, President George W. Bush signed  into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program that allowed the government  to purchase assets and equities institutions had accumulated from  engaging in a spectrum of dirty deals — deals for which they would pay  minimal fines before being allowed to grow even bigger.
>  That was just the beginning of the massive money flows to come.
>  Newly elected President Barack Obama launched his $831 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  In short order, the Federal Reserve began its series of Quantitative  Easing programs that ballooned its balance sheet from $500 billion to  $3.5 trillion, while maintaining its Zero Percent Interest Rate Policy.  The results of these cheap money flows are quantifiable: Gross Domestic  Product on average has barely moved above 2 percent annually, the  labor-force-participation rate has sunk to 38-year lows and real  household income is at 1989 levels – all while equity markets have  soared to new highs.
> 
>  While America led the  cheap-money charge, China, the world’s second-largest economy, quickly  followed with its brand of monetary juice.
>  With demand for its  exports weakening, the real estate market cooling, bank lending slowing  and unemployed natives growing restless, China pumped some $600 billion  in public spending and loosened bank-credit policies to boost lending to  businesses and consumers. By mid 2012, with its economy juiced, the _New China News Agency_ reported:  “The Chinese government’s intention is very clear; it will not issue  another large-scale stimulus plan to boost robust growth…” and it will  not “use stimulus money to reach the goal of stable growth like they did  last time because it’s unsustainable.”
> *How do you say Ponzi in Chinese?*
>  In 2012, when its GDP was  at 7.7 percent, the Chinese government said it would not go below 7.5  percent. Yet, with imports and exports down dramatically, this year’s  first-quarter GDP fell to 7 percent, the slowest pace since 2009. 
>  As China’s housing bubble  continues to deflate, despite pledges not to “issue another large-scale  stimulus plan,” minimum down-payment rates for home buyers have been  cut, the central bank lowered the reserve requirement ratio for  commercial banks twice this year and interest rates have been cut for  the third time in six months.  As with the US and other nations whose  equity markets have been boosted by money-pumping and low-interest-rate  policies, the Shanghai Index has soared more than 100 percent over the  past year. 
>  Meanwhile, despite all the  cheap money injected into economies across the globe, GDP growth  remains tepid. Why? Because “…stimulus money to reach the goal of stable  growth … is unsustainable.”

----------


## HVACTech

> The difference between the state-less *and those like yourself who want a minimal state* is that for _your side_ to come fruition you must shrink the scope and size of _their government_.  That is what they do not want.  If instead association was made voluntary with the government, the state-less could have their state-lessness while those who want a big obtrusive government could continue on like normal.  Let us get off the wheel and you guys can keep trying to 'get it just right'.


yes, I consider our US Constitution a necessary evil. 
I also support and can explain why and how it addresses your, want's needs and desires.

if, you wish to argue with me, you need to explain just what part of it applies to you.
then we can proceed.

what part of the US Constitution applies to you sir?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> yes, I consider our US Constitution a necessary evil. 
> I also support and can explain why and how it addresses your, want's needs and desires.
> 
> if, you wish to argue with me, you need to explain just what part of it applies to you.
> then we can proceed.
> 
> what part of the US Constitution applies to you sir?


lol.  Have it be a necessary evil unto yourself.  I have no 'want's needs and desires' from a constitution or government.  But I understand that some people do.  Is it to much to ask that we cohabitat the same continent without forcing our will upon the other?  Because that is all that I ask, but you seem to have a problem with it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> China is more economically free, but not truly free.


I wasn't claiming that China is "truly free," only that it is _more_ free than it once was, that the size and scope of the Chinese state has shrank over the last 30 or so years.

So, do you agree that the Chinese state is smaller now than it once was? 

And, therefore, that it is not true that the state must grow over time?

If China and Singapore are not convincing enough examples, I could give others.

There are many, many examples from the third world that have liberalized to a large extent since the height of the Cold War.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I wasn't claiming that China is "truly free," only that it is _more_ free than it once was, that the size and scope of the Chinese state has shrank over the last 30 or so years.
> 
> So, do you agree that the Chinese state is smaller now than it once was? 
> 
> And, therefore, that it is not true that the state must grow over time?
> 
> If China and Singapore are not convincing enough examples, I could give others.
> 
> There are many, many examples from the third world that have liberalized to a large extent since the height of the Cold War.


Yeah.  Empires collapse.  It's part of a 5000 year trend cycle.  No, those aren't suffciently convincing examples.  Of your examples, how many are minarchies?  How many are as small as they were when created?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yeah.  Empires collapse.


None of the examples I cited are examples of states shrinking_ because they're collapsing_. 

They shrank because they _chose_ to shrink.

The Chinese state did not collapse in the last 30 years. It chose a different course.

Likewise with Singapore.

Likewise with the older historical examples I cited.

These are indisputable historical facts. 

If you insist on denying these facts to preserve your dogma, we cannot have a rational discussion.

----------


## otherone

> lol.  Have it be a necessary evil unto yourself.  I have no 'want's needs and desires' from a constitution or government.  But I understand that some people do.  _Is it to much to ask that we cohabitat the same continent without forcing our will upon the other?_  Because that is all that I ask, but you seem to have a problem with it.


I would like to see an answer to this question.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> None of the examples I cited are examples of states shrinking_ because they're collapsing_. 
> 
> They shrank because they _chose_ to shrink.
> 
> The Chinese state did not collapse in the last 30 years. It chose a different course.
> 
> Likewise with Singapore.
> 
> Likewise with the older historical examples I cited.
> ...


I forgot about this thread...

Adjusting the size and scope of the authority of the state to preserve and/or expand other interests _of that state_ isn't really the point we've been driving at.  

We're saying that states do not ever just decide to be smaller because it is right and just.




> I would like to see an answer to this question.


Me too.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Adjusting the size and scope of the authority of the state to preserve and/or expand other interests _of that state_ isn't really the point we've been driving at.  
> 
> We're saying that states do not ever just decide to be smaller because it is right and just.


Huh? Why does it matter _why_ the state decides to shrink?

Smaller government is smaller government, and it's a good thing regardless of whether the underlying motive is selfish or altruistic.

And the starting point of this whole conversation, re whether or not states can ever get smaller, was about whether the minarchist program (shrinking the state) is possible. The fact that states _have_ shrunk (whatever the reason) proves that it is. Period. Now you're just changing the goalposts.

----------


## erowe1

> this guy has a REAL problem with having even a basic understanding of the word "state"


I didn't notice that. What about the word "state" did he show he misunderstood?

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> 1. States (minimal or otherwise) require only the passive acceptance of the majority ("can't fight city hall.."), not it's active support ("horray, the government shares my ideology, I will donate my time, money, energy to supporting them!"). A minimal state where no one outside the government is a minarchist is perfectly possible. WHEREAS, anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-communism require the active support of the majority; passive acceptance is not enough. Anarcho-capitalism requires people to subordinate their own material interests to the ideal of anarcho-capitalism, in order to overcome the public goods problem and produce adequate defense. Just as anarcho-communism requires people to subordinate their own material interests to the communist ideal, in order to overcome the incentive problem. The minarchist expectation (that a majority will at least passively accept the social order) is realistic (it is the usual situation throughought history), whereas the anarchist expectation (that a majority will actively support the social order to the pioint of sacrificing their own material interests) is unrealistic, utopian.


What makes you think that you (or someone else like you) will form the part of the minority that makes rules that the majority will passively accept? Try eliminating welfare & we'll see how passively the majority will accept it!




> 2. You might object - "well that explains why the state in general is easier to maintain than anarchy, but what about a minimal state in particular? How do keep a miimal state minimal if a majority of the people only passively accept it, and aren't fighting to keep it?" As I said in an earlier post, I do not believe that popular opinion is the primary determinant of the behavior of rulers. I believe that rulers' behavior is largely determined by the structure of the system (it's constitutional structure - how the government is internally organized - e.g. whether it is democratic or monarchical). My ideal state would be a non-democratic one structure in a certain way (I can go into detail later if you like), and it will stay minarchist for structural reasons; it does not need the masses to be zealous minarchists. N.B. A general point; libertaroans tend to think of the state as always inherently wanting to grow, and so there needs to be something external to check this growth (e.g. public opinion). This is wrong, IMO. The only solution to the problem of limited government is to make the state not _want_ to grow in the first place, which means you must understand the structural reasons that it grows, and amend the structure accordingly to remove those features. Democracy itself is one such structural reason for the growth of the state, for example.


I agree to the extent that keeping a state small is very difficult under a democratic system because democracy is tragedy of the commons in action, the whole "common ownership" thing doesn't work out but again, what makes you think that you'll ever be in a position to implement your system (whatever it is) in America?




> 3. Another possible objection - "Okay, so your version of minarchy does not require mass popular support to sustain itself, but how can we get to your version of minarchy without mass popular support, given that we currently live in a democracy?" First, I would say that we have to distinguish between means and end. Even if it were true that there were no realistic means of achieving minarchy, at least the goal itself could - if ever reached - sustain itself (unlike anarchy). As I said in an earlier post, it's the difference between trying to build a skyscraper while not having enough money (minarchy - unrealistic means, realistic end), and trying to build a skyscraper made of out sand while not having enough money (anarchy - both means and ends are unrealistic). Second, however, there is a realistic means of achieving minarchy. One option is for a non-demoacrtic solution, such a military coup d'etat. Another option is a popular movement operating through the democratic process. "But wait!", you object, "didn't you just say that a mass libertarian movement is unrealistic?" For libertarians to succeed in the democratic process, we don't have to transform the majority into zealous libertarians (thank God, because that's basically impossible). Look at what Rand is doing. Democratic politics is mostly about conning the majority into supporting you based on propaganda, not making them understand why they really should support you. There's a world of difference between herding the masses in a libertarian direction, for the purpose of an election (as we need to do to move toward minarchy through the democratic process), and maintaining a permanent majority of zealous libertarians willing to sacrifice themselves to the cause (as anarchy requires to sustain itself). Tangentially, I think that many minarchists in the liberty movement implicitly understand this, even if they don't say it this way, which is why you find fewer minarchists than anarchists in the anti-Rand "purist" camp - but I digress.


Even if you are able to get Rand elected, considering where things stand right now, you won't be able to implement a minarchy without the consent of masses, there will a huge backlash, perhaps violent revolts. Again, try to eliminate welfare & see how passively the masses accept it!

Not to mention, fooling, lying & cheating people is immoral but you have already conceded that you prefer personal utility over morality seeing as you support inherent inequality in a statist system over equality under AnCap so I guess there's no point in arguing morality with you. So I'll just sidestep that issue for the moment.



> That would mean that minarchist ethics (or legal theory) does not grant everyone equal rights.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> None of the examples I cited are examples of states shrinking_ because they're collapsing_. 
> 
> They shrank because they _chose_ to shrink.
> 
> The Chinese state did not collapse in the last 30 years. It chose a different course.
> 
> Likewise with Singapore.
> 
> Likewise with the older historical examples I cited.
> ...


This is one of the points that I disagree on with some AnCaps, the belief that "states always grow", well, apparently they shrink too, as should be obvious! But the thing is that they shrink because they want their "livestock" (as the following video puts it) to be more productive! But again, as I've said in my previous post, it's difficult to make the states shrink under a democratic rule because of the tragedy of the commons, the "common ownership" & as we know, private ownership is better & more productive & perhaps that's why the examples of voluntarily shrinking states are those where the there's almost an entrenched oligarchy that effectively "owns" the countries; it's obvious with China, Singapore though democratic has had a single party rule for a long time (although as democracy grips it, more parties, more socialism & growth of the state is on the horizon).

This is why I believe it would be better if individuals & companies bought out territories from governments & offered "residency services" to people, it would have all the benefits of private markets every free marketer finds desirable, including competitive pricing & improved quality. And as I've pondered earlier in the thread, perhaps as global mobility of people increases, we'll have more & more people "voting with their feet", voting for more freedom in a variety of ways, be it taxes, regulations, gun rights, & so on, to the extent that at some point in the future, what we today see as states are effectively turned into entities offering "residency services" to its customers at competitive prices. Who knows!

----------


## Occam's Banana

> This is one of the points that I disagree on with AnCaps, the belief that "states always grow", well, apparently they shrink too, as should be obvious!


I'm an an-cap, and I do not believe that "states always grow" (or conversely, that "states never shrink"). And while there are indeed some an-caps who, in the grip of agonized enthusiasm, make such demonstrably false assertions, my experience is that most an-caps know otherwise perfectly well.

Insofar as such things can be analyzed aprioristically, so-called "minimal" states will, by their nature (indeed, almost by definition), be extremely unstable equilibria that have only two directions into which to fall - into anarchism, or into greater (and non-"minimal") statism. Given the lower "barriers to entry" for power-seekers (or the would-be "warlords" so often fetishized by many of the critics of anarchism), the overwhelming tendency will be towards the "greater statism" side of the curve. (And this is what induces less circumspect an-caps to declare that "states always grow.") Buit once a "minimal" state has devolved into a more stable (and non-"minimal") equilibrium, there are myriad reasons why its (no longer "minimal") scope may fluctuate, growing and shrinking over time ...

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I'm an an-cap, and I do not believe that "states always grow" (or conversely, that "states never shrink"). And while there are indeed some an-caps who, in the grip of agonized enthusiasm, make such demonstrably false assertions, my experience is that most an-caps know otherwise perfectly well.


Sorry, didn't mean to paint all AnCaps with a broad brush, I obviously meant that some AnCaps that I've seen offer that as argument against minarchy; I think the moral argument for AnCap is strong enough that there's little reason to resort to such weaker arguments. Anyway, I've made a correction to the earlier post.




> Insofar as such things can be analyzed aprioristically, so-called "minimal" states will, by their nature (indeed, almost by definition), be extremely unstable equilibria that have only two directions into which to fall - into anarchism, or into greater (and non-"minimal") statism. Given the lower "barriers to entry" for power-seekers (or the would-be "warlords" so often fetishized by many of the critics of anarchism), the overwhelming tendency will be towards the "greater statism" side of the curve. (And this is what induces less circumspect an-caps to declare that "states always grow.") Buit once a "minimal" state has devolved into a more stable equilibrium, there are myriad reasons why its (no longer "minimal") scope may fluctuate, growing and shrinking over time ...


I agree, the size of the state will fluctuate; more so under a democratic system because as you've rightly pointed out, due to "lower barriers to entry for power-seekers" but then "r3volution 3.0", who is representing minarchist side here, already seems to accept it & therefore, rejects democratic minarchy.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Sorry, didn't mean to paint all AnCaps with a broad brush, I obviously meant that some  AnCaps that I've seen offer that as argument against minarchy; I think  the moral argument for AnCap is strong enough that there's little reason  to resort to such weaker arguments. Anyway, I've made a correction to  the earlier post.


No problem. I didn't think you really  meant it as a universal characterization. Whenever I'm engaged in  "serious" discussion (as opposed to just quipping or bantering or  venting), I always try to qualify my own statements so as not to be  excessively inclusive (though, of course, I sometimes fail in this).

Unfortunately, far too many people on both  sides of contentious issues (such as - but certainly not limited to -  "anarchism vs. minarchism") prefer to tilt at the lines of straw men  they erect from the assumptions they make about (or the assumptions they  shove into the mouths of) those with whom they disagree.




> I agree, the size of the state will fluctuate; more so under a democratic system because as you've rightly pointed out, due to "lower barriers to entry for power-seekers" but then "r3volution 3.0", who is representing minarchist side here, already seems to accept it & therefore, rejects democratic minarchy.


I myself am a Hoppean - at least with regard to the inferiority of democratic statism.
Large-scale democracy incorporates most (if not all) of the worst defects of statism.

IOW: Churchill got it just exactly backwards ...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Huh? Why does it matter _why_ the state decides to shrink?
> 
> Smaller government is smaller government, and it's a good thing regardless of whether the underlying motive is selfish or altruistic.
> 
> And the starting point of this whole conversation, re whether or not states can ever get smaller, was about whether the minarchist program (shrinking the state) is possible. The fact that states _have_ shrunk (whatever the reason) proves that it is. Period. Now you're just changing the goalposts.


The original point I was trying to illustrate...




> The historic record rather conclusively shows this to be not so.  All a state does is grow, and it would seem the smaller it starts out, the larger and more virulent it becomes.  When you create an entity in society with generally sanctioned authority to enact force, people will ALWAYS appeal to that authority for their heart's desires, and that authority - _especially_ one supposedly created by, of and for "the people" - will ALWAYS find ways to give them what they want.  
> 
> It's damned near an immutable law of nature.


...more eloquently and elaborately expressed by Molyneux:

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What makes you think that you (or  someone else like you) will form the part of the minority that makes  rules that the majority will passively accept?


I'm  relying on incentives inherent in the structure of the system to guide  rulers in a libertarian direction, not on the rulers just happening to  be ideological libertarians.

A secure monarchy (for instance - monarchy is the best but not the only good alternative), where the monarch  is rational and materially self-interested, will adopt libertarian  economic policies, because that is in its own interest. As opposed to a  democracy, where a rational and materially self-interested government  will pursue socialistic economic policies, because that is in its own  interest (its first interest being getting re-elected). 




> Try eliminating welfare & we'll see how passively the majority will accept it!


That's a transitional problem, a problem of means rather than ends. 

If welfare did not already exist, there would be no problem in getting the masses to passively accept its absence.

Given that it does exist here and now, however, we will indeed have a very hard time eliminating it. 




> I agree to the extent that keeping a state small is very  difficult under a democratic system because democracy is tragedy of the  commons in action, the whole "common ownership" thing doesn't work out  but again, what makes you think that you'll ever be in a position to  implement your system (whatever it is) in America? Even if you are able  to get Rand elected, considering where things stand  right now, you won't be able to implement a minarchy without the  consent of masses, there will a huge backlash, perhaps violent revolts.  Again, try to eliminate welfare & see how passively the masses  accept it!


Hope for a military coup d'etat and - in the meantime - work  tirelessly, against all odds, through the democratic system to try to  move the country in a libertarian direction, piece by piece. Again, this  is a transitional problem, a problem of means rather than ends.  Anarchism faces the same - or even worse - transitional problems. But it  also has problems of ends (the feasibility of the end goal itself, even  if reached) which minarchy does not. 




> Not to mention, fooling, lying & cheating people is immoral


I disagree. It depends entirely on why you're doing this, for the good of the people or otherwise. 

My    once and future signature, currently replaced by some Rand promotions,  was nihil per populum omne pro populo (nothing through the people,  everything for the people), aka noblesse oblige. This, in my view, is  morality itself in the political arena. You do not do what the people  want, you do what is best for them. The people are perfectly capable of  knowing what is best for them as market participants (in choosing  between Brand X and Brand Y), otherwise the market economy would not  work. But they are not capable, on average, of knowing what is best for  them politically. If Joe buys a can of pasta sauce, and it's bad, he  will realize that immediately, and change his buying habits accordingly.  If Joe votes for a bad policy, he will almost certainly not be able to  determine whether it is good or bad, because doing so requires knowledge  (such as knowledge of economics) which he does not - and cannot reasonably  be expected to - have. A "market in government" (which is essentially  what both democracy and anarcho-capitalism are trying to achieve), cannot work because the  consumers in this market are idiots, and cannot distinguish between  good and bad products. 




> but you have already conceded that you prefer personal utility over morality


No I haven't. I have stated that, in my view, to act morally means to choice the best of the available courses of action.

On  contrast to your position, according to which to act morally means to  choose the best conceivable course of action, whether possible or not. 

To say that I'm rejecting morality is dishonest. We simply have different moralities. 




> seeing as you support inherent inequality in a statist system over equality under AnCap


I don't "support" it any more than I support human mortality. It is simply a fact, and I choose to act accordingly. 




> This is one of the points that I disagree on with some AnCaps, the belief that "states always grow", well, apparently they shrink too, as should be obvious!


Indeed




> But the thing is that they shrink because they want their  "livestock" (as the following video puts it) to be more  productive!


Precisely! And that is a good (nay, great)  thing! It means that states (with the proper structure of incentives)  will pursue libertarian policies _even if they aren't libertarians_! 

It's  somewhat analgous to the "invisible hand" concept - the market economy  benefits society even if all of the participants are just trying to  benefit themselves.

It's a beautiful thing; I would say providential, were I religiously inclined. 




> But again, as I've said in my previous post, it's difficult to  make the states shrink under a democratic rule because of the tragedy of  the commons, the "common ownership" & as we know, private ownership  is better & more productive & perhaps that's why the examples  of voluntarily shrinking states are those where the there's almost an  entrenched oligarchy that effectively "owns" the countries; it's obvious  with China, Singapore though democratic has had a single party rule for  a long time (although as democracy grips it, more parties, more  socialism & growth of the state is on the horizon).


Absolutely  - all of the examples that come to mind of states shrinking were  proprietary states in some form or another (traditional monarchies,  one-party oligarchies, military dictatorships). This is not  coincidental. People note, amused, that China is in many ways more  economically free than the US - thinking this is a wierd contradiction  given China non-democratic form of government. On the contrary, that is  the reason for China's liberalization. 




> This is why I believe it would be better if individuals &  companies bought out territories from governments & offered  "residency services" to people, it would have all the benefits of  private markets every free marketer finds desirable, including  competitive pricing & improved quality. And as I've pondered earlier  in the thread, perhaps as global mobility of people increases, we'll  have more & more people "voting with their feet", voting for more  freedom in a variety of ways, be it taxes, regulations, gun rights,  & so on, to the extent that at some point in the future, what we  today see as states are effectively turned into entities offering  "residency services" to its customers at competitive prices. Who knows!


Yes! "All exit, no voice." 

Hoppe's proprietary communities, or your "residency service providers," are de facto proprietary states. 

This is what I favor. A world of small, proprietary (preferably monarchical, but could also be oligarchical) states. 

Once  you get past the fantastic Rothbardian vision of non-territorial  security providers, and adopt something like what you're describing  above, the difference between minarchy and anarchy becomes trivial. The  only difference, I suppose, is how these propertary communities/states  come into being (by voluntary land purchases or siezures of power e.g.),  but from that point forward.....






> 


...haven't had a chance to watch it yet, will get back to you.

EDIT: Okay, watched the video. 

tl;dr = states pursue liberal policies out of self-interest (since it is better to be a parasite on a healthy host than a sick one), not for humanitarian motives 

Yep, that's mostly true. And, as noted above, it's a wonderful thing!

I'm amused by Stefan's sinister take on this (spooky music,  booga! booga!), considering that - of course - it is the very same thing (pure self-interest) which drives the market economy. Would he make a similar video about private enterprise, explaining (as if he were revealing some dark secret) that Walmart doesn't have low prices because it loves you, but because it wants to - gasp - profit?! 

P.S. Just for the record...

I think Stefan is a mediocre intellect with a vastly inflated sense of self-importance, well versed in intellectual dishonestly, who has acquired a kind of cult following through emotional manipulation. Hence, I strongly advise libertarians to pay him no mind. Everything he says which is true has been said better by others before (e.g. his view of states as human farms was expressed already by Franz Oppenheimer in his 1908 work "The State: its History and Development Viewed Sociologically" [which can be read for free here at the LvMI]), and the rest is rubbish (e.g. his "Universally Preferable Behavior," which is an insult to logic). For information on Stefan's unsavory personal history and the unhealthy atmosphere he fosters in his "group," see: http://www.fdrliberated.com/ /public service announcement

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty
> 
> The original point I was trying to illustrate...
> 
> 
> The historic record rather conclusively shows  this to be not so.  *All a state does is grow*, and it would seem the  smaller it starts out, the larger and more virulent it becomes.  When  you create an entity in society with generally sanctioned authority to  enact force, people will ALWAYS appeal to that authority for their  heart's desires, and that authority - _especially_ one supposedly created by, of and for "the people" - will ALWAYS find ways to give them what they want.  
> 
> It's damned near an immutable law of nature.


....which claim I have clearly refuted. States do, in fact, shrink.

If you're going to continue to deny this, we cannot move forward in our discussion. 




> ...more eloquently and elaborately expressed by Molyneux:


...pretty much a rehashing of the video that Paul or Nothing II posted. 

See my response to that above.

The only thing I'd add is that Stefan's assertion that the smallest government always becomes the largest, is just that: an assertion.

Obviously wishful thinking in an attempt to discredit minarchism and bolster anarchism.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> :snip:





> Once a man has vanquished fear, he is free from it for the rest of his life because, instead of fear, he has acquired clarity - a clarity of mind which erases fear. By then a man knows his desires; he knows how to satisfy those desires. He can anticipate the new steps of learning, and a sharp clarity surrounds everything. The man feels that nothing is concealed. And thus he has encountered his second enemy: Clarity!
> 
> "That clarity of mind, which is so hard to obtain, dispels fear, but also blinds. It forces the man never to doubt himself. It gives him the assurance he can do anything he pleases, for he sees clearly into everything. And he is courageous because he is clear, and he stops at nothing because he is clear. But all that is a mistake; it is like something incomplete. If the man yields to this make-believe power, he has succumbed to his second enemy and will fumble with learning. He will rush when he should be patient, or he will be patient when he should rush. And he will fumble with learning until he winds up incapable of learning anything more."


hth

----------


## r3volution 3.0

^^^  Did you have a point?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> ^^^  Did you have a point?


nope

----------


## r3volution 3.0

^^^okay

...glad we got that cleared up.

----------


## HVACTech

> ^^^okay
> 
> ...glad we got that cleared up.


actual knowledge about our Constitution is very lacking on this website.
it is almost shameful for a site that bears Ron Paul in the banner.  this man was CLEARLY a champion of our Constitution.
in fact, MANY of these people openly TRASH the Constitution. 

the word "state" is brandished about like it has supernatural powers or something. 
very long posts are devoted to bashing various aspects of this supposed bogeyman.
what alternatives do they suggest?  answer, they don't.
NO State. 


    State (polity), the organization of the body politic; could also be a legal person
    Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in public international law
    Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation
    Member state, a member of an international organization such as the United Nations
    Federated state, a political entity forming part of a federal sovereign state such as the United States, Australia, India and Brazil
    "State", is in some contexts virtually synonymous with "government", e.g., to distinguish from private entities

so, how might we achieve "no state"?  well, the very first thing that we would need is "CONSENT". (this is another magic word)
AFTER we achieve the entire worlds "CONSENT" then we can set a date for implementation. 

on this date, the entire world will erase all borders and any forms of national or even regional identity. 

yeah, THAT sounds like a plan!

----------


## TheTexan

The constitution is great... if I remember my history correctly, that's what gave us the president branch, supreme court, and the senates right?  

Those are all pretty cool things IMHO.. so I'm firmly on the "pro" constitution side of this argument

----------


## r3volution 3.0

A rhetorical question addressed to the air:

Q. How many anarchists are anarchists because they see the fatal flaws in democracy, but haven't considered alternate forms of government, and throw out the baby with the bathwater?

----------


## otherone

> A rhetorical question addressed to the air:
> 
> Q. How many anarchists are anarchists because they see the fatal flaws in democracy, but haven't considered alternate forms of government, and throw out the baby with the bathwater?


A follow-up question:
Q: Is a government legitimate if it exists without the consent of the people?

----------


## erowe1

> but haven't considered alternate forms of government


Such as?

----------


## erowe1

> it is almost shameful for a site that bears Ron Paul in the banner.  this man was CLEARLY a champion of our Constitution.


He was a champion of the Constitution inasmuch as he opposed unconstitutional practices of the federal government.

That's not the same thing as supporting all the powers that are constitutional though. Ron Paul clearly doesn't do that.

----------


## erowe1

> so, how might we achieve "no state"?


You don't have to be able to achieve it to be against it.

Am I not allowed to be against theft, murder, extortion, and kidnapping, until I first come up with a plan for ridding the world of them?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> A rhetorical question addressed to the air:
> 
> Q. How many anarchists are anarchists because they see the fatal flaws  in democracy, but haven't considered alternate forms of government, and  throw out the baby with the bathwater?
> 
> 
> A follow-up question:
> 
> Q: Is a government legitimate if it exists without the consent of the people?


I don't know what you mean by "legitimacy."

I'm interested in how the government behaves. 

I  want the government to protect life and property, collect minimal taxes  to finance that operation, and do nothing else (aka minarchy).

The nearer a government approaches that ideal, the better it is.

I don't care at all about the form of government (democratic, non-democratic) except insofar as it effects the government's behavior. 

And a non-democratic government tends to behave better than a democratic one, because of having different incentives. 




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> but haven't considered alternate forms of government
> 
> 
> Such as?


Non-democratic forms of government - basically, monarchy or oligarchy, in any of their innumerable variations.

Most anarcho-capitalists are Americans, and are therefore naturally inclined toward democracy. 

I would guess that most anarchists abandoned the state without ever considering the possibility of non-democratic government - just a hunch.

...and a hint to ancaps that they should rectify that oversight, what they discover might surprise them.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Most anarcho-capitalists are Americans, and are therefore naturally inclined toward democracy. 
> 
> I would guess that most anarchists abandoned the state without ever  considering the possibility of non-democratic government - just a hunch.
> 
> ...and a hint to ancaps that they should rectify that oversight, what they discover might surprise them.


And your "hunch" is simply wrong - as you would know if you were at all  familiar the body of anarcho-capitalist thought (as opposed to no more  than brief, "off the cuff", contentious and/or intemperate postings in  Internet-forum arguments by particular individuals).

One of the most widely read & referenced books in an-cap literature  specifically deals with this very topic. (I even referred to it in my  own previous post to this thread - though that was not in direct reply  to you.)

Democracy - The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

... in which Hoppe argues (in a nutshell) that Democracy  <<<<<<<< Monarchy  <<<<<<<<<< "Natural Order" (aka  "Anarchy").

And that is just the preeminent example of the absence of any "failure"  by "most" an-caps to consider the supposed "virtues" of non-democratic  statism _vis-à-vis_ anarchism.

Many others could be cited (just off the top of my head, for example, are the an-cap writings of Bionic Mosquito concerning the superiorities of medieval forms of governance relative to democracy).

So in addition to any tendency on the part of some an-caps to gloss over  or over-generalize in the heat of debate, perhaps another oversight  that needs to rectified is your own noticeable tendency to argue against  your own "hunches" (or your own assumptions about what "anarchists just assume") ...

----------


## europa arise

I want to see the success of organic organizations that undermined the State not because I am against the State on theory but because of the tyrannical Leviathan that it has become and because of my traditions. I am not a universalist and therefore believe various people will create political/economic/social/fraternal entities based on their needs and according to who they are (nature) and where they are at presently (nurture). 

The lack of federal involvement in the affairs of generations passed created an environment where the people would organically organize according to their needs and desires and along the lines that fit them best be it religiously, ethnically, ideologically or whatever. The Sons of Norway is one of many groups that were formed to fit the Norwegian-American communities needs without any state interference. But now we no longer live in that world, the world we live in now is where the Feds can offer you all of the above schooling, housing, health care and the rest*. Because of my traditions I prefer the old way but even if I thought it was the states job to do everything I would eventually come to the conclusion that they are not very good at it. So regardless if I think it is or isn't their job the fact is they stink at most things and We probably could do a whole lot better (but with a few exceptions, hence I am not a anarchist). 

The anarchists job is to create alternative organizations that undermined the State to make it irrelevant. (I think it is called Duel Power) So there is some cross over between me and the anarchists and if they are involved in organizations/movements that make sense to me then I could possibly support/join them but the concern is that some anarchists are only interested in theory and smashing the state** and not so worried about the structure's that will replace them and I am not to interested in that. AKA Bakunin's destruction is a creative urge.

* "A Government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson

**perhaps I am thinking more of the Anarcho-Communists/Primitives types and AnCap's are different. If so then do AnCap's support creating alternative organization right here right now? And how do those things look currently?

P.S. I just starting listening to a few interviews with people from Attack The System. Does anyone have thoughts on them?

----
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> s  you would know if you were at all  familiar the body of  anarcho-capitalist thought (as opposed to no more  than brief, "off the  cuff", contentious and/or intemperate postings in  Internet-forum  arguments by particular individuals).


I've read the canon  - For a New Liberty, Power and Market, Myth of National Defense, Chaos  Theory, etc - along with many lesser works, lectures, podcasts,  etc: not to mention that I've been debating this issue with  anarcho-capitalists such as yourself for, O, five years or so. I dare  say, with no condescension intended, that I'm more familiar with  anarcho-capitalist thought than most anarcho-capitalists. 

But, by all means, dismiss everything I've said on a baseless assumption to the contrary. 

As  for my hypothesis about the motives underlying anarcho-capitalism -  the fact that some ancaps have given serious thought to non-democratic  forms of government (which is all that you demonstrated - not that it  required any demonstration) does not mean that _most_ have, does it?




> (or your own assumptions about what "anarchists just assume")


From that post:

r3volution 3.0: _"Yes, cartels don't work in a free market, they can only be maintained by force. 

But that's my point - what's to stop the security firms from forming a cartel and maintaining it by force?

Anarchists just assume they won't, even though they will have the means  (they are in the business of using force - being security firms), and  its obviously profitable for them to do so."_

It's not an  assumption on my part. No anarchist that I have ever read (and I've read quite a few - see above) has ever offered a  satisfactory explanation as to why firm owners would behave the way they  must behave for anarcho-capitalism to work. The explanation tends to be  something like "firms that act that way will lose customers!" which  completely misses the point and begs the question. But please, if ancaps have an answer, let's hear it.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I've read the canon  - For a New Liberty,  Power and Market, Myth of National Defense, Chaos  Theory, etc - along  with many lesser works, lectures, podcasts,  etc: not to mention that  I've been debating this issue with  anarcho-capitalists such as yourself  for, O, five years or so. I dare  say, with no condescension intended,  that I'm more familiar with  anarcho-capitalist thought than most  anarcho-capitalists. 
> 
> But, by all means, dismiss everything I've said on a baseless assumption to the contrary.
> 
> As  for my hypothesis about the motives underlying anarcho-capitalism -   the fact that some ancaps have given serious thought to non-democratic   forms of government (which is all that you demonstrated - not that it   required any demonstration) does not mean that _most_ have, does it?


 I have not even addressed "everything" you've said - let alone dismissed "everything" you've said. (Hyperbolize much?)

The only thing you have said in this thread that I have addressed at all is your "hunch" - and I did nothing more than point out that that "hunch" is demonstrably false. 

Against which you do no more than defend your "hunch"-based  pyschologization of "the motives underlying" an-caps' lack of support  for non-democratic statism by merely repeating your unfalsifiable  declarations about what you "guess" that "most" of them think (or fail  to think).




> It's not an  assumption on my part. No  anarchist that I have ever read (and I've read quite a few - see above)  has ever offered a  satisfactory explanation as to why firm owners would  behave the way they  must behave for anarcho-capitalism to  work.


They have offered explanations. You don't agree with those explanations.  You do not find them satisfactory. That is fine. I have no problem with  that. But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.  (If I had wanted to argue with you about whether you or they are right  on that issue, I would have replied to that earlier post to which I made  reference. I have no such desire.)

What is not fine, though, is to declare that they have "just assumed"  the problem away (or that they are so naive as to have failed even to  notice it). They have not done any such thing. If they had done so, then  much of the an-cap "canon" with which you say you are familiar would  not exist in the first place.

Whether you agree with what "some" or "many" or "most" an-caps have said  about such things, there is no basis for announcing that they have  "just assumed" things merely because you disagree with them. I could  just as easily (and just as bogusly) assert that you, in turn, have  "just assumed" the contrary merely because I disagree with you. But I  won't - because words have meanings ...

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> I want to see the success of organic organizations that undermined the State not because I am against the State on theory but because of the tyrannical Leviathan that it has become and because of my traditions. I am not a universalist and therefore believe various people will create political/economic/social/fraternal entities based on their needs and according to who they are (nature) and where they are at presently (nurture). 
> 
> The lack of federal involvement in the affairs of generations passed created an environment where the people would organically organize according to their needs and desires and along the lines that fit them best be it religiously, ethnically, ideologically or whatever. The Sons of Norway is one of many groups that were formed to fit the Norwegian-American communities needs without any state interference. But now we no longer live in that world, the world we live in now is where the Feds can offer you all of the above schooling, housing, health care and the rest*. Because of my traditions I prefer the old way but even if I thought it was the states job to do everything I would eventually come to the conclusion that they are not very good at it. So regardless if I think it is or isn't their job the fact is they stink at most things and We probably could do a whole lot better (but with a few exceptions, hence I am not a anarchist). 
> 
> The anarchists job is to create alternative organizations that undermined the State to make it make it irrelevant. So there is some cross over between me and the anarchists and if they are involved in organizations/movements that make sense to me then I could possibly support/join them but the concern is that some anarchists are only interested in theory and smashing the state** and not so worried about the structure's that will replace them and I am not to interested in that. AKA Bakunin's destruction is a creative urge.
> 
> * "A Government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson
> 
> **perhaps I am thinking more of the Anarcho-Communists/Primitives types and AnCap's are different. If so then do AnCap's support creating alternative organization right here right now? And how do those things look currently?
> ...


Personally, I volunteer at the local community garden, we are saving seed this year to donate to our library seed exchange program, I have put a lot of thought into creating a liberty curriculum for troubled urban youth, etc.  I remember many members during the 2012 campaign did food donation drives to show basically what you were saying, that we don't need a state to provide these services.  Ron Paul is a very compassionate man as is his son and as is many of their supporters.  

What is it you think the state does better than can be done otherwise?  And I'm assuming the organization that would replace government would be voluntary?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I have not even addressed "everything" you've said - let alone dismissed "everything" you've said. (Hyperbolize much?)


It seemed to me that your purpose in presuming that I was unfamiliar with ancap thought was to discredit me and the position I've been espousing. 

If not, my mistake. 




> The only thing you have said in this thread that I have addressed at all is your "hunch" - and I did nothing more than point out that that "hunch" is demonstrably false.


You did no such thing; as I explained, you merely demonstrated that *some* ancaps had considered non-democratic government.

But this isn't worth arguing about. 

Whether most, some, or no anarcho-capitalists have failed to consider non-democratic forms of government (and whether this played a role in them becoming ancaps) is an interesting aside, but irrelevant to the fundamental issue under contention here: i.e. can anarchy work? My purpose in posing my rhetorical question was to advise ancaps reading this thread who haven't considered non-democratic government to do so. 




> They have offered explanations.


Such as? Cite me chapter and verse. On what page of what book is there such an explanation?

Or, if you prefer, give me the explanation in your own words.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Thoughts?


Voluntaryism. All the benefits of organization without the state violence.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I've read the canon  - For a New Liberty, Power and Market, Myth of National Defense, Chaos  Theory, etc - along with many lesser works, lectures, podcasts,  etc: not to mention that I've been debating this issue with  anarcho-capitalists such as yourself for, O, five years or so. I dare  say, with no condescension intended, that I'm more familiar with  anarcho-capitalist thought than most anarcho-capitalists. 
> 
> But, by all means, dismiss everything I've said on a baseless assumption to the contrary. 
> 
> As  for my hypothesis about the motives underlying anarcho-capitalism -  the fact that some ancaps have given serious thought to non-democratic  forms of government (which is all that you demonstrated - not that it  required any demonstration) does not mean that _most_ have, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> From that post:
> ...


I have a whole thread dedicated to challenging constitutionalists to come up with a coherent legal theory to give their position at least some semblance of credibility.  (it's been buried now since so few people can come up with anything) If you have it, please share it.

----------


## PierzStyx

> It seemed to me that your purpose in presuming that I was unfamiliar with ancap thought was to discredit me and the position I've been espousing. 
> 
> If not, my mistake. 
> 
> 
> 
> You did no such thing; as I explained, you merely demonstrated that *some* ancaps had considered non-democratic government.
> 
> But this isn't worth arguing about. 
> ...


Are you one of those Dark Enlightenment types?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> No anarchist that I have ever read (and I've read quite a few - see above) has ever offered a  satisfactory explanation [...]





> They have offered explanations. You don't agree with those explanations.  You do not find them satisfactory. [...]





> Such as? Cite me chapter and verse. On what page of what book is there such an explanation?


First they haven't offered "satisfactory" explanations ... now they haven't offered any explanations at all ... *sigh* ... I give up ...




> Or, if you prefer, give me the explanation in your own words.





> (If I had wanted to argue with you about whether you or they are right on that issue, I would have replied to that earlier post to which I made reference. I have no such desire.)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> *No anarchist that I have ever read (and I've read quite a few - see  above) has ever offered a  satisfactory explanation as to why firm  owners would behave the way they  must behave for anarcho-capitalism to  work. The explanation tends to be  something like "firms that act that  way will lose customers!" which  completely misses the point and begs  the question. But please, if ancaps have an answer, let's hear it.*
> 
> 
> I  have a whole thread dedicated to challenging constitutionalists to come  up with a coherent legal theory to give their position at least some  semblance of credibility.  (it's been buried now since so few people can  come up with anything) If you have it, please share it.


I see you didn't answer my question. 

As for your question - you claimed earlier in this thread that minarchist legal theory is incoherent because it does not grant equal rights to everyone. I explained that that is not what incoherence means. A theory is incoherent if it contradicts itself (A = B and A =/= B). There is nothing incoherent in saying Bob has right X and Steve does not.

So, beyond that issue already addressed, what are you asking me exactly?

Hit me with a link and I'll check out your thread.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Are you one of those Dark Enlightenment types?


I don't consider myself as such.

The neoreaction or "dark enlightenment" is not a coherent system of thought, they disagree amongst themselves. 

But there are parts of it I agree with (like abhorrence for democracy) and parts I don't. 

I'm simply a libertarian, and a minarchist, and a minarchist who thinks the form of government that tends to be most minimalistic is monarchy.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I give up


okay

----------


## europa arise

> Personally, I volunteer at the local community garden, we are saving seed this year to donate to our library seed exchange program, I have put a lot of thought into creating a liberty curriculum for troubled urban youth, etc.  I remember many members during the 2012 campaign did food donation drives to show basically what you were saying, that we don't need a state to provide these services.  Ron Paul is a very compassionate man as is his son and as is many of their supporters.


I figured as much, good to hear.




> What is it you think the state does better than can be done otherwise?


Defense - Voluntary Militias vs. Profession Armies. We are not in the same world of 1776 or as the Anarcho-Commie/Syndicalists were during the Spanish Civil war. Do you have the stomach to fight 4th generational warfare against an invading professional army/armies? 

law and order - some people deserve to hang or to be exiled for their crimes. Force and the threat of force needs to be established and the ability dish out punishment should be orderly. People talk about the tyranny of the majority over the minority but they forget about the tyranny of the minority over the majority. 




> And I'm assuming the organization that would replace government would be voluntary?


 Kinda getting tired but almost done, the organic organizations that I wish for are because of tradition, they seem to work the best, we need a defense so the current system doesn't strangle us to death with it's mommy dearest love and big brother hugs and if something doesn't change, the system may just collapse on it's own.

 If the  system collapses out of the blue we all will be rattled by the  shock waves, some more then others. Now if the system collapses then the individual societies will organize  in the best way they see fit which may not be pretty. But if those  structures already exist prior to the fall (they may or may not be the  cause of the fall) then they might be able to soften the blow and anarchistic tribal type communities will pop up everywhere, that should make you happy. As of right now the system is nasty and they have no breaks, full speed ahead. 

So smaller government and that includes smaller territories is of great  interest to me. But I don't expect others to want the same and that  includes having to defend against the other. I don't have all the answers I just want to see alternatives to what we have now but I won't be holding breath, unless they are water boarding me of course.

Do you expect the system to just fall? If so then how? Economic collapse or ? 

Super tired, if i didn't make much sense or repeated myself to much then maybe I'll rewrite some of this tomorrow. 

Later

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Defense - Voluntary Militias vs. Profession Armies. We are not in the same world of 1776 or as the Anarcho-Commie/Syndicalists were during the Spanish Civil war. Do you have the stomach to fight 4th generational warfare against an invading professional army/armies?


I don't know, I see this as a lack of faith in individuals.  We have the productive capacity, we have the manpower, we have the resources, coupled with home territory, the lack of rulers, and moral superiority, the only way a foreign invader would be able to succeed would be if people let it.  And above all else I hold freedom, and the ability for people to reap what they sow.

Also, is it realistic to fear being invaded?  If we don't have a state, then we can presume we are being invaded to occupy the land or take the resources.  Occupying the land and taking the resources of an armed and free populace would not be an easy task, and we are not the only ones who know this!  I think it is unlikely we would be invaded, and I think we are less likely to be _attacked_ if we don't have a state.




> law and order - some people deserve to hang or to be exiled for their crimes. Force and the threat of force needs to be established and the ability dish out punishment should be orderly. People talk about the tyranny of the majority over the minority but they forget about the tyranny of the minority over the majority.


I agree.  Private police forces and of course the ability to defends one's self is discussed a lot here on RPF.  Freedom also means the only restrictions on your magazine size and firing rate is your budget and a manufacturers capability to build it.




> Kinda getting tired but almost done, the organic organizations that I wish for are because of tradition, they seem to work the best, we need a defense so the current system doesn't strangle us to death with it's mommy dearest love and big brother hugs and if something doesn't change, the system may just collapse on it's own.
> 
>  If the  system collapses out of the blue we all will all be rattled by the  shock waves, some more then others. Now if the system collapses then the individual societies will organize  in the best way they see fit which may not be pretty. But *if those  structures already exist prior to the fall* (they may or may not be the  cause of the fall) t*hen they might be able to soften the blow and anarchistic tribal type communities will pop up everywhere*, that should make you happy. As of right now the system is nasty and they have no breaks, full speed ahead.


I would say if nothing else it would provide the ability and at least _increase_ the chances of people forgoing their reliance on the government, something worth striving for for those inclined.  I'm not much of a historian but my understanding is that when countries have currency collapses it generally goes the other way, and the government becomes more overbearing.




> So smaller government and that includes smaller territories is of great  interest to me. But I don't expect others to want the same and that  includes having to defend against the other. I don't have all the answers I just want to see alternatives to what we have now but I won't be holding breath, unless they are water boarding me of course.


Their is no lack of disagreement on RPF.   I think through freedom everything short of coercion is possible, while through coercion freedom isn't possible at all.  Mutual defense may be what you want, but do you need coercion to get it?




> Do you expect the system to just fall? If so then how? Economic collapse or ? 
> 
> Super tired, if i didn't make much sense or repeated myself to much then maybe I'll rewrite some of this tomorrow. 
> 
> Later


I really don't know.  I think the people with the most money, who can thus have the most influence on how much the money is worth, are mutually benefited by the system.  I hope things can be changed in an orderly fashion.  But realistically I don't expect anything meaningful to change.  Me and the GF will find peace and solace in our future homestead away from the thick of it, our 'Walden' if you will.

Take 'er easy, and welcome to RPF.

----------


## otherone

> _I  want the government to protect life and property_, collect minimal taxes  to finance that operation, and do nothing else (aka minarchy).


And thus the state is born. 
To protect your life and property it must threaten your life and take your property.
The state is built on fear, not logic.
The state can't protect you, it can only impede your ability to protect yourself.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> And thus the state is born. 
> To protect your life and property it must threaten your life and take your property.
> The state is built on fear, not logic.
> The state can't protect you, it can only impede your ability to protect yourself.


How trite...

I'm looking for ancaps to provide _arguments_ in response to my criticisms, not slogans. 

Any chance you might give that a try?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> No state.


I agree, but that is eventually.  There is very good reason for a slow transition, but it is imperative that the transition begin.

The reason for a slow transition is that a peaceful anarchy must be comprised of people that know most of what there is to know about needs, or meeting them, and will not place a need over a want.  Doing that creates conflicts.

Accordingly massive education is required.  This is not something our government does. In fact it does the reverse.  It dumbs people down to make them dependent.  That is where we are now, a population that is dependent upon corporations and government.

The plan for a lawful and peaceful revolution is actually the first step towards anarchy, by working towards monarchism first.  In some ways the the constitutions intent shows that.  The Articles of confederation before the even moreso.

The fantasy of anarchy without education, not defining peaceful anarchy by leaving out the absolutes of needs before wants, is very likely an invention of a psyops on the American people.

This strategy takes the first step in education towards creating and enforcing an anarchy.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ful-revolution

The principle of unity is absolute.  The people of a peaceful and functional anarchy are absolutely united behind an entire array of principles that are the foundation of their survival and continuity.  That unity is created and maintained by the purpose of free speech having specific respect and value in their community.  This respects and allows necessary priorities for the people.

To actually move out of this oligarchy and towards minarchy, Americans must engage the prime principals of anarchy as well as any societal feature that supports

----------


## otherone

> How trite...
> 
> I'm looking for ancaps to provide _arguments_ in response to my criticisms, not slogans. 
> 
> Any chance you might give that a try?


I prefer pithy to trite.  Brevity is the soul of wit, after all.
I'm not an ancap, btw.  I just don't understand why you feel that you have the right to rob me to protect your $#@!.

----------


## HVACTech

> I agree, but that is eventually.  There is very good reason for a slow transition, but it is imperative that the transition begin.
> 
> The reason for a slow transition is that a peaceful anarchy must be comprised of people that know most of what there is to know about needs, or meeting them, and will *not place a need over a want*.  Doing that creates conflicts.
> 
> Accordingly massive education is required.  This is not something our government does. In fact it does the reverse.  It dumbs people down to make them dependent.  That is where we are now, a population that is dependent upon corporations and government.
> 
> The plan for a lawful and peaceful revolution is actually *the first step towards anarchy, by working towards monarchism first*.  In some ways the the constitutions intent shows that.  The Articles of confederation before the even moreso.
> 
> The fantasy of anarchy without education, not defining peaceful anarchy by leaving out the absolutes of needs before wants, is very likely an invention of a psyops on the American people.
> ...


ya know coco puffs, if there is an RPFs hall of shame for posts....

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> How trite...
> 
> I'm looking for ancaps to provide _arguments_ in response to my criticisms, not slogans. 
> 
> Any chance you might give that a try?
> 
> 
> ...


I'll take that as a no...

Here's how I see our exchange:

Newton: "Apples cannot fall up young fella."
You: "But apples falling down is immoral! Therefore, they can fall up!"
Newton: *facepalm*

...I'd say about 9/10 of my conversations with ancaps end up like this. 

...it's why I say that ancapism is more like a religion than a political philosophy for many ancaps.

----------


## otherone

> I'll take that as a no...
> 
> Here's how I see our exchange:
> 
> Newton: "Apples cannot fall up young fella."
> You: "But apples falling down is immoral! Therefore, they can fall up!"
> Newton: *facepalm*
> 
> ...I'd say about 9/10 of my conversations with ancaps end up like this. 
> ...


hmmmmm.
ok.
Why were distillers expected to pay the whiskey tax to repay the AWI war debt?

edit:



> ...it's why I say that ancapism is more like a religion than a political philosophy for many ancaps.


Missed this gem.  What AUTHORITY justifies your robbing your neighbor to protect YOUR $#@!?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> ya know coco puffs, if there is an RPFs hall of shame for posts....


Irrelevant, juvenile, unrelated to the facts of life and politics or law.

Try again.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> hmmmmm.
> ok.
> Why were distillers expected to pay the whiskey tax to repay the AWI war debt?
> 
> edit:
> 
> 
> Missed this gem.  What AUTHORITY justifies your robbing your neighbor to protect YOUR $#@!?


Again, the state being immoral does not mean that anarchy is possible. 

I refer to you back to the dialogue you had with Sir Isaac above.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Again, *the state being immoral does not mean that anarchy is possible. 
> *
> I refer to you back to the dialogue you had with Sir Isaac above.


Neither does it mean anarchy is impossible.  Evidence of the impossibility of minarchy as proposed by minarchists past and present abounds in literature on the subject.  We know in fact that the claims of monarchists are more correct than those of minarchists as well.  That you don't understand the literature and proofs does not mean it's not there.

----------


## otherone

> Again, the state being immoral does not mean that anarchy is possible. 
> 
> I refer to you back to the dialogue you had with Sir Isaac above.


As I've written, I'm not an anarchist.  This is what I believe:

_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
_

This is why I asked the question earlier about CONSENT.
How does one demonstrate his non-consent?  Is this a Right?  Is one an ANARCHIST if he does not CONSENT?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> As I've written, I'm not an anarchist.  This is what I believe:
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
> _
> 
> This is why I asked the question earlier about CONSENT.
> How does one demonstrate his non-consent?  Is this a Right?  Is one an ANARCHIST if he does not CONSENT?


+rep

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> the state being immoral does not mean that anarchy is possible.
> 
> 
> Neither does it mean anarchy is impossible.


Correct

It is the argument which I presented for why anarchy is impossible which means that anarchy is impossible. 




> Evidence of the impossibility of minarchy as proposed by minarchists past and present abounds in literature on the subject.  We know in fact that the claims of monarchists are more correct than those of minarchists as well.  That you don't understand the literature and proofs does not mean it's not there.


Another recurring theme in conversations with ancaps..

"Your argument has already been refuted in books which you _obviously_ didn't read...

..._which_ books you ask? 

.....Oh, ah, uh, well...."

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> As I've written, I'm not an anarchist.  This is what I believe:
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
> _
> This is why I asked the question earlier about CONSENT.
> How does one demonstrate his non-consent?  Is this a Right?  Is one an ANARCHIST if he does not CONSENT?


I don't know what you're asking me.

It appears to be some kind question about morality, which (for the third time) is irrelevant to question of whether anarchy is possible.

Nonetheless, I'll be happy to answer if you can clarify what you mean.

----------


## otherone

> I don't know what you're asking me.
> 
> I'll be happy to answer if you can clarify what you mean.


Are you allowed to not consent to your government? If you don't CONSENT to your government. are you an ANARCHIST?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Are you allowed to not consent to your government? If you don't CONSENT to your government. are you an ANARCHIST?


If you think that government should only exist if its relationship with the population is purely voluntary, then you are an anarchist.

----------


## otherone

> If you think that government should only exist if its relationship with the population is purely voluntary, then you are an anarchist.


_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,_

The DoI is anarchist?

What does THIS mean:
_"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
 - Thomas Jefferson 
_


Is this an anarchist statement?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Again, the state being immoral does not mean that anarchy is possible.


So what? It doesn't mean that anarchy is impossible, either.

And even if anarchy *is* impossible for some other reason(s), well, then, still - so what?

A world without murder is not possible. Do you propose to instruct those who are "anti-murder" that they are therefore in error?

I am an anarchist on both moralistic and pragmatic grounds. I do not concede that statelessness is impossible by either standard.

But even if I did, I would still be "anti-state" (i.e., an anarchist) ...

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> If you think that government should only exist if its relationship with  the population is purely voluntary, then you are an anarchist.
> 
> ...


No. By "consent of the governed," the DoI means representative government, not purely voluntary government. 




> What does THIS mean:
> _"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
>  - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> _Is this an anarchist statement?


Er, no, why would it be? 

Proposing the overthrow of a bad government and its replacement with a good government =/= being an anarchist

An anarchist would propose overthrowing the government (good or bad), and replacing it with nothing.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So what? It doesn't mean that anarchy is impossible, either.


I guess you didn't read the posts above, where heavenlyboy made exactly this point.

So Ill repeat myself. 

Yes, that's correct.

It is the argument I've made for why anarchy is impossible which means that anarchy is impossible. 




> And even if anarchy *is* impossible for some other reason(s), well, then, still - so what?


Is that a joke of some kind?




> A world without murder is not possible. Do you propose to instruct those who are "anti-murder" that they are therefore in error?


I would propose to them that they not undertake actions whose success rests on the non-existence of murder. 

They can still oppose murder, of course, but it existence must by taken into account in deciding how to act.




> I am an anarchist on both moralistic and pragmatic grounds. I do not concede that statelessness is impossible by either standard.


You don't concede that anarchy is impossible, yet you fail to refute my argument that it is impossible. 

Alright: horse, water, drinking, etc. 




> But even if I did, I would still be "anti-state" (i.e., an anarchist) ...


So you would propose social order X even if you knew that it was impossible?

If so, I would say that is a form of insanity.

----------


## HVACTech

> So what? It doesn't mean that anarchy is impossible, either.
> 
> And even if anarchy *is* impossible for some other reason(s), well, then, still - so what?
> 
> A world without murder is not possible. Do you propose to instruct those who are "anti-murder" that they are therefore in error?
> 
> I am an anarchist on both moralistic and pragmatic grounds. I do not concede that statelessness is impossible by either standard.
> 
> But even if I did, I would still be "anti-state" (i.e., an anarchist) ...


heh, just in case. nobody else has noticed. 
I have been building an argument that supporting the 2nd US Constitution is VERBOTEN! 
on RPF's 

you will very quickly get surrounded by anarchist hyenas. 

at least minarchists have the BALLS to fight back.
what do anarchists do?

passively pontificate. endlessly.
they anoint their feted psalms with laurels and clover. as clever wordsmiths.

in their fetid dreams. they are FAR Superior to the silly founding fathers.

realizing, that I do NOT live in a democracy.  the best way for me to support our Republic is NOT to jack with the hyenas of RPF's. 
this place no longer supports Ron Paul's vision. 

I understand that the concepts of natural law and natural rights are complicated. 
I am willing to help people understand them better. 

you sir, are a disgrace to the movement that I joined in 08.




> So what? It doesn't mean that anarchy is impossible, either.
> 
> And even if anarchy *is* impossible for some other reason(s), well, then, still - so what?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How trite...
> *
> I'm looking for ancaps to provide arguments in response to my criticisms, not slogans. 
> *
> Any chance you might give that a try?


I've been looking for Constitutionalists to do the same for years, to no avail.  If you're not working on coming up with a solid legal theory to support Constituitonalism, you should be doing that instead of playing in this thread.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is the argument I've made for why anarchy is impossible which means that anarchy is impossible.


You've thus far made claims, not arguments. (and quite extraordinary claims, while curiously leaving out extraordinary evidence)





> The word “argument” can be used to designate a dispute or a fight, or it can be used more technically. The focus of this article is on understanding an argument as a collection of truth-bearers (that is, the things that bear truth and falsity, or are true and false) some of which are offered  as reasons for one of them, the conclusion. This article takes  propositions rather than sentences or statements or utterances to be the  primary truth bearers. The reasons offered within the argument are  called “premises”, and the proposition that the premises are offered for  is called the “conclusion”. This sense of “argument” diverges not only  from the above sense of a dispute or fight but also from the formal  logician’s sense according to which an argument is merely a list of  statements, one of which is designated as the conclusion and the rest of  which are designated as premises regardless of whether the premises are  offered as reasons for believing the conclusion. Arguments, as  understood in this article, are the subject of study  in critical thinking and informal logic courses in which students  usually learn, among other things, how to identify, reconstruct, and  evaluate arguments given outside the classroom.
>  Arguments, in this sense, are typically distinguished from both implications and inferences. In asserting that a proposition P _implies_ proposition Q, one does not thereby offer P as a reason for Q. The proposition _frogs are mammals_ implies that _frogs are not reptiles_, but it is problematic to offer the former as a reason for believing the latter. If an arguer offers an argument in order  to persuade an audience that the conclusion is true, then it is  plausible to think that the arguer is inviting the audience to make an _inference_ from the argument’s premises to its conclusion. However, an inference is a form  of reasoning, and as such it is distinct from an argument in the sense  of a collection of propositions (some of which are offered as reasons  for the conclusion). One might plausibly think that a person S infers Q  from P just in case S comes to believe Q because S believes that P is  true and because S believes that the truth of P justifies belief that Q.  But this movement of mind from P to Q is something different from the  argument composed of just P and Q.


http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I've been looking for Constitutionalists to  do the same for years, to no avail.  If you're not working on coming up  with a solid legal theory to support Constituitonalism, you should be  doing that instead of playing in this thread.


You keep saying this, without ever explaining what is not "solid" about minarchist legal theory.

Or what objection to it we minarchists are supposed to be answering. 

There is literally zero content to what you're saying, nothing to respond to. You might as well make fart sounds with your mouth. 




> You've thus far made claims, not arguments. (and quite extraordinary claims, while curiously leaving out extraordinary evidence)
> 
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/




okie doke

----------


## HVACTech

> I've been looking for Constitutionalists to do the same for years, to no avail.  If you're not working on coming up with a solid legal theory to support Constituitonalism, you should be doing that instead of playing in this thread.


gawd.  you are making an ass of yourself.



> with a solid legal theory to support Constituitonalism,


people have been NICE to you. huggyboy. 

in a Republic. the Constitution is the rule of law.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You keep saying this, without ever explaining what is not "solid" about minarchist legal theory.
> 
> Or what objection to it we minarchists are supposed to be answering. 
> 
> There is literally zero content to what you're saying, nothing to respond to. You might as well make fart sounds with your mouth.


Your reading skills fail you.  This is why you _think_ there is no content in what I wrote.  I said constitutionalists don't have a legal theory _at all_(much less a sound one).  I believe it was CCTelander who once aptly called it "bull$#@! on stilts".  I was hoping I wouldn't have to be so blunt with you, as that's condescending and patronizing to the average or above average schooled person, but I guess I do.  

Now, I imagine you're asking yourself "what is this 'legal theory' thing?"  Glad to answer!  
*theory*



   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]     





  Examples   Word Origin  

      noun, plural theories.   1.  a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
 Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.




*law1*



   [law]     





  Examples   Word Origin  

      noun    1.  the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and  applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. 

  2.  any written or  positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law. 


  3.  the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and  order


  4.  a system or collection of such rules. 

  5.  the department of knowledge concerned with these rules; jurisprudence: to  study law.


  6.  the body of such rules concerned with a particular subject or derived from a particular source: commercial law.


  7.  an act of the supreme legislative body of a state or nation, as distinguished from the constitution. 



   verb (used with object)    23.   Chiefly Dialect. to sue or prosecute. 

  24.   British. (formerly) to expeditate (an animal). 

    Idioms    25.   be a law to /unto oneself, to follow one's own inclinations, rules of behavior, etc.; act independently or unconventionally, especially without regard for established mores. 



Now you have the general ideal of legal theory (theory of law).  Below is an example that makes it even clearer.


*The Pure Theory of Law*

_First published Mon Nov 18, 2002; substantive revision Wed Jul 7, 2010_

      The idea of a Pure Theory of Law was propounded by the formidable Austrian jurist and philosopher Hans Kelsen (1881–1973). (See bibliographical note) Kelsen began his long career as a legal theorist at the beginning of the 20th century. The traditional legal philosophies at the time, were, Kelsen claimed, hopelessly contaminated with political ideology and moralizing on the one hand, or with attempts to reduce the law to natural or social sciences, on the other hand. He found both of these reductionist endeavors seriously flawed. Instead, Kelsen suggested a ‘pure’ theory of law which would avoid reductionism of any kind. The jurisprudence Kelsen propounded “characterizes itself as a ‘pure’ theory of law because it aims at cognition focused on the law alone” and this purity serves as its “basic methodological principle” (PT1, 7).



1. The Basic Norm2. Relativism and Reduction3. The Normativity of LawBibliography
Primary SourcesSecondary Sources Academic ToolsOther Internet ResourcesRelated Entries 

now you know enough to go to the library and start working to make Constitutionalism rational and practical.   Future generations of Constitutionalists will thank you if you manage to pull it off.





> okie doke


You're most welcome!  Glad to help.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

^^^How cute...

Anyway....

Minarchist legal theory is standard libertarian legal theory + the corollary that there is a state with such and such rights and responsibilities. In other words, it is libertarian legal theory with certain exceptions (aggression of such and such kind is permitted by agents of the state for such and such purposes).

Now...

1. First you claimed that minarchist legal theory is incoherent, because it does not grant equal rights to everyone (agents of the state are granted special rights). Now, you're claiming that there is no minarchist legal theory at all. These two claims are contradictory.

2. I will take the latter claim, that there is no minarchist legal theory at all, as mere hyperbole. Your real criticism, the only criticism you've articulated thus far, is the one about equality of rights.

3. I have repeatedly answered that criticism. A proposition such as "Theft is a crime for everyone, except for agents of the state as needed to finance X, Y, and Z" is not incoherent. There is no logical contradiction. You simply don't like it. Which is what your argument amounts to - "I don't like minarchy!" To which my response is: okay.

----------


## HVACTech

[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5874238 I said constitutionalists don't have a legal theory at all(much less a sound one).[/QUOTE]

yeah, I heard you the first time. 
what is a "constitution" in a Republic huggyboy?

----------


## Origanalist

> yeah, I heard you the first time. 
> what is a "constitution" in a Republic huggyboy?


Why don't you tell us what it is? And while you're at it explain to us how it's doing what you think it's supposed to do.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why don't you tell us what it is? And while you're at it explain to us how it's doing what you think it's supposed to do.


Indeed!   But for your sanity and to safeguard your IQ, I suggest putting Mr HVAC on ignore.  It's made RPFs a much more pleasant place for me.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> As I've written, I'm not an anarchist.  This is what I believe:
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
> _
> 
> This is why I asked the question earlier about CONSENT.
> How does one demonstrate his non-consent?  Is this a Right?  Is one an ANARCHIST if he does not CONSENT?


And I believe in being able to enforce those principles.

_-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness._

Therefore I logically believe in what ever serves the purpose of enabling the unity needed to alter or abolish.

I also believe that IF we are evolved enough, at some point we can decide to abolish government entirely.  But we've got a long ways to go.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It is the argument I've made for why  anarchy is impossible which means that anarchy is impossible.


 


> You don't concede that anarchy is impossible, yet you fail  to refute my argument that it is impossible.


You haven't shown that anarchy is impossible. You have merely insisted that it is while providing some description of why you think so.

Anarchy cannot aprioristically be demonstrated to be impossible - any more than, say, "life beyond Earth" can be. (And the same thing goes for any aprioristic attempts to "prove" the impossibility of minarchy, too.)

That is why I have "failed" to "refute" you (and will continue doing so). It is utterly pointless to try to aprioristically (dis)prove things that are not aprioristically (dis)provable. The only way even to attempt such a thing is to assume the truth of that which is to be proven (or the falseness of that which is to be disproven) - i.e., by "begging the question" - i.e, by arguing in circles ...

... which is exactly where arguments between people (from either side of an issue) who imagine that they can aprioristically dispose of aposteroristic questions always end up going - in circles ...




> Is that a joke of some kind?


No. It was simply a prefatory remark to what followed.




> I would propose to them that they not  undertake actions whose success rests on the non-existence of murder.
> 
> They can still oppose murder, of course, but it existence must by taken into account in deciding how to act.
> 
> [...]
> 
> So you would propose social order X even if you knew that it was impossible?
> 
> If so, I would say that is a form of insanity.


You have inverted the meaning of what I actually said about myself from "opposing" something to "proposing" something.
(If this is how you have engaged the ancap "canon" then I  don't wonder that you haven't been able to find what you insist is not  there.)

What I actually said is that "I would still be 'anti-state'" - that is, that I would still be opposed to the State - even if I were persuaded that statelessness is impossible. (Just as I am "anti-murder" - that is, I am opposed to murder - regardless of whether the elimination of the existence of murder is possible.)

I said nothing about what kind of "social order" I would propose (or advocate or support) - or about what actions I think would or would not be useful to be undertaken - if I were persuaded that statelessness is impossible. I am not so persuaded, however - and am not very likely to be if all I am offered are aprioristic "proofs" of inherently aposterioristic questions (or straw-man inversions of things I have said created for purposes of suggesting that they are irrational or "insane").

----------


## erowe1

> in a Republic. the Constitution is the rule of law.


According to what? Itself?

----------


## erowe1

> what is a "constitution" in a Republic huggyboy?


Just a piece of parchment.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> According to what? Itself?





> Just a piece of parchment.


HVAC has not been too accountable  or coherent lately, so I'm addressing your statements.

According to language definition, the word constitution carries the principles of a republic.  And it's a piece of hemp paper.

I'm very much a proponent of anarchy, but am a realist and idealist at the same time.

My point about education and knowledge about needs or how to meet them are reasonably forms of absolutes for human social behavior.

We are going to have to prepare for any form of anarchy.  Currently, anarchy, from the political position we inhabit, is hardly more than a fantasy.

We shall have to earn the abilities required for a functional and peaceful anarchy.  Transition from the current political state requires unity, and so does anarchy.  Accordingly it is logical that unity leading to use of the state by anarchists to create education for the masses, raising the potential for functional anarchy over time, is the first step.

Therefore anarchists that are also realists, need to support transitory government supportive of anarchy.

Now we have arrived at minarchy as a logical form dignifying our readiness for anarchy.

----------


## erowe1

> HVAC has not been too accountable  or coherent lately, so I'm addressing your statements.
> 
> According to language definition, the word constitution carries the principles of a republic.  And it's a piece of hemp paper.
> 
> I'm very much a proponent of anarchy, but am a realist and idealist at the same time.
> 
> My point about education and knowledge about needs or how to meet them are reasonably forms of absolutes for human social behavior.
> 
> We are going to have to prepare for any form of anarchy.  Currently, anarchy, from the political position we inhabit, is hardly more than a fantasy.
> ...


I agree about anarchy being hardly more than a fantasy.

I also agree that the state has no moral legitimacy, and neither does the Constitution.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I agree about anarchy being hardly more than a fantasy.
> 
> I also agree that the state has no moral legitimacy, and neither does the Constitution.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

@Occam's Banana

I have offered detailed arguments against the feasibility of anarchy: one regarding cartel formation and the other regarding national defense  as a public good.

You have not even attempted to address these arguments.

You explicitly refuse to do so.

Therefore, we have nothing to talk about.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> I agree about anarchy being hardly more than a fantasy.
> 
> I also agree that the state has no moral legitimacy, and neither does the Constitution.


Hmm, in one perspective that seems absolutely correct.  A very interesting viewpoint indeed, may be assimilated from it.

It is a perspective of hard core realism based in the fact of an immoral, unethical people who allow a government over them which is NOT constitutional according to their own definitions *which they refuse to provide* while the people are SUPPOSED to be who it serves and who it is controlled by. 

However. If the people were to agree upon the moral principles, with the inherent priority constitutional intent provides, (as derived from all 3 framing documents), define them
publicly, then DEMAND as a minimum, that ALL officials in all states accept those principles, the peoples morality is imparted to the constitution via the states support of it and then to the government as conformance is imposed and created.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> @Occam's Banana
> 
> I have offered detailed arguments against the feasibility of anarchy: one regarding cartel formation and the other regarding national defense  as a public good.
> 
> You have not even attempted to address these arguments.
> 
> You explicitly refuse to do so.
> 
> Therefore, we have nothing to talk about.


Sad, because those are good points relating to the realities of today's world.

I would venture into a way to address them.  However, I would agree that we cannot get to an anarchy that is functional from where we currently are.

AFTER the people show they are worthy of anarchy by demonstrating their independence, which will first show with the recognition of their dependence upon one another rather than government or gov empowered corporations.  That dependence will be based in unity and use whatever means is most functional to control government.  Immediately removing unneeded aspects.

The first order of control over government will be to form it into an educational instrument.  That instrument will teach the people independence from systems, but respect for one another.  That instrument will be carefully directed by the purpose of free speech manifesting with communication technology designed specifically to facilitate formation of opinion after dissemination of facts.

From the product of that, given a considerable time to themselves as fully independent people, needed cartels can be constructed and people so inclined can be given weapons for defense to coordinate as needed.

----------


## ProIndividual

> @Occam's Banana
> 
> I have offered detailed arguments against the feasibility of anarchy: one regarding cartel formation and the other regarding national defense  as a public good.
> 
> You have not even attempted to address these arguments.
> 
> You explicitly refuse to do so.
> 
> Therefore, we have nothing to talk about.



Two social norms keep the state in existence:

1. The social acceptance of extortion being ethical (and thereby legal) for some Ruling class (usually a minority of people), by which the state derives its funding and borrowing power (which results from a promise of future extortion revenues), while it being illegal for everyone else in society. Anarchists simply use universality to show a logically consistent ethical theory (and thereby logically consistent legal theory) would make extortion illegal for everyone, not just everyone minus the Ruling class.

2. The social acceptance of violent threats or actual violence used ethically (and thereby legally) to limit tort liability and competition for the Ruling lass and their cronies. This is how the state forms coercive monopolies, monopsony, and cartels (see Austrian economics as to the difference between consumer-driven monopolies and coercive monopolies). Anarchists simply use universality to show a logically consistent ethical theory (and thereby logically consistent legal theory) would make using violent threats or actual violence to limit tort liability and competition illegal for everyone, not just everyone minus the Ruling class.

When these two social norms change in the hearts and minds of either a majority of people, or simply a sufficiently large, loud minority of people (see the history of population demographics and revolution, and also see paradigm shifts throughout political history), the state ceases to exist. It cannot exist when people en masse refuse to pay extortion despite the penalties imposed (even the current system cannot jail us all nor can they continue the extortion without mass cooperation of individuals and businesses), and refuse to allow criminality for the slaves to be considered legal for the masters (thereby abolishing both slaves and masters in the process).

The cartel issue is overblown and addressed at length by Rothbard, Friedman, etc. I'll link to video about it with (no ad homs!) Rothbard explaining it rather simply and (too) briefly. In short, the difference between consumer-driven monopolies and coercive monopolies. The former isn't necessarily bad, and can't lead to coercive monopoly without the two social norms (especially the second) existing. If they do exist, then yes, coercive monopoly will almost inevitably occur. That's why those two social norms are essential to the state's emergence and maintenance. But Nozick's criticism (the one you are levying) isn't inevitable if those social norms change, clearly. Only barriers to entry prevent cartels, monopsony, and monopoly that is consumer-driven from being broken up by new entrants into the market when they, through inefficiency or malice, cease to serve consumers best with low prices, good quality of service, and transparency which leads to accountability to said consumers. Without these barriers created in conjunction with the two social norms that enable a state to exist, any monopoly, monopsony, or cartel that attempted to become coercive (as opposed to consumer-driven) would go bankrupt by way of free, open competition. That free, open competition can only be sustainably thwarted via those two social norms existing. This is why the Nozick economic argument alone cannot say that statelessness is impossible. It assumes a social norm that has only existed for at most 3% of human history (and only worldwide for a fraction of that time). Before that, the other 97% of human history was stateless...and over 50% of the history of human law, roads, trade, defense, etc. markets were in the stateless period. This period for most societies lasted longer tan the average lifespan of states. They were quite stable. Most of the "horrors" associated with those stateless societies can be explained via understanding of armed societies vs unarmed societies (violent crime is higher in unarmed societies, relative to the SAME society when armed highly per capita, and the societies get safer when the weapon technology is less primitive, creating higher probabilities in game theory mathematics that nonviolent results will occur when conflicts happen due to maiming and death odds from the increased lethal nature of better weapons technology - i.e. the deterrent factor). Once you transpose the high violent crime death rates in stateless societies to modern societies, accounting for weapons technology improvements, the difference disappears. Any other aspects of standard of living and lifespans are easily accounted for by modern medical technology and changes in the economics since then (agrarian and hunter-gatherer in stateless urban and rural societies, both with private property and without, versus modern industrial and technological automation societies).

Polycentrism/consuetudinary/customary/panarchic/stateless legal order can NEVER re-emerge until those two social norms change, and therefore the Nozick problem can also not be solved until those social norms change. However, there is no reason either is impossible, especially given the vast majority of human history operated under such a social norm, and sustainably so (more sustainable, at any rate, than states). The only argument in opposition to this is the appeal to nature, to combat the empirical evidence of this past norm (the informal logical fallacy that we "evolved" naturally to accept extortion and violent threats to limit tort liability and competition for some privileged Ruling mafia). As there is no real evidence this is an evolutionary inevitability (not in history/anthropology, economics, genetics, or logic), it is highly unlikely we did indeed "evolved" (I'd argue DEVOLVED) to this current condition, but instead that it is brief period in the history of the species and will pass with trial and error showing it isn't a good for survival strategies as one might think on the surface. Buffalo have an adaptation where they all run together no matter where they run, as when one is spooked by a predator the rest don't wait for confirmation or look for what way to run when all others are running in a certain direction...but natives used this to herd them together and run them off the sides of cliffs to easily kill and eat them, and skin then and use their remains for various purposes. All animals have quirks in their evolution that can be turned against them until they evolve out of them or go extinct. Given the state was the leading cause of unnatural human death in the last 100 years (democide), it seems we might need to evolve out if this way of organizing ourselves coercively, socially and economically...or go extinct eventually. We tend to look at the state in the micro (my state does X, so it isn't the problem), but if we view it as a species, the state is the largest obstacle to survival for humans not founded in nature. Ideally we're supposed to survive aspects of nature, like diseases, animals, and weather...we aren't supposed to, ideally, face such a large threat from our own kind. Instead of evolving out of this with the state, we seem to be evolving into it. The last 100 years of democide eclipsed all of the previous murders in human history. Pretty significant. Meanwhile the populace outside of the state seems to be murdering each other less and less (50% fall in murder in the USA over just the last 20 years alone). Since govt murder via democide isn't counted as "murder", even though democide doesn't include a single war fatality (war was the 2nd leading cause of unnatural human death over that 100 years), you won't find it when looking at comparisons of violent death rates in stateless versus statist societies. If one accounts for democide, stateless societies weren't all that more violent than we are...and what extra violent death rates existed in stateless societies can easily be accounted for, again, via analysis of weapons technology development, the per capita dispersing of those arms, and the economic differences that destroyed most dire poverty to the point it stops the mass of conflicts over resources in such a poor standard of living (as we all know, market economics takes most shortages and, via supply and demand, turn them to surplus).

Here is that explanation of cartels via Austrian economics and why they aren't really a threat to statelessness, per se, when the two social norms I mentioned aren't absolutely assumed as part of "human nature":

----------


## r3volution 3.0

@ProIndividual

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate your thoughtful response. 




> Two social norms keep the state in existence:
> 
> 1. The social acceptance of extortion being ethical (and thereby legal) for some Ruling class (usually a minority of people), by which the state derives its funding and borrowing power (which results from a promise of future extortion revenues), while it being illegal for everyone else in society. Anarchists simply use universality to show a logically consistent ethical theory (and thereby logically consistent legal theory) would make extortion illegal for everyone, not just everyone minus the Ruling class.
> 
> 2. The social acceptance of violent threats or actual violence used ethically (and thereby legally) to limit tort liability and competition for the Ruling lass and their cronies. This is how the state forms coercive monopolies, monopsony, and cartels (see Austrian economics as to the difference between consumer-driven monopolies and coercive monopolies). Anarchists simply use universality to show a logically consistent ethical theory (and thereby logically consistent legal theory) would make using violent threats or actual violence to limit tort liability and competition illegal for everyone, not just everyone minus the Ruling class.


Yes, if the great masses of people were ardent libertarians, and understood and accepted those views, anarchy would be possible. 

But the great masses of people will never be ardent libertarians, or ardent socialists, or ardent fascists, or ardent anything.

The average person is too irrational, emotion-driven, and ignorant to understand these complicated economic/political/ethical issues. 

The masses are never the source of ideology, they merely reflect the ideology of the elites (who are, of course, not always well-intended or honest). 

Any political system which relies on an informed and ideologically-driven population checking the power plays of the elite is doomed to failed. 

This applies to both democracy and anarcho-capitalism. 




> The cartel issue is overblown and addressed at length by Rothbard, Friedman, etc.


They argue (correctly) that cartels cannot exist in a free market. 

But that's beside the point. 

I'm not arguing that there will be cartels in ancapistan's free market for security.

I'm arguingthere _won't be_ a free market for security in ancapistan, because security firms will form _coercive_ monopolies. 




> In short, the difference between consumer-driven monopolies and coercive monopolies. The former isn't necessarily bad, and can't lead to coercive monopoly without the two social norms (especially the second) existing. If they do exist, then yes, coercive monopoly will almost inevitably occur.


Right, see above regarding popular ideology's inability to check elite power. 




> It assumes a social norm that has only existed for at most 3% of human history (and only worldwide for a fraction of that time). Before that, the other 97% of human history was stateless...and over 50% of the history of human law, roads, trade, defense, etc. markets were in the stateless period.


It was also extremely primitive: hunter-gatherers living in small groups at subsistence level. 

The absence of the state prior to the emergence of civilization is not an argument for the viability of statelessness in civilized societies. 

The state could not possibly have existed prior to civilization, regardless of ideology, because there was insufficient physical output (e.g. food) to allow for the specialization of labor required for the state to exist. 




> Polycentrism/consuetudinary/customary/panarchic/stateless legal order can NEVER re-emerge until those two social norms change


Indeed, and thus it will never re-emerge. 




> and therefore the Nozick problem can also not be solved until those social norms change. However, there is no reason either is impossible, especially given the vast majority of human history operated under such a social norm, and sustainably so (more sustainable, at any rate, than states).


It is an error to attribute libertarian ideology to pre-historic human beings simply because the state did not then exist.

The state was not physically possible at that stage of social development, and no one could have ever contemplated the idea in order to have an opinion. 

This is anachronism, like attributing Marxism to pre-historic people because they weren't opposed to Marxism.




> Here is that explanation of cartels via Austrian economics and why they aren't really a threat to statelessness, per se, when the two social norms I mentioned aren't absolutely assumed as part of "human nature":


Just to repeat myself, and try to make it a little more clear - I'm not suggesting that statist ideology is part of human nature, I am saying it is part of human nature for the mass of people to be ideology consumers rather than ideology producers and thus incapable of mounting ideological opposition to the elite.

Doesn't this imply that anarchy would be possible if the elites themselves were ardent libertarians? Yes, and it is not unrealistic to suppose that the elite would understand libertarianism. _But_, it is unrealistic to suppose that the elite would have humanitarian motives. It is entirely possible for one to understand libertarianism and reject it in favor of selfishness. A system relying on the good will of the elite is doomed to failure, nor less than a system relying on the good sense of the masses. 

The only stable system is one in which society as a whole benefits from everyone pursuing his own selfish interests (because that is all that human beings can be reliably depended on to do). This is the beauty of laissez faire as an economic system, and the beauty of proprietary government as a political system. In both cases, ideology is irrelevant, no particular ideology is required for the system to work - individual selfishness benefits society through the "invisible hand."

----------


## ProIndividual

> Yes, if the great masses of people were ardent libertarians, and understood and accepted those views, anarchy would be possible.


Need not occur. Need only be resistant to coercion in a consistent way, OR be completely politically agnostic. For example, the American revolution was won when 30% of people took to the Patriot cause and another 30 or so percent didn't give a $#@! either way. Only about 30-35% were Tories. So, not even a majority needs exist that accept libertarianism (insofar as we defining that as anarchists or people who embrace the philosophy of liberty enough to not be opposed to the goal of a stateless society even if they are pragmatically minarchists - like yourself and Judge Napolitano, as examples...some people call this position ameliorism)...we need about 1/3 libertarian (anarchist, autarchists, agorists, and ameliorists), and another third be agnostic politically. Right now about some studies show more than 30% are libertarian-ish, while well more than 30% are agnostic and don't vote. All we need is a shift from agnostic/authoritarian to libertarian-ish in a pretty large number, OR a shift from libertarian-ish by 30% minus the existing libertarians, to libertarianism. In other words, all we need for such a social norm to exist that would facilitate a stateless society would be for libertarians to be a large, loud minority of about 30% of the populace, and another 20.1% if people to be libertarian-ish or politically agnostic (any combination of those two). I'd remark as well, most young people these days lean or are libertarian or libertarian-ish, and are more likely to be agnostic than voters.




> But the great masses of people will never be ardent libertarians, or ardent socialists, or ardent fascists, or ardent anything.


As you can see, I agree, it doesn't matter one bit to the realization of a stateless society.




> The average person is too irrational, emotion-driven, and ignorant to understand these complicated economic/political/ethical issues.


I agree, but that again has no relation to a stateless society being possible. In fact, it's a better argument why they shouldn't be allowed to vote on such issues, or ANYONE should be allowed to decide these things alone, as opposed to the market deciding things. It's a great argument against the state, because it is circular argument for it: "Some people are irrational, emotion-driven, and ignorant, so we need a government made up of...some people who are irrational, emotion-driven, and ignorant, so wee a government made up of...". Rinse, wash repeat ad nauseam. The people who get into government and vote are NOT the most rational, least emotion-driven (except when they are to the extreme of sadism or sociopathology), and least ignorant...in fact, they are some of the worst people in society. Sortition would be preferable to elections, as those who get power are not only corrupted by the power, but worse yet is that most people drawn to power are already corrupt and want power for that reason. Wanting power should automatically disqualify you from having it (in politics).




> The masses are never the source of ideology, they merely reflect the ideology of the elites (who are, of course, not always well-intended or honest).


Then explain libertarianism. There are no masses, only individuals...a mass of individuals are the masses. Thereby, all ideology comes from individuals, some in the elite and some not, and since individuals are what make up the masses, ALL ideology comes from the masses. Now, if you want to arbitrarily distinguish between elites in political power and those without it, I wonder where this line stops. Politicians? Cops? Soldiers? Mail men? voters? Any place you put the line will be outside philosophical proofs (truth). The principle is those who coerce non-victimizers and that action is deemed socially (en masse) acceptable, they are elite over those they wield power over in such unethical ways. In that way, all ideology comes from the masses, as they can at any time (and have before in history) change what they are willing to accept. This is why the masses get the government they deserve...not because they don't vote enough, but because markets and the state are reflections of mass aggregate ethics. The market is the mirror which shows the actual undistorted reflection of that mass moral compass, whereas the state shows a distorted funhouse mirror reflection of those ethics. This is because consumer choices trump what consumers SAY (or do, with forced subsidization from those who disagree with them, which lowers costs for the majority in a vote's outcome). No poll or vote can ever reflect mass morality as clearly as consumer choices...but it is a distorted reflection, so it isn't in majority a complete illusion - it does in fact reflect mass morality to a large degree.




> Any political system which relies on an informed and ideologically-driven population checking the power plays of the elite is doomed to failed.


This is a good argument against the state and the idea of an informed voter. Public Choice Theory, and the Myth of the Rational Voter, predict this well. This is why a stateless legal order is NOT a system...it's an unsystem, or anti-system. A system is defined as: "a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method". There is no single scheme or method in anarchy...it's a panarchist synthesis among any number of voluntary economic and organizational methods, in any combination, in a totally decentralized and stigmergic way. This means no method or scheme can be identified from a long view, only when looking myopically at each individual method in place in the micro. The word system has long been rejected by anarchists - we don't advocate any system. We advocate the abolishment of coercive systems in exchange for order....a legal order that isn't based on coercion of non-victimizers.

Since the state is a closed system, and an open, free and competitive market is an open system (that is to say, a non-system when no state exists at all, making a plurality of all free markets, or a free market economy in total, not simply a single free market - a single free market in the context of a state can be considered a system), chaos theory mathematics show the former is doomed to collapse into anomie (they call it "anarchy", but what they are referring to is chaos, and anomie describes social and economic chaos), and the latter is able to operate in perpetuity without entropy afflicting it, IF the system doesn't become closed (in this case, if the two social norms don't emerge or re-emerge that allow coercive monopolies, monopsony, or cartels). In essence, if you are in a completely open system, it ceases to be a system, and starts to be a stigmergic order, or spontaneous order. Calling it a system from that point seems to impose some idea of centralism or scheming that no longer exists. "I, Pencil" is informative to this point in how markets operate with no central planning, but only stigmergic order.




> This applies to both democracy and anarcho-capitalism.


As you can see, I don't completely agree or disagree...but for the record, I'm an anarchist, a free market and individualist, but NOT an anarcho-capitalist exactly. I'm actually an anti-capitalist...but by that I do not mean I'm against property, profit, etc. I'm a left-libertarian, and an anarchist, in the tradition of Benjamin Tucker, but with the updated theory of subjective value and not the old school labor theory of value. You can find people like me at Mises...like Roderick T. Long, for example. He's considered an anarcho capitalist, but also a left-libertarian. He describes himself as the latter most often. Gary Chartier is also one of these types, but calls himself a socialist. Both belief in essentially the same things. So do I. The free market, anti-capitalist, propertarian, individualist, etc., forms of anarchism are tough to label as left/right, capitalist anti-capitalist, socialist or anti-socialist, etc...this is because these labels are clumsy. Roderick Long gives a lecture at Mises we he explains the logical ridiculousness of how these terms are defined throughout different periods of history, different cultures, different people, and with different criteria. They end up meaning nothing. I don't get offended when people mistake me for an anarcho capitalist because most of my anarchist friends are in fact AnCaps. They are more like me than most anti-state socialists. However, I cannot be Rothbardian anarchist for a couple of key differences we have in economic theory and ethical methodologies.




> They argue (correctly) that cartels cannot exist in a free market. 
> 
>  But that's beside the point. 
> 
>  I'm not arguing that there will be cartels in ancapistan's free market for security.
> 
>  I'm arguingthere won't be a free market for security in ancapistan, because security firms will form coercive monopolies.


This makes no sense to me, given getting to a stateless society cannot occur until first the acceptance of these cartels, monopolies and monopsony (defense is a monopsony of the state, not a monopoly or cartel, per se) is not socially acceptable. If we don't change those two social norms then of course you can't get to a stateless society, let alone maintain it. You contention is that we can't get to no state in society because something that requires a social acceptance will occur. It cannot occur without social acceptance of it, and therefore the obstacle to statelessness is not guns necessarily, or bombs, or tanks...it is the social acceptance of such acts of tyrants. The moment that is withdrawn, they can't stop the state from going away with all the nukes in the world. All they could do is commit suicide...and even then, how? If the army soldiers refuse to follow the illusion of authority over the ethics of reality, en masse, then who launches all the nukes to destroy us all? People seem to think those who beat us with batons and march on us with tanks or bomb us with jets and bombs are somehow robots. They aren't. Some of them will defect to our side (and judging by their political donations, they are more libertarian in the military than most of the population). 

So, you saying the state can't go away pragmatically because these monopsony, cartels, or monopolies in law and defense would form is ignoring the fact that requires mass sanction of the victims. That is the obstacle, not the formation of those institutions of coercion that is merely symptomatic of the disease of social acceptance of coercion against the innocent. How long can you pay soldiers when you can't get 30% of people to pay taxes, and need to therefore borrow less (with no collateral assured to the lender state), and need to steal from 70% of the population therefore via high inflation (which only drives more of them to our side)? How long can you sustain war against a populace as you go bankrupt, when 30% actively resist you, and another 30% don't give a $#@! to aid you beyond paying taxes? Eventually the logistical facts catch up, and the war of aggression by the state is over, they killed or jailed, or judged in stateless arbitration (courts) to pay remuneration in large sums, etc. 

The social norms are the obstacle, not the men with bombs and guns. They are mind who can change their minds too, and they are also not gods with the ability to defeat mass changes in social norms. Think about the drug war or the American Revolution...or any number of wars or semi-peaceful revolutions...the state is totally incapable of enforcing laws a sufficiently large minority refuse to abide and follow. The state is also incapable of holding power if enough people in a large, loud minority actively refuse to recognize its ethical, and therefore legal, legitimacy. The state crashes and burns anytime a large enough minority essentially say "$#@! you, I won't do what you tell me".




> Right, see above regarding popular ideology's inability to check elite power.


In fact, that is the only thing that has ever checked their power...and not through a ballot box either, but instead via mass resistance. 




> It was also extremely primitive: hunter-gatherers living in small groups at subsistence level.


For the full 97%, yes...not the entirety of stateless society however. For at least 14,000 years humans have had laws, defense, roads, trade, etc...and the state is not even 6,000 years old. So the majority of human justice and liberty was NOT in a state. Also, many stateless societies of that latter period of statelessness were agrarian (in fact, most were), and lived in many cases in urban settings, not sparsely populated rural settings. It being urban or rural doesn't really matter, as those were symptoms of market economic shifts long before they understood any of it, and long before it had a name. Population doesn't matter (in fact states suffer from scaling issues more than stateless societies do, due to centralization issues). The fact is survived in such primitive settings is a credit to it, not a drawback. Technology today is making the state's existence and role increasingly obsolete. Smart contracts. reputation ratings, the internet and social networking, etc., etc., etc. all make stateless legal order and defense coordination more and more feasible and advantageous than centralized coercive alternatives. 

The more tech and people the more complexity in the closed system (the state), and thereby the more entropy leading to collapse to anomie. The larger the population and more advanced the tech the harder the state is to maintain. This is why totalitarian regimes tend to place serious limits on tech dispersion in the populace, especially weapons tech and communications tech, and also place large obstacles in the way in an attempt to limit population (immigration restrictions that aren't mirroring the market demand and supply, like the Wall in Germany or North Korea's attack on immigration to and from their country, America's failures at regulating immigration flows to thwart the market's natural supply and demand, etc., and China's rules on birthrates and male children, etc., and Nazi Germany's, Pol Pot's Cambodia's, etc. genocides when faced with finite caloric outputs that were greater than the population's need, an undesirable class of people, and Cambodia's want to limit populations of intellectuals, or even anyone suspected of being higher than average intelligence).

Anarchy/free markets don't care to limit population or technology invention, innovation, or dispersion, unless it is meant and used to coerce the non-victimizer. It doesn't hurt free markets and force entropy...in fact, it aids free markets and avoids entropy.




> The absence of the state prior to the emergence of civilization is not an argument for the viability of statelessness in civilized societies.


There is no civilized behavior or social behavior where the state is present. Anywhere the state is, antisocial and uncivil behavior reign. Anytime the state isn't present, we tend, in the vast majority, to pro-social and civil behavior. 

The first city-states were NOT the first places people acted in a civil matter...and in fact, whenever the state imposed itself and its authority via coercion of non-victimizers to fund itself, etc. that logically was NOT civil or pro-social.

How can that which is uncivil and antisocial by definition (it is necessary for coercion of non-victimizers to exist for the state to exist) be what creates, maintains, or supports civility and society? It logically cannot. It is antisocial and uncivilized behavior that destroys, degrades, and undermines society and civilized actions of that society.

If you define "civil" and "social" behaviors of the masses, and thereby "civilization" and "society", as necessarily relying on a state, not only would I say that definition is quite convenient (albeit popular, especially among academics) and logically false, but I would also say that if I am forced to concede, for the sake of debate, that these are indeed the definitions, then I would suddenly become one of the anarchists who, while NOT in the pursuit of chaos, would support the abolition of "civilization" and "society" in favor of the masses acting in civil ways to one another and acting pro-socially among each other. 

The goal isn't a word...it's civil and social behavior, and an opposition to uncivil and antisocial behavior. If that means being pro or anti civilization/society, then count me in.




> The state could not possibly have existed prior to civilization, regardless of ideology, because there was insufficient physical output (e.g. food) to allow for the specialization of labor required for the state to exist.


Hence my stance that the state is not in any way required for civilization or society to exist, and in fact can be nothing more than a parasite and degrader of both. These things persist in spite of the state, not because of it. When the state get's too large and centralized, it collapses and takes those things down with it.




> Indeed, and thus it will never re-emerge.


Never is a very long time. I remember when people said there would never be a black President, and I read about people saying chattel slavery would never be outlawed, and if it were then prices of cotton relative to incomes would skyrocket. "Never" is a bad argument. It assumes a consistency and stagnate nature to human social norms and technology that does not exist. 

It will re-emerge, because if humans be trusted to do one thing it is to do the RIGHT (ethics) thing...only after exhausting every other WRONG (ethics) thing first.  We are a trial and error species, and the radicals in every time always end up being right when they are radical (that means 'to go to the root of the problem" and to avoid addressing only symptoms of the problem) with no coercion of the non-victimizer being argued for. Anarchists are just the last abolitionists...we are wanting to abolish forced labor. We succeeded with chattel slavery...now we have only tax slavery/wage slavery (depending what it meant by the 2nd term) left to attack. Then we might, in a stateless society, become radicals against the coercion of certain social norms and want their abolition as well. After all, social norms can be just as, or more, coercive than the state itself (hence, the state is just a symptom of those two social norms I keep mentioning).




> It is an error to attribute libertarian ideology to pre-historic human beings simply because the state did not then exist.


As I pointed out earlier, that doesn't matter. You can a totally ideological libertarian but be a total hypocrite when it comes to your own self-interests, and thereby rationalize both being a libertarian and yet violating its principles. I see people do it all the time. There is a difference between ideological and lifestyle libertarianism. For example, you CAN BE both a ideological and lifestyle libertarian, but you can also be an ideological libertarian and narcotics cop. They exist, look at LEAP's (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) membership! Many are former or current narcotic officers who enforce the very laws they SAY they are unethical, because their pensions and job security, and thereby income, depend on it. Here greed gets in the way of lifestyle libertarianism.

All political agnostics are lifestyle libertarians if they don't coerce non-victimizers. The fact they don't vote, hate paying taxes but do it to be left alone, and don't have strong enough opinions (although they may SAY they do) to vote on those issues or lobby for them, makes them indistinguishable from libertarians in action. This is better than a hypocrite who is ideologically a libertarian. 

Now, everyone makes mistakes, so if you were charged with assault at 21, but since then haven't done anything and are now a 40 year old, then that one transgression against libertarian lifestyle doesn't make you an example of a flaw in this observation. It's when your lifestyle as a whole is one of coercion of non-victimizers that you violate this criteria. 

Stateless societies need not be ideologically libertarian to have lived a libertarian lifestyle. Stateless societies were libertarian by default. By definition, libertarianism is a reactionary philosophy...it has no reason to be given a name or deep thought until coercion of the non-victimizer is introduced. That's why in early periods if city-states in China and Greece, where writings of philosopher's survive, we see anarchist thought among Cynics, Stoics, and Taoists. They didn't call themselves anarchists yet because they hadn't fully developed the philosophy, and were proto-anarchist as a consequence. But they preached the virtues of spontaneous order and statelessness, with no coherent underlying ideologies to give it a name or category unto itself. There is no anti-crime crusader without crime. So, of course the stateless societies didn't have liberty and justice as an ideological goal...they didn't have anything else to compare it to. They had default liberty and justice, and didn't know they'd made a mistake in changing the social norms toward allowing a parasitic and criminal ruling class until it was too late. Their economic ignorance that led to coercive monopolies, monopsony, and cartels is not their fault, and isn't something we today have (to the same level - most people today realize these monopsony, monopolies, and cartels are negative for us as a society, they just fail to recognize them when they wear the label "government").





> The state was not physically possible at that stage of social development, and no one could have ever contemplated the idea in order to have an opinion.


Precisely. Hence, libertarian ideology only makes it more likely to emerge and remain. It's much easier to establish and maintain, or allow to resurface, a state when the populace has no experience with one and all its horrors, AND they have no ideology that opposes it being articulated by some large, loud minority (and the tacit approval of the large, silent minority who are agnostic on the issue).




> This is anachronism, like attributing Marxism to pre-historic people because they weren't opposed to Marxism.


But that isn't at all what I did. What I did do was point out stateless society is what anarchists want, and that it is not only possible, given human history, but that it is indeed ethical. Since this occurred in the absence of any strong ideological support, then any ideological support for it would only enhance this case. So, the real comparison would be to Marx saying stateless societies had communal relations, thereby it is possible for that to happen without a state (his withering away of the state theory, although his means to get there was illogical - you cannot get to decentralized and voluntary society by way of centralization and coercion...it is like trying to get to cancer-free by getting more cancer).

The state is not necessary to the existence of society, civilization, property, any economic or organizational relations existing voluntarily, etc. In fact, it is a hindrance to those things. Showing that indeed statelessness is not pragmatically impossible and is indeed the only ethical way to organize and economically interact, without any mass ideological pushes toward it to establish it or maintain it, only strengthens the case when you add to those pragmatic and ethical realities the ideological support by a single person or, more to the point, a loud and large minority. It doesn't hurt my case, it only aids it. Plus, this case shouldn't be confused for a case of "they weren't opposed because it didn't exist". Quite the contrary, it was because it didn't exist yet that they didn't oppose it yet. However, it is notable that the moment they began to exist as states, philosophers began ideological opposition to the state and statist philosophers (like Socrates being opposed by Diogenes of Sinope, and Plato being opposed by Zeno of Citium, and contemporary Chinese statist philosophers being opposed by Lao Tzu and other Taoist philosophers). 

As soon as the state became a reality, opposition to it began. It is worth noting that stateless societies were opposed to coercion of the non-victimizer as a social norm broadly, however...their entire customary legal orders were based upon this, hence they had no victimless crimes in customary legal orders. They simply didn't realize this standard could not hold if they just turned a blind eye to it when done by providers of legal and defense services. Had they known the consequences, they would have probably taken an truly ideological position, and likely not in favor of the state. The same is true today of chattel slavery; had the masses had the benefit of hindsight, in how slavery increased the cost of cotton and other crops by disincentivizing innovation and invention, and how well things worked out economically and socially without slavery, and how evil it was when it was able to be viewed after-the-fact, they likely would have opposed its inception). 

(By "inception" of "slavery", I'm not referring to all "slavery"...I'm referring to the enslavement, systematically and legally, and therefore institutionally, of those who were innocent non-victimizers and NOT debtors willingly selling themselves into servitude contractually, or criminals forced in to servitude as means to remunerate victims of their actions. In stateless societies slavery was most usually criminals and debtors, most often taking the form of attackers from other areas who had not been acting defensively, and less often debtors...relatively few (but not an insignificant number, were innocent non-victimizers pressed into slavery. Slavery as an institution is almost as old as humanity itself, but customary law prevented it from being as large as it was under states, because states forced those opposed to slavery to subsidize the costs to catch runaway slaves to the benefit financially of slave-owners and those just fine with it. This led to diminished costs to own slaves, which lead to more slavery than in stateless periods. The same is true of war....stateless societies had very small gang fights in comparison to wars under the states, and they were not only smaller in scale, but far less frequent. However, crime was very high back then, especially violent crime. This, however, was true of states and stateless societies in early periods where they both existed in comparable qualities at the same time. Crime falling dramatically since then is covered in my first comment above, and has very little to do with the state itself, but instead has to do weapons technology advances and mass adoption of these technologies, and few other factors.)




> Just to repeat myself, and try to make it a little more clear - I'm not suggesting that statist ideology is part of human nature, I am saying it is part of human nature for the mass of people to be ideology consumers rather than ideology producers and thus incapable of mounting ideological opposition to the elite.


I partly agree, but the last part I disagree with. They are mostly consumers, not producers, of ideology. However, eventually Truth always wins in the scope of human history. Eventually people realized chattel slavery was wrong. Before that they eventually realized murder, rape, and theft was wrong and established law. Before that they realized cannibalism was wrong (in most places). It takes multiple generations, sometimes thousands of years, but Truth always rises to the top, and since Truth is the basis of any consistent ethical theory, consistent ethics eventually win the day. 

I'm not an elite. I've managed to convince some to "convert" to libertarianism, and even a few to become anarchists. None of these people were libertarians to start with. Few were even agnostic to politics. If everyone had just a little of that success, this whole thing is over in just a few generations more.

The Enlightenment and its opposition to the supremacy of monarchy and religious superstition over reason took aver 300 years to rise and win. That was but a fraction of the enlightened transition in mass thinking needed to achieve statelessness. It's a degree of change in statism, to the correct direction (from an anarchist perspective). Anarchism is a much larger and long term project, and will take much longer as a result. The ideas of anarchism can be traced back to at least 6th century BC...and it is likely that earlier thoughts were lost to time. It took until the beginning of the 20th century, end of the 19th, for anarchism to even gain a name. It took until the late 18th century to even have its first widely read advocate (although Godwin, father of Frankenstein's author Mary Shelley, was before it had a name)...and incidentally, Godwin may have been one of the first transhumanist theorists.

Anarchy is going to be achieved any time soon...but it isn't impossible. It isn't even unlikely, given enough time. As we say in poker, "your assumptions are based on myopic statistical bias - your sample size is too small, and your Standard Deviation is too high". The Truth is like mind virus...is inevitably spreads. It's the only known "virus" that no matter how hard people are inoculated from it, they get infected anyways. If we view the species as a single organism, the virus of Truth always wins. This is why it always pleases me to see police abuses go "viral" on the internet. True, not all viral things like that are based in Truth, but Truth tends to stick over the long look at the species, while untruths tend to die off.




> Doesn't this imply that anarchy would be possible if the elites themselves were ardent libertarians?


If they were ardent libertarians they would oppose elitism in political power. Of course, this reflects my preference for lifestyle libertarianism over ideological libertarianism. A political agnostic non-voter does more for the cause of a libertarian society than a political elite who is themselves an ideological libertarian.




> it is not unrealistic to suppose that the elite would understand libertarianism.


Understand, or accept? I'm quite sure they understand it now. It isn't innocent ignorance that leads them to oppose it, it is their sadism, sociopathy, and control-freakery in their very disturbed mental disorders that draw them to being elites, and draw them to seek office. They get it...they just oppose it willfully. Power corrupts, but more than not, the corrupt are drawn to power. They oppose it because they understand it, and despise it. Liberty and justice are rewards to cronies and themselves, not default rights of the people. They see individuals as a means to an end, not individuals in and of themselves. Some people are just damaged for life as children, and many of them choose to be political elites. See psychologists lists on the Top 10 Jobs Sociopaths/Psychopaths choose. You'll see jobs like politicians, public "servant", bureaucrat, cop, soldier, CEO, union boss, mega-church leader, surgeon, journalist, media member, etc.




> But, it is unrealistic to suppose that the elite would have humanitarian motives. It is entirely possible for one to understand libertarianism and reject it in favor of selfishness.


Agreed. 




> A system relying on the good will of the elite is doomed to failure, nor less than a system relying on the good sense of the masses.


This is why the state is doomed. And majority rule depends on the good sense of the masses, not markets. In markets if you spend money unwisely YOU pay for it, not your neighbor who disagreed with it but was forced to subsidize it via taxation. Markets don't require complete rationality or even equal rationality among those who are rational to varying degrees. In fact, it NEEDS irrational/unequal rationality and information. 

Think of language. Is that centralized? Then why hasn't Esperanto been adopted yet? Because language is not centrally planned with any success...it is organic and stigmergic. It develops inevitably from the bottom up. Unpopular slang gives way to massively accepted slang, which gives way to elite acceptance. In this way, things not dictated to the masses can and do get adopted by society and the elite. The elite didn't end slavery because of humane thought...in most places it was ended without a war due to bottom-up changes in social norms, which started among a tiny minority of non-elite thinkers and preachers. Eventually the state HAD to allow the change, or face overthrow. Self preservation dictates a lot of what the state must do. The masses have far more control of social norms than the elites, insofar as we look over larger sample sizes of time and populations.




> The only stable system is one in which society as a whole benefits from everyone pursuing his own selfish interests (because that is all that human beings can be reliably depended on to do). This is the beauty of laissez faire as an economic system, and the beauty of proprietary government as a political system.


You had me until "proprietary government as a political system". It isn't helping property exist and isn't upholding property rights consistently. It steals via taxes and eminent domain, fines, regulation cost compliance, licensing fees, etc...then it claims to invent and uphold property rights. That which steals property to exist cannot be seen as necessary to the invention of, or maintenance of, property and property rights. It's paradoxical.

And where the state exists, there is no free market/laissez faire. The latter term means "let it be", or "let it go". That isn't at all what the state does. It is itself a series of coercive monopolies, monopsony, and cartels over specific markets (nonviolent dispute resolution/law, defense, transportation infrastructure, etc.). Even if it never regulated or taxed any other markets, it is nevertheless enough to constitute an incompatibility with a free market economy (an economy with only free markets comprising it). The state's mere existence is mutually exclusive from the existence of open, competitive, free market economy. 

Advocacy/support for a minimal state is minimal opposition to laissez faire/free market economies. There is no logical way around this.




> In both cases, ideology is irrelevant, no particular ideology is required for the system to work - individual selfishness benefits society through the "invisible hand."


Sort of...the ideology necessary for the state to exist are the two social norms I already mentioned, and for a state to not exist those two social norms must change. The former maintains a system, the latter abolishes a system in favor of a legal order and economic order via spontaneous/stigmergic order. 

My question is, if you truly believe in this, and simultaneously agree that coercion of the non-victimizer is outside market relations, but instead is unethical/criminality, why do you not accept the state is unethical and unnecessary (and in fact is just legalized criminality), and why do you not realize that consistent application of market ideas lead to no state at all given a totally free market economy/laissez faire economy is logically one without a state?

The state is not compatible with a totally free market economy/totally free society. And to expect it to stay clearly limited to only the sectors it needs to exist has been shown be history to be impossible and unrealistic. It will grow, and grow, and grow until it destroys the host and itself in the process. The host is the market (the sum total of all voluntary interactions and transactions in society)...it isn't a part of the host; it's a parasite and cancer upon the host. I don't how it is logical or historically correct to think otherwise.

And thanks as well for the reply, past, present, or future. I'm here infrequently, so don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't reply immediately or for quite some time.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Yes, if the great masses of  people were ardent libertarians, and  understood and accepted those views, anarchy would be  possible.
> 
> 
> In other words, all we need for such a social norm to  exist that would facilitate a stateless society would be for  libertarians to be a large, loud minority of about 30% of the  populace...


Society is composed of two groups: (1) the  masses, whose ideas result from emotional reactions, and (2) the elites,  whose ideas result from reasoning. 

There is a never-ending war  between different factions of elites for control of mass opinion, fought  by means of competing propaganda: i.e. appealing to the emotions of the  masses in order to make them support (not _understand_) their ideology. 

Libertarian  elites might very well win a battle in this war, forming a popular  libertarian movement for a time through superior propaganda, but this  would not be a lasting victory. Some libertarians labor of the illusion  that, if we put enough effort into education, the masses will eventually  "wake up" once and for all. This is wrong. The masses will never "wake  up" and become like the elites. They will always remain emotion-driven  thinkers and thus susceptible to some new propaganda from our  non-libertarian elite rivals. It is hopelessly optimistic to expect  libertarians elites to permanently prevail in the war for public opinion  - yet that is precisely what anarcho-capitalism (or democratic  minarchy) requires.

Libertarians have no inherent advantage in  the war for public opinion. The fact that our ideas are true is  irrelevant; it's no easier to make the masses believe true ideas than to  make them believe false ideas. The outcome of the war between elites is  determined by the quality of the propaganda and the ability to  disseminate it, both of which are basically a matter of physical  resources. Imagine how this would play out in Ancapistan. There's a  faction of libertarian elites and various factions of elites holding to  other ideologies. Is there any reason to think that the former will have  more money, manpower, etc to spend on propaganda than the latter? There  is not. 




> This is why the masses get the government they deserve...not because  they don't vote enough, but because markets and the state are  reflections of mass aggregate ethics. The market is the mirror which  shows the actual undistorted reflection of that mass moral compass,  whereas the state shows a distorted funhouse mirror reflection of those  ethics.


If you mean that people would make more  libertarian choices as consumers in Ancapistan than they would as voters  in a democracy, I disagree.

Democracy somehow prevents them from  understanding the true consequences of their voting decisions, so they  make poor decisions? 

No, I would say that they're fundamentally  incapable of understanding those causal connections (e.g that maximum  price controls --> shortages).




> This is why a stateless legal order is NOT a system...it's an unsystem,  or anti-system. A system is defined as: "a set of principles or  procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or  method".


The "principles....according to which something is done" in anarchy are, of course, libertarian ethical principles.

Or whatever ethical principles you may have (I see that you're more of a Tuckerite type anarchist).

Anarchy without an underlying ethical principles is simply chaos.




> So, you saying the state can't go away pragmatically because these  monopsony, cartels, or monopolies in law and defense would form is  ignoring the fact that requires mass sanction of the victims.


It  requires the active participation of some small fraction of the  population (e.g. to staff the army) and the passive acceptance of most  of the general population. 

If enough people actively resisted, would the state fall? Of course, but I see reason to expect that to ever happen.

And even if it were to happen, it would be a temporary victory only - see above regarding the fickleness of public opinion.




> Originally Posted by r3volution  3.0
> 
> Right, see above regarding popular ideology's inability to check  elite power.
> 
> 
>   			 		 	 In fact, that is the only thing that has ever checked their power...and  not through a ballot box either, but instead via mass  resistance.


The idea that the masses are natural libertarians just waiting to overthrow the state is totally unsupported by any evidence. 

In  some times and places, the public might be of a libertarian bent and  push the state in that direction; in other times, the opposite might  obtain. 

Public opinion is not a reliable support for a libertarian social order (or any social order), being too fickle. 




> For  at least 14,000 years humans have had laws, defense, roads, trade,  etc...and the state is not even 6,000 years old.


I don't  see how we could possibly know that human beings had laws 14,000 years  ago, considering that writing is only about 5,000 years old (how would  one discern the existence of laws without written records?). In any  event, and more to the point, the Agricultural Revolution (AR) was a  long process. The fact that several millenia passed between its start  and the emergence of the first states (_that we know of_ - again,  hard to identify whether a state exists without written records) does  not invalidate the thesis that the state emerged as soon as there was  sufficient agricultural surplus for it to be possible. The fact is, we  do not know with any certainty when the state really emerged, what level  of agricultural surplus it would have required, or what the level of  agricultural surplus there was at any given time from the start of the  AR to the emergence of the first known states. So it's a matter of  speculation on both sides. But this lack of certainty is only a problem  for your side fo the debate, since you need an example of a civilized  society (in the sense of: relatively well-developed in material terms)  without a state, while my side is awash in examples of civilized  societies where the state exists.




> However, eventually  Truth always wins in the scope of human history...The Truth is like mind  virus...is inevitably spreads. It's the only  known "virus" that no matter how hard people are inoculated from it,  they get infected anyways.


Sounds like you've got come down with a bad case of Whiggery. 

Looking  at the sweep of human history, I see no evidence whatsoever that truth  tends to prevail, or that we're on some long march upward into the  light.

History has no such teleology. 




> The state is not compatible with a totally free market economy/totally  free society. And to expect it to stay clearly limited to only the  sectors it needs to exist has been shown be history to be impossible and  unrealistic. It will grow, and grow, and grow until it destroys the  host and itself in the process.


A democratic state, yes.  Since the emergence of democracy, the state has grown almost  continuously, and to a far larger size in absolut eterms than every  before in human history. This is a feature of democracy though, not the  state in general. Non-democratic states (aka proprietary states) have  little incentive to grow. Most of the state growth of the past 150 years  or so is a result of perverse incentives created by democracy (e.g.  having to buy the loyalty of voters/donor with welfare/subsidies). Prior  to democracy, there was no noticeable trend in state growth - sometimes  states grew, sometimes they shrank, and they never reached anything  remotely close to the size of the democratic states of our own age. But  I've made the case for non-democratic government elsewhere in more  detail, so I'll leave it there.

----------

