A question to all minarchists

Well, in case (a) we can assume that there are other militias out there with a stake in preserving the peace and would demand just treatment from the captor militia toward you. This means that the captor militia would have the incentive to be as just as possible, give you due process, and respect the viewpoints of those outside the militia.

In case (b) the militia is the state, who has no competitors to keep it in check. They can murder, rape, and pillage you and your property as much as they want - as long as they can excuse it within their own system. And since they are in charge of their system things like notions of justice, due process, and humane treatment can be ignored as long as the state has resources to inflict their tyranny.

So what do you want, a justice agency policed by all other justice agencies, or a justice agency policed solely by it's own discretion?

So you're saying

1. There WILL be other militias(by proof by assumption)
2. a critical mass of them will care about YOUR interests(by proof by assumption)
3. therefore, there will be no unjust militias.


and as far as this case b) is concerned, are you talking about the system where

1. if you are a civilian citizen, you cannot be put in prison unless a jury of your peers thinks you committed a crime.
2. If you are convicted based on a search against your permission, even a public defender will get your case thrown out.
3. You cannot be compelled to house military in your home
4. You could buy a gun legally within the week if you wanted to.

Is that the case b) you were talking about
 
I don't remember saying this to you before (though I have said it to others participating in this thread) so here goes.
There are examples of stateless societies in history.
It is not idealism. It works because it has worked.

If you choose to find them, you will be immediately confronted with a stereotypically negative view of those societies.
If you choose to have an open mind on the matter, you may choose to realize that since the state has had a near complete monopoly on lower education and a cartel on higher education for a century, it follows that the officially sanctioned opinion on historical stateless societies is negative.

In short, you've been told. This is fisharmor telling GeorgiaAvenger (and everyone else who refuses to listen) - the "it's all fantasy" card is no longer in your deck. Please don't play it again.


I repeat the above text about every two weeks here. It gets old.

Can you name some of these societies.
 
So you're saying

1. There WILL be other militias(by proof by assumption)
2. a critical mass of them will care about YOUR interests(by proof by assumption)
3. therefore, there will be no unjust militias.

In the first case, it's not "proof by assumption" - its a logical economic look at the incentives given to competing justice agencies. They will tend toward peace and civility and due process because the other option is wasteful and self-destructive. Sure some bad things will still happen, but the corrective mechanisms are much better than the case where there's a monopoly justice agency.

and as far as this case b) is concerned, are you talking about the system where

1. if you are a civilian citizen, you cannot be put in prison unless a jury of your peers thinks you committed a crime.
2. If you are convicted based on a search against your permission, even a public defender will get your case thrown out.
3. You cannot be compelled to house military in your home
4. You could buy a gun legally within the week if you wanted to.

Is that the case b) you were talking about

1. Have you heard of the Milgrom experiment? Whatever the state calls a crime is passively accepted by the jury accepting the authority of the system. You can't claim that this is a real "safeguard" to tyranny, as experience has shown millions prosecuted for the non-crimes of drugs and other prohibitions, and criminalized but legitimate business practices.

2. It's hard to get the judge to accept that a search was illegal, and it's even harder for a "suspect" to deny a search in the face of unaccountable cops following the SOP to lie to their marks.

3. I can't be compelled to house them in my home, but I'm sure as hell compelled to pay for their service through taxes.

4. If I were a convicted felon (even for nonviolent crimes) I couldn't purchase a weapon. Or if I was on a "list" compiled by unaccountable federal police agencies. And why in the hell should I be forced to disclose my purchase of guns? And what if I wanted a fully automatic weapon? Or a semi-auto with a magazine larger than ten rounds? Or a bazooka? As long as I'm not going to use these for aggression, what's the point of prohibition or even licensing? It only drives out-laws to stockpile weapons that they can lord over their law-abiding neighbors.

So yes, that's the "case (b)" I was speaking of. But your characterization of it as some "good" thing is off-base, and these are just the four "good" things you could come up with. What about the thousands of "bad" things that are incontrovertible?
 
So now OP is responsible for the childish antics of posters who followed? What happened to personal responsibility? Some libertarian you are.

Following the original thread, it is the original poster, so yes, he's responsible for his own actions. Broad labels aren't individual responsibility. I don't consider myself a Libertarian, a fake party filled with arm chair philosphers who would rather argue than create.
 
Following the original thread, it is the original poster, so yes, he's responsible for his own actions. Broad labels aren't individual responsibility. I don't consider myself a Libertarian, a fake party filled with arm chair philosphers who would rather argue than create.
I'm not sure what "original thread" you're referring to. I'm talking about this thread, and I'm the OP. I haven't contributed to any of the personal attacks or childish antics here. And while you might not align yourself with the Libertarian Party (I don't think any of the regulars here do), each and every single one of us believe in the fundamental libertarian principles of individual freedom and individual responsibility. Otherwise, you clearly don't belong in the movement. How I'm responsible for my fellow RPF'ers acting irresponsibly in responding to a particularly elementary philosophical question regarding the role of government is baffling to me.
 
I'm not sure what "original thread" you're referring to. I'm talking about this thread, and I'm the OP. I haven't contributed to any of the personal attacks or childish antics here. And while you might not align yourself with the Libertarian Party (I don't think any of the regulars here do), each and every single one of us believe in the fundamental libertarian principles of individual freedom and individual responsibility. Otherwise, you clearly don't belong in the movement. How I'm responsible for my fellow RPF'ers acting irresponsibly in responding to a particularly elementary philosophical question regarding the role of government is baffling to me.

So you just go on labeling some more, now you have Libertarians and libertarians. Labeling people and armchair philosophy gets nothing done. First, in your own life. Second, because mob mentality prevents you getting something done in your own life.

As soon as I saw the cheesy debate style that was defining voluntary association as minarchist, I knew we had another useless thread. At least it's in a remote subforum, where it won't waste anyones time.
 
So you just go on labeling some more, now you have Libertarians and libertarians. Labeling people and armchair philosophy gets nothing done. First, in your own life. Second, because mob mentality prevents you getting something done in your own life.

As soon as I saw the cheesy debate style that was defining voluntary association as minarchist, I knew we had another useless thread. At least it's in a remote subforum, where it won't waste anyones time.
You're splitting hairs to pick a fight. Did you have a bad day or something? You know exactly what I meant. If you don't align with a philosophy consistent with minarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) then you're free to leave. I'm actually interested in the topic as I mostly consider some form of government essential to protecting life, liberty, and property, but also recognize that taxation violates the NAP. Ideological purity is important to me. I know we have basically two main (yes, I know there are more) theories at the philosophical root of the liberty movement, and I'm trying to pick the minds of some of the more experienced folk around the forums.

If you don't like that I've labeled these philosophies, then I'm sorry -- I think you're taking the non-collectivism thing a little too far.
 
I think we need to talk more about who's trying to pick a fight with who in this thread
 
Government is an abstract idea. Like a forrest is just a bunch of trees, governments are just a bunch of people... well... people with guns and cages who steal from you and kidnap you unless you pay them off and do what they say.

We had a minarchist government, and we can see how well that worked out. In 200 years our grand kids would be making these same arguments if we somehow did the impossible and voted the ticks off the dog. The state, no matter how small, is simply a group of people with a monopoly on the initiation of force, and like a cancer, it will always grow. It will collapse because of its debts and its size, and my solution will be to replace it with nothing.
 
So you just go on labeling some more, now you have Libertarians and libertarians.

So the guy who isn't aware that libertarian (small l) is a philosophy, and Libertarian (large L) is a political Party thinks the guy he's "debating" with made stuff up?

These labels are important. One is a Party, one is the philosophy many here CLAIM to extoll. Try learning about what you believe before acting like these labels don't matter. It's like saying "male" and "female" are just labels and have no place in a civilized conversation about sex. WTF?!?

The state grew from nothing. And continues to, wherever nothing is found.

So does cancer...I suppose we should just shrink that instead of removing in total too? Some so-called inevitabilities (and I'm not conceding any inevitability to make this point) are worth fighting until abolition over and over and over until they stop coming back or we die...like slavery and cancer for instance.

If insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting s different result, then surely minarchy is the most death causing insane idea in history.
 
I have no problem with taxation. I have no problem with the idea that people are forced to pay taxes. It is a necessary evil. Without taxation, it would be impossible to enforce a uniform set of laws.

Your evidence in support of this assertion?

I would also point out that apparently it is impossible to enforce a uniform set of laws with taxation. If you believe that the laws are uniformly applied then I will have to, in all kindness, direct you to stop smoking methamphetamine because is it seriously damaging your brain.

Their would be no public police. There would be no public courts. In their place there would be militant special interest groups whom are held accountable to nobody but themselves.

Maybe. Maybe not.

In addition, the presumption that police would be needed is questionable on its best day.

As Brushfire pointed out, voluntary police. One volunteers time and equips himself. Not as "sophisticated" as current fare? Excellent!! I would disband all police departments in favor of sheriffs' deputies - all volunteer and all readily accountable to John Q/ Public. Under such conditions the realities of daily life WRT "law enforcement" would be very much different.
 
So does cancer...I suppose we should just shrink that instead of removing in total too? Some so-called inevitabilities (and I'm not conceding any inevitability to make this point) are worth fighting until abolition over and over and over until they stop coming back or we die...like slavery and cancer for instance.

You're a regular one-man army corps.
 
Is that a challenge?

I'm just saying that you shouldn't be avoiding rebuttals if you want your argument to hold up.

We had a back-and-forth going, I made the last response, and then you disappeared. When you re-appeared it was to back away from any substantive argument by accusing your opposition of being an "instigator".

For the record, I didn't instigate the conversation. I merely challenged your assertions.

So please, if you have any legitimate arguments to rebut my last substantive post, make them. I'll gladly listen, and cordially continue the volley.
 
Now we're getting somewhere

[B said:
Pericles[/B]]
Well regulated militia = no monopoly of force.

Only if one has the right to resist unjust use of the militia with force.

Here we find a crux of the matter.

At the end of the day the choice boils down to whether people will work for their freedoms. Some will, many will not. In this, people are readily predictable in the sense that they always operate based on the cost/benefit relationship. So long as the perceived benefits of being subdued by others outweighs the perceived costs, people will tolerate their condition. It is as simple as that. But there is more.

Note I qualified cost and benefit with "perceived", perception being a key factor in all of this. One of the interesting and perhaps little noticed side-effects of allowing oneself to be trespassed upon if that of acclimation. When I trespass upon you in a seemingly innocuous and therefore "harmless" fashion or degree, you rapidly acclimate to the new condition - and here we are talking long-term persistent aggression and not some "oopsie" transient condition that rapidly vaporizes. The condition remains a fact over the long term, perhaps even being "permanent".

Repeat the above situation over and over again in small, "tolerably-sized" slices and two things happen. Firstly, the standard of judgment is lowered. What was intolerable today becomes tolerable tomorrow, then accepted, then welcomed, and finally, demanded. Secondly, as the habit of tolerance for trespass grows, the tolerance of how thick the slices are grow in lockstep. A century ago, "they" had to tread very lightly, each new trespass having to be very thinly sliced so as not to earn the displeasure of the mob. Compare that with the rate at which trespass has ramped up just since 9/11/2001. The bites get larger and larger, the power seekers treating us with ever bolder contempt and bald-faced avarice. By the old standard, those in power are unspeakably brazen. By tomorrow's standard, they may yet be regarded as tame.

The direction in which things are heading is crystal clear, and even so people have not jumped on the warpath, but are only stirring in the weakest and most timidly ventured manner of the wretched milquetoast.

The worst of it is that the deeper into tyranny we fall, and here I speak of the American form of tyranny which is the worst in human history for reasons I will not go into, the more difficult it will be to extricate ourselves. At this point I still see a thin possibility of restoration, but it is sublimating away into vapor more with every passing day. So many people have lost the ability (or never acquired it) to think clearly. Worse yet, they hold no attitude of the will to do so. For them, the benefits they perceive still outweigh the costs. So long as that remains the case, we ain't going anywhere but further into the darkness.

Let us summarize in some pseudo-code.

For those ruled.


Cost-benefit conditions:
If ( cost < benefit )​
do nothing​

Perceptions:

If ( trespass <= "tolerance" )​
do nothing
tolerance == acclimate_to( trespass )
explosive_tolerance_limit++​

For the rulers.

While ( tolerance !> explosive_tolerance_limit )​
trespass( tolerance)
enforce( trespass, selective, without_mercy )​

If ( exceed( explosive_tolerance_limit )​
new_trespass == back_off( trespass, smidge, waitsee )
If ( new_trespass < explosive_tolerance_limit )​
call_it_good_and_proceed_with_next_trespass()​
else​
repeat

Claro?
 
Last edited:
Can you name some of these societies.

Statelessness has existed in more places for more of history than statism has.
More than 99% of humanity's existence has been spent in statelessness.
You're asking me to pick out a couple jellyfish in the Atlantic. I assume that's your game, since you think that a lot of that was spent in lawlessness - which doesn't follow at all, because if it was so bad, people would never have survived to form states.

Do you remember talking about Greece in grade school history class?
You know why they had city-states?
'Cause there was no state outside the cities.

What was it like in North America before Europeans showed up?
Be honest with us and spend some time on the Northeast and Northwest, and not just on the rapists and cannibals.

Ever hear of the Kipchaks?
Medieval Iceland was stateless,
early Pennsylvania was stateless,
the American West was stateless until the point when the disease spread there,
Denmark had a stateless section of Copenhagen until recently,
Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong was stateless for 80 years of the 20th century...
but the best example is Ireland up until the English invasion in the 1630s.

Of course you have to read between the lines to get what happened in these places.
You also have to admit the reason why statism always, always breaks into these places and starts unrelentingly killing people until they submit to statism.

The reason is YOU, Sam.
 
I'm just saying that you shouldn't be avoiding rebuttals if you want your argument to hold up.

We had a back-and-forth going, I made the last response, and then you disappeared. When you re-appeared it was to back away from any substantive argument by accusing your opposition of being an "instigator".

For the record, I didn't instigate the conversation. I merely challenged your assertions.

So please, if you have any legitimate arguments to rebut my last substantive post, make them. I'll gladly listen, and cordially continue the volley.

First off, I Was commenting on the petty argument between SpiritOf1776_J4 and cstarace, so you really ought to stop playing the victim.

Secondly, I'm really not so concerned about having the last word as you seem to be. I've been over this topic multiple times, It's not worth my while to continue running in circles.
 
Statelessness has existed in more places for more of history than statism has.
More than 99% of humanity's existence has been spent in statelessness.
You're asking me to pick out a couple jellyfish in the Atlantic. I assume that's your game, since you think that a lot of that was spent in lawlessness - which doesn't follow at all, because if it was so bad, people would never have survived to form states.

Do you remember talking about Greece in grade school history class?
You know why they had city-states?
'Cause there was no state outside the cities.

What was it like in North America before Europeans showed up?
Be honest with us and spend some time on the Northeast and Northwest, and not just on the rapists and cannibals.

Ever hear of the Kipchaks?
Medieval Iceland was stateless,
early Pennsylvania was stateless,
the American West was stateless until the point when the disease spread there,
Denmark had a stateless section of Copenhagen until recently,
Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong was stateless for 80 years of the 20th century...
but the best example is Ireland up until the English invasion in the 1630s.

Of course you have to read between the lines to get what happened in these places.
You also have to admit the reason why statism always, always breaks into these places and starts unrelentingly killing people until they submit to statism.

The reason is YOU, Sam.


The Greek city-states were states. Most of them had a king. Athens was a democracy for a period of time.

I suppose that you could say that the American West was stateless, but the truly stateless parts of it were mostly barren of people anyway.

Ireland was citystates


If you must define the "State" as a portion of land, well I suppose that would have to make all those nomadic tribes stateless.
 
Back
Top