A Step-by-Step, Logical, A Priori Refutation of Minarchism and 'Limited Government'. READ.

[Sentient Void]

there is no market when different competing agencies are blowing up each other. you might believe that non-anarchists are wrong in believing that would happen without a state, but that doesn't make it true that classic liberals just decide that one arbitrary product shouldn't be provided in the market. classic liberals believe (or at least some classic liberals) that without a state, there would be no market.

i personally oppose anarcho-capitalism because i think the law should be uniform. you shouldn't have for example different courts deciding things with different criteria. that's what would happen if you had competing courts. so it's a moral issue, not one of economics.

Just so you know, our current system of law and many laws themselves involving private property is based on common law (the method of using previous rulings as precedent to discover and enforce law), which was developed by purely private, non-uniform courts in the middle ages.

 

[low preference guy]

Just so you know, our current system of law and many laws themselves involving private property is based on common law (the method of using previous rulings as precedent to discover and enforce law), which was developed by purely private, non-uniform courts in the middle ages.

good to know. will look it up sometime, if time allows. also, do you know the answer to one of my questions that no one has yet answered? that is, how proper punishment is determined in an anarchist society? it's post 165.

 

[Sentient Void]

+ rep for your persistence.

Anarchists, it is time for you to help us with your definitions. When I look-up anarchy in the dictionary, I find "no ruler" as the simplest definition. "No ruler" implies no rules, for if you have even one rule, then it becomes self-ruled. So instead of a designated ruler, everyone is their own ruler. Now some people just can't do that, can they? Jared Loughner is one example of millions, and the policeman in Utah who broke down the door, in the middle of the night, and shot the man holding a golf club is another of millions. So please define your position.

Also, the current system even if it followed the constitution to the letter of the law, which it doesn't, is not what most minarchists view as minarchy. Anarchists and minarchists are allies. Let's work together to defeat the current ruling oligarchy with the printing press who rule with the absolute power to counterfeit money out-of-nothing. When the world uses honesty in transactions with real money, then you will likely find that minarchy is virtual anarchy.

Anarchy may be etymologically defined as 'no ruler', but what it ultimately means is 'no State'. In anarcho-capitalism, 'anarcho-syndicalism', 'anarcho-communism', 'anarcho-socialism', etc... the first part - anarcho - denotes the lack of a State, whereas the second part - capitalism, syndicalism, communism, socialism, etc - is what the anarchist believes would or 'should' happen in such an anarchist society.

If any anarchist is talking about what 'should' happen in a stateless society, then ultimately he is *not* an anarchist, regardless of how much he claims to be. Talking of 'should' denotes a system of control and and enforcement on other individuals acting in an otherwise peaceful manner. Talking of how society 'should' be organized is oppressive and forceful in nature. This is why 'anarcho-communism', 'anarcho-syndicalism', 'anarcho-socialism', etc are all oxymorons because *someone* or some group of people must control the flow and allocation of capital, and restricting individuals from interacting in certain ways that are 'not allowed', leading to a political class and thus, a State.

Anarcho-capitalists only talk of what they believe *would* end up happening in a stateless society rooted in a culture that supports property rights. Many anarchocapitalists (such as myself), believe in a 'controlled demolition' of the State through marketization of different elements of the State apparatus as soon as possible (some support solely agorism, civil disobedience, education, or electoral politics, etc... I support all of these methods as useful tools in achieving statelessness and utilize whichever will yield the best results in the context of the situation and time). In this manner, anarcho-capitalists are the only *true* anarchists, because they do not believe society 'should' be organized in any particular way - we believe that spontaneous order, entrepreneurship, innovation, competition and freedom in a truly free market will simply organize society and allocate capital in the most efficient ways possible according to the subjective values and demands of individuals, and with a zero restriction on the flow and allocation of capital, also lead to the most prosperous society possible. While such a society may not be perfect, it will be much, much more preferable, prosperous, moral and efficient than what we have now.

I absolutely agree that anarchocapitalists and minarchists should be allies - because we both support a maximization of individual liberty and a minimization to abolition of state-intervention. If/when the time comes where the minimal differences between the two can be addressed, then and only then will there be a battle of ideas.

Personally, I think that if/when the time comes - that even many if not most minarchists will support experiments and attempts in further trying to marketize the remaining role(s) of the State.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

the great voluntaryist principle for a justice system is not the NAP. the NAP is arbitration theory. voluntaryists theorize in a free market the greatest demand in the market for justice will be when disputes are arbitrated according to the NAP because people naturally agree with it. people naturally agree it is wrong to steal, wrong to kill, etc. this does not mean it is always wrong because exceptions may arise. it is just articulating the greatest demand in the market is when people generally know they will not be subject to any use of force unless they initiate aggression.

the great voluntaryist principle for a justice system is not being coerced to pay for coercion (that is what no state means). that does not mean anything close to never being coerced because justice might demand coercion whether you show up to court or not. as long as individuals are not coerced to pay for coercion the market can efficiently work. the market is ultimately going to work whether you like it or not, the only question is when. In an efficient market companies that satisfy the markets demands for justice will prosper and companies that stray from meeting the demands of the market will diminish instead of bad companies being propped up for decades. a happy market = a happy society. i do not believe people will be changing anytime soon and the next generation will also believe it is wrong to steal or wrong to kill.

a definition of property is meaningless. under the constitution property = land or derived from land. that is why you do not own your labor, it is not property. when arbitrating a property dispute the questions are: why do you believe it's your property? what can you offer to substantiate your belief is in good faith (ie. why should I believe your belief is in good faith?) what is an acceptable remedy?

If the Israel PDA lost a property dispute for it's customers at the NATO corporation and decided to defy a ruling, other PDA's might want to use coercion against the Israel PDA. Maybe the Israel PDA could convince the United States PDA not to enforce a ruling against the Israel PDA. Maybe the United States PDA would continue to give the Israel PDA weapons as a coercion deterrent for other PDA's. Maybe in doing so the United States PDA will incur a lot of expense, alienate customers with high PDA coverage costs, and go out of business. Maybe the market will start supporting other cheaper PDA's such as the China PDA. Maybe the China PDA will help it's close trading partner, the Iran PDA obtain justice. One thing is for certain, intervene against the market at risk of your own peril.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

i personally oppose anarcho-capitalism because i think the law should be uniform. you shouldn't have for example different courts deciding things with different criteria. that's what would happen if you had competing courts. so it's a moral issue, not one of economics.

So you support one-world Government?

 

[Sentient Void]

in the anarchist society, who defines proper punishment?

for example, one might claim that if i steal from you, recovering the goods AND the fees you paid to your security agency is proper punishment. what if your thief says that extracting the fees is excessive punishment, and then decides to retaliate against you? would that be proper? also, could he claim that you used an agency that was unnecessarily expensive, so the fees are unjust?

Proper punishment will be determined by the market, which will ultimately be decided upon by the individuals in that market ('society') based on how they view justice. There is precedent under common law (which again was created through private courts under initially non-uniform law, that coalesced eventually into a system of law recognized by most courts, though private, as 'just') that this would be based on the concept of 'proportionality', and you will be repaid based on restitution and to be made 'whole' prior to the incident. If you steal $1000 from me and I take you to court, I would seek (up to) damages in the $1000 you stole, legal fees, pain and suffering, lost wages, etc. If you cannot pay this, then restitution will probably be forced upon you through involuntary servitude to pay your debt back, by force if necessary. You lose your rights and/or property to the extent that you have deprived someone else of them.

Commercial/social ostracism may also play a part in some lesser crimes as well, as it does today (poor credit for example is a limited form of commercial ostracism in regards to debt, but it is even used nowadays for things like employment, renting, and other things as well). I don't think there's any reason to believe force would not be used (as some voluntaryists and others think) in libertarian justice, and neither did Rothbard. Which I again highly recommend you reading from 'Ethics for Liberty' specifically, and then 'For a New Liberty'. A lot of your questions have already been covered with much better explanation and in more depth than I or others here.

Our current system of law and 'justice' has diverged so much from the natural law and concept of justice because of intervention by the State and 'intellactuals' and politicians loved by the State.

 

[low preference guy]

the great voluntaryist principle for a justice system is not the NAP. the NAP is arbitration theory.

the great voluntaryist principle for a justice system is not being coerced to pay for coercion. that does not mean anything close to never being coerced because justice might demand coercion whether you show up to court or not. as long as individuals are not coerced to pay for coercion the companies that satisfy the markets demands for justice will prosper and companies that stray from meeting the demands of the market will diminish.

interesting post. i was under the impression, based on what other anarchists said, that acting morally was defined as not violating the NAP from the ancaps perspective . i many times tried to point out that many people have different first principles than the NAP. demanding obedience to the NAP and saying things like "it violates the NAP, therefore, it's immoral" is from most people's point of view arbitrary and non convincing. a further explanation like what you're providing is needed to have people even consider your point of view.

i agree with the part in bold. i don't think anybody should be forced to pay for taxes, but that government funding should be voluntary, for services such as using contracts. what i wonder is, what would be the exceptions, if there are, to the principle of not being coerced. you mentioned that "exceptions may arise".

the issue of proper punishment is related to this, because sometimes it is hard to determine whether one is initiating aggression or retaliating. at this point i'm just going to quote something i asked before:

one might claim that if i steal from you, recovering the goods AND the fees you paid to your security agency is proper punishment. what if your thief says that extracting the fees is excessive punishment, and then decides to retaliate against you? would that be proper? also, could he claim that you used an agency that was unnecessarily expensive, so the fees are unjust?

any thoughts on this?

 

[low preference guy]

Proper punishment will be determined by the market, which will ultimately be decided upon by the individuals in that market ('society') based on how they view justice. There is precedent under common law (which again was created through private courts under initially non-uniform law, that coalesced eventually into a system of law recognized by most courts, though private, as 'just') that this would be based on the concept of 'proportionality', and you will be repaid based on restitution and to be made 'whole' prior to the incident. If you steal $1000 from me and I take you to court, I would seek (up to) damages in the $1000 you stole, legal fees, pain and suffering, lost wages, etc. If you cannot pay this, then restitution will probably be forced upon you through involuntary servitude to pay your debt back, by force if necessary. You lose your rights and/or property to the extent that you have deprived someone else of them.

Commercial/social ostracism may also play a part in some lesser crimes as well, as it does today (poor credit for example is a limited form of commercial ostracism in regards to debt, but it is even used nowadays for things like employment, renting, and other things as well). I don't think there's any reason to believe force would not be used (as some voluntaryists and others think) in libertarian justice, and neither did Rothbard. Which I again highly recommend you reading from 'Ethics for Liberty' specifically, and then 'For a New Liberty'. A lot of your questions have already been covered with much better explanation and in more depth than I or others here.

Our current system of law and 'justice' has diverged so much from the natural law and concept of justice because of intervention by the State and 'intellactuals' and politicians loved by the State.

ok, so "proper punishment", from your perspective, is not an absolute independent of time and context. i say for example that stealing and killing innocents is wrong today like it was 150 years ago. but "proper punishment" today is probably different than it was 150 years ago, if i understand your post correctly.

if what i just said is correct, i gotta say that i don't understand the moral outrage you seem to show for people who favor a state, as one might want a state from considerations regarding proper punishment, which is something that is contextual and changes with time, unlike things that deserve moral outrage, like killing and stealing.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

any thoughts on this?

i think several of those constitutional details, like potential damages, would be covered in your contract with the PDA of your choosing. I think many PDA contracts would contain similar damage provisions because the market will have similar demands and PDA's will have reciprocity agreements maybe appointing a 3rd party arbitrator to handle reciprocity disputes among PDA association members like NATO Corporation. Anything that is not covered in your constitutional contract with your PDA is a personal risk.

Again the market is ultimately going to work whether it's similar PDA contracts with clauses about handguns or the market demanding handgun legislation. That is reality and the way the world works. The difference is efficiency and how long bad companies can sustain in the market when they deviate from constitutional contracts because they coerce subscriber dues. And whether you are coerced to pay for something you do not agree with preferring to take the personal risk in protest.

Either way, if you think some of the hand gun PDA contract provisions or state legislation sucks your course of action is the same. Sell a better idea.

 

[Arion45]

in the anarchist society, who defines proper punishment?

for example, one might claim that if i steal from you, recovering the goods AND the fees you paid to your security agency is proper punishment. what if your thief says that extracting the fees is excessive punishment, and then decides to retaliate against you? would that be proper? also, could he claim that you used an agency that was unnecessarily expensive, so the fees are unjust?

How would you try and solve these problems?

Remember in the free market if there is a need then someone will fill it.

Think back to 20 years ago and imagine I am telling you the free market can handle mail delivery. You ask me how in the world can we get mail delivered without the government. I explain to you that I will set up a bunch of electrical pipelines that will transfer mail electronically and instantaneously. You call me Utopian and crazy. The free market calls it the internet.

The point being is that thousands of minds all working to get the most cost efficient, effective way of getting a task accomplish is not known. It could be anything.

 

[Sentient Void]

ok, so "proper punishment", from your perspective, is not an absolute independent of time and context. i say for example that stealing and killing innocents is wrong today like it was 150 years ago. but "proper punishment" today is probably different than it was 150 years ago, if i understand your post correctly.

if what i just said is correct, i gotta say that i don't understand the moral outrage you seem to show for people who favor a state, as one might want a state from considerations regarding proper punishment, which is something that is contextual and changes with time, unlike things that deserve moral outrage, like killing and stealing.

If justice is provided by a market, and a market supplies goods and services based on what individuals in society demands, then justice will be supplied according to what individuals in society demands. If individuals universally recognize the concept of property, and recognize it is unjust to steal property, or murder someone, etc, then a system of law will be based upon this, just as private common law established such things in the past. In different cultures, while there may be a lot of overlap between them, there will probably be some differences in established law and how restitution works. Based on the logic and recognition of property and self-ownership and voluntary exchange, as these things are most universally recognized by us as *individuals* (although there is some disconnect when it comes to the State, but this is another discussion altogether), I believe that all law over time, in a stateless society even amongst slightly differing cultures (such as northern culture in the US vs southern culture, or Canada, etc), will evolve towards a uniform law. Just as it did as common law was evolving hundreds of years ago in Europe across some very different cultures.

The outrage is against the fact that the law, courts, and police of the State (even in a minarchist system) is an immoral self-mandated monopoly that we don't have any choice whatsoever with, which leads to a high cost, low efficiency, clumsy, decadent (no innovation), low quality system that is easily exposed to corruption and Statist growth that would be very impossible to defend against or restrict (as we've seen happen with the United States).

In a marketized system of police, defense, justice, law, etc - innovation is always taking place, prices would be much less, quality would be much higher (due to natural forces of the market), and we wouldn't be forced to pay into such a system and forced to acknowledge it's authority unjustly. It would also be *extremely* difficult, due to all the natural barriers of the market, for a defense agency or court, etc to grow unjustly and impose itself on others.

But the ultimate fact is we don't know for sure how it will excactly work - but we can come up with ideas based on how people interact with eachother, generally view justice, and respond to incentives as a personal entity or a profit-seeking usiness. We just know it would be much better than this based on logical apriori economics, and morality that we all recognize as individuals.

Does that help?

 

[low preference guy]

How would you try and solve these problems?

Remember in the free market if there is a need then someone will fill it.

Think back to 20 years ago and imagine I am telling you the free market can handle mail delivery. You ask me how in the world can we get mail delivered without the government. I explain to you that I will set up a bunch of electrical pipelines that will transfer mail electronically and instantaneously. You call me Utopian and crazy. The free market calls it the internet.

The point being is that thousands of minds all working to get the most cost efficient, effective way of getting a task accomplish is not known. It could be anything.

thanks for your answer. i was trying to determine whether from an ancaps perspective "proper punishment" is something that can be determined easily, just as i can determine easily that stealing or killing innocents is wrong. from your answer and that of others, the answer is no. proper punishment changes with time and context from the ancaps perspective. that is also my view on the issue.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

thanks for your answer. i was trying to determine whether from an ancaps perspective "proper punishment" is something that can be determined easily, just as i can determine easily that stealing or killing innocents is wrong. from your answer and that of others, the answer is no. proper punishment changes with time and context from the ancaps perspective. that is also my view on the issue.

Though not directed at me I wanted to comment on your comment.

I have several personal perspectives on "___________" that I believe are something that can be determined easily. For instance I think geographical organization is the solution for liberty. Unfortunately for my beliefs the market prevails and the market does not agree with me. I do not consider myself voluntaryist simply because I do not seek to coerce my beliefs on you.

I personally consider myself a voluntaryist because I believe people are generally good. As such I believe the most good is achieved in an efficient market that efficiently meets the demands of generally good people. I see the evidence of generally good people cooperating in the world every day. A market where individuals are coerced to pay for coercion is not an efficient market in my opinion.

 

[Arion45]

First of all, you really should admit that ancient Ireland was not "stateless".

Here you are trying to describe their system of government in great detail, all the while pretending that it somehow didn't exist.

How precisely do you justify this utterly hypocritical logic?


And if ancient Irish society was "complex", but not "advanced", then you must concede that it was perhaps limited in some way?

If so, please tell me how it may have been limited precisely.


And if Brehon-law (the common law of ancient Ireland) was "civil", but not "criminal", does that mean that it did not forbid something like murder?

And if murder was punishable under Brehon-law, then how would this fundamentally differ from "criminal-law"?





Technically, any system headed by a "king" is a "monarchy", and when landowners are the only group allowed to join a political "assembly", under that "king", then that is very much like a "fiefdom".

Also, if the "king" is a "head priest", then that sounds a lot like a "theocracy" as well.

I'm not saying that Irelands system was terrible, maybe it was relatively great.

All I am saying is that it was not "stateless", and that there are better forms of government, such as the U.S. Constitution for example.

What is your definition of a State?

 

[low preference guy]

The outrage is against the fact that the law, courts, and police of the State (even in a minarchist system) is an immoral self-mandated monopoly that we don't have any choice whatsoever with, which leads to a high cost, low efficiency, clumsy, decadent (no innovation), low quality system that is easily exposed to corruption and Statist growth that would be very impossible to defend against or restrict (as we've seen happen with the United States).

from my point of view the outrage is unwarranted.

if we were to live in your desired ancap society, there would be a moral revolution before. it will be ingrained in the consciousness of most people that stealing is wrong, even when the government does it (taxes). i expect that to lead first to a state that is funded voluntarily through fees for contracts, that at least at first has a monopoly on the use of force in a given territory.

once we get to that point, i think the most important goal would've been achieved. government protects life, liberty, and property. there will be problems, and some reforms will be desirable to introduce competition in providing security, maybe even ending in an anarchist society, although i'm not sure about that. but i think it is much more important to get from where we are today to a limited government, than to get from a limited government to an anarchist society. that doesn't mean the second step is not desirable, i'm not arguing that. but at least today, it seems to me that the animosity that comes from some anarchists towards classic liberals is absolutely unwarranted, and it doesn't warrant a moral condemnation.

for example, if someone wants to redistribute property, he deserves a moral condemnation. stealing is immoral. as i see it, many anarchists act with moral outrage against people who don't agree on the technical details of how best to provide justice, even when the application of those technical details (private courts, police) are not even achievable in the present.

the main reason why you don't live in the type of society that you want to live in is that people believe stealing is ok. not because not ancaps don't give a damn about trying to improve today's society through measures that today aren't even possible, such as privatizing the courts.

 

[Arion45]

thanks for your answer. i was trying to determine whether from an ancaps perspective "proper punishment" is something that can be determined easily, just as i can determine easily that stealing or killing innocents is wrong. from your answer and that of others, the answer is no. proper punishment changes with time and context from the ancaps perspective. that is also my view on the issue.

Yes things would be handled from a case to case basis.

 

[Arion45]

from my point of view the outrage is unwarranted.

if we were to live in your desired ancap society, there would be a moral revolution before. it will be ingrained in the conscience of most people that stealing is wrong, even when the government does it (taxes). i expect that to lead first to a state that is funded voluntarily through contracts, that at least at first has a monopoly on the use of force in a given territory.

once we get to that point, i think the most important goal would've been achieved. government protects life, liberty, and property. there will be problems, and some reforms will be desirable to introduce competition in providing security, maybe even ending in an anarchist society, although i'm not sure about that. but i think it is much more important to get from where we are today to a limited government, than to get from a limited government to an anarchist society. that doesn't mean the second step is not desirable, i'm not arguing that. but at least today, it seems to me that the animosity that comes from some anarchists towards classic liberals is absolutely unwarranted, and it doesn't warrant a moral condemnation.

for example, if someone wants to redistribute property, he deserves a moral condemnation. stealing is immoral. as i see it, many anarchists act with moral outrage against people who don't agree on the technical details of how best to provide justice, even when the application of those technical details (private courts, police) are not even achievable in the present.

the main reason why you don't live in the type of society that you want to live in is that people believe stealing is ok. not because not ancaps don't give a damn about trying to improve today's society through measures that today aren't even possible, such as privatizing the courts.

This is a good point. A voluntary society will not occur over night. It will take people seeing examples of this type of society for it to be accepted. If the United States was to collapse tomorrow it will be important for options already be in place. I see this only being possible on a small scale with like minded people all in one place. Once it is seen that this type of society is a better example of the past one, there will be a paradigm shift in people's minds.

Liberty is contagious and it will spread from example.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

that doesn't mean the second step is not desirable, i'm not arguing that. but at least today, it seems to me that the animosity that comes from some anarchists towards classic liberals is absolutely unwarranted, and it doesn't warrant a moral condemnation.

At first I supported Ron Paul because I was a constitutionalist. After assessing my own self awareness I continue to support Ron Paul because Ron Paul has acknowledged the ultimate goal is freedom even though he continues to choose to advocate for constitutional limited government. (see my signature)

My personal observations are if more minarchists were like Ron Paul and able to acknowledge the ultimate goal is freedom or at least like you, that freedom is not undesirable, there would be a lot less drama. What is there to argue about if we both desire freedom except a disagreement on strategy? There is no moral condemnation in a strategy debate.

 

[Sentient Void]

if we were to live in your desired ancap society, there would be a moral revolution before. it will be ingrained in the conscience of most people that stealing is wrong, even when the government does it (taxes). i expect that to lead first to a state that is funded voluntarily through contracts, that at least at first has a monopoly on the use of force in a given territory.

once we get to that point, i think the most important goal would've been achieved. government protects life, liberty, and property. there will be problems, and some reforms will be desirable to introduce competition in providing security, maybe even ending in an anarchist society, although i'm not sure about that. but i think it is much more important to get from where we are today to a limited government, than to get from a limited government to an anarchist society. that doesn't mean the second step is not desirable, i'm not arguing that. but at least today, it seems to me that the animosity that comes from some anarchists towards classic liberals is absolutely unwarranted, and it doesn't warrant a moral condemnation.

for example, if someone wants to redistribute property, he deserves a moral condemnation. stealing is immoral. as i see it, many anarchists act with moral outrage against people who don't agree on the technical details of how best to provide justice, even when the application of those technical details (private courts, police) are not even achievable in the present..

I agree with pretty much everything here. Honestly I believe that *ultimately*, you are probably an anarchist to the same extent that I am or others here - or at least on your way there very soon (maybe just some more reading is needed ).

Personally, I support minarchism as a *stepping stone* to an anarchist society once it is shown how the market can much more effectively provide services than the government (though I certainly wouldn't object to a hypothetical situation where we could make the jump to an anarchocapitalist one). Once this is realized, it will be much easier to convince people to move closer to true anarchism and work towards marketizing the rest of government.

Personally, with the freeflow of information and communication, and the dialectics that are taking place, and with the example and support of the internet, I think this is inevitable. True liberty *will* win out. For the State, it is just a matter of time before it dissappears. I just hope I get to see it in my lifetime - that's the only question.

I don't think it is realistic to expect people will simply support a sudden and dramatic switch from a big government like we have now to an anarchocapitalist society. Although I do support movement in that direction as quickly as possible - I think this begins with moving towards minarchism as quickly as possible to show the benefits of the truly free market and how it can accomplish anything.

 

[Petar]

I guess it's ok that you just ignored all of my questions, I will still answer yours.

The following seems like very a reasonable definition to me:

"a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government."