Anarchism is more of a complaint than a solution.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yet minarchists and Constitutionalists do this all the time. Neither minarchism nor Constitutionalism has a coherent legal theory to rest on, so it has only the "Unknown Ideal" (to borrow a Randian term).

That's not exactly the kind of unknown I was referring to.

In your opinion, though, who does have a coherent legal theory? What constitutes a legal theory?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Really? From a self-described monarchist who says hoping for benign tyrants is our best hope? You think the most 'coherent legal theory to rest on' is the Divine Right of Kings?

Really?

Yes, really. I've challenged this very forum to come up with a coherent legal theory-crickets. Constitutional legal theory comes down to the opinions of a bunch of dead guys, the Federalist Papers, and SCOTUS.
(just so there's no confusion, this article goes into detail about what I mean when I talk about legal theory/theory of law: http://ivr-enc.info/index.php?title=Legal_Theory:_Types_and_Purposes)

I've NEVER described myself as a monarchist. I have argued-and maintain-that monarchy is superior to any republican or democratic system, assuming the goal is maximum liberty and peace/prosperity. We have a few threads around here on this already if you want to rehash that. The overwhelming evidence proves this to be true.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's not exactly the kind of unknown I was referring to.

In your opinion, though, who does have a coherent legal theory? What constitutes a legal theory?

A number of theorists have developed and written lengthy treatises on legal theory, sound and unsound. Here is an article that discusses legal theory in quite a bit of detail-http://ivr-enc.info/index.php?title=Legal_Theory:_Types_and_Purposes There is a bibliography at the bottom for further reading.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

A number of theorists have developed and written lengthy treatises on legal theory, sound and unsound. Here is an article that discusses legal theory in quite a bit of detail-http://ivr-enc.info/index.php?title=Legal_Theory:_Types_and_Purposes There is a bibliography at the bottom for further reading.

Thanks. Is there a particular legal theory that you adhere to?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks. Is there a particular legal theory that you adhere to?

There's not a single unified theory covering every aspect of law that I approve of yet, but I admire Kinsella's work on libertarian legal theory, for one. I've read some interesting legal theory by Natural Law philosophers (contemporaries like Rothbard as well as classical NL theorists) as well.

ETA: Here's a decent lecture on Rothbardian legal theory: Note: I disagree with Murray on a few things, such as the personhood/lack thereof of a fetus.

 

[otherone]

In fact, it is antithetical to the idea of the state since it has a conflicting authority figure that cannot be superseded. Religion may very well calm people down, but it is not used as a sort of apparatus for that purpose.

I am hard-pressed to come up with any historical state (other than communists) that either didn't claim authority to rule from supernatural powers, or claimed to be divine itself. Sumer, Egypt, Rome, every Christian and Muslim nation, all the way up to the US. Historically, religion wasn't used to pacify, it was used to terrify. There was no need for the NSA in ancient Greece when the gods see EVERYTHING. Having the blessing of supernatural boogiemen was/is vital to a small cadre of oligarchs who wish to remain in power.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Anarchists are a lot like liberals, in that they discount flawed human nature.

 

[otherone]

Anarchists are a lot like liberals, in that they discount flawed human nature.

 

[fisharmor]

Anarchists are a lot like liberals, in that they discount flawed human nature.

This argument was already addressed in this thread.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Anarchists are a lot like liberals, in that they discount flawed human nature.

We don't discount flawed human nature, in fact human nature is precisely why we don't want or need rulers or governments.

Robert LeFevre's Libertarian Quotes

An anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do.

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

A limited government is a contradiction in terms.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Government, when it is examined, turns out to be nothing more nor less than a group of fallible men with the political force to act as though they were infallible.

 

[erowe1]

Anarchists are a lot like liberals, in that they discount flawed human nature.

Human nature is flawed. And there's nothing we can do to change the world in such a way that will remove all the harm that humans will do to each other.

But the great thing about free markets is that they do kind of a jiu jitsu move on our flaws, where our own self-serving natures motivate us to serve others because it's profitable. The state never does that. If it does anything, it can only result in net harm. And the less harm it does the better. There is no minimal point below which the state would be doing too little harm.

 

[roho76]

I agree that as you shrink the size of the state, state on citizen crime goes down. But at some point citizen on citizen crime goes up. There's a lot of places in the world where the primary danger is from other citizens. Does it make a difference whether it's the government that kills you or your neighbor?

Yes it does. At least if my neighbor kills me I didn't have to pay for it right up until I died.

 

[klamath]

We don't discount flawed human nature, in fact human nature is precisely why we don't want or need rulers or governments.

Human nature is way you will always have leaders unless you are the leader. Millions of years of leaders prove this. Some always want to be leaders some always want to be led, and some always rebel against leaders and thus become leaders or die. The only people that manage to become their own individual leaders are people that can escape societies reaches which is pretty near impossible on the world today.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Human nature is way you will always have leaders unless you are the leader. Millions of years of leaders prove this. Some always want to be leaders some always want to be led, and some always rebel against leaders and thus become leaders or die. The only people that manage to become their own individual leaders are people that can escape societies reaches which is pretty near impossible on the world today.

I don't think that I'm going to let you morph "leaders" into "rulers" and "governments". Nice try though.

 

[klamath]

I don't think that I'm going to let you morph "leaders" into "rulers" and "governments". Nice try though.

I get it, you just want to change the name of states, governments and leaders. Carry on, call it what you want.

 

[erowe1]

I get it, you just want to change the name of states, governments and leaders. Carry on, call it what you want.

"Leader" is definitely a more broad term that may include state rulers, but also includes people whom others follow voluntarily.

 

[klamath]

"Leader" is definitely a more broad term that may include state rulers, but also includes people whom others follow voluntarily.

Pretty well doesn't matter. The followers will enforce the leaders ideas or their interpretation of that leaders ideas. Paulfest is a prime example.

 

[erowe1]

Pretty well doesn't matter. The followers will enforce the leaders ideas or their interpretation of that leaders ideas. Paulfest is a prime example.

Ethically it matters. If the leaders use violence against the followers to make them accept their ideas, that's wrong. But if the followers adopt them voluntarily, it's not.

This is why the governments of voluntary organizations like churches and the Boy Scouts do not qualify as states. But of course their leaders are still leaders.

 

[klamath]

Ethically it matters. If the leaders use violence against the followers to make them accept their ideas, that's wrong. But if the followers adopt them voluntarily, it's not.

This is why the governments of voluntary organizations like churches and the Boy Scouts do not qualify as states. But of course their leaders are still leaders.

And pretty much all of those organization retain the power to enforce their rules or force people out, violently if necessary.

 

[erowe1]

And pretty much all of those organization retain the power to enforce their rules or force people out, violently if necessary.

Right. But they don't use violence to keep people in, like the state does. That's the crucial difference.