No State vs Minarchism

[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]

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.

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?

P.S. I just starting listening to a few interveiws with people from Attack The System. Does anyone of 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

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:

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.

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.

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.


.

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]

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.