No State vs Minarchism

[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]

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.

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?

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.

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... BULLSHIT. 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 fucking 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/showth...Consequences&p=5843659&viewfull=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?