Please convince me of statism!

[Swordsmyth]

Has your schilling changed anything? I thought the point of this forum was to promote liberty not government.

And without a minimal government liberty will fall to big government tyranny.

 

[Origanalist]

And without a minimal government liberty will fall to big government tyranny.

HA HA HA HA HA

 

[CCTelander]

It's not even debatable. This non stop spamming of disgruntled republican crap from people who apparently have unlimited time to spend online and rebuke any real libertarian ideals has reduced participation.

It's sad to see that this place has degenerated from a hotbed of radical liberty advocacy and philosophical discussion to the cesspool of mouth-breathing partisan hackery that it's become. Even sadder is the fact that it's only a very small handful of extremely prolific posters that have affected that change, at least that part that has occurred over the last 2-3 years or so. As you noted, it seems like these people have nothing else to do but spam this forum with their partisan, anti-liberty horseshit. I liked the place better when achieving actual liberty was the predominant goal.

 

[CCTelander]

Has your schilling changed anything? I thought the point of this forum was to promote liberty not government.

It doesn't seem like there's much interest in promoting actual liberty any more. Tribalism? Sure. Right-Hegelian collectivism? Definitely. Actual liberty? Well, that's passe.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's not even debatable. This non stop spamming of disgruntled republican crap from people who apparently have unlimited time to spend online and rebuke any real libertarian ideals has reduced participation.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Origanalist again

KURWA. Damn repper doesn't want to work. ~kicks repper swiftly~

 

[CCTelander]

KURWA. Damn repper doesn't want to work. ~kicks repper swiftly~

I'd cover you but I'm out of ammo too.

 

[timosman]

KURWA. Damn repper doesn't want to work. ~kicks repper swiftly~

Classy.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Classy.

 

[CaptUSA]

^^^^This^^^^

I've seen several quality posters from the past state that they no longer participate much here at all due to exactly that kind of thing.

I think that's the point of swordsmyth and timosman and several others. Dismantle any semblance of a liberty "movement" and to convince us that the cause of liberty is not worth trying to beat into their heads.

 

[CaptUSA]

It's not even debatable. This non stop spamming of disgruntled republican crap from people who apparently have unlimited time to spend online and rebuke any real libertarian ideals has reduced participation.

Yep. Mission successful.

 

[CaptUSA]

It's sad to see that this place has degenerated from a hotbed of radical liberty advocacy and philosophical discussion to the cesspool of mouth-breathing partisan hackery that it's become. Even sadder is the fact that it's only a very small handful of extremely prolific posters that have affected that change, at least that part that has occurred over the last 2-3 years or so. As you noted, it seems like these people have nothing else to do but spam this forum with their partisan, anti-liberty horseshit. I liked the place better when achieving actual liberty was the predominant goal.

I suppose we should feel flattered that the statists recognized us as a threat. Unfortunately, they've used our weapon of fealty to the principles of liberty against us in that we can't ban them from the site without violating our own principles. I think Brian is looking for suggestions - I'm just fresh out.

 

[Krugminator2]

It's sad to see that this place has degenerated from a hotbed of radical liberty advocacy and philosophical discussion to the cesspool of mouth-breathing partisan hackery that it's become. Even sadder is the fact that it's only a very small handful of extremely prolific posters that have affected that change, at least that part that has occurred over the last 2-3 years or so. As you noted, it seems like these people have nothing else to do but spam this forum with their partisan, anti-liberty horse$#@!. I liked the place better when achieving actual liberty was the predominant goal.

The Trump stuff can be a bit much. That said, this thread is defining statism as just people who want any government at all.

I would never want to live in a Rothbard/Hoppe society. Never. I think it would be on par with Communism. I think it would not only not be freer, I think it would be an almost total loss of freedom.

I guess that makes me a statist using the definition this thread. All of the super radical anarchist threads from 10 years ago are interesting thought experiments. Never really said is why anarchism would be worth it. Life is pretty good and pretty free in the United States right now. There would be a huge cost to set up a society that in my view probably wouldn't even work There is no need for total overhaul. Gradual course corrections like Hayek talks about in his political books are what are needed.

All the doomsday stuff about collapses and tyranny remind me of grandma who was always talking about the rapture. What is needed is just more education to public about what the proper role of government should be and a basic understanding of economics which will lead to better policy outcomes.

 

[Madison320]

I am intellectually honest and open to reason. If you would like to fix my unrealistic political philosophy, I eagerly await your enlightenment! I'm so sick and tired of being wrong.

My argument is that statism is like air, it exists everywhere. Within any geographic location there's going to be some person or group with the most force that makes the decisions. Therefore the best use of your time is to minimize statism or control it as best as possible. Not eliminate it, because that's impossible.

 

[Conza88]

The best argument is that it is unavoidable, the corrupt will organize and impose themselves on others if allowed to and the only way to successfully defend against them is to create a limited government.

Nope. See, there currently exists anarchy still between states...

For the aspiring Austro-Libertarian: What to read? #4

I thought I would recommend some of the not so well known but nevertheless mind-blowing journal articles that should be read by everyone in the movement, especially by those outside it. This is the fourth in a series of many.


Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? [voluntarism] by Alfred G. Cuzan

• “A major point of dispute among libertarian theorists and thinkers today as always revolves around the age-old question of whether man can live in total anarchy or whether the minimal state is absolutely necessary for the maximization of freedom. Lost in this dispute is the question of whether man is capable of getting out of anarchy at all. Can we really abolish anarchy and set up a Government in its place? Most people, regardless of their ideological preferences, simply assume that the abolition of anarchy is possible, that they live under Government and that anarchy would be nothing but chaos and violence. The purpose of this paper is to question this venerated assumption and to argue that the escape from anarchy is impossible, that we always live in anarchy, and that the real question is what kind of anarchy we live under, market anarchy or non-market (political) anarchy.”

• “Government is an agent external to society, a “third party” with the power to coerce all other parties to relations in society into accepting its conceptions of those relations. … However, that the idea of Government exists is no proof of its empirical existence. … That societies may have some form of organization they call the “government” is no reason to conclude that those “governments” are empirical manifestations of the idea of Government. … A closer look at these earthly “governments” reveals that they do not get us out of anarchy at all. They simply replace one form of anarchy by another and hence do not give us real Government. Let’s see how this is so…”

(Source: mises.org)

 

[Conza88]

If it is what happens when nobody stops it then it is the natural state.
Because of the existence of corrupt men tyranny is the natural state of man.

No. Given:

​

Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family.

In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state.

When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence. ​

— Murray Rothbard, Society Without A State​

Whatever the case, it is irrelevant - the existence of a state (monopoly etc.) makes thigns worse, whatever the nature of man.

You are regurgitating the Hobbesian myth.

Private Production of Defense

​

The myth of collective security can also be called the Hobbesian myth. Thomas Hobbes, and countless political philosophers and economists after him, argued that in the state of nature, men would constantly be at each others’ throats. homini lupus est. Put in modern jargon, in the state of nature a permanent underproduction of security would prevail, each individual, left to his own devices and provisions, would spend too little on his own defense, and hence, permanent interpersonal warfare would result.

The solution to this presumably intolerable situation, according to Hobbes and his followers, is the institution of a state. In order to institute peaceful cooperation among themselves, two individuals, A and B, require a third independent party, S, as ultimate judge and peacemaker. However, this third party, S, is not just another individual, and the good provided by S, that of security, is not just another “private” good. Rather, S is a sovereign and has as such two unique powers. On the one hand, S can insist that his subjects, A and B, not seek protection from anyone but him; that is, S is a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection. On the other hand, S can determine unilaterally how much A and B must spend on their own security; that is, S has the power to impose taxes in order to provide security “collectively.”

In commenting on this argument, there is little use in quarreling over whether man is as bad and wolf-like as Hobbes supposes, except to note that Hobbes’s thesis obviously cannot mean that man is driven only and exclusively by aggressive instincts. If this were the case, mankind would have died out long ago. The fact that he did not demonstrates that man also possesses reason and is capable of constraining his natural impulses. The quarrel is only with the Hobbesian solution. Given man’s nature as a rational animal, is the proposed solution to the problem of insecurity an improvement? Can the institution of a state reduce aggressive behavior and promote peaceful cooperation, and thus provide for better private security and protection? The difficulties with Hobbes’s argument are obvious. For one, regardless of how bad men are, S—whether king, dictator, or elected president—is still one of them. Man’s nature is not transformed upon becoming S. Yet how can there be better protection for A and B, if s must tax them in order to provide it? Is there not a contradiction within the very construction of s as an expropriating property protector?

In fact, is this not exactly what is also—and more appropriately—referred to as a protection racket? To be sure, S will make peace between a and B but only so that he himself in turn can rob both of them more profitably. Surely S is better protected, but the more he is protected, the less A and B are protected from attacks by S. Collective security, it would seem, is not better than private security. Rather, it is the private security of the state, S, achieved through the expropriation, i.e., the economic disarmament, of its subjects. Further, statists from Thomas Hobbes to James Buchanan have argued that a protective state S would come about as the result of some sort of “constitutional” contract.[1] Yet, who in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s protector to determine unilaterally—and irrevocably—the sum that the protected must pay for his protection; and the fact is, no one ever has![2]

(Source: mises.org)

 

[Conza88]

The Trump stuff can be a bit much. That said, this thread is defining statism as just people who want any government at all.

Nope. Not even close.

Government is not the state

”Government is not the state any more than roads or education are the state. The state coopts institutions but this does not make them inherently or necessarily part of the state. Libertarians are against the state–the institutionalized monopoly on law and force–but not against the governing institutions of society, i.e. law.
The reason this matters: supporters of the state (such as minarchists) will use equivocation to try to trap you – they assume there must be a state, in order for there to be law and order (“government”), just like mainstreamers think there must be a state, in order for there to be education or roads. And so they equate law and order with the state. They ask you if you support law and order, and you say “yes”; they then say “okay well then you believe in government.” Which means state. To them. I’ve seen this trick thousands of times.

The solution is to make clear what you mean by the state, and by government. By state we mean a territorial monopolist of law and violence. We libertarians oppose this *because we oppose aggression*—and states must commit aggression to either tax and/or to outlaw competing agencies.

Now if by government you mean “state"—then we oppose that too, and for the same reasons. But if by government you mean governing institutions of society — law and order, courts, security etc. — then no, we don’t oppose this. In fact we count on this. We think the state undermines "government” in this conception. (Left-libertarians may differ, since they seem to hate “authority” and “hierarchies” of all kinds, but this is not normal libertarianism, if it is libertarianism at all.)

Nock saw this long ago:

“As far back as one can follow the run of civilization, it presents two fundamentally different types of political organization. This difference is not one of degree, but of kind. It does not do to take the one type as merely marking a lower order of civilization and the other a higher; they are commonly so taken, but erroneously. Still less does it do to classify both as species of the same genus — to classify both under the generic name of "government,” though this also, until very lately, has been done, and has always led to confusion and misunderstanding.

[…]

It may now be easily seen how great the difference is between the institution of government, as understood by Paine and the Declaration of Independence, and the institution of the State. … The nature and intention of government … are social. Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.“
​

— Stephan Kinsella

 

[Conza88]

My argument is that statism is like air, it exists everywhere. Within any geographic location there's going to be some person or group with the most force that makes the decisions. Therefore the best use of your time is to minimize statism or control it as best as possible. Not eliminate it, because that's impossible.

Aggression will always exist (murder etc.) its institutionalisation though, need not be the case. Eliminating anarchy is impossible. See: this .

Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.


— Murray N. Rothbard

 

[Krugminator2]

Nope. Not even close.

I just got slightly dumber after reading your link.

 

[The Gold Standard]

People are corrupt and will steal from and kill us, so it follows that we need to submit ourselves to the rule of a group of humans that steal from and kill us on a scale unmanageable by individuals.

 

[CCTelander]

People are corrupt and will steal from and kill us, so it follows that we need to submit ourselves to the rule of a group of humans that steal from and kill us on a scale unmanageable by individuals.

You don't "get it." It's the ONLY WAY to insure that people don't steal from and kill us. Or so I'm constantly told by statists.