Minarchists are fucking crazy.

[Pizzly]

So I ask a simple question to a libertarian minarchist, "what is the legal basis for your government?"

I got this:

I'm not sure what you mean by legal basis...

The minimum purpose of government, in my opinion, is to establish what constitutes aggression, fair penalties for violations of it, and to enforce those penalties.

That government, in a massive contradiction, can only exist through force and will be unjust... through, at minimum, the collection of basic taxes to fund the court and justice system mentioned above.

This contradiction gives a lot of Libertarians pause, and rightfully so, but I think any system designed to replace it will inevitably be drawn back to it.

So, in summary, the government is naturally unjust... so we should not disband it for being so. Instead, we need to ask the question on whether or not the government is as fair as possible, and move from there.

Man, I'd take a delusional statist who imagines some "social contract" over batshit insane people like this, right?

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Necessary evil.

[Ecolitan]

There is no "legal" basis for government outside of the context of that government as the government defines "legal".  The "legal" basis for the constitution IS the constitution.

You're asking the wrong questions so it's no surprise he had a difficult time finding an answer to please you.


Also, that's why minarchists are fail.  Once you accept that it's OK to perform an immoral act in order to make the world a better place you have no credibility when declaring... oh no, THAT immoral act isn't justified by the ends but THIS one is.  Well....  51% of people disagree with you minarchist so now what?

If you had asked what the "moral" basis for minarchist government is he might have been forced to admit it's an end justifying the means sort of thing and that might sometimes make a person take a hard look at themselves and ask the really tough questions like exactly how much freedom is it ok to deprive someone of for how long and in order to obtain what result?  Too much of that and it's impossible not to notice that it's all their subjective opinion with no principles to back it.

Incidentally, my handle comes from a sci-fi book where the protaganist commits a very extreme act of violence against an enormous amount of innocent people in order to prevent a far worse fate for far more other innocent people.  He never tries to justify it morally, just says it had be done so I did it right or wrong.  Gets himself a big fat promotion for it.

[SeanD]

So I ask a simple question to a libertarian minarchist, "what is the legal basis for your government?"

I got this:

I'm not sure what you mean by legal basis...

The minimum purpose of government, in my opinion, is to establish what constitutes aggression, fair penalties for violations of it, and to enforce those penalties.

That government, in a massive contradiction, can only exist through force and will be unjust... through, at minimum, the collection of basic taxes to fund the court and justice system mentioned above.

This contradiction gives a lot of Libertarians pause, and rightfully so, but I think any system designed to replace it will inevitably be drawn back to it.

So, in summary, the government is naturally unjust... so we should not disband it for being so. Instead, we need to ask the question on whether or not the government is as fair as possible, and move from there.

Man, I'd take a delusional statist who imagines some "social contract" over batshit insane people like this, right?

No. THIS minarchist is crazy.  The correct answer is that THIS Gubmint isn't legal.

Honestly though if the government was overthrown in pure Anarchy who honestly thinks it wouldn't devolve into "Might makes Right"?  Lead (copper jacketed) would be far more valuable than gold, silver or FRNs.

[Pizzly]

Necessary evil.

I hear people try and make that claim, but it just doesn't hold up. A simple question of legality, and these people turn into psychopaths. The idea that an entity that enforces the law is allowed violation of the very laws it enforces is just irrational bullshit. Statism has to be a mental disorder, it's that messed up.

[LTKoblinsky]

How's this one for you. Governments are a fact of life. Whether voluntary, coercive, or just plain evil, they will always exist. People like joining groups. The coercive force monopoly is necessary and good as it allows neighbors to say to each other, 'if I feel wronged, I'm not just going to go blowing shit up, I'm going to let this rational, objective arbiter decide what compensation is just and then enforce that sentence.' This facilitates relations between complete strangers and helps groups stay together. In reality, though, the system is greatly flawed and I'm not even sure the ideal is attainable.


'If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'

[Turd Ferguson]

I like the Old West system of govt.

Someone calls you a card cheat, they get plugged between the eyes and the bar-keep cleans up the mess.

Eventually, everyone who survived would be polite to each other.

I dont think they gave that system enough time to play itself out.

[BonerJoe]

Minarchism is only practical to create islands of liberty in an ocean of Statism.

In other words, elect anarchists to government positions of a political region (town, city, county) when you have a majority of voters. Repeal all the local laws you can. Hire a local cop that does nothing. They are just there as "legal" placeholders to keep things "official".

If you are too hardcore to comprehend that as a workable compromise, well fuck you.

[dalebert]

No. THIS minarchist is crazy.  The correct answer is that THIS Gubmint isn't legal.

Honestly though if the government was overthrown in pure Anarchy who honestly thinks it wouldn't devolve into "Might makes Right"?  Lead (copper jacketed) would be far more valuable than gold, silver or FRNs.

The fallacy of thinking here is that it's not might-makes-right right now, that this gubment is protecting us from some obscure imaginary worse government that might take its place.  The reality is that a monopoly gubment isn't a solution to a might-makes-right mentality.  That's a cultural phenomenon that's actually reinforced by the amalgamated belief in monopolistic gubments and the actions of individuals that result from it.  And those entities gain power over time as they attain more and more legitimacy.  Individuals abdicate more and more power to them.  They're already might-makes-right-- majority rule, collectivism, hello.  It's not a certainty that when a monopoly form of gubment inevitably collapses that a replacement won't be worse, but it's not especially likely.  It will likely take time for that might to accumulate again in the form of growing legitimacy, fueled by the irrational beliefs of statists, including minarchists to some degree.

Monopoly gubments aren't protecting us from crime.  They're just monopolizing crime!  They are the worst, i.e most successful of criminals.  Join us crazy anarchists in consistently opposing all crime and stop making exceptions for these guys just because they're so good at it.

[dalebert]

How's this one for you. Governments are a fact of life. Whether voluntary, coercive, or just plain evil, they will always exist. People like joining groups. The coercive force monopoly is necessary and good as it allows neighbors to say to each other, 'if I feel wronged, I'm not just going to go blowing shit up, I'm going to let this rational, objective arbiter decide what compensation is just and then enforce that sentence.' This facilitates relations between complete strangers and helps groups stay together. In reality, though, the system is greatly flawed and I'm not even sure the ideal is attainable.


'If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'

How's this for you.  Monopoly governments may very well be a fact of life, but remember that to an anarchist, a monopoly government is just a very efficient form of crime.  Gubments have convinced people their crimes are a necessary evil so people don't oppose their crimes.  And yes, I will concede that there will always be some crime.  That's a poor reason for failing to consistently oppose crime if we want minimal crime.  You WANT them to be a rational, objective arbiter who metes out justice with discretion but the very fact that you've insisted on it being a monopoly (by buying into the minarchist fallacy) removes the accountability that would actually encourage such traits.  As a minarchist, your thinking is no more rational than a Christian who believes in Heaven simply because he's really afraid of death (note, I'm not arguing against other reasons or evidence others might have for that belief).  A powerful desire for something is not evidence for its existence-- in this case that something being a rational, objective arbiter.  And there is no rational reason for expecting a violently imposed monopoly to be rational and objective.

This is what absolutely makes my head want to implode trying to discuss this subject with minarchist objectivists.  Pay attention the next time you're talking to one (or if you are one, try to listen to yourself and catch yourself when you do it).  They keep arguing for minarchy based on NEED!  The moment that word comes up in a socialist's argument for welfare programs, they break out in hives, but they make a special exception to using that basis to defend such a completely irrational concept as a monopoly form of government.

[Pizzly]

What Dale says, but more incoherent and littered with profanity.

[Evil Muppet]

I think it is kinda interesting to try to provide rational justification for institutions that are not rational.  In many cases political, market and social institutions simply exist without anyone knowing why they came about.  Much of the argument put forward by all these different ideologies including anarchists, minarchists, conservatives, fascists or socialists are an ex post facto attempt to understand why the world is the way it is and to justify their current belief system.  How is it that Locke, Hobbes or Rousseau knew about why we have a government?  They didn't.  They had a particular vision for how the world should be and they constructed a creation myth for the origins of the state to help support their own particular view. 

[blackie]

SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY

99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.

100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitory - the trend will soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered but only pushed a step ahead.

101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at all.

102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, than it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any important part without change all the other parts as well.

103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)

104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to.

105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.

106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.

107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.

[BonerJoe]

Nobody wants to argue with me? Come on.

[SeanD]

Minarchism is only practical to create islands of liberty in an ocean of Statism.

In other words, elect anarchists to government positions of a political region (town, city, county) when you have a majority of voters. Repeal all the local laws you can. Hire a local cop that does nothing. They are just there as "legal" placeholders to keep things "official".

If you are too hardcore to comprehend that as a workable compromise, well fuck you.

Why would an Anarchist run for election in a gubmint that shouldn't exist?  Is there any such thing as an In The System Anarchist?