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.
So I ask a simple question to a libertarian minarchist, "what is the legal basis for your government?"
I got this:QuoteI'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?
Necessary evil.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.Blackie you're doing a heck of job. I have Nothing to say except this. "I gave up on my species." - George Carlin :P
Is there any such thing as an In The System Anarchist?That is like a meat eating vegan.
No. It's Denis Goddard.Is there any such thing as an In The System Anarchist?That is like a meat eating vegan.
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?
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.
Is there any such thing as an In The System Anarchist?
That is like a meat eating vegan.
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?
Sigh.
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?
Sigh.
How about because it's (some of the) things the government does that make it bad. Stopping those things is what's relevant not the existence of an organisation called government.
Right but that sounds Minarchistic. Government still exists but much much smaller and not violent.
I'm not trying to play semantic games or troll.
I thought Anarchists believed in NO Gubmint.
Minarchists (or Mini Statists as you refer to them) want minimal Gubmint. As good an idea as Anarchy may sound I don't see how it will not devolve in chaos if the government implodes as not everyone will agree to the NAP. Lead and saltpeter will be worth far more than gold and silver.
Why would a true Anarchist participate in a system he/she doesn't believe in to run for office. Even if it were to destroy it from within he/she would have to be a totally closeted anarchist to have any chance of winning.
...there are certain "rights" or rights-like concepts that I believe need the protection of a government organization to exist.
There are definitely people in this world who don't subscribe to the NAP, and I think they would cause anarchy to break down.
The need is irrelevent to whether or not a mini-state can ever be as accountable as an organization operating within the checks and balances of a free market.If there are checks and balances, it is not a free market.
If there are checks and balances, it is not a free market.
How are you defining "free market"?
Can you please define "free market" as you are using it?QuoteHow are you defining "free market"?
If an organization has a special privilege to violate the NAP with wild abandon and the huge vast majority of the population believes in that privilege, than it's not operating within a free market. I suppose if you wanted to get technical, you'd have to call it a freer market as a totally free market implies there's not any crime or violence at all taking place. The goal would be to minimize it by opposing crime consistently (and not making an exception when a government engages in it).
It sounds like you don't think a free market is possible.
To me, the free market has nothing to do with NAP, or crime. It just means a market with no regulations placed on it. In a free market, I could hire someone to commit crimes for me.
Would that also mean you're respecting the NAP because you're having other people become aggressive on your behalf?
In my opinion.. Once a person accepts institutionalizing violence initiation (government) is wrong and empowering it is wrong; then they should advocate 100% dismantling of government or they are a part of the problem.So, if you pay taxes, you are a part of the problem.
Who cares what someone "advocates"? Talk is cheap.
Can you please define "free market" as you are using it?
It sounds like you don't think a free market is possible.
To me, the free market has nothing to do with NAP, or crime. It just means a market with no regulations placed on it. In a free market, I could hire someone to commit crimes for me.
In my opinion.. Once a person accepts institutionalizing violence initiation (government) is wrong and empowering it is wrong; then they should advocate 100% dismantling of government or they are a part of the problem.So, if you pay taxes, you are a part of the problem.
Who cares what someone "advocates"? Talk is cheap.
Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't defend your position with a logical argument.
You're asking the wrong questions so it's no surprise he had a difficult time finding an answer to please you.
Nobody alive signing the constitution nor did anyone who had any sort of legal authority to make a contractual obligation for someone who has not yet been born.
Nobody alive signing the constitution nor did anyone who had any sort of legal authority to make a contractual obligation for someone who has not yet been born.
It's basically signing everyone into slavery.
Maybe not so much back then, but much more apparent now.
Ecolitan, I gotta admit, thats a pretty convincing argument.