Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Principled Minarchy
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Principled Minarchy  (Read 22101 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2009, 01:39:26 AM »

An axiom doesn't have to prove an "ought"; it demonstrates an "is". Non-aggression IS the default state of human existence, and it IS the necessary condition for human action whereby all involved parties benefit. Unless one intends to define "right and wrong" solely according to the subjective "good" of each individual actor (which is the same as denying its existence, and either way results in contradiction, and is therefore objectively false, i.e., wrong), then one must accept a universal ethic - and the NAP is the only ethic which functions without contradiction toward the establishment of an objectively true morality.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2009, 02:50:55 AM »

An axiom doesn't have to prove an "ought"; it demonstrates an "is". Non-aggression IS the default state of human existence, and it IS the necessary condition for human action whereby all involved parties benefit. Unless one intends to define "right and wrong" solely according to the subjective "good" of each individual actor (which is the same as denying its existence, and either way results in contradiction, and is therefore objectively false, i.e., wrong), then one must accept a universal ethic - and the NAP is the only ethic which functions without contradiction toward the establishment of an objectively true morality.

Force is often necessary.  NAP is not the default state of human existence.  NAP is what you wish the default state of human existence to be, and that is a pretty big difference. 
Logged

Alex Libman 14

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2009, 03:09:29 AM »

If it's voluntary then government-specific terms like minarchy do not apply.  You don't see many people saying things like: "I am the dictator of what ice cream flavor I'm going to pick" or "my wife and I have signed a Free Trade Agreement".  :roll:

In the political context, however, the only principle of minarchism should be facilitating an efficient transition toward Anarcho-Capitalism.  As a libertarian I consider myself both a Minarchist and an Anarcho-Capitalist, but the former is just a gradualist transition phase that society at large must go through because it's addicted to government and can't just quit it cold turkey.  (See also Ayn Rand on emergencies.)
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2009, 03:59:01 AM »


In the political context, however, the only principle of minarchism should be facilitating an efficient transition toward Anarcho-Capitalism.  Because me an Jennay, we was like peas and carrots. 
Logged

Alex Libman 14

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2009, 04:18:09 AM »

The only thing I may have in common with Forrest Gump is that someone may someday win an Oscar portraying me in a popular motion picture.

Then again, you can say the same thing about Idi Amin, Truman Capote, or Harvey Milk.

But you couldn't say that about Gordon Gekko, Gandhi, Jake LaMotta, R.P. McMurphy, Howard Beale, and especially Hannibal Lecter - I've got a lot in common with those.



Logged

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2009, 06:56:26 AM »

An axiom doesn't have to prove an "ought"; it demonstrates an "is". Non-aggression IS the default state of human existence, and it IS the necessary condition for human action whereby all involved parties benefit. Unless one intends to define "right and wrong" solely according to the subjective "good" of each individual actor (which is the same as denying its existence, and either way results in contradiction, and is therefore objectively false, i.e., wrong), then one must accept a universal ethic - and the NAP is the only ethic which functions without contradiction toward the establishment of an objectively true morality.

"Good" derives from value. For something to be "good", it has to contribute to some value. Likewise, "bad" detracts from a value. And since each of our values are personal, there is then, no universal "good". For each of us to pursue our values, or for that matter, for any of us to pursue our values while living among each other, we have to respect each other's liberty.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 07:03:06 AM by SnowDog »
Logged

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2009, 08:09:10 AM »

Force is often necessary.

Force != aggression.

Quote
NAP is not the default state of human existence.

It is, and you just proved it when you engaged in a non-aggressive action by attempting to deny the NAP just now.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2009, 08:16:16 AM »

since each of our values are personal, there is then, no universal "good".

Yes, there is. In terms of purely autistic action, then personal benefit describes the "good". But as soon as action extends beyond the autistic to interpersonal action, then "good" exists in a condition wherein the values of all the involved parties are fulfilled. That is possible only under the NAP (though not guaranteed in any particular situation).
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

sillyperson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5196
  • Free the Mallocs!
    • View Profile
    • NH Liberty Alliance
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2009, 12:08:03 AM »

Whoever this armed gang is, I don't want them on my property.

Kevin Freeheart

  • FTL AMPlifier Gold
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2009, 02:05:34 AM »

Quote
I think that in a free society, a large group of people can form an organization, calling themselves 'The State of X', and using voluntary funding, establish themselves as a force to prevent smaller gangs from exerting tyranny over society.

Does this group hold a monopoly on "prevent[ing] smaller gangs from exerting tyranny over society"? If yes, then they're using aggressive force to prevent a business's operation.

If no, it's an anarchy, not a minarchy.
Logged
Quote from: John Shaw
Libman was setting you up. You see, he's a resident troll, which means that while I hate him passionately and wish him great harm, he's ONE OF OURS. You are a pathetic interloper who will fade away in a few weeks at most.

Changed My Mind

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2009, 06:42:38 AM »

Whoever this armed gang is, I don't want them on my property.

do you think you'll have property in Minarchistland?  Minarchists should be able to have their own little country.  They can have representatives and senators and all that jazz.  They can have a military and bomb folks all over the world. 

this minarchist government will act much like the United States does, it'll print fiat money, it'll use force to get the way of the majority, and it'll tax people more and more over time.

They'll make public schools and then send their kids to them, just like they went to.  The entire world will continue to be stupid.  People that disagree with the great and patriotic minarchist government will be put in the Gulag.  Now that's freedom.
Logged

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2009, 09:31:02 AM »

I'm not interested in paying for your armies in this familiar sounding government.  Are you going to kill me or put me in a cage because I decided not to go kill brown people in other places?

No, no! It would be different when THEY do it. Just like socialism.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2009, 10:50:22 AM »

The anarchists act as if the non-aggression principle is an axiom

Yes, that's why it's called a "principle". I consider living by principles to be a good thing.

Politics is "pragmatic", not "principled". The Art of the Possible, as JFK named it, has nothing to do with right and wrong. Only what can be gotten away with.

Quote
But it's not an axiom, in that you can't prove that you should respect the rights of others.

It's easily proven: In order to ensure my own rights, I must assure the rights of others.

If other people's rights are not respected, it is merely a matter or politics as to if, or rather when, my rights will not be respected.

Very much "If you shit upon others, then don't act surprised when you are shat upon ."

Quote
The reason we should respect the rights of others is so that we can all enjoy liberty, which lets each of us be the best that we can be. It's the only way to maximize freedom in society.

Which is just another way to say the same thing. How can you restate the non-aggression axiom, then say the non-aggression axiom is somehow not an axiom?

Quote
However, the non-aggression principle is a very powerful tool. It's so easy to push for a small government which takes some privilege from it's power. But once you allow a government, even a minimal government, to be the exception to the rule, then more and more exceptions will be made for it, which will cause it to grow back to the tyrannical dinosaur it is today.

Interesting. So you're just as much a principled anarchist as I am, yet you object to treating the non-aggression axiom as a simple fact?

Very confusing. I hope I merely read you wrong.

Quote
So when popular momentum changes, and the idea of liberty starts whittling down the size of the state, we must then ensure that the state becomes completely declawed. We must truly make it a voluntary organization, else some future generation will have to fight the battle all over again.

So let us begin by stating the non-aggression axiom as a fact, a principle to live by, a simple measure by which to judge what may be right by what is clearly wrong.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2009, 02:18:19 PM »

That's like Jumbo Shrimp.

But seriously...Ayn Rand suggested the possibility of funding a really small government on contract guarantees.  I.E., if there's a contract dispute and you bought a guarantee from the government, you could go to government court to get it resolved.  Supposedly there would be enough for a few really minimal necessary services.

No, I don't believe it.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 02:20:40 PM by What's the frequency, Kenneth? »
Logged

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2009, 07:33:43 PM »

Whoever this armed gang is, I don't want them on my property.

This type of civil commission doesn't have any arms. I think that's a key.

It seems clear to me that this type of civil group doesn't violate the NAP. But it would be the largest gang in the country - and I think that it's inevitable if we ever achieve our free society. But to keep it strictly a voluntary organization, I think it's important to keep it away from the guns. The other thing that could be done to keep it civil, is to get rid of the idea that 50% + 1, decides action. It could be internally set up so that a 75% majority would be required to take action. That way a good portion of minority opinions would be included in any action taken, and this would be another guard against it moving from its original purpose.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Principled Minarchy

// ]]>

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 47 queries.