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 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Principled Minarchy  (Read 22100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2009, 07:35:53 PM »

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.

One of the reasons to create such a group is to prevent smaller gangs from exercising tyranny, if no one else will. But they don't have any police, and would have to commission any protective work, just like anyone else. I don't see it as aggression, to respond to tyranny.
Logged

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2009, 07:36:37 PM »

Objectivism doesn't make sense to me... or at least, objectivism based on Rand's original ideals.

Objectivists seem to propose a minarchist viewpoint... that a single government will make the laws but that it will be funded voluntarily. But they refuse to accept the concept of a separate "government" forming as a free market institution, offering defence and justice at a lower cost/more efficiently than the current government. They agree with the non-aggression principle and yet they think their government has to have monopoly on force, which is a huge contradiction, the government cannot maintain a monopoly on force without violating the non-aggression principle.

Unless I have something wrong, please educate me if so :)

A government, as I've outlined above, would have a monopoly on force, simply because it would be the largest institution in the country. Yet, it doesn't violate the non-aggression principle.



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.
Logged

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2009, 07:38:43 PM »

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.

I don't believe you can escape a society which has organized gangs, bearing arms. I think the best you can do is turn the largest gang into a voluntary organization, and then get rid of their guns. That's what I'm proposing.
Logged

thebrokenwings

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2009, 06:20:54 PM »

Objectivism doesn't make sense to me... or at least, objectivism based on Rand's original ideals.

Objectivists seem to propose a minarchist viewpoint... that a single government will make the laws but that it will be funded voluntarily. But they refuse to accept the concept of a separate "government" forming as a free market institution, offering defence and justice at a lower cost/more efficiently than the current government. They agree with the non-aggression principle and yet they think their government has to have monopoly on force, which is a huge contradiction, the government cannot maintain a monopoly on force without violating the non-aggression principle.

Unless I have something wrong, please educate me if so :)
.   The idea is for the government to have monopoly on the use of force, but only in retaliation against an original agressor, not initiation of force. The point is that objectively defined law would fulfill the individual's right of defense of his own property and prosperity. Obviously in extreme cases of a robber in your house you would have the right to defend in a more direct fashion. To me the idea of freedom requires third party arbitration, especially in regard to disputes that it is difficult to discern the logical correct party. Ayn Rand was one of the first if not the first to define the non agression principle and back it up philosophically. The nature of man requires that he have control over himself, and his property.
Logged

dc0de

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2009, 06:25:56 PM »

The idea is for the government to have monopoly on the use of force, but only in retaliation against an original agressor, not initiation of force.

I understand that's the idea. But to remain a monopoly supplier of retaliatory force they would HAVE to initiate force against any threats to that monopoly status. You can't have it both ways!
Logged

thebrokenwings

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2009, 06:43:23 PM »

I understand that's the idea. But to remain a monopoly supplier of retaliatory force they would HAVE to initiate force against any threats to that monopoly status. You can't have it both ways!
. I guess what I don't understand is how there would be such a threat. You're maybe referring to vigilantes that subvert the voluntary court? What threat are you referring to? I'm not trying to be incendiary, just want to know. 

on a different note, one thing I think some people lose is the difference between force and retaliatory force. If you use force to stop someone from raping your wife, it is morally justified. I could never condone complete non use of force in that sense. Some earlier posts were confusing the two I think.
Logged

dc0de

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #36 on: June 18, 2009, 06:49:47 PM »

I guess what I don't understand is how there would be such a threat. You're maybe referring to vigilantes that subvert the voluntary court?

For some reason no objectivists seem to be able to understand it. The threat would be another company who thinks they can offer retaliatory force at a better price (lower "taxes") than the existing government. This would be a threat to the government's monopoly... not a threat to the government itself(i.e. they have not initiated force on the government organisation, nor anyone else, as they merely act on behalf of others to retaliate for them), but they are a threat to its monopoly. If the government were to maintain that monopoly they would HAVE to initiate force against this new organisation, therefore the government is breaking the NAP.
Logged

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #37 on: June 18, 2009, 07:47:39 PM »

The idea is for the government to have monopoly on the use of force, but only in retaliation against an original agressor, not initiation of force.

I understand that's the idea. But to remain a monopoly supplier of retaliatory force they would HAVE to initiate force against any threats to that monopoly status. You can't have it both ways!

I don't agree. They maintain their monopoly by their size. The idea of a principled government, is that it would be there to prevent gang warfare and injustice which is thought might occur without it. It's not there to impose itself when no injustice occurs. I don't object to a defensive organization, or a private court, from growing in strength, influence, and popularity. However, I would use this principled government to review any cases where the defendant felt he was treated unjustly.

Logically, someone in the area will have the largest gang. I would prefer it to be run, as much as possible, by a large group of people. This would help ensure stability in society, I believe.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2009, 07:52:30 PM by SnowDog »
Logged

shezmu

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2009, 04:37:15 PM »

Question: How do would this principled gubmint be prevented from passing that most reasonable first regulation?
Logged

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2009, 06:54:17 PM »

Question: How do would this principled gubmint be prevented from passing that most reasonable first regulation?

I don't know, but isn't it inevitable that in many regions, there will arise an organization which realizes it has more force of arms than any other around. How would you prevent a government-free world from the gang warfare that seems to take place when government isn't around, like the mafia wars here in the US in days gone by?

We need a way to ensure that gang warfare doesn't become prevalent, and that justice doesn't get thrown out the door. If there will be one gang stronger than any of the others, I'd rather it be one run by a large number of people. I propose that there be two primary limits on this oganization: 1) that it doesn't have any weapons; it would need to hire a third party for any force needed; 2) that all motions by the organization be approved by 75% of the quorum.


Logged

rabidfurby

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2009, 10:00:55 PM »

Question: How do would this principled gubmint be prevented from passing that most reasonable first regulation?

I don't know, but isn't it inevitable that in many regions, there will arise an organization which realizes it has more force of arms than any other around.

It might be inevitable, but at least in a stateless society, everyone recognizes that violent gang to be the bad guys, and can fight against them. If no one will willingly do business with them, even for food or shelter, how long do you think it will take before that gang is all killed off, or disbands?

How would you prevent a government-free world from the gang warfare that seems to take place when government isn't around, like the mafia wars here in the US in days gone by?

The mafia flourishing is usually a direct result of too much government action - originally from prohibition in the 20's, or from regulations on gambling in Vegas, and most recently from the War on Drug Users. Anytime there's a crackdown on some victimless crime, there's the potential to make huge profits by circumventing that crackdown, and the incentive to defend your profits from others, using force if necessary.

We need a way to ensure that gang warfare doesn't become prevalent, and that justice doesn't get thrown out the door.

And you think the way to do this is by picking a gang and declaring any warfare they conduct to be "legitimate"?

If there will be one gang stronger than any of the others, I'd rather it be one run by a large number of people.

Why? Is a gang made up of 90% of the population inherently more just than one made up of 10% of the population?

I propose that there be two primary limits on this oganization: 1) that it doesn't have any weapons; it would need to hire a third party for any force needed; 2) that all motions by the organization be approved by 75% of the quorum.

How would you enforce those limits? Through a constitution? What would you do to the people who despite the limits, didn't want any part of of your organization?
Logged

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #41 on: June 21, 2009, 10:34:11 AM »


How would you enforce those limits? Through a constitution? What would you do to the people who despite the limits, didn't want any part of of your organization?


You can't enforce limits on a private organization, but what power would it have to interfere with those who don't want to be any part of it? It would have to pass some sort of resolution with 75% vote, then hire some third party to try to force those who don't want to participate, to participate? A small organization like this, doesn't have near the power of any existing government. Who would it hire to try to force a large percentage of the population to comply? This type of government is simply a guide and would only be able to exercise force, when it sees injustice, as long as a large percentage of the population agrees with the action -- else it won't be able to find any security company to enforce it's decision.

Also, a principled minarchy offers a solution for transition to a voluntary society. The state will never go away, unless a large majority of the population wants it to go way, at which point, those who remain dedicated to the protection a government offers, will be forced by the people to behave in an ethical fashion. This principled minarchy will be the final result of successfully convincing people that government is unjust. It is the final outcome because the last few people who believe in government will retreat until the government is in this position. At this point, the principled minarchy is just a voluntary organization.

« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 10:36:48 AM by SnowDog »
Logged

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #42 on: July 05, 2009, 10:05:19 AM »

1) Establish a database of records, so that people can voluntarily record their birth date and location.
2) Record land surveys and assessments to be used in private courts.
3) Establish guidelines for ownership of airways to benefit air traffic control, which could be implemented through private means, by the airlines. Courts could then have a guideline for determining when a rogue pilot may have violated airspace recognized as owned by an airport, or air traffic control network, for instance.
4) Establish a means by which ownership of new property can be claimed and delineated, as in Earth orbits, broadcast airways, the moon, and fishing rights.
5) Raise an army in times of war, providing they can raise the money for it.
6) Intercede in resolving disputes beween parties who cannot otherwise agree, on behalf of one of the parties. For instance, say Party A is robbed, and has his defensive agency drag Party B into a jail without trial. The principled minarchy could hire someone to intercede on behalf of Party B, if no one else will, and allow him to be tried and convicted in a court it deems to be fair.

Why must all of this be done by a single organization?
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" Rillion

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #43 on: July 07, 2009, 10:21:48 PM »

It doesn't have to be done by a single organizaiton; but it COULD be done by a voluntary association known as a government. This type of government would have the credibility backed by a large plurality of the people, and that would give it weight.

My point is that the government doesn't have to use force to be a monopoly on the use of force. It would simply be the largest organization in the area, created and maintained to ensure justice and national defense. The biggest fear that people have, regarding a society with no government, is that they wouldn't feel secure in their persons, places, and effects. So, let them organize, voluntarily, to solve those fears. Let's support a voluntary minarchy, with no more power than any other group, and we'll solve the dilema facing almost all people who disagree with the voluntarist position.

We need to not only tolerate, but push this idea. The Texas provisional government in 1836, was just such an organization; yet they raised an army and defeated Santa Ana in their war for independence. The principled minarchy has teeth, and has a monopoly on the use of force, simply because it would be composed of the largest number of people.

Logged

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2009, 10:45:07 PM »

a voluntary association known as a government

I think I have one of those laying around in my box of unusable Platonic forms. Probably under the three-sided pentagon.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Principled Minarchy

// ]]>

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 32 queries.