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 26242 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 #45 on: July 07, 2009, 10:50:10 PM »

Funny... but what would you call it?
Logged

digitalfour

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2009, 11:20:20 PM »

My point is that the government doesn't have to use force to be a monopoly on the use of force.

I must misunderstand your definition of monopoly.
Logged

rabidfurby

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2009, 11:32:47 PM »

voluntary minarchy, with no more power than any other group

Most people call that anarcho-capitalism, or something else other than minarchy.
Logged

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2009, 11:34:16 PM »

Well I can think of several descriptive terms which meet what you are describing but which do not invoke the term "government", which, despite the etymological history of the word, is by now irredeemably linked with the State.

dispute resolution organization
adjudication agency
defense and justice association
insurer

Just to name a few.

I believe that in a free market world, such firms would become dominant, through market forces, in their respective areas (as you have described), but not to the extent that they become territorial monopolies. Each of these firms would produce the service known as "laws" or "civil order" or a "code of conduct" by which people would, out of economic necessity, tend to live. But a subscriber to one would by no means need to renounce it when he goes into a different region; rather, there would be adjudicators specializing in conflicts between parties of different legal systems.

And although some of these bodies of law may be statelike in nature, the lack of a territorial monopoly would relegate their enforcement to the fringes of society, along with the enforcement of arbitrary and otherwise inefficient systems of dispute resolution. This does not mean that the prevailing legal order would be a default monopoly, as several efficient and fair systems could coexist in the same area, but those systems which exist on the fringes may be excluded from a particular geographic area by default.

E.g., Sharia law may be used to resolve disputes, but in most areas, the enforcement of Sharia law would be excluded by the prevailing legal doctrines. Hence, fundamentalist Muslims would be able to obtain a ruling on a case no matter where their dispute occurred, but they would have to seek out a geographical area wherein such enforcement would be permitted.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #49 on: July 08, 2009, 03:47:23 AM »

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.

Thoughts?



As a minarchy is a state, a "principled minarchy" is a contradiction in terms, unless you believe in the aggression principle.

For an advocate of the NAP, minarchy may be mistakenly looked upon as the rejection of principles as being impractical in favor of the pragmatic embrace of a necessary evil.

If you want principled government, then junk the state altogether and consider the VMOG. You'll be glad that you did!
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2009, 09:02:01 AM »

But we shouldn't 'junk the state'... that's the point.

The ancaps make it sound as if they want to dismantle the state, and hope that everything turns out alright. This isn't going to win the hearts of people who are afraid of violence, which they think might ensue. Instead of dismantling the state, we need to disarm the state and turn it into a voluntary organization. This solves the problem the ancaps seem to ignore, and creates a political path from where we are now, to where we want to be. People who want the protection of the state will still have it. After all, it's just a mutual defense pact between people. Those who don't want the state, will not be threatened by it.

If we change the name of this organization, or call it anything else, then that might be technically correct, but it doesn't solve the problem we have, to market our ideas to the public. And that's the bottom line.
Logged

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2009, 02:37:00 AM »

But we shouldn't 'junk the state'... that's the point.

You misunderstand: When I say "junk the state", I mean that you should stop embracing the state, even a minarchist one, as your political ideal, not to literally collapse a civilization unprepared for voluntary government into anarchy.
Quote
The ancaps make it sound as if they want to dismantle the state, and hope that everything turns out alright. This isn't going to win the hearts of people who are afraid of violence, which they think might ensue. Instead of dismantling the state, we need to disarm the state and turn it into a voluntary organization. This solves the problem the ancaps seem to ignore, and creates a political path from where we are now, to where we want to be. People who want the protection of the state will still have it. After all, it's just a mutual defense pact between people. Those who don't want the state, will not be threatened by it.

It is inherent to the nature of the state that it not only initiates threats but that it initiates violence .

The only way to reform the state is privatise, one by one, its composite agencies into voluntary governmental agencies to compete with other similar entities in the marketplace for its clients. Complete reform, however long it takes, means a complete end to the state and, finally!, true unlimited legitimate government. The VMOG.

Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2009, 03:57:56 PM »

Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Dylboz

  • What a deal! A few bucks a month makes me an
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2283
  • Only Anarcho-Capitalism is consistent with the NAP
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2009, 04:13:19 PM »

Well I can think of several descriptive terms which meet what you are describing but which do not invoke the term "government", which, despite the etymological history of the word, is by now irredeemably linked with the State.

dispute resolution organization
adjudication agency
defense and justice association
insurer

Just to name a few.

I believe that in a free market world, such firms would become dominant, through market forces, in their respective areas (as you have described), but not to the extent that they become territorial monopolies. Each of these firms would produce the service known as "laws" or "civil order" or a "code of conduct" by which people would, out of economic necessity, tend to live. But a subscriber to one would by no means need to renounce it when he goes into a different region; rather, there would be adjudicators specializing in conflicts between parties of different legal systems.

...

Just like when you go to Europe, your cell phone works, but you get the bill at home, denominated in dollars, and according to the terms of your contract, because they've already made reciprocal arrangements for the convenience of their customers with cellphone providers overseas. This is just one example, another is credit cards.
Logged
Religion is metaphysical statism. I will be ruled by no man on earth, nor by any god in heaven.

Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

rabidfurby

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2009, 07:22:44 PM »

But we shouldn't 'junk the state'... that's the point.

The ancaps make it sound as if they want to dismantle the state, and hope that everything turns out alright. This isn't going to win the hearts of people who are afraid of violence, which they think might ensue. Instead of dismantling the state, we need to disarm the state and turn it into a voluntary organization. This solves the problem the ancaps seem to ignore, and creates a political path from where we are now, to where we want to be. People who want the protection of the state will still have it. After all, it's just a mutual defense pact between people. Those who don't want the state, will not be threatened by it.

If we change the name of this organization, or call it anything else, then that might be technically correct, but it doesn't solve the problem we have, to market our ideas to the public. And that's the bottom line.

What you'd like to accomplish in the end (in other words, what you'd ask for if a genie gave you three wishes and one of them had to be about reducing the size of the state) and how you'd like to go about accomplishing that are two mostly-orthogonal issues.

If you'd like the state to become a completely voluntary organization, then it won't be a state by any non-Markuzick definition of the word. It'll be a private defense firm or a DRO or a whateverthefuckelseyouwanttocallit. That's not minarchism anymore.
Logged

Harry Tuttle

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
  • Please don't feed the elitists
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #55 on: July 09, 2009, 07:39:54 PM »

Just like when you go to Europe, your cell phone works, but you get the bill at home, denominated in dollars, and according to the terms of your contract, because they've already made reciprocal arrangements for the convenience of their customers with cellphone providers overseas. This is just one example, another is credit cards.

That's a fantastic example. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll use that.
Logged
"If you're giving up your freedom to have freedom you don't have freedom, dummy."              - Mark Edge (10/11/08 show)

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #56 on: July 09, 2009, 07:55:07 PM »

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.

Thoughts?



Sure it can. But unless it stops other people from setting up similar organisations within the same geographic area, or similar organisations from different geographic areas from doing the same thing in its geographic area, then it isn't really a state, no matter what it calls itself.
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2009, 07:58:36 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.



This isn't sufficient to make it a monopoly, since it would still face indirect or potential competition. I mean, it would be perfectly possible that if, in the UK, such an organisation existed, calling itself "The State of the UNited Kingdom", then, if I wanted the French government to protect my rights and was willing to pay it enough to send agents over the channel to do so, I could.
Logged

Hideaki769

  • Guest
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #58 on: July 09, 2009, 08:07:46 PM »

Sure it can. But unless it stops other people from setting up similar organisations within the same geographic area, or similar organisations from different geographic areas from doing the same thing in its geographic area, then it isn't really a state, no matter what it calls itself.

Its just a name so why argue that? If it's voluntary it doesnt matter anyway.
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Principled Minarchy
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2009, 08:08:33 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.

Assuming that there are the relevant economies of scale and no counter-balancing diseconomies of scale... which there aren't.

Quote
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.

And who reviews cases when a defendant thought they were dealt with unjustly by the government? Wouldyour government use violence to prevent anybody else from reviewing cases where somebody thought they had been deal with unjustly? If not, then your "government" is no more the government than any other organisation doing the same job, and there is a state. If, on the other hand, it does, then it would necessarily be preventing people from performing activities it itself things are legitimate (since it does them), and, moreover, there would be no institution to protect people from the government - making the government, essentially, lawless.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Principled Minarchy

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 32 queries.