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
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  The Morality of Minarchism

Poll

Is it possible for minarchism to not contradict self-ownership?

Yes.
- 14 (43.8%)
No.
- 18 (56.3%)

Total Members Voted: 15


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: The Morality of Minarchism  (Read 14800 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cerpntaxt

  • Guest
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #60 on: April 30, 2007, 06:34:17 AM »

Uh no you still have the problems of public property, authority, tariffs, illegitimate use of force, hmmm....
Logged

Vanoj

  • Guest
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #61 on: April 30, 2007, 08:33:29 AM »

Not all Minarchist societies have to function from tax revenues.

The United States did just fine for well over 100 years without a graduated income tax. A minimal government could extract more than enough revenues from tarriffs and excises which do not burden the citizenry. Also, a debt-free currency printed by the people's government takes the privatization away from wealthy banking cartels. 

Proponents of anarchy have to rely upon the myth that all minarchies require taxation, and this proves their inadequacies and resolve.

Um, but aren't tariffs and excises taxes (hence the term "excise tax")? Just because something isn't an income tax doesn't mean it's not a tax per se. And of course a tax burdens the citizenry. If you tax income, well, that's obvious. But if you tax via tariffs, you're making things de jure more expensive. Does it make sense to say that you can "take the privatization away" from something?

Taxes are by definition compulsory; you have to pay the tax. Otherwise, it'd be a voluntary contribution, and we'd have a company, not a government.
Logged

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #62 on: April 30, 2007, 12:04:11 PM »

Vanoj, I understand your argument, but you do not go about promoting anarchy by pointing at a tariff and exclaim that the sky is falling, either. It's simple economics, really. If the United States once again began exporting more than it imports, then the prices of goods coming in wouldn't matter because we would be creating most of what we need to function. Prices would actually go down since the products would be made here, and there would be more jobs. There would not be mega-cartels in China and Mexico utilizing slave labor, there wouldn't be a super consumer mindshare propaganda matrix, there wouldn't be federal subsidizing, and farmers could once again reap profits and grow what they want, how much they want, and sell to whomever they desire.

TAXATION on individual income is never an answer to supporting a government structured around freedom, and it certainly would not be necessary for a minarchy.

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #63 on: April 30, 2007, 12:12:33 PM »

All organizations that maintain a territory are governments. Every time the anarcho-capitalists try to redefine the terms, they wind up making logical absurdities like saying one doesn't have the right to seek restitution after a crime is committed to their person if they were unawares, such as theft of property while one is away. And so on. Basically, Anarcho-capitalism has no mechanism to seek restitution for any crime. It seeks of ostracism and what not, but cannot fulfill the necessary function of justice: to rectify offenses of morality. Moreover, anarcho-capitalism purports an objective morality, yet most of its propositions are evasions of objective morality. Therefore, I submit not to their theories and I find them in error. When they admit that morality must have mechanisms for justice, then I'll listen. Until then, they can stay off my property and out of my business.

-- Brede
Logged

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2007, 12:16:39 PM »

Roger that, sister. Nicely done.

cerpntaxt

  • Guest
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #65 on: April 30, 2007, 12:26:51 PM »

Bridget's an aynarchist :lol:
Logged

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #66 on: April 30, 2007, 12:30:25 PM »

Ayn Rand was an amazing woman. I don't agree with every thing she ever said or wrote, though. Perhaps she would smile at that if she were still alive.

Vanoj

  • Guest
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #67 on: April 30, 2007, 12:31:27 PM »

Basically, Anarcho-capitalism has no mechanism to seek restitution for any crime. It seeks of ostracism and what not, but cannot fulfill the necessary function of justice: to rectify offenses of morality. Moreover, anarcho-capitalism purports an objective morality, yet most of its propositions are evasions of objective morality.

I don't know which of the ancaps you've been reading, but, in reading folks like Hoppe, it seems pretty clear to me that he has certain retributive institutions in mind, not ostracism solely. Ancaps get at punishment like this: if you hit me, I am justified in hitting you back just has hard, but no harder, and I'm also justified in hiring someone else (a protection agency) to do it for me. Same goes for restoration of stolen goods.

Now, personally, I think most ancaps other than Hoppe have serious epistemological problems with their system. They're natural rights folks, and I'm with Mill that natural rights is nonsense on stilts. For that matter, I don't think Hoppe can support anarchocapitalism with his epistemology either. But that's just a general problem these folks tend to have.

Oh, and one thing I think we need to make clear: almost every anarchocapitalist (or at least folks that lean that way) I've heard or read makes definite moral assertions that, as you say, they claim as objective: Block, Rothbard, Hoppe, Rockwell, Murphy, et al. I don't see them saying anything that would contradict that claim to objectivity. They might say that an act's immorality shouldn't necessarily imply its illegality; but that's a different thing than saying that morality's not objective, whatever one thinks that means.

Logged

lapafrax

  • Guest
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #68 on: April 30, 2007, 01:40:25 PM »

Not all Minarchist societies have to function from tax revenues.

The United States did just fine for well over 100 years without a graduated income tax. A minimal government could extract more than enough revenues from tarriffs and excises which do not burden the citizenry. Also, a debt-free currency printed by the people's government takes the privatization away from wealthy banking cartels. 

Proponents of anarchy have to rely upon the myth that all minarchies require taxation, and this proves their inadequacies and resolve.

A voluntarily funded government would still control.  This is what governments do, by definition.

So why should any sovereign individual submit to a government?  If you own yourself, you shouldn't have any unchosen rulers.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #69 on: April 30, 2007, 03:19:52 PM »

Why submit to a business your wishes for things to be done? Why let others invest your goods? By your logic, nothing should be given to others in good faith, ever. Not even your money, which people do everyday for goods and services. Rand would call this a blank out moment. And it pretty much proves my point for me. If you can't trust anyone, then you can't get shit done.

-- Brede
Logged

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #70 on: April 30, 2007, 03:23:02 PM »

Lapafrax, no person is asking you to submit to any government. You can go live in the woods and have sex with sheep for all I care. By "definition", a limited government which is controlled by the people cannot use force which it does not have. Again, its functions are prescribed by those who control government, and if you opt out and decide that your life is better lived under anarchy, then go buy some property and start a fan club.

By pointing fingers and claiming that EVERY form of government, by "definition" is controlling and forceful and immoral, all you are doing is attempting to justify your own agenda without first justifying why ANARCHY could actually work. I actually started a thread on the sustainment of anarchy, and to date there has been no acceptable means to promote and sustain liberty in a technologically advancing world with REAL enemies and with REAL problems.

Anarchists will claim that everything works better when it is privatised and left to individuals. They claim that they have it all figured out by taking the moral high ground, but they fail miserably at justifying their dogma because nothing is offered to replace the functions a limited government can best perform. Your over simplified definitions and mundane rhetoric isn't even appealing to a rational individual without delivering a proper, sensible, and logical explanation of your solutions to providing national security, affixing an easily controllable monetary system that cannot be privatised, and promoting general services for sanitation, road building, healthcare, and crime investigation -which cannot function as private enterprises as well as they can being governmentalized, because a private business in any of these areas would not only run prices into the roof, but because they cannot be trusted and regulated and controlled by the PEOPLE themselves.

I am sick of hearing people on these boards pulling out the "government is force" card. It's complete bullshit under a limited government that is practical and controllable. The PEOPLE comprise this limited government, and each PERSON comprising it is held responsible and accountable. This is nothing more than an extension of the will of the people. No FORCE is used on the people, no POWER is granted to a limited government beyond what is necessary to perform its duties.

The problem that modern day anarchists have is simple to explain; they have a serious amount of discontent with the current, out of control DEMOCRACY, and they see this current government as the ONLY kind of government. Anarchists HATE to be told what to do, HATE authority, and HATE everything done bad to them, and they cannot stop long enough to see that the government of today was transformed through lack of understanding, ignorance if you will, and is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the limited government known as a republic began doing for people. Servants of the people are called "leaders". The people lost interest in controlling government, and so government now controls them.

And this is my whole point: any limited government is only as good as the PEOPLE who comprise it and maintain it. Plain and simple. If you want to sit there in your computer chair, mad at the world and point fingers and believe that Wikipedia definitions will answer all, then I have some very important insight I would like to share...

Get the fuck up, walk outside, ask a complete stranger if he would mind driving you to work, mowing your lawn, paying your mortgage, tuition, buying and cooking your dinner, and then doing your dishes for you. Because that's essentially what you will be asking others to do when you pretend that EVERYBODY is just going to MAGICALLY perform the tasks of government. It may not actually be doing your dishes, it may be tracking down a dangerous criminal or gang, or routing out a mass murderer and ending the threat. Do you really have that much faith in ACE Security, Inc., which may go out of business at any time, can just up and say "fuck you, go hire somebody else"? What do you do when there is no competition in the area? A monopoly or even a cartel can be pretty damn aggravating. And when this perfect anarchist society gets out of control...WHO gets it back under "control", if there ever was any? Will your neighbor Bob just keep doing your yardwork for you, or will he just decide to kill you and take your house since the ACE Security company went out of business this week. Nobody cares about what happened to you because nobody cares. And even if somebody did...who could help?

You see, only a CHILD would believe every word on Wikipedia. Only a CHILD who holds no logic, scrutinizes no details, and lives by no real philosophy would believe that an entire society of hundreds of millions can be sustained without even a limited form of government. Only a foolsih little CHILD will believe in the theory of Anarchy so completely that they have to point fingers and yell "NO CONTROL!" and "GOV'T IS IMMORAL!", and believe they are better because of it. Think this through carefully. I ranted and I typed plenty for you to digest, and I hope that my point was taken clearly enough. I don't hope to change any persons' mind, I am only trying to destroy a silly belief which doesn't even deserve much thought for an evolving and intelligent people. This belief in Anarchy is hateful and it is arrogant and presumptuous, and it is based upon the discontent of fools. It is hateful because only a hateful person will despise the works of rational, caring people. These people can form sensible, limited governments which have actually worked, and can continue to work. Anarchists are arrogant and presumptuous because they believe their morals are the only true version, and all government is evil and bad and just plain old icky. Children behave in such a way. Intolerant, incorrigible, and just plain stubborn. The theory of Anarchy derives its principles from attempting to negate all that has been already built. It lacks imagination and creativity. And, it will never work. Ever. Not as long as there are still people in this world who know that their hard work and dedication could benefit the whole. Not as long as we continue to work with one another to reach the stars. Not as long as we continue to strive for greatness, never scorning it and rejecting it. Our will to become great is like a mountain of granite, and our desire to move mountains is like an earthquake.

Anarchy is like a wilting dandelion in the crack of a sidewalk. Nothing more.

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #71 on: April 30, 2007, 03:47:09 PM »

These people can form sensible, limited governments which have actually worked, and can continue to work.

But they cannot force others to submit to those governments.  If you agree, then you too are an anarchist.
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" Rillion

lordmetroid

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 633
  • Agorist of the Libertarian Left
    • View Profile
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #72 on: April 30, 2007, 03:53:21 PM »

Right... Someone is claiming that an anarcho-capitalistic society is an utopian society. I claim that it is far less utopian of an idea than getting a perfect state!
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #73 on: April 30, 2007, 04:03:54 PM »

I don't mind that, but I do mind the libertopians that pull a bullshit line with me either way. I'm looking for results. And we can't get them by disregarding objectivity, reason, and above all, reality.

-- Brede
Logged

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: The Morality of Minarchism
« Reply #74 on: April 30, 2007, 04:13:18 PM »

Gibson, do not tell me what I am, thank you. I am in control of myself, and I do not fear governments, especially a limited one which I can have the duty and privilege to support. There is no FORCE behind a limited government where the people keep it within its operating boundaries.

I find it so humorous that these Anarchists claim to have so much morality and place blame on others for being forceful when they themselves have rioted and caused police to imprison people. It's almost too comical to see these kids being used and paid by the police state to cause disturbances and initiate force just to roll out the police state. Check out Portland, Oregon and tell me I am wrong.

As far as I am concerned, having an Anarchist point an accusing finger at others over FORCE is too much like the pot calling the kettle black.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  The Morality of Minarchism

// ]]>

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 36 queries.