The Morality of Minarchism

Yes.

14 (43.8%)

No.

18 (56.3%)

Total Members Voted: 15

[Vanoj]

Anarchocapitalism doesn't imply insurrection, rebellion, or anything like that. To say that you're an ancap is to say that there shouldn't be a state. It doesn't say anything about what you should do about existing states.

[gibson042]

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.

If you believe that people may not force others to submit to their governments, then you are an anarchist.

There is no FORCE behind a limited government where the people keep it within its operating boundaries.

And there it is.  Anarchy.

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.

How absurd.  Orwell would be proud of such a semantic reversal.

[BKO]

That is not the definition of an anarchist, Gibson.

You need to seriously get a clue. And for the last fucking time, asshole -stop your bullshit please.

[markuzick]

This whole debate between Libs over the purity of sovereignty is ridiculous to me. I can see how one who sees themselves as an anarchist would take up the position of morality when arguing the legitimacy of government. Minarchy, although not as "free" from the constraints of governmental control, is far more practical as a solution, and the reason being that there can be far greater results from a small, decentralized government than simply casting off all forms of government in exchange for a completely uncontrolled population. Maybe I'm just CRAZY...but the only thing which frightens me more than a tyrannous, overpowering government is a completely uncontrolled population that feels it can do whatever it chooses to anybody or anything without consequence. I am sorry, but I just do not have that much faith in other people. We have seen it happen numerous times in the past when the power goes out -looters, rapists, murderers, you name it, the common person is just transformed into a criminal over night. And yes, this isn't a perfect synopsis, but if this shit happens during a common POWER OUTTAGE, I would really hate to consider what the effects would be without any government at all.

Some anarchists would like you to believe that it is "immoral" to desire a limited and controlled government because of not only the history of mankind, but also due to the fact that there will have to be some willful surrender to the greater good. I personally find anarchy to be selfish and unreasonable to this end. The fact remains that some freedoms are sufferable, and this means that in some MINOR instances, when handled with reason, a limited government is granted some power in order to accomplish its tasks. The People, who remain free to do as they choose, only benefit from minarchy if they can keep their limited government under control.

I find no real contradiction in morality or fundamental beliefs so long as those who choose to be governed can create a sensible system and manage it appropriately. It is also fair to conclude that the minarchist society only places as much control into the hands of government as is necessary for it to function and perform its basic duties.

What you're afraid of seems to be chaos and mob rule. The lesser the degree of State control in a society, the lower the incidence of this problem. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that chaos, mob rule, slavery, bigotry, hatred and the ultimate embodiment of all these things that's known as war, is the very essence of the State.

On the other hand, an anarchy is a society of principled and civilized rules, carried out by an adaptable system of voluntary governments, all competing and cooperating within a free market environment, in the self interest of the owners and employees of these governments, which is achieved through serving the self interest of their customers.

Your calls for self sacrifice in the name of the public good and your criticism of selfish individualism is the traditional rallying cry of the statist.

[markuzick]

No. I'm saying that it's bad. And I don't think forcing people to do things is ok either.

OK, but what would you actually *do* about someone who went around murdering other people?  Ostracization?  It seems like ostracization would be hard to enforce (as it's not enforced at all) and therefore easy to escape.  It is essentially a cartel scenario, and cartels rarely work, and the chance of them being successful decreases with the number of people involved.  I don't believe that is an adequate punishment for such crimes.  But to "force" a murderer to sit in jail violates his self ownership.  That's why I don't have a problem with it.

And therefore we need government?

Yes. That's why we need government. Just make mine the anarchist variety, please.

[BKO]

If what Markuzick claims to be true can actually happen, then perhaps I would grant it more support. I believe that I have clarified my stance as best I can, and any further ranting of my own would be pointless.

Nevertheless, those are good points, Markuzick.

[gibson042]

If what Markuzick claims to be true can actually happen, then perhaps I would grant it more support.

Markuzick and I are talking about the same thing (I just haven't been as eloquent).

That is not the definition of an anarchist, Gibson.

An anarchist is someone who promotes anarchism, the political theory holding states (coercive governments) to be undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association.  If you want government by consent and do not support it being forced upon others, then you are by definition an anarchist.

You need to seriously get a clue. And for the last fucking time, asshole -stop your bullshit please.

You need to either accept my points or attempt to refute them.  If the conclusions frighten you, then check your premises.

[BKO]

Gibson, perhaps you do not know this, but I define myself. Not you, not Wikipedia, not any God or theory or hampster or salad dressing.

I support a sensible limited government made to be a republic, with no God, and no forced union between states. I support a standardized economy run by the government, and an outline of limitations placed on said government which closely resembles the constitution already in place, albeit not in effect at current day...with certain improvements, mind you. The government I invision is empowered only by the consent of the governed, and has no more authority or force than what it is granted to it by the People.  I am an American Patriot through and through, and I will die as such. I will continue to put forth the effort to restore our government back to within its original boundaries without resorting to radical or extremist beliefs in anarchist philosophy and theory.

So, NO -I am certainly NOT an anarchist. First by principle, and second by right and duty.

[gibson042]

Gibson, perhaps you do not know this, but I define myself. Not you, not Wikipedia, not any God or theory or hampster or salad dressing.

Brokor, perhaps you do not know this, but when the definition of a term describes you then so does the term.  Not you, not Wikipedia, not any God, or theory or hamster or salad dressing can change that.

I support a sensible limited government made to be a republic, with no God, and no forced union between states. I support a standardized economy run by the government, and an outline of limitations placed on said government which closely resembles the constitution already in place, albeit not in effect at current day...with certain improvements, mind you. The government I invision is empowered only by the consent of the governed, and has no more authority or force than what it is granted to it by the People.  I am an American Patriot through and through, and I will die as such. I will continue to put forth the effort to restore our government back to within its original boundaries without resorting to radical or extremist beliefs in anarchist philosophy and theory.

So, NO -I am certainly NOT an anarchist. First by principle, and second by right and duty.

The government you envision threatens everyone within its geographical reach, demanding adherence to its statutes and extorting money whenever certain "privileged" activities take place.  There is certainly FORCE behind your limited government.  It is for that reason and no other that you are not an anarchist.

P.S. You claim empowerment through "consent of the governed".  How would you deal with those who do not consent?

P.P.S. Do you know which ideology supports "a standardized economy run by the government"?  Communism.

[BKO]

Ick, you are relentless, aren't you Gibson?

If Locke was an anarchist, than so am I. Does that make you feel better?

Oh no, wait. I'm a communist! What will it be next?

I warned you twice now. I define myself.

[markuzick]

If what Markuzick claims to be true can actually happen, then perhaps I would grant it more support. I believe that I have clarified my stance as best I can, and any further ranting of my own would be pointless.

Nevertheless, those are good points, Markuzick.

One of the points that I have been making is that anarchy and the voluntary governments that are its embodiment already exist in this world. Everywhere that you find justice, good will, cooperation, progress and improvement in the quality of life, you will also find voluntary relationships between people, in the form of businesses and organizations (voluntary governments), created for their mutual betterment.

Currently, there is no pure anarchy, as anarchy is just another word for liberty and there is no current example of pure liberty. Yet, to the extent that a society is based on liberty, it's orderly, just, civilized, prosperous and better able, as well as more motivated, to defend itself from aggression. Unless you believe that, at some unknown point, too much justice, civilized order and prosperity will bring the ultimate doom upon Mankind, then the principle of anarchy has proven its practicality and virtue by the examples, both positive and negative, of societies the world over and throughout history.

You say that you will believe in the principle of anarchy if it can be shown that a pure anarchy can happen. Does that mean that you will reject the principle of the state until an absolute state can be proven to be possible? I submit that the state is evil and that a society modeled on an absolute state is so evil that it would self destruct long before it achieved its goal of purity, no matter how much its members supported that goal. I also submit that liberty is good and that a society modeled on absolute liberty( an anarchy ) is so good that there would be no way for it to fail, as long as a large enough minority of its members supported that goal.

If you answer that you know that the state is evil and that is why you want to limit the state, then I'll ask you why you would expect an evil system to avoid corruption and to limit itself. I'll also ask you whether you believe that liberty is good and, if so, why you would want to limit the good. Do you believe that order should be tempered by chaos, that justice should be tempered by injustice and prosperity should be tempered by waste and hardship?

[BKO]

At this stage in our development, pure liberty is a dream which cannot occur until the entire world first restructures its philosophies, abandons organized religion, and accepts a sensible lifestyle. Any "government" or "state", or even lack of either will become a moot point afterward. So, in a purely hypothetical situation, I concur with your reasoning, Markuzick.

Now, as for reaching that point in our societies, we may have alternate perspectives and beliefs, and I am glad that you and I can discuss such things in a mature manner. I, however am not ready to accept the rationale that claims a completely stateless society (anarchy) is the first step to sustaining liberty and promoting freedom without consequence. I assert that working from the basic principles of limited government, achieved by reducing governmental control incrementally, is the most effective way to promote the sustainment of liberty.

[lapafrax]

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

Businesses are voluntary.  Since when was government voluntarily?

Businesses don't seek out to control and dictate society, like a government does.  Sovereign individuals have no unchosen rulers, by definition.   

[markuzick]

At this stage in our development, pure liberty is a dream which cannot occur until the entire world first restructures its philosophies, abandons organized religion, and accepts a sensible lifestyle. Any "government" or "state", or even lack of either will become a moot point afterward. So, in a purely hypothetical situation, I concur with your reasoning, Markuzick.

Now, as for reaching that point in our societies, we may have alternate perspectives and beliefs, and I am glad that you and I can discuss such things in a mature manner. I, however am not ready to accept the rationale that claims a completely stateless society (anarchy) is the first step to sustaining liberty and promoting freedom without consequence. I assert that working from the basic principles of limited government, achieved by reducing governmental control incrementally, is the most effective way to promote the sustainment of liberty.

I don't like to call what you advocate a limited government, for I'm an advocate of unlimited government, albeit the legitimate, voluntary, kind. What you call a limited State, I call a limited liberty. Of course liberty will continue to be limited until voluntary government becomes unlimited. I support the growth of voluntary government, which entails an ever shrinking State, from large to small to minarchy to microarchy to gone. Pure anarchy can never be a first step, for the State, or the lack of one, is not the cause of, but always a reflection of society. Society as a whole always gets the government, be it voluntary or State, that they deserve.

The sustainment of liberty can never be achieved by limiting it. It must grow or it must die. To enshrine the State as something noble, is to plant an evil seed that will take root in the minds of those who accept that premise and which will grow into a disease. The State must be viewed as a cancer on body of society. If we attack it directly, we may kill the body from the resultant poisonous waste products of its sudden death. Instead, we need to strengthen the immune system of society to gradually resist, destroy and absorb the cancer. Cancer cannot live in a healthy body and as long as it remains so, it will not return.

[BKO]

Well said, Markuzick.