The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: MobileDigit on April 27, 2007, 02:17:36 PM
-
I don't see how it could be.
Also, I'm most interested in bonerjoe's opinion.
-
Meh.
-
How important is this on the greater scheme of things?
How many angels can theoretically dance on the head of a pin? Answer: as many as Chuck Norris allows to.
How many minarchists can frolick in the sun whilst self owning themselves all the way to grandmas house? Answer: as many as Chuck Norris allows to.
Fuck, is this really a discussion?
-
Self-ownership is not the ideal (let alone the foundation) of minarchism. That would be liberty, or perhaps the minimization of aggression (if the two concepts differ). I believe those conditions would be best realized by anarchy, but minarchists obviously disagree. Regardless, it should not trouble them that their philosophy contradicts self-ownership.
-
How does that make any state moral?
-
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about a coercive organization... you're talking about like a private club that people want to be in. Fuck you're no minarchist. Oh yeah you're not... :roll:
-
Niiiiiiiiice. 8)
-
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.
-
Why is it ok to force others to do things?
-
Why is it ok to force others to do things?
That is a common assumption of anarchist philosophy. A society without rules, without sensible restrictions, and without punishing those who prey upon others is a society full of despair and chaos. But alas, these functions do not have to reside in the hands of government, as the role of government in a common minarchist society will be responsible for building roads, establishing a sensible banking system, and promoting other general functions that do not use force or violate liberties. This whole "force" issue is just a ploy of anarchists which is used to attempt debunking a very simple idea.
Much of what an anarchist might call "forceful government" can be privatized and public domain.
Unless you were referring to Anarchy being forceful...which I doubt, but it is a consideration of mine. I believe anarchy to be purely selfish and destructive for many reasons, and it can only lead to complete societal breakdown and increased violence. I can explain in more detail if you wish, as I am not trying to just make blanket statements. Typing on my phone sucks.
-
As long as you can opt-out, then who cares?
-
I believe anarchy to be purely selfish and destructive for many reasons...
Dude... libertarians... the s word doesn't work :?
-
'S' word? Selfish? A person can call themself a FROG and they can still be selfish, my friend. ;)
Anarchists are selfish, but that's just my opinion. And Toars has it straight. A person could always 'opt out' of anything he or she considers a restraint on liberty. In many proposed minarchist models, a small, limited government only performs basic, routine, yet critical tasks.
But anyway...
-
I suppose a minarchism could be sustained soley on volountary donations and still have the government retain its monopolistic status. Would that be defying self-ownership?
Furthermore the ability to execute anyone that steps over the boundaries of law-making even a little would perhaps fix that growing issue. And the ability to get out of the grasps of the law makers and choose someone else's law making...
NO, it's not possible
-
Anarchy is an unsustainable period between governments, so this really is a pointless discussion. I'd rather have small government than facism, feudalism, or socialism, or Egyptianism, or Muslimism.
-
Most people wouldn't see an anarchy as an anarchy anyway. They'd just say "oh, that's when the companies became governments".
-
I'm losing my fucking mind. I am actually in complete agreement with you cats, and I have no points to argue.
I just...
Have to....
Say it...
ANARCHY ONLINE RULEZ!
(But anarchy blows. Kbye.)
-
Wanna fuck, Brokor?
-
I heard Brokor's ass stinks.
-
Heh. Actually. I went out to the range today and still haven't showered. So, it appears that my bootah do in fact be oderiferous.
Sorry, BJ -I only pitch the poontang.
-
Fuuuuuuuuuck.
-
No, but it doesn't matter.
-
Minarchism is not consistent with nonaggression or self-ownership. If we use Rothbard's definition of a State as any organization that either has taxation power or a compulsory geographic monopoly on legitemate use of force, then no government can possibly be consistent with nonaggression or self-ownership.
If you define a government to include something that you can voluntarily secede from and must voluntarily enter into, then I disagree with your definition of government.
Some of the services the government provides are essential. That's exactly why we can't trust these essential services to a monopoly who can raise prices at will, kill any potential competitors, and allow quality to suffer.
-
I guess MobileDigit should explain what he means by "minarchism"...
-
Keti: I wasn't, Rothbard sucks, and you're right about monopolies.
-
That's exactly why we can't trust these essential services to a monopoly who can raise prices at will, kill any potential competitors, and allow quality to suffer.
Sure we can. Just make any mismanagement punishable by death.
-
I side with Ian on this one. It is never OK to force anyone to do anything, ever.
Minarchism is immoral.
-
That's exactly why we can't trust these essential services to a monopoly who can raise prices at will, kill any potential competitors, and allow quality to suffer.
Sure we can. Just make any mismanagement punishable by death.
Who's standard of mismanagement? Do you have a way to pick who picks the standards without picking something out of your ass?
-
How important is this on the greater scheme of things?
Our thoughts about the proper goal will determine our methods of reaching it.
I agree with Nozick that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own nonaggression principles.
That's simply redefining words to suit your end.
This whole debate between Libs over the purity of sovereignty is ridiculous to me.
Is that because you disagree that there is objective truth?
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.
Why are the options either minarchism or an aggressive population? Why can't people be controlled by a system of voluntary interlocking agreements?
The fact remains that some freedoms are sufferable
Who gets to decide which ones?
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.
How can you distinguish a fundamental difference between minarchy and totalitarianism?
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.
It's easy to claim it's necessary when you are the one defining the "basic" duties.
A society without rules, without sensible restrictions, and without punishing those who prey upon others is a society full of despair and chaos.
Why must anarchy be this?
But alas, these functions do not have to reside in the hands of government, as the role of government in a common minarchist society will be responsible for building roads, establishing a sensible banking system, and promoting other general functions that do not use force or violate liberties.
As long this this entity is not stealing to pay for the system or maintaining a monopoly on legitimate force it cannot be considered a government.
I believe anarchy to be ... destructive for many reasons, and it can only lead to complete societal breakdown and increased violence. I can explain in more detail if you wish, as I am not trying to just make blanket statements.
I look forward to it. I honestly seek the truth. I just hope you do as well.
As long as you can opt-out, then who cares?
You cannot opt-out of minarchism, or it wouldn't be minarchism.
I guess MobileDigit should explain what he means by "minarchism"...
Minimal statism.
I suppose a minarchism could be sustained soley on volountary donations and still have the government retain its monopolistic status. Would that be defying self-ownership?
Yes, because by agressively stopping newcomers in the security market it is denying the self-ownership of those newcomers.
Anarchy is an unsustainable period between governments, so this really is a pointless discussion.
Why is it unsustainable?
I'd rather have small government than facism, feudalism, or socialism, or Egyptianism, or Muslimism.
But you'd prefer minarchism to anarcho-capitalism?
No, but it doesn't matter.
Why not?
That's exactly why we can't trust these essential services to a monopoly who can raise prices at will, kill any potential competitors, and allow quality to suffer.
Sure we can. Just make any mismanagement punishable by death.
Why not simply have competing agencies?
-
I agree with Nozick that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own nonaggression principles.
That's simply redefining words to suit your end.
No, it's using the existing definition in a way you dislike.
When conversing about abstract concepts, one must be sure to consistently use definitions.
When I say A and mean Z, and you say A and mean X, your arguments against the concept of Z are invalid.
-
Short answer: yes.
Why? Because everything is consensual, especially if you accept how Locke views political power being something governing bodies inherit from individuals and not from itself. [ ]
-- Brede
-
I say it doesn't matter because I believe that "self ownership" can be violated in certain cases, such as when someone commits a crime. If a person commits a crime, I believe that the community has a right to act in its defense. This could include fining or imprisoning the criminal, which would clearly seem to violate "self ownership" taken to its extreme.
-
No shit, but that doesn't justify the acts...
-
freeAgent, don't pay attention to these liberal pansies.
-
No shit, but that doesn't justify the acts...
What acts are you referring to?
-
Acts of aggression...
-
Acts of aggression...
By which party?
-
By any party. The initiation of force. I don't understand what the problem is here.
-
By any party. The initiation of force. I don't understand what the problem is here.
So you would say that if one person murders another, we should all just sit back and sigh because it's too bad?
-
No. I'm saying that it's bad. And I don't think forcing people to do things is ok either.
-
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.
-
That's exactly why we can't trust these essential services to a monopoly who can raise prices at will, kill any potential competitors, and allow quality to suffer.
Sure we can. Just make any mismanagement punishable by death.
Who's standard of mismanagement? Do you have a way to pick who picks the standards without picking something out of your ass?
:roll:
-
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?
-
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?
Yup :)
-
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.
But...but...if you and all your friends just ignore the murderer, he'll go away!
-
Could there be a conception of minarchism where the government was limited to only the criminal courts?
Criminals in addition to restitution would pay court costs not just for themselves, but also for those tried and found not guilty.
In the case of violent criminals imprisonment could also be used, where possible also at the prisoners expense.
Whats wrong with this scenario.
-
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.
In the case of O. J. Simpson, we see how poorly this ostracism works. O.J., a known murderer, will never miss a meal because some restaurant refused to serve him, and spends his time playing golf with his friends.
-
Right. If I murder someone I could just fly to China that very day without no one knowing about the murder until sometime in the future, and build a life for myself in some small unheard of village where no one would bother looking for me. Hell, I could just repeat the process every 10 years.
-
I think that Ladyattis was spot on with her remarks on Locke and the FACT that governments can be entities which derive their authority from the governed.
The problem I believe these anarchist proponents have, is their insatiable appetite for "definitions" and "exactitude" in place of sensible thought. This isn't a perfect world; it never will be. Humans are a fallible creature, and no "thing" can ever be completely without imperfection. When I said that some freedoms are sufferable, I specifically meant that we must take the bad with the good, because in our search for perfect world, we may just be inadvertently mucking it all up for others. A sensible, limited government (minarchy) not only applies the most basic functions to support society, it also has a side effect which is undeniable: it permits the individual to change and alter the system according to the needs of the many. And although not every single person may be able to claim that they indeed have this easily defined "perfect sovereignty and freedom", we should agree with common sense and realize that perhaps this is the very best that we have to offer. I personally would much rather place a little power into the hands of several members of a controllable government than to place complete power into the hands of countless uncontrollable individuals who will undoubtedly usurp others for personal gain.
The theory of anarchy is destructive primarilly because it places too much faith in countless, uncontrollable individuals who will not see eye to eye. This is nothing short of chaos, and it can be highly unstable and destructive for any sensible society.
-
Whats wrong with this scenario.
The fact that a compulsory territorial monopoly of decisionmaking power grants decisionmaking power to the monopoly over things they don't own? Just a thought.
The problem I believe these anarchist proponents have, is their insatiable appetite for "definitions" and "exactitude" in place of sensible thought.
We think too accurately? Is that a problem?
This isn't a perfect world; it never will be. Humans are a fallible creature, and no "thing" can ever be completely without imperfection.
Logically, such a thing would include governments. And how much worse it is to have a territorial imperfect body imposing it's imperfections on everything else, than to allow imperfections to be refined out of the system in competition?
When I said that some freedoms are sufferable, I specifically meant that we must take the bad with the good, because in our search for perfect world, we may just be inadvertently mucking it all up for others.
Liberty. You see, freedom is a more general term, it logically includes the freedom to own slaves for instance. Liberty is freedom limited by other people's freedom. Which is exactly what we all want, correct? Our goal isn't freedom, it's liberty. We're libertarians, advocates of liberty, not advocates of freedom itself. Fascists advocate freedom itself (freedom for the state).
A sensible, limited government (minarchy) not only applies the most basic functions to support society, it also has a side effect which is undeniable: it permits the individual to change and alter the system according to the needs of the many.
The ability of democracy to do this is vastly beneath the ability of the market to do this. And if it's a monopoly, it doesn't much matter what the individual thinks if he's not the individual in control of the system.
And although not every single person may be able to claim that they indeed have this easily defined "perfect sovereignty and freedom", we should agree with common sense and realize that perhaps this is the very best that we have to offer.
Calling your belief "common sense" does not make it correct. Common sense dictates that a territorial monopoly on decisionmaking power is incompatible with property rights.
I personally would much rather place a little power into the hands of several members of a controllable government than to place complete power into the hands of countless uncontrollable individuals who will undoubtedly usurp others for personal gain.
We tried that 200 years ago. IT DIDNT WORK.
The theory of anarchy is destructive primarilly because it places too much faith in countless, uncontrollable individuals who will not see eye to eye.
The theory of statism is destructive primarily because it places too much faith in a few uncontrollable individuals who by definition cannot see eye to eye.
The theory of anarchy does not place faith in anybody, does not give people absolute power and irresponsibility for their acts, and punishes by reduced profits anyone who does not see eye to eye.
This is nothing short of chaos, and it can be highly unstable and destructive for any sensible society.
Chaos begets order through emergence.
Order begets chaos when the order is inconsistent with the nature of reality, the ordered system disintegrates itself. A system that must be forcefully imposed and is not chosen is by nature a system that is inconsistent with the nature of reality (a reality in which individuals choose individually).
-
We tried that 200 years ago. IT DIDN'T WORK.
Try again.
-
What authority do you have over me?
-
What authority do you have over me?
None, unless you are on my property.
For those who want information on the difference between a republic and a democracy:
Commenting on our form of government, Chief Justice John Marshall stated: "Between a republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
Even though the current version of the pledge of allegiance to our flag as mandated by the Federal Government contains the word "indivisible", that is not true..Under the Constitution of The United States, each state is a sovereign entity unto itself, and may or may not divest itself from the union as the people therein may determine for themselves.
The Soldiers Training Manual, issued November 30, 1928 gives the following definitions:
"TM 2000-25: 118-120, Democracy - A government of the masses. Authority is derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the people shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation, or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism (sic), license, agitation, discontent, and anarchy."
"TM2000-25: 120-121, Republic - Authority is derived through election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles, and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress."
-
What authority do you have over me?
RESPEK MAH AUTHARATAH!
-- Brede
-
I don't like the sound of either of those...
-
I just thought the discussion was getting into serious business territory, so I thought I put it on a less choppy course. That's my job, I'm a thread navigator.
:3
-- Brede
-
Good work
-
My female dark elf from Lineage II is hotter than yours, Ladyattis.
-
I don't see how it could be.
Also, I'm most interested in bonerjoe's opinion.
Heh, don't talk to me about minarchism.
Minarchism is centred on contradiction. Like yeah we hate the initiation of force against person and property, but to fund our minimal state we HAVE to tax you! :? :shock: For this minarchism blows.
Stef Molyneux was right; minarchists are idiots at logic. :P :wink:
-
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.
-
Uh no you still have the problems of public property, authority, tariffs, illegitimate use of force, hmmm....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Roger that, sister. Nicely done.
-
Bridget's an aynarchist :lol:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well said, Markuzick.