The Morality of Minarchism

Yes.

14 (43.8%)

No.

18 (56.3%)

Total Members Voted: 15

[Andy]

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.

[mikehz]

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.

[Taors]

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.

[BKO]

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.

[Zhwazi]

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).

[BKO]

We tried that 200 years ago. IT DIDN'T WORK.

Try again.

[cerpntaxt]

What authority do you have over me?

[BKO]

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."

[ladyattis]

What authority do you have over me?

RESPEK MAH AUTHARATAH!

-- Brede

[cerpntaxt]

I don't like the sound of either of those...

[ladyattis]

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

[cerpntaxt]

Good work

[BKO]

My female dark elf from Lineage II is hotter than yours, Ladyattis.

[lapafrax]

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!      For this minarchism blows. 

Stef Molyneux was right; minarchists are idiots at logic. 

[BKO]

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.