The Principle Behind Minarchy

[cerpntaxt]

ok...

[markuzick]

So what's your real argument?

Read Rand's argument in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

But to give the abridge version, every human is a political sovereign, thus all political powers, rights, and etc are derived from them. This is partially a metaphysical [each human is a rational entity that is individual (metaphysical individualism)] and epistemological [Known by observation of other humans and introspection, but not apriori in whole] in reality. Therefore it follows when groups of humans come together they have a few choices. One of those choices is setting down the rules of engagement toward each other, which in itself can be consider a whole series of choices some dependent and others independent [and some even interdependent]. In this case, the nature of government is the nature of how people choose right from wrong, government is the union of good people against those who are outright bad [aka evil]. It's you and your neighbor forming a pact, or your neighborhood buying security protections from a company, or funding the construction of a grain mill [if you're a rural community and etc], and so on. All of it must be sanctioned by its party, and all of it must be consensual. None of this is anarchy by the nature that there are rules given as the initial setup phase, but at the same time it isn't anarchy since there is no absolute ruler, no dark lord on a throne telling people what to do. In the end it's minarchy, it's a rulership without a ruler itself, that's based on reason, on tentative need to ensure individual good is preserved. Whenever that government exceeds its bounds it exceeds the definition of minarchy, it becomes tyranny, and people have the individual right to relinquish their power to aide it at any time before or after. And it is just as simple as that.

If you call this anarchy, go ahead, but it's not. There's always a single set of rules of engagement that you can only define once and only once, thus it means there are immutable methods of interaction by which social, political, and economic decisions are defined. Therefore it is not merely whim worship that often evolves from so-called anarchistic though, it's logical and worthwhile by comparison. [ ]

-- Brede

This is the reason so many anarchists started out by reading Rand. She starts out by making an excellent argument for voluntary government and then misapplies it to minarchy, conveniently glossing over the fact that minarchy is a monopoly that's maintained through violation of the non-aggression principle and that, somehow, people can collectively consent to participate in and be bound by the rules of the State. I can understand Rand's reluctance to embrace anarchist thought, when you consider its definition as the absence of or failure of government and the chaos, confusion, violence that result. It's too bad that she couldn't come to grips with the libertarian version of anarchy, which is voluntary government and fulfills her moral requirement that force not be initiated, but reserved for defensive purposes only.

I suppose that she considered minarchy to be the least of the set of necessary evils. Rand was very much into advocating the lesser of evils, which I admit, cannot always be avoided, but it can, if overdone, blind one to the possibility that evil is not necessarily unavoidable. I remember reading the Ayn Rand Letter and being troubled by her strong endorsement of President Nixon in the 1972 election as the lesser of two evils. This is why I advocate that people interested in Rand should read her novels for the clearest understanding of her philosophy, but that they should take her essays with a grain of salt.

[ladyattis]

but what why postulate an institution then?

Why postulate a business? Why postulate stock funds? Why postulate private equities? Dude, you're fucking stupid on this point, larger numbers in hedging any investment is BETTER, stop being a tard!

-- Brede

[ladyattis]

This is the reason so many anarchists started out by reading Rand. She starts out by making an excellent argument for voluntary government and then misapplies it to minarchy, conveniently glossing over the fact that minarchy is a monopoly that's maintained through violation of the non-aggression principle and that, somehow, people can collectively consent to participate in and be bound by the rules of the State.

That's not what I get from it. What Rand is arguing is a position from consequences. Would it be better to Balkanize or to agree to a limited exit clause for all members? It's the same issue that many businesses deal with when vetting the interest of venture capitalist firms and what not. They make terms that lock-in the investors for a minimum time and that any exit prior to that time comes with a financial penalty. This is common sense on the grounds that if a business is sure to succeed you don't need antsy investors to run off at the slightest miscalculation and what not. The same applies to territorial unions, you don't want farmer Bob who gets mad at farmer Jim to just cede at random, you want to lock him in for a limited time to see if he's ready to come to the table with his complaint. If it doesn't, then he leaves, but pays the penalty fee of the lock-in clause. Again, same logic as it is applied to businesses. You see, Rand made claims based on implicit declaration, which was one flaw of hers, but it's the easiest to resolve by examining her argument in whole. When you recognize this, then you can consider her argument air tight.

It's too bad that she couldn't come to grips with the libertarian version of anarchy, which is voluntary government and fulfills her moral requirement that force not be initiated, but reserved for defensive purposes only.

She would agree, but you seem to think it's a-okay to restrict defense to a particular instance rather than realize one population has the the sole right to ensure its survival as individuals and as a whole since the whole inherits the right of existence from its composing individual members. So if pop. A hits pop. B with a nuke, any member of pop. A that survives has the right to retaliate in kind to ensure its survival, or that any member of pop. A has the right to do it for other members [by proxy] to ensure its life and the life of its fellow pop. members. That may give you a bitter taste in your mouth, but it's a cold hard fact of life. We group together to survive, and often to survive against other human beings [as opposed to Nature in general]. That's why we got gangs of all sorts. Some gangs are gentile, but most are pretty damn mean, government isn't any different, but that meanness exclusively depends on a premise that the composing members sanction/agree-to.

I suppose that she considered minarchy to be the least of the set of necessary evils.

No, you fail again to recognize what Rand said and wrote. She never thought in terms of pragmatism, she thought in terms of consequence. Rand in many cases advocated not voting if you thought the given political regime was beyond redemption and that you should 'shrug' them off as her characters did.

When you acknowledge this reality, then we can talk, until then I say this conversation is over.

-- Brede

[ladyattis]

As long as participation is voluntary, I have no moral problem with it. Call it whatever you want. I'm not married to the term "anarchy". I'm not going to be argumentative over semantics.

Remember, semantics is everything, the definition of a thing is based on its epistemological and metaphysical properties. That's why semantics is important.

-- Brede

[markuzick]

This is the reason so many anarchists started out by reading Rand. She starts out by making an excellent argument for voluntary government and then misapplies it to minarchy, conveniently glossing over the fact that minarchy is a monopoly that's maintained through violation of the non-aggression principle and that, somehow, people can collectively consent to participate in and be bound by the rules of the State.

That's not what I get from it. What Rand is arguing is a position from consequences. Would it be better to Balkanize or to agree to a limited exit clause for all members? It's the same issue that many businesses deal with when vetting the interest of venture capitalist firms and what not. They make terms that lock-in the investors for a minimum time and that any exit prior to that time comes with a financial penalty. This is common sense on the grounds that if a business is sure to succeed you don't need antsy investors to run off at the slightest miscalculation and what not. The same applies to territorial unions, you don't want farmer Bob who gets mad at farmer Jim to just cede at random, you want to lock him in for a limited time to see if he's ready to come to the table with his complaint. If it doesn't, then he leaves, but pays the penalty fee of the lock-in clause. Again, same logic as it is applied to businesses. You see, Rand made claims based on implicit declaration, which was one flaw of hers, but it's the easiest to resolve by examining her argument in whole. When you recognize this, then you can consider her argument air tight.

It's too bad that she couldn't come to grips with the libertarian version of anarchy, which is voluntary government and fulfills her moral requirement that force not be initiated, but reserved for defensive purposes only.

She would agree, but you seem to think it's a-okay to restrict defense to a particular instance rather than realize one population has the the sole right to ensure its survival as individuals and as a whole since the whole inherits the right of existence from its composing individual members. So if pop. A hits pop. B with a nuke, any member of pop. A that survives has the right to retaliate in kind to ensure its survival, or that any member of pop. A has the right to do it for other members [by proxy] to ensure its life and the life of its fellow pop. members. That may give you a bitter taste in your mouth, but it's a cold hard fact of life. We group together to survive, and often to survive against other human beings [as opposed to Nature in general]. That's why we got gangs of all sorts. Some gangs are gentile, but most are pretty damn mean, government isn't any different, but that meanness exclusively depends on a premise that the composing members sanction/agree-to.

I suppose that she considered minarchy to be the least of the set of necessary evils.

No, you fail again to recognize what Rand said and wrote. She never thought in terms of pragmatism, she thought in terms of consequence. Rand in many cases advocated not voting if you thought the given political regime was beyond redemption and that you should 'shrug' them off as her characters did.

When you acknowledge this reality, then we can talk, until then I say this conversation is over.

-- Brede

I don't know how Rand would defend herself from my argument or whether she would even attempt to do so, but I'd like to think that she would refrain from using your arguments, which are essentially collectivist.

The simple reality is that Rand often advocated voting for the lesser of two evils. If you don't believe it, then look it up, if you really care about it.

[ladyattis]

I don't know how Rand would defend herself from my argument or whether she would even attempt to do so, but I'd like to think that she would refrain from using your arguments, which are essentially collectivist.

Um no, prove they are. I stated that in the consequence of things people tend to group together. By your logic a business is a collective. So Microsoft is the apex of communism? How about Merck? Or Bob's auto-fixit? Or the latest venture business? Seriously, you are fucking being retarded, now.

Collectivism is as defined by M-W.com

Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: k&-'lek-ti-"vi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

Now, where is deciding to form businesses, unions, and etc collectivistic by M-W's definition? It's not, therefore you lose, I win. Kiss my ass, markie.

The simple reality is that Rand often advocated voting for the lesser of two evils. If you don't believe it, then look it up, if you really care about it.

Um no, prove that by quotation by Rand or you get iggied.

-- Brede

[ladyattis]

Here are more definitions of collectivism.

Wikipedia:
Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals.

Encarta:
people's ownership and management: the system of control and ownership of factories and farms and of the means of production and distribution of products by a nation's people

Allwords.com:
The economic theory that industry should be carried on with a collective capital.

In short, I win, you lose, markie. :3

-- Brede

[cerpntaxt]

I don't see anything about coercion.

[wtfk]

Let's be clear.  There is a principle behind minarchy, but it's probably flawed.  The principle is as follows:

There are things that require monopoly use of force, but that because the use of force tends to be abused, the organization trusted with that force should be kept to the absolute minimum.

That's the principle.  We can all poke holes in it.  I resisted even commenting on it because I figured I'd be attacked as if defending it--as I have been on other topics by one individual.

The next question is obvious.  What things require a monopoly of force, and why?  Likely answers follow:

National Defense: Everyone else has one, and they all go on offense eventually (see first principles.)  If we leave this to the market, no one will pay, or they'll become gangs we can't control.

Police Force: If we leave it to the market, no one will pay, or security forces will become gangs we can't control.

Courts: Only government can have an unbiased and detached justice system.  If we leave it to the market the highest bidder will get the justice.

Borders: Someone has to stand at the borders and keep the bad people out.  If we leave it to the market no one will pay, and bad people will destroy civilization.

By now you see the general theme.  I will not defend the details, but I understand peoples' gravitation to the minarchistic principle.  It apparently has a major flaw.  Power has to be given to someone to do these things that we won't trust the market to do.  That power will be abused, no matter how small the institution of government originates.  The same evil used as an excuse for a need for government is the evil that will corrupt those in government.  It will grow and become tyrannical, because it attracts tyrants.

I find it easier to defend the idea of less government than no government, because people rarely believe that anarchy is attainable or sustainable.  What's more, they think anarchists are a bunch of bomb-throwers.  (QED, in their minds.)  This is why I bother to campaign for minarchy, and not anarchy.  Frankly, I'd rather have no government, but I'm a realist.

[lordmetroid]

yeah the principle of minarchy is I don't want to be raped so much so please rape me just a little bit less.  The contradiction of rationality is obvious. If I was a statist and president of a state I would make sure that there would be a libertarian party in the state if it didn't already exist so make sure that the people question the whole morality of the state still wouldn't want to dismantle the state.

[wtfk]

The word "condescending" comes to mind, in connection with that post.

[Taors]

He's a stupid, fat, hairy Swede...what do you expect?

[cerpntaxt]

[markuzick]

I don't know how Rand would defend herself from my argument or whether she would even attempt to do so, but I'd like to think that she would refrain from using your arguments, which are essentially collectivist.

Um no, prove they are. I stated that in the consequence of things people tend to group together. By your logic a business is a collective. So Microsoft is the apex of communism? How about Merck? Or Bob's auto-fixit? Or the latest venture business? Seriously, you are fucking being retarded, now.

Collectivism is as defined by M-W.com

Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: k&-'lek-ti-"vi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

Now, where is deciding to form businesses, unions, and etc collectivistic by M-W's definition? It's not, therefore you lose, I win. Kiss my ass, markie.

If by "deciding" you're not referring to the tyranny of the majority known as representational democracy, then you must be talking about a voluntary organization, not an aggressive monopoly of force. So either your a collectivist or you're claiming (falsely) that Rand was a libertarian anarchist. You loose. So don't bother to clean your ass.

The simple reality is that Rand often advocated voting for the lesser of two evils. If you don't believe it, then look it up, if you really care about it.

Um no, prove that by quotation by Rand or you get iggied.

For such a devote of Rand as yourself, I find your ignorance shocking. I threw away Rand's newsletters several decades ago, but I'm sure her essay has been published as part of a collection. I did a cursory check on Google and found references to her essay, but not the essay itself. I did find a quote of hers from an interview that expresses a similar sentiment, implying the same meaning as the phrase "to choose the lesser of two evils".

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.