The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: markuzick on May 07, 2007, 03:49:56 PM
-
Minarchy is based on the idea that liberty is so precious that we must use the tyranny of the State to enshrine and protect it from a populace that is too foolish and immoral to appreciate it. I submit that the inherent contradiction of such a system as well as the low regard for human nature that the implementation of this kind of system implies will ultimately result in a conflict that will lead to either the destruction of liberty and the enshrinement of the State with the Orwellian "logic" that "Slavery is freedom." or to the dismantling of the discredited State as it gives way to the true liberty of a system of non-monopolistic, competitive, voluntary governments.
Any comments? I'm ready to debate.
-
Not too hot... Not too cold... Juuuuuust right... :lol:
-
The state has no place in an advanced modern cilization.
Just like the feudal society principles was phased out in the evolution towards individualistic societies for the next step of democratic constitutional republic, created in the age of enlightenement, eventually the next step will be taken and logically an individualistic civilization would be phaseing out the democratic constitutional republic principles for anarcho-capitalism.
The other kind of sociert namely the collectivistic approach seems to end in nothing but totalitarianism, stagnation of economy and apathy of the people, minarchys included, the size of the state only decides the degree of collectivism.
-
The state has no place in an advanced modern cilization.
I would submit that humanity can no longer afford to have states. Technology is developing so rapidly that the state is capable of unfathomable evil. If Hitler could kill 6 million Jews with trains, gas chambers, barbed wire, and machine guns, just imagine what atrocities can be done with genetic engineering, nuclear weapons, RFID implants, advanced robotics, and more advanced firearm technology (1 million+ rounds per minute). With every advance in technology, I shudder at the idea of the state using it for its advantage.
If we don't rid ourselves of states, humanity itself could be destroyed.
-
Where is the poll?
-
Minarchy is based on the idea that liberty is so precious that we must use the tyranny of the State to enshrine and protect it from a populace that is too foolish and immoral to appreciate it.
I think that's a bit too harsh. To quote myself from a time before I had made up my mind about anarchism:
The minarchist claim is that a free market in which liberty is maximized and initiation of force is minimized requires a foundation that cannot itself be fully provided by the free market. If that claim is true, then anarcho-capitalism, whether libertarian or not, is invalid.
Minarchism prioritizes practicality over principle. I now believe that there is no conflict between the two, but minarchists—due to one fear or another—just can't agree.
I submit that the inherent contradiction of such a system as well as the low regard for human nature that the implementation of this kind of system implies will ultimately result in a conflict that will lead to either the destruction of liberty and the enshrinement of the State with the Orwellian "logic" that "Slavery is freedom." or to the dismantling of the discredited State as it gives way to the true liberty of a system of non-monopolistic, competitive, voluntary governments.
Yes, that seems likely. And if we don't alienate the minarchists, then their fears can be assuaged bit-by-bit as we dismantle/bypass/replace the state on our way to anarchy.
-
I'll keep this short:
Brasky - totally agree. If we're talking "totally anarchy," then that means we have to allow individuals to voluntarily create a State, even if it means that in a few short years, those very same people are now clamouring about the oppressivness when they can't leave it.
Again, I like the idea of your arguments , Mark, I really do. You and I can do our dance where you say, "but your arguments are strawman and flawed" and I can say, "oh yeah, show me where this state of Total Anarchy has ever existed" and you reply, "it's never had a chance because of individuals who sought to oppress others".... blah blah blah.
So I have a question, since you also say that this is part of "Man's Nature" to discover and live a morality that allows for the most productive and positive life, which = maximum individual liberty = "total anarchy."
If this was part of Man's inherant nature, what the hell happened?
...and I mean way back... back in the hunter gatherer days. It would seem to be that back then, in the early history of Homo Sapien, your condition was met: there were no states and individuals lived within their groups as both individuals and members of their tribe/community/whatever you wanna call it, but this was a voluntary grouping for the increased chance of survival, rather than any imposed will of a "state."
But something happened.
Centralization of Leadership, Specialization of tasks amongst the population, all these these traits that Anthropoligsts have observed through archeological finds show that somewhere, somehow, Man went from "theoretically" a social animal with looslely structured, voluntary groups (as evidenced by when tribes splintered off) into the centralized States as we have them today.
So what happened? This almost seems to me be the "Anarchists Paradox" if anything:
If human beings are by their nature their most successful in a State of "total anarchy," then why hasn't it been achieved (or sustained) at any point in recorded human history?
Logically, yes, I concede.... and did a long time ago... that the free-marketeer philosophy is the better one academically and logically. However, whether or not it's possible to achieve is the real question, and thus far has not been proven to be feasible or sustainable.]
...unless you have some case studies you'd like to share with me.
-
I guess this thread presents a good opportunity to "officially" announce that I have now evolved from minarchist to anarchist. The change actually took place perhaps a few months ago but I haven't been that active in the forums while I moved across the country.
If you believe organized law is essentially evil, then you must admit it's actually the people who create the system who are evil, thereby solidifying a reason to have a system which keeps the nasty people in check.
No, I don't have to admit that. The expression "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. Some will call government a "necessary evil" so they will do a little bit of evil in order to prevent what they believe will be greater evil if they don't. The problem is that power attracts the corruptable. The government may be established with good intentions, but the power to use force preemptively against innocent people is bound to corrupt.
The idea that a government must exist to maintain order is built on false logic. We can and should live by certain principles in order to live in a civilized society, but the principles go out the window as soon as a government is established. The idea that force is wrong and one should not use it against another person unless it's in response to the use of force is a good foundation for a free and prosperous society. We have the right and responsiblity to defend ourselves from the infringement of our own rights. That's how we keep the nasty people in check. We can and I think should work together to do that in a way that doesn't use aggressive or preemptive force. Do you not see how stealing from people in order to fund a police force in order to protect people from crimes (like theft) is completely irrational? Nevermind that police spend the vast majority of their time enforcing victimless crimes and doing paperwork.
Regarding National defense, how is that any different than funding welfare? Many people believe we need a strong National defense. That's fine. Do something about it. There's nothing stopping you in a free society. Collect contributions and build an army for defensive purposes. The truer the threat is, the easier time you'll have of convincing others of the importance of it. That army would be a lot more accountable and therefore less evil. If they took actions that people believed to be immoral, their funding would dry up. But you don't have the right to make someone pay for it (steal from them to pay for it) any more than you have a right to steal from people to pay for welfare, no matter how important you believe it to be.
A socialist friend of mine justified a progressive tax by saying that the wealthy have a lot more at stake in a time of war, and therefore should be expected to contribute more toward things like National defense. So if one really believes that, then those people will surely step up and defend this country to preserve their wealth, yes?
Not only is the state inherently immoral, but it's unnecessary in a free society. As soon as you establish a state, you're establishing authority by some people over other people. You're saying that some people are better than others and that might makes right. They are in the position of authority so what they decide becomes right by virtue only of the fact that they will enforce their decision. What could possibly make such an organization legitimate? A vote by 50.1% of the population? They're right because they're in the majority? History shows that the majority opinion is frequently very wrong.
-
Minarchy is based on the idea that liberty is so precious that we must use the tyranny of the State to enshrine and protect it from a populace that is too foolish and immoral to appreciate it. I submit that the inherent contradiction of such a system as well as the low regard for human nature that the implementation of this kind of system implies will ultimately result in a conflict that will lead to either the destruction of liberty and the enshrinement of the State with the Orwellian "logic" that "Slavery is freedom." or to the dismantling of the discredited State as it gives way to the true liberty of a system of non-monopolistic, competitive, voluntary governments.
Any comments? I'm ready to debate.
I don't care to debate this right now, however one thought...
You are operating under the assumption everyone will behave in the same manner you would. This is completely false. This isn't a flame job, it's actually a compliment towards your refinement, a quality many people do not have. Theres more than enough douchebags out there to justify a system whereby law and order must be taken into consideration when viewing the populace as a whole. Social interaction is a complex thing. Viewing the almost limitless potential of goverment as inherently evil is a narrow minded philosophy which actually contradicts the positive aspects of anarchy. If people are viewed as potentially good, that good can be extended into its representation of organized moderate law. If you believe organized law is essentially evil, then you must admit it's actually the people who create the system who are evil, thereby solidifying a reason to have a system which keeps the nasty people in check.
I'm not advocating limited government. I do not wish to limit legitimate forms of government. On the contrary, it's the State that limits the free association of people and their rights to cooperate in securing and defending their rights to liberty and property in themselves and the fruits of their labor. It's the State that leaves people defenseless against criminals as well as its own, far greater crimes. It's the State that provokes animosity and wars amongst nations by its international meddling and land and/or resource grabs. It's the State, which is a malignant form of government, that destroys legitimate government (Government by the consent of the individual who is governed.) and thereby creates chaos, lawlessness, destruction and war. Your claim that many people are not so intellectually and morally refined is true. This is evidenced by the virulent health of the State and the correspondingly dismal state of society.
-
Minarchy is based on the idea that liberty is so precious that we must use the tyranny of the State to enshrine and protect it from a populace that is too foolish and immoral to appreciate it.
I think that's a bit too harsh. To quote myself from a time before I had made up my mind about anarchism:[author=gibson042 link=topic=6646.msg108678#msg108678 date=1147371331]
The minarchist claim is that a free market in which liberty is maximized and initiation of force is minimized requires a foundation that cannot itself be fully provided by the free market. If that claim is true, then anarcho-capitalism, whether libertarian or not, is invalid.
In what way, except for pointing out the minarchist's evaluation of his fellow man, is my depiction of the essence of the minarchist premise at odds with yours? You will see examples of the cynicism of minarchist thought everywhere, including this very thread.
-
The state has no place in an advanced modern cilization.
Just like the feudal society principles was phased out in the evolution towards individualistic societies for the next step of democratic constitutional republic, created in the age of enlightenement, eventually the next step will be taken and logically an individualistic civilization would be phaseing out the democratic constitutional republic principles for anarcho-capitalism.
The other kind of sociert namely the collectivistic approach seems to end in nothing but totalitarianism, stagnation of economy and apathy of the people, minarchys included, the size of the state only decides the degree of collectivism.
That's an interesting perspective. I like it, but I have a different perspective. I see anarchy, not only as a Utopian ideal, but as the principle of liberty that is embodied in our society as the private sector. I see societies in different times and places as existing along a continuum of % anarchist/% statist or as %voluntary government/% State, although I can see how my perspective, once it takes root in the popular imagination could be this very paradigm that you speak of. Very good! +1.
-
I'll keep this short:
Brasky - totally agree. If we're talking "totally anarchy," then that means we have to allow individuals to voluntarily create a State, even if it means that in a few short years, those very same people are now clamouring about the oppressivness when they can't leave it.
Exactly how does anarchy require us to allow aggression against our person or property? :?
Again, I like the idea of your arguments , Mark, I really do. You and I can do our dance where you say, "but your arguments are strawman and flawed" and I can say, "oh yeah, show me where this state of Total Anarchy has ever existed" and you reply, "it's never had a chance because of individuals who sought to oppress others".... blah blah blah.
On the contrary, anarchy, as in voluntary government and as in liberty already exist as real components of society. Just as the multiple forces of nature and the manifestation of each of them as blend of component vectors along the x,y and z axis, never exist in pure isolation, yet can be studied, analyzed and then generalized into physical laws, so the effects of anarchy and statism on society can be studied, analyzed and then generalized into laws governing the effects of different kinds of human social interactions.
So I have a question, since you also say that this is part of "Man's Nature" to discover and live a morality that allows for the most productive and positive life, which = maximum individual liberty = "total anarchy."
If this was part of Man's inherant nature, what the hell happened?
The need to discover how to live through trial and error and the application of rational thought, is part of Man's nature. Morality is not an inborn instinct. It is a learned instinct that is based on either the observation and theories of the thinkers who create new traditions or through faith in the traditions that are passed on from the authority figures in one's culture. Trust in authority, as opposed to independent thought, is a vestigial inborn tendency of human beings that once served a purpose in helping to insure survival of cultures and the individuals of which the cultures were comprised, that is left over from the days when logic, philosophy and the scientific method where not fully understood and the only way to survive was to trust in the accumulated traditions of the tribal elders that evolved through thousands of generations and is similar to the instinct of children to obey their parents, in order to survive in a dangerous world that they lack the experience and skill to deal with. Today, this tendency of adults to desire to remain as children is what happened.
...and I mean way back... back in the hunter gatherer days. It would seem to be that back then, in the early history of Homo Sapien, your condition was met: there were no states and individuals lived within their groups as both individuals and members of their tribe/community/whatever you wanna call it, but this was a voluntary grouping for the increased chance of survival, rather than any imposed will of a "state."
I do not believe in the myth of the noble savage. I view statism as the modernised version of the primitive mysticism, xenophobia, collectivism and brutality of tribal culture.
But something happened.
Centralization of Leadership, Specialization of tasks amongst the population, all these these traits that Anthropoligsts have observed through archeological finds show that somewhere, somehow, Man went from "theoretically" a social animal with looslely structured, voluntary groups (as evidenced by when tribes splintered off) into the centralized States as we have them today.
These were the beginnings of trade, the development of secular philosophy, independent thought and voluntary government taking root in pluralistic societies, that up until then, had been smaller groups of insular tribes.
So what happened? This almost seems to me be the "Anarchists Paradox" if anything:
If human beings are by their nature their most successful in a State of "total anarchy," then why hasn't it been achieved (or sustained) at any point in recorded human history?
Individualism was only just evolving and is still evolving to this day.
Logically, yes, I concede.... and did a long time ago... that the free-marketeer philosophy is the better one academically and logically. However, whether or not it's possible to achieve is the real question, and thus far has not been proven to be feasible or sustainable.]
Historically, societies with a greater component of liberty have proven to be more adaptable and prosperous, as well as better able to defend their way of life from aggressors. Unfortunately, without proper moral and philosophical underpinnings, a productive and powerful society is apt to forget that the source of its wealth and rich culture came from liberty and individualism. Instead, its members grow lazy and arrogant and begin to attribute their success to the collectivist tribal notion of racial and/or ethnic superiority and so risk becoming a dead end in the evolution of civilisation.
-
I guess this thread presents a good opportunity to "officially" announce that I have now evolved from minarchist to anarchist. The change actually took place perhaps a few months ago but I haven't been that active in the forums while I moved across the country.
If you believe organized law is essentially evil, then you must admit it's actually the people who create the system who are evil, thereby solidifying a reason to have a system which keeps the nasty people in check.
No, I don't have to admit that. The expression "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. Some will call government a "necessary evil" so they will do a little bit of evil in order to prevent what they believe will be greater evil if they don't. The problem is that power attracts the corruptable. The government may be established with good intentions, but the power to use force preemptively against innocent people is bound to corrupt.
The idea that a government must exist to maintain order is built on false logic. We can and should live by certain principles in order to live in a civilized society, but the principles go out the window as soon as a government is established. The idea that force is wrong and one should not use it against another person unless it's in response to the use of force is a good foundation for a free and prosperous society. We have the right and responsiblity to defend ourselves from the infringement of our own rights. That's how we keep the nasty people in check. We can and I think should work together to do that in a way that doesn't use aggressive or preemptive force. Do you not see how stealing from people in order to fund a police force in order to protect people from crimes (like theft) is completely irrational? Nevermind that police spend the vast majority of their time enforcing victimless crimes and doing paperwork.
Regarding National defense, how is that any different than funding welfare? Many people believe we need a strong National defense. That's fine. Do something about it. There's nothing stopping you in a free society. Collect contributions and build an army for defensive purposes. The truer the threat is, the easier time you'll have of convincing others of the importance of it. That army would be a lot more accountable and therefore less evil. If they took actions that people believed to be immoral, their funding would dry up. But you don't have the right to make someone pay for it (steal from them to pay for it) any more than you have a right to steal from people to pay for welfare, no matter how important you believe it to be.
A socialist friend of mine justified a progressive tax by saying that the wealthy have a lot more at stake in a time of war, and therefore should be expected to contribute more toward things like National defense. So if one really believes that, then those people will surely step up and defend this country to preserve their wealth, yes?
Not only is the state inherently immoral, but it's unnecessary in a free society. As soon as you establish a state, you're establishing authority by some people over other people. You're saying that some people are better than others and that might makes right. They are in the position of authority so what they decide becomes right by virtue only of the fact that they will enforce their decision. What could possibly make such an organization legitimate? A vote by 50.1% of the population? They're right because they're in the majority? History shows that the majority opinion is frequently very wrong.
Congratulations on your evolution! That was a great post and I agree with you, except on your use of the word government. Please don't conflate all government with the State. All libertarian anarchist theories are based upon the premise that all the necessary services for a society to survive need not be monopolized by the State, but can be instead provided voluntarily, in the competitive market place, by private vendors. All organized forms of management are, in fact, the general definition of government. Only the criminally aggressive and monopolistic versions of governments can be called States. Libertarian anarchy is really just a system of voluntary, competitive, market based governments.
-
Individualism was only just evolving and is still evolving to this day.
Well, if you don't "believe the myth of the noble savage" and you recognize that man's nature isn't necessarily one that will naturally seek out the best morality to live in prosperity as you have contended before (with your comments of man "fulfilling his nature"), then perhaps we should talk about something that will actually be accomplished within our forseeable lifetime that doesn't require me to wait for evolution of individualism to reach its Zenith.
...and "Total Anarchy" isn't it.
Historically, societies with a greater component of liberty have proven to be more adaptable and prosperous, as well as better able to defend their way of life from aggressors. Unfortunately, without proper moral and philosophical underpinnings, a productive and powerful society is apt to forget that the source of its wealth and rich culture came from liberty and individualism. Instead, its members grow lazy and arrogant and begin to attribute their success to the collectivist tribal notion of racial and/or ethnic superiority and so risk becoming a dead end in the evolution of civilisation.
Which is a very beat-around-the-bush way of saying, "You're right, it hasn't happened yet."
-
Individualism was only just evolving and is still evolving to this day.
Well, if you don't "believe the myth of the noble savage" and you recognize that man's nature isn't necessarily one that will naturally seek out the best morality to live in prosperity as you have contended before (with your comments of man "fulfilling his nature"), then perhaps we should talk about something that will actually be accomplished within our forseeable lifetime that doesn't require me to wait for evolution of individualism to reach its Zenith.
I merely said that there is evidence that humans may have some vestigial instincts that need to be overcome if we are to live according to our nature and achieve our potential as rational moral beings.
...and "Total Anarchy" isn't it.
Yet partial anarchy does exist. Pure anarchy, like its synonym liberty, is a principle that can guide us toward a goal that is eminently practical. It's analogous to a program of diet and exercise. You may have some ideal weight as your goal, but it's far more wise to discipline yourself to stick to a healthy program and make it into a healthy habit that becomes second nature, than to alternately diet and then binge when you reach some partial weight goal.
Historically, societies with a greater component of liberty have proven to be more adaptable and prosperous, as well as better able to defend their way of life from aggressors. Unfortunately, without proper moral and philosophical underpinnings, a productive and powerful society is apt to forget that the source of its wealth and rich culture came from liberty and individualism. Instead, its members grow lazy and arrogant and begin to attribute their success to the collectivist tribal notion of racial and/or ethnic superiority and so risk becoming a dead end in the evolution of civilisation.
Which is a very beat-around-the-bush way of saying, "You're right, it hasn't happened yet."
Not at all. It's a way of saying that, as in the health program above, we need to understand and strive forward in accordance with our guiding principles. In the long run an unprincipled, purely pragmatic approach doesn't work.
-
I understand your point, Mark, but I'm going to say the same thing I said to Rillion on a different subject; I'm always a little weary when arguments start getting heavy into parable and analogy to make our cases, and before you go off:
- Partial Anarchy exists, I get it, but this has not proven that total anarchy can physically exist in the real world we live in. I'll go back to my "absolute zero" anaology as a counter to your health plan; sure it's a number that we know exists mathmetically, but thus far is has been physically impossible to produce.
- Again, if your making the claim that: "human individuality needs to evolve" and are also making the claim that, "without proper moral and philosophical underpinnings, a productive and powerful society is apt to forget that the source of its wealth and rich culture came from liberty and individualism,"....
....you're basically acknowledging what Brasky has said that everyone is going to need to follow your perscriptive "proper morality" with regards for liberty in order for this to function, otherwise, those of a more "vestigal nature" will seek to coalesce oppressive powers into a new state, as they have done throughout human history.
Good luck with that.
n the long run an unprincipled, purely pragmatic approach doesn't work.
Has a purely principled approach with no regard for the world we live in ever worked?
I'll give you this point: What we're doing now with this Western Quasi-Socialist Democracy isn't really the ideal, and on this issue I can at least say, "if what were doing now isn't working, let's try something else," which is why I'm all for the attempt, as I've said numerous times.... I just am highly skeptical that it will really produce a different result for the reasons outline above.
However, if someone can show me where there is a case of total anarchy being achieved in sustained I'd love to call you a liar. ;) Seriously though, it seems to me that humanity isn't ready for the "purely principled" solution yet, so why the continual intellectual masturbation when we (should) all agree to at least get the ball moving in the same direction.
(Message: All you anarchists out there are going to need to the State to shrink drastically before it goes away.....unless you've amassed some army to storm the capital I don't know about.)
-
It seems to me that there's an awful lot to do, to achieve a state of libertarian anarchy, but the main thing to do is to convince the populace that it's a good idea. So, during this process, the state will start to separate itself from power. At a certain point in this process, before the state dissolves the legislature, the state will become a voluntary organization. Once the power to tax has been removed, and all that's left is a state legislature and a governor, which meets once every two years, without any enforcement body, then what incentive would there be to completely dissolve the state? There are numerous things that the remains of such a state could do to assist society, being that it's composed of representatives from the entire region. To facilitate the civil courts, land, airspace, and fishing rights should be established and registered. Methods by which disagreements between competing enforcement services should be established, to prevent terf wars. A method by which an army can be raised to defend the region should be established, in case an enemy should threaten the region. There are other things as well, but I'm in a hurry.
The point is, that once you've convinced people that Liberty should be the governing principle in society, then issue of whether the state remains, or not, is meaningless.
-
Seriously though, it seems to me that humanity isn't ready for the "purely principled" solution yet, so why the continual intellectual masturbation when we (should) all agree to at least get the ball moving in the same direction.
I completely agree that we should all be moving toward less government. I'm actually a pretty practical person. I'm definately anarchist in philosophy but even as I'm arguing for it on principle, I am quick to point out that I don't actually expect to achieve it in my lifetime.
You are correct that we will likely never achieve a state of total anarchy even far into the future. Some people somewhere are bound to establish some form of forceful government. However, in a society where anarchist ideals are common, it would not be allowed to gain enough reach and power that most people could not avoid it. I've said before that it's a mistake to argue that any particular form of government or lack thereof would achieve a Utopia. I just think a moral approach based on strong principles is better. Until each and every human being on earth is perfect, neither will it's constructs be. Crime will always exist, for instance. I just believe that a freer society would have much less of it.
Right now it's nigh impossible to avoid the reach of the state and live completely by anarchist ideals. If I so much as get pulled over for a ticket and then continue to resist/ignore government, the situation can escalate until I'm put in jail. The violation for jail wasn't getting the ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. The crime you can go to jail for is not respecting their authority. The very existance of a state that uses force against innocent people has allowed something to grow that wants to become totalitarian. To maintain the illusion of legitimacy, it has to crush any resistance even to minor transgressions of its authority. This is the demon seed of minarchy.
Now, having said that I don't expect to achieve it in my lifetime, I have to add that I find myself becoming more optimistic. Why? I think anarchism is a meme that is destined to survive in the evolution of memes. I have a theory that the freedom of expression of the Internet is speeding up the evolutionary process of memes. The illogical memes cannot ultimately survive this process in any strength. The same thing that's making me have optimism about Ron Paul's candidacy when originally I just hoped he would have some small voice makes me optimistic about freedom in general. Something tells me that the false legitimacy of the state will see new challenges every day.
-
I understand your point, Mark, but I'm going to say the same thing I said to Rillion on a different subject; I'm always a little weary when arguments start getting heavy into parable and analogy to make our cases, and before you go off:
Partial Anarchy exists, I get it, but this has not proven that total anarchy can physically exist in the real world we live in. I'll go back to my "absolute zero" anaology as a counter to your health plan; sure it's a number that we know exists mathmetically, but thus far is has been physically impossible to produce.
I like your analogy of of comparing the attainment of pure liberty to the possibility of reaching absolute zero and I hope that it didn't make you too weary. :wink: I've often had similar thoughts myself. For instance: I believe that most anarchist's conception of an anarchy is far from pure and is in fact nothing more than a collection of monopolies over smaller geographical areas. This "landlord-ism" is not really a pure form of anarchy at all. I would call it "micro-statism" instead and it is actually just an extreme form of minarchy.
Whether we can ever reach perfection in the quest for a society that is based on the non-aggression principle and whether we can ever devise a fully consistent conception of how such a society's rules would be structured, is an interesting question, but it has little bearing on whether we should strive for continuous improvement toward the goal of the NAP in practical life as well as the continuous debate over our principles toward the purpose of their continuous refinement.
Again, if your making the claim that: "human individuality needs to evolve" and are also making the claim that, "without proper moral and philosophical underpinnings, a productive and powerful society is apt to forget that the source of its wealth and rich culture came from liberty and individualism,"....
....you're basically acknowledging what Brasky has said that everyone is going to need to follow your perscriptive "proper morality" with regards for liberty in order for this to function, otherwise, those of a more "vestigal nature" will seek to coalesce oppressive powers into a new state, as they have done throughout human history.
1. In your last two paragraphs you haven't made a very effective argument for the abandonment of principle as a guide toward progress. In fact, the way I see it, it's a commendable argument for precisely the opposite.
2. The ability and right to organise in self defence from aggression negates your requirement that everyone would have to have to be motivated by a rational morality. The percentage of societal enlightenment would only need to pass the minimum threshold that was necessary for such a defence to become practical.
n the long run an unprincipled, purely pragmatic approach doesn't work.
Has a purely principled approach with no regard for the world we live in ever worked?
Principles should be used as a guide, not a blindfold.
I'll give you this point: What we're doing now with this Western Quasi-Socialist Democracy isn't really the ideal, and on this issue I can at least say, "if what were doing now isn't working, let's try something else," which is why I'm all for the attempt, as I've said numerous times.... I just am highly skeptical that it will really produce a different result for the reasons outline above.
However, if someone can show me where there is a case of total anarchy being achieved in sustained I'd love to call you a liar. ;) Seriously though, it seems to me that humanity isn't ready for the "purely principled" solution yet, so why the continual intellectual masturbation when we (should) all agree to at least get the ball moving in the same direction.
(Message: All you anarchists out there are going to need to the State to shrink drastically before it goes away.....unless you've amassed some army to storm the capital I don't know about.)
I'm sure most anarchists would have no problem with most of this. It seem to me that your looking for an argument where no real disagreement exists. As far as the debate over refinement in anarchistic principle as being in your view to be a waste of time, I will answer you that, as anarchy is already a major component of modern civilization, the application of its principles already have a major, albeit not exclusive, impact on laws and the way people behave toward one another, as abstract ideas have a way of filtering down from the the philosophers to the intellectuals, artists and then finally becoming ingrained into our shared culture. Your complaint reminds me of the complaint that students make about having to learn mathematics and calculus: They will probably never personally use it or need it. If they have no interest in the subject, then their argument may have some limited validity, but it would be very foolish of them to believe that these disciplines have no effect upon their lives or claim that the mathematics that we already have are more than adequate for our needs and that mathematicians should abandon their foolishness nitpicking.
-
In what way, except for pointing out the minarchist's evaluation of his fellow man, is my depiction of the essence of the minarchist premise at odds with yours? You will see examples of the cynicism of minarchist thought everywhere, including this very thread.
The two depictions are not in fundamental disagreement; I just think yours was antagonistic (and for that reason counterproductive). Every minarchist is a potential anarchist. All it takes to bring them completely over is to convince them that free markets can address their concerns and fully replace the state's beneficial functions.
To reiterate: If we don't alienate the minarchists, then their fears can be assuaged bit-by-bit as we dismantle/bypass/replace the state on our way to anarchy.
-
Minarchy is based on the idea that liberty is so precious that we must use the tyranny of the State to enshrine and protect it from a populace that is too foolish and immoral to appreciate it. I submit that the inherent contradiction of such a system as well as the low regard for human nature that the implementation of this kind of system implies will ultimately result in a conflict that will lead to either the destruction of liberty and the enshrinement of the State with the Orwellian "logic" that "Slavery is freedom." or to the dismantling of the discredited State as it gives way to the true liberty of a system of non-monopolistic, competitive, voluntary governments.
Any comments? I'm ready to debate.
Strawman.
-- Brede
-
So what's your real argument?
-
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
-
(Fill in the blank type of government) is based on the idea that (fill in the blank with something you want) is so precious that we must use the tyranny of the State to enshrine and protect it from a populace that is too foolish and immoral to appreciate it.
Sounds like something I might hear from any socialist.
-
(Fill in the blank type of government) is based on the idea that (fill in the blank with something you want) is so precious that we must use the tyranny of the State to enshrine and protect it from a populace that is too foolish and immoral to appreciate it.
Sounds like something I might hear from any socialist.
Strawman, again.
-- Brede
-
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
I'm probably just straw-man-ing you but, isn't that collectivism?
-
You didn't read what I typed, moron. I stated every human is a political sovereign, and I stated that every human has the right to relinquish its power from said institution. So, yes it's a fucking strawman! *cracks ballbat over cerp's head*
-- Brede
-
but what why postulate an institution then?
-
Fucking awesome. ;)
-
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.
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.
-
ok...
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
I don't see anything about coercion.
-
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.
-
yeah the principle of minarchy is I don't want to be raped so much so please rape me just a little bit less. :shock: 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.
-
The word "condescending" comes to mind, in connection with that post.
-
He's a stupid, fat, hairy Swede...what do you expect?
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Swedish_meatballs.jpg/600px-Swedish_meatballs.jpg)
-
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. :P
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.
-
yeah the principle of minarchy is I don't want to be raped so much so please rape me just a little bit less. :shock: 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.
Although I don't agree with your opinion on the effect of libertarian politicians, you've nonetheless made an excellent, albeit blunt point.+1 (Don't let the trolls get you down.)
Hmmm... Blunt point. I made an oxymoron. :P
-
See the mirror.
-
Mark, you still haven't proven that I advocate political collectivism in my argument. So are you going to prove it or be a liar on that point? As for the quote regarding Hospers, so what? Rand also called Reagan a Hollywood Ham, and etc, but more importantly neither quote can be verified by her estate, so that means what you said is tantamount to hearsay and possibly a lie. So that means you go on ignore, Markie, for being a liar on two points. You haven't even refuted one of them. Kiss my ass and suck a fuck, Markie, you little liar.
-- Brede
-
Minarchy is based on the idea that liberty is so precious that we must use the tyranny of the State to enshrine and protect it from a populace that is too foolish and immoral to appreciate it. I submit that the inherent contradiction of such a system as well as the low regard for human nature that the implementation of this kind of system implies will ultimately result in a conflict that will lead to either the destruction of liberty and the enshrinement of the State with the Orwellian "logic" that "Slavery is freedom." or to the dismantling of the discredited State as it gives way to the true liberty of a system of non-monopolistic, competitive, voluntary governments.
Any comments? I'm ready to debate.
Minarchy is for idiots of logic.
Yeah, the initation of force is bad but we still need force in the form of a government. Whatever dudes... :lol:
http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_672_Minarchsim_Libertarianism_and_Logic.mp3
Listen to the above.
-
Man, more Stefan Molyneux mp3's...
-
Minarchy is based on the idea that liberty is so precious that we must use the tyranny of the State to enshrine and protect it from a populace that is too foolish and immoral to appreciate it. I submit that the inherent contradiction of such a system as well as the low regard for human nature that the implementation of this kind of system implies will ultimately result in a conflict that will lead to either the destruction of liberty and the enshrinement of the State with the Orwellian "logic" that "Slavery is freedom." or to the dismantling of the discredited State as it gives way to the true liberty of a system of non-monopolistic, competitive, voluntary governments.
Any comments? I'm ready to debate.
Minarchy is for idiots of logic.
Yeah, the initation of force is bad but we still need force in the form of a government. Whatever dudes... :lol:
http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_672_Minarchsim_Libertarianism_and_Logic.mp3
Listen to the above.
Yeah, so far I've heard the phrase "default position" about nineteen times, then he says I probably haven't convinced you of anything, as of yet. welllll... No. Fuggin. Shit.
And then leaps right into this rediculous analogy of reducing your raping habits back to once a week. Is this guy fucking insane?
I'm gonna finish listening to the whole thing, open minded. And if this is the cream of the crop, just pack your shit and go the hell home because so far all he's done is sound like a one sided egomaniac. Any anti-statist is gonna lap this stuff up like its covered in gravy. He's preaching to the choir from the "default position" of anarchism supreme, anarchists don't need convincing. Its like telling a thirsty man water is good.
-
This guy's crazy, plain and simple. Intelligent, no doubt, but crazy.
He uses all these obscure examples chopping against HIS view of a mini-state while assuming anarchy will work perfectly. I dont need to hear about cows. Now I don't know if I want a cheeseburger or to read Watership Down.
He is the perfect example of why there should be a drop out, opt out policy. Go, dude. Take off, 'eh? Create a gulch somewhere and enjoy it because all this rambling nonsense goes absolutely nowhere.
He has yet to show one example of theory in motion supporting his vision. He seems like he knows what is bad, but can't begin to show how his concept of anarchy would prevail.
I expected to hear some examples of anarchy applied to reality, how it would work. I know the state is bad.
"How anarchism works is irrelevant" he just said. Thats not the way to drive the bus. "Its nobodys business how anarchy in society works".
Jesus christ. I can't believe he actually said that.
I think I'd like to speak to this guy in person. Does he attend NH functions? PorcFest or any of that?
Oh! Isn't this the guy who is in favor of DRO's?
I think I remember MobileDigit chastizing me over Moleneux's (sp) DRO theories.
I think I've found a new hobby. I want more. I'll be polite, I'm interested. He just personally invited me at the end of this podcast to engage.
-
Do it. It'll be funny.
-
This guy's crazy, plain and simple. Intelligent, no doubt, but crazy.
He uses all these obscure examples chopping against HIS view of a mini-state while assuming anarchy will work perfectly. I dont need to hear about cows. Now I don't know if I want a cheeseburger or to read Watership Down.
He is the perfect example of why there should be a drop out, opt out policy. Go, dude. Take off, 'eh? Create a gulch somewhere and enjoy it because all this rambling nonsense goes absolutely nowhere.
He has yet to show one example of theory in motion supporting his vision. He seems like he knows what is bad, but can't begin to show how his concept of anarchy would prevail.
I expected to hear some examples of anarchy applied to reality, how it would work. I know the state is bad.
"How anarchism works is irrelevant" he just said. Thats not the way to drive the bus. "Its nobodys business how anarchy in society works".
Jesus christ. I can't believe he actually said that.
I think I'd like to speak to this guy in person. Does he attend NH functions? PorcFest or any of that?
Oh! Isn't this the guy who is in favor of DRO's?
I think I remember MobileDigit chastizing me over Moleneux's (sp) DRO theories.
I think I've found a new hobby. I want more. I'll be polite, I'm interested. He just personally invited me at the end of this podcast to engage.
Libertarian anarchy is voluntary government and it already exists. It's commonly called the free market. To whatever extent that there is freedom to exchange goods, services and ideas and that people are free to organize into businesses and non-profits, then to that extent, you have the principle of market anarchism in action.
Whenever someone proposes that some function of the State be privatized, e.g., food distribution, hundreds of objections will be raised against this idea, such as monopolization, price gouging, how will the poor pay for their food, cutthroat competition, who will service small markets, the inefficiency of having truck A sending company A's bread from the east coast to the west coast passing by company B's truck that's sending bread from the west coast to the east coast and how this waste of time and resources can be overcome by central planning.
The central planners fail to understand the importance of the incentives that are created by the free market are what cause the emergence of a spontaneous and flexible order though the seemingly chaotic billions of decisions of millions of people.
This is what is meant by leaving it to the market to figure out a solution. This is why people living in a free market have inexpensive, high quality food and great variety to choose from, while people living under central planning are fortunate if the can get on an hours long bread line to keep from outright starvation.
These same arguments, which amount to saying, "How the market works is irrelevant.", can be applied to all potential State functions.
-
There is no true free market as long as the currency is controlled by private institutions. They have created wars, funded both sides continuously, and brought forth a system of control and usury which has crippled entire nations for well over two centuries.
It is only intellectual masturbation to assume the power resides in the hands of the marketeers, when the borrower is slave to the banker.
-
Minarchy is for idiots of logic.
Yeah, the initation of force is bad but we still need force in the form of a government. Whatever dudes... :lol:
http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_672_Minarchsim_Libertarianism_and_Logic.mp3
Listen to the above.
Thanx for that link. It's funny that I was arguing much the same things to a friend the night before I listened to it, but he argues the point better. I think he's been of the philosophy for a longer time than I have so he's better at articulating what is to me still somewhat an intuitive thing. If you're a thoughtful person, as I believe I am, then you can't continue to ignore the cognitive dissonance. For a while, it's just something you feel. You see tyrannical abuses of power happening around you and the illusion of legitimacy (the notion that it's necessary for SOME people to use force agressively to maintain order) starts to crumble. It begins to happen faster and faster until finally there's just a click and you realize you're in the realm of anarchism. That's a word I don't care for but so far it's the only one I know of to describe the belief that no one should be morally justified in using force aggressively.
-
There is no true free market as long as the currency is controlled by private institutions. They have created wars, funded both sides continuously, and brought forth a system of control and usury which has crippled entire nations for well over two centuries.
It is only intellectual masturbation to assume the power resides in the hands of the marketeers, when the borrower is slave to the banker.
You mean governments. Governments that create legal tender laws and currencies not based on real money. There's nothing wrong with banks minting coins and issuing notes backed by real money.
-
I don't agree with the freedomain radio piece for two reasons.
1) It rejects the right of individuals to form 'unions' for common protection and practices (aka laws).
2) It's a fucking strawman, need I go on?
-- Brede
-
Please go on, dear.
-
No, wtfk. I meant what I typed.
There was never an American government which ever printed its own currency, besides Lincolns' greenbacks, and we all should know how long that lasted.
Private banks have nearly always been our master, and private banks will still exist in any free market.
Think on it a while. Long and hard.
-
No, wtfk. I meant what I typed.
There was never an American government which ever printed its own currency, besides Lincolns' greenbacks, and we all should know how long that lasted.
Private banks have nearly always been our master, and private banks will still exist in any free market.
Think on it a while. Long and hard.
You're playing games. We know the Fed prints the currency. We know the fed and the government are...intermingled. There's no problem with private banks printing currency, as long as they don't have legal tender laws (yeah--I meant what I wrote.)
-
The only 'intermingling' between the Federal Reserve and the government is the appointment of the FED board, which is entirely completed by the President. The FED has never even once been audited.
Privately owned and managed.
And laws are irrelevant. Money is a necessity.
-
Last I checked, the President runs the executive branch of the US Federal Government.
He sort of counts as government.
Like I said. Keep the government out, and it's not an issue, because there will be a currency competition (and in such a market, you can bet people will only use gold-backed currency or some other commodity money.)
-
And just as I said -there is NO GOVERNMENT involvement which has been necessary for the banks to operate. The BOARD is a panel which attempts to gain legitimacy, and most people still believe that a PRIVATE CORPORATION is actually part of our government.
Sinking in yet? Still having trouble here? All the government has ever done is to grant authority and privilege to these private bankers. This can still be done within any proposed anarchist society, in fact it can be accomplished even easier.
-
And just as I said -there is NO GOVERNMENT involvement which has been necessary for the banks to operate. The BOARD is a panel which attempts to gain legitimacy, and most people still believe that a PRIVATE CORPORATION is actually part of our government.
Sinking in yet? Still having trouble here? All the government has ever done is to grant authority and privilege to these private bankers. This can still be done within any proposed anarchist society, in fact it can be accomplished even easier.
That's like saying that a public utility is private. Sorry, but the FED is the bastard child of the State. We are forced to use its money exclusively, under threat of prison or death. The socialists always instigate corruption in order to increase their power by lining their own and their friends pockets. They then try to pin the blame for the results on the free market so that they can give us more of the same. Society gets the government that it deserves. As long as so many people believe it's acceptable to use aggression, they will continue to use the State to rob and persecute their neighbors while awaiting their turn to be victimized by those who are, in turn, even more effective at using the State against them. We, the victims, must learn that it is impossible to make evil work for us. We must instead learn that in order to stop being victims that we must first stop victimising others.
-
+1 Legal tender laws make the Fed a de facto state institution. Without the state monopoly, the banks can't hurt you.
-
Sinking in yet? Still having trouble here? All the government has ever done is to grant authority and privilege to these private bankers. This can still be done within any proposed anarchist society, in fact it can be accomplished even easier.
Do you ever make sense? Theres no government in an anarchistic society to give privileges to private bankers, how will it be even easier when one of the parties involved doesn't exist?
-
Excellent question, Caveman. I want to ignore your insults and answer your question.
I would like you to tell me how any modern society absent government plans to operate without some form of money. Once you outline for me how you propose this, then I shall provide your answer.
Wtfk - I do not understand what you mean by "legal tender" laws. You will have to cite exact legal reference for me. I have extensively studied the constitution, common law, the UCC, FRC, USCA, and IRC for the past twelve years.
Gentlemen, what you propose is that this "state" is in control of the monetary system, when in fact, it has always been wealthy european banking cartels. Dice it any way you choose, but your definition and exaggerated claims do not hold up to the facts.
-
Excellent question, Caveman. I want to ignore your insults and answer your question.
I would like you to tell me how any modern society absent government plans to operate without some form of money. Once you outline for me how you propose this, then I shall provide your answer.
Wtfk - I do not understand what you mean by "legal tender" laws. You will have to cite exact legal reference for me. I have extensively studied the constitution, common law, the UCC, FRC, USCA, and IRC for the past twelve years.
Gentlemen, what you propose is that this "state" is in control of the monetary system, when in fact, it has always been wealthy european banking cartels. Dice it any way you choose, but your definition and exaggerated claims do not hold up to the facts.
Look at American money. It says "legal tender for all debts public and private" on it. That's because there are laws requiring anyone selling anything or holding debts from others to accept payment in federal reserve notes. Those laws effectively invalidate other currency by disallowing people's right to say they will take only gold, etc., etc.
-
What is printed on currency is not law. It also says "In god we trust". Does that mean I must also trust in a God I don't believe in?
There is no law making this currency the only currency, nor is anybody forcing you to use it. It has become the standard money out of supply and demand, and because of need, nothing more. There are already movements out there (Liberty dollar) utilizing this very principle and attempting to take control of what is deemed currency. It would also behoove you to know that all power derived for the current federal reserve banks to operate comes from the March 6th and March 9th pres. Proclamations of FDR in 1933. The Bank Holiday has been in effect since that time, and under the emergency of war powers, the banks operate within the admiralty law, which is withstanding common law and the constitution. For an exact reference, I suggest looking up the term "Bank Holiday of March 6, 1933" in Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition. I have a copy myself, and I do not know of any online versions, sorry.
There is no "legal tender law", I am sorry to tell you.
-
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
Addendum: There's also this, incidentially:
Hon. Ron Paul Introduces HR 2779
THE HONEST MONEY ACT
REPEAL OF LEGAL TENDER LAWS (http://www.fame.org/HTM/Ron%20Paul%20Introduces%20HR2779%20The%20Honest%20Money%20Act%20-%20REPEAL%20OF%20LEGAL%20TENDER%20LAWS.htm)
-
"Legal tender", look up the term in Blacks Law.
This term only attempts to legitimize the currency, it does not make it THE ONLY CURRENCY BY LAW. Also, any note circulated by the banks specified above in your post are "legal" according to the definition.
You still have not told me how this "law" has become what you say it has.
-
Excellent question, Caveman. I want to ignore your insults and answer your question.
I would like you to tell me how any modern society absent government plans to operate without some form of money. Once you outline for me how you propose this, then I shall provide your answer.
Wtfk - I do not understand what you mean by "legal tender" laws. You will have to cite exact legal reference for me. I have extensively studied the constitution, common law, the UCC, FRC, USCA, and IRC for the past twelve years.
Gentlemen, what you propose is that this "state" is in control of the monetary system, when in fact, it has always been wealthy european banking cartels. Dice it any way you choose, but your definition and exaggerated claims do not hold up to the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government)
-
Are you suggesting that the private banks should operate as independent agencies? If you are, that is a very bad idea. Take a look at the CIA, they can do whatever they want without being held accountable. The CIA has been corrupt since day one, and look! There were Bush's at the table from its creation. Surprise, surprise.
What exactly are you suggesting, Markuzick?
-
"Legal tender", look up the term in Blacks Law.
This term only attempts to legitimize the currency, it does not make it THE ONLY CURRENCY BY LAW. Also, any note circulated by the banks specified above in your post are "legal" according to the definition.
You still have not told me how this "law" has become what you say it has.
I never said it was "the only currency."
-
I think the constitution actually prohibits the states from printing money, but there's no reason private parties can't do it. The reason the federal money is bad is because it's the de facto currency, and, they're allowed to inflate it.
-
You can't really inflate a gold standard, at least not to the same extent. Honestly, I'm just as concerned with private printing of money as I am with the Feds doing it. States seemed a semi-reasonable compromise.
It's correct that you cannot inflate the gold standard, except by cheating, which governments have done. It's being the de facto standard currency that allows these abuses. I don't think it's any compromise to allow people with the power of abusive force to tell us what money is.
-
Most people's does. Then for my previous comments you may wish to consider
government the state.
-
Are you suggesting that the private banks should operate as independent agencies? If you are, that is a very bad idea. Take a look at the CIA, they can do whatever they want without being held accountable. The CIA has been corrupt since day one, and look! There were Bush's at the table from its creation. Surprise, surprise.
What exactly are you suggesting, Markuzick?
The Fed board is an independent US government agency that operates though a regulated private banking cartel. As with all the other agencies, it gets its power through the guns of the US government. This is what happens if you try to make a competing currency:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900993.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900993.html)
"Goliath just introduced David to millions of Americans as a nationally recognized underdog," the site continues. "Just as Pepsi went up against Coke with their 'take the Pepsi Challenge' campaign, the Liberty Dollar will take it to the people to decide which currency they should use."
Norfed encouraged people to keep doing "the drop," referring to its advice to drop the coin into merchants' hands so they can feel its weight.
That could land the dropper in prison, Bailey warns, for up to five years.
-
Most people's does. Then for my previous comments you may wish to consider government the state.
Then I think the state should be demolished and the government repaired.
FUCKING STATIST MOTHER FUCKER!
I bet you'd like CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!
-
Liar. Anyone who advocates smaller government is obviously a fascist piece of shit!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111
-
Taors, how much sugar did you have today?
-
I'm making fun of anarchists, so ask them how much sugar they've had.
-
I personally don't believe we can solve the "problem of government" until we somehow rid ourselves of the highly suggestible "masses". Which of course, is impossible. I've just come to accept the fact that governments forming, growing, and then falling, is just a cyclic fact of human society.
One could also draw the conclussion that the world itself does exist in anarchy, however all property is controlled by extremely large force-exerting companies.
However, don't take all of this as defeatist... one must still fight to reduce the size of government. I personally love the idea of a truly free market, but I don't see it as sustainable. Hell, I just look at Eve Online (www.eve-online.com). All the space outside the non-player areas started out unconquered (much like the frontier in the 'old west'). For quite some time, people shared the space and traded freely. Eventually large alliances of literally thousands of players began to form (after the player population increased greatly), and these alliances started warring, with one taking over large areas of space. You might say "oh its just a game, people wanna pwn people", and I do agree, but I think it makes a good analogy however... I would suggest the mercs over in Iraq see the world in that manner.
-
The United States wants to pwn people in Iraq, and they're doing that.
-
All things considered, it seems to be the other way around. I mean, given the advantage the US military has...
-
Well, that's the phenomenon of when the pwnerer becomes the pwned. It's a rare thing to witness, but it does happen. I would consider the insurgents in Iraq the pwnerers now.
-
I personally don't believe we can solve the "problem of government" until we somehow rid ourselves of the highly suggestible "masses". Which of course, is impossible. I've just come to accept the fact that governments forming, growing, and then falling, is just a cyclic fact of human society.
One could also draw the conclussion that the world itself does exist in anarchy, however all property is controlled by extremely large force-exerting companies.
However, don't take all of this as defeatist... one must still fight to reduce the size of government. I personally love the idea of a truly free market, but I don't see it as sustainable. Hell, I just look at Eve Online (www.eve-online.com). All the space outside the non-player areas started out unconquered (much like the frontier in the 'old west'). For quite some time, people shared the space and traded freely. Eventually large alliances of literally thousands of players began to form (after the player population increased greatly), and these alliances started warring, with one taking over large areas of space. You might say "oh its just a game, people wanna pwn people", and I do agree, but I think it makes a good analogy however... I would suggest the mercs over in Iraq see the world in that manner.
The "problem of government" is not related to the existence of government, as government, in it self, is not a problem, but a solution to problems. The problem is whether we attempt to solve our problems through governments that are aggressive (The State) or governments that are based upon voluntary cooperation, within a competitive market for governments. In other words, how do we convince people to desire civilisation over barbarism.
Since we need governments to solve problems, then maybe the solution for the problem of aggressive governments are voluntary governments which would, in some way/s, provide protection and/or insurance against the State for its clients, while also providing superior private alternatives to State functions.
This is basically what the free market does, which is why the dominant trend in history has been the repeated failure of States and the emergence of ever greater and more complex organization of the free market. The danger is that the free market allows for the creation of great wealth and technological prowess, which is then squandered and/or used to make destructive weapons, in the service of irrational religions and/or ideologies. Only moral enlightenment can put a stop to this cycle of civilised order first evolving and then degenerating into the chaos of statism and war. Without a moral revolution to match Man's scientific and technological revolution, Man's extinction becomes an ever increasing possibility.
-
The "problem of government" is not related to the existence of government, as government, in it self, is not a problem, but a solution to problems. The problem is whether we attempt to solve our problems through governments that are aggressive (The State) or governments that are based upon voluntary cooperation, within a competitive market for governments. In other words, how do we convince people to desire civilisation over barbarism.
Since we need governments to solve problems, then maybe the solution for the problem of aggressive governments are voluntary governments which would, in some way/s, provide protection and/or insurance against the State for its clients, while also providing superior private alternatives to State functions.
This is basically what the free market does, which is why the dominant trend in history has been the repeated failure of States and the emergence of ever greater and more complex organization of the free market. The danger is that the free market allows for the creation of great wealth and technological prowess, which is then squandered and/or used to make destructive weapons, in the service of irrational religions and/or ideologies. Only moral enlightenment can put a stop to this cycle of civilised order first evolving and then degenerating into the chaos of statism and war. Without a moral revolution to match Man's scientific and technological revolution, Man's extinction becomes an ever increasing possibility.
Oh, I totally agree. I've said on this very forum here that government is inevitable as its a solution to problems.
I think our two points go hand in hand quite nicely. My claim is that there are too many stupid people for the immoral to exert power over, and your point is that we need a moral revolution. I think either one would lead to a more voluntary government... we can only hope, and work, for both.
-
Monopoly organizations are always bound to fail... The only thing the can keep organizations in check is competition it has been shown over and over.