Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  The Principle Behind Minarchy
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: The Principle Behind Minarchy  (Read 14711 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
The Principle Behind Minarchy
« 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.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

cerpntaxt

  • Guest
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2007, 04:31:59 PM »

Not too hot... Not too cold... Juuuuuust right... :lol:
Logged

lordmetroid

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 633
  • Agorist of the Libertarian Left
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2007, 06:44:44 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2007, 07:23:50 PM by lordmetroid »
Logged

Jason Orr

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2007, 06:56:13 PM »

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.
Logged
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”

--Alexis de Tocqueville

Porcupine_in_MA

  • Guest
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2007, 07:00:54 PM »

Where is the poll?
Logged

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2007, 08:03:13 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 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.

Quote
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.
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" —Rillion

theCelestrian

  • Purveyor of Crapulence
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
  • [ insert awesomely insightful comment here ]
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2007, 08:55:34 PM »

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.
Logged
- Branden
[ insert amazingly cool liberty-oriented witticism of your choice here ]

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2007, 08:57:40 PM »

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.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2007, 11:23:52 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.

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.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2007, 11:42:28 PM by markuzick »
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2007, 12:47:11 AM »

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:
Quote
[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.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2007, 01:11:57 AM »

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.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2007, 03:36:01 AM »

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?  :?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
...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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2007, 04:01:14 AM »

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.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

theCelestrian

  • Purveyor of Crapulence
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
  • [ insert awesomely insightful comment here ]
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2007, 04:06:25 AM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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."
Logged
- Branden
[ insert amazingly cool liberty-oriented witticism of your choice here ]

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2007, 05:03:54 AM »

Quote
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.

Quote
...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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 10:10:10 AM by markuzick »
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  The Principle Behind Minarchy

// ]]>

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 32 queries.