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 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: The Principle Behind Minarchy  (Read 16294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

theCelestrian

  • Purveyor of Crapulence
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
  • [ insert awesomely insightful comment here ]
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2007, 05:25:44 AM »

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.


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

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2007, 07:19:24 AM »

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.
Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2007, 08:58:00 AM »

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.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2007, 12:38:34 PM »

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.
Quote
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.



Quote
n the long run an unprincipled, purely pragmatic approach doesn't work.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
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.

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2007, 12:47:57 PM »

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

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2007, 03:01:14 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.

Strawman.

-- Brede
Logged

cerpntaxt

  • Guest
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2007, 03:03:55 PM »

So what's your real argument?
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2007, 03:13:31 PM »

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
Logged

theodorelogan

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1164
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2007, 03:15:52 PM »

(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.
Logged
Go figure...

RAD!

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2007, 03:17:35 PM »

(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
Logged

cerpntaxt

  • Guest
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2007, 03:21:02 PM »

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?
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2007, 03:22:24 PM »

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
Logged

cerpntaxt

  • Guest
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2007, 03:30:15 PM »

but what why postulate an institution then?
Logged

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2007, 03:32:09 PM »

Fucking awesome. ;)

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2007, 04:02:32 PM »

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.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  The Principle Behind Minarchy

// ]]>

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 33 queries.