So this means you won’t defend your ideas in discussion? I ask because you started off poo-pooing anarchism, then claimed minarchism might be a path to anarchism.
What principles do you hold as libertarian? Take them to their logical conclusion. If you believe liberty and property, self-ownership and natural rights are the foundations of libertarianism, then they do not lead to minarchism.
Ron Paul is not a gradualist. He is a free trader, so he opposes tariffs. And he wants to eliminate the income tax, so there would be no income for government in that manner. What other conclusion can we draw, than Ron Paul is for 100% voluntarism, which is, anarcho-capitalism?
I think you will be able to avoid coming around to anarchism, only by choosing not to engage people with your ideas. And by people, I mean people who disagree with you re: the state, not people who think the state is acceptable in some form. Again, radicalism leads to significant change. Gradualism does not.
I do not doubt for a second that Ron Paul understands and believes in Austrian Economics right to his core. Certainly his point of view is by far the most radical of any current congressman. I support him all the way. But he has never called for the utter abolition of all government, the absolute dissolution of the military, etc.. He is by his own admission a Constitutionalist. He believes in a minimal government limited in it’s authority by the constitution.
Is it a necessary precept that anyone on these forums either prostrate themselves in obeisance to the god of anarcho-capitalism, at least to the point of lip service, else they must devote hours a day in the writing of hundreds if not thousands of posts in an utterly futile debate?
Someone asked how a minimal government might derive revenue. I made a post to suggest what I would prefer, given such a government. I naively mentioned that I felt the absolutist anarchist position to be a futile one, unaware of the furor it would awake. I am well aware that if one derives one’s political precepts from a perspective of moral absolutes, and is utterly unwavering in them, then it is hard to not arrive at anarcho-capitalism if one starts from the assertion of self ownership. And here is my sin; I don’t care.
I do believe in freedom and I work to bring it about. However I am much more motivated by the expediency of the moment, in what actually works, now, to achieve that end. The assertion here is that only a position of absolute unwavering devotion to anarchism can have any positive effect whatsoever.
I do not denigrate the idea of anarchism. I simply respectfully disagree that it has much practical benefit towards moving society towards greater freedom, except perhaps to motivate young people to not vote for Ron Paul, because that would be supporting government.
Ron Paul also believes in the right of secession from the Constitution and lists Lysander Spooner as an influence. Spooner, is the author of No Treason, the Constitution of No Authority. I generally don’t hang out with Paulunteers anymore because many of them fail to grasp the nuances of his position. I’ll reiterate, Paul wants no tariffs and no income tax. That means a government with ZERO revenue unless you count donations. That means no standing army, and I will leave you to understand the ramifications on the remainder of government.
Anything that gets young people to stop voting is good in my book. The most peaceful way to end coercive government is to stop legitimizing it with democracy.
Any time this sort of topic comes up, someone always says something along the lines of what Peter just said. I’m sure there are better defenses to these statements but one that always comes to mind for me is, would the person who makes such a claim resort to this sort of lifestyle themselves? Are they closely related to others who would resort to this sort of lifestyle?
I think that if you turn the question back on the person and ask if they would become a part of these so called “gangs”, they tend to think about what they said a little more and realize that there really isn’t much substance to it, other then being afraid of something they do not understand. I’m not saying there aren’t bad people out there with horrible intentions but at the same time, I’m pretty confidant that there are more good people who wouldn’t allow these “gangs” from taking over. Oh wait… US gov’t. smacks himself in the forhead
If people didn’t favor order versus chaos, then it would be impossible to form a government. People’s willingness to adhere to even an incredibilty abusive government, in the name of order, shows his fears to be baseless.
But lets grant that people are inherently wicked. The most dangerous thing you could do would be to put some in a place of power over others. Decenteralization is a must, if its man’s nature to exploit his fellow man.
Ugh, I hate it when minarchists bring up this stupid “The road to anarchy must pass through the minimal state” argument. Harry Browne was a chief supporter of this view:
Right now, we’re $2.3 trillion away from no government, and about $2.2 trillion away from limited government. That means that until we trim $2.2 trillion from the federal budget, the issue of limited government vs. anarchy is moot. I can only presume that both sides would be pleased as punch (and then some) to reduce the federal government by $2.2 trillion. So that’s what we all should be working toward as the first goal.
In other words, government will be cut down to a Constitutionalist State (defense services and minimal welfare, regulations), then further minimized to a minarchist State (courts, police, national defense), and finally shrunk into nothingness (anarchy). But this argument only holds if we assume that reformism is the only strategy.
If we relax this assumption, and allow radical strategies like microsecession and seasteading, then it is simply false that government must be gradually limited until it is reduced to nothingness: Strategies like microsecession or seasteading can achieve anarchy without passing through limited government. If your city secedes from the U.S., then right now you face the question of either establishing a State or market anarchy. If you seastead an ocean platform, you must decide right now whether you will form a government or choose market anarchy.
Thus, contra Browne, discussions of anarchy vs. minarchy are not quaint, academic pursuits with no real-life application. These are questions of immediate, practical importance. Claiming that “until we trim $2.2 trillion from the federal budget, the issue of limited government vs. anarchy is moot” is simply a copout.
Moreover, the majority of the world’s States are weak or failed. As Somalia has shown, these nations can be improved by dissolving their government. So with the development question of how to lift the Third World out of poverty, anarchism is a very real solution. Again, we have a clearcut scenario where the question between anarchy and minarchy is of utmost practical importance.
The debate between anarchy and minarchy cannot be postponed to a distant future when we live under minarchism. There are issues of pressing importance that demand an answer right now: will it be anarchy or minarchy?
Yes, if you’re talking about the entire United States. But if we’re talking about one city (as in microsecession) or one ocean platform (as in seasteading), then transitioning from statism to anarchy is manifestly possible.
Minarchists use the reformism argument as a copout to avoid discussing minarchy vs. anarchy. This argument is false: reformism is not the only strategy. To all you minarchists: stop hiding behind your shoddy copouts and enter the debate.
Perhaps it would be wiser to make the choice between Objective Law and No Law, which is what you are actually saying.
Anarchists, having rejected the idea that government is of any value whatsoever, are left with no means to enact any law at all. And the result is lawlessness.
Have you read Roderick Long’s article “Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism”? He gives a brilliant defense of anarchy. I can’t recommend this article highly enough. Oh, what the heck, I’ll give it a try: this article is the best 21st century defense of market anarchism.
Have you read any Hayek? For instance Law, Legislation, and Liberty? He argues that law is a spontaneous order, i.e. law is the product of human action, but not of human design.
Stephanie this is bullshit. Your tar and feathering for your own gains is sadly that I feel this way - annoying. Anarchy is completely about the law. It’s pursuance is all about unlawful activity of the government and thus recognizing the more lawful way to live. Justice is it’s cornerstone and this is why it wants to rid the government cause governments break the law and are unjust. You have failed on numerous occasions to uphold your rational. It has completely turned into a value preference for you and not about better reasoning.
So if you want to turn this into a moral value argument, then I’d say you’re out in the woods somewhere and have lost your moral compass and it’s gettin’ dark.
I haven’t read that one. Just reading your quote, I am intrigued to read a bit more. If not of human design, then what? Does Hayek invoke God in his argument, or does he instead invoke Nature? As in, the necessity for law is a product of our natures as human beings. Does he say in effect that we must therefore take action to discover what those laws are by taking note of what our natures are, and formulate laws that represent a recognition of our natures?
Oh, I see. Anarchy is about removing ALL laws. Time to wake up from your nap (hahaha). Getting rid of ALL government and ALL laws will not solve the problems of crime and rights violations.
The bigger problem here is your warped view of government today. It isn’t breaking the law - that is precisely the problem! The real problem is that the laws government is given to uphold are in many but not all instances bad laws. They represent abridgement of rights. You seem incapable of separating the ideas out - of recognizing what makes a good law and what makes a bad law. Simply tossing all laws and all means of defense in favour of a system of private enterprise in the realm of law will equally not work.
And to do it under the banner of von Mises work is sad & misguided. Are you not familiar with von Mises’ own estimation of anarchists? See p. 231 of “Socialism,” in which he compares anarchists to social reformers:
QUOTE: “Social reformers, who take over naively the sentiments of the workers, may believe it possible to replaces these organs of control by trustworthy men chosen by the workers themselves. This is not quite as absurd as the belief of the anarchists that everyone would be prepared without compulsion to observe the rules indispensable for communal life; but it is not much better.”
Clearly, the kind of system I advocate has not yet existed in its entirety. The USA came close to achieving it but thwarted itself by persisting in employing the method of tax financing. From tax came the means to broaden government power and to bring the USA to the position it is in today.
The answer is not to get rid of ALL government, but to limit it properly. In every realm where government power is abused, look and you will find a law that is permitting that abuse, indeed it is proposing and abetting that abuse. It is not the institution of government itself that is at fault but the laws the government is given to uphold. When the laws are bad (i.e., non-objective), so is the result.
A proper government would not be permitted by law to intervene in the economic lives of its citizens. It would not and should not be authorized to set pirces, wages, or standards.
A proper government would be voluntarily funded and voluntarily staffed. Its role must be made to be passive, an entity that responds to the initiation of force, but never itself initiates force. The use of retaliatory force must be strictly defined and described.
i think that all taxes represent an abridgement of rights. It doesn’t matter to what purpose the tax is said to be for, or indeed to what purpose it is actually used for. The essence of the matter is that tax itself is an initiation of force by government on its own citizens, and all taxes should be abolished for that reason. Were people to voluntarily contribute to any or all of these programs in a private setting, such programs would and could go on functioning. The government should not be involved in forcing people to pay for the medical, housing, food, entertainment etc needs of others. It should not even be involved in handling these services on a voluntary basis. That is not its proper role.
I’m really not in the mood for your bashing and opinions. “hahaha” how childish or Joker like, not sure yet
No it’s not my problem.
Who enforces laws? Individuals not governments.
I’ve not read Mises’ works but I believe he was a miniarchist, so, of course you’ll find a quote of his that would counter my perspective.
woo-who for them[<:o)]
I doubt it.
A government means coercive monopoly of a territory. I’m for liberty not coercion.
And it’s only people of reason that can enforce such laws, and people of reason just don’t magically appear behind a government badge. The badge and status isn’t necessary.
And under such a government I have no choice but to be coerced by it. How unliberty…
Rand had some good stuff, but her aethetics and faux objectivity have lead a lot of people to false premises. Of course, that is why Murray Rothbard left the Objectivist orbit. Because Rand was incredibly objective [sic] except about her own premises.
This is a strawman. Government has value if it is self-government.
Lawlessness? Oh come now Stephanie. You have been provided more than enough information to make that claim either uneducated or dishonest. You really need to check your premises.
