I know that anarchy is big on this board, but I think anarchists are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Constitution was not limiting enough, containing several deep flaws that are accellerating it now towards its demise. Firstly, being a document of compromise, it allowed for changes to itself. This isn’t such a bad thing, given the horrors of slavery and other such things as it allowed at the time. The Bill of Rights, far the most important part of it, wasn’t even part of it originally. It was in places vague and obscure, leading to many controversies that have allowed for terrible usurpations; the one that pops to mind most easily is the Second Amendment.
Also, in failing to create actual criminal law within its structure, cleverly enough written that they could stand the test of time, and allowing for the crafting of new law, it encouraged the legal morass of today.
Is it inconceivable, though, that rather than throwing out the idea of government altogether, that we might learn from the failings of the last attempt and try again? I believe that there are several issues confronting anarchists which I have never seen resolutions to, and I have done some research on the subject. I also believe, contrary to the claims of some anarchists, that some just taxes are possible, namely those on land and natural resources.
Anyway, this is my first post here, and I know it’s a bit discombobulated. Sorry about that!
I don’t agree that your proposed ‘fixes’ to the Constitution (how would one incorporate criminal law into it’s structure, for example? seems like a recipe for disaster to me) would actually fix anything, but my main practical disagreement (I’m sure others here will cover the serious philosophical problems with your proposal in detail) is more fundamental: we tried it your way (arguably) - didn’t work. It was called the Articles of Confederation. Then in 1789, a coup d’etat overthrew that government, and we wound up with the Constitution, which led directly to where we are today - and, some would argue - was always intended to. So I think I’d have to say history is against you.
The machinations of the money and power elites are ceaseless - what makes you think that, no matter what you put into your ‘new and improved’ Constitution, they will not be able to pervert it, given time? I maintain that this is what has happened in virtually ever single instance that this has been tried. How many times should we risk tyranny by failing to recognize the nature of the State?
All we are saying, is give anarchy a chance. In fact, you live most of your life in a state of anarchy - probably without realizing it.
FYI - you may find this terrific essay more compelling then my poor attempt at persuasion:
It’s important to note that not all Austrians are anarchists. Mises himself supported the Austrian monarchy as a pragmatic means of defending Austria from both Nazism and Socialism.Then there’s Hayek, who supported the kind of constitutional government you believe in.
Only from Murray Rothbard onward did Austrian economics start to be associated with market anarchism. Since it’s said to be value-free, there shouldn’t be any limits on what kinds of political beliefs you can have while agreeing with Austrianism. So, if anyone attacks you for being a minarchist, point out the fact that they’re the ones responsible for making people think Austrian economics is ideologically-based, by being so intolerant of differing political views.
When I hear that, I am reminded of those who said, “Just give Communism a chance.”
And that is a fitting analogy, because Anarchism, like Communism, looks good on paper but not in reality. And because attempts at Communism devolve into bureaucratic collectivism, while attempts at Anarchism devolve into chaos, Communists and Anarchists alike can claim neither has ever been disproven, because neither have truly ever been implemented.
Remarkable. I thought the reference was clear. “All we are saying, is give peace a chance” from John Lennon. Not Lenin.Where I intended ‘peace’ you saw ‘communism’ - if I knew a psychoanalyst, I’d ask their opinion. If I was one, I’d give it.
Bugs me when people say stuff like that: ‘Communism looked good on paper.’ It’s some sort of hackneyed cliche that makes no sense upon closer examination. Communism never looked good on paper (unless you were a Statist to begin with) because it required going through a period of State Socialism. What makes you say Communism looked good on paper?
Regarding Austrian economics being ‘values free’, well, perhaps I’m insufficiently well read, but Rothbard himself seemed to ridicule the notion of ‘values free economists’, so I assume he was not one. Unless he was vastly more self-deprecating than I’ve been led to believe.
‘In former days, the intellectuals were invariably the priests, and hence, as we have pointed out, the age-old alliance between Church and State, Throne and Altar. Nowadays, “scientific” and “value-free” economists and “national security managers,” among others, perform a similar ideological function in behalf of State power.’ - M. Rothbard: Ethics of Liberty
In a historical context, the Consitution was only adopted because of the fact that it was a comprisie between the Federalists, and the Antifederalists. Also, like what your suggestings, the Constitution was an attempt at forming a completly new government. If it were to be possible for a new government to be founded, which I cannot forsee even in the distant future, the formulators of this new government, like the Constitutional Convention, would have to comprimise in order to form this new government without one faction trying to overpower the other factions with military force (remember that there were planned military revolts in time-frame of the Constitution Convention that never came to fruition). Without a doubt, this comprimise would most likly having the effect of dulling most of the suggestions that Austrians would like to see implemented, for instance I do not see the income tax being abolished in such an enviroment, and would probably end up looking a lot like the Constituion in that it has holes that both sides left there to fight over later. In the end, the prospect of attempting to create a new government would still be crippled by the comprimises that the Constitution is today.
Most anarchists (including myself) advocate their no-government beliefs on ethical grounds (at least as a starting point). As such, any action required for the formation of a government, i.e., a coercive one, is categorically barred. Government becomes impossible without a breech of ethics.
Of course, if your ethics do not hit these two nails on the head…
Deontological
Noncoercive
…then you are potentially good to go, at least as far as government advocacy and personal consistency are concerned. Most of us here hammer those two nails pretty hard.
No, Rothbard clearly supported the fact-value dichotomy. He indeed believed strongly in favoured ethical system, and stressed that when economists argue from a specific moral premise they must make it explicit. He did not reject wertfreiheit. Nathyn is correct in that Austrian Economics, by itself, implies no given political system. I disagree entirely with him on anarchism (and one ought to remember that Mises supported secession down to the individual level, where practicable), but anarcho-capitalism is by no means the only position that Austrian Economics may justify.
I have read many of the arguments, and I am very conscious of the power elites that might corrupt any government; alas, the people, too might be corruptible. There is no reason to think, though, that anarchy would be more resistant; though there may be no government to corrupt, without a constitution there is nothing to even slow those that make promises in times of crisis.
I think, in the desire to lack the compromises and flaws of the last attempt, we must needs remember that representative government is NOT identical to liberty, and may work against it. Indeed, I think a mix of dictatorial rule and representation might work better.
I think you are positing a false equivalency. If you have a collective system with legitimized coercive power over all, and that system is corrupt - on the one hand - and then you have individuals, none of whom have any legitimate coercive power over the others, and some of those individuals are “corrupt” (perhaps we need to establish a definition for corruption at this point), the former situation is vastly more dangerous than the latter.
It is, after all, power that corrupts, and the more power some organization holds, the more potential for corruption, and the more widespread the damage it can do.
So this notion that corrupt power elites in charge of a monopolistic government are no more dangerous that corrupt individuals none of whom have any real coercive power over each other is, as I said, fallacious.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘there is nothing to even slow those that make promises in times of crisis.’
This is true - a republic does not necessarily equal liberty. It is anarchy that more closely equals liberty. Was someone asserting that representative government is identical to liberty?
As for combining dictatorial rule and representation, well, I don’t know what to say. It seems self evident that a dictator dictates - a dictator does not admit input from the people via representation - history speaks unequivocally on this point. Logically, this seems to me to be roughly equivalent to asserting that some mixture of fire and gasoline might yield stability.
I am assuming by ‘representation’, you mean ‘of the people’ - if you meant representation of other existing power structures, then ignore my last paragraph, because you’d be talking about the standard police state in such a case.
Interesting. What other political systems could be justified under Austrian Economics? I’ve delved more into the political than the technical economic aspects, so am not knowledgable in this area and would like to understand the inter-relationship better.
Seems to me that the Austrian principles as I understand them would dictate no State interference, which means, to me, either self-government (aka anarchism of some sort) or at most a Republic which did not have the power to favor one set of individuals at the expense of another, and therefore could not interfere. What are the other systems that could be justified?
Not to speak out of turn (ahem…), but Austrian Economics is a positive science. Accordingly, there is no “should do” or “shouldn’t do” kind of political dictation built in. Your assertion that AE requires some sort of anarchism or minarchism is predicated on the assumption that what we “should do” is abide by rules which enable us to acquire the kind of wealth that AE provides a road map for. This is not necessarily so. Strictly speaking, you could believe in the validity of all the major Austrian principles and advocate socialism without contradicting yourself. It would be somewhat akin to believing in the validity of the law of gravity whilst building a society around the inane idea that gravity “should be” defeated (for whatever higher purpose), but it can be done.
The point is, that there is absolutely nothing, once you have done away with the state, to prevent a well-funded person, whether from outside or inside, from gathering followers and reestablishing a state. Say there is a severe drought that affects much of the country. People are starving. Large landowners with armed guards control much of the airable (is that how you spell it?) land. Raiders from nearby areas come in, stealing what little food there is or even resorting to cannibalism. After a couple years, a rich man, one of the landowners, comes along and says, “Behold, I have grain, and weapons! You need but join under my banner, and I will protect you, and you shall not starve!” Many, perhaps most, would. And you would have a government. And this man, who offers salvation from starvation and predation, could impose almost any condition, and many would accept it in return for their lives. And they would become part of his forces, and if he desired to conquer those who stubbornly held out for their freedom, he could.
Now take a nation, with a Constitution, that allows for doing almost nothing, except maintaining national defense and maybe roads, and disallows any other group trying to take political power and impose any legal restrictions whatever, beyond those protecting life and liberty. No predatory dictator could enter, or at least, not so easily. The government could acknowledge (this will be rather controvertial here, I know) the common ownership of land, and prevent land hoarding by supporting itself partially through a progressive land tax (progressive by how much land is owned by one person, not by income).
This is also one of the reasons why representative government tends to fail. Politicians, utterly dependent on the popularity contests for power, can win by pandering to the selfish and short-sighted whims of the masses. It is the same issue as with the anarchy, just in slow motion.
I agree with you. except realize that criminal laws were not included in the constitution because we did not want to have to make an amendment concerning the punishment of different crimes or to redefine what was criminal behavior.
Also because of the 10th amendment. it should be recognized that criminal law (I think) should be dealt with at the state and local level. this is federalism.
as far as taxes… I can not say that any tax is just, after reading brainpolice’s post about ethics regarding minarchism. only can I say that they must be endured, with a grim face.
Looking at this from a practical standpoint, as I’ve said before - we tried something similar. Didn’t work out. We are where we are. Same goes for France, which started off, like us, espousing Enlightenment ideals, which is sort of what you are doing (though by allowing for roads and taxes, I think you’re already headed further down the road to a State which will tolerate no limits on its power than what we started with). My point is: this seems to be unworkable, because the limited govt you form inevitably becomes corrupt and grows beyond its bounds. What makes you think that it would turn out differently - this time?
Ethically, it doesn’t work either. What you are saying, whether you realize it or not is, let’s allow a little coercive government, and hope and pray that it doesn’t get more coercive. I has to say, I don’t think you’ve done much in the way of historical due diligence. Humans just don’t work that way.
Well, I agree with you there. So you seem to be saying: going with a State is better than with anarchy because, while both will yield to tyranny, the State approach will last longer before it succumbs. I used to hold this view and would at that time have agreed with you. But the more I’ve researched anarchy, the more I have come to think that in fact, it’s exactly the opposite, and that anarchy offers a more sustainable program of liberty.
Consider: to make your argument against anarchy, you must posit 1) a drought and famine, 2) raiders who despoil the weak, 3) a rich landowner who can attract large numbers of people to his banner. I would posit that these conditions would rarely if ever arise under an anarchic system, in which most of not all individuals would be armed and proficient in the use of arms, as well as very aware of the potential for bands of armed raiders and therefore likely to drill as militias (and perhaps contract for mutual self and community defense). Also, since no Mommy government is ‘looking out for them’, provisions for drought and famine would be undertaken (no Katrinas here). That is, people would purchase insurance, and make contracts, and take action such that they would not be in a position to fall prey to starvation and therefore the rich landowner would get precious few takers. I think this scenario is at least as plausible as the one you paint.
If these things were not the case, then perhaps they deserve what they get - having failed to fulfill their responsibilities to defend and provide for themselves and their communities.
All I have to do to make my argument is to say: look around you. I don’t need to conjure up phantoms.
My suggestion is that you keep reading and thinking and researching. I suspect that, after a time, you will come to see that anarchism is a more sustainable long term approach - inasmuch as it depends on human nature to work effectively.
The founders were imperfect and, further, no one had really done anything like what they were doing before. They made several mistakes. The first mistake was not taking Hamilton out behind the barn and giving him two in the hat. They also created a constitution which could be changed. Their formulation was so flawed that they had to add amendments for the Bill of Rights, something that wouldn’t have been necessary if the government were properly restrained in the first place.
The real point is, yes, this Constitution failed, but this is only one experiment. The failure of this Constitution is not sufficient evidence to state that all constitutions will fail.
Keep in mind the example of Iceland. While one could argue that it was not a pure anarchy, it was rather market anarchistic, but this system (which did last for 300 years, albeit in a very homogeneous and miniscule nation) was eventually brought down by a combination of external forces and internal power-grabbers.
Drought and famine can, and indeed will, happen eventually under an anarchy. Climate changes are not controlled by governments or the lack thereof. The raider example can be done away with while leaving the bulk of the argument intact, but I would also add that people who live without danger quickly tend to lose martial traditions. A generation or two of peace, and you will have large groups of lambs fit for the slaughter. Police can’t actually protect us, only really investigating after the fact, yet most of us are unarmed!
As for your statement that they would “deserve” what they get, while that may be so, that doesn’t mean they are just going to instantly die. No, they will form into angry mobs and become raiders themselves! Your argument depends on a majority or at least a large minority of people being truly self reliant for the long term, and I just don’t think that’s realistic. People are naturally lazy: they will do as little as seems necessary to obtain their goals.
Further, I think that there are rights people have that ONLY be enforced by impartial third parties; that is, parties not directly employed by either party in the dispute, or at least not more by one than the other. This includes a doctrine I hold about the common ownership of land and natural resources; common because no one can state any prior, exclusive claim to such things, and therefore, no one can grant such to them either, without first securing for the general public compensation for the loss of the use of that land.
