What exactly do you mean by “balance of powers” and how exactly do you think it exists and persists?
We do. See The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights On the Frontier by Terry L. Anderson, or at least check out this Mises Daily on the same topic: http://mises.org/daily/4108
Stop being ridiculous mustang.
The separation of government into different branches, where none have the ability to apply violent force beyond the limits set in the constitution. No one branch can attain complete executive power over the government because none have complete authority to command the military. Under a defense agency, of course, command of the military is centralized under the agencies’ executive.
Wild West
It really wasn’t as pleasant as that article makes it sound.
Yes, one branch of the federal government has reason to stop another branch of the federal government from saying or asserting that the federal government should have less or limited powers. If that theory were true, government would have never gotten larger, or more powerful, or more I trusive into trivial matters of people’s everyday personal lives. That is not the case.
(the real balance of powers was not the legislative, executive, and judicial. It was the People, the States, and the federal government. Of course, you don’t want anything to do with that. It’s as if you would say it would be a good idea to let players from the Boston Red Sox be umpires for a game between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. You’re positions are contradictory and make no sense.
I’m not talking about the United States. In other countries (let’s take Canada), the government has pretty much followed the national constitution. Whether or not you think that constitution was written well is a separate argument.
Sorry. I meant separation of powers.
The difference between the two systems is that no branch of government has no power to do anything with its resources without agreement from all the other branches and the constitution, while under ancap-ism, any defense agency executive has absolute power to do anything with its resources.
“Ability” to me means “the physical means to do something”. That can’t be what you mean here though, as the different branches of government certainly do have the physical means to apply violent force beyond the limits set in the constitution. So what do you actually mean here?
Are you sure about that? In the US Constitution, for example, the President is the commander-in-chief of the military. That sounds to me like he does have complete authority to command the military. While it’s Congress that has the authority to declare war, I think we both see how strong of a limitation that’s actually been over the past 60+ years. So it seems that, in at least one case of constitutional government (the US), the executive branch is in the process of attaining complete executive power over the government.
Why do you think a defense agency would necessarily be the same as a statist military? Furthermore, just because command may be centralized under the agency’s executive doesn’t mean there’s no separation of authority whatsoever. For example, do you think defense agencies would always and necessarily be the judges of their own conflicts?
Let’s be clear here. You’re not talking about raw physical means - you’re talking about legitimacy. Now where has any anarcho-capitalist asserted that it would be legitimate for any defense-agency executive to do anything with “his” agency’s resources?
Generally, they don’t. But okay, let’s assume the constitution doesn’t mean anything in practice and look at separation of powers.
The president cannot, say, tax someone without the explicit or implicit consent of the other branches of government. The government as a whole could levy the tax, but any one branch is unable to unilaterally do so.
That’s not complete control. He can’t stage a coup on DC whenever he feels like it.
If this judging occurs after the fact, it’s quite irrelvant. The point is that, as these defense agencies are usually proposed, the executives (or shareholders, or whoever has ownership) have control over their own company and can order it to do what they desire.
I am talking about the executive’s authority over his company. He has the ability to order his defense agency to do whatever he believes maximizes profit, like any corporate executive.
Human nature is always the same regardless of its framework. The concern for tyranny under anarcho-capitalism is as equally valid as under statism.
How not?
How not?
How not?
How so? But doesn’t judging (in a legal sense, mind you) always occur after the fact?
That doesn’t mean that the orders will necessarily be followed, nor does it mean the orders themselves will be considered legitimate by others.
So let me get this straight. You believe that people who work for the government are individuals capable of independent thought, but people who work for corporations aren’t. Gotcha. All that’s left is for you to explain the reason(s) behind this alleged dichotomy.
Impala is also making an error. He’s presupposing all branches of government are following the law and everyone is doing their job in making sure each is strictly acting inside their jursidiction . Clearly, the executive branch has grown disproportionately in power since the “Civil War,” and especially inthe last several decades.
The president can’t tax someone because a tax change must be approved by the supreme court and passed by the legislature. A coup or whatnot could only occur if the supreme court somehow consented to it.
Judging is irrelevant after the fact if the power to enforce the decision rests in the defense agencies themselves, and several of these agencies too busy pillaging to enforce the decision.
No, they’re both “capable of independent thought”.
Anyway, this is a diversion. “Natural law” is a form of horizontal agreement that limits consumer choices to agencies that only obey natural law. Do you agree?
Really? Must it? Can you prove it?
Really? Are you sure?
Several =/= all. So I fail to see how it’s still necessarily irrelevant after the fact. I’d say the authority - not the power per se, as power does not beget its own authority IMO - to enforce the decision rests with the person(s) that the judge(s) found in favor of.
Thanks for the clarification there.
Not necessarily. Besides, I haven’t talked about “natural law”, have I?
Obama wants to lower payroll taxes and Congress won’t let him. That’s an example of how the executive doesn’t have the power to tax.
It is possible, but unlikely because the other two branches could detect the deployment and the supreme court has at least as much power as the president to contravene the order.
If your point is that “centralization of power isn’t absolutely impossible under demoracy”, though, I’ll concede to you this point. My point is that separation of powers makes this outcome less likely.
Ancap-ism does necessarily involve restricting legal competition to agencies which follow natural law. The agencies must restrict competition in this way.
Sure it does. Pretty much everyone has some power to take things from others without their consent. Obama’s just “playing the game” in this instance.
In other words, it’s not impossible for a coup to occur without the Supreme Court approving of it. Furthermore, who has to listen to the Supreme Court about anything and why?
Please back this up with… well, with something.
Nobody. Abuse of power happens in any system, but separation of powers is better at preventing it than concentration of military power in an executive (or separate executives).
If competition is not restricted to natural law-practicing agencies, how can natural law be upheld?
Natural law (in a free society) isn’t like the law of the State. No one uses force in an attempt to make one abide by it. One only answers to the market for his actions (and God). How is it, mustang, that you still pretend you don’t understand the NAP and liberty’s rejection of a man’s authority over another man?
Thanks for admitting that no one has to listen to the Supreme Court (for example) about anything. Now let me ask you this: if there are multiple defense agencies, and hence multiple defense-agency executives, wouldn’t that be a form of separation of powers? Furthermore, if there are separate organizations that judge disputes, wouldn’t there be more of a separation of powers under anarcho-capitalism than under constitutional governments?
What is this “natural law” you speak of?
Not a very good one. Somalia essentially has multiple defense agencies which give lip service to tribal law.
Only if the judges have partial ownership of the defense companies. Otherwise, they have no ability to contravene the defense agencies’ actions before they happen.
The non-aggression principle.