You’re just trying to avoid being ridiculed as a “Statist”. Limited government is a form of statism, but if you believe that limited government is the correct path, then why be afraid of being called a statist?
I am more agreeing with Jeff here. This all-or-nothing libertarianism isn’t conducive towards healthy debate. You obviously use “statist” in a pejorative sense but even more, to disregard your opponent’s arguments. But what you are really doing is committing the equivalency fallacy. Believing in a uniform system of justice does not equal a belief in slavery. It really doesn’t leave any room for libertarians of the Hayekian persuasion like me.
All or nothing? Can you explain how limited government isn’t statism?
This might just be me, but I think that statism has two definitions, or uses. There is the neutral definition which would be the very existence of the state, however small. Then there is the pejorative sense of the word which is used to describe when the government has control and power over many if not all aspects of an individual’s life. In many instances, I believe the neutral definition is substituted for the pejorative one, meant to imply that a minarchist believes in a form of slavery or some other absurd conclusion. If “statist” was used in the neutral sense of the term, then calling a minarchist a statist would be pointless since it is self-evident.
Look i came to this board in the hopes that it would be different than most internet boards. In other words people could have polite discussion even when they disagree. I’m here as an honest person that is willingly to lsiten to substantive arguments as long as mine arguements are given a fair hearing. Posting sarcastic one liners doens’t quailify to me. jsut because we disagree doeens’t mean we can have a health debate and respect one another. I’m sure on jsut about everything else we do agree. we’re on the same team here.
why arent you willing to listen to powerfull one liners?
That’s why “statism” is not a very useful term, people just like to use it as an insult. One dictionary defines it “The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.” Obviously what that means exactly is ambiguous, but does that sound like minarchism to anyone?
When you’re calling Milton Friedman a statist, or a socialist, for example, you’ve lost all ability to make distinctions. Why bother discussing anything?
perhaps you cant distinguish between minarchists and anarchists then if neither is at all statist?
but of course, friedman was a money, law, and security socialist, and a statist. (even if there are much more statist people out there)
“These governments won’t have enforced monopoly on any given piece of land”
Which makes them worthless.
“Therefore, they have to compete for clients just like any normal businesses.”
As I’ve said many times and no one has addressed it, there is no such thing as competition amongst governments and governments are not business’s. You are misusing concepts. You are taking terms that have objective meaning and are dependent on a specific context and you are using them outside of their context.
How can there be a market which presupposes property rights, free trade, and liberty? The free market means free from the initiation of physical force. This is the function of rights protection. You can’t start with a free market and then go onto to rights protection. You start with rights protection and that creates a free market in which people can produce and trade.
“If you admit that competition is good for any other industry, why should it be different for security and defense?”
Competition is something that exists in a free market where the laws and rules are known in advance, equally applied, and contracts are enforced. How can there be competition in a market that does not exist? The market is not a primary. Rights protection is. The free market is a consequence of rights protection. Without rights protection there is no market.
“You also assume that people can never agree on some set of common rules or voluntarily submit to private court’s rulings.”
I don’t assume that they would never agree but I’m not naïve enough to think they always will. Some people are immoral and irrational. If they weren’t we wouldn’t need rights protection to begin with.
“Why do you want to serve one government instead of having competing agencies serving you? Not to mention that you don’t even have to pay anyone and choose to protect yourself.”
Limited government dependent on voluntary contributions that exists to protect rights serves the citizenry not the other way around.
“Indeed, stop doing it and stop denying the obvious: with respect to the provision of law, order and defence you wish the state to perform the job you (mistakenly) believe the market cannot”
market? what market?
" Saying the concept of competition doesn’t “apply” to government is just special pleading; really, nonsense at its core."
Saying there is a market without rights protection is non sense too but I’m not being rude like you are.
“And then there’s the whole “objective” laws nonsense, objectively enforced according to the state’s subjective interpretations of its decrees. Very “objective”…”
No, objective based on the objective requirements for man’s life. Just like individual rights are objective so to are laws that serve to protect and enforce them. Not to mention if what you say is true it would apply even more to competing governments who’s interests would be to create laws their customers want not what’s objective based on the principle of justice and the objective requirements for man’s life. So if enough people are for slavery than its legal according to Government A because afterall they’re just doing what the “market” wants.
humans acting. and they are in the same territory, and they are uncoerced:- market.
saying that the providers of protection services must be a monopoly is a nonsense.
Yes, that must be it
Is Mises also a socialist and statist, since he was not an anarchist? Are those useful labels for him?
they are useful in that they challenge minarchists out of their complacency.
So then you agree that Mises was a statist and socialist.
What I find interesting is that you are calling me (an advocate of lassez faire capitalism) a statist yet you are the one accepting the statist principle that business and economics should be merged, that there is no difference between the functions of government and business. How can you say on one hand government interference in the market place is bad while simultaneously saying government should be in the market place? The only way you could have such an obvious contradiction is because you are misusing the term market which presupposes rights protection to exist. Instead you start with the market as a primary and then go on to form a system of rights protection. This is improper. There can be no free market before rights are protected.
he was a minimal statist, which includes being somewhat a statist. so yes. you can hardly deny he was a statist.
he was also a law and security socialist . he was less socialist than friedman, who if you remember was additionally a money socialist.
i suppose it hinges on your use of the word protection.
anyhow,i think on its face your argument is absurd. that the world starts, there are some human beings, and before anyone can trade any property with any other one, some 3rd human must have a monopoly on law and tell them that they are in their rights to do the trade, or not…
Hes saying law, protection, and other services that are currently provided by the government (read: state) can be provided by the market, it isn’t a contradiction, its extreme laissez-faire capitalism. (that could be a redundent term)
Throwing around the word “socialist” like it is nothing, especially to describe some aspects of Mises’ philosophy, makes the word lose all meaning. A centralized system of law is not socialist. It really has nothing to do with what socialism is about.
How about we stick to ideas here and not pseudo psychological assessments of my motives, it serves no meaningful purpose.
Secondly to call someone a statist who is for limited government as if there is no difference between that position and communist Russia is absurd and renders the term meaningless.
I’m not afraid to be called anything. If limited government is statism than I’m a statist. My point is that it’s not statism if words have meaning and instead of discussing this you make stupid comments about my motives, not very convincing. Do you convert a lot of people to your side by making these remarks? I doubt this is a very effective way to communicate and persuade.