You don’t agree with this: '“Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone.” -Taoist Zhuangzi
Josh…here you got my attention.
How can law exist in society if the state is absent??
I agree it could happen that way…but that is just one way.
wolfman, read the paper and article I linked if you actually want an answer. The one disproves the common fallacy about states as final arbiter. Also, all governments are in a state of anarchy amongst themselves. The second is a historical account of the success of private law.
How can anything exist in the absence of the state?
It happens in nature and in markets. But, you believe it is necessary for a government bureaucrat to mandate order into existence to prevent chaos?
The state is a violation of natural law.
What you support is legislation… which is a no, no.
Thank you…Did you also read Marx?? Is not so different…it is just on the other side…far left.
And where is this natural law written??
I never said anything about a bureaucrat.
Walter Block essentially defines a minarchist libertarian as someone who think that the government must exist to perform three essential roles. One is as a protector from foreign threats. Two is as a protector against domestic threats (civilian against civilian, etc) and three as a final adjudicator in any and all legal disputes. So basically, army, police and courts. I think that Block does a great job of defining the basic minarchist position. Then we can go on and say that some minarchists might be ok with certain limited social programs. To that extent, minarchists, like myself, are very light socialists. Hopefully that helps.
They are the people who operate the government, and consequentially, our lives.
I’ve read Marx. Libertarianism isn’t left or right. Again, read what I linked because it disproves what you are saying.
Introduction to Natural Law - MNR
[;)]
Indeed it does…and it defines my position. Thank you.
I can now call myself a minarchist.
I’m glad my definition helped.
I will read those before week’s end.
Not really, and “minarchist libertarians” are inconsistent. You have all the information you need to grow out of this position, whether you choose to critically evaluate your own position is up to you.
I have critically evaluated it and found that it’s perfectly consistent with my values. I don’t expect you or really any radical libertarian to understand it. Doesn’t really matter, I was just trying to be helpful to wolfman.
This would certainly violate the NAP. How could this be considered libertarian? Who decides what is “limited”? Using what you said, anybody could be considered a Libertarian Minarchist.