Reed is stuck in the monopoly paradigm. Also in the territorial paradigm. But how many libertarians aren’t?
That’s simply not true. See Case Studies in Anarcho-Capitalism.
Minarchism involves governmental control over the legal system and the abolition of the right to adjudicate disputes.
Utopian Socialists would argue that a ‘legal system’ would be unnecessary under True Socialism, as it is a tool of the state wielded by the ruling class against the workers and peasants, and that there wouldn’t be any disputes to resolve as the contradictions inherent in the final stages of Capitalism would disappear.
Yes, of course. My point is that minarchism is on a par with Utopian socialism, not that they are exactly the same thing.
Any system that has a ‘Utopia in 5 Easy Steps’ is enough to make me skeptical is not dismissive.
The only theorist who I think might actually follow that premise is Charles Fourier because he thinks everyone will be bright and chipper in Socialism.
I’ve seen this movie. The libertarian dies first
Look closer. [;)]
(e.g. p.7-9)
Well I would ask Dr. Long this:
If we cannot know what incentives there will be on the market which encourage voluntary production and exchange in a non-violent matter then how can we announce the formulate of incentives into a social compact?
I just skimmed Long’s paper, but I thought his point was that the aggregate policies of the acting legal entities (PDAs, etc.?) would be the “constitution.” In other words, the answer to your question is “We can’t.”
I think his point is that a constitution is not merely a piece of paper, but institutions, practices, and incentive structures. “A constitution is not some impersonal, miraculously self-enforcing robot. It’s an ongoing pattern of behavior, and it persists only so long as human agents continue to conform to that pattern in their actions.” (p.8)
And market competition has a better incentive structure than government bureaucracy: “Far from eschewing checks and balances, market anarchists take market competition, with its associated incentives, to instantiate a checks-and-balances system, and to do so far more reliably than could a governmental system. … Anarchy thus represents the extension, not the negation, of constitutionalism.” (p.9)
What?
How can we establish the premise of a Constitution without knowing the incentives involved in future markets? [ Being that the constitution is based on such incentives ]
This makes good sense. I can’t tell if he’s saying essentially that the “constitution” is only (a metaphor for) the “ongoing pattern of behavior.” In other words, this seems to lead to the idea that market anarchy is a self-sustaining (and possibly self-creating) condition and really has nothing to do with anyone’s particular agenda or vision, other than that it may happen to coincide with such a vision. This would seem not to be a monopolistic or monolithic vision like that of Rothbard.
Anarchism can only come about if enough of the population stop obeying and stop cooperating with the state. Once this happens, we will have a society that recognizes that taxation is no more than extortion/theft. As such, no one else will be able to instigate a government, since no one will accept it. And no, there has never actually been anarchism, on a grand scale, that I know of, in the history of human kind. As far as I know, there have always been rulers/masters.
[Anarchism can only come about if enough of the population stop obeying and stop cooperating with the state. ]
I submit that anarchism has already come about. It came into fruition when I declared myself a sovereign state. You, too, can experience anarchism.
Yes, you can.
Samarami
Did you stop paying taxes? Did you open a business without getting a license? Do you drive a car without registering it? Do you still have a drivers license? If not, then you are not living as a free person.
Regardless, I should add enough of the population needs to stop obeying, and needs to make it public. Because then everyone knows they are getting away with it and it forces the hand of the government.
[Did you stop paying taxes? Did you open a business without getting a license? Do you drive a car without registering it? Do you still have a drivers license? If not, then you are not living as a free person.]
Last time I “filed” information with U.S. taxing authorities was 1978. I have been labeled “Illegal Tax Protester” since, 'tho I protest no taxes whatsoever. I pay no attention to labels. And I have paid a rather high price (reshwa = “taxes”, fines, imprisonment) for what freedom I possess – and I retain more liberty than most.
Who ever said the life of an anarchist would be a free life? Neither you nor I will “live as a (totally) free person” until we can leave home without locking our doors – until we can leave the key in our car or our bike leaning against a post for hours while we shop without fear of theft. One who thinks anarchy means total freedom is thinking like a statist. He probably thinks he has to “join” this or that “movement of like-minded” to be an anarchist – or support some coercive force to “require” all inhabitants in a given area to become anarchists . Not.
I live in an occupied state. I have no illusions about that. Same if I travel to Mexico or Iran or Canada. I have to take measures to protect myself and those I love from criminals – government criminals and non government criminals. The non government criminals are relatively easy to deal with – locking the door or a simple bike lock are usually adequate in most areas for short periods of time. They expect no pledges of allegiance or votes in their elections. They are actually fairly honorable – they wouldn’t even think of trying to force me to “file” information with them as to any resources or valuables I might posses or where they can be located. They have no desire to compel “real ID” or auditing numbers upon me.
Not so with those smiling, waving gangsters who attempt to intimidate “us” into registering with them and marching to “polls” periodically to engage in their elections (which in their mind is evidence we “support” them). They require much more effort and sometimes deviant practices in order to steer ourselves and those we love clear of them and avoid as much as possible their “licensing” and their “entitlements” and their numerous other means of stealing our resources.
Anarchy is not easy, but it’s less troubling than being a sheep of state.
Samarami
Well stated Samarami
good post Samarami.
I am not that brave with my wife and son. I want to be with them and they with me. I don’t think I can emotionally afford to leave them with taking some of the risks you have. I want to be by their side to help and protect them. To teach my son what I know. I admit I am more attached to the government because of this. I hope the government can fall on its own some day with the battle of ideas. I guess if it got worse, for instance, they were aggressively coming after me then I would have no choice and would have to fight back. I guess we each may draw the line in different places in which we make our last stand. my opinion as of now.
I wont lie. My parents were tax protesters. We even went to several of Irwin Schiff’s seminars. We didn’t necessarily protest, we just wanted to opt out. That said it has cost us dearly and it also put Mr. Schiff behind bars. I admit that I am somewhat a coward in this arena.
The state has a monopoly on violence. I have no PDA or alternative insurance company to subscribe to. I also cannot legally make my own. What am I to do? I have friends whos parents have been killed. The cops suppodly had all kinds of leads on a car, a driver, a company, ect… Still half a year later we know nothing nor are we allowed to know any details. Meanwhile a cop gets run down and they find the culprit within hours dispatching their entire police force.
If you folks want a clear picture to know where you stand status wise between us ‘normal folk’, and state employee’s(or as I like to callem ‘party members’) then loose a loved one and see how much your local police force gives a shit.
If I had my way I’d of fired them half a year ago.