If the choice is between rule of law (constitutional republic) and rule of man (anarchy) we must choose that system which is most inclined to protect liberty for the longest amount of time, because both systems will eventually self-destruct. History has proven that constitutional republics protect liberty better than any other system.
I was unaware anarchy had actually been done anywhere on a serious basis. Also, it’s a good thing the founding fathers didn’t take your view of history and decide that they had to go with something that had already been tried.
“I view it that we failed the system they established..”
Could not say it much better than that. Our constitution needs some updating, but the basic framework is good. And you are right, human nature will destroy anarchy as well. Because some people are not good at making things, they are good at leading people. Lead enough of them to join one organization bent on oppression of the few, and your system will have problems dealing with it.
The debate is not over human nature. The debate is over incentives. Which system provides the best incentives to motivate people to act in the interest of preserving rights, property, and adhering to the NAP. As opposed to the very opposite.
You seem to be submitting anarchy to an incredibly high plank of expectations, while excusing the failures of constitutional governments. Face it, you’re being as impartial as the state’s courts in a lawsuit against the state.
I’m not sure what you mean by “on a serious basis” as anarchy simply requires an absence of government. Anarchy has reigned temporarily in many civilizations throughout history (Greece, Rome, China, the British Isles, America), but only temporarily because more so than any other form of governance it self-destructs so quickly. It it then quickly replaced by, generally, a tyrannicnal form of government. This would have happened in America but for those selfless enough to implement the republic.
I think you misunderstand my meaning as I do not advocate being bound by the experiments of history. History, however, provides an excellent trial and error analysis which is helpful to avoid many of the past’s mistakes. The Founders understood the good and the bad of previous constitutional republics and tried to adopt the good of those that worked with modifications to improve upon that which did not work.
You should read Lysander Spooner. The Constitution has no authority, it is not, nor was it ever a document consented to by those who were governed. A very small number of men (the Framers) drafted the Constitution, in secrecy.
Even if 100% of Americans agreed to the Constitution at the time of it’s adoption, have any Americans been asked today whether they accept this as their governing document, or if they accept the authority of the government currently empowered/fashioned by it?
Of course I am being bias against anarchies. It has never been tried before, so we have no real evidence of how it would work. What I DO know and have evidence for is that when we followed our constitution, our individual liberties were much more secure than they are now. So that is where I want to go.
I think you will agree that is a step towards your goal. I do not know if I would take the dismantling of the government as far as you, but I’m sure you do not think that a system of the magnitude you are proposing could just up and happen out of nowhere. It will be a slow process at best. Let us worry about what we can truly do right now, uphold the constitution.
That is only partially true. Even if “incentive” were the entire analysis a constitionally limited government creates more of an incentive to motivate people to protect rights than anarchy. Knowing that I am free as long as I do not infringe on another’s right and if I do a government whose sole purpose is the protection of life, liberty, and property creates much more of an incentive than a system where I am free to do anything I want, but I can lose my life, property, and liberty by anyone more powerful than I who does not share my same values.
You have to consider human nature. Human nature will lead to mob rule or some other form of oppresives governance. Which system will keep human nature in check best? Anarchy fosters the worst of human nature.
Make no mistake, I would like a world as anarchist as possible, possible being the key word.
We all recognize the failures of both forms of government. I, personally, hold all forms of government to the same standard: which system will protect life, liberty, and property best?
I’m well aware of Spooner’s work, but it is unconvincing. Yes, it is true, I never consented to be governed by the constitution, and therefore, it has no authority over me. It is interesting logic, but impracticable. The Founders recognized the right of men to be self-governed, regardless of the generation, which is why they included the amendment process.
Wrong. Any form of taxing government (constitutionaly limited or not is irrelevant) is still ethically inconsistent, and employs double standards. You can’t seriously believe that a system inherently hypocritical with regards to property and rights is a good way of protecting them?
You seem to have a very “might makes right” attitude with respect to anarchy. I think you should read Machinery of Liberty, or some Rothbard. I can’t recommend others atm because I have yet to read people like Hoppe in any detail.
How so? Anarchy allows freedom of competition, which is the best check on human corruption possible, as nobody needs to administer it. Anarchy essentially solves the age-old problem of “Who watches the watchers?”, as does all free market activity and unrestricted competition.
I doubt it, for you seem to have a huge amount of misconceptions about anarchy.
One whose very existence does not violate them. Think about your own question and you will realise why limited government is a fantasy…
Misstatement. The Constitutional Convention had no executive powers, i.e., they could not force or enforce anything.
Each state had to ratify the constitution and they did that through the republican process, i.e., representative government.
Strong words, but unsupported per the above.
Someone else will have to own you on this, I’m going to a barbecue this afternoon. 
I’ll leave you with this though. A very weak response on your part.
-
It’s unconvincing. How so?
-
You agree the Constitution has no authority. and yet…
-
It’s impractible to follow interesting logic and
-
The Amendment process has nothing to do with self-governance. The Amendment process is still rule by proxy or democracy, which has nothing to do with individual liberty.
I was where you are now not all that long ago. You don’t want to let go of the structure of government, because you’re not convinced that you won’t plummet to the ground. Believe me, when you get past worrying “what if” and realize that “what we have” is irrational, illegal, immoral and unsustainable, “what if” is where your energies should be focused. Not on propping up or maintaining the status quo, but on how to recover from and better it.
I mean a group of people deciding to refrain from establishing a system of total government and instead opting for an absense of. I wasn’t referring to the times inbetween tyrannical government.
It’s also useless when evaluating a system which hasn’t been put in place before, as is the case here. Anarchy has existed, but only because of a lack of something to replace the previous government with. In most cases it happens in economically poor countries that cannot maintain another form of government either.
I’m Canadian so I don’t know a lot of the history. The fact that I misspoke here does not go to the argument I was making.
What I’m saying is:
There is nothing free market about government even if it is representative. If even one person, Farmer Joe, should not consent then it is not longer a voluntary insitution, it is coercive (no matter how many James Madisons there are). Therefore, the state is not of the “free market”.
Also, if all people consented at the time and had the option to leave then the institution would be a voluntary association of the free market, but it would not be a state.
So, my statement that the possibility of the US state arising on the free market is by definition an absurdity and does not need any evidential support.
Spooner’s legal analysis of the authority of the constitution ignores several fundamental legal principles such as waiver and estoppel. One need not sign a document to be bound by its terms. You can be bound by your actions and inactions, which we have all done by remaining in the US.
I didn’t mean to convey that. The Constitution does have authority, I merely meant I agree with the logical process, i.e. one step leads to another.
Depends on the logic and its results. There is much logic, but not all logic leads to reasonable results.
Assuming you believe that individual liberty cannot be effectuated through republicanism you are right.
It isn’t that I don’t want to let go of the structure of government, it is that I want the most liberty possible, which, unfortunately, necessitates some form of government. I know exactly what we have. My concern with anarchy is not “what if” it is what I know to be inevitable–implosion.
If this how you define a free market, then I can’t disagree with you.
How would you define it exactly?
In the context in which we are speaking the free market was the process not the results. If you agree with the process (i.e., as the colonists did with republicanism), and as long as there is due process, then the fact that you do not like the results of the process does not mean you were coerced/forced to comply.
Well, now, fortunately, we’re not limited to that choice since anarchy can also involve rule of law. See Roderick Long’s “Anarchism as Constitutionalism” blogposts and his newer “Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism” book chapter, among other resources.
Just so. But…the state has inherent internal contradictions that make its growth into Leviathan inevitable. There’s no guarantee that market anarchy will be permanent, but at least it lacks these structural incentives.
Compared to what? Unconstitutional republics? Monarchies? Communism? Fascism? Direct democracies? Dictatorships? But libertarian market anarchy hasn’t been tried on a full scale, so you can’t really include it in this comparison. However, there have been various polycentric legal systems and some quasi-anarchistic societies, in history that did protected liberty better than our current system. And, of course, while the US Constitution was an admirable attempt at creating a constitutional republic, we can all see that it has failed miserably.
Spooner deals with this regarding voting, paying taxes, etc.
Fallacious argument. It assumes the very thing you are trying to prove, viz., that the US government has legitimate authority.