McFall, it is refreshing to see a left libertarian who is not totally repulsed by or averse to Hoppe.
Kudos to you.
Doesn’t sound like a form of government to me if it cannot enforce edicts upon unwilling participants.
Perhaps, but shouldn’t you seperate the two regardless? I don’t see how Statism is required for self-government.
I thought self-government means that each individual governs himself and only himself. So, in a sense, self-government is not government, but anarchy.
My point, more or less; self-government & Statism are not compatible.
So you would say government is a person or group of people ruling over others?
I’m reminded of Robert Paul Wolff’s In Defense of Anarchy, which, while it is a terrible book about anarchy, is a great book about democratic forms of government. He concludes that Unanimous Direct Democracy (UDD), which is essentially what you’re describing, is the only legitimate form of government, the only form where authority and autonomy coincide. He concludes that representative democracy and majoritarian democracy fall short of legitimacy. Alas, in his last section, when he talks about working anarchy, he does a poor job of descibing it, never mind arguing for it.
It’s online here: http://www.ditext.com/wolff/anarchy.html or available through Amazon, among other places.
I don’t think your form of government (or UDD) is something that’s ever likley to come about in reality, but it does present a good way of discussing the legitmacy of government. And that’s basically Wolff’s argument: if no functional form of government is legitimate, anarchy is the only legitimate choice.
UDD would be quickly abandoned because if no decisions come to pass most people will find better things to do with their time.
Government can be either a collection of individuals who rule or just one person ruling the many. However, if the government cannot enforce its ruling upon individuals who do not want to follow those rules then it ceases to be a government. Also, if in your pure democracy everyone agrees to a certain law, but one then later on decides to reverse course would he still be bound to the law?
Agreed.
Then by your definition, unanimous democracy is not a government. If it is not a government, then what is it? Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with you. In a UDD, there really would be no “government”, since there would not be any government officials since no legislation would ever be approved. I guess a UDD would be the possibility of a government.
No, and the law would become null and void as well.
There is no coercion or threat of violence apparent, so it is simply a social institution.
If one, being a member of the UDD, has the power to veto a law for any reason then there would be no threat of the state emerging.
I fail to see how this form of government could sustain itself or what the benefits would be. It will either fall apart due to lack of force or it will succumb to it and cease to be free.
If there were no government what so ever the exact same thing could be accomplished. Those with voting fetishes could still create or join private voting institutions and vote to their hearts content. And of course no vote could apply to a non member.
But if a governmened people can arive at such a level of freedom, they will understand that choices are votes and democracy is inferior to Liberty.
Why on earth would the natural elites feel the need to form a new state? The only way a person could rise to position of an “elite” is through gaining respect for their actions and morals, as such there’s every reason that the elites would be the first ones to resist the state. Especially when we take into account that the history of states is to oppress the natural elites and reward the less able with political power. One of the biggest forces in modern democracy is envy, hardly a trait that would be common amongst natural elites.
Even if we did grant that they had an incentive to, why do you assume they would be able to? And how can you assume that creating a state will retard this process as oppose to speed it up?
What’s your point? If people want statism that’s exactly what they’ll get.
It couldn’t be sustained, and the benefit would be to allow “normal” people to be introduced to liberty without having to quit their beloved democratic process cold-turkey. It would fall apart when people realize its uselessness.
Watch the last few episodes of the HBO show Deadwood, which is based on a true story.
I could be wrong. Of course it is highly unlikely that a UDD or anarchy will ever be established.
I don’t limit myself intellectually as a follower of any particular brand of libertarianism. As Neal Peart put it, “I am nobody’s disciple”.
I am “left libertarian” in that I believe in market-based action toward revolution, and don’t believe in political action. But I do have socially conservative beliefs, and I’m not a mutualist or a syndicalist or anything like that.
Only 1% of the population is “intelligent”…?
How are you an Anarchist if you think everyone is an idiot?
Divide and conquer?