If this were true, then the United States government never would have grown to the size it has. I cannot remember the article I was reading, but an article I read said Mises gave two reasons why he thought we could never have a free market. The first was something along the lines of the apathy of the masses. The second was special interest groups. I have to agree.
Completely agree. But fraud and force have to be so simply defined that nobody will misinterpret their meaning.
Sorry I meant that as a reply to: Inquisitor- Sat, Mar 29 2008 5:46 PM.
But if one believes earnestly that there is no reason at all to have a government, one cannot honestly propose such a reason. Are you saying you only want statists to post in this thread?
Unless, as was suggested earlier, you would be open to a redefinition of the concept. If by “government” you mean a system of laws and the institutions enabled with upholding them, I would agree with you original post. However, if by “government” you mean the state, it doesn’t matter what you do to try to justify it, because it doesn’t matter what a state is FOR. What a state DOES is usurp, destroy and revoke the very rights it is supposedly intended to protect.
Statists are not the only ones that think government is justifiable.
Yes they are. You have to believe in the state to be a statist. If you are not a statist, you are an anarchist. They are antonyms.
If the concept of government is not limited to the concept of a state, then I would think that statists are not exclusive in thinking government is justifiable; however the Statists and Non-Statists would not be thinking of the same definition, I don’t think.
For instance, if a given population were self-governening, with the lack of a State (as we know it today), would not the concept of government be extended or revised to include the inter-personal relationships of self-governing people?
I would think that each person would be a government unto themselves, agree or disagreeing with other self-governed entities.
I would suggest that a person could be a State unto themselves, which operates in tandem with other States via an agreement such as The Liberty Code. In essence, any semblence of a government existing would be visible only through the actions of individuals working with other individuals, methinks.
Spideynw
In answer to your origingal question, the crux of the difficulty as I see it, is that governments have a monopoly in the use of force. Even if this use of force is for a noble cause such as the protection of Natural Rights, what is there to stop this government from using its coersive monopoly for its own benefit at some stage in the future?
With kind regards
Remnant.
I think the problem is even more fundamental than that. The problem is that due to the nature of the state as an institution, it cannot even attempt to protect natural rights without first violating them. That in order for the institution to come into existance and maintain that existance, it must violate natural rights. And violating rights in the name of protecting them is self-contradictary. A territorial monopoly on the use of force inherently must violate rights even in the attempt to provide the service of rights protection or enforcement. An institution that relies on the imposition of taxation, land theft and other such coercive devices cannot be said to be protecting rights, but rather it is an institutional and habitual violator of rights. This is why so many anarchists have a problem with the initial proposition or question.
Now, if one wants to draw some sort of distinction between “state” and “government”, perhaps government can be reconciled with anarchism. That is, if “government” simply refers to the provision of law, security and arbitration. But as I argued above, a “state”, being defined as a territorial monopoly on the use of force, is incompatible with proper “government” then. It’s function is in actual fact the exact opposite of what it’s “proper role” is said to be. If an institution has no such monopoly and relies entirely on voluntary means to come into existance and maintain itself then it ceases to be a “state” in any sensible definition of the word, and it would logically follow that one’s “government” is merely an anarchical organization. You may call it a “voluntary government” if you like, but at such a point it would be no different then a club, a fraternal organization, a private defense agency or an arbitration firm.
I admire the bravery and indurance of the anarcho-pacifist
What about a third objective that is not a state or a government, but a good governance by individuals. I find that optimal under a constitutional-minarchy that abides by laissez-faire. Really, a negative rights system that lets folks decide for themselves when they have to.
The mass needs security, and it’s mostly from the state.
Then you kill the people trying to re-establish it.
Problem solved. We can all go home now.
And how do you propose to pay for this state?
Why? The state will inevitably become corrupt, while the free market offers excellent protection from corruption in the form of loss of reputation leading to loss of business to competition.
The state will also suffer from a lack of incentives. What incentives do bureaucrats have to provide good quality and efficient security?
The only reason that governments tend to expand is because they have a monopoly on force and coercion, and nothing but a document to restrict them. This is because governments with a monopoly on force, who have to inevitably subsist through taxation, will aim to take guns out of private hands, and when it accomplishes this, it’s expansion will truly be unchecked. I don’t see this as feasible in the long-term.
Such an institution is a fantasy.
This thread is asking what the purpose of government should be. I gave it to you: the purpose of government should be to destroy itself.
Besides that, all minarchists agree that the purpose of government should be to have a monopoly over the protection of people’s natural rights. So there really isn’t any point to this thread in the first place.
No less a fantasy than a peaceful anarchy. I am encouraged by a few constructionists.
This is a good article on anarchisms by Robert LeFevre Autarchy Verses Anarchy.
As I saw it then, and as I still see it, the anarchist philosophy is internally contradictory. It professes a sparkling and shining individualism, at which point I warm to the arguments. Then it advocates some kind of procedure to interfere with the processes of a free market, e.g., elimination of interest and rents; denial of the right of a man to own land, or to own land beyond some stated amount; abolition of profits; placement of management control in the hands of workers through democratic processes conducted within factories, and so on
I am for a state that protects people from the state, and other states.
The autarchist is an intellectual activist. He is a builder, not a destroyer
From Autarchy by Robert LeFevre.
Could you explain how anarchy eliminates interest and rents, denies land ownership, abolishes profits, and places control into workers’ hands. I am fairly new to anarchy, but I’m pretty sure anarcho-capitalism is different from the forms of anarchy LeFevre describes.
Yes, I disagree.
Individual anarchists were not so good on economics, and thus did believe a lot of what LeFevre noted. Anarcho-capitalists (and even mutualists, to an extent) have shifted away from a lot of those positions. So the charges LeFevre makes do not touch upon anarcho-capitalism.
That is a contradiction in terms, like saying that you are for a sun that also provides shade.
Minarchy is socialism. That is why it failed.