Democracy

[Prospero]

Minarchism I had neer heard of before i confess. Now i've looked it up is mighty rightly be applied only in countries such as absurdistan.

Hre, out of interest, is an article by a repentent Minarchist.

Published in 2004

The Minarchist's Dilemma
by anthony Gregory

For several years I championed minarchy. Even before I learned the term, I embraced the notion that a limited government, which protected individuals from force and fraud, but stays within the limits of that function, would best serve society.

I understood that the government should not do at least 90% of what it did. I opposed conscription, drug laws, business regulations, welfare programs, unprovoked foreign interventions and central banking. The government, as I saw it, should only maintain a small military, a small police force, and a court system, in order to protect the basic rights of people. When first considering it, I viewed the prospect of anarchy almost as frightening as totalitarianism.

I've changed my mind. I do not know at all what society would look like without a state. But I cannot imagine how its absence would breed more ills than what we have now.

Before I came to this change in thinking, I went through many philosophical transformations. I heard a talk by Samuel Edward Konkin III, now recently departed, who at the time advocated a stateless society more convincingly than anyone I had before heard. He was also, I later learned, the man who coined the term, 'minarchy.'

The dilemma I always had, when contemplating the state's existence per se, was envisioning how a state could possibly protect rights better than it did in supplying healthcare, stamping out drug abuse, or providing education. I understood the reasons why a coercive institution such as the state has inevitable difficulties in resisting corruption and delivering on its promises. I grasped the basic economics, I read the history, I witnessed it in practice.

Or, rather, malpractice.

I comprehended that the state, properly defined, possessed a monopoly on force. This always puzzled me. It obviously should not have a monopoly on defensive force (I totally understood the arguments against gun control). So what kind of force does it monopolize?

The initiation of force. The precise disease I envisioned the ideal state to combat.

I knew that government created monopolies in utilities, education, and other services. I understood that cartels, protected from competition, ended up controlling much more of the economy than they would in a free market.

And yet, I trusted the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers to expand its 'market share' over coercion beyond what the free market would provide.

I realized, on a subliminal level, that any 'state' that obeyed within the confines of non-aggression, barred from the powers of taxation and incapable of forbidding others from competing with it, would cease to be an actual state at all.

I realized, having learned basic American history, that the original American republic, so heavily revered by the minarchists for its unprecedented limits, grew and expanded enormously at its every opportunity. I wondered how I could trust states, however small, not to grow into big ones. It seemed to be in their interest, throughout history.

So my philosophical dilemma with minarchism, which I defended, and anarchism, which I opposed yet better understood, was with me for several years. But I put up with it because I thought it was impractical to believe in anarchy, which would never exist. I might as well shoot for the smallest, least oppressive government possible.

My pragmatic reasons for giving the state its perfunctory respect ended shortly after 9/11. I thought to myself, 'Okay, Anthony, here's your chance to see if your principles can withstand today's terrible events. It's wartime, and you believe that the government has only one function ' to protect its citizens from force and fraud.'

I read the reactions to 9/11 written by hard-core libertarians and anarchists. I read the reactions written by 'small-government-conservative-libertarians.'

The anarchists and hard-core ones tended to say the government should, if anything, send people out to find the terrorists and arrest them.

The more 'moderate' libertarians tended to support the war in Afghanistan.

It wasn't very long until I realized that the government's response to 9/11 had no hope in improving anything. In Afghanistan, it immediately embarked on the same kind of policy that incited 9/11 in the first place. At home, it violated all sorts of civil liberties that I considered indispensable in a free country, and unnecessary sacrifices for a genuine battle against terrorism.

A few months after 9/11, it all came together for me. Of course an institution that forcefully extracts two trillion dollars from Americans every year, systematically imprisons peaceful people, and kills countless human beings in other countries for no good reason is going to have difficulty correctly addressing the crises that result from its killing. Of course a government that kills more than ten thousand people a year by prohibiting them from obtaining life-saving medicines is going to have problems accounting for innocent lives in its wartime calculations.

Not all statists or state agents are 'evil' ' far from it. But it is a very dangerous idea that certain select people ' whether through elections or inheritance ' should monopolize the power to use preemptive force against innocent people, and should ultimately only be accountable to itself.

I do not think we will see a stateless society in my lifetime. But I am sure we will not see a state that conforms to the minarchists' ideals. The closer we get, the better, but I see no reason not to aspire for the best government as Thoreau imagined it: none at all. It's certainly more consistently idealistic than what the minarchists imagine, and yet it's at least possible, whereas the existence of a lasting, minimal state is a hopeless fantasy.

I believe that minarchists, in their advocacy and intellectual contributions, do far more good than harm. But sometimes their most frustrating inconstancies and difficulties in connecting with other people stem from their faith in the minimal state, a conceptual exception that takes bites from their conceptual rule.

Whether we call ourselves anarchists or not is not of primary importance. Nevertheless, we should make a habit of questioning the state as a general abstraction every time we ponder its particulars. We should challenge its basic premises, even as we critique its consequences. The more we engage in this mental exercise ' as decadent as it may seem to the loyal minarchist ' the more we will understand the reasons behind the state's failures, and the more we can productively explain to others why they occur."





Mind you whoever AN8150 is he rightly said he can't be forced to post here - or read anything we post anyway. And on thing he and I do seem to agree. Being with a beautiful woman is far preferable to this discussion. That is where i am too heading now (having promised with my first post here NOT to post any more on the forthcoming election.)

Good luck everyone. As Trish reminds everyone in the main forum VOTE VOTE VOTE....

[Willie Escalade]

The way Americans chime in on other countries' politics with an opinion, you from other countries have the exact same right to as well; I welcome it.

[an8150]

Prospero, Rand did not oppose "us" forming any system that would assist people. What she opposed, and what I oppose is anybody forming such a system and coercing my support for it.

[an8150]

As to Anthony Gregory's dilemma, if I have understood it correctly, it is a familiar one, and it is why I said I have some sympathy with anarchism (more specifically with anarcho-capitalism). It is a source of intense debate among minarchists how to ensure that limited small government remains limited small government. The anarcho-capitalists think we're living in la-la land because they say it can't be done, because people like you will always come along and find ways to expand the remit of government. History is certainly on the side of the anarcho-capitalists (I know little, and understand less, of anarcho-syndicalists) in that argument.

[an8150]

trish, in my experience, respect for human life among libertarians and objectivists exceeds by far that of any other political creed. Nor is my experience unique. The political creed most deliberately and successfully destructive of human life is that of totalitarian communism, which is an extreme variant of the state mandated altruism apparently so popular here.

You're right that I choose to drive on public highways, and that is a voluntary action on my part (although travel is scarcely as whimsical as the purchase of a chocolate bar), but the purchase of a driving licence is not. I suppose the correct chocolate bar analogy would require me to purchase a licence to buy chocolate bars before I am allowed to buy a chocolate bar. No shopkeeper would wish for such a system. Until the health Stasi really start to feel their onions, I can just, er, buy a chocolate bar, rather than requiring a licence to do so. By contrast I cannot just drive on a road. I'd like to, but I can't. My wishes are one thing. The state's demands of me are another.

And only the state, and its supporters, think this way, which is a pretty good example of why enlightened self interest (that of the shopkeeper's desire to sell me a chocolate bar) is more self-evidently desirable than the altruism of the state in poking its nose into my travel habits.

[an8150]

Broncofan, "but what right have you to any public service without paying in? Any use of services is an affirmative acceptance. And given the way a government has to operate, there is no way to opt out in the sovereign territory of a country. The fire department will not pass over your house if you have a blaze. The police will not fail to protect you because you waive their service. You simply cannot get by without ratifying the contract by implication. The services cannot be provided on an individualized basis, as it would be an administrative nightmare.

And the government was set up here as an indirect democracy. You do not need to consent to what your elected politicians mandate. And what they mandate does not need your individual approval. This is the system you live under; either here or abroad. Living in the sovereign territory of a country subjects you to their jurisdiction. As long as you are here and earning money within that sovereign you are subject to their jurisdiction. You cannot pretend that when you start a business or work for a business you are not availing yourself of the services of the state."

You place me in a heads you win, tails I lose position.

What right have I to any public service without paying in? None at all. Fine by me. I'm happy to pay for what I want, and if I can't afford it I go without. But wait. You say there is no way to opt out. And you're right. There isn't. If the much-vaunted British National Health Service fails to provide me with the hip replacement I need (I assume you're American, so this may seem a bit weird to you, but basically we have healthcare rationing over here; don't worry, if you're keen on the idea I gather you'll be getting a lot of it in the nearish future), will I get my money back? Jog on, matey. I can't opt out and I don't want in. But you statist chaps know what's best for me, so that's ok.

The services cannot be provided on an individualised basis? Not when government directed they can't, that's for sure. So what? Man up, do without them. You have nothing to gain but your liberty.

[an8150]

Hang about, Broncofan. In an earlier comment you wrote that, "We opt-in to this system ad we receive myriad benefits from it."

Then you wrote, "And given the way a government has to operate, there is no way to opt out".

Look, I've never opted in. Seriously. I live where I was born. I asked trish earlier if there was some way I could get out of this situation but I still haven't had a reply. And it's the transnationalist progressive crowd (IPCC, anyone?) who want to impose global governance such that there quite literally is nowhere to run to. At least East Doughnuters had hope of escaping over the wall.

[trish]

The fee for your license helps pay for the road. So yes, driving without a license is akin to shoplifting. True, buying a chocolate is whimsical; driving is not. The effort of acquiring the license assures us that you have at least a minimal understanding of the safe rules of driving. If you choke on candy it won't endanger my life. If you choke on the rules of driving you may wind up killing someone.

in my experience, respect for human life among libertarians and objectivists exceeds by far that of any other political creed.

Certainly not my experience.

[an8150]

Broncofan, "By recognizing the existence of crony capitalism you seem to realize that some regulation is necessary. [Er, no. I say crony capitalism is caused by, among other things, regulation] Then why label the support of any regulation "communist" or "collectivist"? [See my previous answer; also, because regulation is invariably justified in terms that invoke the needs of a collective, most commonly "consumers"]. Are you positing a system without any regulation at all? [Yes] Then what are the origins of this dreaded crony capitalism that Ayn Rand is known so well for fighting against;? [Primarily, large government budgets and government direction of other economic activity not amounting to direct spending, which will always be dispensed in favour of the politically well-connected]

She probably despised the GOP for their social policies [yes, but she was also scathing of the GOP as a Trojan horse for government economic intervention]. I am sure she would not want the GOP to police people's private practices or impose their religious mores on the general public. However, she would almost certainly be on board with cutting all of these programs that save hundreds of thousands of lives every year [I think she'd agree with cutting the programs; I suspect she'd point out that it is impossible to know how many such people would have died in an alternate universe lacking said programs and, mopreover, to have reinforced my earlier point that, either way, the cure is worse than the disease]. I don't see it as a caricature to say the tea partiers are selfish individuals who have turned on their fellow citizens [you don't? so if I've got this right, you're prepared to throw Smith into chokey for not stumping up for your hip replacement and you're the righteous altruist; Smith on the other hand, who merely wants nothing to do with you, has turned on you?]; victims of enabling myths about welfare moms and people faking disability [indeed. I'm sure none of that happens]. The 47% rhetoric we heard from Romney sounded a lot like the parable of the train. These people do not want to take responsibility for their lives, for their actions, and are essentially drains on society. How do I misinterpret her? [please refer to my other relevant answers]

I always love how the Libertarian view is couched in rhetoric about freedom [do you? why? or are you suggesting that libertarians care nothing for freedom?]. Have you ever known anyone with a disability? [yes. me] Do you think they see it as a threat to their freedom if they receive monthly stipends or if employers are forced to take affirmative actions to accommodate them (with the possible defense of undue hardship if the employer's business is threatened)? [you're confusing freedom with ability, or disability]. You cannot say that these are the few permissible regulations [I do not] since you've already gone on record labeling those who support any regulation as virtual communists [actually I think I said right at the start that I prefer the terms "statist" and "collectivist"; moreover, I think that the puritan strain, as seen in health drives, for instance, also plays a significant role; as easy as it would be entirely to blame the communists, I think that would be inaccurate. For me, the real enemy is those who seek power, dominance, control. Their vehicles change - religion, economics, nationalism, but their basic motive is the same].

So here is the result empirically. Sick people die in a ditch [why would they go to a ditch? what is your evidence for this? In Britain we've got more welfare than you can shake a stick at, have done since the Great Society was a glint in its creator's eye, and, guess what? people still die from preventable causes; in some cases, they do so because of welfare; see: Victoria Climbie]. Individuals cannot get gainful employment because of a disability [depends on the disability; no arms, no legs, you're not going to be operating a lathe, are you? or am I being a bigot? It reminds of the Life of Brian. "Where's the foetus gonna gestate? You gonna put it in a box?" "Don't you oppress me?"]. Our food and drugs are not regulated [yes they are; besides, I've tasted American food, only a bureaucrat could make it taste that way] and cyanide powder is marketed for the common cold [and?]. These are not strawmen as you've already said coercive action by the government constitutes a collectivist mentality and is the road to communism [it's the road to serfdom, channelling Hayek; I've just realised I have no idea what point you're making in this paragraph...]] . What are your prescriptions? [Ho, boy! How about we start from the presumption that government is not the answer to everything that goes wrong. Or right. How about a bit of that rugged, self-reliant individualism you lot are famed for?] We allow the private litigation system to regulate adulterated products after they've done their harm? [the incentive is the same as with state regulation;I think you'll find the end result is identical in terms of minimising risk]. Or should we get rid of litigation as well? [no, I have no problem with private law; it beats private vendetta as a hallmark of civilised conduct] We wait until you develop a philanthopic instinct [how do you know I don't already have a philanthropic instinct? or must I parade my virtue before I become a sufficiently signed-up member of the human race properly to tell you to get your hands of my freedom?]to personally save the ditch dwellers or we just let them die in the ditch? [if it were me, I'm sure I'd find a nice cozy doorway; where are these ditches coming from?] If we save them from the ditch are we communists or decent human beings? [go ahead and save whomsoever you like. I'm not stopping you. And, if I see fit, I'll do likewise. But coercing me to behave as you decide I should is merely theocracy] Not addressing these problems or pretending they're aberrant is not my idea of being responsible. "

[an8150]

trish, "The fee for your license helps pay for the road. So yes, driving without a license is akin to shoplifting. True, buying a chocolate is whimsical; driving is not. The effort of acquiring the license assures us that you have at least a minimal understanding of the safe rules of driving. If you choke on candy it won't endanger my life. If you choke on the rules of driving you may wind up killing someone."

As far as I am aware, in the UK it does no such thing, although I am sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong. I have no problem paying the owner of something for using it, if he is willing for me to use it.

I don't think I've mentioned shoplifting. But if you're right, doesn't it then follow that if the state fails to provide a service that you have demonstrably paid for, it has defrauded you?

My preference would be for the proper owners of roads freely to contract with their users those terms of use convenient to them. I have no problem with the utility of commonly agreed rules of vehicular conduct. But I say that they are matter of private contract and the law of negligence.