then given your scenario, democracy is not the problem - rather it's the usurpation of democracy's mandate by sinister elements (again given your scenario). Therefore you must conclude that true democracy has never been tried - at least not in the U.S. yet. Would that be a logical conclusion to your theory? Thanks.
No, that would not at all be a proper conclusion to my "theory". If you'd read what I wrote earlier:
Democratic government is socialized government, because the power is publically rather than privately owned.
That's not theory; that's fact. Democracy is socialist by definition, because it is collective ownership of political power. I oppose socialism in all its forms, and therefore oppose democracy in principle, not only in its historical forms. Democracy's mandate was not usurped - it did exactly what it was supposed to do: preserve the ruling class with a new kind of rationalization. The divine right of kings was supplanted by the "will of the people", but the latter notion is no less irrational, mystical and dangerous than the former.
Democracy is not the problem. Democracy is one of the many manifestations of the problem, which is statism.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I interpret what you said: "... result of a coup by powerful men who ... claimed a false mandate and manipulated their way back into power" to mean usurpation of the struggle's ultimate mandate that men such as "Jefferson, Franklin, Henry" strived for (who you claim were subsequently "marginalized"). Isn't theoretical democracy the political equivalent of free market capitalism - where consumer sovereignty (ie. the will of the people as voters and proportionately autonomous agents in the exchange of ideas and action) prevails?
TomG:I interpret what you said: "... result of a coup by powerful men who ... claimed a false mandate and manipulated their way back into power" to mean usurpation of the struggle's ultimate mandate that men such as "Jefferson, Franklin, Henry" strived for (who you claim were subsequently "marginalized").
Jefferson, Franklin, Henry, etc. were anti-federalists. They didn't want the central government to have ANY legislative power. They intended for the states to choose their own forms of republicanism - which is radically different from democracy. I don't believe that they had any mandate, either, but had their ideas come through, we would probably have had something very much like the "nightwatchman state" that was mentioned earlier - not resembling a democracy by any means.
Isn't theoretical democracy the political equivalent of free market capitalism - where consumer sovereignty (ie. the will of the people as voters and proportionately autonomous agents in the exchange of ideas and action) prevails?
In the market, everyone gets to decide for themselves what to spend, how to spend it, what to spend on, how much to spend and when. That is nothing like democracy, wherein one group of people decides how everyone else will live their lives. Usually, it's the larger group. The "mandate" goes to the mob.
A democratic vote makes people into either slaves or enslavers, and those who would be neither are given no consideration whatsoever.
I've brought this up before, and especially on a separate forum topic's comment strings (to no apparent effect, since no one would answer this) - all that you and others profess sounds noble and correct on paper, but what about reality? Since the starting point would always begin with an uneven playing field, with some holding more cards (ie. assets, wealth) than others - what makes anyone think that they could ever devise a system where everyone interacts and exchanges and *decides* on an equal footing? It's not reality, and it's not realistic to even wish for. You talk about "states to choose their own forms of republicanism" as though that micro-state isn't still something way different than your "nighwatchman" concept (which I assume means bare-bones what's necessary, such as joint defense - with everyone chipping in equally for that security cost). I only see you talking in degrees of government, that's all. And as long as there are different levels of wealth among individuals, then there's different levels of clout in the politics of government (really axiomatic to the nature of man and association). So that in the end, though it all sounds so enticing on paper and in utopian discussions, it's no different than enjoying mythology and reading of King Arthur's Camelot ideals. All very nice, but then what (don't mean to be the turd in the punch bowl but there you have it ;) Cheers.
TomG:I've brought this up before, and especially on a separate forum topic's comment strings (to no apparent effect, since no one would answer this) - all that you and others profess sounds noble and correct on paper, but what about reality? Since the starting point would always begin with an uneven playing field, with some holding more cards (ie. assets, wealth) than others - what makes anyone think that they could ever devise a system where everyone interacts and exchanges and *decides* on an equal footing?
Such a system is impossible, I agree. Therefore what I (and others like me) object to is the idea that there must be a system, at all. You apparently believe that the question is "who shall rule". I say that's a trick question. The problem is that there ARE rulers, and the problem's root is that so many people believe that that is the way it ought to be. What we advocate is not a system - it is the absence of one. Because any system, no matter how constructed or how justified, boils down to the very thing you claim to oppose - "might makes right". If it is assumed that any one person or group of persons has any greater rights (or any different rights) than the lowest individual, you are assuming institutional slavery, though varying in degree, from the outset. I reject that assumption.
You talk about "states to choose their own forms of republicanism" as though that micro-state isn't still something way different than your "nighwatchman" concept (which I assume means bare-bones what's necessary, such as joint defense - with everyone chipping in equally for that security cost). I only see you talking in degrees of government, that's all.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about equal application of rights derived from a rational ethic; a priori law, if you will. That precludes the very existence of what you mean by "government", because that requires the assumption that theft is okay if you call it "taxation", coercion is okay if you call it "conscription", corruption of law is okay if you call it "legislation" and aggression is okay if it is for "the common good". I believe that the less of that there is, the better; and as Thoreau pointed out, it follows that "that government which governs least is that which governs not at all".
But you, as with all statists, assume that the absence of a single, monopolistic body with the exclusive right to determine right and wrong means that there can be no law. I contend that such a body can only serve to corrupt what law already exists, and if there is such a thing as rational law, the state can only exist if it disregards it in favor of its own legislative corruptions of law.
And as long as there are different levels of wealth among individuals, then there's different levels of clout in the politics of government (really axiomatic to the nature of man and association). So that in the end, though it all sounds so enticing on paper and in utopian discussions, it's no different than enjoying mythology and reading of King Arthur's Camelot ideals. All very nice, but then what (don't mean to be the turd in the punch bowl but there you have it ;) Cheers.
This assumes that there must be an institutution that is not subject to the same laws, in principle, as everyone else. I say that assumption is a false one. Naturally, in practice there will always be persons and groups that disregard the law. The difference between what statists and libertarians believe is that libertarians call ALL such cases "outlaws", and statists make an acception for the state - the very institution that is (supposedly) meant to uphold the very laws that it, itself, breaks.
Without first assuming a state, it follows that it is at least possible that any outlaw or organization of outlaws will be regarded for what they are. If there is a state, it is inevitable that at least one organization will be able to break the law with impunity, because they are assumed to be the makers of law rather than its subjects.
To sum up: statism says rex lex, the king is law; the government makes the law. The law is the law because it is the law that the law is the law.
Anarchism, at least of the rational/ethical sort, says that law pre-exists and is superior to legislation, and therefore EVERYONE is subject to it. Anarchy is the logical conclusion to lex rex, the principle that gave the writers of the Declaration of Independence the conviction to fight a war for what they thought was right.
They lost, because they failed to be consistent.
<"Such a system is impossible, I agree.">
Thank you, but 'system' to me just means the association of rules that develop and are understood between two or more people, that's all. Unless one plans to row to a deserted isle in the south pacific, then no man today can really be (on) an island (thanks John Donne). And there will *always* be a coercive nature to Man that makes the interface and exchange between one and another person, one of a dominant and a lesser outcome (even if negligible from random probabilistic circumstance - or as usually the case because one is smarter, cleverer, more powerful). So, not to get into an etymological debate, 'system' means nothing more than the existent paradigm put to practise between two or more persons in a particular spatial-temporal state (not governmental 'state' necessarily).
<"Therefore what I (and others like me) object to is the idea that there must be a system, at all.">
I just tried to explain that I do not mean 'government' necessarily. My use of 'system' is extant eternally wherever more than one person exists.
<"The problem is that there ARE rulers, and the problem's root is that so many people believe that that is the way it ought to be.">
One Econ prof I had used to say "if there's no choice, there's no problem." So that, with my list of unavoidable premises including the fact that someone always wins-out (even if unintentionally) in every exchange between two or more persons, therefore every deal has a side that "ruled the day" (or the deal's outcome, in this case). Your word "ought" doesn''t enter the picture except as fantasy, mythology, Camelot (sorry to ruin St. Nick for ya ;)
<"What we advocate is not a system - it is the absence of one.">
Once more, my definition of 'system' is something unavoidable unless by yourself.
<"system, no matter how constructed or how justified, boils down to ... "might makes right".">
Not 'right' in its ethical, ontological sense - just that it has the final say / comes out on top.
<"greater rights (or any different rights) than the lowest individual, you are assuming institutional slavery, though varying in degree, from the outset. I reject that assumption.">
Actually, in a darwinistic anarchy I would think the most retarded, lamest, handicapped folk would be used, abused and ultimately discarded - without any legal protections to offset their obvious inferiority in every conceivable exchange.
<"I am talking about equal application of rights derived from a rational ethic; a priori law, if you will.">
Such rights are nonexistent - and it, believe it or not, actually smells a lot like Marx's "New Psychology" for the masses (of a new era of mutual respect and treatment, blah blah). Instead, Man is naturally selfish and inherently maximizing and prideful. No new enlightened paradigm is going to change these impulses.
<"that government which governs least is that which governs not at all">
And Walden Pond is least a pond when it's no longer a pond. Just as nonsensical. Jefferson at least said "that government is best that governs least" (I'll allow for your "nightwatchman" ideal on the good end of the scale ;)
<"the state can only exist if it disregards it in favor of its own legislative corruptions of law.">
And so it is with human nature generally, with all the vices there to stay until we're no longer deemed human (but there's no such corruption amongst sharks - they just eat eachother up)
<"statists make an acception for the state - the very institution that is (supposedly) meant to uphold the very laws that it, itself, breaks.">
This is where the citizenry must try and stay ever-vigilant - calling those to account that are responsible for breaking the laws that their oaths or employment mean they uphold. Will there always be "the ones that got away (with it)"? Of course, and that's life "here on Thunder Island" (great tune just came to my head, sorry)
<"If there is a state, it is inevitable that at least one organization will be able to break the law with impunity, because they are assumed to be the makers of law rather than its subjects.">
Ya but nothing's forever - Saddam's clan called the shots lustily for a couple of decades, and his state finally collapsed.
<"The law is the law because it is the law that the law is the law.">
No different than "to the victor go the spoils" - as I've tried to maintain, someone always ends up ruling the day, or decade, or century, or ... (the time period is immaterial to the point, it's the fact that a one's coming out on top in a zero-sum game is another's loss - and the more complex the unavoidable system, the larger the number of winners and losers through inevitable gradations throughout.
<"Anarchism, at least of the rational/ethical sort, says that law pre-exists and is superior to legislation, and therefore EVERYONE is subject to it.">
Well it's a Lockean attribute to me - the idea of natural rights (as opposed to Rousseau's rights rendered by a state)
<"the principle that gave the writers of the Declaration of Independence the conviction to fight a war for what they thought was right.">
You'll find their primary sources to show them to be much more 'rebels' than ever anarchists, just as one can't define an agnostic as meaning a nihilist.
<"They lost, because they failed to be consistent.">
Federalism won the day because it was the inevitable evolution of "united we stand" and "don't tread on me (ie. "us")" One could start complaining about how Concord and Lexington were suppressed into submission by the mightier city of Boston, or how Canada was forced to join NAFTA, but who's going to seriously concern themselves with the "ought" and "ought not" to be - when there's just what is?
TomG:One Econ prof I had used to say "if there's no choice, there's no problem." So that, with my list of unavoidable premises including the fact that someone always wins-out (even if unintentionally) in every exchange between two or more persons, therefore every deal has a side that "ruled the day"
That's BS. The idea that exchange is a zero- or negative-sum game was refuted thoroughly by the earliest economists. Exchange between two persons - so long as the exchange is voluntary - is always the assumed best possible outcome, or the parties wouldn't commit to the exchange.
Your word "ought" doesn''t enter the picture except as fantasy, mythology, Camelot (sorry to ruin St. Nick for ya ;)
Ignoring your totally uncalled-for condescension for now, I'll simply point out that I used the word "ought" in reference to what people like you believe.
Well, good thing I'm not arguing for a "darwinistic anarchy" then. I am arguing for a legal condition in which all acts of aggression are considered to be criminal, which would protect everyone's rights and exempt nobody from such prohibitions, including the people doing the protecting. Contrast that with a state government, which by its very nature is a constant aggressor against its citizens, as well as other states.
You assume an awful lot about what propertarian anarchists believe, and as tends to happen with assumptions, incorrectly. Of course everyone is naturally selfish. People choose what action they believe will best improve their circumstance with the least possible expense. All but the most pathologically irrational people know instinctively or consciously that cooperating with other people is the best way (in the long run) to maximize their standard of living.
However, the existence of the state offers people a shortcut - why gain by voluntary exchange when they can simply call upon "the law" to get them what they want through force?
The solution to that problem is to turn the law against such coercive action. If the law is applied consistently, it means that those who provide protection and legal services must also get their profit by voluntary means, rather than by forcing people to pay for their "services" even if those people don't want the service in the first place.
And Walden Pond is least a pond when it's no longer a pond. Just as nonsensical.
Uh... no actually it's a true statement. The least quantity of something is the zero quantity.
This is where the citizenry must try and stay ever-vigilant - calling those to account that are responsible for breaking the laws that their oaths or employment mean they uphold.
And has that ever happened successfully in the long history of the common man's relation to his masters? No, never; not once. Because the very thing that makes a state illegitimate - governing against the consent of the governed - requires that such "vigilance" is against the law. The only way that you can "reform" the government with another is through violent revolution, not by calling "naughty" and expecting the government to go sit in the corner. And voting doesn't change that. All that you can do with a vote is make yourself a little less of a slave, and therefore a little more of an enslaver.
Of course it did. The difference is that Saddam ran a state government. In the absence of a state government, mankind's natural state of mutual cooperation for self-benefit will continue relatively unhindered (relative, that is, to a statist system in which many or most forms of voluntary interraction are criminalized).
Voluntary excahnge is a postive sum game. The idea that it isn't was a mercantilist myth that was demolished hundreds of years ago. Coercion - the SOP of the state - turns what would otherwise be a mutually benefical situation into one in which there are winners and losers. The only place coercion has in a civilized society is in dealing with people who are criminals. But a rationally consistent code of law will never call for aggression against non-aggressors.
Federalism won the day because it was the inevitable evolution of "united we stand"
No, it wasn't. A union does not have to be political.
One could start complaining about how Concord and Lexington were suppressed into submission by the mightier city of Boston, or how Canada was forced to join NAFTA, but who's going to seriously concern themselves with the "ought" and "ought not" to be - when there's just what is?
Those who want things to change.
The better question is, who's going to sit idly and accept "what is" like a coward weakling? Not I.
Even in putting aside all of the (necessary) problems that democracy entails, there remains a fatal flaw with your premise. Public schools already have a set of ten commandments taught to students to ensure that democracy is tolerable, i.e. the Bill of Rights. Seeing as all of them usually exist in an air that is simultaneously vague and truistic and at the same time have no bearing on the democratic process (despite being the law of the land in addition to generally being a standard part of high school curriculum), what makes you think the same thing won't happen to the commandments you propose?
Putting the common people "in charge" of the government at best succeeds in creating an ubergovernment that is stupider and more impulsive than the one whose stated purpose is to serve the people which in turn is released from accountability. There is simply no getting around this.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
<"That's BS. The idea that exchange is a zero- or negative-sum game was refuted thoroughly by the earliest economists. Exchange between two persons - so long as the exchange is voluntary - is always the assumed best possible outcome, or the parties wouldn't commit to the exchange.">
No BS here, only a Bachelor of Arts ;) Actually there's no way of refuting this easy assertion on my part - since, apart from accidental exceptions, every trade made between parties has an *objective* winner and loser (again, I did qualify ealier that it may be negligible a lot of the time). The beauty of Austrian thought is that it only starts at revealed preference, without having to get bogged down in this fully-unknowable-though-partially-quantifiable area of outcomes. Yes indeed you're right-on that each voluntary exchange is made with the belief that it's the best choice each side had available at the time/place/reality constraints.
<"Ignoring your totally uncalled-for condescension for now, I'll simply point out that I used the word "ought" in reference to what people like you believe.'>
I meant to condescend nobody - which is why I put a wink-smile at the end of that silly jest of mine, trying to keep things light-hearted here (since I've noticed a lot of commenters tend to drop off the discussions when challenges to the assumptions of reality they hold dear become harder to respond to ... not by me only or especially, not pretending I have much to offer in this economics realm ... but willing to put in two cents of perspective, that's all). So I apologize for any offense taken - that's never the spirit of the intent, rather banter to keep things semi-fun too. Up to now I've really enjoyed your thought-provoking counter-points.
<"for a legal condition in which all acts of aggression are considered to be criminal">
Then yours is the admirable utopian Camelot that many a dreamer's wished for - a most noble desire even if never to be realized.
<"state government, which by its very nature is a constant aggressor against its citizens">
With the barrage of scandals and investigations in the media reports, most tax-paying people would have no problem agreeing that governments are inundated with corruption - as are any large institutions, companies, etc. It's the nature of Man and association that this element exists - and the larger the organization, the greater the opportunity for such corruption to exist. And that's why good-intentioned people have to stay willing to speak up when they see unethical issues arise (and companies now have implemented many vehicles - even anonymous ones - to allow whistle blowers to be heard).
Ya but just remember PT Barnum's famous quip "there's a sucker born every minute" - so that even if one thinks they're making out well or better in a deal/exchange/trade, doesn't mean it's really true ... that's the essence of why life is unfair and always shall be!
<"state offers people a shortcut">
No doubt about it - and most smart people know this as so. By its very existence it is another vehicle available for those who endeavor to "get something for nothing". Scams, rackets, and all the devices of confidence men and charlatans exist equally within a state's apparatus as without it (it's the nature of Man again - no way out)
<"The solution to that problem is to turn the law against such coercive action...">
At least in a democratic-republic there's supposed to be a checks-and-balances between the three branches of government - as well as within the bicameral legislature.
<"The least quantity of something is the zero quantity.">
Once you have zero of anything, then it's really not there at all - pretty empirical is all.
<"The only place coercion has in a civilized society is in dealing with people who are criminals. But a rationally consistent code of law will never call for aggression against non-aggressors.">
Yes but it can also be argued that "passive resistance" is still aggression against the will of the state (resistance being noncooperation of course). So the state will prevail in enforcing its will unless that will were to change from within its system, such as through corrective legislation, executive order, a judge's ruling, etc.
<"A union does not have to be political.">
I would have to say that any and all association between more than one person has a political element to it - which even plays into what I've said all along about one person getting the raw end of a deal ... it's the way it is (not the way it "ought to be")
<"The better question is, who's going to sit idly and accept "what is" like a coward weakling? Not I. ">
Your passion to correct what you perceive is wrong in the world is admirable - just remember that "Rome wasn't built in a day" and can't be dismantled swiftly either (and don't be surprised to find that - in the end, or an end - it only gets replaced by yet another ruling state, since it's the nature of Man and association that the inevitable occurs again and again).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
sadly a lot of people are set in what they assume reality to be - so that they only entertain someone else's views/data as long as it all fits into what makes them comfortable to see - new facts, and logical arguments to the contrary, be damned. You can try till blue in the face but it'll fall on deaf (ie. filtered) ears.
my understanding about 'libertarianism" is that it stands for much of the, if you will, Jeffersonian ideals of most-limited government possible - and an anti-Federalist slant too. This is hardly "utopian" - and perhaps he means that attribution for the concept of a pure anarchism instead (ie. with each individual being fully self-determining and where there's no infringing on any personal freedoms (that don't trespass other's freedoms)).
Well, aside from considering I was slightly pre-emptivley arrogant in my previous response, mostly a unintentional reaction to the amount of ignorance I sometimes encounter, I was going met him halfway concerning anarchism, but point out that the validity of many ideas in Libertarianism are too important to ignore; one of (many), off the top of my head, is Rothbard's point of extreme parentalism being existent in both the liberal and conservative movements in chapter 6 of "For A New Liberty"; an implication, that seems to me, shouldn't be ignored. Another could be the required education on Libertarianism (even Anarchism) to the masses, in order to, in his view, to make mainstream/widespread inroads and/or progress again. Albeit, both to those points may not be new (I'm going on what I know / have learned) but it's still important. I may take more time in forming an additional response because of the very reason, you pointed out, of "trying to explain till your blue in the face"; I certainly wouldn't want to give up, but I also realize it may very well end up being a futile action.I found it curious, considering his past activity with Objectiveism, concerning his comment about Statism, though. I would've thought common ground could've been met there.
it's just that you don't know this person's true frame of reference and vested interests - that it won't matter what rational arguments you make, he'll find some anecdotal example of an apprarent exception to them (likely a misinterpretation on his part though) and therefore find the gist of what you say skeptical, *or* he's not even being above-board in the motives he brings to that forum ... that he's already somehow a beneficiary, as defined in my last comment of History of Government? topic)
TomG:every trade made between parties has an *objective* winner and loser
Perhaps to an omniscient being with the power to construct an objective scale. Any time humans ascribe metaphysical value to something, it is subjective.
I meant to condescend nobody - which is why I put a wink-smile at the end of that silly jest of mine
In addition to adding an emote, you might refrain in the future to referring to a person's deeply held and rationally derived convictions as "St. Nick".
but just remember PT Barnum's famous quip "there's a sucker born every minute" - so that even if one thinks they're making out well or better in a deal/exchange/trade, doesn't mean it's really true
I don't care what some dead entertainer had to say about the birth rate of gullibility, and in fact I deny that it is true. Most people know what is good for them. Or at least, most people are in the best position to decide what is best for them. I don't see how the fact that people can be wrong justifies the existence of the mob/state.
Scams, rackets, and all the devices of confidence men and charlatans exist equally within a state's apparatus as without it (it's the nature of Man again - no way out)
The state, as you conceded, is an easy way to perform those scams and rackets you're talking about. Thus without the state, there would be less scamming and racketeering.
Supposed to be, but there isn't. Aside from partisan bickering, when is the last time the parts of the government didn't cooperate in expanding their own power?
Empty semantics. My statement was a true statement. Zero is less than one, or 0.1, or 0.00000000000000000000000001, etc.
Yes but it can also be argued that "passive resistance" is still aggression against the will of the state (resistance being noncooperation of course).
Resisting the state is NOT aggression, because one cannot aggress against an aggressor so long as the force used is proportional to the threat (or prior act of aggression). Resistance to aggression is defensive force. Not aggressive force.
So the state will prevail in enforcing its will unless that will were to change from within its system, such as through corrective legislation, executive order, a judge's ruling, etc.
Or a revolution.
I would have to say that any and all association between more than one person has a political element to it
And I would say that's false. Politics is the allocation of coercive power. When an association is voluntary, it is nonpolitical by definition.
Reminds me of the anti-abolitionists who said "it is the natural state of the negro to be a slave, and a slave he shall and must remain". They were proven wrong, and so will the statists be. Man existed for thousands of years without a state. It has only been in the last few hundred years that nation-states have become commonplace.
Statism cannot last, for two reasosns. First, people will get sick of being slaves, eventually. Second, it is a self-defeating system; a parasite that is outgrowing its host. The state will fall, and it's baseless presumption to assume that it will resurge after it does.We almost got it right with the American Revolution - I suspect that next time, we won't make the same mistakes.
<Perhaps to an omniscient being with the power to construct an objective scale. Any time humans ascribe metaphysical value to something, it is subjective.> My point is *not* whether a consciousness knows it, only that it *is* (that things don't come out of equal benefit)
<Perhaps to an omniscient being with the power to construct an objective scale. Any time humans ascribe metaphysical value to something, it is subjective.>
My point is *not* whether a consciousness knows it, only that it *is* (that things don't come out of equal benefit)
<In addition to adding an emote, you might refrain in the future to referring to a person's deeply held and rationally derived convictions as "St. Nick".> Sorry for that - I was in a bantering mood at the moment, but should've thought twice
<In addition to adding an emote, you might refrain in the future to referring to a person's deeply held and rationally derived convictions as "St. Nick".>
Sorry for that - I was in a bantering mood at the moment, but should've thought twice
<I don't care what some dead entertainer had to say about the birth rate of gullibility, and in fact I deny that it is true. Most people know what is good for them. Or at least, most people are in the best position to decide what is best for them. I don't see how the fact that people can be wrong justifies the existence of the mob/state.> Most people develop a healthy skepticism after having been taken enough times - that much I'll grant (though they may also learn to fear to the point of *not* deciding anything, which can be equally disadvantageous in their missing good opportunities to trade, deal, exchange. Most important here - you'll *never* find me condoning the existence of a mob state (yes, I did notice you put them together as actually one and the same entity, but that's a subject for another time)
<I don't care what some dead entertainer had to say about the birth rate of gullibility, and in fact I deny that it is true. Most people know what is good for them. Or at least, most people are in the best position to decide what is best for them. I don't see how the fact that people can be wrong justifies the existence of the mob/state.>
Most people develop a healthy skepticism after having been taken enough times - that much I'll grant (though they may also learn to fear to the point of *not* deciding anything, which can be equally disadvantageous in their missing good opportunities to trade, deal, exchange. Most important here - you'll *never* find me condoning the existence of a mob state (yes, I did notice you put them together as actually one and the same entity, but that's a subject for another time)
<The state, as you conceded, is an easy way to perform those scams and rackets you're talking about. Thus without the state, there would be less scamming and racketeering.> Amen, it's indeed a huge means of such - since by its very definition it's social policies are meant as a Redistribution Effect (axiomatically, taking from one to give to another). What's *not* proven, or likely proveable, is that there would actually be less "scamming and racketeering" in a non-state - since who's to say that social darwinism wouldn't lead to a total domination by the stronger, smarter, crueler folk over the rest (a piratical scenario if ever there was one)? How can effective statelessness exist securely for all without universal respect for everyone (as in no violence, plundering, theft, domination)???
<The state, as you conceded, is an easy way to perform those scams and rackets you're talking about. Thus without the state, there would be less scamming and racketeering.>
Amen, it's indeed a huge means of such - since by its very definition it's social policies are meant as a Redistribution Effect (axiomatically, taking from one to give to another). What's *not* proven, or likely proveable, is that there would actually be less "scamming and racketeering" in a non-state - since who's to say that social darwinism wouldn't lead to a total domination by the stronger, smarter, crueler folk over the rest (a piratical scenario if ever there was one)? How can effective statelessness exist securely for all without universal respect for everyone (as in no violence, plundering, theft, domination)???
<Aside from partisan bickering, when is the last time the parts of the government didn't cooperate in expanding their own power?> That comment's a critique of all organizational behavior in general, and the impetus toward "empire-building" - therefore not an indictment per se
<Empty semantics. My statement was a true statement. Zero is less than one, or 0.1, or 0.00000000000000000000000001, etc.> I'm giving you this point, since the Arabic numbering system that the West finally adopted accounted for zero as the numerical starting point for positive integers, *along with* the fact that it was referred back to only after mentioning something (whereas starting logically at zero mention of anything, doesn't amount to a hill of beans ;) <Resisting the state is NOT aggression, because one cannot aggress against an aggressor so long as the force used is proportional to the threat (or prior act of aggression). Resistance to aggression is defensive force. Not aggressive force.>
<Empty semantics. My statement was a true statement. Zero is less than one, or 0.1, or 0.00000000000000000000000001, etc.>
I'm giving you this point, since the Arabic numbering system that the West finally adopted accounted for zero as the numerical starting point for positive integers, *along with* the fact that it was referred back to only after mentioning something (whereas starting logically at zero mention of anything, doesn't amount to a hill of beans ;)
<Resisting the state is NOT aggression, because one cannot aggress against an aggressor so long as the force used is proportional to the threat (or prior act of aggression). Resistance to aggression is defensive force. Not aggressive force.>
We could have a field day with this semantical dispute - but suffice it to say that any time power perceives a threat to its control, it is interpreted as aggression - whether it's physically manifested or not. And since by definition this power holds the power, its view of things rules the day (no matter if right or wrong) <I'd said: "So the state will prevail in enforcing its will unless that will were to change from within its system, such as through corrective legislation, executive order, a judge's ruling, etc." ... to which you responded: "Or a revolution."> But history proves to be careful what you wish for - with Robespierre and others fomenting revolt, in the end, falling victim to the very guillotine they'd used on their own enemies (and ironically, Msr. Guillotine himself - wanting to create a most humane device for dispatching the 'guilty' - became an eventual victim of it too (fun facts for the Trivial Pursuit players ;)
<I mentioned: "I would have to say that any and all association between more than one person has a political element to it" without much thought put into it really. And you answered "And I would say that's false. Politics is the allocation of coercive power. When an association is voluntary, it is nonpolitical by definition."> I still contend that there's a political element to all human association - but will conceed that there are degrees, as in influential personality and magnetic character vs. monied power and one with big connections.
<Reminds me of the anti-abolitionists who said "it is the natural state of the negro to be a slave, and a slave he shall and must remain".> Touche' - that's a point well earned. <They were proven wrong, and so will the statists be. Man existed for thousands of years without a state. It has only been in the last few hundred years that nation-states have become commonplace.> Even before nation-states existed in their more sophisticated derivations of the last thousand years, there was still an understanding of kingship going back at least 10,000 years. So please let me know how that's not to be considered a state as well. <Statism cannot last, for two reasosns. First, people will get sick of being slaves, eventually.> Would this require something as oxymoronic as organized chaos? Because, in this scenario, as long as people sulk alone in their state of slavery, how would any movement grow to a concerted effort to topple their masters? Do you really believe this, or just wish it could be so (just as there may be a longing for Camelot vs. knowing there never will be)? <Second, it is a self-defeating system; a parasite that is outgrowing its host. The state will fall, and it's baseless presumption to assume that it will resurge after it does.We almost got it right with the American Revolution - I suspect that next time, we won't make the same mistakes.> Many states have been self-defeating, only to be replaced by yet another one. And any supposed mistakes made during the Am Rev only show what would happen again and again and again ... ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Again, it is human nature to in our ways of human association to try gaining at someone else's expense (the only way "to get ahead"). At least with the concept of America there's been the creation of a partially unfettered economy that's allowed - for the first time in history - an large fragment of the average population to rise above the muck and possibly even create a means for their family's perpetual wealth. I conclude with a favorite jingle: "there ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy - there's only you and me and we just disagree ... so let's leave it alone, cuz we can't see eye to eye" Dave Mason Cheers.
<Reminds me of the anti-abolitionists who said "it is the natural state of the negro to be a slave, and a slave he shall and must remain".>
Touche' - that's a point well earned.
<They were proven wrong, and so will the statists be. Man existed for thousands of years without a state. It has only been in the last few hundred years that nation-states have become commonplace.>
Even before nation-states existed in their more sophisticated derivations of the last thousand years, there was still an understanding of kingship going back at least 10,000 years. So please let me know how that's not to be considered a state as well.
<Statism cannot last, for two reasosns. First, people will get sick of being slaves, eventually.>
Would this require something as oxymoronic as organized chaos? Because, in this scenario, as long as people sulk alone in their state of slavery, how would any movement grow to a concerted effort to topple their masters? Do you really believe this, or just wish it could be so (just as there may be a longing for Camelot vs. knowing there never will be)?
<Second, it is a self-defeating system; a parasite that is outgrowing its host. The state will fall, and it's baseless presumption to assume that it will resurge after it does.We almost got it right with the American Revolution - I suspect that next time, we won't make the same mistakes.>
Many states have been self-defeating, only to be replaced by yet another one. And any supposed mistakes made during the Am Rev only show what would happen again and again and again ... ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Again, it is human nature to in our ways of human association to try gaining at someone else's expense (the only way "to get ahead"). At least with the concept of America there's been the creation of a partially unfettered economy that's allowed - for the first time in history - an large fragment of the average population to rise above the muck and possibly even create a means for their family's perpetual wealth.
I conclude with a favorite jingle: "there ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy - there's only you and me and we just disagree ... so let's leave it alone, cuz we can't see eye to eye" Dave Mason
Cheers.
TomG:My point is *not* whether a consciousness knows it, only that it *is* (that things don't come out of equal benefit)
Conceded. But to classify an inequality as objectively "good" or "bad" is, I believe, outside of the realm of human reason.
Apology accepted, and for my own part I shouldn't have been so touchy.
Most people develop a healthy skepticism after having been taken enough times - that much I'll grant (though they may also learn to fear to the point of *not* deciding anything, which can be equally disadvantageous in their missing good opportunities to trade, deal, exchange.
Sure. And before people learn to drive a car properly, they are inefficient or even dangerous drivers. People aren't born with knowledge, and humans don't have the benefit of instinct. I'll meet you halfway: everyone is born a "sucker", but most people learn not to be fooled by the time they are independent adults.
How can effective statelessness exist securely for all without universal respect for everyone (as in no violence, plundering, theft, domination)???
The quick answer is that aggressive violence is a disutility that is solved by the service of law and order, which, as with all services, would be better provided, however imperfectly, by competing firms than by a compulsory monopoly (the state). The long answer is here. As for sustaining it, it would be to the mutual benefit of everyone who is NOT a criminal to do so, and we (libertarians) are assuming that criminals, including those who would try to set themselves up as rulers, would be a stark minority.
That comment's a critique of all organizational behavior in general, and the impetus toward "empire-building" - therefore not an indictment per se
The difference between a statist organization and a private organization is that the former is assumed to have an exclusive right to use force to maintain its status. Consequently, a state will, by definition, exercise that assumed right. Wheras a private organization that does so will be recognized and dealt with as a criminal.
We could have a field day with this semantical dispute - but suffice it to say that any time power perceives a threat to its control, it is interpreted as aggression - whether it's physically manifested or not. And since by definition this power holds the power, its view of things rules the day (no matter if right or wrong)
Libertarians assume that "right" springs from the application of a rational ethic. To the rational ethicist, right and wrong cannot be legislated any more than the sum of two numbers can be. So when I say "aggression" I mean aggression in fact - an initiation of force against a non-aggressor. Not the arbitrary and hence irrational legislated meaning.
But history proves to be careful what you wish for - with Robespierre and others fomenting revolt, in the end, falling victim to the very guillotine they'd used on their own enemies
Yes, of course. I don't believe that armed revolt is prudent, however justified it may be. I'm an agorist - I believe in ignoring the state "aggressively", so to speak - turning to non-state sanctioned free markets as much as possible. The idea of agorist revolution is that eventually, as the countereconomy expands, the state will literally starve to death. Either they will simply wither away, or they will rise up and be pitted against the countereconomic defense firms that would, hopefully, condense around those alternative markets.
I still contend that there's a political element to all human association - but will conceed that there are degrees, as in influential personality and magnetic character vs. monied power and one with big connections.
There is a difference in kind between coercive and voluntary behavior. I am borrowing Franz Oppenheimer's statement that this dichotomy represents the (respectively) political versus the economic means of getting what one wants.
Not all kingships were territorial monopolies. Most were, but what makes them different from the nation-state as we know it today is the (historically new) explicitly granted right of the sovereign to tax and legislate. In fact, that development is as new as the United States Constitution. I also refer obliquely to the social state, which is by definition democratic rather than monarchial.\
Would this require something as oxymoronic as organized chaos?
No, it requires a simple change in opinion. If the mass of the population no longer believed that it were proper/necessary/beneficial for law and order to be provided by a single, compulsory territorial monopolist, then the state would be severed at the neck. Because it is only the prevelence belief that allows them to perisist in acting as such a monopolist. Statism will be eliminated from the practice of civil order the way leeching was eliminated from the practice of medicine - when enough people know better.
It was a big step in the right direction, but apparently my view of history is different from yours. Every epoch of civil society has had its improvements and setbacks. We've gone from cannabilism to informal slavery, informal slavery to formal slavery, and now we are in an era of formal slavery known as "democracy". Democracy looks to me, from a historical perspective, like the way a fever gets worse right before it breaks. The myth of the divine right of Kings was replaced with the myth of collective sovereignty. But that won't last forever, and when it falls we're at an historical event horizon.
If the idea of individual sovereignty can resurge and be applied with consistency, then we may well get the individualist "utopia" which won't be a utopia at all, but only the natural order unimpeded by institutional coercion justified by the mystical notions of collectivism.
Thanks for much food for thought. What I see here is a true irony - that though your language rails against things as they are, my point of view is actually so much more skeptical of humanity's ability to rise above a dominant/subservient dichotomy of existence (and not because of a top-down oppressive state, but rather from our general selfish make up - and proclivities toward the assurance of security over that of freedom). This is fundamentally why I don't subscribe to the notion of an eventual stateless nirvana. Couple more comments:
<Conceded. But to classify an inequality as objectively "good" or "bad" is, I believe, outside of the realm of human reason.>
I've stayed away from the ethical/moral domain in this argument - only conveying that it's reality that most all exchanges result in one side getting the better end of a deal, even if both sides felt equally satisfactory about it. It's just the way life is, that's all. A free market does no guarantee optimization in each and every trade/purchase that's made, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's the best we've got ... where resource allocations, opportunity costs, negative externalities, and dissemination of knowledge is maximized - and should all be accounted for in the determined price of each transaction.
<most people learn not to be fooled by the time they are independent adults.>
I can't agree with this assertion, otherwise there wouldn't be so much mental depression, credit/debt problems, etc. PT Barnum's ugly adage, even if underexaggerated, still stands ;)
<The quick answer is that aggressive violence is a disutility that is solved by the service of law and order, which, as with all services, would be better provided, however imperfectly, by competing firms than by a compulsory monopoly (the state). The long answer is here. As for sustaining it, it would be to the mutual benefit of everyone who is NOT a criminal to do so, and we (libertarians) are assuming that criminals, including those who would try to set themselves up as rulers, would be a stark minority.>
Thanks for this Rothbard link - I'll read it shortly. Again it appears we have diverging views of human nature - and it admittedly does flow right into the ethical/moral realm. Though we're the noblest creation of conscience and a love of understanding and beauty (ie. the sublime of all existence), we also have tremendously selfish appetites - that along with jealousy, pride and envy make for a rather destabilized existence (and what would Shakespeare be without it? ;)
<a state will, by definition, exercise that assumed right. Wheras a private organization that does so will be recognized and dealt with as a criminal.>
This only speaks to the hiearchy of power. With a World Court and UN sanctions etc, even nations can be found guilty of crimes.
<when I say "aggression" I mean aggression in fact - an initiation of force against a non-aggressor. Not the arbitrary and hence irrational legislated meaning.>
In any system of power, noncompliance and being uncooperative will always be viewed as a challenge to power's authority.
<Either they (states) will simply wither away, or they will rise up and be pitted against the countereconomic defense firms that would, hopefully, condense around those alternative markets.>
This is what I referred to as a Camelot ideal of free market - unachievable due to our very human frailties, but a noble goal indeed,
<There is a difference in kind between coercive and voluntary behavior. I am borrowing Franz Oppenheimer's statement that this dichotomy represents the (respectively) political versus the economic means of getting what one wants.>
With imperfect information, 'voluntary' doesn't mean adequately-informed. And in a market of deceptive practices one could argue that many so-called voluntary exchanges are in fact fulfilled by means of coercion. I don't mean to belabor the 'political' definition, only to say that all human relations have a political element to them - even in the personal exchange of goods and services (though it's quite minimal in a retail, impersonal price-setting scheme).
More later, cheers.
Having just reread this, which I wrote before my morning java, allow me to rephrase a bit: I've stayed away from the ethical/moral domain in this argument - only conveying that it's reality that most all exchanges result in one side getting the better end of a deal, even if both sides felt equally <satisfied> about it. It's just the way life is, that's all. A free market does no guarantee <best results possible> in each and every trade/purchase that's made, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's the best we've got ... where resource allocations, opportunity costs, negative externalities, and dissemination of knowledge <are reckoned with accordingly> - and should all be accounted for in the determined price of each transaction.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/03/those-who-do-no.html#comments
Tiny Tim sings "tiptoe through the tulips" while again PT Barnum's words ring true:
Inquisitor: I have no interest in democracy, and the sooner it collapses, the happier I'll be.
I have no interest in democracy, and the sooner it collapses, the happier I'll be.
Well, I myself understand the flaws of a democracy/republic, however, I also understand the power of a Constitution. I think the U.S. form of government would work pretty well, if we would just amend the Constitution to include restricting the government from regulating the market, from funding or providing education, from regulating marriage, from sending troops outside of the country, from sending money/goods to other countries, from subsidizing industries, from owning property besides government buildings, and from legislating victimless crimes. We should also have one that legalizes private currencies and mail carriers and takes these powers out of the hands of the government.
There may be a couple I have missed, but the point is, we can use our Constitution to further limit the powers of our government, but we just have not done it.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Ours is a democratic republic - the republican part keeping checks upon the fear of a rampant democratic urge ... and the Constitution is a safeguard to ensuring that desired equilibrium and compromise (for certainly the landowners and holders of capital wouldn't accept a system that would force them to relinquish their wealth to a mob rule - would you?). So it's indeed the best we've got - and the democratic forces are truly most compatible with a free market respect for consumer sovereignty, so that it ought to be embraced as the sensible political paradigm for market optimization.
Spideynw:Well, I myself understand the flaws of a democracy/republic, however, I also understand the power of a Constitution. I think the U.S. form of government would work pretty well, if we would just amend the Constitution to include restricting the government from regulating the market, from funding or providing education, from regulating marriage, from sending troops outside of the country, from sending money/goods to other countries, from subsidizing industries, from owning property besides government buildings, and from legislating victimless crimes. We should also have one that legalizes private currencies and mail carriers and takes these powers out of the hands of the government. There may be a couple I have missed, but the point is, we can use our Constitution to further limit the powers of our government, but we just have not done it.
Those are all good ideas, the problem of course is that only the government can change the constitution, and why would it do that?
Only a revolution, or the credible threat of revolution, can force the government to limit itself.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Spideynw:There may be a couple I have missed, but the point is, we can use our Constitution to further limit the powers of our government, but we just have not done it.
This seems to miss a larger point though. Men like myself and other Anarchists here are not going to stand for any government, no matter how limited it is.Without a big government, how are you going to stop us? The dichotomy is true, you know. Either a large government or none at all.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Stranger: Those are all good ideas, the problem of course is that only the government can change the constitution, and why would it do that?
Because hopefully someday, enough people are educated, that leaders are elected that would make those changes.
Niccolò: This seems to miss a larger point though. Men like myself and other Anarchists here are not going to stand for any government, no matter how limited it is.Without a big government, how are you going to stop us? The dichotomy is true, you know. Either a large government or none at all.
I am not really sure what your point is. Stop you from what?
Spideynw: Stranger: Those are all good ideas, the problem of course is that only the government can change the constitution, and why would it do that? Because hopefully someday, enough people are educated, that leaders are elected that would make those changes.
But that is exactly what the communists used to say, that people could be educated to such an extent that communism would work. Of course it was a lie. People are what they are and you cannot change them.
Regardless you need a supermajority to change the constitution, and there are enough people who, however educated in liberty they may be, enjoy privileges as members of the ruling class and will block reform. So what do you do then?
Spideynw: Inquisitor: I have no interest in democracy, and the sooner it collapses, the happier I'll be. Well, I myself understand the flaws of a democracy/republic, however, I also understand the power of a Constitution. I think the U.S. form of government would work pretty well, if we would just amend the Constitution to include restricting the government from regulating the market, from funding or providing education, from regulating marriage, from sending troops outside of the country, from sending money/goods to other countries, from subsidizing industries, from owning property besides government buildings, and from legislating victimless crimes. We should also have one that legalizes private currencies and mail carriers and takes these powers out of the hands of the government. There may be a couple I have missed, but the point is, we can use our Constitution to further limit the powers of our government, but we just have not done it.
Spideynw:I am not really sure what your point is. Stop you from what?
Stranger: But that is exactly what the communists used to say, that people could be educated to such an extent that communism would work.
But that is exactly what the communists used to say, that people could be educated to such an extent that communism would work.
Um, but no matter how educated people become, Communism will never work. However, if people did become educated about freedom, freedom would work.
Stranger: Regardless you need a supermajority to change the constitution, and there are enough people who, however educated in liberty they may be, enjoy privileges as members of the ruling class and will block reform. So what do you do then?
If they were truly educated and truly understood the importance of freedom, they would not block reform, because it would mean they could get even more wealth and that they could purchase much more wonderful goods than are currently on the market (society would see a much improved pace for injenuity).
Regardless, if the majority of the population understood the need for a small government, and their representatives did not give it to them, the representatives would not stay in power long.
This is why I think privatizing education should be the number one priority for liberty lovers. Studies have shown that the education system is fraught with left wing thinking people. Go figure, since it is a government run program.
scineram:BS. It is all in there. Most of it. Totally ignored.
I assume you are referring to Article I Section 8. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that Article I Section 8 did not limit the power of government.
However, the Bill of Rights have pretty successfully limited the power of government, and so this is why I say we need amendments specifically limiting the power of government.
Niccolò: Spideynw: I am not really sure what your point is. Stop you from what? From overthrowing that government.
Spideynw: I am not really sure what your point is. Stop you from what?
Um, you do not really need a large government to stop anarchists from overthrowing one, given that there are probably going to be far fewer anarchists and also given that anarchists are not very organized.
Are you familiar with Rothbard's arguements in "For A New Liberty" against the effectiveness of constitutions? Constitutional devices are turned around and used as justifications rather then restrictions of state power, or they are ignored and defied rather quickly. There's also a vagueness of language problem. Clearly, the American experiment demonstrates the failure of constitutions. A piece of paper cannot stop governments from growing and intervening.
This is all aside from the fact that statist social contract theory is erroneous in the first place, that there never has been a genuine social contract based on explicit consent and that a genuine voluntary social contract wouldn't constitute a "state".
Brainpolice:Clearly, the American experiment demonstrates the failure of constitutions.
I do not think it is clear at all. First of all, the freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, for the most part, are still protected, and this for over 200 years.
Second of all, the problem with the U.S. Constitution, IMO, is the fact that it was designed by a group of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. I am pretty sure the Federalists really screwed it up. Luckily though, the Anti-Federalists saw the weakness of the Constitution and got the Bill of Rights put into it.
I am pretty hazy on the specifics of what happened, but I do think we could fix it, but it would pretty much take nearly an act of god to get it done.
Back to the fundamental impetus by which the concept 'democracy' is derived - "consent of the governed" - is it in fact the very same essence played in a free market by its rule of consumer sovereignty? And isn't the common criticism that it becomes an oppressive means for a tyrannical will of a majority over that of any minority actually flawed in reasoning - given that its essential dynamic starts at the decision-level of individuals, which merely ends up as some sort of (what appears to be) generalized behavior? Isn't the theory of democracy most compatible with an Austrian perspective?
Spideynw: If they were truly educated and truly understood the importance of freedom, they would not block reform, because it would mean they could get even more wealth and that they could purchase much more wonderful goods than are currently on the market (society would see a much improved pace for injenuity). Regardless, if the majority of the population understood the need for a small government, and their representatives did not give it to them, the representatives would not stay in power long.
No it does not mean that for everybody. For the class of tax-consumers, such as politicians, academics, and people who profit from government activities such as the military industries and media, liberty is very, very bad. The more you teach them about it, the more convinced they will be that it is bad.
You are asking them vote against their own interests by voting for liberty. That is exactly the same thing the communists wanted. You must realize that democracy is a system of communism and that if people follow their own self-interest under democracy, liberty must die.
Spideynw: This is why I think privatizing education should be the number one priority for liberty lovers. Studies have shown that the education system is fraught with left wing thinking people. Go figure, since it is a government run program.
Of course, national education is the most important pillar of the ruling class' power. That is why they will never allow you to privatize it. You can maybe privatize social security, health care, roads, energy, those are all just fringe issues. Education is the root of the belief in government, and it will be the absolute last thing they cling to.
You are extremely confused as to the extent of your own power and influence. You can't assume that the ruling class will just open the gates for you to come take their power away.
TomG:Back to the fundamental impetus by which the concept 'democracy' is derived - "consent of the governed" - is it in fact the very same essence played in a free market by its rule of consumer sovereignty? And isn't the common criticism that it becomes an oppressive means for a tyrannical will of a majority over that of any minority actually flawed in reasoning - given that its essential dynamic starts at the decision-level of individuals, which merely ends up as some sort of (what appears to be) generalized behavior? Isn't the theory of democracy most compatible with an Austrian perspective?
The theory of the market is that market participants exchange two goods, one less desired for one more desired. Democracy has nothing to do with that. Under democracy, the ruling class enables its power by getting the people to vote and thus declare consent for their submission. With the submission of the people confirmed, the ruling class taxes, that is takes a good from subjects in exchange for nothing. This is the very opposite of the market and thus entirely incompatible with the Austrian school perspective of economic efficiency.