NOTE: Originally posted in the New Forums a while back. I thought of bringing my couple of thoughts here too.
I’d like my first thread in the new community to be an iteration of my very first thread in the old community, quite some time ago.
I have my issues with the current use of anarchy and minarchy. The way both terms are interpreted today creates the illusion of an unbridgeable gap between the two positions, with both anarchists and minarchists accusing each other of sporting unrealizable utopias, or (a special treat reserved for the minarchist) of being just as immoral as your run-of-the-mill statist.
Well, I think that if we can provide some better definition of both terms, than most of that gap will begin to fill. Indeed, I think we can define both constructs in such a way as to let anarchy be an evolutionary offshoot of minarchy, both as an idea and as a practical future process, not a diametrically opposed system. And, perhaps, all this to the satisfaction of both sides.
ANARCHY: “Is Somalia anarchic?” There is a good reason why the public associates the anarchist will the troublesome ‘agents of chaos’ throwing molotovs and breaking bones in some European city. Anarchy does mean chaos, no matter what hyphen we attach to that word.
If we define the state as the monopolist of violence within a given territory, we have just defined any property-holder, regardless of the justness of his claim. Within my house, I am the monopolist of violence, else I am not the real owner of my house. “Anacho-capitalists” who find it impermissible that I may chose to do violence on people voluntarily entering my property, as long as I notify them beforehand and they choose not to leave the premises, are not really anarcho-capitalist by my book. If a property-holder cannot be sovereign within his property, he is no property holder at all.
But what is the state, than thing that emerged only in the west, and only in the XVII century, if not a sovereign institution, indeed the only sovereign institution that ever existed? Thus, what meaning could we attach to a term that calls for no such institutions, for no rulers, no sovereigns, no archos? What to call anarchy if not a system in which no one is sovereign anywhere?
No, anarchy does mean chaos, because with no sovereignty there can be no property, and with no property there can only be chaos and strife. What we really aim at, the way I see it, is not to do away with the state, but to let every property holder be a state, a sovereign of his own property! We do not really aim at anarchy, but panarchy. Everybody must be a sovereign, not nobody!
Thus all talk of seeing the state wither away is just antiethical to our goal: we should want states to multiply to their natural limit, the number of persons alive. Mises was, unwittingly, much truer an “anarchist“ than Rothbard.
So yes, Somalia is anarchic, but nor panarchic. No one is free to be a sovereign on his land, and there is no state. We should stop running to this poor country’s defense on account of its statelessness: that is no achievement, for we are not proper anarchists.
MINARCHY: “What degree of protection should the night watchmen state provide?” Minarchy is less well defined as a concept. Some (most?) take it to mean a state that simply protects a country from foreign aggression and enforces contracts within its borders. Mises and Nozick would seem to agree. Others take minarchy to be a government functioning according to the constitution of the US (funny concept indeed). Hayek considers a state that upholds the Rule of Law as the best arrangement possible.
All these ideas must be brushed aside. Defining a minarchic state is impossible. What kind of political structure should this night watchman have? Will there be elections? Who will vote? Will it be a parliamentary democracy, a presidential system, or some mix? Which Civil Code to adopt? Common law perhaps? How to define the Rule of Law? How much to devote to defense? What kind of taxes to impose?
We must recognize attempts to answer such questions as futile: only a market can guide any organization into making the optimal choices. Without the market, even a simple hot dog stand would be irrationally run, let alone a state! Thus, I propose it would be much more fitting if we just define minarchic a state that operates in a market of states, whatever the arrangement of that state itself may be. Of course, a market of sorts for states can only be created by having many such states, by lowering “entry barriers” into the ‘business’ of state-formation.
Thus, I think we can only call minarchic a state that acknowledges an inalienable right to its communities to freely secede (even if otherwise its a totalitarian police state), and of its people to emigrate (not neccesarily of other to immigrate though). Of course, the smaller such communities, the better. According so such a test, there is only one minarchic state around: Lichtenstein, which allows by constitution all of its wards to freely secede.
But at this point we can see that the difference between minarchy and panarchy is one of degree, not of kind. The smaller the communities allowed to secede, the closed minarchy comes to panarchy.
Indeed, if the ideas of private property, the NAP and homesteading are superior to others, than we can easily see that minarchy will, in time, evolve towards panarchy. Once the idea of a right of secession, be it for cities, is acknowledged, it’s a downhill struggle toward freedom.
Even if panarchy does turn out to be unstable or unfeasible on some account, a minarchic commonwealth is still a nice thought and would be a nice place to live. A world (or even a lage contiguous territory) of city-states would, by itself, go a long way towards providing much of what we expect from panarchy. Even if privately funded defense turns out to be unfeasible, even if some state of nature really does result from there being no state, even if solving the issue of public goods takes a long time, even if the mob would take over, minarchy would yet be a worthy goal.
Anyway, just wanted to throw this evolutive concept of panarchy of mine around. This is the way I see our slow motion revolution happening.
Comments are appreciated.
Somalia has a weak government. Various warlords that fought each other to form a government does not equal anarchy, absence of government.
Better government definition: an involuntary, usually tax-funded, violence monopoly in a certain area. Even if government enforced no taxes, being an involuntary violence monopoly in a certain area meant it forcibly prohibited competition in that area, so any money that it obtained was illegitimate, since it likely would have obtained less, if any money, if there was the possibility of competition.
Everyone's a monopolist, whether their idea of sovereignty ends at the individual, family, extended family, tribal, or larger level. There is hence no difference between a small-enough-territory minarchist and an anti-statist. "State" just means a monopoly that is too big.
Why anarchy fails
If a property-holder cannot be sovereign within his property, he is no property holder at all
Property rights can only be safeguarded for all, protected against arbitrary confiscation, through a widely-agreed-upon, prohibitively-powerful "night watchman." Such is the role played by the state, in the form of a military, and of law enforcement. It isn't necessary to trust this "person," or to stay silent when a line is crossed here and there; but making of "him" an evil, monopolizing monster, the only real obstacle to our peace and harmony--this is the worst sort of dysfunctional utopian-myopia.
Your panarchic formulation attempts to skirt the night-watchman imperative by way of an evolving, voluntary deconstruction of the widely-agreed-upon protective role of the state, without addressing its necessary substitute--or explaining why the implicit absence of such a guarantor would work then, when it has heretofore abided nowhere.
Of course, a market of sorts for states can only be created by having many such states, by lowering “entry barriers” into the ‘business’ of state-formation.
Shall we then lower the "entry barriers" to the development and purchase of nuclear weapons? No.
I agree in principle that federal power must in every possible instance be devolved to the most localized seat of control; hence, I support a cautious form of direct democracy, one where the night watchman still stands among us, a Bill of Rights in his grip.
http://www.amazon.com/New-American-Constitution-Democracy-Alternative/dp/1463666837/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326559116&sr=1-1
But until all Earth's people retire their night watchmen at once, it won't be safe to send ours home early. And while he yet looks over us, he must be paid as handsomely as the others, or more so. Thus the imposition of compulsory contributions must continue.
Centinel
If you advocate direct democracy, then this is counter to our Constitutional Federal Republic that protects the rights of minorities.
It isn't the Congress that guarantees the rights of minorities: it's the Bill of Rights. And just as it would be very difficult for Congress or the States to alter those fundamental protections under our founding document; so it would be equally or more difficult under mine. Yet it goes without saying, that if enough of the People wish to deny a minority their civil rights, any system may fall.
Tyranny of the majority is the end result of direct democracy, hence the majority vote to plunder the wealth and freedoms of the minority.
Your supposition is that I propose a winner-take-all, free-for-all direct democracy, where all are subject to legislation imposed by the largest majority. In fact, it's quite the opposite: This constitution precludes "plunder" and preserves "freedoms" in any number of innovative, even redundant ways:
Amendment X – No law enacted by electoral initiative or otherwise shall establish a debt, project or fiscal program where the financing thereof would obligate future citizens to the financial commitments of current voters. Appropriations shall be drawn from revenues collected within one year of their appropriation through floating debt and the collection of these fees and revenues only:
See the dysfunction in California.
Centinel,
Please let us suppose, for the paragraph, that defense of a small state is not an issue. Would you agree, under this assumption, that a minarchic commonwealth of small states would be better that any specific form of a state (a US-type of Republic, for instance)? After all, if your belief in the optimality of the Constitution is strong, you’ll have no issue with letting it emerge a victor in the market of states. This is why you’d advocate a free market in cars rather than advocating, say, the production of your favorite brand: you believe that that brand would be produced.
Now, you write that this would be nice if these small states could defend themselves, but they cannot. I agree with you, and that is why historically very liberal states such as Venice and Ragusa have perished to their bigger and more statist adversaries: they could not defend themselves.
But we live in the nuclear age, and I believe that nukes make defense a very cheap option even for small states: Singapore could, if it decided to develop nukes, defend itself very easily against China, which in the past would have been unthinkable. The survival of Israel in the pre-nuclear era would have been unthinkable, too.
So, the unwritten assumption of my post is that nukes have forever changed the game of state-making: now a market of states can emerge, and indeed is emerging. Under such conditions, wouldn’t you agree that to advocate such a market of states is much better than to advocate any single type of state?
And I could go on with discussing why, under these condition, if panarchy is possible, it too shall emerge (and nto because everyone will have his own nuke either), but I’m content with getting people to agree with this definition of minarchism.
DarylLloydDavis: Your panarchic formulation attempts to skirt the night-watchman imperative by way of an evolving, voluntary deconstruction of the widely-agreed-upon protective role of the state, without addressing its necessary substitute--or explaining why the implicit absence of such a guarantor would work then, when it has heretofore abided nowhere.
But that is precisely my point: if such a substitute exists, than the evolutive way is the best way to find it. The smaller states get, the closer the world gets to panarchy, and the strongest the incentives to discover institution that could work under panarchy, if such exist. Whether such institutions do, in fact, exist, we can only see by getting as close as possible to panacrhy: by having as many small city-states as possible around.
DarylLloydDavis: Of course, a market of sorts for states can only be created by having many such states, by lowering “entry barriers” into the ‘business’ of state-formation. Shall we then lower the "entry barriers" to the development and purchase of nuclear weapons? No.
Certainly so! That is indeed our only hope for real freedom! See the post above for details.
Merlin
if such a substitute exists, than the evolutive way is the best way to find it. The smaller states get, the closer the world gets to panarchy, and the strongest the incentives to discover institution that could work under panarchy, if such exist.
Your market analogy is deficient: it takes for granted real and necessary protections already in place, provided by our state defense and law enforcement apparatus against real threats. The instant we deconstruct this machinery we leave ourselves vulnerable to states that have not began such experimentation. If we wished to discover an anti-gravity device, the most rational plan is not to throw each off a cliff until one floats. We cannot simply ignore real-world dangers, and arbitrarily start using the "night watchman" on a part-time basis, as though we really didn't need him in the first place.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons may in fact be unavoidable. But, once again, your application of pure market principles is folly. To whatever extent it is possible to keep nukes out of the hands of the highest bidder, they ought to be. It's too powerful and destructive a technology to have in the bed of everyone's pickup truck.
I support states like Israel developing nuclear weapons so as to help ensure their survival; but it would obviously be a flimsy deterrent, if any at all, against the irrational private owner of a nuke. And if Israel is killing off Iranian nuclear scientists now, then they would understandably assassinate private owners of nukes as well. It's a behind-the-scenes system of checks and balances, much like the global stalemate in play between the U.S., China, and, to a lesser extent, Russia--a stalemate that now serves to protect Singapore, has served to protect Europe, and one that wouldn't be any less necessary if everyone had nukes: Who knows what anti-nuke technology has already been developed? The answer isn't to give everybody nukes--any more than to throw everyone off a cliff until someone learns to fly....
Once begun, the arms race never ends. Consequently, the need for the full funding of a large state never dies.
DarylLloydDavis,
I think I take nothing for granted in my post besides that one assumption: that small states cannot conquer one-another by armies (though they can by cover operations and engineering popular revolts as seen many times). By that assumption alone, a market of states is created. You need no grand central world authority to fix international law or the ‘rules of the game’: all you need is to make it impossible for states to conquer one-another, and then let them vie with one-another for capital and citizens.
And let’s not discuss how the existence of such a commonwealth would slowly but surely give rise to an accompanying set of cultural norms which would stigmatize war in its own right, in a sense what happened during the late medieval age when war was a joke in Western Europe (especially northern Italy) because all states where far too small to conquer one-another. Perhaps such norms would then further the breakdown of states into smaller communities without the need for every such community to have a nuclear device? I believe so, or at least I believe that if such a set of norms could ever emerge, this is the sole way in which it would emerge.
Now, I agree that the prospect of individuals having nukes in their basement is frightening but I do not for a moment think that that would be allowed. The point has been discussed often and I do not think it would be worth the wile to revisit it, but let’s just say that the possession of nukes would settle in the hand of the smallest entities which can be rationally trusted to use them well. If you somehow found a nuke in your basement, you’d find it mysteriously stolen the next day by the local friendly PMC, and no one would help you retrieve you ‘lost’ property.
What is important is that city-states would certainly, if you ask me, own nukes, at the very least in the beginning (whether they’d own their own nukes or contract with PMCs to operate their nuclear deterrence is less important). Balance-of-power never lasts forever and to hope that small states will survive because of that is rather optimistic.
Let us agree, then, to disagree.
DarylLloydDavis: The instant we deconstruct this machinery we leave ourselves vulnerable to states that have not began such experimentation. ... Once begun, the arms race never ends. Consequently, the need for the full funding of a large state never dies.
The instant we deconstruct this machinery we leave ourselves vulnerable to states that have not began such experimentation. ...
You have quite the fetish for aggression/defense. The "arms race" only exists to the extent that there exist brainwashed, scared automatons willing to submit their bodies and treasure to monopoly rackets in return for "protection". One could reasonably hope that as education and enlightement spreads about the infinitely larger benefits of trade and division of labor (vs enslavement and aggression) the said fear and obedience would only be getting weaker. How could an "aggressor state" actually profit from "attacking" and "enslaving" an economically enlightened population? What is the risk/reward equation for the aggresor exactly, and which enlightened population of said aggressing state would agree to fund it? Do you have any recent examples of such profitable expeditions?
Amen to that!
z1235
The "arms race" only exists to the extent that there exist brainwashed, scared automatons willing to submit their bodies and treasure to monopoly rackets in return for "protection".
Your assertion indicates no awareness that not all people are nice, non-violent and independent--a belief that the whole arms race was just a big misunderstanding. If this is so, then we too must agree to disagree.
One could reasonably hope that as education and enlightement spreads about the infinitely larger benefits of trade and division of labor (vs enslavement and aggression) the said fear and obedience would only be getting weaker.
Yes, if only Saddam Hussein had opened a book once in a while....
How could an "aggressor state" actually profit from "attacking" and "enslaving" an economically enlightened population? Do you have any recent examples of such profitable expeditions?
Ask Kuwait about that; Iraq seemed to think it was worthwhile--until we kicked their butts out of there--with our huge conventional forces, funded by a huge conventional state.
What is the risk/reward equation for the aggresor exactly, and which enlightened population of said aggressing state would agree to fund it?
Didn't we fund our wars? And if we aren't enlightened, then name one who is.
DarylLloydDavis: Your assertion indicates no awareness that not all people are nice, non-violent and independent--a belief that the whole arms race was just a big misunderstanding. If this is so, then we too must agree to disagree.
1) balanced budget amendment
During times of war, particularly a defensive war, a balanced budget would be an unnecessary impediment to victory. And if one begins to allow exceptions for war here, and a "crisis" there, as would surely be the case, then opportunistic, pandering politicians would erode the amendment until it was meaningless.
2) Federal government receives revenue directly from individual states based on 10% of each state's GDP.
Why should the federal government be entitled to more money than it may require? And why should it receive less than it does legitimately require? And if the fed serves functions that the states cannot provide for themselves, like military defense, why should they not all pay for them equally?
3) supermajority from Congress required to raise tax rate above 10
I object to representative government in principle. We learn and grow as human beings by being held personally accountable for our actions, not hiding within the ranks of a political party, behind its elected representatives--who themselves hide behind the party platform. If progress were ever to be made toward the free society that most on this forum desire, it will come by such directly democratic steps.
Representative government was based upon a two-hundred-year-old assumption that the People cannot determine for themselves what is best for them. This may have been understandable then; now it is pure bunk. No one will ever convince me that the average person today needs Nancy Pelosi to figure things out for them. The internet make us all capable of doing our due diligence, accepting accountability for our decisions.
4) simple majority from Congress required to lower tax rate and this rate becomes permanent until raised by supermajority or lowered by simple majority
Why tax rates at all? I don't accept that government is entitled to a "cut" of others' every transaction. Government ought not be a profit-making enterprise. I prefer pay-as-you-serve.
5) any tax rate increase is temporary (1-2 years) and requires supermajority vote to reinstate.
I require all programs to be re-authorized every year, myself. But I want government to be as fluid as possible, so as to handle every eventuality, and to teach what lessons the People must learn.
6) Government cannot regulate or influence industry and commerce including but not limited to money, banking, education, energy, monetary policy, utilities, transportation, communications, et al unless approved by supermajority in Congress and then for only a ONE year period unless renewed by supermajority in congress. Hence the only role allowed by the federal government is final arbiter of interstate disputes, interstate law enforcement, and national defense
There are too many regulations to make this a realistic requirement. I prefer a general rule to guide all regulations:
No administrative rule or regulation, except those indispensible to the protection of public safety, shall be enforceable where, regarding the regulated, a presumption of malice, neglect or imbecility inheres in the requirements thereof: But any irreparable injury to person or to property, private or public, whose proximate cause is a business or governmental standard or procedure violative of due care and common sense shall nullify the limited liability or the official immunity of the authorizing and enforcing officers, respectively, both in civil and in criminal suits.
7) Only federal agencies , bureaus, departments, et al allowed by law are attorney general and defense (state department subordinate agency of defense department) unless established and approved by Congress by supermajority and then only for 1 year period unless reinstated by supermajority vote in congress
I don't object to being rid of federal agencies; but I leave it to the People to do so. Meanwhile, I check their actions by the agent of the Attorney General, now third in line for the Presidency, and by a 3/5 vote among the Governors, who replace the role played by the Senate in many cases.
8) Supermajority in COngress required to deploy conventional forces into combat, and this action must be renewed every year by supermajority.
No declaration of war, nor any peacetime initiation of military force outside the borders of the United States and its territories, shall be undertaken without the consent of two-thirds of the Governors of the States and a unanimous vote of assent between the President and the Defense Cabinet, whose membership shall include the Attorney General, the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security and Treasury, the Chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the heads of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency; the number and composition of which may be altered by a three-fourths majority vote among the Governors of the States, but shall not exclude the Attorney General.
9) similarly, a supermajority in Congress required to restrict trade and this action must be renewed by supermajority every year or it expires
I bestow this function upon the Commerce Secretary, subject to the same checks as above. And under my system he and all pols may be voted from office every summer--except the President, who may be replaced after two years.
10) states DO NOT have the right to seceed from the Union and any state that fails to submit taxes they are subject to Federal control.
Secession is probably much less desirable under direct democracy.
Centinel: Nukes are overrated.
Nukes are overrated.
Hundreds of millions of potential casualties in the Euro-Asiatic theaters of World War III live. I do not see how we can overrate the technology that allowed for this to happen.
Centinel: every weapon ever made is eventually rendered obsolete by technological advancement. Also, nukes have no sway over non-state faith-based actors. Indeed, these actors will absolute use them against population centers if given the opportunity which would cause the collapse of any pacifist panarchy into chaos in short order.
every weapon ever made is eventually rendered obsolete by technological advancement. Also, nukes have no sway over non-state faith-based actors. Indeed, these actors will absolute use them against population centers if given the opportunity which would cause the collapse of any pacifist panarchy into chaos in short order.
As for nukes being rendered obsolete, I do not see that coming. I just cannot conceive of a technology that could do that. But if that ever happens, we’ll be back to the slowly centralizing world of global wars and totalitarianism we had until 1945. Nothing to do about it than.
Now, I discussed briefly in a post above why I do not fear some nut jobs getting nukes in a panarchic world. Nukes would settle on the hands of the smallest entities that could hold them. The nuke any fundamentalist might get would magically get stolen in the night. I’d trust PMC’s to do a much, much better ‘counter-terrorist’ job than current behemoth governments who cannot win wars against illiterate peasants.
Your posts are objective, rational and independent thinking which is rare for this site.
I was thinking the same about yours--you were addressing me, I hope. Frankly, I've been disappointed by the level of discourse at this forum, present company excepted. It seems to be more of a social site, where like-minded utopian libertarians mutually ignore the realities around them, as some sort of escapist intellectual exercise. I commend you on your patience; I'm running out, myself.
Anarchists are of the deluded opinion that ancap society would be peaceful when nothing could be further from the truth for the following reasons:
Very impressive. I was wondering what it would take to make the case stick against ancap autonomy--such that no response, however non-responsive or snarky, would be forthcoming. Apparently, you have the gift. And I totally support your analysis.
Daryl, I and others in this forum have repeatedly refuted Centinel's "arguments" in other threads. So I wouldn't be so hasty to jump to such a conclusion.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Centinel:Anarchists are of the deluded opinion that ancap society would be peaceful when nothing could be further from the truth for the following reasons:
How many more times (beyond a hundred) would you need your strawmen destroyed before you stop erecting them again, and again?
...because they similarly benefit from the plunder of war.
When was the last time you've seen someone benefiting from this "plunder of war"? What is it with you neocons and your fetish about destruction, aggression, and defense? What happened to you in your childhoods that has made you feel so afraid and vulnerable?
DarylLloydDavis:Frankly, I've been disappointed by the level of discourse at this forum, present company excepted. It seems to be more of a social site, where like-minded utopian libertarians mutually ignore the realities around them, as some sort of escapist intellectual exercise. I commend you on your patience; I'm running out, myself.
Perhaps you could help yourself by replying to my questions about these supposedly frightening realities. I know it must be hard to get unplugged from the Matrix but, for the sake of reality, please give it a try. Entertain the possibility that the fear of the big bad world out there has been implanted in your head for a reason.
I surely agree that the military under any Republican arrangement is mach inferior, in organizational terms, to what it could be due to civilian fears of takeover, but also because Republics can’t see their own self-interest even if it was spitting in their face (you may have noticed that I’m not a fan of the US Constitution, or any other Republican arrangement).
Now, If what you mean when you write that…
Then you disagree with my argument that a geopolitik of liberal democracy will be violent ?
…is that, without nuclear deterrence liberal democracies would fight wars among themselves and with other powers, I certainly think so. Countries on that list have done such unspeakable horrors as to have deserved an invasion many times over, hadn’t it been for Uncle Sam’s nuclear umbrella. Just to name one example, Cyprus ethnically cleansed it Turkish minority before Turkey invaded its northern portion to put an end to this (ethnically cleansing Greeks in the north in the process). Classy!
We could discuss why I do not think that Republic, with the exception of smallish ones, would survive in a minarchic world of competing states ( I think we’re already witnessing the dissolution of liberal democracy), but that is indeed for an other thread. What is important is that due to nukes, the gradual decentralization of the world due to the impossibility of conventional war is bringing us closer to the minarchic idea and, perhaps, to a panarchic one in its time.
Centinel:Be warned! Amusingly, I have a bevy of trolls [sic] that follow me from thread to thread. I have learned not to feed them, and they have reduced their minor annoyances.
Amusingly, I have a bevy of trolls [sic] that follow me from thread to thread. I have learned not to feed them, and they have reduced their minor annoyances.
Every time you post in any thread in this forum, you "feed" the "trolls". You should know by now that your refusal to reply directly to me, or even to refer to me by name at all, hasn't deterred me in the slightest.
Centinel:The 10% number is based loosely on the Rahn Curve that shows maximum societal economic growth when government spending hovers around 10-15%. Moreover, defense spending is more than adequate at 5% -- indeed the extra 5% would be insurance and pay for law enforcement, statistical analysis and data collection, judiciary, congress, et al.
If you're going to cite something like the Rahn curve, at least get it right - it predicts optimal economic growth when government spending is between 15% and 25% of GDP, not between 10% and 15% (source). "Based loosely," indeed! Until you explain the methodology by which you were led to a lower figure than Rahn, I'll assume your lowering of the figure is completely arbitrary.
Centinel:again the 10% is based on empirical analysis which could be adjusted by Congress as needed.
See above. Otherwise, when do you think Congress would "need" to "adjust" this percentage?
Centinel:And the states would be paying an equal amount based on GDP. However a more competitive standard would be to charge each state based on population so as to encourage state fiscal and monetary policies to be economically effective or face temporary Federal takeover -- hence bankruptcy and 'restructuring' proceedings.
If the states would be paying an equal amount based on GDP, then total federal + state government spending would amount to about 20% of GDP, not 10% as you advocate.
Centinel:I agree that the People most definitely know what is best for themselves -- indeed this self-interest is what drives crony capitalism.
Except when it comes to the almighty "national defense" - then apparently you know better than they do.
Centinel:Indeed, power goes to those in society who most aggressively pursue their own self-interests -- not those whose self-interests most benefit society.
How are you defining "power"? How are you defining "aggressively"? (I suspect, in the latter case, you're defining it as "vigorously" - why not use that word instead?)
But based on my tentative understanding of this thesis, it seems that you oppose what every free-market economist has said since Adam Smith.
Centinel:Hence, a representative government is needed to check self-interest driven by political machinations.
So how do you think the representative government of the US is doing there? Last time I checked, it appeared to be completely driven by political machinations. If you think the US's representative government is flawed here, can you please explain how?
Centinel:However, I dont have a problem with the people pursuing self-interest within a free market since they are slaves to the consumer within this framework and of course in every voluntary exchange both parties benefit otherwise no exchange would be made in the first place.
Except when they do things that you don't like, such as oppose wars you want to get involved in, or fund the military less than you want to (if they want to fund it at all). At those times, you apparently think you know better than they do.
Centinel:I agree that government must be nimble to handle emergencies dealing with national defense. However, I believe that the best means to deal with any societal problems either man-made or natural is a strong, fluid, and nimble private economy -- not a strong, fluid and nimble government.
Those two sentences directly contradict each other. "Emergencies dealing with national defense" constitute "man-made societal problems", do they not? If you agree that they do - and I really don't see how you wouldn't - then logically you must also believe that the best means to deal with emergencies dealing with national defense is a strong, fluid, and nimble private economy - not a strong, fluid, and nimble government. So make up your mind.
Centinel:I like this, however if you want a nimble and fluid government -- then subjecting bureaucrats to criminal prosecution is counter productive to your goals. Nonetheless, if government mistakes can be punished, then this rule alone would be enough destroy government completely. In the very least, it would make bureaucrats far more cautious and hesitant than ever before thereby rendering them useless and simply cashing paychecks for doing nothing but shuffling paper -- which is what most of them do now anyway.
Again, this embodies a contradiction. A standing military force would necessarily contain some level of bureaucracy for its management. Indeed, I think the argument can be made that any soldier who's currently not in a combat situation is instead a bureaucrat. Rendering such bureaucrats immune from criminal prosecution, taken literally, would allow them to get away with no less than murder. If you're honestly in favor of such a thing, then I see no reason to engage you any further, except to remind others of this - res ipsa loquitur.
Centinel:Thanks for the response. It is positive that objective contributors like you and Merlin are finally on board to present fresh ideas and arguments even if you don't agree with most of mine.
Right, in the absence of logical arguments and counter-arguments, what do we have left? Just a shouting match. Who "wins" in a shouting match? Whoever's voice is the loudest. Sorry, but I won't play that game.
Centinel:Arguing with the faith-based rabble on Leftist and anarchist websites while entertaining is tedious at times.
You have more faith than I will ever have. And it is blind.
Centinel: When was the last time you've seen someone benefiting from this "plunder of war"? What is it with you neocons and your fetish about destruction, aggression, and defense? What happened to you in your childhoods that has made you feel so afraid and vulnerable? -- z1235 If societal actors don't benefit from war, then why have these states and non-state actors waged wars for thousands of years without pause ?? It is painfully obvious to any rational, objective and independent thinking observer -- that the use of armed force to obtain desired economic, political and social goals is without question effective in many cases by so many successful actors throughout history -- Greece, Rome, Britain, USA, China, et al. Moreover, it is absurd to discount the myriad conflicts in human history as irrational and of no benefit to those that initiate them.
When was the last time you've seen someone benefiting from this "plunder of war"? What is it with you neocons and your fetish about destruction, aggression, and defense? What happened to you in your childhoods that has made you feel so afraid and vulnerable? -- z1235
If societal actors don't benefit from war, then why have these states and non-state actors waged wars for thousands of years without pause ??
It is painfully obvious to any rational, objective and independent thinking observer -- that the use of armed force to obtain desired economic, political and social goals is without question effective in many cases by so many successful actors throughout history -- Greece, Rome, Britain, USA, China, et al. Moreover, it is absurd to discount the myriad conflicts in human history as irrational and of no benefit to those that initiate them.
You sure use a lot fo words to avoid answering a simple question. When was the last time you've seen someone benefiting from this "plunder of war"? Show me the money (profits)!
Indeed, it is an amusing paradox that the same pacifist ancaps who rant against the effectiveness of 'destruction, aggression, and defense' are themselves denied freedom by those who use coercive means to gain power and plunder.
Those parasites only have said power because of scared automatons like yourself who keep perpetuating the chant that submitting to them is necessary for their own protection. "We" must keep supporting parasitic plunderers lest parasitic plunderers do us harm! Don't you see how you twist yourself into a pretzel with your logic?
I think Einstein had a name for this type of thinking. For example, ancaps repeatedly rejecting coercive means to promote their self-interests and expecting to some day wake up free from statist coercion.
Hey Einstein, the first step towards freeing yourself from parasitic plunderers must happen in your head -- the second, in your ballsack. How do you expect to ever wake up free from parasitic plunderers when you precondition your very fearful existence with submission of your body and property to them? Parasitic plunderers: one must live with them so one could live without them, right?
The 10% number is based loosely on the Rahn Curve that shows maximum societal economic growth when government spending hovers around 10-15%. Moreover, defense spending is more than adequate at 5% -- indeed the extra 5% would be insurance and pay for law enforcement, statistical analysis and data collection, judiciary, congress, et al
I can see that we part ways in terms of where pragmatism must give way to principle. I don't care about maximizing societal growth per se; in fact, I believe that what is crucial for our future as a nation--and as a planet-- is not more economic growth, but more moral growth; and as I stated previously, I believe this comes through hands-on trial and error, facing consequences for decisions made, not through accepting a predetermined percentage of taxation, Rahn Curve or not.
However a more competitive standard would be to charge each state based on population so as to encourage state fiscal and monetary policies to be economically effective or face temporary Federal takeover -- hence bankruptcy and 'restructuring' proceedings
I suppose this is as good a time as any to make clear that I have no interest in accelerating the economic development, let alone the population growth, of the several States, or of the states of the world. I don't dream of turning a quick profit on all of Earth's assets, even if they went to the most efficient producer. I like the global state stalemate that keeps much of the planet underdeveloped; and I like the fact that we have States here that are broadly natural in landscape, bejeweled with national forests and national parks.
My system is such that if more government is required, more government is paid for. And to those who make more government necessary these costs accrue directly. Government thereby becomes a tool for teaching self-reliance, with those who require shouldering its costs.
I agree that the People most definitely know what is best for themselves -- indeed this self-interest is what drives crony capitalism.
Don't knock self-interest; the alternative is servitude.
Indeed, power goes to those in society who most aggressively pursue their own self-interests -- not those whose self-interests most benefit society.
I like the line; but unfettered free markets would be less interested in what benefits society than most state systems are. It isn't their job to look out for the general good, unless it directly affects the bottom line--and even then they make careful cost/benefit analyses. Again, my ideal planet does not resemble the DeathStar. To me, the most efficient free market is not the ultimate goal. Personal accountability must be taught to the greatest number, or any system will falter. And direct democracy is uniquely capable of localizing accountability, while maintaining civil rights protections, and state military and law enforcement protections.
Hence, a representative government is needed to check self-interest driven by political machinations.
Really? Since when has representative government CHECKED "self-interest driven by political machinations?" It seems to me that that is exactly what it was designed to foster. For how much more difficult would it be for a special interest to bribe or otherwise convince the entire voting population that it warrants special considerations--that the voters themselves do not--as opposed to bribing or otherwise convincing a handful of representatives on the golf course, or behind closed doors?
Under a pure democracy I believe that 50.1% will vote to plunder the 49.9%.
Mine is no pure democracy. And I've already laid out the relevant amendment and argument. We have a representative government now that is allowing the non-productive to plunder the successful.
in order for a military force to be an effective deterrent, it must be funded in peacetime. Hence, where and how does the money come from to maintain a strong military ?
IN sum, I dont see where your source for funding government comes from in your scenario.
In the Tenth Amendment posted above, I've enumerated the sources of revenue for government and stipulated that the collections must reflect actual costs. Here's a few examples:
Usage fees levied upon persons whose activities degrade or monopolize public property; (This permits the government to collect revenues to compensate for the degradation and maintenance of public roads, bridges, buildings, etc.; as well as charging individuals for such things as grazing on public land, parking meters, hot dog stands, etc.)
Usage fees levied upon persons enjoying exclusive use of land, in proportion to its acreage and the volume, mass and scarcity of natural resources therein; (This permits the government to collect revenues in direct proportion to the benefit that individuals derive from the military/law enforcement protection of their private property, peacetime or otherwise. Notice that there is no upper limit on what the government may charge, only a requirement that it actually reflects what they in fact used. Incidentally, it also discourages the acquisition of more private land than one could possibly need; which, as I previously stated, I find of significant planetary benefit.)
Usage fees levied upon foreign governments for involvement of United States military personnel, equipment or weaponry in operations outside the territory of the United States, at the request of said governments, which would otherwise be the responsibility of any sovereign nation to itself; (Obviously this provision enables the military to recover its costs for all overseas military bases from the countries within which they are situated, peacetime or otherwise. And it covers operations in which the U.S. shoulders the burden for nations that piggyback off of our role as the world's police force.)
I also made some significant legal/justice reforms, including this revenue source:
All convicted prisoners shall labor no less than eight hours per day, five days per week, unless two physicians certify that they are physically or mentally incapable of as much; and only in so laboring shall able prisoners earn the privileges of hot meals, visitations, educational and recreational opportunities and personal, non-toiletry possessions within cells.
By this provision, prisoners will pay for their own incarceration--and accustom themselves to the life of a responsible adult, rather than colluding to commit offenses behind bars--when they aren't watching cable TV, or playing basketball. Hopefully, such a provision will act as a greater deterrent to crime than conditions today. But I believe in the moral soundness of it, irrespective of results.
I believe that the best means to deal with any societal problems either man-made or natural is a strong, fluid, and nimble private economy -- not a strong, fluid and nimble government.
Generally, I agree. And I think we're largely on the same page with respect to the need for a state military and law enforcement. But I don't want every road to be a private toll road; or every park to be a day-fee park. I want an option and a requirement for public education, when private individuals, particularly in poor neighborhoods, either cannot afford private schools, or are too irresponsible to save for them. I don't mind public bus transportation, if the only other option is a private taxi cab. And I value the protection of national lands, and lands of public domain.
But it goes without saying that many of these departments are bloated and wasteful; which is why I provided several different means by which to block their policies:
– The exercise of oversight, investigative and regulatory powers formerly delegated to the United States Congress by the original Constitution, where not previously delegated by the former, shall be delegated by the Attorney General to, and in turn by, the appropriate executive appointees, whose official acts may be halted by the President, the Attorney General, or by a three-fifths majority of the Governors, when deemed unlawful, wasteful or predominately political in nature.
I like this, however if you want a nimble and fluid government -- then subjecting bureaucrats to criminal prosecution is counter productive to your goals. Nonetheless, if government mistakes can be punished, then this rule alone would be enough destroy government completely. In the very least, it would make bureaucrats far more cautious and hesitant than ever before thereby rendering them useless and simply cashing paychecks for doing nothing but shuffling paper -- which is what most of them do now anyway.
Rules with impartial teeth are what's missing from our crumbling society: In other words, personal accountability for all. If this provision slows the tendency of regulators to impose unnecessary rules upon business; or forces business to be especially cautious in defense of public safety, I will live with the resulting stalemate. I believe that it will greatly shrink government regulation; and greatly improve business ethics, e.g. drug recalls, environmental pollution, deficient manufacturers' safety standards, etc.; but that it will not destroy the necessary functions of government.
Too much power to the states thereby rendering the federal government useless. Moreover, I see a dangerous pattern emerging that places power in the hands of appointed and unelected bureaucrats (attorney general) instead of Congress.
The States represent their respective populations more directly than the federal goverment does, whether through their senators and representatives, or through their governors. Either way they must be represented. My system allows even appointed bureaucrats, the members of the Administration, in addition to being subject to the checks listed just previously, to be voted out of office:
Every public official within the United States but the President, either elected or appointed by an elected officer, may be replaced in a summer electoral initiative when, among an option of any precinct-certified candidates who meet all other qualifications for the office of an incumbent, an option to require the immediate replacement of an appointee by the appointer, where applicable, and an option to retain the status quo, one of the two former options receives an aggregate of fifty-one percent of votes cast for said office, among at least ninety-five percent of precincts subject to its oversight and authority. Nor shall the aforementioned appointer during the existing term remove the duly-elected replacement-appointee from office, unless for misconduct therein; though all public officials may be replaced in any electoral initiative when a vacating of their offices for any other reason shall have necessitated a special election.
Kind of wordy for a constitution, and it definitely places far more power in the hands of the states than I envision, moreover it makes it nearly impossible to wage war (governors voting) and it would take too long in a fluid situation that requires an immediate response. My plan only requires a supermajority vote by congress
In some cases the founding document was not "wordy" enough; hence the mess we have now. It also makes it necessary that the President convince a large majority of the Governors that the case for war is compelling enought to send their respective state populations to face death overseas. But the time it would take, in this age of smartphones and internet, to gather the necessary votes from the 50 Governors, as opposed to the 535 members of Congress, would probably be less time.
I dont like power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats
It's already there: Congress has long since transferred their enumerated powers to agencies run by unelected bureaucrats, like the FDA, EPA, IRS, etc.; I just place redundant checks upon it this system, including a new one, directly in the hands of the people, instead of just relying on the courts as a last resort. And don't forget that the powers that they possess are still limited by a Constitution--only now the buck stops with a single, accountable individual:
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the power to monitor and to regulate entry into and exit from the United States; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and deportation; and to make rules for domestic capture of foreign enemies.
The Secretary of State shall have the power to define and process piracies, felonies and other non-military transgressions committed by United States citizens on the High Seas, or in any other international space, and offenses against the law of Nations.
The Secretary of Defense shall have the power to provision and maintain the armed forces; to maintain rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces; and to make rules for the capture of foreign enemies abroad.
Sorry about hijacking your compliment to Merlin; but I still think your posts are refreshingly-rooted in common sense. And I don't expect you or anyone else to adopt my way of improving the nation. I just felt obliged to put my own ideas on record.
Centinel:The following is an amusing example of why I don't generally respond to the bevy of trolls [sic] that follow me around this forum: This troll's [sic] own statements will expose himself starting with this one at the beginning of his/her post: If you're going to cite something like the Rahn curve, at least get it right - it predicts optimal economic growth when government spending is between 15% and 25% of GDP, not between 10% and 15% (source). "Based loosely," indeed! Until you explain the methodology by which you were led to a lower figure than Rahn, I'll assume your lowering of the figure is completely arbitrary. -- autolykos Yet, amusingly this troll [sic] answers his/her own challenge in the same post with the following argument: If the states would be paying an equal amount based on GDP, then total federal + state government spending would amount to about 20% of GDP, not 10% as you advocate. -- autolykos
This troll's [sic] own statements will expose himself starting with this one at the beginning of his/her post:
If you're going to cite something like the Rahn curve, at least get it right - it predicts optimal economic growth when government spending is between 15% and 25% of GDP, not between 10% and 15% (source). "Based loosely," indeed! Until you explain the methodology by which you were led to a lower figure than Rahn, I'll assume your lowering of the figure is completely arbitrary. -- autolykos
Yet, amusingly this troll [sic] answers his/her own challenge in the same post with the following argument:
If the states would be paying an equal amount based on GDP, then total federal + state government spending would amount to about 20% of GDP, not 10% as you advocate. -- autolykos
By ascribing my name to the parts of my post that you quoted, you betray your intention of refusing to refer to me by name (as evidenced in the third-person verb forms and such phrases as "this troll", "himself", and "his/her" [why the inconsistency between pronouns?]).
You claim that I answer my own "challenge" in the same post. First off, I don't see where I made any "challenge". Second, it was not clear at all to me that you were basing both the 10% of GDP in federal funding and the 10% of GDP in state funding on the Rahn curve. You only stated that the former figure was "loosely" based on it. If you think that not fully specifying your position/arguments at first, and only doing so after people start to attack it, is a sign of intellectual prowess and integrity, guess again. It's a sign of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
However, I also think maybe you either don't completely understand what I wrote, or you're deliberately distorting it. You originally wrote the following: "The 10% number is based loosely on the Rahn Curve that shows maximum societal economic growth when government spending hovers around 10-15%." That is, you claimed that the Rahn curve points to 10-15% of GDP as the optimal amount of government spending. The source I cited shows that this claim is inaccurate: the optimal figure claimed by Rahn is 15-25% of GDP. Now you're implicitly claiming that the 10% of GDP for federal spending and the 10% of GDP for equivalent state spending that you advocate does fall in the 15-25% of GDP claimed by Rahn as optimal for government spending. If you're secretly using the actual figures from Rahn to refute my counter-argument, when you originally claimed inaccurate figures for it, then I think you're being doubly dishonest and cowardly.
Centinel:The balance of the post appears to be the typical semantic lessons [sic], hyper-illogical diversionary dissections [sic], and ad hominems [sic].
Then you'll have no problem pointing out exactly where such exist in my post - rather than making a bare blanket assertion and (presumably) expecting everyone else to just take your word for it. Or are you going to be a coward here too?
Centinel:For example, this troll's [sic] last [sic] bizarre [sic] statement: Right, in the absence of logical arguments and counter-arguments, what do we have left? Just a shouting match. Who "wins" in a shouting match? Whoever's voice is the loudest. Sorry, but I won't play that game. --autolykos In sum, I can only hope that this troll [sic] will follow his/her own advice, but I'm not holding my breath.
Right, in the absence of logical arguments and counter-arguments, what do we have left? Just a shouting match. Who "wins" in a shouting match? Whoever's voice is the loudest. Sorry, but I won't play that game. --autolykos
In sum, I can only hope that this troll [sic] will follow his/her own advice, but I'm not holding my breath.
And just what makes that statement "bizarre" to you? Surely you can provide an answer to that.
With all that said, I thought you said you don't "feed" the "trolls"? Yet you keep on posting. This time you even bothered to respond to me directly! That hasn't happened in quite some time. I'm glad that I finally inspired you to do so once again.