Hello everyone. I've been a daily reader of these forums for a few days, and I decided to join today. Joining new forums is never easy for me. What to say, what to contribute to, who to talk to, etc. always stump me, but I'm glad to be here.
I've been a libertarian for four years, but I spent much of that time sort of politically inactive and I haven't read much Mises or anyone else. I am unsure what to call myself, though. As I think about it more, I find myself advocating something like this:
1) Government is completely eliminated through revolution, whether violent or peaceful. (Preferably peaceful, obviously)
2) Government is re-established through the ratification of a truly minarchist constitution granting government the power to set laws for the protection of individual liberty, and to enforce those laws. However, this government is not entitled a monopoly on courts or police, and is denied any power of national defense. Taxes levied to fund police or courts are opt-out, and as such, police and courts exist in the private sector and can compete with the services offered through the public sector.
3) The citizenry is armed and trained in and by the private sector, in all skills and techniques currently offered to civilians as well as those restricted to LEOs and military servicemen. Without the existence of a standing army at the disposal of the state, the government has no means by which it can coerce the citizens to do anything. All government action and interaction is rooted in the self-governance of each individual, and as such, each individual has the right to secede from the state.
4) In time, the citizens can see for themselves whether or not the public sector is necessary. They can see and test the services offered through both the private and public sectors, and choose to a) allow them both to remain, b) scrap the government-offered services altogether, c) scrap the private-sector services altogether, or d) scrap all services altogether and establish something altogether different.
I tend to prefer to call myself a minarchist, as such. I don't like using the word "anarchy", as it carries very negative connotations in every-day use. People imagine anarchists to be violent, irresponsible, anti-authoritarian nuts. However, as I read these forums more, I think most people here would consider me an anarcho-capitalist since I refuse any monopoly of force to the state.
Anyway, I'm glad to be here and I look forward to interacting with you.
Namaste.
Michael Lagoy: I think most people here would consider me an anarcho-capitalist [...]
That depends, as Walter Block would ask, "do you favor voluntary minarchy or involuntary minarchy?"
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
As stated in my original post, "All government action and interaction is rooted in the self-governance of each individual, and as such, each individual has the right to secede from the state." To further clarify that, I believe in unlimited secession and see no true need for a centralized government unless independent states or city states mutually agree to unify.
Welcome!
If JJ sees this thread anytime soon, he will give you the standard beginner's welcome with the links that go along with it.
In the meantime, it's nice to have you!
It does seem that we would likely classify you as an AnCap given your ideas. However, labels are voluntary and you can call yourself whatever you like as long as you maintain some reasonable amount of honesty. What I mean is don't call yourself a social democrat - you don't seem to be one :P
As to your proposed "government" - because we define government as a monopoly on the use of systematic force, then to me it doesn't appear that your system has a government. Even the supposedly "public" services you claim are voluntarily funded, and the only thing that remains that seems like a government is the voting system (I assume). And here we must note that democracy is not a system of government but a system for a group to come to a decision (sort of ). Hence, companies may very well use democratic elements without being governments. And in your case, your "government" can use democracy without being a government - it just becomes a company which relies on public opinion to arrive at decisions.
Ultimately, whatever floats your goat.
I hope that you find a fun and intelligent community here. I know I have and I've had many of my views challenged and changed.
Michael Lagoy: As stated in my original post, "All government action and interaction is rooted in the self-governance of each individual, and as such, each individual has the right to secede from the state." To further clarify that, I believe in unlimited secession and see no true need for a centralized government unless independent states or city states mutually agree to unify.
Welcome, I love it when I hear words like voluntary and unlimited secession.
My primary concern here is to advance the social sciences such that more and more human beings understand what Praxeology (the science of human action) offers us. Such a science makes it obvious why the policies of political organizations are doomed to fail (when compared to their stated goals). If this became common knowledge, or more specifically common understanding. The society that emerges from the individuals who cooperatively interact would necessarily be one that differs dramatically from what we see.
We all come from within this current place and time in the history of mankind. We struggle to comprehend what it would mean to live in a stateless society, or one that was non-coercive. Even those of us inside this community don't really know what it would look like. My personal focus is on attempting to scrub away the stain on our "common wisdom" provided by various flaws in thinking. In particular the various mechanisms for justifying state monopolies, and in collectivist interpretations of social phenomena that aren't built soundly on methodological individualism, specifically Praxeology.
So, if there's anything I hope personally to get across to you, it's that your ability to educate and encourage others will have a multiplicative effect (think power law) on changing the society that manifests out of our shared knowledge, values and norms. Doing so will depend on your ability to effectively apply the knowledge and understanding that Praxeology gives us about the world we experience, especially in conversations about current events.
Anarchy/minarchy is not a proper goal. Seeking to actively bring about a particular social order is still a collectivist mindset. You still have yet to fully break out.
Oh and welcome. Here's the thread for beginners.
Clayton -
Clayton: minarchy is not a proper goal. Seeking to actively bring about a particular social order is still a collectivist mindset.
minarchy is not a proper goal. Seeking to actively bring about a particular social order is still a collectivist mindset.
is true, but the anarchy version is incorrect. Its false like saying that atheism is a religion. To bring about a society which is not systematically rights aggressing is in no way betraying a collectivist mindset, or to use your preferred terms, 'bringing an end to a monopoly of law' does not show a collectivist mindset.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
@nir: But how we think about the problem matters. I think that, for many atheists, atheism actually is a religion. It's just a "deity-free" version of the same fundamentalist mentality they had prior to de-conversion. I've noticed that some anarchists have a mindset very similar to statists... "we need to make the world state-free whether it likes it or not!" Well, yes, we do want to eradicate the State but if the change does not come from within, it is not genuine, that is, it is not the change we are really looking for. Anarchism brought about through collectivist means would not be worth having.
I see where you are coming from, but I still think you could have expressed yourself more effectively. I trust you to inform me of same when the shoe is on the other foot
Are you sure? I think that the public is generally complacent enough that if we have (as strange as it sounds) an constitutional anarchy they wouldn't be that much against it.
No offense Daniel, but I'm pretty certain that words like "voluntary" and "unlimited secession" answer your question. Others figured it out, so I figured you should be able to as well. In any case, I do not under any circumstances support involuntary government.
Thanks everyone for your replies.
Welcome to the forum, Michael.
If you don't mind, could you provide your definition of "government"?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Ideal government would be a voluntary organization of citizens, funded through voluntary taxation, unto whom the ordinary self-governance of the citizenry proper is delegated within limitations defined by those citizens, from which any citizen or group of citizens can completely secede, and which is prohibited the use of initiatory force.
As this would never happen, I am keeping an open mind toward completely stateless society and I hope these forums can help solidify my convictions one way or another.
That's all well and good, but what's your definition of "government"?
There is no such thing as a static definition of "government." It means different things to different people, and it takes different forms in each instance. Short of identifying it as a "cancer" or "retrovirus", show me any static defintition of government and I'll show you bad history.
With all due respect, if you don't adhere to a particular definition of "government" when espousing your position, then how does anyone know what your espousal of your position is supposed to mean?
Let me ask you a different but related question: when you talk about "voluntary government", what definition of "government" are you using?
With all due respect, I don't see the need to conform to others' ideas of what I should say and how. I've already explained what, to me, would be "ideal" government. If that's not enough, then I guess you'll just have to go nitpick someone else.
I'm sorry but I can only take this as a categorical refusal on your part to provide the definition of "government" that you're using. How am I supposed to understand what you think an "ideal government" would be if you won't explain to me what you think a "government" is?
"How am I supposed to understand what you think an "ideal government" would be if you won't explain to me what you think a "government" is?"
Is English your first language? I thought I made that pretty clear:
"Ideal government would be a voluntary organization of citizens, funded through voluntary taxation, unto whom the ordinary self-governance of the citizenry proper is delegated within limitations defined by those citizens, from which any citizen or group of citizens can completely secede, and which is prohibited the use of initiatory force."
If you need help understanding what is meant, please feel free to ask specific questions.
I did ask a specific question - namely, what your definition of "government" is. What I'm trying to do is relate your view of "ideal government" with your view of "government" in general. Does that make sense? It seems unreasonable to me for you to refuse to explain what your view of "government" in general is.
Government is completely eliminated through revolution,
That seems excessive
More to the point:
Advocating and doing are two seperate entities. Avocating some ideology is working in a void without any intelligible social feedback mechanism, this has the danger of making someone just a discontent rabble rouser.
We live in a real and ever changing environment with real expectations and real people. Talking about a mass manipulation of people to "do the right thing" is hardly comforting food for thought.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
"Talking about a mass manipulation of people to "do the right thing" is hardly comforting food for thought."
Where did I talk about manipulation?
Libertarian bickering strikes again!
In any case, here are my thoughts on the government question:
http://direct.images.mises.org/Community/forums/p/27863/455019.aspx
The definition of government does matter thaaaat much. Rather, it's the institutionalized initiation of aggression.
That being said, I define government as an agency with the power to institutionally initiate aggression. Yes, under that definition a Mafia is a government. Deal with it.
The point of my post was to show the undesirability of actually advocating a full blown pre designed revolution. From that post I used "mass manipulation" to try to paint a picture for you to understand what I was getting at.
Michael Lagoy: With all due respect, I don't see the need to conform to others' ideas of what I should say and how. I've already explained what, to me, would be "ideal" government. If that's not enough, then I guess you'll just have to go nitpick someone else. Haha, I love it this is the libertarian, freedom loving response. Anyway, you two are doing the very thing that makes me love this movement, and makes it hard for us to organize and "march together" which I can't see as a proper solution anyway. Michael, I will say this, Autolykos is asking a very fundamental question about the nature of government in general. I have a way of thinking about it. I believe what he's asking can be answered in several ways, but... Traditionally in libertarian circles, government is defined as a social institution with a territorially bounded monopoly on dispute resolution and the legitimate use of force. This is viewed by minarchists as a necessary evil, and they would wish to limit and constrain this institution so that it enables free action without coercively oppressing the populace. Anarcho-capitalists would instead seek to supplant this monopoly institution with competing dispute resolution services and defensive security agencies. This is, I believe, what he's getting at... hope this lubricates the discussion, instead of increasing the friction... And as a free-thinking individual he might disagree with me about my characterization of his questions. | Post Points: 5
@Michael Lagoy
Part of the confusion regarding your use of the word "government" is that you are using it in a nonstandard way.
From wiktionary on government:
Noun government (countable and uncountable; plural governments) The body with the power to make and/or enforce laws to control a country, land area, people or organization. A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory. The state and its administration viewed as the ruling political power. (uncountable) The management or control of a system. The tenure of a chief of state.
government (countable and uncountable; plural governments)
When you say "voluntary government", you are using two words to create a contradictory phrase. So while you may think Autolykos is being difficult, you should be aware that you are using terms in a nonstandard way, and the result is a contradiction in terms.
gotlucky: @Michael Lagoy When you say "voluntary government", you are using two words to create a contradictory phrase. So while you may think Autolykos is being difficult, you should be aware that you are using terms in a nonstandard way, and the result is a contradiction in terms.
"[...] I believe in unlimited secession and see no true need for a centralized government"
Is contradicted by:
"unless independent states or city states mutually agree to unify."
So, states are okay as long as they are independent or city states?
Nice catch!
Haha. Look at all the intellectual children validating themselves and acting as though they're important. Building yourselves up and pretending to have valid points when all of your points were addressed in my first two posts is ridiculous and childish, but expected.
Yes, I know how 'government' is defined here. I also know that I clarified that it would be both voluntary and prohibited from initiating aggression.
"Voluntary government" is not a contradiction. It implies a government formed and empowered by the will of the people. That is, if government corrupts and acts against the will of the consenting citizenry, it can be overthrown or completetly seceded from.
A city state is not a centralized government. There is no contradiction. That said, yes, states are okay as long as they are consensual and can be seceded from. Now, seriously, let's all try to grow up a bit, stop bickering and trying to prove how libertarian you all are to each other, and actually get something done.
And no, by "get something done", I'm not talking terroristically. Apparently, you also think I am irrational and excessive since I dared to use the word "revolution". Yes, I do advocate a revolution; a revolution of thought, a progress of ideology, which can only come by getting up as a politically ideology and actually doing whatever we can do advance our views on the grassroots level as well as in national politics. I suggest anyone who doesn't wish to get anything done, and remain a meaningless theorist on an internet forum stop calling himself or herself a 'libertarian.'
OK, your obviously very sensitive to your point of veiw, or just needlesly beligerant - neither of which are condusive to a discussion forum on the internet. Particularly one that is named after a pure theoretical economist.
So I'm out. Enjoy your self-congratulating life on the Mises forum...or not, I really don't care.
angry_man: Haha. Look at all the intellectual children validating themselves and acting as though they're important. Building yourselves up and pretending to have valid points when all of your points were addressed in my first two posts is ridiculous and childish, but expected.
Cute.
Michael Lagoy: Yes, I know how 'government' is defined here. I also know that I clarified that it would be both voluntary and prohibited from initiating aggression.
Your definition of government, that it can be voluntary - that is, funded solely through voluntary funding (again, when you say voluntary taxation, you are just resorting to more contradictory phrases; see what a tax is here) - well, this is quite frankly a useless definition. You see, we already have a word for entities that provide services through trade. We call them businesses. And we already have a word that describes the entity that has a territorial monopoly on the legitimate use of force, that, surprise surprise, funds itself mainly through taxation. We call that the government or the state.
So, you come in here, and you are telling us that you support businesses that provide legal services and protection services, and that one of these businesses gets to be called the public sector government funded solely through "voluntary" taxation, and the other businesses get to be called private sector businesses also funded through voluntary payments. But, of course, these are actually the same thing. We are just going to call one government and the others not government.
Oh, wait, it gets better:
Michael Lagoy: "Voluntary government" is not a contradiction. It implies a government formed and empowered by the will of the people. That is, if government corrupts and acts against the will of the consenting citizenry, it can be overthrown or completetly seceded from.
So, one of these businesses that is funded through voluntary payments, which is completely identical to the other businesses funded by voluntary payments, well, if this particular business is corrupt, then we can violently overthrow it or stop paying. I think the proper response to this is: lol wut?
This can be cleaned up much better by ceasing to single out one of these businesses and calling it a government. It's a business. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc. If there is a business that is corrupt, well the people can spend their money elsewhere. There is no need for violent revolution. At best, they could sue the business for fraud, but this is not the same as violent revolution.
Michael Lagoy: A city state is not a centralized government. There is no contradiction. That said, yes, states are okay as long as they are consensual and can be seceded from. Now, seriously, let's all try to grow up a bit, stop bickering and trying to prove how libertarian you all are to each other, and actually get something done.
I'm not worried about Daniel Muffinburg or Autolykos being more libertarian than me. And I suspect they feel the same about me. Now, seriously, let's all try to grow up a bit, etc. See what I did there? Okay, back on topic now:
A city state is a centralized government. You are very confused about things. Centralization and decentralization are a spectrum. It goes something like this:
Massive Empire ==> Nation State ==> City State ==> Full blown anarchy
Now, maybe there are other types of states that could make the list, but I think these four sum it up quite well. In comparison to what is the dominant form of government on the planet, city states are decentralized. But city states are still centralized in comparison to anarchy, which is the ultimate decentralized system.
Michael Lagoy: And no, by "get something done", I'm not talking terroristically. Apparently, you also think I am irrational and excessive since I dared to use the word "revolution". Yes, I do advocate a revolution; a revolution of thought, a progress of ideology, which can only come by getting up as a politically ideology and actually doing whatever we can do advance our views on the grassroots level as well as in national politics. I suggest anyone who doesn't wish to get anything done, and remain a meaningless theorist on an internet forum stop calling himself or herself a 'libertarian.'
You can't possibly be talking to me, and yet you responded to my post...
Michael Lagoy: 4) In time, the citizens can see for themselves whether or not the public sector is necessary. They can see and test the services offered through both the private and public sectors, and choose to a) allow them both to remain, b) scrap the government-offered services altogether, c) scrap the private-sector services altogether, or d) scrap all services altogether and establish something altogether different.
I'm not so sure you ought to be classed as a libertarian. You have made no categorical difference between this so-called public sector and private sector. So, it's very nice of you to let the public/private sectors remain considering you have made no difference between them so far in this thread. But, then you go ahead and say that the people ought to be able to scrap the private sector. Well, if you were a minarchist, I could still see how you might be classified as a libertarian. But you go one step further and say the people ought to eliminate everything.
Well, either you are a very confused individual or you are just making reactionary empty claims in an attempt to appear intellectual and academic. Or perhaps you wish to be a radical.
I'd suggest you start over in your posts on this forum. You might actually learn something while you are here.
I think that one was meant for me.
This dude blew a gasket pretty quick, I think he's just going through some self- fulfilled prophecy.
EDIT:
the odd thing is, he's not really saying anything to "surprising" - i think most of us are / were just trying to decipher through the language and point out some 101 things through a pretty casual method.
Yeah, some people are really attached to the state, and they just can't seem to let go. It was actually easy for me to let it go, but I can understand why it's not always so easy for others. But then again, it was actually a combination of Heinlein and Rothbard that brought me over, so maybe that's why it was so easy for me - the government being portrayed as evil/immoral.
But if people arive at libertarianisn/anarchy/anti-statism/whatever through some other means, then maybe it is harder to let it go. After all, if you don't consider the state to be wrong, then why should you abandon it as a system? Maybe Michael Lagoy will tell us how he has arrived at his conclusions. It might be easier to talk with him if we know where he is coming from.
It might be easier to talk with him if we know where he is coming from.
lol, my edit pre-empted this statement. I think this makes us even now
I'm not a statist. I spend most of my time online (and much of it off) trying to educate people about the lack of need for a state, at least in its current form. If the state is, without exception, an entity which has a monopoly of force through law enforcement/national defense, then the state is immoral and must be opposed.
I will be the first to agree with that.
My contention is whether or not the state must be an entity monopolizing force through those or any other means. Mises certainly confessed the necessity of the state, but did so while at the same time understanding the right of secession to extend to the individual. I don't see his understanding of such a state, permissive of individual secession, as fundamentally different from my own. Perhaps, if it is, someone would care to enlighten me.
Further, I tend to think practically. Do we live in a world where the citizenry can be convinced they don't need the government? I don't think so. Most of the people willing to stand up for liberty do so out of a misplaced obligation to the Constitution/Bill of Rights. They would never support a dismantling of the public sector and a privatization of police, courts, and defense to the exclusion of public sector services existing to the same end.
So where's the solution? Providing them, at the very least, the image of a government, sanctioned by an extremely limited constitution, until they're ready to let go. Call me confused if you want to. I'm not. As I said, I keep an open mind. I just don't take b.s. and I don't appreciate impractical musing.
Edit: Nowhere did I say that the citizenry ought to scrap the private sector, nor did I say that they ought to scrap everything. I said that they should have the freedom to choose between public police/courts and private police/courts, choose both public and private police/courts, or (perhaps to their own detriment), choose to eliminate both. I say they ought to have freedom, not that they ought to use it a certain way.
Michael Lagoy:If the state is, without exception, an entity which has a monopoly of force through law enforcement/national defense, then the state is immoral and must be opposed.
Is this your definition of "state"? That is, do you define "state" as "an entity which has a monopoly of force through law enforcement/national defense"? If so, is it also your definition of "government"?
Michael Lagoy:My contention is whether or not the state must be an entity monopolizing force through those or any other means.
But if you define "state" as "an entity which has a monopoly of force through law enforcement/national defense", then yes, the state must be an entity monopolizing force through those means by definition. An entity which does not monopolize force through those means is by definition not a state.
To make an analogy, if I define the made-up word "grooble" as "a white swan", then the statement "a black swan is a grooble" is necessarily false. Now if someone contended whether a grooble must be a white swan, then what he's really doing is challenging the definition of the word "grooble". The concept of "a white swan" stays the same regardless. As Shakespeare wrote, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Hopefully that makes sense to you. If you want to argue logically, one thing you need to avoid is equivocation.
could you share what specifically by heinlein you found persuasive?
For the sake of brevity and ending a completely ridiculous argument over a non-existent problem: Yes, I will concede to the fact that a state, usually bound territorially, is an entity monopolizing the initiatory use of force. Further, I see no functional distinction between the terms "state" and "government." Following my own reasoning, I do not support the existence of such a state. Problem solved, scrap my first post, and let's start over.
Hello, I am Michael, and I am an anarchist.
I could do without the condescension, though. Let's see if we can procede respectfully and peacefully.
Michael Lagoy: I could do without the condescension, though. Let's see if we can procede respectfully and peacefully.
Michael, I saw no condescension directed at you. You were being kindly corrected about some logical inconsistencies to which you reacted overly defensively and condescendingly yourself. You will find this forum to be one of the least emotional and most rational of all.