Just looking for some thoughts on this:
Is the office of the United Nations compatible with Libertarian ideals?
I don't know, what does the furniture look like?
But seriously: NO.
If a mafia is bad, a cartel of them is worse.
The United Natons resemble the Papacy during the "Avignonese Captivity". In short their only function is to rubberstamp decisions taken by others or give an aura of moral high ground to the "secular" power.
There are also so many things wrong with the UN from a libertarian point of view... it's funded with money extorted by the member nations using the threat of violence; it supports an agenda of coercion (for example forcing poorer nations to adopt policies decided elsewhere under the threat of sanctions or cutting off their "aid packages") ... and then there's the issue of membership in the Security Council. While the US, Russia, Britain and China can all claim to have won WWII, what is France's business there? France was military defeated and occupied by Germany. They may argue they had a government in exile and a resistance movement that kept fighting the Germans but so did Poland, The Netherlands, Belgium etc. Is this a rich boys' club? If so where are Germany and Japan? Is this a nuclear armed nations' club? If so where are India, Pakistan and Israel?
The United Nations is not only -not- libertarian, it's virtually public enemy number one, because it has pretenses to global governance. If and when we get a libertarian nation going, it will be the UN we're up against, because we will not seek legitimacy from them because in our eyes -they- have no legitimacy. That's built in conflict already.
The UN is not the biggest concern at the present time. It is really USG who is the present vehicle of world empire and needs to be stopped. The Pentagon, not the UN, is occupying, toppling or surrounding as many as a dozen countries at the present moment and threatening to start WW3 in Iran. The Fed is printing unimaginable amounts of money and pulling every trick in the book - and inventing new ones - to mask the price inflationary effects until after the 2012 election.
The power of the UN is merely an extension of the power of USG and its allies (NATO, etc.) The League of Nations collapsed organically as the natural result of its own absurdity. The UN will do likewise if we stop the march to world government being major-domo'd by USG right now.
Clayton -
Clayton: The UN is not the biggest concern at the present time. It is really USG who is the present vehicle of world empire and needs to be stopped.
The UN is not the biggest concern at the present time. It is really USG who is the present vehicle of world empire and needs to be stopped.
True, true, but long term I think the UN a bigger problem as they will claim worldwide jurisdiction, which the USG currently at least does not.
Clayton:The Pentagon, not the UN, is occupying, toppling or surrounding as many as a dozen countries at the present moment and threatening to start WW3 in Iran.
I doubt attacking Iran would start WWIII, tbh. It's a weak regime without many friends. Who's going to jump into the fray, Russia? No. North Korea? lol.
Clayton:The Fed is printing unimaginable amounts of money and pulling every trick in the book - and inventing new ones - to mask the price inflationary effects until after the 2012 election.
True. Sickening and true.
Clayton:The power of the UN is merely an extension of the power of USG and its allies (NATO, etc.) The League of Nations collapsed organically as the natural result of its own absurdity. The UN will do likewise if we stop the march to world government being major-domo'd by USG right now.
Well that's my point really. But even if the USG falls or dies away or reduces in power significantly, the UN will remain a threat due to its presumption of worldwide legitimacy. It could become a much bigger threat than the USG. It could become world-government. And that would be a far bigger disaster than even the USG in its current transgressions.
it could be. I think everything is compatible with libertarianism (in the realm of reality) except orginal agression. *So in its present form no.
Are there certain actions the UN takes that you want to specifically ask if it could be libertarian?
We'll have to disagree on this. In my view, an invasion of Iran will help Russia and China see past their differences far enough to cooperate in expelling the US from the Asian continent. Enemy of my enemy and all that.
Doubt China will be battling the US anytime soon. We're so dependent on each other, that any type of antagonism between the two would be an economic and political disaster for both. Don't forget that it's when countries do not trade (ie Iran), that often leads to war.
We're so dependent on each other
Really? How is China dependent on the US? They need to buy up more of our debt? I don't think so.
Groucho:If a mafia is bad, a cartel of them is worse.
Bingo. If there must be States, better that they be as small and numerous and in as much competition with one another as possible.
Libertarianism is hostile to nationalism, but equally hostile to internationalism insofar as that means international statism. We would like to see the nation-state overcome, but not to be replaced with a world-state, that would be the worst of all possible outcomes from a libertarian perspective: no place to run.
If I were in control of US foreign policy, I would have the US withdraw immediately and unilaterally from all these alphabet soup agencies of the emerging world-state: WTO, IMF, WHO, UN, etc. Granting that they should exist at all, the foreign policy of nation-states should be unilateral free-trade, free-immigration, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nation-states. Contra some liberals/libertarians, I don't think there is any need to seek free-trade treaties, or leagues, or organizations, etc. The best way to influence other nation-states would be setting a good example, with the hope that foreign peoples might take notice and demand that their own rulers imitate us - and when the rulers refuse, those budding foreign libertarians would be welcome to emigrate to the US.
clayton - thats kind of putting a spin on it isnt it? They are buying US securities because its one of the safest investments in the world and what they think is a good return on there money (not saying its good just safe).
They are buying US securities
There have been some articles on LRC over the past year that have suggested that China has actually been secretly dumping US securities and buying massive quantities of copper, iron and other commodities instead. If their leaders have half a brain cell between them, that's what they'd be doing...
ya thats what i long suspected there plans would be (not exactly commodities, but anything outside the dollar), though i would think they own so much that secrecy would be almost impossible. Though going through 3rd party agents that dont know who the client (china) is.
Lets assume thats what they are doing why would they buy the securities to begin with? I assumed that it would be a total dump and teamed up with the russians, middle east, venezuela, ect type countries and make a play at the yuan being the world's currency. This would also explain why the chinese are undervaluing their currency so foreign buyers can invest in it at a fraction of the cost and then get the bump when they correctly value it after the play.
Whatever the Chinese are doing its going to hurt the dollar big time. The dollar's ony hope against a huge depreciation is if the Chinese are investing in the US without any plans.... haha.
Libertarianism is hostile to nationalism
Hope I'm not opening a can of worms here but : Anarcho Capitalists are in favour of doing away with the state altogether - at the national and international levels. What about Minarchists? If they opt for a limited national state, does the same apply internationally?
Minarchists are Statists who feel too uncomfortable admitting it.
I look at it very simply. A State is something that:
1. Forcibly claims money, property, or labor from people against their will. 2. Can subject anyone to long-term and dangerous imprisonment. 3. Will use on-the-spot coercien ranging from restraints to chemicals, beating, and killing. 4. Is the ultimate arbitar of all the "rules" for the above and how to enforce them.
It's that fine print that's easy to miss. Minarchism acquiesces to the above, so it sounds like a sucker bet to me.
First of all better they all be independent from one another. A small state is well if it is independent, but if it is a satelitte of a larger state then not so much, as it is de facto part of a large empire anyway. I would say: If there must be States, let them be just big enough to remain independent (and not an inch more).
Minarchism acquiesces to the above
Wow. That's quite a statement, Groucho.
Tell me, in a Minarchist world, wouldn't individuals have an eternal responsibility to limit government use of force?
jimaustri123: Minarchism acquiesces to the above Wow. That's quite a statement, Groucho. Tell me, in a Minarchist world, wouldn't individuals have an eternal responsibility to limit government use of force?
But how can it be done. When you're giving power to politicians what do the citizenry have left?
Limited government was the only bastion the minarchists had, and it has proven a failed policy for many reasons, unfortunately.
But how can it be done.
Hi Anemone,
That is a good question and one which I believe is a different question to, 'How can it(limited government) be maintained?' which to me is the more interesting question, as this is what we have yet to see achieved. ('How it can be done?' History shows how it was done... through freedom fighters winning battles to impose limits on government).
I forget who said this but 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilence'. Just because we lose some battles or even the war doesn't mean each individual's inner desire for freedom is extinguished. It cannot be. So even if we hit rock bottom and end up in a slave state, we still have a responsibility to reclaim freedom and limit excessive use of force... next time round. My argument is that it's no fun having to overthrow tyrannical regimes why do we have to go back to a slave state to correct problems we have now, the cause of which can be established without sacrificing everything we have fought for?
Try to look at the bigger picture. It may have failed to a large extent but that doesn't mean the war is over... just that we have lost a battle or a series of battles. And we are still here with some freedom remaining. We can either make full use of that freedom or we can go all the way back and start again. Anyway, doing away with the state altogether would still leave us with the problem of self-defence in the absence of individual responsibility. So it really is about failing to maintain individual responsibility rather than choosing a state or not to have a state. The state can only grow beyond imposed limits by individuals relinquishing individual responsibility... responsibility chiefly for guarding over the scope of the state.
I think you bring up a good point, jimaustri123. Don't you think vigilance would be everyone's natural state? That makes sense to me. And if that's actually the case, it means people learn (and thus are taught) to not be vigilant. Maybe they even think they are being vigilant when they're actually being the opposite of vigilant. Any thoughts?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I had another thought about this.
If a person felt certain about something, he wouldn't be vigilant about it, would he? After all, if it's a certainty, then by definition there's no possibility of it not being the case, so there's nothing to guard against. So people may learn to not be vigilant about something if they're taught to believe in an illusion of certainty about it.
Agreed Autolykos,
Being viligant should come naturally to those who don't take freedom for granted... because in a world where freedom to choose includes the freedom to make bad choices(choosing between good and good is not really a choice), one should expect that occasionally someone will go off the rails and it could have bad effects on others. I personally would prefer to live in a world where people are free to choose badly and yet, as far as possible, have the consequences of any poor choices restricted to the poor chooser. Now we may not be able to get an absolutely Libertarian society going but we could go pretty far and definitely far enough to rid the world of war and major criminals. We could give ourselves enough freedom to reach a higher plateau from which to re-assess mankind's position and find the answers to questions long thought of as being beyond our reach. As Einstein once said, you cannot solve a problem with the same level of inteligence that created it. At least achieving a limited state would enable us to improve our general condition such that we could see more clearly. Perhaps a stateless society in some form would do the trick, too. I don't know for sure but if you find Margaret Mead's minority and impart the message of Liberty you are in with more than a shout. Margaret Mead said it is always a minority: "Never underestimate the power of a small group of thoughtful committed citizens to change the world... it's the only thing that ever has." I think we just need a slightly bigger minority than we currently have but we do need it with a dash of speed.
A key factor in this message is how responsibility fits into the picture. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. If your actions result in one side being prized as untouchable by any government authority it will be found that the same end has resulted for the other side. Then again if you claim to be for freedom, yet your actions show you to be shooting holes in individual responsibility... you reveal your true intentions. I maintain it is exactly this shooting holes in individual responsibility ('in the name of freedom', as though the two were mutually incompatible) that allows the state to elude its proper restraints. All governments everywhere despise self-helpers.
Considering I see limiting the state as entirely possible, I don't see a problem with having one. If I thought that there was some mysterious force making it fail which was completely outside of our control, then perhaps I'd lose hope pretty quickly. But I believe we can reverse the current downward spiral as has been proven to one extent or another throughout history. And having come as far as we have, we could actually take this to another level. People are incredibly resilient. It's as though that desire for freedom simply cannot be extinguished. Our current situation is pretty dire given the erosion of liberties in the West but we still have a lot going for us. We can't really afford to lose sight of that.
Come to think of it, how many people you know actually think Bernanke or Krugman are experts based on any evidence? Everyone can see the world's economy is in a mess with these clowns telling us they are monetary and economic experts. I'm pretty sure people don't say anything because nobody else (they think) is saying it. It's a classic case of the Emporer's new clothes. People talking about 19th century classical liberal ideas is infectious. I can see it with the Pauline presidential campaigns. Young people who learn about this are just not going to let it die... they will be the freedom fighters who make a real difference.
A bloated state is the result of individuals having fallen asleep at the guard post. Eternal vigilance is the only way to play the game and win, in my view.
jimaustri123:Hope I'm not opening a can of worms here but : Anarcho Capitalists are in favour of doing away with the state altogether - at the national and international levels.
By "nationalism" I was referring not to the existence of the nation-State as such, but to "nationalistic" policies: e.g. immigration restrictions, protectionist trade barriers, aggressive foreign policy, competitive currency devaluations, etc. But, yes, of course this is all a moot point from an anarcho-capitalist perspective.
What about Minarchists? If they opt for a limited national state, does the same apply internationally?
I'm not sure if I know what you're asking. If you're asking whether minarchists would favor a minimal role for the State in foreign affairs, as they do for domestic affairs, I would think so, but there are exceptions (e.g. some Randians). If you're asking whether minarchists would want a world-minarchist-state, I would think not, but again, there may be exceptions.
To be clear, I myself am not a minarchist in the usual sense of the word: i.e. a minimal statist. I'm in favor of a natural (i.e. non-coercive) monopoly DRO, which sans the coercion very much resembles a minarchist state, hence my username.
jimaustri123: But how can it be done. Hi Anemone, That is a good question and one which I believe is a different question to, 'How can it(limited government) be maintained?' which to me is the more interesting question, as this is what we have yet to see achieved. ('How it can be done?' History shows how it was done... through freedom fighters winning battles to impose limits on government). I forget who said this but 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilence'. Just because we lose some battles or even the war doesn't mean each individual's inner desire for freedom is extinguished. It cannot be. So even if we hit rock bottom and end up in a slave state, we still have a responsibility to reclaim freedom and limit excessive use of force... next time round. My argument is that it's no fun having to overthrow tyrannical regimes why do we have to go back to a slave state to correct problems we have now, the cause of which can be established without sacrificing everything we have fought for? Try to look at the bigger picture. It may have failed to a large extent but that doesn't mean the war is over... just that we have lost a battle or a series of battles. And we are still here with some freedom remaining. We can either make full use of that freedom or we can go all the way back and start again. Anyway, doing away with the state altogether would still leave us with the problem of self-defence in the absence of individual responsibility. So it really is about failing to maintain individual responsibility rather than choosing a state or not to have a state. The state can only grow beyond imposed limits by individuals relinquishing individual responsibility... responsibility chiefly for guarding over the scope of the state.
No, it cannot be done, cannot be long-term maintained. Because you have tried to limit government by using government, and this is a contradiction and a flaw in the design of limited government.
It was a noble attempt to separate powers and in theory set the organs of government against each other with checks and balances, limited by a constitution and by rights. Rothbard treats this well in For a New Liberty.
Ultimately, though checks and balances may slow the progress towards increased gov power, it cannot stop it. Because laws are static and people are the ones that must interpret and enforce those laws. Since laws are susceptible to interpretation, it is possible for them to be chipped away against in meaning continually.
Looking at the constitution today, it's clear that it's little more than a rag that wipes the floor of the Congressional chambers. It's not being followed remotely, and various clauses have been blown out of proportion to justify literally anything Congress wishes to implement. Enumerated powers? Powers reserved to the states and the people? Not if the general welfare clause has anything to say about it.
Rothbard shows that the majority party in power has incentive to increase their power. And that the only wepaon the minority party would have against them is a strict construction of the constitution--exactly what we've seen the two sides argue over. And in response, the majority party will simply put forth their own loose construction, and armed with all the powers of the federal government how could the majority party not simply push through that interpretation--the minority party has no power to resist whatsoever.
If we had the right of secession that would be one thing, but even that has been taken.
I also believe that any political system predicated on collectivism will tend towards collectivism over time. Democracy is inherently collectivist, as it's a mechanism of forcing laws of the majority on the minority. We've seen that, where we have the left pushing towards more collectivism and the unprincipled right trying merely to hold the status quo. In that contest, any compromise moves the country further and further into collectivism, and that's exactly what we've gotten.
Your Jefferson quote about eternal vigilance--Jefferson was a fool. He was a great man, but it's by his efforts that we have learned that his experiment has ultimately failed--even if it was a step forward in his day.
What libertarianism represents is the final victory of freedom over the forces of aggressive collectivism. A victory that does not require eternal vigilance for it does not allow aggression even part-way into the door, it shuts it out forever.
If you predicate a political system not on collectivism but on individualism then it will, over time, tend towards individualism. That's what a libertarian society would represent, a complete reversal of the political slide we've seen over the last hundreds of years.
No, limited government cannot be long term contained.
There was a time when I believe that perhaps limited government was workable, as long as we could overthrow it every few hundred years when it got too big and powerful and oppressive. At the time I didn't believe a completely free society practicable. But, with study and time and help, all of my skepticism was in due course answered, and I see now how a completely free society can escape the shackles and tendencies of history.
It is time for a new dawn of libertarian principles in the world today.
Pax libertana.
Very interesting. Thanks for that response. I'm not convinced but it has definitely given me food for thought.
I suggest a good long meditation over For a New Liberty, as a start.