laminustacitus:No, the new government should not fight to subjugate them, but if they violate the laws of the government, which since the government is limited should only occur when the anarchists have violated the property of citizens, and it should let them live in peace. As far as government services, then those who refuse to pay taxes should not be given any services that the government offers.
No, the new government should not fight to subjugate them, but if they violate the laws of the government, which since the government is limited should only occur when the anarchists have violated the property of citizens, and it should let them live in peace. As far as government services, then those who refuse to pay taxes should not be given any services that the government offers.
That does not fit the definition of a state, which I remind you is a territorial monopoly over the administration of justice, presumably necessary to prevent civil strife. If the government does not monopolize justice on some people in its territory, it is anarchist.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Donny with an A:Exactly why does minarchism imply that a government has the right to levy taxes on people who haven't voluntarily entered into an agreement with it?I was under the impression that a libertarian government could only impose its will on people who had voluntarily become citizens (assuming the imposition wouldn't violate the terms of the agreement), or if non-citizens violated the state-protected rights of citizens. No? And if not, then why can't that work?
Exactly why does minarchism imply that a government has the right to levy taxes on people who haven't voluntarily entered into an agreement with it?
I was under the impression that a libertarian government could only impose its will on people who had voluntarily become citizens (assuming the imposition wouldn't violate the terms of the agreement), or if non-citizens violated the state-protected rights of citizens. No? And if not, then why can't that work?
That will also violate the definition of a state as a territorial monopoly on justice, which necessarily grants the state taxation powers (if not directly by legislating, then indirectly by selling privileges).
Having a territorial monopoly on justice does not necessarily grant anything of the sort.
Donny with an A:Having a territorial monopoly on justice does not necessarily grant anything of the sort.
Yes it does. What stops you from expropriating when the only appeal that people can make against your expropriation is to you? The legislative act of taxation is simply a formalization of the judicial monopoly power of taxation. Since it is obvious that no one can challenge the state in the state's own courts, it is just a formality for the state to raise taxes by declaring them raised to all.
Donny with an A:First, it is not "obvious" that no one can challenge the state in the state's own courts.
Donny with an A:Second, a government which violates its citizens rights is, by any coherent minarchistic account, an illegitimate government, and has no authority besides that which it can obtain through force.
Donny with an A:First, it is not "obvious" that no one can challenge the state in the state's own courts. Second, a government which violates its citizens rights is, by any coherent minarchistic account, an illegitimate government, and has no authority besides that which it can obtain through force.
Because the government exercises a territorial monopoly on protection and justice (this is necessary to meet the definition of a state), the only court that can be appealed when the government becomes illegitimate and violates one's rights is, once again, the government's, which will no doubt rule in favor of itself.
This is not news. People knew this back in the 18th century, which is why they proposed legislative democracy as a means, they would hope, to replace a government with another when the monopoly of justice was excessively abused. That didn't work out. Why pretend the original problem doesn't exist?
I don't understand. Why did this move from "A limited government couldn't make sense on its own terms" to "We wouldn't want to create a limited government because of the possibility of Leviathan"? I never advocated a limited government. I only suggested that one would not need to subjugate anyone. If it did, then it would be illegitimate, and minarchists would agree. Why doesn't that respond to your initial question?
Donny with an A:I don't understand. Why did this move from "A limited government couldn't make sense on its own terms" to "We wouldn't want to create a limited government because of the possibility of Leviathan"? I never advocated a limited government. I only suggested that one would not need to subjugate anyone. If it did, then it would be illegitimate, and minarchists would agree. Why doesn't that respond to your initial question?
If the government does not subjugate those who refuse to recognize its monopoly on justice, then it is not a state, and it is not minarchy as defined by those who believe in the necessity of the state.
Well hold on, a government as I defined it would be permitted to use force against non-citizens so far as they violated the state-protected rights of citizens. It would be able to enforce justice with regard to its own citizens. Isn't that what minarchists want? Is it really a necessary part of minarchism to say that non-minarchists should be forced to support the limited government?
No, I certainly would not launch a war against the CFC. That would just be counter-productive.
Donny with an A: Well hold on, a government as I defined it would be permitted to use force against non-citizens so far as they violated the state-protected rights of citizens. It would be able to enforce justice with regard to its own citizens. Isn't that what minarchists want? Is it really a necessary part of minarchism to say that non-minarchists should be forced to support the limited government?
Minarchism relies on the idea that social peace cannot result unless there is a monopoly over violence in a given territory. If your minarchist government does not enforce justice over non-citizens in its territory, and does not coerce non-citizens to pay for this justice, then this implies that citizens can also decide not to appeal to and pay for justice from the minarchist government, which means that the system is a competitive system of security production, otherwise known as anarcho-capitalism, market anarchy, natural order, pluriarchy, etc.
Minarchy must, by definition, pursue war on competing producers of security, or cease being what it is.
Haha don't say "my" minarchist government; I don't take a position on that debate. You're sort of wrong about the idea that a citizen would necessarily be able to appeal to an entity besides the government for justice; if the agreement between the citizen and the government gave the government sole discretion over the appropriate use of force, so long as the government didn't violate any of the citizen's rights, it's possible that in enforcing justice, the government would force the citizen to accept something that the citizen didn't want. If that idea isn't clear, refer back to Locke's second treatise.
What definition of minarchy requires a government to pursue war on competing producers of security? Even our existing governments, which go far beyond a minarchistic government, don't do that. The government would simply need a policy for dealing with extra-territorial disputes.
I assume that in this anarchist situation that laws exist right?
But somehow it is immoral for anyone to use force against anyone who doesn't agree to a law that is being enforced?
So all anarchists must live within domains whereby the all agree with all the laws (very small societies), or, the laws are not enforced = no laws.
How is this not a contradiction? What am I missing?
Small societies of agreeable people might sound ok, but it suffers from the huge benefits of the division of labor. I'm pretty sure I would leave such a place for the benefits of a larger governed economy even if I have to put up with some laws and taxes that I don't like.
Donny with an A: Haha don't say "my" minarchist government; I don't take a position on that debate. You're sort of wrong about the idea that a citizen would necessarily be able to appeal to an entity besides the government for justice; if the agreement between the citizen and the government gave the government sole discretion over the appropriate use of force, so long as the government didn't violate any of the citizen's rights, it's possible that in enforcing justice, the government would force the citizen to accept something that the citizen didn't want. If that idea isn't clear, refer back to Locke's second treatise.
Of course, after such a court decision that citizen would then decide that this government will not provide him justice and withdraw from his agreement with it, because sole discretion over the appropriate use of force is not appealing compared to what alternative providers of security, which you claim the minarchist government is not fighting, will offer to him. If the minarchist government unilateraly attacks non-members based on its own law, it will be at war with their security providers, and thus its costs of providing security will go up relative the competition. The bottom line is, because the minarchist government provides security at higher costs and lower benefits than the alternative, it will gradually lose all of its citizens unless it succesfully pursues a campaign of extermination of alternative providers of security.
Those who claim that minarchy can exist without warring to subjugate a territorial monopoly do not understand the economic implications of what they propose.
Now that is just completely false. The war against the mafia has been going on for three generations, if not more.
LBT:I assume that in this anarchist situation that laws exist right? But somehow it is immoral for anyone to use force against anyone who doesn't agree to a law that is being enforced? So all anarchists must live within domains whereby the all agree with all the laws (very small societies), or, the laws are not enforced = no laws. How is this not a contradiction? What am I missing?
Why does your But... result is your So all...?
Stranger:Once you have been elected president of the new minarchist republic, would you launch a war against the CFC in order to subjugate them to your new government?
No. Whatever institutions they set up I'd say have fun, have at it. If they messed with some of my citizens I'd give them the choice: do want their arbitration or the state service? Which is also a choice I'd give to all citizens at all times. I'd try and work out a deal with the non state services beforehand to facilitate this. If not, might makes right. Of course it's a meaningless hypothetical because it's never going to happen, so answers and criticism of those answers are somewhat pointless.'/quote]
So it's anarchy you're talking about, not minarchy
Time will tell
Stranger, two things come to mind. The first is that someone wouldn't necessarily want to withdraw from their agreement as a result of being forced to accept an unfavorable sentence. There are several reasons that this might be true. Other states might agree with the sentence, which would mean that the offender wouldn't have much of a choice (even if there were independents, they might also agree with the sentence). Or other states might have reciprocity agreements, where they would not allow individuals to abandon their current contracts as a result of being given a bad sentence. This would have economic justification; customers would likely demand that their states be able to enforce justice, and this would be impeded by people switching states in order to avoid punishment, so states might find it worthwhile to come to agreements with each other.
The same thing works with regard to enforcing justice on non-citizens. It would likely be unwise for states to go to war with each other over such disputes, and so a way of resolving them would likely spring up. You seem to contradict yourself when you say that a state would be uncompetitive if it went to war, so therefore it would have to go to war in order to exterminate all competitors. Why would people fund such a war effort if they could deal with a peaceful state instead? It would probably make the best economic sense for all parties to negotiate some sort of agreement for situations involving citizens and non-citizens, so that when they arose, no one would have to resort to violence.
The second thing that comes to mind is that a voluntary state doesn't necessarily have to accord its citizens the right to exit whenever they want. If I voluntarily sign a contract with you, I'm bound to that contract; if there's no provision for me breaking the contract whenever I want, then I'm not free to do so, and I don't think there's anything obviously objectionable about that. See Rousseau on this.
Anthony, wasn't Nozick's point that prohibiting other forms of enforcement of rights in the way he described didn't violate anyone's rights? If it could be showed that such a prohibition was inconsistent with properly respecting individuals' inviolability, Nozick would have to reject it, no? I suppose what I'm implying is that minarchism, stated plausibly, is indistinguishable from market anarchism.
Post Script:
It occurred to me on the way to the bathroom after my last post that what I said to Anthony is a pretty big problem. Who gets to determine whether something violates someone's rights or not? Rothbard wrote that it would be easy to create a set of libertarian laws, but I'm really not sure that this is the case. This isn't just a problem for minarchism, of course, and could plausibly be solved just as effectively in a minarchistic order as it could in a market-anarchistic order, but I wonder if people are satisfied that it could be solved. I remember wondering about that a while ago, and then sort of forgetting about it as I stopped thinking about this sort of thing. But I don't think I'm satisfied with anything I can think of. Does anyone have any thoughts? If this is a thread-hijacking sort of issue, we can totally take it elsewhere...
Well so then it seems like the real "challenge" to the minarchist would be to determine whether this sort of prohibition is actually a violation of people's rights, no?
I believe most of you here are missing the target and I mean missing big time. First anarchy (I refer to anarcho-capitalism here) or minarchy is not a goal, but they are means. Means to achieving such a thing (lets call this society) where free individuals can cooperate, where contract can be made and fulfilled, where the division of labor (voluntary) is possible and where free individuals can voluntarily combine their energy, efforts and capital to achieve more than they can in a primitive barbarian state of affairs. Can we have a society which enables us to enjoy the full potentials of liberty, to have undisputed private property and self ownership and to be able to cooperate with other individuals in order to have a mutual gain by moral principles of liberty? If a minarchist think he can achieve liberty by using force against individuals which don't want to be the part of that society voluntarily, then he is no minarchist at all. Minarchist are for a constitutional order for a society where people join in order to advance the life of every member but a constitution is a contract between people where they establish the Government as a corrective instrument as a secondary tool, and not as a primary tool and if some people don't agree to that contract (the constitution) there is nothing to correct, the government can only correct the behavior of those people (strictly by the constitution) who accept that contract, but who are injuring other members of the society. Individuals, who are not part of that society, should be free to live as they wish up to the moment they do something what will injure the members of the society. In that moment it would be a sort of external aggression and the Government should act because its duty is to protect the life of property of their citizen. If no injury, Government has no right to act, not inside the society and not outside the society. Anyway, anarchism and minarchism are not goals they are means, so it should be analyzed from the perspective of capability, can anarchy achieve the free society? Can minarchy achieve a free society? If both, why? If only one of the two, then how can we have a practical implementation on the field and not just a theory in the book? Of course liberty means that someone can join us (if he respect and accept the contract we have among each other = Constitution) and he can leave that society and find another one which is suite him more or he can live free of any society if he wish.
You are still incorrect aludanyi. Minarchy and anarchy are not means, they are outcomes of the means, much like the market is an outcome of exchanges of private property.
If you declare yourself a minarchist but are unwilling to go to war to maintain a territorial monopoly, then the outcome of your choice will be anarchy, and your government will become one security provider amongst many others in the same country. That is the nature of the challenge.
Donny with an A: Stranger, two things come to mind. The first is that someone wouldn't necessarily want to withdraw from their agreement as a result of being forced to accept an unfavorable sentence. There are several reasons that this might be true. Other states might agree with the sentence, which would mean that the offender wouldn't have much of a choice (even if there were independents, they might also agree with the sentence). Or other states might have reciprocity agreements, where they would not allow individuals to abandon their current contracts as a result of being given a bad sentence. This would have economic justification; customers would likely demand that their states be able to enforce justice, and this would be impeded by people switching states in order to avoid punishment, so states might find it worthwhile to come to agreements with each other.
You're making an unconventional use of the word state and I cannot read any meaning into this paragraph.
The same thing works with regard to enforcing justice on non-citizens. It would likely be unwise for states to go to war with each other over such disputes, and so a way of resolving them would likely spring up. You seem to contradict yourself when you say that a state would be uncompetitive if it went to war, so therefore it would have to go to war in order to exterminate all competitors. Why would people fund such a war effort if they could deal with a peaceful state instead? It would probably make the best economic sense for all parties to negotiate some sort of agreement for situations involving citizens and non-citizens, so that when they arose, no one would have to resort to violence. The second thing that comes to mind is that a voluntary state doesn't necessarily have to accord its citizens the right to exit whenever they want. If I voluntarily sign a contract with you, I'm bound to that contract; if there's no provision for me breaking the contract whenever I want, then I'm not free to do so, and I don't think there's anything obviously objectionable about that. See Rousseau on this.
There is no contradiction here, only a very unstable starting equilibrium. If the minarchy does not opt to exterminate the upstart union of courts immediately, it will be in a de facto anarchy with them. In that case, if it doesn't arbitrate disputes with them (including disputes involving citizens leaving for the union), it will always be at war with the union, thus facing higher costs for the production of security and justice that will drive even more of its citizens to the union (aggression being more expensive than defense). Either way the minarchy must exterminate its competition or collapse into one security provider amongst others, forced by competitive pressures to behave the same way as the others. It will lose all of its taxation powers.
OK the first thing is something I can agree with, your definition is more precise than the one I write.
But I can't see how a territory a superior thing to property can be compatible with private property. Either the land is private and belongs to the individuals or it is belonging to the society (country?) and then it isn't private. Private property is not compatible with territory superior to property; either the sovereignty is belonging to the people, to the individual or to the state. If we talking about liberty and true minarchism then there is no question about that the territory of the society is secondary and derived from the private property of the individual, so technically the territory where the government can exercise the powers granted by the constitution accepted by the individuals is no more and no less than the territory made of the properties of those society members. There is no way to go to just war on the basis of territory if those land which made up the territory isn't belong to the individuals who accept to be members of that society. How can we have such a thing in a real environment? Well that's a good question, but if it happens that we don't know the answer it doesn't mean that the concept is false, it is just a problem we have to solve.
Whatever the alleged challenge to minarchists, anarchism should be rejected. Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force. When the government enforces a verdict, its exercising its monopoly on the use of force upon another, involuntarily. Anarchists hold this to be immoral. If this is the case, then no anarchist could conceivably advocate the existence of private competing protection agencies that enforce verdicts because the second a protection agency enforces a verdict indefinitely, *poof*, it becomes a legal monopoly on the use of force, i.e., a government. *cough*......
objectivist82: Whatever the alleged challenge to minarchists, anarchism should be rejected. Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force. When the government enforces a verdict, its exercising its monopoly on the use of force upon another, involuntarily. Anarchists hold this to be immoral. If this is the case, then no anarchist could conceivably advocate the existence of private competing protection agencies that enforce verdicts because the second a protection agency enforces a verdict indefinitely, *poof*, it becomes a legal monopoly on the use of force, i.e., a government. *cough*......
This arguement makes no sense to me. You've left out one of the most important factors: territory. The market anarchist definition of a government is not "a legal monopoly on the use of force", it's more along the lines of "a coercive territorial monopoly on the use of force". The private protection agencies in a market anarchy do not possess a coercive territorial monopoly, and thus any verdict reached has a very different jurisdictional implication then that of a formal government. An objectivist government, on the other hand, while it tries to make payment voluntary, still insists on maintaining a territorial monopoly.
That is, if I decide to open up or patronize another "government" (if you want to call it that) within the territory, your objectivist government is faced with the choice of (1) initiating force, or the threat thereof, in order to stop me or (2) doing nothing, allowing competition, and therefore ceasing to be a "government" in any rational definition of the word. The objectivist's notion of government contradicts their own ethical philosophy in that they must support the initiation of force in order to maintain the territorial monopoly, despite the fact that you try to make payment based on either donations or subscriptions.
Furthermore, the common Objectivist retort to anarchism that there must be uniformity in law, if taken to its logical conclusion, must lead to advocacy of a global government, for "international anarchy" exists between nation-states, and the same would apply to the differences between the states in America. The most true legal monopoly on the use of force would have to be at the global level, otherwise we are faced with a glaring inconsistancy in still maintaining varying nation-states, let alone jurisdictional sub-divisions within them. Of course, Objectivists don't have a knack for taking their own ideas to their logical conclusion in the realm of politics, for that would require them to become vehemently anti-war free market anarchists.
Ayn Rand was a philosophical anarchist in denial.
Objectivist, that does not follow. All a State is delegated (and as an Objectivist you should know this) is the right to self-defence. Similarly, a private firm (or any other entity providing law and order in market anarchism) would be delegated this right and would enforce it when necessary. A state is privileged over and above this with a monopoly on the enforcement of this delegated right.
Hah! That question is like "When did you stop beating your wife?". You dictate my first course of action via the question. I would not go to war with them at all.
Indeed, I would take no action against them, until they broke a just law. As a (sort of) Geolibertarian myself, if they aggressed against someone for crossing "their" land for which they have not paid rent, this would probably be the most controvertial situation where I would use force against them, or if they openly tried to abort a child or get an abortion. Otherwise, using my forces to prevent them mugging someone is something I hardly think even anarchists would object to per se. The members of the Congress of Free Courts need not accept my authority, but they will be exposed to its powers nonetheless should they violate those around them. Will the Congress of Free Courts band behind their rapist bretheren? If not, there need be no war.
JCFolsom: Hah! That question is like "When did you stop beating your wife?". You dictate my first course of action via the question. I would not go to war with them at all. Indeed, I would take no action against them, until they broke a just law.
Indeed, I would take no action against them, until they broke a just law.
That would be anarchy.
Brainpolice, I don't think objectivist82 was advocating a government which denied individuals the right to make any free decisions (such as which organization to patronize).He was pointing out an anarchist situation in which an individual accused (innocent or guilty) of a crime has a sentenced imposed upon him by an organization he never agreed to patronize. No matter which organization is "doing the imposing", it will clearly use force to enforce that decision.No matter what you want to call that organization, it is clearly claiming a monopoly on that particular case, regardless of whether the accused agreed to use that organization or whether any other organizations wanted the case.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Any bites?
Ego: Any bites?
I don't think so. And it's a shame. It's a very good question.
objectivist82:Whatever the alleged challenge to minarchists, anarchism should be rejected. Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force. When the government enforces a verdict, its exercising its monopoly on the use of force upon another, involuntarily. Anarchists hold this to be immoral. If this is the case, then no anarchist could conceivably advocate the existence of private competing protection agencies that enforce verdicts because the second a protection agency enforces a verdict indefinitely, *poof*, it becomes a legal monopoly on the use of force, i.e., a government. *cough*......
You appear to misunderstand something fundamental about anarchism.
First and most importantly, initiation of aggression is immoral and illegal, where "illegal" means "may morally be countered by force." By definition, initiation of aggression is the only thing which is illegal. After all, if someone doesn't initiate aggression, but I counter his actions by force, then I'm initiating aggression, and he may morally counter it with force.
That distinction is important because plenty of other things may be deemed immoral, but not illegal. Prostitution is immoral, for example--but if people do it, there's nothing I can do about it except try to persuade them. I can't counter their actions with force. They can even claim it's perfectly moral. I'm right and they're wrong, but there's nothing I can do about it using force.
If someone steals property, he has initiated force. Since that's illegal, anyone can use force to stop him. And after the crime is committed, anyone can use force to recover the property. Once recovered, it must be returned to the original owner, or else the recoverer himself is a thief and anyone can use force to recover the property in turn from him.
And "anyone" means anyone, including government agents. There's nothing immoral whatsoever in police recovering stolen property. To that extent, your original statement is simply wrong: it's perfectly moral for the government to "enforce a verdict" in that sense. It's moral for anyone to do so. Enforcing verdicts against mala in se is NOT one of the moral objections to government.
The objection comes in when government enforces verdicts against mala prohibita, otherwise known as "victimless crimes." In these cases there is no aggressor; therefore the government becomes the aggressor when it uses force. That IS a moral objection to government--but it doesn't apply to private defense agencies: PDAs have no authority whatsoever to use force against non-aggressors. This entire class of crimes cease to exist with government.
Another, equally important objection, is that even when government acts morally against aggressors, it imposes the cost of its actions on the unwilling, through taxation. Whenever police stop a murder in progress, they're doing something moral and something immoral at the same time: they're stopping aggression, which is moral; and they're drawing a salary from stolen monies, which is immoral. They're like the thief that robs a store, while at the same time apprehending a competing thief trying to do the same. This objection doesn't apply to PDAs, because they have no power to tax. Taxation vanishes with government.
Lastly, the "monopoly" aspect of your argument is a red herring. The fact that I buy a particular gallon of milk from a particular store does NOT give that store a "monopoly on the sale of that particular gallon of milk." That's torturing terminolgy until its own mother wouldn't recognize the corpse. In Austrian economics, there is no monopoly unless competitors are forcibly prevented from entering the market. Government not only does that in general, but in particular it will react forcibly if anyone tries to provide defense from government. The crime is committed when they arrest the wrong man, or convict someone of murder for defending himself against police aggression, etc. In other words, when they enforce their monopoly.
Anyone who wants to can say he has a monopoly until he's blue in the face. Only when he enforces it is the crime committed.
--Len
Len, could you respond to my last post? That point has had the misfortune of being overlooked In every thread in which I've posted it.
Ego: Len, could you respond to my last post? That point has had the misfortune of being overlooked In every thread in which I've posted it.
I believe I just DID answer your question. Could you clarify what remains unaddressed?
I don't think you addressed any of it, unless you were saying that Mr. Objectivist wasn't describing the situation I was describing.
Could you point out where I'm wrong? Keep in mind that we've left the realm of voluntary transactions once someone is accused of a crime; also, keep in mind that the accused isn't always guilty (and isn't always innocent!).