A challenge to minarchist

Suppose that a glorious revolution overthrows the government of your country and the revolutionaries assemble in order to draft a new constitution. The two main factions are the majority Sons of Liberty (pro-state) and the Congress of Free Courts (anti-state). As per the minarchist ideology, the new constitution establishes a monopoly on justice that grants legislative power to an elected body. The minority Congress of Free Courts walks out of the assembly in disgust and vows to disobey the new government.

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? 

Awesome. I am so interested in a reply to this. 

 Me too, old friend.

One thing I can guarantee though, if they did decide to come after us, I think they'd be met with a little more fight than they expected. 

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? 

 

Exacly what I've said previously: Limited government is a meaningless distinction. In the end, you either believe in secession or subjugation.

Exactly why couldn't an agreement be negotiated to split the community into two parts, one with a voluntaristic government that would do voluntaristic government things, and the other with a pleasant anarchists' utopia?  Would that be somehow contrary to the spirit of anarchy-smashing objector-subjugating minarchy?

Donny with an A:

Exactly why couldn't an agreement be negotiated to split the community into two parts, one with a voluntaristic government that would do voluntaristic government things, and the other with a pleasant anarchists' utopia?  Would that be somehow contrary to the spirit of anarchy-smashing objector-subjugating minarchy?

 

Exactly why is a voluntary government a limited government? Who needs limits if everything is voluntary? 

Donny with an A:

Exactly why couldn't an agreement be negotiated to split the community into two parts, one with a voluntaristic government that would do voluntaristic government things, and the other with a pleasant anarchists' utopia?  Would that be somehow contrary to the spirit of anarchy-smashing objector-subjugating minarchy?

 

Because the Congress of Free Courts has members all over the country in every city. You can't draw a line around them. 

I'm not sure in what a way a voluntary government wouldn't be limited...Perhaps your confusion results from not recognizing the binding nature of a contractual agreement?

Regarding Stranger's response, how would the Congress of Free Courts differ from Nozick's protective associations? 

Donny with an A:

I'm not sure in what a way a voluntary government wouldn't be limited...Perhaps your confusion results from not recognizing the binding nature of a contractual agreement?

 My point hinges on a different definition of government than what you're speaking of then, which means to say that governments are not possibly voluntary.

 

Donny with an A:

Regarding Stranger's response, how would the Congress of Free Courts differ from Nozick's protective associations? 

First, the congress seems to just be a confederation of each protective defense agency, whereas Nozick seems to be mischieviously implying a state before he establishes it.

 

Second, to many people Nozick's concept was patently absurd. Why would a "protective association" limit itself to certain enclaves when the possibility of reaching far out and away like any other insurance agency to maximize profits exists? Perhaps if the company sees a benefit from local monopolization, but RE would predict this to be incorrect after the first few examples.

There doesn't appear to be many takers. This could only mean two things.

1) The answer has been "no" and thus the minarchist idea collapses upon its foundations.

2) People don't understand what minarchy implies.

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.

 I believe the scenario is not well presented for this question as it starts from an assumption (the very meeting itself) that both parties have agreed they 'represent' other people and have somehow subrogated to themselves the rights of those who would simply wish there was no meeting in the first place.

The meeting forces the CFC to accept the resolution or simply accept its own illegitimacy, in which case it would have no morals to disagree after the fact.

 Whatever. Let's say the CFC is not even invited to the constitutional congress. Would you fight a war to subjugate them?

Maybe it's just me, but I am having a really hard time understanding the picture... why would they fight in the first place? What gives the 'minarchists' the illusion that they can force others to be a part of what they call 'their' territory or nation? Being a minarquist doesn't mean that you are an idiot or that favor war to establish a State; even Rothbard himself was cautios at times when calling himself an 'anarquist' and was very much aware of the difficulties of getting rid of the State in a short period of time (impossible), even if it be only rhetorical.

Also, you would have to agree that on every single nation in the world today, governments have plenty of property under their name and that the process of privatizing is necessarily cumbersome.

Personally, I am a minarquist simply because of the status quo, but I also favor Anarchism as an indicator of where to go. It doesn't mean I need to be challenged on my 'faith' in anarchism, as there are still many aspects of it that many brilliant men have not been able to dilucidate or agree upon.

LUCHAC:

Maybe it's just me, but I am having a really hard time understanding the picture... why would they fight in the first place? What gives the 'minarchists' the illusion that they can force others to be a part of what they call 'their' territory or nation? Being a minarquist doesn't mean that you are an idiot or that favor war to establish a State; even Rothbard himself was cautios at times when calling himself an 'anarquist' and was very much aware of the difficulties of getting rid of the State in a short period of time (impossible), even if it be only rhetorical.

Also, you would have to agree that on every single nation in the world today, governments have plenty of property under their name and that the process of privatizing is necessarily cumbersome.

Personally, I am a minarquist simply because of the status quo, but I also favor Anarchism as an indicator of where to go. It doesn't mean I need to be challenged on my 'faith' in anarchism, as there are still many aspects of it that many brilliant men have not been able to dilucidate or agree upon.

 

 

You're right, it is just you.

 

It isn't hard to understand the concept being pushed here. Give territory X and territory Y. Territory X is claimed by territory Y, but the people of territory X do not want to pay taxes, at all.

 

Do you advocate putting a gun in their face? 

Why does it still surprise me to find so many fanatics in these forums?

Go tell your 'god' about my heresy for having missed this hipothetical world of yours.

And just as I would not advocate putting a gun to anybody`s face, I wouldn`t judge them morally under `my god`. So, f/ck you and your god.

Oh, come now. Tell us how you really feel.  

Yes, assuming they actually break laws.

Like the law that requires people to pay taxes? 

If that's the one somebody breaks. 

Jared:

Yes, assuming they actually break laws.

 

So, you claim to have the right to impose laws on innocents? That is consistent with libertarian ideals? 

If the law says to pay taxes, and somebody breaks the law, they are not innocent of breaking the law. Would I have the right? No, as president I would have the obligation to enforce law. What are the libertarian ideals, exactly, which contradict presidents performing their paid functions? As president, should I just ignore what my employers have called me for?

Jared:

If the law says to pay taxes, and somebody breaks the law, they are not innocent of breaking the law. Would I have the right? No, as president I would have the obligation to enforce law. What are the libertarian ideals, exactly, which contradict presidents performing their paid functions? As president, should I just ignore what my employers have called me for?

In this case the problem is whether the president would use force to collect taxes from the ones that didn't hire him to do that and don't want to have any part in the goods created with the money collected with taxation. In the libertarian view the taxing of those who don't want it is agression and I think that in this scenario not only the president but also his supporters should be seen as agressors if they support his view of taxing the ones that don't want it. In the libertarian society they would all be subjects to arbitration.

It is impossible for the anarchists to not receive benefits from the goods provided by me. Because my government brings about the rule of law, society is incentivized away from breaking the law and toward a peaceful social order. All citizens receive these benefits, whether they agree or not. In order to ensure a segment of society is not paying for this service for everybody, I would have to force them to pay taxes, force them to leave the country, etc. Anything else betrays my employers. 

Jared:

If the law says to pay taxes, and somebody breaks the law, they are not innocent of breaking the law. Would I have the right? No, as president I would have the obligation to enforce law. What are the libertarian ideals, exactly, which contradict presidents performing their paid functions? As president, should I just ignore what my employers have called me for?

 

Where is the law that says that people who do not adhere to your constitution are under the jurisdiction of your law? If these people reject the legislation passed by your government, it is because they consider that it exploits them instead of protecting them.

Do you not see that it is pure exploitation if one group of people can change the law that other people have to follow, then claim they have the right to punish them when they are "breaking the law"?

Jared:

It is impossible for the anarchists to not receive benefits from the goods provided by me.

 

The United States president under minarchy would then have, in order not to betray the American people, to tax Canada and Mexico. 

Jared:

If the law says to pay taxes, and somebody breaks the law, they are not innocent of breaking the law. Would I have the right? No, as president I would have the obligation to enforce law. What are the libertarian ideals, exactly, which contradict presidents performing their paid functions? As president, should I just ignore what my employers have called me for?

You aren't an employee. You're a tyrant; you'll be delt with by bullet to the head.

Jared:

It is impossible for the anarchists to not receive benefits from the goods provided by me.

The anarchists didn't ask you to force rules on other people by the barrel of a gun.

Jared:

Because my government brings about the rule of law, society is incentivized

 

Making up words never results in the perception of intelligence.

Jared:

away from breaking the law and toward a peaceful social order. All citizens receive these benefits, whether they agree or not. In order to ensure a segment of society is not paying for this service for everybody, I would have to force them to pay taxes, force them to leave the country, etc. Anything else betrays my employers. 

 

We didn't employ you. We don't want you. Leave us alone or be delt with.

So... Basically, Jared thinks it's ok to kill someone for resisting his extortion.

 

Great, Jared. How do you expect us to react? 

Niccolò:

So... Basically, Jared thinks it's ok to kill someone for resisting his extortion.

 

Great, Jared. How do you expect us to react? 

I wonder what would be his reaction if tomorrow there where suits at his door telling that it was discovered that for the benefit of a peaceful society he should give up all his property and become a payless employee for the government. All he would get in return would be a roof over his head, a set of clothes for work and some food.

This is essentially a slave contract - i.e. unenforceable nonsense. No reason to respect it.

 

Do you not see that it is pure exploitation if one group of people can change the law that other people have to follow, then claim they have the right to punish them when they are "breaking the law"?

I always see Marxists talk about exploitation, but I never bothered to look it up because  they are rather blatantly wrong. Ironically enough, the dictionary discusses exploitation in terms of using something for one's own ends. So I'd like to know how, assuming a minarchist legal ethic, anybody is utilizing negative law along with minimal positive laws to enforce the negative laws, in order to push their own ends. Of course we can talk about "oh noes, they can changes teh laws!!1"; that's the point of a constitution. In order to head off the critique of constitutional minarchism, let me point this out: despots can take power in market anarchy, too. I would even argue that the formation of many states began there! You have to disprove the justice of constitutional minarchy, not where its abolition by tyrants can lead.

The United States president under minarchy would then have, in order not to betray the American people, to tax Canada and Mexico.

Because the United States routinely prosecutes Canadian criminals for the people of Canada? Oh, sorry. I do know what you mean. But in general, the relations of states remains an anarchy, so in a sense, the United States government thinks it gains at least as much by its relationship with Canada over national defense as it costs. There is no problem.

You aren't an employee. You're a tyrant; you'll be delt with by bullet to the head.

Anarchists can't call rulers tyrants. Tyrants are rulers that use power unjustly. In order to call me a tyrant you have to concede my "archy". There's nothing unjust about taxing people that benefit from the rule of law, either.

The anarchists didn't ask you to force rules on other people by the barrel of a gun.

Do you propose yellow stars to designate people who don't want to pay taxes? In plain, less offensive language, how do you propose to the Sons of Liberty a system to clearly mark those not protected by the law, so that not only do they bear no protection, but they are marked so that no anarchist gains the benefit of assumed protection under the law? In a sense, then, I would still be forcing them to show something, or I would be showing their information, which could also be seen as infringing on privacy rights. What do you think?

Making up words never results in the perception of intelligence.

Look it up in the dictionary again. The inability to make use of dictionary.com does not make you appear smarter.

So... Basically, Jared thinks it's ok to kill someone for resisting his extortion.

To term taxation as extortion is impossible for an anarchist. Extortion assumes abuse of authority; if I have no authority in the first place, how is it extortion? And where did we decide death was the penalty for tax evasion?

I wonder what would be his reaction if tomorrow there where suits at his door telling that it was discovered that for the benefit of a peaceful society he should give up all his property and become a payless employee for the government. All he would get in return would be a roof over his head, a set of clothes for work and some food.

How does that follow? Taxation for the enforcement of negative law is nothing compared to socialist totalitarianism. Are you seriously so stuck in an absurd absolute libertarianism that you oppose taxes on the same level as the Gulag?

I'll admit here that I am not a "true libertarian". As a constitutionalist and minarchist whose constitution has classical liberal tendencies and whose government is very much not a minarchy, I am "politicially libertarian". I do not think liberty should be the highest goal of man, and as a minarchist, I definitionally find the degrees of government more important perhaps than government at all. In order to clarify the disagreement:

1. I do not find liberty to be so important a goal of mankind, though it has preferability over slavery.

2. Economically, the rule of law incentivizes domestic peace, which benefits everybody. Anybody who remains in the state but evades taxation is effectively stealing from those who pay taxes.

3. I do not think a small degree of government is immoral or unjust.

In order to show why I am wrong, I think you must do the following:

1. Show why liberty deserves to be the political ends even to the destruction of polity.

2. Disprove the existence of security externalities.

3. Show why small government is unjust in light of 2.

Jared:

Anarchists can't call rulers tyrants. Tyrants are rulers that use power unjustly. In order to call me a tyrant you have to concede my "archy".

This is quite a non sequitur. Tyrants are rulers without justice, in order to call me a tyrant you must concede that I have justice... Wait... WHAT?!?

 
Anarchists can call anyone a tyrant. Tyrants don't require the acknowledgment of legitimacy, afterall, if one has legitimacy then he would not be a tyrant. Legitimacy is derived from voluntary consent. I don't give you voluntary consent to do anything that violates my property rights. I don't know where you got this logic, but boy it's... er... I promised I'd be nicer... it's interesting.

Jared:

 

There's nothing unjust about taxing people that benefit from the rule of law, either.

Yes there is. I did not concede to your laws, I did not employ you to make them. Whether I benefit from externaliteis or not is an irrelevancy more commonly known as the "public goods argument." You know what else tends to benefit people? Churches in communities. Should one be forced to pay the church for its existence, also?

 

Jared:

Do you propose yellow stars to designate people who don't want to pay taxes?

 Nah, I propose you just leave us alone. How hard is that, really?

Jared:

how do you propose to the Sons of Liberty a system to clearly mark those not protected by the law, so that not only do they bear no protection, but they are marked so that no anarchist gains the benefit of assumed protection under the law? In a sense, then, I would still be forcing them to show something, or I would be showing their information, which could also be seen as infringing on privacy rights. What do you think?

 I don't propose anything, because it's not my problem. The inability for you to distinguish between those who desire your state of irrational idolatry does not justify the extortion of innocent individuals not desiring to be subjugated by your cowardly acts of injustice. Your argument here stems from the public goods theory, a truly ridiculous tenant within the statist arsenal.

 

Essentially you are suggesting that any positive externalities are... negative and that it is your job to eliminate them at every corner. Why? I don't know, maybe you can explain why positive externalities are Pareto-inoptimal.

 

If you want a suggestion as to how your state can compete with the Anarchist society, I can't give it to you, state's are the grand embodiment of the communist economic system. Ala Mises, your state will never be able to compete with the free market in anything, including defense and arbitration. In a free market society as suggested by the Anarchists, however, all property being private suggests that all property comes with some level of private protection. With that level of private protection enforced on the free market, there occurs no need for a grand police-state to impose restrictions on man's virtue on the basis of assumptions made by pompous little bureaucrats wearing no clothes. When the Agorist revolution comes, and the Agora succeeds against the great adversary of justice, there will be no turning back. The revolution will be a wonderful infection that purges the evil of the state while promoting the virtue of the free market.

Jared:

To term taxation as extortion is impossible for an anarchist. Extortion assumes abuse of authority

It does? Really? because I thought "to extort" meant to obtain from another by coercion or intimidation.

Jared:

; if I have no authority in the first place, how is it extortion?

Because extortion requires no authority...? Does the Mafia possess any authority? Then why does your government call their actions extortion?

Jared:

And where did we decide death was the penalty for tax evasion?

 
When you attempt to collect your funds from me, I will resist. If you persist in your attempts, I will take out my gun. Do you plan on killing me for defending myself?

 

Jared:

How does that follow? Taxation for the enforcement of negative law is nothing compared to socialist totalitarianism. Are you seriously so stuck in an absurd absolute libertarianism that you oppose taxes on the same level as the Gulag?

 

Logical ends = Absurd

 

Jared:

1. I do not find liberty to be so important a goal of mankind, though it has preferability over slavery.

You either have liberty or slavery. Make a logical distinction between the two if you disagree.

 

Jared:

2. Economically, the rule of law incentivizes domestic peace, which benefits everybody.

First, when did the "rule of law" become synonymous with the state?

Second, peace requires an absence of violence. How are you abstaining from violence while actively pursuing violent tactics to extort funds from non-violent individuals?

Third, logically prove that peace requires the "rule of law" without making an assumption. 

 

Jared:

Anybody who remains in the state but evades taxation is effectively stealing from those who pay taxes.

First, what state? Who gave you the right to put arbitrary and non-homesteaded borders around any piece of land you desired? 

Second, how does one steal from another without directly taking from them? You're talking about a free rider, though I do not imagine you know what that means or can articulate it, a free rider is not a thief, he is merely someone taking advantage of an open system. That does not require thievery.

Third, I as an individual do not force another person to pay taxes. If they pay taxes, that's their issue. I neither want to pay, nor do I want to receive your services. Leave me alone, please.

Jared:

3. I do not think a small degree of government is immoral or unjust.

You don't believe a small amount of rape is immoral or unjust.

 

Jared:

In order to show why I am wrong, I think you must do the following:

1. Show why liberty deserves to be the political ends even to the destruction of polity.

Proudhon said it best when he stated, Anarchy is order. The state is the number one cause of chaos, through the imposition of involuntary means to extract resources to use inefficiently, the state does the opposite of orderly organization through an efficient system. On the other hand, ala Mises, we understand that the free market system provides the greatest order to be seen.

 

Jared:

2. Disprove the existence of security externalities.

Why? What's wrong with an externality again? Why shouldn't I be forced to pay for the Mosque down the road?

 

Jared:

3. Show why small government is unjust in light of 2.

 

Because violently subjugating people to the will of another man is WRONG. 

Jared:

If the law says to pay taxes, and somebody breaks the law, they are not innocent of breaking the law. Would I have the right? No, as president I would have the obligation to enforce law. What are the libertarian ideals, exactly, which contradict presidents performing their paid functions? As president, should I just ignore what my employers have called me for?

 

If my employer tells me to shoot you should I do it? 

If the President of the United States declares you to be a guilty of breaking his new law against being named Jared are you a criminal? 

Jared:

It is impossible for the anarchists to not receive benefits from the goods provided by me. Because my government brings about the rule of law, society is incentivized away from breaking the law and toward a peaceful social order. All citizens receive these benefits, whether they agree or not. In order to ensure a segment of society is not paying for this service for everybody, I would have to force them to pay taxes, force them to leave the country, etc. Anything else betrays my employers. 

 

Actually, freedom, trade, and voluntary association bring about the disincentives to break the law and are, by defintion, what creates a peaceful society. 

Government is the system where some men are sheltered, by "the Law", from the natural market penalties for violence against their fellow men.

Jared:

1. I do not find liberty to be so important a goal of mankind, though it has preferability over slavery.

 

 How much more do you prefer it to slavery? Or is it only preferable to you being the slave?

Jared:

2. Economically, the rule of law incentivizes domestic peace, which benefits everybody. Anybody who remains in the state but evades taxation is effectively stealing from those who pay taxes.

You can't control your externalities, so we are stealing? Who said you get to decide what or who the state is? What just means did you use to get that state?

Jared:

3. I do not think a small degree of government is immoral or unjust.

Cool, go have your small government, just leave me out. Unless you want an immoral and unjust government that uses forces to make me participate, to pay for laws you want, to do your bidding. I am not asking for it.

Jared:

1. Show why liberty deserves to be the political ends even to the destruction of polity.

I don't advocate liberty though politics. I think the two are mutually exclusive.

 

Jared:

2. Disprove the existence of security externalities.

Again, your externalities are not my concern. The ball is in your court to find a mutally agreeable way to deal with them that doesn't include the use of force, which I will not accept. Keep your bees out of my apple trees if you think I am getting something for nothing, the trees aren't moving.

Jared:

3. Show why small government is unjust in light of 2.

The same reason big government is unjust. The use of force to recoup the loses of your own lack of ability to find a mutually agreeable solution to a problem created by your own desires is not my concern. 

 

If you provide a good and are unable to recoup the full benefits of doing so, yet go ahead and do it anyway, it's your own problem - to say that you have the right to force others into paying for this good (bad even? it's not desired to begin with by some) is an unjust imposition. Furthemore, why not extend it to all such benefits, e.g. the benefit my wearing cologne may have upon someone who likes the scent but who did nothing to pay for it?

Jared:

I always see Marxists talk about exploitation, but I never bothered to look it up because  they are rather blatantly wrong. Ironically enough, the dictionary discusses exploitation in terms of using something for one's own ends. So I'd like to know how, assuming a minarchist legal ethic, anybody is utilizing negative law along with minimal positive laws to enforce the negative laws, in order to push their own ends. Of course we can talk about "oh noes, they can changes teh laws!!1"; that's the point of a constitution. In order to head off the critique of constitutional minarchism, let me point this out: despots can take power in market anarchy, too. I would even argue that the formation of many states began there! You have to disprove the justice of constitutional minarchy, not where its abolition by tyrants can lead.

That is not an answer to my question. If minarchy implies a legislative power, that means that some people have the right to impose new laws upon other people. And appealing to the constitution is irrelevant: the people whom you are imposing your law on reject the constitution as well. We are not claiming that constitutional minarchy will be abolished by tyrants, we are claiming that its functional nature is tyrannical.

The United States president under minarchy would then have, in order not to betray the American people, to tax Canada and Mexico.

Because the United States routinely prosecutes Canadian criminals for the people of Canada? Oh, sorry. I do know what you mean. But in general, the relations of states remains an anarchy, so in a sense, the United States government thinks it gains at least as much by its relationship with Canada over national defense as it costs. There is no problem.

If the rulers of Canada and the United States can have mutually beneficial protection relationships without one having to tax the other one, why could that not be true at the individual level as well?

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.

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?