I know that anarchy is big on this board, but I think anarchists are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Constitution was not limiting enough, containing several deep flaws that are accellerating it now towards its demise. Firstly, being a document of compromise, it allowed for changes to itself. This isn't such a bad thing, given the horrors of slavery and other such things as it allowed at the time. The Bill of Rights, far the most important part of it, wasn't even part of it originally. It was in places vague and obscure, leading to many controversies that have allowed for terrible usurpations; the one that pops to mind most easily is the Second Amendment.
Also, in failing to create actual criminal law within its structure, cleverly enough written that they could stand the test of time, and allowing for the crafting of new law, it encouraged the legal morass of today.
Is it inconceivable, though, that rather than throwing out the idea of government altogether, that we might learn from the failings of the last attempt and try again? I believe that there are several issues confronting anarchists which I have never seen resolutions to, and I have done some research on the subject. I also believe, contrary to the claims of some anarchists, that some just taxes are possible, namely those on land and natural resources.
Anyway, this is my first post here, and I know it's a bit discombobulated. Sorry about that!
I don't agree that your proposed 'fixes' to the Constitution (how would one incorporate criminal law into it's structure, for example? seems like a recipe for disaster to me) would actually fix anything, but my main *practical* disagreement (I'm sure others here will cover the serious philosophical problems with your proposal in detail) is more fundamental: we tried it your way (arguably) - didn't work. It was called the Articles of Confederation. Then in 1789, a coup d'etat overthrew that government, and we wound up with the Constitution, which led directly to where we are today - and, some would argue - was always intended to. So I think I'd have to say history is against you.
The machinations of the money and power elites are ceaseless - what makes you think that, no matter what you put into your 'new and improved' Constitution, they will not be able to pervert it, given time? I maintain that this is what has happened in virtually ever single instance that this has been tried. How many times should we risk tyranny by failing to recognize the nature of the State?
All we are saying, is give anarchy a chance. In fact, you live most of your life in a state of anarchy - probably without realizing it.
FYI - you may find this terrific essay more compelling then my poor attempt at persuasion:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski72.html
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
JCFolsom:I know that anarchy is big on this board, but I think anarchists are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Constitution was not limiting enough, containing several deep flaws that are accellerating it now towards its demise. Firstly, being a document of compromise, it allowed for changes to itself. This isn't such a bad thing, given the horrors of slavery and other such things as it allowed at the time. The Bill of Rights, far the most important part of it, wasn't even part of it originally. It was in places vague and obscure, leading to many controversies that have allowed for terrible usurpations; the one that pops to mind most easily is the Second Amendment.Also, in failing to create actual criminal law within its structure, cleverly enough written that they could stand the test of time, and allowing for the crafting of new law, it encouraged the legal morass of today.Is it inconceivable, though, that rather than throwing out the idea of government altogether, that we might learn from the failings of the last attempt and try again? I believe that there are several issues confronting anarchists which I have never seen resolutions to, and I have done some research on the subject. I also believe, contrary to the claims of some anarchists, that some just taxes are possible, namely those on land and natural resources.Anyway, this is my first post here, and I know it's a bit discombobulated. Sorry about that!
ozzy43:All we are saying, is give anarchy a chance. In fact, you live most of your life in a state of anarchy - probably without realizing it.
And that is a fitting analogy, because Anarchism, like Communism, looks good on paper but not in reality. And because attempts at Communism devolve into bureaucratic collectivism, while attempts at Anarchism devolve into chaos, Communists and Anarchists alike can claim neither has ever been disproven, because neither have truly ever been implemented.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Nathyn: ozzy43:All we are saying, is give anarchy a chance. In fact, you live most of your life in a state of anarchy - probably without realizing it.When I hear that, I am reminded of those who said, "Just give Communism a chance."
Remarkable. I thought the reference was clear. "All we are saying, is give peace a chance" from John Lennon. Not Lenin.Where I intended 'peace' you saw 'communism' - if I knew a psychoanalyst, I'd ask their opinion. If I was one, I'd give it.
Bugs me when people say stuff like that: 'Communism looked good on paper.' It's some sort of hackneyed cliche that makes no sense upon closer examination. Communism never looked good on paper (unless you were a Statist to begin with) because it required going through a period of State Socialism. What makes you say Communism looked good on paper?
Regarding Austrian economics being 'values free', well, perhaps I'm insufficiently well read, but Rothbard himself seemed to ridicule the notion of 'values free economists', so I assume he was not one. Unless he was vastly more self-deprecating than I've been led to believe. ;-)
'In former days, the intellectuals were invariably the priests, and hence, as we have pointed out, the age-old alliance between Church and State, Throne and Altar. Nowadays, "scientific" and "value-free" economists and "national security managers," among others, perform a similar ideological function in behalf of State power.' - M. Rothbard: Ethics of Liberty
JCFolsom: The Constitution was not limiting enough, containing several deep flaws that are accellerating it now towards its demise. Firstly, being a document of compromise, it allowed for changes to itself. This isn't such a bad thing, given the horrors of slavery and other such things as it allowed at the time. The Bill of Rights, far the most important part of it, wasn't even part of it originally. It was in places vague and obscure, leading to many controversies that have allowed for terrible usurpations; the one that pops to mind most easily is the Second Amendment.
The Constitution was not limiting enough, containing several deep flaws that are accellerating it now towards its demise. Firstly, being a document of compromise, it allowed for changes to itself. This isn't such a bad thing, given the horrors of slavery and other such things as it allowed at the time. The Bill of Rights, far the most important part of it, wasn't even part of it originally. It was in places vague and obscure, leading to many controversies that have allowed for terrible usurpations; the one that pops to mind most easily is the Second Amendment.
In a historical context, the Consitution was only adopted because of the fact that it was a comprisie between the Federalists, and the Antifederalists. Also, like what your suggestings, the Constitution was an attempt at forming a completly new government. If it were to be possible for a new government to be founded, which I cannot forsee even in the distant future, the formulators of this new government, like the Constitutional Convention, would have to comprimise in order to form this new government without one faction trying to overpower the other factions with military force (remember that there were planned military revolts in time-frame of the Constitution Convention that never came to fruition). Without a doubt, this comprimise would most likly having the effect of dulling most of the suggestions that Austrians would like to see implemented, for instance I do not see the income tax being abolished in such an enviroment, and would probably end up looking a lot like the Constituion in that it has holes that both sides left there to fight over later. In the end, the prospect of attempting to create a new government would still be crippled by the comprimises that the Constitution is today.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Most anarchists (including myself) advocate their no-government beliefs on ethical grounds (at least as a starting point). As such, any action required for the formation of a government, i.e., a coercive one, is categorically barred. Government becomes impossible without a breech of ethics.
Of course, if your ethics do not hit these two nails on the head...
1. Deontological
2. Noncoercive
...then you are potentially good to go, at least as far as government advocacy and personal consistency are concerned. Most of us here hammer those two nails pretty hard.
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
No, Rothbard clearly supported the fact-value dichotomy. He indeed believed strongly in favoured ethical system, and stressed that when economists argue from a specific moral premise they must make it explicit. He did not reject wertfreiheit. Nathyn is correct in that Austrian Economics, by itself, implies no given political system. I disagree entirely with him on anarchism (and one ought to remember that Mises supported secession down to the individual level, where practicable), but anarcho-capitalism is by no means the only position that Austrian Economics may justify.
Inquisitor: No, Rothbard clearly supported the fact-value dichotomy. He indeed believed strongly in favoured ethical system, and stressed that when economists argue from a specific moral premise they must make it explicit. He did not reject wertfreiheit. Nathyn is correct in that Austrian Economics, by itself, implies no given political system. I disagree entirely with him on anarchism (and one ought to remember that Mises supported secession down to the individual level, where practicable), but anarcho-capitalism is by no means the only position that Austrian Economics may justify.
I'm not sure if this is a reply to my post or not, but what is a "favoured ethical system"?
I have read many of the arguments, and I am very conscious of the power elites that might corrupt any government; alas, the people, too might be corruptible. There is no reason to think, though, that anarchy would be more resistant; though there may be no government to corrupt, without a constitution there is nothing to even slow those that make promises in times of crisis.
I think, in the desire to lack the compromises and flaws of the last attempt, we must needs remember that representative government is NOT identical to liberty, and may work against it. Indeed, I think a mix of dictatorial rule and representation might work better.
JCFolsom:I have read many of the arguments, and I am very conscious of the power elites that might corrupt any government; alas, the people, too might be corruptible. There is no reason to think, though, that anarchy would be more resistant; though there may be no government to corrupt, without a constitution there is nothing to even slow those that make promises in times of crisis.
I think you are positing a false equivalency. If you have a collective system with legitimized coercive power over all, and that system is corrupt - on the one hand - and then you have individuals, none of whom have any legitimate coercive power over the others, and some of those individuals are "corrupt" (perhaps we need to establish a definition for corruption at this point), the former situation is vastly more dangerous than the latter.
It is, after all, power that corrupts, and the more power some organization holds, the more potential for corruption, and the more widespread the damage it can do.
So this notion that corrupt power elites in charge of a monopolistic government are no more dangerous that corrupt individuals none of whom have any real coercive power over each other is, as I said, fallacious.
I don't know what you mean by 'there is nothing to even slow those that make promises in times of crisis.'
JCFolsom:I think, in the desire to lack the compromises and flaws of the last attempt, we must needs remember that representative government is NOT identical to liberty, and may work against it. Indeed, I think a mix of dictatorial rule and representation might work better.
This is true - a republic does not necessarily equal liberty. It is anarchy that more closely equals liberty. Was someone asserting that representative government is identical to liberty?
As for combining dictatorial rule and representation, well, I don't know what to say. It seems self evident that a dictator dictates - a dictator does not admit input from the people via representation - history speaks unequivocally on this point. Logically, this seems to me to be roughly equivalent to asserting that some mixture of fire and gasoline might yield stability.
I am assuming by 'representation', you mean 'of the people' - if you meant representation of other existing power structures, then ignore my last paragraph, because you'd be talking about the standard police state in such a case.
Dynamix:I'm not sure if this is a reply to my post or not, but what is a "favoured ethical system"?
The ethical system favoured by Rothbard, i.e. natural rights. And no, it was a response to Ozzy.
Inquisitor:anarcho-capitalism is by no means the only position that Austrian Economics may justify.
Interesting. What other political systems could be justified under Austrian Economics? I've delved more into the political than the technical economic aspects, so am not knowledgable in this area and would like to understand the inter-relationship better.
Seems to me that the Austrian principles as I understand them would dictate no State interference, which means, to me, either self-government (aka anarchism of some sort) or at most a Republic which did not have the power to favor one set of individuals at the expense of another, and therefore could not interfere. What are the other systems that could be justified?
ozzy43: Inquisitor:anarcho-capitalism is by no means the only position that Austrian Economics may justify. Interesting. What other political systems could be justified under Austrian Economics? [...] Seems to me that the Austrian principles as I understand them would dictate [...]
Interesting. What other political systems could be justified under Austrian Economics? [...] Seems to me that the Austrian principles as I understand them would dictate [...]
Not to speak out of turn (ahem...), but Austrian Economics is a positive science. Accordingly, there is no "should do" or "shouldn't do" kind of political dictation built in. Your assertion that AE requires some sort of anarchism or minarchism is predicated on the assumption that what we "should do" is abide by rules which enable us to acquire the kind of wealth that AE provides a road map for. This is not necessarily so. Strictly speaking, you could believe in the validity of all the major Austrian principles and advocate socialism without contradicting yourself. It would be somewhat akin to believing in the validity of the law of gravity whilst building a society around the inane idea that gravity "should be" defeated (for whatever higher purpose), but it can be done.
Thx Dynamix - had not thought of it that way, but this makes perfect sense now that you've explained it.
ozzy43: JCFolsom:I have read many of the arguments, and I am very conscious of the power elites that might corrupt any government; alas, the people, too might be corruptible. There is no reason to think, though, that anarchy would be more resistant; though there may be no government to corrupt, without a constitution there is nothing to even slow those that make promises in times of crisis. I think you are positing a false equivalency. If you have a collective system with legitimized coercive power over all, and that system is corrupt - on the one hand - and then you have individuals, none of whom have any legitimate coercive power over the others, and some of those individuals are "corrupt" (perhaps we need to establish a definition for corruption at this point), the former situation is vastly more dangerous than the latter. It is, after all, power that corrupts, and the more power some organization holds, the more potential for corruption, and the more widespread the damage it can do. So this notion that corrupt power elites in charge of a monopolistic government are no more dangerous that corrupt individuals none of whom have any real coercive power over each other is, as I said, fallacious. I don't know what you mean by 'there is nothing to even slow those that make promises in times of crisis.'
The point is, that there is absolutely nothing, once you have done away with the state, to prevent a well-funded person, whether from outside or inside, from gathering followers and reestablishing a state. Say there is a severe drought that affects much of the country. People are starving. Large landowners with armed guards control much of the airable (is that how you spell it?) land. Raiders from nearby areas come in, stealing what little food there is or even resorting to cannibalism. After a couple years, a rich man, one of the landowners, comes along and says, "Behold, I have grain, and weapons! You need but join under my banner, and I will protect you, and you shall not starve!" Many, perhaps most, would. And you would have a government. And this man, who offers salvation from starvation and predation, could impose almost any condition, and many would accept it in return for their lives. And they would become part of his forces, and if he desired to conquer those who stubbornly held out for their freedom, he could.
Now take a nation, with a Constitution, that allows for doing almost nothing, except maintaining national defense and maybe roads, and disallows any other group trying to take political power and impose any legal restrictions whatever, beyond those protecting life and liberty. No predatory dictator could enter, or at least, not so easily. The government could acknowledge (this will be rather controvertial here, I know) the common ownership of land, and prevent land hoarding by supporting itself partially through a progressive land tax (progressive by how much land is owned by one person, not by income).
This is also one of the reasons why representative government tends to fail. Politicians, utterly dependent on the popularity contests for power, can win by pandering to the selfish and short-sighted whims of the masses. It is the same issue as with the anarchy, just in slow motion.
I agree with you. except realize that criminal laws were not included in the constitution because we did not want to have to make an amendment concerning the punishment of different crimes or to redefine what was criminal behavior.
Also because of the 10th amendment. it should be recognized that criminal law (I think) should be dealt with at the state and local level. this is federalism.
as far as taxes... I can not say that any tax is just, after reading brainpolice's post about ethics regarding minarchism. only can I say that they must be endured, with a grim face.
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
JCFolsom:The point is, that there is absolutely nothing, once you have done away with the state, to prevent a well-funded person, whether from outside or inside, from gathering followers and reestablishing a state. Say there is a severe drought that affects much of the country. People are starving. Large landowners with armed guards control much of the airable (is that how you spell it?) land. Raiders from nearby areas come in, stealing what little food there is or even resorting to cannibalism. After a couple years, a rich man, one of the landowners, comes along and says, "Behold, I have grain, and weapons! You need but join under my banner, and I will protect you, and you shall not starve!" Many, perhaps most, would. And you would have a government. And this man, who offers salvation from starvation and predation, could impose almost any condition, and many would accept it in return for their lives. And they would become part of his forces, and if he desired to conquer those who stubbornly held out for their freedom, he could.
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?
JCFolsom:Now take a nation, with a Constitution, that allows for doing almost nothing, except maintaining national defense and maybe roads, and disallows any other group trying to take political power and impose any legal restrictions whatever, beyond those protecting life and liberty. No predatory dictator could enter, or at least, not so easily. The government could acknowledge (this will be rather controvertial here, I know) the common ownership of land, and prevent land hoarding by supporting itself partially through a progressive land tax (progressive by how much land is owned by one person, not by income).
Looking at this from a practical standpoint, as I've said before - we tried something similar. Didn't work out. We are where we are. Same goes for France, which started off, like us, espousing Enlightenment ideals, which is sort of what you are doing (though by allowing for roads and taxes, I think you're already headed further down the road to a State which will tolerate no limits on its power than what we started with). My point is: this seems to be unworkable, because the limited govt you form inevitably becomes corrupt and grows beyond its bounds. What makes you think that it would turn out differently - this time?
Ethically, it doesn't work either. What you are saying, whether you realize it or not is, let's allow a little coercive government, and hope and pray that it doesn't get more coercive. I has to say, I don't think you've done much in the way of historical due diligence. Humans just don't work that way.
JCFolsom:This is also one of the reasons why representative government tends to fail. Politicians, utterly dependent on the popularity contests for power, can win by pandering to the selfish and short-sighted whims of the masses. It is the same issue as with the anarchy, just in slow motion.
Well, I agree with you there. So you seem to be saying: going with a State is better than with anarchy because, while both will yield to tyranny, the State approach will last longer before it succumbs. I used to hold this view and would at that time have agreed with you. But the more I've researched anarchy, the more I have come to think that in fact, it's exactly the opposite, and that anarchy offers a more sustainable program of liberty.
Consider: to make your argument against anarchy, you must posit 1) a drought and famine, 2) raiders who despoil the weak, 3) a rich landowner who can attract large numbers of people to his banner. I would posit that these conditions would rarely if ever arise under an anarchic system, in which most of not all individuals would be armed and proficient in the use of arms, as well as very aware of the potential for bands of armed raiders and therefore likely to drill as militias (and perhaps contract for mutual self and community defense). Also, since no Mommy government is 'looking out for them', provisions for drought and famine would be undertaken (no Katrinas here). That is, people would purchase insurance, and make contracts, and take action such that they would not be in a position to fall prey to starvation and therefore the rich landowner would get precious few takers. I think this scenario is at least as plausible as the one you paint.
If these things were not the case, then perhaps they deserve what they get - having failed to fulfill their responsibilities to defend and provide for themselves and their communities.
All I have to do to make my argument is to say: look around you. I don't need to conjure up phantoms.
My suggestion is that you keep reading and thinking and researching. I suspect that, after a time, you will come to see that anarchism is a more sustainable long term approach - inasmuch as it depends on human nature to work effectively.
ozzy43:Looking at this from a practical standpoint, as I've said before - we tried something similar. Didn't work out. We are where we are. Same goes for France, which started off, like us, espousing Enlightenment ideals, which is sort of what you are doing (though by allowing for roads and taxes, I think you're already headed further down the road to a State which will tolerate no limits on its power than what we started with). My point is: this seems to be unworkable, because the limited govt you form inevitably becomes corrupt and grows beyond its bounds. What makes you think that it would turn out differently - this time?
The founders were imperfect and, further, no one had really done anything like what they were doing before. They made several mistakes. The first mistake was not taking Hamilton out behind the barn and giving him two in the hat. They also created a constitution which could be changed. Their formulation was so flawed that they had to add amendments for the Bill of Rights, something that wouldn't have been necessary if the government were properly restrained in the first place.
The real point is, yes, this Constitution failed, but this is only one experiment. The failure of this Constitution is not sufficient evidence to state that all constitutions will fail.
Keep in mind the example of Iceland. While one could argue that it was not a pure anarchy, it was rather market anarchistic, but this system (which did last for 300 years, albeit in a very homogeneous and miniscule nation) was eventually brought down by a combination of external forces and internal power-grabbers.
ozzy43:Consider: to make your argument against anarchy, you must posit 1) a drought and famine, 2) raiders who despoil the weak, 3) a rich landowner who can attract large numbers of people to his banner. I would posit that these conditions would rarely if ever arise under an anarchic system, in which most of not all individuals would be armed and proficient in the use of arms, as well as very aware of the potential for bands of armed raiders and therefore likely to drill as militias (and perhaps contract for mutual self and community defense). Also, since no Mommy government is 'looking out for them', provisions for drought and famine would be undertaken (no Katrinas here). That is, people would purchase insurance, and make contracts, and take action such that they would not be in a position to fall prey to starvation and therefore the rich landowner would get precious few takers. I think this scenario is at least as plausible as the one you paint. If these things were not the case, then perhaps they deserve what they get - having failed to fulfill their responsibilities to defend and provide for themselves and their communities.
Drought and famine can, and indeed will, happen eventually under an anarchy. Climate changes are not controlled by governments or the lack thereof. The raider example can be done away with while leaving the bulk of the argument intact, but I would also add that people who live without danger quickly tend to lose martial traditions. A generation or two of peace, and you will have large groups of lambs fit for the slaughter. Police can't actually protect us, only really investigating after the fact, yet most of us are unarmed!
As for your statement that they would "deserve" what they get, while that may be so, that doesn't mean they are just going to instantly die. No, they will form into angry mobs and become raiders themselves! Your argument depends on a majority or at least a large minority of people being truly self reliant for the long term, and I just don't think that's realistic. People are naturally lazy: they will do as little as seems necessary to obtain their goals.
Further, I think that there are rights people have that ONLY be enforced by impartial third parties; that is, parties not directly employed by either party in the dispute, or at least not more by one than the other. This includes a doctrine I hold about the common ownership of land and natural resources; common because no one can state any prior, exclusive claim to such things, and therefore, no one can grant such to them either, without first securing for the general public compensation for the loss of the use of that land.
Attackdonkey: I agree with you. except realize that criminal laws were not included in the constitution because we did not want to have to make an amendment concerning the punishment of different crimes or to redefine what was criminal behavior. Also because of the 10th amendment. it should be recognized that criminal law (I think) should be dealt with at the state and local level. this is federalism. as far as taxes... I can not say that any tax is just, after reading brainpolice's post about ethics regarding minarchism. only can I say that they must be endured, with a grim face.
I disagree with federalism. What it basically says is, the national government can't violate your rights, but the states can do it all the live long goddamn day. There is no need for state government if all government is severely limited, except maybe as more local administrators. The reason I want all criminal law written into an unalterable Constitution is so that we can't create things like drug laws, or any other law we forgot to specifically exclude.
I say a tax IS just, if collected as compensation for an action that would otherwise be injurious to the general public. In other words, it is right to collect money from someone if they do something, such as claiming exclusive use of a piece of land, that takes something away from the general public, in this case the use of that land. This is based on my, I think philosophically justifiable position, that no one can ever truly claim ownership of land.
Indeed, let me be perfectly clear. I don't think that most people actually want liberty. Oh, for themselves and what they want, certainly, but I don't think that most desire that for others, nor do I think they ever have. Nonetheless, I think that people have a right to be free, and even more, they have an OBLIGATION to be free. They have no right to oppress others or even be oppressed themselves. The government I envision would, rather paradoxically, force liberty on the populace. Only in this way do I believe that liberty, that human rights, can be preserved as they ought to be.
Well, you don't seem to be reading what I am saying, preferring, it seems, to read what you want into my statements, so it may be pointless to continue, but I'll gove it one more shot.
I said early on that the Articles of Confederation were the first attempt at what you want - you keep talking about the Constitution instead (which actually was NOT an attempt to establish limited government per the DoI, but rather to establish a State - but done to suggest it was the former). Suggest you do some due diligence on AoC vs Constitution. Rather different beasties. The Constitution was not flawed - it was precisely what the Federalists wanted: it established a clear field for a mercantilist national State - just like the British one we'd fought against - to evolve as desired, and the BoR could not stop it. Strongly suggest you download a copy of Nock's 'Our Enemy the State' from mises.org lit section and read it, or maybe pick up Beard's historical analysis of the US. Both the AoC and the Constitution failed in their purported objectives of establishing a limited govt of enumerated powers because the forces of the money and power elites took control (in the first case, they performed a coup d'etat and overthrew the AoC).
You have so far given me no reason to think you have better ideas than our Founders, despite the 200+ years that have intervened. Taking Hamilton 'out behind the barn and giving him two in the hat' would not work - there are always plenty of Hamiltons ready, willing and able to take his place. Today, the Federalists aka Nationalists number in tens of millions - we can't take them all our behind the barn!
And creating a Constitution with no provisions for change, as you suggest, is itself a recipe for disaster.
I haven't seen a single suggestion from your posts backed up by compelling logic indicating they'd make a difference for the better.
Personally, I think Montesquieu (I think it was he) was right in asserting that a Republic will never work in a nation this size - it will inevitably erode into a democracy, such as we have today. The Republican form of government is only suitable for a much smaller land/population. I think our experience in America goes a long way toward demonstrating his point.
History is unequivocally clear on the point that, once established, governments invariably become controlled by the money and power elites. You will have to give me a clear and compelling argument as to why that would somehow change under the minarchist system you imagine. Rather, yor argument seems to be 'we should have faith in our ability to get right what our (vastly better educated and motivated) forefathers could not.' I am utterly unwilling to make that leap of faith because the lessons of history as I understand them indicate that we should not expect this to work.
Also, I did not mean that drought and famine would never happen, and stated that "provisions for drought and famine would be undertaken" in a society where individuals recognized that they had only themselves to look to when it comes to being prepared for what comes. It is governments that are the chief cause of people becoming lazy and expecting to be taken care of. I do agree that people 'will do as little as seems necessary to obtain their goals', but this actually makes MY argument stronger. Nock called this Epstean's Law, or the iron law of fundamental economics: that "man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion." Those needs and desires include security - and under an anarchic system, I am convinced that this incentive would lead to a more self reliant people, as a general rule. Those people who grew too lazy, did not obtain the proper insurance, or failed in their responsibility to take the defense of self, family and community seriously, would certainly have a difficult time of it, and would no doubt serve as constant reminders for the rest.
You also seem to be equating 'imprtial thrid parties' with government, though it is not clear from your post that this is the case - but the context supports this interpretation. I would take this as a sign that you have not done much reading about anarcho-capitalist ideas for establishing precisely such entities outside the sphere of government.
In short, I understand your argument, and it is one that I at one time shared, but that was a long time ago, and continued research and investigation has convinced me that it is simply ill founded. Perhaps your continued exploration will yield the same outcome at some point.
Well, it seems to me that one of your arguments, "Personally, I think Montesquieu (I think it was he) was right in asserting that a Republic will never work in a nation this size - it will inevitably erode into a democracy, such as we have today. The Republican form of government is only suitable for a much smaller land/population. I think our experience in America goes a long way toward demonstrating his point," would tend to be an argument for city-states, rather than anarchy, but be that as it may...
You have convinced me of one thing: while I still doubt the practical ability to create a lasting anarchy, my arguments for government need some work. Thanks, I've some thinking to do. I will endeavor to do some studying. At the same time, if there be a site truly devoted to Anarchist apologetics, that is, one that has counterarguments to objections easily accessible, I would like to know it. It may sound rather lazy of me, but the few hours of research I've done have not revealed such, and I have had some hesitation to delve into larger works without having these points directly addressed first. I am in no way saying that anarchy is philosophically incorrect.
I an article was provided earlier about the "Warlords" objection, and I will look into it more deeply. Thanks again.
Alright, let me pose one more problem. Say you are born into a small community with their own defense force. The community is bound together by a strong religious conviction. The laws of your community state that public nudity is forbidden and no one can leave. The adults that established it all agreed to these rules, but you decide you want to be a nudist. But no one else has sympathy. Who can step in and protect your rights to live your life as you choose? There is no greater law you can appeal to. The people around the community know of your plight, but are not obligated to help you. If no one is willing to go to war with your captors for your freedom out of the goodness of their hearts, and you have no resources to hire the help, what do you do?
In other words, even if the warlord thing wouldn't happen, how do you prevent injustice and oppression on the small scale?
If your community states nobody can leave, then you are living under a tyrannical system, and under such a system you are certainly not going to effectuate justice. Rebel, or find another way to change the system, or find a way out, or submit. These are, you will note, essentially the same choices we in America have today.
I think the point I'd make here is simple: NO system will prevent injustice and oppression. None, that is, which is comprised of humans. We're not asserting that anarchism - or minarchism, for that matter, will lead to some perfect utopia or ideal (a common misconception). None such is possible. The real question to ask is: which system promises *less* injustice and oppression, and makes it *easier* for victims of such to attain redress?
Clearly, the worst systems would be Big, Powerful State systems like a democracy or dictatorship. As to whether anarchism would work - tough to say. There's an awful lot of logic which says it will, but unless and until it's put into practice in the modern world, who knows?
For reference, some of the issues we're discussing are covered in a bit of a roundabout way in a superb paper by James Ostrowski on the myth of democratic peace. You can find that here:
JCFolsom:Well, it seems to me that one of your arguments, "Personally, I think Montesquieu (I think it was he) was right in asserting that a Republic will never work in a nation this size - it will inevitably erode into a democracy, such as we have today. The Republican form of government is only suitable for a much smaller land/population. I think our experience in America goes a long way toward demonstrating his point," would tend to be an argument for city-states, rather than anarchy, but be that as it may...
That's probably true, JC. My point was that, if one is going to insist on some government, the smaller its reach the better. This goes to the principle of subsidiarity, and is fairly intuitive - easier to get your city council to move on some issue than the state govt, and easier to get the state govt to move on an issue than the feds, and in all cases, the more local the control, the more closely one would expect it to match the desires of those it affects.
JCFolsom:You have convinced me of one thing: while I still doubt the practical ability to create a lasting anarchy, my arguments for government need some work. Thanks, I've some thinking to do. I will endeavor to do some studying. At the same time, if there be a site truly devoted to Anarchist apologetics, that is, one that has counterarguments to objections easily accessible, I would like to know it. It may sound rather lazy of me, but the few hours of research I've done have not revealed such, and I have had some hesitation to delve into larger works without having these points directly addressed first. I am in no way saying that anarchy is philosophically incorrect.
I agree with you that there are real questions about the sustainability of ANY political system which favors liberty. The trend, as Jefferson famously noted, is all the other way. I do think that an understanding of the nature of the State is the first thing that has to be reckoned with, and this notion that even a limited govt is a seed from which the monstrous State springs is accurate, if history is any guide. But I cannot point you to a modern day anarchist system, of course, so my arguments must rely on logic and reason, not on anecdotal evidence, and that's cause for doubt. As I said, I think the more you research, the more clear this will become. But who knows? I have no claim on Absolute Truth any more than the next guy...
Ozzy43:Interesting. What other political systems could be justified under Austrian Economics? I've delved more into the political than the technical economic aspects, so am not knowledgable in this area and would like to understand the inter-relationship better. Seems to me that the Austrian principles as I understand them would dictate no State interference, which means, to me, either self-government (aka anarchism of some sort) or at most a Republic which did not have the power to favor one set of individuals at the expense of another, and therefore could not interfere. What are the other systems that could be justified?
Dynamix has already addressed this. One can fully accept Austrian economics, and for whatever ethical reasons, advocate any range of systems. Most of its advocates range from Lachmann's positions (a level of intervention to keep the economy stable) to Rothbard (market anarchism.) However, as both Mises and Rothbard emphasized, it is wertfrei. Even with a praxeological ethical theory, this would remain so in the case of economics (ie catallactics.)
Inquisitor:One can fully accept Austrian economics, and for whatever ethical reasons, advocate any range of systems. Most of its advocates range from Lachmann's positions (a level of intervention to keep the economy stable) to Rothbard (market anarchism.) However, as both Mises and Rothbard emphasized, it is wertfrei. Even with a praxeological ethical theory, this would remain so in the case of economics (ie catallactics.)
Indeed, this is true, Austrian economics persay (not, necessarily, the whole of Austrian philosophy, as Hoppe argues) does not imply any politics. Nozick makes the point here that the inability to compare interpersonal utility counts against any political suggestion you make, including anarchy. If we cannot compare utility across people, we cannot say that more good than harm was done in stealing from me and giving to you. On the other hand, we also cannot say that more harm than good was done.
There is a pragmatic question here, though - why are there so few Austrian socialists? Peter Boettke has a paper on this entitled "Why are there no Austrian Socialists?" I am aware of a small group of Austrian *** who maintain that the free market is the best route to prosperity, and hence advocate a socialist system for Israel. Mises argued that we cannot judge ultimate ends, only means used to achieve them, so I guess we can't criticize this, given that the means seems correctly chosen for the desired end.
Why would a government be corrupt? I don't think so. I used to hate democracy, but now I do not hate it.
It is very possible for its citizens to be very knowledgeable about limited government. The citizens can be educated about libertarianism by social interaction. These people can easily be educated by libertarian activists to vote for a libertarian candidate. By current technology, such as the Internet, it is very easy for them to be educated. Most hard-core Internet users support Ron Paul.
Those that hate democracy do not believe that Ron Paul would win. Those that hate democracy thinks that the citizens cannot be educated to endorse libertarianism.
I used to not believe in federalism. I used to believe that a small national government is enough. But now I am different. Now, I believe that each State can set up its own governments.
It is immoral for the United States federal government to dictate all of its States to have small governments. Its up to the individual States to set up small governments themselves. With the freedom to move, as said by the Constitution, if you hate to live in the big-government States, you can just move to another small-government state.
It is collective and altruistic for the federal government to force all the other states to set up small governments. Forcing its individual States to have small-government is equivalent to fighting wars against other nations and replacing these other nations with small government.
The most rational and individualist decision is to support federalism.
libertarian: Those that hate democracy do not believe that Ron Paul would win. Those that hate democracy thinks that the citizens cannot be educated to endorse libertarianism.
Not true. I think Ron Paul can win, and I hate democracy nonetheless.
libertarian:I used to hate democracy, but now I do not hate it.
Democracy, corrupt or not, allows a group of people to vote away my rights. Why is this good?
libertarian: It is immoral for the United States federal government to dictate all of its States to have small governments. Its up to the individual States to set up small governments themselves. With the freedom to move, as said by the Constitution, if you hate to live in the big-government States, you can just move to another small-government state.
And if you hate to live in a big-government country, you can just move to another small-government country. I get so tired of these federalist claims that a state can be as tyrannical as it wishes, because you can move to another state. Why, then, criticize federal laws, when you can move to another country? The problem with all of this is that the conditions necessary to establish a cartel, while not present in a free market, and present when it comes to governments. Suppose each state is to be restrained from being too tyrannical because, well, people can move out, which reduces its tax income. (The US cleverly gets around this by taxing you even if you move out.) Well, there are only 50 states, and you cannot form a new one. So, why wouldn't the governments, all of which desire a large government, band together to equalize big-government conditions? Then they call get to tax without losing citizens.
libertarian: It is collective and altruistic for the federal government to force all the other states to set up small governments. Forcing its individual States to have small-government is equivalent to fighting wars against other nations and replacing these other nations with small government.
Yet it is somehow not collective for the state to dictate what goes on in my house? Why is it wrong for the federal government to concern itself with the actions of a political body, the state, but not for the state to concern itself with my house or my body, which are real, not political subdivisions?
libertarian: The most rational and individualist decision is to support federalism.
Bizarre. Why is the most rational and individualist decision not to support individualism?
JAlanKatz: Not true. I think Ron Paul can win, and I hate democracy nonetheless.
Those who really think Ron Paul would win would not *hate* democracy. I hate democracy too, but I do not want a communist dictatorship. They would think that democracy somewhat works at electing a libertarian candidate, without a violent revolution.
JAlanKatz:Well, there are only 50 states, and you cannot form a new one. So, why wouldn't the governments, all of which desire a large government, band together to equalize big-government conditions? Then they call get to tax without losing citizens.
At least it's better than one federal government. No government is perfect. And I am not (yet) an anarchist.
libertarian:Why would a government be corrupt? I don't think so. I used to hate democracy, but now I do not hate it. It is very possible for its citizens to be very knowledgeable about limited government. The citizens can be educated about libertarianism by social interaction. These people can easily be educated by libertarian activists to vote for a libertarian candidate. By current technology, such as the Internet, it is very easy for them to be educated. Most hard-core Internet users support Ron Paul. Those that hate democracy do not believe that Ron Paul would win. Those that hate democracy thinks that the citizens cannot be educated to endorse libertarianism. I used to not believe in federalism. I used to believe that a small national government is enough. But now I am different. Now, I believe that each State can set up its own governments. It is immoral for the United States federal government to dictate all of its States to have small governments. Its up to the individual States to set up small governments themselves. With the freedom to move, as said by the Constitution, if you hate to live in the big-government States, you can just move to another small-government state. It is collective and altruistic for the federal government to force all the other states to set up small governments. Forcing its individual States to have small-government is equivalent to fighting wars against other nations and replacing these other nations with small government. The most rational and individualist decision is to support federalism.
I disagree with almost all of this, but before going into details, I'd like to understand what changed you. You keep saying you used to believe this, now you believe this, but you never say *why* your view has changed, nor do you provide a logical argument for why your new view is "rational and individualist" - simply saying so is insufficient. Provide your reasoning, else, this is just another opinion which merits little in the way of a response.
In point of fact, the Founders who created a Republic *loathed* democracy, so your position on this is at great variance from that of Jefferson, Paine, et.al.
I reference a paper by James Ostrowski in an earlier post - I strongly suggest you read it.
libertarian:Why would a government be corrupt? I don't think so. I used to hate democracy, but now I do not hate it.
libertarian:I hate democracy too, but I do not want...
Err, which is it? Hate it or don't hate it?
It's hard to respond to a moving target like this..and if you do not grasp the corruptive nature of power and how that manifests in a State, I'm not sure a response is even feasible. Do you truly not understand that all governments on this planet use their authority - their monopoly on force - to coerce and oppress, regardless of what their founding documents may say? I suggest you take a look at this Rothbard piece:
http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp
libertarian:It is immoral for the United States federal government to dictate all of its States to have small governments. Its up to the individual States to set up small governments themselves. With the freedom to move, as said by the Constitution, if you hate to live in the big-government States, you can just move to another small-government state. It is collective and altruistic for the federal government to force all the other states to set up small governments. Forcing its individual States to have small-government is equivalent to fighting wars against other nations and replacing these other nations with small government. The most rational and individualist decision is to support federalism.
Wow, you've taken this to a whole 'nuther level, and one which I think I will be in agreement with the anarchists on. You need to study a bit more your individualist philosophy. There is no such thing, under a non-collectivist mindset, as "group rights". And a state is not an entity in itself, but a political/geographical grouping of individuals. No matter how many people in a state want to violate someone's rights, they have no individual right to do so, and do not gain it as an aggregate.
Large governments, by definition, violate individual rights, the only kind of rights there really are. Nor does the "if you don't like it, move" argument hold water. I may not like how much freedom our government usurps; where will I go? This country has protections no other does. It is bad, all the rest are worse. No one has the right to say that, just because I live in their general vicinity, I must sacrifice my rights. I have as much right to be there as anyone.
The federal government has no right to tell a state government that it MUST do X against the will of its populace, but its function exactly is (or ought to be) to prevent these smaller governments from violating the rights of the people that are universal and prior to the authority of the state. No State government has any rights (period) to grow to the point that it violates the rights of the people within that state.
Those that hate Democracy (AKA the tyranny of the majority) can still think Ron Paul will win, and indeed, do a lot of good. Though I do sometimes hesitate, wondering if his improvements will merely be delaying the revolutionary changes that still need to happen. I believe in constitutional government, just not this constitution, and Ron Paul's adherence to it is, I think, one of his weakest points. Only in that this constitution provides for a much BETTER, more restricted government than what we have today makes his stance valuable.
I have donated hundreds of dollars to Ron Paul and I will vote for him. I even think he'll probably win, and I think he'll make things a lot better. Alas, my fear is that what we will accomplish is merely shifting the burden of the needed changes to later generations.
Once you grant an agency a monopoly over your protection, it becomes its self-interest to constantly expose you to greater danger and threats, by disarming you, increasing criminality or starting wars, such that you have no choice but to run to them for protection.
It's that simple. Constitution or no constitution, this is what goes on.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I am practical. If Ron Paul won this election, then libertarian candidates would win many State elections, especially that he demonstrated the effectiveness of libertarianism nationally. The worse thing is supporting a candidate who wants a unified federal government. They cannot win. The reason many people support him because he support states' rights.
The States would eventually set up its own libertarian governments. The States would thus eventually support County rights. County would support Township rights. Township rights would support personal rights. This is a possible approach to anarchy.
Ron Paul is currently polling 3rd place in Iowa. We don't want him to change his views to support national gov't.
libertarian:I am practical. If Ron Paul won this election, then libertarian candidates would win many State elections, especially that he demonstrated the effectiveness of libertarianism nationally. The worse thing is supporting a candidate who wants a unified federal government. They cannot win. The reason many people support him because he support states' rights. The States would eventually set up its own libertarian governments. The States would thus eventually support County rights. County would support Township rights. Township rights would support personal rights. This is a possible approach to anarchy. Ron Paul is currently polling 3rd place in Iowa. We don't want him to change his views to support national gov't.
There seem to be an awful lot of assumptions here. Why, if Ron Paul wins (which he won't - the system will not permit it), would libertarians win many State elections? How does that follow, especially inasmuch as Paul is attracting support from various segments across the political spectrum, many of whom are not libertarian-minded, but simply want the troops brought home?
Why presume he will be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of libertarianism? He will be faced with 535 hardcore defenders of State power in Congress, and 9 more on the Supreme Court, not to mention about 2 million civilian employees who depend on the ever expanding State for their livelihood, not to mention the millions upon millions more in other industries (like defense and security contractors), who also depend for their livelihood on the State. And let's not forget the lobbyists. Or the corporate media. He will be trying to effectuate a wholesale annihilation of the current order of power, pitted against a gargantuan, mammothly corrupt system which exists at numerous levels.
Also, I do not understand what you mean by this: "The worse thing is supporting a candidate who wants a unified federal government. They cannot win."
Candidates who support a unified and powerful federal government have been winning for well over a century. Are you saying they would suddenly stop winning? If so, what logic supports this assertion?
What logic supports the assertion that "The States would eventually set up its own libertarian governments"? The States are lapdogs of THE State. When the entire system is a top down authoritarian one, how should, suddenly, it become the system of subsidiarity which you propose, with townships and counties suddenly becoming the locus of political powers?
Don't get me wrong - I think the bottom up approach would be an amazing and wondrous thing, comparitively, but I don't see any of this as at all likely because it represents a total revolution in power structure which the money and power elites who control this nation would fight to the death against. All of the trendlines and incentive structures currently operating would need to be demolished and turned upside down. What logic can you provide that would indicate this is happening, or could happen in the near term?
I suppose, all in all, this looks to me like an incredibly unrealistic and vastly oversimplistic view of our situation. Am I wrong and can you show me how and why?
well, you have a good point. there, but the reason for fedearlism is for freedom, historically the smaller in territory of the gov't the less restrictive and oppressive. the reason for the union though is that those small free states are not as economically prosperous, and prone to extortion taken over by other countries.
Furthermore Federalism is the idea... infact is... Limited Federal Gov't, (see 10th Amendment) the problem is that we're full of men with no regard for the law. The thing is that in the federal gov't, its too big. the southern senators can cut a deal for farm bills in trade so that the Norhtern manufacturors in exchange... and this comes along in all different areas. On the other hand this is less likely to happen on the state level, 6 or 7 state represenatives from OKC and Tulsa won't be able to get any kind of deal with the other 94 senators in the OK State Legislature.
as a last jab... I'll say that to have a centralized gov't is to allow one gov't to take away all our rights. whereas under federalism the same law will have to be passed 50 different times.
here's the knock out... Carl Marx was really in the Tank for the Union Army and everything Lincoln did to centralize the federal gov't Lincoln was one of Carl Marx's heroes. to read about it check out "The Real Lincoln" or "Lincoln Unmasked" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo I think he has posted an article or two for www.mises.org :)
ozzy43:Don't get me wrong - I think the bottom up approach would be an amazing and wondrous thing, comparitively, but I don't see any of this as at all likely because it represents a total revolution in power structure which the money and power elites who control this nation would fight to the death against. All of the trendlines and incentive structures currently operating would need to be demolished and turned upside down. What logic can you provide that would indicate this is happening, or could happen in the near term?
It's an uphill battle, but one we have a shot at. Oklahoma has 2 represenatives in its house that are "Libertarian" (though under the republican party) and many more that are getting ready to run. myself and 3 other guys my age intend to run for the house in 2010. I can only hope and assume that more young people are planning and doing the same thing... Liberty is growing, and the reason it will be at the local levels that you see changes the first, is that the system works that way, a man starts at city council, then the state house, the state senate maybe, and then the US house, and US Senate... with minor variations including governor somewhere in there, or a run for president, or skiping a step... but remember its how its packaged. no one, and I mean no one is going to vote for the gov't to be done away with, or at least not enough for the man to win.. and if you live in Oklahoma you can't run on making marijuana legal or gay marriage! we have to look at our areas, and establish a priority list in the government infringements that need to be done away with. In oklahoma I want to start with lowering taxes, getting rid of differet state deptments that I dont even know about yet... repeal the law against smoking in restraunts, allow anyone to sell liqour, and repeal the restrictions on selling alchohol between certain times.