I just want to make the disclaimer right away for this topic that I am not an anarchist myself and in no way am I advocating for anarchism... though I don't completely dislike the idea. I have just been thinking that anarchism in it of itself is too uncompromising. It seeks to abolish all self government in the name of freedom and than wishes to take away public opinion and abolish representation and promises to give everyone freedom after that. I don't like that. I think that we have to accept that governments will always be around in large societies- well, at least, for the time being (not for hundreds of years). We may certainly plan in case the United States government gets toppled- which I don't believe that it will in a long time, for what to do after that. I don't believe in usurping the government. That is not my goal. I do not proclaim to share revolutionary views as many other anarchists do. I believe in a revolution by ideas and liberty- not by force. A violent revolution would lead to the same end game as the state and would take away what moral justification we had in a revolution of some kind. As for me, my personal beliefs are somewhere inbetween anarchism and minarchism. I would barely consider myself a minarchist. The only way in which that I consider myself a minarchist is that I believe that nations ought to have a system of laws to prevent individuals from harming other human beings. These laws ought to protect our liberty. The only time when our actions stop being the sphere of liberty and into the realm of law is when our actions duly cause harm to others. We ought not to sacrifice liberty for security by abolishing human freedom and all the things we don't like in the name of moral regulations, religion, or whatever. I really don't believe in having a militaristic state. I have always leaned for the most part towards pacifism- but I do believe in the NAP, and, the right to defend ones self from aggression.
That said, constitutional anarchism would be applying the theoretical boundaries of anarchism and libertarianism to the practical world. I call the philosophy anarchism because it would not really advocate the use of big government. It is constitutional in the sense that it preserves the rights for others to have political representation. People in the constitutional anarchist form of government would have a representative council that would meet and discuss matters of foreign policy, and, the economy only in which matters affect the public at large, and, they would propose recommendations to the various sectors of business- but not by force, but by persuasion for them to follow. How is this anarchism? It's not really anarchism.
But- the anarchist part of it is that the philosophy never really allows for expansion of government on our individual affairs- but it would prevent the government from intervening in the affairs of others, in which it has no jurisdiction or national interest to. The government would have to show that there is a national interest- safety, or, if there's a depression- in order to pass things like unemployment benefits, or, what not. As for economic bailouts- the government would have to earn its own money- not through taxation- but through trade, and its own business entrepeneurship in order to bail out companies if it wanted to. That way they wouldn't pass the cost onto the consumers. I've been reading John Stewart Mill a bit and I have been liking his idea about letting society regulate the conduct of the affairs of the individual. We do not necessarily need to criminalize drugs. What we need to do is to enact punishments for those who are in a state of delerium in the public- that might cause harm to others. Society can offer punishments to these individuals and the state does not need to take part in them. If these individuals cause harm to others it is up to the private courts, or, to the state courts to act in policing them. The act of policing others for their harm caused to others is justified. We can't however just ban all activities we simply do not like. We would take the bill of rights that we have in the United States as the rights that everyone has in the country. The bill of rights is fine. There just would be more emphasis on the first amendment- in the first amendment we wouldn't not only have freedom of the press- but also freedom of thought and freedom of action. I believe in such a society as ours we cannot consider ourselves free when we have loitering laws preventing people from hanging out in public places. Then as to the subject of the fourth amendment- there needs to be more emphasis about what is an unreasonable search or seizure, and, more of a stricter definition as to what that means, and, the 5th and 6th amendment cannot just be privileges- they are guarantees. The bill of rights would be fine. The constitution would allow any kind of ideologies to take power in such a government. What it would do- would be to prevent the government from encroaching on the rights of individuals, and, from discouraging dissent, and, would force the government to show they really have a substantial concern in order to regulate a part of the economy. If we kept the government from regulating the economy in areas that which it does not need to- like with anti-trust laws, or, with granting corporations the rights that they have, or, forcing businesses to maximize profits at the expense of their community (see Dodge VS Ford Motors)... then we should be able to be a society of liberty. I do think the problem with the government regulating the economy is not necessarily that they regulate it- it's how they regulate it. They have a right to know what goes on in foreign trade- that's a national interest. But, like, if it's something like just an internet company getting too big like Comcast- I don't believe the government has a right to regulate in the affairs of business, much like they don't have the right to interfere with the affairs of the individual. They can do their own public works campaigns if they want- but they would have to do it with their own money. I believe that a large reason why we don't like the government doing public works is that they do it with other people's money, and, they print our money, at a cost for it. They should do it only with money they earn, and, not with money they don't have. I don't believe in public works- but, I personally think that we would be acting like despots if we banned public works altogether, and, if we lived under an anarchist society we would be doing the same thing with public works- just without the government. That's my idea for a completely voluntary state, and, one that enjoins all the principles of liberty that we hold so highly I believe this is a practical way for anarchism to go for. I don't necessarily believe in government, but, I think that shutting all of it down may not be possible in our present stage, and, if we were to go the road of revolutionary anarchists and abolish political representation- we would end up like the Soviet Union. Those are my houghts. What do you think?
"than wishes to take away public opinion and abolish representation "
How in the world did you reach this conclusion, I have no idea. Unless you're using the terms "public opinion" and "representation" in their statist euphemistic way, for perhaps "Majority tyranny" and "compulsive rule".
DD5- well there are anarchists that do wish to take away government completely. I just think that this is very unlikely with our present state of affairs (abolishing government). We could easily abolish the tyranny of the power of the majority by establishing minority rights in the bill of rights and the constitution. I think it's just as equally authoritarian- in my view to abolish government and to enforce your own society on others, as, it is to have a government do whatever it is you want in the first place. That's just me though.
"I think it's just as equally authoritarian- in my view to abolish government"
How is ending theft immoral? In an anarchist society, there can be no forced wealth appropriation by the government. Any organization acting in such a way would be rightly branded as a criminal entity by a private court system. Therefore, the government, with no funding, and no authority, dies immediately. There is no middle ground, IMO.
How is "leave me alone unless I violate the rights of others" authoritarian?
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
Mises Pieces, no one's justifying what governments do here (except with the cases of laws, as my really only minarchist belief). The rules that I have proposed would just be the regulation of what it is or isn't able to do and prevents it from infringing on the liberty of others. It would force it to actually have real reasons for what it does, and that it couldn't just trample on our rights. Governments will exist for a long time- so we should take steps to limit them. My reasoning is that getting rid of government altogether and enforcing our own society on everyone else would be like enforcing a minority opinion on the majority themselves, and, I think that's just an equal evil as to government. Skyler Collins- it's not, but, in our present state of affairs one could argue that we may need government to deal with international affairs. We could of course have a representative assembly from the people without it to deal with other nations if we wanted to, but, the only authority in our present state of the world they would recognize are diplomats that have the authority to communicate with others. I just am proposing rules to minimize the sphere of government and to get rid of a lot of its coercive power. Do you find fault with anything I said?
Because this is not how the world works. The state is not a variable in the models of soceity that can be just set to zero, and expect manna to fall from heaven or whatever.
Is the use of the word 'because' supposed to delude people into thinking that what you write next addresses what was said by your predecessor?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Limited government is impossible because any entity that has a legal monopoly of force is not limited.
@scineram, does my question suggest that I believe that the state is "a variable in the models of society that can be just set to zero, and expect manna to fall from heaven or whatever"?
I have written on this forum about the idea of a protectorate - a state limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property. I think your concept of "constitutional anarchism" or a "completely voluntary state" is basically the same thing. You can read the previous discussions here and here.
Most anarchists argue that a state by definition uses aggression to enforce some sort of monopoly. A "voluntary state" therefore, is not a state at all, and the only way to achieve freedom is to break the monopoly on law in a given territory. Anarchists also point out that any attempt to limit the state is destined to fail as it always has in the past.
I think anarchists will usually win the theoretical argument - a society without a state would be the most free in a perfect world. But as you have pointed out, we live in a world full of coercive governments, and anarchy seems like a distant and unattainable dream. So for reasons of practicality, why not aim for "constitutional anarchism" first. In the shorter term, perhaps this is the model of the most free society possible.
Unless you're using the terms "public opinion" and "representation" in their statist euphemistic way, for perhaps "Majority tyranny" and "compulsive rule".
In real world democracies, 'public opinion' means 'elite opinion', and has nothing to do with majorities; except that majorities passively accept pretty much anything they're told. It's not democratic masses, but the Universities and Media, that run the USG and its world empire..
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
It seemed to me violating the rights of others is the only thing that concerned you. Maybe it isn't.
Amen.
People have attempted to limit government before. Didn't really hold back the US federal government, did it?
Nope. This argument is getting really old. Minarchism is just as utopian as socialism.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Anarchism is constitutionalism.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Liberte: "In real world democracies, 'public opinion' means 'elite opinion', and has nothing to do with majorities;"
Yes, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
"People have attempted to limit government before. Didn't really hold back the US federal government, did it?"
I personally don't think anyone who's read the Constitution can seriously conclude that it was meant to limit government, especially not if they know the history of the Constitution and what proceeded it. The Constitution has a minor limited government facade because of the rhetoric, but the document obviously was designed to allow government to grow and to give more power to the federal government than state governments and that's exactly what happened.
LeeO: "we live in a world full of coercive governments, and anarchy seems like a distant and unattainable dream."
Here is why you are wrong.
It has happened numerous times in the past (even if it were for brief periods of time), and most recently in Somalia, at least partially. In all those places that it happened, there was no philosophy of Anarchism or Liberty or anything. On the contrary, Anarchy seems always to occur in the most statist societies. Usually as a result of some inevitable financial collapse.
On the other hand, your limited government (or hybrid anarchy scheme) has never happened, and to get there seems like an impossible light year long mission which would demand that literally the vast majority of the public agree to dismantle the government, in incremental steps over a long transitional period of time in the order of decades to centuries in order to avoid hardship and violent resistance.
Now, which is it that you said seems like a "distant unattainable dream"?
I don't know when and where Anarchy will strike again, but I know that it will. The only challenge is to build some intellectual foundation that may have a chance of maintaining it when it arrives. This does not have to be a majority. A small minority will do. I think you should skip the preshow and go directly to the main show - Freedom!