Fred Furash: It may be true that posterity would forget the benefits of freedom, but I doubt they would forget the very tangible benefits of higher living standards, which when historically compared to periods of statism should be much higher.
If this were true, then the United States government never would have grown to the size it has. I cannot remember the article I was reading, but an article I read said Mises gave two reasons why he thought we could never have a free market. The first was something along the lines of the apathy of the masses. The second was special interest groups. I have to agree.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Completely agree. But fraud and force have to be so simply defined that nobody will misinterpret their meaning.
Sorry I meant that as a reply to: Inquisitor- Sat, Mar 29 2008 5:46 PM.
Spideynw:Another fabulous post by an anarchist. Again, this is not a discussion about whether or not we should have a government. Please open your own thread if you would like to discuss whether or not we should have a government. This thread assumes there is reason to have a government, and is asking what that purpose should be.
But if one believes earnestly that there is no reason at all to have a government, one cannot honestly propose such a reason. Are you saying you only want statists to post in this thread?
Unless, as was suggested earlier, you would be open to a redefinition of the concept. If by "government" you mean a system of laws and the institutions enabled with upholding them, I would agree with you original post. However, if by "government" you mean the state, it doesn't matter what you do to try to justify it, because it doesn't matter what a state is FOR. What a state DOES is usurp, destroy and revoke the very rights it is supposedly intended to protect.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: But if one believes earnestly that there is no reason at all to have a government, one cannot honestly propose such a reason. Are you saying you only want statists to post in this thread?
Statists are not the only ones that think government is justifiable.
Spideynw: MacFall: But if one believes earnestly that there is no reason at all to have a government, one cannot honestly propose such a reason. Are you saying you only want statists to post in this thread? Statists are not the only ones that think government is justifiable.
Yes they are. You have to believe in the state to be a statist. If you are not a statist, you are an anarchist. They are antonyms.
If the concept of government is not limited to the concept of a state, then I would think that statists are not exclusive in thinking government is justifiable; however the Statists and Non-Statists would not be thinking of the same definition, I don't think. For instance, if a given population were self-governening, with the lack of a State (as we know it today), would not the concept of government be extended or revised to include the inter-personal relationships of self-governing people? I would think that each person would be a government unto themselves, agree or disagreeing with other self-governed entities. I would suggest that a person could be a State unto themselves, which operates in tandem with other States via an agreement such as The Liberty Code. In essence, any semblence of a government existing would be visible only through the actions of individuals working with other individuals, methinks.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Spideynw: The only purpose of government should be to protect our natural rights. Anyone here disagree?
The only purpose of government should be to protect our natural rights. Anyone here disagree?
Spideynw
In answer to your origingal question, the crux of the difficulty as I see it, is that governments have a monopoly in the use of force. Even if this use of force is for a noble cause such as the protection of Natural Rights, what is there to stop this government from using its coersive monopoly for its own benefit at some stage in the future?
With kind regards
Remnant.
I think the problem is even more fundamental than that. The problem is that due to the nature of the state as an institution, it cannot even attempt to protect natural rights without first violating them. That in order for the institution to come into existance and maintain that existance, it must violate natural rights. And violating rights in the name of protecting them is self-contradictary. A territorial monopoly on the use of force inherently must violate rights even in the attempt to provide the service of rights protection or enforcement. An institution that relies on the imposition of taxation, land theft and other such coercive devices cannot be said to be protecting rights, but rather it is an institutional and habitual violator of rights. This is why so many anarchists have a problem with the initial proposition or question.
Now, if one wants to draw some sort of distinction between "state" and "government", perhaps government can be reconciled with anarchism. That is, if "government" simply refers to the provision of law, security and arbitration. But as I argued above, a "state", being defined as a territorial monopoly on the use of force, is incompatible with proper "government" then. It's function is in actual fact the exact opposite of what it's "proper role" is said to be. If an institution has no such monopoly and relies entirely on voluntary means to come into existance and maintain itself then it ceases to be a "state" in any sensible definition of the word, and it would logically follow that one's "government" is merely an anarchical organization. You may call it a "voluntary government" if you like, but at such a point it would be no different then a club, a fraternal organization, a private defense agency or an arbitration firm.
I admire the bravery and indurance of the anarcho-pacifist
What about a third objective that is not a state or a government, but a good governance by individuals. I find that optimal under a constitutional-minarchy that abides by laissez-faire. Really, a negative rights system that lets folks decide for themselves when they have to.
The mass needs security, and it's mostly from the state.
Individualism Rocks
Spideynw: Niccolò:Wait... Why does either have a vested interest in exploiting one another without an organization for "society"? What I should have asked, is how do we ensure society does not create a government? It may be possible that one day enough people will understand the importance of freedom to get rid of government. However, even if this were to happen, as time goes by, my guess is people would forget the importance of freedom, and revert back to a government.
Niccolò:Wait... Why does either have a vested interest in exploiting one another without an organization for "society"?
What I should have asked, is how do we ensure society does not create a government? It may be possible that one day enough people will understand the importance of freedom to get rid of government. However, even if this were to happen, as time goes by, my guess is people would forget the importance of freedom, and revert back to a government.
Then you kill the people trying to re-establish it.
Problem solved. We can all go home now.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Bank Run: I admire the bravery and indurance of the anarcho-pacifistWhat about a third objective that is not a state or a government, but a good governance by individuals. I find that optimal under a constitutional-minarchy that abides by laissez-faire. Really, a negative rights system that lets folks decide for themselves when they have to.The mass needs security, and it's mostly from the state.
Bank Run:The mass needs security, and it's mostly from the state.
Why? The state will inevitably become corrupt, while the free market offers excellent protection from corruption in the form of loss of reputation leading to loss of business to competition.
The state will also suffer from a lack of incentives. What incentives do bureaucrats have to provide good quality and efficient security?
The only reason that governments tend to expand is because they have a monopoly on force and coercion, and nothing but a document to restrict them. This is because governments with a monopoly on force, who have to inevitably subsist through taxation, will aim to take guns out of private hands, and when it accomplishes this, it's expansion will truly be unchecked. I don't see this as feasible in the long-term.
Bank Run:I find that optimal under a constitutional-minarchy that abides by laissez-faire.
Such an institution is a fantasy.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Another fabulous post by an anarchist. Again, this is not a discussion about whether or not we should have a government. Please open your own thread if you would like to discuss whether or not we should have a government. This thread assumes there is reason to have a government, and is asking what that purpose should be.
Besides that, all minarchists agree that the purpose of government should be to have a monopoly over the protection of people's natural rights. So there really isn't any point to this thread in the first place.
Political Atheists Blog
Stranger:Such an institution is a fantasy.
No less a fantasy than a peaceful anarchy. I am encouraged by a few constructionists.
This is a good article on anarchisms by Robert LeFevre Autarchy Verses Anarchy.
As I saw it then, and as I still see it, the anarchist philosophy is internally contradictory. It professes a sparkling and shining individualism, at which point I warm to the arguments. Then it advocates some kind of procedure to interfere with the processes of a free market, e.g., elimination of interest and rents; denial of the right of a man to own land, or to own land beyond some stated amount; abolition of profits; placement of management control in the hands of workers through democratic processes conducted within factories, and so on
I am for a state that protects people from the state, and other states.
The autarchist is an intellectual activist. He is a builder, not a destroyer
From Autarchy by Robert LeFevre.
Bank Run: This is a good article on anarchisms by Robert LeFevre Autarchy Verses Anarchy. As I saw it then, and as I still see it, the anarchist philosophy is internally contradictory. It professes a sparkling and shining individualism, at which point I warm to the arguments. Then it advocates some kind of procedure to interfere with the processes of a free market, e.g., elimination of interest and rents; denial of the right of a man to own land, or to own land beyond some stated amount; abolition of profits; placement of management control in the hands of workers through democratic processes conducted within factories, and so on
Could you explain how anarchy eliminates interest and rents, denies land ownership, abolishes profits, and places control into workers' hands. I am fairly new to anarchy, but I'm pretty sure anarcho-capitalism is different from the forms of anarchy LeFevre describes.
Spideynw:The only purpose of government should be to protect our natural rights. Anyone here disagree?
Yes, I disagree.
Individual anarchists were not so good on economics, and thus did believe a lot of what LeFevre noted. Anarcho-capitalists (and even mutualists, to an extent) have shifted away from a lot of those positions. So the charges LeFevre makes do not touch upon anarcho-capitalism.
Bank Run:I am for a state that protects people from the state, and other states.
That is a contradiction in terms, like saying that you are for a sun that also provides shade.
Minarchy is socialism. That is why it failed.
Bank Run:This is a good article on anarchisms by Robert LeFevre Autarchy Verses Anarchy.As I saw it then, and as I still see it, the anarchist philosophy is internally contradictory. It professes a sparkling and shining individualism, at which point I warm to the arguments. Then it advocates some kind of procedure to interfere with the processes of a free market, e.g., elimination of interest and rents; denial of the right of a man to own land, or to own land beyond some stated amount; abolition of profits; placement of management control in the hands of workers through democratic processes conducted within factories, and so on
You've gone ahead and created a straw man out of anarcho-capitalism. What you're really critisizing is the fairly stupid forms of anarchy that try to "enforce" something, or perhaps you're thinking of the more collectivist types of anarchy that are based on thinking that all humans are no longer, well humans....
No, the whole point of anarcho-capitalism is that it stresses the natural order of things, and focuses on how people do act, as opposed to how socialists would hope them to act. And without a state, I don't see how any of these things could be enforced.
Inquisitor:So the charges LeFevre makes do not touch upon anarcho-capitalism.
He doesn't even mention anarcho-capitalism, did you see when those peices were written? Anarcho capitalism wasn't, around at the time.
Anyone, how is anarcho-capitalism different from laissez-faire? For me anarcho-capitalism is a method, a mental tool used to describe a stateless economy.
Anarchy derives from the Greek. The prefix, an, denotes not or without. Archy denotes rule or ruling. Thus, anarchy means without rule. And in the hyphenations which have proliferated, it appears that few if any wish to be known simply as anarchists. Each person who will accept the label anarchist today probably has in mind a qualification of his position.
It would follow that a word in general usage which cannot be precisely applied to any particular person or doctrine without some type of explanation or modification, is more handy as a term of opprobium and scorn than otherwise.
I estimate from the responses, either no one read the LeFevre links, or no one is getting this whole autarchism thing.
Also, minarchism is not socialism, that statement is absurd.
As both the union-anarchists and the Georgist individualist-anarchists have demonstrated, economic reform with no state assistance whatever is probably impossible. Thus, the position of the anarchist is internally in conflict. The reduction of the state, either in whole or in major portions, is unquestionably meritorious and many of the anarchists have provided magnificent arguments in support of this reduction. However, their protestations are perpetually marred by their primary ambition, the revision of the economy and the wiping out of laissez-faire capitalism, in whole or in part.
Honestly, I'm looking for the best path towards freedom. I am still trying to evaluate the structures of thought going into any of these systems. What I've found so far is that autarchism makes the most rational case, for a path to liberty.
Having a state that protects folks from the state is not a contradiction, it is the premise behind negative rights.
In my understanding, there is nothing to stop people from voluntarily forming co-ops, unions, common property, communes, and worker-run buisinesses in a market anarchist society. That is, such things could theoretically be options within a free market. So in a certain sense the more socialistic forms of anarchism are compatable. Only they would have to compete on their own merits (or lack thereof). They most certainly would not be universal within a free society, but I could see them existing. I could also see them being outcompeted over time. Unfortunately, most social anarchists don't see it that way and have a vision of such things being universal.
Bank Run: No less a fantasy than a peaceful anarchy. I am encouraged by a few constructionists. This is a good article on anarchisms by Robert LeFevre Autarchy Verses Anarchy. As I saw it then, and as I still see it, the anarchist philosophy is internally contradictory. It professes a sparkling and shining individualism, at which point I warm to the arguments. Then it advocates some kind of procedure to interfere with the processes of a free market, e.g., elimination of interest and rents; denial of the right of a man to own land, or to own land beyond some stated amount; abolition of profits; placement of management control in the hands of workers through democratic processes conducted within factories, and so on
As already pointed out, LeFevre was criticizing what is increasingly being called left-anarchism, anarcho-socialism, or anarcho-communism, not anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism. "Autarchy" as LeFevre defines it might indeed be similar to market anarchism, but it looks to me like it still takes some redefining to use it as LeFevre did. And I'm not sure it's an improvement over other terms.
Just a point of clarification: "anarcho-socialism" is not a term that anyone uses to describe themselves. It is a term sometimes used by certain market anarchists or anarcho-capitalists to describe non-market-oriented anarchists. The labels most used by people in the traditional "left" anarchist camp would be anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-communist, anarcho-collectivist and mutualist. And there are some distinctions among them, they're not an entirely homogenous bunch. Anarcho-syndicalists favor using unions as a strategy (and pretty much are anarcho-communists), and mutualists tend to be market-oriented when compared to the communists and syndicalists. As a market anarchist, I tend to get along rather well with mutualists. It's mostly the anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who put up a big stink and fight, as many of them seem convinced that it's their way or the highway.
Brainpolice:It's mostly the anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who put up a big stink and fight, as many of them seem convinced that it's their way or the highway.
And while they would prohibit market activity in their "free" societies, a market society would let them set up their communes without the slightest objection. Not enough to live and let live for a collectivist.
MacFall: Brainpolice:It's mostly the anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who put up a big stink and fight, as many of them seem convinced that it's their way or the highway. And while they would prohibit market activity in their "free" societies, a market society would let them set up their communes without the slightest objection. Not enough to live and let live for a collectivist.
That's been my experience as well. I've gone out of my way to extend the olive branch and tell them that they could voluntarily form their communes and unions in a market anarchist society, as it would just be one possible option out of many competing ones, yet they refuse to accept free association as a means towards peaceful co-existance. They insist on the inevitability of conflict.
In a video on youtube, I posed the question to them "what if I want to be a wage slave? will you use force to stop me from engaging in such an association? does the community have legitimate decision-making power over me in this way?" and the answer was a veiled "yes" and otherwise the question was completely evaded. The user Mr1001Nights is the notorious one that I've clashed with.
So it does seem that a significant part of the anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndalicalist movement is constitued by what actually are statists, since they appear to propose a universal system which is to be imposed onto everyone without an option for the individual to truly opt out. In conflicts between communal authority and individual sovereignty, they side with communal authority.
macsnafu:And I'm not sure it's an improvement over other terms.
Perhaps this is just a bunch of quacking over terms. Understanding terms and where they come from, helps the rationality of argument.
I am sticking with the terms I find to be most constructive like, contractual society, laissez-faire, self-rule/autarchism.
If everyone understood anarchism, as the belief that governments always harm their own people, than you really wouldn't need to add a thisX or thatX.
Also, it is somewhat(should always be) comforting to know the law is on your side when piggy wants to subjugate you.
Brainpolice:. . . So it does seem that a significant part of the anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndalicalist movement is constitued by what actually are statists, since they appear to propose a universal system which is to be imposed onto everyone without an option for the individual to truly opt out. In conflicts between communal authority and individual sovereignty, they side with communal authority.
I have met quite a few who take the position that voluntary communal societies coexisting with voluntary market societies will win out in peaceful competition. I like those types. But unfortunately, they seem to be in the minority.
Spideynw:Wow, anarchists post such enlightening comments. I am not asking if we should or should not have government. I am just asking if we do have government, is there any ethical justification for government above protecting our rights? To suggest government should get involved in wealth redistribution violates protecting our rights. As such, a government cannot both protect our natural rights and engage in wealth redistribution. Not only that, but wealth redistribution is completely subjective. Whereas our rights are much more objective.
To suggest government should get involved in wealth redistribution violates protecting our rights. As such, a government cannot both protect our natural rights and engage in wealth redistribution. Not only that, but wealth redistribution is completely subjective. Whereas our rights are much more objective.
Respectfully, I must point out that asking whether government has any ethical justification is indeed a normative question so you are asking whether we should have a government. How could one possibly disagree with the question you posed without saying that there should be no government? Unless you were fishing solely for pseudo-socialist responses. For the record, I would not call myself an anarchist.
That is impossible for it to do. By its very nature, government must violate our natural rights!
Wow, how quick you learn here huh?
My sole concern, as stated elsewhere, regards national defence. I'm curious to see how anarchist societies would deal with aggressive, subversive foreign states. For the time being I favour something of a subscribed government.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: My sole concern, as stated elsewhere, regards national defence. I'm curious to see how anarchist societies would deal with aggressive, subversive foreign states. For the time being I favour something of a subscribed government.
There is no reason to believe anyone would want to invade a free society. First of all, the free society would be producing so much wealth for the rest of the world, that no one would want to harm that golden goose egg. Second of all, and more likely, people would just simply have absolutely no reason to do so. There is absolutely no threat from a free society. Lastly, who would want to invade a free society, where everyone has their own weapons for defense. Even in this country, as stated in another thread, there are people who have their own artillery weapons.
The reasons the United States has "enemies" is because the government of the United States mingles in the affairs of other countries. If the United States simply brought all its troops home, quit giving out foreign aid, canceled all treaties, and opened up free trade to the world, the United States would almost immediately cease to have "enemies", and as such, all threats would almost immediatly disappear.
Jon Irenicus:My sole concern, as stated elsewhere, regards national defence. I'm curious to see how anarchist societies would deal with aggressive, subversive foreign states.
http://www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf
Ah, the ole we need the government to protect us argument. The government doesn't fight any battles though, the citizens of a country do, and those citizens are still going to be there whether they are in an organized military or not. Look at Iraq right now, their formal military was wiped out years ago during the initial invasion, yet the country is still giving "the most powerful country on earth" trouble everyday. Imagine if, on the other hand, Iraq had been a well advanced, free and wealthy country instead of a poor country ruled by a dictator. How much more resistance would there have been?
As long as the people have the idea that they will not be ruled by anyone there is no threat of a true invasion. Any invading army would have to wipe out the entire populace leaving them nothing to rule or get kicked out.
Hmm, seems my original response was lost. Let me try again.
Why would anyone want to invade a free society? Most of them would have guns. Some people in the United States have their own artillery. Not only that, but why would you want to attack your golden goose egg? A free society would be trading with the world, with no trade barriers. This can only serve to create wealth for the world.
The only reason the United States has enemies is because the government meddles in the affairs of others and restricts trade. If the United States brought all of the troops home, quit giving foreign aid, ended all treaties, and ended trade restrictions, the United States would almost immediately have no enemies. Think about it.
I myself do not think that a free society would provide any standing armies. It would simply be a waste of money.
Yes, I think reading The Myth of National Defence will bring you around. ;)
Hmmm fair enough, I'll give it a look. My principle worry concerns governments using dirty tactics to undermine an anarchist society. If that could be dealt with, it'd be pretty fantastic. Why the italicization of book names by the way? Standard citation procedure?
Spideynw: Another fabulous post by an anarchist. Again, this is not a discussion about whether or not we should have a government. Please open your own thread if you would like to discuss whether or not we should have a government. This thread assumes there is reason to have a government, and is asking what that purpose should be.
"If black is white, are roses still red?"
"But black isn't white"
"This is not a discussion about whether or not black is white. This thread assumes black is white and is asking whether roses are red."