I really can't think of anything wrong with it, if just a few minor things were changed.
Also, wouldn't reinstating it be necessary for anarcho-capitalists who want to microsecede anyway? The U.S. Constitution would put up a huge fight to prevent Americans from microseceding..
If the Articles of Confederation were to be reinstated, the military wouldn't prevent Americans from microseceding and the U.N.'s power to interfere with microsecession would also be greatly reduced.
I really think that creating an Antifederalist Party comprised of all anarcho-capitalists is a necessary first step to a voluntaryism.
necessary
Sorry that I'm not familiar with the argument, but why would you enact the Articles?
Because it's the most libertarian form of government known to man.
That's not true.
It may be "more" libertarian in the sense that there is no powerful central government.
Buit don't kid yourself - The individual state governments were all powerful within thier own boundries ( they were'nt called 'states' for nothing!).
Small states can, and often were, just as opressive as big ones.
The sitting governments of the origional 13 colonies were not libertarian in any sense of the word.
.
"America had no sooner become independent than she became insolvent." - John Jay
The 13 Colonies, individually, had very little intention of paying the debts incurred by other states and by the Continental Congress during the war. That's why the final constitution was adopted instead. The Articles envisioned a lot of spending without sufficient regard for where the money was going to come from. This is appealing from a libertarian perspective if you think it will prevent the Continental Congress from spending, but it didn't and it wouldn't. It's not like the current constitution is respected to the letter in this regard either.
Could it be because they're anarchists?
The major willful global experiment in minarchy failed miserably before our eyes in the US. Its understandable that anarchists now get to be popular, until they try something and it too fails.
Personally I think something like the articles would work if its constituent where much smaller than the current American states.
Merlin: The major willful global experiment in minarchy failed miserably before our eyes in the US.
The major willful global experiment in minarchy failed miserably before our eyes in the US.
The U.S constiution is no where near what I would call an example of minarchy (or a true limited government).
People forget that the bill of rights was virtually an afterthought. And that the origional articles themselves are big compromises between the different factions of federalists and anti-federalists.
Although on the surface people have held up the US constitution as an example of minarchy - it is hardly that.
And that is why I say that miarchy has yet to be given any real chance as an actual form of government or government policy.
Sorry to post so late, but I was away on vacation.
People forget that the bill of rights was virtually an afterthought
Well, the story goes that they didn't add it in because they never gave government the power to take away rights, so why should we say that government can't? Thinking about this just now, I realize that the framers must have started with a framework of thought closer to anarchy than statism, because (if the story is true) they saw no reason to take away powers that a government never had. It also seems like they are taking the Constitution to be a social contract, not the estalishement of some univeral and inherently-right state. Which is interesting if true, because it belies anarchistic thoughts on their part (although they forced the social contract on everyone, which was definitely wrong)
miarchy has yet to be given any real chance as an actual form of government or government policy
I either am still afraid of the term anarchy, or have not given it enough thought or am just truly minarchist, but I agree.
Welcome(unless you're a Socialist or a Keynesian(Redundant, I know.))
From the beginning I slightly distrust him. Socialists include "libertarian socialists," who would not support Keynes, as arguably socialism will be so perfect that there would be no need for economic stimulus. This is a rhetorical tactic... But I do agree that state socialists would like Keynesian economics to be implemented in the current "free" market economy in the US.