So the concept of Libertarian anarchy came up in another discussion and I just wanted to pursue the subject some more in a dedicated post. My goal is to get an idea of the ideas on the role of goverment in this community. I will start by setting forth my belifs about the subject and then see where it goes.
1. There is a role for government and that role is to protect property rights. This requires the use of force against individuals within the society as well as against enemies from outside. This is beneficial to the governed because it is far more efficient than a state of anarchy where every individual must use up resources protecting their property from every other member.
2. The government should engage in no activity which is not directly related to the purpose stated above.
3. The government is formed and perpetuated only with the concent of the governed (complacency being considered a form of consent).
4. Once created it is imperative that the government be constrained by the governed, or the "sovereign" in the language of Rousseau, in order to prevent the government from attaining enough strength to overpower the entire public (rather than just an individual or a small group of individuals). If the governed fail to do this the government will become a dictatorship which may be worse than anarchy.
freeradical:My goal is to get an idea of the ideas on the role of goverment in this community.
This community doesn't have homogenous ideas. It's hard to get two libertarians to agree on anything.
I disagree with 1, so therefore I have to disagree with 2, 3 and 4.
freeradical:If the governed fail to do this the government will become a dictatorship which may be worse than anarchy.
All governments are authoritarian, whether they do it in a republican or dictatorial manner.
Government by design is a tyranny. Anarchy is an improvement on tyranny.
What would stop 2, 3, 4 from happening?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
The role of government is to govern the state. It has no meaning or purpose outside that role.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
freeradical:1. There is a role for government and that role is to protect property rights. This requires the use of force against individuals within the society as well as against enemies from outside. This is beneficial to the governed because it is far more efficient than a state of anarchy where every individual must use up resources protecting their property from every other member.
If a state provided protection, the same resources would be used. A state does not create resources out of nowhere. The state must get the resources from the people (the same resources that the people would use if the state was not there).
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Stranger: The role of government is to govern the state. It has no meaning or purpose outside that role.
What do you mean by this?
Laughing Man: Stranger: The role of government is to govern the state. It has no meaning or purpose outside that role. What do you mean by this?
That this is the traditional definition of government.
Stranger:That this is the traditional definition of government.
What would you define as 'the state' in that sentence?
freeradical:1. There is a role for government and that role is to protect property rights. ... This is beneficial to the governed because it is far more efficient than a state of anarchy where every individual must use up resources protecting their property from every other member.
The problem is that government must necessarily violate property rights, e.g. in taxing and violently seizing a compulsory monopoly on the production of security. Market anarchism argues that the benefits of free competition (maximized service and minimized price) also apply to the production of security. Take a look through the sources in this thread.
Regarding your second point, shoes are also produced on the market. Does everyone make their own shoes? No. Likewise, there would be a division of labor and specialization in the production of security.
freeradical:3. The government is formed and perpetuated only with the concent of the governed (complacency being considered a form of consent).
As I argued in this post, very few people, if any, have actually consented to the government. And complacency simply cannot be considered consent. You can figure out the reductiones yourself.
freeradical:4. Once created it is imperative that the government be constrained by the governed
As Hoppe argues, any agency that has the power to tax and legislate has incentives to grow:
"once there is no longer free entry into the business of the production of protection and adjudication, the price of protection and justice will rise and their quality will fall. Rather than being a protector and judge, a compulsory monopolist will become a protection racketeer — the destroyer and invader of the people and property that he is supposed to protect, a warmonger, and an imperialist."
For a good introduction to market anarchism, I recommend these lectures: Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections by Roderick Long, and Self-Governance by Pete Leeson.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Laughing Man: Stranger:That this is the traditional definition of government. What would you define as 'the state' in that sentence?
The permanent bureaucracy that executes the orders of government. Ministries, police, army, diplomats, etc.
Stranger:The permanent bureaucracy that executes the orders of government. Ministries, police, army, diplomats, etc.
So the role of government is to govern itself?
Laughing Man: So the role of government is to govern itself?
The role of government is to govern the state. I've already said that.
Governments come and go, with different constitutions and different powers. The state, that is permanent.
The state is the actuality of the ethical Idea. It is ethical mind qua the substantial will manifest and revealed to itself, knowing and thinking itself, accomplishing what it knows and in so far as it knows it.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
The state is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality.
Stranger: The role of government is to govern the state. I've already said that. Governments come and go, with different constitutions and different powers. The state, that is permanent.
But you just defined the state as the institutions of government.
"The permanent bureaucracy that executes the orders of government. Ministries, police, army, diplomats, etc."
Ministries, bureaucrats, army, police, dipolmats, these ARE the government or at the very least representatives of it.
Laughing Man: Ministries, bureaucrats, army, police, dipolmats, these ARE the government or at the very least representatives of it.
They are not the representatives of government. The government could be destroyed tomorrow and the state would carry on its business as usual. It would continue to collect the taxes it is owed and to distribute them to the many different organizations as they are owed. It would continue to fight "criminals". This would go on until some of the more powerful groups in the country could form another government with the authority to command the state.
Just take a look at the recent history of Belgium. There is practically never any functional government in place. The state is stable and continues to function nevertheless.
Juan:Oh, and this The state is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality.
............................................________....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,.............................,.-”...................................“-.,.........................,/...............................................”:,.....................,?......................................................\,.................../...........................................................,}................./......................................................,:`^`..}.............../...................................................,:”........./..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\................................`:,,...........................`\..............__.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
Stranger:They are not the representatives of government. The government could be destroyed tomorrow and the state would carry on its business as usual.
That makes no sense. The police, army, dipolmats, bureaucrats and ministries are in existence because of the government. They are arms of the government, so if the government were to be destroyed, they would have no legitimate power.
Stranger:It would continue to collect the taxes it is owed and to distribute them to the many different organizations as they are owed.
How would it collect taxes without being government?
Stranger, can you give an explicit definition of "state" and "government"?
Sage: Stranger, can you give an explicit definition of "state" and "government"?
So far his definition of 'State' is:
'The permanent bureaucracy that executes the orders of government. Ministries, police, army, diplomats, etc.'
'Government' definition is unknown.
Juan:What, Sage, you didn't like my Hegel's quotes ? =] They make a lot of sense...In some parallel universe =]
In the words of Sir Alexander Gray:
'Hegelianism is the kind of thing that ought to be left to Hegelians who presumably know the secret of Hegel.'
freeradical: 1. There is a role for government and that role is to protect property rights. This requires the use of force against individuals within the society as well as against enemies from outside. This is beneficial to the governed because it is far more efficient than a state of anarchy where every individual must use up resources protecting their property from every other member.
How can the State say it protects property rights, when it must violate them to exist?
freeradical:2. The government should engage in no activity which is not directly related to the purpose stated above.
Then it shouldn't be allowed to tax (steal private property, i.e theft). And there fore it has no means to support it's activities and will cease to exist.
There has never in the history of the world been a government established by a consent of the governed. Social contract theory fails remarkably. And no, there is no immaculate conception of the State. Read Rothbard's or Roy Child's destruction of Nozick's argument.
freeradical:4. Once created it is imperative that the government be constrained by the governed, or the "sovereign" in the language of Rousseau, in order to prevent the government from attaining enough strength to overpower the entire public (rather than just an individual or a small group of individuals). If the governed fail to do this the government will become a dictatorship which may be worse than anarchy.
The State makes it's own laws. Positivism. It gives itself its own justification, the intellectuals support them with ideology. The state transcends its own limits. All states become tyrannical and totalitarian over time. Once you give an institution the power to legislate and print money... what else do you think would happen?
* Obviously a difference between government and state. I'm assuming the op doesn't know the distinction, so proceeded under the assumption he meant State. And for those arguing about definitions above: The State is"the organization of politican means."
Laughing Man: That makes no sense. The police, army, dipolmats, bureaucrats and ministries are in existence because of the government. They are arms of the government, so if the government were to be destroyed, they would have no legitimate power.
You will find that in most countries those institutions were established by the monarchy, and continued to exist as different forms of government passed on.
Governments are destroyed all the time. There are coups, revolutions, collapses. The state remains to swear allegiance to the next government.
Laughing Man: How would it collect taxes without being government?
Governments do not collect taxes. They raise them for the state.
Laughing Man:'Government' definition is unknown.
The organization that instructs the State.
Congress with out a State is meaningless, but the State can continue on without Congress.
This is seen in the Nazi conquest of France. The Germans did not conquer all of France in two weeks, it conquered the French State and through it all the territory that it already occupied.
The machinery of State never changed, only the operator did.
Peace
JonBostwick:The Germans did not conquer all of France in two weeks, it conquered the French State and through it all the territory that it already occupied.
Not all of France is the government. The State apparatus IS the government. The State is government.
Laughing Man: JonBostwick:The Germans did not conquer all of France in two weeks, it conquered the French State and through it all the territory that it already occupied. Not all of France is the government. The State apparatus IS the government. The State is government.
Repetition is not an argument.
Stranger:Repetition is not an argument.
I don't consider the misplaced premise of difference between the government and the state to be argumentative.
I'm not sure how that is related to what I said.
I know not all of France is the Government, only the French Government is the Government. The Government lives in the capital, it is only through the State that it is able to exercise control over their whole territory.
Germans did not need to send Germans to every town in order to control the whole of France, because French police were already controlling all of France. The French government quit and surrendered its control of the French State to the Germans. When the Germans left, a new French Government was formed to manage the French State.
The governor, possessing too land to personally manage, needs a system to manage it. The State is one method, fiefdom is another.
The Iraqis have a Government, but because the US destroyed the Iraqi State in the war, it has no authority.
JonBostwick:The Government lives in the capital, it is only through the State that it is able to exercise control over their whole territory.
The government is the state. There is no intermeditary between the people and the government. You seem to labor under the delusion that individuals in the public sector work for the State which is somehow different then the government. They are the same institution merely given different names. It is not Man, Economy, Government, but Man, Economy, State
JonBostwick:Germans did not need to send Germans to every town in order to control the whole of France, because French police were already controlling all of France.
And the French police are apart of the French government.
JonBostwick: The Iraqis have a Government, but because the US destroyed the Iraqi State in the war, it has no authority.
It was the government of Saddam Hussein.
Laughing Man:You seem to labor under the delusion that individuals in the public sector work for the State which is somehow different then the government.
They don't work for the State, they compose the State, but they do not compose the Government.
Laughing Man:And the French police are apart of the French government.
The French Government surrendered in 1940.
Laughing Man: JonBostwick: The Iraqis have a Government, but because the US destroyed the Iraqi State in the war, it has no authority. It was the government of Saddam Hussein.
How does that sentence relate to any point I made?
I see you deliberated skipped over the meat of my post.
Laughing Man:They are the same institution merely given different names. It is not Man, Economy, Government, but Man, Economy, State.
That's a contradiction, by the way.
JonBostwick: They don't work for the State, they compose the State, but they do not compose the Government.
They enforce the laws made by congress, they collect taxes, they are the peons of the institution. Even the marginal laborers of an institution compose that very thing no matter how trivial their task.
JonBostwick:The French Government surrendered in 1940.
And it became the Vichy government.
JonBostwick:How does that sentence relate to any point I made?
You are somehow implying that the US military destroyed the Iraqi 'State' which I conclude is merely the Iraqi government.
JonBostwick:I see you deliberated skipped over the meat of my post.
Meat of the post? Do you mean your little governance land hypothesis?
JonBostwick: That's a contradiction, by the way.
Please explain.
Laughing Man:You are somehow implying that the US military destroyed the Iraqi 'State' which I conclude is merely the Iraqi government.
They destroyed both, but only a new Government is formed. There is no Iraqi State.
Laughing Man: they are the peons of the institution.
Right, they are the bureaucracy that obeys the government, the state.
Laughing Man: JonBostwick:The French Government surrendered in 1940. And it became the Vichy government.
New government, same state.
This is exactly what Stranger said originally.
Stranger:Governments come and go, with different constitutions and different powers. The state, that is permanent.
Laughing Man: JonBostwick:I see you deliberated skipped over the meat of my post. Meat of the post? Do you mean your little governance land hypothesis?
Ya.
Laughing Man: JonBostwick: That's a contradiction, by the way. Please explain.
If, as you say, they are different words for the same thing then it is Man, Economy, Government.
On the other hand, if they are separate institutions then only Man, Economy, State is correct.
JonBostwick:They destroyed both, but only a new Government is formed. There is no Iraqi State.
That makes absolutely no sense.
JonBostwick:Right, they are the bureaucracy that obeys the government, the state.
They are the government. It is like saying the workers are somehow a separate corporation from the CEO's
'
JonBostwick:New government, same state.
Actually new government, new state. Unless you worked with the Germans you were basically shot. France had a league of fascists who welcomed German influence and were willing to work with them. Obviously these people were put into power to help conquer the people.
JonBostwick:Ya.
"The governor, possessing too land to personally manage, needs a system to manage it. The State is one method, fiefdom is another."
A man with personal land is a property owner, not a governer. I accepted that you may have figured this out after writing it.
JonBostwick: If, as you say, they are different words for the same thing then it is Man, Economy, Government. On the other hand, if they are separate institutions then only Man, Economy, State is correct.
Fine, let me rephrase. They used a term that has been widely used through the ages. Louis XIV didn't say 'I am the government'.
Post Script:
Even if we accept your argument you have committed a fallacy of composition. If the State is part of the Government that is not the equivalent to them being the same thing. A hand is not a person, and a person is a not a hand.
JonBostwick: Post Script: Even if we accept your argument you have committed a fallacy of composition. If the State is part of the Government that is not the equivalent to them being the same thing. A hand is not a person, and a person is a not a hand.
Actually you are proposing that the State is apart of the government. I am the one arguing that the State and the Government are two different terms for the same thing. To me it is like saying The Phalanges and The Fingers.
Laughing Man: JonBostwick:They destroyed both, but only a new Government is formed. There is no Iraqi State. That makes absolutely no sense.
Which is why it explains why the Iraqi government doesn't actually govern Iraq?
Laughing Man:Actually new government, new state. Unless you worked with the Germans you were basically shot. France had a league of fascists who welcomed German influence and were willing to work with them. Obviously these people were put into power to help conquer the people.
Okay, you're confused.
We aren't talking about positions of power. We are talking about police walking the streets. The Nazi's destroyed and reformed every bureaucracy in France?
Laughing Man: JonBostwick:Ya. "The governor, possessing too land to personally manage, needs a system to manage it. The State is one method, fiefdom is another." A man with personal land is a property owner, not a governer. I accepted that you may have figured this out after writing it.
Which is why when I say governor, I didn't mean a man with personal land.
This has devolved to beyond stupid.
Laughing Man: To me it is like saying The Phalanges and The Fingers.
No, its like saying that hand and brain are two terms for the same thing.
JonBostwick:Which is why it explains why the Iraqi government doesn't actually govern Iraq?
Perhaps that has something to do with urban violence and nonchalant behavior towards the institution itself
JonBostwick:We aren't talking about positions of power. We are talking about police walking the streets. The Nazi's destroyed and reformed every bureaucracy in France?
Actually we are talking about positions of power. Who gives those police walking down the street the ability to arrest people?
JonBostwick: Which is why when I say governor, I didn't mean a man with personal land. This has devolved to beyond stupid
This has devolved to beyond stupid
How quaint. Here I was thinking that property rights existed and that a man who didn't own this personal land had no right to dictate the environment of it. Clearly one of us is in the wrong forum. Now, who pays your hypothetical governor? Is it the United States government? A smart individual would obviously see that if one works for the government then one is apart of that very government, not a separate faction that is something ambiguously not apart of it yet apart of it. Police officers, when the command structure is followed to the apex, essentially work for the government, soldiers are warriors of the United States government. Delving further into your 'delusion' you seem to think that if the US government were to crumble, all of these people would somehow still have jobs, still have power, and somehow be above an average individual. I contest you are wrong. The very institution that just crumbled causes there to be no police, no soldiers, no tax collectors, no bureaucrats, nothing that can be conceived as a public profession. Therefore since there is no 'state' after government, it must be assumed that they are one in the same institution. Power is merely diffused over a large body of workers yet discretion is still held at the top. Again I say, being a CEO does not necessarily separate you into your own corporation within a corporation.
JonBostwick: Laughing Man: To me it is like saying The Phalanges and The Fingers. No, its like saying that hand and brain are two terms for the same thing.
Actually no its not.