Political Theory

Re: Minarchist arguments

Cork — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:25:44 GMT

Before Stefan Molyneux went off the psycho-babble deep end (News flash: just because your wife is a psychiatrist does not qualify you to evaluate everyone else's "daddy" issues.)

This was when I stopped listening to him as well. He should have just stuck to libertarianism instead of trying to become the next Aristotle.

Re: Minarchist arguments

David Z — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:16:58 GMT

Before Stefan Molyneux went off the psycho-babble deep end (News flash: just because your wife is a psychiatrist does not qualify you to evaluate everyone else's "daddy" issues.) he had some good stuff on this topic, in particular an early podcast called "caging the beasts" or something to that effect. Although this deals more with actual crime than with the sort of thing we're discussing here.

Another angle you can play, is that look: Government already does this, or enables corporations to do this, and then provides them with all sorts of blanket protections/immunities etc. The fact that in a free market, some corporation might do something like this can not be considered sufficient justification for dismissing a free market, since this self-same evil already exists under statist conditions.

Re: Minarchist arguments

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:25:38 GMT

I havent read all of these but I mad a note of their titles so I could read them later. perhaps they will help?

on mises.org

Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing
Justice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion

by Bruce L. Benson

Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law without Government
by Bruce L. Benson

Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society
N. Stephan Kinsella

Reciprocal Exchange as the Basis for Recognition of Law: Examples from American History
by Bruce L. Benson*

Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts, and the Police
by David Osterfeld

Customary Law With Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description Of a Modern System of Law and Order Without State Coercion
Bruce L. Benson

THE ROLE OF PERSONAL JUSTICE IN ANARCHO-CAPITALISM
KARL T. FIELDING

Justice Entrepreneurship
In a Free Market*
by George H. Smith
Forum for Philosophical Studies, Los Angeles

ORDER WITHOUT LAW:
WHERE WILL ANARCHISTS KEEP THE MADMEN?
JOHN D. SNEED

European Unification as the New Frontier of Collectivism: The Case for Competitive Federalism and Polycentric Law
Carlo Lottieri

CHAOS THEORY
Two Essays On
Market Anarchy
by
Robert P. Murphy

MARKET CHOSEN LAW
Edward Stringham*
he put together abook but cant find the whole thing online
http://www.mises.org/store/Anarchy-and-the-Law-P335.aspx

Benson's website with more articles
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bbenson/

Re: Minarchist arguments

Ansury — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:12:00 GMT

david_z:

The argument presumes there are no free-market protection/dispute resolution agencies in existence.

I'm already aware of the above but what I don't understand is what something like this (quoted) would look like, how it would work, and how these "resolution agencies" would enforce their decisions should someone else disagree.

Re: Minarchist arguments

David Z — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 03:17:35 GMT

Andrew M. Sica:
A corporation could buy all the land around you in effect trapping you and then who would protect your natural rights?

Quite possibly the second most-tired minarchist argument (the first being: "But who will build the roads?")...

1. Government has already done exactly this! It owns all the land, everywhere. And you're trapped.

2. Corporations have already co-opted a very large government. Presuming that they couldn't co-opt a much smaller one is silly.

3. There is such a thing (and dates back centuries in real property law) known as an "easement". under the circumstances set forth above, the land-locked individual would be entitled to an easement for use, established by an open and notorious use of the land prior to the sale. The argument presumes there are no free-market protection/dispute resolution agencies in existence.

4. If there are no PDAs in existence, that means there is nobody to protect the "corporation" from your trespasses.

Re: Minarchist arguments

Stranger — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:38:49 GMT

Somehow people don't realize that the state is a corporation.

Re: Minarchist arguments

Natalie — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:24:19 GMT

What would prevent the company from lobbying the government the ways it's been going on the US?

Enforced monopoly is the major threat to an individual liberty.

Re: Minarchist arguments

Wanderer — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:15:34 GMT

Andrew M. Sica:

I'm having a discussion about minarchism vs. anarchy. The supporter of minarchism is a well known LP member... Someone made a point about corporations taking over, which led him to say:

":Wow this actually is what feeds back into my discussion earlier about justice. I think that if you have a small government that stays within the bounds of the constitution and has checks and balances, then you're better off. A corporation could buy all the land around you in effect trapping you and then who would protect your natural rights? No, I am still a firmly in the minarchist camp. There is no utopia, only baby steps towards freedom with a berlin wall here and there."

I view this scenario as unlikely, and fail to see how any government would help even were it to occur. I wrote more, but I wanted to get some input from you guys to follow up with... Any suggestions?

If they started buying land in that kind of quantity, the price would skyrocket and they would go bankrupt in the process.

Re: Minarchist arguments

Andrew Cain — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:37:55 GMT

liberty student:
Minarchists are the utopians. They believe honest, legitimate government is possible. Who is dreaming now?

Too true.

Re: Minarchist arguments

liberty student — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:33:05 GMT

I wasn't aware that government can protect natural rights.

Oh wait, because it can't protect your rights, without violating your rights!

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It has no authority. No one living signed it. No one follows it. And no one can get out of it.

Minarchists are the utopians. They believe honest, legitimate government is possible. Who is dreaming now?

Re: Minarchist arguments

MatthewF — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:25:50 GMT

Maybe its just me but I think company's would be much too busy to start building circles around people. They have much more important things to do, such as satisfying consumer demand...

Minarchist arguments

Andrew M. Sica — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:18:32 GMT

I'm having a discussion about minarchism vs. anarchy. The supporter of minarchism is a well known LP member... Someone made a point about corporations taking over, which led him to say:

":Wow this actually is what feeds back into my discussion earlier about justice. I think that if you have a small government that stays within the bounds of the constitution and has checks and balances, then you're better off. A corporation could buy all the land around you in effect trapping you and then who would protect your natural rights? No, I am still a firmly in the minarchist camp. There is no utopia, only baby steps towards freedom with a berlin wall here and there."

I view this scenario as unlikely, and fail to see how any government would help even were it to occur. I wrote more, but I wanted to get some input from you guys to follow up with... Any suggestions?