Political Theory

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

econ student — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:02:59 GMT

Understood. But I do think that there is a considerable difference between "a watered down version of European style liberalism" and Stalinism. And I still wish that a more appropriate title had been chosen.

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

MaikU — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:00:56 GMT

When people say they "don't believe in the state" what it means is usually they don't find it a good solution for our social problems etc. It's not meant to be taken literally, as when someone says he doesn't believe in deities.

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

scineram — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:18:25 GMT

You don't believe in the state? You don't think it exists?

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

whakaheke — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 04:42:11 GMT

Nah, but they do make the same mistake as Stalinists in believing in the state ab inito.

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

Nitroadict — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 04:38:32 GMT

[SORRY, NITRO. LET'S PLEASE KEEP THIS KIND OF "MEMBER ISSUES" BACK-AND-FORTH OFF THE FRONT PAGE. -LILBURNE]

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

Conza88 — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 04:33:07 GMT

[COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE POSTING CHOICES OF OTHER MEMBERS BELONG IN THE ISSUES FORUM]

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

econ student — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 04:16:49 GMT

This is not a constructive question at all. One can certainly make a case that minarchists or classical liberals were inconsistent, but to suggest that this position somehow transforms into an apology for totalitarianism [AD HOMINEM DELETED] At any rate, the answer is no. I hope that this was only a tounge-in-check question.

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

scineram — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:31:19 GMT

Without the state there is no market at all.

Every system is a transitional phase to the next system.

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

CrazyCoot — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:16:57 GMT

Actually ventilation systems do exist on submarines, and are a good idea; just to be pedantic. You wouldn't want to have a convertible sub for obvious reasons, but that's because of the external environment is different from when you're driving a car. Don't know of any different economic environments where it would be beneficial to have the market under some circumstances, but not under others.

And of course it's a trolling title; I don't believe minarchists long for Soviet Russia. Just can't understand how minarchism could be anything more than a transitional phase; either towards ancap or a more watered down version of European style liberalism.

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

Thedesolateone — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:54:55 GMT

CrazyCoot:

Well, are they?

Absurd

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

I. Ryan — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:23:27 GMT

J. Grayson Lilburne:

It's similarly "inconsistent" to say that ventilation is a good thing in almost all vehicles except for submarines. Such "inconsistency" doesn't mean it's wrong.

Awesome analogy. I might borrow it sometime in the future.

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:19:21 GMT

Sage:
Well, if you come across a logical proof that contradicts all of your intuitions, that's a very good reason to be skeptical.

A good reason to be skeptical, but not to rationalize, which is what I think libertarians who truly hate the state would do if push came to shove.

Sage:
Moreover, how is this any different for a consequentialist? If they were shown that Keynesian economics was right, wouldn't they likewise have to abandon libertarianism, but "would never accept such a conclusion"?

Yes, that's true, defining consequentalism a certain way. But it would be completely different for conscience-driven libertarians like me, who resort neither to "social consequentialism" nor natural rights.

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:12:34 GMT

CrazyCoot:
The argument that it's inconsistent and therefore weak footing to believe that the market is better at delivering goods and services than the government for almost everything, but one is not a weak argument.

It's similarly "inconsistent" to say that ventilation is a good thing in almost all vehicles except for submarines. Such "inconsistency" doesn't mean it's wrong.

CrazyCoot:
If it's a weak argument then explain why instead of merely just calling it an invalid syllogism. Explain why it makes sense to argue for the market to deal with everything except defense and law and order.

One need not hoist up a positive argument to prove the invalidity of your negative argument. Your argument is an invalid syllogism. Its conclusion doesn't follow from its premises. Recognizing that obvious fact is all that is required to refute your negative argument.

CrazyCoot:

Government is a state backed monopoly, which tend to expand. Classical liberals recognized the validity of government to operate in certain areas, which left them weak to attacks by people who argued that government should expand into more areas. And if a state doesn't have to respond to market forces, operates under perverse incentives, and operates through a taxation system that results in wealth transfer; how are you going to stop it from growing?

How would a society with private arbitration, PDAs etc. be more prone to a totalitarian takeover than our current system, or even a nightwatchman state? And how you can say you support the market over the state, but not believe that the market is capable of taking care of itself without the state?

Again, I am in no way making a positive argument for any particular political order. I'm simply pointing out that you have in no way established the validity of the ambitious premise that lies behind the sweeping conclusion of your OP.

CrazyCoot:
And if you think the conclusion is inflammatory, well don't have secret dreams about show trials and gulags and 5 year plans and your feelings won't be so hurt.

It's not inflammatory to Stalinists; it's inflammatory to minarchists. And I myself am ancap, so it wouldn't be inflammatory to me anyway. I want ancap to succeed, which is why I don't like to see fellow ancaps writing inflammatory checks that their argumentation can't cash.

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

Marko — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:10:33 GMT

It must be noted that radical anti-capitalists have influenced history and thought to a far greater extent than non-radical anti-capitalists. So their sin was not their radicalism. Only their faulty reasoning which radicalized them for the wrong cause.

Re: Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?

Marko — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:52:32 GMT

J. Grayson Lilburne:

I would contend it is the consistent natural rights libertarian who would oppose the state as a mental exercise, as opposed to hating it. For the consistent natural rights libertarian, right or wrong is not about love and hate (that would be "emotivist yaying and booing" as G.A. Plauche says). For the consistent natural rights libertarian, right or wrong is a scientific question, the answer of which is to be deduced logically from certain premises. If the consistent natural rights libertarian were confronted with some master logician, and was was shown using formal logic, that the state was right, in spite of his bloody hate for it, he would be impelled as a scientist to drop his libertarian stance.

Indeed he would need to. But then in order to be a radical he would need to love the state and hate freedom. It would be insufficient if he merely acknowledged that state is right and freedom is wrong.

Reasoning and hatred are not opposed. The latter stems from the former. A radical complements mental reasoning with hatred, because he can not bring himself to bear wrong with any part of his being, a non-radical stops at the mental exercise.

J. Grayson Lilburne:

I think this is because the hate for state is actually the deeper cause of their libertarianism, and natural rights philosophizing is an intellectual super-structure erected around it and for the sake of it.

I think there is no hate for the state per se. Hatred for the state is merely the hatred of injustice and of an attempt to justify injustice.

Hatred for capitalism is similarly merely the hatred for what appears to the radical anti-capitalist as injustice and for the attempt to justify this seeming injustice.