Political Theory

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

DD5 — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 03:03:00 GMT

LeeO: "we live in a world full of coercive governments, and anarchy seems like a distant and unattainable dream."

Here is why you are wrong.

It has happened numerous times in the past (even if it were for brief periods of time), and most recently in Somalia, at least partially. In all those places that it happened, there was no philosophy of Anarchism or Liberty or anything. On the contrary, Anarchy seems always to occur in the most statist societies. Usually as a result of some inevitable financial collapse.

On the other hand, your limited government (or hybrid anarchy scheme) has never happened, and to get there seems like an impossible light year long mission which would demand that literally the vast majority of the public agree to dismantle the government, in incremental steps over a long transitional period of time in the order of decades to centuries in order to avoid hardship and violent resistance.

Now, which is it that you said seems like a "distant unattainable dream"?

I don't know when and where Anarchy will strike again, but I know that it will. The only challenge is to build some intellectual foundation that may have a chance of maintaining it when it arrives. This does not have to be a majority. A small minority will do. I think you should skip the preshow and go directly to the main show - Freedom!

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

bloomj31 — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 03:02:44 GMT

"People have attempted to limit government before. Didn't really hold back the US federal government, did it?"

I personally don't think anyone who's read the Constitution can seriously conclude that it was meant to limit government, especially not if they know the history of the Constitution and what proceeded it. The Constitution has a minor limited government facade because of the rhetoric, but the document obviously was designed to allow government to grow and to give more power to the federal government than state governments and that's exactly what happened.

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

DD5 — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 02:48:53 GMT

Liberte: "In real world democracies, 'public opinion' means 'elite opinion', and has nothing to do with majorities;"

Yes, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

Sage — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 02:17:41 GMT

Anarchism is constitutionalism.

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

E. R. Olovetto — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:48:29 GMT

People have attempted to limit government before. Didn't really hold back the US federal government, did it?

Nope. This argument is getting really old. Minarchism is just as utopian as socialism.

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

AF — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:42:49 GMT

People have attempted to limit government before. Didn't really hold back the US federal government, did it?

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

LeeO — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:25:55 GMT

In real world democracies, 'public opinion' means 'elite opinion', and has nothing to do with majorities; except that majorities passively accept pretty much anything they're told. It's not democratic masses, but the Universities and Media, that run the USG and its world empire..

Amen.

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

scineram — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:07:37 GMT

It seemed to me violating the rights of others is the only thing that concerned you. Maybe it isn't.

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

Vichy Army — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:01:27 GMT

Unless you're using the terms "public opinion" and "representation" in their statist euphemistic way, for perhaps "Majority tyranny" and "compulsive rule".

In real world democracies, 'public opinion' means 'elite opinion', and has nothing to do with majorities; except that majorities passively accept pretty much anything they're told. It's not democratic masses, but the Universities and Media, that run the USG and its world empire..

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

LeeO — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:48:58 GMT

I have written on this forum about the idea of a protectorate - a state limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property. I think your concept of "constitutional anarchism" or a "completely voluntary state" is basically the same thing. You can read the previous discussions here and here.

Most anarchists argue that a state by definition uses aggression to enforce some sort of monopoly. A "voluntary state" therefore, is not a state at all, and the only way to achieve freedom is to break the monopoly on law in a given territory. Anarchists also point out that any attempt to limit the state is destined to fail as it always has in the past.

I think anarchists will usually win the theoretical argument - a society without a state would be the most free in a perfect world. But as you have pointed out, we live in a world full of coercive governments, and anarchy seems like a distant and unattainable dream. So for reasons of practicality, why not aim for "constitutional anarchism" first. In the shorter term, perhaps this is the model of the most free society possible.

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

Skyler Collins — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:46:43 GMT

@scineram, does my question suggest that I believe that the state is "a variable in the models of society that can be just set to zero, and expect manna to fall from heaven or whatever"?

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

Mises Pieces — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:45:54 GMT

Limited government is impossible because any entity that has a legal monopoly of force is not limited.

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

nirgrahamUK — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:40:26 GMT

Is the use of the word 'because' supposed to delude people into thinking that what you write next addresses what was said by your predecessor?

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

scineram — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:37:39 GMT

How is "leave me alone unless I violate the rights of others" authoritarian?

Because this is not how the world works. The state is not a variable in the models of soceity that can be just set to zero, and expect manna to fall from heaven or whatever.

Re: I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.

SilentXtarian — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:18:59 GMT

Mises Pieces, no one's justifying what governments do here (except with the cases of laws, as my really only minarchist belief). The rules that I have proposed would just be the regulation of what it is or isn't able to do and prevents it from infringing on the liberty of others. It would force it to actually have real reasons for what it does, and that it couldn't just trample on our rights. Governments will exist for a long time- so we should take steps to limit them. My reasoning is that getting rid of government altogether and enforcing our own society on everyone else would be like enforcing a minority opinion on the majority themselves, and, I think that's just an equal evil as to government.

Skyler Collins- it's not, but, in our present state of affairs one could argue that we may need government to deal with international affairs. We could of course have a representative assembly from the people without it to deal with other nations if we wanted to, but, the only authority in our present state of the world they would recognize are diplomats that have the authority to communicate with others. I just am proposing rules to minimize the sphere of government and to get rid of a lot of its coercive power. Do you find fault with anything I said?