Political Theory

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

MaikU — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:24:47 GMT

Libertyandlife:

"When a reporter asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to explain where in the Constitution she found the authority to nationalize the health insurance industry, she laughed and replied, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" So what if the Constitution says nothing about granting the federal government the power to force Americans to buy approved health insurance packages? As Virginia's Democratic Senator Mark Warner explained, "There is no place in the Constitution that talks about you ought to have the right to get a telephone, but we have made those choices as a country over the years.""

-Thomas E Woods

^This is pretty much how all politics works.

owned :D hahah thanks for a good laugh today.

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

MaikU — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:23:43 GMT

z1235:

Liberty Student:
So to argue that non-aggressors would form a community of aggression is like arguing that vegetarians are going to raise livestock for food.

...or doctors using disease (vaccines) to prevent disease.

false analogy very common among natural medicine believers (not that I think you are the one, just sayin'). They only induce immunity of a body, not make you sick with that disease. :)

From wiki:

"Vaccines are dead or inactivated organisms or purified products derived from them.

There are several types of vaccines currently in use.These represent different strategies used to try to reduce risk of illness, while retaining the ability to induce a beneficial immune response."

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

Libertyandlife — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:50:04 GMT

"When a reporter asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to explain where in the Constitution she found the authority to nationalize the health insurance industry, she laughed and replied, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" So what if the Constitution says nothing about granting the federal government the power to force Americans to buy approved health insurance packages? As Virginia's Democratic Senator Mark Warner explained, "There is no place in the Constitution that talks about you ought to have the right to get a telephone, but we have made those choices as a country over the years.""

-Thomas E Woods

^This is pretty much how all politics works.

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

z1235 — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:46:10 GMT

Liberty Student:
So to argue that non-aggressors would form a community of aggression is like arguing that vegetarians are going to raise livestock for food.

...or doctors using disease (vaccines) to prevent disease.

Liberty Student:
We didn't evolve societies by accident.

States, on the other hand...

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

MaikU — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:19:39 GMT

Poor choice of words. My bad. I mean, I never believed in the authority of the state, but this idea of the state has always be with me, like with most people who grew up under the state.

So what has changed was that I left this idea of the state, not that I ever believed in its authority. Same with god, actually. I never believed in deity, but also I was afraid of "what if" and things like that, also my family pressure etc. But for real? No. Never. That's why I think it was easier for me to become anarchist.

And for you I suggest to read more topics (either on this forum or somewhere else) before debating Liberty Student and ask questions about anarchy in general. He won't convince you, and you won't believe what he says unless you do research yourself.

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

Logic As Law 1227 — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:49:12 GMT

"Do you know anything about logic? Srsly. I mean, I was skeptical atheist when I first got into anarchism (I never was a minarchist though), and skepticism and critical thinking helped me understand anarchist points and I just realized I no longer believe a state. I mean, I never even did, I just wasn't aware of it.

There is no identifyable reason for anything you are saying. Are you trying to say that if I disagree with anarchism, I am suddenly unable to achieve awareness of logic?

"(I never was a minarchist though)"

You never believed in a state.

"I just realized I no longer believe a state"

So you used to believe in a state.

"I mean, I never even did, I just wasn't aware of it

You never believed in a state.

I think you mean to say, I just realized I never believed in a state. That's the best I can do.

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

MaikU — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:38:42 GMT

Do you know anything about logic? Srsly. I mean, I was skeptical atheist when I first got into anarchism (I never was a minarchist though), and skepticism and critical thinking helped me understand anarchist points and I just realized I no longer believe a state. I mean, I never even did, I just wasn't aware of it.

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

Logic As Law 1227 — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:08:21 GMT

"Oh my god...oh my god... all statist apologetics in ONE post. Incredible."

Previous Knowledge +Your Post = Previous Knowledge

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

MaikU — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:58:23 GMT

Oh my god...oh my god... all statist apologetics in ONE post. Incredible.

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

Logic As Law 1227 — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:16:27 GMT

liberty student:
Ancap is not a promise of utopia but it is predicated on the non-aggression principle. So to argue that non-aggressors would form a community of aggression is like arguing that vegetarians are going to raise livestock for food.

To argue that non-aggresors would form a community that is not subject to aggresors looking to form their own community, is to deny the presence of brutality.

Not to mention the U.S. Constitution and system was designed to be non-aggressive. Franklin reffered to our policy as that of a rattlesnake: attack when attacked or threatened.

liberty student:
This is Hobbesian and in my opinion, misguided. Man is not innately barbaric. We didn't evolve societies by accident.

Man is not innately pacifistic either. The presence of murderous regimes and even murderers in America tells us they still lurk.

liberty student:
So we need force to stop force so we can have reason. Too bad reason isn't strong enough to overcome force. Oh hay.....

Reason has told us that force is to be prevented. We don't need force; a society functions with highest propensity for prosperity when force is exiled. But we need self defense, that is the reaction to force. The Law is a negative concept: it prevents, not initiates.

liberty student:
Again, you do not understand ancap. And we are only going to devolve to pre-capitalist societies if the state keeps pursuing its structurally inevitable slide into totalitarian socialism.

Ok. And agreed.

liberty student:
Did you not appeal to democracy?

Tell me the difference between democracy as to a method of adjusting the government, and the method that would be used to adjust a "voluntary government" in ancap.

liberty student:
Indeed, the government is of men, not of the law or the people.

The law comes from men, and men are persons.

liberty student:
So you have to obey the Constitution if you disagree with the Constitution so you can change the Constitution into something you can agree with, but you already do agree with it, because you obeyed it at the start.

Next question, how do 300 million people amend the Constitution so that it reflects all of their individual preferences?

Another question, why do you have to use the process to try for something that you never gave consent to have taken away in the first place?

You take consent in living within the jurisdiction of the government. You don't have to obey anything, unless you wish to live under its jurisdiction. Obedience =/= Agreement. A victim of robbery doesn't agree with the robber's theivery. He obeys his command at the threat of force. But the difference between a robber and a government, is that a government prevents force (such as robbers).

The Constitution is also subject to interpretation. It was once interpreted to sanction slavery.

Also, I think your vision of an ancap society is dependent on your idea that everyone volunteering to be in a particular governance will agree with everything. If you don't, then I could raise the same questions you do. For instance: Let us suppose I agree with every action of a government, except that it bans abortion. Then according to your logic

I have to obey the rules of the government if I disagree with the government so you can change the government into something you can agree with, but I already do agree with it, because I obeyed it at the start.

What does a person with disagreement within a voluntary governance dynamic do? And how does it differ from the democratic process?

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

Logic As Law 1227 — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:27:00 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
Why do you think ~~government~~ governance services are a natural monopoly ?

I don't think anything is in any meaningful sense.

But if you too don't see that then you should agree that the fittest 'so called - government', like the fittest shoe store will survive .... under a regime of competition which keeps it as honest as it can be kept. (swap out /honest/ for any concern that you feel more keenly, (just/pragmatic/cost-effective/etc/etc/))

Well, firstly, that distinction you're making is entirely semantics, since any governance implies a government, governments employ governance. As far as the jurisdiction of a voluntary "governance" is concerned, you would have to think that forms of governance will be tested, and expand jurisdiction or lose jurisdiction based on their efficiency, like a shoe store as you've suggested. However, history is littered with oppressive regimes, it is evident that propoganda and force can equate to much power and dominance. How long did Hitler last? Under a system that involves a constitution, one which forbids the suppression of free speech to the pursuit to happiness, how far would such a regime go in the process? Hitler would be condemned and ostracised, but not killed, a probable solution the other poster suggested. But were the constitution not a barrier, a protection from this use of force, such a man as charismatic as Hitler will have his oppurtunity to reign. Unless the constitution of the United States is altered or made obsolete, and as long as those under its government's jurisdiction as well as the government itself agree that the use of force is immoral and should be prevented (which has to hold an overwhelming majority), you have to consider that in the venture to prevent force, the U.S. government is very voluntary. Of course many other ventures I'm sure you vehemontly disagree with, such as welfare, social security, medicare, unemployment. But, such is the fallibility of government as a concept.

filc:
I think the solution to defense of property can be erected on the market, as defense is an economic good. I don't think the market's functionality rests solely upon the pre-existence of an over-arching monopoly of force. Markets were around long before states were.

Yes but the market's freedom in producing every other good that is deemed important would be subjigated to the presence of, not force preventing institutions, but force inducing establishments. Defense is an economic good, and we pay for a defense through taxation. This form of defense is not entirely dependent on our desire as to how we want it to function. But the vital feature of the military, is that its funding is dependent on our cooperation. Also, since citizens can join the army and do, the army has incentive not to revolt and abandon the features it promises to us.

Markets were before states, but markets led to the formation of states. Everything emanates from the market of ideas. A singular government is an idea.

filc:
Well I would argue that I can. I can deny that people would kill simply because there was an absence absence of an over-arching monopoly of law and coercion. To clarify, people WOULD kill, for sure, but not as a consequence to there being no state. People kill regardless. No institution will prevent murder, or murderers. If the intended purpose of this over-arching coercion was to prevent death by homocide, it's obviously failed.

I say prevent because that is the goal of the institution, not on its resume of achievements. Everyone on this board I assume, agrees that murder is immoral and lacks a place in a functioning society. But this isn't because we have an innate moral conviction that allows us to prevent murder. It is because we have searched for philosophy, morality, and politics. All of these realms generally aim to eradicate murder. But, some haven't. Some will tell you that muder is a just means to a just end. Without the government threatening prison time or death, there is no reason why these individuals won't suppress intellect in favor of force. In a place without coercive prevention of force, and in a sphere where force initiating governments are given sanction, the strength of bullets from a gun will tragically overcome the strength of the mind.

filc:
I guess I like to make a distinction between governance and governments. The latter typically a state of some sort.

It sounds like the former is a function of the latter

filc:
If this is truely your greatest concern, what political philosophy do you offer up as a solution to this alleged problem

Despite many tragedies it has suffered, I think the American system of a representative government has done a healthy job in promoting intellect over force, and through capitalism it continues to rise the standard of living, despite many of its politicians wanting to move away from it. I mean, consider the living standard of those considered to be in poverty:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america

This article is from 2004, but even now, almost half of those considered poor, own their homes outright. This is because the market, while not allowed to initiate force, is geared to be used to produce everything else. Or that is how I envision the most efficient system. Generally, the American concept of government should allow only for military, police, and courts, all of which are susceptible to citizen opinion and made up of citizen participation.

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

liberty student — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:54:48 GMT

Logic As Law 1227:

liberty student:
You do not understand ancap at all.

Explain why this wouldn't occur

Ancap is not a promise of utopia but it is predicated on the non-aggression principle. So to argue that non-aggressors would form a community of aggression is like arguing that vegetarians are going to raise livestock for food.

Logic As Law 1227:
So many governments will focus on force rather than reason. Without a safeguard a group of people agreeing on barbarism will have the oppurtunity to kill off a more intellectual group of people.

This is Hobbesian and in my opinion, misguided. Man is not innately barbaric. We didn't evolve societies by accident.

Logic As Law 1227:
Force will overcome thought unless it is suppressed.

So we need force to stop force so we can have reason. Too bad reason isn't strong enough to overcome force. Oh hay.....

Logic As Law 1227:
We would devolve into precapitalistic societies, where force is emphasized, and intellectuality is compromised. Do you think the murder rate would decrease if the prospect of prison time and even death was removed?

Again, you do not understand ancap. And we are only going to devolve to pre-capitalist societies if the state keeps pursuing its structurally inevitable slide into totalitarian socialism.

Logic As Law 1227:
I never said that collective consent is valid.

Did you not appeal to democracy?

Logic As Law 1227:
The decision making of a government is not autonomous; a government is made up of individuals.

Indeed, the government is of men, not of the law or the people.

Logic As Law 1227:
And as an individual, I can read the constitution and agree/disagree, decide that adjustments (amendments) are necessary, and use the process to try and realize these adjustments.

So you have to obey the Constitution if you disagree with the Constitution so you can change the Constitution into something you can agree with, but you already do agree with it, because you obeyed it at the start.

Next question, how do 300 million people amend the Constitution so that it reflects all of their individual preferences?

Another question, why do you have to use the process to try for something that you never gave consent to have taken away in the first place?

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

dude6935 — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:03:55 GMT

Ostracism due to crime is a little weak for my taste. A lot weak actually.

I was explaining AnCap and to my girlfriend tonight. She made the move to where I am philosophically in a single conversation. It took months to get her from Liberal to ConservoLib.

During the conversation, I thought of a mechanism to give free courts legitimacy.

A community would ask that residents sign a contract that outlines agreements against murder, theft, ect. If they break the agreement, they have already agreed to submit to the local justice system. Then any punishment is not force, but a contractual penalty. If they refuse to sign the agreement, they can be ostracized.

This doesn't deal with people who just drift in to town. But it is a step in the right direction (IMHO).

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

filc — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:47:40 GMT

Logic as Law:
I think the market's success in bringing us to intelligible solution is critically dependent on an institution designed to prevent force.

I think the solution to defense of property can be erected on the market, as defense is an economic good. I don't think the market's functionality rests solely upon the pre-existence of an over-arching monopoly of force. Markets were around long before states were.

Logic as Law:
I mean, you can't deny that many people would kill if it weren't for this coercion.

Well I would argue that I can. I can deny that people would kill simply because there was an absence absence of an over-arching monopoly of law and coercion. To clarify, people WOULD kill, for sure, but not as a consequence to there being no state. People kill regardless. No institution will prevent murder, or murderers. If the intended purpose of this over-arching coercion was to prevent death by homocide, it's obviously failed.

Either way

Logic as Law:
But anarchism, is voluntary government then, correct? Then, you don't deny that governments will develop, and people will choose the government most preferable to them, right

I guess I like to make a distinction between governance and governments. The latter typically a state of some sort.

Logic as Law:
My biggest disagreement with anarcho=capitalism is its susceptibility to mob rule, not by vote, but by force.

If this is truely your greatest concern, what political philosophy do you offer up as a solution to this alleged problem?

Re: Introducing Minarchists to An-Cap

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:26:29 GMT

Logic As Law 1227:
Then, you don't deny that governments will develop, and people will choose the government most preferable to them, right? Private governments, voluntary governments. I am not sure, but it seems that the same "benevolent overarching institute of coercion will develop, as to use the survival of the fittest term, only the fittest government will survive.

Why do you think ~~government~~ governance services are a natural monopoly ?

I don't think anything is in any meaningful sense.

But if you too don't see that then you should agree that the fittest 'so called - government', like the fittest shoe store will survive .... under a regime of competition which keeps it as honest as it can be kept. (swap out /honest/ for any concern that you feel more keenly, (just/pragmatic/cost-effective/etc/etc/))