Political Theory

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

ozzy43 — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:12:22 GMT

I don't know if anyone else here reads Robert Higgs, but if not, you should. Those who like Rothbard will love him. This snippet from his 'Neither Liberty Nor Safety' is on target, in terms of this thread topic:

************************************************************

HL Mencken famously said that "every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." By now however, I am no longer ashamed, because I do not identify with the government under which I live. Rather, I view it as a criminal organization that without provocation has chosen to make war on my just rights - not only mine, of course, but everyone's. Although this vile enterprise is my problem, because it robs and bullies me relentlessly and without mercy, it is not my responsibility: the nail is not the hammer. I did not ask for it and I do not want it. I fervently desire that it would simply disappear without a trace, leaving individuals free to conduct their affairs by means of voluntary cooperation, free of its incessant, gratuitous thrats of force and violence against unoffending people, and free of the ceasless, insulting drumbeat of its moronic propaganda.

Of course, the government is not about to disappear; indeed, it grows stronger daily. Social scientists must therefore understand how it operates and what consequences its operations have for the public. The foremost difficulty of understanding the threat of modern government is its nearly complete infiltration of society. Not only does it permeate virtually every part of social and economic life, but people constantly pass back and forth across the line that separates predator and prey - so commonly, in fact, that the masses easily fall for the myth that in our blessed democracy "we are the government."

************************************************************

This highlights the problem I have with the notion of minarchy as it tends to be put forth: those putting it forth do not generally seem to be aware of the facts as outlined above by Higgs. And so any solution they posit is not based on fact and reality, but upon wishful thinking. And such solutions are, simply, not worth serious analysis. If someone were to acknowledge the above, and then go on to show how a minarchist system could function in a way that seemed likely to - on an ongoing and ceaseless and powerful basis - constrain the criminal organization that is the State, then I'd be willing to look at the proposal. But I don't think I've ever seen a minarchist proposal that actually did that.

As in this threat, there is instead the presumption that we have 'learned' from our mistakes and would surely be able to do 'better next time.' But no specifics, nor evidence, is given that these presumptions do or would hold true.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

tim — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:20:01 GMT

Vinnie:
Call him a troll if you like, but Nathyn brings up a valid concern among many who would be more liberty-minded but fear for their safety in a world of Anarchy

In a capitalist society, thanks to division of labour, all men and women are virtually equal in strenght. So aggression would never be profitable. In a market anarchy, you'd see some private institutions emerge to respond the need of protection of people., no matter the form they would have. That's why I think a market anarchy would be much safer than a state-parasitized society.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

tim — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:10:02 GMT

Mark B.:
In a state of anarchy, said abused wife could simply catch said abusive husband asleep and kill him with an axe. Simple as that. There would be no state, so there would be no repercussions for her, officially. Of course, there is always the chance she could face a reprisal killing from his family. She would have to weigh that possibility prior to taking action

No, there would be some life insurance that would prevent that (for those who have token their responsabilities of course). Besides, I don't see the problem, I don't see why a state would help more wives not to be beaten by their husband than some private rights-enforcement institutions.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

tim — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:04:50 GMT

Nathyn:
No, but you're expecting every person to defend their own freedom with violence. This is an insane way of protecting liberty, since "might" and "right" have nothing to do with eachother. Some men -- including evil men -- are braver than others and would be able to plunder the cowardly and weak. And since men are better at violence, women would have less liberty, as the average man attempting to aggress the average woman would win. Why else do you think that patriarchy is near-universal throughout mankind's history? And on a broader scale, the ability of one militia to engage in a greater degree of violence has absolutely nothing to do with whether that violence is right or not, or aggressive or defensive. Without government, all you need is a large mob of people that support aggression and you've got the laws of the jungle, whether you like it or not. Bravery and strength have nothing to do with ethical integrity. And so, a system where strength alone is relied upon -- whether it's government or not -- cannot be a basis for protecting liberty. Such strength has to be rooted in an entity which values justice above immediate self-interest. Government can be such an entity, but Anarchy cannot because people are all just scrambling to get whatever they can as quickly as possible, without regard for any universal principles of justice. Even assuming we all have a fairly random ability of attacki\defense, there's a very simple dilemma: If I aggress you unsuccessfully, I lose life, liberty and property. If you defend yourself unsuccessfully, you lose life, liberty, and property. If I aggress you successfully, I gain your property and you lose your life, liberty, and property. If you defend yourself successfully, you keep your life and liberty, but some of your property is lost as attrition damage (damaged property, fees to defense agencies, etc.) as a cost of defending yourself. As a result, from a strictly game-theoretic standpoint, Anarchy favors aggressors, which is probably why government exists to begin with. It begins as a series of small aggressive mobs based on shared family or cultural heritage, then continually gets bigger and bigger until it's a nation.

You know, there's that wonderful thing, how we call it? ha yes, capitalism. Division of labour. The system that allow weaks to buy forces to strongs with the abilities they have in some other area. For the greatest benefit of all.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

JCFolsom — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:35:27 GMT

Of course, the Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Afghans are able to coordinate such insurgencies because they had a quasi-governmental structure to begin with, and intend to impose a new government once the invaders leave. Keep in mind, too, that this "low cost insurgencies" may not have a large cost in terms of dollars, but in terms of lives, they're incredibly expensive. Insurgents can, on a very good day, lose 20 men for every 1 well-organized, well-funded professional military. Also keep in mind that international pressure comes only from governments, and even international associations of governments.

Keep in mind this, too, that insurgency of the types in the cases you mention only works because the invader has some principle in the matter. An aggressor such as ourselves sweeping through, willing to kill every man, woman, and child, even without turning the land into radioactive waste, can EASILY do so. Thus, as with many things, it is only the restraint of the aggressor that allows for any hope of resistance.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

Vinnie — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:36:53 GMT

Nathyn:
Even assuming we all have a fairly random ability of attacki\defense, there's a very simple dilemma:
If I aggress you unsuccessfully, I lose life, liberty and property.
If you defend yourself unsuccessfully, you lose life, liberty, and property.
If I aggress you successfully, I gain your property and you lose your life, liberty, and property.
If you defend yourself successfully, you keep your life and liberty, but some of your property is lost as attrition damage (damaged property, fees to defense agencies, etc.) as a cost of defending yourself.
As a result, from a strictly game-theoretic standpoint, Anarchy favors aggressors, which is probably why government exists to begin with. It begins as a series of small aggressive mobs based on shared family or cultural heritage, then continually gets bigger and bigger until it's a nation.

Call him a troll if you like, but Nathyn brings up a valid concern among many who would be more liberty-minded but fear for their safety in a world of Anarchy.

The only way I see we can get around this problem is (sigh) by pursuading everyone to value life and liberty above all else. This would make aggression for the sake of monetary gain unprofitable. The Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghans have demonstrated how to throw off organized aggressors: Low cost insurgency coupled with international attention to conflict will trump standing armies in the long run. Now we just need low cost insurgencies *everywhere* and organized aggressors wouldn't stand a chance.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

Mark B. — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:39:57 GMT

In a state of anarchy, said abused wife could simply catch said abusive husband asleep and kill him with an axe. Simple as that. There would be no state, so there would be no repercussions for her, officially. Of course, there is always the chance she could face a reprisal killing from his family. She would have to weigh that possibility prior to taking action.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

JCFolsom — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:03:04 GMT

Men can change, become abusive. What if there are children, and the wife has no way to extract them from the abuser? What if she knows, if she leaves, that his rage will turn on them? Are the children "stupid" for having an abusive father?

Again, the utter lack of compassion displayed here will not win any converts. I used the wife beating example as only that: an example. There are endless cases one could point out where individuals with power over other individuals, whether via employment or simple brute force or some other means, could abuse that power without fear of reprisal, and without the victim having any recourse in an anarchy. Perhaps you are such a wise person that you've never made an error in judgement that led to dire consequences? Perhaps you've never faced a situation where the right thing to do was unclear, and you had to take a risk? Perhaps you think that a woman ought not enter into an intimate relationship with any man, unless she can somehow scry the future and know he'll never become abusive. Otherwise, she's "stupid". Right?

And yes, I think the woman in that situation would appreciate it if I came in, with her permission or not, and killed the *** who oppressed her. Now, I know there are some women with a pathological tendency to get into abusive relationships and stay there, regardless of the dire risks, but I think that a big part of the abuse issue is women being afraid of dying, or their children being killed, by a murderous man when she tries to leave.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

Bostwick — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:04:29 GMT

JCFolsom:
How do the anarchists propose to have zero tolerance towards wife beating?

Wife beating has to be about the least serious problem to discuss. If a woman chooses to marry an abusive man that is no one's fault but her own. She has two options: leave him or put up with the abuse. Many woman simply choose to put up with the abuse. Perhaps you'd like to run their lives for them?

Are you asking who will protect people from their own stupidity under anarchy? Do I really need to answer that?

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

Stranger — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:58:51 GMT

JCFolsom:
Let's keep in mind, too, that there was an extended period of anarchy in human history, or rather, prehistory. There are still places, in the jungles of South America, for instance, that tribalism rules, and no state can truly be said to exist. Yet wherever people have advanced beyond hunter-gatherer models, the beginnings of government are born. It happened everywhere in the world, seemingly independently.

You say the state has a tendency to grow. You are right. Alas, this is not a tendency of the state itself, but of people, who naturally desire security and authority. People are naturally hierarchical. The moment the possiblity of centralized control manifests, some demand it and others are all too happy to fulfill that demand. My point is this: Anarchy is not the natural state of man. People want someone they can turn to who will resolve their disputes. Yet those who plan to abuse others, even if short of violence, will likely not sign up with arbitration agencies that have deals with those they plan to steal from/defraud/vandalize. Justice, alas, must be imposed upon the guilty, they will not submit to it willingly. Indeed, if one man murders another, and the criminal does not sign up with that agency, but instead with one antagonistic to it, what happens?

The state grows because the selfish demand of the people, particularly in a country with voting such as this one, demands it grows. Do you really think that abolishing the state will abolish that demand. Or will it merely remove the fetters of the mob, that it might impose its short-sighted wrath fully on the scapegoat of the hour?

Anarchy MIGHT last until the first major crisis, then the people would welcome whomever made the best promises, in all likelihood a tyrant, as a savior. Anarchy is against human nature, and will never be sustainable. The state is a beast, one most difficult to restrain, but better that governments be formed by men of conscience than by tyrants in times of deperation.

This is exactly the kind of confusion that follows when we call something anarchy that isn't anarchy.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

Matthew Graybosch — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:16:43 GMT

JCFolsom:
Is it inconceivable, though, that rather than throwing out the idea of government altogether, that we might learn from the failings of the last attempt and try again?

I won't say it's inconceivable, but I will say this: I myself am unwilling to wield authority over others, and I do not trust people who think that they have either the ability or the moral right to hold authority over me to actually wield that authority without abusing it. I am an anarchist because I do not want to rule others, and I do not want to be ruled by others.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

JCFolsom — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:55:27 GMT

Let's keep in mind, too, that there was an extended period of anarchy in human history, or rather, prehistory. There are still places, in the jungles of South America, for instance, that tribalism rules, and no state can truly be said to exist. Yet wherever people have advanced beyond hunter-gatherer models, the beginnings of government are born. It happened everywhere in the world, seemingly independently.

You say the state has a tendency to grow. You are right. Alas, this is not a tendency of the state itself, but of people, who naturally desire security and authority. People are naturally hierarchical. The moment the possiblity of centralized control manifests, some demand it and others are all too happy to fulfill that demand. My point is this: Anarchy is not the natural state of man. People want someone they can turn to who will resolve their disputes. Yet those who plan to abuse others, even if short of violence, will likely not sign up with arbitration agencies that have deals with those they plan to steal from/defraud/vandalize. Justice, alas, must be imposed upon the guilty, they will not submit to it willingly. Indeed, if one man murders another, and the criminal does not sign up with that agency, but instead with one antagonistic to it, what happens?

The state grows because the selfish demand of the people, particularly in a country with voting such as this one, demands it grows. Do you really think that abolishing the state will abolish that demand. Or will it merely remove the fetters of the mob, that it might impose its short-sighted wrath fully on the scapegoat of the hour?

Anarchy MIGHT last until the first major crisis, then the people would welcome whomever made the best promises, in all likelihood a tyrant, as a savior. Anarchy is against human nature, and will never be sustainable. The state is a beast, one most difficult to restrain, but better that governments be formed by men of conscience than by tyrants in times of deperation.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

Inquisitor — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:05:52 GMT

Is concision an unfamiliar term to you? You must have ample time to waste on these forums. Anyway.You've done nothing, really, but assert that government can protect rights (in the process of violating them, of course... nevermind all the rights violations governments actively participated in and enabled) whereas 'anarchy' (is this yet another one of Nathyn's strawmen?) cannot. What is the basis of this silly supposition? Government favors aggressors, and one does not even need flawed game-theoretic inferences to establish this.

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

ozzy43 — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:03:38 GMT

Dude, you're *such* a troll.../sigh

Re: Constitutional Minarchy

Nathyn — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:27:31 GMT

Inquisitor:
What the hell? What on earth does the fact that most women tend to be weaker have to do with anarchism? We're not primitivists, we're not advocating a return to the laws of the jungle.

No, but you're expecting every person to defend their own freedom with violence. This is an insane way of protecting liberty, since "might" and "right" have nothing to do with eachother. Some men -- including evil men -- are braver than others and would be able to plunder the cowardly and weak.

And since men are better at violence, women would have less liberty, as the average man attempting to aggress the average woman would win. Why else do you think that patriarchy is near-universal throughout mankind's history?

And on a broader scale, the ability of one militia to engage in a greater degree of violence has absolutely nothing to do with whether that violence is right or not, or aggressive or defensive. Without government, all you need is a large mob of people that support aggression and you've got the laws of the jungle, whether you like it or not.

Bravery and strength have nothing to do with ethical integrity. And so, a system where strength alone is relied upon -- whether it's government or not -- cannot be a basis for protecting liberty. Such strength has to be rooted in an entity which values justice above immediate self-interest. Government can be such an entity, but Anarchy cannot because people are all just scrambling to get whatever they can as quickly as possible, without regard for any universal principles of justice.

Even assuming we all have a fairly random ability of attacki\defense, there's a very simple dilemma:

If I aggress you unsuccessfully, I lose life, liberty and property.

If you defend yourself unsuccessfully, you lose life, liberty, and property.

If I aggress you successfully, I gain your property and you lose your life, liberty, and property.

If you defend yourself successfully, you keep your life and liberty, but some of your property is lost as attrition damage (damaged property, fees to defense agencies, etc.) as a cost of defending yourself.

As a result, from a strictly game-theoretic standpoint, Anarchy favors aggressors, which is probably why government exists to begin with. It begins as a series of small aggressive mobs based on shared family or cultural heritage, then continually gets bigger and bigger until it's a nation.