Political Theory

Re: A challenge to minarchist

AnonLLF — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:46:32 GMT

A little bit of coercion is still coercion.

Re: A challenge to minarchist

Stranger — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:07:00 GMT

bloomj31:

Stranger:

What difference does it make? Let's say 1 million.

And how many of us are in the minarchist camp?

One thousand billion.

Re: A challenge to minarchist

bloomj31 — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:34:21 GMT

Stranger:

What difference does it make? Let's say 1 million.

And how many of us are in the minarchist camp?

Re: A challenge to minarchist

Stranger — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:27:33 GMT

bloomj31:

In response to the OP, how many people are in the CFC?

What difference does it make? Let's say 1 million.

Re: A challenge to minarchist

Stranger — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:26:53 GMT

Last I heard he hit Silvio Berlusconi in the face with a statue of the Duomo.

Re: A challenge to minarchist

scineram — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:09:40 GMT

Niccolo sadly is not around anymore. And he was not paying taxes. He went underground and on welfare I think.

Re: A challenge to minarchist

bloomj31 — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:56:39 GMT

In response to the OP, how many people are in the CFC?

Re: A challenge to minarchist

VanDoodah — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:46:50 GMT

Niccolò:

Jared:

If the law says to pay taxes, and somebody breaks the law, they are not innocent of breaking the law. Would I have the right? No, as president I would have the obligation to enforce law. What are the libertarian ideals, exactly, which contradict presidents performing their paid functions? As president, should I just ignore what my employers have called me for?

You aren't an employee. You're a tyrant; you'll be delt with by bullet to the head.

Internet hardman, eh? I presume you're being taxed at the moment - are you killing politicians and employees of the IRS? No. And you wouldn't in the proposed scenario, either.

Re: A challenge to minarchist

JCFolsom — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:57:19 GMT

GWilly:
Remember that Minarchs are intrinsically democratic - I alone would never be given the power to decide a course of action, all that we can do is democratically agree on the definition of the question & then democratically vote on it.

Well, that's nonsense. If you really want to maintain minarchy, a small government, a principled individual autocrat would be far superior to a democracy. One stubborn SOB could maintain liberty far better than the whim of the masses.

Re: A challenge to minarchist

Stranger — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:44:56 GMT

GWilly:

Stranger - I do not dodge the real Question - Remember that Minarchs are intrinsically democratic - I alone would never be given the power to decide a course of action, all that we can do is democratically agree on the definition of the question & then democratically vote on it.

The outcome would depend on the collective mood/understanding of the situation at the time of voting.

That's the coward's way out. You aren't making a principled stand on your own, you are delegating the power to send you to war to someone else. The problem remains the same. If your democracy votes not to fight, then minarchy collapses and the anarchs get what they want. If your democracy votes to fight, then whatever gains from scale having a state national army provides will be moot by all the money you will need to spend to wipe out the anarchist rebellion.

So what would you vote for?

Re: A challenge to minarchist

liberty student — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:29:20 GMT

GWilly:
Good luck to you (please forgive me for not adding "and your endeavours" )

I don't know if you will read this, but I wanted to say, this is another uncalled for remark.

We all want peace, happiness, increases in the standard of living, and the advancement of man kind in a moral and ethical manner. That you continue to imply that our goals are different from those, or that our methods have not been thought through is insulting.

You may differ from many of us on the method, in fact many of us disagree on methods daily here, but that doesn't mean what we endeavour to accomplish is any less noble or worthwhile than what you seek to achieve.

I wish you were a little more open minded, and took more than a day to reach conclusions on anarchism, particularly since you seem to have so many misconceptions and prejudices against it.

Re: A challenge to minarchist

GWilly — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:54:33 GMT

liberty student:

GWilly:
IMHO the Proposed AnCap Free Market Stateless Utopia is a foolish endeavour, promoted by the naive & by selfish capitalists who wish to promote the profit making enterprise beyond the reach of legislation that (in principle) endeavours to serve the common good.

Now that is just insulting and uncalled for. Very disappointing that this is the result of the discussion from your end.

As you seem to believe your convictions are now strengthened (I don't know that it's possible to become more irrational, but perhaps so), then maybe it is time we went our separate ways. It's a shame that you can't imagine a world without all of the strawmen you have been socialized to believe in, and all of the fear about your fellow man whether it's violence or profit seeking that you are so scared of, yet you allow your government to use those same tactics against you, and think it makes you safer and your life better off.

Best luck with your website and your endeavour. Maybe you can seize the reins of government, and realize that it is impossible to dictate to people, and still observe the NAP.

Yup - sorry that you found my opinion insulting Liberty Student, I apologize, I've enjoyed considering your views & thanks to Jon, JonB, Stranger, Mac, scin, simon, Max, JAl & other members of mises for their patience with me.

I was sort of reaching the conclusion that this is not a place for me as it seems the mises wishes to delete the state in all it's forms, I will always endeavour to remain open minded.

Fundamentaly I just feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one!

Hopefuly one day this view can coexist with NAP if a suitable TWO WAY contract between the individual and a Democratic minimal state can be agreed upon.

Good luck to you (please forgive me for not adding "and your endeavours" )

It's been Fun

UK Minarchist

Re: A challenge to minarchist

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:53:26 GMT

I think you actually need to get a book out by an anarchist before making such ignorant, sweeping proclamations, because in all honesty I can just retort that minarchism is a foolish endeavour, giving a select few men, some of which likely to be evil and "selfish" (whatever that means) a monopoly over force, which the consumer is forced to consume, divorcing good service from the prospect of future higher returns, and thus leaving little to no incentive to act in such a manner. They will follow the NAP because if they don't, they will have forced used against them in retaliation and also because (partly because of the former) aggression is costly and they will suffer losses. Compare this, please, to a state which foists its costs upon third parties. And please don't try purge the element of selfishness from the minarchical state - it's just as much present.

Whenever a small elite fears that its plans are being uncovered and foiled by the masses, it will impute to them "selfishness" in the hope that they'll sacrifice their own interests to this elite's good (which it'll call the nation's/"society's"/God's/the "People's"/the "public's" good.) Some actually believe this nonsense, and side with the elite.

-Jon

Re: A challenge to minarchist

liberty student — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:08:29 GMT

GWilly:
IMHO the Proposed AnCap Free Market Stateless Utopia is a foolish endeavour, promoted by the naive & by selfish capitalists who wish to promote the profit making enterprise beyond the reach of legislation that (in principle) endeavours to serve the common good.

Now that is just insulting and uncalled for. Very disappointing that this is the result of the discussion from your end.

As you seem to believe your convictions are now strengthened (I don't know that it's possible to become more irrational, but perhaps so), then maybe it is time we went our separate ways. It's a shame that you can't imagine a world without all of the strawmen you have been socialized to believe in, and all of the fear about your fellow man whether it's violence or profit seeking that you are so scared of, yet you allow your government to use those same tactics against you, and think it makes you safer and your life better off.

Best luck with your website and your endeavour. Maybe you can seize the reins of government, and realize that it is impossible to dictate to people, and still observe the NAP.

Re: A challenge to minarchist

GWilly — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:14:15 GMT

Jon if you believe that you can remove the parasitic evils of the state by decentralizing it & re-allocating that power to profit making enterprises, then so be it.

I firmly believe that Man is intrinsically of good nature, just try asking a stranger for directions. But Beware if that stranger owns a shop and your making a delivery to his competitor.

This is the nature of man, neither of us can change this.

However

Profit making enterprises do not have morals and only a transient subjugated conscience, both are superseeded by the requirement to produce a greater Profit and increase in size (often beyond the boundaries and powers of the state). They will never follow the NAP unless it is legislated upon them. They would eagerly relocate if they could find an arbitraor that was willing (for personal gain) to allow them to be more effective in the pursuit of profit. and then when your collective finnaly sacked the arbitrator he would retire to his yacht & the enterprise would relocate to another arbitrator.

I suppose the argument could well be that you have removed the evil by re-allocating state control to an entity that has no morality & thusly not capable of evil - as evil is born of the conflict of morality (social altruism) and the desire for personal gain.

IMHO the Proposed AnCap Free Market Stateless Utopia is a foolish endeavour, promoted by the naive & by selfish capitalists who wish to promote the profit making enterprise beyond the reach of legislation that (in principle) endeavours to serve the common good.

UK Minarchist