How Many Believe The State WILL (not 'can') be Shrunk Back To Minarchy?

[ProIndividual]

Bull$#@!. Screw your libertarian definition. Wanting a limited government does not make one a statist. It is only if you want force to be used.



Again, you are using your own bull$#@! definitions and it is insulting as all hell. Even Lew Rockwell doesn't agree with you.

Bull$#@!? I guess I will have to quote source after source as to the truth of what I said below. Minarchism IS a form of statism. Get over it. You can't change the actual meanings of words just because you don't like them. ANd how can a state exist without force being used? You have to extort people directly or indirectly to fund it, and/or threaten any competitor who wants to better serve consumers in the markets who wish to socialize (law, roads, defense, at minimum). Minarchism is just minimalist state socialism...it's a degree of difference from any other form of statism (state socialism), not principally different. Maximalist state socialism is state communism and minimalist state socialism is capitalism in the context of the state. The only difference is degree; how many markets you wish to socialize.

I'm sorry you can't accept the obvious and logical truth about your current beliefs.

Wikipedia:

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy.

Wikipedia:

In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms from minarchism to totalitarianism.

Word IQ:

In civics, Minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism, is the view that government should be as small as possible.

dictionary.reference.com:

stat·ism

2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.

thefreedictionary:

statism, stateism

2. the support of the sovereignty of the state. — statist, n., adj.

You are flatly, logically, historically, etc. WRONG. You cannot deny it without looking like a delusional person. Minarchy is clearly a form of statism, and statism clearly includes minarchy as its minimalist form (usually a republic).

I know you hate it, because you like to use the word pejoratively, but the actual denotative meaning of the word IS minimalist statism, or a minimal state.

Now please admit you're wrong, or be forever looked at as delusional by everyone who ever reads these posts.

[Matthew5]

Now please admit you're wrong, or be forever looked at as delusional by everyone who ever reads these posts.

Good luck with that, I couldn't get LE to understand the concept either.

[Cabal]

I'd just remark that, without mythologies like religion (I'm not an atheist, but I feel I'm fairly safe in what I'm about to say), one can only derive ethics via metaphysical and epistemological precepts (the nature of reality and the nature of knowledge) with logic applied to them. The more consistently logic is applied to these precepts, the more consistent the ethics will be.

[...]

Maybe because my journey was so different is why I view things differently on many subjects than some other anarchists here. I was a statist authoritarian communist in my teens and early 20s...a real class warrior $#@!. I literally, not kidding, thought people should require licenses before having kids (as if that was even enforceable - wtf was I thinking?). I never became a conservative. I went from state communist Marxist (and I read the books, can still quote the authors, and bought it hook line and sinker) to someone who started realizing the economics just didn't work (I sat down with the national budget and tried to arrange a way for utopia where food, clothing, housing etc. was free...and it eclipsed the entire GDP of the nation). Then I started asking myself how to pump up the GDP to make it so the utopia might be possible, but I discovered that the more authority over the economy, the less productivity and wealth to tax away. I slowly began to embrace free markets, and as a consequence has to give up communism. I became essentially a minarchist left libertarian, but still was getting further and further left (my leftism just got less state oriented and yet more radical). Then I read Benjamin Tucker at some point and realized I was becoming an anarchist, but still a leftist. One day, after reading Taoists and Cynics and Stoics, and eventually Rothbard, and therefore embracing the subjective theory of value and individualism completely, I realized I was no longer recognizable to myself as left or right anymore. I began to see that paradigm as only mattering in the context of the state, as without it these were just organizational and economic preferences. I, no $#@!, looked in the mirror one morning and thought "how did I go from an authoritarian communist to a free market individualist anarchist?"

The answer was just logic and applying it to new information. I had been ignorant to economics and the lack of not only morality, but utilitarian outcomes, of authoritarianism and collectivism. Once the information became available to me, and I opened my mind to it, logic did all the work in terms of "what about the roads and law and defense", and also ethics. I just couldn't pretend it was ethical to advocate for harming society via imposed anything...like laws that weren't contractual, or economics, or organizational methods like democracy, etc. The ethics didn't convince me...the logic applied to new information convinced me, and that led to the ethics.

I agree that the ability to reason, and the deliberate exercise of logical thinking is certainly necessity for both valid ethics, and arriving at an anti-statist perspective, particularly when one is already coming from a minarchist perspective. Frankly, the only way to maintain a minarchist perspective is to disregard consistency in the application of ideological values. So, certainly logical thinking is a big part of it.

I also agree that the more aware and educated I became in certain areas, the closer and closer to anti-statism I inevitably became. It's almost like there's a point of critical mass, so to speak, where the wealth of information from all sorts of angles just leaves statism indefensible.

[Cabal]

Now please admit you're wrong, or be forever looked at as delusional by everyone who ever reads these posts.

Good luck with that, I couldn't get LE to understand the concept either.

Yeah, I'm afraid you're wasting your time with the likes of LE.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Minarchism IS a form of statism. Get over it. You can't change the actual meanings of words just because you don't like them.

Pro indie, therein is why cognitive distortions really need to be avoided.

Anarchists should shun them because a successful, peaceful evolving anarchy depends on each persons understanding. It is their personal understanding that binds them to the functional morals of that society.

Granted, our language is comprised of labels and generalizations to a large degree. However, there is a way to use it based on the specific point that needs to be understood. That is what matters at any given point, then with true progress, enough is understood where effective action can be collectively undertaken.

I'm quite certain that cognitive distortions were covertly modeled and exercised, demonstrated, by commercial television. When I first heard 20 something's people discussing anarchism, and they had all been to college, I realized the schools were teaching distortions then using them to teach concepts and paradigm.

By using such language, discussion never concludes and effective action is never taken. Round and round it goes.

I believe a rule can be applied to the uses of cognitive distortions. When they are used in an environment or with the intent of understanding, they are benign. When used to deceive or dominate, for the sake of domination, they are dysfunctional.

Again, with all we do, it is back to the intentions we have.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, if we want to get technical, what is "statism"? "The existence of the State" correct? So wouldn't someone who supports the existence of the State technically be a statist?

Nope. Those who want government to be one of force are statists.

[LibertyEagle]

Bull$#@!? I guess I will have to quote source after source as to the truth of what I said below. Minarchism IS a form of statism. Get over it. You can't change the actual meanings of words just because you don't like them. ANd how can a state exist without force being used? You have to extort people directly or indirectly to fund it, and/or threaten any competitor who wants to better serve consumers in the markets who wish to socialize (law, roads, defense, at minimum). Minarchism is just minimalist state socialism...it's a degree of difference from any other form of statism (state socialism), not principally different. Maximalist state socialism is state communism and minimalist state socialism is capitalism in the context of the state. The only difference is degree; how many markets you wish to socialize.

I'm sorry you can't accept the obvious and logical truth about your current beliefs.

Wikipedia:



Wikipedia:



Word IQ:



dictionary.reference.com:



thefreedictionary:




You are flatly, logically, historically, etc. WRONG. You cannot deny it without looking like a delusional person. Minarchy is clearly a form of statism, and statism clearly includes minarchy as its minimalist form (usually a republic).

I know you hate it, because you like to use the word pejoratively, but the actual denotative meaning of the word IS minimalist statism, or a minimal state.

Now please admit you're wrong, or be forever looked at as delusional by everyone who ever reads these posts.

I will admit I am wrong when I am. I am not wrong here. You are. Even Lew Rockwell does not agree with you. The existence of government does not make one a statist. It is only if you want that government to be one of force.

Or, do you think you know more than Lew Rockwell on this subject?

By the way, cherry-picking your definitions from so-called libertarian sources do not substantiate your claim. The whole idea of "minarchists" is just a libertarian name game.

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, I'm afraid you're wasting your time with the likes of LE.

Another guy who thinks he knows more than Lew Rockwell. ROFL

[Matthew5]

By the way, cherry-picking your definitions from so-called libertarian sources do not substantiate your claim. The whole idea of "minarchists" is just a libertarian name game.

I'm pretty sure I'm on LE's ignore list, but can someone please call out this statement? When did Wikipedia and THE DICTIONARY become libertarian sources?

Also, Lew Rockwell is not a god. People can and do know more on certain subjects.

[heavenlyboy34]

So when are you going to make an intelligent post?

LOLZ

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to eduardo89 again.

[ProIndividual]

I will admit I am wrong when I am. I am not wrong here. You are. Even Lew Rockwell does not agree with you. The existence of government does not make one a statist. It is only if you want that government to be one of force.

Or, do you think you know more than Lew Rockwell on this subject?

By the way, cherry-picking your definitions from so-called libertarian sources do not substantiate your claim. The whole idea of "minarchists" is just a libertarian name game.

You are not wrong, despite all the evidence presented? Holy $#@!, no wonder you're a minimalist statist (minarchist)...you have so many walls of cognitive dissonance built up in your mind that you have to do back flips in there just to breathe.

And who gives a $#@! what Lew Rockwell thinks...is he the god of definitions now? Just because one anarchist disagrees with me doesn't mean I'm wrong. Try reading the sources I gave you for Christ's sake. You do realize, despite all the good Lew does, he isn't perfect, right? He did attempt to bring racists into the libertarian movement as a subterfuge to win elections, didn't he? That's to his shame and Rothbard's shame. That doesn't mean everything they say is soiled, but it does mean referencing them isn't a godlike power of truth.

Even the Almighty Lew (and I'm not convinced he would say, if asked, that minarchy isn't a form of statism - because he isn't an illiterate person or in total denial of reality) must bend to facts and logic.

Here's some pics for you, my hopeless, minimalist statist, debate adversary:

[ProIndividual]

Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post

By the way, cherry-picking your definitions from so-called libertarian sources do not substantiate your claim. The whole idea of "minarchists" is just a libertarian name game.

response:

I'm pretty sure I'm on LE's ignore list, but can someone please call out this statement? When did Wikipedia and THE DICTIONARY become libertarian sources?

Also, Lew Rockwell is not a god. People can and do know more on certain subjects.

Quoted so LE can see it in case you're on his/her/trans ignore list.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gov will be shrunk back, but not directly through our effort, rather it will implode due to economic and civil collapse. Still, we have to have our people in place prior to the collapse in order to rebuild correctly, or the idiots will just start rebuilding the same house of cards again.

[Quark]

If the Articles of Confederation and the early Constitution weren't minarchy, then it doesn't exist. Both were, in their beginnings, the smallest and least intrusive governments ever known to man. And what are people shooting for here, that are minarchists? Going back to the minarchy (minimalist state) of the Constitution.

There existed state governments that were very intrusive in both. If one reads the U.S Constitution, one can find many examples of government action that do not fall in line with the concept of a minarchy. For example: eminent domain.

That said, sure, for blacks and women, and largely children and poor, non-land owning white males, the government was pretty intrusive (to say the least). But to say it wasn't minarchy is ignoring how little of the GDP it syphoned off the otherwise free market economy. Minarchy isn't a nightwatchmen state as much as it is a state which consumes VERY little of the excess labor of the people. What they can do with that money, or what $#@!ty or good laws they supply through their coercive monopoly on law, is rather secondary and a function of how efficiently (or inefficiently, more likely) they spend the money they do take in.

I would argue against this. A government that uses income to be, say paternalistic, harms society more than a government that only steals, even if they take the same amount of money. If I take money and give it to my friend, I stole from somebody. If I take money to kill my non-aggressive enemy, not only did I steal that money but I murdered someone. That's 2x the aggression. There have existed governments in history which had a monopoly on force, that did not tax their governing constituents (they stole money from persons they did not govern, looted through warfare, etc.) That did not make them any more minarchist to those who were governed. They were still authoritarian and used force on their population in other ways.

We have to face up to the fact that the USA had designed the smallest state ever, and designed it to stay the smallest state ever...and it miserably failed. We now have the largest state in history by many measures, and certainly the largest and most powerful empire ever. There isn't a place in the world we can't reach, or a people we can't murder (provided they don't have nukes, mind you).

The U.S Constitution was designed by nationalists to centralize government, not to "be the smallest state ever." The articles of confederation was a reaction to war debt. Neither of them were designed to be the "smallest states ever." Their growth was only limited by the sentiment of the population at the time. Which brings me to my next point, I don't agree with minarchism, and I'm a de facto anarchist, yet I still recognize that neither the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation nor the United States of America under the U.S Constitution, nor the majority of the states which composed them were minarchist states. Furthermore, they enacted more force than many governments which existed before them, and consequently were larger aggressors.


Basically, to summarize my post: government = monopoly on force, more centralized force => more government, less centralized force => less government, consequently U.S in both its forms was not minarchy, nor was it the smallest government in history. It might've been designed to be the most liberal government, but that isn't the same thing as being designed to be the smallest. Deciding to govern a population that is already governed separately (federalism) alone disqualifies it. Which is smaller? Vermont or the United States of America?

[Matthew5]

Gov will be shrunk back, but not directly through our effort, rather it will implode due to economic and civil collapse. Still, we have to have our people in place prior to the collapse in order to rebuild correctly, or the idiots will just start rebuilding the same house of cards again.

I believe you're right, the house of cards will fall. So how do our people rebuild properly? Don't people crave leadership in time of crisis? I'm afraid that'll be the person that can promise ultimate security.

Not attacking your position, btw, I'm genuinely curious.

[GunnyFreedom]

At this point, with 19 votes, it appears that 33% (2 of 6) of minarchists believe the state can be regressed to minarchism from the point it is currently at. It appears that 23% (3 of 13) of anarchists believe the state can be regressed to minarchism from the point it is currently at.

The sample size is extremely small, but this is my conclusion thus far:

Although the minarchists believe it at a higher rate, it isn't nearly as wide of a margin as I would have thought. It appears my hypothesis may have been incorrect. Perhaps the belief that the state can actually be regressed via political processes back to minarchy has little to do with why people keep believing in minarchy and political processes. Which begs the question: If you believe the state cannot be regressed back to minarchy, then why do you keep engaging in the political processes? Just to slow down the inevitable collapse? Isn't that just kicking the can down the road and pulling the Band-Aid off slowly? Why not get it over with? And why start the process all over again, by setting up another minarchy in the wake of the failed state? Are you that damn sure that the free market can't supply what the market (people) demands? Are you that sure coercion is necessary and voluntary interaction can only work here and here, but not there?

It's a bit of a head scratcher. I thought I might have some insight into what kept them hanging on to minarchism, but I may be wrong (let's see if the sample size gets bigger, and if the stats swing drastically in my hypothesis' favor though).

As a former HUGE govt statist, and later a minarchist, I can't understand it. All I required was information and logic (and therefore ethics) to change my mind. What's keeping people stuck on minarchy is baffling to me. I know it's a logic thing, but I can't figure out how that lasts so long, given my own journey.

I voted: I'm a MINARCHIST and think it WILL be shrunk back. But that was before the added caveat that it must be political means that shrinks it back. It will not. The political effort is still vital to the outcome, but the government will not be shrunk by politics, it will be shrunk by calamity. The political effort is necessary to correctly guide the recovery when it happens.

ETA: As to your being baffled that others have applied research and reason, logic and deduction, and came to a different conclusion than you have; perhaps the first step to understanding it is to abandon the presumption that you yourself are the gold standard by which all men must be measured.

[PierzStyx]

Every Leviathan state eventually collapses under its own weight.

[GunnyFreedom]

I believe you're right, the house of cards will fall. So how do our people rebuild properly? Don't people crave leadership in time of crisis? I'm afraid that'll be the person that can promise ultimate security.

Not attacking your position, btw, I'm genuinely curious.

Well, that's why we have to have our people in positions of leadership when the calamity comes. What security is more ultimate than "all of this nightmare will never happen again if we just obey the constitution and secure human liberty."

It's all about framing and articulating the argument. Republicans get destroyed by Democrats because Dems (by and large) know how to frame arguments and Reps (by and large) do not. We make fun of 'it's for the children' but that crap is why they are winning.

Almost nobody likes what our government has become; and they will like it even less, soon. There is your clear and present threat, Mr Citizen. You want security? They promise you security from the boogie-man, but we promise you security from tyranny. Which do you think is the more pressing danger?

Sure, if we had nobody in place when it happened, there would be nobody there to argue, and we would just climb right back in bed with Keynes and Mussolini. But that's why the political effort is so critical even though it will not be a political effort that ultimately shrinks the government. We have to have leadership in place who think like we do when the calamity comes. Even if not successful, then at least to serve warning on the buggars to give the next cycle (30-40 years next full cycle? They are quickening) an even bigger shot at the apple.

[Matthew5]

Almost nobody likes what our government has become; and they will like it even less, soon. There is your clear and present threat, Mr Citizen. You want security? They promise you security from the boogie-man, but we promise you security from tyranny. Which do you think is the more pressing danger?

I'm afraid you're a bit more optimistic about the outlook of the general population. The Constitution is worthless now (if not completely unknown) to many people, it'll be even less so in a collapse.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm afraid you're a bit more optimistic about the outlook of the general population. The Constitution is worthless now (if not completely unknown) to many people, it'll be even less so in a collapse.

It won't be the general public doing the rebuilding. By and large it will be the elected people who have been pointing at it and warning about it who will do the bulk of the architecture of the rebuild. I'm looking for somewhere in the neighborhood 7 to 10% of Congress as the "golden ticket." Less than that and it will be more difficult to push the agenda.

[ProIndividual]

There existed state governments that were very intrusive in both. If one reads the U.S Constitution, one can find many examples of government that does not fall in line with the concept of a minarchy. For example: eminent domain.

As Einstein said, everything is relative. "very intrusive" as compared to what? Smallest govt in the world is very intrusive compared to anarchy, not minarchy. As Thomas Paine wrote about, for more than 2 years there was no govt in the States, due to the Revolution. In some States it was longer than that. Yet, society existed. When the States were set up, it WAS by our standard today minarchy. Tens of thousands of laws have been passed on just the federal level since then. Was it the minarchist wet dream of the night-watchmen state? No...but then again, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I would argue against this. A government that uses income to be, say paternalistic, harms society more than a government that only steals, even if they take the same amount of money. If I take money and give it to my friend, I stole from somebody. If I take money to kill my non-aggressive enemy, not only did I steal that money but I murdered someone. That's 2x the aggression. There have existed governments in history which had a monopoly on force, that did not tax their governing constituents (they stole money from persons they did not govern, looted through warfare, etc.) That did not make them any more minarchist to those who were governed. They were still authoritarian and used force on their population in other ways.

I wasn't sure what you were saying here. Were you saying the early States had an income tax? Or were you saying the revenues that they brought in, they used in a paternalistic way, which was not only theft, but also doing bad things with it? In the former case, not true. In the latter case, govt can't ever do anything good with money...it's impossible. By definition, the state MUST do evil. It has to extort people, directly (tax) or indirectly (tariff, license fees, etc.) to fund itself, and/or threaten competition in the markets it coercively monopsonizes, monopolizes, or cartelizes to prevent the consumer from getting better service from that competitor. And funding via plunder isn't sustainable long term. How, by the state's very existence, can it do good without first doing horrid evil?

Minarchy is a tiny govt. The early American governments were minimalist statism...minarchy. The fact it sucked and wasn't utopia should tell us all something. But for the sake of this discussion ending, I'll say I concede the point. So, fine, it wasn't really minarchy because minarchy is only a night-watchman state, and it only funds itself via user fees, but it still threatens competition from better serving consumers in markets they coercively socialize (defense markets, dispute resolution markets, and transportation infrastructure markets...or maybe not the last one, and instead dispute resolution verdict enforcement markets).

I'm willing to concede it wasn't a night watchmen state. If that's minarchy as you define it, that's fine. That isn't what most of the minarchists here want though...they want to return to the minarchy of the Constitutional Republic, which is decidedly bigger in scope than a night watchmen state.

The U.S Constitution was designed by nationalists to centralize government, not to "be the smallest state ever."

Actually they intended to centralize it only because they felt it wasn't big and strong enough to work under the AoC. That would imply they wanted the smallest govt ever, that still worked. They wrote extensively about wanting the govt to stay small as possible. It was, at the time, the least authoritarian state in the world. We can bicker about this all day, but it was the smallest, was intended to be that way, stay that way, and it failed miserably, hence we are where we are.

The articles of confederation was a reaction to war debt.

You can pay off debt without a state. You can have debt without a state. The AoC was partly a reaction to debt, and partly a reaction to the fact they weren't anarchists. Had they been anarchists they would have never set up State govts after the Revolution (since for at least 2 years there were no govts in those colonies/States after they abolished the previous govts during the war).

Their growth was only limited by the sentiment of the population at the time. Which brings me to my next point, I don't agree with minarchism, and I'm a de facto anarchist, yet I still recognize that neither the United States of American under the Articles of Confederation nor the United States of America under the U.S Constitution, nor the majority of the states which composed them were minarchist states. Furthermore, they enacted more force than many governments which existed before them, and consequently were larger aggressors.

I'd like you to define your terms...what, to you, defines minarchy? I define it at face value...a minimalist state. How was that NOT what they set up given their classical liberal, Federalist and Anti-Federalist (although that developed over time as factions, but the general ideas existed all along) tendencies? I concede the point if you mean night watchmen state...but if you some other meaning, please help me out here.

And they enacted more force than who they overthrew...minus the troop housing, warrantless searches, lack of freedom of speech, religion, press, etc., etc., etc. You sound like you think they were better off subjects under the Crown. Granted, the Founders did all kinds of $#@!ed up $#@! right after the Revolution (Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, among others, come to mind)...but are you suggesting the Crown's govt was smaller and less oppressive? For the slaves, perhaps you have a point though...so let me think on that one...

Basically, to summarize my post: government = monopoly on force, more centralized force => more government, less centralized force => less government, consequently U.S in both its forms was not minarchy, nor was it the smallest government in history.

What nation-state had the smaller govt in that period? I might get schooled here, because I'm not aware of one. What were the post-colonial States consuming? 1% of GDP or something? The early Constitution was consuming through tariff 2%?

Help me out here.

It might've been designed to be the most liberal government, but that isn't the same thing as being designed to be the smallest.

Actually, as far as I know (which isn't perfect knowledge), that WAS the same thing in that time period, as liberalism in the classical sense called for just that.

Deciding to govern a population that is already governed separately (federalism) alone disqualifies it.

Not unless you can name a smaller one. Again, "smallest" implies a relative term, not an absolute one.

Which is smaller? Vermont or the United States of America?

That's a State vs a nation-state. They aren't equivalent comparisons. And again, they felt the minarchy of the AoC was too small to work, hence they centralized it. I think they should of just not set up State govts at all, as I'm an anarchist. I'm just saying...but again, I'm no expert. School me if you want, I'll read the links and quotes and such. My understanding is all I'm expressing...maybe I'm wrong.

[Matthew5]

It won't be the general public doing the rebuilding. By and large it will be the elected people who have been pointing at it and warning about it who will do the bulk of the architecture of the rebuild. I'm looking for somewhere in the neighborhood 7 to 10% of Congress as the "golden ticket." Less than that and it will be more difficult to push the agenda.

Maybe. But I envision a French Revolution style, where it is lead by a charismatic leader/group who promises to abandon the "old way". They'll spin it like, "it got us into this mess in the first place"! You have to remember, the generation that experiences the collapse will have lived during a state in which the Constitution is very weak. Most young people laugh at the NSA, the invasion of privacy. Others couldn't care less that American citizens have been killed without trial. Even a large chunk more don't mind paying triple the taxes on a single item. Heck, wars have nearly started over taxing liquor. Not now a days, it's get angry for a few weeks, blog about it, and move on with your life.

This will be the generation that suffers the collapse, they had little use for the Constitution previously, they'll have even less so when they want their old way of life back.

[ProIndividual]

I voted: I'm a MINARCHIST and think it WILL be shrunk back. But that was before the added caveat that it must be political means that shrinks it back. It will not. The political effort is still vital to the outcome, but the government will not be shrunk by politics, it will be shrunk by calamity. The political effort is necessary to correctly guide the recovery when it happens.

ETA: As to your being baffled that others have applied research and reason, logic and deduction, and came to a different conclusion than you have; perhaps the first step to understanding it is to abandon the presumption that you yourself are the gold standard by which all men must be measured.

Thanks for telling me. For calculations sake I'll count that as vote for the other minarchist choice (because I don't consider it shrinking to go until it collapses, and like you noticed after the fact, I mentioned this in the OP). You weren't the only one to do that, and I should have specified in the question that collapse was not shrinking....my fault totally.

ETA: read above...it's a lack of logic causing the problem. I'm not some gold standard, I'm just being consistently logical when it comes to at least these issues (and I'm not the only one), and at least some are not. If they applied logic consistently their ethics would be consistent, they wouldn't deny minarchism is a form of statism, is evil, unnecessary, and they wouldn't likely be minarchists. All that research and logic should have showed them reasons why they shouldn't be minarchists. That's how I stopped being one. But it's all good...we can't save everyone. If you go back and read the entire the thread you'll see what I mean...or not.

Logic isn't a difference of opinion. Definitions to words aren't a difference of opinion when they are clearly sourced.

Still, we have to have our people in place prior to the collapse in order to rebuild correctly, or the idiots will just start rebuilding the same house of cards again.

See, to me that means not setting up another minarchy, which amounts to intergenerational murder (the minarchy always becomes a huge govt inevitably, and it almost universally needs overthrown via bloodshed once it gets too oppressive...in the same way national debt is intergenerational theft, setting up a minarchy after a revolution is intergenerational murder). Setting up another state just means starting the cycle of "house of cards" all over again...and history shows this over and over again.

[ProIndividual]

I believe you're right, the house of cards will fall. So how do our people rebuild properly? Don't people crave leadership in time of crisis? I'm afraid that'll be the person that can promise ultimate security.

Not attacking your position, btw, I'm genuinely curious.

#NapoleonOh$#@!

[jllundqu]

I agree that the ability to reason, and the deliberate exercise of logical thinking is certainly necessity for both valid ethics, and arriving at an anti-statist perspective, particularly when one is already coming from a minarchist perspective. Frankly, the only way to maintain a minarchist perspective is to disregard consistency in the application of ideological values. So, certainly logical thinking is a big part of it.

I also agree that the more aware and educated I became in certain areas, the closer and closer to anti-statism I inevitably became. It's almost like there's a point of critical mass, so to speak, where the wealth of information from all sorts of angles just leaves statism indefensible.

[Matthew5]

#NapoleonOh$#@!

I'm thinking he'll be taller this time.

...or she. Excuse my exclusion.

[Quark]

As Einstein said, everything is relative. "very intrusive" as compared to what? Smallest govt in the world is very intrusive compared to anarchy, not minarchy. As Thomas Paine wrote about, for more than 2 years there was no govt in the States, due to the Revolution. In some States it was longer than that. Yet, society existed. When the States were set up, it WAS by our standard today minarchy. Tens of thousands of laws have been passed on just the federal level since then. Was it the minarchist wet dream of the night-watchmen state? No...but then again, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The governments created by the U.S and state constitutions were not the smallest in the world. Arguably Iceland, the Old Swiss Confederacy, and much of Canada, parts of Australia had smaller governments than many parts of the U.S.

I wasn't sure what you were saying here. Were you saying the early States had an income tax? Or were you saying the revenues that they brought in, they used in a paternalistic way, which was not only theft, but also doing bad things with it? In the former case, not true. In the latter case, govt can't ever do anything good with money...it's impossible. By definition, the state MUST do evil. It has to extort people, directly (tax) or indirectly (tariff, license fees, etc.) to fund itself, and/or threaten competition in the markets it coercively monopsonizes, monopolizes, or cartelizes to prevent the consumer from getting better service from that competitor. And funding via plunder isn't sustainable long term. How, by the state's very existence, can it do good without first doing horrid evil?

Both, that less taxation =/> less government outright. There are other factors involved. For certain groups of people there was no taxation, but they were still governed, and negatively affected, in history. Examples include various Greek city-states, Nordic countries, etc. The main sources of income for these states was plunder not of those they governed but other states. Only in the modern nation-state do you see taxation applicable to everyone who is governed. I never said government can do good with the money. They can do neutral, though. This means, there are governments that with the same amount of revenue from taxation aggress more than others.

Minarchy is a tiny govt. The early American governments were minimalist statism...minarchy. The fact it sucked and wasn't utopia should tell us all something. But for the sake of this discussion ending, I'll say I concede the point. So, fine, it wasn't really minarchy because minarchy is only a night-watchman state, and it only funds itself via user fees, but it still threatens competition from better serving consumers in markets they coercively socialize (defense markets, dispute resolution markets, and transportation infrastructure markets...or maybe not the last one, and instead dispute resolution verdict enforcement markets).

Not only was it not a night-watchmen state, but also not any other form of extended minarchy. For most minarchists, the only "proper" role for the state, according to them, is to protect one's natural rights. The early U.S governments did not only do things with the goal of protecting natural rights. Eminent domain, was the example I provided. It was (and is) a policy that isn't based on natural individual rights, but a collective need. No minarchist, one who believes in a night-watchman state or otherwise would be for eminent domain. There are other examples as well. As for your last statements on how minarchy is forceful, I don't disagree with that sentiment. Minarchists believe that the total utility of force is reduced by a government monopoly on it, though. As for transportation infrastructure being a minarchist viewpoint, I'm pretty sure most minarchists are for private roads and laissez-faire economics (excepting anything that involves the violation of the NAP.)

I'm willing to concede it wasn't a night watchmen state. If that's minarchy as you define it, that's fine. That isn't what most of the minarchists here want though...they want to return to the minarchy of the Constitutional Republic, which is decidedly bigger in scope than a night watchmen state.

They're likely not minarchists then. Classical Liberalism extends to states greater than minarchies. There are many utilitarians in classical liberal philosophy who are able to compromise what would otherwise not be compromisable by a deontological perspective.

Actually they intended to centralize it only because they felt it wasn't big and strong enough to work under the AoC. That would imply they wanted the smallest govt ever, that still worked. They wrote extensively about wanting the govt to stay small as possible. It was, at the time, the least authoritarian state in the world. We can bicker about this all day, but it was the smallest, was intended to be that way, stay that way, and it failed miserably, hence we are where we are.

There were two forces involved: anti-federalists, and federalists (nationalists.) The anti-federalists wanted government limited as much as possible, the federalists wanted a strong nation, the constitution/bill of rights was a compromise between light fascists (not unlike the ones we have today) and libertarians. Alexander Hamilton would fit just right in with today's politicians, and the rest of his peers were more extreme than him. Murray Rothbard describes this in detail in one of his lectures, I forget which one.

You can pay off debt without a state. You can have debt without a state. The AoC was partly a reaction to debt, and partly a reaction to the fact they weren't anarchists. Had they been anarchists they would have never set up State govts after the Revolution (since for at least 2 years there were no govts in those colonies/States after they abolished the previous govts during the war).

I agree. But they thought otherwise, and that's why they created the AoC. I never said anarchy never existed in post-colonial America, just that minarchy didn't. The initial point was already above what would likely qualify as a minarchist state, whose only responsibility is to protect the individual natural rights of persons.

I'd like you to define your terms...what, to you, defines minarchy? I define it at face value...a minimalist state. How was that NOT what they set up given their classical liberal, Federalist and Anti-Federalist (although that developed over time as factions, but the general ideas existed all along) tendencies? I concede the point if you mean night watchmen state...but if you some other meaning, please help me out here.

A minarchy, is a form of government in which a state's only power is to protect contracts between and rights of individual persons.

And they enacted more force than who they overthrew...minus the troop housing, warrantless searches, lack of freedom of speech, religion, press, etc., etc., etc. You sound like you think they were better off subjects under the Crown. Granted, the Founders did all kinds of $#@!ed up $#@! right after the Revolution (Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, among others, come to mind)...but are you suggesting the Crown's govt was smaller and less oppressive? For the slaves, perhaps you have a point though...so let me think on that one...

I wasn't speaking of Britain. I was speaking of Greek, Nordic, and other states (the predecessors to the American concept of government.) But at the time, the Swiss Confederacy, and Iceland were examples of Western countries with smaller governments.

What nation-state had the smaller govt in that period? I might get schooled here, because I'm not aware of one. What were the post-colonial States consuming? 1% of GDP or something? The early Constitution was consuming through tariff 2%?

Help me out here.

Again, taxation isn't the only means to enact force. The U.S government today enacts just as much force per capita than, say, Norway, despite taxing individuals less per capita.

Actually, as far as I know (which isn't perfect knowledge), that WAS the same thing in that time period, as liberalism in the classical sense called for just that.

No, not all classical liberals believed minarchism was the only way to reach liberalism. Not all classical liberals believe in laissez-faire. It is a very large group with varying beliefs on how large the state should be, and what its roles should be.

That's a State vs a nation-state. They aren't equivalent comparisons. And again, they felt the minarchy of the AoC was too small to work, hence they centralized it. U think they should of just not set up State govts at all, as I'm an anarchist. I'm just saying...but again, I'm no expert. School me if you want, I'll read the links and quotes and such. My understanding is all I'm expressing...maybe I'm wrong.

Why aren't they comparable? Both claim a monopoly on the use of force. Just because one has a nation (collective group who identify with one another) attached to it doesn't mean it is any different than a state composed of individuals with no collective identity.

Basically the major difference I'm recognizing, is that you're defining minarchy literally, as "smallest state." Minarchists define an absolute maximum at which a state is allocated powers. If that maximum is surpassed, then it is no longer a minarchy. Using your reasoning, if there were only two states in the world, the United States of America's federal state, and Nazi Germany, then the United States of America's federal state would be a minarchy. That is not how a minarchist views it.

The differences between minarchists and anarchists are philosophical. Both viewpoints are logically contained. Values are different, though.

Here's a good article on it.

http://mises.org/daily/4698

[GunnyFreedom]

LOL While you all are over there fanning yourselves on account of your holier-than-thou superior logicz, how about someone try and tell me why my belief structure is so desperately irrational.

I am a philosophical voluntaryist, and a governmental strict Constitutionalist. I am utterly convinced that if the original intent of the original Constitution were strictly upheld, that it would produce an almost perfectly voluntaryist society. That mechanism has been damaged by a few short-sighted amendments, but it can be repaired. The major problem is that neither the government nor the people by and large know anything outside of the word "Constitution" and maybe the first three "We the People" and there their knowledge ends.

I am working towards a society where all interaction is 100% voluntary, or as close to such as is possible given the current condition of humankind; the original intent of the original US Constitution framed such a society, and if an enforcement method can be developed to enforce the government's obedience to it, then it can be more perfectly amended to produce an even more perfectly voluntaryist society.

This is why I suggest making the violation of the Oath a federal felony. Ranging from a minimum felony all the way up to the death penalty, offense depending. And make the charges brought by the people of the oathbreaker's district. When pissing on the Constitution can get them the needle, they might actually start reading it.

1) My goal is a voluntaryist society 2) the original Constitution, if it were ever to have been obeyed, describes one. 3) force government to obey the Constitution as written. 4) amend the Constitution to produce a more perfectly voluntary society.

Where exactly is my logical fault, oh wiser-guys-than-thou Oracles o mine?

[Matthew5]

Where exactly is my logical fault, oh wiser-guys-than-thou Oracles o mine?

I'm assuming this was directed toward Pro as I hadn't really said anything about the Constitution itself, rather what I feel will be the public's reaction in a crisis.

[Christian Liberty]

Nope. Those who want government to be one of force are statists.

I deliberately avoided the word "government" as its an open ended term that can mean many different things. I don't want no government, and I don't think any of the "anarchists" here do either. They may say they do but if they say that they're using "government" as a synonym for the State. Being careful with terminology is important.

Even still, "government being of force" is really, really vague. Even as someone who completely opposes the State, I don't think its always wrong for governing authorities to use force. I reject aggressive force, which may have been what you meant. but, the only way a government can eschew aggressive force is if it refuses to prohibit competition with itself, and does not levy compulsory taxes. Which is really what "anarchists" here want. Or at least, that's what I want. When I word it that way, can you tell me what exactly is so radical about the idea?

(For what its worth, I do think people who don't 100% agree but yet want to radically reduce the size of the government can work together at that goal. I'm not necessarily an "all or nothing" type of person, even though I sometimes act like it during debates)