It's just a name. I don't care if someone calls me conservative
Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
An caps lecturing minarchists is really an exercise in futility when you analyze the real world and the governments that are in place. Getting to even a minarchist society would be a miracle in of itself and taking that to even the further degree with an an cap one would be an even far bolder initiative. So all the fighting and quarrels is really nonsense when you cut right to it. We're all essentially outcasts longing for that needle in the haystack.
Last edited by AuH20; 03-24-2015 at 11:19 PM.
Yea, for practical political purposes this debate is totally irrelevant. AnCaps and minarchists should be the closest of allies for the foreseeable future.
Nonetheless, it is an important debate: even if only academic at this point.
...not to mention all the entertainment value! Am I right?
I used to.Do you consider yourself to be "conservative"
I think the definitions have changed.
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004
Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
It's all about Freedom
If the long term vision was the same, alliances would be easier with the minarchists. However, minarchists are hellbent on repeating the same old mistakes of their respective favorite historical fails, whether it be Constitutionalism or something else. The admirable thing about most anarchists is a desire to actually solve problems in a meaningful way instead of a way that just lasts an election cycle or two at the most.Yea, for practical political purposes this debate is totally irrelevant. AnCaps and minarchists should be the closest of allies for the foreseeable future.
Nonetheless, it is an important debate: even if only academic at this point.
...not to mention all the entertainment value! Am I right?
...and all from the comfort of mom's basement.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
More like...and all from the comfort of mom's basement.
Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard
No insult intended, but this reminds me of the reaction you get from a leftist when you point out that their economic program won't work: i.e. "O, you must hate the poor!" What's the error in the leftist's line of thinking? He's confused means and ends. I've told him that doing X will not help the poor, and he concludes that I don't want to help the poor. I see analogous thinking among AnCaps. We minarchists argue that your solution won't work, and you counter by accusing us of not wanting to solve the problem. In short, we minarchists want to solve the problem of the state just as much as you; but we know that your solution can't work.
P.S.It's ironic that the wellspring of modern anarcho-capitalist thought is named after a minarchist, don't you think?And like:
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 03-26-2015 at 01:59 PM.
Conservative on some things and not on others. I prefer not to be labeled..it goes against individual thinking. I know one thing, if some of the sexist pig remarks I've seen around here lately denotes conservatism then no..I'm not conservative. If being against most aspects of government means conservative then yes I am. Other than that..it's nobody's business.
I'm not an ancap per se. I just see the impossibility of minarchism and its consistent track record of epic fail. WRT the bolded above: that's not analagous at all. The anarchists criticize both the means and ends of minarchism.
I don't believe that minarchists (generally or all but a few cliques) are really interested in solving the problems of the State. That's why the minarchists keep trying outdated 18th century solutions no matter how many times it fails. On the other hand, anarchists have the admirable trait of looking to the real world as well as classical and modern theoretical models. IMO, the primary problem anarchists have is a lack of persuasion/salesmanship ability. If they were as slick at rhetoric and con-artistry as Federalists, large swaths of the Western world would have already abandoned all forms of Statism.
Not really. Mises was a radical classical liberal, not a run-of-the-mill minarchist. He proposed micro-secessions and a number of other things minarchists to this day find appalling. This is one reason Mises was kept in obscurity for his whole life and would still be were it not for libertarians.
Minarchist states tend to grow over time and lose their minarchist character - sure.
But, on the other hand, anarcho-capitalism has never existed at all.
So, which has the better record?
There you go again. It's exactly analogous to the left's response to criticism of their economic program.I don't believe that minarchists (generally or all but a few cliques) are really interested in solving the problems of the State.
Don't want welfare? You must hate the poor!
Don't want an untried and theoretically unsound new system of social order? You must love the state!
...meh, there's no way for me to prove to you what my motives are. So think what you like.
LOL - where in the real world has anarcho-capitalism ever existed?That's why the minarchists keep trying outdated 18th century solutions no matter how many times it fails. On the other hand, anarchists have the admirable trait of looking to the real world as well as classical and modern theoretical models.
I think the primary problem is that most people can see the inherent problem with anarchy.IMO, the primary problem anarchists have is a lack of persuasion/salesmanship ability. If they were as slick at rhetoric and con-artistry as Federalists, large swaths of the Western world would have already abandoned all forms of Statism.
Mises advocated a minimal state. He did not advocate a stateless society. He had rather unflattering things to say about anarchists.Not really. Mises was a radical classical liberal, not a run-of-the-mill minarchist. He proposed micro-secessions and a number of other things minarchists to this day find appalling. This is one reason Mises was kept in obscurity for his whole life and would still be were it not for libertarians.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 03-26-2015 at 02:35 PM.
There was a very close facsimile of anarcho-capitalism in Medieval Iceland and Ireland. I'm an ancap who opposes private DROs in favor of privately owned towns and cities, which is a much more workable system in my opinion.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
People are waking up to the sham of egalitarianism, and men are sick of being feminized. The later 20th century was the age of sexual "liberation" and cultural liberalism, the mid-late 21st will belong to the reactionary. Buckle up.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
Why Medieval Iceland Was Not An Anarcho-Capitalist Society
The problem with Ireland is that we just don't know enough to say one way or the other; the law codes that have survived lend themselves to multiple interpretations.
Yes, private communities are fine; they're not subject to the same criticism as Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism (because they don't have multiple security firms competing in the same geographical area). The problem (if you're an anarcho-capitalist) is that a private community is a de facto state. The difference is semantic. If you're advocating for a private community, you are for all intents and purposes a minarchist.I'm an ancap who opposes private DROs in favor of privately owned towns and cities, which is a much more workable system in my opinion.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 03-26-2015 at 02:44 PM.
I've read that article, and mainly agree with it. It's not that Iceland was purely anarcho-capitalist, but it did have competition of part of its governmental structure, despite the fact that it wasn't polycentric or freely competing.
What we do know about Ireland is that it did not have a centralized tax structure, and as such that the British had to go to people individually to collect taxes under imperial rule. It took the British longer to conquer the tiny isle of Ireland than all of India, because it didn't have a tax structure for the Empire to take over.
I've always agreed with the idea that ancaps wish to privatize the statem I just don't see that as a criticism, merely a description. A private state would be better than any other form of statism. However, I will say that the differences are more than just semantic.Yes, private communities are fine; they're not subject to the same criticism as Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism (because they don';t have multiple security firms competing in the same geographical area).
The problem (if you're an anarcho-capitalist) is that a private community is a de facto state. The difference is semantic.
If I had my ideal society the "private states" would be:
As decentralized as possible, to get the political unit as close to the organic community it can.
The social contract would be turned into an actual contract that people negotiate and sign through free volition.
The right of exit would be respected, and people would be able to buy the land they occupy out from under the corporation who owns the city they live in.
The privately owned cities/towns would compete with one another to provide "citizens" with the best service of law.
I think this system eliminates all of the obvious problems with anarcho-capitalist defense such as the free rider problem. It also maintains everything desirable that comes with a state, such as borders, situational tariffs and cultural cohesion. Some libertarian critics have told me that advocating this system means I'm actually an "anarcho-feudalist", but I don't actually have a problem with that. Maybe that's the label I'll adopt as opposed to ancap.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
Depends on what we are conserving. If you go with 'conservatives want to preserve the status quo,' then maybe only 1% of all Americans are 'conservative,' since basically nobody likes the status quo. So I don't really buy that definition. I am trying to conserve -- even to restore -- Constitutional government, therefore I am a Constitutional Conservative. From where I sit, most Republicans are liberal progressives.
So yes, I am a conservative. A Constitutional conservative. Whatever liberal progressive nonsense these clowns are trying to call 'conservative' nowadays, I most certainly am not.
@ThePaleoLibertarian
I think we're on the same page.
When I say that the difference between a proprietary community and a state is semantic, I mean that the former is no more voluntary than the latter. For the first generation of residents, a proprietary community is voluntary; but subsequent generations are born into the community, subject to its rules, in the same way that people are born into the state. Sure, the children of the first settlers can always exit, but so can anyone who's born into a state - doesn't make it voluntary. In other words, a proprietary community is a type of state. It is not an alternative to the state. This is not intended to be a criticism, just a description.
That said, some types of states are better than others. A private state is better than a public state, which is just another way of saying that monarchy/oligarchy is better than democracy. My ideal minarchist state probably looks a lot like you're ideal proprietary community.
This is road that has been traveled on RPFs many times on 20+ page threads before. I don't see any point in addressing it again. Minarchists lose this debate every time.
So it's your subjective opinion against mine. Let's forget it then.
In the sense that Rothbardians and so forth mean it, nowhere AFAIK. That's exactly why they continue advocating-it needs to be tried. But the burden of proof isn't on them anyway, as they aren't making the positive claim in this argument. The burden of proof is on minarchists. So, prove it! I can't even get minarchists around here to come up with a coherent legal theory as a basis for constitutionalism, much less something like this that should be much easier if the minarchist claims are true.
More inherent than anything else humans have come up with? Nope. Unless you know something I don't.
I didn't claim otherwise. Mises' philosophy of government, taken seriously, would never appeal to minarchists. Re-read the post you quoted.
Buckle up yourself...I won't be going down easy..especially at the hands of people who think women should never have been educated or given the right to vote and I'm not trying to feminize anybody....you can't rape the willing. If men are being feminized, why is that? So by all means Do react...but not by trying to throw us back to the Middle Ages. I don't do Sharia Law.
Last edited by Carlybee; 03-26-2015 at 04:02 PM.
That's nice.
Do you have a response to my argument re cartels?
I tell you I'm a minarchist because I don't think that anarchy can work.So it's your subjective opinion against mine. Let's forget it then.
You call me a liar and say I'm a secret state-lover.
There's nothing more to say here. It is impossible to prove/disprove what another person's motives are.
Note that I'm not questioning your motives, only your reasoning.
So how can you criticize the record of minarchism when anarcho-capitalism has none at all?In the sense that Rothbardians and so forth mean it, nowhere AFAIK. That's exactly why they continue advocating-it needs to be tried.
I did, on the last page, in a paragraph length application of basic economics: to which none of you has even attempted a response.But the burden of proof isn't on them anyway, as they aren't making the positive claim in this argument. The burden of proof is on minarchists. So, prove it!
Good, so then we agree that Mises was a minarchist.I didn't claim otherwise.
So, since we agree that Mises was a minarchist, that must mean that either Mises didn't take his own philosophy seriously, or his own philosophy didn't appeal to him.Mises' philosophy of government, taken seriously, would never appeal to minarchists.
...that seems like a peculiar claim.
LOL, yea...
In their defense, though, the system created by the original Constitution of 1788 is probably the least bad form of democratic government ever devised.
Obviously it would be a huge improvement over the current system. But, yea, we could do even better.
That depends on how you're defining the state - whether it's based on coercion and monopoly (as ancaps define it) or hierarchy (as left-anarchists do). I don't think a "voluntary society" is possible or workable, so that isn't what I advocate. I also think hierarchy is a natural part of human organization, as is aristocracy. The reason my kind of feudalist capitalism would be non-statist is because there would be no social contract, secession would be not only possible but encouraged, and the feudal "lords" (CEOs in my particular vision) would be in open competition to provide the best civilization to their citizens, and market forces would therefore apply to the law and society. My criticism of the state is of form, not function.
I agree we're largely on he same page, and monarchy/oligarchy is better than democracy of any sort.That said, some types of states are better than others. A private state is better than a public state, which is just another way of saying that monarchy/oligarchy is better than democracy. My ideal minarchist state probably looks a lot like you're ideal proprietary community.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
That's really the point though, to do better. Thing is, the government has to start obeying the Constitution first befor improving it will be meaningful at all. I pretty much agree with everything you said here. This Constitution, if obeyed, would produce one of the least bad governments in human history. It is still far from perfect, and needs improved.
Only thing I would add is you have to get the government obeying the Constitution in the first place before adjusting it to make it better will mean anything.
Just because use someone is a Constitutionalist does not mean they are mindlessly stuck in 1789. Hell, even in 1789 we had real issues with failing in the Constitution. Amendments 1 through 13 were pretty good. 14-16 were horrible. It's not even a statement that THIS Constitution is so great that makes a Constitutionalist, but that the government has to obey ANY kind of Constitution at all, first, before tweaking the Constitution to make things better will have any effect at making things better.
Bear in mind that HB's definition of winning is simply ignoring everyone and everything and mindlessly declaring himself the winner and everyone else losers. It's like as if the Emperor of Japan stood on the deck of the Battleship Missouri and declared himself the winner and facts be damned lmao!
I take the former view and, strictly speaking, the children of the first settlers are not having their property rights violated by being "forced" to obey the rules of the community. There is no property rights violation, no aggression; this is all voluntary in the ethical sense. Yes. However, my point is that the difference between this and the state is trivial in material reality. The government of the proprietary community can potentially do anything to the residents that the state can do - all without formally violating libertarian ethics. From the standpoint of pure ethics, there's a difference between a state and a proprietary community. But if you're interested in the material effects of the these systems (e.g. whether the government is going to permit a free market), there's no difference at all. A proprietary community, operating within libertarian ethics, could have a the equivalent of a welfare state, central banking, price controls. state-sponsored monopolizes, labor unions, etc, etc. It would just all be formally voluntary through contracts (which may have been made by people 500 years earlier who are now long-dead).
tl;dr -- there's no material difference between the fictional social contract that the mainstream likes and the "real" social contract that you're talking about.
I write about this at greater length here.
My overarching point in saying this is probably somewhat lost on you, since you're not a Rothbardian. When I get a Rothbardian cornered into acknowledging the problems with the DRO-model, they often retreat to proprietary communities (which as we've noted solves those problems). I then point out to them that there's no real difference between that and the state, in order to show them that they are de facto minarchists and should stop calling me a state-lover....Anyway, that's where I'm coming from with this.
P.S. Imagine the following:
Society A and Society B are perfectly identical in every respect; their governments have exactly the same policies (which let's say is a "mixed economy" model). Except that 500 years earlier, the original residents of Society A signed a real contract delegating the government its authority; while in Society B the government just pretends this happened.
Society B and C are radically different; their government have radically different policies. B follows laissez faire, C is socialist. But, for both B and C, the original residents signed a real contract delegating the government it's authority.
My point is that the difference between B and C is infinitely more important than the difference between A and B: which is to say that the structure of government (monarchy, democracy, etc) is infinitely more important than whether it is strictly in conformity with libertarian ethics or not.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 03-26-2015 at 05:21 PM.
Heck, as a theonomist I'm all for working with minarchists and ancaps. Anything to attack the current absolutist state.
All I said was that the education of women caused an IQ shred, which is a purely descriptive claim. I never advocated laws against women's education.
Female suffrage on the other hand is a disaster. I don't think the right to vote is real liberty, not for anyone, but the female electorate has inflicted awful statism on every single country that has given it to them. Other than demotist dogma, what is the point of female suffrage?
I agree, men are the main engine of the feminization of society. It is inevitably men who control what is and is not socially acceptable. Feminism would have been - at most - a single generational curiosity if it wasn't for the hordes of pathetic men who have used it as a mating strategy. It will eventually all collapse in on itself; feminist men rarely get laid, and women are sick of being with guys who are constantly apologizing for their sexuality and genitalia. It's an unsustainable cultural zeitgeist.and I'm not trying to feminize anybody....you can't rape the willing. If men are being feminized, why is that?
I'm of the techno-futurist wing of the neoreaction, so I don't want to go back to any time period, I just want civilization to learn the correct lessons that history has to teach. Sharia is Islamic barbarism, nothing I desire remotely resembles that.So by all means Do react...but not by trying to throw us back to the Middle Ages. I don't do Sharia Law.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
He identified with the label "Classical Liberal", which he may or may not have considered equal to what's now called "minarchy". He's a little too dead to be consulted, so we'll have to find some evidence in his books to find reason to call him a "minarchist". Got some?
We don't agree (yet). But lovely non-sequitur, anyway.~hugs~
Here is what MI's site says about the school (and why radicals/anarchists are prominent there):
http://mises.org/about-mises/what-is...ises-InstituteWhat is the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, is an educational institution devoted to advancing Austrian economics, freedom, and peace in the classical-liberal tradition.
For over 30 years the Mises Institute has provided both scholars and laymen with resources to broaden their understanding of the economic school of thought known as Austrian economics. This school is most closely associated with our namesake, economist Ludwig von Mises.
We are the worldwide epicenter of the Austrian movement.
Through their research in the fields of economics, history, philosophy, and political theory, Mises’s students F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, and others carried the Austrian school into the late twentieth century. Today, Mises Institute scholars and researchers continue the important work of the Austrian school.
Austrian economics is a method of economic analysis, and is non-ideological. Nonetheless, the Austrian school has long been associated with libertarian and classical-liberal thought—promoting private property and freedom, while opposing war and aggression of all kinds. The Mises Institute continues to support research and education in this radical pro-freedom tradition of historians, philosophers, economists, and theorists such as Jean-Baptiste Say, Frédéric Bastiat, Richard Cobden, Herbert Spencer, Lysander Spooner, William Graham Sumner, Albert Jay Nock, Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Rothbard, and others.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us