No State vs Minarchism

[Christopher A. Brown]

ya know coco puffs, if there is an RPFs hall of shame for posts....

Irrelevant, juvenile, unrelated to the facts of life and politics or law.

Try again.

[r3volution 3.0]

hmmmmm.
ok.
Why were distillers expected to pay the whiskey tax to repay the AWI war debt?

edit:


Missed this gem. What AUTHORITY justifies your robbing your neighbor to protect YOUR $#@!?

Again, the state being immoral does not mean that anarchy is possible.

I refer to you back to the dialogue you had with Sir Isaac above.

[heavenlyboy34]

Again, the state being immoral does not mean that anarchy is possible.

I refer to you back to the dialogue you had with Sir Isaac above.

Neither does it mean anarchy is impossible. Evidence of the impossibility of minarchy as proposed by minarchists past and present abounds in literature on the subject. We know in fact that the claims of monarchists are more correct than those of minarchists as well. That you don't understand the literature and proofs does not mean it's not there.

[otherone]

Again, the state being immoral does not mean that anarchy is possible.

I refer to you back to the dialogue you had with Sir Isaac above.

As I've written, I'm not an anarchist. This is what I believe:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


This is why I asked the question earlier about CONSENT.
How does one demonstrate his non-consent? Is this a Right? Is one an ANARCHIST if he does not CONSENT?

[heavenlyboy34]

As I've written, I'm not an anarchist. This is what I believe:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


This is why I asked the question earlier about CONSENT.
How does one demonstrate his non-consent? Is this a Right? Is one an ANARCHIST if he does not CONSENT?

+rep

[r3volution 3.0]

the state being immoral does not mean that anarchy is possible.

Neither does it mean anarchy is impossible.

Correct

It is the argument which I presented for why anarchy is impossible which means that anarchy is impossible.

Evidence of the impossibility of minarchy as proposed by minarchists past and present abounds in literature on the subject. We know in fact that the claims of monarchists are more correct than those of minarchists as well. That you don't understand the literature and proofs does not mean it's not there.

Another recurring theme in conversations with ancaps..

"Your argument has already been refuted in books which you obviously didn't read...

...which books you ask?

.....Oh, ah, uh, well...."

[r3volution 3.0]

As I've written, I'm not an anarchist. This is what I believe:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

This is why I asked the question earlier about CONSENT.
How does one demonstrate his non-consent? Is this a Right? Is one an ANARCHIST if he does not CONSENT?

I don't know what you're asking me.

It appears to be some kind question about morality, which (for the third time) is irrelevant to question of whether anarchy is possible.

Nonetheless, I'll be happy to answer if you can clarify what you mean.

[otherone]

I don't know what you're asking me.

I'll be happy to answer if you can clarify what you mean.

Are you allowed to not consent to your government? If you don't CONSENT to your government. are you an ANARCHIST?

[r3volution 3.0]

Are you allowed to not consent to your government? If you don't CONSENT to your government. are you an ANARCHIST?

If you think that government should only exist if its relationship with the population is purely voluntary, then you are an anarchist.

[otherone]

If you think that government should only exist if its relationship with the population is purely voluntary, then you are an anarchist.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The DoI is anarchist?

What does THIS mean:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson



Is this an anarchist statement?

[Occam's Banana]

Again, the state being immoral does not mean that anarchy is possible.

So what? It doesn't mean that anarchy is impossible, either.

And even if anarchy *is* impossible for some other reason(s), well, then, still - so what?

A world without murder is not possible. Do you propose to instruct those who are "anti-murder" that they are therefore in error?

I am an anarchist on both moralistic and pragmatic grounds. I do not concede that statelessness is impossible by either standard.

But even if I did, I would still be "anti-state" (i.e., an anarchist) ...

[r3volution 3.0]

If you think that government should only exist if its relationship with the population is purely voluntary, then you are an anarchist.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The DoI is anarchist?

No. By "consent of the governed," the DoI means representative government, not purely voluntary government.

What does THIS mean:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Is this an anarchist statement?

Er, no, why would it be?

Proposing the overthrow of a bad government and its replacement with a good government =/= being an anarchist

An anarchist would propose overthrowing the government (good or bad), and replacing it with nothing.

[r3volution 3.0]

So what? It doesn't mean that anarchy is impossible, either.

I guess you didn't read the posts above, where heavenlyboy made exactly this point.

So Ill repeat myself.

Yes, that's correct.

It is the argument I've made for why anarchy is impossible which means that anarchy is impossible.

And even if anarchy *is* impossible for some other reason(s), well, then, still - so what?

Is that a joke of some kind?

A world without murder is not possible. Do you propose to instruct those who are "anti-murder" that they are therefore in error?

I would propose to them that they not undertake actions whose success rests on the non-existence of murder.

They can still oppose murder, of course, but it existence must by taken into account in deciding how to act.

I am an anarchist on both moralistic and pragmatic grounds. I do not concede that statelessness is impossible by either standard.

You don't concede that anarchy is impossible, yet you fail to refute my argument that it is impossible.

Alright: horse, water, drinking, etc.

But even if I did, I would still be "anti-state" (i.e., an anarchist) ...

So you would propose social order X even if you knew that it was impossible?

If so, I would say that is a form of insanity.

[HVACTech]

So what? It doesn't mean that anarchy is impossible, either.

And even if anarchy *is* impossible for some other reason(s), well, then, still - so what?

A world without murder is not possible. Do you propose to instruct those who are "anti-murder" that they are therefore in error?

I am an anarchist on both moralistic and pragmatic grounds. I do not concede that statelessness is impossible by either standard.

But even if I did, I would still be "anti-state" (i.e., an anarchist) ...

heh, just in case. nobody else has noticed.
I have been building an argument that supporting the 2nd US Constitution is VERBOTEN!
on RPF's

you will very quickly get surrounded by anarchist hyenas.

at least minarchists have the BALLS to fight back.
what do anarchists do?

passively pontificate. endlessly.
they anoint their feted psalms with laurels and clover. as clever wordsmiths.

in their fetid dreams. they are FAR Superior to the silly founding fathers.

realizing, that I do NOT live in a democracy. the best way for me to support our Republic is NOT to jack with the hyenas of RPF's.
this place no longer supports Ron Paul's vision.

I understand that the concepts of natural law and natural rights are complicated.
I am willing to help people understand them better.

you sir, are a disgrace to the movement that I joined in 08.

So what? It doesn't mean that anarchy is impossible, either.

And even if anarchy *is* impossible for some other reason(s), well, then, still - so what?

[heavenlyboy34]

How trite...

I'm looking for ancaps to provide arguments in response to my criticisms, not slogans.

Any chance you might give that a try?

I've been looking for Constitutionalists to do the same for years, to no avail. If you're not working on coming up with a solid legal theory to support Constituitonalism, you should be doing that instead of playing in this thread.

[heavenlyboy34]

It is the argument I've made for why anarchy is impossible which means that anarchy is impossible.

You've thus far made claims, not arguments. (and quite extraordinary claims, while curiously leaving out extraordinary evidence)

The word “argument” can be used to designate a dispute or a fight, or it can be used more technically. The focus of this article is on understanding an argument as a collection of truth-bearers (that is, the things that bear truth and falsity, or are true and false) some of which are offered as reasons for one of them, the conclusion. This article takes propositions rather than sentences or statements or utterances to be the primary truth bearers. The reasons offered within the argument are called “premises”, and the proposition that the premises are offered for is called the “conclusion”. This sense of “argument” diverges not only from the above sense of a dispute or fight but also from the formal logician’s sense according to which an argument is merely a list of statements, one of which is designated as the conclusion and the rest of which are designated as premises regardless of whether the premises are offered as reasons for believing the conclusion. Arguments, as understood in this article, are the subject of study in critical thinking and informal logic courses in which students usually learn, among other things, how to identify, reconstruct, and evaluate arguments given outside the classroom.
Arguments, in this sense, are typically distinguished from both implications and inferences. In asserting that a proposition P implies proposition Q, one does not thereby offer P as a reason for Q. The proposition frogs are mammals implies that frogs are not reptiles, but it is problematic to offer the former as a reason for believing the latter. If an arguer offers an argument in order to persuade an audience that the conclusion is true, then it is plausible to think that the arguer is inviting the audience to make an inference from the argument’s premises to its conclusion. However, an inference is a form of reasoning, and as such it is distinct from an argument in the sense of a collection of propositions (some of which are offered as reasons for the conclusion). One might plausibly think that a person S infers Q from P just in case S comes to believe Q because S believes that P is true and because S believes that the truth of P justifies belief that Q. But this movement of mind from P to Q is something different from the argument composed of just P and Q.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/

[r3volution 3.0]

I've been looking for Constitutionalists to do the same for years, to no avail. If you're not working on coming up with a solid legal theory to support Constituitonalism, you should be doing that instead of playing in this thread.

You keep saying this, without ever explaining what is not "solid" about minarchist legal theory.

Or what objection to it we minarchists are supposed to be answering.

There is literally zero content to what you're saying, nothing to respond to. You might as well make fart sounds with your mouth.

You've thus far made claims, not arguments. (and quite extraordinary claims, while curiously leaving out extraordinary evidence)

http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/

okie doke

[HVACTech]

I've been looking for Constitutionalists to do the same for years, to no avail. If you're not working on coming up with a solid legal theory to support Constituitonalism, you should be doing that instead of playing in this thread.

gawd. you are making an ass of yourself.

with a solid legal theory to support Constituitonalism,

people have been NICE to you. huggyboy.

in a Republic. the Constitution is the rule of law.

[heavenlyboy34]

You keep saying this, without ever explaining what is not "solid" about minarchist legal theory.

Or what objection to it we minarchists are supposed to be answering.

There is literally zero content to what you're saying, nothing to respond to. You might as well make fart sounds with your mouth.

Your reading skills fail you. This is why you think there is no content in what I wrote. I said constitutionalists don't have a legal theory at all(much less a sound one). I believe it was CCTelander who once aptly called it "bull$#@! on stilts". I was hoping I wouldn't have to be so blunt with you, as that's condescending and patronizing to the average or above average schooled person, but I guess I do.

Now, I imagine you're asking yourself "what is this 'legal theory' thing?" Glad to answer!
theory



[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun, plural theories. 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.




law¹



[law]

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun 1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.


3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order


4. a system or collection of such rules.

5. the department of knowledge concerned with these rules; jurisprudence: to study law.


6. the body of such rules concerned with a particular subject or derived from a particular source: commercial law.


7. an act of the supreme legislative body of a state or nation, as distinguished from the constitution.



verb (used with object) 23. Chiefly Dialect. to sue or prosecute.

24. British. (formerly) to expeditate (an animal).

Idioms 25. be a law to /unto oneself, to follow one's own inclinations, rules of behavior, etc.; act independently or unconventionally, especially without regard for established mores.



Now you have the general ideal of legal theory (theory of law). Below is an example that makes it even clearer.


The Pure Theory of Law

First published Mon Nov 18, 2002; substantive revision Wed Jul 7, 2010

The idea of a Pure Theory of Law was propounded by the formidable Austrian jurist and philosopher Hans Kelsen (1881–1973). (See bibliographical note) Kelsen began his long career as a legal theorist at the beginning of the 20th century. The traditional legal philosophies at the time, were, Kelsen claimed, hopelessly contaminated with political ideology and moralizing on the one hand, or with attempts to reduce the law to natural or social sciences, on the other hand. He found both of these reductionist endeavors seriously flawed. Instead, Kelsen suggested a ‘pure’ theory of law which would avoid reductionism of any kind. The jurisprudence Kelsen propounded “characterizes itself as a ‘pure’ theory of law because it aims at cognition focused on the law alone” and this purity serves as its “basic methodological principle” (PT1, 7).

• 1. The Basic Norm
• 2. Relativism and Reduction
• 3. The Normativity of Law
• Bibliography
  
  • Primary Sources
  • Secondary Sources
  
  
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

now you know enough to go to the library and start working to make Constitutionalism rational and practical. Future generations of Constitutionalists will thank you if you manage to pull it off.

okie doke

You're most welcome! Glad to help.

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^How cute...

Anyway....

Minarchist legal theory is standard libertarian legal theory + the corollary that there is a state with such and such rights and responsibilities. In other words, it is libertarian legal theory with certain exceptions (aggression of such and such kind is permitted by agents of the state for such and such purposes).

Now...

1. First you claimed that minarchist legal theory is incoherent, because it does not grant equal rights to everyone (agents of the state are granted special rights). Now, you're claiming that there is no minarchist legal theory at all. These two claims are contradictory.

2. I will take the latter claim, that there is no minarchist legal theory at all, as mere hyperbole. Your real criticism, the only criticism you've articulated thus far, is the one about equality of rights.

3. I have repeatedly answered that criticism. A proposition such as "Theft is a crime for everyone, except for agents of the state as needed to finance X, Y, and Z" is not incoherent. There is no logical contradiction. You simply don't like it. Which is what your argument amounts to - "I don't like minarchy!" To which my response is: okay.

[HVACTech]

[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5874238 I said constitutionalists don't have a legal theory at all(much less a sound one).[/QUOTE]

yeah, I heard you the first time.
what is a "constitution" in a Republic huggyboy?

[Origanalist]

yeah, I heard you the first time.
what is a "constitution" in a Republic huggyboy?

Why don't you tell us what it is? And while you're at it explain to us how it's doing what you think it's supposed to do.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why don't you tell us what it is? And while you're at it explain to us how it's doing what you think it's supposed to do.

Indeed! But for your sanity and to safeguard your IQ, I suggest putting Mr HVAC on ignore. It's made RPFs a much more pleasant place for me.

[Christopher A. Brown]

As I've written, I'm not an anarchist. This is what I believe:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


This is why I asked the question earlier about CONSENT.
How does one demonstrate his non-consent? Is this a Right? Is one an ANARCHIST if he does not CONSENT?

And I believe in being able to enforce those principles.

-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Therefore I logically believe in what ever serves the purpose of enabling the unity needed to alter or abolish.

I also believe that IF we are evolved enough, at some point we can decide to abolish government entirely. But we've got a long ways to go.

[Occam's Banana]

It is the argument I've made for why anarchy is impossible which means that anarchy is impossible.

You don't concede that anarchy is impossible, yet you fail to refute my argument that it is impossible.

You haven't shown that anarchy is impossible. You have merely insisted that it is while providing some description of why you think so.

Anarchy cannot aprioristically be demonstrated to be impossible - any more than, say, "life beyond Earth" can be. (And the same thing goes for any aprioristic attempts to "prove" the impossibility of minarchy, too.)

That is why I have "failed" to "refute" you (and will continue doing so). It is utterly pointless to try to aprioristically (dis)prove things that are not aprioristically (dis)provable. The only way even to attempt such a thing is to assume the truth of that which is to be proven (or the falseness of that which is to be disproven) - i.e., by "begging the question" - i.e, by arguing in circles ...

... which is exactly where arguments between people (from either side of an issue) who imagine that they can aprioristically dispose of aposteroristic questions always end up going - in circles ...

Is that a joke of some kind?

No. It was simply a prefatory remark to what followed.

I would propose to them that they not undertake actions whose success rests on the non-existence of murder.

They can still oppose murder, of course, but it existence must by taken into account in deciding how to act.

[...]

So you would propose social order X even if you knew that it was impossible?

If so, I would say that is a form of insanity.

You have inverted the meaning of what I actually said about myself from "opposing" something to "proposing" something.
(If this is how you have engaged the ancap "canon" then I don't wonder that you haven't been able to find what you insist is not there.)

What I actually said is that "I would still be 'anti-state'" - that is, that I would still be opposed to the State - even if I were persuaded that statelessness is impossible. (Just as I am "anti-murder" - that is, I am opposed to murder - regardless of whether the elimination of the existence of murder is possible.)

I said nothing about what kind of "social order" I would propose (or advocate or support) - or about what actions I think would or would not be useful to be undertaken - if I were persuaded that statelessness is impossible. I am not so persuaded, however - and am not very likely to be if all I am offered are aprioristic "proofs" of inherently aposterioristic questions (or straw-man inversions of things I have said created for purposes of suggesting that they are irrational or "insane").

[erowe1]

in a Republic. the Constitution is the rule of law.

According to what? Itself?

[erowe1]

what is a "constitution" in a Republic huggyboy?

Just a piece of parchment.

[Christopher A. Brown]

According to what? Itself?

Just a piece of parchment.

HVAC has not been too accountable or coherent lately, so I'm addressing your statements.

According to language definition, the word constitution carries the principles of a republic. And it's a piece of hemp paper.

I'm very much a proponent of anarchy, but am a realist and idealist at the same time.

My point about education and knowledge about needs or how to meet them are reasonably forms of absolutes for human social behavior.

We are going to have to prepare for any form of anarchy. Currently, anarchy, from the political position we inhabit, is hardly more than a fantasy.

We shall have to earn the abilities required for a functional and peaceful anarchy. Transition from the current political state requires unity, and so does anarchy. Accordingly it is logical that unity leading to use of the state by anarchists to create education for the masses, raising the potential for functional anarchy over time, is the first step.

Therefore anarchists that are also realists, need to support transitory government supportive of anarchy.

Now we have arrived at minarchy as a logical form dignifying our readiness for anarchy.

[erowe1]

HVAC has not been too accountable or coherent lately, so I'm addressing your statements.

According to language definition, the word constitution carries the principles of a republic. And it's a piece of hemp paper.

I'm very much a proponent of anarchy, but am a realist and idealist at the same time.

My point about education and knowledge about needs or how to meet them are reasonably forms of absolutes for human social behavior.

We are going to have to prepare for any form of anarchy. Currently, anarchy, from the political position we inhabit, is hardly more than a fantasy.

We shall have to earn the abilities required for a functional and peaceful anarchy. Transition from the current political state requires unity, and so does anarchy. Accordingly it is logical that unity leading to use of the state by anarchists to create education for the masses, raising the potential for functional anarchy over time, is the first step.

Therefore anarchists that are also realists, need to support transitory government supportive of anarchy.

Now we have arrived at minarchy as a logical hola dignifying our readiness for anarchy.

I agree about anarchy being hardly more than a fantasy.

I also agree that the state has no moral legitimacy, and neither does the Constitution.

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree about anarchy being hardly more than a fantasy.

I also agree that the state has no moral legitimacy, and neither does the Constitution.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again.