No State vs Minarchism

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Minarchy, on the other hand, does not require a New Minarchist Man. Ordinary, everyday Man will do.

Again, you can ignore the call of the markets if you want but the fact is that right now, minarchy doesn't exist in the U.S because there aren't enough minarchists, & if minarchy were ever to be achieved, it would require enough minarchists that believe & support the idea. So yes, minarchy does require a New Minarchist Man. And, similarly, there would have to be enough people who believe in equal rights for AnCap communities.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

That would mean that minarchist ethics (or legal theory) does not grant everyone equal rights.

I don't think I need to say anything more to defeat the idea of minarchism (or any form of statism for that matter).

[CJLauderdale4]

I'm glad to see a lot of folks in this thread have a decent understanding of the "State".

Yes, Anarchy (no government) is not a real form of government since at some point, someone or group will try to take control to provide the community with some sort of reliable structure and security.

But in order to add to the original concept and discussion, remember that this country, even as distributed in power with the various States of the Union back in 1789, did have one fabric that was keeping them together that they all relied on prior to and long after the U.S. Constitution was signed:

FAITH

It was John Adams that stated that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

With this in mind, sure, various States and People (per the 10th amendment) were able to govern themselves with very little interruption by a new Federal head.

Fast forward 80 years (and it didn't take long), the Federal government was already trying to impose commerce and taxation laws onto all of the states that were unconstitutional. And it wasn't soon after the Civil War that the Progressives saw the vacuum that the war left, and that the innovative capitalists like Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie had grabbed hold of, and wanted to take control.

The breakdown of the religious faith of the people in the United States has been a constant factor in the slow Federal government takeover. Without one uniting fabric, that an all-powerful God from whom all blessings flow, there needs to be someone or something that unites us. It isn't language anymore, it isn't culture anymore, and sure isn't our faith anymore. That new uniting fabric is:

GOVERNMENT

And this is why we see such a large push for President's to be "uniters". You hear it in their speeches, literature, and commercials. Everyone talks of how W and O aren't uniting the people and the Congress. In the past, knowing that our brothers in Pennsylvania who fought side-by-side with us against the British, would have the decency and moral compass NOT to invade Virginia WAS DESTROYED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. After the Civil War, everyone then turned to the Federal, giving it that much more power as the proven "uniter" of the country. Ironically, Lincoln single-handedly changed the office of President by inadvertently making the position one that "divides" the States and people, and then actually trying to "unite" them. Rather than unite them under the moral argument (FAITH) against slavery, he had States pull out their weapons against other States.

Again, we're seeing the shift of the underlying uniting cord in this fabric of the United States shift from FAITH to THE FEDERAL!

[A Son of Liberty]

because I know what I am talking about? has THAT ever occurred to you/

Not even once.

can you formulate an argument that our Constitution is NOT an anti-statist document?

(sound of crickets chirping)..

Without even thinking about it - it establishes an order of government without the explicit consent of the governed.

(auto neg rep for stupid Anarchists)

[CCTelander]

Not even once.



Without even thinking about it - it establishes an order of government without the explicit consent of the governed.

And lets not forget that the CONstitution also grants the federal government virtually unlimited taxing authority. Nothing statist about that, right?

[erowe1]

can you formulate an argument that our Constitution is NOT an anti-statist document?

Yes. It explicitly grants state powers to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8, among other places.

Ron supports our Constitution.

He supports taking away from the federal government all those powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean that he supports granting to it all those powers that are enumerated in it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, if everyone were a zealous anarcho-capitalist, there can be anarcho-capitalism. Just as if everyone were a zealous anarcho-communist, there could be anarcho-communism. Put another way, anarcho-capitalism requires a New Libertarian Man, just as anarcho-communism requires a New Soviet Man. And this is all utopian nonsense, in both cases. There is only one kind of Man, and he will never behave in the way that either of those systems require him to.

Minarchy, on the other hand, does not require a New Minarchist Man. Ordinary, everyday Man will do.

Again, you can ignore the call of the markets if you want but the fact is that right now, minarchy doesn't exist in the U.S because there aren't enough minarchists, & if minarchy were ever to be achieved, it would require enough minarchists that believe & support the idea. So yes, minarchy does require a New Minarchist Man. And, similarly, there would have to be enough people who believe in equal rights for AnCap communities.

1. States (minimal or otherwise) require only the passive acceptance of the majority ("can't fight city hall.."), not it's active support ("horray, the government shares my ideology, I will donate my time, money, energy to supporting them!"). A minimal state where no one outside the government is a minarchist is perfectly possible. WHEREAS, anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-communism require the active support of the majority; passive acceptance is not enough. Anarcho-capitalism requires people to subordinate their own material interests to the ideal of anarcho-capitalism, in order to overcome the public goods problem and produce adequate defense. Just as anarcho-communism requires people to subordinate their own material interests to the communist ideal, in order to overcome the incentive problem. The minarchist expectation (that a majority will at least passively accept the social order) is realistic (it is the usual situation throughought history), whereas the anarchist expectation (that a majority will actively support the social order to the pioint of sacrificing their own material interests) is unrealistic, utopian.

2. You might object - "well that explains why the state in general is easier to maintain than anarchy, but what about a minimal state in particular? How do keep a miimal state minimal if a majority of the people only passively accept it, and aren't fighting to keep it?" As I said in an earlier post, I do not believe that popular opinion is the primary determinant of the behavior of rulers. I believe that rulers' behavior is largely determined by the structure of the system (it's constitutional structure - how the government is internally organized - e.g. whether it is democratic or monarchical). My ideal state would be a non-democratic one structure in a certain way (I can go into detail later if you like), and it will stay minarchist for structural reasons; it does not need the masses to be zealous minarchists. N.B. A general point; libertaroans tend to think of the state as always inherently wanting to grow, and so there needs to be something external to check this growth (e.g. public opinion). This is wrong, IMO. The only solution to the problem of limited government is to make the state not want to grow in the first place, which means you must understand the structural reasons that it grows, and amend the structure accordingly to remove those features. Democracy itself is one such structural reason for the growth of the state, for example.

3. Another possible objection - "Okay, so your version of minarchy does not require mass popular support to sustain itself, but how can we get to your version of minarchy without mass popular support, given that we currently live in a democracy?" First, I would say that we have to distinguish between means and end. Even if it were true that there were no realistic means of achieving minarchy, at least the goal itself could - if ever reached - sustain itself (unlike anarchy). As I said in an earlier post, it's the difference between trying to build a skyscraper while not having enough money (minarchy - unrealistic means, realistic end), and trying to build a skyscraper made of out sand while not having enough money (anarchy - both means and ends are unrealistic). Second, however, there is a realistic means of achieving minarchy. One option is for a non-demoacrtic solution, such a military coup d'etat. Another option is a popular movement operating through the democratic process. "But wait!", you object, "didn't you just say that a mass libertarian movement is unrealistic?" For libertarians to succeed in the democratic process, we don't have to transform the majority into zealous libertarians (thank God, because that's basically impossible). Look at what Rand is doing. Democratic politics is mostly about conning the majority into supporting you based on propaganda, not making them understand why they really should support you. There's a world of difference between herding the masses in a libertarian direction, for the purpose of an election (as we need to do to move toward minarchy through the democratic process), and maintaining a permanent majority of zealous libertarians willing to sacrifice themselves to the cause (as anarchy requires to sustain itself). Tangentially, I think that many minarchists in the liberty movement implicitly understand this, even if they don't say it this way, which is why you find fewer minarchists than anarchists in the anti-Rand "purist" camp - but I digress.

[HVACTech]

Yes. It explicitly grants state powers to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8, among other places.



He supports taking away from the federal government all those powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean that he supports granting to it all those powers that are enumerated in it.

stunning...

you have been here for 7 years, made over 25 thousand posts...

and this is an example of your thought process's?

[erowe1]

stunning...

you have been here for 7 years, made over 25 thousand posts...

and this is an example of your thought process's?

Yeah. Back when I was new here I thought like you. Getting his supporters to become enemies of the state is probably one of Ron Paul's greatest lasting influences.

[Ronin Truth]

Yeah. Back when I was new here I thought like you. Getting his supporters to become enemies of the state is probably one of Ron Paul's greatest lasting influences.

A bunch of us were already enemies of the state even before Ron came along. We're really glad that he joined us.

[r3volution 3.0]

A bunch of us were already enemies of the state even before Ron came along. We're really glad that he joined us.

What makes you think Ron is an anarcho-capitalist?

[mad cow]

What makes you think Ron is an anarcho-capitalist?

Cognitive dissonance.

[euphemia]

Minarchy should not bother most people. Minarchy protects them from the small percentage of people who are out to cause harm.

[A Son of Liberty]

Minarchy should not bother most people. Minarchy protects them from the small percentage of people who are out to cause harm.

Except for that percentage who claim the authority to do so...

[CCTelander]

Except for that percentage who claim the authority to do so...

What's that libertarian truism? Minarchy is the brilliant idea that we give a small number of people the right to harass, kidnap, imprison, steal from and kill us, with virtual impunity, so they can protect us from people who want to harass, kidnap, steal from and kill us. But it's MINarchy, so we only give them the authority to do it a little bit.

Insanity.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm glad to see a lot of folks in this thread have a decent understanding of the "State".

Yes, Anarchy (no government) is not a real form of government since at some point, someone or group will try to take control to provide the community with some sort of reliable structure and security.

But in order to add to the original concept and discussion, remember that this country, even as distributed in power with the various States of the Union back in 1789, did have one fabric that was keeping them together that they all relied on prior to and long after the U.S. Constitution was signed:

FAITH

It was John Adams that stated that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

With this in mind, sure, various States and People (per the 10th amendment) were able to govern themselves with very little interruption by a new Federal head.

Fast forward 80 years (and it didn't take long), the Federal government was already trying to impose commerce and taxation laws onto all of the states that were unconstitutional. And it wasn't soon after the Civil War that the Progressives saw the vacuum that the war left, and that the innovative capitalists like Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie had grabbed hold of, and wanted to take control.

The breakdown of the religious faith of the people in the United States has been a constant factor in the slow Federal government takeover. Without one uniting fabric, that an all-powerful God from whom all blessings flow, there needs to be someone or something that unites us. It isn't language anymore, it isn't culture anymore, and sure isn't our faith anymore. That new uniting fabric is:

GOVERNMENT

And this is why we see such a large push for President's to be "uniters". You hear it in their speeches, literature, and commercials. Everyone talks of how W and O aren't uniting the people and the Congress. In the past, knowing that our brothers in Pennsylvania who fought side-by-side with us against the British, would have the decency and moral compass NOT to invade Virginia WAS DESTROYED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. After the Civil War, everyone then turned to the Federal, giving it that much more power as the proven "uniter" of the country. Ironically, Lincoln single-handedly changed the office of President by inadvertently making the position one that "divides" the States and people, and then actually trying to "unite" them. Rather than unite them under the moral argument (FAITH) against slavery, he had States pull out their weapons against other States.

Again, we're seeing the shift of the underlying uniting cord in this fabric of the United States shift from FAITH to THE FEDERAL!

This is VERY misleading. There was never a single common faith in the US. There were official State religions, and rather frequently butted heads on matters both religious and political. People considered themselves citizens of their respective states first and the US second.

[heavenlyboy34]

What's that libertarian truism? Minarchy is the brilliant idea that we give a small number of people the right to harass, kidnap, imprison, steal from and kill us, with virtual impunity, so they can protect us from people who want to harass, kidnap, steal from and kill us. But it's MINarchy, so we only give them the authority to do it a little bit.

Insanity.

Heh. Rather like saying "rape is okay as long as it's only a little bit and not too often", isn't it?

[CCTelander]

Heh. Rather like saying "rape is okay as long as it's only a little bit and not too often", isn't it?

Pretty much exactly like saying that.

[euphemia]

The government would be the most governed of all.

[heavenlyboy34]

The government would be the most governed of all.

According to whom?

[A Son of Liberty]

The government would be the most governed of all.

The historic record rather conclusively shows this to be not so. All a state does is grow, and it would seem the smaller it starts out, the larger and more virulent it becomes. When you create an entity in society with generally sanctioned authority to enact force, people will ALWAYS appeal to that authority for their heart's desires, and that authority - especially one supposedly created by, of and for "the people" - will ALWAYS find ways to give them what they want.

It's damned near an immutable law of nature.

[A Son of Liberty]

What's that libertarian truism? Minarchy is the brilliant idea that we give a small number of people the right to harass, kidnap, imprison, steal from and kill us, with virtual impunity, so they can protect us from people who want to harass, kidnap, steal from and kill us. But it's MINarchy, so we only give them the authority to do it a little bit.

Insanity.

:thumbs:

So simple. It's amazing the disconnect.

[A Son of Liberty]

Heh. Rather like saying "rape is okay as long as it's only a little bit and not too often", isn't it?

According to our less logically inclined friends here, it's not rape if the state only puts the tip in

(I'm just joking, calm down)

[r3volution 3.0]

The historic record rather conclusively shows this to be not so. All a state does is grow

Not at all. There are countless examples of states shrinking and undergoing economic liberalization.

Certain forms of government have an almost irreversible tendency to grow (e.g. mass democracy), but to extrapolate that to all states is an error.

[CCTelander]

Not at all. There are countless examples of states shrinking and undergoing economic liberalization.

Certain forms of government have an almost irreversible tendency to grow (e.g. mass democracy), but to extrapolate that to all states is an error.

Oh, THAT would explain why we see so much true and genuine liberty extant in the world today.

[Ronin Truth]

What makes you think Ron is an anarcho-capitalist?

Is that what I said or implied? I really don't think so. You can be an enemy of the state without being an AnCap.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not at all. There are countless examples of states shrinking and undergoing economic liberalization.

Certain forms of government have an almost irreversible tendency to grow (e.g. mass democracy), but to extrapolate that to all states is an error.

Oh, THAT would explain why we see so much true and genuine liberty extant in the world today.

r3vo: "Sometimes fires are put out."
CCT: "But look! There's a fire over there! You're wrong!"
r3vo: ".....?...."

#nonsequitur

[r3volution 3.0]

Is that what I said or implied?

That's what I thought you were implying. If not, my mistake.

[A Son of Liberty]

Not at all. There are countless examples of states shrinking and undergoing economic liberalization.

Certain forms of government have an almost irreversible tendency to grow (e.g. mass democracy), but to extrapolate that to all states is an error.

:facepalm:

The history of the United States - a state deliberately conceived with the preservation of "individual liberty" in the minds of the founders - has been one of almost unremitting expansion from the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

I'm struggling to come up with any state which has willingly devolved power and authority off the top of my head, and none which have the wisdom to resist the appeal of the wants of the people.

Setting aside, of course, the other legitimate criticisms of the state with regard to the rights of the individual, first of which in my opinion is the explicit consent of the "governed".

[osan]

I'm glad to see a lot of folks in this thread have a decent understanding of the "State".

Yes, Anarchy (no government) is not a real form of government since at some point, someone or group will try to take control to provide the community with some sort of reliable structure and security.

The long history of tribal anarchies says otherwise. It is only when the notions of Empire infect and take hold of a society that your assertions begin to assume the truth.

It was John Adams that stated that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

And he was precisely right, which is why the Constitution is so unrealistically written for the world in which we now live - Adams himself admits it was written for superior men. Well, the superior man is now a distinct and very diminutive minority, the meaner out to at least four sigmas on a Gaussian severly skewed toward "stoopid, corrupt, and timid". Things at this moment ain't looking too good for the future. Let us hope that changes before long and before it is too late.

Good post, BTW.