No State vs Minarchism

[r3volution 3.0]

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.

You are aware that time did not begin in 1781 and space is not limited to the geographical area of the United States?

...which is my snarky way of saying, you should take a look at other times/places in world history. You might be surprised.

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.

Then you need to read more history. I already listed several fairly well-known examples earlier in the thread.

Here's one recent and ongoing example: China. Is it more or less economically free than during the days of Chairman Mao? And this is not an example of a violent revolution. The Chinese state chose this path of its own accord, because it saw the advantages for itself.

Another modern example: Singapore.

A few historical examples: Austria and France in the late 18th century.

P.S. The history of the past 150 years or so has certainly been (on balance) the history of the growth of the state, yet even here it's not hard to find counterexamples, where's states shrank. However, it must be understood that the last 150 or so years have been unprecedented in the history of the world. It saw the rise of both mass democracy and socialism as an ideology, which very much tilted the scales toward state growth. These are responsible for the clear trend toward state growth. Prior to this period, however, there was no such trend. States waxes and waned. From say the collapse of the Roman Empire until 1700, there was no clear trend in the Western world toward growing or shrinking states. Some states grew at times, other shrank. To take the very unusual pro-state trend of the last 150 years and assume this is an inherent feature of the state is mistake.

P.P.S. I used to have the same view as you (it is in the nature of the state to always try to grow as much as possible). But the more you start thinking about why states grow, why rulers choose to grow the state in various ways, the more you'll realize that this just isn't true. In that vein, you have to remember that "the state" is not some inhuman machine, it consists of people. And what it does depends on what those people choose to do.

[HVACTech]

: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".

that right thar, is a pretty fricking BRILLIANT assessment of our world today.
(and also obvious to any turdhead)

the way that I figure it, restoring the Republic that was lost before we were all born.
with the 2nd version of the rule of law. (our Constitution for the jolt heads)
offers us our best shot. even today it at least serves as wallpaper for this land.

I will ask the stupid question that no one else is.
what are YOU suggesting sir.?

passivism and endless pontification?

[HVACTech]

You are aware that time did not begin in 1781 and space is not limited to the geographical area of the United States?

...which is my snarky way of saying, you should take a look at other times/places in world history. You might be surprised.



Then you need to read more history. I already listed several fairly well-known examples earlier in the thread.

Here's one recent and ongoing example: China. Is it more or less economically free than during the days of Chairman Mao? And this is not an example of a violent revolution. The Chinese state chose this path of its own accord, because it saw the advantages for itself.

Another modern example: Singapore.

A few historical examples: Austria and France in the late 18th century.

P.S. The history of the past 150 years or so has certainly been (on balance) the history of the growth of the state, yet even here it's not hard to find counterexamples, where's states shrank. However, it must be understood that the last 150 or so years have been unprecedented in the history of the world. It saw the rise of both mass democracy and socialism as an ideology, which very much tilted the scales toward state growth. These are responsible for the clear trend toward state growth. Prior to this period, however, there was no such trend. States waxes and waned. From say the collapse of the Roman Empire until 1700, there was no clear trend in the Western world toward growing or shrinking states. Some states grew at times, other shrank. To take the very unusual pro-state trend of the last 150 years and assume this is an inherent feature of the state is mistake.

P.P.S. I used to have the same view as you (it is in the nature of the state to always try to grow as much as possible). But the more you start thinking about why states grow, why rulers choose to grow the state in various ways, the more you'll realize that this just isn't true. In that vein, you have to remember that "the state" is not some inhuman machine, it consists of people. And what it does depends on what those people choose to do.

this guy has a REAL problem with having even a basic understanding of the word "state"

[heavenlyboy34]

: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".

AFAIK, that's only happened to States crushed by civil war or invaders.

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^So, you're just going to ignore the examples I cited?

China, Singapore, etc?

[P3ter_Griffin]

that right thar, is a pretty fricking BRILLIANT assessment of our world today.
(and also obvious to any turdhead)

the way that I figure it, restoring the Republic that was lost before we were all born.
with the 2nd version of the rule of law. (our Constitution for the jolt heads)
offers us our best shot. even today it at least serves as wallpaper for this land.

I will ask the stupid question that no one else is.
what are YOU suggesting sir.?

passivism and endless pontification?

The difference between the state-less and those like yourself who want a minimal state is that for your side to come fruition you must shrink the scope and size of their government. That is what they do not want. If instead association was made voluntary with the government, the state-less could have their state-lessness while those who want a big obtrusive government could continue on like normal. Let us get off the wheel and you guys can keep trying to 'get it just right'.

[HVACTech]

^^^So, you're just going to ignore the examples I cited?

China, Singapore, etc?

you do not understand grasshopper.
the meaning of the word "state"

is double ought secret with these guys.
it has magic and mystical quality's for them.

I am sad, that they missed the Halle bop comet.

[heavenlyboy34]

You are aware that time did not begin in 1781 and space is not limited to the geographical area of the United States?

...which is my snarky way of saying, you should take a look at other times/places in world history. You might be surprised.



Then you need to read more history. I already listed several fairly well-known examples earlier in the thread.

Here's one recent and ongoing example: China. Is it more or less economically free than during the days of Chairman Mao? And this is not an example of a violent revolution. The Chinese state chose this path of its own accord, because it saw the advantages for itself.

Another modern example: Singapore.

A few historical examples: Austria and France in the late 18th century.

P.S. The history of the past 150 years or so has certainly been (on balance) the history of the growth of the state, yet even here it's not hard to find counterexamples, where's states shrank. However, it must be understood that the last 150 or so years have been unprecedented in the history of the world. It saw the rise of both mass democracy and socialism as an ideology, which very much tilted the scales toward state growth. These are responsible for the clear trend toward state growth. Prior to this period, however, there was no such trend. States waxes and waned. From say the collapse of the Roman Empire until 1700, there was no clear trend in the Western world toward growing or shrinking states. Some states grew at times, other shrank. To take the very unusual pro-state trend of the last 150 years and assume this is an inherent feature of the state is mistake.

P.P.S. I used to have the same view as you (it is in the nature of the state to always try to grow as much as possible). But the more you start thinking about why states grow, why rulers choose to grow the state in various ways, the more you'll realize that this just isn't true. In that vein, you have to remember that "the state" is not some inhuman machine, it consists of people. And what it does depends on what those people choose to do.

Might want to rethink that one. Religious minorities are still actively persecuted in China by the State. Not a good example of "freedom".

[heavenlyboy34]

^^^So, you're just going to ignore the examples I cited?

China, Singapore, etc?

China is more economically free, but not truly free. It's still a command/control economy in many ways.

Gerald Celente writes:

When the Panic of ’08 hit, the United States — the financial and military police of the world — led the charge to stop the spread of economic terror. Under the command of US Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson, orders were given to save too-big-to-fail banks and over-leveraged financial institutions drowning in red ink. On Oct. 3, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program that allowed the government to purchase assets and equities institutions had accumulated from engaging in a spectrum of dirty deals — deals for which they would pay minimal fines before being allowed to grow even bigger.
That was just the beginning of the massive money flows to come.
Newly elected President Barack Obama launched his $831 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In short order, the Federal Reserve began its series of Quantitative Easing programs that ballooned its balance sheet from $500 billion to $3.5 trillion, while maintaining its Zero Percent Interest Rate Policy. The results of these cheap money flows are quantifiable: Gross Domestic Product on average has barely moved above 2 percent annually, the labor-force-participation rate has sunk to 38-year lows and real household income is at 1989 levels – all while equity markets have soared to new highs.

While America led the cheap-money charge, China, the world’s second-largest economy, quickly followed with its brand of monetary juice.
With demand for its exports weakening, the real estate market cooling, bank lending slowing and unemployed natives growing restless, China pumped some $600 billion in public spending and loosened bank-credit policies to boost lending to businesses and consumers. By mid 2012, with its economy juiced, the New China News Agency reported: “The Chinese government’s intention is very clear; it will not issue another large-scale stimulus plan to boost robust growth…” and it will not “use stimulus money to reach the goal of stable growth like they did last time because it’s unsustainable.”
How do you say Ponzi in Chinese?
In 2012, when its GDP was at 7.7 percent, the Chinese government said it would not go below 7.5 percent. Yet, with imports and exports down dramatically, this year’s first-quarter GDP fell to 7 percent, the slowest pace since 2009.
As China’s housing bubble continues to deflate, despite pledges not to “issue another large-scale stimulus plan,” minimum down-payment rates for home buyers have been cut, the central bank lowered the reserve requirement ratio for commercial banks twice this year and interest rates have been cut for the third time in six months. As with the US and other nations whose equity markets have been boosted by money-pumping and low-interest-rate policies, the Shanghai Index has soared more than 100 percent over the past year.
Meanwhile, despite all the cheap money injected into economies across the globe, GDP growth remains tepid. Why? Because “…stimulus money to reach the goal of stable growth … is unsustainable.”

[HVACTech]

The difference between the state-less and those like yourself who want a minimal state is that for your side to come fruition you must shrink the scope and size of their government. That is what they do not want. If instead association was made voluntary with the government, the state-less could have their state-lessness while those who want a big obtrusive government could continue on like normal. Let us get off the wheel and you guys can keep trying to 'get it just right'.

yes, I consider our US Constitution a necessary evil.
I also support and can explain why and how it addresses your, want's needs and desires.

if, you wish to argue with me, you need to explain just what part of it applies to you.
then we can proceed.

what part of the US Constitution applies to you sir?

[P3ter_Griffin]

yes, I consider our US Constitution a necessary evil.
I also support and can explain why and how it addresses your, want's needs and desires.

if, you wish to argue with me, you need to explain just what part of it applies to you.
then we can proceed.

what part of the US Constitution applies to you sir?

lol. Have it be a necessary evil unto yourself. I have no 'want's needs and desires' from a constitution or government. But I understand that some people do. Is it to much to ask that we cohabitat the same continent without forcing our will upon the other? Because that is all that I ask, but you seem to have a problem with it.

[r3volution 3.0]

China is more economically free, but not truly free.

I wasn't claiming that China is "truly free," only that it is more free than it once was, that the size and scope of the Chinese state has shrank over the last 30 or so years.

So, do you agree that the Chinese state is smaller now than it once was?

And, therefore, that it is not true that the state must grow over time?

If China and Singapore are not convincing enough examples, I could give others.

There are many, many examples from the third world that have liberalized to a large extent since the height of the Cold War.

[heavenlyboy34]

I wasn't claiming that China is "truly free," only that it is more free than it once was, that the size and scope of the Chinese state has shrank over the last 30 or so years.

So, do you agree that the Chinese state is smaller now than it once was?

And, therefore, that it is not true that the state must grow over time?

If China and Singapore are not convincing enough examples, I could give others.

There are many, many examples from the third world that have liberalized to a large extent since the height of the Cold War.

Yeah. Empires collapse. It's part of a 5000 year trend cycle. No, those aren't suffciently convincing examples. Of your examples, how many are minarchies? How many are as small as they were when created?

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah. Empires collapse.

None of the examples I cited are examples of states shrinking because they're collapsing.

They shrank because they chose to shrink.

The Chinese state did not collapse in the last 30 years. It chose a different course.

Likewise with Singapore.

Likewise with the older historical examples I cited.

These are indisputable historical facts.

If you insist on denying these facts to preserve your dogma, we cannot have a rational discussion.

[otherone]

lol. Have it be a necessary evil unto yourself. I have no 'want's needs and desires' from a constitution or government. But I understand that some people do. Is it to much to ask that we cohabitat the same continent without forcing our will upon the other? Because that is all that I ask, but you seem to have a problem with it.

I would like to see an answer to this question.

[A Son of Liberty]

None of the examples I cited are examples of states shrinking because they're collapsing.

They shrank because they chose to shrink.

The Chinese state did not collapse in the last 30 years. It chose a different course.

Likewise with Singapore.

Likewise with the older historical examples I cited.

These are indisputable historical facts.

If you insist on denying these facts to preserve your dogma, we cannot have a rational discussion.

I forgot about this thread...

Adjusting the size and scope of the authority of the state to preserve and/or expand other interests of that state isn't really the point we've been driving at.

We're saying that states do not ever just decide to be smaller because it is right and just.

I would like to see an answer to this question.

Me too.

[r3volution 3.0]

Adjusting the size and scope of the authority of the state to preserve and/or expand other interests of that state isn't really the point we've been driving at.

We're saying that states do not ever just decide to be smaller because it is right and just.

Huh? Why does it matter why the state decides to shrink?

Smaller government is smaller government, and it's a good thing regardless of whether the underlying motive is selfish or altruistic.

And the starting point of this whole conversation, re whether or not states can ever get smaller, was about whether the minarchist program (shrinking the state) is possible. The fact that states have shrunk (whatever the reason) proves that it is. Period. Now you're just changing the goalposts.

[erowe1]

this guy has a REAL problem with having even a basic understanding of the word "state"

I didn't notice that. What about the word "state" did he show he misunderstood?

[Paul Or Nothing II]

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.

What makes you think that you (or someone else like you) will form the part of the minority that makes rules that the majority will passively accept? Try eliminating welfare & we'll see how passively the majority will accept it!

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.

I agree to the extent that keeping a state small is very difficult under a democratic system because democracy is tragedy of the commons in action, the whole "common ownership" thing doesn't work out but again, what makes you think that you'll ever be in a position to implement your system (whatever it is) in America?

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.

Even if you are able to get Rand elected, considering where things stand right now, you won't be able to implement a minarchy without the consent of masses, there will a huge backlash, perhaps violent revolts. Again, try to eliminate welfare & see how passively the masses accept it!

Not to mention, fooling, lying & cheating people is immoral but you have already conceded that you prefer personal utility over morality seeing as you support inherent inequality in a statist system over equality under AnCap so I guess there's no point in arguing morality with you. So I'll just sidestep that issue for the moment.

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

[Paul Or Nothing II]

None of the examples I cited are examples of states shrinking because they're collapsing.

They shrank because they chose to shrink.

The Chinese state did not collapse in the last 30 years. It chose a different course.

Likewise with Singapore.

Likewise with the older historical examples I cited.

These are indisputable historical facts.

If you insist on denying these facts to preserve your dogma, we cannot have a rational discussion.

This is one of the points that I disagree on with some AnCaps, the belief that "states always grow", well, apparently they shrink too, as should be obvious! But the thing is that they shrink because they want their "livestock" (as the following video puts it) to be more productive! But again, as I've said in my previous post, it's difficult to make the states shrink under a democratic rule because of the tragedy of the commons, the "common ownership" & as we know, private ownership is better & more productive & perhaps that's why the examples of voluntarily shrinking states are those where the there's almost an entrenched oligarchy that effectively "owns" the countries; it's obvious with China, Singapore though democratic has had a single party rule for a long time (although as democracy grips it, more parties, more socialism & growth of the state is on the horizon).

This is why I believe it would be better if individuals & companies bought out territories from governments & offered "residency services" to people, it would have all the benefits of private markets every free marketer finds desirable, including competitive pricing & improved quality. And as I've pondered earlier in the thread, perhaps as global mobility of people increases, we'll have more & more people "voting with their feet", voting for more freedom in a variety of ways, be it taxes, regulations, gun rights, & so on, to the extent that at some point in the future, what we today see as states are effectively turned into entities offering "residency services" to its customers at competitive prices. Who knows!

[Occam's Banana]

This is one of the points that I disagree on with AnCaps, the belief that "states always grow", well, apparently they shrink too, as should be obvious!

I'm an an-cap, and I do not believe that "states always grow" (or conversely, that "states never shrink"). And while there are indeed some an-caps who, in the grip of agonized enthusiasm, make such demonstrably false assertions, my experience is that most an-caps know otherwise perfectly well.

Insofar as such things can be analyzed aprioristically, so-called "minimal" states will, by their nature (indeed, almost by definition), be extremely unstable equilibria that have only two directions into which to fall - into anarchism, or into greater (and non-"minimal") statism. Given the lower "barriers to entry" for power-seekers (or the would-be "warlords" so often fetishized by many of the critics of anarchism), the overwhelming tendency will be towards the "greater statism" side of the curve. (And this is what induces less circumspect an-caps to declare that "states always grow.") Buit once a "minimal" state has devolved into a more stable (and non-"minimal") equilibrium, there are myriad reasons why its (no longer "minimal") scope may fluctuate, growing and shrinking over time ...

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I'm an an-cap, and I do not believe that "states always grow" (or conversely, that "states never shrink"). And while there are indeed some an-caps who, in the grip of agonized enthusiasm, make such demonstrably false assertions, my experience is that most an-caps know otherwise perfectly well.

Sorry, didn't mean to paint all AnCaps with a broad brush, I obviously meant that some AnCaps that I've seen offer that as argument against minarchy; I think the moral argument for AnCap is strong enough that there's little reason to resort to such weaker arguments. Anyway, I've made a correction to the earlier post.

Insofar as such things can be analyzed aprioristically, so-called "minimal" states will, by their nature (indeed, almost by definition), be extremely unstable equilibria that have only two directions into which to fall - into anarchism, or into greater (and non-"minimal") statism. Given the lower "barriers to entry" for power-seekers (or the would-be "warlords" so often fetishized by many of the critics of anarchism), the overwhelming tendency will be towards the "greater statism" side of the curve. (And this is what induces less circumspect an-caps to declare that "states always grow.") Buit once a "minimal" state has devolved into a more stable equilibrium, there are myriad reasons why its (no longer "minimal") scope may fluctuate, growing and shrinking over time ...

I agree, the size of the state will fluctuate; more so under a democratic system because as you've rightly pointed out, due to "lower barriers to entry for power-seekers" but then "r3volution 3.0", who is representing minarchist side here, already seems to accept it & therefore, rejects democratic minarchy.

[Occam's Banana]

Sorry, didn't mean to paint all AnCaps with a broad brush, I obviously meant that some AnCaps that I've seen offer that as argument against minarchy; I think the moral argument for AnCap is strong enough that there's little reason to resort to such weaker arguments. Anyway, I've made a correction to the earlier post.

No problem. I didn't think you really meant it as a universal characterization. Whenever I'm engaged in "serious" discussion (as opposed to just quipping or bantering or venting), I always try to qualify my own statements so as not to be excessively inclusive (though, of course, I sometimes fail in this).

Unfortunately, far too many people on both sides of contentious issues (such as - but certainly not limited to - "anarchism vs. minarchism") prefer to tilt at the lines of straw men they erect from the assumptions they make about (or the assumptions they shove into the mouths of) those with whom they disagree.

I agree, the size of the state will fluctuate; more so under a democratic system because as you've rightly pointed out, due to "lower barriers to entry for power-seekers" but then "r3volution 3.0", who is representing minarchist side here, already seems to accept it & therefore, rejects democratic minarchy.

I myself am a Hoppean - at least with regard to the inferiority of democratic statism.
Large-scale democracy incorporates most (if not all) of the worst defects of statism.

IOW: Churchill got it just exactly backwards ...

[A Son of Liberty]

Huh? Why does it matter why the state decides to shrink?

Smaller government is smaller government, and it's a good thing regardless of whether the underlying motive is selfish or altruistic.

And the starting point of this whole conversation, re whether or not states can ever get smaller, was about whether the minarchist program (shrinking the state) is possible. The fact that states have shrunk (whatever the reason) proves that it is. Period. Now you're just changing the goalposts.

The original point I was trying to illustrate...

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.

...more eloquently and elaborately expressed by Molyneux:

[r3volution 3.0]

What makes you think that you (or someone else like you) will form the part of the minority that makes rules that the majority will passively accept?

I'm relying on incentives inherent in the structure of the system to guide rulers in a libertarian direction, not on the rulers just happening to be ideological libertarians.

A secure monarchy (for instance - monarchy is the best but not the only good alternative), where the monarch is rational and materially self-interested, will adopt libertarian economic policies, because that is in its own interest. As opposed to a democracy, where a rational and materially self-interested government will pursue socialistic economic policies, because that is in its own interest (its first interest being getting re-elected).

Try eliminating welfare & we'll see how passively the majority will accept it!

That's a transitional problem, a problem of means rather than ends.

If welfare did not already exist, there would be no problem in getting the masses to passively accept its absence.

Given that it does exist here and now, however, we will indeed have a very hard time eliminating it.

I agree to the extent that keeping a state small is very difficult under a democratic system because democracy is tragedy of the commons in action, the whole "common ownership" thing doesn't work out but again, what makes you think that you'll ever be in a position to implement your system (whatever it is) in America? Even if you are able to get Rand elected, considering where things stand right now, you won't be able to implement a minarchy without the consent of masses, there will a huge backlash, perhaps violent revolts. Again, try to eliminate welfare & see how passively the masses accept it!

Hope for a military coup d'etat and - in the meantime - work tirelessly, against all odds, through the democratic system to try to move the country in a libertarian direction, piece by piece. Again, this is a transitional problem, a problem of means rather than ends. Anarchism faces the same - or even worse - transitional problems. But it also has problems of ends (the feasibility of the end goal itself, even if reached) which minarchy does not.

Not to mention, fooling, lying & cheating people is immoral

I disagree. It depends entirely on why you're doing this, for the good of the people or otherwise.

My once and future signature, currently replaced by some Rand promotions, was nihil per populum omne pro populo (nothing through the people, everything for the people), aka noblesse oblige. This, in my view, is morality itself in the political arena. You do not do what the people want, you do what is best for them. The people are perfectly capable of knowing what is best for them as market participants (in choosing between Brand X and Brand Y), otherwise the market economy would not work. But they are not capable, on average, of knowing what is best for them politically. If Joe buys a can of pasta sauce, and it's bad, he will realize that immediately, and change his buying habits accordingly. If Joe votes for a bad policy, he will almost certainly not be able to determine whether it is good or bad, because doing so requires knowledge (such as knowledge of economics) which he does not - and cannot reasonably be expected to - have. A "market in government" (which is essentially what both democracy and anarcho-capitalism are trying to achieve), cannot work because the consumers in this market are idiots, and cannot distinguish between good and bad products.

but you have already conceded that you prefer personal utility over morality

No I haven't. I have stated that, in my view, to act morally means to choice the best of the available courses of action.

On contrast to your position, according to which to act morally means to choose the best conceivable course of action, whether possible or not.

To say that I'm rejecting morality is dishonest. We simply have different moralities.

seeing as you support inherent inequality in a statist system over equality under AnCap

I don't "support" it any more than I support human mortality. It is simply a fact, and I choose to act accordingly.

This is one of the points that I disagree on with some AnCaps, the belief that "states always grow", well, apparently they shrink too, as should be obvious!

Indeed

But the thing is that they shrink because they want their "livestock" (as the following video puts it) to be more productive!

Precisely! And that is a good (nay, great) thing! It means that states (with the proper structure of incentives) will pursue libertarian policies even if they aren't libertarians!

It's somewhat analgous to the "invisible hand" concept - the market economy benefits society even if all of the participants are just trying to benefit themselves.

It's a beautiful thing; I would say providential, were I religiously inclined.

But again, as I've said in my previous post, it's difficult to make the states shrink under a democratic rule because of the tragedy of the commons, the "common ownership" & as we know, private ownership is better & more productive & perhaps that's why the examples of voluntarily shrinking states are those where the there's almost an entrenched oligarchy that effectively "owns" the countries; it's obvious with China, Singapore though democratic has had a single party rule for a long time (although as democracy grips it, more parties, more socialism & growth of the state is on the horizon).

Absolutely - all of the examples that come to mind of states shrinking were proprietary states in some form or another (traditional monarchies, one-party oligarchies, military dictatorships). This is not coincidental. People note, amused, that China is in many ways more economically free than the US - thinking this is a wierd contradiction given China non-democratic form of government. On the contrary, that is the reason for China's liberalization.

This is why I believe it would be better if individuals & companies bought out territories from governments & offered "residency services" to people, it would have all the benefits of private markets every free marketer finds desirable, including competitive pricing & improved quality. And as I've pondered earlier in the thread, perhaps as global mobility of people increases, we'll have more & more people "voting with their feet", voting for more freedom in a variety of ways, be it taxes, regulations, gun rights, & so on, to the extent that at some point in the future, what we today see as states are effectively turned into entities offering "residency services" to its customers at competitive prices. Who knows!

Yes! "All exit, no voice."

Hoppe's proprietary communities, or your "residency service providers," are de facto proprietary states.

This is what I favor. A world of small, proprietary (preferably monarchical, but could also be oligarchical) states.

Once you get past the fantastic Rothbardian vision of non-territorial security providers, and adopt something like what you're describing above, the difference between minarchy and anarchy becomes trivial. The only difference, I suppose, is how these propertary communities/states come into being (by voluntary land purchases or siezures of power e.g.), but from that point forward.....

...haven't had a chance to watch it yet, will get back to you.

EDIT: Okay, watched the video.

tl;dr = states pursue liberal policies out of self-interest (since it is better to be a parasite on a healthy host than a sick one), not for humanitarian motives

Yep, that's mostly true. And, as noted above, it's a wonderful thing!

I'm amused by Stefan's sinister take on this (spooky music, booga! booga!), considering that - of course - it is the very same thing (pure self-interest) which drives the market economy. Would he make a similar video about private enterprise, explaining (as if he were revealing some dark secret) that Walmart doesn't have low prices because it loves you, but because it wants to - gasp - profit?!

P.S. Just for the record...

I think Stefan is a mediocre intellect with a vastly inflated sense of self-importance, well versed in intellectual dishonestly, who has acquired a kind of cult following through emotional manipulation. Hence, I strongly advise libertarians to pay him no mind. Everything he says which is true has been said better by others before (e.g. his view of states as human farms was expressed already by Franz Oppenheimer in his 1908 work "The State: its History and Development Viewed Sociologically" [which can be read for free here at the LvMI]), and the rest is rubbish (e.g. his "Universally Preferable Behavior," which is an insult to logic). For information on Stefan's unsavory personal history and the unhealthy atmosphere he fosters in his "group," see: http://www.fdrliberated.com/ /public service announcement

[r3volution 3.0]

The original point I was trying to illustrate...

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.

....which claim I have clearly refuted. States do, in fact, shrink.

If you're going to continue to deny this, we cannot move forward in our discussion.

...more eloquently and elaborately expressed by Molyneux:

...pretty much a rehashing of the video that Paul or Nothing II posted.

See my response to that above.

The only thing I'd add is that Stefan's assertion that the smallest government always becomes the largest, is just that: an assertion.

Obviously wishful thinking in an attempt to discredit minarchism and bolster anarchism.

[P3ter_Griffin]

:snip:

Once a man has vanquished fear, he is free from it for the rest of his life because, instead of fear, he has acquired clarity - a clarity of mind which erases fear. By then a man knows his desires; he knows how to satisfy those desires. He can anticipate the new steps of learning, and a sharp clarity surrounds everything. The man feels that nothing is concealed. And thus he has encountered his second enemy: Clarity!

"That clarity of mind, which is so hard to obtain, dispels fear, but also blinds. It forces the man never to doubt himself. It gives him the assurance he can do anything he pleases, for he sees clearly into everything. And he is courageous because he is clear, and he stops at nothing because he is clear. But all that is a mistake; it is like something incomplete. If the man yields to this make-believe power, he has succumbed to his second enemy and will fumble with learning. He will rush when he should be patient, or he will be patient when he should rush. And he will fumble with learning until he winds up incapable of learning anything more."

hth

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^ Did you have a point?

[P3ter_Griffin]

^^^ Did you have a point?

nope

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^okay

...glad we got that cleared up.