Why are many libertarians against all government?

[BSWPaulsen]

Might ought to get a bigger gun then..

All this philosophy goes out the window when the men with guns come telling you what their laws are....

Nailed it.

[undergroundrr]

Nailed it.

Yep.

[pcosmar]

Not really. Because the founders thought some government was necessary like for having a military, building roads or controlling immigrants..

No..
and again you flaunt your ignorance.
The government did not build roads. Travelers, producers and farmers built roads. The people themselves built the roads.
The government usurped them.. claimed ownership though they stole them.

and only a navy was authorized. a standing army was not.
A militia was the preferred defense.

Immigrants were welcomed,,and not controlled.

You are a shining example of miss-education.

[fisharmor]

Are we limiting the discussion to the US, or a more generalized description? Every nation has different rules on what it takes to become a citizen. Some nations denaturalize or exile people, which essentially takes away their citizenship. Obviously, a citizen of a nation has the right to reside in that nation, unless they are denaturalized.

Anyway, I'm not going around in circles on this as we have done a hundred times already.

I'm not going around in circles. I'm trying to pin you to your stated belief.
You are the one going in circles.

You've said two completely contradictory things now.
First, I gave you this option:

2) There is no right to reside in the US at all

to which you replied

Number 2 is correct.

Then you wrote

Obviously, a citizen of a nation has the right to reside in that nation, unless they are denaturalized.

So YOU stop going in circles and pin yourself down here. You've said now that rights are contingent on citizenship, completely contradicting what you said earlier about them being God-given.

You had three options:
1) Rights are not inherent to humanity,
2) There is no right to reside in the US at all, or
3) Only US citizens are humans.

I suppose given what you've written we should add an option 4:
4) There are different categories of rights, some of which are God-given, and some of which are granted by the state.

Again, I'm not going in circles. I just very much want you to make some sense out of this.

[Superfluous Man]

Impossible. Anyone who understands what rights are would know that this is impossible. True rights cannot conflict. If you think they do, then you need to consider what you are deeming to be a "right".

Such as the right to make sure that people of certain races don't exist within a radius of a certain number of hundreds of miles from oneself?

[Superfluous Man]

Not really. Because the founders thought some government was necessary like for having a military, building roads or controlling immigrants.

The founders did not include "controlling immigrants" within the scope of the federal government at all.

Also, the only military they allowed was during time of war, and the only roads they empowered the feds to build were narrowly specified as ones for the postal service. But these items are really just testaments to their statism.

[MallsRGood]

The minarchist argument against anarcho-capitalism is that, though it would be ideal, it cannot actually exist in reality.

This is in stark contrast to the Trumpkin OP's argument, which is that the state is positively good (as opposed to regrettably unavoidable).

[Jesse James]

There shouldn't be any public property

[otherone]

There shouldn't be any public property

Can we just stop using the term "public property"?
There in no public property. There is only state owned property. Use of state property by the "public" is a privilege.

[TheCount]

If that is the will of the people, I don't see the problem. That is what representative democracy is all about.

That's the opposite of liberty. If government can do anything supposing that a majority supports the idea, that's mob rule and will lead to violence and tyranny.

I think I am starting to understand your view. But I think I am against this because everyone in the world wants to come to America and we don't have the resources to let everyone come. That is why I think there should be some regulation.

Given your past posts, I don't think your concerns about immigration stem from concerns about natural resources:

I am a stormfronter.

[MallsRGood]

^^^

I am a stormfronter

...

[Ender]

No..
and again you flaunt your ignorance.
The government did not build roads. Travelers, producers and farmers built roads. The people themselves built the roads.
The government usurped them.. claimed ownership though they stole them.

and only a navy was authorized. a standing army was not.
A militia was the preferred defense.

Immigrants were welcomed,,and not controlled.

You are a shining example of miss-education.

Also- most people do not understand that a militia consisted of local men, 14 & up, who would protect their community from all dangers, including a corrupt government.

[Superfluous Man]

Given your past posts, I don't think your concerns about immigration stem from concerns about natural resources:

Good catch.

Without even having seen that post, I accused him of being a stormfronter just yesterday, and he mocked me and acted like it was a silly accusation. And then in the next breath he praised the founders for their racism (literally, using that word).

[TommyJeff]

I don't think it's true that many libertarians are against all government. But many are against the state.

I don't see how it's possible to be a statist and a libertarian.

^^ This

[TommyJeff]

No.
They sound like the Founders of this Republic.

The Founders KNEW government was evil. Most had come here to escape it.
They crafted a guiding document to restrict it.

They did not think it,,or just believe it, They Knew government was evil.
It was established by evil.
They were not anarchist,, for they believed that some government was necessary. a necessary evil.. and it needed to be contained.

fast forward to today,,

Containment has Failed.

This too

[fisharmor]

The minarchist argument against anarcho-capitalism is that, though it would be ideal, it cannot actually exist in reality.

The anarcho-capitalist argument against minarchism is that what we live under right now is minarchism.

Minarchists regularly accuse us of believing in unicorns, and then turn right around and ignore the fact that minarchism has always been something orders of magnitude bigger than what they envision.

Physician, heal thyself.

[MallsRGood]

The anarcho-capitalist argument against minarchism is that what we live under right now is minarchism.

We're living under a gigantic interventionist state which does many, many things beyond what we minarchists would like the state to do.

Minarchists regularly accuse us of believing in unicorns, and then turn right around and ignore the fact that minarchism has always been something orders of magnitude bigger than what they envision.

Minarchism is by definition minimal government...

If the state is larger than we minarchists would like, it isn't a minarchist state.

[Superfluous Man]

Minarchism is by definition minimal government...

So, just a tax collection agency, and nothing else?

[MallsRGood]

So, just a tax collection agency, and nothing else?

A minarchist state is one whose sole function is to secure the property rights of its subjects.

Accomplishing this requires a judiciary, police/army, and tax collectors.

It is, of course, an ideal.

Strictly speaking, no minarchist state has ever existed or is likely to ever exist.

The minarchist goal is to as nearly approximate the ideal as possible.

It has been fairly closely approximated in the past, and can be again.

[Superfluous Man]

A minarchist state is one whose sole function is to secure the property rights of its subjects.

That's already more than the minimum.

Accomplishing this requires a judiciary, police/army, and tax collectors.

No it doesn't.

It is, of course, an ideal.

In that case, you might as well just be an anarchist.

[MallsRGood]

That's already more than the minimum.

Not in the sense in which minarchists are using the term.

No it doesn't.

I presume you agree that, in order to secure property, someone must provide judicial and enforcement services?

The disagreement is over whether those services can be produced on the market? I say no, you say yes?

In that case, you might as well just be an anarchist.

I don't follow...

My goal is to minimize aggression, and what that means is practice is something approaching a minarchist state.

In light of that, why would I set my sights on something I know to be impossible (anarcho-capitalism)?

[Superfluous Man]

I don't follow...

Usually, what I hear from minarchists is some variation on anarchy, being a mere ideal, is unrealistic in practice, and so minarchy is posited as the practical alternative.

But you said that minarchy itself is a mere ideal.

Given that minarchism entails advocacy for violations of the Creator's moral laws, it doesn't seem good to me as an ideal.

[fisharmor]

We're living under a gigantic interventionist state which does many, many things beyond what we minarchists would like the state to do.

What is your proposed alternative?
Constitutional republic? Like exactly what we have now?
Monarchy? Like exactly what the founders rebelled against?

Minarchism is by definition minimal government...

If the state is larger than we minarchists would like, it isn't a minarchist state.

What doesn't make any sense is calling out anarchocapitalists for proposing an actual alternative.
Any minarchy that minarchists want to implement is just going to metastasize into exactly what we have right now.
So yes, what we have right now is minarchy.
At least anarchists recognize a rigged game when they see it.

[fisharmor]

The minarchist goal is to as nearly approximate the ideal as possible.

As SM already pointed out, it's more than the ideal.
You might as well be saying "Ten parts per million is the ideal amount of $#@! I want in my water".

[MallsRGood]

Usually, what I hear from minarchists is some variation on anarchy, being a mere ideal, is unrealistic in practice, and so minarchy is posited as the practical alternative.

But you said that minarchy itself is a mere ideal.

As I said, the goal is to approximate minarchy as closely as possible (recognizing that minarchy in the strictest sense will likely not be achieved).

[pcosmar]

Also- most people do not understand that a militia consisted of local men, 14 & up, who would protect their community from all dangers, including a corrupt government.

Those who wrote the 2nd amendment certainly did.

[MallsRGood]

As SM already pointed out, it's more than the ideal.
You might as well be saying "Ten parts per million is the ideal amount of $#@! I want in my water".

Better analogy...

You're stranded on a desert island with nothing but a turd and a hamburger.

The minarchist says, "well, I'd rather have a steak, but I'll settle for the hamburger."

The ancap says, "I want a steak, and if I can't get one, I'd rather starve!"

(...incidentally, the Trumpkin digs into the turd with glee and asks for seconds)

[Superfluous Man]

As I said, the goal is to approximate minarchy as closely as possible (recognizing that minarchy in the strictest sense will likely not be achieved).

And again, given that explanation, why not just say the same thing, and replace "minarchy" with "anarchy"?

As long as we're only talking about an ideal, let's make a real ideal.

I don't have any plan to get from where we are to a society with zero taxation. But no matter what taxes there are, I'll always advocate for less. There won't come a point, not even in theory, where I'll say, "Stop lowering taxes right there. Any less will be too little taxation."

[MallsRGood]

And again, given that explanation, why not just say the same thing, and replace "minarchy" with "anarchy"?

Because that wouldn't be an accurate description of my position...?

I do understand your point (if we're only approximating ideals anyway, why not go with the more perfect ideal), but when I say that strict minarchy is an ideal, I mean that it is unlikely that it could be brought about. Whereas, when I say that anarcho-capitalism is an ideal, I mean that, apart from the difficulty of bringing it about, it would not endure even if we did somehow bring it about. Minarchy is a mile high skyscraper (tough to build); anarcho-capitalism is a mile high skyscraper made of ramen noodles (tough to build, and not worth building).

I don't have any plan to get from where we are to a society with zero taxation. But no matter what taxes there are, I'll always advocate for less. There won't come a point, not even in theory, where I'll say, "Stop lowering taxes right there. Any less will be too little taxation."

We differ on this.

If we're already at the lowest level of taxation capable of supporting the minimal state, I'd oppose any further reduction.

Why? Wouldn't I like anarcho-capitalism?

Sure I would, but cutting taxes to the point that the minimal state collapses would not usher in anarcho-capitalism.

It would usher in a violent civil war, out of which would reemerge a new state (likely not as small as the one previously abolished).

[Superfluous Man]

Better analogy...

You're stranded on a desert island with nothing but a turd and a hamburger.

The minarchist says, "well, I'd rather have a steak, but I'll settle for the hamburger."

The ancap says, "I want a steak, and if I can't get one, I'd rather starve!"

(...incidentally, the Trumpkin digs into the turd with glee and asks for seconds)

You're equivocating your position.

You just said that minarchy is an ideal that you can't ever really have. So minarchy IS the steak.

Both the minarchist and the anarchist will eat the hamburger rather than the turd. But the minarchist would prefer a steak from Ponderosa, and the anarchist would prefer one from Morton's.