RoR: Forum

Excellent article, Mr. Machan. Sanction.

The money quote from Rothbard, from the following article (sorry, it's a bit long, but abbreviating it would cut out some of the definitions Rothbard was trying to establish) :

"The Anatomy of the State"

"If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion ...

The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the "economic means." The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed "the political means" to wealth ...

The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the "organization of the political means"; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.[4] For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively "peaceful" the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.[5] Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation."

So, Murray Rothbard was distinguishing between "governance" in the sense that Mr. Machan describes it, and "The State". I don't think any so-called minarchists OR anarcho-libertarians dispute the notion that some form of governance is necessary to preserve property rights and civil rights. The question, then, is how to get to non-coercive, non-taxed, non-State governance -- and then KEEP it that way against the incessant attempts by those statists who would roll that back. It is, as Mr. Machan points out, a technical question.

Post 1

Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 8:48pm

Dr. Machan, I disagree with the idea that anarchism, of any form, should be treated as a valid form of Libertarianism, or that anarchists should be seen as supporting free-enterprise or Capitalism.

It isn't possible to have a free-enterprise system, to have Capitalism, without a monopoly of law for a given jurisdiction. And if you have the enforcement of a monopoly of laws for a jurisdiction, you don't have anarchy. These are incompatible.

Anarchy is a condition where initiation of force is okay as a competition (all rationalizations to the contrary not withstanding). That fact of reality guarantees the eventual destruction of any civilized culture that falls into anarchy.

Anarchy must be attacked just as we must attack other dangerous ideas like Libertarian-Socialists or Libertarian-Communists or Christians For Objectivism. That fact that anarchy is destructive of property rights and prohibits the one way to create a culture and environment that maximizes the respect of individual rights makes it our enemy just as much as fascism or communism - worse in that it taints Libertarianism by its absurd claim to be 'one of us.'

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/31, 12:02am)

Post 2

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 9:50am

I sanctioned it.

Most defenders of the classical liberal idea of limited government include as one of their premises that human beings sometimes do not conduct themselves in a civilized fashion and find themselves, thus, in conflict with others. ... This is where the institution called �government� comes in ... and renaming it something like �defense agency� or �justice agency� or the like isn�t the same as doing away with it...

And I like the analogy to marriage. Reading it, I thought you were going somewhere else with that. (Some would say that a "committed relationship" between homosexuals cannot be "marriage." Again, an argument over defining something basic to human relationships.) I'm still with the pizza thing, too: order-in; order out; delivery.

Could such floating governments function? Perhaps, in times when location doesn�t have a lot to do with movement�as in a Star Trek like world where people can travel from one place to another without having to occupy solid space as they do and thus without needing permission to traverse locations. Or maybe sooner.

Well, the Internet would be that. For all of its flaws eBay does enforce its own rules internationally and PayPal transfers funds based on those contractual rules with no nationality. (Google abides by the laws of Florida.[edit 04/01/11: It is Wikipedia that has its server farm in Florida.) But, the Catholic Church and many other institutions enforce their own laws across geographies. As an academic yourself, Professor, you may be aware of the fact that for his faulty work at Bell Labs Lucent, Jan Hendrik Schoen's university, Konstanz, revoked his doctorate, though stating that his dissertion was beyond reproach. The word "universitas" refers not to the institution but to its right to be the law for its members -- apparently no matter where they actually live. Again, as you said so well, this is not an argument we need to have, but I only wish to say that we need not wait for Scotty to beam us up to have floating pizza delivery governments.

Based on that, I accept your argument.
Thank you for all your work on that.

JH: Excellent article, Mr. Machan. Sanction.

Dammit, Jim! He's a doctor, not an auto mechanic.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/01, 3:47am)

Post 3

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 11:22am

Doctor No, Professor Si! I do have a PhD. :-)
(Edited by Machan on 3/31, 11:23am)

Post 4

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 12:04pm

Professor Machan:

Rothbard, however, wasn�t your ordinary anarchist, one who rejects all law and government. He advocated what he called defense or justice agencies (or something along those lines) that are, in fact, governments but without the authority to tax, committed to nothing more than defending individual rights.

When I presented the following some time ago in a discussion with Professor Machan I was summarily dismissed with the non-argument, "It's not part of libertarian thought." I missed the opportunity to rebut with the statement, "It is now." In the present context I think it is pertinent in assessing Rothbard's position.

How to Create a Society Free of Coercion

We are beset by rules, laws, and prohibitions that regulate the very minutia of our everyday lives � and we are still thought by many to live in a free society. It is possible to construct a society that has no coercion whatsoever.

The socialists cannot conceive of a society where taxes don't exist � after all, how can even the minimal governmental functions that the libertarians advocate be funded? The answer is in a voluntary tax (admittedly an oxymoron) which could be called a contribution or donation but, because this is an entirely new concept, a new word is required. "Xat", the exact opposite of a tax, would be appropriate but that word is a bit difficult to pronounce, so I think "zat" is preferable and it could be used both as a noun and a verb. Libertarians have considered zats in many ways and they have proposed national lotteries, fees for contract services, etc. but, in my opinion, none are adequate and are thus fair game for the socialists. Therefore, as an alternative, I propose the following:

Zats would be voluntary and the reason that people would zat is because the amount that an individual contributed would of public record and this would be a powerful motivator for individuals to portray themselves as socially responsible. While some people opposed to this idea will argue that it is an invasion of privacy, it is hardly that. Prominent politicians and so on must divulge their taxes. Public servants whose classification is known will pretty much also have their income taxes known. Another argument against this proposal might be that a low zatter could be discriminated against, either socially or in the workplace, but poor people are unfortunately discriminated against right now because of their poverty instead of being judged on their character and ability. Personnel managers, when interviewing job candidates, would soon learn to identify applicants who would try to gain favor by zatting their way into a new job rather than having adequate personal qualities.

The details of the scheme are at the heart of the advantages. There are two funds that could be zatted: the National Defense Fund and the Justice System Fund. Each fund has two segments, the "More" segment and the "Less" segment. Zatters can contribute to whatever fund and segment they choose but depending on which segment they zat the corresponding amount is deducted from the other segment. For example, if an anti-war advocate wanted to influence the funding of the war he would zat, say $1,000, to the "Less" segment of the National Defense Fund. This would cause an additional $1,000 to be depleted from the existing "More" segment and transferred to the "Less" segment. The opposite transaction would occur for pro-war advocates, thus zats to the "More" segment would cause funds to be transferred from the "Less" segment. Therefore, unpopular wars could not be funded and there would, in effect, be continual voting on the level of national defense funding. If the "More" fund got depleted due to some almost inconceivable perception by the populace that there were no external threats then the "Less" fund would be in reserve, ready to be activated in case of emergency. If one occurred everyone would then zat the "More" segment, causing large transfers from the "Less" segment to the "More" segment. The same process would be applied for the Justice System Fund. Only the total amount of any individual's zatment would need to be divulged � neither to the fund nor to the segment.

Norms for zatting would quickly become adopted by (private) analysts and statisticians relating income, social requirements and zat levels. This would be a constant topic of conversation in the media, as is taxation and federal financing in the media today, and people would become comfortable with an appropriate level of zatting for their station in life. Of course, some social climbers would try to appear more affluent than they really were, but then that would just be the cost of their deception, wouldn't it? Then, what about the freeloaders that might not zat at all? Well, there are freeloaders everywhere today. They find loopholes via high priced tax lawyers, off shore accounts, and so on. Gangsters and drug dealers don't bother paying taxes and there is a huge underground cash economy. Think of the millions upon millions of talented people doing the non-productive, mind-stultifying drudgery of bookkeeping for tax purposes, the misallocation of investments, not for the best productivity, but for tax avoidance, and the stress of just trying to cope with the mountain of tax laws. We are told that some major mental illnesses such as eating disorders are caused by a feeling of lack of control over one's life. Life is thought to be too complex in today's world and this proposal would allow citizens to make the decisions that govern their lives.

Sam

Post 5

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 5:13pm

Hi Tibor,

Thanks for the well-written article. In particular, I thought the part about being "the holiest libertarian of them all" is important in the context of these debates. It's clear why religions have this view that having a stronger belief than others, even in the face of contradictions, makes you superior. Strange that it would apply even among secular libertarians fighting to prove that they are purer in their beliefs. It's as if the confidence in their beliefs is an argument in itself, disparaging the motives of the opposition.

There are a couple major points in your article I seem to disagree with. The first is your last point, that these arguments do more damage than good. Perhaps you weren't referring to the arguments in general, but about certain obnoxious approaches. But I see these arguments as important. Arguing against statists is important, but the only truly effective way is to present a coherent alternative. To some extent, the details don't need to be worked out entirely, but there must be some basic agreement about the rough sketch. The problem I see is that the anarchists damage the credibility of the entire libertarian enterprise.

One problem, for instance, is turning the free market into some kind of religion. The free market works well, but it works well for specific reasons. When those reasons are undermined, the results aren't very positive. When the government manipulates prices, such as the interest rates or the price of mortgage bundles, the market responds as if those prices were real and can do a lot of harm in the process. The mainstream is able to dismiss free markets because they see it promoted as some kind of magical process that leads to good results, no matter what happens. And when bad things happen, it must be proof that this causeless magic is not producing the results that were promised.

When anarchists talk about a bunch of gangs running around on the street making their own laws as they go, they say that the "free market" will somehow produce good results. They talk nonsense about how rights violations should be negotiated, how punishment for a crime should be based on who's willing to pay more, the criminal or the victim. Repeatedly, they treat it as if it were some automatic and mystical process that leads to positive results. I think they destroy the credibility of libertarians everywhere when they affirm the belief that free markets are causeless, mystical entities that necessarily leads to good (or even better) results.

Another problem is how anarchists view the government as entirely evil. There are real issues, like the protection of individual rights, that people can easily recognize. But the anarchists have to ignore these cases or try to pin it on the government itself. Terrorists, for instance, can only possibly be motivated by the actions of our own government. Other factors like religion, hatred of western values, or hatred of western success, can't really be factors because then the violence might happen even without the government. So they present their "libertarian" position by resting in on assumptions that are simply unbelievable. The same kind of fanciful beliefs are applied domestically. Crime would pretty much disappear.

I could go on and on. The point is simply that the anarchy position is riddled with glaring problems. Presenting it as the libertarian ideal, or even one possible form of it, will only make people think that libertarianism is a utopian, fantasy world. When obvious problems are pointed out, they are dismissed as if they are entirely a product of our current system. When logical errors are pointed out, they are dismissed by saying "the free market will somehow fix it". The acolytes, like most idealists, see themselves as superior to everyone else for taking their dogmas to extremes (and I'm not talking about freedom...more like dogmas like "government is bad"). If people talk about war, the anarchists will say that even the possibility of a single innocent life morally precludes action, even in a defensive war. Moral purity, even to the point of suicide, is not the result of a rational and realistic political science. It is religion!

So while these squabbles might seem pointless and self-destructive for the libertarian movement, I think they're far better than letting these moralistic fantasies be promoted as a legitimate (or even superior!) form of libertarianism.

Of course, my position rests on my conclusions that there is a substantial difference between the libertarian minarchist position, and the anarchist position. And part of your article seems to imply that these differences are minor and technical.

In my view, the critical issue of government is not the enforcement of the laws. If that were the case, then you could imagine various enforcement options, like private security firms today, that you can choose between. And like pizza, you could hire one that delivers, or you could hire one that stays in one location. If this were the extent of the differences between the minarchist and anarchist position, I would agree with you that it is largely technical.

The issue is not the enforcement of the law, but the other two branches of government: legislative and judicial. Exercising retaliatory force may be the expensive part of government, but it is the judgment about whether the use of force is appropriate or not that is important. Without a method of agreeing which uses of force are appropriate and which are not, those "protection agencies" are just violent gangs, enforcing their own desires on other people. And questions of whether they deliver or stay in a particular geographic region stop mattering. Any disagreement between two agencies is war, until or unless one can dominate the others. And domination is just another way to create this process of agreeing on what force is appropriate. It happens to be one that is almost certainly more prone to abuse and corruption than minarchy, with democratic votes, separation of powers, checks and balances, a written constitution, bill of rights, federalism, etc. But the key issue is that without that method of agreeing, there will be violence.

It's the nature of the system. To provide the services (the "protection", as if it would be limited to that), you have to use force. If another gang/agency disagrees with you, they will see your force as an attack on their customers. One side has to back down, or there will be violence, with each side seeing the last attack as a grounds for further retaliation. And the side that backs down, the alternative that avoids war, will be abandoning their "protection" of their clients.

So the important question is, how can we avoid these disagreements (and the consequent violence)? We need a method of finding agreement, or at least establishing which policy will be enforced. We need law, and we need judgment of cases to tell if they are consistent with that law. (There may be other requirements as well, like the ability to enforce these judgments, but that could be considered a technical point that could be experimented with).

Do anarchists agree with this? Some seem to, in which case their position is not that different from a minarchy position and is in fact just the a technical argument about how the enforcement of the law can be broken up and practiced privately. But many don't accept this. I think it's because any centralized body, even if it is just a legislative body, is feared. They'd rather the law spontaneously arise from the market. A central body could be corrupted. But if there are an infinite number of small groups, and you could always just walk away from them when you disagree with them, and they some how managed to live harmoniously with one another, than you'd have it all! This belief system is not driven based on what is realistic or logically expected, but based on what would be nice if it could happen. Anarchy sounds like fantasy because it is fantasy.

So I believe the difference between these positions is substantial. The impression that the differences are minor and technical requires that you focus only on the enforcement, and not on the judgment of the appropriateness of the use of force. When that is the focus, the conflicts are vast and significant.

I'd also like to point out that the differences are such that fundamental lessons learned in the minarchy approach are completely ignored and rejected in the anarchy approach, further indicating substantial disagreement. The founding fathers, and many political theorists since, put effort into finding practical methods of protecting our rights. As I mentioned, it includes things like a written constitution, checks and balances, bill of rights, separation of powers, federalism, and voting. Newer ideas include term limits, line-item veto, and a balanced budget amendment. But if you look at the anarcho-capitalist view, all of this is dismissed historically and in practically. Historically, these are dismissed as not being 100% effective against the encroachment of government, with the implication that they are entirely worthless as a result. And practically, their theory attempts a completely different approach to preventing abuse by reference to free market mechanisms. They don't even mind having protection agencies that make up their own laws, enforce it, and judge it. No separation of powers there. The approach dismisses all of this collected wisdom and instead tries to solve the problem by counting on market mechanisms. It is a fundamentally different approach.

Again, if all they were talking about was trying to privatize some of the enforcement of the laws, they would be building on the minarchy foundation. There's already recognition that distributing power is better than centralizing it. There's already recognition that competition works, when it occurs in a legal framework.

So when I view the whole range of disagreements, including the kind of disagreements, I see fundamentally different approaches, and not simply a technical argument. And I see the anarchist position is fantasy, driven more by desire than logic. Nor do I believe they are willing to even recognize the problems or arguments against them. It is an ideology, not a rational theory. And it makes a mockery of the whole libertarian position because in order to argue for it, they need to make false assumptions, exaggerated claims, and rely on fuzzy thinking about free-markets. It's a rationalization. They start with the conclusion, that government is unnecessary entirely, and that somehow a market of "protection agencies" will lead to the protection of individual rights, and they grasp for arguments, no matter how weak or inapplicable, to try to justify it.

If we're going to argue for a free society, it can't be based on fantasies and evasions. We have to be able to present a case that it is both moral and practical.

Post 6

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 6:31pm

By "damage" I had in mind taking away time from doing battle with bona fide and very prominent statists. In my view this is where the fight should be conducted, not in tiny fringe groups fretting about nuances of anarcho-libertarianism. That's what the "distraction" in my title refers it. There are huge forces out there attempting to bury us all, minarchists and anarcho-libertarians. I think the priorities of those focusing on these internal debates are skewed.

Post 7

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 7:06pm

Professor Machan,

It's annoying to keep pointing out anarchy fantasies, and fallacies again and again, especially when, as you say, there are "huge forces out there attempting to bury us all."

So, I sympathize with the point you made in your post above, but I still believe that my post #1 and Joe's post #5 are on track. We must be persistent in pointing out the irrationality of anarchy or suffer damage to Libertarianism.

Post 8

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 8:26pm

I don't mind the term "Anarcho-Libertarian". Anarcho-libertarians are quite similar to libertarians on the political ideas of how force should be used. But I would reject an anarcho-libertarian as calling himself a "libertarian", since his views on the form of government is so different than the core libertarian view of a miniarchist government.

Practically... If a group of people got together and established a miniarchist government, then I think anarcho libertarians would be satisfied with such a government. I think they would even assist, as it would be the best alternative to other existing forms of government. Furthermore, in their view, say, this government is a new government growing on a geographical area which was once dominated by another government... a competing government. The competition is the existing more socialist governments. Anarchos and libertarians are friends (mutually respecting negative rights/niof principle).

Post 9

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 8:45pm

Dean,

You miss the main point. Anarchists only recognize the niof principle in the form of empty words. In reality, you can't implement the niof principle, to actually bring it into being, without a monopoly of laws based upon individual rights - laws that are enforced by a government. Without that it is fantasy. What they are doing is functionally equivalent to a communist claiming that they support freedom.

We agree that anarchists shouldn't call themselves Libertarians. And anarcho-libertarians are a subset of libertarians - it is wrong to attach the term libertarian in any form.

Most of the anarchists I've encountered consider a minarchy a statist organization and a violator or rights - just on a smaller, but still unacceptable level.

Post 10

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 8:45pm

The answer is in a voluntary tax (admittedly an oxymoron) which could be called a contribution or donation but, because this is an entirely new concept, a new word is required.

@ Sam: it is actually a very old concept, called a "fee" if in exchange for services or goods rendered, or, if given on behalf of someone else you care about, a "charitable donation". Not really seeing the need for a new word here.

Dammit, Jim! He's a doctor, not an auto mechanic.

@ Michael: Normally I just call people by their first name here, but I got smacked down for this a while ago in regards to being excessively informal when referring to legends of Objectivism, and so decided to use the more formal "Mr.", similar to the French use of "vous" instead of "tu".

Plus, my wife is a "doctor", in the sense of being a physician, and it is a taboo in that social milieu to call anyone without an M.D. a doctor -- more smackdownage -- so calling Professor Machan a doctor would be like walking into a house in Hawaii without taking your shoes off -- it's just Not Done. One seeks other honorifics.

We must be persistent in pointing out the irrationality of anarchy or suffer damage to Libertarianism.

@ Steve: Are you implying that Objectivism is a subset of Libertarianism? Quite a few Objectivists seem to be rather stiff-necked about that, insisting that Objectivism is something entirely different from Libertarianism.

As for your contention that great harm can be done by whittling down the State below those minimum levels of State control you feel comfortable living with, I think Tibor Machan's point is similar to Thomas Jefferson's: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

That is, by stating that those who desire what you consider reckless levels of liberty to be as great a danger, or even more of a danger, than the most hardcore authoritarian statists, is to p**s off what should be staunch allies while ignoring those people who are actually seizing your liberty right here and now.

A mild-mannered, cordial agreement to disagree with those who are comfortable with * excessive * liberty seems like the more effective course in battling the real enemy, the people who desire to turn us all into their serfs.

But I would reject an anarcho-libertarian as calling himself a "libertarian", since his views on the form of government is so different than the core libertarian view of a miniarchist government.

@ Dean: The only core libertarian view is the Non-Initiation Of Force (NIOF) principle. Everything else derives from that. There is no "core libertarian view of a minarchist government". I'd say about a quarter of self-identifying libertarians are anarcho-libertarians.

There IS the core Objectivist view of a minarchist government being the only moral form of government, based largely upon, in my opinion, "Ayn Rand said it, so it must be true." But, even amongst Objectivists there are dissenters.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 3/31, 8:59pm)

Post 11

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 9:17pm

Reading the wikipedia article, looks like socialists are trying to call themselves libertarians. Unbelievable.

Post 12

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 10:03pm

Libertarianism, as even Rand affirmed in the 1940s, is the politics of Objectivism. Some libertarians hold that they have a libertarian philosophy but they are wrong. There is no such thing (although the term is at times applied to a position on the free will issue).
Debates continue on what foundation is best for libertarianism and I hold and have argued, among many others, that Objectivism gives it the best foundation. I am not really interested in debating whether libertarianism could possibly be compatible with anarchism--I don't think it could be but this isn't to be decided by a mere declaration. (See my book, Libertarianism Defended [Ashgate, 2006].)

Post 13

Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 11:09pm

Tibor, I agree that these debates are a distraction. They're also a waste of time because reason was not the basis of these anarchists conclusions, so reason is not likely to have an effect. But I agree with Steve that it is a bad idea to let them go unchallenged. Especially given that they try to present themselves as the logical conclusion of libertarian thought. The last thing we want is to be represented by their particular insanity.

Dean, I disagree that the anarchists would be satisfied with a minimal government. To the extent that governments are kept limited and pro-freedom, they are despised by anarchists (they always take the side of the more tyrannical government). It might seem mysterious if you assume they are primarily pro-freedom. But if you think they are primarily anti-authority, it makes more sense. And if you view this rebellion as a rebellion against reality, and the need to actually secure liberty instead of just having to demand it, it makes even more sense.

Take Jim's comments as a good example. He says that minarchists are against "excessive liberty" and for "State controls" that they are comfortable with. Now you might think he's just trying to be obnoxious. But he really believes that he's the moral purist, and other people just aren't willing to go as far as he is. So what is his complaint? That private protection agencies cannot use force indiscriminately. He's angry that someone else might step in and stop them or punish them. The "excessive liberty" he speaks of is the freedom to use violence unhindered by others. The "State controls" he's worried about is the requirement to use force only in retaliation, and only through an objective process. These are the outrages to him. The anarchist domestic policy is the same as the anarchist foreign policy. A group of people have the right to murder pillage, and anyone who tries to stop them is improperly intervening. They are against "interventionist" policies of any sort.

This isn't a pro-freedom position. Rights don't matter. If they did, there would be nothing to be outraged over about the idea of a law that binds all parties. But when you see it is anti-authority that matters, and their blood boils when they think of one "protection agency" interfering with the another when they don't have a client, you might start suspecting that freedom is only the rationalization. That's why I prefer to the name "anarchist" to "anarcho-capitalist". They are anarchists in the conventional sense, rebelling against authority and reality. Their particular rationalization is a non-essential.

Post 14

Friday, April 1, 2011 - 1:03am

But the battle is long-term, so the position that the libertarians are advocating has to be clear and consistent, because those whom you are trying to convince will question its consistency and practicality. If it doesn't appear practical or workable, people will dismiss it as naive and utopian.

Of course, if you're just trying to achieve some short-term, concrete political goal, like lower taxes or a balanced budget, then you can ally with people who don't share your fundamental principles, but if you're advocating a political system, then you have to have all of your "i's" dotted and your "t's" crossed. You cannot ally yourself with people who, while they may share many if not most of your political values, do not share one your system's most important principles.

Post 15

Friday, April 1, 2011 - 1:04am

Jim,

I agree with the comments in Joe's latest post - all of them. And I sanctioned them. I was going to point out the absurdity of your "excessive liberty" phrase till I read that he had beaten me to it.

One of the points I've been making is that anarchists are NOT staunch allies of libertarians - they are enemies of liberty which requires the enforced monopoly of laws.
------------

Bill, good observation.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 4/01, 1:05am)

Post 16

Friday, April 1, 2011 - 6:49am

Having been married for 35 years, allow me to suggest that this "anarcho-minimalist debate" is more like an ongoing argument between two people who cannot leave each other and have no reason to actually do so. No one is going to win this. They don't care if they do. He says.... so in response, she replies automatically .... which triggers his... and so on.

We all admire Ayn Rand. We give serious weight to her words, even if we disagree with them. We all also share with her a wider body of thought and theory.

If the government is properly limited to army, police, and courts, do they have the right to mint and print their own money? No? Why not? You do! You can issue your own IOUs. You can open an account in a bank and write checks. They will issue you a credit card or a debit card. You can mint your own coins (within the law), and tokens and chits. All of that should be allowed to the government to carry out its own business.

But wait! The mandate limiting the powers of the government to army, police, and courts, is clear and unarguable. Or is it?

On my blog Necessary Facts, I have two entries on Unlimited Constitutional Government based on an original posting here on RoR. Does the government make law? If so, where. Even if we made them sleep in tents in an open field, they would need tents and a field. I only point out that there is more to this "limited government" thing. And I do not mean that the ability to extend and expand government invalidates it.

To be explicit: I suggest only that much else could be argued or discussed or explored. However, we insist on having the same (limited) argument over and over again.

In this thread as in all the others over the last 40 years is a vast, broad, and deep unnamed collective. "Anarchists claim" ... "anarchists deny" ... If you want to point out an error made by Roderick Long or William Godwin or James Henshaw, please do. My wife and I are fans of NCIS. On one old show, Abbey Sciuto said that she used to be an anarchist but she gave it up because there were too many rules. The point is that if there is any collective about which generalizations must be difficult, you found it. Catholics believe this. Communists believe that. What "capitalists" believe would have to include the words and works of George Soros and Donald Trump as well as Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand.

But, the issue is not really "anarcho-minimalism" or whatever. We had that argument 40 years ago and it did not get resolved. And we do not want it resolved because it is now very much a part of what makes us all married, so to speak.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/01, 7:33am)

Post 17

Friday, April 1, 2011 - 7:25am

WD: "... because those whom you are trying to convince will question its consistency and practicality. ... you have to have all of your "i's" dotted and your "t's" crossed. You cannot ally yourself with people who, while they may share many if not most of your political values, do not share one your system's most important principles."

Well, actually, Bill that is true for you. It may also be true for many other people. But it is not true of all and may not be true of most. I will exclude the huge mass of people who do not think of this at all. I will exclude those who think in other terms entirely. Consider the "public employees union" debates going on right now. Or consider Libya. Whether your Is and Ts are dotted and crossed is irrelevant to any of the participants. They came in with their minds made up.

Just personally between us, Bill, can you cite a single example here on RoR where you changed your opinion because someone else's Is and Ts were better? It is a rare event.

Also, there are many people who are more drawn to an interesting idea than to one which is logically consistent. I am one of those. I appreciate logic. I depend on it. I even got an A in college semester Boolean Algebra. Logic wins in my book. But the lack of logic does not lose. The idea might be compelling and lead to interesting new discoveries - which themselves are logically consistent. You won't know until you explore.

By that "you" I meant "Michael" not "William." If you do not want to explore an illogical idea, that is fine Bill. I am not saying that you must. But I do point out that not everyone thinks via the same modes you do in the same way that you do. "Individualism" is not just a political idea, it is a natural fact.

You say that you cannot ally yourself with people who do not share your most important principles, even if they share your values. I believe you. You cannot. Others do. But then I have to ask about those who share your principles, but not your values. Is that even possible? (I assume that we mean more than the "chocolate versus vanilla" values.)

Two different - perhaps opposite - assumptions lead to the same failure to communicate. The authoritarian personality assumes that everyone thinks the same things they do. Often within their social groups, they are right. It is a known problem that police officers socialize within their profession. On the other hand, you seem to be someone who is so individualist that you cannot imagine what other people think. Both of those lead to arguments that go nowhere.

In this particular thread, not once has anyone (myself included) asked "Do you mean...?" Never has anyone restated the case of their opponent in a positive way - a common technique at least for understanding the strengths of the opposition. We never ask, "So like in this case would that mean...."? And honestly ask that; though, even as a debate trick it would be refreshing.

No, you logically lay out your case and I logically lay out mine and we logically continue to disagree. Hard to figure, ain't it?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/01, 7:27am)

Post 18

Friday, April 1, 2011 - 9:27am

the difference between dogma and rationality.......

Post 19

Friday, April 1, 2011 - 3:04pm