RoR: Forum

Steve,

you've given me the first concise argument why government is 'necessary' to human life:

There is choice and there is force. Free association and forced association. They are diametrically different and that difference calls for the creation of government to limit the use of force to self-defence.

If the creation of government is the only way to limit the use of force (don't bother drawing the line at self-defence), then you seem to claim that species 'homo sapiens sapiens' living under circumstance 'humanity' will never ever be free as it's freedom will always be curbed by it's violent impulses which require regulation by government.

The basic principle at work here is that "freedom" is an end result of the active exercise of a system that prohibits the initiation of force. Governments could exist that would do just that and nothing else. The result would be freedom. Take away that government and what would exist?

If that were indeed the case, that without government there's no freedom, then what a sorry mess our lives are. I'd prefer to live in la-la-land than in a society that requires government (from governess to governor - pun intended) to make freedom possible. And I'm not talking rational government (which in my opinion is a contradiction in terms and could also be relegated to the realm of fantasy), but real everyday government - pick your state.

Though I assume from previous discussions, that your view of a 'fettered government' would be quite rational and many parts I may actually agree with, I'd still warrant that it is not possible based on the above contradiction (show me one single rational tiny fraction of government). And freedom that is only possible with our present, real, omnipresent government regulation is no freedom at all.

Paint the double yellow lines fairly down the middle of the road? Here's the paint, here's the brushes, knock themselves out with all the authority they need to do the limited things that we need government to do.

Even a simple task like painting those lines 'fairly' down the middle would be too much to deal with in any kind of government I've ever lived under (four so far). So pushing this argument I'd claim that your (and Fred's) idea(s) of government are just as illusionary as anarchy is.

So while I do agree with you that 99.99xx% of humanity falls under your category (requires adult supervision) I still hold on to my 'fantasy' that at least this one individual is actually capable of living freedom without any form of government. Of course said individual being hampered by the less developed homo sapiens sapiens above, which indeed makes anarchy look like a farce :D

So should I end with another quote: 'you [mankind] were made to be ruled' or can we agree, that actual implementation of 'humanity' and 'government' are conducive to each other, but not a prerequisite per se for homo sapiens?

A freedom-loving and government-hating (how's that for a contradiction ;)

Vera

Post 41

Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 4:34pm

Vera,

...I'd claim that your (and Fred's) idea(s) of government are just as illusionary as anarchy is.

That's where we'd disagree. Anarchy will always be illusionary because, As described, it is like the unicorn - it is mythical. But a minarchy is possible. It isn't easy, it isn't guaranteed to ever exist. It requires a higher portion of the population to have higher levels of personal responsibility and a better grasp of individual rights, Those conditions aren't like unicorns, they could exist.

We actually had a government that was very close to a minarchy back in the 1700's and 1800's in economic terms, but there was no awareness of women's rights and slavery took a war to end.

I think it very unlikely we will lose our awareness that women and blacks have the same rights. But will we move forward to change our view of government as something that rules us to something that protects our rights and no more? I think it is inevitable in the long run, but that might be a very long run. Short term I don't see it as being likely.

As Fred has pointed out the physical act of sex could be consensual love making or rape. The difference betweeen the two is choice. There were times and places in man's history where that difference wasn't treated with any importance. There can be a government that initiates force overriding choice, or a government that prohibits the initiation of force to honor and protect choice. Mostly we see government as our primary rights violater - because that's what it has been. Historically a government that protects rights and nothing more is a fairly new concept, but in time it will win out, because it is so superior - it permits people to explode with creativity and productive energy.

If you put two kinds of government side by side (say a socialist, or fascist, or communist government versus a minarchy, or even just a strictly limited constitutional republic like we had for a 100 years or so - but without slavery and with universal sufferage) how could it not be seen as more sensible, more practical, more moral, and easier to set up and maintain the limited government? Look at the experiments that history has given us: East Berlin vrs West Berlin, North Korea vrs South Korea.

It isn't illusionary, just too much of the population is currently ignorant of the basic principles and are frightened of large changes.

Post 42

Friday, April 25, 2014 - 3:35am

Steve,

as I already said I think we could agree on most points of minarchy, limited government, constitutional republic ... anything that minimizes the power one individual has over another. However my grain of sand that brings all the above to a grinding halt is that until every individual reaches those "higher levels of personal responsibility and a better grasp of individual rights" any form of government will be as restrictive as required by that lowest reached level. And those levels have a tendency to deteriorate instead of improve, as humans are basically lazy (yes I'm generalizing) and it's easier to rely on that little bit of government instead of upholding one's own level of responsibility, which then requires a little bit more government, which ... goes down a very slippery slope.

That "in time it will win out, because it is so superior" is what I'm questioning - what I'm calling a fantasy. If I look at what is known of human history (and I've intensively looked at herstory, too, no ray of hope there either) there were always a few individuals that pushed those levels and were again defeated by the majority of humanity wallowing in an orgy of self-destruction. "how could it not be seen as more sensible, more practical, more moral, and easier to set up and maintain" quite simply: the largest part of the human population are now and will forever be "currently ignorant of the basic principles and are frightened of large changes" . They will always revert back to letting someone else push the levels of personal responsibility and individual rights. Humankind is not build for superiority - Homo superior as a species is impossible (claims this misanthrope) - only as individuals. Not build for freedom either - it's always easier to let someone else do the heavy lifting. And always one more who agrees on the someone else part ;)

Thus in realistic terms, even counting millenia, not only generations, chances are that humanity will be never be ready for a minarchy. And if they do, against all odds (there's more of those - built in aggression being one sore point), reach that level they wouldn't even need that minarchy anymore. So it's an all or nothing proposition: 'need a government' and it will trample individual rights in one way or another, or 'no need for government at all' (and that's quite a different proposition than 'anarchy').

On a more positive note: if you and me and Fred could (maybe) agree on where to paint those yellow lines and how to build that road in the first place, we wouldn't need any form of government at all. Or own individual self-interest would guide us sufficiently to build and maintain that road without a governess telling us to play nice. On the other hand if you put that yellow line one inch further to the right I'll sue your ass off for scratching my car because my side of the road was not wide enough for my spaceship :D

PS: "they bought East-Germany and tried converting it into a new West-Germany" - and we're still paying for it ;)

Post 43

Friday, April 25, 2014 - 10:12am

Vera:

If I understand your point about the illusory nature of a fetterred government unable to even so much as fairly paint the double yellow lines down the middle of the road, I totally agree. It is the given, the boundary condition. On average, we are average. We are neither all saints nor all sinners.

And based on experience, we are on average, naked sweaty apes, and will do what we can get away with. And so, even the painting of the double yellow lines results in an opportunity for favoritism and corruption and leveraging of special interests at any level. I agree with that.

My conclusion is, make governent as small as possible, or said the same way, no larger than absolutely necessary, which none of us can agree on, and hence the endless tug of war. The point being, the smaller it is (in our tribal tug of war)the less global the consequences of it being an inevitable tribal C.F.

There is a local county/municipal example being played out in plain sight. A local DA is hauling a former city council member, who helps run a local historical society restoration non-profit, in front of a county Grand Jury. This civic minded person is paid 24000/yr in her position. The issue at hand is, work performed by the city to make sure that the site's bathrooms comply with the federal ADA. As well, as this municipality searches for millions in budget shortfall, they are looking into the $300/mo "without utilities" that this historical site(?) is being asked to pay the city. This isn't a place of business. It is a local historical site, an old Mill in a city park. None of this nonsense makes any sense at all, until it is realized that this civic minded person sat on a civil service commission that did not back the DA's choice for chief of police-- they backed someone else, and also, this person sat on the same council that did not approve the DAs wife (she has been a housewife since 1984) to jarringly head the local municipal Parking Authority. So the DA is clearly using the county Grand Jury as his personal poltiical Super Soaker. In plain sight. Poliitics in Hooterville.

A day ending in 'y' in our tribe of naked sweaty apes, even at the smallest levels of government.

On a larger scale, there is the BLM case out closer to Steve's way. The rancher scofflawing the federal governments 'grazing permits' for his cattle for the last 20 years, to the tune of 1 million dollars in unpaid grazing fees. No permits needed, right? Let freedom ring on federal land. One solution to this problem is to offer permit-less hunting/harvesting of cattle on those same open lands; let freedom ring. The scofflawing rancher celebrating freedom can enforce his cattle squatters right any way he wants, and those celebrating their freedom with the incentive to harvest permit-free meat on the wide open plains would be free to take their chances as well, and let the most powerful prevail in the wild wild permitless west. No permits required for grazing, no permits required for harvesting free range cattle. No need for courts and laws. Complete rule by the calculus of labor leader A. Philip Randolph, who once observed: "At the banquet table of Nature there are no reserved seats; you get what you can take; you keep what you can hold."

The let freedom ring rancher, in this instance, might draw upon those who agree with him in the tribe to come help defend his 'rights' by forceful enforcement. He might even pay well for their help. Or, the let freedom ring no permit required free range harvesters might recruit their own like minded tribal friends, pay them as well, and the accountants could take over for the lawyers, and we could substitute one form of permitted power rules for a different version of permitted power rules.

regards,

Fred

Post 44

Friday, April 25, 2014 - 1:32pm

Fred,

we all have more or less horrific stories of us 'naked monkeys'. That's what irks me so much when demanding government: the limits are always based on that average monkey. So the size of our governments will keep being that average we can barely tolerate without killing each other off ;)

Monkeys rule :D

Post 45

Friday, April 25, 2014 - 1:38pm

Fred,

Regarding the rancher: I'm on his side, even though he is something of a nutcase. And even though he is wrong about the land belonging to Clark County and not the federal government.

When you have lived in the West long enough you become very aware of the many ways the federal government constantly changes the rules regarding the use of public lands. Let me try to explain where that rancher is coming from. His ancestors responded to a call from the federal government to come help settle the west. This was back in the 1800's. The government said that everyone buying land for cattle ranching or farming could use adjoining federal land for grazing - for FREE. His ancestors took them up on that deal and bought land and started their cattle business and it has stayed in the family ever since. Back then the government was seen as holding that public land in order to manage and improve and protect it FOR THE USERS. They weren't supposed to be a revenue generating organization renting out grasslands to the highest bidder or using it to pursue their environmental goals. (Personally, I think it should all be auctioned off over a number of years, get rid of all the agencies, and let the market decide what it costs to eat beef).

It used to be that you could camp, hunt, fish, cut firewood, get a christmas tree, snowmobile, backpack... whatever, on public lands. And the restrictions were reasonable and designed to maximize current usage without hurting future usage. The whole attitude was that the rangers who looked after the land were helpful, and like to see people getting good use out of it. Now? Not so much. Roads are getting blocked. Fences put up with chained gates. Usage denied. And more rules than you could shake a stick at... if you are still allowed to touch a federal stick.

Skip forward to last few decades, and we see the federal government becoming this active group of agencies (EPA, Wildlife, BLM, etc.) and they are attempting to do things like reduce cow farts (I'm not kidding!) and are doing so by claiming the desert tortoise is endangered by the grazing cattle - which isn't the case. And they work away to reduce the number of cattle per acre (or in that desert environment, it is the number of acres for 1 cow). And they keep cutting back on the sections of land that available to graze on. Back in the 1990's that part of Nevada had 19 working cattle ranches. Now, Mr. Bundy is the only one who is left - the rest were driven out of business by the government regulations and costs.

And none of this addresses the corruption by state and local officials (check on how Senate Majority Leader Reid is hip deep in land issues, with his former chief of staff as the head of the BLM, and with his son involved in the use of public lands for solar energy farms.

Bundy lost a lot of cattle in this mess. Some appear to have been shot by these swat team like enforcement agents for the BLM (since when to grass managers need snipers, automatic weapons, drones, helicopters, tasers, attack dogs and such), some of the cattle were run to death, and the BLM vehicles trampled some of the tortoises burrows. Whoops! They brought in a backhoe and dug a large ditch, pushed some of the dead cattle in, and covered it over. This is a case of government gone wild.

As one talking head pointed out, all they had to do was put a lien on the Bundy land for the amount due, with reasonable interest, and collect when he dies, or sells out. No commando raids needed.

If Bundy owes $1,000,000 for 20 years, that's $50,000 a year! That's some expensive grass. It sounds like they were adding large fines and interest payments that are more than they are giving for Treasuries.

More and more I'm thinking that another point Bundy made makes sense. The federal government shouldn't be permitted to enforce their rules and regulations on their own. What's next? Letting the department of commerce have armoured tanks? All federal agencies should have to get the state/county/local law enforcement to serve their warrants. Armed federal officers are no different than having a military force in our midst - even if they work for the EPA. I see a growing danger in letting all of these federal yahoos have weapons and amoured cars, and drones, and kevlar vests... they'll want to use them... on us.

The citizens have guns by right, let their elected/appointed law enforcement have guns as long as they stay elected/appointed. But restrict the federal government to only having weapons for the military and let the posse comitatus act continue to prohibit the federal government from using military to enforce laws within the states.

Alot of the people in the west are really coming to hate the federal government.

Post 46

Friday, April 25, 2014 - 2:03pm

Vera,

That's what irks me so much when demanding government: the limits are always based on that average monkey.

The right kind of government is limited by laws that are strictly defined by individual rights. If society evolved to where all of us monkeys were respectful of each other the government would have exactly the same limits - no more, no less. But it would not need to be very big to enforce the laws for a society made of mostly only good monkeys. On the other hand, if society devolves and more and more monkeys behave worse and worse, the limits still stay the same. They are no different. Individual rights are individual rights. But it would take far larger enforcement structure and employees to do the enforcement of the same small set of laws.

It isn't government as such that is bad. It is a government that violates our rights, and shrinks our freedoms that is bad. If we have no government then any random bad monkey can ruin anyone's life at any time. If you have a bad government, lots of monkeys, good or bad, get their rights violated. Good goverment makes the bad monkeys no more than a minor tax annoyance, because some are deterred from bad behaviors and others are jailed and no longer a problem.

Just because it is difficult to get a good government is no reason to toss the whole concept out. It was a long struggle over centuries for medicine to get where it is, or air travel, or any of the technological wonders of today. Without a degree of good government none of that would have happened, because as bad as many of the Western governments are today, there is still enough of a vestiage of property rights and free association for commerce and technology to keep moving forward.

When I was doing software consulting I couldn't just work out the software architecture. I also had to ensure that key people effected could work the proposed system and bought into adopting it. Without getting the people on board, which was often difficult, the system would work fine in theory, but be a massive fail in practice. Some people chose to be idiots, some saw no interest for them in helping, some felt threatend by changes, and some departmental relations in a company were more like the Hatfield and the McCoys than a well run business. The point is, that it was possible to have a lot of successes over time. We have to do the same thing if we want to get a governmental system that mostly respects people's choices and mostly only restricts things that should be criminal.

Post 47

Friday, April 25, 2014 - 4:01pm

Your answer to Fred is already the reply to your answer to me: the longer a government is around the worse it gets.

Most 'good' governments were built up by a few invested in a better future (usually gained in a bloody (and law-less) struggle to break free from worsening conditions in the past). The victors establish rational laws to offer those gains to others around who cannot create such freedom/protection for themselves (the genesis of the government - I always thought this altruism-thing was gonna do them in ;). And sooner than later that government starts turning against it's creators as its established rational laws get subverted and perverted (takeover of the government) by the very people it was made for.

Isn't that the inherent flaw in any government, that it is made 'for the people' and not for those few rational individuals who don't need it as long as they are not 'ruled by the people'? Humanity simply is not ruled by rationality - no matter how 'perfect' a government you start out with - it is always only the beginning.

To use your own analogy: the better the IT consultants who can create that perfect system, the more a non-rational customer will insist they use their expertise to build an even worse system based on his irrational demands. I've seen that happen several times. That system does not get built for the IT consultants to create their perfect wonder of technology. It is commissioned by the customer and it is his rationality (or lack thereof) that guides the end result of all that expertise.

Just like your perfect government does not get build for you and me and Fred, but for the people out there.

And they most certainly will not accept your limitations:

The right kind of government is limited by laws that are strictly defined by individual rights.

So I'm not tossing out a good idea because it's tough to see it through - the three of us could be done in 5 minutes (3 of those wasted on my irrelevant objections regarding its irrelevance). I'm 'throwing it out' because of its inevitable result: as soon as it's more than the three of us your limitation goes out the window and so does your government.

Sorry to say that - I really am. I do wish humanity could be evolved or even persuaded to a little more rationality. However it will always remain an uphill struggle just to keep that one law in place: protection of individual rights.

So let's enjoy the successes on the road while they last - or at least have some fun laughing at irrational customers :D

Post 48

Friday, April 25, 2014 - 6:55pm

Vera,

...the longer a government is around the worse it gets.

We have seen a lot of that. But it's not a natural law. It isn't the only way that things can go.

I do wish humanity could be evolved or even persuaded to a little more rationality.

We once lived in caves and ate each other. We are evolving. It isn't a straight line progression, it jogs up and down. Sometimes it is two steps forward, then one back. But when you look at the larger picture, we have evolved. For example, we have outlawed slavery in every nation - its a thing of the past.

People don't have to be rational, they just don't get to modify a proper government to suit their irrational whim of the moment. We had a fairly good system going after we ended slavery here in the States. What we didn't do is recognize the extraordinary danger of the collectivist thought that was coming from Europe and England.

We didn't take what the founding fathers had provided and continue it, improve on it, and defend it. It isn't hard to imagine a different past where that could have been the path we took, and where we would have ended up with a near ideal government and an awareness of what everyone must be taught generation after generation to guard against losing our freedom. But we took the other path and Progressivism became the disease we ignored till it reached the near end-stage we see today.

I'm not arguing that we will soon turn things around and everything will be just fine. I don't see any evidence of that. I'm just saying that you can't see man's capacity for greatness, the ability to reason, and the heights we've achieved since crawling out of the cave, and decide that man is permanently, and irrevocably flawed and will always be irrational in the majority and that irrationality will always determine our destiny. Too me, that would be as emotional a response as someone going all polyanna and saying that we will be living in a utopia in just a decade or two. We have the capacity to reason, and we can choose not to. That simple fact tells us that we could have a near perfect government, or not.

Post 49

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 5:06am

Steve/Vera:

See your point. The government, unlike some? few? individuals, has a word which means nothing. Ask the Kurds in Iraq, who were told we'd have their back if they revolted. We were already there. We were enforcing 'No Fly Zones.' We watched. We took pictures from $30M fighter planes while Saddam's ground troops 'rolled up' (sounds like fun) thousands of them. Ask the Ukraine-- the nation that gave up control over its nuclear arsenal based on our word. They should have read the fine print; it was a political agreement, not an actual agreement.

Ask Bundy.

But this is also true; for 'government' subsitute 'life in and among the tribe.' That is what is rotting in modernity. We can slap lipstick on that pig and call it government, or we can forego the leveraging of off the shelf mob protection and go full custom boutique, and in the end, it is the same seething mass of naked sweaty apes.

After we punt on the futility of 'limited government,' do we think what we will find waiting is 'limited life in and among the tribe?' Or same without even any semblance of drag on the process?

Some thought Planet of the Apes was science fiction. It's where we live.

regards,

Fred

Post 50

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 5:30am

Steve:

We might all have some capacity for reason, but we also have some capacity for force and criminal mischief.

Apply that calculus to a sea of seething naked sweaty apes.

Any room full of 30 students. Maybe 2 are straining to attain reason and reach for their education. 27 are at best-- on the very best of days-- doing exactly what they are told. And 1 is looking aroung, counting heads and selling Democracy, having availed himself of all the reason he needs to rule the world..

Is it in the best interests of the 2 to concede to the wishes of the 28? To act reasonably and rationally? What -is- acting reasonably and rationally for the 2, not in those circumstances, but in the life in the tribe that awaits them?

If you love your children, do you tell them to to sign up to be the 2, the 27, or the 1 holding the whip and building a world where 28 are depending on the reason of the 2 and will do whatever is necessary to ride them like a public property pony?

What does it mean to be a criminal, in that world, and who will decide?

regards

Fred

Post 51

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 6:05am

Steve,

hmmm - I'm at a loss how to explain ... last try - promise ;)

I agree that man has the capacity to greatness and all that. I even agree, that it is worthwhile to live all that capacity to its fullest potential. However as you already pointed out we also have the choice not to do that.

So if we start out with the perfect minimalist government (who get's that instated to begin with?) and even get most of mankind to agree to its terms (who persuades them to uphold it?), we'd still be faced with the neverending task of defending that government. Ideally by reason and actually by force. Sometimes with a majority of supporters, sometimes only with a minority, but never with an unequivocal: 'not to be touched under any circumstances'. Humanity will never agree to such a government, no matter how much they evolved technologically from their caves or morally from their slave-pens. Man is a social animal and a social animal will always put the rights of the society above the rights of the individual, no matter its circumstances. Whether they clamor for better caves and living or for gen-therapy to prolong life itself - the clamor will be the same. And individual rights get trampled first in the run on human life.

Actually it's the only part of Darwin I never liked: Survival of the fittest implying survival of the species, not the individual.

To some this neverending battle to defend individual rights is worth spending their lives on, giving their lives for, but I've given up on that battle. Call me defeatist, but the only individual rights I'm still battling for are my own. What little peace and freedom I can find by keeping away from society rather than propagating that peace and freedom inside a society. I'd spend (and have spent) far more energy and creativity defending individual rights than living them. And no government of/by/for the people would protect me from that.

Unless of course you'd be willing to go along with a government of/by/for individuals - then we might find some common terms.

As for the 'government of individuals' scenario: I still think such a government would be superfluous if everybody agreed to uphold individual rights, but if it makes you happy to have one go ahead. It wouldn't bother me much just to have it spelled out in articles of constitution or law books. I'd even pay you to write those and be our president ;) Representation is as much a function of government and you'd fulfill that function perfectly :) But it's not that constitution or those laws that would govern individual rights - it would be every single agreement by each and every individual to do so. You'd only be the voice of that unequivocal 'YES'.

Fred: AS was also called distopian fiction - goes to show what they know ;)

Your description of government reminded me of Cuffy Meigs - the quintessential 'dressed-up pig with lipstick on' :D

EDIT:

editing took too long - Fred beat me to an answer - Thanx for that :)

What does it mean to be a criminal, in that world, and who will decide?

Ahh - my perfect escapist scenario: we all become Ragnars :D

(Edited by Vera S. Doerr on 4/26, 6:12am)

Post 52

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 9:10am

Vera,

You admit that man has a capacity to greatness, to reason, and that it is worthwhile to live these capacities to the their fullest. But you go on to say:

Humanity will never agree to such a government, no matter how much they evolved technologically from their caves or morally from their slave-pens. Man is a social animal and a social animal will always put the rights of the society above the rights of the individual, no matter its circumstances. Whether they clamor for better caves and living or for gen-therapy to prolong life itself - the clamor will be the same. And individual rights get trampled first in the run on human life.

You have somewhat mixed up humanity and society and man. But in any case, even though you admit to some progress and the capacity for good, you revert to seeing only negative results when people get together. All I can say is that we disagree with that, that there is nothing in human nature that commands that our capacity to reason will forever and always be overridden by some 'social gene' or whatever. People are able to rise up and say no more big government, no more parasites, what is mine is mine. And enough people are capable of doing that to overwhelm the parasites, cronies, and would be rulers. One looks at the current culture and the percentages, and says that is unlikely in the foreseeable future, but unless you posit some collectivist social gene that will always override the ability to think and choose, then you can't say that it will aways be bad governments because people will always gather into societies that use government to loot one another. I think you are seeing much of the worst of today's society and projecting that onto all societies that might ever realistically exist... as if it were built into man, instead of having been learned and then practiced. We can learn to do better.
---------------------------

You wrote:

As for the 'government of individuals' scenario: I still think such a government would be superfluous if everybody agreed to uphold individual rights, but if it makes you happy to have one go ahead. It wouldn't bother me much just to have it spelled out in articles of constitution or law books. I'd even pay you to write those and be our president ;) Representation is as much a function of government and you'd fulfill that function perfectly :) But it's not that constitution or those laws that would govern individual rights - it would be every single agreement by each and every individual to do so.

There is some percentage of the society that needs to agree... no, not so much a formal agreement, or a signature, just an understanding. The percentage isn't 51% because the balance being shifted isn't about a plurality, it is about a moral balance. It can be a much smaller precentage (the American Revolution was initiated and finished with a small percentage of the population). Those who choose to violate the rights of another would be dealt with by such a government, whether they agreed or not, and whether it was a government supported by a majority or not. The exact percentage is, and alway will be, an unknown - too many human variables, like the influence, intelligence, and eloquence of those on both sides, etc. There is a high mark that needs to be hit to get from agitation to a revolution, or to any major and fairly sudden change. That makes it hard to get a minarchy in place, but then it also protects it from being replaced suddenly.

To say that such a government would be superflous if everybody agreed to uphold individual rights is one of those things that it sort of correct, in an abstract fashion, but can't happen in practice. People have honest disagreements while both in agreement on the more basic rights. People have contract conflicts, property disputes, etc. New people come into the country. People change their views over time. New citizens are born. The principles of individual rights remain eternal, but they need to be cast as laws. And a structure to support and enforce the laws has to exist. And all of this has to be continually passed on to the next generation, and the next, etc. And each new generation must understand what liberty is, and what is needed to protect it (which is where we failed as a society and Progressivism found a weak spot and came in like a virus, and multiplied till it has nearly taken over the host).

When a minarchy is established, and in place, those moral principles enshrined in working law become a kind of enforced social will power. It is the nation saying we don't tolerate theft, or violent aggression. It helps hold the nation firm even if some of the people might tend to waver at times. It allows for the bad apples and treats them as exceptions and removes them from the market place. It orients a nation towards success: individuals pursuing of their dreams (but only if they don't involve forced association or theft or fraud.) This structure holds the nation pointed in the direction of personal responsibility, productivity, creativity and an energetic pursuit of what makes the happy (not by commanding or by regulating, but by simply prohibiting theft, fraud and force). The masses don't have to be able to sustain those principles in their lives, all by themselves, without the structure of law, and they don't have to be to articulate or have a detailed understanding of the principles, because that structure is making it easy for the masses to be part of a society where parasites are laughed at and turned away.

Post 53

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 11:03am

Steve,

agreed we'd have to differentiate better between humanity, society, man. Just a short draft:

man = single individual with capabilities, potentials, choices

humanity = implementations of differing individual man in all varying forms across all the world(s) and time(s)

society = segregated implementations of humanity grouping together based on capabilities, potentials and choices made (or just plain bad luck being in the wrong place at the wrong time)

Man being the single 'point of failure' I'd also agree that there's no gene I can point to that says 'man has to fail'. Same goes for different societies which are but differing implementations and accumulations of single man, but no longer with free choices of that individual man to live its capabilities and potentials. Looking at all those societies (past and present) as implementations of humanity the picture looks rather grim.

I again agree, that we (as man, as humanity and its many societies) have been negligent to teach new generations and new members the values of productive lives as single individuals. However I am not as optimistic as you are that a small minarchy is up to such a task, unless you find enough individual man over the generations being willing and able to invest their lives into such human development. Seems there weren't in the past nor in the present.

What's worse: what's the worth of a species that continually requires a part of its individuals to live their lives as constant governess to stop the species from destroying (or at least harming) itself?

So yes: Humanity is capable of far more, and yes a minarchy would provide a structure to realize more of that potential, but 10.000 years of observable humanity has not produced one single stable minarchy (100 muddy years of American Revolution is not exactly stable). That's why I'm questioning whether my dream of a free world of individuals is more of a fantasy than your stable minarchy.

Again: I'm not questioning the benefits or possibilities of a minarchy. They are undoubtedly much better than any past or present government. I'm doubting its 'necessity' if mankind were to take the steps towards a more benevolent implementation of man. Until then: bring on the minarchy - I'll sign up in spite of my doubts :)

Post 54

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 11:39am

So there is this sea of seething humanity. Some who lean on reason, some who lean on force. And on average, whatever life in the tribe mode of co-existing we fight for, it will be realized imperfectly, guaranteed.

So some dream up this idea of 'free association.' And try to flavor it with NIOF. As in, we choose our own poison; we vote with our feet.

But you can see that alone is a pipe dream, because there is no 'that alone.' Because any such attempt must co-exist in a sea of seething humanity that leans on force; that readily embraces forced association-- like any existentially terrified being drowning in a universe it barely comprehends. And a conclusion is, the paradox of violence and the concept of Superior Violence. Plain enough when addressed to the concept of self-defence. Not quite as clear cut when pondered as the rational response(defense of the self) to the facts of coexistence in a tribe that on average embraces force and forced association.

So yes; what does it mean to be a criminal in the world as it it today?

regards,

Fred

Post 55

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 11:58am

Vera,

See how these definitions work for you:

"A person" = single, concrete individual with capabilities, potentials, choices - held in abstract, like, "We need to find a person who will help us with the plumbing." Or, in specific, like We need to get Fred in on this," where Fred is the person.

Man = the concept that subsumes all men/women/children past/present/future. Man is a rational animal. That definition gives the genus and the diffentia, and includes, implicitly, all characteristics common to all humans.

Humanity = The human race seen as not just the concept of all or most humans, but of the instantiations of cultures and choices that are seen as shared. Most often used to refer to better ethical qualities nearly all are capable of.

Society = A large number of individuals, usually living in the same country, region or community, and subject to the common rules, mores and/or organizations. Or it can be a subset of a larger society as differentiated by an adjective: e.g., "polite society," or the wealthy as in "a society wedding."

--------------------

When a group of men associate and the result is a society, and if most of those people are aware of what liberty is what it requires, then a minarchy will be easy to form and easy to maintain. America had to battle Great Britain and win the war, despite Great Britain being the greatest military force on the earth at the time, and despite our brand new nation being nearly broke, with no history or standing in the world to speak of, and despite a large portion of the population not being in support. But they succeeded and formed a limited government.

What they didn't do was see the great danger of the educational system being stealthily used over many generations to subvert the understanding of liberty, and they didn't see the need to ensure the population was well educated on what liberty is and what it takes. So, the failure isn't in the individual man, or in the getting together as a society as such. The failure was that they did not recognize that they were missing a key function.

---------------------

You wrote:

I am not as optimistic as you are that a small minarchy is up to such a task, unless you find enough individual man over the generations being willing and able to invest their lives into such human development. Seems there weren't in the past nor in the present.

I think we can neither be optimistic or pessimistic in this area - because it is too much about choices to be made by many over a long period of time. We can see that liberty has had some good periods and made some significant progress here and there - we can see the markers left by Classical Greece, by periods of Ancient Rome, the rediscovery of ideas of liberty in the Renissance, and the growing battle of the English people to take power from the Monarchy, and then America's Declaration.

This all came about because of individuals over time who thought and who invested time and effort.

--------------------

You wrote:

What's worse: what's the worth of a species that continually requires a part of its individuals to live their lives as constant governess to stop the species from destroying (or at least harming) itself?

If a government limits itself to protecting individual rights, then it isn't a "constant governess" in the sense of a ruler - it is, like Fred likes to say, the "state plumber" keeping the pipes clean. Or, as I've said, it is the janitorial service that collects the thugs, rapists, thieves, etc. and sweeps them into the dustbins of prison so the rest of have an environment that is relatively crime free.

---------------------

You wrote:

I'm not questioning the benefits or possibilities of a minarchy. They are undoubtedly much better than any past or present government. I'm doubting its 'necessity' if mankind were to take the steps towards a more benevolent implementation of man.

I'm not sure how much I buy into a utopian image of man in some distant future that is so evolved from who we are today, that no government of anykind is ever needed. I'd put that not in the realm of fantasy, because it may come to pass, but in the realm of science fiction. Science fiction set in a very, very distant future.

I see minarchy as a necessary step along the way. And a goal at which we don't need to change government any further - just maintain it. And I doubt that it will come about all at once. I see the need to recapture the channels of learning so that teaching about liberty will increase the portion of the population that understands the basics, and all the while attempting to shrink government... bit by bit. Teach and reform - all at the same time. If we can show how bankrupt the ideas of collectivism are, and expose the ugly motives of those who are purposefully pushing to become parasites, then the good ideas will win. I see this going on for generations. But it always involves making the existing government better and then better again, while trying to free and improve the sources of education.

Post 56

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 12:11pm

what does it mean to be a criminal in the world as it it today?

let them learn the outcome of a contest in which there's nothing but brute force on one side, and force ruled by a mind, on the other

when my mental and emotional balance tips I'll look you up - I'm quite good with a compound bow and a knife and I know my way around just about any kind of IT system - the former should help us get into certain restricted facilities and the latter should allow us to initiate some ultimate force of our own ;)

but we should wait until Steve is out on his boat far far away - then he can come back a few millennia later and start all over properly without us pessimists around :)

Post 57

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 12:44pm

Steve,

definitions work fine except one tiny nit-picking: 'with the capability of being a rational and/or irrational animal'.

Also the beginning of the American nation works fine for me, though I've always suspected that part of its greatness is a direct result of having to battle an impossible foe. Seems to bring out the best in us :) Sadly, as you pointed out, they missed a few pertinent points. Which is why I'm nit-picking about that minarchy in the ultimate society - that will be the last necessary and peaceful revolution of humanity.

Same goes for the setting: in the beginning ... America was rather empty - not many foes to battle with, except that initial great push and a few indigenous and imported squabbles along the way. However change being a constant, they neglected to formulate proper requirements for the growth of a great nation. Just like Greece and Rome could no longer handle their growth missing key ingredients or building on some false concepts.

Alas I'm as discontent with the plumbers and janitors as I'm with any form of necessary government. You might argue that I'm discontent with my bodily functions (which on an abstract level I actually am - a species that requires constant consumption and waste-processing-facilities - not universally great), but contrary to dealing with my own s... I'm rather loath dealing with everybody else's. So if I constantly have to pay for a janitor to keep my world clean of human trash I'd like to take the liberty of flushing said species.

Fully agreed again on the intermediate minarchy on the way. Not so agreed on the final maintenance, but we already agreed to disagree. If it stays I won't mind it much and if it slowly fizzles out into utopia you won't miss it much either :) And education and reform will be only one step along the way - a necessary one, but one of many. We need to work on those 'bodily functions' - among others ;)

I for one always thought my little finger would server me better as a second thumb. Eugenics anyone?

Post 58

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 4:06pm

Steve:

A very, very tiny country, maybe. Smaller than Luxumbourg is today. That broad definition of "S"ociety, to me, has always been a complete myth, and worse: a political leg lifting tactic. People form societies, plural. And even, are members of some societies and not others. The collection of all such societies in a country is a nation. If a country can be united, it is only as a nation; not as a society. And if the world can be united, at most as a species... the plural of which would be species.

Society is from the Latin, socius: known companion or ally, as in, a society is a grouping of associates. PETA is a society. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is a society. The Society of Automotice Engineers (SAE) is a society. There is a National Geographic Society. The 82nd Airborne is a society(in fact yes, today, a group of volunteers.)

The occupants of Dachau death camps were brought together under forced association and formed another type of society.

When referring to "S"ociety in political arguments, it is in reference to some mythical set of all inclusive in any political context known associates. Especially when speaking for what it wants, what is best for it, and so on.

Do you know everyone in the nation? Your state? Your county? Your municipality? Then, who are the socius that make up "S"ociety?

An actual society might, if formed under rules of free association, elect representatives to speak for its members, restricted to a specific context and function and set of purposes. The officers of the SAE speak for its members not on every aspect of life, but for that aspect applicable to the activities of the SAE in the context of its scope. So, too, a nation, a state, a county, or a municipality that elects representatives for a limited scope and context; those representatives speak not for every aspect of life for all in their domain; the domains of municipalities, counties, states, and the nation all multiply overlap and are over-spoken for.

So in the context of political discussions. agreeing to allow a contender for government to speak for or about "S"ociety begs the question; which one? And when it is clear they mean something else -- some vague, Jello definition just like Durkheims crazy assed magic unseen spirit in the sky definition of "S"ociety, we are granting that contender the authority of a theocrat speaking for an unseen and unapproachable God.

We concede the political debate when we agree to use vague terms like "S"ociety. As well, we concede the totalitarian debate when we agree to argue in terms of some singular thing called 'the Economy.'

They are the economies; it is not the economy. I will beat that dead horse until I'm dead.

regards,

Fred

Post 59

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 10:56pm