Robert Bidinotto said:  “For my own arguments for ltd. government and against anarchism, go here, then scroll down to the articles under the subheading, "Anarchism vs. Limited Government.”

I skimmed.  From what I can tell, you’re (intentionally?) confusing a very simple concept.  It’s a dead-end to argue between government and anarchy.  Anarchy effectively means “without order.”  Self-rule (within a free market) is not the same as anarchy (nor would I consider it limited government).

For any economic progress to occur, there must be order.  Economic progress cannot occur (consistently) in chaos.  You will always have more economic progress when individuals are able to operate freely and apply their own rules.  (By applying rules, they learn how reality works.)  How do they know what rules to apply to themselves?  Whatever they learn is most effective in accomplishing the progress they seek (or, to oversimplify, when a rule doesn’t work, it’s not the truth).  Government takes freedom away with the MOTIVE to rule.  (This is why the Founding Fathers had such a hard time selling the Constitution to the people through the Federalist Papers – because people knew all too well what the only motive of government was.  The only reason the Constitution exists is because the authors “gave in” to the Bill of Rights which was the people’s [false] assurance of the “new” government’s intent.  Theoretically, (yeah, right) we would still have self-rule to this day if people hadn’t been hoodwinked by the Bill of Rights.)

Individuals who are interested in self-rule are, by default, not interested in ruling others.  The “enforcement” (as you referred to it in one of your articles) is not motivated by power over others – it is motivated by protection of earned property.  If you want to call self-rule a form of government (e.g., limited government), at least be clear about the motive that is the differentiating factor.

- B.

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

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL:  brilovett, MSN:  blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo:  bm_lovett

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

If you wish to oppose reason, America and the good, no one can stop you. I am not, however, obligated to pretend that you are doing otherwise. [emphasis added]

[Me]: "You are one of those who hold that non-initian of force is an inherent human right (from some kind of noumenal realm), not a right derived from any living-on-earth ethics or morality."

[You]: You must have me mixed up with someone else, as your assertion concerning my beliefs is 180 degrees off course.

Let me say this again, for emphasis: non-coercion is a political principle, not a moral code. Libertarianism is a political movement, and as such seeks the adoption of its binding political principle -- non-coercion -- as the standard of political behavior.

 

Concept formation is key to understanding. A concept is defined in terms of its essentials, not by any stray factors that may be found in various examples of the concept in reality, but not in others.

 Here is where I start having serious disagreements. It is in the nature of "essentials." From my read, concept formation is hierarchal in terms of input. So a floating political principle, cut off from its metaphysical (reality), epistemological (reason) and ethical (rational self-interest) roots is pretty useless in defining a system of government.

And defining a system of government is one of the things a political party is supposed to do, isn't it?

Such a floating political principle takes on the attributes of an absolute by its proponents and provides the grounds for all future discussions and propositions.

For example, non-initiation of force (political principle) used like this will lead to the conclusion of all government being evil (a moral conclusion). This is the anarchist view and, from their premise, is rationally correct.

Looking at man's nature and seeing an aggressive component (I call it a desire to be a thug) that is manifest throughout history and the world we now live in, the Objectivist (and especally the Founding Fathers) will take this reality (i.e. identification of what exists - metaphysics and epistemology) into account in his/her formulation of government, which will also include the non-initiation of force political priciple - and which, by the way, is a derivative concept to Objectivists in terms of essentials. Therefore limited power to initiate force and checks and balances will also be built in.

From here we can go on to our disagreements.

I can appreciate the fact that the purpose of Libertarianism is political, not philosophical, as you pointed out in your article. But if you cut off concept-forming roots like that in a political principle, you later rationally lead to conclusions that are diametrically opposed to Objectivist positions, especially the ones we have been debating.

I am one who will grant the following facts you stated:

... there were no "weapons of mass destruction"...

 

... there was no operational relationship between the Ba'athist regime and al Qaeda... 

I too am outraged at the way these issues were handled by our side. But these are not the only issues and essentials at hand (including the fact that Bush is not just self-serving and that his values are not just altruistic and/or evil). I am not sure though, from your premises, that you see them or, if you do, that you give much value to them.

That is where we part ways.

Michael

Edit - The automatic formatting on this thing is getting its instructions from the noumenal realm, which is why there are large spaces between some of the lines...



(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/03, 3:54pm)