About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The minarchist author of this quote argues in the linked article that the usual minarchist justification for government -- that it can do good and defend our natural rights -- is subtly wrong. Rather, he posits that government exists so one group of people can extract resources from everyone else, and that any attempt to end this practice, or even to replace it with a very weak government, will inevitably result in the overthrow of that society and replacement with a new gang of exploiters.

So, he argues that the best we can do is to pre-emptively design our own government, set it up to be fairly limited and more or less protect our natural rights without being excessively exploitive, and then try to beat back the inevitable wave after wave of attempts to hijack this arrangement and turn it to more nefarious ends.

Not sure I buy this argument, but thought it was an unusual viewpoint that might provoke an interesting discussion.

Post 1

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 5:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For anyone interested in reading the whole article.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_holcombe.pdf


Post 2

Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 6:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The article and it's title have the sound of a frustrated anarchist, or someone apologetic for minarchy. That seems strange to me. Does it read that way to others?

He writes that government of some kind is inevitable. And I agree. He writes that implementing a minarchy is a way to forestall the alternative which would be the natural evolution of a predatory government. How could one not agree with that.

Then isn't minarchy a desirable human invention that serves the necessary function of protecting life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness?

Given that his argument makes the relationship of minarchy to the protection of rights, about the same as the use of a vaccine to protect against a pandemic disease, why wouldn't it be seen as necessary, desirable, and valuable?



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 5:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I haven't read the whole essay, but this quote is wrong:

***********
Without government—or even with a weak government—predatory groups will impose themselves on people by force and create a government to extract income and wealth from these subjects
***********

It is a Hobbesian view of man (wrong), rather than a Lockean view. It is a Nietzschean view, rather than a Randian view. It is a Platonic view, rather than an Aristotelian view.

It is a mistake to look at all of history and to proclaim that that is all that is possible. This quote essentially denies the rational potentiality of man. This kind of cut-throat existentialism is spiritually caustic.

Ed

Post 4

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 9:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Has anyone ever actually read all of the Federalist Papers? some of the arguments here are similar to some made back then... and the same with the Anti-Federalist ones as well...

Post 5

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Without government—or even with a weak government—predatory groups will impose themselves on people by force and create a government to extract income and wealth from these subjects.

It is a Hobbesian view of man (wrong), rather than a Lockean view. It is a Nietzschean view, rather than a Randian view. It is a Platonic view, rather than an Aristotelian view.


He seems to be making the argument that this is in fact what has happened, that this is the reality and the reason that there aren't any minarchist or anarcho-capitalist societies anywhere on Earth.

I agree that this seems to be what has happened in the past. He has not convinced me that this is our future for all time -- that seems analogous to arguing in 1770 that monarchism or worse forms of governments are all that will ever be possible because that's what prevailed then.

Our lives are better because of breakthroughs in fields such as medicine, physics, chemistry, etc. -- why should I assume no such conceptual advances will not revolutionize governance in the future, that scholars have achieved all we will ever achieve in the field of political philosophy?

Post 6

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 2:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Then isn't minarchy a desirable human invention that serves the necessary function of protecting life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness?

I would agree, if you added the following qualifier at the end of that sentence "better than the political alternatives currently being employed?" I would be delighted if someone tried that sparkly new invention somewhere on Earth now, so I could move there.

Post 7

Friday, May 7, 2010 - 9:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A great challenge for minarchy is the transfer of political power. Conventional wisdom in the west says that popular elections are the way to do this, but this just results in majoritarianism. If "the people" will it, then it must be, or so it goes.

Human history can be a guide to future behavior, at least as far general tendencies that can be expected when large amounts of people try organize a society. Unless you can prove otherwise, we have to take it as fact that there will always be people who aspire to power and control. Many of these people will be attracted to governments. Combine this with large masses of people who are motivated behind a grievance, and demagogues will seize the opportunity to ride to power.

The best we can hope for is minarchy with a sufficient enough base of people to beat off the inevitable calls for increased government intervention in this or that facet of life.









Post 8

Saturday, May 8, 2010 - 3:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes - and the original idea that he [she] who paid for it calls the tune should be re-installed...

Post 9

Saturday, May 8, 2010 - 12:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A great challenge for minarchy is the transfer of political power. Conventional wisdom in the west says that popular elections are the way to do this, but this just results in majoritarianism. If "the people" will it, then it must be, or so it goes.

What is needed is elections that transfer a LACK of political power. The Constitution specifies a weak form of government, but allows a bare majority at the polls to impose their will on everyone else -- the minority who voted for the losing side, those who didn't vote despite being eligible to do so, and those who are ineligible to vote.

The result? This tiny minority has become emboldened to ignore larger and larger swathes of the Constitution, to the point where the effective rule for legislators is: "Do whatever you can muster 50% of the legislature to do and isn't overturned by the courts on Constitutional grounds -- and do your best to confirm judges who will not overturn even brazen violations of the Constitution.

A temporary solution (until a workaround is found by the statists for that, too) would be to dispense with majoritarian rule and replace it with a strong supermajoritarian rule for passing laws, and a superminoritarian rule for repealing laws.

It might take a revolution to accomplish that, since the looters who benefit from majoritarian rule are unlikely to voluntarily surrender their power over others.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 5/08, 12:29pm)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.