Peace and Property
I really dont see why everyone loves democracy so much or why they say america is a democracy. Yes democracy! Where 51% could vote to kill the other 49%, or more commonly, the rich and the poor vote to rob the middle, who are too busy slaving to care!
To quote Rose Wilder Lane, Europeans think freedom means controlling the government that controls them. Democracy is the religion used to label tyranny as self-determination
Among the fallacies related to this view:
1-The government is instituted to protect private property - that is, to ensure that people who own property get to keep this. To do so, the government takes away private property.
2-The miniarchist view seems to defeat itself, or at least contradict itself, in this way - it is deemed proper to provide protection, but not to assist people in other ways, such as when a hurricane knocks over their house. So here I am, instead of facing a hurricane, facing a mugger. I am able to demand that you protect me, on this view, and you must - legally - do so. So why not for protection against other misfortunes?
3-Why protect private property at all, seeing as how it is just conditional once we accept the existence of the state?
Great post, Jon. I think I'd missed that Rothbard quote before, but I'd heard him voice similar sentiments. It's nice to have something to run back to to back this belief! Keep it up!
For most people Ron is the only person that they've heard making a persuasive, logical and passionate argument that more government makes us worse off, and less government makes us better off. Eventually, having had their eyes open they may figure out that they don't need that last little bit either, but first they have to get used to the idea of looking someplace other than Washington DC for the solutions to their problems.
For me the minarchist view was a comfortable resting place on the path to realizing that a state reduced to a couple functions can be reduced further, and the world better off for it. I would have had a hard time emotionally accepting the anarcho-capitalist position cold-turkey.
Since we're brainwashed from birth about the absolute necessity of the State trying to make the jump can be quite uncomfortable.
I agree that if we were to attain anarcho-capitalism it would be huge mistake to then decide to go to minarchism as an "improvement". We've seen how well that works.
naah, where I come from nobody calls classic liberals libertarians.
Thanks for the kind comments.
Jim,
Thats a good point. I thought of a similar one after I had already posted.
There is certain amount of elitism in the idea that none of yesterday's disenfranchised, who are Ron Paul supporters today, will be tomorrow's anarchists.
Thanks for the feed back.
JAlanKatz,
2. is how all new government functions are justified.
"The Political Method is used to do this, why can't it do this other important thing?"
When trying to deleting the trackback, I clicked delete twice, so deleted the next comment as well.
I can't recall the user who left it, but it was definitely not intentional. Sorry!
Reminds me of the quotation "History has proven that democracies don't war with each other,' from our very own president. Works, if you exempt all wars that started shortly after Isreal attacked Lebanon.
My hero Rothbard is correct, the matter is morally neutral, whats more all morals are in fact now void.
The state has taken away our innocent by its own existence.
If I kill a man I am no less moral than I already had been.
The only thing voting makes a person is stupid, the only thing that political involvement makes a person is waster of time.
Pingback from Poemore.Com » Anarchists Oppose the State
Pingback from Offtogria.Com » Anarchists Oppose the State
Like Ron Paul, Lord Bertrand Russell also believed in non-violent political agitation, of which voting is but one form.
Perhaps Mr. Bostwick's excellent blog might have been called "In Offense of Ron Paul" for this surely is the first time so much truth has been thrown at the public for many years, and they are shocked. His performance on the committee dealing with the sub-prime mess on 9/20 was magnificent. He just kept throwing those jabs of truth out there like Ali throwing lefts in his opponents face (or was it rights?). Bernanke looked stunnedand shaken.
I'm quite optimistic that President Paul will be inaugurated in Jan. 2009 for quite a few reasons: No president has been elected since Eisenhower with a non-British Isles name, or a name over 8 letters long. The shorter the better. Hilary's voice is so irritating to listen to after a few minutes, that sub-consciously she will alienate millions of voters. The youth of America is getting pretty rylled up about taxes and Social Security, as it dawns on them that they are being exploited. The Clinton-Bush war on cannabis, continuing a long Dem/Rep tradition, makes them realise who their real enemies are. But perhaps tops will be the economic chaos caused by the plunging dollar. 14 more months of this and they will be in the streets. The massive inflation that is just beginning, as signaled by gold and the rise of such socialist rag currencies like the Euro and Cannuck Buck, will cause widespread hostility to the establishment. The war will drag on and the public's hate of Dem/Reps will surge, in contrast to the 'McGovern of the Old Right', Dr. Paul, the only peace candidate. Also, the common sense of Dr. Paul's proposals appeals directly to many who are exploited by the current system (tax free tips, or even better, abolishing the income tax). He also appeals to a lot of other groups: the far-right Christian anti-abortionists, states rights groups whose arguments suddenly seem a lot more leftist as Oregon has its medical-marijuana and assisted-suicide laws threatened by the anti-constitutionalists of the supreme court, the neo-fascist militia types who think he is their buddy, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who make a very convincing argument and want questions answered, the gold backed dollarists,
anti-environmentalists, and finally those who understand and applaud the basic tenents of Austrian economics.
But perhaps tops is that people see a family man who obviously loves his wife and kids (like Truman who got a lot out of this image), has the guts to say what he thinks instead of constantly mincing before the public and worrying about his looks (Edwards $300 haircuts), and who believes in dialogue, civility and non-violence in debating the issues. He is the best of America, even if you disagree with him.
<i> If everyone person in America(besides the politicians) were to not show up to the poll booths on election day, would the State dissolve itself? Or would it continue on without democratic oversight?</i>
<i>Assume that anarchists can not be political. As the country grows less statist, the government will be less opposed and thus more powerful. That fact that such an outcome is counterintuitive ought to suggest the invalidity of the assumption.</i>
No, it suggests the invalidity of your line of reasoning. :)
The states's power is proportional to the approval it receives from the population, and thus as the country grows less statist the government's power shrinks. In the case where everyone skips voting, a state that attempted to continue would face a country full of well-educated, rabid libertarians wielding rifles and shouting "Get off of my land!" We should be so lucky. :) But in reality, such a collapse would happen long before the anarchist population reaches 100%.
Personally, I show up to vote against every direct measure and against every candidate by putting myself in as a write-in candidate. I long for the day when enough of the population does this that it becomes apparent the candidates do not have support, at which point the collapse will become greatly hastened. But I describe this as "not voting."
<i>Faith without works is dead. If you oppose the State, act.</i>
False dichotomy. Voting is not the only way to act, and you've been public schooled to think it's greatly effective, something everybody ought to do, and that not doing it means people "don't care" about the system, etc. There are lots of other acts besides voting, including participating in building a robust free market that is able to assume all of the functions currently inadequately serviced by the state, as well as educating others. There's also armed revolution, but I don't think you mean to encourage that.
<i>Our ancestors killed and died to create these nonviolent anti-state tools, and yet some refuse to use them for their intended purpose!</i>
Oh, spare me the ridiculous invalid logic! The neocons are busy telling us how our ancestors fought and died so that we should all feel obligated to go fight and die in Iraq. If my ancestors fought and died, then they shouldn't have. And meanwhile, people also died so that that people like the <i>Amish</i> could secede from society as much as possible and <i>not</i> vote.
If voting is all we got out of all those deaths, it was a pathetic payoff for such a tragic sacrifice. Quit worshipping voting.
Worshiping voting?
Its encouraging that your objections were aimed at peripherals and not the main argument.
An armed minority that sacrifices itself to the State will harm the state not at all, it will only strength it.(Remember 9/11?)
But a nonviolent minority is able to limit the damage the State can do. Particularly when allied with like thinkers, whether they be socialists or Constitutionalists.
Never did I suggest that voting is the sole action that can be taken against the state. What I did say was it is foolish to willingly reject an action that has the potential to tremendously weaken the state.
I assume you would be in support of a mass demonstration to show that the people won't allow the Government to destroy habeas corpus? Well, what do you think an election is?
While I reject violence, the revolution was not a tragic sacrifice. They created the idea that government only exists so long as people agree to it. And now its up to us to prove that people shouldn't agree to it.
And thanks for commenting!
As many libertarians understand, government's power rest in ideas -not in guns. Then, if we really want to get rid of the State, we have to change the ideas.
The only thing that can destroy the state is ideology, and after that the only thing that can keep anarchism alive is ideology -in the same way ideology keeps statism alive. Political parties are short-terms games.
Regular people do not know anything about anarchism and we need to work on that.
I have talked to many 'regular' people about anarchism and at the end all of them agree that a private police would be better than the actual system. And all of them told me they never thought of anarchism before -the idea was completely new to their minds. That's what we need to do.
We need new strategies. We don't need 'democratic' solutions, we need private solutions, we need to create private police companies, we need secessions, we need ideology.
We do not need republicans or sellouts.
"Many anarchist libertarians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action–the argument being that by participating in this way in State activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the State apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision, and the State has placed individuals in society in an unfree environment, in a general matrix of coercion. The State—unfortunately—exists, and people must necessarily begin with this matrix to try to remedy their condition. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent. Indeed, if the State allows us a periodic choice of rulers, limited though that choice may be, it surely cannot be considered immoral to make use of that limited choice to try to reduce or get rid of State power." --Murray Rothbard
Short and thoughtful. Nice Job!
Keep it up!
Well said, Jon!
What Global Warmers fear most is a technological solution to the CO2 problem. Such a solution is possible as follows:
1 There are environmental advantages in mixing the upper layers of the ocean by bringing deep nutrients into the light where photosynthesis by phytoplankton can occur.
2 These advantages include augmenting the volume and diversity of ocean fish stocks and sequestration of atmospheric CO2 into the deep ocean.
3 The energy to carry out oceanic mixing is available in the form of superheated water from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.
4 A fluidic heat engine has been devised in the form of a large bubble pump which converts superheated water from these vents into the mechanical energy needed to bring nutrient-rich water to the surface.
5 The bubble pump amplifies the vent flow by a factor of 30,000 by virtue of the huge buoyancy created when the vent water boils at intermediate depths.
6 The cost of construction and deployment of such bubble pumps can be justified economically in terms of commercial fish stocks created and carbon credits traded.
7 There are both sufficient nutrients and sufficient energy available to allow such schemes to be developed for decades to come, even to reverse recent increases in atmospheric CO2.
The technology to implement this scheme is already available within the offshore oil and gas industry. Implementation is more of a political problem. Artificial fisheries in mid-ocean will require international agreement about security of investment and changes to the Law of the Sea. Some will have strong moral objections to "tampering with nature" in such a manner.
More information can be obtained at www.ecofluidics.com.
John Reid
Although I'm in the camp that believes that CO2 is harmless, isn't claiming that Global Warming supporters are opposed to "mobility for the masses" a straw man attack? They're not luddites, they only want to avoid a large number of "polluting" vehicles.
Yes, Jon. Too many of the bloggers and forum users do not get there. At least often enough.
what the global warming crowd fears is secondary to the underlying group that actually is spearheading it.
that being the anti-capitalist collectivists.
That being said the recent info from NOAA shows that the temperature average is DROPPING.
Now what do they do?
Under this philosophy, what is to stop someone from building a house in your backyard? Or moving into a vacation home you no longer use? Nothing? What set of criteria do you apply to determine if the land is being "used", and who gets to decide whether these criteria are met? One could assert that one is "using" land by leaving it as a buffer between one's house and the highway, and another could say that it is "unused" and want to "use" it to build on.
The homesteading theory of property.
http://blackcrayon.com/people/rothbard/property/
Your argument is based on a bunch of inrequired ad hoc a priori beliefs. You consider geography as something that is always privatized, and that private roads should be forced to be made collective property. Not always. The atmosphere is considered unprivatizable, and humans have the ability to use airplanes. So if private road companies charge a fee, you still can escape, so that is not a problem.
What do you consider a "road" is? Do you consider your neighbor a road? Do you consider a private park a road, and they so they must be collectivized? Do you consider your neighbor's private sidewalk or river a road and that needs to be privatized? This can get very arbitrary, and everything might be considered "essential rights" and must be privatized. You are on a slippery slope.
What property do you consider "unused". Do you mean "unpossessed"? How do you determine it? If you see an empty baseball field or empty swimming pool or empty private park, do you have the right to use THEIR property? Humans lack perfect information to judge which property is "unused," so that can get pretty arbitrary.
If the swimming pool is actually a chemical storage tank storing chemical waste, you would die. If the private road is actually a runway for airplanes, you are killing the people in the airplanes. Humans lack perfect knowledge, and "judging" what can be privatized without consent of the owner, it is your risk.
If you actually want to collectivize "unused" property, then the owners might, for example, put many fences around their property to prevent "homesteading." The owners might otherwise put electronic devices on the land physically preventing foreigners standing on it by using technology to detect the DNA of the human. They might put nuclear waste on the land to prevent homesteading of it. Your dictatorial judgement of what should be privatized would lead to malinvestment.
And it is perfectly legitimate for the owners to sell their "abondoned" property because it would prevent shortages and conflicts. If you force the owners to charge zero cost for "homesteading", many people would rush to the land and would stir up many fights. This is not "surplus value."
JonBostwick, you overgeneralize. You consider all non-tangible contracts to be illegitamate. If you pay someone to write a book or to make a computer program, are you not allowed to do that perfectly voluntary agreement? That is a comparative advantage. Time is precious.
You dictatorially arbitrary "define" what goods or services should be collectivized or not. There is no clear line between knowledge and tangible goods.
You are believing that the "rent" and the "use-value" of land to be costs arbitrarily determined by the owner. You are false. The "exchange value" of land is actually the cost of rent divided by the interest rate. So rent is perfectly justifiable, otherwise you have to buy the whole land without paying rent. (the "exchange value" is much greater than the "rent")
"The homesteading theory of property."
You misinterpret the homesteading theory of property. It is NOT applied to owners selling the land and "going to abondon it". It is applied to ALREADY abondoned property. There is a great difference between them. It does not say that you have no right to rent. It only considers already abondoned property or property colluded by capitalists and the state, which is legal to apply homesteading theory. However, voluntary rent and other non-feudal land claims cannot be homesteaded.
That's why I hate left-libertarians.
"You consider geography as something that is always privatized, and that private roads should be forced to be made collective property."
No I don't.
I was pointing the difference between a toll road and a highwayman, the difference being legitimate ownership.
@JonBostwick: You cannot argue with libertarians about intellectual property when you call it "property." They will instinctively leap to its defense. Call it for what it really is: government-granted monopoly on concepts.
@Carrie and Sequitur: The problem with so-called "intellectual property" is that it often infringes on other people's individual private property. According to the most extreme of copyright proponents (I call them copyfascists), the mere presence of their original content in your private property is forfeiture of your right to tinker and do what you want with that private property.
Under copyright, you do not own anything. A state-sanctioned entity does.
There is one patent that could help mankind and the economy geometrically. Have you ever seen Aquygen's water engine? If you turn water into fuel, what does the economy look like?
Grossly undernourished.
How can you have a meaningful currency if water is fuel? Or control of consent? This is precisely the thing keeping it secret.
Examine my campaign page www.WilliamBunker2008.blogspot.com to see Danny Klein's Aquygen in action. And look for these two videos to determine for your own finances what is best.
Aquygen:
www.youtube.com/watch
Pentagon Energy Interviews:
An educated public. Of course, they can relax, as this is a non-existent threat....
Welcome to our corporation.
We can supply many kinds of brand shoes,jeans,handbags,clothes,watch,mobile iphone,etc
We hope to build mutual benefits and long term business with you
http://www.nationshoes.com
MSN: nationshoes@hotmail.com
email: nationshoes@yahoo.com.cn
I'm positively amazed at what can be inferred from a five-word blog post.
Paul Grad: Got your tickets to the Ron Paul inaugural yet?