Spideynw: JAlanKatz:And why would anyone imagine that a smaller government is somehow a path to no government? An even better question is why would anyone imagine a larger government is somehow a path to no government? However, in response to your question, because when people see that as government gets smaller, the world gets better, it would be much easier for them to envision a world without a government.
JAlanKatz:And why would anyone imagine that a smaller government is somehow a path to no government?
An even better question is why would anyone imagine a larger government is somehow a path to no government?
However, in response to your question, because when people see that as government gets smaller, the world gets better, it would be much easier for them to envision a world without a government.
I'd like to put foreward a different question: is a minarchist state even a possibility? Or is it just a floating abstraction? Is it not merely a matter of relativity, I.E. one state is "limited" only in comparison to another? Has there ever really been such thing as a state that limits itself to the provision of rights protection, security and arbitration? Or have all states in the history of mankind transcended this boundary from the get go?
krazy kaju:Cool to see another wrestler posting on the site, annonymous
Haha. Krazy Kaju, youre a wrestler too eh? That is pretty cool.
krazy kaju:We need to vote for whoever out there with the most libertarian view that will naturally give more coverage to other kinds of more principled libertarians (like minarchists and anarchists).
Indeed.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Brainpolice:Politicians and parties adjust their rhetoric and platforms to cater to public demands all the time. This does not mean that they will actually fulfill such demands and there still is no institutional mechanism to ensure that they will. The Republican Party has catered to libertarian-ish sentiments for a long time. They haven't followed through.
Part of the reason is probably that many libertarians vote for third parties and anarchists simply do not vote, reducing the influence of liberty minded people on the parties.
"Most voters know nothing about how markets work—or even that they work..." Sheldon Richman
Brainpolice: I'd like to put foreward a different question: is a minarchist state even a possibility? Or is it just a floating abstraction?
I'd like to put foreward a different question: is a minarchist state even a possibility? Or is it just a floating abstraction?
Myself, I do not think it is a possibility.
Brainpolice:Is it not merely a matter of relativity, I.E. one state is "limited" only in comparison to another?
Not so much if "limited" means limited to protecting our rights.
Brainpolice:Has there ever really been such thing as a state that limits itself to the provision of rights protection, security and arbitration? Or have all states in the history of mankind transcended this boundary from the get go?
I do not know of any that had that boundary from the get go.
I can't think of any nation founded on or solely concerned with the idea of protecting rights.
But I would like to know of any government that, short of rebellion or invasion, gave power back to the people voluntarily.
Seems to me that each power government gains facilitates the next grab.
Yes a voluntary government with the right to leave at any time could meet the minarchist definition.
If you have a "voluntary government" where people can withdraw anytime without having to forfeit their private property, it's not a government at all; it's market anarchism.
It would be compatible with market anarchism, but it would still be a form of governance right? Just not coercive.
I'll give up voting, when I can give up my citizenship. They get more benifits anyway, non-citizens.
Can minarchy work, or is it a way to describe the size of government. I am still willed, that the law of the land that I live in provides me some protection.
Under self rule, a person could be able to not worry about voting, or vote because they are uneasy. I feel very uneasy when I think of governments.
Individualism Rocks
Brainpolice:The myth of democracy is that the state is voluntary because the people voted. This is certainly not true, but this is a commonly accepted ideological legitimization of the state put foreward by statist intellectuals. You're right that the notion is illogical. I agree entirely. But that's beside the point. The point is that in voting one merely allows this illusion of consent to continue, as the state's members and associated intellectuals can continue to point the finger at "the people" and their votes as evidence of consent. If masses of people do not vote, on the other hand, the case for this illogical premise cannot as easily be made to the populace, since they rather clearly are abstaining from participation. This is what I mean when I say that voting contributes to the ideological legitimization of the state, with me knowing full well that this ideological legitimization is nonsensical and deceptive.
The only people that worry about non-voters are the occasional political pundits, not the politicians or bureaucrats. Non-voting isn't considered a threat by anyone.
Furthermore, only half of those eligible to register actually register, and of those registered, only half of those people actually vote, and that's for a good turnout! So already you have less than 25% of the eligible population actually voting in elections. How low does the votre turnout have to be before they admit to the illegitimacy of voting? 10%? 2%? They will never admit to the illegitimacy of voting based on mere voter turnout.
While I've been quite entertained by his trolling of the GOP and the federal government, a Ron Paul victory is the absolute worst thing that could happen. Not only would his victory increase and reinforce confidence in the system, he would likely reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Small governments tend to last longer than large governments. A smaller government is a government less involved in the market. Lesser government involvement in the market allows for greater economic growth in the legal "white" market, which is the government's primary source of revenue by way of taxation. Lesser government involvement in the market also reduces the incentives for people to engage in counter-economic activities. Though a larger government comes with greater risks, initially at least, for those engaging in counter-economic activities, the appeal and potential profits are also much greater, making it more likely that people will engage in such activities. The Soviet Union had a counter-economy. Nazi Germany had a counter-economy. The United States has had one at least since the Whiskey Rebellion.
Where there is government involvement in the economy, there will always be people working outside it, and the more pervasive that involvement becomes, the larger the counter-economy will grow. The more the counter-economy grows, the more oppressive the state must become to suppress it, and it must of course spend more to do so, while being denied ever greater amounts of income. Eventually, the state collapses from financial insolvency, is replaced by another existing state via conquest, or is forcibly suppressed by forces of the counter-economy itself. Unfortunately, historically, those within the counter-economy have not been consciously libertarian to a degree significant enough to suppress the replacement of the old state with a new one; in the case of the American Revolutionary War, the state was suppressed by counter-economic defense forces (aided by foreign states) who in turn formed a new state, so here we are again, with an even worse King George than the last one. If you want to better your situation, deny the state as much revenue as possible, and do everything you can (or at least all that you're willing to risk) to increase its enforcement costs.
Oh, and another thing. I've heard a lot of talk of "revolution" related to Ron Paul. I certainly don't mind seeing liberty-minded individuals getting active, but they aren't revolutionaries. If you want to know what real revolutionaries look like, look up Lauren Canario, Kat and Dave Kanning, and the others who are opting out and engaging in civil disobedience up in New Hampshire.
"Defence was an afterthought, prompted by necessity; and its introduction as a State function, though effected doubtless with a view to the strengthening of the State, was really and in principle the initiation of the State's destruction." -- Benjamin Tucker
Rich333: While I've been quite entertained by his trolling of the GOP and the federal government, a Ron Paul victory is the absolute worst thing that could happen. Not only would his victory increase and reinforce confidence in the system, he would likely reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Small governments tend to last longer than large governments. A smaller government is a government less involved in the market. Lesser government involvement in the market allows for greater economic growth in the legal "white" market, which is the government's primary source of revenue by way of taxation. Lesser government involvement in the market also reduces the incentives for people to engage in counter-economic activities. Though a larger government comes with greater risks, initially at least, for those engaging in counter-economic activities, the appeal and potential profits are also much greater, making it more likely that people will engage in such activities. The Soviet Union had a counter-economy. Nazi Germany had a counter-economy. The United States has had one at least since the Whiskey Rebellion. Where there is government involvement in the economy, there will always be people working outside it, and the more pervasive that involvement becomes, the larger the counter-economy will grow. The more the counter-economy grows, the more oppressive the state must become to suppress it, and it must of course spend more to do so, while being denied ever greater amounts of income. Eventually, the state collapses from financial insolvency, is replaced by another existing state via conquest, or is forcibly suppressed by forces of the counter-economy itself. Unfortunately, historically, those within the counter-economy have not been consciously libertarian to a degree significant enough to suppress the replacement of the old state with a new one; in the case of the American Revolutionary War, the state was suppressed by counter-economic defense forces (aided by foreign states) who in turn formed a new state, so here we are again, with an even worse King George than the last one. If you want to better your situation, deny the state as much revenue as possible, and do everything you can (or at least all that you're willing to risk) to increase its enforcement costs. Oh, and another thing. I've heard a lot of talk of "revolution" related to Ron Paul. I certainly don't mind seeing liberty-minded individuals getting active, but they aren't revolutionaries. If you want to know what real revolutionaries look like, look up Lauren Canario, Kat and Dave Kanning, and the others who are opting out and engaging in civil disobedience up in New Hampshire.
This makes a lot of sense in that countries with semi-free economies have more prosperity to draw from in order for the state to sustain itself and grow more in the future. There is something to be said about the fact that the most free economies also usually are the same places with the biggest warfare states. Allowing some limited degree of liberality in the economy could be seen as a strategy by which the rulers ensure that, as parasites, they don't destroy their host. They depend on the productivity of their host/subjects. If they hamper such productivity too much, they will siphon off the source of their supply, so to speak.
So it could be said that successful rulership depends on best being able to determine exactly where the cut-off point is, the balance between keeping the citezenry productive while still being able to extract as much as possible from them without destroying the host. And putting forth bread and circuses to keep the populace in a general state of passive compliance or aquiescance. Etienne La Boetie's "Mystery of Voluntary Servitude" is very revealing and insightful when it comes to this, as it reveals that states maintain themselves on the basis of ideology, baiting and aquiescance.
Civil disobedience, which the counter-economy is obviously an essential part of, is a way to break this down. It makes it harder for the state to control matters because passive resignation is decreased while self-reliance is increased. It denies the state access to resources/revenue and makes central planning harder and less successful. It could potentially hasten the inevitable fall of states by bleeding them dry of oppurtunities and making their forceful nature more obvious to the masses. The emperor obviously has no clothes to the masses when it absolutely must resort to naked force in order to sustain itself. Otherwise, it could just rely on passive resignation or aquiescance and the ballgame keeps going.
Rich333:Small governments tend to last longer than large governments.
Yeah, the government of Fidel Castro did not last long at all did it. Oh wait, no, it lasted his whole life!
That's not actually a long time at all when it comes to states. The Roman Empire lasted almost two thousand years if you include the Byzantines, and for most of its existence its involvement in the economy was quite small relative to much of the world both then and now. Both halves of the empire were brought down separately and at different times, by a combination of financial insolvency and foreign invasions.
Edit to my earlier post: It's Russell, not Dave, Kanning. I must've mixed his name up with Dave Krouse, another NH civil disobedience activist.