Wow I need to calm down lol its late.

Wonder what shape this shit will take by morning.

No but seriously. This forum is turning into a breeding ground for anarchist/libertarians.

You guys know that shit doesn't actually work right? It's kinda like communism... slide to far to an extreme and you slide your way right out of plausibility.

How about some goddam moderation for a change :P

Was this posted between beers 12 and 13?

Libertarianism splits into 3 main ideas for governance models:

1. Minarchist (a)- a government exists at the necessary size to provide protection of property rights, and taxes as little as necessary to achieve this.
2. Minarchist (b)- a government acts to lay down the law, and police it, run a judiciary system as far as possible, but without forced taxation. In its place you have lotteries, community charges by businesses that work in a similar manner to a service charge at restaurant (could fund local government feasibly) and just charitable donations.
3. Anarchist- no government.

I personally hover between the two minarchist positions, and couldn't claim to know which one was workable.

LOL

@ Ghostmaker: Out of interest, under type (b) Minarchy, would there be an army? If so, how would it be funded? If not, how would lottery-funded local government protect property against states which DID have armies?

Thanks.

Anywayz.... point to a "minarchy" in history.

If there was more than one, point to one that worked.

@Jamiet, indeed, that is an issue that I am unsure on. I do not know to what extent people would pay taxes were they voluntary. If you could get people to pay just 5p in every pound on average (and restaurant tips are substantially more than that), it would be feasible to have a well funded army. Businesses could also have an incentive to fund an army (PR and they also have much more capital with which to make a difference).

But ultimately, I admit, I don't know how it could work out, so cannot advocate for one or the other.


@Thucy, by definition, a "minarchy" would "work" in the sense that property rights are maintained. If you want an example, the Icelandic Republic is often described variously as minarchist and anarchist.

However, most governments in monarchist societies approached minarchism, because heavy taxation of the peasants was a sure way to cause a revolt. So too did Victorian Britain and America. Colonies have often seen very limited governance.

Putting a marker or what is and isn't minarchism is necessarily difficult. What one person thinks is minimal, another person will probably disagree with. It is an ideal situation which should be aimed for, preferably from above (with a little too much government) rather than from below (with so little that law and order breaks down). The discussion must necessarily be considering marginal costs of various changes in decision-making.

Either way, the central point is that the only proper function of government is the protection of person and property. Once we are at that stage we can discuss to what extent we are willing to forcibly tax to achieve that end, if such taxation is necessary.

The presence or absence of successful minarchist states is in no way an argument against this ideal.

That's a handy thing to say, but again I can say the same for any number of "ideals."

Like communism. Should work right? By definition, right?

Right. Lol. That's my point. Fringe ideas are fringe for a reason.

Okay, your being a fool now.

By definition, the minimum state to maintain property rights will maintain property rights.

Communism's aim is to achieve economic equality and prosperity etc. Communism is not defined as "the system that achieves economic equality and prosperity", so it doesn't achieve it's goal, by definition.

"Fringe ideas are fringe for a reason"

Appeal to popular belief? Oh dear.

In middle-age Europe, democracy was a fringe idea....

You can argue about whether maintenance of the property right should be the only goal of government, but you cannot argue that a form of government defined as "the least necessary to maintain the property right" will maintain the property right, and given that policing is not a lost cause, it is possible to have this government.

That's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that anarchism is just a fringe as communism and fascism.

Liberal democracy is better than both those two and your minarchy because the citizens can debate things and come to a compromise.

What some call gridlock I call genius. It keeps radicals in check. That is why minarchy is not going to happen any easier than another fascist regime will happen.

That's all I'm saying. I'm poking fun at your.... how to say... unrealisticness.. if that's a word.

"anarchism is just a fringe as communism and fascism. " - really? There are several major world powers that have an anarchist political system? I'd say anarchism is a bit more fringe.

The problem with liberal democracy is that people learn that they can vote themselves money. That's what's happening in the U.S. right now and it is leading to an amazingly bloated bureaucracy that is going to eat everything up.

It is a fun ride for many Americans, but the crash at the end is going to be a rude awakening.

@ Alderian: as a Yank, I agree with you, a severe flaw in the system is the reward for politicians who hand out public funds - a reward issued by the voters.

I missed catching your favored political system which is more effective for its citizens (whatever that means) than liberal or social democracy?

Democracy doesn't work. I'm not even sure that it really exists. When you're limited to choices that are framed within the same system then you tend to get the same results from all. Democracies tend to be divided into 2 powers. These powers are all funded by the same companies. The differences in governments are usually limited to a small handful of domestic issues but International agendas rarely change.

I think that real differences in governmental ideologies is the overall lifestyle of the average populace. Truly capitalistic states have a lot of potential for personal gain but they also have a large lower class and tend to be crime ridden and socially deprived. Socialist countries vary somewhat from state to state with some appearing as a perfect modal of a civilized nation but these tend to be small nations such as Scandinavia, (Pick one) to corrupted stagnate states like Greece and Italy. There tends to be less opportunity for personal growth in the last example but there's a lot in the first. In both cases the differences between the haves and have nots is much less as is crime and discontent. Especially in the first example.

Communism got off to rough starts due to tyrannical leaders but they have adjusted somewhat more towards socialism and there have been some improvements in some cases but overall communistic states tend to be oppressive and the average citizen suffers.

As for Libertarianism I don't know. I can't think of an example except maybe the closest that I can think of is Apartheid South Africa. I'm not saying that Libertarians are racists or anything but that was a system that allowed the individual to do as it pleased with little government support for the populace. Maybe I'm wrong but Libertarianism seems much the same way. I'll admit that I'm not big on this new political fad as I think a state is only as strong as it's weaker elements but for me the scariest are this and communism. They are exact opposites and I think they lead to the same result in the end. The people suffer. Capitalism is the best in theory but it needs to figure out how to stop the greed that it breeds. There's a time when money can't be the most important thing but the welfare of your nation should come first. Fast food is the best example of this dilemma in my opinion. Sure it makes money but it's killing Americans more than wars are. All for cash. It's sad.

The state should be there to secure the welfares of all it's citizens. If not then why do we need it?

"Democracy" and "Capitalism" are both riddled with flaws. Greed, the profit motive, putting your needs before others, the relatively static political system (though where the "center" is certainly shifts, at least in the US, from pro-business in the 20's to social state in the 60's to much more socially conservative in the 00's.

But as imperfect and non-democratic and non-caring as it is, what is the superior (less lousy) system, Ebay? Where has it been done successfully (i.e. better than flawed liberal democracies)?

Whom are we volunteering to be "put in charge" (to replace an admittedly flawed electorial system where <50% participate, and those of us that do, are hardly well informed)? Who will watch the watchers?

“Liberal democracy is better than both those two and your minarchy because the citizens can debate things and come to a compromise.”

There’s a name for this fallacy, which sadly I have forgotten, but anyway, it is a fallacy.

@Ebay, the South African Apartheid was started by government regulations put in place after lobbying from unions, and was fundamentally not libertarian.

@Indybroughton

Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada?

The standard of life is much higher in all of those countries than in the US. But as I said before they're small so maybe it's not possible in large states but no civilized country has the social problem minutely equivalent to the US. No country is as Capitalist as the US neither so I ten to blame the system for the problems. What else explains why America is a socially deprived as it is?

@TGM

Fundamentally ok. But in practice? There's almost no tax. Almost no government support or systems and it's everyone for themselves. The few South Africans I've spoken with all speak of a nightmare of fear and private protection because there is no government to protect it's citizens or to do much else. Is that not Libertarian? Small government funded but no taxes? Everyone for himself? That's what I see it as.

No, you totally misunderstand the whole concept of libertarianism.

Libertarians have a range of beliefs, but most believe in a government that will protect the rights of the citizens, but do nothing else in terms of interfering with the running of business, the currency or people's personal lives.


William Harold Hutt, http://www.utdallas.edu/~plewin/Hutt.pdf

This is a paper in my reading list (not yet read)

But isn't the protection of the rights of citizens directly related to Government "interference"? Before there was such a thing business worked children. They worked their employees in hazardous conditions and the paid them nothing. Is that really what we want?

As for our personal lives I do agree that it can go too far in the other direction but nothing? Does that mean I should be allowed to beat my wife? It's my personal life after all. Can I smoke crack? Can I commit adulterous acts? Can I have sex with underage prostitutes? They're prostitutes so the consent. That's ok right?

No these things are not alright. Societies need some sort of regulation and much more that you think. Sure you'll say but of course not these things. These should be protected but by you ideology they shouldn't be. Who sets the limits in your Libertarianism? Why are these things limited but others such as you business actions not? Do you think that business only works for the good of the people? I don't. Most other people don't neither which is why we don't have Libertarian governments.

"Does that mean I should be allowed to beat my wife? It's my personal life after all."

Did you seriously ask that question? Okay, let me explain what, in libertarianism, is considered permissible:

Any action where all of those directly affected by the action consent to it.

In this case, I assume your wife doesn't consent to it, so it is wrong.

"Can I smoke crack?"

Yes, its your life to waste as you wish.

"Can I commit adulterous acts?"

Difficult one- if you consider your marriage as, in part, a contract between you and your wife, then adultery could be a breach of said contract, so no.

"Can I have sex with underage prostitutes?"

The age at which consent can be given legitimately is a difficult question. I personally am not convinced that it is as high an age as 18, but there is a limit at which consent cannot be legitimately given by a minor (a 5 year old cannot sign a contract to take out a loan from a bank, either, by the same principle)

But what right does a government have to decide what is the limit of these things? By this system it has no authority t interfere in my personal life. So why are these questions difficult? It either has the right to interfere or it doesn't. Once that's decided then we can debate it's limits but I think we both agree that we do need interference from the government. The real question isn't if but how much.
k

The government has the right to limit violence against another person, be it theft-violence, attacks on the person, fraud or whatever, because they are morally wrong and involve more than just the person who is doing it.

When an adult is going about his business and not affecting others, then the government indeed *doesn't* have the right to interfere.

Being that we all are interdependent and rely on shared resources there is no way that protecting my and your property is a simple thing. You set up your business upwind of me, upstream of me, or in the forest that I enjoy... or frankly anywhere in the world, and, if your business is sufficiently large/noisy/polluting/or resource using... then protecting your "rights" to your business is not sufficient. ...quickly my rights and your rights conflict and must be carefully balanced and negotiated. Conflicts can be resolved without government - but such *solutions* are only through force - not through ideals of equal opportunity rights to things that are not owned - like the air and water. Libertarianism should work fine in theory when population density is low and resources plentiful and evenly distributed... I submit that it cannot work in today's industrial, highly populated, and highly militarized world. ...and even when it can work, its lifespan is by nature short... because when resources are plentiful, population increases quickly to compensate. Such utopias do not persist. As we are the top predator and dominant animal in the ecosystem the only thing that stops us is other people... and that quickly becomes the primary issue to manage.

Inherent in the Libertarian ideal is a contradiction. In the ideal one is to be left free to pursue their greed/ambition for business success/dominance to their heart's content - yet it is the greed itself that necessitates management - lest the strong take advantage of the weak and the powerful leave nothing for the rest. Remove the greed, and you would no longer be even talking about "property rights"... we would be in some kind of socialist society. Keep the greed, but don't regulate it and you end up with a brutish violent and exploitative society that is more like the wild west or gangland Chicago then it is a Randian paradise.

"The government has the right to limit violence against another person, be it theft-violence, attacks on the person, fraud or whatever, because they are morally wrong and involve more than just the person who is doing it."

Agreed - totally. Question is, how does a government that is far weaker and smaller and less well funded than any one corporation manage violence against others? The corporations (and similar organizations - Mafia, unions, churches, etc.) would be free to do what they want... In order to be effective, government must be stronger and more well funded and smarter than the groups it is policing lest it be overwhelmed.

"When an adult is going about his business and not affecting others, then the government indeed *doesn't* have the right to interfere. "

And yes, I totally agree with that. Any insight into why most Libertarians, in the US at least, align themselves with social conservatives (who are hell-bent in involving themselves in other people's business based on "moral" concerns)?

It's really easy to just stand around and say "hey your argument has a fallacy in it."

(Even if you *do* remember the name :P)

But that doesn't really mean shit does it?

Again, you can start a minarchist party in the US or any other functioning democracy and build support. For all the flaws with lobbying and big business etc, that sort of thing is still a possibility. That is why it is superior.

That's another thing that's starting to bother me about many of yall: you seem to think there is a better option than liberal democracy...... which there isn't.

Yes people can vote themselves money, but when things start to fray the voters will realize that if they keep doing that there will nothing left. So at some point the right choices will be made, life will go on. It self-corrects, you see.

@ GhostMaker: "If you want an example, the Icelandic Republic is often described variously as minarchist and anarchist."

I can't believe you're still trotting out the example of the Icelandic Republic after it was comprehensively shot down in that previous thread.

The Icelandic Republic was over 1,000 years ago and there is very little reliable evidence to suggest how it worked in practice. Hence, it is NOT a useful example.

In any case it was certainly not an anarchist system, since it was basically a union of four smaller states, each of which did have a defined government and a leader. Not anarchy. Fail.


@Ebay: "Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada? The standard of life is much higher in all of those countries than in the US. But as I said before they're small so maybe it's not possible in large states..."

Canada is "small"? You must be looking at a very different map to mine. I think Canada's pretty large.


@Dexter Morgan:

"Being that we all are interdependent and rely on shared resources there is no way that protecting my and your property is a simple thing...."

Dexter Morgan +1

“Being that we all are interdependent and rely on shared resources there is no way that protecting my and your property is a simple thing. You set up your business upwind of me, upstream of me, or in the forest that I enjoy... or frankly anywhere in the world, and, if your business is sufficiently large/noisy/polluting/or resource using... then protecting your "rights" to your business is not sufficient. ...quickly my rights and your rights conflict and must be carefully balanced and negotiated. Conflicts can be resolved without government - but such *solutions* are only through force - not through ideals of equal opportunity rights to things that are not owned - like the air and water. Libertarianism should work fine in theory when population density is low and resources plentiful and evenly distributed... I submit that it cannot work in today's industrial, highly populated, and highly militarized world. ...and even when it can work, its lifespan is by nature short... because when resources are plentiful, population increases quickly to compensate. Such utopias do not persist. As we are the top predator and dominant animal in the ecosystem the only thing that stops us is other people... and that quickly becomes the primary issue to manage.”

I am not proposing an anarchy, and nor do I think it is possible to reach the ideal state a libertarian argues for- In short, I am not a fool. However, it is possible to extend the remit of property rights further than they currently spread, waterways and airspace can perfectly well be owned. So too can forest land be owned. Consequential pollution of the air or water supply should be seen as a matter for the courts, and class action suits against businesses that pollute are to be encouraged.

“Inherent in the Libertarian ideal is a contradiction. In the ideal one is to be left free to pursue their greed/ambition for business success/dominance to their heart's content - yet it is the greed itself that necessitates management - lest the strong take advantage of the weak and the powerful leave nothing for the rest. Remove the greed, and you would no longer be even talking about "property rights"... we would be in some kind of socialist society. Keep the greed, but don't regulate it and you end up with a brutish violent and exploitative society that is more like the wild west or gangland Chicago then it is a Randian paradise.”

Hence my minarchism. The property right cannot be maintained without policing of it, but with well defined property rights *there can be no conflict of rights*.

“Agreed - totally. Question is, how does a government that is far weaker and smaller and less well funded than any one corporation manage violence against others? The corporations (and similar organizations - Mafia, unions, churches, etc.) would be free to do what they want... In order to be effective, government must be stronger and more well funded and smarter than the groups it is policing lest it be overwhelmed”

Suppose the government were to set a level of taxation of 10% of GDP, and spend it exclusively on policing, the army, etc. Then you have a little under double the protection and armed forces spending of the UK, and I don’t suppose anyone is fearing the imminent over-throw of the UK government by business interests?

“And yes, I totally agree with that. Any insight into why most Libertarians, in the US at least, align themselves with social conservatives (who are hell-bent in involving themselves in other people's business based on "moral" concerns)?”

There is a big difference between what libertarianism is and what the American right calls libertarian. The American Right is really very annoying on that front.

“It's really easy to just stand around and say "hey your argument has a fallacy in it."

(Even if you *do* remember the name :P)

But that doesn't really mean shit does it?”

No, it really does mean shit. Take, as an example:
“John is to the right of Peter, Peter is to the right of Paul, therefore John is to the right of Paul”

This commits the Quaternio terminorum- four terms- fallacy. Most arguments have 3 terms, including a common middle.
Bob is a cat, cats are mammals, therefore Bob is a mammal.
Bob, cat, and mammal are the three terms.
However, in the previous example, we have four terms:
John
To the right of Peter
Peter
To the right of Paul
So there is no common middle, and indeed, they could be sitting around a round table. The deduction is flawed.

“"If you want an example, the Icelandic Republic is often described variously as minarchist and anarchist."

I can't believe you're still trotting out the example of the Icelandic Republic after it was comprehensively shot down in that previous thread.

The Icelandic Republic was over 1,000 years ago and there is very little reliable evidence to suggest how it worked in practice. Hence, it is NOT a useful example.

In any case it was certainly not an anarchist system, since it was basically a union of four smaller states, each of which did have a defined government and a leader. Not anarchy. Fail.”

It is a minimal state. I don’t claim it to be a perfect example, but to consider it necessary to provide one is to commit the fallacy of non-anticipation, anyway, so I have never tried very hard to find one.

"However, it is possible to extend the remit of property rights further than they currently spread, waterways and airspace can perfectly well be owned. So too can forest land be owned."

Heck, people can be owned. The question is, is it a good idea.

"Consequential pollution of the air or water supply should be seen as a matter for the courts, and class action suits against businesses that pollute are to be encouraged."

I've seen you make this argument - and I'm still working on exactly the wording to use to refute it - but basically my thinking is as follows: A stitch in time saves nine... an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure... QA is far less expensive and more efficient than QC. Courts serve an important and admirable service... but leaving everything to them is a most inefficient way to deal with problems that are systemic and widespread. Certain measures and checks put in place can prevent whole hosts of headaches down the road. There is good reason, for example, why police patrol the streets, rather than only coming out when they get a formal complaint filed in the police station.

"with well defined property rights *there can be no conflict of rights*."

That ideal - well defined property rights - is just that, an ideal. How exactly do you propose to divvy up rights to the air, for example? Well - I guess you could define the problem out of existence (e.g. all property is mine - therefore there cannot be a conflict of rights)... but surely you mean something else.

"I don’t suppose anyone is fearing the imminent over-throw of the UK government by business interests"

I can't speak for the UK on this issue... but I can say that quite a few people either fear it or already think that it is a fait accompli here in the US. One only need to be aware of how strong lobbies are, and how often people jump back and forth between industry and the regulation of said industry to see that it is happening. The over throw is not in the streets... it is in restaurants and offices in DC... and it is in bills written in total by lobbyists and signed into law unread by Congress.

"There is a big difference between what libertarianism is and what the American right calls libertarian. The American Right is really very annoying on that front."

I'm glad that the insanity hasn't spread too far outside of the US.

"Any insight into why most Libertarians, in the US at least, align themselves with social conservatives (who are hell-bent in involving themselves in other people's business based on "moral" concerns)?"

Because legitimate libertarian candidates don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. You end up picking between unwanted intrusion into social affairs or unwanted intrusion into your pocketbook -- and ultimately the fear of the latter wins out.

...which is a shame, because the actual party that tries to pose itself as being "fiscally responsible" is just as reckless with spending.

you guys should watch that al franken movie on youtube

god spoke or whatever