Minarchism

[Stephen vJ]

What I don't get about minarchism, is that there is no consensus about what that minimal thing is that government should force people to do. Some say national defense, others rule of law, others enforcing property & contracts and others roads / education / healthcare... but if any of these are really so important, then why would you want to assign responsibility for it to the most inefficient means known to man ?

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Garth Zietsman]

There is a broad consensus - defense, police and justice i.e. keeping the peace and providing justice.  Those that depart from this are fewer.

Minarchists allocate those functions to government because they think the incentives with private provision would undermine the purposes of those areas.  One example is private prisons (and probably private mental hospitals) where people end up being inmates when they have no real reason to be i.e. they contribute to injustice.  We kinda think efficiency only matters when the right thing is being done.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Stephen vJ]

Anarchists believe the right thing is being done when nobody is being forced to do anything, incl. good or efficient things.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Garth Zietsman]

So they do and I believe they are sincere.  Furthermore it seems a more consistent position than Minarchism.  However on second thoughts the Anarchist position seemed to me to be a little superficial or short sighted wrt the net force situation.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Stephen

Although, like you, Stephen, I'm philosophically an anarchist, I disagree with you regarding whether the case for it (or against) is as straight forward as you suggest/imply/assert.

It is equally valid to criticise libertarian (or any other) anarchism by pointing out that there is no agreement about a massive host of core issues, some of which are clear from earlier LibSA debates (especially Gavin's substantial contributions).

Unresolved and/or hotly contested issues regarding liarchism comprise a very long list, so these are no more than dipstick examples. Some of them were debated in this Google Group at great length by Garth and the late Jim Harris.

Does libarchy (my truncation of "libertarian anarchy") have "law"? What is law? If "common law" whose common law? Sharia, Roman-Dutch, Maori? Who decides? Does libarchy have courts? If so, is appearance compulsory? Do parents own the children they make? If so, are they free to have for dinner? Are cat-torturers allowed to torture their cats in freak shows? Is there prescription? Are there "intellectual" property rights? Are libarchies countries? If so, who decides their borders? Are people free to be nuclear or "dirty" bomb vendors? Is there an age of consent? May someone who owns a ring road around your property starve you to death?. And so on and on.

So, that monarchists can't agree on details is no critique of their position. On the contrary, all (genuine) libertarians should be as able to speculate on the nature of minarchy as they are regarding libarchy. Garth and Gavin (as minarchists) are just as good as you and me, if not better, at considering how libarchy might work. How, for instance, would Gavin think jurisprudence might evolve and operate in the absence of a government?

It gets more complicated. What exactly is "government"? When is there an absence of government? Most libarchists envisage private agencies for all sorts of things, especially courts, police and armies, but also border control, combating contagious disease, creating (libertarian) law etc. What exactly is the difference between such an agency and a "government"?

Part of the debate is about "efficiency" (which you raise), part is liberty (my concern), and then there are other considerations (priorities for some): environment, culture, religion, justice, welfare, equality etc.

The efficiency argument begs the question: Efficient for who? Utilitarian efficiency? Rawlsian efficiency? Islamic efficiency?And what about efficiency vs liberty trade-offs?

2017-01-09 19:36 GMT+02:00 Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com>:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Leon Louw

work:          +27-11-884-0270

mobile:       +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

#leonmlouw

Before you laugh at children who believe in Santa, bear in mind that there are adults who believe in government solutions.

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Stephen @ Leon

Nicely said Leon.

One of the things that all minarchists agree on, is that the state must do “less” then it currently does. A lot of “victimless” crimes can be done away with, simply by making policing more efficient. Thousands of laws and regulations could be dispensed with if the police were merely effective in combating murder, robbery, rape, and theft. There would need to be a liquor act, drugs act, or environmental protection acts. All of these would be violations of property rights in common law rights. The whole edifice of law is mainly there to bolster inefficient policing.

Von Mises once made the point that a classical liberal state does not necessarily have to be “small” but, should be as large as it needs to be to enforce the basic functions of protection of human and property rights and adjudicate disputes and keep the peace.

When Garth speaks about the functions of justice, policing, and defence as a common core of the state there is not a lot of debate about this. 

Leon and I have briefly crossed swords on the notion of policing, Since policing  is a function of what lawyers call Public Law. Namely all crimes are prosecuted by the State against the perpetrator as a form of “welfarism” on behalf of victims who would under Private Law have to sue for damages under the law of delict or tort.

It then goes without saying that policing could be dispensed with in a minimal state. Private citizens who are injured would simply sue in private courts for damages. The courts would need executive “sheriffs" to cary out their judgements.

Defence is also a form of “welfarism” since the state takes up the mantle of defence on a subsidised basis on behalf of all individuals who are fully entitled to defend themselves against aggression.

Courts and justice are likewise a form of “welfarism” since individuals ought contractually to arrange for security and arbitration of their disputes.

Since all functions of the state are ultimately forms of “welfarism”, if we are believers in the minimum state we should not shy away from the notion of some minimum redistribution of wealth to provide for, as Cmdr Spock would have it “the needs of the many” or the Commonwealth.

It may sound incredibly “socialistic”, but libertarian “individualists” need to remember that they are born into a community, firstly a family and then the extended community in which they are going to work and trade. It is in this community where they learn language, morals, law, manners. none of these things were simply made by anybody and have evolved. Ancient law teaches us that kinship created the first communities and the first law. These communities did not need government as we know it today.

Today we have massive states, the Open Society "kinship of commonality" between all humans in rainbow nations. Its incomprehensible that we can go back to literal kinship groups, like the families that settled the hills of Rome in classical Roman history. We have to wrestle with the kind of nations and states and governments we have, and apply good governance to the institutions that exist, striving to remove the intrusive features that hamper individual liberty, trade and exchange and cause divisions and break the peace.

The modern libertarian, the ex-classical liberal, has the virtue of beginning with anarchism and trying to see how that can work before he becomes a dirigiste. I think this is the correct process to follow. The usual  person (Social Liberal) promoting state functions begins with authoritarianism and socialism, and an abundant optimism relating to the malleability of human behaviour. The modern libertarian, classical liberal, social engineer, begins with a “constrained” approach to human behaviour and the possibility of institutions to perfect human character.

I like the idea of the doctors oath to “first do no wrong” and the medicinal notion of “the minimum effective dose”

I would be absolutely thrilled, if we could reduce the state to good courts, very effective policing, sensible professional standing army and the ability to call up a volunteer reserve in the case of invasion, some form of taxes for national roads, and supply-side welfarism for education for the poor, in a devolved Canton -like state as proposed in SA  The Solution.

I’m sure even the anarchists could go for that, and migrated to a Canton where they could reduce taxes to even lower levels and experiment with their defence agencies, the insurance provided courts and other “machinery of freedom” institutions.

A parting shot, in my mind libertarianism is all about “coercion” and its place in society. This is both an irony, paradox. At the moment all libertarians seem to be doing is saying that there must be no aggression, and things must be consensual. Now having dealt with the problem of coercion, as they see it, they can drift off into happy Lala land.

Serious minded minarchist need to think of the institutions, checks and balances, and other mechanisms to control coercion in society, because if it is not controlled, there can be no liberty.

Regards

Gavin

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[AHN]

Hey Garth,

I get your hesitance, I have had it too.

The reason I believe that government is unworkable is because there are millions upon millions of permutations of possible rules/regulations/laws for each situation. NONE are good for everybody and most are good only for the ruling minority. It is too vast to be centrally governed even though I do believe some consensus might be found amongst smaller groups of voluntary like-minded  individuals. As long as they do not have monopoly power over others.

For the same reason it is impossible to defend anarchism on the basis of one or two examples of why it would work in this or that scenario. One can just keep on bringing up scenarios ad infinitum.

However I have to take on two of your examples. You cite private prisons and mental  hospitals as examples of where people will be held without valid reason. I dispute that. ONLY in your minarchist scenario where you retain monopoly on policing and monopoly on certifying prisons and mental institutions will your doomsday scenario be possible.

In a true anarchist society there will be free market prisons and free market mental hospitals competing for customers. (not to be confused with what currently happens; crony capitalist organizations that contract with the fascist government to provide those services.)

It would be just as impossible for the private prisons and the private mental hospitals to contribute to injustice as it would be for hotels or cruise ships or regular hospitals to hold people against their will. I do not claim that my explaining this proves that anarchism is viable, I just wanted to point out the fallacy in your argument. Anarchist areas might not even have prisons, and will find other forms of restraint. But lets assume a private judge sentences a personl to be incarcerated outside of society or committed to mental institution for X years, they or their legal guardians have the right to choose where - even if it is from a list of facilities approved by that judge for this infraction.

Now show me any other form of governance that you have ever heard of that can be proven on paper to to work under all circumstances and forever without adjusting.

My contention is that the closer decisions are made to the individual choice level, the more likely it is to be successful. There will be failures just like there are in the free market every second, but the market adjusts.

(Much faster and more equitable than governments)

Albert Nelmapius

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen vJ]

By net force situation, do you mean might is right to the detriment of the bottom half of the might bell curve ?

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen vJ]

Ok, good points all around. I raised the efficiency argument, since it seems (seemed) to me a more plausible reason for leaving something to gangsters with guns than to try and make a moral argument i.e. the mobsters should loot us and build a wall to defend us against the global warming monster, since only they can do it... the implication being that I already concede that minarchists understand the morality issue and accept it, thus it must follow that they also cannot see their preferred good or service being provided effectively / efficiently (relatively speaking) by any other moral means. They are willing to resort to immorality to get something and their means of getting it is inefficient... so they must think that there is no more efficient and or moral way to get it. I concede the consensus argument, but they must surely still be willing to have the means justified by the ends ?

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen vJ]

I have read very carefully all of what you wrote, Gavin, and don't know how to respond, since I disagree with almost all of it. Maybe it would help to highlight the bits I agree with; "...It may sound incredibly “socialistic”..." and "... I’m sure even the anarchists could go for that, and migrated to a Canton where they could reduce taxes to even lower levels and experiment with their defence agencies, the insurance provided courts and other “machinery of freedom” institutions....". That's about it. I'm going to re-read this again later, but I think we just have very fundamentally different ways of seeing the world, which are probably irreconcilable.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

The other thing to keep in mind is that Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist societies may be pretty ugly. There may well be a lot less schools, hospitals and roads and a lot more brothels, liquor stores and gambling places. But that is exactly the point - anarcho-capitalism gives people what they want and if that makes the debauched, hedonistic nature of man obvious, then that is tragic, but less so than suppressing and oppressing it. Private prisons and mental hospitals may well turn out to be rather nasty places in the Libertarian society (I doubt it and agree with Alberts view, but lets presume for a minute that they might)... then it is still an improvement on public prisons and public hospitals. I don't think anyone suggested that Libertarianism was perfect, only that it was better.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Stephen

I wonder, Stephen, if the way I tend to see things could work for you.

Almost everyone thinks of organizations of people -- things people do together in formalised arrangements -- as distinct from the people involved. I think this leads to a great deal of muddled thinking, and people (libertarians, conservatives, socialists, anarchists, minarchists etc) talking past each other.

People think and speak of "governments", "courts", "police", "armies", "companies, "banks", "clubs", "churches", "teams" etc. For me all we have is groups of people with characteristics that are not clearly distinguished by labelled boundaries. There are people called "government". But that's only what they are when they do certain things. They are also "churches" and "sports teams" and "smokers" etc.

When we say there is a "government" what we mean is that some people some of the time do things we call "government". The term doesn't describe something concrete. It is at best a collective noun, such as "committee". At times members of a "committee" act as such.

Try to define what you mean by "government" when you sue the term. It is surprisingly difficult, if not impossible. Typically, libertarians might say a group of people with a monopoly on force. Does that make outsourced crowd control "government"? A bouncer? Does it depend on who says they have a monopoly of force? Does it include a judge's tea lady? A programmer working for the Parks Board?

Drill down and it becomes clear that it's all horribly unclear.

That's why I often refer to "people called for the time being 'government' ". I think much of what minarchists describe as what they want "government" to do is often what a libarchist think of as a private (a private court, policing agency, vigilante group etc). And much of what libarchists say they want is what minarchists have in mind when they describe their "minimal state".

I don't get myself bogged down with what is more pedantic than substantive. My interest as a libertarian is whether there is a presence or absence of coercion, and whether there are effective ways of curtailing coercion. What one calls the institutions that curtail rather than engage in coercion is, for me, moot.

We can't even say "governments" initiate coercion. Who does a government typist coerce? Who does a consultant who supplies government stationary at 10am and private stationery at 11am coerce? Some people in "government" initiate or threaten coercion. So do some people in crime syndicates. I think of coalitions of people who sometimes initiate coercion as crime syndicate. I see no basis for distinguishing between coercers called "criminals" or "officials". Criminals can protect from coercion as in "protection rackets", as can police, and can do the opposite.

 

[Garth Zietsman]

However I have to take on two of your examples. You cite private prisons and mental  hospitals as examples of where people will be held without valid reason. I dispute that. ONLY in your minarchist scenario where you retain monopoly on policing and monopoly on certifying prisons and mental institutions will your doomsday scenario be possible.

In a true anarchist society there will be free market prisons and free market mental hospitals competing for customers. (not to be confused with what currently happens; crony capitalist organizations that contract with the fascist government to provide those services.)

It would be just as impossible for the private prisons and the private mental hospitals to contribute to injustice as it would be for hotels or cruise ships or regular hospitals to hold people against their will. I do not claim that my explaining this proves that anarchism is viable, I just wanted to point out the fallacy in your argument. Anarchist areas might not even have prisons, and will find other forms of restraint. But lets assume a private judge sentences a personl to be incarcerated outside of society or committed to mental institution for X years, they or their legal guardians have the right to choose where - even if it is from a list of facilities approved by that judge for this infraction.

Albert private prisons and mental hospitals have an incentive to increase their 'client' numbers regardless of dessert so they will seize whatever opportunities there are, including kickbacks to judges. Competition does introduce an element of choice to the 'clients' but I'm convinced that doesn't mitigate (let alone make impossible) the problem of innocent people being sentences for profit.  In fact I think competition for 'clients' will make that problem worse.

Stephen by 'net force situation' I do not mean anything about the distribution of the effects of force.  I mean that if the amount of force that happened under Minarchism to keep the peace, administer justice, etc, could be quantified as X then the amount of force under Anarchism - due to probable lack of peace, warring private security agencies, etc, is likely to be > X.  I am currently persuaded that the incentive structure of competing justice systems and competing security firms are likely to increase violence, force and injustice rather than reduce it.  I other words I think Anarchist explanations of how it would work tend to be self serving in what they regard as the likely incentives.

[Trevor Watkins]

Anarchists believe in consent, the rejection of coercion as a basis for ordering society. Minarchists don't - from the start they allow certain groups the power of coercion. This inconsistency is the fundamental reason why I reject minarchism on principle.

There are many treatises on an anarchic approach to government, jurisprudence, governance, including my own article on the Consent Axiom, which address most of the issues raised here. While these approaches may be more or less complete, consistent, or successful, at least they are principled, which cannot be said of minarchism. 

All human governance issues devolve down to a single issue - how to deal with a violent attack originating either internally or externally to the society.  I believe that the anarchist approach remains principled - if you employ violence, violence may be employed against you. This is the only condition under which violence by the anarchic society is sanctioned.  Minarchists use the Andy Capp argument - I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first. While efficient, it is unprincipled.

If you say you are against coercion, then immediately parcel out who may employ coercion before any violent act has occurred, then you are a minarchist, which is just one small step from an authoritarian, in principle.

Trevor Watkins

--

[Jaco Strauss]

Is it a little like the difference between a Level 4 and a Level 5 Libertarian?

;-)

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

I am an anarchist, Trevor, but disagree with your view that what divides (truly libertarian) anarchists and minarchists is the degree of coercion-aversion. Minarchists are not "for coercion" any more than anarchists are not for unconstrained crime and chaos.

There is legitimate and complex uncertainty about which institutions are most conducive to liberty -- which conditions are (likely to be) to maximise consent in human interaction.

It is a perfectly legitimate libertarian view -- held by many libertarian luminaries -- that anarchy would be more like Somalia more than Switzerland, that minimal "government" is more likely to produce maximal liberty.

[Garth Zietsman]

Ya - what Leon said.

--

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Sorry for shoddy editing - should have been:

I am an anarchist, Trevor, but disagree with your view that what divides (truly libertarian) anarchists and minarchists is the degree of coercion-aversion. Minarchists are not "for coercion" any more than anarchists are for unconstrained crime and chaos.

There is legitimate and complex uncertainty about which institutions are most conducive to liberty -- which conditions are likely to maximise consent in human interaction.

It is a perfectly legitimate libertarian view -- held by many libertarian luminaries -- that anarchy would be more like Somalia than Switzerland; that minimal "government" is more likely to produce maximal liberty than zero government.

On 10 January 2017 at 14:39, Leon Louw (gmail) <leon...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Trevor @ Leon @ Garth

 I’m not so sure.  it may well be  “the degree of coercion- aversion.” By this I mean that some monopolists at least, believe as a matter of principle that there are circumstances in which it is proper to use coercion. I think anarchists, believe that it is principled to use coercion in self defence. They may claim that this is in principle the only circumstance where the use of coercion is justified, or they may play word games and claim that defensive coercion is in fact not coercion at all but something completely else.

Trevor’s first sentence, of course, sets up a strawman, “as a basis for ordering society.” This false dichotomy is obvious, since monarchists might only take the attitude that coercion should be used to maintain disturbances in an orderly society, and that society is predominantly ordered by people complying with innate moral and legal rules. But it is only to ensure that coercion does not disturb this innate setup that coercion should be used, not merely defensively, but even a proactively. It is this degree that monarchists are willing to be proactive in preserving the conditions for a liberal society that distinguishes them from some anarchists.

I agree with Leon that minarchists are not “for coercion,” as if coercion were an end in itself. Where Trevor may be a little correct is when he states “they allow certain groups the power coercion.” This of course is only correct in a certain context. Minarchists  in general see themselves working with the world "as it is" to some extent. That they are nations, in which there are public institutions charged with certain functions, and that these institutions functions are performed by individuals employed in certain capacities. These institutions are courts, policing, and defence agencies.

Minarchists are of the view, that in principle, these institutions may, in carefully prescribed and defined circumstances, use coercion as an instrument to achieve certain carefully prescribed and defined ends. The most important of these ends, for libertarian Minarchists, are the maintenance of an open order in which individuals may in, liberty and peace, interact with each other with the least impact by coercion.

On the other hand, anarchists are of the view, that in principle there should be no Nations, that there will arise through some spontaneous market order, institutions that will provide services such as justice, policing, and defence agencies. That the people who work in these agencies, will not use coercion, because their actions will all have been consensually agreed to. A neat trick, if this can be arranged in a nation of millions, or a world of billions of people.

In the world as it is, legal norms apply using a “legal fiction” that individual’s tacitly consent to reasonable coercion. Some minarchist, myself included, accept that we might have to work with this notion in some manner. The nation state having developed from the feudal system, in which the swearing of fealty took the form of an oath made by a vassal, or subordinate, to his lord,  which itself developed from earlier kinship relationships of groups of families in tribes.

It’s all fine and well, to be seduced by the clean, apparently simple, logic of anarchism, NAP, and consent.  it is quite another proposition to provide for what Mises and Hayek called "the great society" that the great minds of the classical liberal era attempted to provide for. It is in this latter tradition, that Minarchists libertarians follow. 

The contempt that anarchists have for minarchists,  is shown in how they simply divorce themselves from reality with simple claims that "government can’t work,”  end of story!  someone has to keep generational knowledge alive as to how checks and balances may be altered, or fixed, as the grand experiments of the Enlightenment, the United States for example, are failing.  Anarchism is not a prescription to resolve this issue.  As statism is making this world more and more unsafe, the total destruction of proper social institutions will lead to a chaos from which it is unlikely that peaceful utopian anarchies s will arise.

Gavin

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Although one can probably make a case for allowing a little rape in the interests of peace and order, I am still against any rape being allowed on principle.  Although really small amounts of strychnine in the bread probably won't cause long term harm, I am against putting strychnine in the bread on principle, no matter how cleverly justified.  Allowing just a little forward passing in rugby will no doubt make the game more fluid and interesting, and rugby players would probably never abuse the privilege, but still I am against it.

I accept that compromising one's most fundamental principles may lead to a better outcome, or it may not. I think that one can rarely predict the future, much less control it. Given this uncertainty, why not stick to the principles one has crafted with so much thought and care, rather than compromise them from the start?

Trevor Watkins

--

[Trevor Watkins]

Imagine that we have just defeated the world's greatest superpower in a bitter war, and are now in a position to define a constitution and way of life for a new people on a new continent, essentially unhindered.  Should we adopt the parliament of our defeated enemy, because it seems to work OK, and anyway we have no precedents to refer to. Should we assume that their approach to individual liberty (none) and the right of kings should prevail, because it is centuries old and drawn up by smarter men than us?  Or should we hold these truths to be self-evident......?

The best laid plans might well go astray, but poor compromises of principle almost certainly will.

Trevor Watkins

[Gavin Weiman]

(sometimes monopolist and monarchist get autocorrected event after I’ve posted minarchist  

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Trevor @Stephen

Without wanting to make a case for minarchy, I ask the two of you a simple question:

If country X follows your advice and disbands government, following which it (whatever "it" means in the absence of government) descends into a cesspool of crime and destruction, if warlords take over an fight ghastly turf wars, and there's ubiquitous rape and pillage -- and former government leaders come to you and say "We think we can get the vast majority to let us reinstate government. What we're thinking of is a minarchy with institutions designed by Garth and Gavin,

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Trevor @Stephen

Without wanting to make a case for minarchy, I ask the two of you a simple question:

What would you advise of country X follows your advice and disbands the coalition called "government", and what follows is a cesspool of crime and destruction, if warlords take over and fight ghastly turf wars, and if there's ubiquitous rape and pillage -- and former government leaders come to you and say "It's too horrid for words. Nearly half the population have been slaughtered, 80% of women have been raped, religious fundamentalists are on the rampage, there's no food or drinking water. We think we can get the vast majority to let us reinstate government. What we're thinking of is a minarchy with institutions designed by Garth and Gavin."

Would you say "Leave to to the market?" Would say there is a market to which to leave it?

I, like you, think that scenario is unlikely. But it's possible -- some would say probable. It will contribute nothing if you evade the question. Please confront it.

I know why and how I think anarchy would work (if introduced under favorable circumstances), but all I have to go by is many years of thinking and reading speculative hypotheses. Do you have more compelling evidence? What do you say of places where there has been no effective government, such as primitive areas of Papua New Guinea, war-torn Somalia, and parts of Sudan? Why aren't they prosperous peaceful Libertonias? Where are all the institutions we hypothesize?

On 10 January 2017 at 15:30, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Humphry Hamilton]

Leon, it is possible that we presently live in Libertarian utopia. 

 

The masses swing over time from revolution against oppression to complacency in the face of growing oppression.  This is their choice, what is un-libertarian about this?  Surely, one is free to give one’s liberty away and then take it back again. 

 

How does one stop the masses from giving your liberty away when they decide to give theirs away?  A constitution is useless, it gets eroded with time and they will over-rule it if need be.

 

I really think that one has to view this all as a trader.  Many countries are growing in liberty and many are going in the opposite direction and there will be a global trend in one direction.  Within that global trend one needs to pick your country to be in and ride the trend for as long as it lasts and never stay married to a country.

 

The above is the only method that I can see that is practical.  You cannot design something and expect it to stay constant over time, future generations will mess with it and ruin it.  You cannot stop this, in fact the future generations would argue that it is un-libertarian of you to try and they would be correct.

Trevor Watkins

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

 

Leon Louw

work:          +27-11-884-0270

mobile:       +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

#leonmlouw

Before you laugh at children who believe in Santa, bear in mind that there are adults who believe in government solutions.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Graeme Levin]

Trevor, that's all excellent although I have always regarded the use of force under anarchy to be valid if it's:

1.       Retaliatory Force

2.       Pre-Emptive Force

 

I appreciate that Pre-Emptive Force can be subject to abuse and exploitation.

But I don't think it's a black mark against anarchist credentials to hold the view that force can be used if there is a clear threat that force will be used by the other party. It's illogical to wait until injured or exterminated (with a nuclear weapon) before using force.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Humphry

Ive always thought this! re your first sentence.

The now world we have is the perfect outcome of every thing that proceeded it till now. Logically the world could not be other than it is. Therefor in the instant it is logically perfect. The present world becomes history as the seconds pass and we can judge whether the new now is better or worse in liberty from the previous now.

The extant world is a utopia, humans have evolved to be as adapted as possible to the now.

Its our worries and the masses that ultimately create the progressive nows that are better or worse than contemplated historical nows. Except we have very bad memories!

 

Gavin

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

@ Leon;

Yes, I believe our thinking is a lot more in the same lines. I find myself agreeing with all of what you say, except that the difference is mere semantics / definitions. We've had conversations (very good ones) on this forum before about the definition of force, government, private provision of traditionally public goods & services, etc... so I cannot believe that anyone here would call something other than government, government. I believe that when someone says he is a minarchist, he really means that government in the traditional and proper sense of the word should provide some good or service and not that he accidentally calls private governance government. When someone here calls himself a minarchist, I believe he / she means it and understands what they are saying.

Just to revisit some of what we previously discussed very briefly;

There are a lot of people who tell us daily how to live our lives; the church, our home owners associations, our employers, our spouses, etc. and we comply. Sometimes a bit grudgingly and sometimes misconstruing it for some form oppression... but these are not government and we don't call it government, because we get something in return, have opted in and have the option of opting out (in many cases at great sacrifice). I would much rather be an economics teacher and yet I am not, because the community at large have sent signals through the market price mechanism to indicate that IT project management is worth much more to it than being taught economics and so I have been bribed into a much less fulfilling but more profitable career by the free market. Every day we are pushed and shoved in directions we would rather not go, yet we do and we follow... but we do not call those government.

Secondly, it should be clear what is meant by government. I often call them gangsters, thugs, barons, thieves and bullies... they happen to be a special class of bully / thug / gangster, in that they were chosen / selected by others. There is a system of quasi-legitimization about their power. I agree with you 100%, they are an organization like any other. The fact that they use force to achieve their ends does not in itself distinguish them sufficiently from other gangsters to be labelled government rather than gangsters. But aside from formalized and systematized processes of getting to power, retaining power or asserting power, they are not that much different, but it is this which gets them the label government. And I believe minarchists (at least all of the ones I have spoken to about this) know or appear to know that they are proposing particularly organized criminals to provide particular goods and services and correctly label them government.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Ok. Do you think that relationship of violence is a linear one ? In other words, do you think there is a set ratio of violence from government to violence from private companies & citizens... or is it possible that it is a curve, such that violence will minimize in the middle where the private and public tendencies towards violence balance ? This is important, because if it is not linear, then I don't think your assertion can make sense unless government takes absolutely all control and is supremely violent towards all transgressions of its rules on the one hand or private citizens / companies result in extreme violence on the other... a tendency which has no examples that I know of in the real world. There are places with very little government, yet private citizens and companies are very peaceful and don't resort to any violence either... on the other hand there are a number of examples where governments are supremely cruel and often in the very same place, so are citizens. Can you maybe elaborate on this, because I don't get this particular bit of your vision of the world as it is just yet ?

S.

On 10 January 2017 at 09:49, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Ok... so you can hit a vampire, but not a zombie ? That makes no sense. I must be a level 4 Libertarian then. Pass the pork chops.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

It is hard for me to imagine abolishing the governments of Isle of Man, Monaco, Hong Kong, Cayman Isles, etc. and them suddenly being worse off... but since it has not been tried, I guess a hockey stick effect could theoretically exist. Oh, but hang on... it has been tried. Everywhere that government is not currently present and active, is in effect anarchic, stateless and not at all like Somalia where a power vacuum was suddenly and unexpectedly left...

S.

[AHN]

Leon,

I would like to take a crack at this even though I am not exactly sure exactly what you are asking and I have spoken out against trying to make a convincing argument for a philosophy by describing individual responses on a case by case basis.

I think you are trying to decide what to tell people who are oppressed .

First off, in your scenario "former government leaders" come to you. If they are particularly favorable to philosophical discussions over a glass of wine, (which is a preposterous concept) they might come to you, otherwise they will just gather their guns and take over - as has been happening in Africa for generations of coup upon coup. After all, they don't need your approval and you do not have a constituency that you represent that they need to placate. We know what the warlords are going to do!

What about the people you say? Maybe some of them are frustrated with generations of central planning failure and they might want to discuss philosophy with you. Again preposterous.  In your scenario they are too busy not dying of starvation to contemplate the virtues of minarchy. They will spend their daily hours trying to procure food and shelter. They will remember all too well that under previous governments that was not plentiful either- so they will find local merchants they can barter with. They will find private protection agencies to protect their properties. In these countries like Somalia and Sudan, private protection agencies are in fact a thriving expanding business. As are private resources of food and drinking water. They might even join these or start one of these. Failing that, they would most likely resort to crime to survive (as would you and me regardless of our lofty philosophies.) There would be no need to suggest private markets over tea. They will just go out and find resources without our suggestions. But make no mistake - it is NOT the state of anarchy, nor even the warlords/tribal chiefs that are limiting the expansion of private markets there, it is continual interference by those who wish to govern and tax and lord over them. Even so there are in fact emerging industries growing in Somalia, including cell phones and nowadays private hospitals..

They would have no idea whether their actions would be considered pro anarchy or pro minarchy - so it would not serve as a testing ground for our theories.

Now most of the "cesspool" you describe exists BECAUSE of government. Somalia and Sudan in your story WERE cesspools under government. You cannot just start a scenario where Somalia was an economy on par with London or Tokyo (which it was at one stage) and then because of Anarcho - capitalism devolved into this cesspool. That is disingenuous. ( I can point out to many examples where that scenario is true with the intervention of socialism though)

In the days of antiquity, that region of Somalia WAS an immensely prosperous, peaceful, multicultural hub of worldwide trade. Then some "warlords" clouded the picture. You might recognize some of these warlords by their common names: The British Empire and the Italian Empire. They forced their "modern governing" ideas on these regions with disastrous effects. There was no peace and prosperity. At one stage part of the country was even "governed"by the UN - how is that not like an Indian Reservation in the USA? - and with similar devastating effects.

Then in 1969 Mohamed Said Barre instituted a (guess what?) socialist government. His public medicine plans wiped out the private hospital and medical industries and his anti market policies wiped out most of private industry. After he was toppled in a bloody and devastating civil war, there was nothing left of civilization but dust and starvation.

THIS is what lead to the cesspool you describe. Long before the so called "anarchist period."     And it is mainly soldiers and followers of various "ex government officials" perpetrating the  rapes and murders and corruption in an effort to regain power.

By the way, be vary careful of holding up Somalia as an horrible example of crime, as if you dig deeper, you might find murder and rape statistics (for what its worth) lower in Somalia than South Africa!

What is missing in this scenario or so called "anarchist experiment" everybody likes to refer to, are several key factors. Guns and power in the hands of a self motivated merchant middle class. Respect for private property (only possible AFTER you have food and water covered) Separation of  Church and State - Sharia law preaching women have no rights, cannot be educated and are subject to genital mutilation by law,  and the religion requires you to smite dissidents and rape is accepted punishment. Nobody in their right mind would expect this to evolve in a short period of time into a free market paradise, or use it as a serious study of Anarcho-capitalism.

In my mind this is NOT how Anarcho -capitalist societies will evolve. If you wish in another posting I can write down my theoretical scenario of how it will be established. If you are mainly interested in the philosophical "pros and cons over a glass of wine" discussion, I can answer that there.

Albert Nelmapius 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Aha ! Okay - here it gets interesting now.

I mostly agree with Trevor in that the consent axiom is the best means to measure morality of action and for me nothing else comes close as a personal philosophy around which to base my life and actions. As a personal guide to life, that is great and I fully embrace it.

However, as a means of ordering a society, I am actually leaning more towards what Gavin is saying - the consent axiom and non-aggression principle just don't cut it. They tell us whether people are acting morally or not, but they don't tell us how to deal with large numbers of people (societies) who don't. As a principle around which to build a society or community, the NAP and consent axiom don't really convince me.

That said, I don't think ISIS disregarding NAP justifies "being practical" about it and thus acting immorally by instituting institutions of violence, like government. If you're going to engineer society, then you're going to need to leave it the hell alone, even if it ends up being violent, abusive, disrespectful and otherwise like a teenager or SJW. Institutionalizing immorality and calling it government is not the solution, in my view.

S.

On 10 January 2017 at 15:28, Gavin Weiman <gavin....@icloud.com> wrote:

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

If such a scenario presented itself and I were in a position to decide to re-instate government or not, I guess I would seriously consider at least temporarily re-instating government. However, I find this scenario very unlikely and I would be agreeing to the re-instatement in the same way as I agree to hand over my car keys to the guy with his gun to my head - rather reluctantly and eyes wide open for an alternative opportunity.

The reason I think this is unlikely is that a) there are many examples where less government has more order and less violence i.e. the normal, real-world facts seem to indicate a tendency towards more peace, order and cooperation as government reduces and I see no reason for this to hockey stick somewhere near zero government (although, I concede that it might) and b) there are many instances where government is completely absent and the results are utterly peaceful, cooperative and mutually beneficial to all involved. Some examples; I can't remember when last I saw a government official or bureaucrat in our housing complex, yet people walk their dogs, jog, cycle and play in the community park without guns or baseball bats. The office block where I work has around 2000 people and although I know of some cases of theft and fraud, I don't know of any violent deaths, despite the complete absence as far as I can tell within the office space of any and all police, lawyers, bureaucrats and / or uniformed officials. In fact, I am aware of two deaths - the one by suicide by a person who felt they were not being appreciated enough for their contributions and another from a heart attack by someone who contributed a bit too much for their own good.

S.

[Trevor Watkins]

There are several (not many) examples of current working anarchies or near anarchies. 

Probably the best example is the current world order. Approximately 200 independent entities (more or less) jostle for position in the absence of any viable overarching government, enforcement mechanisms, or even widely acknowledged judiciary. Self-interest and survival motivates their actions, with a light sprinkling of morality. Fortunately the most powerful are relatively benevolent (discounting 26000 bombs in 8 years), and we have avoided wholesale bloodshed for more than 50 years. Not bad for an anarchy.

Then there is Lichtenstein, a wikipedia list of past and present anarchic states and communities, and many anarchy attempts in the US. However, I would be the first to concede that the government model is winning, which presumably means it is the most successful, for now.  Monarchies and popes were pretty successful for 2000 years too. Hopefully the future holds something better, if only we have the will to achieve it.

Your thought experiment has been thoroughly explored in the current season of The Walking Dead.  Our small band of heroes establish an essentially anarchic community (no explicit government structure, no elected leader (although Rick is the acknowledged but reluctant de facto leader), no taxation, everyone contributes to defense) in the walled estate of Alexandra. Life appears as idyllic as it can be in a post-apocalyptic zombie-filled world. Then Tegan and the Saviours appear, and impose their minarchic government structure on Alexandra by force. Tegan asks only for that which any minarchy would require - absolute obedience to his laws, just 50% of all production as tax, surrender of all arms. Life under Tegan is terrifying, hard and brutish.  I think the directors are making a point about the differences between government and anarchy in a subtle and non-confrontational way. Recommended viewing.

If the anarchy in which I lived descended into outright chaos and violence, would I appeal to a benevolent minarchy governed by consuls Gavin and Garth to rescue us? Yes, I probably would if they were the best cheapest option. If there was a cheaper private defence agency with a reasonable prospect of success, I would go to them.  This would mean that our anarchy had been overrun by violent people who did not respect our founding charter, did not respect our lives, property and right to consent. These invaders are probably the minarchists from LeonLand, jealous of our success.

Trevor Watkins

[Garth Zietsman]

I am skeptical of the notion that countries without government which are cesspools are cesspools because of government.  This kind of reasoning smacks of psychoanalysis where everything and anything that happens (or could happen) can be interpreted in terms favorable to the theory and the therapist. 

If you think some societies without government are cesspools then it follows that just removing government is at the very least not in itself sufficient.  

If government is to blame then how do you fix it?  Do you fix the government first - implying that government can be fixed?  Or do you do away with government i.e. leave the cesspool as is and hope/trust that it will spontaneously morph into a libertarian utopia?  Or do you declare that the cesspool actually is a libertarian utopia?

 Anyway there is plenty of historical evidence that when geographical areas move toward increasing centralization of government the overall level of violence tends to fall and prosperity tends to increase (see Better Angels of Our Nature, Why Nations Fail, War: What is it Good For? for starters.)  That fact should at least raise the possibility that government performs a positive function (from our point of view.)

I wouldn't even go so far as to ask why these government-less countries aren't peaceful and prosperous.  I want to know is are the people free.  In particular I want to know whether they are freer than they were under the preceding government, and even more whether they are freer than people under liberal democracies. 

[Stephen vJ]

Garth, can you please give some examples and stats for this: "when geographical areas move toward increasing centralization of government the overall level of violence tends to fall and prosperity tends to increase" ? I'm looking at a whole bunch of books, papers, indices, etc. and they all say the exact opposite.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Garth Zietsman]

Stephen I included 3 book references when I posted that.  Those books will have many examples and further references.

The books are

Better Angels of Our Nature - Steven Pinker

Why Nations Fail - Acemoglu & Robinson

War, What is it good for? - Ian Morris

Apart from the empirical record Hobbs and game theory present arguments for the necessity of government to secure liberty. I assume you are all well acquainted with the opposing arguments but not necessarily with the supporting arguments.

[Erik Peers]

Another is 

The Lord of the Flies

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

If there is any group of people best versed in all sides of an argument, I would risk a guess that it would be Libertarians. Sure, maybe there is confirmation bias going on in Libertarian circles, but I'd imagine less so than elsewhere. :-p

I like Pinker, but don't know that particular book. A quick search and some reading reveals that he DOES NOT assert that more government leads to more peace & prosperity. One of his several reasons for the decline in violence is modern government, as opposed to previous government... of course replacing a raping, pillaging land baron with a democratically elected president will lead to less violence and more prosperity. That is not an argument for modern government, only against older forms of government. Admittedly I did not read the book, but have added it to my reading list and will probably get to it next year some time, considering the rest of the list.

Why nations fail, I actually did read. It was a long time ago, probably just after it came out around 2012. I distinctly recall thinking they pre-empted their conclusions by making one of the criteria for a "failed state", the failure of the democratic political system... so, duh. Here too, they argue (if I recall correctly) that stronger government is better than corrupt government and that democratic government is better than authoritarian militarist government... I would have remembered if they argued that more government leads to more peace and prosperity. My memory may have failed me... so feel free to send page numbers and references. This one is available on Google Books.

The third one I don't know at all - never heard of the book or the author. Some quick searching and scan reading brought up this; "war has made the world safer and richer, because it is virtually the only way people have found to create large, internally pacified societies that then drive down the rate of violent death". Ok, cool. So now what we need to do, is get inefficient government out of the war business. If war is good for us, then surely we need to have someone better at it than government responsible for it ? No ? Ok, then how about saying that war lead to large, pacified societies and now that we have them, we can stop killing and abolish national service ? I'll add this to my reading list too. Thanks for the recommendations.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

A work of fiction ? Really ? Tell you what, follow that up with something by Michael Moore or Malcolm Gladwell, just for a laugh.

S.

[Trevor Watkins]

[Stephen vJ]

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<Anarchy.jpg>