Libertarian Minarchism

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Well, I'll type quickly because this thread will almost certainly be locked soon...

I think it's human nature to not be completely independent and look to authority. If you put a bunch of humans together in a colony, an authority figure will arise from their mudst almost immediately. Part of this is tradition, because it's all they have known, but part of this is tribal mentality, which goes back in human behavior to the dawn of man.

Rational anarchy is a wonderful base to start from for thinking of individualism; I think Jefferson went there in his fascination with the Indians and their lack of a formal government. But even the Indians were tribal in nature, and worse, their primitive form of government was unable to withstand contact with the more complex social and political structures of the European culture. The Indian tribes were too balkanized to stand against the combined might of a French or British or Spanish system of colonies united under a single empire and ruled by a king most of the colonists had never laid eyes on 3000 miles away.

An example of a modern anarchy would be Somalia. The Somalians, when unmolested by outsiders (like, ahem, the US and UN, but now mainly neighboring countries), live a fairly peaceful life, using family or clan-based courts, which compel criminals to pay restitution to victims or victims' families. The problem is that in the modern world a society that exists without a government is viewed as a target by both UN/US do-gooders and base brigands alike. Somalia never gets a peaceful moment.

The lesson I take from this is that humans do not remain in John Locke's "state of nature" any longer than they have to. As Locke described, they form governments for mutual defense from predators and to protect their rights from their neighbors by providing an alternative to the family feuds and bloody vigilantism in the form of a formal court system with fact-finding procedures, open to the public. The challenge is to keep government from growing out of control and becoming just another organized crime system. In Locke's day they focused on tyrannical monarchs, in the modern day government has grown into a complex system of institutionalized tyranny in which every bureaucrat and armed agent is covered by a myriad of legal protections and complex regulations that allows him to claim innocence.

The anarchist decries the minarchist as being on the first step toward statism, but I think the anarchist is being unrealistic about human nature. Humans self-organize, and once we find a structure that works for us right now, we tend to institutionalize it. Even Jefferson was a minarchist and actively participated in both Virginia and federal government.

"Rational anarchy" is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

I'm jus' gonna sit and watch for this part of the discussion.

When it comes to legal stuff, Gunslinger is a http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/kungfumaster.htm

Y'all know he's got a doctorate in law, don't ya?

I don't mess w' them people.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

JD or LL.D? Laude, et summa cum laude!

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

JD or LL.D? Laude, et summa cum laude!

PhPMD.

(Phantom Pilot Missile Doctor)

Either way, I'm stayin' outa his crosshairs. Definitely do not want him looking at one of my posts and hearing tone-lock in his headset, in a manner of speaking.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Tone lock. On the submarine we had the 'French-fry alarm' that meant fish in the water. So how do you imagine I react at Mickey-D's when the fries are done? Full anxiety attack. "Hyper-vigilance disorder", my azz. It's good sense and deep memories.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

"Rational anarchy" is a contradiction in terms.

I think the word "rational" is placed there to distinguish actual peaceful anarchists from the rock-throwing college student Che-wannabes who falsely call themselves anarchists, when they are really communists.

Anarchy is really just the concept of decentralized government taken to its ultimate end. It's the ultimate system of checks and balances against an overbearing central authority. It doesn't mean there are no rules, individuals must still conduct themselves in accordance with the company they keep, or their families, etc. They still can make agreements and contract with each other, etc.

The "rational" part is that they are not living like wild apes, but rather like thinking human beings. Settlers living on a frontier are an example, although not a perfect one.

To me, it's only a concept to be used as a logical starting point for thinking about liberty. Like the State of Nature (which is Locke's version of the same thing),rational anarchyhas perhaps never existed in its purist form in real life, but it is a reference point for developing the idea of individual liberty and rights.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

Ok--from Marshaul on the other thread, I can agree with you to a point, as I usually do being a Neo-conservative talking to a Libertarian...except that an action which violates criminal law is de facto 'criminal' and de jure prosecutable in and of the same context as if some scumbag sold H to a kid. The discussion as to whether or not a criminal action is "criminal" is rendered moot in our society. In another reality--let's say natural law presides, it would not be criminal--as "crime" would be understood, as it is not an aggressive action violating anyone's rights. In principle, I much prefer most of what would exist under natural law---BUT, there would have to be strong who were willing to protect the weak in that scenario or it would be overwhelmed by aggressive actions wherein only the strong survived. I don't think that even a Libertarian can advocate that.

I think a core belief of mine is that the mere existence of a law is not enough to render it just. Common law may be considered to replace natural law, but to the extent that it violates natural law, it becomes unjust. Therefore, you'll often see that I reserve criminal to describe behavior in violation of natural law rather than common law. I find it reasonable to codify natural law for use in a court and legal system - as much of English common law was derived - but I see no possible justification for codification of anything not represented by natural law. To me, "criminality" is violation of the highest authority. Thus both a murderer and a the state may be declared "criminal" under the same standard.

Understand I am explaining my usage of terms, not attempting to argue any point for its own sake. I agree that a drug dealer is a de facto criminal subject to de jure prosecution. However, de jure may implicitly refer to the highest authority ("by right"), meaning that (in my usage) the sate may be engaging in de jure criminal activity at the same time.

As for you assertion that, "BUT there would have to be a strong willing to protect the weak" or it would devolve into an aggressive society no Libertarian could tolerate, this is a complicated issue, not easily dealt with. Simply put, Bastiat would argue that social order (including protection of the weak from the strong) is a natural facet of human nature, something which government (at best) takes undeserved credit for. I think you're implicitly assuming a government-like group of people, which is of course antithetical to the topic of "anarchism vs minarchism". Simply put, I see no reason why society, out of the same drives that provide for any societal (and later, governmental) order, couldn't provide for the protection of the weak.

Another related issue is the equalization provided by guns. Physical weakness has attained a certain irrelevancy in matters of force. And the reality today shows that some are of such extreme mental timidity that no system can provide them with safety: we have "marks" even with strong government.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

JD or LL.D? Laude, et summa cum laude!

JD, just cum laude. Northwestern--but...I don't practice, just use for the AF in my job.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Aquinas and I believe Proust--much later and in fiction, not philosophy, both posited the requirement for the weak to be protected by the strong from the evil. The government, in social order, is supposed to take this role. I agree with you 100% that the government can be guilty of doing what it is supposed to stop. That being said, I go back to my original thesis that says if we somehow went to natural law only, this role must be played. Guns do equalize to some degree, but there will always be those where guns aren't an option, old, young, sick, etc, etc. I'd like to think I would take that role and others would as well who feel the requirement exists from the highest moral authority. And, in the final analysis, natural law is based upon moral imperative first and foremost.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I'm jus' gonna sit and watch for this part of the discussion.

When it comes to legal stuff, Gunslinger is a http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/kungfumaster.htm

Y'all know he's got a doctorate in law, don't ya?

I don't mess w' them people.

Citizen--where you been? I've missed your posts. Haven'tbeen on much myself--busy time of year for the DoD. Have to pick and choose topics these days.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

"Rational anarchy" is a contradiction in terms.

I think the word "rational" is placed there to distinguish actual peaceful anarchists from the rock-throwing college student Che-wannabes who falsely call themselves anarchists, when they are really communists.

Anarchy is really just the concept of decentralized government taken to its ultimate end. It's the ultimate system of checks and balances against an overbearing central authority. It doesn't mean there are no rules, individuals must still conduct themselves in accordance with the company they keep, or their families, etc. They still can make agreements and contract with each other, etc.

The "rational" part is that they are not living like wild apes, but rather like thinking human beings. Settlers living on a frontier are an example, although not a perfect one.

To me, it's only a concept to be used as a logical starting point for thinking about liberty. Like the State of Nature (which is Locke's version of the same thing),rational anarchyhas perhaps never existed in its purist form in real life, but it is a reference point for developing the idea of individual liberty and rights.

Hmmm...I guess my problem is that acts of anarchy are a contradiction in terms. Anarchy means "lack of government." Anarchy doesn't create the state of no government; it is the state of no government. In that context, maybe you could use "rational." But, the operant believe for the state of anarchy is that government was destroyed which may or may not be a rational act. Replacing bad government with 'good' government is certainly rational. But it then it is not anarchy.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Tone lock. On the submarine we had the 'French-fry alarm' that meant fish in the water. So how do you imagine I react at Mickey-D's when the fries are done? Full anxiety attack. "Hyper-vigilance disorder", my azz. It's good sense and deep memories.

Aim 7 Sparrows, radar guided, were only a visual display when locked on a target--contracting circles. The Aim 9 Sidewinder, heat seeker, gave a rattlesnake tone. I believe the new AA's all give both. The RHAW equipment also gave the rattlesnake tone when the bad guys were scanning us with fire control radar. Especially when they locked on with guidance radar. Bad ju-ju.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

JD or LL.D? Laude, et summa cum laude!

JD, just cum laude. Northwestern--but...I don't practice, just use for the AF in my job.

I was sending my praise, laude for the JD or summa cum laude for an earned LL.D.

My political guru sensei teacher is a JD and if Gunslinger is anything like him then he is a fine person!

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

JD or LL.D? Laude, et summa cum laude!

JD, just cum laude. Northwestern--but...I don't practice, just use for the AF in my job.

I was sending my praise, laude for the JD or summa cum laude for an earned LL.D.

My political guru sensei teacher is a JD and if Gunslinger is anything like him then he is a fine person!

Maybe just a bit opinionated...:shock:

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Thank goodness. Merry Christmas. GOD JULE

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Hmmm...God Jule. A good Nordic term that has to do with Thor--one of my favorites. Same to you!

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Does my perfect attendance record at the University of Hard Knox count for anything?

:?

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

I only have two years of Community College, I graduated Summa Cum Loudmouth

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Does my perfect attendance record at the University of Hard Knox count for anything?

:?

Yeah. You can get a high paying job in the food services industry...:?And work part time as a hit man...:celebrate

 

[WhiteFeather]

imported post

First and Foremost,

I don't intend to turn this into a thread just celebrating Mr. Huffman, however of all the people I have come into contact with both on the internet and in person Mr. Huffman is by far the most intellectual andwell spoken. If there was one person I wish I could meet in person besides Dr. Paul it would be Mr. Huffman.

Back on topic...

Government is our greatest and worst acomplishment.

The system in which men are ruled in accordance with common law, and fair practice is the good part.The flaw in our form of government is that it requires the citizens to live in peace and tranquility, our flaw is that we do not.If we would not rob eachother we would not needlocal law enforcement, if we would band together to construct our country we would not need public works. We expect the governmentto fill in these little cracks in our society and than cry that there is too much of both.

I am very fond of the Swiss Confederacy, I feel for all practical purposes it works well. There are things within it I do not agree with but for the most partit isspot on.

Our Republic would be a wonderous thing, if only the citizens would participateat the level the founders had wanted. Alasto all too manyWashington is a building and the decisions made are done with the best intentions and must be followed until proven otherwise andeven then sometimes the smallpain will be tollerated.