Law is order, and good law is good order. Aristotle
The law is reason, free from passion. Aristotle
The law is the public conscience. Thomas Hobbes
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom. John Locke
People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous. Edmund Burke
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. Samuel Adams
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson
There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice. Montesquieu
Part I. “Nae King! Nae quin! Nae Laird! Nae master! We willna’ be fooled agin!”
Personally I am a Minarchist, (not a Monarchist, at least until the King comes o’er the water). I believe that government is a necessary part of human life in a society. I don’t mean that we need a government, although I accept that grudgingly. I mean that I believe a government will unavoidably exist in any society that grows beyond a handful of isolated families.
If we build Galt’s Gulch, or fly away to planet Rothbard orbiting Spooner’s star, we can try Anarcho Capitalism. Liberty theorists, and the history of free market economies, tell us to expect it to be economically successful. (Well as long as we don’t invite any of the capital L types along. If we do we may get to learn how well an economy of stoners arguing about who is the one true Libertarian, while a fat dude dances naked, will work.)
Unfortunately keeping Sarwark and pals™ out, (along with the Communists, Nazis, and ordinary well-meaning folk who want to implement a Government just to help with [fill in today’s chosen issue]) means a Government. Either Thelematopia is just a voluntary gathering of individuals that anyone can enter, or it has some mechanism for deciding who can enter. If it has a mechanism with the power to exclude, that mechanism is a Government.
But hey, we are not really popular with any of those types of people so maybe they will leave us alone (at least at first)* and we can get on with living in a truly voluntary society, with no Sovereign.
Ok, so we have founded Libertopia, or more accurately all moved to some chunk of land with no official name (because we don’t have officials, and there is no way we all call it the same thing. Someone, I name no names, will probably call it Phatopia.), no government, and a bunch of intelligent pioneer types champing at the bit to get their business ideas off the ground. Next thing you know Rothbardia Thelematopia Libertopia Phatopia Galt’s Gulch Bonerland is rolling in cash. And our cash is all privately issued, and has to compete with 300 other currencies, so our cash is all very good money, (well except for that one BanQ that has no assets, but was smart enough to print bills with nude Thots, and Dudes in tailored suits on them).
We have soaring wages because initially there is a serious shortage of people wanting to work for someone else, and a glut of people starting new businesses, but that is a self-correcting problem. We probably have a Male to Female ratio that makes China look like a Bachelorette Party, but we all have BanQ Spankbux in our bunks, and I’m sure someone will import hookers contract wives. There is some grumbling because fat dudes with no pants are everywhere you look, but that will go out of fashion when the personal safety insurers start adding in “no pants = no policy” riders after the 3rd or 4th STEVE SMITH incident.
Your stunningly beautiful home and yard, built in the Grand Style of Last Tuesday, with the special topiary (bush bushes) will sit next to that jerk’s dilapidated trailer with the landscape theme of broken beer bottles and whisky accent pieces. But that jerk is willing to share his beer on a hot day, and your wife really likes him, she’s always popping over to his place for something or other, so you can put up with the inconvenience.
Life is generally pretty good.
What happens next?
Every nation on Earth, or in the neighborhood of the Spooner System, sees this huge pool of wealth sitting in a place with no standing army and no formal leadership. Meanwhile those same nations have watched their more entrepreneurial citizens pack up and move to our place. And our place is full of degenerates who can do whatever drugs they choose, have whatever flavor of sex they choose, and worship whatever God, in whatever way, they choose. And many of our people have chosen the WRONG GOD! Most offensively, our place has no stifling regulations has raced all the way to the bottom, and our businesses are able to undercut in price, and exceed in quality, their businesses.
Invasion happens next. I think Liberbonertopia ends here as our volunteer defense force is still arguing about who gets to be captain, and no one shows up for the second day of Warty’s PT classes. But for the sake of argument pretend we have Ragnar “Deus ex Machina” Daneskjold, and he goes out and whups the invasion fleet for us, with his good ship the NSS! Can I Touch it John? Please, Just once? and the outside threat is defeated. What about the inside threat?
Someone, or some group of people, will attempt to seize power. Not may, will. Even if we start out with purely libertarian folk, and none of them are unprincipled louts, and no one gets greedy. They will have kids. There will be immigrants, increasing in number as we become more wealthy. Some of the residents will not be successful at building a business. Some will end up as unhappy employees. Some will be afraid that old Ragnar won’t be able to stop the next invasion without a government. Unhappy people will romanticize the virtues of Government. And someone will see an opportunity in this and will try to ride it to a throne.
They will either succeed without opposition, voila government! Or they will be resisted. If the resistance loses, you get, you guessed it! Government. If the resistance succeeds you end up with the leaders of the resistance in control. Will they all be content to give up the power after they beat back the threat? How many times can this play out before most of the residents decide they need to form a government if only to prevent the next would be king from succeeding? But say I am completely wrong about human nature and no one tries to become king. A certain Heroic Person of Varied Ethnicity objected to this as a strawman, so throw it away.
Say we never have a would be king. Unless we are simply going to accept theft, rape and murder as reasonable parts of life we have to have some mechanisms for preventing such acts. But the idea here is that we want anarcho CAPITALISM not pure anarchy, so I don’t think we are just going to accept those things. Free markets require respect for property rights and rights of person. And the whole point of the exercise is maximum freedom isn’t it? How do we defend our selves and our stuff? Do we all carry weapons all the time? (Ok, we probably do, and we probably carry HEAVY, just for the joy of having cool guns at hand.)
What about our stuff at home when we are out working or getting our various freaks and faiths on? Private Police, and insurance comes the answer. But how does that work? I pay a company to defend my stuff, or more likely pay an insurance company who then pays a Private Police company to defend my stuff and all their other customer’s stuff. If there are disputes about whose stuff it is, we go to an Arbitration company.
The problem here is simple. Either those Police/Insurers/Arbitration boards can only act against people who have agreed to abide by their decisions and allow them to investigate and act, or they can act against non-customers on behalf of customers. If the former how can they be effective? If the latter how are they not a Government? If Billy Bubba’s Protection Services can use force to take your property back from the thief, or kill the murderer, or beat the hell out of the rapist, you have just taken a roundabout trip right back to a government.
Yes, you probably have competing governments, Billy Bubba is competing with Dark and Deadly Protection Agency, but while they each may only act on behalf of their clients, they ALL get to act against anyone they choose. If they cannot do this, then what stops the thief, murderer, or rapist? Do we just allow them to do their thing and hope they screw up and get killed by a victim, and ditch the Private Police? But we have no mechanism for banning the Private Police. So all it takes is one rich dude who is tired of being beaten up and robbed and boom, you have Private Police. Understand me here. I am not saying these things make Anarcho Capitalism inferior to other systems. Every problem I listed exists in every system imaginable. I am just saying that because these problems are inevitable, so is government.
I eagerly await arguments from An Caps on these points; usually what I hear are arguments on the question of whether we would be better off with completely market based solutions to every problem (Letters of Marque arrh! alarmingly common in this discussion matey), but unless it is possible to avoid a government forming, arguments about whether or not the market can provide for defense, enforce contracts, and allow us to protect our lives and property from ‘crime’ are academic. Come on, convince me! I want to believe, because I am losing hope that the true King is coming across the water.
Spoiler, you won’t convince me (or if you do I will be very embarrassed when part 2 of this in which I assume a government and discuss what law is, and what makes it good law, (assuming I get it written) hits).
*Hahahahahahah not a prayer.
!No State’s Ship
I find this discussion fascinating. I want to go on record as saying that, as I get older, I realize that government in and of itself is evil. It can/will find work-arounds to any limitations thrown in its path, and I’d absolutely love the notion of not having one. That said, I think that Jarflax is correct. The end result of an anarco capitalism is one of three things.
1. The nation is invaded, and you lose your liberty.
2. A government forms spontaneously, and you lose your liberty.
3. The region is divided into not so peaceful factions…and you lose your liberty
I’ve thought long and hard about this, and I believe that the notion of “total liberty” is false, as such a place would require everyone else to adhere to libertarian principle and it presupposes a world with no bad people. Tall order.
So I believe the answer is an attempt to maximize liberty (for everyone). Meaning adherence to the NAP, with an exception. An EXTREMELY limited government restricted to only defending the rights of the individual. Perhaps, that too is an impossibility, but I’d rather a government formed with forethought and limitations to one arising spontaneously without any restriction at all.
You may be able to change my mind…
That’s about my level of jadedness, too. We need to evolve more for anarcho-capitalism to work.
I still consider myself an an-cap, ’cause chicks dig the edginess.
Don’t think just because you can restate my article and its sequel that I should be writing instead of arguing demographic politics in the links, in 100 words or less, that I won’t take 5000 words to do it!
I’d have needed 5000 if you hadn’t so eloquently laid it out before hand.
An EXTREMELY limited government restricted to only defending the rights of the individual.
Which government will over time gradually slip its bonds and become overwhelming. See “Constitution, U.S.”. Not even the 2nd amendment could stop it.
I think I park my car in that same garage. Government sucks. It inevitably does terrible things to people in the name of the greater good. However, Utopia was a fairy tale place for a reason. The Kant quote that went along the lines of “nothing straight can be made from the warped wood that is man” is essentially accurate. The best we can do is attempt to have a government that can still function at what it needs to do (national defense, international treaties, issuing money) while being strictly limited as much as possible to prevent constraining individual freedom.
why does the government need to issue money?
For the same reason god needs a starship.
Because payment in kind is less versitile in terms of implementing their interests?
So he can build a city on rock and roll?
Moreover, the law is an ass.
I always thought that something of an understatement.
Ass is the law!
Love is the law- The Suburbs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7C4FuY-yUQ
Love Under Will
– Pope Francis
Wow, that was a great read,
What if I were to setup Yusefopolis Inside Libonertopia?
then I can be King!
“…fat dudes with no pants…”
BULLY!
*sheepishly puts pants back on*
That wasn’t supposed to go THERE
It’s kind of funny there.
“BanQ Spankbux”
LOL
^^^THIS^^^
“There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free.”
– Sean Connery in First Knight
I want to argue, you you seem to have stolen my position on the inevitability of government as an emergent form of human behaviour.
I nominally would like to call myself a Minarchist as well; but (as I’ve said here many times) I unfortunately have come around to the notion that the right amount of government (or law to stay on topic) is like the right amount of cancer. It will grow no matter how tight the restrictions on it are. The tighter the restrictions, the longer prosperity might last, but in the end it will always fall apart.
I also tend to think that AnCap is utopian in the same way Marxism is in that it ignores swaths of human nature. I recognize there are cogent arguments made on both sides of all these systems, but I just look at the history of humanity and government and don’t see any good counterexamples.
Spoiler, I come to the same conclusion about Minarchy and end up with the idea that all we can ever do is keep liberty as our lodestar and try to press forward against the masses pushing toward their chosen tyranny.
It’s all utopian and, while fun to think about, doesn’t amount to fuck all.
Our system, fucked as it is, still has a better track record than anything before it.
And of course there’s Elle McPherson.
Ya there is!!
The cancer analogy is good. Sometimes it gets out of control, you have to kill it off with extreme measures, hope to survive, then start over in remission. But it will come back.
Repeat.
I am still a minarchist, hoping we can get back to the restrained phrase without chemotherapy.
I think that’s probably correct, Mr Jefferson.
A constitutional republic is probably the best mechanism. You restrict the fuck out of the government and live with it till it end-runs your intentions and then start over after it falls apart. A continuous process.
The problem is, the end-runs are being supported by the majority of the population and you’ll need to wait for a complete unraveling before a stricter constitution could be agreed upon.
I liked Jefferson’s notion of putting a term limit on the Constitution and starting over every generation. IF the ratchet only turned in the direction of liberty. Not very likely!
Getting to frequently re-write the constitution accellerates the decline.
I was unhappy that the Constitutional Convention resolution didn’t pass.
The fact that Cuomo et. al. were so desperately against it made me think that they knew something about the electorate that I didn’t.
I wasn’t sure who’d be holding the pen and writing the new consitution.
IF the ratchet only turned in the direction of liberty.
Could you imagine the absolute horseshit that would come out of writing a new constitution these days?
Indeed. “Where’s muh right to free healthcare?”
That’s why I think there’s only four ways Libertopia ever exists (one of the four is unethical and another extremely unlikely):
1. Start a brand new country (another planet?) with a rational libertarian constitution already in place. Move here if you accept the terms. (Galt’s Gulch)
2. Wait till it falls apart and start over. The downside is it may never completely fall to the point where the population accepts libertarian principle. (Hell, there are people in Venezuela that still support socialism)
3. A civil war, where a small portion of the population imposes their will on the rest, FORCING them to be free. (unethical)
4. A grass root movement where the vast majority of a population embraces freedom. (unlikely)
5. Engineer mind-controlling brain slugs and emulate #4 with some semblance of realism.
Welp, I now have a plot for a future Shadowbook – someone tries #5, but their work gets stolen by a Malthusian terror group bent on clearing out humanity.
A civil war, where a small portion of the population imposes their will on the rest, FORCING them to be free. (unethical)
Not sure how a war (civil or otherwise) to prohibit people from establishing a tyranny is unethical. Tyrannies don’t become OK just because a majority approves. They don’t have any right to do so, so preventing them isn’t violating their rights; it is more in the nature of self-defense.
Enforcing such an outcome from a civil war would mean removing the ability of collectivists to participate in government, provided they weren’t already given helicopter rides. It’s also highly hypocritical – “You are unable to make rules for yourself because you keep chosing slavery, so we’ll make the rules for you.”
Enforcing such an outcome from a civil war would mean removing the ability of collectivists to participate in government,
They can participate in a limited/non-tyrannical government all they want. They just can’t use it to violate my rights.
That’s still limiting their participation, especially when their position is one that your rights are violating theirs.
Nobody has a right to violate my rights. By denying them the ability to do so, I am not violating their rights, or acting unethically.
They may think they have the right to violate my rights, but they are just wrong about that. They may think that me exercising my rights violates their right to force me not to do that, but they would be wrong about that.
And therein is where you have to force them to comply with your worldview.
And therein is where you have to force them to comply with your worldview.
So? When I decline to let a homeless person camp on my lawn, or lock my car so it doesn’t get stolen, I am forcing people to comply with my property rights.
There is no way to let every single person do every single thing that enters their head. If that means someone’s “rights” are violated, so be it. That definition of rights is useless.
I don’t disagree in principle, but it’s a damn slippery slope. Pretty soon you end up with Antifa attacking people in “self-defense” because those people’s ideas are “violence”.
That’s how the colonists felt. I’ve heard it estimated that roughly only a third of the colonists supported the Revolutionary War.
They did, however, feel the need to require over 2/3 of the states ratify their new constitution. And that’s what we’re talking about. Support for a new constitution.
We don’t have to imagine. Just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Jefferson was too hopeful about the Yeoman Farmer remaining the dominant population. I think the importance of liberty and the importance of personal responsibility hard to ignore when you are living in the small farm milieu. You can’t avoid them even for a season without starving to death. In cities you are more insulated from consequences, at least immediate consequences.
Rome, Greece, England… all went through the same transition. Once the cities get too big, the collectivists wreck everything.
A few years ago I had the thought/realization that giant cities aren’t the bellwether of civilization, as so many Progs will claim, but rather the harbinger of a society’s impending doom. Metropolises attract all manner of grifters and graft (DUH) in a way that rural areas don’t and won’t. Note that I am not saying rural areas are free of crime or don’t have problems, but they simply can’t support the kinds of graft and other crime that come with big cities. It’s almost a tautology to say it, really.
It’s why the Progs want MUH POPULAR VOTE! It’s the only way they can gain control over the people they despise.
When I was young, my dad stumbled onto a truism. He said, “The more people you jam together into one location, the more laws you’ll get.” I believe this is accurate. (e.g. I don’t, living out here, have noise ordinances) Desolation supports liberty.
Which is why I live where I do.
Charon?
We are totally paging Winston right now lol.
I had no idea you lived near me.
Some of the best, growing cities are blue cities in red states. Once the city gets so large it overpowers the rest of the state (Chicago), it is all downhill.
It is why Austin works.
And you see the tipping points…Denver, Seattle, Atlanta are there or getting there.
So, what you’re saying is, the Rotten Borough method of MP election was less of a problem than the more equal replacement?
Depends if the rotten borough was in a city or the country.
Rotten boroughs were depopulated areas.
As I said, depends if the rotten borough was in a city or the country.
By definition, there are no cities in rotten boroughs.
While it may not have happened in England, if we had a similar system, Detroit would have rotten boroughs.
It can happen in cities.
That’s only a problem if we froze them now.
And by definition, those zones are no longer urban.
This is a good article.
I consider myself an anarchist, so I’ll get a few responses in, but it will have to wait for lunch.
Jarflax, my libertarian philosophy started with deep Ancap leanings. I eventually had these same thoughts/misgivings of Ancap because of the inevitability of spontaneous organization and government. Once there are too many individuals, they need to be protected from the wider world around them (common defense), have standards for making rules, and confidence in some form of justice for conflicts.
This makes some form of government needed by society. The problem is that this entity called government has to have checks on how it grows, behaves, and serves it’s constituents. This is where we find ourselves in the USA today. We had a great plan for all of the above, but like any system, government had found a way to exceed all of the controls put in place. I’m very much a Minarchist because there is a minimal level of control needed to ensure the maximum liberty possible. What that level is and how to create and maintain/adapt that system is certainly the biggest question.
We might need to await the singularity where we assign a AI with no real or virtual skin in the game to enforce our own rules with the cold logic of a machine. However, they made so much SciFi about this very scenario and most of it never turned out well for the humans.
Why is it the people with the thickest accents are the ones who only want to communicate by phone?
They want to practice their English.
But it gets really awkward after the third “I’m not sure what you just said.”
Furriners Caint Text?
I like the debate between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. However, I do think it’s a mostly academic exercise. We’re so wildly far from either situation that the two are functionally identical. It’s sort of debating whether a 350 pound man needs to lose 150 pounds our 175 pounds. When he hits 225, it’s probably an important discussion. But, not at this point.
This is how I feel, as well. I also completely agree with Jarflax that anarchy is fleeting at best.
If I were a libertarian dictator:
1. Start with something like our constitution.
2. Give it teeth with harsh punishments for violations
3. Start with zero laws and require 80% agreement in both the House and Senate to forward a bill.
4. Bill not only needs the president’s signature to become law, but judicial review by the SCOTUS which also requires 80% agreement.
5. All laws sunset after 8 years. If they want to keep it, it goes through the entire process again. ONE AT A TIME!
6. Limit the size of all bills. No riders.
7. Single term limits for ALL elected officials with votes of confidence every year or two so you can get rid of them early if they suck dick. (I’d be okay with slightly longer terms.)
8. Eliminate ALL professional staffers. Staffs leave with their politicians.
9. Give every elected official a full pension for the life (and of their spouse) adjusted for inflation/COL…BUT they may never receive a single cent of additional income for the rest of their lives.
I realize these assholes will still find work arounds, AND it still infringes on the rights of the minority. But 80% is a damned sight better than 50%. And that ought to keep them busy enough to stop inventing new ways to take my liberty while increasing their size/power. It might buy us another 200 years?
After implementing the above, I’d resign. Trust me!
The sunshine law alone would do wonders. The bills would become simpler overnight and the act of creating/approving new ones would trickle sown to the bare essentials.
For #9, do you mean additional government income only?
It’s meant to inhibit the revolving door. Stopping shitbags from propping up companies they’re about to go to work for. So, to answer your question, absolutely no additional income from any source, period.
So, Mass Nepotism it is.
I don’t think that would stop anything though. They’d just Thier spouse, kid, friend, cousin, etc to funnel the money if necessary. I don’t know a solution of than execution at the end of your term.
Then you get geriatrics and terminal cases who are highly incentivized towards short-term thinking.
Mine would be slight variations on the percentages, and I wouldn’t give anyone a pension who didn’t do 20 – go get a job like the rest of us, you lazy hacks! – but basically just variations on the same themes.
I put that in there to eliminate the “revolving door”
I’m there, Imperator!
Regarding 7., are you saying single term across all positions, or single term per position?
I’m open to debate on that. I lean toward one term in government.
“What’s with all the gunfire?”
“The law against murder lapsed, they forgot to reinstate it.”
Wasn’t there a movie about that?
Don’t know. Other than rewatching old films (ie, the Dollars Trilogy), I haven’t seen any movies in a long time.
I love the idea of automatic sunset clauses. I’ve also always been a fan of the bicameral legislature in which one house creates laws, but requires a 2/3 majority to do so and the other house only repeals laws but requires only a 1/3 minority to do so. I figure any restriction on freedom not supported by a supermajority and/or opposed by a minority is no good.
I’d also love to see a page limit on legislation, but I wouldn’t know what to set it to since any number would be arbitrary.
a 2/3 majority to do so and the other house only repeals laws but requires only a 1/3 minority to do so.
WHYCOME YOU HATE DEMOCRACY!!! ONE MAN ONE VOTE IS THE ONLY FAIR WAY!
Lord Vetinari agrees.
1 man, 1 vote, full stop.
Vetinari being the one man.
To limit length I’ve settled on requiring the law and any law modified by it be read out loud in full before any vote, and after any amendment. I’m also open to requiring any regulation also requiring such a read and vote before it can be brought into force.
I like where you are going. I’d say any bill must be 500 words or less, and it and all laws referenced or modified by it must be read in full, by a 5th grader, before it can be voted on. Budgets can be passed by chopping them up into smaller segments, which also limits horse trading.
Oh, and by the way, great article, Jarflax!
I came here to argue, dammit!!
Seriously, I can’t add anything to what’s already been said by everyone above. FdA’s comment pretty much sums it up for me, as well.
Jar, very entertaining and well written.
(P.S. I’ve never been gaga over Elle, but that picture of her is something special.)
I came here to argue
1. I did not care for The Godfather.
2. Cats > dogs.
3. NY style > deep dish.
Cats are useless.
1. You’re a communist.
2. Correct.
3. Commie confirmed.
Pizza Heretic!
Burn on the stone for your blasphemies!
You have 1 and 2 flipped.
There’s always one guy…
1. It’s kinda long, and slow in parts (but John Cazale was a truly great actor)
2. I like cats a lot; I also like dogs a lot. I do not understand why people think we need to declare one better than the other
3. See #2
2. Dogs are not objectibely as cats have no souls. That is not to say cats are not useful.
Fuck . . .that’s what I get for doing 3 things at once . . .dogs are objectively better as cats have no souls*
*ahem*
Allergies.
And that thing where cats con you into scratching their stomachs and then bite you.
Cat is asshole.
The difference between dogs and cats.
OMG!
I’m dying.
That’s brilliant, k!
Dogs have masters, cats have staff.
Dog: “These tall creatures pet me and feed me and take care of my every need. They must be gods!”
Cat: “These tall creatures pet me and feed me and take care of my every need. I must be God!”
GT, that was my immediate thought.
With the sole exception of lions, cats are solitary hunters. Wolves and dogs are pack creatures. That explains everything about their behavioural differences.
To a dog, you’re part of the family. To a cat you’re just another creature in its territory.
Except, feral domestic cats live in colonies.
Hrmm… Did we breed that into them?
That is awesome.
I kinda like how cats have barely concealed contempt for humans. They still have that old DNA that says, “I don’t need you. I could stalk, hunt, and kill my prey and live on my own. If I had opposable digits, you’d be fucked. You’re just not that good… BUT, given the current situation, I won’t kill you while you’re sleeping if you’ll just scratch me right there…NO, THERE! Dumbfuck. Okay, that’s good. Now why don’t you go use that magical device that opens the cans and get me some food…. I’LL TAKE SOME WARM MILK WHILE YOU’RE UP!”
I had a girlfriend who used to say, “The way my cat looks at me, I swear he’s thinking that he wishes he was my size so he could eat me”
1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Irrelevant (but probably wrong)
…I’ve never been gaga over Elle…
That’s OK. She’s more my type anyway.
How does minarchy work in a “United” States?
I know, I know, excellent question.
Dragging the dead horse back from the other thread, I have found a rare moment in which I disagree with Mojeaux.
She said in response to my anti-ear piercing of babies/ preteens:
I disagree that no lasting damage is done. The child was taught from its earliest memories that others are in charge of its body and image, and that said child is an ornament.
And I totally agree with KSuellington that it’s tacky for an infant or toddler to have pierced ears.
Also, thanks to others for the cultural insight about Mexico and ear piercing. Didn’t know that. When do they get the horrific eyebrow tattoos? Quincinera?
What’s your opinion on circumcision?
*flees the room*
Let me know when it’s over.
You’ll know by the cessation of the pinchy, slicey feeling in your dick.
Let’s split the difference and agree that if you don’t circumcise your kid, you can then get a prince albert piercing before they are 5.
BTW, for the hardcore (((trans))) who like to pretend men can get periods, do they do some sort of chopping to stay on The Big Guy’s good side?
I’m a compromiser . . .I say the left half gets removed and the right half stays.
Just the tip.
We might need to form a corporate state type of arrangement. Gov by agreement and contract and the ability to change your contract if you don’t like where your country/corporation is moving. Amazon is providing free housing and a beer fountain in every square, i’m leaving my Samsung contract, they only provided a reduced rent condo and free utilities. Apple is outlawing shopping at anything other than the company store, but INBEV allows my family to shop at any of the stores in the world.
More BanQ Spankbux.
http://archive.is/5Wclh
I know y’all muthafuckas want #5. You can have her while I take 24 and 33.
31 is pretty.
Sooooooo…… You aren’t a big fan of Oren Cass and his new GOP?
Will you wily libertarians at least agree to stop domineering the EconTalk in the GOP table?
Who?
The trillion dollar deficits currently being run up by a Pachyderm administration beg to differ.
One of my favorite responses to his Twitter announcement:
Adopting Clintonomics and calling anyone is who doesn’t a “libertarian fundamentalist”.
The truth is any conservative who falls for this either wants to get bamboozled or is too stupid to breath. Big government doesn’t produce a conservative society. It’s one of the things that frustrates me about so many conservatives. So many are willing to trade off liberty to make these illusory gains and then they wonder why the resulting society isn’t hospitable to conservative values like personal responsibility, behavioral restraint or ties to institutions outside the popular culture.
New York skyscraper must remove top 20 floors, judge rules
Because a judge doesn’t like the zoning laws.
The Saudis and UAE have people for that.
Naw, they’ll just run through a few appeals.
Uffda. So the developers complied with existing zoning laws, but in a way that the nannies didn’t anticipate, so now the judge is siding with the nannies?
I’m sure that will work out well.
In an ideal world the developer would be rich enough to just walk away from the project. Leave the half constructed building there. I’d even open the front doors so any homeless people wandering buy could set up their digs there. I’m sure the “community” groups would love that.
So starting a business on a loan based on expected ROI isn’t ideal?
Is debt ever ideal?
If the ROI is realistic and it allows the debtor to both improve their situation and provide a service others are willing to pay for, then it’s definately an improvement over waiting for someone with money to burn deign to dabble.
Leverage is wonderful, provided you’re on the right side of the lever.
Municipal Art Society?
I say go ahead with the removal as long as the judge is affixed to the top floor before it’s removed.
Also, fuck you Preet.
Somebody didn’t throw enough “affordable” apartments at the right politician.
Make no mistake, sticking it to rich people is what this is really all about. Never mind that rich people moving here and opening up existing housing is the best way to solve the housing shortage… fuck the rich!
Drop the 20 stories on the courthouse?
I think another possibility would be something like a Snowcrash situation, where you have private city-states that you can apply to join (or pay your way into depending), and can remove you through their own systems (that you would agree to when you joined). You would then be able to have competition between those city-states, and open land between them. Don’t like any of the options, start your own, or live in the open land.
Obama: ‘I Have No Memory Of Anyone Named Joe Biden’
He’ll read about him in the newspaper tomorrow.
Obama could have highhandedly ensured Biden’s nomination. He didn’t cause he is a classless jerk with no sense of loyalty. He single handedly delivered the Democratic party to Bernie Sanders.
…Or because he realized that Biden would be a complete fucking disaster? Or because he knew Biden was already slipping during O’s second term?
Or _________ (there are a lot of other plausible possibilities why).
And he’s also a classless jerk.
I find it funny how the vernacular ‘or’ is an exclusive or rather than a logical or.
Obama is still smarting about the “Clean and Articulate” comments Biden made early in 2016.
He said that shit in 2007.
Obama thinks revenge is best served cold.
He single handedly delivered the Democratic party to Bernie Sanders.
What part of Bernie’s “fundamental transformation” do you think Obama opposes?
my money’s on Bloomberg. to get the black vote after Stop + Frisk, he’ll have to promise all sorts of controversial policies. it’s the Blackface Northam playbook writ national. sure, BernieBots will burn Milwaukee but they will be suppressed in time for the general.
Pretty much wrote my article (only with more entertainment value) on why anarchism is an unstable and short-lived system for any group larger than around 200 people.
If I ever get around to it, my article on “New Libertarian Man” will be a companion to this (and to Jarflax’s article on how radical individualists are effing up libertarianism). Q’s comment above on how “AnCap is utopian in the same way Marxism is in that it ignores swaths of human nature” is pretty much a summary of where my head is at. Hell, I may not even need to write it at all.
People are imperfect and will, perforce, always live in imperfect societies. A minarchy is, IMO, the least imperfect option.
For as long as you can keep it, before it reverts to the mean (and that would be “mean” in every sense of the word).
and to Jarflax’s article on how radical individualists are effing up libertarianism).
I’m curious to what you mean by “Radical Individualist”. The term individualist is so abused to be amost useless, as its meaning is not clear, and can conjure up two polar opposite meanings when spoken two different people.
I was going to ask the same thing. My impression is that, for a lot of the world “radical individualist” has become “expects to do whatever he feels like at the moment and have mommy and daddy absorb any adverse consequences”. But, that’s fundamentally a rejection of the whole individualist contract.
I think Dean’s referring to my article.
The monkeysphere matters.
leon, you should ask Jarflax.
kinnath, the monkeysphere was exactly what I had in mind. Once you have a group too big for social/family pressure to resolve disputes without violence, you have to have an arbiter of last resort, who can enforce their decisions. That is the seed of government. Otherwise, the group dissolves or splits. Its just not stable otherwise.
Sorry i misread that as what you were going to write an article about.
I think that there is some form of inherited sovereignty (or transferred?) that must in some way scale to the size of the collection, so I guess that makes me not-an-archist. It may be that the optimum changes by size, as well. Or that the optimum size is determined by function of population, resources, and land. In a very small, stable group, these could be hand-shake agreements backed by reputation and withholding help and further cooperation. Once the group grows by either size or instability to include enough people that reputation/future non-cooperational retribution is no longer sufficient, it seems like there has to be some sort of charter that the people coming and going can use to learn the basic rules, and what to expect if they refuse to follow them. Similarly, there has to be some group reputable enough or powerful enough to enforce agreements and punish transgressions between two parties who may never come into contact again. This is, to me, government.
Note: I think it might be better if there wasn’t ONE group reputable or powerful enough to enforce all of the agreements, but some sort of competitive division of labor that could inveigh some market incentives on this/these governments, but I don’t know what that would look like.
A paradoxical situation. . . .I think a liberty minded dictator would be the best solution for a single generation. Obviously, that could all go to hell with the next dictator in line, so it wouldn’t last long.
A perfectly benevolent monarchy would be ideal. Unfortunately, there are no perfect people and power corrupts… etc. etc.
So we’re fucked.
I’m a monarchist – provided I’m the monarch.
Congratulations, you’ve just summarized an entire book by Plato.
I seem to recall more sinking continents.
… are we talking about the same book?
It’s like a successful family business/fortune. First generation makes the sacrifices and builds it, second generation grows it and third generation fucks it until it is unrecognizable.
I should add, I’m willing to be this dictator for the sum of a few cases of whisky and a decent pace to sleep. I’m assuming women will flick to me as the dictator, so I *shouldn’t* need a budget for prostitutes, but I reserve the right to change my mind
Please ignore the massive amount of typos. This is why I usually don’t post from my phone while I’m at work.
I’m assuming women will flick to me as the dictator
Excellent John-O.
There was a parallel arguments made in the 1780s. Short version, Federalists: don’t worry about how much power the constitution gives the executive. We all know it’s going to be Washington and we can trust him. Antifederalists: what happens when Washington is succeeded by Sloshington or whoever?
Antifederalists: what happens when Washington is succeeded by
Sloshington or whoeverGeorge W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump?Excuse the OT but if this don’t make the evening links I’ll be disappoint!
Florida man tries to evade police by stripping off his clothes. Steaks fall out instead and he gets a taser to the genitals.
“Not the face! Not the face!”
“OK, have it your way.”
“I’ll have my Rocky mountain oysters well done”
“I’m lovin’ it!”
The outlet reported that Short is a “regular shoplifter” at the store.
This is the best part.
#Florida
The short story by Larry Niven comes to mind on why Anarchy doesn’t work for long.
Summary of “Cloak of Anarchy”
Key plot element here is an anarchical society – the kind you have probably seen in dozens of post-apocalypse stories. Just after the cataclysmic event, when there is no law or its enforcers, physical might rules.
Except that there is no great apocalypse here; it’s a demonstration at a small scale. A public park where no law applies save one – no violence among humans please. There are some floating “copseyes” – small floating police robots with camera & with capacity to incapacitate anyone via some kind of a ray. They enforce this single law – if you hit someone, both attacker & victim are incapacitated by a copseye; they will wake up at different times, & can walk away. “copseyes” are powered by wirelessly transmitted power – Tesla style.
There are implications of only no violence among humans rule. You are free to kill copseyes! You are free to destroy public property like water fountains! You can even hit the guy destroying water fountain provided you are ready to take the hit from copseye.
Entries & exits to park are automated. Entry gates close at specific times in the evening.
People don’t like copseyes – they keep getting destroyed regularly. Since they are cheap gadgets, administration doesn’t really care.
As part of story buildup, we are treated to a variety of futuristic gadgets & social rules in this town in US.
Today, Ron Cole has a plan. He hires some boys to hit a certain copseye with stones. When it falls to ground, he switches off its power, & figures out its innards. Then he does something to its communications system, & all the remaining copseyes in the park fall down too – to be quickly destroyed by people.
Turns out – this act of vandalism has also killed power to exit gates of park! And it’s closing time for entry gates. So you get a nice little park where there are no rules – none temporarily even against violence, no way to enter or exit, night about to fall, & many people.
We see familiar crowd behavior of post-apocalypse stories – girls are no longer safe, a gang has claimed water fountains as their property, some violence – till finally new copseyes arrive.
It’s a bit too close to where I feel we are going with rights only being possible in certain areas. In this case a freedom park, which implies there is much more limited freedom elsewhere.
Big Niven fan, but he described it as why he wasn’t a libertarian. It annoyed me.
Not the story, I like it. And your description is correct.
Agreed. That annoyed me as well. You would think Pournelle would have rubbed off on him.
Was Pournelle a libertarian? I thought he was more conservative.
He was hard to define, some ways he was a paleoconservative and others more libertarian.
I liked the description of their collab process…Pournelle designed a city in a building. Niven puts a diving board on it.
I’m having a hard time figuring out what that means.
Read “Oath of Fealty”. The diving board is right at the beginning.
Spoiler (but its at the beginning, so no big deal):
Archology in the middle of LA. Huge building. Jumpers come from all over to commit suicide off of it. They get to the roof, work there way to the edge, find the hole in the fence, and realize there is only one way to get to the real edge…they have to climb stairs to a diving board off the edge.
Security had a “scoreboard” where they kept track of those that got scared and chickened out, those that laughed and climbed back down, those that got serious and jumped, and those that laughed and still jumped. Some even did dives off of it. Security had a monthly pool guessing the scores.
There was also a net system to catch the divers, but that was not public knowledge, so the jumpers thought they were going to die.
One makes stories work physically and the other makes them more fun. You can see it in their collaborations. The point of the diving board was to prevent suicides by making the act seem ridiculous to the person especially if they are doing it for sympathy. Todos Santos didn’t care.
That book goes along way to demonstrating a corporate state living how they want inside the USA.
Oath of Fealty, sort of a proto cyberpunk novel where the officers of the megacorp are actually the good guys and the punk anarchist rebels the bad ones but it has all the other hallmarks of cyberpunk.
The book takes place mostly in an arcology (city in one giant building) that is something like half a mile high. Life inside the arcology is pretty good but highly competitive and cutthroat so suicides are not uncommon and the preferred means of suicide is to climb to the top and jump.
in a piece of reverse psychology the engineers of the arcology found the most likely place for a would be jumper to reach the edge of the building at the top and installed a diving board on the edge of the building and iirc some kind of sign. in the story the absurdity of it all actually prevented a good number of would be jumpers from jumping.
I’ve always liked Pournelle’s Republic and Empire anthology trilogy.
That and There Will Be War were my favorites
Sauron Supermen….
I liked the Falkenberg’s Legion stories but didn’t much care for the Sparta novels.
And that is the basis (way in the past, first empire era) for the Mote Universe.
Really? I liked the Sparta novels better than the other books in the Falkenbergs Legion series. What was it you didn’t like about them?
What was it you didn’t like about them?
1. I am generally more of a fan of short stories.
2. I just couldn’t get into the politics of Sparta. The corrupt Earth politics I could see existing. The Spartan 1st Empire politics, not as much. Sometimes, they didnt really seem to be the same universe at the same time.
I remember this story. It’s a great tale.
I remember the nudist woman with the very, very long flowing cape. She couldnt stop walking because the cape would settle and stop fluttering behind her.
I was a teenager when I read the story. So that was my first image when I recognized which story Timeloose was talking about.
Ditto.
I could swear that’s a part in The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe….
Who said NeverTrumpers had no sense of humor?
More or less votes than McMuffin?
Obligitory: Y’all are a bunch of socialists.
Now that i’ve got that out of the way. I consider myself an anarchist. However I’m not going to complain about Minarchtopia. Well actually I would, but it is better than what we have now. I also know that as it is, many people think we need a government, and that i don’t, but that i’m not likely to convince them to believe so, and i’m not going to force people to be free.
I think you hit a lot of objections to AnCapistan, but i wanted to hit back at a few.
1. The point about it devolving back into a government, by nefarious users usurping power. As you have conceded yourself, this is a problem that is posed for Minarchy. In my opinion is that this is a difference of starting points. Do we start with a very small government, or do we start with none. The pressure to consolidate power will always be there. I reject the idea that any constitution can stop this. Ultimately the only force that can stop the consolidation of power is the people’s willingness to resist it.
2. Foreign invasions. This depends on you believing that Government is competent at war, and once again the willingness of the people to resist it. There are plenty of examples of foreign invasions being repelled by less organized and technologically inferior resistance. If you believe freedom will lead to more prosperity, then the Free Peoples won’t have the disadvantage of being technologically inferior.
3. What keeps the law givers/judges/justice system from becoming a government. I think this is a very good argument. But my counter point would be that strictly speaking a government maintains the monopoly on the initiation of violence. When you defend your house from a home invader, you are not doing so because you are the “Government” of your house. It is because you are a property owner defending your property. So while on the surface it may look like you are acting as a government, you are not in fact a government, because you do not reserve the right to initiate violence, but only the right to defend yourself against it.
Finally I want to hit on the “Ancapistan is just another Utopia” idea. I get that there are a lot of dumbass ancaps out there who portray it as utopia, so i’m not saying that the argument isn’t without basis. But to me its not that things will be perfect in an ancap world. I can see a lot of things that people may not like happening. In fact it is often opponents of the anarchist vision that measure it against a Utopia. If it is not pefect, and some equilibirum position then it isn’t worthwhile, which seems like throwing out the good because it isn’t perfect. For example, if you talk about Private law, inevitably an opponent will talk about how someone could bribe a judge. Even though that is the current status quo. People can and do bribe judges. They get to create a system that makes them and their fellow lawyers immune. Its the idea that all the bad things that could happen don’t already happen. I find that not convincing, in the same way that i don’t find the argument that “it could devolve back into government” convincing. Yeah it could. But then we are back to where we are now, or better with a minarchist state. I don’t see how that is worse than just saying “forget about it, we will have to keep kicking rocks in the status quo”
My personal hypothesis that leads me towards small rather than no government is the route of deterioration.
When there is no framework, you very quickly move to local strongmen/fueding warlords situation where the likelyhood of violent infringements is more likely, though they will be less interested in social restrictions until there is some need for a pablum to justify their ongoing right to rule some generations down the line.
With a framework, you slide along the margins of the framework, and the violent chaos is delayed until the collapse or re-revolution. You see more creeping social intrustions, but less slaughter.
Pick your poison.
This is true. However, those who’ve repelled such invasions lived in caves, shitting in bushes, wiping their asses with their bare hands, starving while knowing a 200 pound penetrator might snuff out their miserable existence at any second. And they live like this for very large percentages of their already short lifespans. And it only works against a foe who feels some moral obligation not to completely obliterate you.
They’re a testimony to man’s desire for liberty, but I’d prefer not to have to live most of my life like that if I could come up with a better way.
A millennial coworker was asking me about Libertarianism and ultimately wanted to know what anarchy would be like.
I said, you’re looking at it. Governments of one form or another will always evolve into existence.
Thanks for the thoughtful article. Something we here might tend to ignore is the large percentage of humans who don’t want freedom, who favor having leaders and some way to “legitimately” relinquish responsibility.
There’s the horrible (but human) tendency to make laws for their neighbors that factors into any form of government. One possible way to at least cut back on the amount of government interference in people’s lives is an idea that F. Paul Wilson of Repairman Jack fame came up with in his earlier works on the Lanague Federation.
Imagine that everyone reaching the age of majority must sign a contract between themselves and the nation/state or leave within a specified period of time. Said contract would provide for common defense, police protection and adjudication of disputes, with the NAP covering everything else – and harsh penalties for initiating fraud or force. Yes, there’d have to be taxation, but set it at a maximum of, say 5%. Maybe a worthwhile idea?
It is reasonable to me, except for the exile part. Maybe rather than physical exile, it’s just exile from taxation and the services those taxes provide.
I don’t think that outlawry is superior to exile.
Bad Trump rears his head today.
Trump says he’s commuted the sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich
fuck
Why?
He’s in there for a good reason.
I figured there is some sort of quid pro quo going on.
Also remember, Trump was a Dem when Blag was in power.
Muh nonpartisanship, I guess? Trying to look good in the eyes of possible Dem-leaning independents?
“He served eight years in jail, a long time. He seems like a very nice person, don’t know him.”
^Actual quote from Trump today.
(which is a lie, Blagojevich was on Celebrity Apprentice)
Dumbass.
But then again…
https://www.tmz.com/2020/02/18/president-trump-pardons-ex-49ers-owner-ed-debartolo/
“Trump Pardons Ed Debartolo” – that always struck me (not being a Niners fan and only tangentially following it) as a weird prosecution and how the NFL handled it. Of course, I never understand why politicians who take bribes aren’t prosecuted instead of the bribers.
I thought Eddie DeBartolo was dead. I see now that I was confusing him with Carmen Policy.
I understand why, I just don’t agree with it.
I never understand why politicians who take bribes aren’t prosecuted instead of the bribers.
Who writes the laws, the politicians or the bribers?
Who writes the laws?
The people making the effective bribes.
It doesn’t ultimately solve the problem you are getting at but there actually is an answer to this.
I am a client of Billy Bubba security, you are a client of Deadly Protection Agency. I file a complaint with Billy Bubba alleging that you assaulted me. Your assumption is that Billy Bubba is just going to go arrest you without contacting DPA first. This is not how it would work.
Once they identified who you were their first step would be to see who you were contracted with for a security service. All security services would have as a rider in their contracts that clients are required to cooperate with them in investigations into allegations made by other security agencies. They would have this specifically because they would know that maintaining a good working relationship with the competition was cheaper than constant warfare. There would then be an arbitration between the 2 agencies to define the procedures of a trial, likely conducted by a separate private court agency. Once an arbitrator was settled on there would be a trial that would be binding on all parties involved.
This doesn’t solve all the problems but it does take care of 90% of them. Where things break down however is when you get ideologically driven security agencies clashing over competing ideals. For example, when the client of Holy Prophet of Allah inc is charged with assaulting the client of Athiest inc and the accused claims a defense that he was extracting retribution for blasphemy, a perfectly legal and moral act as far as Holy Prophet is concerned what happens?
I think some kind of warfare is ultimately inevitable here.
I was more operating under a suspicion/belief that actual criminals would not be clients of either security company.
Mob
If you are not a client of someone big enough to protect you in ancapistan then sorry sucks to be you, Billy Bobs security is gonna do whatever they want to you because there is no one to stop them and it is a pretty good assumption that anyone unwilling or unable to get a contract with some security provider is probably a criminal anyway
The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.
Machiavelli
I’ve always thought Machiavelli’s description of mercenaries was applicable to the argument against anarcho-capitalism.
You can’t defend yourself at all times by all comers. You have to rely on some outside force. The question is how do you control that outside force.
All security services would have as a rider in their contracts that clients are required to cooperate with them in investigations into allegations made by other security agencies. They would have this specifically because they would know that maintaining a good working relationship with the competition was cheaper than constant warfare.
The behavior of gangs (extra-legal security services that operate in essentially an anarchic environment, since their members can’t exactly appeal to a government to mediate many of their disputes) indicates that this is not at all a given.
anarchic environment, since their members can’t exactly appeal to a government to mediate many of their disputes
Except in an anarchist society there wouldn’t be a ban on them appealing to a common arbiter if they wanted to.
And there wouldn’t be anything to force use of outside arbitration. In fact, I’d wager that people used to doing things for themselves would end up engaging more in blood fueds than protracted lawsuits.
If the two parties agreed on the same arbiter, which wouldn’t happen all the time.
If there was some way to force the losing party to comply with the arbiter’s decision.
An arbiter who you can’t avoid, and can’t disobey, is the seed of government. The lack of one in an anarchist society is why no such society bigger than the monkeysphere will last for any length of time.
Except in an anarchist society there wouldn’t be a ban on them appealing to a common arbiter if they wanted to.
And in our current society there is nothing to prevent this, either. A common arbiter has no power to enforce their decision (else they become a government, not an arbiter), and it would be entirely possible for rival gangs to do this, now, if they were amenable to the idea.
And in our current society there is nothing to prevent this
Really? Talk to the guys in jail because he fixed up vehicles that were being used for drug smuggling. Trying to be a law abiding individual and dealing with cartels/gangs is a good way to get put in jail.
All security services would have as a rider in their contracts that clients are required to cooperate with them in investigations into allegations made by other security agencies.
Wouldn’t you rather have a security service that didn’t require you to cooperate with investigations by security agencies you haven’t hired? I mean, when they require to cooperate with a rival agency’s investigation, they aren’t really protecting your interests any more, are they? Seems like the agency that didn’t require you to cooperate with hostile investigations would have a competitive edge.
they would know that maintaining a good working relationship with the competition was cheaper than constant warfare.
Organized crime cartels are formed on the same basis. It never lasts for them, why would it be any different for security services?
Thanks, Jarflax – provocative and entertaining read. Looking forward to Part 2!
Part 2 (maybe 3) is actually what I started to write as a post and decided deserved long treatment. Then as I was thinking about how to discuss the characteristics of proper law it occurred to me that strictly speaking, from a philosophical point of view, I couldn’t just assume the necessity for law and then define characteristics it must have to be proper. So I wrote a paragraph about why we need Government. Then I looked at it and decided that 1. it was very incomplete and not persuasive. 2. The whole thing was boring, so I decided to expand it and add humor (I hope I succeeded at that), next thing I knew I was at 2800 words counting the quotes (and a series of definitions of law that will appear with the next article) and decided it should be two articles. So the next part consists of 3 lines I wrote as a post about how law should fit on bronze plaques displayed in the forum at the moment and it is 50-50 whether a single word of that gets used. Hell it is well within the realm of possibility that I end up writing something entirely different when I do make myself work on it.
Ok so my writing process is painful and somewhat random. I wish I could actually plan a piece and then write it; I’d write much more and maybe make a buck or two from it.
The humor was successful, I love quotes and often use as part of my writing process (to use the term loosely) and your choices provided an excellent set-up.
For those of you who don’t know, I’m a deontological rothbardian ancap. Therefore it behooves me to address Jarflax’s allegation that ancaptopia is unstable and we are doomed to always have a nation state.
I’ll make some observations:
Jarflax is correct to point out that:
* All political systems are unstable, anarchist ones as well as statist ones.
* All societies have rules that are enforced by violence. The degree of violence is based on how harmoniously people get along, which is based on culture and custom.
* In an anarchist society, the violent enforcers of rules will exist, and could – under Jarflax’s metrics – be classified as governments.
But, like most articles on the minarchist/anarchist question, it doesn’t do as good a job as it could do, because it largely leaves a question unaddressed is: what is anarchy anyway?
I think most libertarians don’t adequately consider the question of what is a minarchy, and what is an anarchy. Rather we simply assume that, as in the line between art and pornography, we know it when we see it.
Nor do we anarchists generally do a great job of explaining ourselves. In my opinion the largest failing is that we poorly explain what anarchy is. It starts with a deficit in language; what we anarchists call anarchy is not – strictly speaking – anarchy, which is descended from the ancient greek for “lacking order”. Nor is calling anarchy “no rulers” correct. Every society has rulers. The defining feature is “no violent rulers that impose their will on unwilling subjects”.
So we have to turn to the question of what is a governmental ruler, or what is a government? Strictly speaking, a government is an organization that has the moral authority to use violence. In statist societies, the government is in charge of social violence. They arbitrate disputes. They enforce their judgements and rules violently (if need be). They decide how much violence non-governmental organizations are permitted to use to defend themselves or to impose their private will.
Again, every society has to have people deciding how to handle conflicts, making judgement in disputes, enforcing their decisions, violently if need be, etc. i.e. violent rulers
In an anarchy, every individual is a ruler. The property they own is their nation. The judgement how to use violence to protect their persons or property ultimately lies with them. And since that is a complicated subject, it makes sense for people to delegate the difficult decision-making, weapons-acquisition/training etc to third parties.
In my mind, the way we can discriminate between a minarchy and an anarchy is very simply what happens when a person desires to stop working with one third party and either go their own way or switch to working with another third party. If they can do this freely, it is an anarchy. If they cannot, it is not one.
We don’t need a new libertarian man to create an anarchic society that functions. We just need to tolerate secession as individuals and to convince a critical mass of our neighbors to respect it as well… There’s also some things we could be doing to create the right incentives, but that is a very long article I don’t have time to write.
“We just need to tolerate secession as individuals and to convince a critical mass of our neighbors to respect it as well”
Thanks for fucking that up Lincoln.
This is sort of what Rasilio is discussing above, but the thing is I don’t see that the ability to stop contracting with one third party actually allows you to go your own way. The problem is the distinction between being a client of the arbiters/users of force and being subject to interference from them on behalf of their clients, or on their own. I am willing to go along with the idea that there is a principled distinction between a government and an entity that exercises those force/justice functions on a contractual basis, but I think the moment that entity is able to act against a person who is not in contract with them it has crossed the line into government.
Again though, let me be clear I am not in this piece implying (and I am not sure I believe in at all, although I mean exactly that I am not sure) a moral superiority to Minarchy over Anarcho Capitalism. And don’t be too sure I am implying an advantage in terms of stability to the Minarchy either. (I’m not sure about that myself, we’ll see how the next piece goes, I often end up changing my own mind as I think through implications of things while writing, especially writing with objections in mind).
Ha! That happened to me in a major paper for the only class on philosophy I ever took (Plato’s Republic). I was about two thirds of the way through it when I realized that I was disproving rather than proving my thesis! 😀
Regarding force against third parties, what society will tolerate is basically driven by custom.
Consider the really lawless horrible places you know. They still have rules as to what violence is acceptable and what aren’t. They aren’t very pleasant rules. They aren’t ones you or I might find ethical by any stretch. But there are rules. And if you break those rules, you get hurt and the hand of every man is turned against you.
I’ve been giving this a lot of thought, because I’m about to enter a stage of my life when I have the means and the time to try to devote to a question of my legacy on society. I want to leave the world a freer place than it would be absent my existence.
One of the insights that I’m trying to digest is that freedom is a byproduct of how just a society is, and that how just a society is a function of how much a society tolerates injustice. The more injustice they tolerate and accept, the less free the society is.
The singular problem is to how to dial that tolerance down in a way that improves harmony rather than increasing violent conflict.
“The more injustice they tolerate and accept, the less free the society is.”
A lot of this I think revolves around “high trust” or “low trust” societies. I also think that’s why urban agglomerations *tend* to be more prog/authoritarian; having that many people packed into a small place results in a low trust society so people outsource their trust and security to an Uberstate.
Have you read the Tannehill’s book? They were a strong influence on me in my early college years. They describe some mechanisms to facilitate the sort of social structure you describe.
No I haven’t. You mean the Market for Liberty, right? It’s on my reading list which is growing faster than I can read!
Yup. It’s a worthy read, although tbh I haven’t read it in decades.
Never change, Florida Man. Never change. I wonder if drugs fell out of his ass?
https://www.theblaze.com/news/florida-man-tries-to-evade-police-by-stripping-off-his-clothes-steaks-fall-out-instead
Oh yes they did!
I think I’m going to have to start bringing my own toilet paper to work. My office pretty much uses sandpaper for TP and my anus just can’t take anymore.
John Wayne TP should always be the first thing you get rid of the second you aren’t rolling pennies for food broke.
CharminUltra is like wiping your ass with an angel wrapped in cashmere. Change my mind.
Wrong! Charmin is too powdery. The number one method of clensing is a bidet, by far. Then baby wipes. If you must use disposable paper products Kleenex cottonelle followed by quilted northern plush
This guy wipes.
What an asswipe!
Find me a bidet that will blow dry my undercarriage and I’ll agree with you. Otherwise it’s just anal drippings in my boxers.
Glibertarians.com: Come for the philosophy, stay for the anal drippings.
You still use tp with a bidet. You use approximately 3 squares to pay yourself dry. Brand almost doesn’t matter because you aren’t wiping, you’re patting.
https://www.amazon.com/TOTO-SW2044-01-Electronic-SoftClose/dp/B00UCIOX2Q
Powdery? What Charmin are you using?
Washlet or GTFO.
Angel Soft.
They changed the composition a few years back, it’s shittier than it used to be.
Finally^
Could be worse. I got the shits something fierce in Uzbekistan once while we were at some kind of market. I frantically asked the girl at the rug shop we were in where the bathroom was. I was led to an empty market stall with a very smelly hole in the floor. I was alarmed to see no toilet paper. Ran after the girl to ask her about that. She shrugged, went back to the shop, and returned with a handful of looseleaf graph paper. That was…..uncomfortable.
Considering that toilet paper in Uzbekistan was similar to the kind of rough crepe paper they use to make streamers, I was going to be out of luck no matter what.
East German Toilet Paper
*suffers flashback*
The only way to go is artisanal.
You still don’t know how to use the three shells?
I’ve used notebook paper when I ran out of TP on a FTX. It was… not pleasant.
Carefully inspecting the foliage for size, texture, and durability is a thing I have done.
poison ivy should not be used. I did t use it to wipe my ass but I did use it for bedding.
So swipe left with the graph paper?
I was forewarned to bring my own toilet paper and hand soap when working in China. They don’t stock toilet paper or soap in the factories because it gets stolen.
Thinking back on all the hands I shook disgusts me.
I no longer travel to China, but I still keep a roll of TP and hand sanitizer in the truck and in any backpack I use.
Yep, been there.
Roll of TP (in a ziplock baggie) goes right next to the jumper cables.
If not for the law, warlords would take over
They would steal half your shit
They would take your children from you and train them to love their masters
They would break into your house at night
They would kidnap your loved ones and throw them in cages
Don’t be so utopian, libertards
This is the point where I long for true federalism. If California want to be progtopia, no skin off my nose. If Wyoming wants to be libertopia, more power to them. People will sort themselves accordingly if they are confident that the long, onerous arm of the national government isn’t going to come crashing down on them. The states are aligned for the purposes set forth in the constitution only, and are free to make state laws as they see fit.
Yep. Decentralization and dispersal of power is the ticket.
So how come we ended up with such a powerful fedgov?
“Misery loves company. Or else.”
/prog
Lincoln
That fucker.
Tundra, recall that not long ago, Minneapolis bars banned indoor smoking. So everyone went to the suburbs to smoke-friendly bars. So a couple of years later the nannies said you cant smoke in ANY bar in Minnesota.
Similarly, Minnesota hates the fact that the no-booze sales on Sunday led to the weekend trek of shame across the border to Wisconsin to get booze for football, parties, etc. Even Minnesota knew that people remembered prohibition, so they couldn’t prevent the run to Hudson WI. Eventually they started selling booze on Sundays in Minnesota.
But yeah, it’s “Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory” all over again.
Because it’s a one way ratchet.
And the Feds can issue debt. They figured out it was easier to buy compliance with future taxes than it was to enforce it with violence.
It was basically 3 main steps (many smaller ones as well but 3 main ones)
1. Lincoln decided to prevent the Slave States from leaving the Union which tipped the balance of power from the States to the Federal Government which eliminated the power limits based on Federalism
2. Wilson and the Progressives persuaded people that professional technocratic Government could alleviate the evils of corruption and immorality, which eliminated the power limits based on separation of powers, and on elections/turnover of officials
3. FDR and his brand of Fascistic/soft Socialist technocrats succeeded in using the Depression and WWII to justify expanding the commerce clause to eliminate the limits based on enumerated powers
Voila neutered Constitution.
And one other one too – the 17th Amendment. Senators ceased to represent the interests of the state legislatures that chose them and became just another popularly elected body like the House, making the distinction between the two mostly meaningless and shunting state governments to the backseat.
Lincoln decided to prevent the Slave States from leaving the Union which tipped the balance of power from the States to the Federal Government which eliminated the power limits based on Federalism
Bear with me because i’m going to come full circle:
Lincolns forced retention of the south is a prime example of Government/People/Whatever, using bad people as an example to show why they should be able to do what they want. Lincoln had to keep the Union together to free the slaves (Yes i know that isn’t what the war was about at first, i’m talking about how it is perceived in current understanding). It’s like the Gov using a case against a Child predator to show why they need to have the power to compel you to give your passwords to your electronic devices, and terrorists as why they need back-doors into all encryption.
Its because of this that the GOP can be labeled as racist because many GOPers support things like localized control of policies/schools, weaker Federal Government etc. It is the way the history is taught and how you are taught to trust big daddy Fed Gov to do the right thing, but not your local government, because they are all racists. The way kids and people are taught in is geared to being opposed to freedom, liberty and local control. I think this bears a lot on the GOP’s demographic problems.
Forced government schools support more government. The ultimate self-licking ice cream cone.
Yep, vote with your feet.
We both did..
The problem with decentralization is precisely the problem Jarflax raised with libertopia. States following policies that have bad results ultimately can’t continue those policies in the company of states with better policies.
The States still need to abide by their own founding charters and that of the common government among them.
Some of this conversation has gotten me thinking. We often hear of taxation as theft. But, a more accurate comparison is to a protection racket. Really, the underlying premise is exactly the same. If you pay off Don Corleone, he’ll make sure those goons from the other side of town don’t beat you up and take your stuff. And if you don’t, his goons will beat you up and take your stuff. Isn’t that fundamentally the premise of government? If so, what is the mob other than government for people who don’t have recourse to the “legitimate” government? And which government does a better job of fulfilling that role?
Extortion isn’t the same as burglary, but they are both “theft”.
Both robbery and “nice place you got here, be a shame if anything happened to it” rely on a threat of violence.
As does taxation.
Except the mob isn’t limited by a constitution.
We can certainly argue whether the government currently is, and/or if its compliance could be improved.
Good article. I agree with the premise, so I don’t have much to add, other than I’d like to throw one more quote on the pile:
“Government is an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself” – Ibn Khaldun
“Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.”
-Edward Abbey
Facebook “Escondido Friends” has put me in facebook jail, apparently due to my comment on the ear piercing.
So this has been pending for an hour:
For the love of pete, I’m trying to do some good here!
“How dare you disagree on poking holes in defenseless babies!”
Does that mean you’re locked out of somebody else’s facebook page, or all of facebook?
Just the “Escondido Friends” page. I apparently hit someone’s guilt spot.
Fuck them. I will burn the PC to the ground before I give it to these shit stains. I sent an email to “Jesus Geeks” to see if they want it.
Facebook groups almost always rapidly devolve into high school cliques for adults.
It means the clucking hens don’t want her around their coop anymore.
Facebook “Escondido Friends” has put me in facebook jail,
Given the power to appeal to any authority far to many people are willing to run to it to exact revenge for the most slight of offenses.
I don’t know if this is an argument for or against anarchy.
No GPU? I haz sadz.
Integrated video you can add a video card if you want too.
*sigh*
Thanks to one trip to the butcher shop, it’ll be chicken till payday.
At least that’s wednesday… 😉
But I have to use it up so I don’t forget it’s there. It’d be terrible to open the fridge in three weeks and go “What’s that smell?”
Chicken is versatile. Use your creativity. I’d love to see you post some new, awesome recipes.
Right now I’m testing out jarred plum sauce.
Ooh, did you make it?
No, the sauce comes out of a jar.
Cats.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/12/cats_are_as_loving_as_dogs_you_just_dont_realize_it.html
At home, your pooch is effectively subservient to you; you are the pack leader. Contrastingly, your cat views you as an individual sharing their space. Your dog is faithful to you by nature, but your cat’s affection must be earned.
“Shared space” that they get to lounge around all day in while I go to work in order to pay for all of it.
Additionally, they noted that food is just as much a token of affection as it is a source of nourishment.
Which is why they insist on waking me up at 4am.
^^Shill for Big Pussy^^
Am I that transparent?
https://coconuts.co/public/field/image/15267524_1065625310215214_3725294198940352504_n.jpg
“By accepting stroking, cats are engaging in a social ritual that is reinforcing the bond with their owner.”
You gotta make that pussy purr.
It finally occurred to me that all federal government policies can be explained by the fact that the government hates us and wants us all to die.
Why is the food pyramid structured the way that it is? The government hates us and wants us all to die.
Why the support for socialized medicine? The government hates us and wants us all to die.
The drug war? The government hates us and wants us all to die.
Taking our weapons? The government hates us and wants us all to die.
You get the point.
Put another way: If the government hates us and wants us all to die, would it do anything different?
There’s a reason the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” exists.