Topic: Criticisms? (Read 11932 times)

So when you say it needs to "reach out of its cage to be effective", are you saying that the commerce clause made the government more effective? Maybe we would have been better off with a much less vague commerce clause, requiring states to reach mutual agreements instead.

I don't think many minarchists will proudly stand by that clause.

No, I mean things like the interstate commerce clause, by which the US federal government has gained at least half of its current mass.

We dont teach people how to think, we teach them what to think and not ask questions. We breed dependence and preach dependence as a moral virtue and we eventually get no one that can live for themselves independently...without initiating force might I add

Unfortunately, we have to get lucky that the majority is ethical and that is a big risk.

Logically, there are four possibilities as to the mixture of good and evil people in the world:

    All men are moral.
    All men are immoral.
    The majority of men are immoral, and a minority moral.
    The majority of men are moral, and a minority immoral.

(A perfect balance of good and evil is practically impossible.)

In the first case (all men are moral), the government is obviously not needed, since evil cannot exist.

In the second case (all men are immoral), the government cannot be permitted to exist for one simple reason. The government, it is generally argued, must exist because there are evil people in the world who desire to inflict harm, and who can only be restrained through fear of government retribution (police, prisons et al). A corollary of this argument is that the less retribution these people fear, the more evil they will do.

However, the government itself is not subject to any force or retribution, but is a law unto itself. Even in Western democracies, how many policemen and politicians go to jail?

Thus if evil people wish to do harm, but are only restrained by force, then society can never permit a government to exist, because evil people will work feverishly to grab control of that government, in order to do evil and avoid retribution. In a society of pure evil, then, the only hope for stability would be a state of nature, where a general arming and fear of retribution would blunt the evil intents of disparate groups. As is the case between nuclear-armed nations, a “balance of power” breeds peace.

The third possibility is that most people are evil, and only a few are good. If that is the case, then the government also cannot be permitted to exist, since the majority of those in control of the government will be evil, and will rule despotically over the good minority. Democracy in particular cannot be permitted, since the minority of good people would be subjugated to the democratic control of the evil majority. Evil people, who wish to do harm without fear of retribution, would inevitably control the government, and use its power to do evil free of the fear of consequences.

Good people do not act morally because they fear retribution, but because they love virtue and peace of mind – and thus, unlike evil people, they have little to gain by controlling the government. In this scenario, then, the government will inevitably be controlled by a majority of evil people who will rule over all, to the detriment of all moral people.

The fourth option is that most people are good, and only a few are evil. This possibility is subject to the same problems outlined above, notably that evil people will always want to gain control over the government, in order to shield themselves from just retaliation for their crimes. This option only changes the appearance of democracy: because the majority of people are good, evil power-seekers must lie to them in order to gain power, and then, after achieving public office, will immediately break faith and pursue their own corrupt agendas, enforcing their wills through the police and the military. (This is the current situation in democracies, of course.) Thus the government remains the greatest prize to the most evil men, who will quickly gain control over its awesome power – to the detriment of all good souls – and so the government cannot be permitted to exist in this scenario either.

It is clear, then, that there is no situation under which a government can logically or morally be allowed to exist.

What do you mean by "reach out of its cage"? Are you talking about the slight or uncommon exceptions most people will tolerate, like DUI self-incrimination and Guantanamo torture?

Government, in order to be effective, must be able to reach outside of it's cage. Any cage that will allow it to reach outside, is not strong enough to hold it.

In saying that, Hitler was elected. The majority can and is wrong. Under a completely free system like you advocate, what is stopping people voting/electing/paying for a "police" service that attacks others of a certain race/religion etc. This could absolutely happen and it could be feudalism in a sense. With no Gov or document that protects against that one thing - protecting against initiators of force - than technically no one has to. Yes if we are dealing with ideal citizens that think correctly they wont do this, but we are dealing with reality. People are irrational and they would do this.

You might be surprised. New Hampshire is trending rapidly towards little or no government, as it is the focus of the Free State Project. Inherent oxymoron aside, it's a great idea, and you should at least look into it.

So, the second part of your question could be rephrased as "If there is no monopoly on law, how will law be maintained?"

The answer to that is simultaneously simple, and complex. The simple answer (as it is with most libertarian questions) is "the market will decide upon a fair system". That's going to seem like handwaving, and in a sense, it is. But there is a more involved answer, which explains exactly how the market will decide upon a fair system of law, which I will briefly summarize here:

Private law is practiced by what are called arbiters. Arbitration is already a common practice in business, where they don't want to bring their dealings into court. In any dispute, there are two sides. Both would like to see the dispute resolved as fairly (for them) as possible. Since both sides would like a fair shake, they both seek arbiters who will deal with them fairly. Perhaps they can even agree on one. That would be best, since it's cheaper for all concerned. But perhaps they cannot decide on a single arbiter. In that case they each choose one who they feel will best represent their case, and these two arbiters then agree on a third, who will ultimately decide their case. Arbiters who have a reputation for dealing fairly will get more business than those who do not.

That's the nutshell description, you'll get a more in-depth examination of the system if you read the books I provide in the "book club" thread.

That quote always bothers me. It's an appeal to consequences with conveniently no anarchist comparison, against a useful but imperfect safety mechanism.

Lysander Spooner's quote, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” gets truer every day.

We have tried to limit government once, and you are right it hasnt worked. Now the question is whether a government CAN potentially do it or if no Gov can do better.

First of all no gov is not an option that will happen in the near future (neither is limited gov) but we are thinking ideally. A government could make sure that their are certain "laws" that are essential for all citizens i.e. no initiating force. Then we could have private systems of protection, but otherwise if there is no government what makes sure that even that "law" is maintained across all police forces?

US was just a first try and it got stronger faster than any other country ever...for the first hundred fifty years. Now it is nowhere near what it should be and it shows.

Except for one thing.... Government, by its existence, is breaking it's own stated reasoning for existence.

"We must protect you from theft and murder, so therefor we must take your money. Oh, and if you disagree, we'll kill you."

We need someone to protect peoples rights otherwise they are taken by force. We need an authority to protect us against the use of force from outsiders and also from insiders (criminals and the gov).

Gov makes this easy