"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
A Quick Response to Per Bylund
Column by John deLaubenfels.
Exclusive to STR
Per Bylund's most recent column on STR is titled Why Minarchists Are the Enemy. That's a pretty strong statement, especially as it identifies minarchists not as AN enemy, but THE enemy, and the text of his column reinforces rather than softens the message. We read, for example, that (in some sense at least) "minarchist libertarians are nothing but gutless wimps" who are "statist socialists with a fetish."
Full disclosure: I'm somewhere between a "minarchist libertarian" and an anarchist. I'm not convinced that either will result in a stable society that consistently dispenses justice, given the apparently intractably flawed nature of humankind. However, I don't take particular personal offense at Mr. Bylund's accusations, but rather find them wildly off the mark.
Mr. Bylund seems to be confused as a result of using sloppy definitions of terms such as "minarchist libertarian" (I'll use ML for short). He accuses the group, for example, of responding to the question of who will provide for helpless individuals in society by answering, "government will take care of this matter." I've NEVER met a self-professed ML who would answer the question in that way, and would assert that no rational definition of ML would lead to such a response.
It's true that some people who self-identify as MLs almost certainly do make silly statements that reveal them to be statists in libertarian clothing. So what? It's also true that there are people who describe themselves as anarchists, who advocate throwing bombs into crowds as a way of promoting a better society. Shall we therefore state, "Anarchists are murderers who delight in bloody chaos"? The statement is as absurd as Mr. Bylund's is about MLs.
A minarchist libertarian, as I define the term, is someone who believes that human beings are born with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. It may well be the case (as time goes by I'm more and more convinced it IS the case) that any government will, over time, grow and encroach on basic rights, until it no more secures rights than a thief in an alley does. It is perfectly reasonable to question the practicality of trying to bring to pass a minarchist's dream of the best possible society. It is nothing short of ridiculous to try to dismiss all MLs as statists in disguise, as Mr. Bylund does.
I would never ask Mr. Bylund to consort with people whose philosophies are at genuine odds with his own. I would ask him to consider, however, that by going out of his way to promote infighting among people who really are on the same side of the liberty question as he is, he may be illustrating the maxim (apologies to Edmund Burke) "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to squander their energies fighting each other."
(5 votes)
PrintUser Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
I couldn't have said it better myself, John! No one has ever expanded their movement by hunting for heretics among their friends.
I think Bylund was only hunting for the "friends" who would use the demonstrated threat of violence to impose their wills upon all of us. Anyone who takes issue with that is a sycophantic goon.
Nice comment, and thanks for "Anyone who takes issue with that is a sycophantic goon." -- gave me my first laugh of the day.
People who advocate aggression against you are not your friends.
" ... human beings are born with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."
Here you will have to define government in order to make your position clear. How is the government created? Unanimously? By a majority? How does it fund itself? By taxation, the mandatory payment to government with the threat of violence behind it? But if you call this taxation voluntary, as those who do not wish to pay can simply leave, then how does the government acquire its jurisdiction to begin with? How can it possibly extend beyond the collection of private properties that the voluntary members rightfully own? And if a government participant decides to drop out, can he stay on his own property, or does the government's claim trump his, and he has to leave?
In other words, is your definition of government free from coercion and aggression or not? If so, it is not in the category of what most people consider to be government, but of course you are free to call it one if you like.
If the definition does include coercion and aggression, then how can it be something other than Statism?
Exactly.
Anarchism boils down to this: "you don't have the right to decide for me."
Any government requiring unanimous consent to be instituted is simply a business since the requirement of 100% consent implies the recognition of each person's sovereignty and thus the proposed method of establishing order (government) is in competition with alternatives. Any government not requiring unanimous consent is by definition the imposition of the will of some men onto others. Just how inalienable do you think those rights are?
Minarchist libertarians - no such thing. Calling yourself a libertarian means nothing if you don't advocate liberty.
"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." - Tyler Durden, Fight Club
G'day tzo,
Great questions.
" ... human beings are born with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [sic], and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."
Here you will have to define government in order to make your position clear.
It seems to me that that quote from the American declaration of secession defines “government” as a “rights security institution”, and nothing more.
To quote Frédéric Bastiat, “It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.” ~ http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
“How is the government created?”
If we looked at things as they should be, instead of as they have always been, I believe you would have asked your question in this fashion, “How should a de jure (rightful) government be created?”
“Government is and ought to be nothing whatever but the united power of the people [its members], organized, not to be an instrument of oppression and mutual plunder among citizens [its members]; but, on the the contrary, to secure to every one [member] his own, and to cause justice and security to reign.” ~ Frédéric Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/government.html
Thus it would be “unanimous”.
How does it fund itself?
Funding would be the decision of it's members, but most likely it would be funded by “agreed-upon membership dues”.
...with the threat of violence behind it?
Not at all, as you wrote, “those who do not wish to pay can simply leave”, and by “leave”, is meant, “leave the group”, i.e. “withdraw from membership in the rights security institution”, not leave their land.
...then how does the government acquire its jurisdiction to begin with? How can it possibly extend beyond the collection of private properties that the voluntary members rightfully own?
Most people believe that “jurisdiction” has only to do with territory, but this is not so. As old Noah Webster correctly pointed out, jurisdiction is “the legal power of authority of doing justice in cases of complaint; the power of executing the laws and distributing justice. Jurisdiction, is limited to place or territory, to persons, or to particular subjects.”
We should not confuse “distributing justice” with “defense”. Jurisdiction is “the power of executing the laws and distributing justice” among the voluntary members of the rights security institution, and should not be confused with the “the collective...right to lawful defense”. Under the Natural Law every free man has the “individual right to lawful defense” against ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES UPON HIS RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, and as Frédéric pointed out, a rightful (de jure) government “is [nothing more than] the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense,” against ANYONE, (even non-members), WHO TRESPASSES UPON HIS RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY.
The next minarchist that takes the time to respond to these questions in a thorough and thoughtful manner as did Suverans2 will be the first one in my experience. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
That was indeed a thoughtful reply.
What you describe sounds like a club, voluntary organization, or dare I say it....business. If it indeed requires 100% consent and does not declare monopoly jurisdiction, it is not a state. Sure, you can call it a "government" if it makes you happy, but what you describe is not minarchy. It is anarchy.
Minarchist libertarians are often people that are on a path to becoming full fledged anarchist libertarians. These things take time to absorbe and internalize. To pick fights with Min-libs for their philosophical shortcomings above all others is somewhat counterproductive. Creating enemy imagery and an "us vs them" divide is not going to help one win any arguments.
"Creating enemy imagery and an "us vs them" divide is not going to help one win any arguments."
Who is creating an enemy? The libertarian that refuses to impose his preferences on others? Or the mini-statist, who says, in essence "I'm not sure how things will work without a state, so until I'm convinced, I advocate everyone be enslaved so that I feel comfortable." The person advocating aggression (the mini-statist) is clearly the one responsible for the necessity of the term enemy. What else do you call someone who advocates violence against you for simply disagreeing (allowing dissent in words, but not in action, is not any form of tolerance)?
Per is not "creating" anything. He is simply identifying an already existing antagonism that is the fault of those advocating aggression.
This is the odd notion that "only the truth matters, let the chips fall where they may". A very nice position to take - until one finds oneself at the end of a noose.
Fact is, people matter too. We have to find some place for ourselves in this world. It's hard to do that when you are going around calling 98% of the human race "enemies".
I once had an argument with an objectivist. Like anyone else infected with the "only the truth matters" meme, he was sure he had a direct line to the truth. I did not call him an "enemy" (to my recollection). What I did do, however, is repeatedly ask why he would not let me escape from control in his ideal state. Why did he feel it necessary to coerce me? Why didn't he simply leave me alone?
I can't say if he will change his mind due to my tactic, but I'm pretty sure putting him in the category of "enemy" would not have done the job. And at least potentially, that would have been a sub-optimal outcome FOR ME, since I have to live in the same world as that guy. Not to mention, the other observers of the exchange got the message I wanted them to get, rather than being turned off by name calling.
I will admit, though, that whacking others can give a little temporary emotional boost to oneself. I suppose that goes on the plus side of the ledger, for what it's worth.
Only 98%? Wow, I guess we're making progress! :)
Civility is a good thing in the battleground of ideas. Mercy is not. Bad ideas have bad consequences and there is never benefit from tolerating them. Over 30 million people have been killed by the American experiment in "limited government"; many millions more maimed, imprisoned or impoverished. This isn't just about calling each other names. A flawed philosophy will always eventually lead to negative results and any attempt to combat aggression with aggression will always lead to aggression (by definition).
The minarchist criticism of anarchism as something only existing in theory is also true about minarchism. Has there ever been a sustained "minimal" state? Ever? It's a little annoying to be lectured about being "realistic" by a group who themselves have no empirical evidence in support of their ideal (I'm not conceding there is no empirical support for anarchism, only applying the same level of demand for evidence demanded by minarchists).
Likewise, in the quest for converts, I'm not seeing the obvious superiority of one approach over the other. Authentic minarchism isn't exactly a mainstream point of view. Of even this recent Tea Party movement, what percent can honestly be referred to as converts to the minarchist philosophy? Purist support for the US Constitution is hardly support of a minimal state (regulation of commerce and the provision of a post office, for starters, are above and beyond basic protection services) and what percent of the Tea Party are even pure Constitutionalists? There is an acknowledged "Palin/Paul divide" and it is clear the "Palin wing", at least, doesn't count as embracing minarchism.
I am solidly convinced (and not alone) that ideas are what shape this world, not force (since the guidance and response to force is determined by ideas). The only chance of "increasing freedom" or actually achieving liberty is to help bring about a paradigm shift in enough people (a critical mass) to make a difference.
The problem is that minarchism is not a paradigm shift. It's a nuance within the existing paradigm. It still rests on the premise that aggression is acceptable as a means to an end. There is no principle that restrains aggression once it is accepted as "necessary". Your preferences vs. the preferences others. No logic or "truth" to say who is right or wrong.
I watch The Daily Show...daily and always cringe when some "conservative" is on to talk about "limited government". Stewart eviscerates them since there is no principle for limited government and he exposes them very quickly. It becomes clear to all who are watching what an sham standing on the principle of "partial slavery" is.
Liberty is a paradigm shift. It is principle. It is a line in the sand. Liberty doesn't hem and haw over what percent of a tax is "just". Theft is wrong. People who advocate theft are evil. Did that hurt someone's feewings? Then they should stop advocating theft. Once they've been called out on it, if they persist, they don't deserve to be coddled. Liberty means I get to choose for me. Not for you. Will I only feel safe if there is a minimal state to protect me? Too bad. I don't get to choose for other people, and all states require that conceit.
Squabbling about who the master is, or how he should treat us has been the status quo for thousands of years and the result is that liberty has (with but rare exception) only existed in peoples' minds. Are we insane enough to think the same methods will someday result in something better?
I see no evidence that converting the world to minarchism is any more a simple task than converting them to libertarianism. So if you're starting with a monumental task, why would you knowingly embrace an incoherent philosophy? What kind of potency can that ever have?
Instead, as I mentioned in another thread, minarchy is the siren's song to prevent people from discovering liberty. Those who are entranced by it may yet be saved, but those who sing it are indeed the enemies of liberty.
Of course, how you approach individuals in conversation is an entirely different matter. It is only the entrenched minarchist who I would accuse of being an enemy. Patience and compassion are definitely the order of the day for the person struggling with these concepts, but still willing to try.
Reading so much verbiage devoted to attacking minarchism, gives me the impression you think I am arguing FOR minarchism. In case I haven't been clear enough, I will say again, I think minarchism is a mistake. I oppose it.
"minarchy is the siren's song to prevent people from discovering liberty. Those who are entranced by it may yet be saved, but those who sing it are indeed the enemies of liberty."
Have you seen anyone walking down the street singing "minarchism is great"? :-) Let's stick to reality, rather than flights of fancy. And no, 98% of the human race are not my enemies. Thinking so is self-defeating, paralyzing. They are merely mistaken, and can either be persuaded toward the truth, or at least toward minding their own business. Except some smaller percentage who really are enemies (essentially the ruling class and other associated parasites).
But it appears we are saying the same thing here.
Excellent, John. I'm glad to see I am not alone here.
"It is nothing short of ridiculous to try to dismiss all MLs as statists in disguise, as Mr. Bylund does."
It's right there in the self-applied label. Minarchist. Minimum government. Minimum State. And so you are quite correct—MLs are not Statists in disguise at all—they are in fact self-proclaimed Statists.
Ignorance and fear are the only enemies, and the only blocks to seeing that all of us who live deep inside need to know that we are free. The one who says freedom has never existed has not freed his or her mind from the statist meme. Or perhaps sometimes we feel we have to sing the statist's song in order to avoid being punished for our free thoughts, which we therefore keep to ourselves. Everything we do, each choice we make to act or not act and in what manner advances or detracts from our own individual liberty and that of our fellow man. Including going undercover/anonymous if that is necessary to survive, I suppose, but be careful because hypocrisy and deceit are not at all healthy, and yet I can think of nothing more honorable than choosing the probability of one's own demise rather than living in a way that one believes to be wrong. On the other hand, I don't want to die, I want to live. How can I prosper in a land where 98% of the wealth available to be exchanged is fruit of the poisoned tree? (I'm referring to my native planet here) How can I be openly in favor of freedom and live free at the same time?
Good observation, dhowlandjr. I live in a world not of my making. Well, I should qualify that: the world revolves around MY belly-button, not yours! My world.
The factor that helps me to be free is my knowledge that YOUR world revolves around YOUR belly-button -- whether you admit it or not. If you and I disagree it's not because I'm bad or even disagreeable. It's because your experiences, strengths and hopes have led you to see the thing differently. [But you're wrong! -- naw, just kidding :-)]. I can and must take certain responsibility for the condition of my world (or how I perceive my world and how I react to it).
I am a sovereign state. I so declared myself shortly after reading Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" in the mid 70's. That simply means I'm self-governing. I did not go up to a "state" or a "court" house and voluntarily file some "legal" document with employees of state. No sir ree, Bob!
There will be a number of pogroms designed to prove to me that I cannot govern myself -- that I must pledge allegiance to a flag and be a part of a state right here in the-land-of-the-free-and-the-home-of-the-brave -- that I should be grateful for all these marvelous "benefits" delivered by parasites of state. And that I should vote.
A major life challenge is to work my way around those who truly believe they have a "social contract" to rule me. Freedom is not free. They will rob me and they will try to enslave me by appearing to "require" me to sign this or some other document "under penalty of perjury" (and without "due process") to reveal stuff they have no need to know about my person or my property.
My goal is to remain free in spite of their machinations. It is possible and it is preferred.
Yes, you can.
Sam
"It may well be the case (as time goes by I'm more and more convinced it IS the case) that any government will, over time, grow and encroach on basic rights, until it no more secures rights than a thief in an alley does. It is perfectly reasonable to question the practicality of trying to bring to pass a minarchist's dream of the best possible society."
I'd like to hear how any government can act as a government at all without violating basic rights.
I can certainly see how someone could fear that anarchy will not produce a stable society, but I cannot see how that fear could ever justify collaboration in the violation of rights - and such collaboration is inherent in government.
You can't have minarchy without holding a gun to the heads of innocent people and your misgivings about anachy cannot justify that.
G'day John T. Kennedy,
You asked, "I'd like to hear how any government can act as a government at all without violating basic rights."
The answer is, by being restricted, by its author(s)/members to its sole lawful function, which is that of protecting the natural, and therefore un- or in-alien-able[1], rights of its members, and nothing more.
The only lawful author-ity that a de jure government can have is that which is delegated to it by its authors, and its authors cannot delegate author-ity to it, which said authors do not lawfully possess, individually, in the first place. This is the Foundational Stone that is missing, as far as I know, from all the man-made governments on Earth.
Thomas Jefferson, among others, understood this principle, I believe, since he wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that [is to say] they are endowed by their Creator [or by nature] with certain unalienable Rights... — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".
Hope that answered your question.
________________________________________________________________________________
[1] "...innate, inalienable human rights cannot be lost due to circumstance" ~ tzo
Nor can a man be alienated from them by positive law, i.e. by human laws.
Why are our natural rights sometimes referred to as our "inalienable rights", or "unalienable rights"?
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams
Because a man cannot be "alienated" from his natural rights "by human laws", but rather only by his own individual authority, either by express or tacit consent or by forfeiture (a form of implied consent).
Jefferson's formulation is excellent except for one fatal flaw.
Just powers are derived from consent, but "consent of the governed" is a contradictions in terms. If you and I agree to cooperate to protect each other's natural rights that agreement can produce just powers by consent. but the relationship is a private contract, not a government.
Where there is consent there is no need for government, contract suffices. Where there is govenment you can be certain that consent of all relevant parties has not been obtained. When President, Jefferson did not have the consent of all Americans to wield power on their behalf.
McDonalds has a complex operating structure in principle based entirely on consent. Just powers are derived form this consent. A manager has the just power to hire or fire based on his agreement with the company. Shareholders have the just power to hire or fire upper management, or to buy and sell shares of the company according to the rules which have been produced by consent.
Is McDonalds a government though? No.
Let's say instead of producing food McDonalds produced protection of natural rights. It could still derive just powers form consent, but it still wouldn't be a government. It would just be a private company baset on contract, the way it is now.
Government by it's nature always asserts a monoply on force, by force. Obviously there is no need to enforce a monopoly where consent exists.
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Gilmer (c.1816)
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another"
And you cannot govern without committing aggression. If you and I contract by consent the who governs who?
Can you explain how American government, for instance, could arise by consent? Do you think it did?
You cannot govern defensively, as Thomas Jefferson reportedly, and presumably, wrote?
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Gilmer (c.1816)
Notwithstanding that he perhaps should have wrote, "...to declare and [defend] only our natural rights..."
No, you can't morally do it. You may indeed contract with people to declare and defend natural rights, but that is no more a government than McDonalds.
But try making such a contract. A government will tell you that you may not generally contract to defend your natural rights by force, nor even do it on your own. You are not allowed to do the job claimed by the government monopoly police, nor hire anyone else to do it. If you don't like McDonalds food you can patronize the Burger King next door or start your own restaurant. If you don't like the rights protection you're getting for your government monopoly you can vote every few years.
It is clearly immoral for governments to prevent competition in rights defense, but if they didn't do it they wouldn't be governments any more, they'd just be private contracts.
G'day John,
We can't "morally" create a government 'whose' the sole duty is to "govern defensively, as Thomas Jefferson reportedly, and presumably, wrote", a government which only protects it members natural rights, and nothing more? Why would that be "immoral", for heaven's sake? I can see it being "illegal", because your government doesn't like competition, but I can't see it being "immoral", i.e. being against the natural law, the law of free unincorporated men.
You wrote: "But try making such a contract. A government will tell you that you may not generally contract to defend your natural rights by force, nor even do it on your own. You are not allowed to do the job claimed by the government monopoly police, nor hire anyone else to do it."
I thought that both individuals and groups hired private body guards all the time. Are you saying that's illegal (if you are a citizen)? It certainly isn't unlawful for non-members, i.e. non-citizens, i.e. free men.
"We can't "morally" create a government 'whose' the sole duty is to "govern defensively, as Thomas Jefferson reportedly, and presumably, wrote", a government which only protects it members natural rights, and nothing more? Why would that be "immoral", for heaven's sake? "
An agency which only protected rights and never violated them is possible and moral, but it would not be a government.
"I thought that both individuals and groups hired private body guards all the time. Are you saying that's illegal (if you are a citizen)?"
I'm saying that the government reserves complete authority over what private body guards may legally do. If someone swipes your plasma TV and puts it in his house your private security forces can't enter against his will and retrieve it, only police can. The morality of the act is the same for either agency, but the state enforces a monopoly on the legal right to do it.
If the government stopped preventing non-agressing private agencies from competing in the production of *all* rights protecting services it would cease to be a government since it would be morally, legally, and functionally indistinguishable from private protection agencies. If it continues to impose a monopoly by force it remains a government, and obviously violates natural rights.
Ah, now I understand, We can "morally" create a government 'whose' sole duty is to "govern defensively, as Thomas Jefferson reportedly, and presumably, wrote", a government which only protects it members natural rights, and nothing more...but it is "immoral" for us to call it a government; we must call it an "agency".
It's not immoral to call such an agency a government, it misunderstands the essential character of government. You can call a jelly donut a government if you like, but then the assertion "all governments are filled with jelly" won't advance a political discussion much. You could call McDonalds a government, they even have elections like a government along with a charter and bylaws. Is McDonalds a government?
You pointed out that we may already legally hire bodyguards and contract for services through a private protection/security company whose function is to protect it's clients natural rights and nothing more. That seems to fit your description of a moral government just fine, so why don't you recognize such a private security firm as a government? Who is the firm governing?
If you think about it I think you'll realize you already know there is a difference between such a firm and a government, even if you don't quite recognize what the difference is yet.
Let me paraphrase part of a letter from Roy Childs to Ayn Rand :
http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html
The quickest way of showing why government must either initiate force or cease being a government is the following: Suppose that I were distraught with the service of the government in my society. Suppose that I judged, being as rational as I possibly could, that I could secure the protection of my contracts and the retrieval of stolen goods at a cheaper price and with more efficiency. Suppose I either decide to set up an institution to attain these ends, or patronize one which a friend or a business colleague has established. Now, if he succeeds in setting up the agency, which provides all the services of government, and restricts his more efficient activities to the use of retaliation against aggressors, there are only two alternatives as far as the pre-existing "government" is concerned: (a) It can use force or the threat of it against the new institution, in order to keep its monopoly status in the given territory, thus initiating the use of threat of physical force against one who has not himself initiated force. Obviously, then, if it should choose this alternative, it would have initiated force. Q.E.D. Or: (b) It can refrain from initiating force, and allow the new institution to carry on its activities without interference. If it did this, then the pre-exisiting "government" would become a truly marketplace institution, and not a "government" at all. There would be competing agencies of protection, defense and retaliation – in short, free market anarchism.