Wed, Sep 26 2007 11:25 AM JonBostwick

Legitimate Violence?

Classic liberals, today often called minarchists, often talk about the legitimate functions of governments.  Being libertarians, these people understand the nature of government is violence and coercion. Their various versions boil down to claiming the only legitimate government role is defending us and our property from others. By this they mean the political method is only legitimate when used to distribute protection services. The economic method is trade, the political method is taking. Thus, the only appropriate tax is one spent towards the production of police, military, and legal services.

That the protection industry is the last to be viewed as a legitimate use of the political method is easy to understand. Politics and protection are a natural pairing, as both are built on violence. If violence is justified in the defense of property, then can not further violence be justified to ensure the creation of that defense? Once you have justified violence, you have justified the State. The State, once justified,  faces the slippery slope towards totalitarianism that the American Political System is still on.

 

Filed under: , ,

# re: Legitimate Violence?

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:41 PM by JAlanKatz

Among the fallacies related to this view:

1-The government is instituted to protect private property - that is, to ensure that people who own property get to keep this.  To do so, the government takes away private property.

2-The miniarchist view seems to defeat itself, or at least contradict itself, in this way - it is deemed proper to provide protection, but not to assist people in other ways, such as when a hurricane knocks over their house.  So here I am, instead of facing a hurricane, facing a mugger.  I am able to demand that you protect me, on this view, and you must - legally - do so.  So why not for protection against other misfortunes?

3-Why protect private property at all, seeing as how it is just conditional once we accept the existence of the state?

# re: Legitimate Violence?

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:32 PM by Jim OConnor

For me the minarchist view was a comfortable resting place on the path to realizing that a state reduced to a couple functions can be reduced further, and the world better off for it. I would have had a hard time emotionally accepting the anarcho-capitalist position cold-turkey.

Since we're brainwashed from birth about the absolute necessity of the State trying to make the jump can be quite uncomfortable.

I agree that if we were to attain anarcho-capitalism it would be huge mistake to then decide to go to minarchism as an "improvement". We've seen how well that works.

# re: Legitimate Violence?

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:10 PM by Stanislaw

naah, where I come from nobody calls classic liberals libertarians.

# re: Legitimate Violence?

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:56 PM by JonBostwick

Thanks for the feed back.

JAlanKatz,

2. is how all new government functions are justified.

"The Political Method is used to do this, why can't it do this other important thing?"