eliotn: Not everyone is an anarchist or statist. An anarchist is someone who believes that government is illegitimate, and a statist believes that government is legitimate to some extent. Someone who has not formed any belief about the matter at hand, the question of government's legitimacy, is neither an anarchist or a statist. Hence, if someone is not an anarchist, it does not imply that they are a statist. EDIT: However, if someone has formed a belief about this, and they are not an anarchist, it does imply that they are a statist.
Not everyone is an anarchist or statist. An anarchist is someone who believes that government is illegitimate, and a statist believes that government is legitimate to some extent. Someone who has not formed any belief about the matter at hand, the question of government's legitimacy, is neither an anarchist or a statist. Hence, if someone is not an anarchist, it does not imply that they are a statist.
EDIT: However, if someone has formed a belief about this, and they are not an anarchist, it does imply that they are a statist.
This made my laugh. You did a good job of not getting tripped up in the explanation, but you came pretty close. lol
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student:This made my laugh. You did a good job of not getting tripped up in the explanation, but you came pretty close. lol
explain.
Schools are labour camps.
eliotn:explain.
The EDIT saved you. In Stephanie's case, she is clearly arguing for her version of government, which insofar as I can tell, is not anarchy. Which would make her a statist, whether she likes government or not. As you explained, there are those who believe the state is illegitimate, and then there is everyone else.
The grey area for not having considered it I will give you, although by their actions, most people treat the state as a legitimate entity, even if they have never considered an alternative. This is a knowledge problem, but it doesn't eliminate them as statists.
eliotn:Anarcho-Capitalism misunderstands one of the most essential goals of government. Any particular use of force must be judged by others in society as either an initiation of force or retaliatory force. Any initiation of force is a threat to everyone, not just the particular victim. Anarcho-capitalism assumes that only the two agencies (criminal's and victim's) would be involved.
Sure, except society is not well-represented by government. Instead, the judgement as to the use of force is applied by third party arbitration and mediation. Common law (and/or customary law) require no government to operate. Law isn't a set of rules set up by a governing body, but a process of applying precedents and community standards--that gives a better representation of society than a monopolizing government.
eliotn:Anarcho-capitalism rests on the several flawed notions. First, that putting force on the marketplace will produce positive results. Since markets only produce positive results when the use of force is banned, it is a non-sequitor to say that competition will produce better government. Also, the results of the market are good by the standard of the value-judgments of individuals. It is impossible to say that liberty is what they value.
Markets have proven remarkably resilient, even under government regulations. True, markets work best when the initiation of force doesn't take place, but the alternative is that governments somehow work better at preventing the initiation of force, when history clearly shows that governments tend to use force to restrict competition and forcibly allow privileges for some businesses against other businesses. Governments concentrate power into a single entity that allow special interests to socialize the cost of restricting their competition. Without government, bad guys and bad companies find that not only can they not socialize the costs of restricting competition, but that it's even more expensive and difficult when the opposition is so decentralized, as would be the protection against the bad guys.
Those who value things other than liberty likewise will find that economics works against them, and enforcing values contrary to liberty is expensive and difficult to maintain.
Rogue protection agencies who try to do more than merely protect the rights of their customers will also face these economic disincentives, decentralized opposition, and one more thing: a lack of legitimacy. They would rightly be considered an organization engaging in criminal activity, and thus opposed by the majority of society.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't promising utopia--that may well be impossible for humans to achieve. Instead it offers freedom in the form of more opportunities and alternatives for individuals to choose from in protecting themselves. And by relating the economics of protection with the legalities of protection, the proper economic incentives are in place to minimize crime and corruption, as well as to recognize how much any person actually values such protection, as opposed to the socialized costs, corruption, and one-size-fits-all solutions of the government protection racket.
Objective law will not be achieved by wise philosopher-legislators or by democracy, representative or otherwise, but only by following the basics of human nature and praxeological understanding. The history of such things as common law and Merchant Law show that this is not an imaginary construct that is impossible in reality, but rather that the decentralized compeition of economic forces is the only sustainable system for justice and rights protection. For you minarchists out there, just think of it as the ultimate form of checks and balances.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap