Mises' minarchism

Brainpolice:

pointing out some distinctions between the objectivist view and the libertarian anarchist view (namely, that objectivism retains the territorial monopoly on law) and clearly distinguishing minarchism from anarchism

There is no real distinction between your "anarchy" and objectivist minarchy. Where is the difference between private property and state? In both cases you can: restrict competition on territorial dominion, collect rent/taxes, expel peaple from territory - love it or leave it. Seriously, where is the difference? And yes, in both cases you retain the territorial monopoly on law (on your land). Anarchism as a concept is pointless. It has nothing to do with reality. Even "anarcho-communists" would have territorial monopoly of force with theirs communitarian municipalities, because absolute communal ownership is impossible. In practice we would have polyarchy of "natural elites", or communitarian slavery.

 

Your DRO’s would have a real control over peaple. So called “anarchism” is just atteritorial competing goverments. Atteritorialism is the only key difference from libertarian minarchism. Why territorial government (Randian no taxes state) is “archon”, but atteritorial is not? Think about it. You should not be afraid to recognize what "anarchism" is in fact - bullshit.

There is no real distinction between your "anarchy" and objectivist minarchy.

Sure there is, and you yourself already know what the distinctions are.

There is no real distinction between your "anarchy" and objectivist minarchy. Where is the difference between private property and state?

In the case of hardline anarcho-capitalism (particularly in its Hoppean manifestation, a distinction you yourself very well are aware of), you're correct, because it isn't anarchism, it's monarchy (which is what a "private government" is). In that particular case, "private property" and "state" do merge into the same thing. The anarcho-communists face the opposite (or not so opposite?) problem (I.E. the problem of what distinguishes them from marxists and vangaurd statists - often, little to nothing).

Your DRO’s would have a real control over peaple.

I don't advocate the DRO model. Go argue with Stefan Molyneux if you want to argue against DRO's - just don't expect the man to honestly debate you, since he doesn't honestly debate anyone (me and numerous others can attest to that). But you're right: as far as I can tell, a DRO is the seed of a "private" territorial government that can initiate force.

So called “anarchism” is just atteritorial competing goverments.

This was Rand's argument. It failed and was disingenous. I'm wondering if you're purposefully using her arguement to annoy.

Why territorial government (Randian no taxes state) is “archon”, but atteritorial is not?

Because rigid territorialism is binding on whoever is within a territory, while aterritorialism is not. That's a huge difference - it's the difference between "love it or leave it" and having the option to secede *without moving*.

Oh, and I find it a little odd that someone who obcessively was my cheerleader (against my own good sense) a month ago suddenly becomes an anti-anarchist antagonist. You came off as confused the entire time but I kept my silence.

You should not be afraid to recognize what "anarchism" is in fact - bullshit.

And this is coming from someone who was an anarchist for a couple of months, who briefly "tried it on" as if it was an article of clothing and was calling themself a mutualist like a week ago, then suddenly became a Stirnerite a few days later, only to "ditch" anarchism? Ha! Give me a break. You went from "agorist" to "mutualist" to "stirnerite" in not much more than a handful of weeks, while being obviously confused about Stirner in the interum. Of course, this is what usually happens when people dive head first into Stirnerism - they become hostile to the entire libertarian movement and embrace a defeatist "inevitability of authoritarianism" doctrine, as if it's some sort of iron law of nature.

Brainpolice:

Go argue with Stefan Molyneux if you want to argue against DRO's - just don't expect the man to honestly debate you, since he doesn't honestly debate anyone (me and numerous others can attest to that).

Man, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Kregus:

There is no real distinction between your "anarchy" and objectivist minarchy. Where is the difference between private property and state? In both cases you can: restrict competition on territorial dominion, collect rent/taxes, expel peaple from territory - love it or leave it.

Did you see Roderick's response to your comment?

I think what you're missing here is a theory of property. According to libertarian property theory, if A owns property, the State is aggressing against him if it tries to use his property without his consent, e.g. taxation, regulation. But A is allowed to expel people from his property because he owns it. Market anarchism can be summed up in the phrase "Other people are not your property."

So there are some similarities between private property and the State, but the crucial difference is that private property owners are acting within their rights, whereas the State is violating rights.

Anarchism doesn't abolish sovereignty. Rather, it transfers sovereignty from the State to the individual.

Brainpolice:

a distinction you yourself very well are aware of), you're correct, because it isn't anarchism, it's monarchy

Brainpolice:

he doesn't honestly debate anyone

 

I think the key difference between anarchism and minarchism that is municipal orientated, would be over toleration of some taxation.  If you have a government not supported by taxes that only enforces civil and victim related crimes, its basically an anarchist community.  I would think no matter what system you have within anarchism, you may be able to opt out for the most part, but no community is going to tolerate people causing serious harm to others such as murder or theft.  You are not going to be able to say "oh your law doesn't apply, I seceded"  I think mutualist anarchism and a left leaning libertarian minarchism are probably quite similar.  Before you get to anarchism you will probably have to go through varying forms of minarchism until you figure out a way to support the community in protecting its citizens without taxation.  It might end up like a user tax or "dues" like a private community fee.  of course that to, begins to look a bit tax like, the way you gather it might matter though.  If its a user fee then its not coercive, if you don't pay you don't get the benefits.

What justification does Mises give for the state?

Mises' justification is neat. Mises likes the state, so it must be good. Oh wait. Mises is an amoralist but he still believes that the state has the 'right' to exist, because it serves 'public utility' or something. Isn't that an awesome display of genius ?

He sure didn't buy into revealed religion nonsense like Natural Law unlike some of his students.

Uh oh. You know, the fact that people like aquinas babbled about natural rights doesn't mean natural rights are part of revealed religion. Didn't you notice ? They are called 'natural' rights. Not 'supernatural and revealed' rights. Just saying...