Suppose that a glorious revolution overthrows the government of your country and the revolutionaries assemble in order to draft a new constitution. The two main factions are the majority Sons of Liberty (pro-state) and the Congress of Free Courts (anti-state). As per the minarchist ideology, the new constitution establishes a monopoly on justice that grants legislative power to an elected body. The minority Congress of Free Courts walks out of the assembly in disgust and vows to disobey the new government.
Once you have been elected president of the new minarchist republic, would you launch a war against the CFC in order to subjugate them to your new government?
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
Awesome. I am so interested in a reply to this.
Me too, old friend. One thing I can guarantee though, if they did decide to come after us, I think they'd be met with a little more fight than they expected.
The schizophrenic Tyler Cowen
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Stranger:Once you have been elected president of the new minarchist republic, would you launch a war against the CFC in order to subjugate them to your new government?
Exacly what I've said previously: Limited government is a meaningless distinction. In the end, you either believe in secession or subjugation.
Exactly why couldn't an agreement be negotiated to split the community into two parts, one with a voluntaristic government that would do voluntaristic government things, and the other with a pleasant anarchists' utopia? Would that be somehow contrary to the spirit of anarchy-smashing objector-subjugating minarchy?
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Donny with an A:Exactly why couldn't an agreement be negotiated to split the community into two parts, one with a voluntaristic government that would do voluntaristic government things, and the other with a pleasant anarchists' utopia? Would that be somehow contrary to the spirit of anarchy-smashing objector-subjugating minarchy?
Exactly why is a voluntary government a limited government? Who needs limits if everything is voluntary?
Because the Congress of Free Courts has members all over the country in every city. You can't draw a line around them.
I'm not sure in what a way a voluntary government wouldn't be limited...Perhaps your confusion results from not recognizing the binding nature of a contractual agreement?
Regarding Stranger's response, how would the Congress of Free Courts differ from Nozick's protective associations?
Donny with an A:I'm not sure in what a way a voluntary government wouldn't be limited...Perhaps your confusion results from not recognizing the binding nature of a contractual agreement?
My point hinges on a different definition of government than what you're speaking of then, which means to say that governments are not possibly voluntary.
Donny with an A:Regarding Stranger's response, how would the Congress of Free Courts differ from Nozick's protective associations?
First, the congress seems to just be a confederation of each protective defense agency, whereas Nozick seems to be mischieviously implying a state before he establishes it.
Second, to many people Nozick's concept was patently absurd. Why would a "protective association" limit itself to certain enclaves when the possibility of reaching far out and away like any other insurance agency to maximize profits exists? Perhaps if the company sees a benefit from local monopolization, but RE would predict this to be incorrect after the first few examples.
There doesn't appear to be many takers. This could only mean two things.
1) The answer has been "no" and thus the minarchist idea collapses upon its foundations.
2) People don't understand what minarchy implies.
No. Whatever institutions they set up I'd say have fun, have at it. If they messed with some of my citizens I'd give them the choice: do want their arbitration or the state service? Which is also a choice I'd give to all citizens at all times. I'd try and work out a deal with the non state services beforehand to facilitate this. If not, might makes right. Of course it's a meaningless hypothetical because it's never going to happen, so answers and criticism of those answers are somewhat pointless.
I believe the scenario is not well presented for this question as it starts from an assumption (the very meeting itself) that both parties have agreed they 'represent' other people and have somehow subrogated to themselves the rights of those who would simply wish there was no meeting in the first place.
The meeting forces the CFC to accept the resolution or simply accept its own illegitimacy, in which case it would have no morals to disagree after the fact.
Whatever. Let's say the CFC is not even invited to the constitutional congress. Would you fight a war to subjugate them?
Maybe it's just me, but I am having a really hard time understanding the picture... why would they fight in the first place? What gives the 'minarchists' the illusion that they can force others to be a part of what they call 'their' territory or nation? Being a minarquist doesn't mean that you are an idiot or that favor war to establish a State; even Rothbard himself was cautios at times when calling himself an 'anarquist' and was very much aware of the difficulties of getting rid of the State in a short period of time (impossible), even if it be only rhetorical.
Also, you would have to agree that on every single nation in the world today, governments have plenty of property under their name and that the process of privatizing is necessarily cumbersome.
Personally, I am a minarquist simply because of the status quo, but I also favor Anarchism as an indicator of where to go. It doesn't mean I need to be challenged on my 'faith' in anarchism, as there are still many aspects of it that many brilliant men have not been able to dilucidate or agree upon.
LUCHAC:Maybe it's just me, but I am having a really hard time understanding the picture... why would they fight in the first place? What gives the 'minarchists' the illusion that they can force others to be a part of what they call 'their' territory or nation? Being a minarquist doesn't mean that you are an idiot or that favor war to establish a State; even Rothbard himself was cautios at times when calling himself an 'anarquist' and was very much aware of the difficulties of getting rid of the State in a short period of time (impossible), even if it be only rhetorical. Also, you would have to agree that on every single nation in the world today, governments have plenty of property under their name and that the process of privatizing is necessarily cumbersome. Personally, I am a minarquist simply because of the status quo, but I also favor Anarchism as an indicator of where to go. It doesn't mean I need to be challenged on my 'faith' in anarchism, as there are still many aspects of it that many brilliant men have not been able to dilucidate or agree upon.
You're right, it is just you.
It isn't hard to understand the concept being pushed here. Give territory X and territory Y. Territory X is claimed by territory Y, but the people of territory X do not want to pay taxes, at all.
Do you advocate putting a gun in their face?