[Rothbardian]

I just wanted to point something out to minarchists here:

Every single attempt at minarchism in history, at least of those that I am aware, has resulted in the most massive empires in history. I am not an expert on history aside from reading about it in my free time, so feel free to correct me here, but aside from the United States, there was also the British Empire and the Roman Empire. Rome, the eternal empire, had a government created with the sole purpose of protecting a growing merchant class.

Still, no Roman could dream of being able to monitor its citizens activities nearly every second of every day, prying into their lives the way the U.S. does. An odd state of affairs, considering the way the U.S. started. A group of philosophers bent on creating liberty, in an opportunity that will never come again (at least not any time soon) to create a new kind of society in a new land.

I would submit to you, good sirs, that perhaps there is a moral hazard involved with betraying the non aggression principle. That if you decide to open pandora's box and dance with the devil, the result will not be what you intend, and no amount of rationalizing will change that.

[Rich]

A group of philosophers bent on creating liberty,

Is it a compulsion to talk drivel? They supported slavery. George Washington's first act was to kick all the Blacks out of the Continental army case they thought it was their country too. That tyrannical terrorist piece of filth Thomas Jefferson wanted to extend slavery into the western territories so as to ensure a permanent slave state majority. The founders not only wanted to thieve the products of Black labour they wanted to genocide the Indians so they could thieve their land which the British were protecting behind the proclamation line.

But then I guess these are only the most minor, minor of character blemishes compared with such unspeakable evils as introducing a health mandate.

[mikema63]

That tyrannical terrorist piece of filth Thomas Jefferson wanted to extend slavery into the western territories so as to ensure a permanent slave state majority. The founders not only wanted to thieve the products of Black labour they wanted to genocide the Indians so they could thieve their land which the British were protecting behind the proclamation line.

You will have to support the part where you say Jefferson wanted to ensure a slave state majority.

You will also have to support their desire to genocide the Indians as well, since the cherokee nation was considered a sovereign state until Andrew Jackson, and ive certainly never heard evidence that the founding fathers actively thirsted for dead indians.

You can claim that he's talking drivel but my god your little diatribe is over done.

[Someone5]

I just wanted to point something out to minarchists here:

Every single attempt at minarchism in history, at least of those that I am aware, has resulted in the most massive empires in history. I am not an expert on history aside from reading about it in my free time, so feel free to correct me here, but aside from the United States, there was also the British Empire and the Roman Empire. Rome, the eternal empire, had a government created with the sole purpose of protecting a growing merchant class.

How was the United States a minarchist state? Even under the Articles of Confederation--to say nothing of the Constitution--the states basically had the right to do whatever the hell they wanted, citizens be damned.

Still, no Roman could dream of being able to monitor its citizens activities nearly every second of every day, prying into their lives the way the U.S. does. An odd state of affairs, considering the way the U.S. started. A group of philosophers bent on creating liberty, in an opportunity that will never come again (at least not any time soon) to create a new kind of society in a new land.

That's the mythological viewpoint, yes. In reality they were a group of landed individuals with massive personal investments that would not pay off if the British won, with a few actual liberty-minded folks sprinkled in between. Most of them didn't care one whit about "liberty" which is why most of them threw their weight behind the comparatively oppressive Constitution when first given the opportunity. They took every inch of power they thought they could get away with claiming, despite the rhetoric.

[Nunt]

Being an anarchist, I don't believe that a single example of failed minarchism would prove that minarchism cannot work. Sure, there will be people who can take advantage of bigger government, but on the other hand, there may also be people who believe in liberty who can (but not necissarily will) be a counterforce against an increase in government. Imo the forces that keep a minarchist government from growing are the same forces that keep a government from being established in an anarchy.

An anarchy can become a minarcy, a minarcy can become a welfare state, a welfare state can become a dictatorship. None of these transitions are excluded. Prevailing views in society is what will form the government.

[Eran]

Agreed.

What the American experience does show is that written words (in the form of the Constitution) cannot be guaranteed to limit the power of government in the long-term.

[Someone5]

Agreed.

What the American experience does show is that written words (in the form of the Constitution) cannot be guaranteed to limit the power of government in the long-term.

The Constitution was not designed to limit the power of governments; it was designed to expand the power of the federal government, and further to expand the power of the states, both at the expense of the citizens.

If the only goal was a limited government, we would have kept the Articles of Confederation.

[Rothbardian]

Is it a compulsion to talk drivel? They supported slavery. George Washington's first act was to kick all the Blacks out of the Continental army case they thought it was their country too. That tyrannical terrorist piece of filth Thomas Jefferson wanted to extend slavery into the western territories so as to ensure a permanent slave state majority. The founders not only wanted to thieve the products of Black labour they wanted to genocide the Indians so they could thieve their land which the British were protecting behind the proclamation line.

But then I guess these are only the most minor, minor of character blemishes compared with such unspeakable evils as introducing a health mandate.

Well, Jefferson was a politician, aside from being a philosopher. That is kind of the point, isn't it? Who can survive the corruption of politics? The revolution was, in my mind, primarily caused by the fact that many of them, including Jefferson, were in a position to make a lot of money from western expansion, which the king had put a stop to not long before. Opportunism and the state, they go hand in hand.

I just don't understand this position that we absolutely have to betray our values, otherwise society will cease to function, especially when you consider how utterly it has failed.

The Constitution was not designed to limit the power of governments; it was designed to expand the power of the federal government, and further to expand the power of the states, both at the expense of the citizens.

If the only goal was a limited government, we would have kept the Articles of Confederation.

In the same sense, the articles of confederation were designed to expand the power of the ruling class, by giving it a confederation to rule.

Being an anarchist, I don't believe that a single example of failed minarchism would prove that minarchism cannot work. Sure, there will be people who can take advantage of bigger government, but on the other hand, there may also be people who believe in liberty who can (but not necissarily will) be a counterforce against an increase in government. Imo the forces that keep a minarchist government from growing are the same forces that keep a government from being established in an anarchy.

An anarchy can become a minarcy, a minarcy can become a welfare state, a welfare state can become a dictatorship. None of these transitions are excluded. Prevailing views in society is what will form the government.

Anarchy can become statism. This has happened in the past either through religion or through conquest. But anarchy is not a form of statism, minarchism is. That is an important distinction. Anarchists do not say 'well the non aggression principle is all great and stuff but I'm still going to go ahead and violate it, to the extent that I'm comfortable with". This sort of irresponsible mental game with something as morally important as 'when is it okay to hurt other people?' does not lead to good results.

[Someone5]

[quote="Rothbardian"]

Sure to a far lesser degree. "Ruling" over a weak government isn't much of an expansion of power. Creating a powerful government, on the other hand... The Constitution was not about binding the hands of government, it was about making those hands in the first place.

Also, afaik this forum's rules ask you to edit sequential posts together, even if they respond to different replies.

[Eran]

The Constitution was not designed to limit the power of governments; it was designed to expand the power of the federal government, and further to expand the power of the states, both at the expense of the citizens.

The Constitution was designed to expand the power of the Federal government relative to that stipulated in the Articles of Confederation, but still to keep it limited.

History showed how the Constitution failed to keep the power of the Federal government within the scope envisioned by its ratifiers.

[Someone5]

The Constitution was designed to expand the power of the Federal government relative to that stipulated in the Articles of Confederation, but still to keep it limited.

The notion that it was intended to limit the government is entirely a product of the marketing attempt required to get it ratified, such comments were not a pressing matter in the written records of their deliberations--rather, that is something that only really appears in the Federalist Papers. As a body of law, however, all it did was hand the federal government a massive set of radically expanded powers, which no sane person at the time could reasonably have concluded was an attempt to limit federal power. And, in fact, the federalists primarily argued on the basis of a need for radically expanded federal power.

History showed how the Constitution failed to keep the power of the Federal government within the scope envisioned by its ratifiers.

The Constitution kept the power of the federal government well within the scope envisioned by its framers, however, because they never intended for it to be limited by anything other than their own control of the mechanisms of government.

[Rothbardian]

Sure to a far lesser degree. "Ruling" over a weak government isn't much of an expansion of power. Creating a powerful government, on the other hand... The Constitution was not about binding the hands of government, it was about making those hands in the first place.

Also, afaik this forum's rules ask you to edit sequential posts together, even if they respond to different replies.

Rule over a constitutional federal government, or rule over a smaller confederation. You're talking about the same thing in principle, the only difference is a matter of degrees. People with power will expand that power. That has been the history of statism worldwide for over six thousand years, and there's nothing you can do to change it.

[Eran]

The notion that it was intended to limit the government is entirely a product of the marketing attempt required to get it ratified, such comments were not a pressing matter in the written records of their deliberations--rather, that is something that only really appears in the Federalist Papers.

This is very odd. Doesn't the Constitution derive its moral authority from the very fact that it was ratified? Isn't the fact that presenting it as limiting government was required to persuade people to ratify it incredibly meaningful?

Besides, the intention of the framers isn't an issue. The words they wrote, based on which others ratified, and based on which the US was largely governed until the Civil War (if not WW I) clearly point to a government of strictly limited and enumerated powers.

More to the point, the expansion in the powers of the Federal government, most of which proceeded without passing amendments) demonstrate conclusively the limited power of a written document to stop the expansion of government powers.

The Constitution kept the power of the federal government well within the scope envisioned by its framers, however, because they never intended for it to be limited by anything other than their own control of the mechanisms of government.

Weren't the Federalist Papers written by the framers?

[Someone5]

This is very odd.

Do you believe every word you hear in an advertisement? Do you think that every statement made by a politician is undistorted fact? If not, then my statement should not seem odd at all. The federalists marketed their Constitution to a largely skeptical nation. They dressed it up in lofty goals and weighty principles and attempted to clothe it in the language of freedom. But in actuality it had almost the opposite intention.

The argument that the Constitution was meant to limit the government is itself a bizarre argument that does not follow from history. Even the suggestion that it was about limiting the government can only be found in the Federalist Papers, which were literally compiled from political advertising by its proponents. Trusting their viewpoint alone is a bit like letting, say, the Republicans write the only history book about the Democratic Party--do you think it would be entirely accurate? I think it is more likely to be filled with lies and distortions.

Doesn't the Constitution derive its moral authority from the very fact that it was ratified? Isn't the fact that presenting it as limiting government was required to persuade people to ratify it incredibly meaningful?

"Four out of five dentists approve..." Is that incredibly meaningful? Because the Federalist Papers are pretty much the political equivalent of that. They were editorials from newspapers--held to even looser journalistic "standards" than the partisan hacks of today.

Besides, the intention of the framers isn't an issue.

You're absolutely right. Even if they had intended to limit government power, they actually produced a body of law that did the very opposite.

The words they wrote, based on which others ratified, and based on which the US was largely governed until the Civil War (if not WW I) clearly point to a government of strictly limited and enumerated powers.

It still governs the US, exactly as it was designed to do. You--and other libertarians--merely misinterpret the function. You confuse it for something intended to limit the government, when really it was never intended to do anything but provide the groundwork for government action. Action that wouldn't have been legal without the Constitution and the radical expansion of federal power it enacted.

More to the point, the expansion in the powers of the Federal government, most of which proceeded without passing amendments) demonstrate conclusively the limited power of a written document to stop the expansion of government powers.

Hardly, since that was never the purpose of the document. It does not serve as an example of your argument; because the Constitution was not designed to do anything but expand the power of the federal government. And it has done that quite well, then as now. It's not the document's fault you confused its goals for something you could agree with.

The Constitution kept the power of the federal government well within the scope envisioned by its framers,

Indeed, because the framers had an unlimited scope envisioned. At the time they were merely prohibited from exercising the full scope of that power by a populace that wouldn't have stood for it. But the Constitution sure does allow for it--was, in fact, designed to facilitate the expansion of that power. One must never forget that the Constitution was originally written without a Bill of Rights--without a Ninth and Tenth amendment to outline the federal role in all the unstated powers. Its framers never intended for the Constitution to pose a hard limit on the scope of federal power... that was forced on them afterwards by anti-federalists during ratification. Even as it stands the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are written in such a way that they pose no real limit on what the federal government can do because the enumerated powers were so intentionally broad and vague.

This is no corruption of the constitution--that is what it was always intended to be. A roadmap for federal supremacy over the states and over the people.

Weren't the Federalist Papers written by the framers?

Yes, they were a collection of political ads published in newspapers to convince people that the Constitution wasn't as bad as the anti-federalists were saying.

[Rothbardian]

This is very odd. Doesn't the Constitution derive its moral authority from the very fact that it was ratified? Isn't the fact that presenting it as limiting government was required to persuade people to ratify it incredibly meaningful?

Besides, the intention of the framers isn't an issue. The words they wrote, based on which others ratified, and based on which the US was largely governed until the Civil War (if not WW I) clearly point to a government of strictly limited and enumerated powers.

More to the point, the expansion in the powers of the Federal government, most of which proceeded without passing amendments) demonstrate conclusively the limited power of a written document to stop the expansion of government powers.

Weren't the Federalist Papers written by the framers?

You know I'd love the chance to ask Ron Paul what he thinks is the moral authority of the constitution. Preferably while he's not wearing his statesman hat.

The federalists basically snuck the constitution in while Jefferson was away visiting France. What you say is correct, its authority is, like all governments, derived from itself; in other words, the founders granted themselves the moral authority. This is typical statism and should not have surprised anyone, though oddly it's not something that's taught in public education. Even Jefferson doesn't get a pass, as soon as he got into power he decided to run wild with it rather than scale it back. Funny how that works.

The idea that you can change man's nature by writing on a piece of paper is textbook utopianism.

[Rich]

The federalists basically snuck the constitution in while Jefferson was away visiting France.

Jefferson the Nazi who as President gave (a loan that was never repaid) the White Haitians government money to put down the slave rebellion.

[lucky]

What the American experience does show is that written words (in the form of the Constitution) cannot be guaranteed to limit the power of government in the long-term. [...]

More to the point, the expansion in the powers of the Federal government, most of which proceeded without passing amendments) demonstrate conclusively the limited power of a written document to stop the expansion of government powers. [...]

The words they wrote, based on which others ratified, and based on which the US was largely governed until the Civil War (if not WW I) [...]

72 or 125 years (even if we take your numbers at face value) is pretty darn "long-term" for a legal document to work. The whole life cycle of the Soviet Union, for example, is 69 years.

I just don't understand this position that we absolutely have to betray our values, otherwise society will cease to function

Can you point to whose position specifically you are referring?

[SolarCross]

I've only scan read the posts so far and I'm not very knowledgeable about US political history (not my country) but so far no one seems to disagree with Rothbardians original point that Minarchism doesn't work as evidenced by the US. I think other examples of minarchies morphing into maxarchies exist. Arguably the absolute monarchies of medieval europe were practically minarchic as typically they only concerned themselves with national defence (as well as national offence). More often than not they didn't even do law and order much; leaving that to common law courts and other kinds of community based solutions. Other than that there was little or no passport / immigration control, regulation, state welfare, etc. Over the centuries these aristocratic minarchies became constitutional monarchies and then republics and with each transition accompanied by a promise of greater freedom yet resulting in a bigger state that just gets bigger and bigger. This pattern is not unique to the US!

[fuser]

then republics and with each transition accompanied by a promise of greater freedom yet resulting in a bigger state

and? Bigger state = less freedom? you think that peasants of medieval Europe were more free than today's common folk?

[SolarCross]

Most freedoms of today are technological in origin rather than political. If a medieval english peasent wanted to go on a pilgrimage to france he would need the permission of his employer only but he would have to walk. The modern peasent must get the persmission of his employer, the permission the government of england (passport) and the government of france (visa) but having got all that he can take a plane rather than walk. So the modern peasent has less political freedom yet more technical freedom.