[Sithsaber]

Do you want to go back to the articles of confederation and stay there (and hope to avoid the same issues magnified by ten)? Do you want to go full on laissez faire with only limited local government? Should corporations be given the same restrictions as govt so monopolies and conglomerates can't seize control? And what are you going to do about states with shitty balances of power that would quickly expand without federal oversight? (Alabama, NY et al.)

[Rothbardian]

Do you want to go back to the articles of confederation and stay there (and hope to avoid the same issues magnified by ten)? Do you want to go full on laissez faire with only limited local government? Should corporations be given the same restrictions as govt so monopolies and conglomerates can't seize control? And what are you going to do about states with shitty balances of power that would quickly expand without federal oversight? (Alabama, NY et al.)

Libertarianism is about the non aggression principle. No government can be consistently applied to the non aggression principle, so the logical conclusion of the NAP is anarchy. Where the libertarian in question draws the line depends on their individual comfort level with that.

[Sithsaber]

Wasn't expecting an actual knowledgeable response. I may just like this place.

[lucky]

Do you want to go back to the articles of confederation?

No.

Do you want to go full on laissez faire with only limited local government?

No.

Should corporations be given the same restrictions as govt so monopolies and conglomerates can't seize control?

You mean something like antitrust laws? Those already exist. But I don't understand the "same restrictions as govt" part.

[Soixante-Retard]

Wasn't expecting an actual knowledgeable response. I may just like this place.

I don't think this is a very good reflection on your part.

But in response to your question, I draw the line at minimal government - a nightwatchman state which protects the equal liberty of all persons. I'd love for anarchy, however I think it is impossible - anarchy is asymptotic.

[Eran]

You will find both full libertarian anarchists and minarchists here.

I happen to be of the former, and so my ideal society would have no government (in the normal sense of a geographic monopoly over the legitimised use of force).

Stick around, and we can have many interesting discussions. You seem to combine an interest about libertarianism with an open mind. Welcome.

[Rothbardian]

I don't think this is a very good reflection on your part.

But in response to your question, I draw the line at minimal government - a nightwatchman state which protects the equal liberty of all persons. I'd love for anarchy, however I think it is impossible - anarchy is asymptotic.

You can't have equal liberty without anarchy, it's impossible.

[Soixante-Retard]

You can't have equal liberty without anarchy, it's impossible.

I disagree. One can have government so long as one can secede it. Anarchy, isn't necessary for equal liberty of all persons to be respected.

[Rothbardian]

I disagree. One can have government so long as one can secede it. Anarchy, isn't necessary for equal liberty of all persons to be respected.

So when you create your government and impose it on me, giving me the ultimatum of either submitting to your will or leaving, do I have an equal right to impose my will upon you?

[Melodramatic]

I recall that in my libertarian days not only did I refuse to draw a line, that was the whole point. As a reaction, and not an unthinkable one, to the alienation I felt towards society, I decided to completely disown it's existing forms. It was a rebellion against all political thought, I was determined to rethink it all, rebuild it all from the ground up. It was a failure, of course, as the mindset from which I attempted to rebuild was capitalist and hindered by a strong misguided individualism. But I believe it made me a better person, the ability to rethink and invent is critical in political theory. I just wonder if liberterians here who are not just extreamists of the "American Way" think in a similar fashion...

[Nunt]

I disagree. One can have government so long as one can secede it. Anarchy, isn't necessary for equal liberty of all persons to be respected.

If individual secession is possible, then there is anarchy. The whole idea behind government is that you cannot secede from it. If individual secession is allowed, then switching governments would be as easy as switching insurance agencies.

[Soixante-Retard]

So when you create your government and impose it on me

There exists, I think, your flawed assumption. Can government only ever be coercive? Never consensual?

[Eran]

Government can never be fully consensual. Same as slavery.

To wit, one can imagine a person voluntarily accepting a condition of slavery. But once within that condition, the person cannot be viewed as free, even if the orders he receives happen to match his desires (or raise no objections in him).

The key is that a slave is unable to change his mind, should he choose to.

The very same hold for a society under government. While it is theoretically possible for every single member of society to accept government by choice, the very definition of government precludes the freedom to disassociate with it should individuals choose to do so.


It is easy to envision a community in which a single organisation is tasked with maintaining law-and-order, funded exclusively by voluntary fees paid by members. Is such an organisation government?

The answer, in my opinion, depends on whether members of the community are allowed to opt-out. If they are (and even if none of them happen to opt-out), the organisation isn't definitionally "government". If they are not allowed to opt-out (and even if none of them happen to want to opt-out at a given time), the organization IS government, but is no longer consensual.

[Soixante-Retard]

I think government could be consensual whether it is, is a separate inquiry. If an individual can consent to being governed yet secede from it at any point I do not see how the equal liberty of all persons is infringed. Do I need to remind everyone of Molinari's The Production of Security and Spencer's The Right to Ignore the State?

As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state — to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man's property against his will, is an infringement of his rights. Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If any one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment — a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combination without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw.

[Eran]

I assume you still allow private ownership of land. If so, and if I am allowed to secede (with my house and garden) from the government around me, I would argue that the organisation in question isn't "government" in the traditional sense.

Let me turn the question back to you.

What characterises an organisation as "government" in your book?

[Soixante-Retard]

I assume you still allow private ownership of land. If so, and if I am allowed to secede (with my house and garden) from the government around me, I would argue that the organisation in question isn't "government" in the traditional sense.

I agree. I also agree are disagreement here is based on a semantic difference.

What characterises an organisation as "government" in your book?

Weber's definition, I think, is sufficient. I concede this is not necessarily what I meant by government in my preceding posts.

[Eran]

Fair enough. I don't think there is much by way of substantive difference between us.

It is entirely plausible, in my mind, that small communities would be governed under an organisation that is an effective government, either because the community was created on private property in the first place, or because social standards effectively require obedience to a set of rules determined or enforced by a single organisation.

Such arrangements rapidly become less and less likely as the size of the community in question grows.

[Rothbardian]

There exists, I think, your flawed assumption. Can government only ever be coercive? Never consensual?

Obviously not, since you can't answer my question without contradicting yourself. If you're talking about a government that only acts on behalf of people that voluntarily sign on for its systems, then you're not talking about a government. That's a business, association (like a homeowners association), club, society, etc. It's not possible to have a consensual state.

[othervoice]

You can't have people living together without rules and authority. Government by the consent of the governed within some kind of agreed upon framework is not only compatible with liberty it is essential to liberty. Anarchy can never produce a free society think about the following problems :

1. The strong can deprive the weak of liberty and exploit them.

2. There is no lawful force strong enough to protect life or liberty from internal or external threat.

3. There is no mechanism to bring people together and do important things that benefit everyone not just a single individual.

4. People desire connection and relationships.

Things like markets and property are social constructions. People negotiate these structures and ideas like profit, supply, and demand which animate markets. The individual benefits from these things in relation to other individuals so you can't get rid of rules as if people lived solely to themselves. If you want anarchy its better to be alone. While I disagree with libertarians most of them I have met see the need for a very limited government. Anarchism seems antisocial.

[Rothbardian]

You can't have people living together without rules and authority. Government by the consent of the governed within some kind of agreed upon framework is not only compatible with liberty it is essential to liberty. Anarchy can never produce a free society think about the following problems :

1. The strong can deprive the weak of liberty and exploit them.

2. There is no lawful force strong enough to protect life or liberty from internal or external threat.

3. There is no mechanism to bring people together and do important things that benefit everyone not just a single individual.

4. People desire connection and relationships.

Things like markets and property are social constructions. People negotiate these structures and ideas like profit, supply, and demand which animate markets. The individual benefits from these things in relation to other individuals so you can't get rid of rules as if people lived solely to themselves. If you want anarchy its better to be alone. While I disagree with libertarians most of them I have met see the need for a very limited government. Anarchism seems antisocial.

The only difference between you and me is that I don't feel I have the right to put a gun to your head and submit to my will, and you want to claim that I'm the one that is advocating exploiting the week, making people unsafe, keeping people apart and being anti social? You seem to be extremely confused.