An open letter to Stefan Molyneux about Minarchism

[Markus FIN]

 

The reason why the state is so evil and irrational is because the people who vote are so easily fed bullshit. Really? The state is evil because people are misled? that is not an argument, it is a conclusion. Can you walk us threw that argument?

That is not the same thing. In a KKK there are only racists so it would be impossible to change their opinion. In a Democracy all you need to do is convince the majority of the people to support your idea. In a Democracy there are all kinds of people, not just evil ones. So all you need to do is get the good people to your side and you will be on your way. The reason why the state is so evil and irrational is because the people who vote are so easily fed bullshit. We need to step forward and tell the truth. It is possible to change the state by joining it's ranks. It is like becoming the employee of an evil corporation. If you can climb up the ranks to become the president, you can fix everything. You seem to think that the people, in a democracy, are the government... how do you figure?Why can't you join the KKK, an evil organization, get to the top and fix everything?

Yes I can walk you through the conclusion. The reason why people who lead us into complete shit get elected is because the people will rather believe a beautiful lie than a sad truth. It sucks that it is so, but you can see it in every election because populists always gain popularity... So I believe that the reason the state does evil and poor decicions is that people don't undestand the consicuenses of the power they are given in a Democracy. People believe that the welfare state is the best idea and refuse to believe the pitfalls and immorality it has. People just don't care enough... And that is what bureocrats and corporation heads take advantage of. :(Markus FIN

[powder]

Yes I can walk you through the conclusion. The reason why people who lead us into complete shit get elected is because the people will rather believe a beautiful lie than a sad truth. It sucks that it is so, but you can see it in every election because populists always gain popularity... So I believe that the reason the state does evil and poor decicions is that people don't undestand the consicuenses of the power they are given in a Democracy. People believe that the welfare state is the best idea and refuse to believe the pitfalls and immorality it has. People just don't care enough... And that is what bureocrats and corporation heads take advantage of. :(Markus FIN

Yes, people sometimes believe lies, but you are somehow saying that that is what makes the government evil, what is your definition of evil?  What power are people given in a democracy?  People don't care enough?  I don't see the evidence for that, quite the opposite.  You did not address my other 2 questions.  

[dsayers]

The reason why people who lead us into complete shit get elected is because the people will rather believe a beautiful lie than a sad truth.

 

No, people vote because there's still enough people under the effect of momentum that they view the truth would make them social outcasts. This is why it is so important that we do not allow people who support violence in our lives: We need to make it uncomfortable to support violence.

[Markus FIN]

No, people vote because there's still enough people under the effect of momentum that they view the truth would make them social outcasts. This is why it is so important that we do not allow people who support violence in our lives: We need to make it uncomfortable to support violence.

But simply shutting everyone who supports violence off doesn't actually work if you are the minority. Then in a way you are shutting yourself out, right? To make EVERY SINGLE person in the world agree with the NAP is a momentum job, because you can't have anyone who doesn't agree. If one guy decides to take advantage of the NAP then everyone else is in danger with no authority backing up their rights. So there won't be any backup, it is you alone against a gang of thieves... Couldn't this be a POSSIBLE outcome?Markus FIN

[JamesP]

How do you know it doesn't work if you haven't tried it? I don't have any close friends or family in my life who would wish the violence of the state against me for disagreeing with them.

[Brentb]

I remember in one podcast, Stefan stated that if he had a button to end all governments in the world right now, he wouldn't push it - acknowledging that it's a big transition that takes a lot of time.

 

Are you a minarchist because you think it's a more practical method for transitioning to a free society? Or do you think that a free society is not possible or practical and must devolve into force and therefor we need government?

 

You stated that Anarchists and Minarchists have the same goal but we don't. We both want the power of governments to head in the same direction, so it appears that it's just a question of magnitude but there is a fundamental difference. In anarchism, government doesn't exist. Anarchists want freedom, while minarchists want the chains to be light enough that they can forget that the chains are there. Minarchists want the chains to be there for security, because there are bad people out there that need to have their chains jerked, but what if the bad people are controlling the chains?

[...]

.

[cynicist]

Minslavery in my opinion is a safe way to a totally free society. At the moment the societies we live in have slaves and plantations growing everywhere around it. Some things are at the moment dependent on slavery, because the previous generations thought it would be a good idea to build an infrastructure that is based on the existence of the slavery. If we went immediately from the current society to the free model of society, we would risk a chaos. Many people are so used to be living as slaves that it would be impossible for them to deal in such a situation. A peaceful transaction from slavery to freedom can only be achieved by taking it slow. Starting from letting them choose their work, reducing beatings and decreasing the number of slaves owned per person. It will take many decades until we reach a point where we can safely end slavery and begin a completely free society.

[dsayers]

If one guy decides to take advantage of the NAP then everyone else is in danger with no authority backing up their rights. So there won't be any backup, it is you alone against a gang of thieves

 

Who has more authority to protect you than you? If you don't want to protect yourself or don't think your neighbors would get involved to apprehend/repel a threat, you are welcome to hire somebody to protect you. What you do not get to do is steal from me to provide you THE ILLUSION of protection.

 

You're implying that with a State, there is an authority backing up your right. The State violates your right by its very existence, so how could it be said to back them up? You're saying that in order to be protected against a thief that nobody views as legitimate, we need to rely upon a much larger gang of thieves that everybody pretends is righteous.

 

In your daily life, you interact with other people all the time. You should ask yourself why you are so afraid of other people when you have a lifetime of empirical evidence that almost nobody is going to attack you or your property... except the very people that have tricked you into believing the exact opposite: That nobody can be trusted except them.

[powder]

 

Minslavery in my opinion is a safe way to a totally free society. At the moment the societies we live in have slaves and plantations growing everywhere around it. Some things are at the moment dependent on slavery, because the previous generations thought it would be a good idea to build an infrastructure that is based on the existence of the slavery. If we went immediately from the current society to the free model of society, we would risk a chaos. Many people are so used to be living as slaves that it would be impossible for them to deal in such a situation. A peaceful transaction from slavery to freedom can only be achieved by taking it slow. Starting from letting them choose their work, reducing beatings and decreasing the number of slaves owned per person. It will take many decades until we reach a point where we can safely end slavery and begin a completely free society.

 

well done cynicist, I thought of bringing up the parallel with slavery, but you did it in a much better way than I would have.  

 

If I understand your concerns Markus, it looks like somehow you believe that the government will be taken down in one fell swoop by an angry mob of peaceful volunteerists or something and we will suddenly end up in a Mad Max world of chaos and random tyranny, so instead, we had better ease into freedom gradually.  

[Markus FIN]

well done cynicist, I thought of bringing up the parallel with slavery, but you did it in a much better way than I would have. If I understand your concerns Markus, it looks like somehow you believe that the government will be taken down in one fell swoop by an angry mob of peaceful volunteerists or something and we will suddenly end up in a Mad Max world of chaos and random tyranny, so instead, we had better ease into freedom gradually.

If slavery had been ended in one single flash all around the world it would have most likely ended up in a bloodbath. A peaceful transaction is always better and it would be the same thing with slavery. Of course people can dream about the happy ending that follows when all the slaves are freed at once, but after the rush to freedom things would get out of hand...PS: Thank you all for these nice and rational comments, I really enjoy reading and answering them! :)Markus FIN

Ostracism works since it makes clear upon which principles the social networks revolve when values or interests conflict. People who are committed to NAP and UPB(anarchism) will create around same-minded people better achievements than if they kept embracing toxic people who advocate the initiation of the use of force whenever values or interests conflict. It's not a negotiation if the opponent holds knife to your throat. Choosing statism(minarchism) is the same as choosing Stalin, Tsingis-Khan, Muhammad, Henry the IIIV, the Holy See, Mao and Hitler instead their victims, since the USA, which was a minimum state, has evolved into the greatest empire on earth.

So what you are saying there is no half-way... You are either a full Anarchist or you are an evil rotten Statist. To me that seems a bit too black and white. :/Markus FIN

Yes, people sometimes believe lies, but you are somehow saying that that is what makes the government evil, what is your definition of evil? What power are people given in a democracy? People don't care enough? I don't see the evidence for that, quite the opposite. You did not address my other 2 questions.

Sorry for not adressing those two questions immediately. The people are not the government, but they choose from their presence those who they want to be the government. So if a government is evil the people have the full power to get rid of them in the next election.The reason I can't join a KKK and change their ways is the same reason I can't join FreeDomain Radio and make all of you Communists. Almost everyone in that kind of group agrees with their ideas so there will be NO ONE to back you up. In a nation there will be people who agree and people who disagree and that is the advantage over the KKK.Markus FIN

Who has more authority to protect you than you? If you don't want to protect yourself or don't think your neighbors would get involved to apprehend/repel a threat, you are welcome to hire somebody to protect you. What you do not get to do is steal from me to provide you THE ILLUSION of protection.You're implying that with a State, there is an authority backing up your right. The State violates your right by its very existence, so how could it be said to back them up? You're saying that in order to be protected against a thief that nobody views as legitimate, we need to rely upon a much larger gang of thieves that everybody pretends is righteous.In your daily life, you interact with other people all the time. You should ask yourself why you are so afraid of other people when you have a lifetime of empirical evidence that almost nobody is going to attack you or your property... except the very people that have tricked you into believing the exact opposite: That nobody can be trusted except them.

The states have limits in what they can do, it is called the constitution. That is the one boundary state can't cross. After that it's rule goes over the edge. I personally will rather pay 5-10% of my money in taxes than be murdered and robbed clean. I know that it means living in chains, but is it better to live happy in a cage than in fear outside it? I am willing to make a small sacrifice to gain a bit of safety, but I am not forcing anyone else to do so. The problem is that where could we create a place for Anarchism to be tried at. Before I know that the cure works I will not inject it.Markus FIN

[dsayers]

The states have limits in what they can do, it is called the constitution.

 

K, I'm done. In the abstract, the idea that a piece of paper could limit behavior is ludicrous. To make the claim amid endless empirical evidence to the contrary is proof that you're going to believe what you want to believe. I won't waste my time any further. Do you not even notice that believing a piece of paper will stop people whom you've told have superhuman powers from doing something you don't want them to is a direct contradiction to the belief that morality won't stop people who understand that we're all equals? In both cases, you believe the exact opposite of what the evidence shows IN YOUR OWN LIFE.

[cynicist]

well done cynicist, I thought of bringing up the parallel with slavery, but you did it in a much better way than I would have.  

 

Thanks! I thought it would be funny. OP's post basically amounts to, "Change is scary, can we do less of it guys, please?"

 

If slavery had been ended in one single flash all around the world it would have most likely ended up in a bloodbath. A peaceful transaction is always better and it would be the same thing with slavery. Of course people can dream about the happy ending that follows when all the slaves are freed at once, but after the rush to freedom things would get out of hand...

 

You say that as if it were possible. It is going to take generations for these ideas to simply take root in people's minds, much less get to the point where the majority are actively pushing for it. Advocating Minarchism is the same as asking to never achieve freedom in society. If you don't think that is the case I'd recommend looking at Stefan's book, Everyday Anarchy, and his video series, Why Libertarianism Fails.

[powder]

yup, I'm done too.  I got a lot out your responses especially dsayers, just brilliant, so it wasn't a waste of time for me at least.  

 

K, I'm done. In the abstract, the idea that a piece of paper could limit behavior is ludicrous. To make the claim amid endless empirical evidence to the contrary is proof that you're going to believe what you want to believe. I won't waste my time any further. Do you not even notice that believing a piece of paper will stop people whom you've told have superhuman powers from doing something you don't want them to is a direct contradiction to the belief that morality won't stop people who understand that we're all equals? In both cases, you believe the exact opposite of what the evidence shows IN YOUR OWN LIFE.

[AustinJames]

I am a Minarchist and I know some people here might hate me for it, but let me explain. This open letter is meant to be at least some point in history to be read by Stefan as I very much respect his opinion. Anyone else reading this please don't dislike the post if you think I am wrong, but rather state why by a reply. I am fully willing to change my views if someone can prove me wrong on this!

 

Minarchism in my opinion is a safe way to a totally free society.

 

I'm not sure you are a minarchist.  Being a minarchist implies that you would prefer a society that is, by definition, not "totally free," but rather 'minimally regulated.'  You seem to advocate the ultimate goal of a "totally free society," which would be objectively contradictory to the minarchist position.  If I am incorrect, please provide an alternative definition of minarchism to improve my understanding.

 

 

 

At the moment the societies we live in have state regulations and public sector companies growing everywhere around it. Some things are at the moment dependent on the state, because the previous generations thought it would be a good idea to build an infrastructure that is based on the existence of the state. If we went immediately from the current society to the Libertarian model of society, we would risk a chaos. Many people are so used to be living in a state that it would be impossible for them to deal in such a situation. A peaceful transaction [transition?] from Statism to Libertarianism can only be achieved by taking it slow. Starting from privatizing public sector, reducing government regulations and decreasing the size of the army. It will take many decades until we reach a point where we can safely shut down the government and begin a completely free society.

 

Yes, "the societies we live in have state regulations," and some things are "at the moment dependent on the state;" this is a tautology.  If the continuation of your argument were to be universal, however, we would say of slavery, "yes, it was a coercive, immoral enterprise; nonetheless, previous generations have deemed it necessary to secure the moral order of society.  If slavery were immediately eradicated from current society, we would risk chaos.  Many people are so used to living with slavery that it would be impossible for them to deal in a situation of non-slavery.  Therefore, a modest reduction in slavery is the most reasonable and effective ambition for abolitionists to adopt in their drive to end slavery altogether."

 

Do you agree with this universalization? If not, where did I go wrong?

[Markus FIN]

K, I'm done. In the abstract, the idea that a piece of paper could limit behavior is ludicrous. To make the claim amid endless empirical evidence to the contrary is proof that you're going to believe what you want to believe. I won't waste my time any further. Do you not even notice that believing a piece of paper will stop people whom you've told have superhuman powers from doing something you don't want them to is a direct contradiction to the belief that morality won't stop people who understand that we're all equals? In both cases, you believe the exact opposite of what the evidence shows IN YOUR OWN LIFE.

Also saying that somehow a worldwide NAP could limit agressive human behaviour is just as ludircous. Both ideas have horrible risks involved...PS: Thank you for taking time discussing about this. Seeya in some other topic! :)Markus FIN

[Markus FIN]

I'm not sure you are a minarchist. Being a minarchist implies that you would prefer a society that is, by definition, not "totally free," but rather 'minimally regulated.' You seem to advocate the ultimate goal of a "totally free society," which would be objectively contradictory to the minarchist position. If I am incorrect, please provide an alternative definition of minarchism to improve my understanding.Yes, "the societies we live in have state regulations," and some things are "at the moment dependent on the state;" this is a tautology. If the continuation of your argument were to be universal, however, we would say of slavery, "yes, it was a coercive, immoral enterprise; nonetheless, previous generations have deemed it necessary to secure the moral order of society. If slavery were immediately eradicated from current society, we would risk chaos. Many people are so used to living with slavery that it would be impossible for them to deal in a situation of non-slavery. Therefore, a modest reduction in slavery is the most reasonable and effective ambition for abolitionists to adopt in their drive to end slavery altogether."Do you agree with this universalization? If not, where did I go wrong?

I am kind of an Agnostic type of person when it comes to Anarchism and Minarchism. On the other hand I see the state as an immoral way to set up a society, but there still isn't enough evidence to support that Anarchism works in practice. Like all "extreme" ideologies, Anarchism might not work as well in practice as it does in theory. That is why I want to keep the option of Minarchism open in case Anarchism doesn't work.Also I agree the example that you made with slavery, because as we know slavery still hasn't ended everywhere in the world, even though it was dramatically put to end in the USA.PS: Thank you for commenting and sharing your ideas! :)Markus FIN

yup, I'm done too. I got a lot out your responses especially dsayers, just brilliant, so it wasn't a waste of time for me at least.

Well it's good that this topic was useful at least in some way, thank you for responding! :)Markus FIN

Thanks! I thought it would be funny. OP's post basically amounts to, "Change is scary, can we do less of it guys, please?"You say that as if it were possible. It is going to take generations for these ideas to simply take root in people's minds, much less get to the point where the majority are actively pushing for it. Advocating Minarchism is the same as asking to never achieve freedom in society. If you don't think that is the case I'd recommend looking at Stefan's book, Everyday Anarchy, and his video series,

.

Yes I do see change as risky and scary, you actually put that nicely in a single sentence. I have just seen too many bad examples in history about trying the change the world in a flash while following an ideologie (Fascism, Communism), to be able to have 100% faith on Libertarianism.If complete freedom (Anarchism) can be made to work in practice, then YES we should end the government completely. We just need to go slowly and try it in PRACTICE because we don't fully know what can happen. I am just trying to sum it up in a single sentence..."I completely agree and support Anarchism, but I don't believe in it blindly."Does that make any sense to you? That is kind of the whole idea in a nutshell. I believe in facts, not ideologies. Ideologies are not facts as they are mostly theoretical and work under certain conditions. So an ideologie to me is a question of faith and I am not sure if I have seen enough evidence yet.Markus FIN

[PatrickC]

Hey Markus, did you do a call with Stefan last Sunday.. I'm a little behind on the stream myself, but interested to know how it went for you.

[cynicist]

Does that make any sense to you? That is kind of the whole idea in a nutshell. I believe in facts, not ideologies. Ideologies are not facts as they are mostly theoretical and work under certain conditions. So an ideologie to me is a question of faith and I am not sure if I have seen enough evidence yet.

 

Absolutely, and I would agree with you if Anarchism was an ideology. If anything it's the dismantling of a prior ideology, that the state is some benevolent institution required for society to function. Is there not enough evidence for you that the state is a coercive monopoly? Or that voluntary interactions are better for everyone? With the evidence of Minarchism failing in the US, why would believing that Minarchism is the way to go not be a leap of faith?

[RyanT]

I remember somebody (pretty sure it was Rainbowjamz) saying the other night how he gets really frustrated when people want to jump stright to huge complex abstracts theories on how to organize society rather than focusing on the real work on self knowledge and personal relationships.

 

Reading through this thread I can really see where he was coming from.

 

Way I look at it;

 

When might we see a truly free society?

Maybe in 100, maybe in 1000 years

 

When can we have freedom in our personal lives?

Maybe in a only few years if we work hard enough.

 

Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

[Markus FIN]

Absolutely, and I would agree with you if Anarchism was an ideology. If anything it's the dismantling of a prior ideology, that the state is some benevolent institution required for society to function. Is there not enough evidence for you that the state is a coercive monopoly? Or that voluntary interactions are better for everyone? With the evidence of Minarchism failing in the US, why would believing that Minarchism is the way to go not be a leap of faith?

Hmm... That is a good point. It just seems more "believable" to me because there HAS been Minarchist societies in history but I there is yet to be an Anarchist one. I know that Minarchism works IF the state is not allowed to grow out of proportions, but I am yet to see Anarchism in action. To be able to witness it work in real life would mean achieving the Utopia for me, but that is also what makes me nervous. I fully understand that the state as a concept is immoral, but I just want to be sure that this is the right alternative. Communists believed in their ideologie blindly and it worked great on paper, but when put to practice it lead to a slaughter. And that is what frightens me... I don't want Libertarianism to fail horribly and be remembered as another failed attempt to create an Utopia. :(Markus FIN

I remember somebody (pretty sure it was Rainbowjamz) saying the other night how he gets really frustrated when people want to jump stright to huge complex abstracts theories on how to organize society rather than focusing on the real work on self knowledge and personal relationships. Reading through this thread I can really see where he was coming from.Way I look at it;When might we see a truly free society? Maybe in 100, maybe in 1000 yearsWhen can we have freedom in our personal lives?Maybe in a only few years if we work hard enough.Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

EXCACTLY! Thank you A LOT for this clarification! I was already able to piss off some more famous FreeDomain Radio members because I kept trying to explain this to them. I agree with you on this 100% and I really hope you will be there Sunday 22.6. when I am going put this on the table with big S himself! ;)Markus FIN

Hey Markus, did you do a call with Stefan last Sunday.. I'm a little behind on the stream myself, but interested to know how it went for you.

Not yet it is 22.6. so it is still a while, but I am already getting SO excited! :3

[Mike Larson]

The assumption that in order to achieve a free society, we will either need to slowly whittle the state down to nothing through political means or we must have a dramatic revolution involving extreme pain and suffering is a false dichotomy. A third option (and this has already been mentioned in different ways on this thread) is that the state will simply become irrelevant. As philosophy spreads throughout the world, the idea that the initiation of violence is somehow required for peace will become a thing of the past. Society will get rid of the state in the same way that the free market gets rid of a poorly run business. Anarchy is bigger than the state. Anarchy is life. The state is a temporary disease. Technologies like Bitcoin will make the concept of fiat currency untenable. The state will be shed from society like the dead skin of a snake.

 

In the mean time, I agree with RyanT that we ought to focus on the freedom and virtue in our individual lives. This is what we can control. This is what can bring us joy regardless of the speed at which society is transformed. It also happens to be the most effective way to speed up that process.

[Markus FIN]

The assumption that in order to achieve a free society, we will either need to slowly whittle the state down to nothing through political means or we must have a dramatic revolution involving extreme pain and suffering is a false dichotomy. A third option (and this has already been mentioned in different ways on this thread) is that the state will simply become irrelevant. As philosophy spreads throughout the world, the idea that the initiation of violence is somehow required for peace will become a thing of the past. Society will get rid of the state in the same way that the free market gets rid of a poorly run business. Anarchy is bigger than the state. Anarchy is life. The state is a temporary disease. Technologies like Bitcoin will make the concept of fiat currency untenable. The state will be shed from society like the dead skin of a snake.In the mean time, I agree with RyanT that we ought to focus on the freedom and virtue in our individual lives. This is what we can control. This is what can bring us joy regardless of the speed at which society is transformed. It also happens to be the most effective way to speed up that process.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread! Bitcoin is a good example of a way to get rid of F.I.A.T. currencies that manipulate the market and create poverty and uncontrollable spending... :)Markus FIN

[AustinJames]

I am kind of an Agnostic type of person when it comes to Anarchism and Minarchism. On the other hand I see the state as an immoral way to set up a society, but there still isn't enough evidence to support that Anarchism works in practice. Like all "extreme" ideologies, Anarchism might not work as well in practice as it does in theory. That is why I want to keep the option of Minarchism open in case Anarchism doesn't work.

 

Also I agree the example that you made with slavery, because as we know slavery still hasn't ended everywhere in the world, even though it was dramatically put to end in the USA.

 

What do you mean, you "agree" to the example that I made?  Do you mean that you would refrain from saying that slavery ought to be abolished because "there still isn't enough evidence to support that [non-slavery] works in practice," and therefore we should "keep the option of [slavery] open in case [non-slavery] doesn't work?"  Because that's what I was implying.

 

In your second sentence here, you pit the morality of a free society against the effectiveness of a free society.  I used the example of slavery because the morality of slavery has nothing to do with the effectiveness of slavery.  In the same way, the morality of governmental coercion is independent from the effectiveness of governmental coercion.  We should want the end of slavery first because it is immoral.  The effectiveness is a secondary consideration.

 

If you are hung on the effectiveness, and refuse to consider the morality factor, there is little or no evidence that Minarchism can sustain a reduction in human suffering.  The evidence of the effectiveness of freedom in organizing human societies to reduce human suffering is pervasive.  I think the most poignant modern evidence is the example of what has occurred in Somalia over the last decade, in comparison to what has occurred in neighboring countries.  Stefan has a podcast on this subject that is both thorough and succinct.

 

Have you read any Rothbard?  For a New Liberty speaks both to the morality and effectiveness of government, and may help answer some of your questions.  The Mises Institute provides this monumental "libertarian manifesto" free of charge, in both audiobook and PDF form.  I would highly recommend it.

[Emman]

where did Stefan's argument that these conversations are all about your parents go?

[Markus FIN]

What do you mean, you "agree" to the example that I made? Do you mean that you would refrain from saying that slavery ought to be abolished because "there still isn't enough evidence to support that [non-slavery] works in practice," and therefore we should "keep the option of [slavery] open in case [non-slavery] doesn't work?" Because that's what I was implying.In your second sentence here, you pit the morality of a free society against the effectiveness of a free society. I used the example of slavery because the morality of slavery has nothing to do with the effectiveness of slavery. In the same way, the morality of governmental coercion is independent from the effectiveness of governmental coercion. We should want the end of slavery first because it is immoral. The effectiveness is a secondary consideration.If you are hung on the effectiveness, and refuse to consider the morality factor, there is little or no evidence that Minarchism can sustain a reduction in human suffering. The evidence of the effectiveness of freedom in organizing human societies to reduce human suffering is pervasive. I think the most poignant modern evidence is the example of what has occurred in Somalia over the last decade, in comparison to what has occurred in neighboring countries. Stefan has a podcast on this subject that is both thorough and succinct.Have you read any Rothbard? For a New Liberty speaks both to the morality and effectiveness of government, and may help answer some of your questions. The Mises Institute provides this monumental "libertarian manifesto" free of charge, in both audiobook and PDF form. I would highly recommend it.

I will read the "Libertarian Manifesto" for sure! And yes I agreed with the slavery example the way you said it. If this was the 17th century and I was asked the same question about slavery, then I would give the same answer. If we want to talk about morality to the limit, then wouldn't squashing a fly be a murder? Of course I am going to the extreme there, but in nature there is always SOMEONE who suffers so others can gain... So yes, I would want evidence that a world without slavery would work if there had not been any societies without slavery. When slavery was abolished in USA people were already fully aware that the world would work without it so it was pretty simple to make decicion. However we still are to witness a stateless society, so jumping into it with purily moral justifications is a long shot in my opinion. Like I said we need to TRY it first before we put it in practice around the world. It is like going up to a bunch of lions and saying that eating other animals is immoral and therefore they should stop it. If the lions can't convert from meat to vegetables and fruits then they will simply die... So first take a bunch of lions and try if they can convert. If they can then you can safely do it for the rest of them. :)Markus FIN

where did Stefan's argument that these conversations are all about your parents go?

Excuse me? O_oMarkus FIN

[cynicist]

where did Stefan's argument that these conversations are all about your parents go?

 

You don't start with that as an assumption, even if it's likely. Based on his replies either he will learn something about himself in the call with Stefan or he will keep believing what he is repeating here. Either way a forum post evidently isn't going to change anything.

[MysterionMuffles]

The state depends on the initiation of violence. That is why it is evil.

 

If you have some sort of concept for organizing a society that does not rely on the initiation of force, I'm all ears. The second you introduce coercion, you've lost The Game.

 

damn it...I've been winning at it for years til this post.

[Markus FIN]

You don't start with that as an assumption, even if it's likely. Based on his replies either he will learn something about himself in the call with Stefan or he will keep believing what he is repeating here. Either way a forum post evidently isn't going to change anything.

Yeah, you might be right. I guess we'll see about this when I talk with Stefan. I have been debating about politics since I was 13 and I really don't know what to excpect this time. As I see it no-one in this community has ever "won" Stefan in a debate about this subject, so my chances aren't too high to begin with... What I am hoping for is that Stefan will understand my point of view if I explain it to him right and maybe have some ideas on how I might understand Anarchism better. Hell, I might even be able to tell him some things that he is yet to consider, but that is a bit far fetched... But a man can dream right? ;)Markus FIN

[pretzelogik]

What do you mean when you say "government"?

[Markus FIN]

What do you mean when you say "government"?

Public sector. Anything that is being run via taxes or by the use of force. Legal system, police, medical service etc.

 

Markus FIN

[pretzelogik]

Those are circcular definitions. An armed robber's household is run by the use of force.  Is that govvernment?

[Daniel Unplugged]

A society that values equality above freedom, will end up with neither. A society that values freedom above equality, will end up woth a great deal of both - Milton Friedman

[Markus FIN]

A society that values equality above freedom, will end up with neither. A society that values freedom above equality, will end up woth a great deal of both - Milton Friedman

Well said!

 

Markus FIN

Those are circcular definitions. An armed robber's household is run by the use of force.  Is that govvernment?

I am not sure I understand what you mean, but in my opinion you can compare the government to a mafia that everyone is a part of. We call get to take part on what the mafia does, but we can't choose to stay out of it. So if we were all living in a society that had a mafia like that, then yes it could be considered as a government. A government in a modern society is in my opinion complicated as fuck... The use of force is widely considered reasonable in order to keep chaos at bay.

 

Markus FIN

[RyanT]

The use of force is widely considered reasonable in order to keep chaos at bay.  Markus FIN

Well 'use of force' is a foggy term, if someone tries to hit you and you grab their arm, that's force?Whereas the government claims a monopoly right to initiate the use of force.Which in most cases is the origins of the chaos...What is it, like 95% of robberies are commited to fund drug addictions?Not to mention all the millions murdered, dispossessed etc by the state.