THE ⒶBOLITIONI$TS
Updated: 11-1-09
1.Can advocacy for the State be advanced by something more substantive than unfalsifiable claims?
(As in the following analogy: The Federal Government claims to have prevented a nuclear terrorist attack, therefore its policies of eavesdropping or suspension of habeus corpus must have worked. Should a claim that cannot be verified (the state prevented something from coming into existence) be given as much consideration as claims which can be verified? And are such negative (non-demonstrable) claims enough to warrant the apparatus of the state in light of its demonstrable (positive) problems.
2. Who defines property rights in a free society? As property rights are social constructions, who best defines them? Parties with mutual interest in the allocation of a particular resource? Or are they best defined by a third party without a mutual interest in the outcome?
3. If the state is analyzed in the same way as other monopolies what conclusions can be reached?
4. Which comes first: Law or Justice? Does the state create just laws, or merely codify the society's customs of what is just? What about 'anarchy' implies there would be no law? Is informal, customary or commercial power less effective in the administration of justice than formal power? Particularly if common law is custom?
5. Individuals organize themselves along customary, commercial, and legislative lines simultaneously. In the absence of a monopoly legislator, what would be the fundamental roadblock that prevents individuals from continuing to organize themselves in the areas previously the sole prerogative of the state?
What about 'anarchy' would prevent someone from associating with a common law enforcing body of their choosing that served their interests?
What is the roadblock that makes decentralized power and law untenable?
6. If one were to analyze the typical argument against 'anarchy' (the negative (non-demonstrable) scenario of a band of pirates ruling everyone eventually), what circumstances determine the payoffs between piracy and peace? Can individuals organize themselves to influence this payoff structure?
7. How much order is actually created by the state, how much by free association?What would happen if people simply ignored the state?
8. People are taking steps to feed themselves, exchange with others, and defend themselves in the event of an FRN meltdown. What about organizing collective security in a voluntary manner (say, in the manner of a volunteer fire department?) wouldn't work? Could this be done by organizations for a profit?
Where do I go to see the UNabridged post...
... so I can figure out what the HECK we're talking about?
= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."
That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.
I put some new questions in there
for ya!
?
?
Prior to 1896 ... probably.
Today ... It would be difficult.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
"All tyranny
needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain
silent" Thomas Jefferson
The reason I am in this pickle, is I know I was negligent by remaining silent all these years. They had an agenda and lulled me to sleep with their diversions, I was foolish to trust authority. Now, I know better and I want to do better.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
I, too, feel that same sense of duty
After having waited too long for someone else to stand up in my place.
I can only hope that the application of my gifts, talents, and will to be free are enough, by Gods' grace, to help pass on a legacy of honor and the torch of liberty to yet another generation.
I found this piece in the writings of Frederick Douglass challenging his readers to consider the nature of laws against teaching slaves to read and how they were able to get away with maintaining them as a social necessity.
I'm sure the connection with our plight will be obvious.
"It is, then, the first business of the enslaver of men to blunt, deaden, and destroy the central principle of human responsibility. Conscience is, to the individual soul, and to society, what the law of gravitation is to the universe. It holds society together; it is the basis of all trust and confidence; it is the pillar of all moral rectitude. Without it, suspicion would take the place of trust; vice would be more than a match for virtue; men would prey upon each other, like the wild beasts of the desert; and earth would become a hell.
Nor is slavery more adverse to the conscience than it is to the mind. This is shown by the fact, that in every state of the American Union, where slavery exists, except the state of Kentucky, there are laws absolutely prohibitory of education among the slaves. The crime of teaching a slave to read is punishable with severe fines and imprisonment, and, in some instances, with death itself
Nor are the laws respecting this matter a dead letter. Cases may occur in which they are disregarded, and a few instances may be found where slaves may have learned to read; but such are isolated cases, and only prove the rule. The great mass of slaveholders look upon education among the slaves as utterly subversive of the slave system. I well remember when my mistress first announced to my master that she had dis[340] covered that I could read. His face colored at once with surprise and chagrin. He said that "I was ruined, and my value as a slave destroyed; that a slave should know nothing but to obey his master; that to give a negro an inch would lead him to take an ell; that having learned how to read, I would soon want to know how to write; and that by-and-by I would be running away." I think my audience will bear witness to the correctness of this philosophy, and to the literal fulfillment of this prophecy.
It is perfectly well understood at the south, that to educate a slave is to make him discontened(sic) with slavery, and to invest him with a power which shall open to him the treasures of freedom; and since the object of the slaveholder is to maintain complete authority over his slave, his constant vigilance is exercised to prevent everything which militates against, or endangers, the stability of his authority. Education being among the menacing influences, and, perhaps, the most dangerous, is, therefore, the most cautiously guarded against.
It is true that we do not often hear of the enforcement of the law, punishing as a crime the teaching of slaves to read, but this is not because of a want of disposition to enforce it. The true reason or explanation of the matter is this: there is the greatest unanimity of opinion among the white population in the south in favor of the policy of keeping the slave in ignorance. There is, perhaps, another reason why the law against education is so seldom violated. The slave is too poor to be able to offer a temptation sufficiently strong to induce a white man to violate it; and it is not to be supposed that in a community where the moral and religious sentiment is in favor of slavery, many martyrs will be found sacrificing their liberty and lives by violating those prohibitory enactments.
As a general rule, then, darkness reigns over the abodes of the enslaved, and 'how great is that darkness!' "
Frederick Douglass- "My Bondage and My Freedom" ROCHESTER, N. Y. July 2, 1855.
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it. - Patrick Henry
"Abolitionist" Is A Good Name For Anarchist
considering that many abolitionists of the 19th century were exactly that. They were anti-slavery, anti-war, anti-state, and anti-violence. Most of them came to these positions from deeply held religious beliefs. Too bad we don't have more of those kind of Christians around today. Most of the "Christian" leadership in America today, even those on the Christian Left, are all too willing to use state violence to bring about whatever it is they want for society. Calling oneself a "Christian" and then advocating killing a million innocent people in Iraq is like Neal Boortz calling himself a "libertarian" and advocating the same. Talk the talk folks, but please, walk the walk too.
Amen
A great big Amen from a Christian. Preach it Brother!
"Do not put your trust in Princes, or in any child of man." Psalms 146:3
Interesting. I too have
Interesting. I too have shifted more towards supporting anarchy(mostly minarchy) because of these great open debates on the Daily Paul. I still have some doubts though because anarchy has never been fully tested in the 'wild' on a sizable scale that I can think of.
I think for many anarchy does not mean what they think it means. This is the first stumbling block to get over.
Interesting write up...have some errands to run...will have to think about this more.
======
Federal Reserve to the American People:
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."
================
Who is John Galt? Vote ███ ███ 2012!
Nothing is perfect.
Advocates of Constitutional Republic founded on minarchist ideals and wide representation of the people, and minimum gov't power, was/is based on the idea that the "state"(as it were) is a check against more oppressive democracies and tyrannies which could spring up in a totally unchecked environment, therefore providing some protection against that, while knowingly presenting some danger from the presence of a state power.
Nobody ever said that a state wasn't a dangerous proposition. And indeed, we certainly now see that it can be, and is.
The issue at hand is the propensity for an unchecked society to quickly devolve into democracies or feudal societies, which may not provide inherent rights to be protected, nor a stable foundation to fend off tyranny arising from a war-lord or something.
So, as dangerous as a state may be, and we were warned about it by the founders, it is deemed a check against other more dangerous conditions arising. And the onus is on the people to control the power of the state, which admittedly is difficult.
Basically, as Jefferson pointed out, the natural progression of things is for liberty to yield, and gov't to gain power. And this is true, and so we know the state is a flawed organization.
The question arises, is it more flawed than no state, and will the stability of minarchist freedoms last longer than an unchecked society with no way to predict what that will evolve into? And make no mistake, it will evolve into something. And it normally goes into a democracy or feudal situation, which are very unstable, and tyranny arises quickly from those forms of societies.
It's a "pick your poison" question.
They both have their negatives. And they both have their positives.
I don't think you'll find anyone on here that promotes some minarchist type of state to boldly claim that there are no risks and down-sides to it.
There is a political spectrum, and things do evolve from one form to another. A democracy quickly becomes a tyranny. However, a republic such as ours provides a check against that. It "may" last longer for stability of minarchist freedoms, than an anarchy of total freedom devolving into something worse, more quickly.
You pays your money, and you takes your chances.
Some would prefer one way, and others would prefer another.
This is the debate.
Madison
'The issue at hand is the propensity for an unchecked society to quickly devolve into democracies or feudal societies, which may not provide inherent rights to be protected, nor a stable foundation to fend off tyranny arising from a war-lord or something.'
The issue I am raising is the 'or something'. The unfalsifiable 'something'.
The issue I am raising is not about the nature of the State, it is about the nature of the debate. Unfalsifiable propositions are given the same weight and consideration as falsifiable ones.
This is a 'pick your poison' question. Indeed. Using the analogy of the Patriot Act we may 'pick the poision' of eavesdropping, suspension of habeus corpus on the one hand or outright nuclear terrorism on the other. How do we verify the alternative claim? The claim that the State supposedly prevents 'something' from coming into being. Something that would make us worse off than we otherwise are.
You see what I mean? This is the issue I am raising. You reference 'The Founders' quite a bit. Madison wrote if men were angels we would not need government. So because men aren't angels does it therefore necessarily follow that monopolizing coercion is the best alternative?
And my point is How do we verify that?
No, it doesn't "necessarily" follow.
Threre is no way to absolutely guard against treachery from ambitious men.
However, our guidelines were to be "eternally vigilant" and we have not been so.
As Adams stated, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams from his Oct. 13, 1789 address to the military.
So, again it is the people who must ultimately safeguard their own liberties.
A state, or any other instrument of such nature, is only a tool. A tool can be used for its intended purpose, or it can be misused.
I think that because our state has evolved in a fairly negative direction, and we are directly seeing the results of that impinging on us, that we over-compensate and recoil to want to "abolish the state", without regard to what may come.
Remember, just because you are running out the back door to avoid the bear, doesn't mean there isn't a pack of wolves in the backyard waiting for you.
Yes
Yes the state is a tool. So in evaluating this tool, should we accept unfalsifiable claims in its defense? That is my question.
If the claims are unfalsifiable,
then yes, it would seem prudent to accept claims which cannot be false. Either in its defense, or as an indictment.
And the same should be afforded other claims by proponents of other systems.
These are my favorite posts
RP and thus most of his supporters is a Minarchist.
Mises (RP's mentor) was a Consumer-Minarchist
This means they are in favor of a transition from Corporatism to Minarchism then from Minarchism into what Mises calls Consumer-Individualism; which is the only REAL form of Anarchy.
There are 3 main types of Anarchy.
Worker-Soverignty -- Anarcho-Communism (leftist)
Trade-Unionist-Sovereignty -- Anarcho-Syndicalism (leftist)
Owner-Sovereignty -- Anarcho-Capitalism (Rothbardian Propertarianism)
Essentially: Workers-Rights vs Owners-Rights
Rights become or are established by Laws #1
Laws require a force-agent (Gov't or Gangsterism) #2
Anarchism means "No-Authority" and "Volunterism"
----Therefore you cannot have a force-agent -AND- be a "true" anarchist.
Anarchism is Individualism -- by the very Greek Root Definition!!!
The Individual is the ONLY protected person.
Society is comprised of 7 types of Civilians
1 - Worker
2 - Owner
3 - Student
4 - Retired
5 - Child
6 - Sick or Disabled
7 - Consumer
#1-6 are all Consumers in the performance of their area of concentration.
You must consume to work -- you must consume to own -- you must consume to gain knowledge, to breath, to procreate, to assimilate nutrients.
Consumption means: To Use, To Transform, and To Waste (diminish)
We Consume 24 Hours per Day.
Consumer-Individualism by-way of Consumer-Minarchism
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Let's do it, consumer-individualism
Ready to go.
grant