9 votes

Anarchism, Minarchism, Statism, Totalitarianism Attributes.

I do not presume to be the person smart enough to define everything. But, when we use words like "some", "a lot", "absolute", and even "none" to try and draw lines it creates a problem. These terms are all subjective, so based on a few recent comment conversations, I would like to offer up these attributes for those terms.

Anarchism
1) The right to leave without punishment.
2) The right to enter without punishment.

Minarchism
1) The right to leave without punishment.
2) Controlled entry (non-lethal).

Statism
1) Controlled exit (non-lethal).
2) Controlled entry (potentially lethal).

Totalitarianism
1) Controlled exit (potentially lethal).
2) Controlled entry (potentially lethal).

If you take a moment to think through the ramifications of these statements, that you may agree (or not) that they very closely match the various philosophies and viewpoints and remain consistent with the belief sets.

Discuss?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Does anarchism...

afford the right to enter/leave private property without consequences? Do all the borders of Anarcholand have unowned buffer regions that allow unmolested entrance to Anarcholand? Are there unowned corridors within Anarcholand that allow new arrivals to move about unmolested? Do these corridors have national fast food restaurants on the entrances and exits? What authority controls the unowned national border zones and corridors? I have so many questions I am verklempt. :D

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

wolfe's picture

Yes...

It includes whatever you want it to because I was was just tired of you editing a nonsense comment and bumping for no reason.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Awww :/

~offers wolfe some cashews and pistachios~ om nom nom

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Arking up the tree

I haven't yet read the many comments below, but I'm guessing you'd avoid much trivial argument in this post by substituting the term "attributes" for "definitions".

I find what you've done with the notions of entry and exit in the scenario quite insightful.

How does this scenario compare or fit in? What of the Daily Paul? Is it analogous or not to the OP's outline? How have entry and exit evolved at the DP? Has the ark moved from Anarchism to Totalitarianism? Did it stop at points in between?

wolfe's picture

Good point on the word attributes vs definitions...

I will correct that, and you can pretty much ignore all the comments except from BMoreBrawler. I sometimes allow myself me to be provoked to easily.

Interesting about using the DailyPaul to vet the logic. I will spend a few minutes thinking about that.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

It is not helpful or beneficial to debate...

to redefine what has already been credited to others.

Mises brought the term "statism" into modern vernacular here:

Omnipotent Government - PART II NATIONALISM - III. ETATISM
http://mises.org/etexts/mises/og/chap3a.asp

Nock laid the groundwork for the coining of the term here:

Our Enemy, the State (1935) - Chap I-V
http://www.crispinsartwell.com/nock.htm

Both Mises and Nock were minarchists. They saw statism as the consolidation of local society's responsibilities into large geographically centralized authorities.

Definition of "statism" on the Mises Wiki:

"Statism is a political ideology where the central state, rather than the people, are the ultimate source of authority and power.[1] Statism tends towards increased central planning in the economic sphere and a curtailing of civil liberties, which may be deemed necessary by those in power to achieve social or militaristic goals."
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Statism

The more power a central govt has over the details of the citizens daily lives the more statist it is. The more power the local people and local society have the less statist that society is.

Statism is NOT the mere presence of any form of government. Mises and Nock are credited for coining the term and it is dishonest/lazy and confusing to continually be injecting modifications especially when the sole purpose is to tip the balance of a individual persons debate hobby.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

wolfe's picture

uh?

Perhaps you are being lazy. The origin for the word "statism" shows ar around 1600: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statism?s=t

Second, if the end of your intellectual journey is to read what others have to say without thought. Good for you.

And lastly:
"confusing to continually be injecting modifications especially when the sole purpose is to tip the balance of a individual persons debate hobby."

Don't even know what to say about this rather confusing comment/attack.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Notice...

that I specifically said "MODERN vernacular"

In 1913 the definition of statism was:

Sta"tism (?), n. [From State.] The art of governing a state; statecraft; policy. [Obs.] (webster's 1913)
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=stati...

Notice the "obs" at the end which means "obsolete". The definition of statism in 1913 was obsolete.

The term "statism" is not present at all in webster's 1828 edition.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,statism

Prior to this "statism" was a church term in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Mises brought the term back into significant use. Don't take it personally. :p

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

wolfe's picture

Honestly...

That was an easy thing to point out, and your history, from what I see is inaccurate. But regardless, that isn't the important point. The State has existed with us since the beginning of recorded history, which is the relevant point.

And you think it is appropriate that we should merely accept what other people have said. Following that logic, Mises should have shut the hell up because Plato had written before. Or Rothbard because of Hayek, etc etc.

Lysander Spooner existed so I guess all of us anarchists should never write another word.

THAT laziness is why the US is generally retarded.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

What part is inaccurate?

My cut and paste from Webster's 1913? My link showing that Webster's 1828 does not contain the word? Or my reference to the church use of the term in the early enlightenment period? My cut and paste of the definition of "statism" from Mises Wiki?

You know full well the modern libertarian usage of the term "statism" is based directly on Mises' book "Omnipotent Government".

Make up a new word for whatever you are trying to express since it differs from statism. Or at least come up with a disclaimer that you are tweaking things.

I hold dictionaries as very important for keeping everyone on the same page in debate and discussion. Debates where each side has different definitions of terms are useless and confuse people trying to learn.

But. man, if your hobby is engaging in debate where the meanings of terms are constantly mutating then I hope you at least have a lot of fun doing it! :p

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

wolfe's picture

I think you are just challenged.

Meanings always have to be defined in both debate and law because even hard definitions contain mutations and subtlety.

We get a lot of "Statism means any government", "Statism means a lot of government here".

If you don't think it is important to understand what people are actually talking about when having a discussion, then perhaps you should continue not having meaningful discussions.

In terms of your references to statism, I could find no definitive history on it's first use, or even a consistent meaning between sources, and it isn't relevant anyway.

Enjoy not thinking about anything.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

So...

you are saying that I noticed the contrast between your definitions and the definitions in Websters(1828 & 1913), Online Eytmology and the Mises Wiki by not thinking? How does that work? :)

I'm old and very well likely was thinking about just this precise topic before you were born.

I can understand the need for definitions to be tweaked or even reinvented when usage becomes common within a very specific formal field of disciplined thought. But Mises and Nock did that already for the disciplined and precise areas of austrian economics and libertarian political theory. Mises and Nock are giant scholars in these specific academic fields.

Have a nice day! :p

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

wolfe's picture

Say it again...

"you are saying that I noticed the contrast between your definitions and the definitions in Websters, Onine Eytmology and the Mises Wiki by not thinking? How does that work? :)"

Won't make it true.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statism

This is philosophy. Discussion in an attempt to understand finer points of concepts. Clearly you are not that skilled at that.

It is extremely unlikely that you are that old, but apparently young enough to still make foolish and irrelevant assumptions.

You should understand the fallacy of "appealing to authority" when you reference them as giants and the only ones with something relevant to say.

Like, I said. Enjoy not thinking anymore. If you are nearly as old as you claim, perhaps you should take a rest... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I am defeated...

by your immense powers of ad hominem spewing. *tumps over dead* :D

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

wolfe's picture

dude... seriously?

Your very first comment and EVERY subsequent one to me had personal attacks in it. That doesn't make your comments or mine ad hom, since we also provided our actual arguments. ad hom fallacy is when a personal attack is used in place of a legitimate argument.

I swear, I get sick and tired of people not understanding what a fricking fallacy is.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Have you asked your doctor...

if medical marijuana might be right for you? It helps some people relax and center themselves. Breezy calm chillaxin'! B)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

wolfe's picture

Good job at demonstrating an actual ad hom attack...

Would you care to provide an actual argument to go along with it?

Ad Hom Fallacy: "You're stupid so your argument is wrong."

A garden variety personal attack: "Your argument is wrong because -(provided reason here)- so you are stupid."

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Argumentums....

Argument from whining fallacy
Argument from non-authority (yourself) fallacy
Argument from fallacy fallacy
Argument from argument of [put something here] fallacy
Argument from recommending medical weed fallacy

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Haha

the amazing lengths a whipped wolfe will go to save face against a triumphant weasel.

wolfe boy, give it up, weebles is right, you're wrong. you're just making it worse.

wolfe's picture

Interesting...

Nothing to actually add to the conversation?

Not surprised.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Dude...

dictionaries are stupid and annoying. ;(

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

wolfe's picture

Maybe I am using too many words.

You either contribute to discussion or not.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

You defined anarchism as

You defined anarchism as anarcho-communism where private property is abolished. Anarcho-capitalism has strict entry rules, as strict as North Korea.

Hoppe-

“in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, … no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant … such as democracy and communism.” “Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. … (violators) will have to be physically removed from society.”

Rothbard-

In a country, or a world, of totally private property, including streets, and private contractual neighborhoods consisting of property-owners, these owners can make any sort of neighborhood-contracts they wish. In practice, then, the country would be a truly “gorgeous mosaic,” … ranging from rowdy Greenwich Village-type contractual neighborhoods, to socially conservative homogeneous WASP neighborhoods. Remember that all deeds and covenants would once again be totally legal and enforceable, with no meddling government restrictions upon them. So that considering the drug question, if a proprietary neighborhood contracted that no one would use drugs, and Jones violated the contract and used them, he fellow community-contractors could simply enforce the contract and kick him out. Or, since no advance contract can allow for all conceivable circumstances, suppose that Smith became so personally obnoxious that his fellow neighborhood-owners wanted him ejected. They would then have to buy him out—-probably on terms set contractually in advance in accordance with some “obnoxious” clause.

With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortion, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area.

It is a happy accident of history that a great deal of private law and common law is libertarian – that they elaborate the means of preserving one's person and property against "invasion" – but a good deal of the old law was antilibertarian, and certainly custom can not always be relied on to be consistent with liberty. Ancient custom, after all, can be a frail bulwark indeed; if customs are oppressive of liberty, must they still serve as the legal framework permanently, or at least for centuries? Suppose ancient custom decrees that virgins be sacrificed to the gods by the light of the full moon, or that redheads be slaughtered as demons? What then? May not custom be subject to a higher test – reason?

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

As much as I like the symmetry of my logic table,

To play with the word "punishment" was word play more than a good division. It was an attempt to avoid trampling on property rights, but, it just doesn't hash out.

I concede the point and will keep thinking on it.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I think youre trying to

I think youre trying to reconcile the valuable right to travel protected by the Constitution with anarchism that cannot protect the right.

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

Not really.

I don't believe non-government can protect rights anymore than I believe governments can.

I was trying to break down what I explained (in too many words) in a comment to you earlier in an easy to digest logic table.

The above logic table, I still think holds true, and I believe can be vetted properly through a number of mechanisms...

But you are right about the way I chose to word the first set. It's too ambiguous in meaning. I am still thinking of a way to better word it without it becoming a discussion of the chosen words and more about the meaning it intends to convey.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

wolfe's picture

replaced with the above comment...

...

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/