Minarchism

[tiger]

In civics, minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism or small government, is the view that the size, role and influence of government in a free society should be minimal - only large enough to protect the liberty of each and every individual, without violating the liberty of any individuals itself. Many minarchists consider themselves part of the libertarian tradition, and claim that what they call minarchy continues the traditions of classical liberal philosophy. The term is perhaps most often used to differentiate libertarians that believe it is possible to have a state that protects individual liberty without violating it itself, from the anarchists who believe that any state is inherently a violation of individual liberty. Minarchists believe some minimal government is necessary to preserve liberty (from invading non-minarchy based armies, if nothing else).

Minarchists agree that the guiding principle in determining what should or should not fall into the domain of the government is the maximization of individual liberty. Minarchists often disagree on exactly how to accomplish this. Many minarchists usually agree that government should be restricted to its "minimal" or "night watchman" state functions of government (e.g., courts, police, prisons, defense forces). Some minarchists include in the ideal role of government the management of essential common infrastructure (e.g., roads, money). In general, minarchists favor expansion of power in a government of a small jurisdiction (like a city or county) over a larger jurisdiction (like a state or nation). This leaves individuals who wish to avoid living or working under the expansion more options (it's easier to move to another city or county than to move to another state or country). Minarchists are generally opposed to government programs that either transfer wealth or subsidize certain sectors of the economy. However, many minarchists support taxation and/or monopolies of the minimal state and thus some redistribution of wealth and subsidies to the state.

Some minarchists explain their vision of the state by referring to basic principles rather than arguing in terms of pragmatic results. For example, in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia Robert Nozick defines the role of a minimal state as follows:

"Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection."

Other minarchists instead use utilitarian arguments. They might use theoretical economic arguments, like Ludwig von Mises's contribution to Austrian economics, or statistical economic research, like the Index of Economic Freedom.

Other arguments for minarchism are natural rights, contractarianism and egalitarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Sounds good? I belive more in this than simple anarchism. Any ideas about it? :)
Prominent minarchists include Benjamin Constant, Herbert Spencer, Leonard Read, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, James M. Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, John Hospers, Robert Nozick, George Reisman.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

The problem is that some of those people you mentioned are horribly associated with Capitalism (Rand), the New Right (Nozick) and Neo-Liberalism (Friedman).

[ComradeRed]

Yes, you may as well have promoted national socialism on the basis that it has the word "socialism" in it, ergo it is "good".

Just ignore the fact that it screws over the people.

If you actually look at the work of Rand or Mises, they're no better than Hitler or Mussolini. None care about the welfare of the people, and in all cases (theoretic and in practice) actually oppose a workers' democracy. It goes against the "economic freedom" to buy and sell people.

Minarchists are merely fascists with a mercenary force (rather than a "statist" one). How is this in any sense of the word "revolutionary"?

Maybe you were trying to say reactionary.

[tiger]

Reactionary? No I don't think so...

[Freedom Works]

If you actually look at the work of Rand or Mises, they're no better than Hitler or Mussolini. None care about the welfare of the people,
Just because they do not support what you believe is 'caring about the welfare of the people', does in no way make them as bad as Hitler or Mussolini. They supported things that was in the long run better for the people - freedom from oppression.


and in all cases (theoretic and in practice) actually oppose a workers' democracy.
That's because democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.


It goes against the "economic freedom" to buy and sell people.
Obviously not if people own themselves.

[Luís Henrique]

Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek

Icons of the neoliberal right, aggressively anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-trade-unions, etc.


Milton Friedman

More of the same; less theoretical, more "didatic".


Ayn Rand

The "phylosopher" of the movement, crazed, drooling anti-communist and anti-working class.

Like it or not, a very far-right team; their model would be XIX century capitalism, without unions and freedom of organisation for the working class.

Their State is "minimal" because it should include only the minimal set of functions of a bourgeois State: military aggression/defence against other States and political repression against the populace.

By "political repression of the populace", yes, I mean the death penalty for the crime of being unionised. And cavalry charges against unarmed workers on strike.

Luís Henrique

[Publius]

If you actually look at the work of Rand or Mises, they're no better than Hitler or Mussolini. None care about the welfare of the people, and in all cases (theoretic and in practice) actually oppose a workers' democracy. It goes against the "economic freedom" to buy and sell people.

How much Rand or Mises have you actually read?

I'm by no means a Rand fan and I fully understand that she opposes this.

IT's obvious you didn't comprehend what you read (If your read anything at all) because it's one of her basic tenets.

And I don't think Mises ever said anything of the sort; you're projecting.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 30 2005, 09:58 PM







Icons of the neoliberal right, aggressively anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-trade-unions, etc.

Anti-communist? Duh.

Anti-sociliast? But of course.

Anti-trade-union? How so?




More of the same; less theoretical, more "didatic".

More accessible.



The "phylosopher" of the movement, crazed, drooling anti-communist and anti-working class.

I'll grant you this; Rand sucked.



Like it or not, a very far-right team; their model would be XIX century capitalism, without unions and freedom of organisation for the working class.

Capitalism didn't even exist then.

They oppose trade unions ideologically, but would do nothing, READ: absolutely nothing to curtail or stop them.

A free market is a free market for unions as well.

No free marketer would ever deny freedom of organiszation for anyone, anywhere for any reason.

You're making this up as you go along and it shows.

Are the only indictments against capitalism that you have mere figmants of your imagination?



Their State is "minimal" because it should include only the minimal set of functions of a bourgeois State: military aggression/defence against other States and political repression against the populace.

Political repression?

How so?

A minarchist state wouldn't have have the apperati to do such a thing.



By "political repression of the populace", yes, I mean the death penalty for the crime of being unionised. And cavalry charges against unarmed workers on strike.

A minarchist government would likely not have the death penalty at all, certainly wouldn't arrest anyone for unionization, and wouldn't own any horses.

The absurdity of your arguments is utterly hilarious. It's like me saying:

"I oppose Communism, because under communism Karl Marx and his zombie hoards will eat the brains of all the innocent men, women and children!"

It's totally a fabrication on your part, and a poor, poorly guised one at that.

[ComradeRed]

Just because they do not support what you believe is 'caring about the welfare of the people', does in no way make them as bad as Hitler or Mussolini. They supported things that was in the long run better for the people - freedom from oppression. "Freedom from oppression" from the "state"? Yes, but from the Mercenaries? No.

Is it really a priority to actually give people freedom according to these philistines? So long as they can afford it.



That's because democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. So thus the sheep has the "right" to be self-elected despot? :rolleyes:

Oh wait, the wolves don't matter anyway. They don't have property, so they are de facto not important. They are just waiting to become property.



Obviously not if people own themselves. And sell themselves, philistine. If one cannot afford food, water, or shelter, one would willingly submit one's self to slavery to survive.

What is there to prevent the capitalists from doing this under your dystopia? It's an economic transition afterall, the government can't intervene.

There is freedom under laissez-faire...for the slave owners!

[Livetrueordie]

i thought Nozick was an anarcho-capitalist... though "anarchy, state, and utopia" has had some good stuff in it from what i've read

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:25 PM




"Freedom from oppression" from the "state"? Yes, but from the Mercenaries? No.

It's clear that continuing this debate is pointless.

No minarchist would support mercenaries and no minarchist has ever advocated or supported them, or would.

It's antithetical to minarchism's a priori assumptions and beliefs.



Is it really a priority to actually give people freedom according to these philistines? So long as they can afford it.

This isn't a cogent thought.

Please parse your syntax.


So thus the sheep has the "right" to be self-elected despot? :rolleyes:

Oh wait, the wolves don't matter anyway. They don't have property, so they are de facto not important. They are just waiting to become property.

Again, you betray your ignorance of the subject.

They can be no elected despots under minarchism, just as there can be none under communism.


And sell themselves, philistine. If one cannot afford food, water, or shelter, one would willingly submit one's self to slavery to survive.

Is 'philistine' the Word of The Day or something?

One would not be allowed to sell one's self into slavery. Once you make yourself a slave, you lose the privilage of selling anything, thus you lose the privilage of selling yourself, thus you are no longer a slave.



What is there to prevent the capitalists from doing this under your dystopia? It's an economic transition afterall, the government can't intervene.

Yet again, do you have any clue what a minarchist state is or does?

It only exists to protect individual rights.

THat's its sole job.



There is freedom under laissez-faire...for the slave owners!

This must make a great argument in your head.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:42 PM

No minarchist would support mercenaries and no minarchist has ever advocated or supported them, or would.

It's antithetical to minarchism's a priori assumptions and beliefs.
Your good intentions will not stop rich people from hiring mercenaries and thugs to brutalize working people. Ever hear of the Pinkertons?

Minarchism is more often called "libertarianism" in the U.S. A more accurate name would be "propertarianism."

[Luís Henrique]

Anti-trade-union? How so?

Trade unions would be collusions; they hamper the free trade, by blocking the individual workers their "freedom" to rent themselves at the lowest possible price.


More accessible.

Yes.


I'll grant you this; Rand sucked.

hm, now I have an image stuck into my brains.


Capitalism didn't even exist then.

Capitalism didn't exist in the XIX century? Well, this is a new one... can you explain it to us?


They oppose trade unions ideologically, but would do nothing, READ: absolutely nothing to curtail or stop them.

A free market is a free market for unions as well.

No free marketer would ever deny freedom of organiszation for anyone, anywhere for any reason.


Of course they would; they believe unions are "corporativist", remnants of medieval guilds, and should be outlawed. In their views, trade unions hamper free-trade. And of course free marketers would deny freedom of organisation, as long as they saw the goal of such organisation as illegal. And (at least some) free marketers would believe collusions should be illegal, and trade unions a form of collusion.


Are the only indictments against capitalism that you have mere figmants of your imagination?

Hear, the OP was asking if Mises & Rand could possibly be some kind of ultra-leftists, not if capitalism was OK. I think you are as able as me to figure out that Hayek and Friedman aren't in any way radical socialists...


Political repression?

How so?

A minarchist state wouldn't have have the apperati to do such a thing.

Police? Was't/isn't it used to break strikes?


A minarchist government would likely not have the death penalty at all, certainly wouldn't arrest anyone for unionization, and wouldn't own any horses.

Come on. Let's read again the OP:


Many minarchists usually agree that government should be restricted to its "minimal" or "night watchman" state functions of government (e.g., courts, police, prisons, defense forces).

The "night watchman" image is commonplace for the liberal-repressive bourgeois State of the XIX century. I fail to see what the opposition is between "minimal State" and death penalty, outlawing of unions, and mounted police.


It's totally a fabrication on your part, and a poor, poorly guised one at that.

Let's then review Rand's, Mises', and Hayek's texts, as well as XIX (and early XX) century history of bourgeois States?

[Tungsten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:16 PM


Well well, if it isn't comrade red.


If you actually look at the work of Rand or Mises, they're no better than Hitler or Mussolini.

Wow. A lot of thought must have gone into that one. I don't see how you can possible venture an opinion on this one, seeing as you haven't read either Mises or Rand (apart from the odd snippet quoted on the internet. By the way, have you had any luck in finding that made up Ayn Rand book you were always quoting from?).


None care about the welfare of the people, and in all cases (theoretic and in practice) actually oppose a workers' democracy. It goes against the "economic freedom" to buy and sell people.

This whole paragraph is proof enough that you haven't read mises at all. I don't think minarchists (of which I am one) are interested in building a 'worker democracy', 'worker dictatorship' or anything else. I want a world for everyone, not a master race of so-called workers. Neither you, nor the rest of your political movement care about the welfare of the people nor 'economic freedom' (which you vehemently oppose) nor about people being bought and sold (although you do actually aggree with it, but only when it's called something else). The only people who have ever benifited from communism have been the tiny ruling elite. Before you start screaming at me that this wasn't supposed to happen and wasn't representative of 'true' communism, why does it happen in every case? Because there were no safeguards to prevent it. Our system has those safeguards.

Note to others: One thing you will learn about comrade red is that his arguments make little logical sense and frequently contradict themselves.

Livetrueordie


i thought Nozick was an anarcho-capitalist... though "anarchy, state, and utopia" has had some good stuff in it from what i've read

Anarcho capitalism is silly. It turns the governement into the mafia.

Pubilus


I'm by no means a Rand fan and I fully understand that she opposes this.

I'll admit that I didn't particualrly warm to it when I first read it, but if you can wade through the sometimes pointless repetitiveness, some of it is particuarly useful. Namely the ethical justification for laissez faire capitalism. The reds don't like it when someone puts a dent in their moral smugness. Stuff the aesthetics, though; I think that art is subjective, but I guess that is going off topic.

Severian


Your good intentions will not stop rich people from hiring mercenaries and thugs to brutalize working people.

Wouldn't doing that be in breach of their individual rights? We don't have one rule for one group of people and one rule for another, you know.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My biggest question to minarchists and anacro-capitalists is how would you implement your system? Business seems to like the state since it buys all its politicians and writes all the laws (telecom laws or copyright laws are generally put together by orgs. paid for by companies in that industry and then given to lawmakers who introduce them to legislative bodies). In companies in the US feally felt repressed unduely by the government then the US would look like Venusuela did a few years ago with bosses strikes and companies would be pulling their money out. All capitalist governments are based on how best to allow the economy to function; when there are worker's movements which threaten business, then the government may put reforms in place but this is only to ease labor/capital tensions not because the government is somehow pro-worker.

My guess is that there is no plan for implementation because these "ideologies" are really just utopian-capitalism and a tale to tell to make it seem like capitalism could be run in a better way in theory. Most of these ideas were created after WWII to argue against Keensian capitalism (which was the accepted logic in capitalism at the time) but have since become some sort of capitalist cults for people who believe that if it wasn't for the government they could be business owners too and not have to work at shitty jobs like the rest of us.

[Jimmie Higgins]

By the way, have you had any luck in finding that made up Ayn Rand book you were always quoting from?The one where she prooves how Russians never smile? Every book by Ayn Rand is "made-up".


I want a world for everyone, not a master race of so-called workers.Master race of workers? That's like saying the American revolution's goal was a master race of American colonists. Or the French Revolution's goal was a master race of shop keepers.


Neither you, nor the rest of your political movement care about the welfare of the people nor 'economic freedom' (which you vehemently oppose) nor about people being bought and sold (although you do actually aggree with it, but only when it's called something else)Yeah, I oppose economic freedom of some over others and support economic democracy. What's this B.S. about slavery? I oppose private ownership, you are the one who supports it if it called slavery or by any other name.


The only people who have ever benifited from communism have been the tiny ruling elite. Before you start screaming at me that this wasn't supposed to happen and wasn't representative of 'true' communism, why does it happen in every case? Because there were no safeguards to prevent it. Our system has those safeguards.In every modern society the world has ever known, it was only a tiny minorety of people who benifited. Socialism has only been attempted a handful times (whereas Stalinism has been implemented all over the place in the 20th century) and was defeated either externally or internally, so to say that Stalinism is the natural outcome of all attempts to build worker's power is like saying that Napoelon and wars are the inherent result if you try and overthrow a monarch in favor of a republic. How long did it take for Europe to transform from a feudal system to a capitalist one? How many revolutions were there inbetween?

How does minimalism safegaurd from the rule of a tiny eliete? Capitalism can't work if everyone has eough money and power. Additionally, Monopoly is one of the main drives in capitalism.

One set of rules for some people and another for everyone else? Well that describes capitalism pretty well. All you have to do is look at prisons and laws for corporate crooks vs. laws for petty crooks. If I stole the mdeical plans for 1000 people or stole the retirement money from 1000 people I would be locked up for a long time... capitalists never get locked up for runing the lives of 1000s of people by laying them off or gutting pensions or benifits: they get rewarded by their stockholders for such crimes.

Even when companies do something which is illegal as far as the laws, they arn't accountable! If I dumped some chemicals into a river, I'd get locked up, if a company does this systematically, they get a fine (after a lengthy court battle) and no one gets put in prison since corporations can't be held accountable like that.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 12:25 PM

Your good intentions will not stop rich people from hiring mercenaries and thugs to brutalize working people.

Wouldn't doing that be in breach of their individual rights? We don't have one rule for one group of people and one rule for another, you know.
Right. "The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges" as Anatole France put it.

And the law allows rich and poor alike to hire "security guards" to "protect their property." Of course, not everyone can afford that equally.

Only that big, bad, oppressive state can limit what those security guards can do to others.

[Publius]

Your good intentions will not stop rich people from hiring mercenaries and thugs to brutalize working people. Ever hear of the Pinkertons?

Yes.

Were they mercenaries, or security gaurds?

Our opinions will be different.




Minarchism is more often called "libertarianism" in the U.S. A more accurate name would be "propertarianism."

Oversimplification at best.

Minarchsim is just one form of libertarianism.

Personally, I don't quite consider myself a minarchist.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 31 2005, 05:01 PM








Trade unions would be collusions; they hamper the free trade, by blocking the individual workers their "freedom" to rent themselves at the lowest possible price.

So?

Minarchists are not anti-collusionist.

At all.

You have the freedom to associate with anyone for any reason, including hampering trade.

Minarchists aren't PRO-trade, their anti-government.




Capitalism didn't exist in the XIX century? Well, this is a new one... can you explain it to us?

Apologies, I read your Roman numerals incorrectly.


Of course they would; they believe unions are "corporativist", remnants of medieval guilds, and should be outlawed.

No they don't.

They certainly oppose them as collectivist, but don't think they should be outlawed. Period.


In their views, trade unions hamper free-trade.

They do. So what?


And of course free marketers would deny freedom of organisation, as long as they saw the goal of such organisation as illegal. And (at least some) free marketers would believe collusions should be illegal, and trade unions a form of collusion.

No 'free marketer' would make collusion illegal; then they wouldn't be FREE marketer.

The free-market isn't a goal to be achieved, it's a process to be allowed.



Police? Was't/isn't it used to break strikes?

Wouldn't be.




Come on. Let's read again the OP:

The "night watchman" image is commonplace for the liberal-repressive bourgeois State of the XIX century. I fail to see what the opposition is between "minimal State" and death penalty, outlawing of unions, and mounted police.

The 'minimal' state may or may not have the death penalty, would have no power to outlaw unions (And wouldn't desire to) and would have police.



Let's then review Rand's, Mises', and Hayek's texts, as well as XIX (and early XX) century history of bourgeois States?

Let's.

[Publius]

I'll admit that I didn't particualrly warm to it when I first read it, but if you can wade through the sometimes pointless repetitiveness, some of it is particuarly useful. Namely the ethical justification for laissez faire capitalism. The reds don't like it when someone puts a dent in their moral smugness. Stuff the aesthetics, though; I think that art is subjective, but I guess that is going off topic.

I don't need her morality, I have my own.

[Publius]

Business seems to like the state since it buys all its politicians and writes all the laws (telecom laws or copyright laws are generally put together by orgs. paid for by companies in that industry and then given to lawmakers who introduce them to legislative bodies). In companies in the US feally felt repressed unduely by the government then the US would look like Venusuela did a few years ago with bosses strikes and companies would be pulling their money out. All capitalist governments are based on how best to allow the economy to function; when there are worker's movements which threaten business, then the government may put reforms in place but this is only to ease labor/capital tensions not because the government is somehow pro-worker.

Somewhat accurate; it certainly won't be easy to divorce big business from government, but than neither will communist revolution.



My guess is that there is no plan for implementation because these "ideologies" are really just utopian-capitalism and a tale to tell to make it seem like capitalism could be run in a better way in theory.

Again, communism isn't doing well in the 'ideas' department either.

Dialectics? What a crock of shit.

At least our answers aren't: "It's inevietable!"



Most of these ideas were created after WWII to argue against Keensian capitalism (which was the accepted logic in capitalism at the time) but have since become some sort of capitalist cults for people who believe that if it wasn't for the government they could be business owners too and not have to work at shitty jobs like the rest of us.

Actually, the GD was caused by governement intervention, primilarily, interest rates.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This debate is like we are saying the Emporor has no clothes whereas the anacro-capitalists respond: "He is wearing clothes, they are just threadbare and he has better clothes at home in his wardrobe".

It's rediculous. They arn't serious, they don't have any sort of plan for implementing their fanasty version of "good capitalism". They are just apologists who use fiction to try and show that in some other dimension, under some other set of circumstances, the realities of life in capitalism wouldn't be so bad.

They are capitalism's version of Utopian socialists who spend their time imagineing a perfect system if only they had a magic want to implement it. As materialists we actually have a view of how states work and how they came about and why they exist as they do and, most importanly, how they could be changed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Business seems to like the state since it buys all its politicians and writes all the laws (telecom laws or copyright laws are generally put together by orgs. paid for by companies in that industry and then given to lawmakers who introduce them to legislative bodies). In companies in the US feally felt repressed unduely by the government then the US would look like Venusuela did a few years ago with bosses strikes and companies would be pulling their money out. All capitalist governments are based on how best to allow the economy to function; when there are worker's movements which threaten business, then the government may put reforms in place but this is only to ease labor/capital tensions not because the government is somehow pro-worker.

Somewhat accurate; it certainly won't be easy to divorce big business from government, but than neither will communist revolution.Of course. Revolution is never easy and there are lots of ideas of how to achieve worker's power. I have heard many of these arguments, but I'm still waiting for the argument that explains how to achieve "good capitalim" when, in my view, your plans would be vigerously and brutally opposed by real capitalists like Wal-Mart and so on and so on.



My guess is that there is no plan for implementation because these "ideologies" are really just utopian-capitalism and a tale to tell to make it seem like capitalism could be run in a better way in theory.

Again, communism isn't doing well in the 'ideas' department either.

Dialectics? What a crock of shit.

At least our answers aren't: "It's inevietable!"There are a lot of bad ideas out there everywhere. I happen to agree with Dialectics since I see the world as contantly in motion and changeing not A=A staticness. But you still haven't laid-out the plan for what happens when Wal-Mart has a coup and overthrows your perfect-sytem because it would take power away from them (i.e. their biggest power, the power of the capitalist state).




Most of these ideas were created after WWII to argue against Keensian capitalism (which was the accepted logic in capitalism at the time) but have since become some sort of capitalist cults for people who believe that if it wasn't for the government they could be business owners too and not have to work at shitty jobs like the rest of us.

Actually, the GD was caused by governement intervention, primilarily, interest rates.WTF? The Great Depression was before WWII. You need to do some reading. Still, in responce, so it was bad government that caused the Depression. What about the Depression in the 1870s? What about various other depressions and recessions? Oh yeah, it was all bad government intervention. Well maybe if capitalism wasn't prone to chaos, capitalist governments wouldn't try to controll the anarchy of the market so much. Ahh, someday my capitalist-system-prince will come and deliver me from the realities of capitalism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Somewhat accurate; it certainly won't be easy to divorce big business from government, but than neither will communist revolution.

I have often enquired about a capitalist revolution, but there seem to be few that are interested in addressing this idea. Would you say that revolution is necessary for capitalism?


Again, communism isn't doing well in the 'ideas' department either.

Dialectics? What a crock of shit.

At least our answers aren't: "It's inevietable!"

To be fair many neo-Marxists and revisionists ignore this part of Marx's work, it is more contestable amongst the modern left, and many subscribe without ever coming accross it. I have often wondered how well Marx brought this in. Just as I have wondered about Hegel in general.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 08:29 PM



This debate is like we are saying the Emporor has no clothes whereas the anacro-capitalists respond: "He is wearing clothes, they are just threadbare and he has better clothes at home in his wardrobe".

In a debate about minarchism, arguing against someone who isn't a minarchist or anarcho-capitalist (Myself) you deign to bring up anarcho-capitalism.

Let's stay on topic.



It's rediculous. They arn't serious, they don't have any sort of plan for implementing their fanasty version of "good capitalism". They are just apologists who use fiction to try and show that in some other dimension, under some other set of circumstances, the realities of life in capitalism wouldn't be so bad.

I have all kinds of plans, most of them consist of voters not being stupid, so I throw them out.

Personally, I think all forms of utopian thinking will fail, anarcho-capitalism, communism, and to a degree, minarchism.

The Demos ruin everything.



They are capitalism's version of Utopian socialists who spend their time imagineing a perfect system if only they had a magic want to implement it. As materialists we actually have a view of how states work and how they came about and why they exist as they do and, most importanly, how they could be changed.

The magic is that there is no magic.

Earth will suck from now to eternity.

As soon as everyone realizes that, we can get some actual change started.

[Publius]

Of course. Revolution is never easy and there are lots of ideas of how to achieve worker's power. I have heard many of these arguments, but I'm still waiting for the argument that explains how to achieve "good capitalim" when, in my view, your plans would be vigerously and brutally opposed by real capitalists like Wal-Mart and so on and so on.

'How'?

This is a democracy (Sort of), how do you think?


There are a lot of bad ideas out there everywhere. I happen to agree with Dialectics since I see the world as contantly in motion and changeing not A=A staticness. But you still haven't laid-out the plan for what happens when Wal-Mart has a coup and overthrows your perfect-sytem because it would take power away from them (i.e. their biggest power, the power of the capitalist state).

We vote in leaders who don't bow to Wal Mart.

Either we do that, or we're ultimately fucked.


WTF? The Great Depression was before WWII. You need to do some reading. Still, in responce, so it was bad government that caused the Depression.

What does that have to do with anything?

Government fiat money caused the great depression. Credit expansion was too great and interest rates far to low in the 20's which lead to overproduction and underconsumption and then deflated the currency once the stock market crashed.

The Fed did the 2 worst things it could have done and the Depression is entirely the government's fault.



What about the Depression in the 1870s? What about various other depressions and recessions? Oh yeah, it was all bad government intervention.

They quite often were. Depression of 1870's? Money supply was reduced.

What happens is a market readjustment, often minor, is made worse by government bungling.


Well maybe if capitalism wasn't prone to chaos, capitalist governments wouldn't try to controll the anarchy of the market so much. Ahh, someday my capitalist-system-prince will come and deliver me from the realities of capitalism.

Why do prices adjust in capitalism? What purpose do prices serve?

[Publius]

I have often enquired about a capitalist revolution, but there seem to be few that are interested in addressing this idea. Would you say that revolution is necessary for capitalism?

I'll be honest: Smarter, better people.

Not likely.



To be fair many neo-Marxists and revisionists ignore this part of Marx's work, it is more contestable amongst the modern left, and many subscribe without ever coming accross it. I have often wondered how well Marx brought this in. Just as I have wondered about Hegel in general.

I should think so.

Dialectics is laughable. It adds no new knowledge of anything, merely that something is dialectical.

"Night and day are dialectical" is meaningless. It adds no new information.

You can't make predictions using it, only observations, and only evident observations at that.

[Tungsten]

Gravedigger


All capitalist governments are based on how best to allow the economy to function; when there are worker's movements which threaten business, then the government may put reforms in place but this is only to ease labor/capital tensions not because the government is somehow pro-worker.

Well you're right in a way. Worker's movements aren't in any worker's interest, as they are generally disasterous to the economy.


My guess is that there is no plan for implementation because these "ideologies" are really just utopian-capitalism and a tale to tell to make it seem like capitalism could be run in a better way in theory.

It might be a little painful, but it's easy to produce a small government, all we need to do is take the currently massive one and cut it down to size.


The one where she prooves how Russians never smile? Every book by Ayn Rand is "made-up".

The book he was quoting from doesn't exist, so we'll never know.


Yeah, I oppose economic freedom of some over others and support economic democracy

I'm not convinced. Democracy is a system where some people have more power than others. The majority, for instance, would have more power than a minority. A system where a majority is able to confiscate the wealth of a minority via democracy does not equate to freedom for everyone, only one particular group.


. What's this B.S. about slavery? I oppose private ownership, you are the one who supports it if it called slavery or by any other name.

Private ownership is not synonymous with slavery unless it is people that are being owned. You'll find that 'owning' people tends to be a breach of their rights, to which all men are entitled under a minarchy. You seem to assume that our ideology is as contradictory as your own.


How does minimalism safegaurd from the rule of a tiny eliete?

What would the tiny elite have to start with? Everything would be privately owned and nothing could legally be confiscated. Taxation would be minimal, so it wouldn't have much money to go on the rampage with even if it did. What about your system? How does that safeguard from the tiny elite. Elites seem to be more prominent in countries with socialist, Stalinist, or whatever the lastest phrase for it is, governments, so how is this problem going to be addressed?


Capitalism can't work if everyone has eough money and power.

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion, or what you mean by 'enough'.


Additionally, Monopoly is one of the main drives in capitalism.

Monopolies are extremly rare and can only really be enforced with a government gun.


One set of rules for some people and another for everyone else? Well that describes capitalism pretty well. All you have to do is look at prisons and laws for corporate crooks vs. laws for petty crooks.

One has to question what the definition of corporate crook and petty crook is, or whether what we live in today can honestly be called laissez fair capitalism. I don't.


I have heard many of these arguments, but I'm still waiting for the argument that explains how to achieve "good capitalim" when, in my view, your plans would be vigerously and brutally opposed by real capitalists like Wal-Mart and so on and so on.

I don't think Wal-Mart will make much of a fuss when it realises that it's interests no longer lie in currying the favour of the government.


A=A staticness

That does not imply staticness, only the non-contradiction of identity.


But you still haven't laid-out the plan for what happens when Wal-Mart has a coup

What's stopping Wal-Mart from having a coup right now?

Severian


Right. "The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges" as Anatole France put it.

And the law allows rich and poor alike to hire "security guards" to "protect their property." Of course, not everyone can afford that equally.

That does not equate to one rule for one group and one for another. Because I can afford a car and my neighbour cannot does not grant him the right to confiscate either my car or my money. If such behaviour was allowed, then we would be politically unequal. He would have the right to confiscate my money, whereas I would not have the right to confiscate his. He becomes my master, I become his slave. So much for the classless society.

Publius


I don't need her morality, I have my own.

Me too. This is going to sound a bit self-contratulatory, but the main reason I liked Rand's work was because it conicided with my own ideas.

Hegemonicretribution


I have often enquired about a capitalist revolution, but there seem to be few that are interested in addressing this idea. Would you say that revolution is necessary for capitalism?

One would have to ask whether it could actually be called a revolution. I don't plan on taking anything or killing anyone. Although many, many people from the publice sector will be looking for new jobs.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 10:48 PM




I should think so.

Dialectics is laughable. It adds no new knowledge of anything, merely that something is dialectical.

Socratic dialectics are actually a valid form of argument though, and very successful at that.

How would you bring about capitalism then, that is without revolution. Just as the ruling class don't want to give up their power to libertarian leftists, they don't want to, to the truest free-marketers either. They have made the state a bigger part than even Keynes would care for, and it doesn't seem to be going away.

Economic freedom could arguably be seen as being stepped up, but not so social freedom.

[Freedom Works]

How would you bring about capitalism then, that is without revolution.
http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/pr.htm
http://FreeStateProject.org

[Publius]

Socratic dialectics are actually a valid form of argument though, and very successful at that.

Explain.




How would you bring about capitalism then, that is without revolution. Just as the ruling class don't want to give up their power to libertarian leftists, they don't want to, to the truest free-marketers either. They have made the state a bigger part than even Keynes would care for, and it doesn't seem to be going away.

True. To be honest, I don't see a 'real' libertarian revolution as likely or even possible.

I want so very much to be able to say it will happen. But it won't. I just accept it and move on and do what I can with what I have.




Economic freedom could arguably be seen as being stepped up, but not so social freedom.

I would argue they go hand in hand.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:36 PM




Explain.
If I was to give an example it would simply be the classic one of piety, although I have used similar tactics in debates before. Of course it works best against weaker opponents.


True. To be honest, I don't see a 'real' libertarian revolution as likely or even possible.

I want so very much to be able to say it will happen. But it won't. I just accept it and move on and do what I can with what I have.

Essentially this is the reason many become disillussioned with the left. To be honest none of us "know" if anything will happen either way. If history has taught us anything though these things are not easy, and do take time. Which peasants would have dreamt of an end to feudalism?

Dissent itself is very important at the moment, regardless of how much of an opposition there appears to, the fact it is there is important to everyones lives. Western "cultural" hegemony would be a fate worse than death in my oppinion. Whatever happens, reduction of state power is a common goal for many, and that should be the crux of any opposition movement initially. My immediate concern would not be the putting down of a revolution, because this does not appear immediate, but rather the putting down of the possibility of a revolution.


I would argue they go hand in hand.

Apparently not. Even though in some cases free trade could be in the process of being steped up, I would not say the same for social freedom. If you maintain economic freedom as part of freedom as a whole that is part of another issue. However the governments that could arguably (at least when it suits them) be seen to be increasing economic freedom, could not be said to be doing the same for social freedom.

[Luís Henrique]

Let's.

Trade union - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union)


As indicated in the preceding quotation, unions were illegal for many years in most countries. There were severe penalties for attempting to organize unions, up to and including execution.

When were unions illegal?

At the good old times of "night watchman" State...

When did they cease to be illegal?


Despite this, unions were formed and began to acquire political power, eventually resulting in a body of labour law which not only legalized organizing efforts, but codified the relationship between employers and those employees organized into unions.

When the monsterous "welfare" State took over...

Luís Henrique

[Tungsten]

Luís Henrique


Despite this, unions were formed and began to acquire political power, eventually resulting in a body of labour law which not only legalized organizing efforts, but codified the relationship between employers and those employees organized into unions.

When the monsterous "welfare" State took over...

Not according to Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward:
"(Welfare programs arise) from the need to stem political disorder during periods of mass unemployment, and to enforce low-wage work during periods of economic and political stability. The institution of relief is thus best understood, not as charity, but as a system for regulating the poor."

Unions are not mentioned, nor are they credited for the creation of the welfare state.

[Luís Henrique]

Unions are not mentioned, nor are they credited for the creation of the welfare state.

Notice that I wrote "when", not "because", "for", or "so that".

Luís Henrique

[Publius]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 4 2005, 02:55 PM






When were unions illegal?

At the good old times of "night watchman" State...

When did they cease to be illegal?

The U.S. hasn't represented a 'minarchist state' since before Lincoln.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:02 PM
The U.S. hasn't represented a 'minarchist state' since before Lincoln.
Since the abolition of slavery, then?

Just a coincidence, I presume?

Luís Henrique

[Tungsten]

Luís Henrique

Since the abolition of slavery, then?

Just a coincidence, I presume?

Luís Henrique

So if "small government" equals slavery then what does "big government" equal, freedom? (laughs)

[Publius]

Since the abolition of slavery, then?

Just a coincidence, I presume?

Luís Henrique

No, because of what Lincoln did in regard to the money supply, the power of the Federal Government (Taking away the writ of Hebeas Corpus and arresting dissenters).

The war was a tarrif issue as much as a slavery issue. Lincoln was trying to destroy the Right of Nullification.

He succeeded.

THe abolition of slavery was only an ancillary benefit of the war.

[Luís Henrique]

THe abolition of slavery was only an ancillary benefit of the war.

In any case... a "minarchist State" wouldn't be incompatible with slavery, would it?

Luís Henrique

[Publius]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 8 2005, 06:33 PM



In any case... a "minarchist State" wouldn't be incompatible with slavery, would it?

Most certainly it would.