Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Revolutions
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3]  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Revolutions (Read 1777 times)
Nate
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 98
Joined: Mar 12th, 2014
Re: Revolutions
Reply #20 - Apr 11th, 2014 at 1:02am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 9th, 2014 at 9:19am:
Thanks, I was interested in your own personal views as an anarchist.
It seems you don't actually want a "return to the state of nature", and therefore believe we do perhaps need some government, on "pragmatic grounds", but that such government must be "severely limited"?

I'm with you on all that, that's why I like the original U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps we could talk about ways to restore it and improve it?


You're slightly misinterpreting my views, but I admit the fault was most likely at my end.

I was saying that governments might ONLY POSSIBLY be justified on pragmatic grounds, in the sort of sense that we MIGHT need them in order to stay out of the 'state of nature'. Basically, when it comes to the question "What should states be able to do?" I say "Okay, let's concede for the sake of argument that we need the government because if we don't have a government, everyone dies in the streets."

This is in contrast to a legitimization of the state based upon 'consensual' or 'social contract' grounds. If one looks at it objectively and thinks critically instead of using that as a post-hoc justification for states, I don't have much doubt that if they're being intellectually honest they'll come to the conclusion that a "social contract" isn't a legitimate contract at all.

So far we conceded for the sake of argument we need the government because of arguments from effect; it's been justified ONLY based upon the effect of its absence and not upon legitimate and ethical grounds. Since this is the ONLY justification for government, as soon as we have avoided "the state of nature" or "people dying in the streets," any further action that government takes is even more illegitimate than its establishment in the first place.

By analogy, imagine that by raping someone, a person is capable of saving two hundred million lives. Of course raping someone is immoral ethically speaking, so we PERHAPS justify it on the grounds that it saves two hundred million lives. Therefore, we allow one rape and only one rape and to that single person. Any time our hypothetical rapist so much as exposes himself after the fact, it's illegitimate, even more so than the first rape.

Of course, we have reasons to believe that a) raping someone wouldn't save two hundred million lives and b) even if it could, the rape still should not occur. Similarly, we have reasons to believe that a) we could avoid the "state of nature" without the state and b) even if we couldn't, perhaps we ought not have one anyway. My only point is that because you're never going to justify rape on ethical grounds (or justify a government on contractual, voluntary, or consensual grounds) then the best a statist can hope for is holding his nose and going "I know this is completely and utterly ethically immoral, but we have to do it because the deed needs doing."

My first comment was regurgitating my thoughts and noting that they seemed to be pretty similar to your thoughts; I thought sharing my thinking of it might interest you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nate
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 98
Joined: Mar 12th, 2014
Re: Revolutions
Reply #21 - Apr 11th, 2014 at 1:07am
Print Post  
Also, in terms of the Constitution-

1: I wouldn't adopt the Constitution. It contains no explicit clauses for states to secede, establishes Post Offices, etc.

2: I would never wake up in the morning and go "Man, what we really need is to get back to the good ol' days of that darned Constitution and everything would be peachy." At best, I would, as I indicated previously, hold my nose and go "God, this is crappity smacking awful, but we have to avoid the state of nature." I would hope that if I were to agree to establish something as morally repugnant as a state I would be able to negotiate more than the US Constitution. These things kill people, 260 million in the 20th Century alone.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Revolutions
Reply #22 - Apr 11th, 2014 at 7:29am
Print Post  
Nate wrote on Apr 11th, 2014 at 1:07am:
Also, in terms of the Constitution-

1: I wouldn't adopt the Constitution. It contains no explicit clauses for states to secede, establishes Post Offices, etc.

2: I would never wake up in the morning and go "Man, what we really need is to get back to the good ol' days of that darned Constitution and everything would be peachy." At best, I would, as I indicated previously, hold my nose and go "God, this is crappity smacking awful, but we have to avoid the state of nature." I would hope that if I were to agree to establish something as morally repugnant as a state I would be able to negotiate more than the US Constitution. These things kill people, 260 million in the 20th Century alone.

The Constitution doesn't contain any provisions for succession because it doesn't contain any grant of power to the national government to force states to remain in the union.
Why do we need a 1st Amendment when the government is granted no power to interfere with the rights of free speech, religion and assembly? We don't. The government has no powers but the few enumerated in the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence, the preamble to the Constitution and the text of the Constitution are a coherent whole; they describe what, why and how a limited government will operate to provide for the common good by maximizing individual liberty.

A Sovereign State is indeed repugnant, but, the Constitution does not create a Sovereign State, it creates a limited government in order to protect the Rights and Liberty of a Sovereign People.

In order to avoid a state of anarchy and allow civil society to exist, government, a potentially dangerous instrument, seems to be required.
If you don't have a better idea for government than our Constitution, but you want to destroy it anyway, you are nothing but a tool of the 'progressives'.

Having the national government establish a post office was an excellent idea for the time, but I agree, it isn't any longer.
Let's amend the Constitution to remove that authority from the government. Too difficult to do? Perhaps, especially since there are much, much bigger problems.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 37247
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Revolutions
Reply #23 - Apr 11th, 2014 at 7:31am
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Apr 10th, 2014 at 6:52pm:

I haven't read Rothbard in 30 years or more, and I'm not interested in going back to him now.
Since he's fresh in your mind, what does he have to say about anarchy as a means of advancing liberty?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Revolutions
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy