Minarchism

[adimon]

Do you believe in individual liberty, (very) small government and letting market forces allow open and voluntary cooperation of peoples?

Whether you classify yourself as a libertarian, anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-syndicalist or whether you're simply wanting to get politically involved and escape the corrupt, collectivist nightmare we in the West are currently trapped in, I would like to hear from you.

Having read through "fromthatshow"'s thread on anarchism, I thought I would put a feeler out to see if there are forum members here that want to discuss minarchism instead.

I personally believe that the concept of the state (a very distant cousin of the current state apparatus) is the best instrument to protect individual liberty and security, and to enforce the rule of law. So I am not an anarchist in the modern interpretation of the law.

For anyone who doesnt have a clue what I'm talking about, here are a few links related to what I'm talking about.

Anyone who wants to get in touch can email me at: adimon23@hotmail.co.uk, PM here on the forum, or post their thoughts. I would welcome all, especially the latter.

Thank you,

Chris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism_and_minarchism

Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Milton Friedman - YouTube

[cruise4]

Could you define 'market' and then define 'forces' and why liberty (granted) and not 'freedom' (intrinsic)?

[adimon]

Could you define 'market' and then define 'forces' and why liberty (granted) and not 'freedom' (intrinsic)?

Market = voluntary exchange
Forces = supply and demand

Liberty as opposed to freedom for etymological reasons. The word freedom has been hijacked and abused by so many revolutionaries, I think we have a better chance of minarchism if we mainly use the word liberty.

[cruise4]

From my perspective there is big issues with discussing this...

Market = voluntary exchange
Forces = supply and demand

These seem sensible until you deconstruct them...

What is voluntary in an economic sense?
What is exchange in an economic sense?

Currently these are completely manipulated areas favouring some, excluding others, what's in, what's out, environmental, or lack of, concerns, ownership issues... all sorts of issues make it not voluntary, not equal and therefore only a limited exchange at best.

Supply and Demand I believe to be a programming construct. The key is to dismantle the Demand variable which reveals manipulation again. Whilst you can give simplistic examples where S&D can be linked, practically it's not a realistic scanario UNTIL you start monopoly's. If two people want a single turnip, doubling the price does not a turnip each make. But someone can always choose a carrot instead. It's the 'politics' of scarcity and not real.

It's like the word 'Society'. It doesn't exist. Society is a descriptor label given to the state. at any particular time, of individuals taken collectively. THEY define the term. NOT some elite defines the state and then forces the individual into fitting it. It's a 'variable'. One way ALWAYS leads to 'forcing' ie force and eventually stagnation once the goal is reached... OR you have free individuals able to go along in any direction they wish allowing openess, creativity, diversity and an ever expanding creation.

If we take the letter 'V'. The forcing approach takes us to the point at the bottom or we can take the other path leading to the open top.

In other words ANYONE who attempts to 'design' society... went wrong at the first hurdle and no matter how many times they attempt it, they will ALWAYS fail.

It's not 'society' that you desgn. It designs itself. It's individual freedom that must be given free reign.

The ONLY reason why everyone doesn't see this, is due to the 'fear' programming they use to enable Incrementalism and Problem Reaction Solution via propoganda.

(Not that well explained. I'm having a bad day. I hope you can sort of see what I'm getting at) :D

[adimon]

What is voluntary in an economic sense?
What is exchange in an economic sense?

I exchange my labour for a task you want performed, for an agreed price. Both of us are entering the agreement voluntarily.

Supply and Demand I believe to be a programming construct. The key is to dismantle the Demand variable which reveals manipulation again. Whilst you can give simplistic examples where S&D can be linked, practically it's not a realistic scanario UNTIL you start monopoly's. If two people want a single turnip, doubling the price does not a turnip each make. But someone can always choose a carrot instead. It's the 'politics' of scarcity and not real.

I don't understand what you mean here. Perhaps you could clarify?

For me, S&D simply means that only things which are required or desired will need to be provided, and the markets adapt around this - rather than big government creating unproductive, unnecessary and undemocratic economies which do nothing other than give money to the people government wants money to go to.


It's like the word 'Society'. It doesn't exist.

I agree with you here. This is one of many reasons why I advocate a philosophy of individual liberty, and voluntary cooperation.

In other words ANYONE who attempts to 'design' society... went wrong at the first hurdle and no matter how many times they attempt it, they will ALWAYS fail.

Agreed. I am not designing society. I am LIMITING the state, and REMOVING limits from INDIVIDUALS. The two have very little need of one another in that system.

What do you think of Jefferson, btw, cruise4?

It's not 'society' that you desgn. It designs itself. It's individual freedom that must be given free reign.

Agreed.

(Not that well explained. I'm having a bad day. I hope you can sort of see what I'm getting at) :D

I think I understand the gist of it, apart from that one point on S&D.

[cruise4]

I exchange my labour for a task you want performed, for an agreed price. Both of us are entering the agreement voluntarily.

Define 'price' (I'm not being pedantic). Suppose nobody wants your particular labour? If you NEED money to live, what's voluntary got to do with it?


Is an item of Art required or desired? Is Demand driving Supply? What is the role of 'profit'. Where does 'greed' arise from? How are 'desires' magnified? What about the role of 'inflation'? If everyone could have anything what happens to supply and demand as an economic 'law'. If most people's 'need's' are met what happens to the demand side and what happens to the supply side? Supply and Demand is like Law and Order... they don't actually go together like people would have you believe. It's utilising a false 'collective' vision (a designed society) to suggest the need to regulate or else, fear fear, we will all starve :) Supply and Demand is of the controllers.

Nature's principle of perfect sharing via the fibonnacci sequence, as seen in branching and photosynthesis opportunity is maybe the result of freedom, not planning. We are of nature I believe and would operate unfettered in accordance with.

Worrying about false supply and demand equations leads us away from the solution, not closer to the answer.

[adimon]

Define 'price' (I'm not being pedantic).

That's fine. I understand the need for going back to first principles.

When both people are satisfied as to what they are getting from the exchange, the price is set.

If someone offers me £100 for a day's labour, and I accept, then that is the price.

I hope that this is a better way of illustration than using yet more definitions ;)

Suppose nobody wants your particular labour? If you NEED money to live, what's voluntary got to do with it?

If no-one wants your labour in the capacity of your occupation, then you have to adapt. I guess there's nothing voluntary about that, but that's how the market operates. I don't see why someone should be subsidised for a service that no-one wants. As for needing money to live, money is itself a market. If you want money, there are lots of ways of getting it. Regardless of which economic system is used, resources will always be required to survive. That's just nature.

Is an item of Art required or desired?

That depends on the vendor. I live without art, but a certain collector might describe his compulsion as being closer to need than want.

Is Demand driving Supply?

Yes, always. But there is a feedback to it. Prices will be affected not just by demand, but by the available supply. Hence why peak oil has proven such a useful illusion.

What is the role of 'profit'.

Profit is reinvested by entrepreneurs and is one way in which technological advancement and growth of the economy occurs.

Where does 'greed' arise from?

Define greed. Sorry, it's my turn to ask ;)

How are 'desires' magnified? What about the role of 'inflation'?
If everyone could have anything what happens to supply and demand as an economic 'law'. If most people's 'need's' are met what happens to the demand side and what happens to the supply side? Supply and Demand is like Law and Order... they don't actually go together like people would have you believe. It's utilising a false 'collective' vision (a designed society) to suggest the need to regulate or else, fear fear, we will all starve :) Supply and Demand is of the controllers.

I still don't get this, sorry.

[cruise4]

On another aspect... how would you propose the formation of any small government. One man one vote is sacrosanct in any electoral system to my mind. But we know this doesn't work? You get the easily manipulated holding the rest hostage. Even with perfect knowledge many people still can't be trusted to get it right, and certainly not every time.

'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time'

Q.E.D. Elected Government can NEVER be a fair representation. The ONLY answer is ALL are government so the uninterested can be safe in their alternative pursuits. Then you can have a provisional body ALWAYS at the beck and call or whim of ALL the people.

I cannot see any other way that works at National or Global level if you wish to uphold individual freedom.

I am not certain there is ANY need for a national or global government anyway. What is their purpose once fear is removed?

All this left right communist collective capitalist corporate democrat republican conservative liberal is utter horseshit.

No-one is saying we can jump from here to there in a day. The social manipulation and general sickness has to be healed during a transition period. If you say Police aren't needed then looking around today and you would have cause for disagreeing... as they have planned. But if everyone was back to their natural state... who knows what the possibilities are. This is but one example of fear holding sway. A locally elected, and instantly unelectable sherriff situation might be a lot better than a national police force.

Getting to your last post...

Your price definition included 'money'. That is not the be all and end all of price. If I like making X, I might make many X's. It's not price driving the production it's my freedom to create and the price is my time. Price is not necessarily related to exchange.

If no-one wants your labour in the capacity of your occupation, then you have to adapt. I guess there's nothing voluntary about that, but that's how the market operates.

Yes, but it's a money market. The aquisition of money drives what is produced. It's a false situation.

I don't see why someone should be subsidised for a service that no-one wants.

Someone's pasttime should not be artificially linked to others.

resources will always be required to survive

Of course, but coercion is not the best way of obtaining them unless slavery is on your mind.

Yes, always.

No... only in a situation where you need money to live.

A profit situation caused by an illicit money supply, fractional reserve banking, the resultant inflation and the resultant drive for endless economic growth excerbates and promotes greed. The more susceptible you are to this force the more you will be driven. Those strong enough to resist this tendancy are increasingly marginalised. Needing money to live is grossly unfair and ensures the worst human traits rise to the top. If I have umpteen million pounds in my account and my needs are being met, why do I 'HAVE' to profit in a monetary sense? I might wish to give stuff away... altruism rising now, not greed. It's only 'lack' that produces the equations you are trying to draw from. Profit does not drive technological advancement exclusively at all. Human ingenuity does and does it best in an environment of freedom.

Your viewpoint seems to always revolve around money, or more specifically the current arrangement for money, but this is wholly corrupt and a slave system. It's the money aspect and distribution of, that is the first issue that must change. Because until we do, we all remain slaves to it. As soon as I'm NOT a slave to it, I can produce what I want, when I want and in the quantity I want. No outside 'forces' or supposed laws needed.

Economics is not a science. It's an evolution from a base starting point. Change the system... change the supposed economic laws. Others would arise... and they wouldn't be laws either just applicable to the current system.

The current money system has no place in any free society.

I still don't get this, sorry.

I only know of the existance of product X because of advertising. That drives demand. Without it the demand is reduced. The supply side hasn't come into it. Land ownership drives land scarcity. Demand is there but supply is artificially reduced thus leading to scarcity which allows coercion.

Left completely free to produce, all is art perhaps.

I would imagine you may have read my Up Front Money article. If not I hope you might: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38137&highlight=front+money

Even if you don't agree with it, if you try to understand the potential effects of such a system it may help in decoupling thinking from the present arrangement and bring forth the realisation that when money is treated differently, all is changed.

In a world of artificial scarcity aquisition over and above that which you need is driven by a perceived need for economic security. Greed is driven by fear and the fear makes us subject to coercion. The fear is false, the greed is false. Both are created states.

[adimon]

On another aspect... how would you propose the formation of any small government. One man one vote is sacrosanct in any electoral system to my mind. But we know this doesn't work? You get the easily manipulated holding the rest hostage.

I dont even think democracy and power-sharing come into it. The state is responsible for enforcing the small number of laws which protect life, liberty & property, and everything else is voluntary cooperation and free market economics. What are these people going to be voting on exactly. The (very) occasional constitutional amendment perhaps, but it would be better as it was in the days of the founding fathers when the legislature didn't meet all that often, spent (FAR) less, and weren't making public embarrassments out of themselves (apart from John Adams of course!).

I share Jefferson's sentiments on democracy, which is that it allows 51% of the population to coerce the other 49% to do their bidding! There is no need for power in minarchism.

The ONLY answer is ALL are government so the uninterested can be safe in their alternative pursuits. Then you can have a provisional body ALWAYS at the beck and call or whim of ALL the people.

In a minarchist government the people DO run the state, and the government are in fear of the people, despite being drawn from the people.

I cannot see any other way that works at National or Global level if you wish to uphold individual freedom.

Global? (:eek: like the NWO?!)

I am not certain there is ANY need for a national or global government anyway. What is their purpose once fear is removed?

I don't see how fear can be, or will be, removed, so long as someone is 'in power'. Why does power have to come into it, so long as people are free?

All this left right communist collective capitalist corporate democrat republican conservative liberal is utter horseshit.

Apart from "republican" (old meaning) I'm agreed.



-

As for the rest of the post, I'm afraid it makes no sense to me at all, sorry. :(

[kuro]

An individualist market controls all approach is a wrong approach in my opinion. I don't consider libetarian capitalism/minarchism/...Objectivism(yuck!) or any other right wing schools of thought as branches of traditional Anarchism; it's not a radical approach, ie: it doesn't look at the root causes. Neoliberalism is basically on the path to what you're talking about - small government where market forces dominate.

MAKENEOLIBERALISMHISTORY (http://www.geocities.com/goodnazine/neoliberalism.pdf)

[motokeiru]

I don't belive in minarchism, or there's total freedom from governaments or there is not.

The only way to achieve true freedom is anarchy, and fully voluntary interactions, big or small that's not what a state is at all.

[adimon]

So how will an individuals freedom be protected from the tyranny of others, without a body to protect that freedom? Should the individual have to look after himself entirely? What if he can't? The tyranny of the few by the many is no preferable to the tyranny of the many by the few, except in death count. And if that few does receive support, then you will have conflict instead of persecution. Without some form of mediation, I don't see how justice can exist.

[kuro]

Full of right wing assumptions - see the EZLN communities for example; targeting the root causes of problems and taking on an interdependence model has led to a social cohesion greater than anywhere in the west. Also gain an understanding of anarchist theory - eg. Kropotkin & Zapatismo - before talking about 'tyranny of others' and domination. We're not talking about state socialism here.

Neoliberalism leads to freedom for the priveledged; market forces don't lead to social cohesion -they tear people apart through creating a relationship based on dependence, competition and individual consumers. With the market being the only form of authority, looting would begin immediately as the inequality this would create would lead to widespread suffering.

[adimon]

Full of right wing assumptions

What I am assuming kuro? That liberty is good, what else?

see the EZLN communities for example; targeting the root causes of problems and taking on an interdependence model has led to a social cohesion greater than anywhere in the west.


Individual freedom is not the highest ideal here.

Also gain an understanding of anarchist theory - eg. Kropotkin & Zapatismo - before talking about 'tyranny of others' and domination. We're not talking about state socialism here.

Thanks for the condescencion, but I HAVE studied anarchism in exhaustive detail - the strains you named, plus Godwin, Bakunin and all the others. I wrote a paper on why none of the advocated ideologies supports freedom or prosperity and it was very well received.

Neoliberalism leads to freedom for the priveledged

I'm not a neoliberalist. You did read the title of the thread, right?

market forces don't lead to social cohesion -they tear people apart through creating a relationship based on dependence, competition and individual consumers.

Social cohesion is not the highest value. If you have to use coercion to implement it, then it is immoral.

With the market being the only form of authority, looting would begin immediately as the inequality this would create would lead to widespread suffering.

Supposition and nonsense.

[kuro]

Sorry Adimon, but what you're proposing comes across as something similar to the Objectivists, of which Neoliberalism relates closely.

You want the market as the ruling force; this leads to great inequality - look what happened with India in relation to the imposition of free market policies. Based on this, and that market rule is always proposed by those who are for inequality, I dont see my comment as nonsense.

After studying Anarchism why do you still feel the need for a no-bars market approach? Progression in this area has always led to the decreasing of social services and greater inequality. In Australia, for example, this can be seen through the pro-market ideology which led to Centrelinks transformation from an ideology supporting 'interdependence and welfare as a public good' to a 'dependence' model which ignores structural causes of inequity.

I don't understand some of your comments relating to social cohesion and individual freedom sorry - it sounds like you did regard individual freedom as the highest ideal. I see anarchism as the dismantling of illegitimate structures of authority, replacing them with legitimate ones, and through this, creating a society where a balance between personal autonomy and a psychological sense of community is achieved.

Also, liberty and freedom is defined in different ways by all different ideologies - im assuming for you it means the right wing version of liberty of the individual, where interdependence is ignored no matter what the social and environmental costs? Why do you see this and prosperity(you'll have to define this - material prosperity?) as the highest ideal - why not social cohesion?

I'd like to hear your comments on the 'make neoliberalism history' pamphlet to see if we're on the same page. I'm interested in what you have to say, just i see your theory as another one which only benefits a small section of humanity.

Also what do you think of Jacque Fresco's stuff?

[adimon]

Sorry Adimon, but what you're proposing comes across as something similar to the Objectivists, of which Neoliberalism relates closely.

Ok, I'm glad you want to have a discussion on this. Let's try a methodical approach. How about we try just simple questions and go from there? I don't want to get too caught up in terminology is we disagree on definitions.

You want the market as the ruling force

Q1: Do you think that anyone has the right to interfere in markets? (And if so why)

The market is simply the sum of all transactions between people. I want those transactions to be entirely voluntary, without coercion or regulation.

this leads to great inequality - look what happened with India in relation to the imposition of free market policies. Based on this, and that market rule is always proposed by those who are for inequality, I dont see my comment as nonsense.

Let's not use any current mixed-market economy as a comparison tool with your anarchist proposition, ok? I advocate a totally free market, which has not really ever fully existed, but where the system has been closest to this, the ordinary working man has been the most prosperous. Look at the USA in the 19th and early 20th century, or Hong Kong before the return to Chinese rule. I assume you have studied Chicago School and Austrian School economics or wouldn't even be having this conversation, right?

As for equality, it will not come about by coercion, and has not. 70 years of Keynesian economics in the UK has lessened quality, not created it.

I'm sure you saw Thatcher's comments on this.

I don't have any love for Thatcher because she was not a minarchist or a true laissez-faire capitalist, but in this clip she makes a very good point about the 'gap' between rich and poor.

Thatcher's Last Stand Against Socialism - YouTube

Total equality is impossible, even with coercion, and I just think it totally immoral.

I agree 100% with Milton Friedman's comments on liberty and equality.

After studying Anarchism why do you still feel the need for a no-bars market approach?

Because coercion is immoral. Yes, this is an objectivist viewpoint, but its a bit older than Ayn Rand to be fair. My political standpoint evolves from Locke, through Paine and the Founding Fathers, and could loosely described as the missing link between neolibertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. I just want the state as judicial mediator, to enforce rule of law, to protect individual liberty.

Progression in this area has always led to the decreasing of social services and greater inequality. In Australia, for example, this can be seen through the pro-market ideology which led to Centrelinks transformation from an ideology supporting 'interdependence and welfare as a public good' to a 'dependence' model which ignores structural causes of inequity.

Again, I am in disagreement with your championing of equality, and am unconvinced by any of the arguments I have heard for it, be it Kropotkin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, or countless others I have studied.

I don't understand some of your comments relating to social cohesion and individual freedom sorry - it sounds like you did regard individual freedom as the highest ideal.

Yes I do. I think communities would be strongest where the individuals amongst them are free to organise their lives by means of voluntary cooperation. Philanthropy and charity are not only at their most noble when uncoerced, but at their most prevalent.

I see anarchism as the dismantling of illegitimate structures of authority, replacing them with legitimate ones, and through this, creating a society where a balance between personal autonomy and a psychological sense of community is achieved.

Q2: Can you expand on the 'balance' you speak of?

I'm all for the cause emboldened above, btw.

Also, liberty and freedom is defined in different ways by all different ideologies

Liberty = the freedom to take opportunities to live your own life as you see fit, provided that you do not infringe upon the freedom of others.

I'll pre-empt, if I may, the rebuttal I often hear from anti-capitalists - which is that the market can act coercively. There is a segment in "Free to Choose" where a man who runs a business finds his product is no longer in demand. He changes production to a slightly different product and is able to continue. He doesn't have to change his staff, but if he did, and the skilled workers that he employed no longer had the skills to produce the new product, then it is his choice whether to retrain the workers or let them go. Good contracts and a robust tort law system would provide additional security for the workers. If they were forced to look for another job, as disappointing as it is for them, are they owed anything by anyone if not stated in a contract? And if they cannot find a job doing the same role, and have to adapt, surely this is preferable to a state or syndicated body intervening in order to sustain production of an unneeded product? There are countless examples in economics of such waste - look at the C.A.P for just one horrific example.

I'd like to hear your comments on the 'make neoliberalism history' pamphlet to see if we're on the same page. I'm interested in what you have to say, just i see your theory as another one which only benefits a small section of humanity.

Freedom benefits everyone.

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a good measure of both."

I will prepare a full review of the pamphlet in due course, but I am busy this week preparing a seminar I am giving on Hamas. We'll see when I get time.

[adimon]

Also what do you think of Jacque Fresco's stuff?

If a group of people want to create the Venus project, and that is the way they all want to live, and don't employ coercion in order to do so, then fine. If coercion is required, then it is immoral.

[kuro]

I believe there will be more than coercion necessary to dismantle the oppressive structures in our society; this system is immoral.

Cheers Adimon, I wouldnt mind reading your paper too (PM?).