Those Boring Politics
Why I’m A Minarchist As Opposed To An Anarchist

thoseboringpolitics:

Many of my fellow libertarian bloggers take Libertarianism to the measures of a stateless society. In principle, I am an anarchist. But after calling into Stefan Molyneux’s show a few times to discuss basic anarchist ideals I have decided that in practicality, anarchy would fail.

There is an ideal that believes in a stateless society that there would be multiple competing legal-system firms to include one’s self in voluntarily. This type of legal system would just flat-out be a failure. I’m not sure how popular this idea is, but conflicting opinions would simply exclude themselves from certain laws that would perhaps prevent rape or murder.

This agorist theory does include free market dispute resolutions, which I think if privatized on too large of a scale would be disastrous. Having private courts be in determination of law and its practice could be detrimental to the freedom of the people and the true freedom of markets. It could turn into the situation that the Federal Reserve has always been, which would use the force given to it by the government as a private entity to keep corporations evil. It wouldn’t be as big a scheme as the Fed, though, considering it wouldn’t mess with our money supply. But it would be much easier for other businesses to lobby to the court-system, giving a ton of profit to the executives without actually giving fair hearing to the people who bring a claim to courts. Government must provide a strong court system, and it must be expanded to be able to handle many claims at once. With this system, lawsuits would be a more frequent occurrence simply because it would be easier for one party to hold another party liable for either a small issue or a larger issue.

I do, however, hold some principles of privatized Dispute Resolution, which includes privatized police. A privatized police force is practical and allowable, though the explanation for such a thing is for another post.

A privatized military (also existing in an anarcho-capitalist society) on the other hand would be a nightmare. This is because the military would then be upheld by shareholders looking for a profit. To start, I think the idea of a profit-seeking business in the market of murder is completely immoral. At shareholders’ meetings, the company could be voted to gain profit by attacking the oil kingdoms and becoming very active around the world. Though, and here is where the second problem is found, where would the incentive be for any soldiers to take part in this? During “peace time”, soldiers will be payed to sit around and do nothing; when combat comes around, there is no patriotism or nationalism and pride to motivate the soldiers to stay and fight. That’s a necessary trait regarding military, and without it, you’ll have a hard time finding any willing people. The whole thing would be a mess, and if you did happen to make it work, it would be pretty bad ethically.

Even if one country became an anarchist society, every other country won’t follow suit, and they’ll blame the entire region for mishaps and atrocities caused by this private military. This is then a liability issue for the company which would a) become so rich they buy their ways out or b) scapegoat someone else or c) use their military to defend their money-conquest. Now even though I recognize the need for a government to provide a military, the military’s job should be at a minimum with a defense budget that would require zero income tax or corporate tax. The function of this military is purely defense. If we are attacked, we attack back. If we are invaded, we defend. And that’s it.

As for laws for people to follow, I believe only in laws that protect a direct victim. This means rape, murder, and any crime dealing with aggression. These would be the only laws people would need to follow. The privatized police force would be of use here in carrying out their duties. All other “crimes”, deemed crimes by current law, could be solved in a court or totally forgotten when the laws are abandoned.

Moving on to economics briefly. Liability is a wonderful word used to begin an explanation/justification for Austrian economics; disputes would be resolved with cases in courts, whether it is just a claim against a person or a case with need of a lawyer in response to a business’ behavior. The government would not regulate business or support the person claiming a business has liability, but simply give a hearing for the prosecutor and make a decision. It’s just one simple way an industry would have to keep honest as well as at a modest size; keeping liability costs lost in court low is a good thing for business, so it would be in their best interest not to screw with consumers.

I do fervently believe in a free-market. This means entirely free with zero regulations on business practices because I believe, as many libertarians do, that consumers can and will regulate the economy more effectively than government. But in an anarchist society, a business could lie about their revenues, outputs, costs, stock information, etc. I believe the only reason a business must be regulated is for a business to be totally honest in their accounting and finance reports. Giving the consumers enough information so that the free-market can regulate itself is what is needed. Corporations would then be transparent but still allowed to practice whatever they want. The argument of liability, costs for businesses, etc. would not work if the businesses had the ability to lie to the public. 

As a note on my debate style: I largely take the utilitarian approach to arguing for free-markets, rather than using the Non-Aggression Principle as an argument. Logicallypositive describes the situation with the NAP the best, stating that it’s usually used as an axiom and as a fact rather than a personal worldview, which is what it is.

So where do anarchists and I differ in summation?

  • I advocate for a state-run defensive military, not allowed to go beyond its means other than direct defense. The budget should be low enough for funding to come only from a small sales tax. In a booming capitalistic economy, it would cover more than the military budget.
  • I advocate for a state-run court system that could take many hearings a day, from small-claims to class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits would be a key-role in consumers and employees regulating the economy. Class-action lawsuits are more effective than government-supported unions which are completely immoral (also for another post). The courts may be state-run but the actual process would be a free-market process.
  • The only laws on people would be those to protect people from aggression: murder, rape, etc. All other laws abolished. If there is an issue, let the courts settle it. This would eliminate jails in the country to a much smaller number (they would still exist in my ideal society, as I oppose capital punishment).
  • The only regulation would be to make businesses disclose information to allow for a consumer-regulated economy.

Four very small roles of government all upheld by a small sales tax. With a complete removal of public-sector regulation, the negative effects of a mixed economy would be removed (because it would no longer exist!) Of course, with the State around, it could always come back and allow businesses to become corrupt again. This is why, by principle, I am an anarchist. We’d need government reform to prevent this from happening. Though, this would be tricky to do without also removing any voice of the people, which is imperative to society to keep around. Freedom in all parts of life is what will drive us forward, not regulation.

For my new followers since the original date of this post.

You capitalists can have your way as long as you guys don’t fuck up the earth.

anticapitalist:

spacebaw:

anticapitalist:

You can do your capitalist thing, let me do my communal thing, and as long as we don’t pollute the shit out of the earth, we’ll get along fine.

unfortunately it seems true capitalism, no matter how decentralized, will always lead to environmental destruction

That’s what I seem to think. Any capitalists who can explain how the environment will be preserved in the free market without regulation?

Liability. I mean, the air can be polluted just as much, but likely it will be less. Someone somewhere will try and find a lawsuit to create. But nuclear waste spills would stop, and carelessness leading to oil spills would stop. Oil Companies are often LLCs, meaning they’re Limited Liability Companies. They’re giant corporations given this limited liability by government; it gives incentive to be careless because they can’t be held accountable for what they do. It’s a shame, but that wouldn’t exist in a free-market.

Libertarians also have a tendency to see too many issues in terms of property rights (just as liberals, they would counter, tend to see everything in terms of discrimination and equal protection). Pollution, libertarians say, is simply theft: you are stealing my clean air. Settle it in court. This is a really terrible idea: inexpert judges, lawyers and juries using the most elaborate and expensive decision-making process known to humankind — litigation — to make inconsistent decisions in different cases. And usually there is no one “right” answer: There is a spectrum of acceptable answers, involving tradeoffs (dirty air versus fewer jobs, etc.) that ought to be made democratically — that is, through government.

Sometimes libertarians end up reinventing the wheel. My favorite example is an article I read years ago advocating privatization of highways. This is a classic libertarian fantasy: government auctions off the land, private enterprise pays for construction and maintenance, tolls cover the cost, competition with other routes keeps it all efficient. And what about, um, intersections? Well, markets would recognize that it is more efficient for one company to own both roads at major intersections, and when that happened the company would have an incentive to strike the right balance between customers on each highway. And stoplights? Ultimately, the author had worked his way up to a giant monopoly that would build, own, and maintain all the roads, and charge an annual fee to people who wanted to use them. None dare call it government.

The Church Doctrines of Pope Ron Paul (via ryking)

This eviscerates the Libertarian’s favorite answer for everything: suing.

I don’t know if you realize this or not, but if I am ever wronged by a major corporation, they have virtually unlimited funds to spend on a legal team to defend them in court, whereas I have virtually none. With no third party (read: government) to protect me, I would be screwed. Libertarianism is nothing but a one way path to serfdom.

(via drinkthe-koolaid)

Major corporations are a product of government “intervention”. Barriers to entry and “regulations” that ensure less market competition and more revenues for industry create oligopolies. not the market.

If one is wronged by a company, which would no longer be a corporation due to deregulation, lawsuit would certainly be practical in a court of law upheld by the government. Especially since in most cases when a business violates one’s personal liberties and private property, it’s en-masse and affects many people (such as nuclear waste and oil spills). In which case, a class-action lawsuit is most effective against a business as more wealth is available for legal teams and makes for a better case.

laliberty:

Just not by government, but instead by each individual economic actor.

ourben:

And I’ll stop talking.

Deal? Good. Because this has been done to fucking death…

thoseboringpolitics:

This answer to this question perfectly describes what would mainly happen when disputes arise in a capitalistic society.

Wrong. This is what happens when a dispute arises in a capitalistic society.

You all need to read this.

You need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. You aren’t a member of the public, you are the property of a multinational.

Note: Capitalism is not corporatism which is, coincidentally, what we have been practicing since the late 19th century. 

The world has roughly 200 capitalist enterprises, enterprises that become cooperatives via the medium of worker revolt. (1) (2) (3)

Corporatism is a meaningless buzzword. If you don’t want subsidiaries of the state then stop voting corporate sycophants into office.

Someone, or some entity, would be held liable for mishaps and mistakes and would be taken care of.

We know.

This, however, is not the case with “regulations” such as liability caps and government handouts.

Deal with it.

The War in Afghanistan was not a result of capitalistic disputes. If you could explain, that would be good.

The three links you sent were products of government being bought out by industry. Those people were held prisoner because the government “deemed” it something to worry about or implemented laws in favor of businesses.

How is corporatism a meaningless buzz word? It’s a term for the current system we have and the “regulations” that take a toll on the wealth of the public and help out the business.

Whale wars. Explain. Humored but confused.

This answer to this question perfectly describes what would mainly happen when disputes arise in a capitalistic society. You all need to read this.
Note: Capitalism is not corporatism which is, coincidentally, what we have been practicing since the late 19th century. 
Someone, or some entity, would be held liable for mishaps and mistakes and would be taken care of. This, however, is not the case with “regulations” such as liability caps and government handouts.

This answer to this question perfectly describes what would mainly happen when disputes arise in a capitalistic society. You all need to read this.

Note: Capitalism is not corporatism which is, coincidentally, what we have been practicing since the late 19th century. 

Someone, or some entity, would be held liable for mishaps and mistakes and would be taken care of. This, however, is not the case with “regulations” such as liability caps and government handouts.

ronpaulrevolution:

Ron Paul talks about the TSA

The TSA violates every right a person has to their body and privacy. I’ve watched videos of toddlers practically being strip-searched. This type of violation simply can’t be tolerated. The bureaucracy of TSA needs to be abolished and airport security must be privatized. These issues wouldn’t be around if it were privatized. 

The private entity of security would be held liable for any and all offenses. If a woman felt oversearched she could make a claim against the firm. Guess what you can do now if you feel violated either sexually or racially? Nothing. Why? Because the government and government agencies can do anything they want and not be held liable. Nothing they do can be disputed fairly.

People talk about monopolies and how evil they are, but the real monopoly is the one over force. The real monopoly exists over aggression; this monopoly belongs to the government. The TSA is a perfect example of how this monopoly can function and just how far they can go with people’s liberties. 

If you notice, a business must maximize profits. To maximize profits, there must be a lot of demand for a good or service. For instance, in a restaurant, the service is food service and this service must be paid for. Discriminating removes a HUGE clientele. And not just the banned minorities, but whites who find the rule despicable. The business would die; whoever owns the business would be an idiot (both socially and financially). Ron Paul actually states that. People should have the right to be idiots, especially if its dealing with private property. Besides, to utilize freedom of speech entirely, one must be allowed to exercise that freedom with their possessions, such as land.

Jim Crow laws were enforced by government and slavery was one of the largest government enforced institutions in history. The freedom to express and utilize rights and property actually more effectively removes the racism than government does. Jim Crow laws existed for so long because people wanted to use the force of government to impose their will on people. It’s the same thing that happens with businesses (which is corporatism); it’s why they go so corrupt. Slavery was the same thing. It was all an institutionalized view enforced by government.

Now the reason those businesses survived for so long is because Jim Crow laws were separate but equal. The clientele may have been decreased, but let’s go back to the restaurant example again. The overall demand for restaurants were down, meaning their profits were similar to the restaurants around it under Jim Crow laws. Now without those laws, many restaurants are making an immensely larger profit margin than those who decide to be oppressive. It allows them to expand and offer up better services than those who artificially cut and maim their own demand.

Freedom of speech enables us to say and do controversial things, without harming or imposing different wills on others, utilizing our words and possessions. Conducting these rights includes the right to use one’s property to express these thoughts freely. Again, if someone is really persistent on being oppressive and ignorant, they will soon be hit with huge dips in their profits and may end up in the red. But they have every right to be stupid with the things they own.

GOP Stir Up Jim Crow Legacies

capitalismkills:

thoseboringpolitics:

liberalsarecool:

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich is now comparing the 2012 election to the 1860 race, and calling President Obama “the most successful food stamp president in modern American history.” Ta-Nehisi Coates takes note of the not-so-subtle dog whistle.

Matt Yglesias goes a step further, noting another line from the same Gingrich speech:

“You know, folks often talk about immigration. I always say that to become an American citizen, immigrants ought to have to learn American history. But maybe we should also have a voting standard that says to vote, as a native born American, you should have to learn American history.”

Gingrich may not realize this, but in much of the country, we already had tests like these. They were called “poll tests.”

They were a standard Jim Crow measure of segregationists.

Gingrich’s comments came the same day as one of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, Ron Paul, explained his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Jim Crow era is gone, but it’s not forgotten for the GOP.

Okay, reading this, one must know the difference between restricting one’s negative liberty (which is what the big-government jerk Newt Gingrich wants) and keeping one’s negative liberty.

Restricting one’s constitutional right to vote is, well, unconstitutional and ridiculous. It also can be viewed as a form of censorship and intrusion of freedom of speech.

Ron’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in the name of preserving people’s freedom of speech. Because he realizes freedom of speech entitles us to saying controversial things and also entitles us to conducting that speech with our private property.

And the only reason Paul is on the GOP ticket is because it’s the only way he has a chance of getting the Presidential nominee. He’s not a militarist like many other GOP candidates (such as New Gingrich) and doesn’t believe in censorship like Palin and friends. These are just two things out of many that separate him from the insane Republican party.

The problem is that you underestimate the problem of racism in the South in the 1960s. You see, although it is not universal, today many parts of the country are in a post-racial mindset where race is not the first thing to cross ones mind when dealing with new people. Oftentimes, I will go for months knowing a person and becoming their friend before it occurs to me to ask about their racial heritage. 

But we cannot allow that insidious racist ideology an entrance back into our culture when we are not even done ridding ourselves of it yet. And it does not attack free speech without massive distortions of the idea of free speech. It outlaws discrimination in public facilities, whether they are in private hands or not because it is the greatest injustice to be denied entrance to a movie theater because of the color of your skin. In comparison to having to allow dark people into your movie theater, you must recognize that the greater act of injustice lies on the act of the property owner who denies peoples right to find a place for themselves in American society. 

Citing here and here. I agree with you, it is a great injustice to deny people a service because of the color of their skin. But they will pay in lack of business.

Keynesian economics point to a lack of aggregate demand as a cause of businesses failing and recessions. Businesses operate as they do because they operate based on supply and demand. Reinstating segregation drops demand by incredible amounts. Movie theaters would fail, restaurants would fail, shops would fail, and everything segregating others would fail.

Now in that second link, I explain that even in the 60’s businesses would learn their lesson. But it’s 2011. So not only would that business fail, it would fail quicker because it would be publicized and condemned by the general public.

The best way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about our differences. Morgan Freeman said that in an interview once and it’s one of the most intelligent and simple statements I’ve heard on the topic.

Outlawing discrimination in public facilities is something fully endorse. Though with my views, we wouldn’t have public facilities aside from military buildings and any other buildings pertaining to the very few things I show support for in the post explaining why I’m a minarchist. But private property is something that should be left alone.

Using one’s own possessions to express their opinions should be allowed. Including property. Even though in the market-economy, businesses and shops wouldn’t really be allowed to segregate. So if people want to be stupid and deny demand for their own products and services, let them. They deserve to fail.

Why I’m A Minarchist As Opposed To An Anarchist

Many of my fellow libertarian bloggers take Libertarianism to the measures of a stateless society. In principle, I am an anarchist. But after calling into Stefan Molyneux’s show a few times to discuss basic anarchist ideals I have decided that in practicality, anarchy would fail.

There is an ideal that believes in a stateless society that there would be multiple competing legal-system firms to include one’s self in voluntarily. This type of legal system would just flat-out be a failure. I’m not sure how popular this idea is, but conflicting opinions would simply exclude themselves from certain laws that would perhaps prevent rape or murder.

This agorist theory does include free market dispute resolutions, which I think if privatized on too large of a scale would be disastrous. Having private courts be in determination of law and its practice could be detrimental to the freedom of the people and the true freedom of markets. It could turn into the situation that the Federal Reserve has always been, which would use the force given to it by the government as a private entity to keep corporations evil. It wouldn’t be as big a scheme as the Fed, though, considering it wouldn’t mess with our money supply. But it would be much easier for other businesses to lobby to the court-system, giving a ton of profit to the executives without actually giving fair hearing to the people who bring a claim to courts. Government must provide a strong court system, and it must be expanded to be able to handle many claims at once. With this system, lawsuits would be a more frequent occurrence simply because it would be easier for one party to hold another party liable for either a small issue or a larger issue.

I do, however, hold some principles of privatized Dispute Resolution, which includes privatized police. A privatized police force is practical and allowable, though the explanation for such a thing is for another post.

A privatized military (also existing in an anarcho-capitalist society) on the other hand would be a nightmare. This is because the military would then be upheld by shareholders looking for a profit. To start, I think the idea of a profit-seeking business in the market of murder is completely immoral. At shareholders’ meetings, the company could be voted to gain profit by attacking the oil kingdoms and becoming very active around the world. Though, and here is where the second problem is found, where would the incentive be for any soldiers to take part in this? During “peace time”, soldiers will be payed to sit around and do nothing; when combat comes around, there is no patriotism or nationalism and pride to motivate the soldiers to stay and fight. That’s a necessary trait regarding military, and without it, you’ll have a hard time finding any willing people. The whole thing would be a mess, and if you did happen to make it work, it would be pretty bad ethically.

Even if one country became an anarchist society, every other country won’t follow suit, and they’ll blame the entire region for mishaps and atrocities caused by this private military. This is then a liability issue for the company which would a) become so rich they buy their ways out or b) scapegoat someone else or c) use their military to defend their money-conquest. Now even though I recognize the need for a government to provide a military, the military’s job should be at a minimum with a defense budget that would require zero income tax or corporate tax. The function of this military is purely defense. If we are attacked, we attack back. If we are invaded, we defend. And that’s it.

As for laws for people to follow, I believe only in laws that protect a direct victim. This means rape, murder, and any crime dealing with aggression. These would be the only laws people would need to follow. The privatized police force would be of use here in carrying out their duties. All other “crimes”, deemed crimes by current law, could be solved in a court or totally forgotten when the laws are abandoned.

Moving on to economics briefly. Liability is a wonderful word used to begin an explanation/justification for Austrian economics; disputes would be resolved with cases in courts, whether it is just a claim against a person or a case with need of a lawyer in response to a business’ behavior. The government would not regulate business or support the person claiming a business has liability, but simply give a hearing for the prosecutor and make a decision. It’s just one simple way an industry would have to keep honest as well as at a modest size; keeping liability costs lost in court low is a good thing for business, so it would be in their best interest not to screw with consumers.

I do fervently believe in a free-market. This means entirely free with zero regulations on business practices because I believe, as many libertarians do, that consumers can and will regulate the economy more effectively than government. But in an anarchist society, a business could lie about their revenues, outputs, costs, stock information, etc. I believe the only reason a business must be regulated is for a business to be totally honest in their accounting and finance reports. Giving the consumers enough information so that the free-market can regulate itself is what is needed. Corporations would then be transparent but still allowed to practice whatever they want. The argument of liability, costs for businesses, etc. would not work if the businesses had the ability to lie to the public. 

As a note on my debate style: I largely take the utilitarian approach to arguing for free-markets, rather than using the Non-Aggression Principle as an argument. Logicallypositive describes the situation with the NAP the best, stating that it’s usually used as an axiom and as a fact rather than a personal worldview, which is what it is.

So where do anarchists and I differ in summation?

  • I advocate for a state-run defensive military, not allowed to go beyond its means other than direct defense. The budget should be low enough for funding to come only from a small sales tax. In a booming capitalistic economy, it would cover more than the military budget.
  • I advocate for a state-run court system that could take many hearings a day, from small-claims to class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits would be a key-role in consumers and employees regulating the economy. Class-action lawsuits are more effective than government-supported unions which are completely immoral (also for another post). The courts may be state-run but the actual process would be a free-market process.
  • The only laws on people would be those to protect people from aggression: murder, rape, etc. All other laws abolished. If there is an issue, let the courts settle it. This would eliminate jails in the country to a much smaller number (they would still exist in my ideal society, as I oppose capital punishment).
  • The only regulation would be to make businesses disclose information to allow for a consumer-regulated economy.

Four very small roles of government all upheld by a small sales tax. With a complete removal of public-sector regulation, the negative effects of a mixed economy would be removed (because it would no longer exist!) Of course, with the State around, it could always come back and allow businesses to become corrupt again. This is why, by principle, I am an anarchist. We’d need government reform to prevent this from happening. Though, this would be tricky to do without also removing any voice of the people, which is imperative to society to keep around. Freedom in all parts of life is what will drive us forward, not regulation.