Limited Govt Possible?

[quote]nephorm wrote:
“He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.” - Aristotle[/quote]

Aristotle speaks only of self-sufficiency v. social cooperation; not of anarchy v. government.

All cooperative transactions are anarchistic. Society is defined as social cooperation. Society is by nature anarchistic.

Anarchy is the absence of formalized rule where every individual has absolute liberty. The playground at school is a good analogy of an anarchistic society – eventually, even children can learn to cooperate and get along without being told how to do so.

Science must lead to absolute tyranny or oligarchy. Government rules by intimidation and violence so it follows that government will use any means at its disposal to enforce its edicts. As science progresses, the things it invents will be used in this way.

Limited government exists only when individuals can limit it, by being able to fight back against government. The handgun and rifle are great liberators. Thus governments try to ban weapons and pay scientists to invent more and more powerful weapons. Nuclear bombs, bio weapons, electronic surveillance, and so on, used to be invented to fight external enemies. Those things are now developed to use against one’s own populace.

Only under a worldwide absolute tyranny will we attain perfect peace and perfect freedom.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength
— 1984

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Whatever way you try to twist the definition of anarchy to make it seem practicable, it is not.

Absolute freedom only exists outside of society.

“He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.” - Aristotle[/quote]

I never argued that anarchy was practicable.

I argued that most human interactions are anarchic which is highly practicable if not unavoidable.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

All cooperative transactions are anarchistic. Society is defined as social cooperation. Society is by nature anarchistic.

Anarchy is the absence of formalized rule where every individual has absolute liberty. The playground at school is a good analogy of an anarchistic society – eventually, even children can learn to cooperate and get along without being told how to do so.[/quote]

This is the same argument you made in defense of communism - that humans will always find their way to harmonious cooperation. It was wrong when you were a communist, and wrong now as you are a libertarian.

If this were true and these anarchic principles held, there would be no need for private property rights, because you would never need to assert “rights” against other men infringing upon them. We have and recognize private property rights precisely for the exact opposite of your theory - we need rights to guard against people who won’t cooperate. And we know they won’t for all the same reasons we gave as an answer to your “defense” of communism.

Further, your children’s playground example is shockingly bad - just as kids come to play with one another and join in games, the playground is the place where smaller kids are shaken down for their milk money, kids get and give black eyes, and stuff is stolen.

What you are providing us are the same bad arguments as before, just in a different wrapping. The entire concept of liberty-as-protected-by-rights completely rejects your theories on anarchy - and what you suggest isn’t “liberty” at all.

Liberty and anarchy aren’t the same, and never have been. If they were, we wouldn’t need rights to protect said liberties.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Aristotle speaks only of self-sufficiency v. social cooperation; not of anarchy v. government.
[/quote]

Which is why I prefaced the quote by saying that absolute freedom does not exist except for outside of society.

Once you are within society, you will be within some form of government.

This is what I like about you, lifticus. A complete willingness to make overbroad statements and produce incredibly doubtful syllogisms, and cling to them with zeal.

Not all cooperative transactions are anarchistic. Bank transfers, for example. In fact, most cooperative transactions are covered by fraud laws or other regulations that require people to cooperate in particular ways.

Society is not “defined by social cooperation.” Nor does it follow from that premise that society is by nature anarchistic. Some human beings are anarchistic by nature when they are separated from society. Societies themselves thrive on rules and laws, whether codified explicitly or tacitly.

[quote]
Anarchy is the absence of formalized rule where every individual has absolute liberty. The playground at school is a good analogy of an anarchistic society – eventually, even children can learn to cooperate and get along without being told how to do so.[/quote]

If you’re going to try to do analytic philosophy, set your definitions down before you reach your conclusions.
Define formalized rule.

And the playground at school is a counterexample to your thesis, rather than corroborating evidence. Children do all kinds of horrible things to one another in the absence of adult supervision. They fight, steal from one another, beat each other up, form mobs to isolate and attack other children, etc. To claim that the playground demonstrates the favorable aspects of anarchy without recognizing the specter of the all-seeing teacher is pure fantasy.

And how do children learn to get along, by the way? Are they building roads, bridges, and infrastructure? Are they engaging in complex financial transactions? Buying or selling real property, or developing technologies that may be profitable but unsafe? No. They are negotiating over who uses the monkeybars next.

Further, their means to do harm is significantly diminished. Children are not, in general, bringing weapons to the playground to enforce their will. Their disagreements usually revolve around the temporary appropriation of another entity’s goods, and failures of justice result in an equally temporary loss of pleasure, rather than livelihood. Children, even if they lose their lunch money, will not starve because of the actions occurring on the playground.

Real life carries more significant complication and risk.

I’m more of an Anarchist Fascist with a longing for a dash of monarchy, while favoring centrally planned free markets based off of theorcratic principles as seen through a secular economic view.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m more of an Anarchist Fascist with a longing for a dash of monarchy, while favoring centrally planned free markets based off of theorcratic principles as seen through a secular economic view.[/quote]

Basically Hong Kong while still under British rule?

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m more of an Anarchist Fascist with a longing for a dash of monarchy, while favoring centrally planned free markets based off of theorcratic principles as seen through a secular economic view.

Basically Hong Kong while still under British rule?

[/quote]

I’m thinking more along the lines of Terceria of the Acores Islands, if it had been ruled by technophile Quakers.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This is the same argument you made in defense of communism - that humans will always find their way to harmonious cooperation. It was wrong when you were a communist, and wrong now as you are a libertarian.[/quote]

I never suggested it was harmony that man should be seeking. This is a concept that isn’t even definable. Man needs to cooperate to survive or live in complete isolation. That is all. Survival is the only goal. My main argument is in which way survival is more efficient. Conflicts will always occur but there are means of resolving conflict that do not disturb the already perturbed order. Is is possible for man to organize himself in his community with out interference from an outside agency?

No. You are wrong. If my life and everything I produce with it is my own then naturally I cannot do anything that would contradict such rights to anyone else. This is nothing more than a formal restatement of the “Golden Rule”. What you describe is self defense of these rights. We defend our rights against those who do not cooperate but they still exist nonetheless.

Yes, and as they get older they learn what is acceptable and not acceptable due to the consequences of their actions. When an individual’s survival is at stake cooperation will happen or chaos and death will ensue. Just because there is no organized, formal government does not mean that chaos is the norm. People have been organizing themselves without formal government longer than than government has been in existence.

[quote]
Liberty and anarchy aren’t the same, and never have been. If they were, we wouldn’t need rights to protect said liberties.[/quote]

I never said anarchy and liberty were the same thing; though they are related – kinda like how apple pie is related to apples. Anarchy: apples; liberty: apple pie.

Now, rather than tell me I am wrong and what liberty isn’t tell us what it is and what makes you right.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Not all cooperative transactions are anarchistic. Bank transfers, for example. In fact, most cooperative transactions are covered by fraud laws or other regulations that require people to cooperate in particular ways.

Society is not “defined by social cooperation.” [/quote]

Society does not exist in the absence of cooperation. Society is defined by social cooperation.

Can government exist without society or cooperation? Man and his cooperative efforts have to exist before anything can be organized or else how does such organization occur? Man is above government; this does not mean, however, he is free from the consequence of his action whatever those consequences be.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No. You are wrong. If my life and everything I produce with it is my own then naturally I cannot do anything that would contradict such rights to anyone else.
[/quote]

??? Or, you could get tired of producing for yourself and you bash open your neighbor’s head with a rock and take his stuff.

Do you work for a living? Because if had to put up with office politics you would quickly learn that cooperation and the well being of the organization ranks far behind most people’s desire for their own advancement, and they are more than willing to lie, steal or bully their way to the top, regardless of the harm that would do to the organization. Nothing about playground life ever changes, “growing up” just means that people just learn to hide behind a smile.

You also seem to be forgetting that before “formal governments” existed people lived under tribes, clans, chiefdoms, monarchies, empires. Just because they did not have written laws did not mean they lived in peaceful egalitarian communes.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No. You are wrong. If my life and everything I produce with it is my own then naturally I cannot do anything that would contradict such rights to anyone else.

??? Or, you could get tired of producing for yourself and you bash open your neighbor’s head with a rock and take his stuff.
[/quote]
Precisely, and this is a contradiction of rights which means one has indirectly negated his own rights. In societal terms we exact punishment on such individuals.

[quote]
Do you work for a living? Because if had to put up with office politics you would quickly learn that cooperation and the well being of the organization ranks far behind most people’s desire for their own advancement, and they are more than willing to lie, steal or bully their way to the top, regardless of the harm that would do to the organization. Nothing about playground life ever changes, “growing up” just means that people just learn to hide behind a smile.

You also seem to be forgetting that before “formal governments” existed people lived under tribes, clans, chiefdoms, monarchies, empires. Just because they did not have written laws did not mean they lived in peaceful egalitarian communes. [/quote]

Regardless of office politics, people are forced to cooperate. You manage to drive to work every morning and you are indirectly cooperating with other drivers by looking out for your own safety. In the office, you require an IT guy to manage the network and make your email available.

The guy that comes around and waters the plants provides you a quality of life that otherwise would not be there if you had to do it yourself. You share a work load with people in your group because you cannot do it on your own. Yes, people want to advance in their careers but no one exists independently without cooperation though we may act individually.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Precisely, and this is a contradiction of rights which means one has indirectly negated his own rights. In societal terms we exact punishment on such individuals.
[/quote]

If you don’t have laws establishing and protecting your rights, you have no rights. Most people will not sit down and ponder the philosophical ramifications of bashing in your head with that rock. They just know that they want your stuff and that is the simplest way to get it.

Who exacts these punishments you speak of anyway? You’re either talking about mob justice, or law enforcement, which is appointed by government, and governed by rules and laws. You seem to still believe in the leftist world view that life was all smiles and candy before the white male patriarchy came along and invented violence and oppression.

By who or what?

Most people do not cooperate very well with other drivers, and only reluctantly do so because they don’t want to be fined and arrested by the government.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
If you don’t have laws establishing and protecting your rights, you have no rights. Most people will not sit down and ponder the philosophical ramifications of bashing in your head with that rock. They just know that they want your stuff and that is the simplest way to get it. [/quote]

What prevented pre-historic man from bashing everyone’s head in. Was it government or was it fear of retribution?

[quote]
Who exacts these punishments you speak of anyway? You’re either talking about mob justice, or law enforcement, which is appointed by government, and governed by rules and laws.[/quote]

Society does not need government to shun or punish anyone. you can call it mob justice or vigilantism, whatever. People will guard and defend themselves as situations require because anything less goes against survival.

Life has never been nor will ever be all smiles. It was just a lot less distorted by the idea that we can control societal cooperation; that somehow, some magical institution called government makes all of our woes go away. This has also never the case. Government can only exist so long as free people submit to its dominion. All societies have lived in the confines of their own organizational making. We call them families, clans, tribes, communities, etc. They have always existed independent of government.

By your own best interest.

You either drive respectfully or you damage property or even die. Legal ramifications aside, most people consider first the health and financial ramifications of their actions. I know I do. The “law” is only there to clean up brains and blood after the fact. Police activity doesn’t stop traffic accidents – cooperation does.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What prevented pre-historic man from bashing everyone’s head in. Was it government or was it fear of retribution?
[/quote]
Usually it was the tribal chief, king, or high priest, who embodied the government, and carried out the retribution that most were afraid of. He also got to have sex with your wife on your wedding night. Pretty sweet deal, if you happen to be the king.

Most people are weak and will put up with a lot because they are afraid to act against the strong. As far as mob justice goes, no thanks.

My own best interest is to loot the company pension, to lie to my boss and blame my mistakes on my coworkers. And once I have looted the company pension and gotten away, if all I have to worry about is “social ostracism” then I really don’t give a fuck, I’ll be quite comfortable in my mansion in the Caymans. I also don’t give a fuck about getting a new job because obviously I don’t need one. And if my former coworkers form a mob and come to lynch me, that’s fine too, I just hired a well armed private security force who will take care of them.

[quote]
You either drive respectfully or you damage property or even die. Legal ramifications aside, most people consider first the health and financial ramifications of their actions. I know I do. The “law” is only there to clean up brains and blood after the fact. Police activity doesn’t stop traffic accidents – cooperation does.[/quote]

I see people all to time who drive way too fast, do not yield the right of way, drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and manage to get home without getting killed. They are obviously blissfully unaware of the possible consequences of their actions, or they just don’t give a fuck. Frankly, I don’t care if they die either, I just don’t like the possibility that they could take me or a loved one with them. The fact that they occasionally get arrested and punished deters a great many from following suit.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I never suggested it was harmony that man should be seeking. This is a concept that isn’t even definable. Man needs to cooperate to survive or live in complete isolation. That is all. Survival is the only goal. My main argument is in which way survival is more efficient. Conflicts will always occur but there are means of resolving conflict that do not disturb the already perturbed order. Is is possible for man to organize himself in his community with out interference from an outside agency?[/quote]

Most of this was extraneous and borderline incoherent, you are misstating terms - “community” is an “outside agency” if one makes himself a part of it. Man must cooperate to survive, and as such, Man enters into a “community”, which not only doles out benefits, but asks responsibilities.

Cooperation between Man and his Neighbors is based on contracting principles - and under contracts, you have both rights and duties. Every community includes both benefits and duties - when Man avails himself of community, he gets both.

Wrong on what point? Really, Lifticus, you are losing coherence - your life and your produce are your own, no one suggested that wasn’t true. But you are presuming no one would ever infringe on your person or your property - we know that to be a fiction. We recognize property rights - including those that are defensible not just by self-defense, but as a matter of community agreement - expressly because we don’t believe in the anarchic principles you say are right.

The entire point of having and recognizing property rights is that we philosophically reject what you are proposing - because if you are right, we need no rights to protect our liberties.

Now, see, you have changed your story - you held up a playground as the beau ideal of cooperation unbound and how easily cooperation will work if just given the chance. Now, you are suggesting that playground cooperation doesn’t live up to the ideal you had hoped and that kids need to learn something else to insure that they behave right - which was my position when I challenged your analogy.

I get the feeling you haven’t thought about this much - don’t take that as an insult, but you are talking out of two mouths.

You fail to see the most basic idea - the “organizing themselves” you refer to is government. That is the very definition of government as it is applied as part of society. When individuals set up a framework for behavior based on cooperation, rights, and duties - that is government, not the absence of it.

People have been organizing themselves for millenia - and whether small or large, such organization that outlines rights and duties is and always has been government.

This is old news - the question is, what is the best kind?

But at a minimum - ask the right questions based on the right information. Anarchy isn’t a legitimate human endeavor - nor does anyone want it to be.

Liberty is created with anarchy as its primary ingredient? Your analogies are getting worse.

Already have. Anarchy is absolute freedom with no measuring stick to say whether one kind of liberty is good or bad. Humans have never indulged in such human behavior - even the most basic recognition of rights includes recognitions of duties as part of the nature of cooperation

In anarchy, the only thing stopping me from taking your property is your ability to defend your property with force - the Law of the Jungle, essentially. The community recognizes no claims against other men you might have in defense of your property - there would be no rights, since there would be no “common recognition” outside of your wants and desires to hold your property.

The moment a community recognizes your rights to property even as the community has no personal stake in your property, you have…formed a government, because now there is a duty - personal and community - beyond your own self-interest to recognize the rights of other men as against your self-interest.

Anarchy doesn’t exist, and were we to try it, it’d be nothing more than a brutal Law of the Jungle, where strength always prevails over principle.

You don’t want that - you’d be the first one eaten.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Anarchy doesn’t exist, and were we to try it, it’d be nothing more than a brutal Law of the Jungle, where strength always prevails over principle.

You don’t want that - you’d be the first one eaten.[/quote]

Government is an organization of violence and coercion. Community is not necessarily based in these actions. Therein lies the distinction.

Does personal responsibility imply a lack of freedom in community? Just because we have to be vigilant about our security and liberty does not mean anarchy does not exist.

What are the rules that animals in the jungle live by? Humans are no better off in this regard. We may have infinitely greater capacity to "man"ipulate the world around us but we are still subject the the laws of the “jungle”. Even in the presence of government it is eat or be eaten. Government does not negate the laws of nature.

Anarchy is law; government just provides the illusion that we have greater control that what actually exists.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Government is an organization of violence and coercion. Community is not necessarily based in these actions. Therein lies the distinction.[/quote]

False distinction. Communities organize governments to protect the things important to the community as a whole.

Government is the means to the community’s ends - and the reason “violence” and “coercion” are involved are because communities grant some monopoly of power to enforce the rights important to the community.

This is basic stuff - and has been around since humans started organizing. There is no community without government - communities create governments. There is no anarchy - never has been. The most primitive communities had government.

This has nothing to do with anything. It is a false choice, because there can be both personal responsibility and community responsibility - as in, you come on to my private property, I can defend it myself or call the police.

“Anarchy” doesn’t exist. Never has among humans who are interested in any kind of community.

But government and community mitigates that impulse, always has. If someone decides to come into your house and take over your property, you’d call the police to have the government protect your property rights.

We have opted out of the Law of the Jungle. You have this problem, Lifticus - you have the entire bulk of human history disagreeing with you. Humans have chosen exactly the opposite form of life you prescribe as the True Way - there is a good reason.

This is just cant - “Anarchy is law” sounds like a website started by a fourteen year old - but more importantly, you seem completely ignorant of history, just as you were when you mounted a defense of communism.

The discussion of whether limited government is achievable or not is more interesting with people who recognize that it isn’t a purely academic affair.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Anarchy is law; government just provides the illusion that we have greater control that what actually exists.[/quote]

Up is down. Left is right. Dark is light. Don’t bogart that joint my friend.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Society does not exist in the absence of cooperation. Society is defined by social cooperation.
[/quote]

First: that a thing is necessary or antecedent to another thing is not to say that the former defines the latter. Cooperation (which you have neglected to define) may be the sine qua non of society. But again, that does not make society equivalent with cooperation. And cooperation may be as basic as “cooperating” to pay taxes and obey the laws.

Again, you confuse the efficient cause with the essence.

Man is “above government” in what sense? And what is this talk about consequences, etc? How does this relate to your previous paragraphs at all?