Before you even get started, I’m not making fun of Einstein. Also, yes, I’m aware that it was “Democracy” and not “A Republic” from Winston Churchill’s quote. I changed that on purpose.
June 19th, 2009
Before you even get started, I’m not making fun of Einstein. Also, yes, I’m aware that it was “Democracy” and not “A Republic” from Winston Churchill’s quote. I changed that on purpose.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3196 access attempts in the last 7 days.
What I always loved about that quote from Winston Churchill (the original one) is that it unintentionally leaves out anarchism. (Y’know, because NO government isn’t exactly part of “all of the governments that have been tried”.)
Most likely because it is the only “type” of government that truly hasn’t been tried.
This also highlights how supposedly witty sayings are often used in place of actual arguments. And quotes are used for arguing-from-authority fallacies and not because an actual argument or illustrative example was made in the quote.
Perhaps this cartoon applies to me: back when I considered myself a minarchist, I thought that voluntary government was possible and desirable. But maybe I was just an anarchist in denial since I thought that anarchy was possible and more desirable than some government, but that minimal government was best. Then I realized that voluntary and government don’t go together and that government protection is a cruel joke. Consistency is the way to radicalism.
Darian, voluntary government is possible. If my neighbors and I agree not to keep large piles of dead brush, out of a desire to prevent fires, we have just governed our behavior. Since we all agreed to this bit of government, no one is being ruled-over by others, so our government is anarchic in nature.
The only problem comes when a government morphs into a State, by trying to exert control over others who have not consented.
And yes, I realize that’s a bit of semantics, because many will use “government” and “State” synonymously – I just reject that as unhelpful, because anarchy and statism are opposites, while government and chaos form opposite ends of a completely-different spectrum. If government and State are to be synonymous, then a different word needs to be the opposite of chaos (and “order” doesn’t imply intentional design, the way that “government” does). On a further note, I’m not using “chaos” with any negative connotations. A certain amount of chaos is necessary for change and growth to occur
Minarchism is a valuable step on the path to anarchism in the same way that “personally using less cocaine” is a valuable step on the path to “personally being drug-free.”
@MS:
That’s a good distinction to bring up. However, as I see it, to “govern” is to exert authority over, and political authority (or perhaps more accurately an inequality in authority – see RTL) is incompatible with individual liberty. To the extent you have one you don’t have the other.
So I don’t see voluntary government as possible.
@Calpurnia:
This might be true if change were entirely up to the ruling class. But it is not, and this is fortunate because the ruling class is unlikely to give up their power voluntarily.
I contend that libertarians focusing on electoral and parliamentary activism has often blinded us to the necessity and viability of working within the productive class, as it is them we must make ungovernable. Building networks and counter-power (particularly social and economic power) that helps people exist apart from, and eventually in opposition to, the state will do this. So advocating for minarchism is a distraction at best, unless emperors will be persuaded by anything but power and necessity.
Yes, thinking on a time-line is inconsistent and intellectually elitist.
One should do everything at once, or not at all…
(troll’d)
@alex: But if we did things gradually, there would be an imperfect situation and we would have had some effect on it! One cannot morally have an effect on the world unless his action will produce absolute utopia! That is why voting is immoral. If you vote, you might have some tiny impact, but the result will not be immediate Utopia. Thus, voting violates the “ineffectiveness principal” and must be abandoned.
Alex, since you’re just repeating the same straw-men and ignoring my responses, I’ll paste the exact same answer from a couple of comics ago.
As Paul said, you’re completely redefining minarchy. It’s as if you want to win an argument even if it means completely changing the premises. You’re also straw-manning by suggesting that an anarchist philosophy rejects a gradualist approach. I have said over and over again that opposing statism is HOW you shrink the state. You start by openly and publicly withdrawing moral support for statism and follow from there withdrawing other forms of support, such as financial, to the extent that you have the courage to do so. I believe the withdrawal of that moral support is the first and most crucial step before any progress can be made, gradually or otherwise. Their legitimacy and indoctrination are the most powerful weapons that statists have to maintain their power structures. That’s the multi-generational brainwashing we have to dismantle if we want any hope at all. You can’t win this game playing by their rules, which they change as we go along and in which they are both the opposing team and the referee!
Minarchists are empowering the state. They are on the wrong side and don’t realize it, but they are reachable.
Rich, anarchism is a philosophy of realism. Minarchism is a Utopian fantasy. Read Anarchy Isn’t the Answer.
According to Rich’s morality, one shouldn’t even leave the house lest he might accidentally contribute to the “imperfect” reality of today. Or even breathe – you know, the butterfly effect…
And Dale is himself redefining terms and blaming me for doing it. Anarcho-Capitalism is now an absolutist Utopian system, says Dale. How silly of Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and others to think otherwise. Dale knows best.
“Anarcho-Capitalism is now an absolutist Utopian system, says Dale.”
I’d like to see what statement I made that you interpreted as such. In fact, I’ve specifically refuted the idea that anarchy* can be implemented as a system at all because it is by its nature a very individualist and personal philosophy and we can only make progress against statism by empowering individuals. It is, in fact, a rejection of a monopoly-style system so it cannot itself attempt to replace such a system without being hypocritical and irrational. I realize I’m using it in a manner that’s not used by many who call themselves anarchists, but that’s an area of disagreement between them and me. So if you’re going to argue with other anarchists, you should probably do it on their sites. If you’re just continuing an argument that you started with some other anarchist, then it is a straw-man here, because I present it here as a personal believe (or lack thereof, rather); not a system, hence “Anarchy In Your HEAD”.
* I rarely use characterizations like anarcho-capitalist unless I’m specifically trying to appeal to those who use have chosen that label for themselves or unless it’s just funny. There is only anarchy, the rejection of statism as an irrational belief system. The rest is, to some extent or another, a perversion of it. It would be like an atheio-catholic as in someone who doesn’t believe in God but is otherwise Catholic.
I already feel like I’ve given your comments more attention that they deserve as you repeatedly make unfounded assertions based on arguments I never made, and your appeals to authority are cop-outs.
I just don’t understand why the attacks on minarchists outnumber the attacks on statists.
I never understood that, and I never will.
But hey, I don’t understand the art of the circular firing squad, either.
You counted them, Rich?
An attack on a minarchist IS an attack on a statist.
Darian, there is nothing incompatible between authority and liberty, as long as the authority is freely given.
For example, I could sign a contract to deliver 100 widgets by August 1st. The other party to that contract would, therefore, have the authority to demand 100 widgets from me on the first day of August.
Or, to phrase it another way, if the authority is freely given, then it really still rests with the giver. I still own myself, even if I authorize another to place certain demands upon me, because that authorization is an expression of my self-ownership.
And while we’re on that, why NOT make fun of Einstein? He wasn’t always right. When he learned about quantum indeterminacy, he insisted that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” But it’s been pretty well proven — it turns out that he does.