On Bush, Hitler, and the Emperor without any Clothes

[Caleb]

Nothing.  A minimalist state WILL eventually become a bloated, tyrannical, oppressive state.

you have three, and only three, reactions:

a)  allow it and live in tyranny.
b)  periodically have a revolution to "start over" (Jefferson recommended every twenty years.)
c)  completely dissolve the "state" and deal with the repurcussions of having no one in charge.

I'll take c.

Caleb

[LibertyProtector]

I am certainly sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism, and would likely agree with your choice, but to play devils advocate: If communities form spontaneously and members of that community voluntarily agree to abide by a certain set of rules (such as observing common law that developed through trial and error and tradition) what is to prevent a government from then evolving?

[tracysaboe]

I am certainly sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism, and would likely agree with your choice, but to play devils advocate: If communities form spontaneously and members of that community voluntarily agree to abide by a certain set of rules (such as observing common law that developed through trial and error and tradition) what is to prevent a government from then evolving?

At least then government is starting from nothing instead of having a letitamized base of coersion that supposedly moral.

If government's going to get bloated. Why not start from no government instead of minamalist government. Then at least statists forces have to work to even get that small kernal of legitamized agression.

Tracy

Tracy

[srqrebel]

I am certainly sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism, and would likely agree with your choice, but to play devils advocate: If communities form spontaneously and members of that community voluntarily agree to abide by a certain set of rules (such as observing common law that developed through trial and error and tradition) what is to prevent a government from then evolving?

Universal adoption of the Constitution of the Universe  http://www.neo-tech.com/golden-helmet/constitution.html


The Constitution of the Universe

Preamble
The purpose of human life is to live happily.
The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that allow individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual:


* * *

Article 1
No person, group of persons or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.

Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

* * *

[mvpel]

That's what I mean. Encouraging wars between Israel and Arabs is anti-semetic because the only people being killed on both sides are largely semites.

Why do you feel the need to twist the widely-accepted meaning of a given phrase, here?

Are you just trying to be arch, or do you really not understand the nature of the war of annihilation being waged against Jews and Israel?

The only people "encouraging" wars between Israel and Arabs are the Arabs, from their pulpits and thrones.

[LibertyProtector]

In no way is Israel the innocent party in the all-too-frequent wars in the Middle East.

As most here would agree, the united States of America, acting under the rationale of manifest destiny, violated the rights of those already living on the land. Such is also true for Israel and their actions taken due to the belief in Zionism.

A hundred years ago laws existed in this country that sought to limit or ban interracial marriages. Luckily those laws have now been ruled unconstitutional (ideally the state would not be involved in this at all), yet for some reason the world reaction to a recent court ruling in Israel has been somewhat muted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3111727.stm

I could go into detail about the amount of foreign aid provided to Israel (and yes, I'm aware the some of Israel's enemies are also large recipients of aid, which strengthens the case for the elimination of all government-directed aid), the amount of military hardware provided to Israel, and the pro-Israel footing America is on due to a number of interests, but it would likely do no good if you cannot approach this situation with an open-mind:

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

[mvpel]

In no way is Israel the innocent party in the all-too-frequent wars in the Middle East.

As most here would agree, the united States of America, acting under the rationale of manifest destiny, violated the rights of those already living on the land.

Israel's borders were drawn by the very same process that many of its neighboring nations were defined - by a stroke of a pen thousands of miles away.

The fact that this process is only objectionable when there are Jews involved, smacks of something more than a principled objection to the process itself.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Nothing.  A minimalist state WILL eventually become a bloated, tyrannical, oppressive state.

It might not with continued vigilence

[tracysaboe]

Nothing.  A minimalist state WILL eventually become a bloated, tyrannical, oppressive state.

It might not with continued vigilence

The same could be said about Anarchy though. Minimalist government of some form could start to rear it's ugly head. Lets have the goal be to aim for the least amount of coersion.

TRacy

[KBCraig]

Nothing.  A minimalist state WILL eventually become a bloated, tyrannical, oppressive state.

It might not with continued vigilence

I'm more concerned that anarchy, with no framework limiting the size or scope of government, would result in a very bad government rearing its head quickly in response to some event.

I trust a carefully defined minarchist system more than I trust anarchy. I'd prefer anarchy, but it will only work so long as the overwhelming majority of people are anarchists. And since they're not, and aren't likely to be, I'd prefer that those seeking government power be carefully limited.

Kevin

[Follow]

There is something to be said for pragmatism.  In fact, I was having a conversation similar to this (but in vastly different context) not very long ago.  Some of the situations posed to me included a son and his dad at a little league game:

Son is a pitcher for the local little league, and he pitches a horrible game; he just isn't into it.  Everything he does goes wrong, and the other team wins solely as a result of his bumbling.  After the game, his dad wants to express his dissappointment with the boy, so what should he do?  Does he:

a.  Take the boy aside and explain that he was dissappointed in a kind way, then work on ways to help the boy get better.

or...

b.  Beat the hell out of the boy blackening both his eyes the same night and tell him what a worthless piece of shit he is.

Both of these reactions convey the same message (essentially) and tell the boy that he didn't do as well as his old dad had hoped.  Both are entirely honest communications.  Which one will have what kind of effect though?  Which would you choose as the more effective form of communication?

Curiously enough, most people would of course choose option a, but in many cases of reasonable lapse, we see them employ option b.  The same can be said about a situation like this one where you're really trying to say "Bush is a power-mad asshole that needs to be stopped before he causes too much harm," and your selection of your communication crafted to persuade your audience to your point of view.  Persuasion isn't effective when your audience is blocked from your word.  You can say option a is your choice, but employ option b because it's how you "really feel." 

Drawing a point of comparison between a supposedly socialist and facist regime with the IRS is fallacious, there are certain points of comparison that can be drawn, but a direct parallel is nothing but a shock tactic.  Shock is sometimes useful, but once the shock loses its luster (the Bush/Hitler comparison is a good example of shock that has lost its luster) it becomes a drab conspiracy theory.  A better comparison might be between the way we live now to the way we lived 10 years ago and the changes therein.  You can't make a poignant case by telling people who are led to believe they are in the "land of the free" that they are in a facist dictatorial regime, at least not without a very sizable amount of data to back your claim.  That data just isn't present right now.

So the choice is yours, which is what everyone on this thread has been saying anyway.  You can choose option a and try to recruit others to your cause through logical persuasion, which is what it takes to win an election and change things.  Or you can choose option b, not only alienating the people you're trying to convince, but also those who you assumed were behind you in the first place to stage a one man revolution; which amounts to spinning your wheels and essentially going no where.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe insulting people from the mountaintops is what will be effective in the long run and I'm just way off in left field.  But my experience tells me I'm not.




Follow 

[felix.benner]

Quote from Gothica: "You can't talk to a person who thinks you are crazy!"

Now consider another analogy: What if your little son kills the neighbours' babys, burns their houses and drives away with their car? Do you carefully explain to him, why this might not be such a good idea or do you beat the shit out of him?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Snuff him

[FrankChodorov]

Both of these reactions convey the same message (essentially) and tell the boy that he didn't do as well as his old dad had hoped.  Both are entirely honest communications.  Which one will have what kind of effect though?  Which would you choose as the more effective form of communication?

if it is about what the "dad had hoped" then no wonder the boy "just isn't into it"...

the only message being conveyed via violence is that "might makes right"

What if your little son kills the neighbours' babys, burns their houses and drives away with their car? Do you carefully explain to him, why this might not be such a good idea or do you beat the shit out of him?

generally it is thought in this society that responsibility for one's actions is based on the level of maturity...

I'd say this is a serious case of parental negligence for not teaching the difference between right and wrong

[mvpel]

Now consider another analogy: What if your little son kills the neighbours' babys, burns their houses and drives away with their car? Do you carefully explain to him, why this might not be such a good idea or do you beat the shit out of him?

Or, if your daughter runs away from a shoplifting prosecution for five months, lets you think she's been kidnapped and killed, and only returns when extradited...  Apparently that family's approach has been to give her a big hug and wait for her to get in the mood to tell them why she did it, and ask the shoplifting victim to drop the charges.