The Failure of Minarchy

Ayn Rand claimed that there should be a "separation of economy and state". Which sounds quite reasonable (for the capitalist of course) but on further examination it is clear that there is no such thing as a separation of economy and state. Because a true separation of the two would be anarchy.

Rand claimed the 3 roles of government were:
1. Army
2. Police
3. Justice System

But Rand has simply chosen 3 arbitrary things they she does not believe could be supplied by the government. Some people believe that health care is impossible to be supplied effectively by a free market and should be provided by the state. Can those that claim universal health care also claim that they support the "separation of economy and state"?

The entire problem in the first place is that people always think that (X) can't be provided by the free market so (X) must be provided by the state (which of course is not an actual answer to the problem at hand, but the lack of one). The minarchists use this claim against every government program until it gets to army, police, and/or a justice system. How is it that you can claim that the government cannot effectively provide health care, but they can manage an army effectively? How is it that you hold up the principle that central planning can never compensate for the complex interests of individuals yet you believe in a centrally planned police force?
Minarchy is in direct contradiction with its own principles. The purpose of chemo-therapy is not to make the cancer problem as small as possible but to get rid of it. And like a cancer that is not treated completely, the problem of minimal government is that it will always come back. The founding fathers made the smallest government the world had ever seen and look at it now.What was once the smallest government is now the most large and deadly that the world has ever seen.

Look at all the smallest governments and how they always the most quickly became the larges. Consider Rome, Britain, Persia, and America.

Governments always grow
Big governments murder and oppress people
Small governments became larger more quickly.

I think this all comes down to the fact that because governments have been around so long we have a hard time imagining a stateless society. In the same way that if the government had always provided people with shoes then the idea of the state that no longer provided shoes would startle people. Questions may be asked along the lines of "But who will make sure the the shoes will be good quality?" or "Who will make sure that the shoes will be safe?"

This is of course similar to those people who claim that evolution cannot be true because they personally cannot consieve of how a "half wing" would be useful to a species. However your own personal inability to think of such a purpose is no proof against the theory of evolution (and when I say theory I mean it in the same way as the "theory of gravity").

I am not going to attempt to explain how a stateless society might work, there are others who have articulated this much better then I ever could many times, and I would love to help provide literature for anyone interested. My main goal was to go over basic principles of in hopes of sparking your curiosity but also and mostly to pose a challenge: I would like to challenge you that if you have any skepticism towards the states ability to manage and run things effectively then I urge you to apply that same skepticism to the aspects of government that you support. Perhaps I have missed something huge and some the state is not an inherent contradiction, but the idea is worth exploring.

Stateless

The state always grows, and always will. Its a parasite that feeds off the productive work of its host until it consumes as much as it can and collapses. Its the natural conclusion of the fallacy that we can't be trusted with freedom, but they can be trusted with power. We need gun control, but they can be trusted with the power to declare war, and hold nuclear weapons. We can't handle our own finances, but they can handle an entire economy productively. And the problems never change, the OPPOSITE is always achieved.

The war on drugs increases drug use, the war on poverty increases poverty, "universal" health care results in extremely limited healthcare

We say that human beings are too greedy to be trusted with freedom, so the conclusion is to give people guns and assume that they will use it for our benefit?

As long as we treat the state as some kind of demi-god who has completely opposite moral rules then what apply to the rest of us corruption and insanity are the only conclusions.

Everyone wants to use the gun for "good". Everyone thinks that their cause is the one cause that can tame the gun and use it productively, but you cannot give people authority and not expect corruption.

Government is a pseudo science "the government will take care of it" is not an answer, and like all pseudo sciences it is worse then useless. If they can get us asking the wrong questions, we will never come to the right answers. "Who should be point the gun at" is the wrong question, "Does a monopoly on coersion moral or solve problems" is the right one.

No collective abstraction can compensate for and individuals relationship with the truth.

The truth is what sets us free. Curiosity, honesty, empiricism. Reason requires no manipulation, or violence, because it is universal but unfounded prejudices have no other option other then violence. The free market and scientific method decrease violence because it is based on relationships of mutual self respect.

We all want to compromise, but the good has nothing to gain from evil, and evil has everything to gain from the good. The rational have nothing to gain from the irrational, but the irrational have everything to gain from the rational. The irrational by its nature is self destructive, and it can only survive by being a parasite of the rational and productive.

America started out as the smallest country the world had ever seen, and in the shortest amount of time it has become the largest, most powerful government the world has ever seen. How did this happen?Because the parasite can become so much stronger if it is based on a stronger host. The rational and productive had nothing to gain from the state, but the state had everything to gain from the productive.

We said that they we can't be trusted with freedom but they can only be trusted with a little power. But a contradiction is a contradiction. 2+2=5 and 2+2=4.1 are both equally false, and there is no compromise between food and poison.
If we intellectualize midstream, THIS is the conclusion.
Statelessness is the recognition that moral rules apply equally to those in government

Statelessness is the recognition that any corruption or condemnation that you apply to human beings applies equally to those in government because they are human like the rest of us.
Statelessness is the recognition that freedom can never be achieved by the opposite of freedom.

The Left, and False Tolerance

If you find this blog worth while, it might not hurt to send it to some of your friends that tend to lean to the left.

 

The left has claimed a monopoly on term tolerance that is not completely unwarranted. The reasons for this are obvious considering that there is no competition offered from the right who generally openly rejects the term and principle all together. I would ask those of you that do claim the high ground of tolerance to take the time to read this blog and reexamine the principle and how it relates to your political beliefs.

There is only one foundation that tolerance can be built off of: mutual self respect.To demonstrate this, I think we recognize that “tolerance” for a mugger, rapist or someone trying to blackmail you as completely absurd. Tolerance can only be a meaningful and useful social principle if it can be applied to all individuals consistently. You may tolerate the mugger, but he/she is certainly not tolerating you and there is clearly no relationship built on mutual self respect involved.

The lefts argument for gay marriage is generally something along the lines of “consenting adults should be able to do as they please”. Essentially saying “hey, as long as no force or violence is involved its none of your business”. This is a wonderful philosophical argument. It is the recognition that that man owns himself and his actions, and for that reason no government has the right to intervene. This of course is a principle I stand by completely and passionately.

Likewise the feminist movement was the recognition that male genitals are completely arbitrary when it comes to any kind of claim to authority or right to violence. Likewise the racial equality movement was the same recognition for skin pigmentation.

I love this kind of skepticism towards any authority that bases its power on attributes of people and their lifestyles that have nothing to do with what fundamentally constitutes as a human being, and his or her rights. In other words, every individuals is his or her own master and has a right to live their lives as they see fit and any claim to intervene in such activities better be able to reference something better then race, gender, social class, religion, and sexual orientation to justify the use of force and coercion. (I of course claim that the only justification for force, is in reaction to force itself, in other words in the extremely rare cases of self defense).

If the left applied these principles as consistently as they were passionate about them then I would fallow them to the bitter end. However sadly this is not the case. The left applies the principles of tolerance to their own beliefs and ideas, but not to others, which is the essence of what we call bigotry.

The most obvious being the lefts view of capitalism (when I say capitalism I simply mean the freedom to exchange property, not what it has come to mean as the semi-fascist state of a mixed economy). If two consenting adults should be free to do as they please then you should accept capitalism (or I suppose rather tolerate it), which is based on the exact same premise. If you claim that free exchange of property is evil and that you have the right to use violence against those who do so (or rather the you have the right to out source violence to the government) you certainly have the right to make such claims, but you have forfeited the principle and high ground of tolerance.

You are claiming that mankind does not have a right to property (a completely nonviolent principle and lifestyle) but you have the right to violence. There is no other title proper to this position other then bigotry.

Also, where is the lefts tolerance for those who oppose the welfare state? The choice to not give to charity, or help the poor is an entirely nonviolence lifestyle choice. Whereas the right claims that the welfare state is inefficient, I could careless about its efficiency.  It could be the most efficient system in the whole world and I would still not accept that you have a right to one cent, or one second of my time and any claim to such is bigotry. (I shouldn’t have to point this out, but I of course has no problem with charity as long as it is voluntary, rather then forced at the point of a gun. And the claim that government intervention increases prosperity is weak at best but more accurately completely unfounded with the evidence pointing in the complete opposite direction).

If you advocate pointing guns at people for peaceful life style choices, then you have no claim to the high ground of tolerance. The left often criticizes America's foreign policy (and quite rightly so) for being an assault on disarmed civilians. How is it that domestic policy is not violence inflicted on a legally disarmed population? Surely you will not get shot if you pay your ticket, but of course that is only because you comply.  In the same way you won’t be shot if you give a mugger the cash.

The term tolerance is meaningless in the face of violence. In the same way sex organs, skin pigmentation, sexual orientation, and social class are arbitrary for any kind of claim to authority or right to violence, so are the blue and green costumes of policemen and soldiers completely arbitrary to any kind of claim to the right of authority and violence.

The consistent application of the principle of tolerance is not the left, socialism, communism, or anything like it, but rather libertarianism (and by libertarianism, I mean anarchism). Because it is violence that is at the heart of bigotry, and what is government other then a monopoly on violence?