> So: > > We can have a variety of relatively small, competing aggressors who > are not entrusted with the legitimate functions of society (trade, > protection, justice, etc.), have no social or moral legitimacy, and > are universally reviled for what they are (mobs and individual > criminals). > > -or- > > We can have a large, monopolistic aggressor which has usurped enough > of the legitimate functions of society to make itself seem > indispensable (especially to those who live off its 'largesse'), and > which clothes itself (largely successfully, alas) in a cloak of > legitimacy such that people die for its very symbols (flags, etc.). > > I know which I'd choose! >
Why are those the only two options? Why can't we have municipal governments to take care of most functions? They would be small, and compete for residents. A federal government would only exist to protect individual rights from abuse, by their municipal government or foreign enemies. If you deny that a limited government can exist for long periods, say so. There are clearly more options that the two you present. > >> The majority of people will always tend to have more wealth and power, >> than the minority. >> > > This is a strange contention. There is no natural 'majority' or > 'minority', so you can choose any grouping you like and make this > statement come out true. However, I think most people would disagree > with you and would say that the greatest part of society's wealth is > in a relatively small number of hands. These folks find it > ridiculously easy to manipulate a 'democratic' system where the mob > (sorry; government) is selected by a 'popular vote'. This is one of > the prime reasons that a monopoly government *is* such a bad idea. > I said "tend". Other factors can come in to play, of course. *Some* interests will differ between rich and poor, most especially regarding matters of property. Other interests such as religion cut across income brackets. I'm not just talking about large aggregates. I'm talking about a majority religion in a town oppressing those who disagree. I'm talking about the "popular" cliques beating up and keeping down the shy people, the geeks, the loners, the weirdos. Nonconformist individuals have always been the most oppressed minorities (of one) in human history. Who will defend the minority in such situations? You need to bring in some force from the outside. If this is a neighboring town, the result will be civil war. Various local interests, though external to the original dispute, will provide occasion to expand the conflict, and enlist third parties. The stakes get raised and the conflict intensifies. Such things can take on a life of their own. For this reason, a federal body representing the whole is the best guardian. The unequal division of property has probably been the biggest source of contention in human history. You spoke of criminal mobs having no legitimacy. They will, in their view, be taking their rightful share from "hoarders" or "exploiters". Many will agree, especially when it is in their financial interest to do so. Of course, demagogues will likely garner a somewhat greater share for themselves. In short, what is to keep anarchy from becoming rampant populism? I do not believe, as I said above, that a huge government like today's is the only other option. Telling me how bad the Republicans are wont get me to vote Democrat, either. > >> They will always be motivated to use this power to >> oppress the minority. If there is no Law or Constitution to uphold >> individual rights, with enforcement power, no one can intervene and the >> tyranny of the majority has free reign. >> > > Rein (although 'reign' fits in this case, too). > Yeah, that was intentional :) > I dispute the notion that 'no one can intervene'. I also dispute the > notion that a *majority* operates as a tyranny - for that to happen > the majority would have to be in substantive agreement - and we see > that is simply not so. What happens *in fact* is that a minority > *uses* a majority to draw around itself this cloak of legitimacy I > mentioned earlier. > You're right, I should qualify that. No one can successfully intervene, at least without inviting bigger trouble as I mention above. In matters of religion the majority often has substantive agreement. Most people are inherently conformist when it comes to, for instance, social behavior, dress, who they associate with, and what they consider worthwhile goals or entertainments. I found this link while Googling for "Ilene Davis" which demonstrates how people can be expected to behave: http://forerunner.com/ccbc/X0021_Witch_Prays_at_Titus.html > >> Or, military rule can arise. An army has an advantage over civilians, >> no matter how well armed the latter group. Civilians must work and >> raise families, and this takes time and energy. An army of young men >> doesn't need to work or get married. They can steal the wealth of >> others and rape the women. Such an army can focus entirely on >> oppression and coercion. >> > > Armies rely on government. If you are merely saying that if we had no > government, a government would happen, so we should have a government, > that's a bit silly. It's like saying that death is inevitable, so why > not simply take control and kill yourself and avoid the surprise? > I see no reason an army needs a government. It can simply obey the guy at the top of the pyramid. I call this "military rule". I'm saying coercive institutions will always arise. You may define that as government if you wish. I'm saying if we try NOT to have a government, we're more likely to find ourselves coerced, than if we set out to make a limited government. The ideal is a government as small and weak as possible, yet still able to preempt a worse social order. > >> These are the reasons that we establish governments. So that the rule >> of the mob, whether manifest as majority tyranny, or mafia tyranny, can >> be kept in check by something which is less burdensome. Such as >> constitutional representative government. >> > > Piffle. In probably EVERY case with the possible exception of the US > government, the idea of "constitutional representative government" was > simply a cloak FOR the mob to assume (or stay in) control with the > willing complicity of the very folks it was parasitizing. > That's why I live in the U.S. We had the sense to have a Bill of Rights. Also, our Revolution was a geographic separation; whereas in Europe, the process usually involved one class within a country achieving dominance over the other classes. There was also very little institutional restraint; the bourgeois built this country, not feudal governors. It appears to me that, wherever governments fail to maintain themselves, strongmen and theological governments arise. The United States appears to have the best track record. We should improve on the U.S. model, not throw it out. If you read The Federalist, it details how under the Articles of Confederation, the things of which I speak, such as the poor voting to take the wealth of others, or religious oppression, were evident injustices. This was why the Constitution was adopted. I am not chasing ghosts; this is what actually happened before the Constitution was put in place. >> This idea that ending government will somehow end all oppression and >> tyranny, is a matter of faith. I prefer not to govern on faith, but >> rather by reason. >> > > Govern thyself! But please spare me your 'reason', which somehow looks > to me more like ex post facto rationalization for government already > in existence than the rationale for creating a government. > That's not surprising, considering that I'm not arguing for the creation of a government. I'm arguing for the preservation of a government. So it would be strange if my comments failed to indicate this. Of course, I want to make our existing government much smaller and less powerful. > A truly decent government would not need to employ the tactics of a > mob to fight a mob. The fact that government DOES behave like a mob > should be your first clue that it's purpose isn't to 'secure your > rights'. > How does government behave like a mob? I'm not saying it doesn't to some degree, I just want to know what definition you're using. If you define a government and a mob as the same, of course they will behave the same, but this reveals no insight. Who says a government needs to employ mob tactics? Assuming you mean the initiation of force, this is not a necessity. Municipal corporations could handle the majority of the expenses. They can pave the streets and maintain the police and courts. A little tweaking could make municipal corporations airtight voluntary. I'm unsure if the federal government should protect you from murder, theft, etc. in unincorporated territory, or if you should just be on your own then. The feds should definitely intervene if your municipal corporation violates its contract with you, or if one municipality attacks another, or a foreign power invades. Indeed, that should be the only purpose of federal government. That wouldn't cost much. I'd favor a very small standing army, with the bulk of national defense coming from reserve soldiers who would train periodically but live mostly at home, and receive most of their livelihood from civilian employment. This would be a much cheaper army than we have now. The laws would be very few and limited in scope, and so judicial expenses would be minimal. Perhaps voluntary contributions would work. We could restrict the franchise to those who make voluntary contributions. Why not? The law would apply equally to all, but only those whose money pays for the government would choose its administrators. With their money at stake -- not the money of others -- greater attention would no doubt be paid to how it was spent. Here's another option. Corporations don't have rights, they are granted privileges. Why should these privileges be free? Why not repeal the individual income tax, and tax only corporations, LLCs, etc.? If you don't like it, don't get a charter; just be a simple proprietorship or simple partnership. This does not violate natural rights because corporations don't have any. Sure, the tax cost could be passed on to customers. The idea is that the efficiency and growth, that comes from attracting investment, will outweigh the tax burden, producing lower-cost goods. If not, the non-chartered businesses will undersell the chartered ones. Then, the government will get no revenue. So such a tax is self-limiting. I think you are an intelligent and thoughtful person, Susan. I used to be a full-on anarchist. But as I think about how I'd actually go about changing the world, and as I discuss the matter with others, I am increasingly of the opinion that a minimal government is best. Perhaps surviving on non-theft means is the best way to limit the size of government. What if we could fund a government without theft? In any case, I believe that the best course is to work within the existing framework here in the U.S., to shrink the size and power of government. I think people are beginning to see the consequences of runaway spending. If we're smart we may yet turn the tide. Ultimately, the Constitution needs amendment to include new limits on federal power. However, we first need to dismantle the machinery of dependence. for Liberty, Chris Edes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
