About Us

Wouldn't you right winger's say for the common good?

"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
> MTV > wrote:
>
> >Ah, but we're eternal optimists and believe in market forces and limited
> >control by government.
>
>
> "Belief" has nothing to do with it; *ethics* are the heart of the
> matter, as in: What moral right do you have to rule me, or I you?
>
> - - -
>
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html
> January 20, 2004
>
> What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist
>
> by N. Stephan Kinsella
>
>
> Butler Shaffer's recent LRC article, What is Anarchy?, prompted
> discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas
> I've also had along these lines.
>
> Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their
> arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy
> won't work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these
> attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist
> does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor
> that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a
> pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that
> you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states
> necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the
> aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It 's quite
> simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses
> utilitarians.
>
> Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a)
> aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states)
> do not necessarily employ aggression.
>
> Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens,
> which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense
> agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the
> countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a
> single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists
> think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)
>
> As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is
> justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and
> anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression - the initiation of
> force against innocent victims - is justified. No surprise; it is not
> possible to show this. But criminals don't feel compelled to justify
> aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?
>
> Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the
> grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused.
> Anarchists don' t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved - I for
> one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.
>
> Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that
> private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not
> occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at
> least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be
> with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.
>
> Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone
> could voluntarily choose to respect others' rights. Then there would be
> no crime. It's easy to imagine. But given our experience with human
> nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be
> crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and
> unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to
> my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere
> to reply, "but that's an impractical view" or "but that won't work,"
> "since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be
> crime - that not everyone will voluntarily respect others' rights - does
> not mean that it's "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that
> crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the
> proposition that crime is wrong.
>
> Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified,
> it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won't work" or is
> "impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur."1 The view that the state is
> unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not
> enough people are willing to respect their neighbors' rights to allow
> anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously)
> support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean
> that the state, and its aggression, are justified.2
>
> Other utilitarian replies like "but we need a state" do not contradict
> the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is
> unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the
> initiation of force against innocent victims - i.e., he shares the
> criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need
> is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his
> needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state
> thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or
> condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as
> that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not
> opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else - making sure
> certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost - but not peace and
> cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and
> even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked
> aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the
> same - innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the
> stomach for this; others are more civilized - libertarian, one might say
> - and prefer peace over violent struggle.
>
> As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that
> there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. After all, the
> state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously
> accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means
> the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.
>
> It's time for libertarians to take a stand. Are you for aggression, or
> against it?
>
> Notes
>
> Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as
> we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What
> is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that
> minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are
> exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among
> millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply
> don't care much about.
>
> Though the case for anarchy does not depend on its likelihood or
> "feasibility," any more than the case against private crime depends on
> there never being any acts of crime, anarchy is clearly possible. There
> is anarchy among nations, for example. There is also anarchy within
> government, as pointed out in the seminal and neglected JLS article by
> Alfred G. Cuzan, "Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?" Cuzan argues
> that even the government itself is in anarchy, internally - the
> President does not literally force others in government to obey his
> comments, after all; they obey them voluntarily, due to a recognized,
> hierarchical structure. Government's (political) anarchy is not a good
> anarchy, but it demonstrates anarchy is possible - indeed, that we never
> really get out of it. And Shaffer makes the insightful point that we
> are in "anarchy" with our neighbors. If most people did not already
> have the character to voluntarily respect most of their neighbors'
> rights, society and civilization would be impossible. Most people are
> good enough to permit civilization to occur, despite the existence of
> some degree of public and private crime. It is conceivable that the
> degree of goodness could rise - due to education or more universal
> economic prosperity, say - sufficient to make support for the legitimacy
> of states evaporate. It's just very unlikely.
>
> Stephan Kinsella is an attorney in Houston. His website is
> www.StephanKinsella.com.
>
> --
>
> Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
>
> "An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
> -- Ambrose Bierce

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Upcoming State Dinner for the Chinese President	Bob Terwilliger[_1_]	General Cooking	7	20-01-2011 05:53 PM
Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!	martin	General Cooking	39	08-10-2009 12:03 AM
Health Care	a victim	General Cooking	4	02-11-2008 06:05 PM
Health Care	a victim	Preserving	0	02-11-2008 05:12 AM

Menu

About Us