A Little Common Sense....

[BigG]

Hi Pax,

We were talking about the pendulum swinging between No Govt and All Govt.

I think what your question says is that without some formal govt the strong will govern the weak. This has happened too often in the past to be denied.

The context of my contention was that once you put two or more together you are going to have conflict, both within the group and from outside the group. That's where I see the need for governance. Since the fundamental power of govt is coercion, I don't think the biggest guy should have all the marbles. Sorry.

I contend that without minimum governance we will at best be individually reduced to defending our rights to the detriment of our other productive activities. At worst we will have to put up with what you stated in your question. Then again, maybe each of us can build an individual stockade and move into it and defend it from all comers? (A quick read about the Greek City-States and their incessant self-destructive warfare might be indicated here for budding libs).

Meanwhile, while we are all busy defending ourselves from our "friends" (fellow libs?) we can all be individually overcome by an organized "enemy" (non-libs).

H. L. Mencken made a similar quote to the one you posted:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

 

[pax]

I think what your question says is that without some formal govt the strong will govern the weak. This has happened too often in the past to be denied.

No, my question wasn't saying anything. It was a question. I was asking whether or not that was what you said. It appears your answer was yes?

If the question had a point, it is that anarchists believe that a formal government is, by definition, rule by people with few scruples and no morals who are willing to use force to make the rest of us do things their way. -- Which, of course, you conceded when you said,

... Since the fundamental power of govt is coercion ...

In short, you are a libertarian because you believe that government is a necessary evil. You are not an anarchist, because anarchists believe that government is an unnecessary evil. Both groups can work together against the statists on both sides of the aisle who believe that government is not evil. There will come a day when anarchists & libertarians must part ways, but that day is so far in the future it is hardly worth thinking about.

Still, discussing it does have some value. Do you really expect someone who believes government is an unnecessary evil to work with you to build a better government?

pax

For most people, anarchy is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism - things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term state, despite its bloody history, doesn't disturb them. Yet it's the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can't assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what legitimacy means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label. -- Joseph Sobran

 

[BigG]

...someone who believes government is an unnecessary evil ...

Pax, I guess I have trouble believing that anybody actually believes that. They may claim to, but I doubt anybody who has been out in the cold world would actually adhere to that viewpoint. That's more like a debating position. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I don't believe in govt... yada yada...

 

[Tamara]

BigG,

Since the fundamental power of govt is coercion, I don't think the biggest guy should have all the marbles. Sorry.

Ah, but the de facto definition of "government" is "the biggest guy with all the marbles".

I contend that without minimum governance we will at best be individually...

Are you unable to work voluntarily with others absent "coercion"? I doubt it, as you seem intelligent and ethical.




PS: Could we continue this discussion sans the snide assertions that the other is somehow ignorant? I give you full measure for having read, say, Common Sense or ancient Greek history, yet you seem confident in your assertions that I haven't. Since I have no need to, um, "chest beat", I'll refrain from posting pictures of my library or dropping gratuitous quotes from Herodotus if you will.

 

[pax]

BigG,

I don't think you've been paying attention.

A few months ago I finally read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Great book; I don't agree with all of it but I'm not willing to call the author a sophist.

Plenty of anarchists on this board, if you look around. Not all of them are guilty of sophism.

pax

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. – Jean Jacques Rousseau

 

[BigG]

Tamara: OK, great. I don't have all the answers. I hope we are not too far apart. I don't think that we have to be on opposite sides!

Pax: My remembrance of Ayn Rand was fondness for the kernels of wisdom she buried deep within her bushels of horrible writing. I read it about 30 years ago. A re-reading a few years back showed Rand's prose style had not improved with age.

You guys all have the right to believe as you wish. I hope if your experiences prove you wrong you are big enough to change. I know I've changed thru time. (I hope for the better)

 

[SteelyDan]

This actually looks like a pretty interesting thread, and I'd love to comment, but it's coming up on 3:00 and I didn't read most of the first, long post, and I've got to go to bed. But I'm glad there's a place like this where we can debate such issues.

And yeah, this is my most useless post ever. Sorry, I'm tired. Nite, all.