NB: I know Hornberger
has today
replied to my latest post on the topic of open borders; this post below is not in
reply to Jacob’s post of today. I have
been chewing on the below post for a couple of days and have decided that more
chewing isn’t going to help.
I am not sure I will
reply to Hornberger’s post of today. I
think we are talking past each other. I
am feeling that my points are either ignored or misrepresented; I do not put
this solely on Jacob, as it takes two to effectively communicate (or not). Therefore, I am not sure it is worth covering
the same ground again as I will likely find no better way to cover it.
--------------------------------------
Taken from the comments to my latest
response to Jacob Hornberger:
Matt@Occidentalism.org May 26, 2016 at
3:45 PM
A minarchist that wants the state
to keep the borders open. A state that controls the borders for the benefit of
the nation's posterity is the best argument for minarchism and yet Hornberger
wants to retain the rump of a state merely to force the borders open. What is
his agenda?
This got me to thinking about the intersection of the
subjects in the title of this post.
Hornberger, in his preceding
reply to me implies he is a minarchist.
I wanted to find something explicit; it is here, and
stated in the first few minutes of the video interview. I paraphrase:
Scott Horton: I know you’re a
minarchist and constitutionalist.
Jacob Hornberger: I ask myself what
is the role of government in a free society?
Hornberger describes the need for a final arbiter as his
justification for supporting minarchism.
Absent such an institution, he suggests that the final arbiter will be
the strongest brute (which, of course, this minarchist state would be, at least
within its borders).
In the interview he directly speaks to the role of police
and courts; he does not directly speak about some form of military defense (at
least I didn’t catch it). He does,
however, refer to the “night-watchman state.”
I find this definition:
In political philosophy, a
night-watchman state is a model of a minimal state proposed by minarchists, and
variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is a state whose only
legitimate function is the protection of individuals from assault, theft,
breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental
institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it
extends to various civil service and emergency-rescue departments (such as the
fire departments), prisons, the executive, the judiciary, and the legislatures
as legitimate government functions.
I think it is reasonable to assume that Hornberger’s
definition of minarchism includes some form of military defense – a defense
from invasion; there must be some way to defend from another brute coming in to
enforce his “final arbitration” over yours, after all.
Also from the interview: prior to discovering libertarianism
Hornberger was a liberal – he believed in the welfare state. This does, perhaps, explain certain of his
leanings.
Minarchism
Hornberger’s call for a final arbiter is a road that leads
to one place – one world government.
Wherever there is a dispute between two individuals under two different
jurisdictions (or, more commonly, a dispute between the government authorities
of two different jurisdictions), there is no final arbiter unless there is a
higher final arbiter. In other words,
the only way to solve this problem via a minarchist (or any other) government
(as the term is traditionally understood), is for one world government.
If one is searching for a final arbiter for the purpose of
settling disputes within the context of state governments, to what other end
does the road lead?
I want to come back to this later; this is especially
concerning given Hornberger’s views on open borders.
Minarchism and
Borders
Minarchism inherently implies a state – a state with
borders, a jurisdiction. Unless one is
speaking of a realized one world government, the jurisdiction of the (almost)
final arbiter has limits; in this world, these limits are geographic – these
are defined by state borders.
Is everyone who enters the borders of this minarchist state
entitled to the protections of this same minarchist state (military, police,
and courts) merely by means of entering?
On what libertarian (even limited-government libertarian) basis?
Immigration vs.
Invasion
What’s the difference?
At the extremes, this is easy – and need not be discussed, I hope, with
this audience.
Invasion is nothing more than armed immigration with violent
purpose. Can an unarmed invasion also
have a violent purpose? How much “armed”
is “armed”? Need an invasion always be
“armed”? From the novel, The Camp of the
Saints, it certainly need not be. I guess
if you don’t like to lean on a novel, the videos from Europe last summer looked
about as close to an (unarmed, as conventionally understood) invasion as one
might care to see.
How might a minarchist government react to an unarmed
invasion? How will a minarchist state
determine the purpose – violent or other?
Who decides? On what basis?
Conclusion
I told you I was done chewing. This post consists of some random pieces
waiting (or not) to be woven into a more coherent narrative and analysis,
nothing more. Take this post as a first
gathering of my thoughts; in other words, don’t hold me accountable for much of
this – I am working through it.
For this, any feedback is welcome. Specifically, I prefer not to turn this into
a discussion focused solely on immigration, but on the intersection of the
topics in the title.
If there is a minarchist state, it will have borders. One function of the minarchist state is to
secure the borders from invasion. How
will the minarchist state determine if it is being invaded? Will it trust in the goodwill of the invader
to give a fair warning: “This is an invasion”?
Is it possible that an invasion is unarmed? How would the state determine if the invaders
are armed or unarmed without examining, in some manner, the individuals entering
the state? Whether armed or unarmed, how
would the minarchist state determine if there was a violent purpose behind the
invasion without some type of examination?
To speak of minarchism and open borders seems like a
contradiction; yet, is it? There was a
time in the past that it seems it was not.
In that time, the immigrant was expected to conform reasonably well to
the local culture and customs; in that time, the immigrant was dependent on
voluntary efforts to provide support.
But this is no longer that time. In much of the west, at least, the residents
are supposed to conform to the immigrant, and not the other way around. The residents are required to support the
immigrant, at the point of a gun.
If the purpose for supporting the minarchist state is to
make certain a one world government (so as to have a final final arbiter), then of course you can have open borders – as there are no meaningful borders in a one
world government. A minarchist world
government – not even in the most fiction of science fiction can such a thing
be imagined.
Conversely, open borders is one sure way to get one world
government – if “we are the world” applies in every region of the world with
its amalgamation of culture (more specifically, destruction of unique cultures),
what would drive decentralization?
Further, as we see today in Europe, ever grander and evermore highly
centralized schemes are offered to “solve” the governmentally-created
immigration crisis.
One way or another, further centralization and control will
be the outcome – whether or not liberal-leaning minarchists want this.
Some libertarians want to ignore the reality that some form
of social structure is required to hold society together; a social structure
that is discriminatory, exclusionary, preferably (if you care at all about
seeing libertarian theory manifest in the real world) decentralized.
A minarchist state isn’t it.
Instead, there are examples in history of such societies that have
lasted for centuries. The longest running, most natural social structure is
family, kin, nation.
NOT nation-state,
just nation.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/11/stefan-molyneux/disproving-the-state-four-arguments-against-government/
I always enjoyed this. Perhaps it may help in some small way.
"Hornberger’s call for a final arbiter is a road that leads to one place – one world government"
ReplyDeleteIt only leads to world government if you have already adopted a universalist framework, like "humanity" as the subject of these questions. If you had an Islamic society there is no reason why they would ever defer to a higher non-Islamic body. The best purpose for the State, and sovereignty, is to totalize law within itself and to demarcate the line between one political body and another. There doesn't need to be anyone besides the sovereign making final decisions within its territory, and outside its territory it is settled through war.
"Is everyone who enters the borders of this minarchist state entitled to the protections of this same minarchist state (military, police, and courts) merely by means of entering?"
Obviously you need a concept of citizenship.
"Immigration vs Invasion"
Immigration is invasion and conquest when it is done by groups. The only reason it hasn't already turned into open warfare is that the people of the West have become weak and fail to see it as such. When they are forced to see it as such there will be a response. Israeli war historian Martin van Creveld has written extensively on this subject.
"How might a minarchist government react to an unarmed invasion? How will a minarchist state determine the purpose – violent or other?"
It doesn't matter if there is a "violent" purpose. The act itself is violence and a threat to the territory. This is why you have a military.
Libertarians spend alot of time trying to convince people of their ideas. They recognize that the society they want would be predicated on a general acceptance of their ideas. They have learned how difficult this is and yet some would like to have a situation where anyone can come into their libertarian society. What mechanism do they propose to ensure that their ideas will continue to serve as the basis for their society when people with different ideas and allegiances flood in?
As Matt said, "A state that controls the borders for the benefit of the nation's posterity is the best argument for minarchism and yet Hornberger wants to retain the rump of a state merely to force the borders open"
Indeed, what is going on here?
Regarding world government, my point is that if you use “final arbiter” as the reason for limited government, this knows no bounds. Who or what will be the final arbiter between individuals or governments on two different sides of the line on the map? It leads to the EU, NAU, World Court, United Nations, etc.
DeleteAs to as Islamic society – the same applies. Not all “Islamic societies” will agree on the same final arbiter. So what happens when they do not agree? Do we resort to ever-larger “limited” governments?
As you say, such disagreements will be settled by war, and this is the most libertarian answer in a world populated by less-than-saints. I say “most libertarian” because I prefer the smaller wars (family feuds) of decentralized societies than the larger wars of ever-larger final arbiters or the lack of wars due to world government.
“Immigration is invasion and conquest when it is done by groups.”
It is interesting. It still leaves open: how many people does it take to turn a group into a group? In any case, something to consider.
“What mechanism do they propose to ensure that their ideas will continue to serve as the basis for their society when people with different ideas and allegiances flood in?”
My point precisely when I write about certain cultural conditions to ensure a libertarian society survives and thrives. And a question I continue to struggle with.
Every day countless people from Maryland cross the border into Virginia and vice versa. No one is invading. No one is shooting. No one is bombing. They are simply exercising their fundamental rights of freedom of travel, freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of contract, and freedom of association. An invasion is what the U.S. government did to Iraq.
DeleteFreedom of travel: only if the property owner allows passage.
DeleteFreedom of movement: only if the property owner allows passage.
Freedom of trade: only if there is a willing trading partner.
Freedom of contract: only if there is a willing counterparty.
Freedom of association: only if there is someone who cares to associate.
My point is each one of these supposed freedoms cannot be imposed on an unwilling counterparty. Your freedom ends where my nose, my wallet and my property begins.
“An invasion is what the U.S. government did to Iraq.”
Jacob, everyone understands this – please refer again to what I wrote: “Immigration vs. Invasion. What’s the difference? At the extremes, this is easy – and need not be discussed, I hope, with this audience.”
The black and white areas are not debated amongst rational adults. The debate is in the gray.
Mr. Hornberger,
Delete"fundamental rights of freedom of travel."
Where did you get that one? From the God of liberalism and equality? It is invasion because they do not belong in Europe and they have designs on conquest. You are denying Europeans a right to their own countries and you are being dishonest if you really want to argue it is beneficial to them. Why don't you tell the thousands of victims of rape and sexual assault that they are being culturally enriched?
This is liberal imperialism. You believe that the lowest jungle dweller with no concept of time has as much right to the nations of Europe as people whose families have lived there for countless generations.
I am sure you believe Islam belongs in Europe as well. Freedom of religion right? What happens when people do not reciprocate your principles?
Praise be to Allah, death to the non-believers.
"Regarding world government, my point is that if you use “final arbiter” as the reason for limited government, this knows no bounds"
ReplyDeleteI agree, but you also need to have a concept of "humanity" or "human rights" in order for it to not stop at your own State. A sovereign state by definition has no power above it (sans God). The reason there is a drive towards World Government is because everyone on planet earth is seen as an equal subject with "rights," and therefore their rights are not determined in their own State but from outside.
"As to [an] Islamic society – the same applies. Not all “Islamic societies” will agree on the same final arbiter"
There can be no final arbiter in interstate conflict. The dream of a parliament of nations is obviously flawed because the only States that are going to be able to fulfill the role of final arbiter are the ones powerful enough to conquer the States in dispute. Which begins the process, you pointed out, leading to a Global State. The Global State needs to have as its basis a global citizenry that it can impose itself on for the sake of "peace."
The reason I mentioned an Islamic state was because it is a clear expression of a particular kind of society that sees nothing legitimate outside itself. Theonomic societies are a good model for understanding this.
When Hornberger talks about a final arbiter he does so with the implication that all people are equal and endowed with "human rights." Absent this leftist hang-up it is actually very simple, but otherwise, yes, you end up with a Global State. He probably knows this, because it is basically impossible to imagine a world of smaller sovereigns that are all liberal (open borders included). Some will be illiberal and even the liberal ones would jeopardize themselves with a totally open borders policy.
"how many people does it take to turn a group into a group"
Groups already exist regardless of how many of their respective individuals are in your country. There are racial groups, ethnic groups, linguistic groups, and religious groups. This is especially problematic when they come from a place where their group has a State. Jews for instance are only 1% of the population but they manage to exert immense influence on U.S foreign policy. Colonialism is most effective when your group has a state representing it and can exert influence from outside. This is why I have never understood why anyone thinks letting foreign groups into your country is ever a good idea. It is just a recipe for conflict and subversion.
The supreme court of Texas is the final arbiter of all legal disputes that arise in Texas, unless there is a federal or constitutional issue, in which case the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the final arbiter. Whichever side loses must comply with the court's judgment. There are conflicting judgments issued by co-equal courts.
DeleteWhen there are conflicting judgments issued by co-equal courts (e.g., the courts of appeals or district courts, they are resolved by the supreme court.
DeleteI suppose this would be considered an "antisemitic canard" to point this out, but Hornberger is only demanding open borders for nations that do not share his ethnicity, while not demanding the same of Israel, where he is eligible for unconditional citizenship. So he is willing to make demands on "the other", but not his own folk.
ReplyDeleteYou can see a good example of this in the video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q8BLfefGtg
You would think that Hornberger would think that Israel should take some of these refugees because Israel has been deeply involved in stirring up the chaos in Syria. Instead Hornberger blames the US and Europe entirely, while giving a pass to the nation that shares his ethnicity. I am going to be a Sherlock Holmes and deduce that he doesn't want to see the nation belonging to the people of his ethnicity being overrun with foreigners.
You to admit that when someone enunciates a universal principle yet excludes his own people from it, its kind of suspicious.
I call for open borders everywhere. Freedom principles work universally and should be applied everywhere. Fundamental rights adhere to all people, not just Americans, as Jefferson pointed out in the documents that Americans celebrate ever 4th of July.
DeleteSo you don't believe that Jews have a right to a nation of their own? I am sure you are well aware that open borders = the end of Israel as a Jewish State.
DeleteAre you not concerned that the Jews living there will likely be exterminated by their neighbors?
Great, Jacob. I hope that you will follow through on this statement since you have made demands of Europe and the US in your writings, but never of Israel that I can find. I look forward to you article calling for 'open borders for Israel' though I suspect your backers will not approve. If you have demanded open borders for Israel in the past, kindly provide a link to the article in which you have done so and I will happily concede.
DeleteMay I ask if you think I have a right to migrate to Israel? What about the Arab people from neighboring countries? Do they have a right to migrate to Israel? And finally, would that migration be in the best interests of Israelis?
Mr. Mosquito,
ReplyDeleteI would direct you to Immanuel Kant's essay Perpetual Peace.
"Here, as in the preceding articles, it is not a question of philanthropy but of right. Hospitality means the right of a stranger not to be treated as an enemy when he arrives in the land of another. One may refuse to receive him when this can be done without causing his destruction; but, so long as he peacefully occupies his place, one may not treat him with hostility. It is not the right to be a permanent visitor that one may demand. A special beneficent agreement would be needed in order to give an outsider a right to become a fellow inhabitant for a certain length of time. It is only a right of temporary sojourn, a right to associate, which all men have. They have it by virtue of their common possession of the surface of the earth, where, as a globe, they cannot infinitely disperse and hence must finally tolerate the presence of each other. Originally, no one had more right than another to a particular part of the earth."
I haven't fully digested this work; but, it is fascinating that it comes under my purvey at this juncture.
Of course, Kant believed in the power of ideas to shape conduct; a concept that Mises would expand upon in his opus, Human Action. It is a vision of mankind where organic change takes shape around definite ideas of rights and of injustice (in the sense of a perception of a violation of the rights other people that we attribute to ourselves by dint of our shared humanity) and increasingly favors trade and non-aggression as principles that benefit humankind in general, and the individual specifically.
This seems to me the correct view of mankind because it accounts for the unpredictable time lag as ideas coalesce into the actions that have driven history from absolute monarchy to the various states of constitutional republics we see today.
Anyway, it's a fascinating bit of writing:
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm
I'd be interested to hear what you think of his "global citizen"...
I find it interesting that some libertarians, including anarchists, favor free trade but oppose open immigration. If they're against opening the borders to people, why do they favor opening the borders to goods? How about services?
DeleteJacob, in trade there is a willing counterparty – I will trade my property for your property. Just as it is true for immigration, your same six steps apply completely – take away any of the steps and it is no longer free trade.
DeleteDo you favor open borders for foreigners who wish to come here solely for the purpose of trade?
DeleteI find it interesting that some libertarians, including chameleon liberals, favor free discrimination in the marketplace, but not when it comes to free management of property lines without government intervention; thereby circumventing the owners right to self-defense.
DeleteMaybe it's favorable to open the border to goods, but people are NOT goods. At least down here at the bottom we'd prefer not to be looked at that way.
We see you chameleon Hornberger
"Do you favor open borders for foreigners who wish to come here solely for the purpose of trade?"
DeleteDo we get to send them home after they trade their goods?
Alaska
DeleteJust to let you know, I am not ignoring your comment. I have read the linked item and will again. If I have something worthwhile to raise after digesting it, I will offer it here.
Thank you
Regaring Minarchism, I'm reminded of a libertarian bumper sticker I haven't seen recently.
ReplyDelete"I used to be a Minarchist, but I ran out of excuses."
Shortly after the end of the 2008 primary season, I didn't see a reason to try and defend the ideal of minimal government. When the trough is public, the pigs vote for more slop and a bigger trough.
I could only conclude that Minarchy doesn't restrain itself, short term or long term. Despite Libertarian Minarchist invocations of the Founding Fathers, their limited government didn't stay limited for very long.
In 1788, the Articles of Confederation were scrapped in favor of the US Constitution. Certainly a document with less leanings toward liberty than it's predecessor.
In 1790, Hamilton looks to new ways to raise revenue.
In 1791, we get the Whiskey Act.
A short Two and a quarter centuries later, Minarchists still believe a limited government somehow stays limited.
This. Precisely this.
DeleteI address this point in part 6 of my series "Why I Favor Limited Government," which is currently being published in FFF's monthly journal Future of Freedom.
Delete"Is this the right room for an argument?..":
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c
Regards, onebornfree :-)
I'm a so-called "minarchist." Happy to be. Very likely will continue to be. And this after being a pretty well-read libertarian for 20+ years. For me, the Rothbardian "no state" proposition is a dead letter.
ReplyDeleteI consider the nightwatchman state (properly conceived) as the only means to realizing the libertarian society.
Concerning the objections you have with minarchy, those are design challenges requiring thought.
BM: A minarchist world government – not even in the most fiction of science fiction can such a thing be imagined.
Sure it can and is (in progress). Further, I believe it must be if humanity is to survive much beyond our current technological capacity to extinct ourselves. Political Demons rule over us now and have control of the means to our end. They are the inevitable product of oligarchy.
BM: One way or another, further centralization and control will be the outcome – whether or not liberal-leaning minarchists want this.
Don't agree. Again, it's a question of how such a state is engineered i.e. how the political authority and laws are arranged to produce the viable and sustainable libertarian society.
It hasn't been done but that doesn't mean it can't if we apply ourselves. But one thing I am certain of is that choosing "no state" is choosing to live in the state of wishful thinking.
Hoping a one-world state will remain (or even allow the possibility of ever being) minarchist is even bigger wishful thinking.
DeleteIn any case, if we are speaking of the real world, this is why I continually advocate decentralization; it is what libertarian theory applied to this world would look like, it seems to me. Not perfect choices in governance models, just an ever-increasing number of choices in governance models.
Why not a decentralized global libertarian state?
DeleteIf the NAP for instance is a universal principle, why not universal common laws based on it? Yet administered locally...
Why not a state based on a self-regulating society? Not governed.
To govern means to control, regulate, restrain. Why not a state that doesn't do those things?
Justice and defense are not functions of government but are functions of the state. Government =/= the state. Government is a property of the state; not the state itself.
Governance basically becomes moot if the People are responsible for regulating their own affairs.
I agree with Spencer Fan - not as to the desirability of a global state (libertarian or not), but the reality that only a global state could make something resembling anarchy possible.
DeleteIt should be obvious that an anarchic society cannot exist side by side with actual states. Actual states would overwhelm the anarchic states.
I will take my chances with further decentralization; more choices than today, less risk that any form of global power.
DeleteMO: I agree with Spencer Fan - not as to the desirability of a global state (libertarian or not),
DeleteA global state is desirable if its the right kind of state. A global state would mean no borders so more freedom of movement (at least across political boundaries not private), one currency, universal law that is the same everywhere and more. But so long as the global state is libertarian ie private property, laissez-faire capitalism, etc.
MO: It should be obvious that an anarchic society cannot exist side by side with actual states.
The word "anarchy" means no ruler; not no state. Contrary to traditional thinking, I see the state and government as distinct concepts. Government is a property of state; not the state itself.
Thus, I can imagine a state without government; the anarchic state. And such a state could exist side-by-side with other states.
The only way to realizing anarchy I believe is via the anarchic state. And the anarchic state as the only means to transition humanity to anarchy globally.
BM: I will take my chances with further decentralization; more choices than today, less risk that any form of global power.
Are you pro-war?
Political decentralization means political competition. States compete through war and conquest. Over time, war and conquest means less decentralization which leads in time to the global state. What kind of global state? Libertarian? Not if a libertarian state model hasn't been conceived.
How do you propose that a global collection of small states with diverse and conflicting political systems exist side-by-side in peace? I submit to you they can't. At least they haven't throughout much of history.
Would you doom humanity to a perpetual game of thrones? And in an age of advancing technological means to wipe out entire human populations? With "elected" political Demons in control who won't lose sleep over committing such atrocities?
Just as I see the state as inevitable, I see global political consolidation as inevitable especially now in the Internet Age. Will libertarians influence what form that eventual state takes? Not if the default libertarian position is "hate the state"... Libertarians will have conceded the future to the Demon class and perpetual conflict.
I submit to you that libertarians embrace the state but re-invent it to take a form that can give us the most sustainable libertarian outcome. If the future is based on the political forms from the past (oligarchy and tyranny), I believe humanity is pretty much f*cked.
The path to a libertarian society is a new kind of state that combines constitutional libertarian law with political democracy. And is scalable such that it starts small but can become a global state while remaining politically decentralized yet remain under universal set of libertarian legal principles.
“Are you pro-war?”
DeleteLaughable. As long as humans are human, there will be war. It doesn’t matter if I am pro or con.
“But so long as the global state is libertarian ie private property, laissez-faire capitalism, etc.”
This is even funnier than the first one. The chances of this are exactly zero. You live in lala land, Spencer Fan.
Smaller and decentralized. Wars will be smaller. If we get decentralized enough, they will be little more than family feuds – and if the Hatfields and McCoys want to fight, that’s their problem – it doesn’t lead to global Armageddon.
BM: As long as humans are human, there will be war. It doesn’t matter if I am pro or con.
DeleteDon't agree. War will end. Either humanity extincts itself or at best returns to the Bronze Age; or war becomes obsolete. Technology will either be the end us or we choose a path to peace.
My way is a path of peace. Your "competing states" is a path to extinction because "competing states" all but assures it.
BM: You live in lala land, Spencer Fan.
I guess that makes two of us.
BM: Smaller and decentralized. Wars will be smaller.
How so? Technology makes even a small nation capable of doing massive destruction. We're not talking about armies with swords and spears anymore. Nukes are just the beginning.
BM: If we get decentralized enough, they will be little more than family feuds... it doesn’t lead to global Armageddon.
You just ignore my argument. Again, your "decentralization" is "Competing States Theory" and this means war which in turn means consolidation and no more decentralization. A self-defeating proposition.
How do you propose to prevent conquest and consolidation in your "decentralized" political world? Global consolidation will happen, it's just your way is the most horrific and bloody way possible.
We've been on that path of "from decentralized to one world government" for all of human history. We're in the endgame now. All you're proposing here is to reset the clock and do all the wars and conquest over again.
Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. You seem to be promoting the "maximum aggression principle" here. Make the world a perpetual political cage-match. No thanks.
"We've been on that path of "from decentralized to one world government" for all of human history."
DeleteHistory paints no such straight line. There are too many examples to list. We are witnessing another today.
Whatever you might think of my view, it is certain that if there is one world government, it will never be benign. You think people will not war against this government? You think this government will draw leaders who favor liberty?
I may be crazy, but whatever term is further into insanity, that's where your idea belongs.
BM: History paints no such straight line. There are too many examples to list. We are witnessing another today.
DeleteWhere in history do you find the multi-state Shangri-la you imagine? The world even now is on the precipice of global war.
The flaw of traditional states is and has been in the political architecture. It needs to evolve and that means re-engineered.
Over the 20th century, how many wars? How many lives lost? And all between competing states; the inevitable culmination of your decentralized many competing small states.
BM: Whatever you might think of my view, it is certain that if there is one world government, it will never be benign.
Not certain. But one world state is certain whether you like it or not. What form will it take? It can be benign if its designed to be. Just because it never has been doesn't mean it can't be. Don't hate the state... re-imagine it. But you're too ideologically transfixed to even be curious.
BM: You think people will not war against this government?
I don't if its based on freedom. And whoever does will be warring against the vast majority who will defend their freedom. I do believe that. The ancient Athenians did when they reclaimed their democracy by overthrowing the 30 Tyrants.
BM: You think this government will draw leaders who favor liberty?
Unfortunately, I can't on this thread describe the political arrangement that I believe yields the sustainable libertarian state. One day maybe I'll have my treatise done and published. Then you can laugh your way through it.
Suffice to say that the libertarian state I imagine will not have political leaders or government.
BM: I may be crazy, but whatever term is further into insanity, that's where your idea belongs.
Lol. You don't even know what *it* is but you already know I'm insane... Ideologue much?
But somehow it's not insane to imagine a world returned to the age of the Medici, Machiavelli and Condottieri and repeat all the wars that followed to get back to where we are today... on the brink of extinction.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results, your "competing states" idea meets that definition.
You are delusional.
DeleteLol. No, I'm just not the ideologue you are.
DeleteBut thanks for the thoughtful discourse. Now I'm off to the argument clinic for more of the same... :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
The back and forth here highlights another problem I have with Libertarian Minarchy. The theories that form the basis seem to operate on wishful thinking and hoping.
Delete"If everyone was like me and believed as I do".
"If the Right Way (???) is implemented"
"If only X"
Decentralization answers these problems better than an encompassing state, Minarchist or not. There are more options, which creates an increased likelihood that differing political bodies can address these "if's" and transform them from "if's" into "is".
I'm struggling to understand why someone can think further Centralization can give us more liberty and less war. At least two very bloody struggles in American history alone come to mind that prove centralization doesn't prevent war from within.
BF: The back and forth here highlights another problem I have with Libertarian Minarchy. The theories that form the basis seem to operate on wishful thinking and hoping.
DeleteI don't agree but let's see. Maybe you're thinking of the "no state" Rothbardian proposition? That's wishful thinking.
BF===
"If everyone was like me and believed as I do".
"If the Right Way (???) is implemented"
"If only X"
===
I believe we can identify a "right way" that can then be put into universal law. But perfection is not an option. We are humans and we are fallible. But we don't have to be evil.
The "right way" is what in principle gets us closer to the ideal. For libertarians that ideal is equal freedom with the provisos of a) natural scarcity, b) national security and c) dependent persons (children and the like). All else can fall under the doctrine of self-sovereignty.
The above creates the greatest freedom for people to choose for themselves what they want X to be.
BF: Decentralization answers these problems better than an encompassing state, Minarchist or not.
Again, decentralization in the form of competing states as BM seems to be favoring leads to war and war leads to consolidation. Self-defeating. And what history has been doing for 1000's of years. Why repeat?
If not, what universal mechanism is going to stop that process? On what basis do competing political societies not engage in warfare? Because war is irrational? :P
In the global libertarian state, would there be conflict? Yeah, but limited and relegated to crime but not state-on-state mega violence.
My take on BM's decentralized competing states is to let the wars happen and let God sort 'em out. And somehow that leads to the more libertarian outcome. Am I misunderstanding him? And not to a re-consolidation?
BF: There are more options, which creates an increased likelihood that differing political bodies can address these "if's" and transform them from "if's" into "is".
Until a lot of blood has been spilt and only one of those "differing political bodies" is left standing. Humanity is and has been walking that path.
BF: I'm struggling to understand why someone can think further Centralization can give us more liberty and less war.
Define "centralization"... If based on traditional states then no, it doesn't have to be that way. A better word for what I mean is "universalization" not "centralization" for the global libertarian state I imagine. No government and a locally administered one universal law. There are universal principles we can agree on. Murder for instance. One global state where murder is illegal instead of hundreds or thousands of states with murder illegal in all...
BF: At least two very bloody struggles in American history alone come to mind that prove centralization doesn't prevent war from within.
Those wars were fought to prevent "decentralization." Exactly what BM is proposing. To get to the small independent multi-state arrangement means countries like the US, India, Russia, China et al must experience hyper-secession. How big is too big under decentralization? 5 million? 10 million? 20 million seems big.
That means the US would need to separate all states back into sovereign states with CA, TX, FL... having to divide even more.
And for that to happen peacefully? And mean no wars after even if it could happen? Even though each state is based on different political systems? And different laws? Many incompatible... Sure.
And somehow this leads to a more perfect libertarian outcome?
But I'm delusional. ;)
Hey, if I've got BM wrong then tell me how.
I believe that since libertarianism is good locally, it's good globally.
Spencer Fan,
Delete"In the global libertarian state"
Kill me now.
I guess all I can do is look forward to the yet-to-be published Roadmap to Globalibertopia.
DeleteBonus points if it addresses how to use libertarian justification for wrangling in secessionists!
He will have to get past all those One World Dominion Anglo men that are leaps and bounds ahead of him, head em off at the pass and convince them of his Globaltopia. I'm sure they will entertain this Noble Vision for the good of all mankind.
DeleteHahahaha!
The world elite have nation states all wrapped up regardless of suicidal noose they've knotted...we are past that stage IMO. The money is beyond dirty everwhere..
Decentralize...decentralize and educate yourselves...
Spencer Fan
DeleteIt is most chilling to know that people like you are out there.
From his conversation with BM-
BM: You think people will not go to war with this (one world) government?
BM: You think people will not war against this government?
Spencer Fan: I don't if its based on freedom. And whoever does will be warring against the vast majority who will defend their freedom. I do believe that.
Very scary indeed. I hope there aren't as many of you out there as I fear there are.
@Josh1476, you consider people willing to defend your freedom "very scary"? I wish there were a lot more than there are.
DeleteJosh,
DeleteIt is the logical end point of liberalism, egalitarianism, and universalism. Throw Cultural Marxism in the mix and you have the ruling ideology of our day. The fact that he calls it libertarian is a distinction without a difference.
Spencer Fan,
DeleteLike the people who defend my freedom today?
No thanks I'll pass. I'm a United States Marine myself, stand or fall I believe I can handle my own defense, whether Valhalla awaits or not.
UC,
I agree, the word games and semantics they play only serve to confuse. It matters not what words one calls oneself, but the words that come out of one's mouth.
A mini-statist lecturing a principled anarchist on the evils of central planning, socialism, government control and interference and the non-aggression principle, much less the virtues of being consistent in the application of one’s political philosophy, is just, well, too comical.
ReplyDeleteBesides using the tired tactic of conflating opposition to state policies promoting and subsidizing immigration contrary to the wishes of the local population as “opposing open borders” as his anchor, he is just all over the place trying to explain his internal contradictions.
First Hornberger states: “Government-controlled borders constitute socialist central planning in action. As libertarians, we know what socialism produces — chaos — or as Ludwig von Mises put it, planned chaos. It never works. It will never work. Socialism is an inherently defective paradigm.”
And “The only thing that works is free markets and free enterprise, meaning markets and economic enterprise that are entirely free from government control and interference.”
Yet in the end he reveals himself “Finally, Bionic takes me to task for being a limited-government libertarian rather than a libertarian anarchist. He says that one of his beefs with limited government is that it can’t stay limited.” – True, show me one that has.
And “Bionic also asserts that it’s impossible to reconcile limited government with the libertarian non-aggression principle. Really?” Yea, really; the state is institutionalized socialism.
Further, he states that “First of all, the crisis is a direct consequence of the U.S. national-security state’s death machine in the Middle East, which has been killing people and destroying people’s homes and businesses for at least 25 years.” So, he believes that the state is necessary because “we” need an army to protect “us” from the proverbial warlords? How could having no state armies be any worse? How can he justify supporting a policy where his supposedly necessary military does nothing as waves of foreigners invade, using the excuse to stand down because this same military was profoundly immoral and incompetent in conducting its most recent assignments?
I don’t know how Hornberger can get through the day with all this cognitive dissonance in his head.
Who says that government has to have a standing army? I've never said that anywhere. You're jumping to conclusions.
DeleteHow is limited govermment "institutionalized socialism?" Explain.
Immigration controls is a classic example of socialist central planning. A government board decides who is going to be able to come in, qualifications, numbers, quotas, etc. How can it surprise you that there is nothing but crisis and chaos--for decades, ongoing? Freedom and the free market work. We libertarians know that. Open borders here within the United States prove it. The same principles apply to international borders. Let's embrace what is moral and practical--freedom and free markets.
Whether an army is just sitting around (i.e. militias that can be called up and commanded by state functionaries) or standing at any one moment in time, said state functionaries have, and will, always be corrupted by that power. This goes for all services (e.g. law enforcement) provided by an institution that claims to have a monopoly on the use of force (the state). If you truly believe in the moral and practical power of free markets to provide all goods and services, then there is no need for a state to do anything. Once people create a state, it can not be limited and will eventually undermine and displace free society with its authoritarian institutions.
DeleteIn an interview with The Daily Bell you said "I believe that justice depends on a judicial system in which people can fairly present their case before an independent tribunal, preferably with juries composed of regular citizens, and where the state has a monopoly of force to enforce the judicial judgments."
Once you give this monopoly power to a group of men, for whatever purpose - even for worthy goals like outlawing murder, you have organized society based on obedience to a central authority (and it isn't long before it is taxing its "customers"). This institution thus embodies central planning backed by force, that is socialism.
I see this as a “chicken or egg” style question as to what brings us closer to the desired outcome of a stateless society – that is, which part of the state do we seek to eliminate first (assuming the whole thing can’t be eliminated all at once and I also assume that most agree on eliminating war before all else)
ReplyDelete1) state subsidized immigration/welfare for foreigners or
2) managed borders.
If you eliminate No. 1, then most of the problems from No. 2 go away. If you eliminate No. 2, then the problems associated with No. 1 get bigger. So, duh! A simple opportunity cost analysis would seem to suggest the best option is to manage borders; at least until the incentives to abuse them have been eliminated.
There is no reason why an anarchist can't condemn immigration controls and government at the same time. Anarchists condemn drug laws and government. And public schooling and government. And foreign empire and interventionism and government. Why not condemn immigration controls and government too? How can any anarchist support the tyranny of immigration controls?
DeleteI condemn many aspects of the state at the same time regularly. The primary difference between us is that I condemn the entire state apparatus (an authoritarian institution claiming a monopoly on the use of force) as immoral while you believe that this type of institution is not only okay in some instances, but necessary.
DeleteI don't "support the tyranny of immigration controls". Open borders is a concept that only exists in a world with states, which I wholly oppose. Of course, this is purely theoretical and as long as there are states there will be borders. So stop with the strawman. What I oppose is the state creating refugees by design, subsidizing their transportation and living expenses, forcefully locating them in areas where the people who live there don't want them and then sticking the locals with the bill.
This situation has nothing to do with open borders, it is about a state policy that is demonstrably undermining free society. As I explain above, the opportunity cost of supporting the state policy of subsidized immigration will lead to financial ruin and social upheaval. How can anybody who believes in liberty support the tyranny of forced immigration?
I guess Jacob got tired of running in circles.
Delete