These are great questions. Out for a beer with a buddy last night, I realized the problem we were having in here yesterday. Every time we launch into a discussion, he makes sure we always define our terms. He's an English professor and he recognizes that it's not uncommon for two people to be using the same word but to be defining them completely differently.bh wrote:Guinness as you know I fairly libertarian in my beliefs like you, but for the sake of discussion I have a few questions for you. If the government still has powers to prosecute "encroachments" then we still have a ruling system, no? Someone still will have power and be in charge. So we will still have rules are rulers to follow. Sometimes you seem to be arguing for complete freedom, but really it's only freedom to a point. Also what makes you so sure that a minarchist form of government would be superior to the current system? I like freedom and want as much as I can get, but I'm not 100% absolutely sure that my thoughts and ideas jive with reality. I just want to hear what evidence you have that makes you thoroughly convinced it would work.
So I would disagree with the use of the phrase, "rulers to follow". I don't believe that is in keeping with the spirit of every person's inherent autonomy and liberty, nor with the type of government this country was founded upon. Why that's relevant is this: government's role, aside from "provide for the national defense, etc.", is to prosecute violations of one's liberty (life, property, etc.) through force or fraud by another. Violating another person's liberty is an implicit denial of your own. That applies to government as well. Just as I may not initiate force/fraud against you, I also may not employ a third party to initiate force/fraud against you... ESPECIALLY if that third party is government - the reason is that government is a socially-sanctioned institution that we give the authority of force to. There is no authority to appeal to when government violates our liberty (this is goes to my point about income taxation).
As to what makes me think it would work, I guess we'd have to define the word "work" in this usage - what will bring about the greatest amount of order? What will bring about the greatest amount of happiness? To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned with this notion. I've said in these threads before that even if government were efficient, and brought about some great utility, etc., I would still oppose this form of government action on the grounds that it is unjust and immoral, in that it denies the right of the individual to his liberty and property. It is each of our lives to do with as we please - to succeed, to fail, to learn or to be stubborn. I generally try to stay away from the "government is inefficient" line of argument because that's not the point, to me.
Philosophically, I recognize that the logical conclusion of my position is anarchy, and like you I'm still evolving and wrestling with that in my mind. But the notion of limited government goes much further toward the preservation individual liberty than what we have now. Income taxation is a form of slavery, which I've tried to show in a post earlier. It's expressly the denial of your ownership of your labor. Morality laws like prohibitions deny that the individual is capable of making decisions for him- or herself... and maybe some folks are, but they also have the right to the consequences of those decisions. And when the consequences of those decisions impose upon others, it is right for us to appeal to government for redress as a violation of our liberty.
