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