Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 In a message dated 1/22/04 9:09:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, >s.fisher22@... writes: > >> >> hunh. i thought kinsella gave a very clear explanation of the difference >> between anarchists and minarchists (no aggression is justified vs. a >> " little " aggression is justified). it reinforced my understanding of the >> difference between the two - an important difference. > >Sure, that wasn't my main quibble-- but I did think he failed to >explain why >specific actions of the state that a minarchist would support are >aggression. true, however a) he clearly explained, in his view, *what* aggression he was referring to: ---taxation ---the minarchist state outlawing competing defense agencies i'm guessing he assumes that readers have some understanding of the " tax is aggression " perspective (you pay for it under the threat of violence or the loss of liberty) c) it's possible that an explanation of why he thinks taxation and the state outlawing competing defense agencies is beyond the scope of this brief essay. (they have to limit articles to " x " amount of words) >He claims, with no evidence, that the state is inherently aggressive. He >claims, with no evidence, that state's " must " charge taxes. By > " evidence " I >simply mean a logical argument. IOW, he doesn't explain *why* he >considers the >protection of person and property or the enforcement of contracts > " aggression. " >While I agree that states generally tax, I think it's at least >*possible* to >conceive of a state that runs on user fees. For example, the >loser in court >pays the bill. perhaps user fees are possible, but i don't know if that's part of the typical minarchist scenario, or whether, in general, minarchists believe in limited taxation to support their limited gov't. kinsella's writing assumes the latter, so i'm guessing that's the general consensus among minarchists, although i could be wrong. i really have no idea and just basing this on his seeming presumption that a minarchist state would tax. and if that is true, then it's clear why he considers minarchy to condone aggression, since taxation is considered aggression. " i'm going to force you to pay for this whether you want to or not " how do minarchists justify forcing a population to pay for what *they* (minarchists) deem necessary (ie; police force) when some citizens may not want to? as far as *user fees*, i have no idea if that's possible, but getting into a discussion on that seems well beyond the scope of the article, UNLESS it's what minarchists are arguing for. which, according to his article, doesn't seem to be the case, since the article was expressly written in response to minarchist arguments against anarchy, and we can garner from that that kinsella has read the minarchist arguments for their preferred form of gov't. >> i think you missed the point. is a allowing a " little bit " of >crime ethical? >> it might be pragmatic in the view of minarchists, but is it ethically >> defensible? > >I know that's *his* point, but since he believes his own views are not >practical and can never be realized, I don't see how he can make >moral claims >against those who advocate a society they actually want to happen. because, from his viewpoint, a minarchist society is as unlikely to happen as is an anarchist society. maybe you didn't read that part? here it is: " 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. " > >> > If the state is unjustified, but it is necessary, then the >> > point of its lack >> > of justification is moot. >> >> >> that is just it, kinsella was arguing that that state is NOT a necessary >> evil, and that is the key difference between anarchists and minarchists. > >No, he didn't argue it wasn't necessary. He simply argued it was >evil, and >claimed its necessity need not be considered. LOL! The entire article is an argument against the necessity of the state and its unjustified aggression. >> >> do you oppose *aggression* against a person or property? if so, >why do you >> condone a " small " aggression? (assuming you are a minarchist, >which most of >> your posts that i've read seem to indicate.) > >Yes. I can't answer the question until you explain to me what is > " aggressive " about defending person, and property, and enforcing >contracts. I consider > " aggression " to be the initiation of violence. Is that the >definition you are >using? i was referring to taxation, which as i understand it, would be part of a minarchist state. or, as kinsella stated, agression would also be a state that outlaws competing defense agencies. both are acts of aggression according to kinsella's anarchist viewpoint. now IF there is a state without taxation (how would THAT work?) in the minarchist view, then point number one would be moot. but that doesn't seem to be the scenario that he's responding to - the minarchist arguments set forth on the " reason blog " that he refers to at the beginning of the article. > >> that is not an anarchist. as michael stated, an anarchist views >the state >> as >> an UNnecessary evil. you've been arguing a minarchist view so far on this >> list from what i've seen. it's a position that allows a small amount of >> aggression or " evil " , as it were. which i don't think can be defended on >> ethical grounds as kinsella pointed out because, imo, a " little >bit of evil " >> is like being " a little bit pregnant " . > >Actually, it's more like using a barrier and spermicide to prevent >pregnancy, >and in the event the condom breaks, using a morning-after pill. i think it's more like an anti-abortionist who uses a morning after pill. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.