Replying to Avatar vinney...axkl

What is your definition of "government" and does it exist without the "state"?

To me, a "Stateless government" is entirely possible and gets you all the things you're desiring - a voluntary, spontaneous order. No serious person I've ever come across has ever advocated for duels, gang warfare. As long as the "government" you are describing is fully opt-in, doesn't coerce individuals to submit to it, and doesn't declare itself the monopolistic owner and rule-maker for territories it doesn't directly own, I wouldn't call that a "State" and I don't have a problem with it.

It all comes down to private property rights.
Avatar
vinney...axkl 7mo ago

I'm quite familiar with Rand

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Matt 7mo ago

I'm not drawing a difference between the two and I think doing so gets into the word salad territory I mentioned. It always devolves into a pointless semantics argument. It doesn't matter for my points.

Avatar
vinney...axkl 7mo ago

its helpful as shortcuts if people can agree on definitions.

the State is the monopoly on violence and extortion over a territory they don't own via property rights but make a claim on anyway.

a government is a collection of people who attempt to organize a community.

the former is by definition not something you can opt out of. the latter, depending on its design may allow exit if it respects private property.

what about that is word salad?

Avatar
Matt 7mo ago

My definition is that used by Rand. I can clarify further if you want, but you said you're familiar. For me, early America almost got it right. We certainly did it the best and prospered for the most part as a result. As I said, not perfectly. But going back to extremely limited government and away from the admin state ideals would be my ideal place to start.