I'm in a weird purgatory where I'm a governmental minimalist but not an anarchist. It's pretty hard to find others like that. It seems that you're either a full on commie or an anarchist. Or even worse, a fence sitter playing the middle.
I tend to agree with Ayn Rand's view of government. It gets lonely, but it's the most rational position I've read.
I'm with you
The existing political spectrums are a box designed to trap us. To hell with it all.
That's my conclusion as well. Rational thinking should be the guiding principle rather than collectivism.
That's why I prefer to only unite with others around highly specific issues rather than pools of issues (political platforms, parties, etc).
you are describing voluntaryism. once you have full consent and opt-out, it seems weird to call it "government", even if it's mini. that's voluntary, consensual association and most people would call that anarchy.
its mostly semantics. the meaningful parts lie in the consent mechanics.
There is a difference between government and governance. We need rules that we all agree to and we can follow that help us move forward together. We don't need governments to draw lines on maps and tell us which rules we live by based on those stupid lines.
Yeah that sounds awesome except that isn't the real world. There are very much differences between the lines. We aren't all the same and that's exactly why new countries were formed. Governance without enforcement (government) is meaningless. More word salad.
Governments are unnecessary and a waste of capital.
But whatever.
I clearly disagree.
The differences between people on either side of those lines are meaningless. We are all the same. Countries have evolved over the past few centuries from empires and kingdoms. And those were created in order to maintain power and control. Wanting some people to maintain power and control over other people seems to be against the idea of objectivism, which I thought was anti-collectivism. Ayn Rand's philosophy was formed based on her experiences in the Soviet Union, and it was an attempt to reject those experiences. But modern nation states overreach with surveillance and regulatory bloat. We really do need to reexamine everything and figure out how to start over from scratch, using the Internet as a global communication system akin to a nervous system.
Word salad is all we have, because we can't communicate directly.
I DO agree that governments as they are are bad and a waste of money. We agree on that. I just don't think they are in principle when they exist solely to protect property rights. That includes prevention of force to settle disputes, protection from outside attacks, civil courts for contracts, etc.
For more specifics, I align with Rand's view of reasonable government. It doesn't do a whole lot.
Theory is always easier than practice. The principles of Thomas Paine's Common Sense evolved over time to become some of the components used in the US Constitution, but they're clearly different documents. Governments as they are today are the result of centuries of growth and change, and there is no way to fix what we have without a complete overhaul. Governments have NEVER existed to protect property rights. No nation-state was ever formed solely to protect property rights or individual liberty, as Rand envisioned. Instead, states typically served a mix of elite interests, collective security, economic needs, and cultural identity. Even when invoking rights, governments often subordinated them to pragmatic or collective goals—e.g., eminent domain, taxation, or war mobilization.
Rand's perspective was her own, but it had nothing to do with reality, it was an attempt to change the reality she saw. I can't idealize things in an academic construct and claim that 'this is how things should be', nor can anyone else.
According to the Ayn Rand Institute:
The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
This may sound good on paper, but it ignores the fundamental roles of government as defined by the Constitution of the United States:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So, from Rand's perspective, a good governance system for the United States would abolish the Constitution and institute a new set of roles, eliminating the desire to form a community of mankind, ignoring the need for domestic tranquility, ignoring the general welfare, etc. Capitalism in these terms is of course an economic system, but not a social system, and certainly not a system of governance worthy of discussion.
Go Subsidiarity! Minimum authority to the most local government that makes sense.
Subsidiarity leads to minarchy, I think, as authority gets shifted down and down and the majority ends up in families (the lowest level of government) and only a few key things (like national defense and diplomacy) remain at the federal level.
As much Government as possible should be at the family level so stay-at-home dad's like myself don't feel as impotant as we are.
I’ve been on this boat for a while. I don’t have super strong convictions, but I don’t trust people enough for full on anarchy
but you trust them enough to govern you..? 🤔
I mean, this is the obvious flaw, which is why I said I don’t have strong convictions. I know a lot of people do, but I’m not one of them 🤷
No, I never trust government. Keeping them limited requires constant vigilance. But it's better than a world where people just go around doing whatever the fuck they want. Society can't exist like that, and all the anarchist fantasies I've had proposed to me always result in government. They just use word salad to try and make it seem like it isn't government. Governments will always form in some way or another because some humans will always be shitbags or have disagreements. You see it already WITH organized government. I'm skeptical that instances of murder, rape, theft, etc will magically decrease without government. And I'm not interested in a world where disputes are settled with duels or gang warfare. In fact, I don't think property rights and freedom are even possible without a rational government. Whichever bro has the most guns and muscles owns your shit in reality. Which is why you'll likely see the formation of many little governments that are probably more brutal and erratic than what we already have. Pass.
I'd much rather have limited government as Rand described it (see her work if you care to). But that requires rationality and the cultural rejection of collectivism and altruist philosophy. Otherwise, you'll end up with abusive governments, or much worse if you have none at all. Current governments are largely a reflection of the cultures they exist in.
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.
I'm quite familiar with Rand
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.
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?
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.
Would love to hear you expand on that and share more fully.
You’re not alone.
Sup lol - similar opinion
