Excellent points, but you seem to be reiterating the liberal myth of laws being a force unto themselves, without the need for enforcement. The so-called "Founding Fathers" of the US used violence against their legally legitimate government, pursuing their independence. There was no "contract" with the people, merely the victors unilaterally declaring all subjects within the boundaries of their newly won fiefdom to now belong to the US government. The Deistic theology of non-interventionist clockmaker god formed the basis of the liberal governments. The liberal belief that laws govern themselves, established the impersonal mechanical government in the liberal West. The US Constitution is merely a piece of parchment with no force. Authority of all governments derives from the point of a gun. The Americans in the Whiskey Rebellion and the Southern secessionist states learned the fallacy of believing that nation-state is a "contract" between the people and the rulers. The libertarian perspective is merely the ultimate logical extension of believing this liberal fallacy.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I am not "reiterating the liberal myth of laws being a force unto themselves".
That is a straw man you are beating.
See my reply to @lukestokes below for further details on my actual position.
I agree that ultimately all governmental authority derives from a monopoly on the use of force, but such monopoly depends on the support of the people. If too many people are unhappy with the government competitors for the use of force will arise and fight it out until one wins.
If too little is spent on defence by one government then another nation state's government will conquer it and make their monopoly area bigger.
Keeping people happy is best achieved by democracy and rule of law such as is set out in US Constitution.
When was the last time one nation state conquered another nation state to extract their physical resources or take their land? It happens, but rarely. Economic value in the world today is largely based on the economic output of the citizens, the infrastructure, etc which creates the tax basis for the rulers. Invading and destroying is far less profitable than cooperation.
Perhaps because you live in a nation (the USA) that has the most powerful military on earth and was last invaded over two centuries ago you believe this to be true.
But I live in a nation whose enemies have tried to attack and invade it to take its land and resources, murder its people and destroy its infrastructure almost every year for the last 72 years.
Every few months, enemies try to destroy my home and kill my children by firing missiles at my city and only the massive resources of a nation state (Israel) are able to protect me.
In my region, nations invade each other all the time, for natural resources such as oil (Iraq invasion of Kuwait, US invasion of Iraq? and Syria?) or human resources such as fertile women (Saudi invasion of Yemen) or for territorial expansion (Russian invasion of Ukraine & Georgia, Turkish invasion of northern Syria).
To the extent that large scale wars of conquest have been relatively rare in the past few decades it is only because the gargantuan power of the US military deters such actions.
Your view of the world is completely skewed by the very thing you'd like to get rid of.
Thank you for responding in detail and for sharing with me your live experience. Before I get into the points you made, are you familiar with democide and the 260 million deaths caused by government? If you're advocating for government, please also understand you're advocating for the harm it causes.
As for the middle east and Israel in particular, I have no lived experience there beyond the narrative of waring tribes, religious holy war, and territorial disputes that go back generations. Just as the Treaty of Versailles essentially ensured WWII would happen because the agreements after WWI were impractical, isn't it possible some of the treaties which have also negatively impacted the Palestinian people to the point where some have taken to violence? Is none of that blame to be laid at the feet of the Israeli government at all?
If one group of people literally wants to whip another group of people off the face of the planet as a genocide, then yes, I see how violence appears mostly unavoidable. That said, I do know of successes (even in the middle east) with tools like NVC: Violence Is a Tragic Expression of an Unmet Need.
It's clear that the Hobbesian Leviathan as the best approach to dealing with violence is the story that best fits reality for you. I'm sure nothing I say would convince you beyond your lived experience (why would it?) but I'd also ask that you at least consider the harm governments cause and especially the US government with the way it uses global financial banking to fund all sides of every war via the military industrial complex. Who builds those missiles and how are they funded? Once army, government, and war are consider viable solutions, all sides get turned into business opportunities at the cost of human life.
I'd prefer individuals be free to equip themselves as needed for protection. Personal defense drones and the like, things that today there is no market to create because governments have a monopoly on defense.
I don't disagree with you about the harm government causes and would prefer to live without it in complete freedom and liberty. I am libertarian and anti-authoritarian but a realist.
I just don't think the complete elimination of government is achievable, even from a theoretical perspective, while we remain vulnerable creatures of the flesh.
I am not advocating for government, just recognising that some government is inevitable and essential.
I think the best way to minimise the harm government causes while maximising its benefits is to recognise its core purposes and limit expansion beyond those core purposes as much as possible.
How do the demos arrive at a decision? It doesn't. After endless discussion of this, that, or other, the lowest common denominator is selected by no one in particular. The entire process of "democracy" hinges on the fallacy that men will obey a set of laws and reason them out themselves. This is the liberal myth of laws being a force onto themselves. Sovereignty and political decisions are made by someone with the ability to write new laws and the capacity to enforce the said laws. The nonsense political system "democracy" is no different from the libertarian idea that "market" laws will correct society and enforce itself. Both systems deny the necessity of personal rule, a sovereign decision-maker.
Democracy has been a failure. How has democracy achieved happiness for its subjects, when the West is plagued with epidemic of mental illness, rampant addiction, and high suicide rates? Merely measuring shiny things that clink does not adequately evaluate social well-being. The duty of the government and the sovereign is to prioritise values and reorganise principles. The legitimacy of any government derives from the sacred, whether it be god, gods, or myths, not from the vulgar opinions of the populace. The liberal myth, which provides legitimacy to the current Western humanist governments, is dangerously flawed and needs to be reorganised.