Question for all small govt/minarchist ppl (1 Viewer)

[bshoc]

1. Under your proposed small state, how are the people supposed to keep the state from expanding?

By not permitting it to expand, the artificial "I need the government for x" that is instilled in people throughtout childhood needs to be done away with, as do certain other catch-22 byproducts of such thinking, such as large scale political parties, oligopolistic corporatism, federal reserve banks, fiat currency and symbiotic financial/banking institutions.

2. Are you aware of any countrys govt in the past that has actually stayed small over the long run?

The United States throughtout much of its early history, under Washington, Jefferson etc. provides a very good model.

My argument is: Govts are too dangerous to be allowed to exist and there is no way to actually keep them small once you've given up all power to them.

Cutting taxes, cutting spending and de-legalizing firearms would actually be very realistic steps to move towards such a goal.

 

[volition]

By not permitting it to expand, the artificial "I need the government for x" that is instilled in people throughtout childhood needs to be done away with, as do certain other catch-22 byproducts of such thinking, such as large scale political parties, oligopolistic corporatism, federal reserve banks, fiat currency and symbiotic financial/banking institutions.

If we really were able to get rid of this artificial "I need the govt for x" thing, why would govts still be necessary?

Although I do definitely agree that we need to get rid of that attitude. The feeling of "entitlement" is hard to break. Look at all the ACTU ppl lol, they all think they should "have the right to their employers money", and whinge whenever theres any talk of less government enforced conditions, and they rationalise it for themselves as "less protections".

The United States throughtout much of its early history, under Washington, Jefferson etc. provides a very good model.

The US is actually an example of how quickly a state will expand. You do realise how quickly after they became the US, civil war broke out? It was only a bit less than a hundred years... And look where the US are now, they have massive debt, massive expenditure and hugely regulated businesses.

Cutting taxes, cutting spending and de-legalizing firearms would actually be very realistic steps to move towards such a goal.

The problem is, there is no way to stop the government from just disarming the population. Once you give them that legal monopoly, there is nothing to hold them in check. No entity external to the government is able to do anything against it. Seriously, the US constitution was DESIGNED to restrain the government. Look where they are now. It's meant to "not allow them to do anything not explicitly stated in the constitution", but their govt is still growing at an incredible rate and civil rights are just going down the gutter.

Look at the US, they have a "constitutionally protected right" to bear arms... and yet the govt still manages to get its filthy hands into that too. They legislate everything about guns, from waiting time, to carry passes, to types of guns, to types of bullets you can use.

 

[bshoc]

If we really were able to get rid of this artificial "I need the govt for x" thing, why would govts still be necessary?

A small, but strong federal government is needed to enforce a few key factors critical to national integrity, mainly security. The other responsibilities can be done away with or delegated to a more local level, such as councils.

The US is actually an example of how quickly a state will expand. You do realise how quickly after they became the US, civil war broke out? It was only a bit less than a hundred years... And look where the US are now, they have massive debt, massive expenditure and hugely regulated businesses.

"A bit less that a hundred years" is about 2.5 lifetimes given the time period we are discussing, to me that seems sufficient.

The problem is, there is no way to stop the government from just disarming the population. Once you give them that legal monopoly, there is nothing to hold them in check. No entity external to the government is able to do anything against it. Seriously, the US constitution was DESIGNED to restrain the government. Look where they are now. It's meant to "not allow them to do anything not explicitly stated in the constitution", but their govt is still growing at an incredible rate and civil rights are just going down the gutter.

Again its a matter of citizen attitute, an aware citizenry would rightfully percieve the attempt of government to take away their arms as tyranny, and would be opposed, through the use of those guns if necessary.

Look at the US, they have a "constitutionally protected right" to bear arms... and yet the govt still manages to get its filthy hands into that too. They legislate everything about guns, from waiting time, to carry passes, to types of guns, to types of bullets you can use.

Even I recognize that sort of regulation is sometimes justified, people can't really justify mortars or rocket launchers as "civil defence," so long as basic access is maintained, I am satisfied.

 

[volition]

"A bit less that a hundred years" is about 2.5 lifetimes given the time period we are discussing, to me that seems sufficient.

And then? rinse and repeat?

Even I recognize that sort of regulation is sometimes justified, people can't really justify mortars or rocket launchers as "civil defence," so long as basic access is maintained, I am satisfied.

Well some of the regulations were pointless. Like waiting times, and restrictions on weapons less 'extreme' than mortars or rocket launchers. Sometimes there were shop owners who actually would have used those automatic rifles to help defend their own stores (because the govt wasn't doing a good enough job policing)

 

[volition]

For some links on the emerging police state in the USA:
- HR 1955 Establishes Legislative mandate for domestic surveillence and counter-dissent.

- College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 Copyright infringement isn't related to how the schools provide the services they do, but the federal government still feels entitled to set nation-wide policies undermining the autonomy of the schools. without any meaningful autonomy, schools are just another part of the state.

- Protect America Act of 2007

Disturbing times indeed for our "freedom loving" friends. Give em an inch, they'll take a mile.

 

[bshoc]

And then? rinse and repeat?

And then avoid making the mistake that was made after those 2.5 lifetimes.

Well some of the regulations were pointless. Like waiting times, and restrictions on weapons less 'extreme' than mortars or rocket launchers. Sometimes there were shop owners who actually would have used those automatic rifles to help defend their own stores (because the govt wasn't doing a good enough job policing)

Agreed, licensing works however.

 

[volition]

And then avoid making the mistake that was made after those 2.5 lifetimes.

We're going around in circles here, but how do you propose the people keep the govt small? The govt is no longer accountable to anything external to it, by virtue of the fact that you've just given it legal monopoly over shit.

You can't "keep the govt small by voting", this has already been tried by the intellectuals and so on back in the early days of the USA.

You can't beat the system by using the system, the only way to bring a govt down is by actually delegitimising it in the minds of the people, by not voting and denouncing it as a purely stone evil institution.