Benjamin Franklin said: “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor safety.”
When anarchists counter with "I choose to give away my liberty to a government with a monopoly on force 
", what would you answer?
I’m not an anarchist but I’d say that such a trade wouldn’t buy me any security. The function of government as Ayn Rand put it is “placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.”. But who can place government use of force under objective control if it has a monopoly on force? If it wants, it will respect objective laws, If it doesn’t, it won’t. The checks and balances system is evidently doesn’t work, nor does democracy.
That liberty is the freedom to exercise one’s rights. Without a government to protect individual rights, there is no liberty. Anarchy is the opposite of liberty, it is the state of affairs where individuals are subject to aggression and intimidation from everyone, and therefor have no rights.
P.S. Franklin was right: He who trades liberty for security gets neither. The only way to achieve security is through a rights respecting government, a dictatorship doesn’t provide security.
Who prevents government’s aggression and intimidation if government has an exclusive mandate on the use of power?
Anarchists don’t understand that a society without a central law-making body can’t provide due process.
Due process is a right that everyone has, yet a market can’t provide it. Beyond this the free market also can’t develope consistent property rights.
Leftists Anarchist groups don’t want to respect your rights.
“Anarcho-Capitalists” who are neither Anarchists nor Capitalists would like to respect your rights, but have no way of doing so. Luckily though if an “Anarcho-Capitalist” society were achieved it woulod require a whole bunch of people who believed in property rights. It wouldn’t be very hard to set up an Objectivist government after everyone realized what a failure it all was.
Central law making body is needed, but does the process of legislature requires a coercive monopoly on the use of force? if it does, then is self-refuting since government with such a monopoly could make any law simply on wish and to enforce it.
Who prevents government’s aggression and intimidation if government has an exclusive mandate on the use of power?
If we were to take your assertion that checks and balances and the democratic process can’t work, then no one. Luckily, your assertion is baseless, so the answer is: the checks and balances and the voting public does.
Then how do you explain that American government managed so severely to restrict the individual rights and civil liberties?
Then how do you explain that American government managed so severely to restrict the individual rights and civil liberties?
That is the result of a constitution that is not explicit enough and mob rule able to take rights away, particularly under the notion of “state rights” (state rights to do what?).
Doesn’t mean that a system of checks and balances doesn’t work. Democracy is good in certain areas, but people shouldn’t be allowed to vote on certain things.
Central law making body is needed, but does the process of legislature requires a coercive monopoly on the use of force? if it does, then is self-refuting since government with such a monopoly could make any law simply on wish and to enforce it.
It absolutely could not. You need a culture to support that government. Right now people want a social democracy in priniciple and that is exactly what we get. Only really really poor “nations” can be ruled by force.
The reason why the united states has failed is because the country outgrew the people founded it. Even at the beginning of our nation right minded people ended up making severe compromises with all sorts of bad people in order to keep the nation stable (southern slavery for example). Another factor is the waves of immigrants that this country has recieved. That must have changed our political demographics a great deal.
“It absolutely could not. You need a culture to support that government.”
Yes, and coercive monopoly on force will not bring this culture. The violation of American Constitution started not with Barak Obama but with John Adams in 1795, just 20 years after Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights-to wit: no law can prevent government abuse of power if government has a monopoly on force.
Then how do you explain that American government managed so severely to restrict the individual rights and civil liberties?
The explanation for American socialism lies in American society and culture. The American government’s actions are driven by the wishes of the American people, not the other way around.
The explanation for American socialism lies in American society and culture. The American government’s actions are driven by the wishes of the American people, not the other way around.
Aren’t you making his point?
It shouldn’t matter what the will of the majority is, which is why we have a constitution. If the will of the people says we want blacks to be slaves or we don’t want women to vote, it doesn’t matter because we have a constitution that says it can’t happen. That is why the constitution needs to be more explicit so the checks and balances can actually work.
The supreme court’s sole duty is to interpret the constitution, but because the constitution is so loosely written, there are different interpretations and rationalizations able to be made, which results in rights being violated. Example is the healthcare mandate. Until the constitution is shaped up, a system of checks and balances won’t work.
I wouldn’t say that the constitution is so loosely written, rather it is the view that language is considered an ambiguous means of communicated that facilitates undermining the brilliance that made it possible in the first place.
Who prevents government’s aggression and intimidation if government has an exclusive mandate on the use of power?
The people. If a government transgresses on people’s rights, people use their democratic power to vote them out or use the legal system to block them. If peaceful change as such is not possible, the government is not legitimate and an armed rebellion is justified.
Aren’t you making his point?
It shouldn’t matter what the will of the majority is, which is why we have a constitution. If the will of the people says we want blacks to be slaves or we don’t want women to vote, it doesn’t matter because we have a constitution that says it can’t happen. That is why the constitution needs to be more explicit so the checks and balances can actually work.
The supreme court’s sole duty is to interpret the constitution, but because the constitution is so loosely written, there are different interpretations and rationalizations able to be made, which results in rights being violated. Example is the healthcare mandate. Until the constitution is shaped up, a system of checks and balances won’t work.
Even a perfect constitution won’t work if the people don’t believe in the ideas behind it. A constitution will help stave off democracy, but eventually as more and more people are against it and lose regard for it, it will either be blatantly misinterpreted (FDR), ignored or thrown out.
Aren’t you making his point?
His stated point is that in a democracy with checks and balances, where the government has a monopoly on force, such a government can do anything it wants.
That is obviously not true. The history of the United States and many other democratic countries prove that, given the right checks and balances, a democratically elected government is limited by what a significant majority of the population agrees with. In 230 years, no US government leader has managed to usurp any more power than the population agreed to give them, and never for longer than the legally prescribed term limit.
That’s a significant limit on power. It may not be the limit he likes, but that doesn’t mean he can start pretending no limits exist, or that the limit isn’t working. It is working remarkably well. In a more rational, individualistic culture, that limit could very well be drawn at the protection of individual rights. If that happens, the evidence that it will be respected is overwhelming: western democracies (which all have checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of the democratic process) have all been able to preserve such limits for quite a while now.
In conclusion, Leonid is wrong: the problem with modern democracies isn’t the monopoly the governments have on force, it is the collectivist culture of the voters (and, to a lesser extent, the imperfect checks and balances that have been put in place to begin with, even in the United States).
Aren’t you making his point?
It shouldn’t matter what the will of the majority is, which is why we have a constitution. If the will of the people says we want blacks to be slaves or we don’t want women to vote, it doesn’t matter because we have a constitution that says it can’t happen. That is why the constitution needs to be more explicit so the checks and balances can actually work.
The supreme court’s sole duty is to interpret the constitution, but because the constitution is so loosely written, there are different interpretations and rationalizations able to be made, which results in rights being violated. Example is the healthcare mandate. Until the constitution is shaped up, a system of checks and balances won’t work.
You really think any honest interpretation of the current Constitution allows for the health-care mandate?
You really think any honest interpretation of the current Constitution allows for the health-care mandate?
No. But I do think that the way the constitution is written allows leeway for rationalizations. The constitution should say “no mandates” and problem solved (so long the constitution is respected).
No. But I do think that the way the constitution is written allows leeway for rationalizations.
Everything allows for leeway for rationalizations.
The constitution should say “no mandates” and problem solved (so long the constitution is respected).
Gee, I wonder what the workaround is around a rule that says “no mandates”. Oh yeah, make a mandate, and call it something else: like a tax. What’s that, there’s also a rule against taxes? Fine, call it a cookie. Or a puppy. Are you now gonna put in a rule against cookies and puppies too?