Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Teancum-Old
captain of 100
Posts: 420
Location: San Diego, CA

Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men?

Post by Teancum-Old »

This is a repost from another thread but I thought it should become its own thread for discussion on this subject. Here is my opinion basically stating that anarcho-capitalism is essentially anarchism masquerading as the "free market" and is actually a polar opposite to the Kingdom of God in the latter-days:
teancum wrote:Much of this arises from reliance as libertarian sources such as lewrockwell.com and mises.org. Such sources do offer good economic critiques of the ills of big government and the benefits of a free market system, but they also go too far in calling for anarchy (Rothbard referred to is as anarcho-capitalism). Mises offers a lot of good economic rebuttals against big government but it too is a godless ideology, as President Benson and McKay so often referred to communism as. So we should be extremely careful when reading or listening to Mises, as their agenda may counter the will of the Lord.

Just keep reading the Mises anarcho-capitalism dribble and you will see that they commonly speak down upon our Founding Fathers who we know were "wise men whom [God] raised up" (D&C 101:80) and that "the Spirit of the Lord... was upon [them], and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance" 1 Nephi (13:15). They also speak down upon the that sacred document which Pres. Benson has spoken of as "Our Divine Constitution" (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng) and of which latter-day scripture states: "constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles" (D&C 101:77).

Anarchism in itself is anti-biblical and anti-Christ, for we know that throughout all human history, God has always given mankind his law. We can do all we can to escape his law but it will do us no good. But anarchists care for none of this since they push a godless ideology; one which rests completely upon the Arm of Flesh. But we know that God's Kingdom (i.e. government) will be established in its fullness in the Second Coming with Christ as its King on earth. Isaiah (9:6-7) prophesied of this saying:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.


I would advise all to heed the Book of Mormon's (Mosiah 23:14) guidance when putting lot's of weight on the teachings of men:
trust no one to be your teacher … except … a man of God
. For myself, I can only say: "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). That means I will do all I can to seek the Lord's will on Lincoln just as I would any other subject by comparing to the scriptures, heeding the prophets words, and seeking confirmation by the Holy Ghost. But I will most definitely not charge the prophets with being "duped like the rest of us."

Silas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1564

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Silas »

At what point in time does another person have a right to use violence to get me to comply with their wishes?

User avatar
Teancum-Old
captain of 100
Posts: 420
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Teancum-Old »

Silas wrote:At what point in time does another person have a right to use violence to get me to comply with their wishes?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for the free market and not for this farce of a "free" economy we have in the US today (inherited from Bush/Clinton/Bush and perpetuated by Obama). I am all for the 10th amendment and State Sovereignty. The federal government is far too big and powerful and needs to be cut way back to that envisioned by the Founders.

I agree that government is force and it uses/threatens violence to force compliance. At what point is it at which this force is justified? This is a good question.

According to Verlan Andersen in "Many are Called but Few are Chosen" he states:
Those components or elements of freedom, which we must possess, in order to accomplish our purposes, are:

life, (2) liberty, (3) property, and (4) knowledge.

Let us consider each of these elements and note the immoral nature of those acts which destroy them, and the moral nature of those acts which supply, or preserve them.


I wholeheartedly agree with Andersen in defining evil as
the motivating force which causes people to destroy freedom
Thus any force/violence against these four elements of freedom are generally evil but can and should be used by the State to obtain compliance in some limited instances which are defined by the Divine Law of Restoration.

Andersen cites Alma to explain the Divine Law of Restoration:
And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life... that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good. And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. (Alma 41:3-4)
According to Andersen, this law must punish evil doers (those who limit the elements of freedom) because:
If those who desire to use their freedom to destroy the freedom of others were to have their powers and opportunities to do so continually increased, then joy, the object of existence, would be unattainable. In its place misery would prevail because, as we have seen above, the denial of freedom is the very essence of unhappiness.
Andersen continues:
Why is it that the justice of God demands that those who have committed evil must have evil restored to them? ...Is this merely an act of divine revenge, or is there some fundamental reason which requires the execution of this law?
Answering his own question, Andersen explains that the Divine Law of Restoration requires a diminution of the freedom of evil doers not only because they curtail the elements of freedom for other but also because:
Those motivated by evil are themselves miserable. No one has ever seen a person motivated exclusively by hate. envy, lust, etc. who was happy. The more intense the hate and the desire to destroy others, the greater the misery. Wickedness never was happiness. (Alma 41: 10) For the good of such a person, his capacity to destroy freedom should be decreased.

Thus it is seen that men's interests are harmonious. It is for the benefit of everyone concerned that those who seek to destroy freedom shall have their power and opportunity to do so diminished. Furthermore, where repentance is possible, there is an additional reason for taking freedom from those who abuse it. The loss of any of the elements of freedom is painful to bear and one who is called upon to suffer such a loss may come to recognize the error of his ways and repent of his evil desires.
Andersen continues by relating the law of restoration to the law of retribution:
It is immediately apparent that such a definition is incomplete as it stands. Someone must enforce the law of retribution and, in doing so, must destroy the elements of freedom in the process. To preserve freedom it is imperative that those who act with the purpose of destroying it should have their power and opportunity to do so curtailed. Thus, it is justifiable and proper to destroy another's freedom under this circumstance-to execute the law of retribution.

In commanding man to utilize the police power to punish criminals, the Lord directed him to learn His law of justice and co-operate with Him in executing it here on earth. When a person breaks a criminal law by destroying life, liberty, property, or knowledge, the Lord wants us to punish such a person by depriving him of one or more of these elements of freedom.
I don't think anyone on this forum has a problem with this. Criminals must be punished by force in order to prevent them from harming anyone's elements of freedom (life, liberty, property, knowledge). This is a clear line that must be drawn and is where government can and should use force/violence to assure compliance. Anarchy cannot feasibly or efficiently apply such force when needed.

So Silas, I assume you are questioning government authority to use force against what you would consider lesser criminal acts. Andersen's quotes above are aimed at crimes against the elements of freedom. Such crimes would clearly include murder or battery (attack on life), slavery (attack on liberty), theft (attack on property), or perjury (attack on knowledge). But what about lesser crimes that some may argue are not really crimes at all?

Andersen lists areas where government has legitimate power (in accordance with the Divine Laws of Restoration and Retribution) to use force on its citizens to achieve compliance:
The Lord justifies the use of the police power against the individual for the purpose of executing the divine law of retribution. The specific circumstances under which He has given His approval for this use of force may be classified under the following four headings.

(1) To punish criminals.
(2) To wage defensive war and provide for the nation's defense,
(3) To enforce the right and control of private property,
(4) To compel the citizen to bear his fair share of the burden of supporting the government in performing the above three functions.
Andersons concludes:
If we destroy these elements [of freedom] for any other reason, the law of retribution operates on us to cause a loss of our own freedom.


#4 is about the power of taxation, a subject many libertarians would consider an improper use of government force. But Andersen argues that even here, government has legitimate authority to honestly and reasonably tax its citizens in order to share in the "burden of supporting the government."

This point is justified by D&C 134:5:

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.


All of this requires government. Anarchy will not suffice. If anarchism was part of God's plan, how would one reconcile this with the scriptures' and prophets' teachings to support government and the US Constitution (i.e. D&C 134:1, 5, 12 Article of Faith, Isaiah 9:6-7, D&C 98:5 and 101:77, and more)?? How can Mises' anarcho-capitalism possibly be reconciled with the gospel??

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Benjamin_LK »

Teancum wrote:This is a repost from another thread but I thought it should become its own thread for discussion on this subject. Here is my opinion basically stating that anarcho-capitalism is essentially anarchism masquerading as the "free market" and is actually a polar opposite to the Kingdom of God in the latter-days:
teancum wrote:Much of this arises from reliance as libertarian sources such as lewrockwell.com and mises.org. Such sources do offer good economic critiques of the ills of big government and the benefits of a free market system, but they also go too far in calling for anarchy (Rothbard referred to is as anarcho-capitalism). Mises offers a lot of good economic rebuttals against big government but it too is a godless ideology, as President Benson and McKay so often referred to communism as. So we should be extremely careful when reading or listening to Mises, as their agenda may counter the will of the Lord.

Just keep reading the Mises anarcho-capitalism dribble and you will see that they commonly speak down upon our Founding Fathers who we know were "wise men whom [God] raised up" (D&C 101:80) and that "the Spirit of the Lord... was upon [them], and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance" 1 Nephi (13:15). They also speak down upon the that sacred document which Pres. Benson has spoken of as "Our Divine Constitution" (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng) and of which latter-day scripture states: "constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles" (D&C 101:77).

Anarchism in itself is anti-biblical and anti-Christ, for we know that throughout all human history, God has always given mankind his law. We can do all we can to escape his law but it will do us no good. But anarchists care for none of this since they push a godless ideology; one which rests completely upon the Arm of Flesh. But we know that God's Kingdom (i.e. government) will be established in its fullness in the Second Coming with Christ as its King on earth. Isaiah (9:6-7) prophesied of this saying:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.


I would advise all to heed the Book of Mormon's (Mosiah 23:14) guidance when putting lot's of weight on the teachings of men:
trust no one to be your teacher … except … a man of God
. For myself, I can only say: "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). That means I will do all I can to seek the Lord's will on Lincoln just as I would any other subject by comparing to the scriptures, heeding the prophets words, and seeking confirmation by the Holy Ghost. But I will most definitely not charge the prophets with being "duped like the rest of us."
Anarcho capitalism has the following problems, how will these nation-corporations ensure that there won't be some mergings into bigger entities, that simply make up a repeat of the imperialism that Anarcho-Capitalism hopes to derail? That's the problem, without some kind of higher authority, people in seeking higher security, will join and form bigger entities. That was what the Constitution was trying to fix in the mess caused by the Articles of Confederation - create a central government that had authority to act on matters otherwise overwhelming for the states, yet maintain a unity among the states.

Second, who is there to ensure that there is a check on corporate power. Hence the graduated Federal, State, and Local government structure set up in the Constitution. If a business does get abusive, or if there is something in dispute so that smaller entities cannot fix or resolve, you have a higher, Federal Government to act as arbiter in the situation.

User avatar
Teancum-Old
captain of 100
Posts: 420
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Teancum-Old »

Benjamin_LK wrote:
Anarcho capitalism has the following problems, how will these nation-corporations ensure that there won't be some mergings into bigger entities, that simply make up a repeat of the imperialism that Anarcho-Capitalism hopes to derail? That's the problem, without some kind of higher authority, people in seeking higher security, will join and form bigger entities. That was what the Constitution was trying to fix in the mess caused by the Articles of Confederation - create a central government that had authority to act on matters otherwise overwhelming for the states, yet maintain a unity among the states.

Second, who is there to ensure that there is a check on corporate power. Hence the graduated Federal, State, and Local government structure set up in the Constitution. If a business does get abusive, or if there is something in dispute so that smaller entities cannot fix or resolve, you have a higher, Federal Government to act as arbiter in the situation.
I agree 100% that the Constitution was drafted in order to cure the ills of the near anarchism (lack of a real central government) of the day which was based on the Articles of Confederation. You are right: Anarcho-capitalism will have no power to stop imperialist tendencies.

But I do believe you are missing a major point when talking about government being "a check on corporate power": morality or a desire to do right. We can debate forms of government all day but if morality is missing from any government, then that government will be awful to live under. Often times in our day and back to the days when railroads were the big deal (late 19th century), government has used its unconstitutional "check on corporate power" to favor its dirty lobbyists, broker illicit deals enriching both politicians and business leaders alike, all while robbing the diligent American taxpayer of the fruit of his labor.

We cannot allow government to have "a check on corporate power" because it puts too much power into the hands of the government and we all know that power corrupts:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” - Lord Acton
The Founders knew this very well which is why they were so careful to provide for a central government of limited and enumerated power.

Too much power in government leads to a lack of morality and then all hell breaks loose (like bailing out rich banksters and automobile CEOs at the expense of the poor and middle classes as we seen in America recently). The people have to be moral in order to elect good, honest, and wise leaders (D&C 98:10) which have the humility to deny the power that many ignorantly believe should be bestowed upon them (like the great example of Washington who refused to be made King after the Revolutionary War). My point is summed up by a few scriptures.

D&C 98:10:
Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
D&C 121:39-40:
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
If the people are moral and righteous, no wicked influence (corporate, government, or the power of the devil) would have any hold over them. We would be like Captain Moroni of whom it was said in Alma 48:17:
Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.
But evil is all around. It has always existed and will continue to exist and so we need a constitutional government which, as Thomas Jefferson said:
In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Benjamin_LK »

Teancum wrote:
Benjamin_LK wrote:
Anarcho capitalism has the following problems, how will these nation-corporations ensure that there won't be some mergings into bigger entities, that simply make up a repeat of the imperialism that Anarcho-Capitalism hopes to derail? That's the problem, without some kind of higher authority, people in seeking higher security, will join and form bigger entities. That was what the Constitution was trying to fix in the mess caused by the Articles of Confederation - create a central government that had authority to act on matters otherwise overwhelming for the states, yet maintain a unity among the states.

Second, who is there to ensure that there is a check on corporate power. Hence the graduated Federal, State, and Local government structure set up in the Constitution. If a business does get abusive, or if there is something in dispute so that smaller entities cannot fix or resolve, you have a higher, Federal Government to act as arbiter in the situation.
I agree 100% that the Constitution was drafted in order to cure the ills of the near anarchism (lack of a real central government) of the day which was based on the Articles of Confederation. You are right: Anarcho-capitalism will have no power to stop imperialist tendencies.

But I do believe you are missing a major point when talking about government being "a check on corporate power": morality or a desire to do right. We can debate forms of government all day but if morality is missing from any government, then that government will be awful to live under. Often times in our day and back to the days when railroads were the big deal (late 19th century), government has used its unconstitutional "check on corporate power" to favor its dirty lobbyists, broker illicit deals enriching both politicians and business leaders alike, all while robbing the diligent American taxpayer of the fruit of his labor.

We cannot allow government to have "a check on corporate power" because it puts too much power into the hands of the government and we all know that power corrupts:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” - Lord Acton
The Founders knew this very well which is why they were so careful to provide for a central government of limited and enumerated power.

Too much power in government leads to a lack of morality and then all hell breaks loose (like bailing out rich banksters and automobile CEOs at the expense of the poor and middle classes as we seen in America recently). The people have to be moral in order to elect good, honest, and wise leaders (D&C 98:10) which have the humility to deny the power that many ignorantly believe should be bestowed upon them (like the great example of Washington who refused to be made King after the Revolutionary War). My point is summed up by a few scriptures.

D&C 98:10:
Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
D&C 121:39-40:
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
If the people are moral and righteous, no wicked influence (corporate, government, or the power of the devil) would have any hold over them. We would be like Captain Moroni of whom it was said in Alma 48:17:
Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.
But evil is all around. It has always existed and will continue to exist and so we need a constitutional government which, as Thomas Jefferson said:
In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution
Regarding corporations, they can be corrupt, but the real issue today, which far from coincidentally is actually similar to the 19th century, is the fact that we have plenty of politicians which excercise favoritism toward corporations (i.e. bailouts). In an episode of blazing stupidity, my former home state of Delaware recently spent $20 million to bail out Dover Downs casinos. Really? I thought casinos were profitable to the point of being taxed? Put the money into something that constitutes an actual state government duty, not some business that doesn't need all that much favoritism.

Government acting as an arbiter, which is the important key word, is important. Government is not acting as an arbiter when it is bailing out select big businesses. Government is not acting as an arbiter when it accepts corporate favors. Government is not acting as an arbiter, which is a third party that maintains a balanced judgement in a situation. The problem with anarcho-capitalism is that it is essentially the opposite of totalitarianism, and you assume, rather blindly, that no one has imperialist tendencies.

User avatar
Hyrcanus
captain of 100
Posts: 716

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Hyrcanus »

I personally prefer the smallest amount of government possible. I can live with AnCap and I can live with a libertarian style model. I personally think the Constitution gave too much power to the Federal government in the first place. It went off the rails within just a couple years of getting started. But going back to the original model would still be a vast improvement over what we have today.

No system is going to be perfect. AnCap is going to trade security and equality for freedom. The libertarian model trades a little freedom for a little security and consistency. The Constitutional model trades freedom for more security.

In regards to Corporate power, the government was the single biggest ally to big business both in the past and today. Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, etc all used the government as a weapon against their opponents. They used the court system, Intellectual Property laws, legislation, subsidies and elections to further their power. They only ever got as big as they did because of the government.

User avatar
Teancum-Old
captain of 100
Posts: 420
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Teancum-Old »

Benjamin_LK wrote: Regarding corporations, they can be corrupt, but the real issue today, which far from coincidentally is actually similar to the 19th century, is the fact that we have plenty of politicians which excercise favoritism toward corporations (i.e. bailouts). In an episode of blazing stupidity, my former home state of Delaware recently spent $20 million to bail out Dover Downs casinos. Really? I thought casinos were profitable to the point of being taxed? Put the money into something that constitutes an actual state government duty, not some business that doesn't need all that much favoritism.
Bailing out casinos? That is beyond the pale! But that to me is exactly how a government behaves when allowed to act as "a check on corporate power": it often becomes corrupt because it is drunk on power. That is how it has traditionally worked in America.
Benjamin_LK wrote: Government acting as an arbiter, which is the important key word, is important. Government is not acting as an arbiter when it is bailing out select big businesses. Government is not acting as an arbiter when it accepts corporate favors. Government is not acting as an arbiter, which is a third party that maintains a balanced judgement in a situation. The problem with anarcho-capitalism is that it is essentially the opposite of totalitarianism, and you assume, rather blindly, that no one has imperialist tendencies.
If your idea of "a check on corporate power" is nothing more than an arbiter, then I agree with that. The constitution clearly calls for the supreme court to act as an arbiter between the states, for example, among other scenarios (Art III, Sec 2). My problem with the typical idea of "a check on corporate power" is that many understand this as an opportunity for government to regulate everything and anything, which is clearly unconstitutional, according to the clearly defined, enumerated powers it has been given (Art I, Sec 8). Such regulations lead to abominable immorality, bailouts, corruption, etc (i.e. power corrupts).

But morality must still reign or else nothing else will matter. Hence, an arbiter must not be given too much power. In summary, an arbiter must be bound "down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

User avatar
Teancum-Old
captain of 100
Posts: 420
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Teancum-Old »

Hyrcanus wrote: I can live with AnCap and I can live with a libertarian style model. I personally think the Constitution gave too much power to the Federal government in the first place. It went off the rails within just a couple years of getting started. But going back to the original model would still be a vast improvement over what we have today.
Be careful Hyrcanus. You've completed accepted the Mises line on Anarcho-capitalism, which is really nothing more than anarchy, which I claims is how Satan is mixing the philosophy of men with true principles of the Lord's Kingdom today. You too, just as they, are speaking lightly of what President Benson referred to as the "Divine Constitution".

Just look up Pres. Benson's talk and show me where he agrees with you on the idea that "the Constitution gave too much power to the Federal government in the first place." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

President McKay said this of our Divine Constitution:
Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States! (“The Enemy Within”, p. 34 )


So I would ask that you speak respectfully about this Divine document and do not slander it in the slightest. Mises.org enjoys slandering it which is why I have just about had it with them.

Regarding the size of government, we may have some common ground. As Skousen always taught, and how Jefferson believed, we need to be somewhere in the balanced center between Anarchy and Tyranny (i.e. the true political spectrum). Jefferson, during the time the States were debating ratification of the Constitution, described it this way:
“We are now vibrating between too much and too little government, and the pendulum will rest finally in the middle.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith from Paris, February 2, 1788)
But Anarcho-capitalism is clearly too far to the left on that spectrum and today's Republican and Democratic parties are much too far to the right on that spectrum. I believe on this we can agree.

User avatar
Hyrcanus
captain of 100
Posts: 716

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Hyrcanus »

Teancum wrote:
Hyrcanus wrote: I can live with AnCap and I can live with a libertarian style model. I personally think the Constitution gave too much power to the Federal government in the first place. It went off the rails within just a couple years of getting started. But going back to the original model would still be a vast improvement over what we have today.
Be careful Hyrcanus. You've completed accepted the Mises line on Anarcho-capitalism, which is really nothing more than anarchy, which I claims is how Satan is mixing the philosophy of men with true principles of the Lord's Kingdom today. You too, just as they, are speaking lightly of what President Benson referred to as the "Divine Constitution".

Just look up Pres. Benson's talk and show me where he agrees with you on the idea that "the Constitution gave too much power to the Federal government in the first place." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

President McKay said this of our Divine Constitution:
Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States! (“The Enemy Within”, p. 34 )


So I would ask that you speak respectfully about this Divine document and do not slander it in the slightest. Mises.org enjoys slandering it which is why I have just about had it with them.

Regarding the size of government, we may have some common ground. As Skousen always taught, and how Jefferson believed, we need to be somewhere in the balanced center between Anarchy and Tyranny (i.e. the true political spectrum). Jefferson, during the time the States were debating ratification of the Constitution, described it this way:
“We are now vibrating between too much and too little government, and the pendulum will rest finally in the middle.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith from Paris, February 2, 1788)
But Anarcho-capitalism is clearly too far to the left on that spectrum and today's Republican and Democratic parties are much too far to the right on that spectrum. I believe on this we can agree.
Agree that in any case our government is far too large. I don't share all of President Benson's views on the Constitution. I think the document has several flaws and I think many of the original founders recognized that. Jefferson is an easy example, he thought his own action in transacting the Louisiana Purchase was probably unconstitutional and he was extremely disappointed in the Hamilton & Washington's creation of a Bank of the United States. Neither of those are the end of the world, but it's clear the Constitution didn't do enough to protect the limited government ideals it started with.

User avatar
dtanner
captain of 100
Posts: 127
Location: Alaska

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by dtanner »

I agree with all the statements about the Constitution and basic freedoms.

Just wanted to mention, IMO, anarchism is a myth. I don't believe it can exist. It may begin as anarchism, but very soon thereafter you'd see tribal/mafia governments rise up. I think that's part of what the Constitution was trying to avoid.

Now, however, we have the worst of both worlds: the overt, corrupt government plus the covert, corrupt government.

User avatar
Teancum-Old
captain of 100
Posts: 420
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Teancum-Old »

Hyrcanus wrote: But Anarcho-capitalism is clearly too far to the left on that spectrum and today's Republican and Democratic parties are much too far to the right on that spectrum. I believe on this we can agree.
Agree that in any case our government is far too large. I don't share all of President Benson's views on the Constitution. I think the document has several flaws and I think many of the original founders recognized that. Jefferson is an easy example, he thought his own action in transacting the Louisiana Purchase was probably unconstitutional and he was extremely disappointed in the Hamilton & Washington's creation of a Bank of the United States. Neither of those are the end of the world, but it's clear the Constitution didn't do enough to protect the limited government ideals it started with.[/quote]

The prophets and scripture never say the Constitution is perfect but calling it "Divine" as did Pres. Benson or "glorious" as did Joseph Smith, seems to me to make it almost the best possible. Obviously, slavery was a compromise and not something God endorse in document originally. Additionally, Joseph suggested room for amendments, especially in allowing the federal government to step into a state more easily in case of persecution of a minority (to help prevent future abuse such as was had by the 1st generation Mormons). In this sense, Joseph would have expanded federal power, not limited it. I believe the Constitution is pretty close to what God intended, and that the reason we are so off track is not so much because of an imperfect Constitution, but due to a lack of righteousness and good old fashion morality.
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” (Benjamin Franklin, April 17, 1787 Letter to The Abbes Chalut and Arnaud, The Works of Benjamin Franklin Volume X: with Notes and a Life of the Author by J. Sparks, 1840)
"If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it." (Benjamin Franklin, ~1786, Letter to Thomas Paine dissuading him from publishing an irreligious work, The Works of Benjamin Franklin Volume X: with Notes and a Life of the Author by J. Sparks, 1840)
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” (John Adams, Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798)

User avatar
Teancum-Old
captain of 100
Posts: 420
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Teancum-Old »

dtanner wrote:I agree with all the statements about the Constitution and basic freedoms.

Just wanted to mention, IMO, anarchism is a myth. I don't believe it can exist. It may begin as anarchism, but very soon thereafter you'd see tribal/mafia governments rise up. I think that's part of what the Constitution was trying to avoid.

Now, however, we have the worst of both worlds: the overt, corrupt government plus the covert, corrupt government.
Exactly. The Founders wanted to avoid anarchy, they felt too close to it under the Articles of Confederation and wished to improve them with a more powerful federal government (still a highly limited compared to that which we have today) provided by the Constitution.

Anarchy would be hell. Yet Mises.org makes Anarcho-Capitalism their utopia!

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by KMCopeland »

Silas wrote:At what point in time does another person have a right to use violence to get me to comply with their wishes?
When you are violating someone else's rights in a violent way yourself, and they're trying to get you to stop it.

Steve Clark
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1072
Location: Bluffdale, UT

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Steve Clark »

KMCopeland wrote:
Silas wrote:At what point in time does another person have a right to use violence to get me to comply with their wishes?
When you are violating someone else's rights in a violent way yourself, and they're trying to get you to stop it.
Agreed. Now please reconcile that with the income tax.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by KMCopeland »

Steve Clark wrote:
KMCopeland wrote:
Silas wrote:At what point in time does another person have a right to use violence to get me to comply with their wishes?
When you are violating someone else's rights in a violent way yourself, and they're trying to get you to stop it.
Agreed. Now please reconcile that with the income tax.
So you're asking if the government has the right to arrest you, and jail you, if you don't pay your income taxes, right?


I guess I don't really know if they have the right. I'd have to say they probably don't. But what they do have is the power to do it. And as unconstitutional as that may be, I wonder if you believe that power is going anywhere.

Steve Clark
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1072
Location: Bluffdale, UT

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Steve Clark »

KMCopeland wrote:So you're asking if the government has the right to arrest you, and jail you, if you don't pay your income taxes, right?


I guess I don't really know if they have the right. I'd have to say they probably don't. But what they do have is the power to do it. And as unconstitutional as that may be, I wonder if you believe that power is going anywhere.
I don't understand the question. Will you please restate it?

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by KMCopeland »

Teancum wrote:This is a repost from another thread but I thought it should become its own thread for discussion on this subject. Here is my opinion basically stating that anarcho-capitalism is essentially anarchism masquerading as the "free market" and is actually a polar opposite to the Kingdom of God in the latter-days:
Is anarcho-capitalism your term? Or is it a thing I've just never heard about before now? I only ask so I know where to start to understand it.
Teancum wrote:Anarchism in itself is anti-biblical and anti-Christ, for we know that throughout all human history, God has always given mankind his law.
Then there's the fact that anarchy, when and where it has ever truly existed, never exists for long.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by KMCopeland »

Teancum wrote:
Benjamin_LK wrote:Anarcho capitalism has the following problems, how will these nation-corporations ensure that there won't be some mergings into bigger entities, that simply make up a repeat of the imperialism that Anarcho-Capitalism hopes to derail? That's the problem, without some kind of higher authority, people in seeking higher security, will join and form bigger entities. That was what the Constitution was trying to fix in the mess caused by the Articles of Confederation - create a central government that had authority to act on matters otherwise overwhelming for the states, yet maintain a unity among the states.

Second, who is there to ensure that there is a check on corporate power. Hence the graduated Federal, State, and Local government structure set up in the Constitution. If a business does get abusive, or if there is something in dispute so that smaller entities cannot fix or resolve, you have a higher, Federal Government to act as arbiter in the situation.
I agree 100% that the Constitution was drafted in order to cure the ills of the near anarchism (lack of a real central government) of the day which was based on the Articles of Confederation. You are right: Anarcho-capitalism will have no power to stop imperialist tendencies.

But I do believe you are missing a major point when talking about government being "a check on corporate power": morality or a desire to do right. We can debate forms of government all day but if morality is missing from any government, then that government will be awful to live under. Often times in our day and back to the days when railroads were the big deal (late 19th century), government has used its unconstitutional "check on corporate power" to favor its dirty lobbyists, broker illicit deals enriching both politicians and business leaders alike, all while robbing the diligent American taxpayer of the fruit of his labor.

We cannot allow government to have "a check on corporate power" because it puts too much power into the hands of the government and we all know that power corrupts
But you seem to agree that corporate power can be horribly destructive. Who, if not government, is going to put a check on it?
Teancum wrote:Too much power in government leads to a lack of morality
I don't understand that.
Teancum wrote:and then all hell breaks loose (like bailing out rich banksters and automobile CEOs at the expense of the poor and middle classes as we seen in America recently)
But it was the removal of government's power to check corporate power that led to the economic castastrophes that led to the bailing out of the banksters, etc. I agree that bailing out the banksters was a horrible decision. I don't agree that bailing out GM was.
Teancum wrote:The people have to be moral in order to elect good, honest, and wise leaders (D&C 98:10) which have the humility to deny the power that many ignorantly believe should be bestowed upon them (like the great example of Washington who refused to be made King after the Revolutionary War).
But only some of the people are moral. Estimates differ on how many of course. But since we will not be able to count on 100% individual morality until the Millennium if then, what do we do in the meantime?

Silas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1564

Re: Anarcho-capitalism: Truth Mingled with Philosophy of Men

Post by Silas »

This seems like a good place to throw in some Lysander Spooner:
Our constitutions purport to be established by 'the people,' and, in theory, 'all the people' consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of 'the people' exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given.
That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.
The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
And the most important one as far as challenges to the concept of government is concerned is this:
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.
We are afraid that if men are truly free then a small body of them will exercise their freedom to assert control and dominance over others. The only solution we can apparently advance to prevent this is to give control and dominance to a small body of men... There is a problem with this logic.

Post Reply