From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 14:39:33 MST
Dickey, Michael F wrote:
> "And???? Like is there another kind of nation state?"
Yes. A republic whose only reason for existence is to insure
individual rights. A minarchist view of a "state" is perfectly
consistent with individual rights.
>
> This is a difficult question to answer. Is there ANY form of state that is
> moral? Obviously most libertarians or anarchocapatialists would answer
> 'no!'
Most libertarians that I know are minarchists and thus would not
necessarily answer "no!"
> I am still attempting to create an informed opinion on this, but
> tentatively I would say that a government that exists only to protect
> individual civil liberties, protect against foreign threats, and ensures
> property rights while not regulating the economy, science, or any moral
> actions beyond those which threaten or assault person or property could be
> consider, by me at least, moral. It would need be a constitutional republic
> as well, with severe limitations on what the majority can vote into law.
>
Yes. This is a minarchist libertarian position.
> Given that though, I certainly do believe that some states can be LESS
> IMMORAL than other states. A democratic constitional republic with some
> socialist policies (like the US) is definitely less immoral than any garden
> variety corrupt despotic theocratic regime. To not acknowledge that some
> variations of statehood are better than others, while still not being
> *perfect* robs the people of the chance to create better states.
>
Sure. But once the State is assumed to supersede the rights of
individuals and especially once the rights of individuals are
seen as being contingent on and/or gifts given and limited by
the State, the result will be utter loss of individual rights.
The only question then is how quickly it will proceed to how
horrific a conclusion.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST