From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 07:34:01 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Samantha Atkins [mailto:samantha@objectent.com]
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."
I did not write the "and????..." comment actually, I was responding to that.
In fact my response was similar to yours. I will try to make my quoting
more clear in my responses. I agree that a minarchist (democratic
constitutional republic) is 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!""
True, upon further reflection I think more libertarians I have interacted
with could be considered 'minarchists' as opposed to anarcho-capitalist.
Which is fortunate, as the former seems much more feasible than the later in
ever actually getting implemented.
> 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."
I was referencing the reverse situation, where the people had all-ready had
a complete and total loss of individual rights (as was the case in North
Vietnam, an oppressive totalitarian despotic regime) It would be
preferrable that they got to live in a state that had more individual rights
than zero, and hopefully once they get some, they can work to get more. I
do not agree that once an individual right is taken away a group of
individuals that the society immediately falls down a slippery slope into
one of no rights and complete oppression. But there is always the threat
and the possibility that could occur and it should be fought every step of
the way.
Regards,
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST