I don't see Charles' comments as being "either or". He says: "as market anarchists, our primary allies shouldn't be minarchists. They should be other anarchists" (emphasis added).
Albert Jay Nock made that differentiation between "the institution of government" and "the institution of the State." He wrote:
The nature and intention of government, as adduced by Parkman, Schoolcraft and Spencer, are social. Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
If you agree with the above, it's hard to argue that an "institution of government" exists almost anywhere in our midst.
I object to the train analogy on the grounds that libertarians should not use public transportation...(sorry, couldn't resist that one).
Now for seriousness:
I agree that both approaches 1 and 2 could be used at once. I even think that approach 3 has something to teach (not the waiting passively part, but the instability of the system part). I just don't see much good coming from electoral politics at the moment, so I think my time could better be spent elsewhere.
However:
1) There may come a time when a real libertarian party will be helpful in undermining state control.
2) I think that the LP has been successful at bringing people into, or farther into, libertarianism.
3) My view might be colored from being personally tired of electoral politics.
The argument could be made that working within the system legitimates the system. This is certainly important to consider. However, I don't think that one who states his intention of removing a system can really be said to legitimate it. If you can position yourself to better exploit the system's weaknesses without violating anyone's rights, I don't see the harm.
Currently, I differentiate between government and the state as follows.
Government - A group of men and women doing business at the barrel of a gun. (this is Marc Steven's definition and hands down my favorite) This organization, along with the violence they employ, is all too real. Also known as a "mafia with a flag"
State - A purely fictional mental construct which has no basis in observable reality whatsover. Furthermore, the existence of the state is impossible to prove due to the fact that the existence of citizens is impossible to prove.
The existence of citizens is impossible to prove due to the lack of a legitimate principal-agent relationship between the "citizen" and "the state" whereby the reciprocal obligations of allegiance (of the citizen to the state) and a duty of protection (of the citizen by the state) are met.
The concept of the state is utilized by governments to establish and maintain the perception of ruler legitimacy in minds of their submitizen/slave subjects.
I suppose it could be said that the concept of "the state" is to government as the concept of "god" is to organized religion.
I want to see Tom's differentiation between "government" and "state" and why "state" is acceptable to anarchists and "government." Clearly it's a definitional issue, as I would have thought that government is essential to human beings existing in any sort of non-hobbesian social group - anarchists simply believe in self-government rather than other-government - and the State is a construct of other-governors that is used as a club designed to legitimize (to other observers) the "need" beat everyone else into submission. Literally, if necessary.
Let's see what Tom says...
I shouldn't post so early in the morning. I just re-read Tom's post and it looks like we're actually in agreement on the definitions.
Oh well. With luck, that's my worst goof of the day.
Now, about this seeing me as "fuel" for the train thing....
Hiya, Hobbit!
Here's how I differentiate between "government" and "the state" --
"Government" is simply a process of administering and regulating affairs mutual to all members of any group of people. Every group is, or has, a "government."
For example, an informal group ordering a pizza is a "government" -- it's a group of people administering a mutual affair according to rules. Those rules are largely implicit (they don't have to formally pass an ordinance forbidding each other from forcing the others to accept anchovies at gunpoint; the rules of topping negotiation aren't laid out in a written constitution).
The Rotary Club is a "government," too -- but its rules are more formal and it administers a slightly broader set of mutual member affairs.
A "government" becomes a "state" when it attempts to compel unconsenting others to become members, coerce funding of its operations from those unconsenting "members," bind unconsenting others to adherence to its rules, etc. I'd say those are the essential characteristics. Other common characteristics include claiming a geographic monopoly on such coercive activities, demanding recognition on the part of other "states" of its claims, and proclaiming its own perpetuity independent of the desire of its erstwhile membership to continue or dissolve it.
Anyway, that's the rough quickie explanation. I'll try to elaborate in more polished fashion another time.
Interesting....the system seems to think I've published a comment, but doesn't show anywhere that I've said this. Apologies for any actual duplication:
Setting aside my literacy malfunction, let me offer this for discussion purposes:
"Government" is a process. It's the system by which actions of an individual or group are controlled. There is no such thing as "a" government. The confusion arises because it's become, in common parlance, synonymous with the State.
Now, that said, the Rotary Club certainly HAS "government." It indeed has formal rules (how well I know) and it is those rules that govern - or "provide government" - to the group. Working within those rules, we would like to hope, are other individuals who also govern the Rotary, but those individuals are not in any sense "the government."
There is also government when ordering a pizza. Or, if you were at some of our law school gaming sessions, total mass chaos as we tried to coordinate vegetarians with carnivores with those of us who consider "Hawaiian Pizza" to be an abomination that is beyond the pale of decent society. But since there was no outside entity to enforce any form of rules (beyond ones individuals had set for themselves and the mutually agreed "we're ordering pizzas that will hopefully satisfy all parties present), it was a prime example of anarchists coming to consensus with no beating-about-the-head-and-body-with-a-blunt-
object that is the prime characteristic of the State.
That monopoly on BATHABWABO being the essence of the definition of state, being as it is an important, nay, essential, facet of coercion.
I would suggest, just for fun, that what you're calling "government" is actually better described as a consensual association. You may, of course disagree...
But that's why we have these discussions AFTER caffeine.....:D
Commenting by HaloScan
