Welcome to Gaia! ::

Is the organisation we call the State necessary, useful, valuable? Discuss.

Yes, no, and maybe.

Yes, if the State is massively limited and strictly confined to core operations. If you think that describes America you are sadly wrong. Did you know that in 1800 when Jefferson took office he nearly hit the ceiling when he heard the federal budget was 1 million dollars? Granted money went further in those days because it was backed by gold. But imagine if our budget could be measured in millions or billions nowadays.

No, if the state becomes corrupt and exceeds its limits. When we start to police the world, and we start to spend vast amount of the citizenry's monies (to the point that we are as if vassal peasantry) then the State becomes the instrument of evil. Mike and I pay something like 40 percent of our income to taxes, either income or property. Granted some of that is used well, to pay for the street light or the road. A lot however is used to blow up bridges in Iraq (and then more to rebuild them) while our own crumble in Minnesota (and I've been over that bridge, years ago)

I hope to read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire soon. I hear it's dull reading, but it seems almost prophetic. Will someone soon have to write the Rise and Fall of the American Republic?

Well my allegiance within the libertarian movement is as a progressive Constitutionalist or minarchist. that may give you some idea right there.

Legitimate functions include defense, but only of our borders against direct threats. Like the Brits marching on Washington, that's pretty legitimate (think War of 1812). Iraq, IMHO is not a legitimate action. Monetary standardization in the sense that the grains of gold/silver be kept standard between any competing currencies. Refereeing items that involve exchanges between states. diplomatic relations with other nations. There are a few other items in there.

In other words, guaranteeing the basic rights of the People. It is very hard to have a "orivate" diplomacy that does not include a government entity for example and you don't exactly want, say. Kansas and Colorado going to war with each other over water. So for those sorts of things, a governing power IS helpful.

The problem is that when we try and solve the private problems of the People via government help or mandates, and Pandora's Box comes alive. Then we scale up government to a size that is simple not sustainable all while helping far less than we hurt. So for example, having federal support of private artists is not such a good use of taxpayer dollars. Heck I do art too-- medieval calligraphy-- but I've never expected a gov't handout for it.

Well, it is refreshing to be able to say something other than "I am in deeo agreement with you", RedDragon. This is definitely where the minarchist/Constitutionalist and the anarchist/agonist divide is drawn.

I actually do understand your angst. Whenever people trample on other people in the name of the State, it is deepy disturbing to all of us who are into the liberty movement.

However, I'm going to return to Kansas and Colorado for a minute if I may. I'm going to describe the area in some detail for those who have never been there. The main source of contention between those states is the Arkansas River which snakes its way down from Leadville. CO all the way past southern Colorado's ag zones and all through southern Kansas. Some of these areas are very arid, getting perhaps 13-16 inches of rain per year on the Colorado side. There are several species of cacti and succulents native to the area. In other words, it's dry there. Very dry. Not quite a desert per se but close.

curently the situation is administered by an interstate water compact that guarantees Kansan farmers so many acre-feet of water per year. This pact is guaranteed in turn by the Feds. It's an uneasy truce in a land where there is never enough water but it's serviceable at its roots. (Yes, i used to live in southern Colorado and have traveled this whole area so I know it very well, its climate, its legalities, its people)

Now imagine that the Federal government falls and there is no State. Your view comes into play. Colorado water law depends on a very complicated system of water rights that are bought and sold much like a mining right. I could explain it but it would take a while. These rights are enforced by water boards and the State. In your situation I guess that wouldn't exist either.

Now let's say a droughty summer comes along, as is sometimes the case and people. freed from their rights contracts, are pumping more than they have agreed to. I know of a good farm near Pueblo CO who is along the river and has elder (again, takes too long to explain) rights via an acequia as I recall (acequia-- ditch, more or less) They use drips to keep their water usage down but let's say they decide to run a crop that can't be done this way, and Ryan ends up using more than he should. (Or maybe his 6 year-old did a Dennis the Menace and watered everything in the middle of the day) So let's say Ryan ends up using .1 acre-foot more than he is supposed to. Let's say this begins to multiply as people draw hard on the river, and by the time that water gets to Kansas, we're short by some 500 acre-feet. That is a LOT of water, enough to cover 500 acres with a whole foot of water. Or in other words, enough water to pretty much keep all the feedlot troughs full from Lamar to Greenfield.

Well, such a loss of water would be a serious problem to the feedlot owners and the farmers there. Without the compact and the State to resolve everything peaceably. they might just go to war, since there is no State and no due process to address the grievance. Do you really want the farmers of Kansas and the farmers of Colorado going to war? In an anarchist situation, there is little preventing them from doing so.

See in my mind, there is an interest in a very small government to help keep the peace via due process and agreements such as the Arkansas River Interstate Water compact. The Arkansas River has many thousands of users. It's a complicated situation and one with very high stakes. The compact allows for EVERYONE's rights to be guaranteed, for hundreds of miles downstream, It's simply not possible without the compact.

Remember, I really do agree with you, Red Dragon, that the government as it is resembles a leviathan and is much too intrusive, much too greedy, and much too quick to solve problems badly. But the inverse, anarchy, invites a whole other kind of trouble. There has to be a balance point, Personally I think the Great American Revolution was a grand sucess initially that has been partially scuttled by changes in the law that invite corruption and greed to take over.

In Liberty, Ladygaura

Though not as dry as my geographical area which has a average anuual rainfall of 7.11.

FV, on the first part you are too correct. Taking water from an acequia is not like drawing it from a city tap. There is no pipe, only open ditches. You can lower the gate on a ditch to close it off but there are innumerable ways of getting around that, even if illegal.

So this is why RD's solution fails on the surface. If your land comes with an elder 10 acft share it's gonna come with some sort of ditch or acequia draining water from the Arkansas River. Not a pipe. This ain't the city we're talking about. In the absence of the compact or the water districts, there really is little preventing someone from keeping the gate on their acequia more open to allow 11 acft on that 10 acft ditch. all ditches have a certain overflow capacity for rain, etc.

FV, on the second part I can't see that happening. For the first part, those farmers are very independent. They bristle at the amount of tegulation they currently endure, I can only imagine how mad they'd be with yours. It would also close down their motivation to produce, and would probably mean bad economic times for the Arkansas River Valley. Not a good idea.

As for RD's arbitration agency. It's not a bad idea except that I'm not sure that the farmers would cool off enough to agree on even that. This is where a minimal government seems to be better than a private solution-- the power of enforcement is useful to make sure that everyone stays within the rules, so everyone's water rights are kept guaranteed. (Everyone meaning all users of the River)

Seriously though... can I just ask why do the farmers accept the governments arbitration but not that of RD's thingy or that of experts in my scenario?