I'm writing this because it's mandatory. I'm sure I will have something to add when I've read some of the posts.
Ian, please be tactful when chastising him for failing to follow instructions. 
[quote author=tba link=topic=5349.msg54002#msg54002 date=1311075398]
I'm writing this because it's mandatory. I'm sure I will have something to add when I've read some of the posts.
[/quote]
Hello and welcome. Sorry to say you have not followed the introduction instructions, as found here: http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=1127.0
Please review them and post again as per the specs on that thread.
This board is set up so you can read the entire thing without even registering. Once you sign up for an account, you are then locked to the Intro forum until you post a proper intro, so if you want to just read the forum, log out and you can.
Looking forward to your intro.
I spent 8 years in Los Angeles and thought I'd never want to leave. As I got a little older, I got a lot of the wild hairs out of my ass and my needs and desires shifted. I found myself wanting to be in a smaller, less stressful city. Yes, I liked having lots to do, but I found myself staying home more and more and enjoying the peace and solitude. I was enjoying little get-togethers with friends much more than expensive outings amongst struggling with traffic. I moved back to my hometown of Atlanta only to quickly feel like it was rapidly turning into L.A. I moved to Manchester, tiny by comparison to Atlanta or L.A., and it still felt too big. That's when I lived in Keene for a little while and realized it suited me just right.
Now I have reluctantly moved partially back to Manchester out of necessity, mainly for financial reasons. I still prefer Keene's atmosphere and still spend a lot of time there. I will admit I am enjoying some of the amenities of being in a bigger city again like having decent theaters within a convenient commute.
That's just me. I don't expect everyone to go through a similar evolution. It's just that what you described sounded so familiar. You sound like me (at one time).
Manchester and Concord both sound easily liveable, but Keene is just so small! I suppose in many respects Keene is more convenient than living on the wrong side of the world, tho.
So when you say you're a minarchist, are you saying that you believe that a minimal amount of immoral behavior is acceptable? Or are you saying that you believe that a minimal amount of violent aggressive coercion is not immoral? Or both?
[quote author=mackler link=topic=5349.msg54051#msg54051 date=1311169111]So when you say you're a minarchist, are you saying that you believe that a minimal amount of immoral behavior is acceptable? Or are you saying that you believe that a minimal amount of violent aggressive coercion is not immoral? Or both?[/quote]
Usually what they mean is that a minimal amount of "immoral behavior" (as you call it) is actually necessarily to prevent a breakdown of society. No?
[quote author=mackler link=topic=5349.msg54051#msg54051 date=1311169111]
So when you say you're a minarchist, are you saying that you believe that a minimal amount of immoral behavior is acceptable? Or are you saying that you believe that a minimal amount of violent aggressive coercion is not immoral? Or both?[/quote]
I don't accept that government is inherently either immoral or characterised by violence and aggression.
When I say I am minarchist, I am saying that I believe the legitimate role of government should be greatly restricted. If you want to know what I believe the legitimate role of government is, just ask.
Would that role include using violence or the threat thereof to prevent the formation of competing government services in the free market?
Oh dear. I'm letting myself get sucked into these conversations again. Will someone just slap me when this starts to happen! I ought to know better by now.
So anyway, welcome to the forum! Hope to see you here IRL soon.
[quote author=tba link=topic=5349.msg54055#msg54055 date=1311173004]
I don't accept that government is inherently…characterised by violence and aggression.
[/quote]
You don't accept that government in inherently characterized by violence and aggression?
Okay, I'll bite. What differentiates a government from any organization that is not a government?
[quote author=tba link=topic=5349.msg54066#msg54066 date=1311212154]
[quote author=mackler link=topic=5349.msg54057#msg54057 date=1311176244]
[quote author=tba link=topic=5349.msg54055#msg54055 date=1311173004]
I don't accept that government is inherently…characterised by violence and aggression.
[/quote]Okay, I'll bite. What differentiates a government from any organization that is not a government?
[/quote]
Well, I suppose there are a couple of distinguishing formal features:
[list]
[li]A government is established by the constitution of a state, whereas a non-governmental organisation ordinarily is not.[/li]
[li]A government exercises one or more of the state's legislative, judicial and executive powers, whereas a non-governmental organisation does not.[/li]
[/list]
[/quote]
I have four responses:
First, your definition of government relies on the term "state." Aren't the terms "state" and "government" synonymous? If not, what's the difference? If so, then isn't your definition circular and therefore meaningless?
Second, you claim that "a government is established by the constitution of a state." Am I correct in understanding that you would claim that every government that has ever existed was established by a state constitution? Are you claiming, for example, that the government of England was established by a state constitution? Could you point me to the constitution that established the government of England? And please correct me if I am wrong in understanding that you are claiming that there was no government of England prior to the English constitution. I would be very curious to know about the constitution that originally created the government of England, its date of creation, the identities of its creators, and I would love to read a copy of it.
Third, you claim "a non-governmental organisation ordinarily is not [established by the constitution of a state]." Isn't it true that corporations, for example, have constitutions, charters, and by-laws? In fact, Wikipedia has an entire article called "Constitutional documents" that applies only to non-governmental organizations. On what basis do you claim that non-governmental organizations ordinarily are not established by a constitution? If it's so out-of-the-ordinary, why does Wikipedia have an entire article about it?
Fourth, you claim that it is the constitution that establishes a government. The US Constitution is dated September 17th, 1787. Why is the establishment of the United States government considered to be July 4th, 1776 if the government was established over 11 years later?
I appreciate you responding to my question, but frankly what you wrote makes about as much sense to me as if you had written, "the difference between a government and a non-government organization is that a government is a government, and a non-government organization is not a government."
[quote author=mackler link=topic=5349.msg54071#msg54071 date=1311248439]First, your definition of government relies on the term "state." Aren't the terms "state" and "government" synonymous? If not, what's the difference? If so, then isn't your definition circular and therefore meaningless?[/quote]
They are not synonymous. A state is a territory over which a government exercises jurisdiction.
[quote author=mackler link=topic=5349.msg54071#msg54071 date=1311248439]]Second, you claim that "a government is established by the constitution of a state." Am I correct in understanding that you would claim that every government that has ever existed was established by a state constitution? Are you claiming, for example, that the government of England was established by a state constitution? Could you point me to the constitution that established the government of England? And please correct me if I am wrong in understanding that you are claiming that there was no government of England prior to the English constitution. I would be very curious to know about the constitution that originally created the government of England, its date of creation, the identities of its creators, and I would love to read a copy of it. [/quote]
Maybe you forget that in Australia we're still a colony 
As I think you know, England has an unwritten constitution. That does not mean that no constitution exists.
[quote author=mackler link=topic=5349.msg54071#msg54071 date=1311248439]Third, you claim "a non-governmental organisation ordinarily is not [established by the constitution of a state]." Isn't it true that corporations, for example, have constitutions, charters, and by-laws? In fact, Wikipedia has an entire article called "Constitutional documents" that applies only to non-governmental organizations. On what basis do you claim that non-governmental organizations ordinarily are not established by a constitution? If it's so out-of-the-ordinary, why does Wikipedia have an entire article about it?[/quote]
I said, "the constitution of a state". The constitution of a body corporate is dependant on something else for its existence, namely the laws (and implicitly also the constitution) of a state. Its nature is therefore different. That is why Wikipedia has separate articles on each.
[quote author=mackler link=topic=5349.msg54071#msg54071 date=1311248439]Fourth, you claim that it is the constitution that establishes a government. The US Constitution is dated September 17th, 1787. Why is the establishment of the United States government considered to be July 4th, 1776 if the government was established over 11 years later?[/quote]
Rose-coloured glasses?
[quote author=mackler link=topic=5349.msg54071#msg54071 date=1311248439]what you wrote makes about as much sense to me as if you had written, "the difference between a government and a non-government organization is that a government is a government, and a non-government organization is not a government."[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote author=Dalebert link=topic=5349.msg54056#msg54056 date=1311174830]
Would that role include using violence or the threat thereof to prevent the formation of competing government services in the free market?[/quote]
What sort of "services" did you have in mind?
I don't mind governments so long as I don't have to participate.
-Libertango
[quote author=tba link=topic=5349.msg54079#msg54079 date=1311258886]
[quote author=mackler link=topic=5349.msg54071#msg54071 date=1311248439]First, your definition of government relies on the term "state." Aren't the terms "state" and "government" synonymous? If not, what's the difference? If so, then isn't your definition circular and therefore meaningless?[/quote]
They are not synonymous. A state is a territory over which a government exercises jurisdiction.
[/quote]
Okay, so substituting your clarification to your original definition, I have you claiming two distinctions between a government and a non-government:
First, you say that "a government is established by the constitution of a territory over which a government exercises jurisdiction."
Second you say that "A government exercises one or more of the legislative, judicial and executive powers of a territory over which a government exercises jurisdiction."
You made a number of other comments which I would be interested in addressing, but I'm afraid I'm still not understanding what you're claiming to be the defining characteristic(s) of a government, since the meanings of both of the two "distinctions" you make each presuppose a known meaning of the word "government."
For example, I am a member of the Northeast Regional Chess Club. NERCC exercises its jurisdiction over the territory of the whole Northeast. It was established by the constitution of that Northeast territory into a chess club region. NERCC also exercises rulemaking authority for its members and affiliates in the Northeast, its executives conduct their business within the territory of the Northeast, and when members break club rules in club territory the NERCC exercises judicial power in enforcing those rules. As far as I can see, the NERCC may be a government according to your distinctions. And yet I'm quite sure NERCC is not a government.
I don't want to presume too much, but based on what you have written so far it appears that you are not able to identify any distinguishing characteristic of governments beyond that they are "governments." Am I wrong in my assessment?
[quote author=tba link=topic=5349.msg54081#msg54081 date=1311259895]
What sort of "services" did you have in mind?
[/quote]
Any services currently provided by governments and paid for with taxation. If people decided to opt out of the government services (and accompanying taxation) what would happen?