Anarcho Capitalism vs Minarchism

[gwax23]

So Ive been reading and browsing the forums over at the Ludwig von Mises institute recently. Despite that its named after a Minarchist Libertarian not an Anarcho Capitalist, the general vibe im getting from there forums and even some of there newsletters is an Anarchist tone.

Im a staunch Minarchist myself and have nothing against Anarcho Capitalists but there seems to be more aggressive attitude from the Anarcho Capitalists towards Minarchists who many of them view as just some other statist ilk for rejecting the Non Aggression Principle.

Whats funny and ironic about this though is they all admire and support Ron Paul despite the fact that Ron Paul is firmly a constitutionalist and thus a Minarchist.

The libertarian camp is a big one with many sub divisions who tend to argue among themselves who are the truer or more pure libertarians. Im interested in some of the views of RPers on this issue and where they stand.

As a Minarchist I believe we need a government to provide Justice and Defense. The bare minimum for a society. I dont see how courts and the military could be privatized or how a Anarchist society could properly function.

Governments will always form naturally. Thats what happened in the beginning of civilization. We may of had a proto Anarcho Capitlist like society for some time in early human history but governments naturally rose. They are inevitable. Since we know they are inevitable atleast we should work to keep them limited and under control.....A necessary evil.

I dont understand the Anarcho Capitalist approach to how we not only achieve this Utopian balanced anarcho capitalist society but how we could maintain it. They seem strongly against any pragmatic approach to slowly bringing us back to a limited government. They dont seem to have a strategy or plan to achieve this utopian anarchy because many of them reject political action altogether.

We already know Minarchism works from US history. Our country was one of many prime examples of a prospering society under a limited government. Where are the examples of this Anarcho Capitalist society?

If there are anarcho capitalists on this forum Id love to have an open discussion and who knows maybe youll convince me to your side.

 

[MRK]

Anarchy? We are in anarchy. Most people just bow to the most powerful player in the area, the state.

 

[erowe1]

Governments will always form naturally. Thats what happened in the beginning of civilization. We may of had a proto Anarcho Capitlist like society for some time in early human history but governments naturally rose.

Source?

 

[gwax23]

Source?

The fact that governments exists now should be proof enough that they naturally form.

if your referring to the second part of that quote I used "may" because that was my conjecture.

 

[Seraphim]

False dichotomy.

Both can be the result of voluntary action.

I still lean toward the market, so anarcho/capitalist sort of action and philosophy...But I find minarchists to be very reasonable in their intentions and actions.

PS:

OTHER. FALSE DICHOTOMY loaded into the question.

 

[erowe1]

The fact that governments exists now should be proof enough that they naturally form.

if your referring to the second part of that quote I used "may" because that was my conjecture.

So you just made it up?

 

[TaftFan]

I think government's are more of an inevitable evil than necessary evil. But they do will some needs. Anyhow, I agree that we shouldn't hold the pipe dream of no government-even the frameworks provided by anarchist philosophers beg the existence of a government. Instead we should work on limiting government to its constraints and reducing its role in society.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think its somewhat interesting that a minarchist would, of all people, pick Murray Rothbard for an avatar. Not necessarily a criticism, I greatly admire Rothbard even though I pretty seriously disagree with him on children's rights, abortion, and anarchy, but I think its interesting that you wouldn't pick Ron Paul or someone else who would be closer to what you believe.

I'd say I'm an anarchist on principle, a minarchist in what I think is the best society that is actually possible, and a constitutionalist as a matter of a pragmatic "First start."

I think that anarchy is literally unsustainable, while minarchy would be sustainable if enough people supported it. Granted, anarchy would also be sustainable if everyone supported it, but the difference I see is that if you've got 90% libertarians and 10% bad apples, minarchy is more capable of dealing with the bad apples. You need a majority, but that's true for anything. Anarchy seems like it needs pretty much everyone to agree for it to work. There are ways that the minority can actually enforce their laws on the non-consenting in anarchy, but not really in minarchy.

On the other hand, in terms of what I'm passionate about, if we could get it down to a non-interventionist, constitutional state, my passion for politics would go down considerably. I wouldn't stop caring, there is after all always room for improvement, but I probably wouldn't be angry like I am right now.

I hope that made sense. I voted "minarchist" not because I disagree axiomatically with anarchists but because I think their ideal is not really possible.

 

[TaftFan]

^That is Milton Friedman in his avatar, but they do have similar appearances. Short Jewish men who are balding and have glasses.

 

[gwax23]

So you just made it up?

Made what up? The second part of the original quote it was clear that was my own views and thoughts not something I was presenting as fact. The beginning of the quote In which I argued governments naturally form ive already said can be supported by history. Society and people existed before governments. Now our entire world is run and organized by government of varying shapes sizes and creeds. If your looking for some citation or link to an Academic paper I dont have one or need it.

To make this progress faster in regards to this discussion lets say arguments sake the first part of the quote about governments is my own thoughts and conjecture and not fact. My points still stand.

 

[Christian Liberty]

^That is Milton Friedman in his avatar, but they do have similar appearances. Short Jewish men who are balding and have glasses.

Yeah, I just realized it could be Milton and they do indeed look similar at that distance. +1 for pointing it out for me.

Was Friedman really even a libertarian? I can understand some "In house" debate on public services and even maybe some degree of safety net but as far as I'm concerned you can't really support fiat currency and be a libertarian, that's almost as ridiculous as supporting imperialism and being a libertarian.

 

[gwax23]

I think its somewhat interesting that a minarchist would, of all people, pick Murray Rothbard for an avatar. Not necessarily a criticism, I greatly admire Rothbard even though I pretty seriously disagree with him on children's rights, abortion, and anarchy, but I think its interesting that you wouldn't pick Ron Paul or someone else who would be closer to what you believe.

I'd say I'm an anarchist on principle, a minarchist in what I think is the best society that is actually possible, and a constitutionalist as a matter of a pragmatic "First start."

I think that anarchy is literally unsustainable, while minarchy would be sustainable if enough people supported it. Granted, anarchy would also be sustainable if everyone supported it, but the difference I see is that if you've got 90% libertarians and 10% bad apples, minarchy is more capable of dealing with the bad apples. You need a majority, but that's true for anything. Anarchy seems like it needs pretty much everyone to agree for it to work. There are ways that the minority can actually enforce their laws on the non-consenting in anarchy, but not really in minarchy.

On the other hand, in terms of what I'm passionate about, if we could get it down to a non-interventionist, constitutional state, my passion for politics would go down considerably. I wouldn't stop caring, there is after all always room for improvement, but I probably wouldn't be angry like I am right now.

I hope that made sense. I voted "minarchist" not because I disagree axiomatically with anarchists but because I think their ideal is not really possible.

Its Friedman even though I also admire Rothbard and many other Anarcho capitalists, just dont agree with them on everything, nor do I agree with Friedman on many things.

Anyway I think your views are very logical and rational and similar to my own. Your vote makes sense.

 

[gwax23]

Yeah, I just realized it could be Milton and they do indeed look similar at that distance. +1 for pointing it out for me.

Was Friedman really even a libertarian? I can understand some "In house" debate on public services and even maybe some degree of safety net but as far as I'm concerned you can't really support fiat currency and be a libertarian, that's almost as ridiculous as supporting imperialism and being a libertarian.

He proposed many middle ground solutions that where politically feasible and sell able to the public such as vouchers. He personally wanted to end the fed and made this point more and more clear in the latter part of his career. He was very much a libertarian and did much to advance our cause. He did get in many disagreements with people like Rothbard over his pragmatic approaches to some issues and his more market oriented solutions but he was staunchly a libertarian. His son ironically enough is an Anarcho Capitalist now.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Its Friedman even though I also admire Rothbard and many other Anarcho capitalists, just dont agree with them on everything, nor do I agree with Friedman on many things.

Anyway I think your views are very logical and rational and similar to my own. Your vote makes sense.

I admire Rothbard too, I just disagree with him on those things that I mentioned. I don't know much about how exactly law works in an ancap society, but I think Murray is closer to correct on the fact that you really do need a common-law code for ancap to have even a snowball's chance.

Ultimately I think the ideal libertarian society, assuming a world in which crime, authoritarian statists, exc. still exist, is minarchy. For anarchy to work in a desirable fashion I think it requires you to get rid of ALL of those people, or at least, to make it work better than minarchy you've got to get rid of most of them. Anarcho-capitalism + lots of authoritarians = authoritarianism.

Minarchy, on the other hand, is tricky to get set up without support, but once its there, its there, unless its overthrown. It does not inherently depend on anyone's support except the people running the government.

Wow, that was really clunkily worded, I hope that made sense.

 

[Christian Liberty]

He proposed many middle ground solutions that where politically feasible and sell able to the public such as vouchers. He personally wanted to end the fed and made this point more and more clear in the latter part of his career. He was very much a libertarian and did much to advance our cause. He did get in many disagreements with people like Rothbard over his pragmatic approaches to some issues and his more market oriented solutions but he was staunchly a libertarian. His son ironically enough is an Anarcho Capitalist now.

Oh, I thought Friedman was against end the fed. And I know his son was an ancap. Yes, I'd say idealism VS pragmatism is very much an in-house debate in at least most cases.

The one exception, I think, is war. "Libertarians" who support freedom through imperialsim support a very different ideology than I do, and I think you'd agree with me on that. Libertarian interventionists are really just neo-progressives with an edgy label. Randy Barnett is not on our team for this reason. It doesn't matter how many good positions you have if you support state-sanctioned murder.

 

[Danan]

Anarchist leaning, at least for the most part. I'm not sure I'd go with the pure theory in all cases (children, some problems with every property rights theory, etc).

But then again, every other system is also far from being perfect. So my position is that I'm on the liberty train until it reaches the final station. And if that turns out to be so terrible, I'd maybe try to get it back one or two stations.

 

[erowe1]

Made what up?

The claim that I asked for your source for.

Now our entire world is run and organized by government of varying shapes sizes and creeds.

Source?

To make this progress faster in regards to this discussion lets say arguments sake the first part of the quote about governments is my own thoughts and conjecture and not fact. My points still stand.

If it's conjecture, not fact, then how does your point stand?

I mean you just threw out there this huge claim, using ambiguous terminology, and want to proceed as though it's a fact. I'm frankly not even sure if the clause, "governments always form naturally," even means anything. What is a government? Is a lack of one even conceivable? And what would it mean for one to form either naturally or unnaturally?

If you want a discussion, it's important for you to be clear about where you're coming from. And if the things you say are just random thoughts that you made up, as opposed to anything that you arrived at through any reasoning or research worth talking about, that's helpful to know.

 

[gwax23]

I admire Rothbard too, I just disagree with him on those things that I mentioned. I don't know much about how exactly law works in an ancap society, but I think Murray is closer to correct on the fact that you really do need a common-law code for ancap to have even a snowball's chance.

Ultimately I think the ideal libertarian society, assuming a world in which crime, authoritarian statists, exc. still exist, is minarchy. For anarchy to work in a desirable fashion I think it requires you to get rid of ALL of those people, or at least, to make it work better than minarchy you've got to get rid of most of them. Anarcho-capitalism + lots of authoritarians = authoritarianism.

Minarchy, on the other hand, is tricky to get set up without support, but once its there, its there, unless its overthrown. It does not inherently depend on anyone's support except the people running the government.

Wow, that was really clunkily worded, I hope that made sense.

I think you pointed out another hole in Anarcho Capitalist thinking. You would need EVERYONE to believe and understand and support libertarian principles for that society to work and function. Thats not going to happen or even get close.

Minarchy you simply need a Constitutional Republic akin to the early United States. Even a vocal minority can maintain a minarchy through this system.

 

[Danan]

He did get in many disagreements with people like Rothbard over his pragmatic approaches to some issues and his more market oriented solutions but he was staunchly a libertarian. His son ironically enough is an Anarcho Capitalist now.

And ironically David's son is an Austrian, afaik. And also an anarcho capitalist.

 

[Danan]

I think you pointed out another hole in Anarcho Capitalist thinking. You would need EVERYONE to believe and understand and support libertarian principles for that society to work and function. Thats not going to happen or even get close.

Minarchy you simply need a Constitutional Republic akin to the early United States. Even a vocal minority can maintain a minarchy through this system.

Nope you wouldn't need everyone to agree to libertarian principles anymore than that would be the case for a minarchist society.



All you would need is a large enough market for the protection of the NAP+property rights combo in order to sustain itself.