Anarcho Capitalism vs Minarchism

[erowe1]

Okay interesting. I think we can use these definitions especially if your going to be the one explaining things in posts to come. If I make a post Ill simply refer to this when talking about either concept.

Maybe give a real world example to better illustrate the difference between the two.

Ronpaulforums.com is governed. It has government. But it is not a state.

If the owners of ronpaulforums.com sent someone to your house with a gun, and made you give them money, then they would be a state.

 

[gwax23]

Ronpaulforums.com is governed. It has government. But it is not a state.

If the owners of ronpaulforums.com sent someone to your house with a gun, and made you give them money, then they would be a state.

Whats the difference between a private institution/business firm and a government?

 

[erowe1]

I'd rather call what you call government "governing principles". Government to me is an institutionalized body of people governing others. Essentially what you called "state". Which is what I would consider the geographical boundaries over which a government claims to be the sole arbiter of law and having a monopoly of the initiation of force.

Could be a language problem for me, though.

I could be tempted to go along with you on "government" and to say that my definition is really "governance" and should be distinguished from that.

However, I don't think I can, especially in the context of a discussion about anarchy. See, for example, phrases like "self government."

 

[erowe1]

Whats the difference between a private institution/business firm and a government?

All private institutions have governments. But that doesn't make them states.

States have governments, but what makes them states is not the fact that they have governments, but the fact that they use violence to rule people without their consent.

 

[gwax23]

All private institutions have governments. But that doesn't make them states.

States have governments, but what makes them states is not the fact that they have governments, but the fact that they use violence to rule people without their consent.

Couldnt one argue that a Minarchy is a Government but not a state?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

Incorrect. Even the authors of that horribly flawed document acknowledged that it wouldn't work without a strong moral sense among everyone and the willingness of the general population to take every measure up to and including violent revolution to stop elected tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson[/URL] to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787]"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[SUP][1][/SUP] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

And as many flaws as anarcho-capitalism has (I don't consider myself ancap, but I agree with them on some things), minarchism has been proven an epic fail every time and place it's been tried.

 

[Danan]

I could be tempted to go along with you on "government" and to say that my definition is really "governance" and should be distinguished from that.

However, I don't think I can, especially in the context of a discussion about anarchy. See, for example, phrases like "self government."

Yeah but self government is only a phrase because government usually refered to some people in power governing others in the context of a state.

Of course you could also "govern" a company or your property, so the word itself does not mean coercion per se. Maybe the meaning gets clearer in combination. The government of a nation is the body of people governing the rest of the citizens of that nation, which is defined as the geographical boundaries over which the government claims to be the sole arbiter of law and having a monopoly on the initiation of force. Is that a circular definition? I don't know, I'm tired. Good night.

 

[erowe1]

Couldnt one argue that a Minarchy is a Government but not a state?

That would get us back to the importance of definitions.

I think most of the people at mises.org that you identify as anarchists would fit this new definition of minarchist.

 

[gwax23]

Incorrect. Even the authors of that horribly flawed document acknowledged that it wouldn't work without a strong moral sense among everyone and the willingness of the general population to take every measure up to and including violent revolution to stop elected tyranny.



And as many flaws as anarcho-capitalism has (I don't consider myself ancap, but I agree with them on some things), minarchism has been proven an epic fail every time and place it's been tried.

So then what do you believe in?

Also Im not Constitution fan I think it is a flawed document and its flaws are what got us into this mess but I do think it is possible to have a document that could better achieve the goals of the original constitution. The constitution is a compromise between people who wanted limited government and those who didnt. Thats why it failed. That and its vagueness which leaves its interpretation up to later men who dont have limited government in mind when they are interpreting it.

 

[gwax23]

That would get us back to the importance of definitions.

I think most of the people at mises.org that you identify as anarchists would fit this new definition of minarchist.

Give me a real world example of a Minarchy where there is a government but not a state.

Early US?

 

[Danan]

Couldnt one argue that a Minarchy is a Government but not a state?

I'd say it absolutely is a state if that minarchist government claims the right to initiate force against me on my property against my will, because it argues that my property is within the boundaries of its authority.

 

[Danan]

All private institutions have governments. But that doesn't make them states.

States have governments, but what makes them states is not the fact that they have governments, but the fact that they use violence to rule people without their consent.

That makes sense.

 

[erowe1]

Give me a real world example of a Minarchy where there is a government but not a state.

Early US?

First of all, this is your definition of minarchy, not mine. I would be more comfortable restricting minarchy to states.

But by this definition, no the early US was definitely a state (or states), and not just government.

Governments without states would be things like Boy Scout troops, corporations, churches, classrooms, ronpaulforums.com, etc.

 

[Danan]

Give me a real world example of a Minarchy where there is a government but not a state.

Early US?

If you want a country/territory/etc. that has a "government" by erowe's earlier definition, but is not a state by erowe's definition then maybe medieval Iceland or some of the early American colonies would apply.

 

[gwax23]

First of all, this is your definition of minarchy, not mine. I would be more comfortable restricting minarchy to states.

But by this definition, no the early US was definitely a state (or states), and not just government.

Governments without states would be things like Boy Scout troops, corporations, churches, classrooms, ronpaulforums.com, etc.

It would still be considered a state because it enforced property rights and prosecuted murderers? If people voluntarily choose to live within the jurisdiction of this government then how would that violate the NAP?

 

[Danan]

It would still be considered a state because it enforced property rights and prosecuted murderers? If people voluntarily choose to live within the jurisdiction of this government then how would that violate the NAP?

Because all the property owners never agreed to be within the jurisdiction. They didn't choose to live within it, the state chose to impose jurisdiction uppon them.

And they obviously didn't just protect the NAP, they taxed and regulated and created other laws directly violating the NAP, otherwise you'd might have a point.

Or isn't that historically accurate?

 

[emazur]

As long as you believe that the state has no authority on peoples' property who have opted out of that state, you are effectively an anarchist. That's because under that system the state/government would essentially be a voluntary association (as you could leave it at any moment).

But I'm saying you can't opt out of the state unless you move into an "anarchist zone" with other anarchists who have paid off this section of land (maybe it's the size of a town, maybe it's 10% of Oregon, but it's a clearly defined and concentrated area and not a bunch of dots of individual houses here and there on a map). If the minarchist U.S. felt it was necessary to have a passport system applied to the anarchist zone (a likely possibility if terrorists, foreign criminals, or illegal aliens got their foot in the door at the anarchist zone and crossed into the U.S. from there), you might be required to get and show a passport whenever crossing into the U.S. and if you decided to sell your passport to a bad guy who did cross over with it and caused some serious problems, I would not hesitate to send forces into the anarchist zone to come get you.

So am I a statist yet?

 

[erowe1]

It would still be considered a state because it enforced property rights and prosecuted murderers?

Sorry, I'm lost. What would be considered a state for those reasons?

By the definition I'm inclined to use, those things would not be enough to make something a state. And note that whoever the people are that you consider anarcho-capitalists probably also support those things.

If people voluntarily choose to live within the jurisdiction of this government then how would that violate the NAP?

I don't think it would. I wouldn't call that a state either, not even a minarchist one, since states, by definition, rely on violent subjugation, and not voluntary membership.

 

[gwax23]

Because all the property owners never agreed to be within the jurisdiction. They didn't choose to live within it, the state chose to impose jurisdiction uppon them. Or isn't that true?

The ones that came after this government was set up then yes they chose to. If private institutions with governments can have jurisdictions why cant states?

 

[erowe1]

But I'm saying you can't opt out of the state unless you move into an "anarchist zone" with other anarchists who have paid off this section of land (maybe it's the size of a town, maybe it's 10% of Oregon, but it's a clearly defined and concentrated area and not a bunch of dots of individual houses here and there on a map).

Individual houses are clearly defined and concentrated.