Minarchism

[Christian Liberty]

I think we should agree to disagree if you think it's simply unattainable, but I think I have to bring up the thing about crime - if you think taxation is theft, war is murder, etc, and you come to the conclusion that the state is the largest band of thieves, then if you believe in fighting crime, and you are consistent about fighting crime, you will logically look to the state as a criminal and seek to call it out on it's criminal activities. That's as simple as I can put it.

Well, "War is murder" is usually true but theoretically can be false. If I break in your house to stop you from raping your child (For clarity, I'm making a THEORETICAL here) and kill you in order to stop you from doing the same, at a micro scale that's not really "War". If I personally paid someone off to assassinate Saddam Hussein and they did it without killing any innocents, that wouldn't be murder. Probably not a good idea for "Blowback" related reasons, but since Saddam murdered his own people, such an assassination seems justified in theory. If Afghanistan was sheltering people that we were able to prove set up 9/11 (Note: I'm not defending or opposing this viewpoint, this is just a theoretical) and we sent in soldiers to capture, try, and execute them, and somehow we managed to accomplish the deed while only killing enemy combatants who tried to stop us from taking the terrorists (Who we have proven the guilt of, per the scenario) and didn't kill any innocent people, that would possibly be theft or slavery (Theft if paid by taxes, slavery if manned by conscription) but definitely not murder.

All that said, I'll make a deal with the devil and create a small but strong gang that can nonetheless protect me from all the other gangs as opposed to having nothing to stop bigger, more intrusive gangs from forcing me to do everything they want. A tax rate of 2%, to me, is a fair price to pay for keeping the people who want to take 10, 20, 30% and impose all sorts of other regulations on me out. So theoretically I Agree its still criminal, but its a least of possible evils kind of thing, at least IMO.

 

[gwax23]

Quark Nice quotes though I would argue Anarcho Capitalism is one of many sub strains of Libertarianism. I dont like how people make Libertarianism = Anarcho capitalism and anyone who feels differently isnt a Libertarian.

FreedomFanatic Your from New York? Same here didnt think there where many Libertarians in our fine state.

SkepticalMetal IOUAR (I owe you a response)

 

[Christian Liberty]

FreedomFanatic Your from New York? Same here didnt think there where many Libertarians in our fine state.

Yeah, I'm from the Democratic People's Republic of New York. I can't call it "Fine" on principle. You're fine, and the other libertarians from NY are fine, but the state as a whole is the home of oppression in the US...

I'm a state's rights guy that is inclined to think "I'm a citizen of my state" but since my state is New York... Well, I pretend like my citizenship is still in Florida. Not much better (Filled with neocons) but at least not ultraliberal.

 

[gwax23]

Yeah, I'm from the Democratic People's Republic of New York. I can't call it "Fine" on principle. You're fine, and the other libertarians from NY are fine, but the state as a whole is the home of oppression in the US...

I'm a state's rights guy that is inclined to think "I'm a citizen of my state" but since my state is New York... Well, I pretend like my citizenship is still in Florida. Not much better (Filled with neocons) but at least not ultraliberal.

Haha I feel yah. The "fine" thing was sarcastic though.

California might have us beat on the national champion for least free. Im not sure though

 

[Christian Liberty]

+Rep for joining the glorious sport of New York Hating. And yeah, California might suck more. I don't know. But New York still sucks. A lot.

 

[SkepticalMetal]

The bottom line for me is that you need a culture of freedom for either anarchism or minarchism to work. In anarchism you MIGHT get rid of the state but then people will still find other methods of using violence against innocent people. I also think an anarchist system would be VERY easy for the wealthy to manipulate. I'm usually a HUGE advocate for privatization but we've seen that it doesn't work for prisons. I don't see why it works for courts either, since a "Private" court would work in a way to benefit those who pay them the most. I don't think the profit motive works for law because I don't think we WANT the profit motive to work for law.

I agree with you on the need for a "culture of freedom," but not in the American sense where it's all talk and no walk. I'm talking about actual education of the masses, which I believe is becoming more and more possible as technology advances and more social networking tools arise for these ideas to be shared. As a Baptist I can see why you wouldn't agree with me on my view of evolution intertwining with this, but all I'm saying is that I on a personal level believe that as a species we are advancing more towards throwing off the shackles of the state which have bound mankind since near it's inception. Yet I simply don't agree with you when it comes to the wealthy "manipulating" anarchism, as if the market in a stateless society is TRULY free (which it would have to be if the society is stateless) then the only way for the wealthy to "manipulate" anarchy is to simply become the new government, which would then be a violation of private property, and would not be anarchy then. And I'm afraid that I feel that you are mistaken when it comes to the supposedly private prisons you speak of - this is cronyism. This is in the same league of a supposedly private organization like Lockheed-Martin being a government contractor. It's still statism, and it's anything but free-market. It's really quite surprising to me how many libertarians feel the same sentiment you do about these prisons, as if they are ACTUALLY private. They aren't. Quite the opposite.

At the same time, I've seen that "Law without government" video and its points are compelling. I just think it assumes (Not deliberately) a type of inherent human goodness that I don't think exists. Admittedly, the same problem really does exist with a state. Look, I'm talking about my ideal situation, within any semblance of reason (Obviously, my ideal situation is that everyone would love his neighbor as himself, but we know that isn't happening, anarchism and minarchism are both unlikely but since neither absolutely contradicts human nature, we don't KNOW that they won't happen.

It's going to be a little hard to respond to this because it sounds as if you really aren't sure of your position in this regard yet. All I can say is that if you hold humans to not have an inherent goodness within them and that we need government to control these chaotic population due to their lack of goodness...aren't these same people going to be the ones IN government? I have really never understood this argument, as it seems to antagonize humanity while viewing the government in an angel-like nature, as if the individuals in government are somehow different from the rest of us and therefore qualified to steer us.

Without a culture of freedom, and we don't have one right now, we need (In my opinion) a minarchist state to restrain those who hate freedom from taking away mine. If I could, I'd make Ron Paul monarch in a heartbeat to speed up the process. (He's one of the few I'd trust, naturally). While that's an unlikely scenario, we can imagine it, and we can imagine King Paul restraining those who hate liberty, or at the very least refusing to infringe on ANY freedom at the Federal level (I suppose he might leave the states alone, personally if I were monarch I'd dissolve them and then decentralize everything to an extreme level on my deathbed, but now we're entering into the realm of the absurd). I can't imagine the current society sustaining freedom through ancap.

This is contradictory in that you say that we need a state (an institution that, by it's own nature, takes away freedom) to preserve our freedom and protect it from people who hate it (...the government). And having Ron Paul as monarch takes away the whole point of what he was trying to teach. Why is it that so many folks think that we need the government to preserve our freedom, when they are quite obviously the ones who are trying to take it away? It's like saying that you want Satan to protect you from going to Hell.

Here's the thing as well. I know government is just a big thug with a lot of weapons, but most people don't know that, and even those who do know respect (In the "I don't want to get killed" sense, not in the "Honorable" sense) force, which is why Murray Rothbard knew the state was evil but didn't just start shooting the thugs. Most people don't even get that far though. They assume government has some semblance of legitimacy. So when the government says "Don't infringe on someone's liberty" they obey, even if they would never vote to get government to allow someone that liberty. This is a bad example for me since I do believe abortion should be outlawed, but just to roll with it, most Christians think abortion should be illegal, but they would condemn a vigilante who killed an abortion doctor. I'll be honest and say I don't think Scott Roeder did anything wrong by killing George Tiller (Note, I am not ADVOCATING that anyone do anything illegal, I'm just saying that on pro-life libertarian principle, if I became monarch I would pardon a man like Scott Roeder as acting compatibly with the NAP by using force only against those who have murdered other people) but the VAST majority of pro-life Christians would balk at the idea. Why? They accept the state as per say legitimate. (Traditional Conservative, if you're watching this conversation, I'm genuinely curious what you think of this section of this post.) They think only the state has the right to institute justice.

So let's say a minarchist state creates a law that nobody can steal to aid the poor, property rights are legitimate, drugs are legal, exc. Conservative (Note: I'm using that in the POLITICAL sense, not in the social or personal sense, both definitions of which would render me a conservative)) Christians definitely don't want to legalize drugs, and some of them are fine with SOME theft to help the poor. Liberals definitely want to force the rich people to fork over a ton of money, and some of them are fine with SOME kidnapping to combat the drug trade (Among adults, I don't want to talk about children here, but I do believe that's a unique and different situation.)

On the other hand, if there's NO state these sorts of people will probably just create one, since they cannot see anarchy as legitimate.

Maybe I'm wrong here, I'm just typing as thoughts come to my head. Metaphorically tear me up, ancaps

All that said, I really don't have a problem with you guys. I agree with you all 95% of the time, and probably 99% of the theory (In theory I don't believe any state is justified either, I just don't think dismantling it is practical, at least not in my lifetime). You're on my team as long as you want to be. I just have a few minor disagreements is all.

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure how to respond to this as I'm not clear on what you're advocating here.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'll clear this all up tomorrow. Its late and school unfortunately starts at 7:15 AM for me (Great thing about first semester of community college, no classes until 9:30 AM.) Its going to take more than the maybe 10 minutes tops I'm gonna stay awake to clear this up. So just letting you know I will respond tomorrow barring any unforseen circumstances.

Good night.

 

[osan]

The bottom line for me is that you need a culture of freedom for either anarchism or minarchism to work.

Agreed, so far as the statement goes.

In anarchism you MIGHT get rid of the state but then people will still find other methods of using violence against innocent people.

Let it be made clear that the "state" is behavior made pursuant to a conceptual framework. There is no "state" per se. Given the definition of "anarchy", one cannot have a state. The condition and circumstance of anarchy precludes "the state" in any materially meaningful sense. If "the state" is in evidence, then you do not have anarchy.

I also think an anarchist system would be VERY easy for the wealthy to manipulate.

You mean unlike the current system?

I'm usually a HUGE advocate for privatization but we've seen that it doesn't work for prisons.

Too imprecise a brush here, effectively implying privatization as being of necessity a for-profit deal. The problem is NOT privatization per se, but rather of accountability, honesty, and trustworthiness. In reality, there is no difference between "public" and "private". When labels are stripped away and with them the conceptual manacles that limit movement of the mind, it becomes plainly obvious that the two are precisely the same in material terms.

All that aside, we come back to the notion of accountability. If "we" entrust a subset of our population to perform a certain class of functions on behalf of one and all, there must be accountability to "the people" in terms of how those functions are carried out. Our problem with "government" has not been the entity in itself, which of course is nonexistent per se, but in their accountability to those in whose trust they act. It is precisely there that the liberty mindset to which you refer comes in. The proper attitude and basic knowledge are paramount here and without them all is as good as lost, particularly in the longer run and in the face of the ever presence of those who seek to rule others by whatever means they can.

At the same time, I've seen that "Law without government" video and its points are compelling. I just think it assumes (Not deliberately) a type of inherent human goodness that I don't think exists.

In some cases yes, but it is not necessary to the model.

Admittedly, the same problem really does exist with a state.

Because there is no such thing as "the state". There are only people. See: http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2010/03/state.html

 

[SkepticalMetal]

You're responding to FreedomFanatic. That wasn't originally posted by me.

 

[erowe1]

You're responding to FreedomFanatic. That wasn't originally posted by me.

Have you seen the "quote" function that this website has?

 

[fisharmor]

I never compared marxism with anarcho capitalism, I simply said marxism has a better historical track record.

You did write this:

I love how the anarcho capitalist proponents have/had the same argument of the marxists. Its the same shit.

and we haven't gotten any clarification on it.

Further calling another ideology utopian is very different then making personal attacks which I never made. So to say I was somehow "rude" because I was engaging in a heated discussion is pretty ridiculous accusation. Further me supposedly being "rude" does not warrant personal attacks which where being thrown at me even before the statist pig remark.

Yet when someone like me (a Minarchist) proposes middle ground pragmatic solutions to push us in the right direction or makes use of the political process the majority of Anarcho Capitalists would denounce me as a Statist pig.

So forgive me for running with what you yourself wrote, but I have no tolerance for middle grounds. When you push for 50% of what you want, you get under 25% of what you want.
This is basic negotiation. You don't back off halfway before even being asked to.
I'm not willing to just assume the state is part of the equation going forward because it's pragmatic. If anything, pragmatism is what drives me to reject statism altogether. The state is evil, it fails every single goal it sets for itself, and uses its failure as an excuse for rewards in the form of more funding. It is the living embodiment of Tokien's ring - an unspeakable evil which convinces its wielder that he is somehow doing good.

You're willing to use the state - ergo, you are a statist. That is not up for debate.
I went with the "pig" bit to underscore that you were the one who used the moniker - a fact lost on just about everyone here at this point, including you. So I apologize for an extreme misuse of levity here.

If your side is allowed to be so serious about something as innocuous as petty name-calling, you'll forgive me for being as earnest in my opposition to an institutionalized gang of thieves, rapists, and murderers.

 

[fisharmor]

dp

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'd also like to point out that ancaps are not against "government", per se. They are for governing institutions.

What they are against is a form of governance: the state. The reason they area against it is because it is a coercive monopoly which violates natural ("God-given") rights, and must do so in order to exist. Politicians use this monopoly government to pervert natural law with their edicts.

Government is a word that is currently used interchangeably with the state, for the most part, but it's not necessarily the same thing.

That's a very helpful distinction. Also, if you think about it, church is one of the best examples of voluntary government around today.

 

[fisharmor]

Finally even if this vision was to be achieve how can it be sustained? This society would be so fragile it wouldnt take much for groups of people to form and out of their own power hungriness try to assume powers or create states. Lets say a charismatic CEO of a Private defense agency saying why not just take more than what he has.

Thats assuming some internal collapse but more realistically would simply be a larger state with lets say nuclear weapons a large army (Maybe conscripted) simply invading, bribing defense contractors etc etc.

The stateless society with its mercenaries would never be able to defend itself, the mercenaries arent willing to die they could simply be bought out or defeated by sheer numbers.

The strategic high ground or territory could be bought by the larger states and used to put any defending anarcho capitalist force in a weaker position. That is if the anarcho capitalists are even able to muster some sort of collective defense. This society would mostly be various different communities developing seperately from each other and thus a community more in the interior of such a society geographically wouldnt feel compelled to help some distant neighboring community who is being threatened with invasion. It provides an easy divide and conquer like scenario,.

This society would reject preemptive attacks, nuclear weapons, and severely limit itself in terms of defense capabilities that it could be conquered easily as what happened with Ireland (Which I dont think even was Anarcho Capitalist)

Here's the thing: you're right.
The examples we have don't implode, though. They're always subjugated.
If you look at the historical examples, you see external states moving in and committing what we would consider war crimes.

Now consider what your argument boils down to:

Given, that stateless societies are conquered by states,
given, that stateless societies are incapable of resisting war crimes,
given, that the people in a stateless society will eventually succumb to atrocities,
Therefore, people ought to be content to live in a state.

I don't think this follows for me... when I hear stories about child murderers, the first thought in my head is actually not "Well, I can't prevent it, so I might as well go murder a child".

 

[gwax23]

Here's the thing: you're right.
The examples we have don't implode, though. They're always subjugated.
If you look at the historical examples, you see external states moving in and committing what we would consider war crimes.

Now consider what your argument boils down to:

Given, that stateless societies are conquered by states,
given, that stateless societies are incapable of resisting war crimes,
given, that the people in a stateless society will eventually succumb to atrocities,
Therefore, people ought to be content to live in a state.

I don't think this follows for me... when I hear stories about child murderers, the first thought in my head is actually not "Well, I can't prevent it, so I might as well go murder a child".

First Im using the quote "Heres the thing: Your Right" as my new signature.

Second you guys keep using the crime analogy.

My argument is states are inevitable (Like crime) so given that fact we should try to limit states (Like crime) to the bare minimum. The bare minimum in this case would be a minarchy.

Your trying to say since we all work for the complete elimination of crime we should thus work for the complete elimination of the state. But youll never eliminate all crime so me stating the reality that we are really only working towards the smallest possible state isnt wrong nor does it conflict with you or others views, since some self described anarcho capitalists have themselves admitted it exists in that it doesnt.

 

[erowe1]

My argument is states are inevitable (Like crime) so given that fact we should try to limit states (Like crime) to the bare minimum. The bare minimum in this case would be a minarchy.

If the state is like crime, then wouldn't even less than whatever you call the bare minimum be even better yet?

It's not like we could decrease murder to some point and then say, "There. That's just the right amount of murder. If we decrease it any more, we would have too little of it."

 

[HigherVision]

IT seems to me that the minarchist position on the view of government is inconsistent. Why is one form of government intervention ok and not Another? Where does one draw the line at what government is supposed to do and what it shouldn't do? Minarchism seems to have turned into "I hate when government doesn't do things I like but I like it when it does do things I like". Why are police, courts, and miltary acceptable but not other forms of intervention. Why should the government be in any of those enterprises? The Whole I am OK with something not on a federal level seems to me just a way for justifying government programs. The most consistent position to take in my view is one of anarchism. My .02 fiat currency. Overall minarchism seems to be an inconsistent and varied school of libertarianism.

I think the reason is because a private property system is not necessarily something that the masses of people are eagerly willing to accept, it's something that sort of has to be forced on them. Sort of like caging a wild predatory animal. Most people want to initiate force against others in one way or another so you have to use a certain amount of force against them in order to lock them into this system where they're forced to be civilized. That's how I see it. Of course I'd much rather prefer a fully voluntaryist society where no use of force i.e. government is necessary at all. But as long as there's going to be a government due to the violent nature of the masses I'm going to be involved politically so that it enforces a more private property/free market system rather than a more socialist/fascist one.

And that's what happens when you say 'I'm not going to be involved in politics because I don't want to support the state at all'. You forfeit your ability to influence the system that's imposed on you to be one that initiates only a limited amount of force, and instead allow a system that maximizes force to come about unabated.

 

[The Gold Standard]

If the state is like crime, then wouldn't even less than whatever you call the bare minimum be even better yet?

It's not like we could decrease murder to some point and then say, "There. That's just the right amount of murder. If we decrease it any more, we would have too little of it."

Rep for this. I was going to make that point.

 

[The Gold Standard]

I think the reason is because a private property system is not necessarily something that the masses of people are eagerly willing to accept, it's something that sort of has to be forced on them. Sort of like caging a wild predatory animal. Most people want to initiate force against others in one way or another so you have to use a certain amount of force against them in order to lock them into this system where they're forced to be civilized.

If those people don't have an organization to steal for them, they might feel differently if they have to bring their own gun to my door to try to collect taxes from me. No need to initiate force. The threat of defensive force works well enough.

 

[HigherVision]

If those people don't have an organization to steal for them, they might feel differently if they have to bring their own gun to my door to try to collect taxes from me. No need to initiate force. The threat of defensive force works well enough.

That's a good point, however they could congregate and form tribes. I don't know if it's bullshit but Noam Chomsky always claims that the reason the founders, who he thinks were evil, started the government was because they feared what they saw as 'the leveling spirit of the masses' and so they set up the republic to protect their property. In other words had they not acted and formed the government, the masses of people who were peasants & what not, much poorer than the founders, would likely have enacted an anarcho-communist type system and expropriated their wealth. To Chomsky this would have been a good thing, but to me it says that the Constitutional system, however flawed, may have been much better than the alternative society that would have developed had the founders not acted. But then maybe the whole story is bogus, I don't know. I have more research to do.