Minarchism

pathtofreedom

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
364
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.
 
And Aanrcho Capitalism is better? Its utopian vision of the world with no means to sustain itself let alone achieve it.
 
I just want to endure as little aggression as possible. A minarchist government can protect me from aggression, anyone can agress against me ffor any reason in anarcho-capitalism. Yeah, its a deal with the devil, but its a deal I'm going to take, all things considered.
 
And Aanrcho Capitalism is better? Its utopian vision of the world with no means to sustain itself let alone achieve it.

Exactly, I think even most anarchists here won't deny that the world is not nearly ready for a stateless society on a large scale.

Minarchism is being a realist in seeing that the best we can hope for in the short term (and perhaps even the long term) is to keep things as local as possible, where it is actually possible for constituents to hold their representatives, courts, police, etc., far more accountable.

Plus we already see the woes of privatizing prisons (it's only exacerbating the problem), so if you think courts and police have the tendency to be corrupt now, I'm not sure that the ones in a stateless society who aren't necessarily bound by due process or rule of law will be any better.

Accountability can fix many of the woes of government on a small scale. We just need more people demanding it.
 
And Aanrcho Capitalism is better? Its utopian vision of the world with no means to sustain itself let alone achieve it.
Oh come on a government staying small and not turning into fascist government is even more utopian. Successful anarchist societies have existed.
 
Oh come on a government staying small and not turning into fascist government is even more utopian. Successful anarchist societies have existed.

What societies? Some fringe unheard of on the edge of civilization societies that lasted a short time before falling apart or getting conquered.

Marxism has a better historical track record.

This country was Minarchist for most of its history and it propered into the greatest nation on Earth. There are many successful examples of Minarchist societies flourish throughout history. They have the best track record of any system out there (or non system)

But thats besides the point because save for some apocalyptic disasters anarcho capitalists have no means to reach their ideal society since the vast majority of them reject the political process or pragmatic realistic solutions. Even if we ever did achieve their society even they admit theres no real way to prevent new governments from arising or to stop a larger statist empire from simply rolling over it. The conditions necessary for a true anarcho capitalist society toe ven exist are pretty contrary to humanity itself. Have everyone or close to it agree with the ethical and moral principles of Anarcho Capitalism/Non Aggression pact? We cant get people to agree on what to eat for lunch let alone that.

Again Marxism was a more realistic concept.

With all that said I agree with 99% of what Anarcho Capitalist say. Yet they would call me a statist the likes of stalin and a traitor because I believe in a minimal government for Defense and the Courts.

If the greatest Libertarian minds couldnt be convinced of Anarcho Capitalism (Ludwig Von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rand, Paul, Bastiat etc etc) then what makes them think they can convince the idiot masses, or even better if the greatest minds didnt believe in it maybe thats telling in and of itself. Then again they might just argue back and say they are all secret Anarchists but thats even more ridiculous.
 
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.

Being a bit disingenuous, aren't you? I am a minarchist because I believe in establishing a universal standard of consent. Be it age or some kind of test. This is because I do not, and never will, approve of child rapists. (IOW, one could manipulate/trick a child into giving consent) When I think about it, a test determining an individuals understanding of consequence is probably the best way. Logic is logic, so don't come back at me with, "yeah, but who writes the test."

Also, the Bill of Rights... I believe in that. 1-5 most specifically. Of course, it could be said, without a government such a document would not be necessary as such rights would SEEM self evident. To me the Bill of Rights is just codified common law.

I guess I buy into the ol' "Bind him down with the chains of the constitution."
 
Last edited:
I'm generally of the belief that anarchism wouldn't last long because some idiots would see a problem they think they can solve with force and it would turn into a minarchy. Which would then turn into a democracy/republic, eventually into a monarchy, oligarchy, or dictatorship.

Just because "anarchism" wouldn't last long isn't a very good argument against it. Minarchism didn't last long either. I don't see any reason why we would want to give tyranny a head start, than starting with a blank slate.

It's only been a few hundred years since the world has been completely mapped and fully populated. It used to be that if you wanted to escape tyranny all you had to do was get on a boat and go. Nowadays there isn't an acre of habitable earth that isn't claimed and accounted for. That changes everything.

In era of Kings and Queens, the US was a rebellious experiment that discarded many layers of the state, and for this it prospered, until those layers eventually came back, one by one.

Does it not make sense then, that if discarding layers of the state is so effective, discarding the state itself may even be more effective? It has hardly been tried at all in history, let alone in the modern era. So if it were possible to dissolve this obsessive desire for government that is so prevalent throughout the world, and I'm not saying it is, why shouldn't we give anarchism a chance?
 
Being a bit disingenuous, aren't you? I am a minarchist because I believe in establishing a universal standard of consent. Be it age or some kind of test. This is because I do not, and never will, approve of child rapists. (IOW, one could manipulate/trick a child into giving consent) When I think about it, a test determining an individuals understanding of consequence is probably the best way. Logic is logic, so don't come back at me with, "yeah, but who writes the test."

Also, the Bill of Rights... I believe in that. 1-5 most specifically. Of course, it could be said, without a government such a document would not be necessary as such rights would SEEM self evident. To me the Bill of Rights is just codified common law.

I guess I buy into the ol' "Bind him down with the chains of the constitution."

You don't need a state to beat the shit out of a child rapist. All you need is a hammer.
 
What societies? Some fringe unheard of on the edge of civilization societies that lasted a short time before falling apart or getting conquered.
Medieval Iceland lasted 200 years, Somalia lasted a short time, and Celtic Ireland Lasted 1000 years.
 
The principle of the equality of men was inconsistently applied when it came to the institutionalization of chattel slavery. It took enough people to move past preconceived notions they held when it came to what was necessary for a functional economy, racial superiority, and other rationalizations for the subjugation of their fellow man. Abolition required a cultural change. Any movement toward liberty does, otherwise it would already be there. Before people can have it, enough of them need to understand how it could function, and why the alternative is undesirable.

Complete abolition of slavery is a Utopian ideal. There will always be people who subjugate others, and there's still slavery going on in the world today. It's not even remotely close to as widespread a problem as when was when it was legally sanctioned by most of the globe, though. Institutionalization the issue. The avocation of a stateless society isn't about eradicating all aggression, but minimizing it by abolishing it's institutionalization, and relying on the principles of the free market and liberty rather than organizing around the principles of central planning and authoritarianism.
 
Last edited:
You don't need a state to beat the shit out of a child rapist. All you need is a hammer.

And if that child rapist turned out not to be a child rapist?

@OP I believe that the state should exist and it should exist for the sole purpose of protecting individual natural rights (and that's why the creation of positive rights, such as due-process of law, are necessary, as protections from the state itself.) The non-aggression axiom is nice, but it is indeed idealistic to believe everybody (or even a significant percentage) would follow it. Thomas Hobbes was a despotist, but I do agree with him when he said that man is naturally at "warr".
 
Last edited:
The state cannot protect individual rights without first infringing on individual rights. This necessarily is the the case.

Peaceful interaction is the corner stone of any semblance of a society. If man were naturally more violent toward each other than peaceably inclined a social unit as small as a family could not exist. In a Utopian world where anyone could have anything they pleased, peaceful interaction would still be necessary for anything you could describe as a "society" to exist.

The state is not a precursor to society, its a social institution embodied by a centralized monopoly on power. A monopoly which everyone clamors to control in order to employ it in their own benefit at the expense of everyone else in that society.
 
The state cannot protect individual rights without first infringing on individual rights. This necessarily is the the case.

From what I gather, classical liberals applied a utilitarian methodology. The assumption is that individual rights will always be infringed upon, in both an anarchy or by a state. By minimizing the number and severity of individual rights infringed upon do we preserve as much liberty as possible. At least that's how Thomas Paine and other classical liberals put it. I think this is a highly empiricist view, and it makes much more sense than chasing total liberty. Government is, indeed, a necessary evil.

Peaceful interaction is the corner stone of any semblance of a society. If man were naturally more violent toward each other than peaceably inclined a social unit as small as a family could not exist. In a Utopian world where anyone could have anything they pleased, peaceful interaction would still be necessary for anything you could describe as a "society" to exist.

Man isn't all bad, but he's certainly not all good either. It is pragmatic to assume that man can and will violate the non-aggression principle, and that entails a justice system to mitigate the consequences of man's moral defect. Should a justice system be egalitarian? Yes. Would a free-market, private justice system allow for a tendency of egalitarianism? Well, we can't empirically verify that, but I will lean toward it not being likely.

The state is not a precursor to society, its a social institution embodied by a centralized monopoly on power. A monopoly which everyone clamors to control in order to employ it in their own benefit at the expense of everyone else in that society.

This is true, but we must ask whether or not a state is functionally necessary, as a classical liberal I'd argue, yes. An anarchist would argue no. If the anarchist is correct, then we must ask whether or not it is pragmatic or practical to rid of the state.
 
Last edited:
From what I gather, classical liberals applied a utilitarian methodology. The assumption is that individual rights will always be infringed upon, in both an anarchy or a state. By minimizing the number and severity of individual rights infringed upon do we preserve as much liberty as possible. At least that's how Thomas Paine and other classical liberals put it. I think this is a highly empiricist view, and it makes much more sense than chasing total liberty. Government is, indeed, a necessary evil.

But institutionalization of infringement does not minimize infringement. Empirically it's lead to the increased frequency of systematic infringements and expansion of power by the organization. "Government is the negation of liberty", and it's the nature of the state to expand it's power (and exercise it).

Man isn't all bad, but he's certainly not all good either. It is pragmatic to assume that man can and will violate the non-aggression principle, and that entails a justice system to mitigate the consequences of man's moral defect. Should a justice system be egalitarian? Yes. Would a free-market, private justice system allow for egalitarianism? Well, we can't empirically verify that, but I will lean toward it not being likely.

I understand why you might lean that way, but I'd simply make the argument that decentralized voluntary markets outperform coercive socialist monopolies when it comes to quality and provision of goods and services to consumers and should apply to the provision of justice just as well as any other industry. I'm not saying you should take this concept for granted, but based on this principle, it may be prudent to really investigate whether the provision of law and security are truly exceptions to this rule. There has been a lot of work that asserts that this principle is consistent and with some thorough investigation, it's possible that you may even conclude that you were leaning too hard in the direction that there's an exception.
 
Last edited:
But institutionalization of infringement does not minimize infringement. Empirically it's lead to the increased frequency of systematic infringements and expansion of power by the organization. "Government is the negation of liberty", and it's the nature of the state to expand it's power (and exercise it).

Just thought of a good excerpt to go along with this:

Lysander Spooner said:
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
 
Many people aren't prepared for a truly free society.

Sure, it might be better. (when attacked on the street, you put the cocksucker down without consequence) I do believe people would think twice before starting the usual. Run into vendettas and ill will, not to mention the murder of some innocent men. Personally, I'd be fine with this. I don't think many have met the fiends that have no regard for anything.. or the kids who have no family. So long as I am not harrassed by pigs or limited in my reactions I support the system. Many people who wish for as much have never walked through the city. My reactions to being attacked are limited. I must consider the consequences. A lot here have a clouded view of how some people really are. Though sooner than later, in the hypothetical society, they would get thinned out.
 
My problem with minarchism is that it's a misnomer.

If you really want the smallest state possible, with only the most essential elements of statehood, then it should be just a tax collection agency and nothing else.
 
Back
Top