No State vs Minarchism

[r3volution 3.0]

This is the only objection statists can mount anymore

Nope, here's another: national defense is a public good.

...meaning that it is a service which, if being provided to anyone in a geographical area must (not ethically, but as a matter of how the service works) be provided to everyone in that geographical area. In economic lingo, it is non-excludable. This means that no one in that area has an incentive to pay for it (since they will get it regardless), and so it is under-produced. What this means in practice is that an anarcho-capitalist society is not going to be able to defend itself from an aggressor state. If you have anarcho-capitalist society and states co-existing on the same planet, the latter are going to eat the former for lunch, outcompete them in a Darwinian sense.

It has already been pointed out why it is a hypocritical argument because no limited government has ever remained limited. When confronted with this historical fact, let me repeat, a historical fact the solution statists propose is repeat history. Then they say well ... it will work this time if the people can keep it. It will work this time if people are eternally vigilant. All the same crapola that has been said before.

It's not true that, as a matter of historical fact, states have only ever gotten larger. States have shrunk and moved toward laissez faire. E.G. Most of Europe in the 18th and early 19th centuries. China and Russia since the end of the Cold War. Many other examples.

But, even if your claim were true, the comparison would be as follows:
--Anarchy will degenerate immediately into a new form of statism which may be much worse than minarchy
--Whereas, minarchy will degenerate eventually into a worse form of statism

Note that states don't often go from Jefferson to Stalin overnight. Any decline in a minarchist society is likely to be gradual.

Whereas, from a state of anarchy (no pun intended), anything could happen.

Don't think that, worse case scenario, anarchy --> minarchy. No, worse case scenario, anarchy --> Sierra Leone.

But you are saying limited government can work this time if people are eternally vigilant and can keep it? Yes.
And you are saying limited government can only work for a moral and enlightened people? Yes.

I'm not saying either of those things.

The behavior of the state (e.g. whether it grows or not) has little to do with the opinions of the great masses of powerless people.

I don't expect them to keep the state limited. The best check on he growth of state power is a good constitutional design: e.g. not mass democracy.

You see, it's not that rulers of states always inherently want to grow the state and oppress everyone. The state grows primarily for two reasons: (1) it is insecure and so it has to implement repressive measures for the purpose of self-preservation (see many of the post-colonial governments in the third world), and (2) the rulers are not really in control, they have to appeal to someone else to govern (like voters) and so they implement economically destructive welfare programs to buy their support.

Note that if the constitutional design of a state (e.g. whether it is democratic or monarchical) largely determines how/whether it will grow over time, that is another reason to prefer minarchy to anarchy. I.E. We can design a minarchist state, with certain constitutional checks built-in, and set out to implement it. Whereas, if we set anarchy as our goal and implement it, and the result in the rapid reemergence of some new state, we did not have an opportunity to design that state rationally. It may not have the built-in checks we would like it to have. It is whatever happened to randomly emerge from the chaos.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Nope, here's another: national defense is a public good.

...meaning that it is a service which, if being provided to anyone in a geographical area must (not ethically, but as a matter of how the service works) be provided to everyone in that geographical area. In economic lingo, it is non-excludable. This means that no one in that area has an incentive to pay for it (since they will get it regardless), and so it is under-produced. What this means in practice is that an anarcho-capitalist society is not going to be able to defend itself from an aggressor state. If you have anarcho-capitalist society and states co-existing on the same planet, the latter are going to eat the former for lunch, outcompete them in a Darwinian sense.

This is the same fear leftist have with getting rid of public education, welfare, etc. To much faith in government and to little faith in individuals. Life and liberty are much better motivators than money, so when you have to introduce the latter in order to manipulate people into protecting the former, life and liberty were probably not actually at stake. And that is why the government should not be responsible for the military, we wind up on wild excursions fueled by money.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's not true that, as a matter of historical fact, states have only ever gotten larger. States have shrunk and moved toward laissez faire. E.G. Most of Europe in the 18th and early 19th centuries. China and Russia since the end of the Cold War. Many other examples.

Collapsed empires=/=shinking States. None of the European or Asian States you speak of shrunk "just because". If the Japanese Empire hadn't lost the war in the Pacific Theatre, there would still be a feudal empire in Asia-including China.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Collapsed empires=/=shinking States. None of the European or Asian States you speak of shrunk "just because". If the Japanese Empire hadn't lost the war in the Pacific Theatre, there would still be a feudal empire in Asia-including China.

England didn't repeal the corn laws because it was collapsing.

Russia didn't end serfdom because it was collapsing.

Etc

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

It sounds like you're saying that one should be an anarcho-capitalist even if one thinks that anarcho-capitalism won't work. Is that right?

One doesn't have to be an AnCap to accept the moral superiority of it, one only needs to put morality as the primary consideration, & that's all one needs to accept AnCap's moral superiority.

Sacrificing equality of rights & robbery are immoral things in my opinion, & they'd remain so irrespective of whether anarchy or minarchy or communism or whatever "works" or not.

You think that minarchism is immoral in comparison to the ideal of a purely voluntary society.

...and I completely agree.

But what I'm saying is that minarchism is moral in comparison to the other real options available to us.

Minarchism can only be deemed "moral" if one thinks it's ok to sacrifice equality of rights or that robbery can be justified. I don't agree with either.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Nope, here's another: national defense is a public good.

This is the same fear leftist have with getting rid of public education, welfare, etc. To much faith in government and to little faith in individuals.

No no, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

"Public goods" is an economic concept, it has nothing to do with any moral argument ("we should help the poor...etc")

A public good is a good which is non-excludable. That is, a good which it is impossible to provide to you without also providing to me - whether you want to or not. The clearest example of this with national defense is nuclear deterrence. If your security company is providing nuclear deterrence for the city we both live in, then I get the benefits of that whether I pay for it or not. You see what I'm saying? Your security company's position cannot be "we will retaliate against nuclear attack on P3ter_Griffin but not on his neighbor Revoution 3.0" - because any nuclear attack on me is going to kill you too, since we're neighbors. Right? So, by protecting you, they unavoidably protect me too. This undermines the incentive for anyone to pay for the service at all, and so fewer do, and so it is under-produced.

Sacrificing equality of rights & robbery are immoral things in my opinion, & they'd remain so irrespective of whether anarchy or minarchy or communism or whatever "works" or not.

Well, that's the difference between us.

I think that to act morally means to choose the best of the available options.

You think that to act moraly means to choose the best option you can imagine, even if it it actually impossible.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Well, that's the difference between us.

I think that to act morally means to choose the best of the available options.

You think that to act moraly means to choose the best option you can imagine, even if it it actually impossible.

I'd already said it, minarchists choose utility over morality. They think sacrificing equality of rights or legitimizing robbery is "moral" so long as they perceive it to have utility.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I'd already said it, minarchists choose utility over morality. They think sacrificing equality of rights or legitimizing robbery is "moral" so long as they perceive it to have utility.

So you keep saying. But, as I've explained, it's not that minarchists are ignoring morality.

We just have a different view of morality than you.

How a Minarchist Makes a Moral Decision:
Step #1 - determine what would be ideal
Step #2 - determine what is possible
Step #3 - from amongst the possible options, choose the one closest to the ideal

How an Anarchist Makes a Moral Decision
Step #1 - determine what would ideal
Step #2 - choose that (even if it is impossible)

The minarchist view of morality is the normal one. It is how most people make moral decisions.

The anarchist one has ever been known as "utopian."

Ala, "reality is bad, therefore I reject reality."

This is a commonality between anarchists and the radical left.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So you keep saying. But, as I've explained, it's not that minarchists are ignoring morality.

We just have a different view of morality than you.

How a Minarchist Makes a Moral Decision:
Step #1 - determine what would be ideal
Step #2 - determine what is possible
Step #3 - from amongst the possible options, choose the one closest to the ideal

How an Anarchist Makes a Moral Decision
Step #1 - determine what would ideal
Step #2 - choose that (even if it is impossible)

The minarchist view of morality is the normal one. It is how most people make moral decisions.

The anarchist one has ever been known as "utopian."

Ala, "reality is bad, therefore I reject reality."

This is a commonality between anarchists and the radical left.

Nonsense. Every single "anarchist" here would gladly take a smaller state than the one we currently suffer under, all things being equal.

The difference is that when presented with propositions which would make the state obsolete, most "minarchists" around here scoff and say "impossible, and you're an idiot for even talking about it"... as tho' we're anywhere near a minarchist state, let alone statelessness. In other words, you're as much an idiot for proposing a minarchist state as we are for proposing a society without a state; the minarchists here like to pretend they're the "practical" ones... imagine the trajectory of the state being the distance from the earth to the sun, with the current US state being the surface of the sun... Statelessness is the surface of the earth, and minarchism is near-earth orbit. Guess what? The "liberals" and "conservatives" are laughing at you, too. Speaking personally, when there's such little difference at that scale, I'd just as soon aim for the (moral, ideal) target.

There's also that parable about building a house upon a foundation of rock, versus upon a foundation of sand.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The difference is that when presented with propositions which would make the state obsolete, most "minarchists" around here scoff and say "impossible, and you're an idiot for even talking about it"... as tho' we're anywhere near a minarchist state, let alone statelessness. In other words, you're as much an idiot for proposing a minarchist state as we are for proposing a society without a state; the minarchists here like to pretend they're the "practical" ones...

Yes, moving toward either minarchy or anarchy (which, for most of the distance, is the same direction) is very difficult politically.

The difference is that the end-goal of anarchy is itself impossible. If once achieved, it would immediately fall apart.

By way of analogy:

Minarchy: wanting to build a skyscraper but not yet having the money

Anarchy: wanting to build a skyscraper made out of sand and not yet having the money

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Yes, moving toward either minarchy or anarchy (which, for most of the distance, is the same direction) is very difficult politically.

The difference is that the end-goal of anarchy is itself impossible. If once achieved, it would immediately fall apart.

By way of analogy:

Minarchy: wanting to build a skyscraper but not yet having the money

Anarchy: wanting to build a skyscraper made out of sand and not yet having the money

If the state you want (by the way, that's why refer to you guys as statists) is so achievable, just how big of a state do you want?!

I love that you guys have declared statelessness impossible... I suppose you would have been loyalists during the Revolution. "A government conceived of liberty for the individual?? IMPOSSIBLE! We HAVE to have a King!"

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If the state you want (by the way, that's why refer to you guys as statists) is so achievable, just how big of a state do you want?!

I love that you guys have declared statelessness impossible... I suppose you would have been loyalists during the Revolution. "A government conceived of liberty for the individual?? IMPOSSIBLE! We HAVE to have a King!"

You speak as if I've just asserted that anarchy is impossible.

...as if I haven't already provided two sound arguments for why it is impossible (which none of you anarchists have refuted).

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I've jumped into the thread late, so I've not seen your arguments, but to argue that statelessness is impossible is nonsensical. You do not have near the knowledge required to make that claim.

You're fairly new around here so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - this "feasibility of statelessness" argument has been had time, time, time and again here at RPF's, and won soundly by the advocates of statelessness, such that many around here aren't too interested in rehashing old debates anymore. I recommend looking up old threads in this particular sub-forum. I'm fairly confident you'll find any arguments you may have which "prove" that statelessness is impossible well handled.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I've jumped into the thread late, so I've not seen your arguments,

Well, they're here in this thread. It's only 4 pages long, won't take you long to read.

One concerns the propensity of security firms to form cartels, the other deal with national defense as a public good.

You're fairly new around here so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - this "feasibility of statelessness" argument has been had time, time, time and again here at RPF's, and won soundly by the advocates of statelessness, such that many around here aren't too interested in rehashing old debates anymore.

I have no doubt that the debate has been had here many many times (as I know it has on every other libertarian forum I've ever frequented), but - forgive me - I'm not going to just take your word for it that the anarchists won; let alone that they already refuted the specific arguments I'm making now (especially considering that you admit you don't even know what my arguments are).

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

So you keep saying. But, as I've explained, it's not that minarchists are ignoring morality.

We just have a different view of morality than you.

Yes, your morality includes sacrificing equal rights or legitimizing robbery. Wow! What an admirable moral stance that is! lol

Seriously, I don't have an issue if someone believes AnCap can't work or whatever but sorry, I can't take a person seriously if they believe sacrificing equal rights or legitimizing robbery is "moral". Good luck with that!

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Well, they're here in this thread. It's only 4 pages long, won't take you long to read.

One concerns the propensity of security firms to form cartels, the other deal with national defense as a public good.



I have no doubt that the debate has been had here many many times (as I know it has on every other libertarian forum I've ever frequented), but - forgive me - I'm not going to just take your word for it that the anarchists won; let alone that they already refuted the specific arguments I'm making now (especially considering that you admit you don't even know what my arguments are).

It's not that important to me, dude. And don't take that as a cop out. I've just been around these debates here too many times... I know how they go. At this point it's just boring.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, your morality includes sacrificing equal rights or legitimizing robbery. Wow! What an admirable moral stance that is! lol

Seriously, I don't have an issue if someone believes AnCap can't work or whatever but sorry, I can't take a person seriously if they believe sacrificing equal rights or legitimizing robbery is "moral". Good luck with that!

Okie doke...

 

[HVACTech]

Okie doke...

the Anarchists are thick as thieves around here...
they are all incapable of distinguishing that there is a very fine line of distinction between a minArchist and an Anarchist.

the problem that I have with that, is that Both Ron and Rand Paul are CLEARLY not anarchists.
I have shifted gears and turned the conversation towards the Constitution. (clearly a MinArchist document)
this leads to more productive discussions for the newcomers (lurkers) and makes the Anarchists ignorance glaringly clear.

if they are woefully ignorant of the Constitution, or are dead-set against it.

why are they here?

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

No no, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

"Public goods" is an economic concept, it has nothing to do with any moral argument ("we should help the poor...etc")

A public good is a good which is non-excludable. That is, a good which it is impossible to provide to you without also providing to me - whether you want to or not. The clearest example of this with national defense is nuclear deterrence. If your security company is providing nuclear deterrence for the city we both live in, then I get the benefits of that whether I pay for it or not. You see what I'm saying? Your security company's position cannot be "we will retaliate against nuclear attack on P3ter_Griffin but not on his neighbor Revoution 3.0" - because any nuclear attack on me is going to kill you too, since we're neighbors. Right? So, by protecting you, they unavoidably protect me too. This undermines the incentive for anyone to pay for the service at all, and so fewer do, and so it is under-produced.

So I decide to put up a lightning rod, and the lowest proximity effective range I can find is 1 acre. And I need this, WE need this, for our safety. So I am right then to divvy up the cost between my neighbors and I, whether they are willing or not?

I think you are overstating the difference between a leftist and your position. 'I want public education, therefore you have to pay for it', 'I want national defense, therefore you have to pay for it'. Do you think they believe any less that public education is so necessary that everyone must pay for it? You are putting your desires which you don't think can be achieved voluntarily ahead of freedom, and that is exactly what a leftist does, it is pretty much a life summary of Ralph Nader. But these things can be done voluntarily. And if they can't it is a sign that not enough people shared your desires, and that is no reason to carry out your desires forcefully.

 

[erowe1]

the problem that I have with that, is that Both Ron and Rand Paul are CLEARLY not anarchists.

I think Ron probably is. Why do you say he clearly isn't?

if they are woefully ignorant of the Constitution, or are dead-set against it.

why are they here?

You would have to be woefully ignorant of it not to be dead-set against it. But if that's the case, then why are YOU here?