r3volution 3.0 said:
Yes, if everyone were a zealous anarcho-capitalist, there can be anarcho-capitalism. Just as if everyone were a zealous anarcho-communist, there could be anarcho-communism. Put another way, anarcho-capitalism requires a New Libertarian Man, just as anarcho-communism requires a New Soviet Man. And this is all utopian nonsense, in both cases. There is only one kind of Man, and he will never behave in the way that either of those systems require him to.
Minarchy, on the other hand, does not require a New Minarchist Man. Ordinary, everyday Man will do.
Again, you can ignore the call of the markets if you want but the fact is that right now, minarchy doesn't exist in the U.S because there aren't enough minarchists, & if minarchy were ever to be achieved, it would require enough minarchists that believe & support the idea. So yes, minarchy does require a New Minarchist Man. And, similarly, there would have to be enough people who believe in equal rights for AnCap communities.
1. States (minimal or otherwise) require only the passive acceptance of the majority ("can't fight city hall.."), not it's active support ("horray, the government shares my ideology, I will donate my time, money, energy to supporting them!"). A minimal state where no one outside the government is a minarchist is perfectly possible. WHEREAS, anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-communism require the active support of the majority; passive acceptance is not enough. Anarcho-capitalism requires people to subordinate their own material interests to the ideal of anarcho-capitalism, in order to overcome the public goods problem and produce adequate defense. Just as anarcho-communism requires people to subordinate their own material interests to the communist ideal, in order to overcome the incentive problem.
The minarchist expectation (that a majority will at least passively accept the social order) is realistic (it is the usual situation throughought history), whereas the anarchist expectation (that a majority will actively support the social order to the pioint of sacrificing their own material interests) is unrealistic, utopian.
2. You might object - "well that explains why the state in general is easier to maintain than anarchy, but what about a minimal state in particular? How do keep a miimal state minimal if a majority of the people only passively accept it, and aren't fighting to keep it?" As I said in an earlier post, I do not believe that popular opinion is the primary determinant of the behavior of rulers. I believe that rulers' behavior is largely determined by the structure of the system (it's constitutional structure - how the government is internally organized - e.g. whether it is democratic or monarchical). My ideal state would be a non-democratic one structure in a certain way (I can go into detail later if you like), and it will stay minarchist for structural reasons; it does not need the masses to be zealous minarchists. N.B. A general point; libertaroans tend to think of the state as always inherently wanting to grow, and so there needs to be something external to check this growth (e.g. public opinion). This is wrong, IMO. The only solution to the problem of limited government is to make the state
not want to grow in the first place, which means you must understand the structural reasons that it grows, and amend the structure accordingly to remove those features. Democracy itself is one such structural reason for the growth of the state, for example.
3. Another possible objection - "Okay, so your version of minarchy does not require mass popular support to sustain itself, but how can we
get to your version of minarchy without mass popular support, given that we currently live in a democracy?" First, I would say that we have to distinguish between means and end. Even if it were true that there were no realistic means of achieving minarchy, at least the goal itself could - if ever reached - sustain itself (unlike anarchy). As I said in an earlier post, it's the difference between trying to build a skyscraper while not having enough money (minarchy - unrealistic means, realistic end), and trying to build a skyscraper made of out sand while not having enough money (anarchy - both means and ends are unrealistic). Second, however, there is a realistic means of achieving minarchy. One option is for a non-demoacrtic solution, such a military coup d'etat. Another option is a popular movement operating through the democratic process. "But wait!", you object, "didn't you just say that a mass libertarian movement is unrealistic?" For libertarians to succeed in the democratic process, we don't have to transform the majority into zealous libertarians (thank God, because that's basically impossible). Look at what Rand is doing. Democratic politics is mostly about conning the majority into supporting you based on propaganda, not making them understand why they really should support you. There's a world of difference between herding the masses in a libertarian direction, for the purpose of an election (as we need to do to move toward minarchy through the democratic process), and maintaining a permanent majority of zealous libertarians willing to sacrifice themselves to the cause (as anarchy requires to sustain itself). Tangentially, I think that many minarchists in the liberty movement implicitly understand this, even if they don't say it this way, which is why you find fewer minarchists than anarchists in the anti-Rand "purist" camp - but I digress.
