Comments on: 37. “Minarchy Considered”

By: Doug Carkuff

Doug Carkuff — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:07:20 +0000

My screen only shows part of this text box, so forgive me if there are mistakes. I think part of the problem when talking about minarchy vs. anarchy and the various other libertarian types of social organization involves what exactly constitutes a “government”. I have never been clear on this at all. As a general principle I think most of us would agree that broader the scope of any government, the less humane and less inclined toward liberty it can and will be, with world government at one extreme and complete individual sovereignty at the other.

Does a group of two or four or eight or ten people agreeing not to interfere with and to defend each other’s individual rights constitute a government? Does any sort of collective with any kind of authority over its members constitute a government? I am not at all clear on this. Isn’t any group of people who choose to cede authority over some aspect of their behavior to any sort of collective group a government?

Suppose, hypothetically, one were to live in a state of anarchy (which I admit, appeals to me on a philosophical and an emotional level) only to find that one of his neighbors has choosen to appropriate a few acres of his property or a few of his cattle. Is one dependent on the goodwill and sense of justice of his other neighbors to support his property rights?

Notwithstanding the fact that every government that has ever existed has served the function of limiting liberty and become oppressive, in my fantasies I have vision of a government who’s sole function is specifically to protect our rights (the libertarian version of “rights”, extending from self ownersip to property rights.) which I think is the only possible legitimate function of a government, but maybe that is a fairy tale that is impossible in principle.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:11:56 +0000

Here’s a wild guess, with no offense intended to anyone: Perhaps people who aren’t predisposed to fixate on a requirement for finality in decisions are more likely to start considering alternative philosophies, and thus more likely to eventually leave Objectivism.

It would be interesting to hear from Objectivists on whether they think there’s any truth to this; I certainly can’t attest to it one way or another myself, never having been one.

By: Joshua Katz

Joshua Katz — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:08:47 +0000

The problem seems to be that, if we anarchists are only interested in saying that people ought to be free to do what the government is allowed by minarchists to do – that is, to use force to stop aggression – then we’ve already won. We are free to do so – and to face the consequences of taking on a much larger security firm. If it is true that, once competition is introduced, then the government is not a government, but just another one of these firms, then the government is not a government now. It is just the largest, by several orders of magnitude, of these security providers, and has stepped outside the bounds of what a security provider is supposed to do. The anarchist answer is that, in this case, the other firms have to get to work protecting people from it. We can make no other objection; surely it is not part of For a New Liberty to appeal to the higher motives of the aggressor agency and ask it nicely to stop. So what are we getting so worked up about?

More to the point, why do libertarians get angry about the actions of policemen, if these are just the employees of rogue agencies? Why did the LP of Nevada put out a press release condemning their own chair for having the audacity to run from agents of the state, who wanted nothing more than to lock him in a cage?

By: iawai

iawai — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:00:44 +0000

Be careful defining terms as other people apply them to themselves.

I understand why some self-ID’d ‘voluntaryists’ reject voting, and I don’t personally see any mathematical significance to the act unless it is a very local decision – but I’d bet that all of those ‘anti-voting’ voluntaryists would accept that individuals are free to choose how much interaction with the pirates to undertake to meet their own ends, as long as they are not themselves initiating force or causing the pirates to institute more.

And we’re back to where we started with “anarchy”: some people want it to mean one very specific thing, but a general acceptance of the term has taken on a negative meaning.

Which is the systemic problem of collectivism, labeling groups based on heterogeneous characteristics and pigeon-holing all the many shades of gray in the world into a binary “we vs. them”.

Perhaps you’d be happier with “sovereign individual” – but that could be interpreted as being belligerent, uncooperative, and antisocial – which again isn’t the connotation that’s being sought.

Let’s agree on at least one thing: at least we aren’t Minarchists.

By: Orlando

Orlando — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:05:12 +0000

Commendable, thorough effort.
Although I agree with a number of your positions, I can’t help but feel that the overall argument was one of semantics.

By: angurse

angurse — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:16:16 +0000

Be careful with using the “voluntaryist” label, as its not simply a synonym for anarcho-capitalist or market anarchist. It is a more specific philosophy that outright rejects all electoral politics. And as we already know many anarcho-capitalists (one very famous one) are fine with voting.

By: iawai

iawai — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:33:16 +0000

This is a hot-topic in libertarian circles, and I advise ‘voluntaryist’ It’s soft, it sounds like something the people already understand, but it requires some explanation. Further, it lends itself to easy explanation: of course we want laws and security, but want to give people the right to voluntarily choose their associates, replacing taxation with service bills.

Using “anarchy” could still be strategic, after people have an idea of your stance it could be used to illustrate that Statist propaganda is so pervasive that they associate anarchy with chaos and State law with order, when the reality is that violence is chaos and peace is order – only where the law breeds peace does order truly ensue.

By: newson

newson — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:34:41 +0000

objectivists will just love the hague!

By: newson

newson — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:19:53 +0000

p.47(again) “Secondly, Nozick also distinguishes between the minimal state and the
utraminimal state…”

By: newson

newson — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:55:33 +0000

typos
p.9 “a) Physical force ought to be kept (from?) human relationships.”
p.47″Thus the minimal state differs from the utraminimal state…”