I would just like to take a moment to clarify something since there seem to be a lot of different interpretations of what I mean when I poke fun at “minarchists”.
When I use the term “minarchism”, I’m referring to an individual belief system, someone who believes a small government is necessary, and perhaps evil. A minarchist believes that government has a role in protecting life, liberty, and property. By itself, that wouldn’t be worthy of ridicule, but where it falls apart is when they insist that it must be an authoritarian monopoly on violence, i.e. that it must exert a supreme authority over a certain geographic region and individuals cannot choose to act apart from it. By its very nature, such a thing will never protect life, liberty, and property. Such a thing is inherently contradictory to such values. If, on the other hand, you can let go of the idea of it being a monopoly, then it is subject to the controls of the free market and regains the accountability that’s essential for it to ever do more good than harm.
Secondly, while I have no faith in politics to get us any degree of freedom in the big scheme of things, I have nothing against a gradual approach. Agorism takes a gradual approach and I believe in agorism. I’m all for taking little bites out of the elephant if it works. In fact, I am concerned that existing governments may rapidly collapse due to their own incompetence and some degree of chaos will inevitably ensue because most people remain in a child-like state of subservience and don’t know how to live as adults. They have no idea how to function outside the rule of governments. However, I don’t think it’s something we should try to induce and I certainly don’t believe in using violence to overthrow the government. I don’t think it’s either right or viable. I think we need to be building up voluntary versions of the services we currently ascribe to monopoly governments while at the same time acting as wrenches by refusing to comply with existing violent governments. Something along those lines is what I believe will make gradual progress toward more individual freedom.
Most importantly, both minarchism and anarchism are individual points of view, or philosophies about how to maintain civilized society. It’s only when individuals evolve that society will make progress. When I hear someone talk about whether anarchy is possible, I cringe. This is where I differ with many anarchists. Society cannot exist in a state of anarchy because it’s a fiercely individualist philosophy. It is possible for YOU to achieve it because it happens when YOU personally transcend the indoctrination that will allow YOU to stop being a cog in the machine of violent governments, and to at least begin to consider becoming a wrench. Once you understand that, then you realize how silly it is to think of minarchy as a step on the way to anarchy. Anarchy, as a philosophy, is the first and most crucial step that individuals must make in order for all of us to make progress toward a smaller and less intrusive government. As long as you see government as a necessary thing, as the protector of your liberties, you are seriously deceived and have little hope of making any progress toward even shrinking it.
But the good thing about minarchists is their hearts are in the right place. They are the hope of the future. Almost every anarchist was a minarchist somewhere along the way. So if you’re a minarchist and you’re offended, just realize I’m also kind of poking fun of myself. It wasn’t that long ago that I was where you are.
Here’s a conversation I’ve imagined having with a minarchist that claims “anarchy just won’t work”. The minarchist here is highly cooperative with me so it’s probably pretty unrealistic, but it’s a thought experiment for me:
Minarchist: …but Ryan, anarchy just won’t work to protect our liberties! Without a “good” smallish government around, a bigger “evil” government will just take it’s place.
Me: Let’s sidestep your insistence that anarchy must be practical for a moment. Anarchy isn’t a utilitarian argument, it is an ethical stance. It doesn’t have to “work” for it to be morally right. To make an analogy: do you support the actions of murderers and rapists?
Minarchist: surely not!
Me: Do you support bringing actual murderers and rapists to justice?
Minarchist: Yes!
Me: At least half of these sorts of crimes go unsolved today, do you think it will ever be possible to completely eradicate the problem of murderers and rapists in the world?
Minarchist: Probably not, no.
Me: But you still believe that murdering and raping is immoral, right? You’re still in favor of getting rid of all the murder and rape cases you can, even though you’ve told me that you think it’s not possible to get rid of them all?
Minarchist: Yes, murder and rape is wrong. It needs to be opposed.
Me: Well, I agree with you there, but I would also assert that government is merely institutionalized murder and rape that is wrong in all its forms. I am completely opposed to supporting it in any way. It is an ethical stance, not a utilitarian one. Anarchy doesn’t have to “work” in order for it to be the correct and moral stance to take.
Minarchist: OK, I agree with you, government is evil, but it’s a *necessary evil*. We need the state!
Me: By saying it’s necessary, are you telling me that you think it’s OK for the state to agress against me? Being necessary does not negate the evilness.
Minarchist: Ryan, anarchy just won’t work!
Me: And your solution is to just use the same violent means that has always been used? Anarchy is a negative concept in that it only points out the problem, not any solution towards fixing it. Since you have agreed with me that government is indeed evil, can we please get passed the idea that anarchy won’t work and think of ways to make voluntary interactions between people work instead? Surely we can be resourceful enough to brainstorm some new ways to non-violently achieve more liberty and peace in our world.
Excellent points from the both of you. Out of curiosity, how do you address a person who believes that the draft is necessary?
Re: Drafts
If people truly feel in danger, they’ll support a defensive war. Bureaucrats should have to “sell” us on the danger and enlist our support whether it be recruitment or financial. That would be an excellent check on wars, something we don’t have now which is why we have aggressive wars that serve wealthy special interests who lobby well.
Excellent! I felt compelled to “share” this on FACEBOOK, where I wrote:
Personally, I view minarchism as a necessary “step” which needs to be identified and must be accepted as such, as a means of taking ‘pause’ within the greater journey towards achieving our aggregate desires of absolute social freedom (anarchism). It is, in other words, the means toward goal and not the goal itself.
I will suggest however, that this illustration is BRILLIANT in that it suggests something even greater than simply a political perspective. It suggests that to be truly free within social, physical, and intellectual planes, one must find the means to dissolve the conceptual barrier which separates the internal from the external…the fabricated wall we build for ourselves in self defense…and aquire in our understanding the uninimity (sp?) that exists within all of “nature”…. awesome.”
Not so sure folks will understand, but….
d
I don’t understand your refusal to accept the concept of societal anarchy. Let’s say for now that “anarchist” as applied to individuals is a binary label, true if and only if they reject all aggression. We can then define an anarchist index on any society equal to the proportion of anarchists in that society. Societies with a low index (like those of today) are dominated by states, and anarchists in them are ridiculed pariahs. But if we imagine the index growing, a tipping point will eventually be reached where there are enough anarchists to support each other in mutual defense against state intrusion. This middle ground is unstable, though—can you imagine an even mix of statists and anarchists?—and would probably either become more totalitarian (reducing the anarchist index through violence) or fracture into multiple societies, one or more having a high enough index to achieve stability in which aggression is limited to common criminals. In quasi-mathematical terms, I would describe societies as bistable dynamical systems described by their anarchist index, with critically different topology at each equilibrium. If you’re still with me, wouldn’t you agree that it makes sense to call one societal equilibrium statist and the other one anarchist?
Or do you also cringe when you hear someone talk about biological species membership?
@Richard
I dont refuse to accept societal anarchy. I simply am not convinced society as a whole is as of yet anywhere near that point. I agree wholeheartedly in Dale’s comments:
“…because most people remain in a child-like state of subservience and don’t know how to live as adults. They have no idea how to function outside the rule of governments…”
As stated, it IS a process…and unfortunately, as you stated and I agree, there will be that eventual tipping point. At which time, violence would (in my view) inevitably erupt due to those who remain in that “child-like state of subservience” and seek to preserve that status due to their own fear and lack of faith. Whether the magnitude and scope of that violence will amount to any levels of concern, I havent the faintest idea.
Herein lies the “problem” as I see it, and I think you just inadvertently exposed it.
As a product of “government schooling” I am personally struggling with the terminology of your analysis, ok?
Now, I am no dummy but, despite my desire to comprehend, I dont know the “language”, therefore, regardless of the soundness of your intended message, (validated by empirical data I would assume) and despite my willingness, it remains for me to a great extent as it appears: foreign gibberish that is as nonsensical as Dr Suess. Ok?
So with that in mind, how do educated anarchists expect to educate, enlighten, or otherwise win-over, those who reluctantly dwell within that “child-like state of subservience” mind-set because of their lack of foreseeable non-violent options, if they (the anarchists) can not effectively communicate those ideas to them?
d
and I’d like to add….
I wrote, “…seek to preserve that status due to their own fear and lack of faith….”
I intentionally used the word FAITH, because, up to and including that moment when that “tipping point” arrives, UNLESS anarchists can effectively communicate that the fundamental and timeless idea of personal freedom and the potential of a peaceful, non-violent society is attainable through our will to achieve it, it is the fickle “other-worldly” faith, and not objectivity nor empirical data, that they will continue to rely upon.
Overcoming “this’ is, I believe, the real challenge….
In order to achieve freedom, we have to win the hearts and minds of the people. At that point, government will retreat, but it will never go away. There will always be those who want to use it for defense and justice. Then it becomes the principled minarchy, existing in the free market, maintaining a monopoly by the sheer size of the the people supporting it. It becomes a minarchy, but does not agress. This is the only path to a structured anarchy, in my opinion; a path opened by the state, structuring the voluntary society we all seek. I don’t think it can be done without the state giving up power — without opening the door for gang warfare.
This debate is counterproductive, cooperate with the people who want less government than we currently have, fight those who don’t want less or want more.
“I certainly don’t believe in using violence to overthrow the government. I don’t think it’s either right or viable.”
So, then, Jefferson, Henry, Madison, Mason, &c were all wet? And the Second Amendment exists because you need to put meat on the table?
@Dennis sorry about that… in fairness, though, I wrote mainly to convince Dale that “anarchist” can be a meaningful label for describing whole societies. The “government school summary,” if you’ll excuse a slight offense, is that anarchist-dominated societies (in which only a small fraction of the population are not anarchists) are so different from statist-dominated societies that the transition is unstable, rapid, and fractures the original society into anarchist and statist components. If you’re interested in my abuse of the original terms, I suggest reading the Wikipedia articles on Bistability, Bifurcation theory, and Dynamical systems.
@SnowDog How could an organization with such an interminable history of not only poor “customer” service, but outright exploitation, possibly maintain a monopoly without aggression?
@Richard
Ok, thanks, Ill check ‘em out.
BTW, its difficult to “offend” me…so long as theres something coming from it that I can learn, its all good.
d
@Calpurnia
They replaced one tyrant three thousand miles away with three thousand tyrants one mile away. Smooth move, geniuses.
Fighting government with violence will only beget another government. No honest anarchist would fight government with force for that reason, and no principled libertarian would fight government with force for the simple reason that libertarians necessarily reject non-defensive force.
Violence may be necessary at some turns, and very few anarchists will deny that. But if it’s your first and last resort, you’re a failure and your ends are unachievable. If a war between factions occurs, that’s it, game over, you lose. Government must be weakened beyond the capability to do war before it can be successfully supplanted.
I’m a minarchist and don’t mind being made fun of
Keep in mind that not all minarchist think that small government is a necessary evil as we know it now. I think that there need to be an authority to do some few things, such as bring violent ciminals to justice. Sorry, I just don’t see a murderer voluntarily going to arbitration. How that would be funded doesn’t necessarily have to be the coersive system we have now.
I find the cartoons about the causes of minarchism rather childish. I think it is an ineffective means of convincing people to your position. If you want to persuade people make reasonable arguments rather than poking fun in an immature way. I am an atheist but I don’t go around poking fun of people who believe in religion and gods. I will debate and make rational and reasonable points on the matter but to poke fun is no way to be persausive and is rather childish. In the past I have informed othes about this website but I will no longer do that as a matter of principle. If at some point this website has cartoons that make reasonable and rational arguments rather than simply make those who disagree look like fools I will consider informing othes about the website.
$
Cartoons that are childish? News flash. It’s a COMIC.
Read some of my blog posts on this site if you’re looking for reasonable arguments on the subject or listen to me on Thursday nights when I’m co-hosting Free Talk Live.
Here’s a start
Softening the Message of a Hard Truth:
@Scott
Ah, again the argument from need. So you proclaim that we need an authority. If I say we need unicorns because they can heal sick and injured people, does that cause them to exist? My question to you would be where does that authority come from, this authority you proclaim we need in order to deal with murderers? From whence do we produce this authority?
More friendly fire! Some of our side is still standing! Nuke the Troops!
Dale, I agree with the gradual approach you are advocating. I’ve written about it myself, although I become more and more skeptical every day that it will actually work out that way.
Minarchists, ask yourselves how your imagined perfect government will get money. Minarchists, ask yourselve how your imagined perfect government will deal with people who claim soverign immunity from it. If the answer to either of these questions is use violence – THEN YOU SUPPORT COERCION.
If the answer is 1) get donations or compete on the market and 2) do nothing – THEN YOU SUPPORT LIBERTY AND WELCOME TO ANARCHY.
Next: We need rulers to enforce the rules – see Dale’s comic about the Liberty Potion
Next: Violence used for the greatest good for the greates number – see Dale’s comic about the Minion try to defend the use of ‘the majority” in political decisions
Next: Unilateral, geoghraphically based demands are a moral/legitimate way to have authority – OK, everyone, where ever you live, I order you to pay me $3000. Your continuing to live there shows your acceptance of these terms. If you don’t pay me the money I’ll send men to your homes to take it from you. Next year you can vote either to give the money to me, or to give the money to my friend. See, you also have representation.
Next: Would the government (an agency that claims it’s authority is based on a unilateral, geographically based set of demands backed up by violence) uphold the social contract I placed on everybody on this board?
No, the government, which relies on the social contract for it’s authority, would view another social contract as rediculous. Social contracts are just used to hide tyranny. If Social Contracts were bases for authority, then all we have to do is tell DC that they owe us every dollar back that they took in taxes.
The true source of their authority, as Dale has pointed out before, is violence.
Minarchists: Stop mislabelling logical reasoning as ‘attacks’. If the logic is faulty show us. If the logic is correct, then you must give up your illogical position.
Minarchists, you are claiming X is good for people. You are making a statement about reality. But, because we live a consistent reality then X must be consistent as well. But your X, minarchry, is inconsistent – it is illogical.
@frake, Ive yet to fully read and digest your argument, but in the meantime, its taken me few days to formulate the following. It probably wont “go over” to well, but nonetheless:
“One of my arguments opposing the feasibility of social anarchism of becoming a realistic option can be found, I believe, in sensing nothing more than the attitudes of intellectual superiority by those who support this paradigm. If, in my arguments, I have a predisposition of belief that because I am “educated” I am therefore more intelligent and/or better equipped for problem solving than you, one who is less “educated”, then it is only natural I will presume authority within complex social situations. With that presumption, Ive just negated every argument Ive put forth in support of social anarchism. Therefore , the need arises for some form of social structure supporting a non-violent form of self-defense from coercion and oppression emanating from said presumption of authority…hence, minarchism.
There is, afterall, a self-evident biological hierarchy within the natural world, and if humanity were to achieve social anarchy, it would theoretically attain that same order found within the whole community that is nature. But that theoretical result is unattainable, for we each possess this one quality not found anywhere else within the natural world…
WILL.
Social anarchy, or the attainment of absolute equality within human society, is an ideal, but so long as that gift, the human will, is utilized and appreciated in tandem with all the flaws inherent to the underdevelopment of personal wisdom, then an ideal is all it will ever be. But I also think to voluntarily subjugate WILL is to deny oneself the very quality that makes us the beautiful creature we were meant to be. The true goal is, I believe, to harness its potential for its intended good…but we as a species are far from that eventuality yet, and until that point within the processes of life is met, minarchism, is a viable substitute, an achievable stepping stone on that path…”
in other words, despite our desires or intentions, humanity as whole, as a species, is not logical by nature, therefore, a system based on logic alone, is not realistic….
Ones will is driven predominantly by derivatives of fear and desire…emotions….a most illogical trait of being human, therefore it is impossible to establish such a system that fails by design to take this into account.
Logic is great, I strive to strengthen my logical abilities, and I desire a society based upon this, bet we aint there yet!
I have suggested no system, so it sounds like you’re continuing a discussion you’ve had with some other people who call themselves anarchists who may have had some theoretical discussion about replacing a statist system with an anarchist system, but I think such a thing doesn’t make any sense.
@ Dennis
“One of my arguments opposing the feasibility of social anarchism of becoming a realistic option can be found, I believe, in sensing nothing more than the attitudes of intellectual superiority by those who support this paradigm. If, in my arguments, I have a predisposition of belief that because I am “educated” I am therefore more intelligent and/or better equipped for problem solving than you, one who is less “educated”, then it is only natural I will presume authority within complex social situations. With that presumption, Ive just negated every argument Ive put forth in support of social anarchism.” <- you have no rational basis for this claim. Where is your reasoning that someone will presume authority? Will this person shoot people who don’t follow what he commands – because that’s what would happen under a government (minarchist included). Let’s say yes, people who propose anarchy are egotistical jerks who think they always know everything. The difference, as I just pointed out, is that someone who believes in voluntary association will not use violence and threats of violence to make you follow them. They will use the effect of their leadership to convince people to follow them.
“Therefore , the need arises for some form of social structure supporting a non-violent form of self-defense from coercion and oppression emanating from said presumption of authority…hence, minarchism.” <- this statement is self contradictory. A ’social structure’ itself has to be violent, it has to be coercion. If it didn’t employ violence or the threat of violence then it wouldn’t be a ’structure’. You’ve replaced a percieved presumption of authority with a real presumption of authority. Perhaps, through voluntary association, a best way of doing X emerges, but this is only temporary and as technology or attituteds change that best way of doing X will change. If there’s an emplaced ’social structure’ it will use violence to resist this change. Using violence to force compliance is coercion. It is government (minarchist included).
Ok, allow me to work this out, if you will…
@Dale It seems to me that what you propose is a reversion to existing simply as a biological species, or maybe another way of putting it, a non-cohesive assemblage of individuals, if you will, and no more. Is that safe to say?
If so, well I guess Ive got to really search to see any wholesale benefit in that….because my initial impulse is to envision an end product much less noble than what I previously imagined…while I could be totally off base here, I see barbaric self annhilation due to the either the lack of personal motivation to extend themslves beyond the need to simply exist, or the inability to both preserve/defend and create/grow simultaneously. Like I said, Ive got really work it to wrap my head around anything beyond this potential. I guess what Im saying is that it appears as it becomes nothing more than satisfying the Lowest Common Denominator.
@frack I guess my “reasoning for the presumption of authority” is, logical / illogical, its human nature. Without *some* presumption of authority, worldly or otherwise, every man becomes king with the ability to wage war, and the notion of absolute freedom paradoxical and self-defeating.
I honestly do not see where humanity, or any arbitrarily designed sub-set of humanity, is capable to peacefully exist with the greater whole without a substantial threat or forced reduction to the its original intent. Dont get me wrong here….I do wish such a reality was possible, I just cant see it.
@ Dale. //Ah, again the argument from need.//
I’m a consequentialist, I embraces Libertarian values because I see that they can work and bring about a just world. If that wasn’t so then I woulnd’t support it.
//If I say we need unicorns because they can heal sick and injured people, does that cause them to exist? //
If unicorns could fo that, I would support them
Government does exist, whether we like it or not.
Dale,
I await your response to http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/06/26/top-10-causes-of-minarchism-7/comment-page-1/#comment-4593
Dennis, all your complaints/worries about anarchy are actually found in a government controlled society:
Lack of motivation <- when producers are taxed, they stop producing or leave
Inability to preserve/defend or create/grow <- when the people in government convince the populace that the government will take care of all the hardships in their lives then the populace goes into a state of child-likeness.
Lowest Common Denominator <- government has only one solution to problems; these solutions are one size fits all, and because of the monopoly status of government, this will be the lowest level of service/care/solution at the greatest cost
Human Nature: government is made up of people. Government itself is just a collectivist term for a group of people. It does not have its own properties or identity – it’s just a group of people. So, whatever claims you make about people in general must also be true about the people who call themselves government. And, since the people in government are the highest level of sovereignty, meaning there’s no one above them using violence and threats on them, then they must be guilty of all the things you say the general populace is guilty of: inability to be motivated, lack of ability to create/grow, incapable of peacefully co-existing. And if that’s the case, shouldn’t we get rid of government because it will never help us grow, be motivated, or be at peace?
For the peacefully co-exist argument, please look back at Dale’s last comic.
First Principle about humans and action: Humans respond to incentives.
If in a society where labor and ingenuity are valued then people have an incentive to work together (be peaceful), grow, create, and defend their property. It is a controlled society that takes away these incentives through coercion.
@frake
Thank You
“It seems to me that what you propose is a reversion to existing simply as a biological species, or maybe another way of putting it, a non-cohesive assemblage of individuals, if you will, and no more. Is that safe to say?”
Absolutely not. I like cohesion. I believe voluntary association for mutual benefit is more cohesive than enslaving entire societies under the rule of a few which is inherently exploitative to those on the lower end of that hierarchy. We are social creatures and it is totally within our potential to do so. I believe real leadership and cohesion comes from example and by inspiring people to follow you rather than forcing them to follow you via the constant threat of violence. The ability of followers to stop following and walk away at any time is what improves that leadership and makes it better over time. It’s the free market, man! If you believe in the free market to provide better services, why would you exclude those services which we find so essential to maintaining a civilized society?
Minarchism as a philosophy presumes so many things, like that governments are the reason for why we aren’t all behaving like wild animals. The vast majority of our civilized behavior is induced by a myriad of other things, like simple upbringing and societal pressure, i.e. the potential to be ostracized by those we want to do business with and be sociable with. We are social creatures. Our behavior is “governed” by many things besides violent governments.
Frake made a good response. I would also like to thank him for his input.
“If unicorns could do that, I would support them
Government does exist, whether we like it or not.”
Yes, organizations exist that call themselves “government”. What I question is the existence of the authority that they claim to have over peaceful people. Churches, synagogues, and witch’s covens exist, but that does not, by itself, prove the existence of the gods they worship.
“I await your response to http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/06/26/top-10-causes-of-minarchism-7/comment-page-1/#comment-4593”
You’re doing some really far-out speculating, far beyond what I would care to do. It does seem to be built on some presumptions that I don’t share, however. I wouldn’t speculate about a 50/50 statist/voluntaryist ratio because it seems to me that just a much smaller number of wrenches (voluntaryists who don’t immediately and graciously obey) have the potential to totally collapse a statist power construct.
I’ve often said that the most powerful tools of violent governments are their illusions and legitimacy. They are advanced forms of slavery, refined over many generations, that manage to function with relatively little actual overt violence thanks to very near 100% compliance via legitimacy and then backed up by fear and threats. Speak out against our masters and our fellow slaves will be among the first to defend their masters. Minarchists are among them, defending our enslavement and inadvertently strengthening our masters and making governments all the more large and intrusive… until they convert.
I understand defending specific tactics to shrink the government and those beliefs are completely separate from whether one is a minarchist. I know anarchists who attempt to use politics. So again, let’s not confuse the two points, i.e. minarchists vs. anarchists and in-the-system vs. outside-the-system. One is an argument over philosophical viewpoints and the other is an argument over tactics, though I acknowledge that the former can impact the latter. But on that latter note, if you come to believe, as I do, that their legitimacy is their greatest tool and that politics is meant to both reinforce that legitimacy by giving some illusion of choice and control as well as to distract us from activities that would actually undermine their control, then you may begin to understand why I swear off politics completely or nearly so. Even when you manage to get a bone tossed your way in the form of a lower tax or a reduced regulation, the potential harm done in reinforcing their legitimacy seems to far outweigh that little bone you were tossed. It seems like one step forward, three steps back at best.
Dale,
Thanks for those posts, as it points out what has been tripping me a bit, confusing government with leadership. (not entirely convinced yet. but getting there)
d
Dale,
Thanks for bringing me back down to earth, but I think you misunderstood—which is no doubt my failing rather than yours. Your point about a very small number of voluntaryists (much less than 50%) effecting change is *precisely* the societal bistability I was claiming.
Also, you don’t need to persuade me on voluntaryism or explain the difference between ends and tactics. We are already in complete agreement on both counts. My argument was merely a semantic one: that “anarchist” can meaningfully describe societies composed primarily of “anarchist” individuals, wherein aggression is not institutionalized but widely acknowledged as criminal.
In fact, that’s a much better simplification of my point: anarchist societies lack institutionalized aggression. Have I cured your cringing, or do you still disagree?
Great blog post. I, too, am interested in “building up voluntary versions of the services we currently ascribe to monopoly governments ” (much more so than the wrench-throwing thing). Let me know what you have in mind.
Anarchy could work, provided you accomplish one of two things:
1) A truly unlimited supply of all resources that humans consume on a day to day basis.
2) The expansion of the population is somehow prevented from passing the point where resource scarcity becomes a factor on any level.
These are both incredibly difficult tasks, however, if they were accomplished, the drive that creates governments (the scarcity of resources leads to people using violence to ensure they are the ones that have said resources, without a scarcity, as in the case of oxygen, no one will have any reason to resort to violence) will be removed and anarchy will become a stable option. Until such a time as one of the two above tasks is completed, I will continue to support a minimal government, so that people are free to work on the above tasks. After all, with the drive to create governments still in place, worse governments will indeed rise whenever the current one is displaced.
The worse a government is for the people, the more likely it is to sustain itself, so long as it does not reach the point of rebellion.
You can feel free to quote me on the statement above.
I just thought I should add that minarchy, to me, is a holding pattern designed to keep us moving in the right directions so that, one day, it might be possible to abolish the government for good. I consider myself a minarchist instead of an anarchist because I can not support abolishing the government at this time, due to the fact that the reasons behind its inception still exist.
So… you think that the same people unable to avoid violence in their resource disputes can create and maintain a just organization with monopoly control over them?
No, but I don’t think you can stop them from creating such an organization without first resolving those resource disputes. Since the structure of the US government is well known and far more restricted than it could be, it is better to allow it to continue to exist (with as many restrictions as possible) than to try to tangle with any new governments that would pop up in its absence (especially since some would not abide by the current restrictions, and those would be the ones most likely to gain control, as they are able to pursue any course to achieve their goal).
Governments did not appear as some colossal mistake, the people that made them knew what they were doing. They were constructing rules that benefited them and that they would have no need to break, in order to subject others to those rules. The rules would also allow them to guarantee resources for themselves, at the expense that others would not be able to acquire previously available resources without breaking the rules. By enforcing the rules, they prevented the chaos of conflict where each is out for himself (which could possibly cause problems for them), in favor of a game where they had the advantage.
As far as a “just” organization is concerned, I see justice as an escape clause to a moral code, designed so that one can ignore one’s moral code to force others to follow that exact same moral code. It is similar to the fact that a police officer is allowed to “speed” in order to enforce speed limits.
“Since the structure of the US government is well known and far more restricted than it could be, it is better to allow it to continue to exist (with as many restrictions as possible) than to try to tangle with any new governments that would pop up in its absence”
Great! I support restricting people in the US government from prohibiting competition.
“Great! I support restricting people in the US government from prohibiting competition.”
The most important restriction of them all!
Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Everett.
Though I’d have to say that #6 is my favorite.
As for the one about police powers (#5 I think), if you really want a real world demonstration of that, take a look at the comment section of this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAgQKJuriIo
Warning, what has been read, cannot be unread.
Mr. Everett, I’m confused, you say you’re a gradualist (or at least aren’t against the idea) and don’t believe in violent overthrow of the State, and Agorism is that and you therefore believe in Agorism.
Yet according to Wikipedia, one of the biggest difference between Agorism and Anarcho Capitalism is the support of the use of black markets to create a private military force to overthrow the State.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I think Wikipedia is lame too, but, perhaps you could provide a more… reliable source of information on what Agorism is?