Anarchists & Minarchists & Socialists, oh, my!
I’m getting asked a certain question a lot lately. Why pick on minarchists? We’re on the same side! Why aren’t you picking on socialists more? I’m glad I was asked because it made me put some thought into best how to express this with words. What is it about the philosophy of minarchism that really gets up in my craw?
And then it occurred to me. Anarchists and minarchists in one key respect are polar opposites. I’ve said before that there is an ocean between an anarchist and a minarchist, but only a creek between a minarchist and a socialist and I can finally nail it down succinctly. An anarchist believes that a monopoly government is the source of our enslavement. A minarchist believes a monopoly government is crucial to protecting our liberties. Exact opposites! So why do people keep saying we’re on the same side? Presumably it’s because we have similar preferences. We both love liberty.
Now let’s compare minarchists to socialists. A socialist will justify aggression on the basis of need. Food, shelter, and medical care are all essential needs and a socialist feels justified in using aggressive violence to satisfy those needs. On that same basis, a socialist will also absolve individuals of responsibility and pass that responsibility onto “society” which is a very abstract and subjective thing, a calamity of collectivism, which of course is why it’s such a disaster in implementation. It’s why individuals fail to develop a sense of their own responsibility and become incredibly dependent on their governments, remaining in a childlike state with governments assuming the role of their parents.
So now let’s compare minarchists to socialists. A minarchist loves liberty a lot. A minarchist also believes aggressive violence against innocent people is justified due to a critical need, but only for that which suits their personal preference, i.e. providing for the protection of liberty. This is commonly defended in the same manner that socialists use for justifying aggressive violence, i.e. on the basis of need*. The minarchist claim is that we are responsible for providing for all of our own needs whether it be food, shelter, health care, or educating our children, but when it comes to the most crucial thing that’s at the foundation of all the others, they absolve the individual of responsibility and pass that crucial task on to a murky subjective thing, that calamity of collectivism known as “society”.
It’s for this reason that I believe the minarchist approach to liberty is such an utter failure. I don’t argue against minarchism to pick nits or because I’m a purist. I’m a long way from being a purist. If I were, I’d stop making calculated decisions regarding my activism. I’d drive without a license and I wouldn’t pay a single penny in taxes no matter what, even if it meant pointlessly rotting in a jail cell or living as a hermit in a booger hut.
No, I argue against minarchism because I believe principles are pragmatic and that the promotion of minarchism is a big part of the problem. They’re arguing against socialism out of one side of their mouths while proposing a slight variation on socialism out of the other side. It’s an incredibly weak argument and makes an easy target for our opponents to poke holes in. I love them because we have a common interest, but I feel a need to exercise great care in how I team up with them because the act can make me an easy target right along with them. It can be quite a liability from a completely utilitarian and pragmatic point of view. The irony that they’ve often felt the same way about me has not escaped me.
In the process of defending minarchy, one is also inevitably defending socialism. It is for that reason that I am so skeptical of whether minarchy is even possible. Governments, like a cancer, don’t stay small as long as they have legitimacy and they don’t get smaller as long as they have near 100% compliance with their demands and massive moral support. Can we have much smaller government? I hope so and I’m an optimist. I think we can. I’m sure we can make governments smaller, which I would be thrilled to do, but it will require anarchism to get on the right track.
Minarchists, I love you like I love a pet that just won’t potty-train. I know you’re trying your darnedest, but it sure is frustrating. I’m going to keep making fun of you, but just remember that it’s playful ribbing from a friend; an incredibly condescending and tactless friend, but a friend nonetheless.
* Here’s a little thought game for objectivists. Grab a highlighting pen and go through some of your blog posts against anarchism. Now highlight everywhere you say the word “need”. Can I get an “Oh, SNAP!” from some of my gay fans?
As someone said on Sheldon Richman’s blog (apparently channeling Molinari):
Minarchy is the theory that free market capitalism is best protected by a socialist monopoly.
– http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2009/06/anarchists-vs-minarchists-defining.html
I think that arguing against minarchism for such reasons may not be to anyone’s benefit.
Minarchists and Anarchists can agree that less government is better. I think that any argument that envisions a stateless society will mostly fall on deaf ears, regardless of how intellectually pure and comprehensive it may be. A stateless society may be the ideal state of humanity, but practically, the past several thousand years has taught us that a society without powereful and freedom-hating states is just a temporary interruption to the normal course of affairs.
If there is something we should all be doing, it should be to expend efforts to reduce the size and power of government. Many will hear such arguments. Bashing minarchists only isolates anarchists. Isolated targets are easy prey for the real enemy, the state.
Serious question:
Can anarchists work within the system? a la can they work as ‘minarchists’ until the system is small and then switch to anarchy?
@ Minarchist
Yes, just as atheists can engage in prayer, if they really want to.
*facepalm*
@ Minarchist and Dogboy49
Let me guess. One of your friends sent you here to comment and you didn’t bother catching up on the posts and comments thus far. Do minarchists carry around a little booklet of these tired talking points alongside their pocket Constitutions?
I’m going to have to consolidate my many responses to the same old talking points against anarchy in one place and just start posting a link to that each time they’re repeated.
@Dogboy49
Arguing against minarch for the reason that minarchy is a form of socialism is not to anyone’s
benefit?
@Dogboy49
If someone say’s I’m a Minarchist that implies he beleives in Minarchy and not in Anarchy. A minarchy would a a ‘small’ (until it inevitably grew) coercive government, that would, just as any other form of state, use violence to coerce people ‘in the name of liberty’.
As an end station and a way for society to be ordered (and yes it forces a set order and rule, no freedom) it is just as bad as socialism/communism or fascism. It’s just the same monopoly of violence in a new coat, and saying that system is more liberal and a good thing on the way to freedom is very, very dangerous as it makes government seem legit and it will not disappear as people get used to a smaller government they’ll just stick with it and not move to a free society.
There’s a HUGE difference between
being for Anarchy and Freedom and on the way to it be happy with having the government be a little oppressive step by step.
and being a minarchist. As I said if you’re a minarchist and want minarchy you are rooting for a violent coercive monopoly. That goal is NOT at all anything as the goal of anarchy.
If minarchy is a stop that would get us to anarchy, fine! (I use the best, I use the rest, I use the enemy) But Minarchy on it’s own is still a really bad thing.
– Kurt
*a little less oppressive
A lot of wasted energy over labels. I don’t associate myself with “minarchist” or “anarchist”. All I associate with is “bad things are happening now and I will fight against it.” That’s all that matters.
Fair enough, Nick. It’s true that labels don’t really matter. I know a lot of “anarchists” who call themselves as voluntaryists because the label of anarchist is so loaded with false meaning. What does matter is that we be clear on what we mean when we use words that are known to have a lot of different meanings to different people. I am using labels in a specific context and in that context they are relevant to real issues. I try to be very clear on my own meaning when I use the words.
The truth is that language evolves and governments who are maintaining their illusions and legitimacy are notorious for pushing language in a direction that suits them. It doesn’t surprise me then, that the word “anarchy” which means no leaders and which has historically been used to describe a world without their tyrannical rule has come to be associated with chaos because governments want us to think that’s what we’ll get if we stop granting them blind obedience. In other words, it’s a huge pro-government bias to link anarchy with chaos. Obviously, those of us who are against (coercive) governments are confident that the world will be quite a bit more orderly and civilized without their tyranny and so the word doesn’t have negative connotations for us. Semantics. It’s a necessary evil.
Excellent post. Very insightful.
Dale, you create the fallicy of lumping all minarchists together into one collective. We do not all feel the same way, we do not all think that the government is “necessary”. Your description of a minarchist does not fit me, and I define myself as a minarchist. I don not think it is a necessary evil, nor would I force anyone to participate in it if they choose not to.
Dale, allow me use a numerical analogy to help phrase my question. Let’s say that a completely totalitarian government is 10, an anarchist society is a 0, and a minarchist society is a 1. Most of us can agree that small government inevitably grows into large government; in the numerical example, 1 grows to 10.
So if the natural progression of societies is towards 10, what is stopping 0 from growing to 10? More specifically, what is stopping 0 from growing to 1 and then growing to 10?
My question is in no way trying to refute your core argument in principle, because I think you’re spot on. My question is more on a practical level.
This is actually a concept I’m looking at exploring soon in a post on my own site, but here’s what I’m thinking:
People will not be truly free in an anarchist society, because corporations will simply come to be the new government.
For example, even right now, a corporation can say ‘as long as you are employed here, you cannot do Activity A, even when you are not on the clock’ – and that is WITH the Constitution and other laws. There is nothing that can be done to prevent this – and by and large, I would argue that it SHOULD NOT be prevented.
Thus, that corporation has now become a ‘government’ ruled by a somewhat-beneficent despot/oligarchy.
Therefore, I DO favor EXTREMELY limited government to ensure the rights of the people are protected and to provide a common defense. (Courts and Military – not sure I’d be comfortable with very much else at all)
By and large, the only way to stop violence IS with violence. Similarly, the only way to stop the abuses of government – either by government or just-as-powerful corporations – is to have an extremely limited government that can keep all players in balance and ensure that ALL rights are preserved.
Great post Dale. Keep chiding the minarchists! Maybe do something on the specific flavor known as “Constitutionalists”? That’d be cool.
@Jeff
Let me try to make your statement more specific – If I am wrong please correct me.
Violence -> can be OFFENSIVE or DEFENSIVE
Government = COERCION = OFFENSIVE violence
Corporation not equal to Government because of the lack of coercion – Ostrazisation (sp) does not equal violence
By and large, the only way to stop OFFENSIVE violence is with DEFENSIVE violence. Similarly, the only way to stop the abuse of COERCION/OFFENSIVE violence (government) – either by COERCION/OFFENSIVE violence (government) is to have an extremely limited COERCION/OFFENSIVE violence (government) that can also keep ALL “players” in balance.
Do you see how your two statements are not the same?
Sorry, that last post was very muddled. I’ll try it again, more clear this time:
A: By and large, the only way to stop OFFENSIVE violence is with DEFENSIVE violence.
B: Similarly, the only way to stop the abuse of COERCION/OFFENSIVE violence (government) is to have an extremely limited COERCION/OFFENSIVE violence (government) that can also keep ALL “players” in balance.
Perhaps it’s better to argue for anarchism and have it never arrive than to argue for “sufficiently small” govt, get off the train when you’re satisfied, become complacent, and watch it grow out of control all over again… This is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever into the horizon.
@Jeff,
Corporations are huge and powerful right now because of government. Corporations are already the government and always will be as long as we play this game of legitimizing aggressive violence. They, along with some other powerful special interest groups, are buying and selling our rights left and right. In the hierarchy of tyrants, they are above the politicians in the pecking order because they get them elected and lobby for favoritism and it will always be that way as long as legitimize this notion of consolidating and monopolizing power into one supreme organization. That power will always attract the power-hungry and the greedy.
“I’ve said before that there is an ocean between an anarchist and a minarchist, but only a creek between a minarchist and a socialist”
And there’s the answer to your previous post to why so many people seek minarchy: because they feel they can achieve a creek crossing, but an ocean crossing is simply beyond their capabilities. Sometimes people are willing to settle for much less than Utopia, as long as it is better than what they have now. We once had minarchy in America, though only on the federal level and only for a few decades. Now where have we had a working anarchy? Somalia? Not the best poster child for any movement, but where’s the alternative?
I know this was just a light “aside,” but as arguments go there are huge assumptions.
#1 All forms of Anarchism believe that the transition from Corporatism (Economic-Fascism) to Anarchy needs to be instantaneous — No Transitions.
#2 If the above is true (and it is) then who gets the Naval Arsenal — Who gets the Army Aresenal and Who gets the Air Force Arsenal?
#3 More than 60% of America gets paid either directly or indirectly from Gov’t -and- most all businesses stay in business because of gov’t. These people are welfarist (they are domesticated) — What happens on day #1 after the instant transition.
#4 There were 900,000 homes in forecloser in 2008 (in July and in California) alone. Yesterday Corporatism (millions of gov’t court property disputes) Today Anarchy — how do you address property disputes in an anarchist society. If you are Anarcho-Communist there is no way and if you are Anarcho-Capitalist the privatized courts you allow for operate as voluntary mediators — if no one volunteers it has no authority.
#5 Post transition — How does Anarchy (whatever school you belong to) deal with water-use, underground water use, underground minerals-gems-oil-coal, and air quality? If your neighbord decides (up-river) to siphon off more water for his farm during a quasi-drought; how do you remedy it voluntarily (without gangsterism or force)? Not that I support Corporatism; I’m dead set against it.
#6 The word Minarchism was created as a shortened variant of Limited-Government-Libertarian. There were a lot of versions of LGL when “Minarchy” was coined, un-like when Marx coined “capitalism” — he gave the only definition; which was “economic-fuedalism.”
Here’s one LGL — as a transitionary model. It is very close to the one Ron Paul suggests.
1) Small Central Gov’t (a 24-Team Meritocracy) that has two responsibilities: a) Naval Oversight. Hired open-source by a community of experts in: weaponology, communication analysis, various branches of engineering / architecture, cost analysis, and project analysis. ZERO Taxing Authority, ZERO Regulatory Authority (over private markets), ZERO Currency Authority, ZERO Judical Authority. A 1% sales tax is collected (at point of sale) and from this they derive their budget and salary. They are paid 100% by incentives based on an open-sourced rubric, such as: cost reductions, communication advancement, weaponology advancements, anti-piracy record, non-aggression axioms, search & rescue records, response times, and commercial relations.
2) A Small State Gov’t (a 24-Team Meritocracy) with 2 duties: a) Army and Air Oversight and b) Highway, Bridge, and Road Competitive Bid Analysis. They have all the same ZERO’s (regardless of emergencies or projects). They are paid by a similar rubric and their incentive comes out of a 3% State Sales Tax.
3) A Tax Receipt Meritocracy (at the state and central level) to pass through national and state sales taxes. For a 10 year period (or mathematical equivelant) of time they will also pay off all Foreign Debt (after we subtract for foreign aid and debts owed to us). This will be a temporary additional national sales tax of 2%. That “should” in the above free-market only take around 7-10 years to pay off. This Meritocracy will have all the additional ZERO’s.
4) A Court Meritocracy with a 5 year goal to hear and decide on as many cases as they can — to resolve what will be past Corporatist Based Land Disputes. This will be another 1% national sales tax. They’d have all the ZERO’s mentioned above. They can only hear past cases, once the Consumer-Based-Meritocracy is formed they have no authority in the private court system (voluntary mediation).
There are no other taxes in the above Meritocracy and none that can be re-negotiated. Once debt is paid off and past cases resovled those taxes will be re-called.
The total tax for the above Meritocratic Minarchy would be 7%.
In today’s Corporatist Society we pay somewhere around 80-90% taxation (direct and inflationary). Or 10% Free.
If Anarchy is 100% Tax-Free then this Minarchy would be 93%; until, we can “privatize” or no longer need military weaponry. 93% Free vs 10% Free (now).
Now if you can come up with a way to transition (instantly) using anarchism without fear of reprisal from the quickly disposed and dealing with foreign aggression over non-foreign debt payment (because you wouldn’t pay it in anarchy) then I’d love to hear it.
Octobox
I’d add on to what I just posted that the Meritocracies (in all instances) can only serve one 6-year term. They are hired in heavy open-sourced competition — business plan and presentation competition.I don’t believe in import/export taxation.
There would be no prisons — Self-Defense is Law
Essentially the Minarchistic-Meritocracy I suggest leaves all markets 100% un-regulated — thus no lobbying, no subsidies, no bailouts, no foreing military bases, no soldiers or air force over foreign soil — guard our waters and our borders until the world learns how to live in Anarchy.
The population of the world will fall drastically without us policing it — Think Rwanda times 10 as people scramble to be in position to trade with a low taxed and completely “open” America.
Octobox
Octobox,
Questions about this plan:
You say they have no taxing authority and no regulatory authority and yet they are paid by taxes.
1) What happens if a store or provider of service decides not to pay the 7% tax?
You say a community of ‘experts’ will hire these meritocracies.
2) Who picks the people doing the picking?
You say that the meritocracies are paid by incentives.
3) What incentives could there be when their budgets come from taxes?
This is a very explicit way and order for things to be done in – a central plan, if you will.
4) Why will this central plan work when all central planning through out history has led to growing taxxing bodies that coerce thier constituents?
You are making a bold claim by saying ALL anarchism says that the transition needs to be instataneous. You are absolutely wrong on this. Agorism is a gradualist approach. Actually right now we are trying to transform from Corporate-Fasism to Anarchy, and it’s not happening instantaneously and yet we are not giving up.
More…
The main thing that strikes me about this plan is that it requires people to simultaneously give authority to the central planners (willfully pay taxes reguardless of service quality) and not give them authority at the same time (not listen to them when they try to act outside of their written boundries).
You say they have no taxing authority and no regulatory authority and yet they are paid by taxes.
1) What happens if a store or provider of service decides not to pay the 7% tax?
[[[[Every business has input components that can be traced back to larger entities - harder to slip through the cracks -- if collections at the local levels didn't work we could take comparably larger taxes at the base input levels -- then the costs would trickle down to the small proprietary organization -- If I meditated on it for a few weeks I'd come up with 100 ways to collect. Mostly the serious overall tax reduction, in my mind, would make people so happy they'd love to take part; plus there are no hidden taxes they'd see what their money is buying.]]]]
You say a community of ‘experts’ will hire these meritocracies.
2) Who picks the people doing the picking?
[[[[I'm thinking multiple groups of experts -- it would revolve and randomly selected so no one could be approached ahead of time or bribed. People coming from competing ideologies would be best. I'm thinking college, former military, avowed anarchists -- People with public records; they could be chosen in an open-sourced format. Obviously the fewer from the old corporatist system would be better. They are un-paid and all decisions and rationales would be made public. They could not have a personal connection to any sub-contractors or potential sub-contractors of the 24-Team Meritocracy. I think there should be two committee's one for hiring and one for determining incentive -- the latter should rotate every 3 months or so. All hiring and incentive decisions are open-source -- 100% sunlight]]]]
You say that the meritocracies are paid by incentives.
3) What incentives could there be when their budgets come from taxes?
[[[[[The tax (depending on central or state) is X% -- From X% in their business plan and presentation they state they will need Y% for budget and shoot for Z% as incentive. Regardless of what they say, whatever Z% actually is (X-Y=Z) the incentive committee would use their rubric (mentioned above) to decide how much the Meritocracy get from Z%. All made public and open-sourced.]]]]
This is a very explicit way and order for things to be done in – a central plan, if you will.
4) Why will this central plan work when all central planning through out history has led to growing taxxing bodies that coerce thier constituents?
[[[[Go back and look at the ZERO's and meditate on it -- it will make sense. In Corproatism (Economic-Fascism) we have ZERO Competition in Currency, we have ZERO Economic-Individualism of any kind. We are 80-90% slaves. I'm suggest we be 93% Free]]]]
You are making a bold claim by saying ALL anarchism says that the transition needs to be instataneous. You are absolutely wrong on this. Agorism is a gradualist approach. Actually right now we are trying to transform from Corporate-Fasism to Anarchy, and it’s not happening instantaneously and yet we are not giving up
Agorism is a means to an Anarchist end. It’s mostly Anarcho-Captialism combined with counter-economics. There are no Agorist Insitutes of any sizeable reputation — The closest thing we have is the Mises Institute (thanks to Ron Paul the Minarchist they are getting a lot of business and analysis contracts — their school is busling), hahaha. The latter cracks me up given this post.
I believe 100% that we need Counter-Economics (Agorism) to get into the Minarchy I propose — in fact one of the tenents of Agorism is strength in private defense; which I left in 100% Anarchy in my Minarchism (at the local level). The Navy, Army, and Air Force Oversight I created is to ensure we are protected from piracy and land invasion when we abandon corporatism and to ensure the ousted Corporatists and Banking Cartel do not get their hands on military arsenal.
Octobox
Frake — the above is for you — I forgot to attach your name to it
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/06/30/anarchists-minarchists-socialists-oh-my/comment-page-1/#comment-4680
People that want liberty cannot support violent monopolies.
People that want to live in a non-violent society cannot support minarchy.
You say work towards anarchy with minarchy, but that is like trying to get a “good kind” of cancer.
You should not being working towards getting any kind of cancer or giving any kind of violent monopoly power.
I wasn’t trying to be funny. I really meant. Can you believe in Anarchy as the correct path but use minarchist tactics (for lack of a better word) to get there? (ie voting, political activity, etc)
No one sent me here.. I lurk all the time.
This may be your most radical (as in ‘cut to root’) post yet Dale, bravo!
@octobox: The road to liberty is not instantaneous. The only way you could get everyone to declare anarchy on the same day is with a dictator holding guns to everyone’s head telling them to do it. Dale has written about this over and over and it’s the name of the name of the site itself: Anarchy in your head. The only path to anarchy is declaring it for yourself, not forcing it anyone, so it will be gradual process, not instantaneous as you propose.
@Dale re: “Anarchists and minarchists in one key respect are polar opposites”
Another way to phrase the polar oppositeness of anarchists and minarchists is this:
1)Anarchists believe that the end never justifies the means. (Non Aggression Principle)
2)Minarchists believe that the end, as long as it’s liberty, justifies the means. (liberty minded consequentialism)
@minarchist
Using minarchist tactics to get to anarchy is like joining NAMBLA to stop child pornography.
I have a different understanding of these terms. I considered myself a minarchist for many years, before finally accepting the anarcho-capitalist position. As a former minarchist, I despised government and wanted to abolish much of it, but I couldn’t envision how the police, court system, or military could be feasibly performed in a totally free-market society … until I read the Tannehill book.
So I’d define the terms this way …
- Anarchist: Believes government is the source of enslavement. Government is an “unnecessary evil”.
- Minarchist: Believes government is the source of enslavement, but a “necessary evil” in some areas, since a totally free-market system can’t perform certain crucial functions. (In general, a minarchist believes that the Constitution granted the government too much power, so government should be reduced to something less than what the Constitution allows.)
- Constitutionalist: Believes “limited government” is necessary to protect our liberties. (In general, obviously, a constitutionalist believes government should be reduced back to its Constitutional bounds.)
- Socialist: Believes government is a cornucopia for all that they need & desire. Government is a “necessary good”.
I’d consider Anarchists, Minarchists, and many Constitutionalists to be in the Libertarian Quadrant of the political spectrum. I’d consider Socialists to be in the Authoritarian Quadrant. Anarchists, Minarchists, and Constitutionalists view the government with varying levels of distrust or disgust. Socialists view the government as a wonderful institution that we should have more of.
So I see a creek between anarchists & minarchists, and an ocean between they & the socialists. If you want to convince a minarchist that the anarchist position is superior, don’t attack or ridicule them, just suggest “The Market for Liberty” by the Tannehills. It worked for me!
@Octobox
No offense, but I can only assume your plan is a sort of logic puzzle solution if you were magically made dictator-for-life.
And, you never disputed agorism being a gradual change to anarchy that requires no overt plan other than 1) do as much business in the grey and black markets as possible and 2) spread the word.
@ Minarchist
The only thing about using the political system to dismantle the political system is that it’s not designed to do that. It’s designed/morphed to keep the elite class with power in power. I’m reminded of a forum signature that reads: If voting worked, it would be illegal.
Dale-The comics are the centerpiece of your site, and yet I find your written pieces even more impressive. Well said!
FreeJake: Here’s a potential answer to your question of why anarchy wouldn’t regress back to government:
“609 Would Anarchy Create Governments?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIgHO8SZJdI
BTW-It seems like this minarchist vs anarchist debate is really gaining some momentum. In this last week alone I’ve run across this post, a debate on the Seacoast Liberty blog (http://nhseacoastliberty.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/is-albert-jay-nock-a-statist-too), and an announcement that Stefan Molyneux will be debating Michael Badnarik at the Philadelphia Tea Party this Saturday. I think it’s great.
Dale,
Thanks for your cogent answer to my post. I will certainly treasure your thoughts. Alas I have no ‘friend’ who sent me here. And yes, I am not inclined to read all of your posts. So sorry to have wasted your time!
I can only admire the beauty of your utopian version of anarchy. My comments, though, speak to the practicality. I cannot say that minarchism (or any other ‘ism’) is Nirvana. I do not consider myself a minarchist. I am but a common individual who only wishes to enjoy freedom. The only way I was able to achieve the level of freedom I sought was to amass enough personal power so as to deter those who would forcefully impose their will upon me. I will always fear governments because it is not only impractical but also immoral for me to continue to gather enough power to be able to resist their coercion.
I hope you live to see your version of Anarchy come to pass. I will be the first in line to applaud you for your efforts.
@ Minarchist
Sorry, I believe you, that you really are a lurker here. It’s just that I have frequently discussed this notion of minarchy as a step on the way to anarchy. I think it’s even in the “About” section of the website. I think it’s the other way around. I believe that anarchy is the path to a smaller government. Monopoly governments are synonymous with criminal organizations to an anarchist, and just like crime, I want the least amount we can possibly attain and I think convincing individuals to the philosophy of anarchism is the way you do that. Government’s greatest tool is their legitimacy and all those games- voting, politics, lobbying, are feeding into their greatest tool so it seems almost entirely counterproductive to me. It seems like the way to smaller government is anarchy, i.e. for more and more individuals to withdraw their support which undermines their legitimacy and their power. Can those things occasionally yield some small result? Probably, but I can’t imagine it ever comparing to the harm it’s doing. It seems like for every little step forward there are three steps back toward more statism.
“I hope you live to see your version of Anarchy come to pass. I will be the first in line to applaud you for your efforts.”
My version of Anarchy has already come to pass. It happened inside me. I will try to sum up for you since you don’t want to read it all. My comic is called “Anarchy In Your Head” for a reason. My version of anarchy happens inside you; not out in the world. It is an instantaneous thing in that sense because it will be a sort of personal enlightenment, and if it’s anything like it was for me, it will feel like a sudden “click”. But the change that happens in the world around you will be gradual as you pay it forward, slowly at first, but quite possibly snow-balling over time and accelerating and making the world a better place.
To quote Sam I Am (and I think he was quoting someone else) –
“There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.”
This guy makes some really brilliant videos. This one talks about the mentality of statism as a “Virus of the Mind” which I think goes well with my notion of anarchy as existing in your mind. More aptly, “anarchy in your head” describes a negative, i.e. a lack of belief in a fallacy or a way of saying you have been freed of this particular virus of the mind known as statism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-wZ4cPKHrY
Confederate socialist, while making a good video now and then is an icky racists.
The ‘click’ to which you refer came to me 40 years ago, when I was in my twenties.
But then, came STEP 2. I wanted to experience freedom, not just imagine it. The revelation served me, in that it made me realize that only *I* determine what constitutes freedom. Further, only *I* can make that freedom a reality. It was the start of a lifelong task in which I try to move myself closer to freedom. Every day.
I still am being put upon by corporations, governments, thugs, and other entities who want to deny me my freedom. But less than before….
I am now less of a purist than my younger days. Any group (like minarchists, or like anarchists similar to yourself) who support personal freedom, and who do me no harm, are good people in my book. I have nothing bad to say about any of you.
You state “A minarchist also believes aggressive violence against innocent people is justified due to a critical need”
Is this true? Some minarchists don’t believe in aggressive violence against innocents. Local “governments” could be voluntarily funded, and only people who infringed on others rights would be prosecuted.
I described what I mean by “minarchist” and that’s not it. If you’re voluntarily funded and aren’t a monopoly back by violent threats against potential competitors for your services, then it’s not a minarchy. It’s just services provided in a free market and therefore has accountability that is crucial to avoid the corruption that is quite probably inevitable in a minarchy (Corruption is always possible, of course, but with minarchies it’s a near inevitability). We’re arguing over semantics, and I’m very aware of how these words can be used differently which is why I was very clear what I meant by my use of it.
Maybe it is semantics yet again. I’m thinking along the lines of Bastiat, where the government is an extension of our individual right to self defense. Since we’re talking theoretically here, I think that if the governing area were small enough (say 10,000 people) then some form of democratic monopoly on law and courts would be feasible without coercive violence. Maybe I’m missing something …
Good article and good discussion.
Yeah, you’re using the word “monopoly” so you’re missing something. It’s the monopoly part that makes it violent. You’re basically suggesting that this organization have very little accountability by virtue of being a monopoly and not allowing someone else to try to do it better or else be threatened with violence just for trying to provide a better service. How is that a good thing for anyone other than those holding the monopoly?
And making it democratic is meaningless. Majorities have been exploiting minorities for eons. Consensus has been historically shown to be a very poor gauge of morality.
@PB
“Local “governments” could be voluntarily funded, and only people who infringed on others rights would be prosecuted.”
Compared to:
“I think that if the governing area were small enough (say 10,000 people) then some form of democratic monopoly on law and courts would be feasible without coercive violence.”
‘Democratic Monopoly’ does not equal ‘Voluntary’
‘Democratic Monopoly’ equals ‘Coercive Violence’
When you have a democratic monoply you must use violence to force the minority to pay for the wishes of the majority. This is the whole problem.
I see what get’s you annoyed … but it’s kind of like screaming at your roomate for not doing the dishes while a wreaking ball is being swung towards the wall of your house. Sure, he’s in the wrong but don’t you think you both have much bigger problems to deal with.
I never really thought about it this way, although I’m not sure “minarchist” is the perfect way to describe my philosophy. I’d be pretty happy under anarchy just the same, quite frankly, certainly moreso than any form of government tried before.
But I also think that, eventually, people are going to form communities voluntarily anyway, and how is that any different than a government? A city or community government is about as large as I’d ever condone, but I’m not sure how you can deny human nature.
Bigger problems than statism? Not really. I suppose I could start a comic about my roommates not cleaning up after themselves. That is one of my problems as well. I don’t think it would be as funny as minarchism though. Plus I’d be starting all over from scratch and it has taken me 2 years to build up a reader base of liberty-lovers. I think it would really throw them for a loop if I switched gears now.
You all make me smile. Thanks for letting someone trapped in this socialist hell-hole known as Massachusetts that there are decent human beings out there.