That does not fit the definition of a state, which I remind you is a territorial monopoly over the administration of justice, presumably necessary to prevent civil strife. If the government does not monopolize justice on some people in its territory, it is anarchist.
That will also violate the definition of a state as a territorial monopoly on justice, which necessarily grants the state taxation powers (if not directly by legislating, then indirectly by selling privileges).
Having a territorial monopoly on justice does not necessarily grant anything of the sort.
Yes it does. What stops you from expropriating when the only appeal that people can make against your expropriation is to you? The legislative act of taxation is simply a formalization of the judicial monopoly power of taxation. Since it is obvious that no one can challenge the state in the state’s own courts, it is just a formality for the state to raise taxes by declaring them raised to all.
First, it is not “obvious” that no one can challenge the state in the state’s own courts. Second, a government which violates its citizens rights is, by any coherent minarchistic account, an illegitimate government, and has no authority besides that which it can obtain through force.
Technically, anyone can challenge the state in the state’s own courts. But I think the point was that it’s a conflict of interest if the state’s courts determine justice regarding the state’s actions.
In that case, what difference does it make what size the government is? Why aim for a small government, since a huge government can also not violate its citizens rights? I think government, by definition, is a violation of rights, but your argument seems groundless.
Because the government exercises a territorial monopoly on protection and justice (this is necessary to meet the definition of a state), the only court that can be appealed when the government becomes illegitimate and violates one’s rights is, once again, the government’s, which will no doubt rule in favor of itself.
This is not news. People knew this back in the 18th century, which is why they proposed legislative democracy as a means, they would hope, to replace a government with another when the monopoly of justice was excessively abused. That didn’t work out. Why pretend the original problem doesn’t exist?
I don’t understand. Why did this move from “A limited government couldn’t make sense on its own terms” to “We wouldn’t want to create a limited government because of the possibility of Leviathan”? I never advocated a limited government. I only suggested that one would not need to subjugate anyone. If it did, then it would be illegitimate, and minarchists would agree. Why doesn’t that respond to your initial question?
Sorry. I didn’t mean to change the topic of this thread. I just wanted to point out that you said “a government which violates its citizens rights is, by any coherent minarchistic account, an illegitimate government” (emphasis added), yet that is not a minarchist argument - it is a logical one that can be applied to any size of government. If you are trying to say that a small government is OK as long as it doesn’t violate its citizens rights, then you are also saying a large government is OK as long as it doesn’t violate its citizens rights (if that is you only criterion). Then I added that taxation is indeed a violation of a citizen’s rights, so small and large government alike violate their citizens’ rights.
If the government does not subjugate those who refuse to recognize its monopoly on justice, then it is not a state, and it is not minarchy as defined by those who believe in the necessity of the state.
Well hold on, a government as I defined it would be permitted to use force against non-citizens so far as they violated the state-protected rights of citizens. It would be able to enforce justice with regard to its own citizens. Isn’t that what minarchists want? Is it really a necessary part of minarchism to say that non-minarchists should be forced to support the limited government?
No, I certainly would not launch a war against the CFC. That would just be counter-productive.
Minarchism relies on the idea that social peace cannot result unless there is a monopoly over violence in a given territory. If your minarchist government does not enforce justice over non-citizens in its territory, and does not coerce non-citizens to pay for this justice, then this implies that citizens can also decide not to appeal to and pay for justice from the minarchist government, which means that the system is a competitive system of security production, otherwise known as anarcho-capitalism, market anarchy, natural order, pluriarchy, etc.
Minarchy must, by definition, pursue war on competing producers of security, or cease being what it is.
Haha don’t say “my” minarchist government; I don’t take a position on that debate. You’re sort of wrong about the idea that a citizen would necessarily be able to appeal to an entity besides the government for justice; if the agreement between the citizen and the government gave the government sole discretion over the appropriate use of force, so long as the government didn’t violate any of the citizen’s rights, it’s possible that in enforcing justice, the government would force the citizen to accept something that the citizen didn’t want. If that idea isn’t clear, refer back to Locke’s second treatise.
What definition of minarchy requires a government to pursue war on competing producers of security? Even our existing governments, which go far beyond a minarchistic government, don’t do that. The government would simply need a policy for dealing with extra-territorial disputes.
I assume that in this anarchist situation that laws exist right?
But somehow it is immoral for anyone to use force against anyone who doesn’t agree to a law that is being enforced?
So all anarchists must live within domains whereby the all agree with all the laws (very small societies), or, the laws are not enforced = no laws.
How is this not a contradiction? What am I missing?
Small societies of agreeable people might sound ok, but it suffers from the huge benefits of the division of labor. I’m pretty sure I would leave such a place for the benefits of a larger governed economy even if I have to put up with some laws and taxes that I don’t like.
Of course, after such a court decision that citizen would then decide that this government will not provide him justice and withdraw from his agreement with it, because sole discretion over the appropriate use of force is not appealing compared to what alternative providers of security, which you claim the minarchist government is not fighting, will offer to him. If the minarchist government unilateraly attacks non-members based on its own law, it will be at war with their security providers, and thus its costs of providing security will go up relative the competition. The bottom line is, because the minarchist government provides security at higher costs and lower benefits than the alternative, it will gradually lose all of its citizens unless it succesfully pursues a campaign of extermination of alternative providers of security.
Those who claim that minarchy can exist without warring to subjugate a territorial monopoly do not understand the economic implications of what they propose.
Now that is just completely false. The war against the mafia has been going on for three generations, if not more.
Why does your But… result is your So all…?
Danny, Nozick is taken to be the classical exponent of minarchism. In his version it is perfectly alright to prohibit the provision of law and order by “inferior” agencies, given the dominant agency’s competitive advantage (according to him), so long as said agency provides compensation for this prohibition. As I’ve understood minarchism, it has this element in it; otherwise it is indistinguishable from market anarchism.
{quote user=“xahrx”]
No. Whatever institutions they set up I’d say have fun, have at it. If they messed with some of my citizens I’d give them the choice: do want their arbitration or the state service? Which is also a choice I’d give to all citizens at all times. I’d try and work out a deal with the non state services beforehand to facilitate this. If not, might makes right. Of course it’s a meaningless hypothetical because it’s never going to happen, so answers and criticism of those answers are somewhat pointless.'/quote]
So it’s anarchy you’re talking about, not minarchy
Stranger, two things come to mind. The first is that someone wouldn’t necessarily want to withdraw from their agreement as a result of being forced to accept an unfavorable sentence. There are several reasons that this might be true. Other states might agree with the sentence, which would mean that the offender wouldn’t have much of a choice (even if there were independents, they might also agree with the sentence). Or other states might have reciprocity agreements, where they would not allow individuals to abandon their current contracts as a result of being given a bad sentence. This would have economic justification; customers would likely demand that their states be able to enforce justice, and this would be impeded by people switching states in order to avoid punishment, so states might find it worthwhile to come to agreements with each other.
The same thing works with regard to enforcing justice on non-citizens. It would likely be unwise for states to go to war with each other over such disputes, and so a way of resolving them would likely spring up. You seem to contradict yourself when you say that a state would be uncompetitive if it went to war, so therefore it would have to go to war in order to exterminate all competitors. Why would people fund such a war effort if they could deal with a peaceful state instead? It would probably make the best economic sense for all parties to negotiate some sort of agreement for situations involving citizens and non-citizens, so that when they arose, no one would have to resort to violence.
The second thing that comes to mind is that a voluntary state doesn’t necessarily have to accord its citizens the right to exit whenever they want. If I voluntarily sign a contract with you, I’m bound to that contract; if there’s no provision for me breaking the contract whenever I want, then I’m not free to do so, and I don’t think there’s anything obviously objectionable about that. See Rousseau on this.
Anthony, wasn’t Nozick’s point that prohibiting other forms of enforcement of rights in the way he described didn’t violate anyone’s rights? If it could be showed that such a prohibition was inconsistent with properly respecting individuals’ inviolability, Nozick would have to reject it, no? I suppose what I’m implying is that minarchism, stated plausibly, is indistinguishable from market anarchism.