Alright, very well and good, you claim that the government must exist to combat evil gangs.
But with a “small government” undecided in gun control and incapable of setting tarrifs on arms and drugs and other lucrative industries, how on Earth do you expect to extract taxes from me? How on Earth do you expect to pay for your pathetic states?
Attempt to take money from my estate and I assure you, none of you nor your families shall live.
Historically states did have difficulty raising taxes directly from the population. This is why they sought alternative sources of funds, such as selling privileges, creating monopolies, or imposing trade tariffs.
I am not quite certain whether I am a minarchist or an anarchist, but when I was a minarchist I thought that the state should finance itself by fines on criminals. Essentially, part of the punishment for every criminal should be the variable court costs associated with his case, along with his share of the fixed costs. Why should we as a society pay one penny for the crimes of others?
When I was a minarchist I basically followed Randian arguments of voluntarily funding government. I still believe they have some merit, but that the practical conclusion of such notions is ultimately anarchism.
As an aside, for those interested in Neo-Objectivism:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth–1354-Logical_Structure_Objectivism.aspx
It’s interesting how you use two examples that are artifically high because of government efforts to stamp out their existance…
Perhaps the people who refuse to pay taxes will also not recieve the benefits of the government. If you get ripped off by an unscrupulous person and wish to have your case heard before a judge you would forfeit that right if you chose not to pay for the upkeep of the courts. If you happened to be the dishonest person and you didn’t pay your taxes then you wouldn’t be allowed to defend your case and would have a default judgment against you making you liable for damages.
There are plenty of examples where people chose to voluntarily part with their money to receive future benefits or no benefits at all. Insurance is one example, you mitigate your risk but the benefits of your membership in the pool are only truly realized if you have an incident that costs more than the premiums you have paid over time. And no, insurance isn’t governmentally mandated…well, except in Massachusetts with their mandatory health insurance plan.
Cool, but how are you going to pay for the courts?
Seems rather circular, don’t you think?
Try and get your taxman into my neighborhood and he won’t get a cent.
Try and put him in the neighborhoods downtown and all of his cents will be taken.
Replies in bold.
Wouldn’t this be the same as an ‘outlaw’ in an anarchistic society and they would either expell you or noone would do further business with you?
How would the funding be any different if it were the State taking your money for a service or a private corporation provided it were voluntary? Nothing stopping people from agreeing on private courts to hear their disputes just as we have today. Probably even preferable as then the courts could concentrate on real crime like murder and rape and leave the civil judgments to private parties unless they have to be the court of last resort.
That would work just fine until the people who voluntarily paid for the services of government come knocking on your door to get their money back. Then it just comes down to who’s better armed.
If you wish to base your society on a principle like that all I have to say is I’ve seen anarchy of that nature with my own eyes and wouldn’t wish that on anyone…
Replies in bold.
Ah, but you’re assuming the courts exist in the first place. You’re a tragically circular person, I can tell.
Same way they come into being in an anarchist society. Or are you one of those people who believe a society can exist without rule of law and all property disputes are to be settled with a six-shooter like in the Wild, Wild West?
If you honestly believe that people are going to come “knocking” at my door for money, then you’re not worth my time and I’ll cut this short here.
If you actually would read what I wrote…
Little did I realize debating with an anarchist is even more annoying than arguing against socialists. At least they can (usually) follow a train of logic enough to understand the underlying point and reply with valid counter arguments.
Yeah, yeah, death and destruction to all who dare to trespass… Big talk from someone who’s never been on the receiving end of an AK-47.
I second the ‘not worth my time’ sentiment.
I’m really enjoying the ad hominem attacks you got going on here…Oh, wait, a quick edit took care of that.
That’s almost as good as being called an astrotufer for big oil because I was arguing for free market solutions to the ‘global warming’ issue.
Yeah, yeah another red herring…
Niccolo raises good points though. If a minarchist state allows courts to compete with its own and it also allows secession, will it not eventually disintegrate into anarchism? Otherwise it must establish itself as the highest jurisdiction, arrogating itself the final say over all matters, and thus subordinate all private courts in its territory. If it allows secession it will again face the risk of disintegrating away.
So what would be the reason to make use of competing courts or to secede, if one is better served by the institutions of the Minarchist state? Those are challenges faced by any state, not only minarchists one. Actually this is something that happened and happens in South Africa. Since the ANC is less then competent in governing and administrating the county, kangaroo courts and private gangs perform some of the tasks. Private security companies are employing more then twice then the police service. And I won’t rule out promissing attempts to secession in the future as well.
My point, Torsten, is merely that so long as a minarchist state allows both competition in law and order and secession, and perhaps is voluntarily funded, for all practical purposes it is the same as market anarchism.
BTW, I am originally from South Africa so I am familiar with what you’re talking about. I am hopeful that private law will eventually oust the official government and that large-scale secession will take place, before the country goes the way of Zimbabwe. I haven’t been back in years though, so to ask a question: do you think the countries whites and blacks disgruntled by the current regime (e.g. Zulus) would be open to minarchism? In many ways the country shares similar origins to the US, and to this day there is a strong streak of independence amongst its European-descended citizenry.
Possibly, but so long as the courts are good (as they have every reason to be) the creation of a competitor would be difficult due to a natural near-monopoly. Courts have high efficiencies of scale, as fixed costs are high and variable costs low, and are primarily dependant on subjective reputation, which is difficult to establish. I think that a beneficial monopoly is the natural state of government, even with secession, unless those in power abuse their power (which they have little incentive to do, given the probable results.
To some extend any state as to tolerate private arbitration and use of force. The question would be rather, how much effort the state can spent on suppressing this kind of activities.
I’m familar with the differences between Europe and South Africa as well, since I worked there and have even relatives overseas. From what happened since 1994 I got the impression that many blacks used the opportunity to get taxpayerfunded phony ballony jobs (something the Broederbond did do previously), while many Whites took an apathic, apolitical and observing stance. Whites in South Africa even the educated ones are less clued up about politics then the ones in Europe. But then this was a loaded subject for years. The situation may however force more of them into activism and I’m getting the feeling that this is changing. There is a change in attitude, which is reactive at the moment (complaining about crime, poverty, taxes, new cost, lack of service delivery and the like). Interestingly many of the younger people are looking for Heroes from the Boere-past like de la Rey. They success of the song by that name also demonstrates this. So with further developments there is a possibility that people will be looking for a minarchist secession. The problems may actually spark of some positive initiative. That’s why I coined the expression:“Affirmative Action is Mandela’s gift to White People”. A city state / secession was actually proposed a while ago:
http://www.praag.org/rubriek262d.htm
As for the Zulus the Inkatha freedom party has become very silent. On the other hand it is possible that ANC supporting Zulus would support Jacob Zuma rather then the Xhosa Nostra in the ANC. They have however also some history concerning different forms of organisation then the modern state (Induna System).
Thanks for the information. I have mixed feelings about returning to the country; on the one hand, I’d like to get involved in transmitting libertarian ideas to it and getting some sort of organization going, on the other I am not sure if the situation can still be salvaged. Time will tell.
Sorry, but I think this is completely false. Law is very complicated, and I don’t think its reasonable to suggest that a single court business could dominate all branches of law. In a voluntary society, law would be based off of contracts (even violent crime, since contract dictates the response of protection agencies towards violence offenders), which could include anything under the sun. Standards would of course arise, but the sorts of contracts would still be many and varied. Its reasonable to think that different court firms could arise which specialize in enforcing different sorts of contracts. For example, people may want juries to judge violent offenders, but would rather have an expert arbiter to uphold the terms of a merger. Then there is also small-claims courts, which would not need as good of reputations.
I usually consider myself a Minarchist but some of you might call me an Anarchist. I think a “government” could be funded the same way that charities and churches are funded. It would all be voluntary and you would retain the right to succession. I think because of the nature of business and economics of scale one “private government/security company” would become dominant and probably have atleast a local monopoly. In this case it would refuse services to you if you did not pay your “dues”. For instance it would not investigate crimes that only effect your property and would not provide resources (police/military) to protect your land from attack. Also you would have to pay out of pocket(probably a large sum) for access to claims court and arbitration. In this case my definition of government is more like a charity organization and an insurance company than a nationstate.