Framing the debate between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists

Economics Political Theory
1

Which are better, ovens or chainsaws? In terms of what criteria are we judging one or the other to be better? Better for what? Do we mean better for baking pies or better for cutting lumber?

Likewise, in order to settle the dispute between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism__*__, we must first decide what criteria we will use to judge which is better. What is the ultimate good which we are trying to achieve?

*(Note: I am using “minarchy” to denote a government whose sole function is to protect the property of citizens from internal and external aggression, and wherein there is a universally recognized right of succession, including individual succession. In other words, this is not a state: but rather a kind of firm, or club, membership in which is purely voluntary. This is a stateless society, but with a monocentric legal system. It is monopolistic in fact, though not in law; i.e. there are no barriers to entry.)

To my mind, the purpose of each system is to achieve a world in which property rights are respected to the maximum possible extent. Either system, minarchy or anarcho-capitalism, would at the moment of its inception satisfy that criterion equally successfully (ex definitio).

The basic impulse behind anarcho-capitalism is the idea that a minarchist government of the sort described above (or even more so: a minarchist State) would devolve into a State, which would then become progressively more interventionist, until property rights were severely threatened. The value of polycentric law (and/or security)* is thought to be that consumers can escape a firm which becomes oppressive, or simply inefficient, turning to a rival firm, such that the oppressive/inefficient firm (unable to externalize its costs) goes bankrupt.

*(Note: For my part, I am not questioning the viability of polycentric security per se, which I believe can operate viably within the framework of a monocentric legal order. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, the crux of the matter is the debate between polycentric and monocentric law.)

The impulse behind the minarchist critique of anarcho-capitalism is the idea that polycentric law (and/or security) is inherently unstable and unsustainable, and would devolve into a State, which would then become progressively more interventionist, etc.

I think the criterion by which we can rationally compare the value of each system is now obvious. Both systems will at their inception satisfy both parties, but the parties disagree about which system is a surer protection against the (re)emergence of the State over time.

Minarchists (of my stripe anyway) must demonstrate why the emergence of the State is less likely given minarchy than given anarcho-capitalism. And anarcho-capitalists must demonstrate the inverse. I’ll call this tendency of a social order to be impervious to the emergence of a State “sustainability.”

I’ll be presenting my own minarchist (as defined above, i.e. stateless monocentric law) theory at some point, but I thought it might be useful to first have this discussion. Does anyone disagree with what I’ve stated above? Is sustainability the proper criterion for success in the debate between minarchy and anarcho-capitalism? Should the libertarian system (i.e. a system wherein property rights are protected without exception) which is most sustainable be judged the best? Or are there some other criteria we should worry about?

This is my first post here at Mises Forums, by the way. So, hello everyone.

What is property?
2

If that’s how you define “minarchy” then you’re going to have to define “anarcho-capitalism”. (I’m wondering why you didn’t do that originally)

3

Minarchy as I’ve defined it is a stateless society with a monocentric legal order. I’m aware that this differs from the typical definition of minarchy, which is minimal statism. So why am I calling myself a minarchist? Because “anarcho-capitalistic jurisprudential-monocentrist” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

Anarcho-capitalism is usually understood as a stateless society with a polycentric legal order.

The question which I expect to be asked is “how can you maintain a monocentric legal order in the absence of a State? If there are no entrance barriers, and the minarchist government begins as merely the de facto monopolist, won’t this system evolve into the polycentric legal order of traditional anarcho-capitalism?” I contend that a stateless monocentric legal order is sustainable for precisely the same reason that a stateless polycentric legal order is unsustainable. Namely, because the “law industry” is unique among all industries in that it can sustain a natural monopolist; i.e. such a monopoly can exist without State intervention.

Of course I’ll need to support this claim. But as you see, this thread is not called “the debate between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists,” it’s called “framing the debate…” Once we’ve agreed to the terms of the debate, then we’ll get to the debating.

Thanks for your response.

4

I don’t think there is a debate to be had. At least not a useful one, anyway. You’ve literally just defined “minarchy” as a “stateless society” and “anarcho-capitalism” as a “stateless society”. And it sounds like you want to essentially have a debate on how a stateless society would organize a legal system…as in, you’re not interested in debating policy or philosophy, you just want to debate conjecture.

Have fun with that.

P.S.

As you seem to be aware, most do not associate “minarchy” with “stateless society”, much less consider them synonymous. The debate you seem to want to have is not the typical debate between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists…which is generally one between people who believe in a state (albeit a minimal one) versus people who believe in having no state.

Your thread would be much less of a bait and switch if you were to change the title to something more honest…such as “polycentric vs. monocentric legal order in a stateless society.”

5

The debate, if anyone cares to participate, would be between stateless legal monocentrism and stateless legal polycentrism. Most (if not all) anarcho-capitalists that I have ever met believe in legal polycentrism, I do not. That disagreement makes for the possibility of debate, no? Specifically (if my argument in the OP is accepted anyway), the debate would revolve around the following question: “which is a surer protection against the emergence of the State over time, stateless legal polycentrism or stateless legal monocentrism?”

Is it your position that this question is uninteresting? Or that each system is equally sure protection against the emergence of the State over time?

EDIT: I don’t see how it’s a “bait and switch.” I defined my terms.

6

Yes, my position is that the question is uninteresting, and furthermore, the title of the thread is misleading.

7

Duly noted.

EDIT: I’ll add this, because apprently it is not very clear. The position that I mean to argue (that polycentric law in unsustainable) can just as easily be (and often is) an argument made by a minarchist in the traditional sense of the word: a minimal statist. The question I am raising is very much at the crux of the debate between minarchism (as traditionally defined or my version) and anarcho-capitalism.

8

You may believe all you want Minarchist. But your belief or non-belief is in total irrelevance to reality of the market’s functions. If there is no restriction to entry, there will be no ‘monocentrism’. Simple as that. I don’t even know why I came in here to post this because it’s so obvious.

9

I think the OP makes a good argument about anarchy doesn’t last because most people don’t have the will to maintain it, but that doesn’t justify the state.

OTOH, he may not be making a rational argument, because the Articles of Confederation was minarchist (it was partly the Continental Army that suppressed Shay’s Rebellion after all) and we wound up with the very statist Federal Constitution.

10

I agree with Minarchist. In Anarcho-Capitalism, there shall be ONE law. The Non-Aggression Axiom. The only thing I’d add is that further developments - in line with the Non-Aggression Axiom - may be made in common-law fashion, either written or unwritten. There will be one Anarcho-Capitalist Declaration of Rights which is the inalienable foundation of society, however.

11

What are rights?

12

Every man has a right to his own person and property. No man can aggress against the person and property of another. No law may be made that violates this Axiom. (I mean, if the law is enforced as a law and not simply childishly writ upon a piece of paper. So you’re allowed to make a law that say “it’s OK to murder,” but this law, if enforced, violates The Law).

13

Hi there, Minarchist. Enjoy your stay at the mises forums.

14

Jargon,

I don’t understand the confrontational (or contemptuous, or patronizing) attitude which is evident in certain responses to this thread. You imply that I am irrationally clinging to dogma, and yet it is you who dismisses my contention out of hand, before I have even begun to state my argument. Apparently, a position which is not in agreement with your orthodoxy is prima facie absurd. If that’s your position, then, indeed, I am beating my head against a wall and wasting my time. But I don’t really believe that. I seriously doubt that anyone who has come this far from the orthodoxy prevailing in our current society would be so obtuse; I doubt that iconoclastic libertarians would really be so dogmatic. I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Call me an optimist.

You are aware that I am aware that I have not proven, or even attempted to prove, my contention? As I reminded John James, I will remind you: this thread is not intended to be the debate between minarchy and anarcho-capitalism. What I have said is not supposed to be proof of the validity of my position. I merely described my position in general terms. I was suggesting that the two parties ought to agree to the terms of the debate. Without such agreement, any debate would be futile. Like debating the merits of ovens and chainsaws without first agreeing on what the ultimate good is: baking or cutting lumber.

So, to be extremely clear, what I am asking is this: do you (or anyone else viewing this) agree that “sustainability” as I defined it in the OP is the proper measure of success for a libertarian system, such that whichever system is more sustainable (minarchy [mine or the traditional] or anarcho-capitalism) should be judged the best? Why or why not?

15

All I am doing, is urging you to change the title of the thread to something more accurate. I think the confrontational nature you’re sensing (at least in part) comes from the bait n’ switch that viewers of the thread probably feel upon arriving here.

16

I defined the terms “minarchy” and “anarcho-capitalism” in the OP. I defined them again more explicitly in my response to your first comment. If that is not sufficiently clear for everyone to understand, well then they will not understand. I will not change the title. The author always reserves the right to define his terms. If the reader has some objection to the way the author defines his terms, the reader can go elsewhere. A debate about how words ought to be defined is inane. Do as you please.

17

Do you not understand the definition of “bait-and-switch”?

The whole point of a thread title is give people an idea of the subject of the thread…because they cannot read the OP in the forum view. If I title a thread “the hottest chicks in the world doing amazing things”, it doesn’t make it a legit title just because in the OP I define “hot chicks” as “living creatures of an avian variety, suffering high temperatures” and “amazing things” as “feats of great skill, well beyond that which could be expected from a bird brain.”

18

Go ahead and define it for me.

19

The whole point of a thread title is give people an idea of the subject of the thread…because they cannot read the OP in the forum view. If I title a thread “the hottest chicks in the world doing amazing things”, it doesn’t make it a legit title just because in the OP I define “hot chicks” as “living creatures of an avian variety, suffering high temperatures” and “amazing things” as “feats of great skill, well beyond that which could be expected from a bird brain.”

What I am apparently unable to clearly express to you is that this is in fact about the debate between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, as the thread title suggests: whether you define minarchism as stateless legal monocentrism or as minimal statism. I would argue for the former, but the debate which I had hoped to frame is primarily about the viability of polycentric law, relative the viability of monocentric law (with or without a State). That is a debate between minimal statism and anarcho-capitalism, or between stateless legal monocentrism and anarcho-capitalism. The title is apt. I did not make this thread about my version of minarchy, you did. I intended for this thread to be about (framing) the debate between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. You questioned my definition of minarchy, I answered, and this made it appear to you that I was trying a “bait and switch.” But the thread was not intended to be about my theory of minarchy. On the contrary, I wrote about the subject suggested in the title, you posted an off-topic response, and we progressed from there.

In all seriousness, not being sarcastic, do you appreciate what I’m saying? I don’t know how to be more clear.

20

I completely disagree, and I doubt I am the only one. The debate between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism is, as I said, one between people believe the state is legitimate, and people who do not.

When someone says “the debate between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism”, I have never in my life even heard of anyone who assumed this was a debate between two people who agree that the state has no legitimacy.

And your counter to that is quite literally “It doesn’t matter if the minarchist thinks the State is legitimate or not. The debate between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism is the same.” This is complete nonsense.

Is there anyone here who agrees with “Minarchist’s” notion stated in the sentence before last?