I don’t. Considering keeping a “monopoly on the use of violence over a given territory” are the roots of statism, and the rest of the tree will simply grow back over time, once you’ve cut the branches, it is inevitable. (How the States transcends it’s Limits). And “Deathwish of the Anarcho-Communists” by Murray N. Rothbard. No-one owns any property, you have no right to it. No rights at all. Everyone owns everything and no-one owns anything.
Not a monopoly. Check the 2nd Amendment. It’s supposed to be a check and balance against that.
I’m aware of that; that the problem with Minarchism is that it tends to slowly get more tyrannical (as it has in the USA), while Anarchy seems subject to direct takeover. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s “pick your poison”.
I believe in a government to have courts, police and national defense and only that, and they shouldn’t be monopolies (private alternatives possible and the ability to opt out of the public ones). What does that make me?
Milton Freedman: A monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Check the supreme court who gave themselves the right to interpret the Constitution, and utter refusal to hear cases at whim…
Slow… 1000 years for Rome… 75 for the USA… Seems to be speeding up…
At least with a direct takeover there is not false pretense of “greater good and public welfare” undermining the fight to remain free, there is a certain amount of honesty in the direct threat…
I will add that this direct takeover is a foolish notion, the gun culture of the United States has kept us safe from foreign invasion, not the military…
It makes you an Anarcho-capitalist! In the absence of the coercive monopoly nature of the State, your alleged government police, courts, etc. have become profit & loss institutions. If they cannot tax you for their existence (due to ability to opt out) and cannot keep you from seeking services from competitors, what does that make them if not free enterprise businesses? You are an Anarcho-Capitalist and you just don’t know it.
Not really, he leaves in the option for coercion, if the majority decide that the competition is not desirable, they will cause a civil war scenario by virtue of the “National” aspect, then we are back to square one…
The problem with minarchism, is that they are all over the spectrum. They have no idea what “enough government” is or what kind of government should be established to ensure that it does not grow “too big”. They think government without consent of the governed (i.e. slavery) is OK. They think taking money from people without consent (i.e. stealing) is OK. Once you have a mindset that stealing and slavery is OK, then there is no way to control the beast.
That’s a strawman. There are minarchists that support voluntary means of financing governments and recognize the right to opt out of gov services. Ayn Rand would be a good example. The only thing all minarchists agree on is that there should be a small monopoly goverment primarily dedicated to the provision of security.
I just don’t get minarchism. Why should a monopoly be mantained voluntarily? And why one should only include courts, police and roads in that voluntary monopoly? That idea is one step closer to communism. What would happen if an individual don’t agree with this monopoly? Won’t his idea be screwed by the majority? Isn’t that collectivism?
How can there be a government with a monopoly if people are allowed to opt out? By definition, if people are allowed to opt out, then there is not a government monopoly.
So yes, all minarchists believe in slavery and theft, by definition, because none of them do believe that it is OK to opt out, since they all believe there should be one government.
That’s not what a monopoly means. A monopoly means that there is only a single seller/provider of a given good, not that people are coerced into purchasing that good. For example, if a hypothetical company called Macrosoft was the only seller of computers in New Zealand, that would not make it equivalent to Macrosoft forcing me to buy it’s products at gunpoint.
I am not forced by anyone to buy a computer. Similarily, in the hypothetical governments envisioned by some minarchists, no one is forced into utilizing government services. There is simply only one provider of that service.
That is not “opting out”. Opting out means I can choose my law provider. There is also a difference between a government granted monopoly, and a government monopoly on law. You are correct that if someone is granted a monopoly by the government, I do not have to purchase their product. However, if there is a government monopoly, they will force me to purchase their product.
Law, in and of itself, is not a product, it is a code. However, enforcement of that law (police, courts, DROs, etc.) is a seperate thing from the law’s formulation. I (Jacob Bloom notwithstanding) do not have to pay to live under a law. However, I do have to pay to have that law enforced by somebody.
“Law” includes not only the formulation of the code, but the enforcement of it as well. More precisely, law should mean neutral courts in resolution of disputes between two or more people.
However, I think most people think of law as some magical thing politicians can do to make people act a certain way.
Regardless, these minarchists that supposedly are OK with letting people “opt out” of government are not really allowed to “opt out”. As such, my statement stands that they are OK with slavery and theft. Because if they are truly allowed to “opt out”, then they would not only not have to pay taxes, they would also be able to use different courts outside of the government courts.
Law and enforcement of law are two different things. There is nothing to prevent there being a single body making laws and multiple bodies enforcing them. For example, Government A makes the law, and there are two seperate courts with different procedures and prices enforcing the laws.
Some minarchists believe that governments should not possess a monopoly on courts, solely on law making. Though, neither Rand nor I are among those. But since we are arguing about all minarchists and those with minarchist elements (such as Rand), my assertion of you strawmanning minarchism still stands.
I assumed that he is advocating some sort of a hypothetical constitutional ban on coercion of any type. I neglected the impracticality of such absolute restrictions in a mini-archist society.