From Minarchism to Anarchism in Ten Easy Steps: A Guide for Constitutionalists

[Sage]

@revolutionist

I know I’m going to get flamed for this, but. . .

Indeed.

@revolutionist

There really is no need to convert minarchists to ancaps. The state is already so huge that there is really no need to discuss the issue in a political setting until the state is reined in enough. It’s, of course, excellent to advance the ideas of anarcho-capitalism in academic settings, but in political settings, it just alienates people. The state is so big right now that minarchists and ancaps are both working in essentially the same direction, so there is no need to waste time converting them.

See my post here. Once we expand our strategy beyond simple reformism to include radical strategies like secession and seasteading, then it is no longer true that anarchists and minarchists are working in the same direction. For instance, with seasteading we immediately face the question of establishing a State or a market anarchy. Minarchists will favor the former, anarchists the latter — hence, they’re actually working in totally different directions.

@revolutionist

Honestly, I would rather have 1000 Constitutionalists working for the cause of liberty than 100 Ancaps.

I would rather have the opposite. Anarchists are attacking the root of the state, viz. its territorial monopoly on ultimate jurisdiction. Constitutionalists are hacking at branches; because of this, any success they have will be short lived. As Hulsmann put it in his chapter in The Myth of National Defense,

“The fact is that neither in Europe nor in the United States of America has classical liberalism managed to establish a public order that effectively safeguarded private property and individual liberty for more than a couple of decades. … With hindsight, the real question is not—as most twentieth-century libertarians have assumed—why the happy days of classical liberalism faded away and ushered in a new era of unprecedented government control. The real question is how classical liberalism could flourish even the few decades that it did flourish. (emphasis added) … Clearly, secession avoids all these fatal long-run consequences of “imposing liberty.” It might take a long time before the conditions for successful local secession are given, and secession might then leave many dark (politically unenlightened) spots on the political map. However, at least these reforms would be genuine accomplishments that do not already contain the seeds of their own destruction.”

@revolutionist

I know that politically, I can get a lot more people sold on libertarian ideas by taking a more moderate stance than going all out anarchist on them. I’ve been much more successful with this method than with shouting for the abolition of the state. If progress is to be made, I think this approach has to be taken.

I think Rothbard made it clear that radicalism is the only way to go. “For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps.”

Sure, it’ll be difficult at first to promote market anarchism. But if we persevere and keep working at it, the mainstream will shift toward our position. This is how genuine progress will be made.

@revolutionist

I’m a firm believer in the fact that you can keep your purist libertarian principles, but you can also sell them in a more easily swallowable package.

This is a copout. “Never compromise the truth for the sake of persuasion. Instead, be persuasive about the uncompromised truth.” - Peter Boettke