I'm in a huge dilemma between Minarchism and Anarchism

Economics Political Theory
1

Three years ago from now, I was a Liberal because I didn’t even think that things may have been a different way. I just bought things as is, and figured Free Health Care would be nice and all. Then, after taking a class on Constitutional Law, I became a Conservative because I felt that small government, individual rights, economic freedom, and fiscal responsibility was a good idea. I mean I think anyone with the right mind(pardon the pun :p) can see that Social Programs are wasteful, and amount to nothing.

When I was a Conservative, I didn’t feel like I was a bigot, or sexist like most GOP Conservatives, so I became a Moderate.

Upon the 2008 Election, I came upon Ron Paul(in 2007) from doing some research on all the candidates, then a huge change started to occur. I realized “Holy SHIT! He’s right, even before I got into politics this is what I said about everything, I knew somewhere in my mind that this is how I wanted things to be, I hated being told what to do I loved my own individuality. I always questioned the way things were” after this, I became a Libertarian Minarchist, and then my journey here began.

I always questioned why the “rich get richer, and poor get poorer” as being a fundamental principle of Capitalism, when I was in High School I read Max Weber and realized it is MUCH different from what I can see now. Then, it hit me, there’s somethign rotten in the money that wasn’t present back then, and once again Ron Paul enlightened me on this issue, it was The Federal Reserve and The IRS.

This made me watch “America: Freedom to Fascism” by Aaron Russo.

Since reading Ron Paul’s book I became curious of Mises, so I journied here, and found out about Murray Rothbard.

Recently, I’ve realized that The U.S Consitution only first gave rights to a select group of people, they were still slaves. I thought maybe the Colonization of America was an example of a “Monopoly on Force”, where violence was used by the state to maintain control within the dominion of its borders, and that the same has happened throughout History with empires. It was Government that enlsaved people, maimed them, killed them tortured them.

I realized that maybe being a Constitutional Minarchist Libertarian makes me an American Nationalist, and by that I would have to love America and nothing else, and think illegal immigrants don’t belong here. America is by no means the best country ever, and you realize this once you travel. It’s nationalism, and the state that has led to wars and all of histories tragedies.

So, I like the idea of Private Property, and I thought maybe the only real answer is to abolish the state and abolish politicians. Even if I stay a Laissez-Faire Minarchist, my ideals may never be achieved because of shitty politicians, and even if they do, its unlikely they will stay that way. So, as of now, I am thinking about becoming an Anarchist.

On minarchism
2

It’s not something to become. If they are ideas you can embrace, which make good sense to you, and reflect your values and morality, then you can be an anarchist, or an ancap, or a voluntarist or an autarchist or anything you like. It is not some formal deal where you have to announce allegiance to an idea.

3

Okay, well let me word it better then. There’s still flaws on both sides that barrier which I can’t completely embrace. Under Minarchism, a Government would enforce private property contracts and make general laws. However, how can you get it to stay that way? How do you stop politicians from enroaching The Constitution like they do now, and how would we even get to that level in the first place?

Under Anarchism, Natural Law would enforce all the individual and private property rights, but natural law is very unpredictable. Additionally, a state can rise easily out of “Mob Rule” and from Rothbard’s protection agency of Volunteers. However, we would be safe from corrupt politicians and a single entity acting for its own or against our interests.

4

Under anarchism, individuals would do the same.

You can’t. A monopoly is the sole arbiter of its own limitations. If you want a monopoly state, then you can’t expect it to control itself. It has no incentive to stay small.

So, if we try for something other than a state, the worst outcome is that we end up with a state? Sounds like a no-risk proposition.

5

Minarchism is self contradicting morally and it’s always in danger of expanding. Pick the ideology most consistent with your beliefs and always try to achieve the closest possible to those beliefs (i’m an anarchist but I’d jump at the chance of minarchism)

6

Good post, DfB.

I’d say take the plunge. Follow the ethics and worry about the particulars later. Start checking out an-cap literature and economic literature (you can never read enough!) I think a fair amount of an-cap positions can be defended through economics. The possibility of private roads or police, for example.

Of course, take what I’m saying with a grain of salt, since I took about the same course as you did over about the same period of time. I certainly need to read up on a lot myself.

Maybe he’s the new Ayn Rand as far as popularizing libertarian principles. I would bet that a fair amount of Ron Paul supporters inevitably turn to anarchism.

7

For example, check out the reading list here.

In thirty years, someone will write a book titled It Usually Begins With Ron Paul.

8

I have been unable to take the plunge personally. While I consider myself Austrian and hve explored ANcap, there are still too many uncertainties. Mind you, there are just as many uncertainties I have have about keeping a state small enough to only enforce our rights.

9

I spent awhile hung up on uncertainties. It was tough. But then I realized I was looking at it wrong, as you stated, there are uncertainties with the state as well. What isn’t uncertain (or shouldn’t be for a person of conscience) is that using coercion to force other people to act for your benefit is immoral.

Even if I don’t have all the answers under anarchy, I have to believe that man can survive, that I can thrive and survive, without violence. That mankind doesn’t need coercion to prosper.

Then I felt a lot of peace.

10

Liberty Student summed it up nicely. The uncertainties are what hold many back. I still struggle with how a state of anarchy can persevere (meaning how anarchy can withhold the emergence of a state), but once again I realize that anarchy is the only morally consistent position.

11

I am an advocate in gradual institutional change - history has illustrated for us quite clearly that whenever the institutions of society are changed beyond the capability of individuals to know their consequences, and the capabilities of society to work according to the new institutional framework that disaster is not far behind. The entire “strike the roots” mentality is foolish for, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, only fools would think that society is carte blanche for them to scribble whatever they please.

12

I am not entirely sure that man can survive in a society without violence or coercion. If we, for instance, lived in a society where rape and theft were not enforced, then, I am afraid to say, there would be an awful lot of rape and theft. However, I understand that although most anarcho-capitalists suggest a society without a government, they do suggest that coercion should be provided only by private organizations.

Most people agree that violence, in the form of law enforcement, is neccassary but the question here is who should be given the power and under what circumstances.

Although I am not well versed in anti-AnCap stuff, on the surface, to me, I can see a few problems.

Firstly, how the hell do we get there? How do you convince people of supposedly “natural rights”

Secondly, if there is no monopoly on crime contol how on earth do private enforcers agree on what is to be the law? I notice disputes amongst An Caps all the time.

Thirdly, what is to stop an enforcement agency from becoming a state again?

Fourthly, wouldn’t there be free rider problems?

I am open minded on this, so these are not arguments, but rather questions that I would like to see answered.

13

The problem with anarchy (the word means “no ruler”) is that it represents both the best and the worst of society and most people cannot understand the difference. Anarchy can result from a breakdown of law and order and therefore be violent and destructive OR it can be a society of peaceful and voluntary interaction. Spontaneous order under common law rules of contract law and property ownership and economic coordination through the price system is the good kind of anarchy.

14

Perhaps my problem is that I don’t hold those morals. While I think liberty is good, my classical liberalism comes overwhelmingly from my belief in its consequences.

15

Is law all that keeps you from raping and stealing?

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

So the worst case scenario is that we have nothing to lose?

The state creates more free riders than a free market would.

16

What is violent and destructive, is a monopoly on law and order. Anarchy is not the absence of law. Even in the absence of a monopolistic law provider, individuals create their own contracts, their own local conventions and standards, and solve disputes overwhelmingly without violence.

When there is a monopoly provider like the state, then people use violence through the state to attack one another, because they dont have to bear the cost and consequences directly. That is what taxation is. That is what positive law like minimum drinking ages, anti-marijuana, patents etc. amount to.

17

No, quite obviously it does not. Culture, morality, empathy and religion, amongst other things, must play a role. However, it is not difficult to see that if violence, theft or imprisonment was not a consequence of such vile activities, then many more people would commit them. Trusting stronger people not to steal without any consequences is a little like trusting an unlimited government to look after us.

I will look at this later on tonight when I have time.

The point here is that I would imagine it would be very possible. Also, would it not be conceivible that a DRA could become big enough to become a state or too big for it’s own briches? What is to stop DRAs from using Nuclear weapons/warfare.

18

And why would these things be lacking under anarchy? If there was a demand for them to ensure peace and prosperity, I can’t see why the market wouldn’t provide for justice and self-defense. The market does a mighty fine job already of providing women with the means to repel rapists in tasers and pepper spray and self-defense training. Certainly superior to police protection [sic].

You must. It may change your life.

Like I said, if our worst case scenario is that we end up back where we are, then how can that be an excuse not to strive for more? It is essentially a no risk proposition.

What is to stop terrorists from flying a plane into a building? What is to stop America from nuking Japan?

These threats to peace and prosperity are not exceptional consequences of anarchy. State or no state, we live in an unsafe world. The question is, are we going to support institutions that squander resources on making weapons like nukes? Because right now, we do.

19

Private property rights would be protecting people from aggression.

20

Well, just be a minarchist. And let limited government put the monopoly on the monopoly that comes with the word government. And if that doesn’t work, just let them put a monopoly on the monopoly on the monopoly.