Minarchism: The Real Utopian Socialism

Economics Political Theory
1

“[M]inarchist libertarians, I suggest, have not disentangled themselves from the magical picture so thoroughly as anarchist libertarians have. Instead, they often write (when discussing anarchism, though seldom when discussing any other topic) as though a government’s decreeing some desired result is equivalent to its achieving it – and then contrast this idealised picture of government with the muddling reality of anarchy, to the latter’s detriment.” - Long, p.14

In his chapter in the Long/Machan anthology Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government a Part of a Free Country?, Adam Reed writes of the steps needed to establish a minarchist government:

The first step that those who seek to maximise their own objective freedom will need to take is find each other, organise for communication and planning of subsequent stages of action, and weed out from their company any who would join them with a religious or other repressive or subjectivist agenda. …

If their company does not already include a sufficient number of members with defense and law enforcement skills, and adequate experience in using those skills, progress to the next stage will depend on the development of effective law enforcement and defense capabilities among the prospective citizens…

In the second stage, the citizens will form a new “law and defense enterprise” … Membership-citizenship in the new cooperative-enterprise-community will require a contribution of resources from each member-citizen…

For stage 3, the cooperative will need to find an entrepreneur who recognises its members’ objective right to protect all their other rights by establishing a government of objective law… After establishing its gated community, the cooperative will build a secure defense perimeter around it, and train its members to defend it…

In the next stage, the citizens of the cooperative will proceed to exercise all their rights. Their gated community being their property, they will have a recognised right to restrict access to that property… [Those] who persist in attempts to invade the community, and impose their arbitrary “laws,” will be dealt with as enemies. The new constitutional republic will take all the steops that it may need to take to bring the use of retaliatory force within its borders under objective control. … It will make treaties with existing “market law-defense agencies” only on the basis of absolute inviolability of the rights of its citizens" …

Neither voluntary organisations nor subsidiary governments can be allowed to violate individual rights, and to do its job, a federal republic will need the authority and the means to prevent such violations. … the Republic must have the authority and the means to correct (and justly punish) any resulting violations of individual human rights. Anything less would be itself a violation of individual rights and an infringement of liberty. (“Rationality, History, and Inductive Politics” p.34-36)

So these are the steps required to achieve Reed’s ideal government. But Reed has only indicated what will need to happen; he has given no indication as to how this goal will be achieved. In other words, he has fallen into exactly the fallacy described by Long: he is treating the decreeing of the desired goal as the equivalent to the achievement of that goal. But of course this is absurd. Ends cannot be achieved without means.

For instance, Reed’s government “will make treaties… only on the basis of absolute inviolability of the rights of its citizens.” Okay, how will it do this? Of course, it is an impossible task: there are no means that can achieve the end of absolute inviolability of rights.

Or this gem: “Neither voluntary organisations nor subsidiary governments can be allowed to violate individual rights”. If only rights could be secured just by writing this on a piece of paper! Like the Utopian Socialists, Reed does not seem concerned with means; what matters is the goal, not whether the goal can be achieved. Wishful thinking much?

Right on cue, Reed then contrasts this idealized government with a realistic anarchy, thereby committing the second half of the fallacy described in the Long quotation above:

Once the laws and the constitution have been adjusted to assure me of maximum protection of my rights, a subsequent reversion of legal or defense authority to men whose vision of liberty differs from the normative facts can only infringe the rights I already enjoy. What possible benefit could I, or any other rational person, derive from enabling anti-abortion Christianists, or Al Qaeda, or the Socialist Party, to operate their own “market law-defense enterprises” capable of enforcing, to whatever extent, the false beliefs of their members—and of compromising my rights in the process of doing so? (p.36)

Given that Reed’s ideal government is perfect, the answer is obviously that no rational person would choose anarchy. Why settle for less than perfection? But of course this is just the nirvana fallacy: comparing an idealized, perfect government with an imperfect, realistic anarchy. Since Reed’s perfect government is impossible, the actual relevant comparison is between imperfect anarchy and imperfect government. Once the question is put in terms of comparative institutional analysis, Reed’s minarchism turns out to be full of holes. After all, the Socialist Party and other interest groups will be a problem under minarchy as well. Since anarchy has a more extensive set of checks and balances, it can resist interest groups more effectively than minarchy, which is protected only by a weak paper constitution.

In the end, minarchism can remain a viable, consistent theory only if it can evade comparative analysis. For once realistic, imperfect anarchy is compared with realistic, imperfect minarchy, it is clear that anarchy will be the victor: the incentives generated by market competition are more reliable than the incentives generated by bureaucracy. Minarchists must show that the arguments for free markets do not apply to the legal system. Since they have failed to do so, their theory must be regarded as on a par with the Utopian socialists.

2

In response to Sage’s well thought-out treatise I will repeat my mantra, but first with my ever-present disclaimer: I belong to no religious organization and the only institution to which I might proselytize would be Mises, and here we are. [*-)]

That out of the way I will refer to a Hebrew book that amazingly has remained an all-time best seller year-after-year. Most of you have a copy somewhere so I won’t try to promote the book, but I’ll quote from memory from the 3rd chapter of the first book. It seems the Creator of the first two human beings instituted a system of law (symbolized by The Tree of Life) that would assure government of The Creator, by The Creator, for the people. Along came the first recorded politician (poorly translated “The Serpent”, but should be rendered from the Hebrew “Whispering Enchanter”). He was able to convince these first two gullible constituents that The Creator was wrong. “You can have government of the people, by the people, for the people!” (symbolized by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).

He was elected. His election set in motion the system of “government” to which we have witness today. Health “care” reform, “patriot acts” and a multitude of other evils would come several thousand years later.

The tag at the end of Sage’s post is correct. Government (as we know it) is immoral. It does not work.

Samarami

3

I’m an anarchist myself, but I would jump on minarchy given the option. It’s a move in the right direction.

4

No-one here, I assume - would object to a reduction in the size of the state. In that regard, no-one would object to a form of government limited to the US Constitution COMPARED with what we have now. Obviously limited government is utopian.

A question I like to ask those of blind faith to a piece of paper though, is about the Articles of Confederation. If that person would be an anti-federalist, or a federalist.

It’s amusing to garner some of the reactions. Especially considering some of the immense opposition to the US Constitution BEFORE it was enacted, by folks against government, centralization and for pro individualism. lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism

5

Surely minarchists can point to history to show minarchical principles at work. Utopian socialists can only point to catastrophic failures as times when it ‘could’ have worked.

Utopian socialists have a much harder task when they have to describe how the worker’s control the means of production, and prevent the development of private property. The short stories of soviet author Aleksander Blok make for entertaining reading when he describes the future socialist paradise.

6

Amen. Minarchism isn’t heading in the right direction though, its practically there.

7

You mean like the United States, which was overthrown by transnationalist counterrevolutionaries after only thirteen years?

Anyway, as an Austrian I reject empiricism. Minarchists need to show on conceptual grounds that minarchy is possible and desirable.

Sure, but it’s just a difference in degree, not kind. Minarchists are arguing for limited Utopian socialism.

8

How do you prevent anarchism from becoming minarchism? Anarchism, like minarchism, has never been sustainable, but the latter usually lasts much longer.

9

Socialism involves worker control over the means of production and abolition of private property. I can’t see any minarchist agreeing to that in principle or otherwise. Is there something I am missing?

10

Libertarian’s cannot see their hipocracy regarding government. A libertarian wants to keep government out of the market because they are convinced that the market is the best tool for providing the cheapest services and goods at the highest quality. It doesn’t follow then on this premise that they would arbitrarily remove security, insurence, education, among other things as being exempted from this rule of thumb.

I find that most libertarian’s don’t have the faith in the free market that they claim to. Had they had that kind of faith in the free market in the first place they wouldn’t be libertarian’s all, they’d be anarchists.

11

City states like Hong Kong and Singapore manage to avoid further statist control and appropriation, by having smaller governments already governing a small city.

It is admittedly a statist solution to a statist problem.

The results here work 50%.[:D] Singapore is a terrible totalitarian state, and Hong Kong is the free-est nation in the world. States recognize only other states and their borders, and if someone is already doing their job of coercion for them, and is protecting their economic interests, other states leave them alone. The good thing is that neither of these given cities is ruined further by federal government.

The miniarchist solution perhaps is best if it is used as a slow and gradual means of desocializing completely, where essentially microsecession of city-states with constitutions for minimal governments implies that a federal government slowly denationalises, or more or less “privatises”, the job of law enforcement to smaller voluntary groups of local governments. If socialists or totalitarians take over in one city state, other city-states will still be safe, and people can still migrate away. With the small city-nations with small governments, and dissolution of central government, the scope for privatisation will increase so greatly, that there will eventually be no need for those governments. And even if hundreds of city-nations become totalitarian, they will still be crippled and limited by their small size, and inability to influence all other city-nations. And with smaller size, there will be less incentive to take control, because there is very little to take control of.

12

Touché, mon ami…

13

Ummmm… you can be a libertarian and an anarchist.

In fact, Anarchism is the purest form of libertarianism.

14

Insurance and education should be privatised, and even security is a better job to privatise, because even in a statist country like India, you are largely protected by private security forces everywhere you go than by police. In fact, I don’t think there’s a need for police. I am protected by private security in the apartment complex I live in, in the college I go to, and in the toll stationed highways I cross every day. The schools I cross on the road have their own private security directing cars to drive slowly, and they direct traffic properly so that children do not get hurt, and cars do not run into accidents at tricky crossings, thanks to those private school security.

So why government? You know why buses and trucks have flappers behind them? When they run on rain and dirt, they would spray the dirty water onto the windshield of your car. They have no incentive to care about the dirt that falls on you. You have no means of personally contracting with people on the road to not spray the dirty water on you. Private roads do not gain customers based on trying to discriminate on all those who do not have flappers on their cars, nor do they have the means. Government simply goes up to them, and says, “Put flappers behind the tyres so that the dirty water does not fall on people and other cars”. If you ever objected to flappers on other trucks and buses, and feel that they are indirectly harming your interests, say so. No? Then why implicitly condone and approve the existence of flappers on those trucks? And hence the coercion that makes it possible? After all, you have invited government to take control, and reduce the freedom that you have. Maybe by principle, you believe that just because you are the beneficiary does not mean it is right to hurt other people’s interests. Are the buses and trucks unhappy with not being able to spray dirty water on you? Would they condone other buses and trucks to spray dirty water on them? Tell me what government has done wrong here.

15

What you state is true. That doesn’t change the fact that the libertarian party takes a minarchist position.

16

Most third world country’s use private security because their governments have not figured out how toe ffeciently extrapolate property from their citizen’s. In most third world country’s governments hold a firm grip on large cities but stay out of the rural area’s. Ironically all the crime sticks to the cities like glue, and the rural area’s where private security contracting “run wild” are the more safe areas to be in. I should knoow, I lived in a rural area in Honduras for a year. Never saw a government official in my town and I never felt safer.

17

Wouldn’t an anarchist political party be a contradiction in terms?

18

Not at all.

19

well; there is a debate as to whether anti-politics is politics. my personal opinion is that it is not.

20

“limited government is utopian”

All forms of society are utopian - including all forms of anarchy ore pure liberalism (libertatism). As soon as we ar dealing with other human beeings there is “homo homini lupo” somewhere around to deal with.

You can have him outside your group - but you have hin inside every group, as well. The importance is that he has to kept “civilized”. The latter you can do throgh letting him know that behaving within the written or unwritten rules and laws gives would let him prosperate more than a live outside these rules persuting only his own happiness without taking any regards on Others hapiness or basic rights.

For example Slavery. Slavery does/did even exist in Times or Places without States. Even in the US it was existing in a Time when State was quite weak. Slavery was the consequence out of simply having the power to make other Humans to slaves. And remember: Even thogh “All men were created equal” as well as in the christian bible - as well as the Qu-aran - thre were arabian Slave-Hunters catching Negroe-Slaves and selling them to christian Slave-Holders.You see: Not even religon and moral are strong enogh to keep People from profiting from things that are absolutely not to be justified with the fundamentals of religion and moral. Remember the Hitler-Stalin Treaty? The same thing: Two Men that already did knew that they would soon find themselves at the state of war made this Deal on the Costs of a Third - Poland.

You see: The pure Existance of Power makes happen what Ron Paul talking about the State describes as a Politic against the third man. So the question is not “which system” or “not any system” but finding a way that gives equal rights and power to the 3rd. man.