minarchy = anarchy?

Economics Political Theory
1

I know that the title is likely to be controversial, but it shouldn’t be. Minarchy and anarchy are, in effect, exactly the same.

Suppose that, through a series of Constitutional amendments, the size of the federal government was reduced to below pre-Civil War levels. For example:

Amendment 28

Article I

The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed; and Senators of the United States shall from henceforth be appointed by the legislatures of the States which they represent.

Amendment 29

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed. The United States’ legislative, executive, or judicial bodies may not levy any tax upon individuals or commercial enterprises. No taxes shall be paid, except out of the treasuries of the States; and taxes paid by a State shall be proportional to that State’s representation in both houses on Congress.

Amendment 30

The right of any State to secede from the United States of America, by popular referendum in that State, is hereby affirmed as legally binding.

Amendment 31

The United States legislative, executive, or judicial bodies may not regulate interstate commerce; nor may the United States restrict trade with any foreign nation, except with a formal declaration of war against that nation.

If you analyze these possible Constitutional Amendments, you will see that is makes it impossible to apply taxes or regulations nationally; instead, provisions are made for taxes and regulations to be applied at the state and local level. In the mean time, communication, travel, and commerce is taking place on a global level.

When the federal government is severely weakened, it becomes extremely easy for individuals and businesses to escape taxes and regulations just be crossing state lines. States would have to compete to attract taxpayers. They would have to keep the air clean, keep the streets safe, and keep taxes low. They would have to provide more services for less money than the neighboring states; they would behave exactly like market entities.

Of course, we could try to “abolish all government” and then create a Libertopian paradise; but it seems more feasible to instead shatter the government into smaller governments that would have to compete for tax revenues in a free market.

2

Considering how well the 2nd Amendment is respected, especially in places like Illinois or DC, as well as other parts of the Bill of Rights, I don’t think you have any basis for assuming that a couple new Amendments would keep the government in check.

Other than that, I think you would need to grant the right of individual, not just State, secession in order to make taxes non-coercive, and hence equivalent to membership fees. But as stated above, I consider the government piously following “just a goddamned piece of paper” to be an excessively optimistic assumption, regardless of how many sensible and well-meant new Amendments you add to it.

3

Although it seems impossible that these amendments could be interpreted in anyway except the one you’re delineating, I would just direct you to an excellent lecture by Thomas E. Woods about the 14th Amendment and all the way IT has been abused.

http://mises.org/media/1423

4

What do you mean pre-Civil war? You abolished all powers that were the goal of the Constitution.

5

To even get to anarchy, we would have to start with minarchy. Either way, we’re all minarchists in some way.

6

Since when could the size and power of government be restrained by edict?

7

So by “anarchy” you actually mean states’ rights. Nifty.