Personal feelings on Minarchism

What I want to do with this thread is lay down what I think about minarchism and explain why I’m a minarchist. I don’t really want this to be a long post, I’ll try to make this as short as possible without sacrificing the ideas I want to share. Be forewarned, this is mostly rambling and me trying to articulate thoughts that I usually don’t put words to so this will probably be messy.

Ok, my first concern in terms of ideology is how applicable and useful it is for analyzing, understanding and ultimately recommending public policy. I am not as motivated by the desire to be 100 percent consistent with my principles as I am with being able to translate whatever principles I have into something that’s palatable to the everyday person. Moreover, I am not beholden to any ideals nor do I imagine a perfect world or even a world where things are necessarily good. I’m also not heavily driven by morality although I’m still motivated by morality to some extent. I am not entirely sold on the Non aggression principle. I think it’s a nice idea but sometimes one has to use aggression to get certain things done. But for the most part, I like to avoid aggression.

Secondly, with politics, one needs less of a logical reason or justification for things than just the ability to convince people that something is right for them. So, while anarchy may be the most logically consistent position, it’s also one of the least motivating politically. People often have a natural distrust for the market and a lot of people simply don’t like to compete with others. It’s really quite understandable. Minarchism is really not usually that appealing but it can be sold to people who have a natural distrust for big government. Still, socialism has the most psychological appeal and so I like to incorporate as many light socialist ideas into my sales pitch as possible without going overboard with them.

One of the other main reasons I’m a minarchist is because I think that keeping things stable and predictable and familiar, from a political standpoint, is more important than building a system that yields the greatest returns in terms of wealth or adheres strongly to any particular moral code. In other words, I despise regime uncertainty, and I think that protecting the status quo is usually the best way to avoid regime uncertainty even if the status quo isn’t perfect.

Finally, I don’t think of minarchy as some ideal thing that’s ever going to happen. It’s just a way of thinking about public policy that’s a little more skeptical and cynical than the way that most progressives tend to think about public policy. In the end, though, I know I’m something of a progressive myself. I just disagree with how much money to take from people and what I want to spend it on.

I know that a lot of anarchists will read this and either be furious, disappointed or simply put off by what I’ve said here and that’s fine. I don’t really want to get into a screaming match with anyone but if you guys want to talk about any of this, I’m open to it. It’s also important to point out that I’m not representative of all minarchists, just myself. I have no idea why other people are minarchists, I just know my own reasons.

Thank you for taking the time to read my quasi rant [:D]

You haven’t really stated why you’re a minarchist; you spent most of your time explaining why you’re not an anarchist. But are you really a minarchist? Rejecting anarchy does not automatically mean accepting minarchy. Some questions: Do you support the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan? If Israel was attacked tomorrow, what should America, and its military do?

I do support both wars, are we assuming Israel gets attacked by Iran?

Also, yeah I guess it could be read that way. I think that in my head, I’m constantly asking myself “why not anarchism?” and that’s how this thread came about tbh.

Fine, okay.

How does a minarchist state finance a trillion+ dollar war?

You haven’t taken a stance. You’re not ideologically or morally bound to anything, and you don’t want to use logic. If you’re purely a pragmatist, who wants to manipulate people, and if you support the warfare state, then why not turn to socialism (fascism specifically)? Surely our logical refutation of socialism, our arguments against such a condition on moral grounds, means absolutely nothing to you. I just don’t see why you’ve chosen minarchy based on the metrics mentioned in the OP.

Esuric, it would have been better to let this one float to the bottom. We’ve already been through all of this 100 times and then some. He says the market is about competition, but it’s not. The market is about cooperation and consumer preference.

This is an obvious cry for attention is all I can tell. Nothing new has been posted. A clear example of why ERO made that post…

Well I mean I am a socialist, just not a hardcore one.

To finance wars, one does what one must. Maybe print money, maybe borrow it, maybe tax it. None of these options are particularly appetizing or even emotionally pleasing but if one believes, as I do, that the government’s job is to protect its people, first and foremost, then that task must be seen as top priority.

If Iran attacks Israel, I think the US should be absolutely merciless. But other than that, I’d leave the specifics up to the generals, I’m no war strategist.

Look, I never said we had to talk about this, I just wanted to express what I’ve been thinking about. Nothing more nothing less. This is not to convince anyone of anything. It’s simply meant to put to words what’s been in my head. If you don’t find anything I say interesting, don’t post in the thread, case closed. If esuric wants to talk about this he can, if not, I won’t begrudge him at all. Same for anyone else.

You’re a neo-conservative. You’re just afraid of the label, since you don’t find it “palatable” anymore - well, only since “society” doesn’t.

Again, let me be very clear to all you guys: if you do not want to talk about this, we don’t have to, pass up the thread, don’t post in it. I won’t be mad and you won’t have to spend time on something you don’t want to participate in. Ok? Alright.

Maybe I am.

How is attacking Israel’s enemies a form of self-defense? How is preemptively attacking Iraq a form of self-defense?

So how is this inline with minarchy and classical liberalism? Minarchy: refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state’s only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.

You said you liked order, and you admitted you’re soft socialist. It seems like you’re really a fascist. Fascism has plenty of “order.”

That is implied since you are a minarchist.

Why?

Chicken hawk.

You’ve got ample opportunity to volunteer and kill innocent civilians in a foriegn land. You’ll also get paid to murder and be called a “hero”. What’s stopping you?

I mean honestly, Israel is just the homeland of the Jews and I have an enormous interest in seeing Israel protected by any means necessary. Whether or not there’s a direct connection between protecting Israel and protecting America, I cannot say. Iraq is…complicated. Hussein was a bad dude, but was he a direct threat? I’m not sure. We were told he was at the time. May have been a lie, but since we’re over there, I say finish the job. At this point, leaving Iraq could basically cause it to destabilize and maybe further radicalize a part of the world that’s already prone to extremism. So we gotta finish the job even if the reasons we went there in the first place were a lie.

I’m just a hawk when it comes to foreign policy. My foreign policy views are probably not in line with either classical liberalism or minarchy but it’s not exactly fascism either. It’s just hawkishness. Again, I don’t feel the need to be 100 percent consistent. I was an MMA trainee, I learned to use anything that worked. Know what I mean?

No, Conza, I leave the fighting to the armed forces. I’m no soldier. But I’ll support the troops in my own way. If that makes me a chickenhawk or whatever, so be it.

I know

Because that’s the Jewish homeland.

So you want the US government to steal from others so that in can protect Israel?

As an individual who has a vested interest in Israel and the Jewish people, given that nearly half of my living family is Jewish, I can attest to the fact that the quoted statement is untrue. So, for Palestinians born on Israeli territory Israel is not their “homeland”? In any case, the issue is much broader than just the topic of who’s homeland Israel really is. I wrote this a very long time ago, and I could probably do a better job today, but alas it will do: Zionism’s Losing Battle.

Yes. It’s worth it to me. And I’m fully aware of how awful it is.

Pathetic.