National security is still an issue that needs to be addressed by the market but it isn’t as much of a problem now that we have all of these NGOs participating in foreign policy stuff and more private military firms now.
I was just thinking about the myth told by people like James Madison, William Godwin, and many other people even well-intentioned people like Ludwig Von Mises that because we aren’t perfect so we need government. This idea comes from the notion that the state should always be intervening in our troublesome affairs. It’s quite clear that we need some central authority figure to determine the laws and to be an arbiter as to the conduct of human affairs. But you don’t necessarily need a state for that. Private courts have proved successful when they have had the enforcement and backing of the police. You could apply that law-enforcement with the backing of the police model to a private system that isn’t ran by the state and it could still work.
Arguing that people need the government to enforce the laws is one thing. But arguing that the government is there because people are imperfect and that people are naturally evil is assuming that the government is the only remedy and that they want to enforce certain restrictions on human behavior. These authors that espouse these opinions may mean well but what they fail to realize is the natural tendency of the state, and that tendency is to create many meaningless arbitrary regulations or orders telling us what we can or cannot do (with the exception of Holland).
The state for the most part tends to impose strict moral guidelines on a state-by-state line, at least with the United States. In other parts of the world the states discriminate against other people based on where they come from or what people they are.
One argument in favor of these restrictions upon human behavior would be that there needs to be a lot of legislation because you don’t know what will harm other people or what will not so you can’t distinguish between them. That you’d have to paint a broad brush and make everything illegal. Something is either wrong or right. If it’s wrong you can’t do it. This is also an argument made by well-meaning people who claim to be for small-government but in reality they wish to impose their moral views on everyone else.
These people don’t really wish for people to be free and have freedom of association or freedom of mobility. These are unthinkable concepts in their minds. The reason why these people are still so attached to the state is that they believe that they need complete control of human behavior in these certain areas they consider bad, and if humans don’t act in these certain accepted norms, that society will end up in chaos. In other words, the state is the enforcer of morality.
They don’t want people to use drugs not because of health reasons but because they primarily believe that it’ wrong of them to do so). In an anarchical system if someone wanted to build a mosque on their own property they could very well do it. It’s all about individual choices.
ANARCHISM DOESN’T MEAN LAWLESSNESS. There could very well be a bill of rights securing people from various different corporations that might exploit them or from the potential seeds of abuse that could occur from in a society without a central governing agency. People would just have more freedom of association and would have more of the freedom to do the things they wanted to do. If someone wanted to build a mosque they could do it on their own yard.
IN MY VIEW AN-CAP SHOULDN’T BE THE ONLY ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT EXISTS IN AN ANARCHICAL STATE OR PLACE. There should be many different kinds of economic systems that exist. Mutualism could very well exist in a capitalist environment. There could be unionism. Anarchism is all about individual choice. I don’t believe that this individual choice for anarchism should be forced on the population, and that’s why I think it should be done through a constitutional amendment.
NATIONS HAVE DISSOLVED THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT THROUGH VIOLENT PROTEST IN THE PAST, so to believe that people of a nation wouldn’t choose to dissolve it maybe for a temporary time, or for as long as they feel like, because they wouldn’t do it is prepostorous and a denial of history. If people wanted limited government for more freedom why wouldn’t they want anarchism which would provide them for even more?
Those are my thoughts on the subject. I’ve become completely disillusioned with minarchism and I am hoping that other people will share my similar disillusionment with minarchism. These minarchists mean well but they have no idea about how the state really works in reality and how their goals are a practical utopia.
At least anarchism has been tried in reality. Minarchism may have existed thousands of years ago. But it’s not really possible to have a minarchist state and fighting the war on terror in a global-scale like this, and not even that, but to have all of these moral guidelines in place as well.