Night watchman state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A night watchman state, or a minimal state, is a form of government in political philosophy where the government's responsibilities are so minimal they cannot be reduced much further without becoming a form of anarchy. The responsibilities in a hypothetical night watchman state would include the police, judicial systems, prisons and the military, the minimum allegedly required to uphold the law, which is limited to protect individuals from coercion and theft, to remove criminals from society, and to defend the country from foreign aggression. The term night watchman state was coined in 19th century liberalism, and is a metaphor for a state that "sleeps" (i.e., refrains from getting involved in citizens' lives) until someone's civil liberties are infringed.
The view proposing a minimal state is known as minarchism, and is a core part of the libertarian ideology. Minarchists propose to enforce a night watchman state with a clearly-defined constitution on the government's powers, and may also see it necessary to ensure the constitution cannot be amended after adoption.
Contents |
[edit] Arguments for a night watchman state
Minarchists argue that the state has no right to interfere in free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that transactions between private individuals are free. In general, the majority of minarchists use deontological arguments: they claim that a minimal state is good in and of itself (for example because it fits their view of natural law), and that any further extension of government is inherently evil, even if it leads to good consequences. The Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand is notable for its support of this view. Other minarchists, however, also attempt to bring consequentialist arguments. Popperian libertarians argue that institutions and cultures evolve best without external interference from government. The adherents of the Austrian school believe that any state intervention in the economy is harmful.
[edit] Arguments against a night watchman state
The groups of people who disagree with the notion of a minimal state are far more diverse than those who support it, and include nearly all political views other than libertarianism. Objections to the idea of a minimal state are likewise very diverse.
One objection is that there is simply no need to reduce the government's attributions to such a minimal level using a rigid and inflexible minarchist constitution, and that it is best to evaluate the merits of government intervention in each issue on a case-by-case basis. According to Keynesians and other proponents of an economically interventionist state, a night watchman state could do nothing in face of such issues as economic recessions (see Keynesian economics).
Another is that if the powers of the night watchman state are limited by a constitution which cannot be amended by the people, then it is undemocratic.
Others argue that the criterion "someone's civil liberties are infringed" is not as clear cut as it needs to be for such a state to work.[1] For instance, it may at first appear that "preventing someone from speaking" is an infringement on a person's civil liberties, but that would entitle permitting someone to speak on a loudspeaker outside people's homes in the middle of night.
Furthermore, to prevent fraud, the night watchman state would have to enforce all contracts that did not infringe on the rights of third parties; protecting a person from infringing his own rights would be a violation of his liberty. Yet, even many libertarians object to the enforcement of some contracts, such as those by which a person sold himself into life-long slavery.
Specific political orientations and ideologies have specific objections to a night watchman state. Social liberals argue that it is a responsibility of government to provide care for the less well-off or disabled through a welfare state, while social conservatives argue that the state should maintain a moral outlook, and legislate against behavior with social destructive effect; that, indeed, the state can not survive if its citizens do not have a certain degree of character, and so ignoring it can be disastrous.[2]
Finally, a unique kind of criticism comes from anarchists, who argue that no state — not even a night watchman one — should exist. Right-wing anarchists argue that the goal of the night watchman state — protecting individuals from acts of coercion and theft — needs to be funded by taxes, which represent in fact a form of theft. Left-wing anarchists believe this formula is incoherent, since they see the institution of property as a form of coercion and theft itself.
[edit] Right to keep and bear arms
To ensure that the government does not breach the constitution, some minarchists are proponents of the right to bear arms, assuming that citizens would support the minarchist constitution and arguing that the right to bear arms would enable them to defend themselves and the constitution from the excesses of state power itself. Minarchists in the United States interpret this as the meaning behind the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Gertrude Himmelfarb, "Liberty: 'One Very Simple Principle'?", p 90, On Looking into the Abyss ISBN 0-679-75923-9
- ^ Gertrude Himmelfarb, "Liberty: 'One Very Simple Principle'?", p 97, On Looking into the Abyss ISBN 0-679-75923-9
