Talk:Minarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Old comments

I would, as a classical liberal myself, also not consider either minarchism or anarcho-capitalism to be the purest modern expression of classical liberalism. I do not describe myself as a minarchist - I am in favor of whatever level of government maximizes individual liberty, not necessarily the smallest government that could do some defined set of tasks. I suspect that a relatively small government will be best in this regard, but this is not a necessary assumption - one, an adequately *constrained* government may well be what is required, and two, vs some threats to individual liberty (such as an invasion), a relatively large government may be necessary. Allens 07:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are a minarchist, since you are "in favor of whatever level of government maximizes individual liberty". That definition is the flip-side of the same libertarian coin. Whatever level that is, any less government would not be minarchist, since that level would not meet the minimum required to protect individual liberty. --Serge 05:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Fare I wouldn't say that Minarchism is the *purest* form of classical liberalism. Maybe the oldest (or at least oldest to have been openly spoken), most traditional, the most common, the most easily accepted, or the most usually taken as the target to reject. But many will claim that for better or worse, anarcho-capitalism has at least as much of a claim for being "purest" as minarchism does, for it goes to the logical consequence of the anti-statist tradition.

Minarchism is classical liberalism in it's original = purest form. Classical liberalism, from the beginning, included a night-watchman state. So does Minarchism, it just calls it minimal state. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't include a night-watchman state. It might be purer in some sence, but it is *not classical liberalism*. The classical liberals were no anarchist, so Anarcho-capitalism has no claim to classical liberalism what so ever.

There's also Gandhian anarchy which is minarchist eco-village type stuff. "A Green, a Sufi, and a Zen Master walk into a bar..."

There's also what Dan Sullivan calls geo-libertarian views which throw away the King's Deed To The Land (which amazingly libertarians seem to believe in). He's defined what seems to be close to the new tribalist vision of shared collective lands with privately-owned improvements - and there are parties on the fringe like the Canadian Marijuana Parties that seem to fit his definition nearly perfectly. It's truly great stuff.

Then there's "The Sovereign Individual" and "Natural Capitalism" which might combine very soon to arbitrage states off the map. But anyway...

Classical liberals? Adam Smith said they needed defense, infrastructure, the courts, education and a stable currency. As all that was understood in 1776.

One could argue that we just need more of those things today, because people are stupider thanks to reverse evolution (keeping absolute morons alive). or one could argue that Marx got it right and we implemented almost all of the Communist Manifesto except for abolishing private land rents: as geo-libertarians and Greens would do... thus finishing the job.

However, Marx and Smith can both be right. They don't really contradict each other.

Just wanted to remind about John Locke: State *will* rise from the state of nature.

I'm in the middle of a debate with a "minarchist". What I want to know is - WHY is big government a bad thing? It may well be - but why?

Exile

I guess they would say it's because it restricts liberty. The have authority as a government, something need to restrain its subjects's liberty.--Chealer 05:42, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

[edit] Why is big government a bad thing?

Exile asks (above): "Why is big government a bad thing?" In no particular order, and one can probably write an essay if not an entire book on each of these points:

  1. Power corrupts. The bigger the government is, the more power those people who are in it have, the more potential for corruption. Inevitably, as government gets bigger and bigger, the potential becomes reality. The only antidote is to not give those in government enough power to make it worthwhile to others to corrupt them. That means small government, a minarchist government, if you will, that focuses only on preventing others from using power to violate the rights of others.
  2. Government is generally not very effective in causing humans to behave and use resources efficiently. Government is inherently wasteful. Outside of government there is a profit motive to be efficient (the more shoes the cobbler makes with the leather that he has, the more food he can buy for his family). The bigger the government for a given society, the less efficiently that society uses its resources. Therefore, the most efficient society is one with a minarchist government that only provides the functions for the society that absolutely must come from government, leaving other functions to be provided efficiently through supply and demand, thus minimizing waste in society. Note that an area most minarchists agree is a proper role for government is to manage unowned resources (which are not governed by supply and demand), like the air and the ocean, though finding a practical way to have those resources privately owned would probably be preferred by most minarchists.
  3. If you believe in the morality and/or the utility of the non-aggression principle, then most big government activity is immoral and/or non-utilitarian, since most big government activity cannot be effected without violating the NAP (like by collecting taxes to forcibly transfer wealth from people that earned it to people that did not). This is the point Chealer made above, that big government restricts liberty (defined as the right to do whatever one wants with him self and his property, except violate the right of anyone else to do the same). Thus, arguably, the only moral and/or most utilitarian government is a minarchist government which does not violate the NAP.

I believe those are the big three. Did I miss anything?

--Serge 28 June 2005 18:18 (UTC)


"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." - Thomas Jefferson

-- Formunknown

What about big corporations? I believe they are at least as bad as big government.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.34.52 (talk) 12:35, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minarchism, does it exist?

I thought I'd mention that minarchism, although I do like the name and the idea compared to anarchism, seems to be an empty theory. I'm referring to what you'll get for Googleing it : 3040 results. In the first two pages, there is one site with as only content "nothing here yet", one unreachable site, one that has nothing but a link to a page about minarchism which brings to the same contentless page, and finally one site that seems to mention a more serious use in 2000-2001. The rest are Wikipedia mirrors. It seems that some people still succeeded to push 25 references to it in Wikipedia. I found Nothing about minarchism from non-libertarians...so I'm just saying this article might be overadvertised. In the 5 pages of French results for "Minarchisme" in Google, most non-Wikipedia references seemed related to the author of the Wikipedia article (Faré). Did WP invent minarchism, or is it just so good?--Chealer 05:42, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Perhaps the name is most widely used in libertarian circles, I don't know. But the concept of a minimum state would pre-date libertarian belief as we know it today, so it cannot really be considered a "new" notion. Lapafrax 21:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

'Minarchism' is not really a well known political phrase, but that's not to say that the minimal state theory is not widespread. Many people who do espouse this theory simply call themselves libertarians who believe in a minimal state (as opposed to the anarcho-capitalists who reject any form of state). For instance Robert Nozick argues for a minimal state in his book 'Anarchy, State and Utopia', but never mentions the word minarchism. Minimal state libertarianism only has substantial political espousal in the English-speaking world - mostly amongst fringe factions of major centre right parties such as the Tory/Conservative parties in the Britain and Canada, the Australian Liberal party and the US Republican party, but also minor parties such as the US Libertarian Party or New Zealand Libertarianz Party.

[edit] State ownership of schools and hospitals; rights of minors

The article states that some minarchists would advocate state ownership of hospitals and schools.

I've never heard of any libertarian minarchist who has ever called for such a thing. Libertarians in general oppose state ownership of educational institutions and healthcare. if you posted this, please replace this note with your signature using two dashes followed by four tildes

I think I'll remove the part containing government ownership of school and hospitals. As has been stated, I know of no libertarian writer or thinker who has advocated that schools and hospitals be state-owned. Governmental ownership of schools and hospitals generally is contrary to libertarian beliefs anyhow.
Healthcare/hospitals for sure. However, there is nothing non-libertarian about home owner associations, where owners voluntarily agree to agree to abide by the rules and regulations of the association, including paying any home owners' fee, prior to buying a home in a given home owner association governed area. It is conceivable that such a community be large enough to support a "public" school system for the resident children of the community, and I don't see how any minarchists would object to that (after all, no one would be forcing anyone to live in such a community). However, that's still a far cry from state ownership.
Having said that, libertarianism is much less clear regarding the rights of minors than adults. Does a child have the same rights as an adult? Of course not. Where are the lines? For example, in a minarchist/libertarian society would the state have the right to remove a child from an abusive home? Does a parent have the right to raise his child uneducated? These are questions currently not given much attention by libertarian or minarchist thought. It's easy to say that minarchists would not support state owned schools, but I think that presupposes that there is consensus on the whole child rights issue among libertarians and minarchists, which clearly there is not due to the dearth of thought and discussion on the topic. I am not convinced that libertarianism and minarchism, such as it is, will not evolve a recognition that mistreatment of minors is a type of coercion, that preventing children from getting an education is a type of mistreatment, that compulsion of educating minors is not an initiation of force, and therefore the state doing that is okay. As soon as the state takes responsibility for educating minors, then state owned schools becomes an issue to address (though vouchers alone might be sufficient to solve it). You could also say that a parent/guardian has an obligation to finance the education of a minor (in private schools), just as he has an obligation to finance the fulfillment of the shelter, clothing, nutritional and health needs of the child. --Serge 17:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mises Institute — minarchist?

I've taken the liberty of removing the Ludwig von Mises Institute from the article's list of minarchist organizations. This is not in any way to denigrate the Institute, but simply to avoid confusion. The Institute simultaneously honors both Mises, a minarchist, and Murray Rothbard, an anarcho-capitalist. The "faculty" itself is also split: off the top of my head, I can think of two ancaps (Walter Block and Lew Rockwell -- the founder) and one minarchist (George Reisman); the rest are right on the border. --zenohockey 19:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, it's true that Mises is partly Ancap. But they are posting loads of materials, articles, and even complete books (freely downloadable in pdf format) by minarchists; as such, they are a serious source of infos for anyone interested in the topic. So, it wouldn't be bad to revert your change and list them on the main page. What does everybody here think about this? M-la-maudite 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did this term arise?

Can someone provide a reference to some early use of the term "Minarchism"? It sounds to me like a new term.

--Gabi S. 11:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See "Minarchism, does it exist?" (No real answer yet) --Chealer 14:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

i think vo mise instute have 1. make redneck anti postmodernism ideas pilosophy good arguments 2make palo conervative milita maybe survalits ideas put it into a politcal reasoon and frame 3. religous rhigt maybe a littel like o relay show ideas good pilospphy agruments 3.make liberal version or rothblads think better by mr loong and like alle good idology mix your main idea abut goverment/economy whit 2-3 other ideas so it get a more border ideology

Samuel Edward Konkin III invented the term in 1970 [1] or 1971 [2] depending on which of these articles is correct. KleenupKrew 01:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Is there a difference between Minarchism and Philosophical Anarchism?

[edit] That government is best which governs least

"I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'" -- Henry David Thoreau quoting an unnamed source Ewlyahoocom 13:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minarchy: Centralized or Decentralized?

In relation to this quote:

"In general, minarchists favor expansion of power in a government of a small jurisdiction (like a city or county) over a larger jurisdiction (like a state or nation)."

I would like to point out that the idea of many seperate (like a city or county) sovereign mini-governments makes little sense. Especially when you consider that they would carry legislative and judicial power with no one to answer to. In many cases (small towns for instance) this would place absolute power with only a few public officials. Additionally, with a lack of central control over them there is no way to reasonably expect them all to conform to libertarian tradition. Would these small seperate orginizations also be responsible for establishment of military (the police would not typicially have the force required to shoot down enemy planes or sink an invading navy for instance), and also weild the right to declare war? It just isn't logical.

I believe most libertarians who observe the need for some government structure and control recognize a need of a central governing body to oversee it (Federal or centralized Minarchy).

Favoring "expansion of power in a government of a small jurisdiction over a larger jurisdiction" does not preclude having centralized overseeing power, such as the Supreme Court in the U.S. There is no implication of sovereign mini-governments. I think the point is that minarchists generally prefer most government services to be funded and provided locally rather than federally on the basis that the "if you don't like it, or if you disagree with it, you can leave" choice that individuals have is more practical (and thus more powerful) at a small local level than a national level. It is the same idea, for the same reasons, that is shared with American conservatism. It does not mean that minarchists (or conservatives) would oppose a centralized overseeing judicial system to keep the local governments with the day-to-day power honest... --Serge 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Serge: I agree somewhat with your take on this, and would like to add to it. Specifically, I think that this is not meant to be understood as military forces, which more or less by definition must be controlled primarily on the nation-state level and not some lower level of government (otherwise you are pretty much devolving from the level of a nation-state into smaller political units, de facto). I think that rather it's the expansion of government in other ways that should occur on a very localized level--for example if Lakewood, New Jersey wants to enact very strict building codes, or tax their residents 20% of their property values a year, or mandate that free food is available at their city hall for all residents every night (and have to figure out how to pay for it), or do whatever they like, that less offensive than at a higher level, even if some residents might not like it, because people who don't like it can just move 10 miles and they are no longer in Lakewood. Combined with the greater law of the land, such as on the state and federal level, precluding Lakewood from restricting its residents from moving, the citizens of Lakewood can "vote with their feet." Therefore policies which might inhibit people's freedom, or economic growth, such as these, would also be impossible to impose if unpopular or simply economically unfeasible. Lakewood, having to pay for these ideas on its own, would abandon them if they aren't working.

On the other hand, when a policy which is either restrictive or economically unfeasible is adopted at a higher level of government, such as at the state or national level, it is much more difficult for people to simply escape from the area in which such a policy is effective--because it is everywhere! Now, as opposed to moving ten miles, people may have to move hundreds of miles or more, or they may be unable to move because they cannot obtain legal residency in another country, etc. And so public policies from which people cannot escape start to destroy a country's fabric in ways no one sees, because the effects are delayed or restrained from being seen immediately by what amounts to force, by increasing the pain and frustration one must be subject to in order to avoid the offending policy or policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.195.11 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do You want an answer?

I revert this [3] because there is nothing what could be a citation. Looks like a hoax. --Bbnsv 13:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your desired changes -- I'm more than happy to discuss this, and in fact I'd prefer to. Edit wars can be brutal, and rarely do any good. But, um. No offense, but did you not see the part where the site discusses minarchism? I can link you to plenty of sites within thirty seconds -- [4] [5] [6] [7]. "Minarchism" turns up 55,800 Ghits [8]. The Libertarian Wiki doesn't seem to think this is a hoax. All of those websites take the concept seriously. In the meantime, you're coming up on WP:3RR -- friendly warning, read that page before your next revert, or you may be blocked for violating policy. I look forward to discussing this with you. Luna Santin 13:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What are you doing? The cite should give a reference to the text. It should not dicuss minarchism. How old are you? --Bbnsv 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that mentioning an article's subject wasn't allowed, on reference pages. Luna Santin 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Or, to put it another way: see straw man -- since neither my use of the word "discusses" nor my age are of any remote importance to my argument as a whole, it makes little apparent sense to zero in on them as key issues. Thanks for your time. Luna Santin 01:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Your edit is unreasoned and will be reverted. What do you want to reference by this link? You are vandalizing. or very stupid. Something else is not possible. --Forget it. 21:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That's nice, but would you care to make any points? Ad hominem attacks prove little, so please remain civil. Bear in mind WP:3RR as well -- an important policy you would do very well to read. Luna Santin 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I protected this page and also Libertarianism because of Irgendwer who is using sockpuppets like crazy at the moment. I have a checkuser request up. If these are all proven to be him, he will be blocked. So this is a band aid to stop him from doing this. He's up to 3 socks and will continue to create them. This should just be for a day or two. Irgendwer, please stop. Serially creating new accounts so you can continue to attack people and revert war is totally against policy. Stop. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be said that User:Intangible is probably not Irgendwer. Most of its edits have been to remove "overbroad" Categories from political articles not closely linked to libertaria. That's a reasonable action imho: if article X is included in cat Y which is a subcat of Z, then article X need not be explicitly in Z. —Tamfang 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I belatedly agree; I'm pretty sure I've run into Intangible, before. At CfD or somewhere, I think. Either way, he doesn't fit the pattern. Thanks for pointing that out, though. :) Luna Santin 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea how to request un-protection, but I doubt this still needs it, since that ingerwer guy is apparently banned. So if somebody who knows what they're doing could request that, because I sure don't know how, and it needs to be done.Skywalkert65b 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Maher?

Maher isn't any kind of libertarian, let alone a minarchist. He might call hiself that, but his stated political positions don't support the claim. See here: http://archive.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/?sid=1043433

[edit] Dubious statements in the criticism section

I tagged the following statements as dubious :

  • All known governments in history have grown in size and scope.
  • The American Founding Fathers' approach of limiting the inherent force linked with government (in respect to the United States Constitution) has not worked.

The first statement could be true (but hardly verifiable I am afraid) if analyzed on a long scale, but on shorter scales, some governments have actually reduced their size and scope. A good example would be Great Britain's transition from monarchy to its early parliamantary democracy stages at a time where individual freedom was at the core of this society's restructuration. Some Asian countries have also experienced a reduction in the size of their governments during the last few decades, as did Ireland I would say.

The second statement is obviously not verifiable, although I would understand, and somewhat agree with, what is meant by it. But when we compare the success that the US have had in protecting individual freedom to other constitutional countries, it could be said that the Founding Fathers somewhat succeeded... The government's growth in the US has not been stopped by the Constitution that they drafted, indeed, but it at least has been slowed, and that is an achievement that few other constitutions in the world have matched. --Childhood's End 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I initially added the criticism section since I felt it would make a more balanced article. Still, I disagree with your points. Great Britain actually became more imperialist after its transition from absolute monarchy to a modern parliamentary system. Some countries may have liberalised their economies, but not necessarily for "libertarian" reasons. Ireland's Celtic Tiger phase largely arose because of competitive corporation taxes and EU subsidies and not because the Irish government felt that government undermines individual liberty. And the US Constitution's attempt to limit the growth of government has failed. The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit the federal government's power. Lapafrax 20:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. The main problem that I see with the statements is that they are not verifiable. Perhaps if you could find a reliable and notable source for what is said there, we could reformulate for something like "According to...".
Besides, the US Constitution has been quite successful until the 1930's and Roosevelt's actions towards the Supreme Court. And Great Britain may have become more "imperialist" then, it remains that its citizens were becoming more free at the very same time. Issues should not be mixed like this imho. --Childhood's End 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Consider the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire": it definitely didn't become an overarching bureaucracy, but degenerated into a loose confederation. Nyttend 19:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who says this? - Criticism section

This is a standard criticism from opponents of minarchism. Many anarcho-capitalists/market anarchists would claim that minarchism is contradictory and logically inconsistent. Lapafrax 09:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

...it still has to be cited. — Demong talk 02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"In order for a state to fund itself, it would have to tax people, which requires coercion and thus an initiation of force. "
I removed this because it's false. The state does not have to tax people to fund itself. I challenge the writer to find me an example of a minarchist who believes/claims this. It (the state) could tax people, but many minarchists would prefer other means such as voluntary charity (which is mentioned further on in the article), a lottery, road tariffs, or other similar ideas.
One could surely reinsert the offending comment with mention that it's specifically critics who claim that the state "has to tax people to fund itself," but in all honesty the said critic would have to be utterly ignorant of the vast majority of minarchist writings (and arguments), and hence it'd be a straw man anyway.

Moonshinefe 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I accept that some minarchists don't believe that. Nonetheless there are a number of minarchists who still advocate taxation as a means of funding government. Surely there is a contradiction and logical discrepancy here, since you can't say taxation is theft, yet still feel it's necessary to finance the state. Lapafrax 14:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The statement could be toned down (perhaps something like "it might have to tax..."), and qualifiers could be added ("...although many minarchists believe that...") --Childhood's End 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


There is obviously a disconnect between the rights of the State and the rights of the Federal State. The Federal State should have limited power over taxes. The Constitution does, however, provide adequately for State level taxation. Perhaps this is a slight muddling of Constitutionalism with Libertarian Minarchism but I believe in the context of the United States they are not mutually exclusive. --JayVee

[edit] Leadership

I don't see anything on this page regarding the value that society places on leadership (in the sense of minarchism vs. anarchism). This can't be an original idea, but a cursory Google didn't come up with any immediately satisfying results. I'm citing this simply as a possible addition (I'm new to Wiki and have little talent in the editing department). One of the arguments for minarchism (and against anarcho-capitalism) is that people naturally gravitate toward charismatic and/or wise leadership, and that an elected representative group of leaders would be more conducive to individual liberty than leadership that is derived purely from the market (corporate or business leaders).

--IntrepidDemise 10:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable addition to the Criticism section. I'll add it if someone doesn't before me. Lapafrax 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand

Shouldn't there be a citation for including her as a "prominent miniarchist"? I can see how it might fit, given the broad definition of it, but since she never applied the term to herself it might be original research to refer to her (and maybe some others) as such.--Darkmusashi 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)