Minarchism

[Voice_of_Reason]

What's everyone heres view on Minarchism?

I was just curious. I'm doing a Senior paper of Minarchism, and I'm looking for some opposing viewpoints.

[Demogorgon]

Don't get me started. The position is full of inconsistencies and other issues. Briefly put, it is simply a clumsy attempt to justify a State that protects privilege to its maximum potential and does nothing else. That is to say it says a State is fully justified to the extent it is protecting property but it may not do anything to limit the power of property holders in any way.

[Muzk]

Completely oppressive police state, while the "individual"(capitalists) can wreak havoc on the working class. Totally not what we want. It's actually what America has now, and (almost) every other nation has - oppression, mass manipulation, and capitalists. So why are the liberals crying? They got what they want. Liberty of the few. Oppression of the masses. A working system! Human nature and all that. The inherent greed of every human. Yeah.


What an anarcho-capitalist / anarchist has to say about minarchy, honestly his blog didn't exactly tell me which kind he is (http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/gregory/gregory6.html)


Ludwig von Mises on minarchism:

"In order to establish and to preserve social cooperation and civilization, measures are needed to prevent asocial individuals from committing acts that are bound to undo all that man has accomplished in his progress from
the Neanderthal level. In order to preserve the state of affairs in which there is protection of the individual against the unlimited tyranny of stronger and smarter fellows, an institution is needed that curbs all antisocial elements.
Peace—the absence of perpetual fighting by everyone against everyone—can be attained only by the establishment of a system in which the power to resort to violent action is monopolized by a social apparatus of compulsion
and coercion and the application of this power in any individual case is regulated by a set of rules—the man-made laws as distinguished both from the laws of nature and those of praxeology. The essential implement of a social system is the operation of such an apparatus commonly called government.Kind of a contradiction, since the government is a stronger and smarter fellow.

This seems to be a nice critique too, although I havn't read it all (http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/why-minarchism-is-the-greatest-delusion-part-13/)

[Voice_of_Reason]

America is in no way Minarchist. Just because a system is Capitalist does not mean all Capitalist systems are the same.

[Muzk]

America is in no way Minarchist. Just because a system is Capitalist does not mean all Capitalist systems are the same.

Why not? It has police to crush resistance, and capitalism.
Minarchism is utopian anyways, it can't work and it never will, it's a huge contradiction and it's unbelievable that minarchists are ever going to run the world.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

Why not? It has police to crush resistance, and capitalism.
Minarchism is utopian anyways, it can't work and it never will, it's a huge contradiction and it's unbelievable that minarchists are ever going to run the world.


Its wrong to argue that all capitalism is the same because its simply not true. Capitalism has neccessary conditions i.e. The State, a Class System, and Some form of Market Economy. However the way in which capitalism organises itself is many and varied. A corporative state structure such as that under a fascist regime follows a different organisational style to free market Liberalism or to State Capitalism. We hold an analysis that says we are opposed to all Capitalism, but we can still give an individual analysis to other types of capitalism other than generic capitalism.

Minarchism is an extreme form of Free Market ideology which is close to "anarcho"-capitalism. It sees the state as neccessary for the protection of individual liberty and property rights. Like under "anarcho"-capitalism, the functions of the sate still exist just privatised. Minarchism, unlike "anarcho"-capitalism realises that the state is a neccessary condition for capitalism, and so does not completely do away with it. Like all other forms of capitalism we oppose it because of the exploitation of the working class that exists. What makes Minarchism especially vicious compared to other forms of Market ideology is that it recognises that the states primary function is the repression of the working class and the protection of priveledge, and to minarchists this is the sole function of the state.

[The Ben G]

Minarchy. Great idea, but not as good as anarchy.

[whore]

the trouble with minanarchism is that you can't expect the state to stay small. it won't. those in power, tend to want to expand their power.

nozick (i've mentioned him before), hypothesised a no-state capitalist type system would form a minimal, defence only state. which is bullshit, because a company is not limited to only providing "products" in one a area. any state formed by the biggest "defence association" would also deal with whatever other crap that association dealt with (health and eduation perhaps? certainly more than just "policing" and "justice" though).

anyway, small statists are generally capitalist scum, and thus aren't worth talking about. the only small statists worth listening to are the socialists. and even they are wrong. (anarchism all the way baby). yes, it is possible for a person to be a socialist (of some sort), and still desire a small government. it's call worker's power. all socialists are meant to be for it.

[Left-Reasoning]

the trouble with minanarchism is that you can't expect the state to stay small. it won't. those in power, tend to want to expand their power.

The trouble with minarchism is that it ain't anarchism. But you do bring up a valid point.

Interesting factoid: the term minarchism was coined by SEK3. The same man that made Agorism.

[Chambered Word]

Big government, small government, what-the-fuck-ever. All capitalist governments are anti-worker.

[whore]

Big government, small government, what-the-fuck-ever. All capitalist governments are anti-worker.
sure...

but, even a socialist small government is a government that is not needed, or wanted.

a government that had a hands off approach to social issues, supported the right of workers to their own labor, and results of that labor, and all the rest.

after all:

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.
with my added emphasis.

no matter how perfect this small "socialist" government, it will always restrict freedom intolerably. that is, after all, what governments do best.

they use force, or the threat of force, to rule, and stamp their opinions on everyone else.

after all, who would pay taxes if they were not forced to? not most people. thus, even a socialist government is built on force, no matter how small it is.

[Dimentio]

Is it only me that get pissed off from completely bold texts?

[Chambered Word]

sure...

but, even a socialist small government is a government that is not needed, or wanted.

Yeah, if the socialist government has served its purpose, or you're an anarchist.


they use force, or the threat of force, to rule, and stamp their opinions on everyone else.

Not necessarily.


after all, who would pay taxes if they were not forced to? not most people. thus, even a socialist government is built on force, no matter how small it is.

If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect education, healthcare, trash collection, etc.

[whore]

Yeah, if the socialist government has served its purpose, or you're an anarchist.

funny, i'm an anarchist...




they use force, or the threat of force, to rule, and stamp their opinions on everyone else. Not necessarily.
can you provide an example of a government that doesn't use force or the threat of force? ...

is that the sound of crickets chirping? because it sure isn't you giving an example of a government that doesn't use force...

governments have to use force (police etc.) to both defend themselves, and to enforce their rules. if they didn't enforce their rules and laws, then why have them?



If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect education, healthcare, trash collection, etc.
you can have all that without taxes, without government. but you can't have government without taxes.

[Muzk]

governments have to use force (police etc.) to both defend themselves, and to enforce their rules. if they didn't enforce their rules and laws, then why have them?


To defend the interests of the dictatorship of the proletariat. You think you can have a revolution without consequences? Like, reactionaries? Invading imperialist forces? Criminality?

[whore]

you've just demonstrated that governments use force. that's what i was arguing.

i'm not saying that force is always unwarrented, or unneeded. but, when it comes down to it, a government is not compatible with a truly free society.

[Muzk]

What if there was a government overlooking the communist economy in the form of community delegates? Without any police/army behind them, since the communities have their own kind of militia?

You see, you kind of agree with us, it's just that when an anarchist says "government blablabla" we see it as a provocation since that's... you know what I mean



a government is not compatible with a truly free society. Then you were talking about money, taxes. But a truly free society doesn't have any money! Therefore it's impossible to pay taxes to a government, because you are the government!



Durr this thread was about minarchism

[whore]

yeah, and minarchism, no matter if it's "socialist" or "capitalist" is not desirable, because government is not desirable.

if you really want my opinion of "government" in a free society, see government in communism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/government-communismi-t127915/index.html). in a free society, there is no "government", no police, no army etc.