13 votes

Finding Common Ground Between Minarchists and Anarchists

Minarchists and anarchists both want to reduce the size of government. This is not a point of contention. The point of contention is to what degree the government should be reduced.

I strongly believe in working with people who have similar goals to myself. I don't think it is necessary to alienate or reject a person altogether just because there are some areas of disagreement. If John McCain decided that he wanted to support ending the Fed, I would be happy to support him in achieving that narrow cause.

The United States central government will not last forever. As the tyranny increases, it will eventually fail. Whether one realizes it or not, even dictatorships require the consent - or at least the complacency - of the governed. The Constitution's intention was to limit the central government. In that respect, it is obvious that the Constitution has failed. Today, it is clear that the government is not limited.

When the central government fails, it will fall on the shoulders of the People to decide how to proceed. It is crucial that we don't leave it to a military general like it has occurred Egypt. When the government fails, many different groups will want to write a new document for the institution of a new government to rule over everyone. For the time being, we - the minarchists and anarchists - are the only regular folks that likely understand that this government is going to fail. This realization gives us a powerful advantage in planning ahead.

Speaking to my own opinion, I would prefer to rebel against any group that wishes to put in place a new government once the collapse occurs. However, I would like to offer those that want a government a few thoughts on what may make a government more agreeable.

Anarcho-capitalists contend that the market could offer the same services typically "fulfilled" by government. There is middle ground to be discovered here. Making taxation voluntary would necessarily limit government. You may say, "if taxation is voluntary, no one will pay." In that case, you will have admitted that no one feels that they need the services provided by the particular government. If people refuse to fund the government and chaos ensues - like many minarchists propose it would - there would be demand created for government, and people would soon begin paying taxes in order to acquire protection. This policy would also open up government to private competition.

Another provision that I believe is necessary to limit government, is to not allow the government to be involved in monetary policy, PERIOD. All money should come about organically through the market. Banking cartels soon fail in an open market. As well, this would largely forbid expansionist military policy.

Finally, wars (all military action) must be declared by the voting public, and such a vote - such a declaration - should have a high bar, maybe 75% approval. History has shown that freedom creates wealth, and wealth creates a government that likes to throw its weight around. It is unacceptable to allow the government to decide when war is necessary.

Since we have similar goals, there is common ground for minarchists and anarchists alike to stand on. I hope that you will consider the above suggestions. The US central government may fail sooner than you think. It will certainly not last forever. We should take it upon ourselves to begin discussing what the foundations of society should be. While I feel that the Age of Governments will one day be a chapter in history books, you are welcome to assume that governments will forever be. However, during this crucial time in history, it is vital that those in the know - us - find some common ground.

Please give suggestions for other policies in order to promote productive discussion.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think just about everyone here

believes government is too big and wishes to shrink it. Some of us just more drastically than others. I freely admit, I know nothing about anarchy or minarchists. Can someone who feels like this label suits them please give me a really short synopsis of what these terms mean?

"Minarchists" and "Anarchists"

are terms usually used by libertarians to describe, respectively, those who advocate the existence of minimal government, and those who advocate abolishing all governments. The term "government," when used by libertarians, usually means any organization having a monopoly on the definition and application of legalized coercive violence in a given geographical area.

Minarchists usually come to their beliefs by saying that the existence of a "power vacuum" in a stateless society would result in a greater level of coercive violence than would be imposed by a minimal state.

Anarchists usually use the argument that the need for a small amount of socialism to defend property rights is a contradiction, and fails to make sense in the context of attempts to maximize liberty.

I make no bones about my belief that minarchy is a contradiction, however, as I stated below, I really admire and respect consistent minarchists (consistent in that they do not advocate an increase in government power in any general area), especially ones like Ron Paul who are anarchists at heart.

I started out as a Reagan conservative, became a libertarian minarchist, and ultimately evolved into a radical libertarian anarchist, so I am familiar with some of the beliefs of both brands of libertarians. I will leave it to any minarchists here to let me know if I have mischaracterized their beliefs, and let them speak for themselves.

There can be common ground

between Anarchists and CONSISTENT minarchists (yes, there are some, such as Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation). Unfortunately, many people who refer to themselves as "minarchists" find one or two areas of government that they wish to expand, sometimes drastically. An example of such an individual is Bruce Cohen, who ran for US House of Representatives in California on the Libertarian Party ticket several times. He insists he is part of the "freedom movement" and wants limited government, with the exception of promoting a massive warfare state including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, because the government he supports would overall be smaller than the one we have now. Sorry, Bruce baby, it doesn't work that way. While you wish to eliminate all welfare and social security, there are other "libertarian minarchists" who wish to keep a welfare state and eliminate the warfare state, thus also promoting "smaller government." The problem is, your exceptions combine to produce a larger government overall, as lawmakers tend to "log roll" and make deals whereby one will support your increase in government if you support theirs. It almost never happens that one will support your decrease in government if you support theirs.

I admire and respect consistent minarchists, as they are truly allies in the fight to reduce tyranny. Just don't claim to be pro-liberty if you wish to increase government in any general area, just because if you were dictator for a day, it would reduce government "overall." You are not dictator, and the way the system works, the pressure to expand government is relentless, and can only be fought by consistent adherence to promoting liberty.

Ron Paul is not explicitly anarchist, but he is my hero because he truly "gets" liberty and appreciates the concepts of spontaneous order and societal evolution. I just wish his Senator son did. If he did, we would have a shot at this liberty thing at least in our children's lifetimes.

The solution you seek is in your hands

Capture 38 states houses and amend the U. S. Constitution one last time…..BY NULLIFING THE CONSTITUTION AND RETURN TO THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. It is the only legal nonviolent way to rid ourselves of the tyranny of our own creation.



People just need to be polite

We all agree we're way to far into statism.

We should work together.

Advice for anarchists: Be nice. Just because you can back someone into a logical corner doesn't mean you should. (and I am plenty guilty of this) Not everyone responds well to that. They will wake up or not. Either way we're on the same side. Odds are low we'll ever have a free society. But we can maybe be more free. We know the Constitution has issues, but if we restored it we would be in a better place. Consider restoration of the republic as an incremental step we can all agree on.

Advice for minarchists: Drop it. When you write 20 pages of stuff trying to justify statism you give us opportunity for 3 paragraphs of razor reason to refute you. Most people won't read wall of text, but they will read our concise rebuttal. If you want to slow people down from realizing they are not slaves, stop giving us chances to tell people they aren't slaves.

We've thought it through. We all started, by nature of socialized education, as statists. We came here by logic, and you won't win us back to slavery by emotion or bad logic.

The Constitution has not "failed"

One minor comment. The Constitution has not 'failed.' Men have failed. Men have failed "to keep" the republic that it established. Men have failed to educate their rising generation to the principle of liberty and why the principles enshrined in the Constitution need to be defended and preserved. Men have failed to be involved in their own government. Men have failed.

Though it is not a popular thing to say, we're not going to get any 'better' in this country until the rising generation is taught differently (or taught at all for that matter) -- minus state-run propaganda that destroys them and their jealous love of liberty.

I have forgotten completely about my "US Representative." She is a statist whore to begin with, but even if she was Ron Paul's intellectual off spring, she could do ANYTHING to solve our problem. I am concentrating on local local local with the highest emphasis on educating this rising generation. That is where we have failed and that is where we must solve the problem first. Until then, get prepared ......

fireant's picture

Indeed. A piece of paper in and of itself is just that;

a piece of paper. Until we start pointing the finger at ourselves, and use the power that piece of paper protects, it will remain just a piece of paper.

Undo what Wilson did

What was the purpose of the Constitution?

Was it to limit the central government? Did it succeed?

There is no such people as the right people to rule over everyone - no matter how contrived is the voting system. The only true vote the people can ever have is a money vote in a free market. Other types of voting will always fall short.

The purpose of the Constitution

wasn’t to limit the central government…..IT WAS TO CREATE A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. The central government was limited under the ARTICLE OF CONFEDERATION…….BAHHHHHHHHH

I always thought

people vote best with their feet.

Anarchists are like Atheist's.

they are a little slow on the uptake, but mean well.

Liberty requires personal responsibility. at a minimum.
there are those who cannot meet this minimum.

the need to provide for them is why I cannot say I am an anarchist.
what we have is just fine, and addresses your key issues.


You feel the need.

But we will assume you're unwilling to do anything yourself about it.

So by all means take up your gun and go get some money from your neighbor to do it. If this is moral to do, do it. Don't pay someone to do your dirty work for you. That seems a bit like the act of a coward. Have the courage of your convictions.

If I see a crime against life, liberty, or property being committed I have the right to act. That causes me no moral distress. I see a rape, I'm gonna stop the rapist. There is no moral problem if I delegate this authority to you or someone else.

But if you wouldn't take money from your neighbor for some big idea you have, no matter how noble, then you're being doubly immoral by forcing me to pay the men to take the money from your neighbor, you, and me to fund your big plan.

Why so pusillanimous? If you feel this strongly, if you think you have this moral authority, take up your own gun.

YIKES!!! was that reply meant for me?!?

yes, taxes do fit the definition of theft, I agree.
I just think that we can do better than to kill the handicapped?

That's the only options you

That's the only options you can imagine? Institutionalize theft, murder, and slavery of your neighbors because they disagree with your big idea, or kill the handicapped?

Nothing else possible hmm?

And anarchists are slow on the uptake?;) (clue: this is called false dichotomy, or excluded middle)

Yes that was for you. You led with saying anarchists are slow on the uptake I assumed you could take it as well as dish it.

Regardless, yes you are a coward. If you think stealing from your neighbor is moral don't wait for the IRS, they are inefficient and take a cut. The government only gives out $1 for every $5 it takes in.

If it's moral to do it's gotta be moral to do it more efficiently. YOU could do it without a cut. Go play 'Robin Hood' steal some food from some rich houses and take it down to some homeless people. I know you believe what you say that it's noble to take from some and give to others.

So look at all the good you could be doing if you weren't such a coward.

are suppositions and ad hominid attacks all you have?

and why do you go to such lengths to "set me off", so to speak?
I consider the supposed "war" between anarchist and min-anarchists.....
to be as like 2 guys fighting over Ford Or Chevy pickup trucks.
(I drive a Dodge)

I deem you a troll or a teenager.

That's not an ad hominem. You

That's not an ad hominem. You need to reaquaint yourself with what that means.

An ad hominem is when someone says you are wrong because you are bad. I'm not saying you are a coward therefore wrong in being statist.

I'm saying you are wrong in being statist, and thus also a coward since you don't even act upon your own wrong beliefs, although you are quite willing to send other men to do your dirty work.

You must be either insincere in your belief, or a coward. I'm assuming you are very sincere. So you must be a coward if you don't do what you believe is right. If stealing from your neighbor to support some program you like is a noble thing to do, go do it. Don't wait for the inefficient government. Look at all the good you could be doing!

Further your willingness to initially comment calling anarchists 'slow on the uptake' but then get butthurt when someone fails to coddle you with the courtesy you didn't offer to begin with, supports that assumption.

the subject matter at hand, had to do with,

"Finding Common Ground Between Minarchists and Anarchists"

are you aware of how far BOTH of those are from a "statist" point of view?
and yet you suggest that I have one?
can an Atheist prove a negative? no. can they prove that they are ignorant of the entire subject of Human spirituality?


A minarchist is a statist.

A minarchist is a statist. That's by definition. A terrier is a dog. A rottweiler is a dog.

Vicious dangerous dogs like Rottweilers, that would be the socialists.

As statists go sure minarchists are often friendly little dogs. I'd like to think terriers. Fiercely defensive, loyal, territorial, and clearly often yappy;) I like terriers. When I'm in the mood to be around dogs, or I have no choice, terriers are right up there.

But sorry, you're all of the same kind. You all agree that men, which you presumably accept to be imperfectable, are fit to employ their imperfection in ruling other men.

When men are free the good is amplified and the evil is minimized. When power to rule exists evil is magnified. Evil is attracted to power in ways good just is not. There is a reason good and intelligent people never rule. And they never will because that reason is us.

When the most good people rule, they will not be people. It's a religious fantasy that good people will gain power, and it is one which worships evil.

Sycophants as well as psychopaths are attracted to Gov't.

I agree. this is where the "rule of law" comes in.
if you do not know what that is, or cannot easily define the difference between a democracy and a republic.....

then you should not play in the deep end of the pool yet.

Sociopaths and paranoid schozophrenics repel government

they can't handle life as it is, so they depend on someone else to fix their problems for them.

Which is Ron Paul, a sychophant or psychopath?

Ron Paul is CLEARLY not either one.......

why on earth would you suggest such a thing?


You're the one.. Ron Paul was in office for decades.. look, he the exception.. i know.. but all those decades being around psychopaths.. I think it got to him in the end.. I wish he would have fought harder at the end.. oh well.. now Rand.. hmmm

whatcha think?

guilt by association......

that is a pretty cheap shot to take at a Man, that I consider my mentor.

and then you pretty it up by suggesting his son lay down with slime....
and have the nerve to ask me what I think about it.

It wasn't cheap

that man had me doing things I NEVER thought I would do because I believed in that man.. I joined the GOP, I worked hard on his campaign, spent more money on his campaign than personal enjoyment, got elected to a committee seat I personally wasn't interested in, fought hard for him, lead the North West district.. I worked hard and paid a lot of money to to be something I NEVER wanted to be for that man. I'm still in the GOP, I'm still promoting his message, while he has abandoned his message with his new business which is not about promoting restoration of the republic, but how to adopt to globalization.

Years ago many of us accepted that the rEVOLution was bigger than Ron Paul. I am in no way a clone of Ron Paul. And I believe I have paid a price that I can say what I feel, because earned it.

My point is not evryone in politics is a psychopath and to think such, then you are forgetting the exceptions like Ron Paul.. who proves, it is NOT the masses, but a few good people that make the difference.

Strive to be one of the good rather than the masses of apathy.

I didn't mean to upset you, if that is what I did. Maybe it's my own reflection of being influenced to do what I NEVER thought I would do, while he moved on leaving me with the responsibility, for my community would not respect me for being elected and then abandiong them.. that does me no good in MY community.. so here I am.. GOP. I just am glad the committee has gone to liberty. otherwise I would be a very miserable person, who paid a very high price because I LOVE Ron paul's message, to be where I am today in the GOP. Maybe I'm a better person for it? I now know the GOP is not what I thought it was, and I like Rand very much.

Besides protectionist tariffs, the US did not have socialist...

policies until the 1930's.

Suppose I have a friend that I've known for a long time that is an honest, hardworking person that comes by some hard times, and I'm not in a financial position to help him or her. Should I be able to forcibly take money from your paycheck to help my friend?

How is it that "what we have is just fine"? If "what we have is just fine" would you have supported Ron Paul?

I'll be the first to admit that IF the government would follow the Constitution, this place would be better off. The main purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government. Has it been limited? Or, did the Constitution fail to limit the government? What makes you think it will be any different in the future?

If you found yourself in a horror movie scenario where all your friends got brutally murdered during the plot but you were given an opportunity to rectify the situation through a time travel device, would you make all the same decisions that you made the first time? Or, would you make different decisions based upon your superior knowledge provided by hindsight?

The Constitution didn't work. Trying to change human nature to somehow create "eternal vigilance" will not work either. Subjecting our posterity to the rule of their grandfathers is not a solution either. Just like monarchical hereditary succession, our descendents should not be punished by our lack of foresight. The institution of government - as a state complex given a monopoly on force - will always lead to tyranny. It cannot be perfected.

I'll see the veins of my city... like they do in space.

which part of "we the people" confuses you?

I never remember signing a contract where I joined a group...

named "we the people." Did you?

I can plant a tree, but I can't force my posterity to forever eat its fruit.

The "We the People" listed in the Constitution can only be taken to be those people living and those people that agreed to the Constitution at the time of its ratification.

"We The People" means just that.

don't leave things up to the Government. keep the power...just be sure to diffuse it.


Another suggestion for unity.

Stop using the word "anarchy" and "no government" because it makes ALL us look like anarchists which are anathema to our target audiences.

Ventura 2012