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.

thanks for trying to bring us together

I am for anything that reduces the size of government. I am not interested in making the government more efficient, more accountable, or more transparent, if it does not, at the same time, reduce the size of government. Also, I am for anything that is peaceful and voluntary. I will join forces with anyone that wants the same.

"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut

Instead of suggesting policies...

...I'd like to suggest the following instead. Here's the common ground between minarchists and anarchists... Government is WAY WAY WAY more than either want. So by working together cooperatively, both groups can double their forces to pull the rope in the same direction. Once we get down to minarchy, then we can argue about whether to go all the way to anarchy. But for now, we're going to have government. Thus, we should all pull in the same direction to make things better. If we're all pulling in different directions we'll never get anything we want.

Anytime you want to move a

Anytime you want to move a society in a certain direction you have to go to the extreme. As society is now anarchy is an extreme position (to the average person) which will not work until people understand that the initiation of force is always wrong therefore govts are immoral.
I'm with Stef Molyneux on the idea that it will not happen in our lifetime and it will require people to believe that peaceful parenting is the key to not having people brainwashed from birth that someone has authority over them.
In the meantime we are all wanting more freedom so (can't we all just get along?).

lol what is peaceful

lol what is peaceful parenting?

bringing someone into the world in the first place imposes something on that without their knowledge or consent.

from that moment all the way to legal maturity, life for a child involves coercion and lack of freedom. absent the intervention of other members of a society, parents essentially own their children.

are you promoting parenting without any discipline?

you guys never cease to shock me with your naivete.

Don't be shocked, it's just your brainwashing showing

are you promoting parenting without any discipline?

Use negotiation not violence

So, are you saying a kid

So, are you saying a kid can't live with their parents without coercion and "discipline"(and i'm guessing you mean physical?)?

You know, there was once a way that children used to voluntarily learn and be around their parents... I think it was called parenting. Ever heard of it? :)


I'm with Bill on this one.

This comment is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.



All I know is there is a

All I know is there is a group that says government has rights over others and there are some people, including myself, that say no one has rights over anyone. There is no compromise when it comes to that. It's a way of life.

You're either free or you're not.

I know for fact that when it's all said and done I won't be leaving one government to live under a new one. You can have your constitution, but leave me out of it.

dwalters unfortunately it

dwalters unfortunately it looks like you're gonna get the worst of both sides on this one. i can already see the anarchotwits attacking your shameful compromise, lol.


i like your idea, opt in/opt out. i've thought about it before as well. but you're only making half the case, opting out of taxes / irksome laws.

you didn't mention foregoing all of the benefits and protections!

those who opt out should be known by everyone somehow, "this individual has opted out, and will not be protected by the law. his property, his person, his welfare, are for him alone to defend. do whatever you want, he is outside the law"

if you're driving along and end up wrapped around your steering column, no helicopter will airlift you to emergency.

if a bunch of people attack and rob you, others will have to voluntarily come to your defense. there will be no legal response, no prosecution of any participants in the attack.

anyone defending you would risk legal liability for assaulting others acting legally by robbing and beating you.

if you truly want out of the system of coercion and taxation, that means you also forfeit its benefits.

I think I would rather take my chances...

I didn't realize that hospitals provided a public service. Don't they send bills directly to the consumers or to the insurance company which represents them? Or, do hospitals send bills directly to the government?

In addition, not having government protection doesn't mean one has no protection. In such a market situation, one could likely find superior protection - if they wished to have it - for less than the government could provide it. Who would have ever thought that government is less efficient than the private sector 99% of the time?

Why should it be advertised that a person has chosen to opt out? It seems to me "club members" could simply carry a card, and when they wished to consume government services they would provide their "club membership number and identification." This seems much more civil than demagogueing against people that don't wish to have the services - those people who think it is over priced. That is akin to forcing the Jews to wear the Star of David. Are you really that much of a statist?

Finally, I keep hearing about all these murderers and thieves that will one day come out of the woodwork. I guess for now they have job security working for the government. In reality, how many murderers have you known? Of all the people you have met, how many are thieves?

I think I would take my chances, and the odds would be in my favor.

hehe. you point out that the

hehe. you point out that the streets are safe and you don't worry about thieves or murderers, ignoring that your observation is taking place under the very legal order you're opposing. in exchange for something that has never existed and is just an academic utopia.

the membership card idea is fine. the point was just a sort of device to demonstrate that as someone who opted out, you would forfeit the public goods offered to members of society. it is not practicable and will never happen, which is why it is just a hypothetical to make a point.

we will never know if you really would opt out, so claiming you would means nothing.

Yeah, your grandma would go on a murderous rampage

if the government ceased to exist. Everyone would be serial killers. Bands of thieves would roam the countryside.

And, if heroine was legalized tomorrow, everyone would immediately pick up a needle.

I would venture to say that the places where crime is high is because of government. People in bad neighborhoods have a false sense of security that the police will protect them - while in reality, the cops won't go to many of those neighborhoods. Would the people in those situations be better off using the money to buy guns for self-defense or to pay the cops that never come?

hehe. nope, but my grandmas

hehe. nope, but my grandmas already been robbed, and it would prob happen again and more often if she needed to hire a "protection agency" to defend her small property.... give it up man. its so over.

and yes, it is the government committing all the crime in newark and chicago and detroit. in fact, its the absolute lack of fear of any consequences - absence of effective law and order.

you're a real bright one, dw.

I shouldn't be forced to subsidize your grandma's protection...

Give it up BILL3.

that's fine, you aren't. you

that's fine, you aren't. you are free to exit the legal structure put together by the people in your community, county, city, state, or country. you choose not to, but it is your right. back here in the real world, government will exist, and taxes will exist. isn't it awful?

You can no more say with certainty that government will exist

forever than I could say it won't.

However, my argument that the Age of State Compulsion will one day end is stronger than your argument that it will last in perpetuity. At one time, people thought kings were just as necessary as you think state compulsion is. Like them, I strongly believe that time will prove you wrong. Over the years, government has gotten less and less tyrannical with brief lapses of backsliding here and there.

For the mathematicians that may be around here: The limit as time approaches infinity of the function government is zero.

the government IS the cause

Newark, Chicago, and Detroit have stringent gun control laws.

"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut

i oppose gun control as much

i oppose gun control as much as the next person. but lots of places have the same level of gun control without there being hundreds of homicides. that is not the cause of crime. examine your beliefs a little further. it's okay to be scared.

How about you enumerate

the "benefits and protections" you keep referring to, put a price on them, and if I want any ... I will call you.

Are you suggesting that if a member of your gang rapes, pillages, or plunders me against my consent that you offer a "benefit or protection" to prohibit any gang members from raping, pillaging, or plundering me?

Or are you suggesting you offer a service to leave people alone and if I am willing to pay you for a service to be left alone, I will be left alone?

My spidey sense keeps tingling whenever I think about paying your gang not to rape, pillage, or plunder me or paying your gang to leave me alone. Something about it doesn't intuitively feel right. I think its the clause where if I pay your gang and they don't leave me alone or rape, pillage, or plunder me they keep my money anyway.

none of that is my job. i

none of that is my job.

i just suggested to dwalters that logically, if you opt out of the costs, you also opt out of whatever free benefits come from public goods. that means, protection from law courts, military, police, emergency svcs, etc. some people might agree to that. i'd wager very few.

but the proof is in the pudding. go develop private emergency svcs that are cheaper and better. the world is your oyster.

"Free Benefits" - Ha! Ha! HA!

Where did you study economics?

The government cannot give unless it first takes.

yes, that's the cost side. we

yes, that's the cost side. we already covered that with your tax opt out.

i was referring to the benefit side in isolation, since you ignored it.

like the benefit that if someone attacks you, you can sue them in court or press charges without having a team of body guards with you.

having someone airlift you to emergency and try to save your life is a real benefit.

perhaps these things can be provided better for those who opt out by hiring private firms to replace all these services.

but if you do opt out of costs, you should forgo the benefits too.

Hospitals don't provide a public service....

Where do you live?

I guess if the government socialized the entire food industry, I should be subject to starvation. I wouldn't pay for such a government in a system that could be opted out of. Would you?

i live in a place where if i

i live in a place where if i smash myself through the windshield, i will be rushed somewhere and treated, whether i have the money or not.
if i am attacked, i can press charges and bring the matter to court.
if you want to opt out of that, i would support that. but you have to accept the entire consequence of opting out, as i laid out above. not just free ride.

And they will send you a bill....

Ambulances are not a public service paid for by tax money.

they might send you a bill,

they might send you a bill, but they can't force you to pay it, and they don't check if you can before helping you. i'm sure they would even help you, dw. if they heard of your beliefs, they'd just consider you handicapped, and redouble their efforts. o_0

Kooky hypotheticals don't cut it

To the extent that there's no state, other measures must already be in place, under ancap logic.

That's why it's "anarchocapitalism," and not just "anarchy."

Your argument is like saying, if people opt out of government healthcare, they can't come crawling to the government when they're sick....But people are opting out based on the understanding that the market can provide infinitely cheaper, more effective, and more efficient healthcare.

Get it?

The ancap argument has two components. One is the moral, anti-mafia position, and the other is the understanding there's a preferable method of organization waiting to be utilized.

With a functioning market, a solution, or the prevention, of every situation you describe, would be available to the victim before the incident occurred. If someone chose to not have insurance or not to take preventative steps of some kind, it's not the responsibility of the rest of us to pay for their stupidity. However, with a functioning market, the abundance produced would likely provide charity or some means to clean up messes made by idiots....it would be in everyone's interest to not have cars sitting wrapped around trees, or robbery victims bleeding out on the corner.

Your simplistic hypotheticals don't take into account the many levels on which the market functions, and the endless forms market solutions can take.

my response was about

my response was about dwalters suggestion of making taxes voluntarily within a society with a govt, it has nothing to do with the stuff you're referring to above.

Maybe I didn't read carefully enough.

Or maybe your point wasn't clear.

But....You're implying that the only emergency aid or legal order in this hypothetical society could come from the state.

Kind of a Marxist premise.