28 votes

Do I Have To Be An Anarchist or a Minarchist?

Something I tend to notice when having discussions with people, not just here but in other forums.

When having disagreements with an anarchist, I am usually called a minarchist.

When having disagreements with an minarchist, I am usually called an a an anarchist?

Remember when we all first discovered Ron Paul, and we'd get frustrated when both Democrats and Republican would try to make us fit in their box, and would inevitably call you "progressive" for holding an anti-war belief, or a "fascist" or "conservative" for defending this or that on the free market?

Well, that's the same way I feel about anarchy vs. minarchy. It has become the left-right paradigm of the liberty movement. And it's just as false.

Can't I just be someone who strives for rational political debate which aims at a consistent philosophy?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

does it really matter?

Like any of our moral ideals will get a seat at the monopolist table. Remember what they did to Ron?

its not a false paradigm like Repubics and Demigods

Mincarchisism and anarchism are two different forms of governance.

compared with Republicans and Democrats who want the same thing within the existing form of government.

I'm a nanarchist

Rule by grandma.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

I would ask you the same thing Marc

In your recent "Does Ancap Allow People to Form Governments," you spent some time "applying labels." Telling people "you are not an anarchist" and so forth.

So I appreciate the sentiment of your question. But would respond by asking you Marc. WHY DO YOU spend so much time applying labels and trying to "define the terms" as we move forward and argue?

In that thread NEARLY EVERY COMMENTER... WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE WAY YOU WERE TRYING TO "define government." And Marc you went on a spree trying to defend YOUR CHOSEN label for what you think "can be considered a government."

Just like when one of my college professors wold totally misword a question on a test, the WHOLE CLASS wold freak when they all got their graded tests back, and the professor wold have to backpedal defending his poor wording or his PRESUMPTION of what a word meant...

So Marc. I would ask you the same question you are asking. WHY ARE YOU caught up on labels? And why do you keep perpetuating the trend of focusing on labels, trying to label folks and tell people "Well you are not an anarchist then...?"

And also Marc, after you create a post and realize that "the entire class" (just like in the case of the professor) took objection or challenge to your use of "the label for government," why can't you recognize the VALUE of hearing the whole class recognize the same thing at once? Doesn't that help you notice when you probably may be off base or may have skipped something?

I am not him, but I can't

I am not him, but I can't help but point out some of the absurdity of your thinking.

1) claiming "I am not a (anarchist, monarchist, democrat, republican) is not "applying labels" -- it's refusing them. It's quite literally the exact opposite.

2) arguments with anarchists require you to define terms because in my experience, anarchists are only anarchists because they use definitions of terms which are not widely accepted and have a tendency to try to redefine well accepted words as a mechanism of argument. Again, defining terms is a very different thing than labeling. A label for words is acceptable and outside of the scope of what people obviously mean when they refer to labels as being a bad thing. In fact labels for words are a very, very good thing, because without them communication cannot occur, full stop, simple as that.

3) you point the finger at him and blame him when the other side are the ones refusing to accept the widely accepted English version of the word government rather than the Daily Paul exclusive version that is very complicated and excludes many things that the vast majority of people would instantly recognize as an obvious form of government and can't even be explained in 3 paragraphs, much less a single short sentence as is necessary for a word definition. Obviously both sides are at least slightly hung up on semantics. And that makes perfect sense, because if you disagree about the definition of a word, in order to continue any meaningful communication that has to be solved first. The side that is in the wrong is the side that the dictionary disagrees with (unquestionably the anarchists in this instance, sorry guys but your definition of government is fabricated and not accepted outside your small circle)
But, I digress, point is semantics and labels are two very, very different concepts and labels should be rejected while semantics should be clarified.

Basically

It seems like what you are saying "hey, most people here think government is an evil entity sent from the gates of hell, so SHUT UP AND ACCEPT IT".

Does the fact that "most people" believe something make it correct? That seems to be the entire basis of your argument here.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

labels and such

'WHY DO YOU spend so much time applying labels and trying to "define the terms" as we move forward and argue?"

How can one have a reasonable discussion without defined terms? If we are talking about a rock, but when I say rock you think of a goldfish, we aren't going to get very far in our discussion, are we?

"In that thread NEARLY EVERY COMMENTER... WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE WAY YOU WERE TRYING TO "define government." And Marc you went on a spree trying to defend YOUR CHOSEN label for what you think "can be considered a government.""

Of course nearly every commenter was in conflict. The entire reason for this is because I feel one of the major problems with libertarian arguments has become blaming "government" for everything, not the bad ideas held by the populace. If I didn't think people would be in conflict about it, there would be nothing to discuss.

"So Marc. I would ask you the same question you are asking. WHY ARE YOU caught up on labels? And why do you keep perpetuating the trend of focusing on labels, trying to label folks and tell people "Well you are not an anarchist then...?"

See above. Because words do have meaning to people. I'm interested in advancing the ideas of liberty outside the confines of the Daily Paul - are you? It seems prudent to use language as it is actually meant and used, as opposed to using definitions literally only libertarians use. OR, we can reinvent the meaning of words. Which seems more prudent to you?

"And also Marc, after you create a post and realize that "the entire class" (just like in the case of the professor) took objection or challenge to your use of "the label for government," why can't you recognize the VALUE of hearing the whole class recognize the same thing at once? Doesn't that help you notice when you probably may be off base or may have skipped something?"

I also take objection to this "entire class" thing - why does the post have so many up votes if so many people are in vehement disagreement with me? I do recognize the value of having the whole class recognize the same thing at once, which is why I hold high the goal of eliminating contradictions, - and opposition to "government" as the problem is a major contradiction in libertarian though, in my view.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Gaining Currency

Two links:

Here is a competitive offer of explanation as to what is a moral anarchy or free market that avoids and does not pay for crime in any form:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/ju...

Here is a competitive offer of an explanation as to what is an immoral anarchy or free market that is driven by criminals:

http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-assassination-market-anarchist-983/

Both are based upon a steady increase in connectivity whereby the cost of connecting is reduced to a practical minimum; meaning that anyone can enter the market.

Both end crime.

The first market anarchy version worked on by moral people ends crime because moral people choose not to be criminals, and moral people choose not to be victims, and they can do both simultaneously because the price of doing both is reduced to a practical minimum, because the criminals are no longer able to make access to free markets too expensive.

The second market anarchy version worked on by criminals will reduce the number of criminals from the top down rapidly.

The supply of victims reduces to a practical minimum.

The supply of criminals reduces to a practical minimum.

Free markets prove to be the path to Liberty.

Joe

Nonarchist

You could be a nonarchist, someone who doesn't hold a position on either. I consider myself one. I don't claim to know which will be better, just that there's too much state right now and that it needs to shrink.

Yes, I stole the term from Rothbard and changed the meaning slightly. No one else was using, though.

Voluntaryism

Marc, are you a voluntaryist?

Voluntaryism, is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. The principle most frequently used to support voluntaryism is the non-aggression principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

You guys don't learn good

any non aggression principle will depend for its content/meaning on a concept of property that is legally imposed on everyone.

violators of property rules will have to be combated with a justice system that acts on less than 100% certainty.

competing systems will have the distinct advantage in open conflict.

contracts will permit conditions similar to slavery/subjection if there is freedom to contract.

enforcement of contracts will run into the same problem as enforcement of property rules, in that any less than 100% certainty in attacking or punishing accused aggressors will itself be aggression.

etc. etc.

you can't build a functional society on the basis of these kinds of hair brained, intellectual basket case notions that are divorced from history and reality, and only occur to isolated academics with frizzy hair and addled brains.

the rest of the world will go on not noticing their perversions.

religious cults and mass epidemics like socialism will fair much better.

as usual, money will talk, and whoever 'gets the money' on any iteration of technology/economy will be able to pay for the force it needs to mount and ride the social beast.

a true voluntaryist would seek to implement actual voluntaryism, right now, in a small community, in order to wash his hands of the sins and blood of the state.

anyone who merely talks about it, like a wild eyed academic scribbler, is just expending their nervous energy and gratifying themselves with their imagined genius by converting a sufficient number of cult followers.

.

.

As usual there just one

As usual there just one logical fallacy after another in your post. It's not even worth pointing them out to you anymore as you have demonstrated you have ZERO interest in anything even remotely resembling intellectual honesty.

For everyone else, let's make it a game. I count at least 4 logical fallacies in this post alone. Can you name them?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Nope no fallacies here. He

Nope no fallacies here. He posted a legitimate argument and you took an attitude. No surprise whatsoever, I've literally never met an anarchist capable of civilized debate (or at least willing to exercise that capability) most likely because anarchism is an uncivilized position that requires the rejection of language.

likely story.

could you link to any time you ever pointed out a single logical fallacy of mine, and clearly explained it to readers, why it was fallacious?

please, take this one opportunity to do so.

Actually

Though I don't love the term (for the superficial reason that I just don't "like how it sounds"), I'd say that this most closely describes my belief system.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

tasmlab's picture

Anarchy and Minarchy both have logical bases

Anarchy and Minarchy both have logical or ethical bases to form their justification, whether you agree with them or not.

Going beyond that, all the other governmenty stuff like the rate of minimum wage, or who should we attack or whether gays can get a marriage coupon from the government or whether pot should be taxed and regulated, etc., are all fairly arbitrary, subjective preferences based, usually, on utilitarian outcomes.

So here's your rub (IMO) "Can't I just be someone who strives for rational political debate which aims at a consistent philosophy?"

A consistent philosophy is a pretty high standard! I think you have a chance with minarchy for that, but I imagine it's going to get tougher being any more inclusive than that.

As somebody posted below, less than 1% of the population holds either of these views. Probably not even a double digit percent of those who identify as libertarian. And if you were to count the population over civilization's history, the number of anarchists and minarchists is probably like 0.0000001% of the population.

So, yea, there's lots of other things to be.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

My concern

Is not what the rest of the population believes - not here anyway. We know the vast majority of people have no conception of individual rights whatsoever, which is why we are where we are.

But when developing a philosophy, it's essential to strive for consistency and eliminate contradictions. Failure to do so will result in others seeing those contradictions, and rightfully dismissing your philosophy upon doing so.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

I think you have to be one or the other

If you believe in no government your are an anarchist. If you believe in some government functions you are at least a minarchist. If you believe in many, a statist, if you believe in all a totalitarian.

Ron Paul and Mises are minarchists willing to give the government very limited powers but monopoly powers in some instances (police, courts defense)

Rothbard and Spooner are anarchist and think the free market and people can arrange their own affairs without the government.

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

There's no such thing as a

There's no such thing as a minarchist. That's made up nonsense. Murder one person or a thousand, you're a murder. Support a tiny state or a big one, you're a statist. You're either a statist, or you aren't.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

sure there is

if you kill someone you are a murderer. But depending on why you did it will classify you as what type of murderer you are.
A minarchist is a statist, just less so

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Can't I just believe...

in freedom of association?

"If you believe in no government your are an anarchist."

True.

"If you believe in some government functions you are at least a minarchist. If you believe in many, a statist, if you believe in all a totalitarian."

This is a simplified view that totally neglects the nature of the government. Is a government created by consent of the governed? This would be in line with freedom of association, but is also counter to the minarchist view.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

As long as...

...the government recognizes that any individual can secede and not have to move, and that new generations can't be assumed to have consented, then it might be a genuine consent of the governed.

Just because at one snapshot moment in time, at its founding at t = 0, all consented, as soon as someone withdraws consent or never gives consent after being born in the community, you can't call it voluntary, if they continue to be coerced regardless.

response

"Is a government created by consent of the governed? This would be in line with freedom of association, but is also counter to the minarchist view."

Government by consent is not totalitarian but is still either minarchist or statist.

Many of the founding fathers were minarchists-especially the anti federalists. The federalists were statists and the tension between the federalists and anti federalists was over how much power the Federal government would have.

The extreme anti federalists rejected any federal government at all. Others wanted safeguards to protect from federal over reach.

The extreme Federalists wanted supreme Federal power with the states administered by the Federal government.

Freedom of association in the anarchist view is without government intervention, supervision or judgement. When individuals freely consent to a limited government they are minarchists who must be eternally vigilant over the beast they created against government over reaching.

The original anti federalists realized that limited government is an oxy moron and leads to bigger and bigger government as people act for expediency and give the government powers not originally intended and the government also takes powers without being granted to them.

You must either be a minarchist (with hope that government doesn't grow beyond its enumerated powers) or an anarchist (with the hope that you won't require a higher monopoly force to sort out your problems)

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

why?

why the need to classify? Why the need to label?

"Government by consent is not totalitarian but is still either minarchist or statist."

The minarchist typically argues for an arbitrary assocation of government over a certain geographic area. A monopoly jurisdiction if you will. I advocate no such thing.

"You must either be a minarchist (with hope that government doesn't grow beyond its enumerated powers) or an anarchist (with the hope that you won't require a higher monopoly force to sort out your problems)"

This demonstrates the false dichotomy at hand here - either one must call for government or demand there be no government. Thisis a completely false position antithetical to the ideas of individual rights and, by extension, free association.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

more!

"why the need to classify? Why the need to label?"
Why the need to ask questions!? It's part of the intellectual process.

"The minarchist typically argues for an arbitrary assocation of government over a certain geographic area. A monopoly jurisdiction if you will. I advocate no such thing."
So then you are not a minarchist.

"This demonstrates the false dichotomy at hand here - either one must call for government or demand there be no government. Thisis a completely false position antithetical to the ideas of individual rights and, by extension, free association."

Not really a position at all but rather a statement of the inherent risks in either minarchy or anarchy. There are risks in both and only fanatics refuse to see the potential flaws in their chosen form of government or un government

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Can you?

> Can't I just be someone who strives for
> rational political debate which aims at
> a consistent philosophy?

The question is: "What do you mean by political debate?"

If you mean discussion of what you are going to do (how you're going to vote, who you're going to stand by and watch be a thug on your behalf because you're too much of a coward to commit the evil deeds yourself) to force others to conform to your view of how they should act, then "no," there's no path forward that is rational or legitimate.

And this seems to be what you have in mind when you say things like: "We're always going to need police." What that seems to mean to me is "I'm always going to want thugs with uniforms and badges to be able to kidnap and extort people and generally be enforcers for a ruling caste, because I think I'll get more out of such immoral behavior than living in a society in which people act morally and expect others to do the same."

And you have said this.

If you mean discussion leading to increased liberty and morality in the world, then I wouldn't call that "political" discussion. But It is possible to do that in a rational manner that aims at a consistent philosophy. You should try it.

this one

"If you mean discussion leading to increased liberty and morality in the world, then I wouldn't call that "political" discussion. But It is possible to do that in a rational manner that aims at a consistent philosophy. You should try it."

And yes, that is "political" discussion.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Panarchy

From Wikipedia:

Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. The word "panarchy" was invented and the concept proposed by a Belgian political economist, Paul Émile de Puydt, in an article called "Panarchy" published in 1860.

[He] wrote that "governmental competition" would allow "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented.