Comment: Not True

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I would agree (see in situ)

Not True

Anarchists fundamentally think "rulers" like government or aristocracy IS IMMORAL. Minarchists say "rulers" like government or aristocracy IS CRUCIAL.

I am a Minarchist that thinks a Ruler outside of oneself or parent/guardian is immoral. I also understand that Aristocracy or any other form of ARBITRARY Rule is inessential to maintaining Limited Government.

However, in absence of Self Rule, a unified and stable understanding of the Law is Crucial to a peaceful and prosperous society. Competing sets of Rules and Ethics does not lead to peace & prosperity, they lead to divisiveness and constant tinkering.

Natural Law is the Golden Mean that a Minarchist government should be based upon. The NAP is derived from Natural Law.

What started out here in the US as the Rule of Law has becomes the Rule of Laws, the arbitrary kind. Had God sent Moses down the mountain with 11,227 Commandments, his tribe would have stoned him to death. Today we should consider stoning those who get creative with law for arbitrary reasons.

The All or Nothing scenarios that Anarchists and Statists keep arguing are not the only scenarios worth contemplating. The Statists say Minarchy leads to Chaos and the Anarchists say Minarchy leads to Totalitarianism. Truth is that Minarchy can lead to both without mass vigilance on an individual scale.

Minarchy is the Golden Mean between chaos and extreme collectivism, but it is so close to Anarchy that the Anarchists really should consider it. Minarchy is actually quite far from Statism and spontaneously would devolve into Anarchy much easier than Statism.

To me both the Statists and Anarchists have this flawed ALL or NOTHING solution, when it is easy for me to see an Almost Nothing system of governance solves the issues that come with All or No Government.