Libertarians often brusquely dismiss anarcho-capitalism as “impractical.” But what of the allegedly pragmatic minarchism? Is this system more desirable and achievable?
The minarchist opposes aggression but favors the state. For argument‘s sake, we’ll yield that this pairing doesn’t necessarily contradict itself. If the state solely dedicates itself to protecting natural rights, (and strictly limits its “public property” to the army bases, police stations, courthouses, roads, etc, necessary to do so) let us concede it is implicitly justified.
Even given this generous interpretation, the minarchist is still dancing on the tip of a razor. This is because minarchy is unable to ensure social peace.
As BBQ Brains notes, “there are many moral and practical issues that a community would like to control that fall beyond simple property rights. Animals are property, but we don't want our neighbors abusing them. Parents don't want porn shops and bars opening next door to elementary schools.”
I’d add that we don’t want people yelling racial slurs in public venues, or “creepers” verbally haranguing teenage girls up and down the streets.
BBQ has raised a serious objection intellectually honest libertarians mustn’t ignore. Below, we'll argue minarchism has no recourse for dealing with these problems. But that contra BBQ, private property does.
A minarchist state has a monopoly on law enforcement. But unlike today’s state, it is forbidden from regulating any non-aggressive activity. Socially harmful forced integration will ensue. This is a rights violation.
If we allow the state to do even a bit more, we have conceded the impracticality of “true” minarchism. Give the state an inch, and it’ll drag us—kicking and screaming or not—all the back to serfdom.
Conversely, under anarcho-capitalism, the above social problems would be swiftly resolved. In order to be successful, or “profitable, ” free-market private property covenants (communities) would have to satisfy the wishes of their customers, or residents. Property rights can and would be used to segregate our aforementioned miscreants from the public square, confining their racism/porn-mongering/creeping to the outer realms of the community, and far away from children.
But don’t think a system of property rights would negate all unpopular exercises of freedom. Like minarchy, adults could do anything want on their own property, or on that of consenting third parties. And “public” venues like Facebook and street corners would, as they are now, be tolerant of harmless weirdos and good-faith eccentrics.
Extreme miscreants are rare. But the free reign given to them under minarchism would cripple that system. The only system capable of dealing with social problems while protecting liberty—and thus, the only practical libertarian system—is anarcho-capitalism.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
-As BBQ Brains notes, “there are many moral and practical issues that a community would like to control that fall beyond simple property rights. Animals are property, but we don't want our neighbors abusing them. Parents don't want porn shops and bars opening next door to elementary schools.”--
Yes. That is why anarchy cannot be just in practice. Even those who support libertarian ideals lust to control their neighbor. And they unwittingly fail to note that their neighbor also desires to control them. As said Thomas Jefferson, "Men are no angels."
This is why all humans spontaneously create governments among themselves - the desire for unrighteous dominion over others. Anarchy in the wild cannot survive beyond a few days. Just watch survivor or its ilk and you will see.
Men lust for the unjust. Unjust men, like all others, flock together. These are inherent traits in humanity that absolutely prevent the existence of a just Anarchy.
If just, human society will rapidly become unjust. If anarchic, human society will spontaneously generate a governed group.
Minarchy? If well conceived it has proven it can survive a few decades, or even a generation or two. Anarchy on the other hand... what group of humans in all of history has done it? Why?
Perhaps we can make a just anarchic society if we collect all the Asberger syndome people and send them to another planet. Short of that, it has not happened.
The irony of human existence is that all injustice has been avoidable, and all the misery could have been temporary if not for the Lust For The Unjust. None of it was necessary at all.
"Conversely, under anarcho-capitalism, the above social problems would be swiftly resolved. In order to be successful, or “profitable, ” free-market private property covenants (communities) would have to satisfy the wishes of their customers, or residents. Property rights can and would be used to segregate our aforementioned miscreants from the public square, confining their racism/porn-mongering/creeping to the outer realms of the community, and far away from children."
It sounds like you are saying that the solution to social problems is for individuals to act as a community and agree to limit their property rights.
But this only works if the entire community acts together. If contrary parties choose not to sign the community contracts, how will you stop them from doing as they wish? And if the portion of the community in agreement to limit property rights controls all the property, votes on the contents of the contracts, and can ostracize the contrary parties, how is that different from a government?
They are not limiting their rights - but agreeing to how they want to use their respective properties. Each one knows that the other could change his or her mind at any moment - but if this were a cohesive enough group (...think of the Mormans) just imagine what kind of things they could pull off. Surely there might be that oddball creeper in the middle that still wants to own the porn shop - but the boycott will get him out - or the incentive for one of the other property owners might allow him to sell his property and move to the outskirts.
This may not be contract driven at all - and if it is - it would essentially be a small cohesive group of people having a self-interest with one another. The contract would be fine and valid as long as it was voluntarily entered into which this property owner may choose to do for 6 months to a year at a time - if thats what they all voluntarily agree on. He could just want to use his word that he will not open a porn shop and rely on everyone believing him. But - if he signs a contract - he has agreed to give up his right voluntarily (not coerced or forced) and he may do this out of true want or out of self-preservation (relying on others in the community and trying to make nice for cheaper rates, etc etc). He has an incentive not to make angry his neighbors (this is in a village where they don't have to serve you in a restaurant for any reason).
It is different from Government because the contract is not forced and voluntarily entered into.
I'm not sure I understand the plan here. So let's make an example case.
I own property next door to a school. Many of my neighbors are signing a contract where they voluntarily give up their rights to open porn businesses next door to schools. Since I've always dreamed of making porn movies and renting them out, I think that's a bad contract and refuse to sign it. My neighbors threaten to boycott me in some fashion, though I'm not sure how. Maybe some of them won't sell me groceries or gas, at least those few with whom I occasionally do business.
Finally I've saved enough money to open my porn shop. Since I have a small herd of goats and plenty of swinging friends, I start filming 'Some Like It Herd' outdoors in easy viewing distance of the school. I also start renting out plenty of porn classics.
Many of my neighbors are furious. Despite the fact that I am not bound by their contract, they threaten more boycotts. I tell them to go to hell. And my business does not suffer one bit. Why? Because all those who want my porn weren't aligned with the anti-porn clique led by that poofy-haired pastor's wife. They might have mixed feelings about my filming next to the school, but not such strong feelings as to sign a contract over it. Some other community members simply weren't interested in signing contracts of any kind. The slaughterhouse and many of the local restaurant owners signed the contract, but they want my grass-fed goats (such tender, tasty meat), so they continue to do business with me on the down-low.
I'm already planning my sequel 'Goats To The Left, Sheep To The Right.'
What happens next?
I imagine the patrons of the school would either A: move the school or B: (cheaper) build a fence. They might also stop boycotting you if you at least agree to some hours according to their preferences - or they could even offer you incentives to get you to the outskirts - (buy your land above market value - offering you land further away at a reduced price). None of which involves force. Or they might find you better use of your land that is more profitable - or ask your business partners not to trade with you until you respect some "decency" - whether they actually will or not - none of these involve force. Or everyone could move away who didn't like it and try to set up some other place where the majority of people agree more on things.
If there is a local "contract keeper/judicial guy" he might not agree to honor any contracts with you or arbitrate for any business problems that could occur. Others might collude to do the same - or they might not. If they all did - YOU yourself could boycott them - and you could create arguments for the legitimacy of your business and how it creates value and prosperity.
Most business people will do whatever makes them more profit and less bs that comes along with it - there are very few people that would run that sort of business out of spite and/or just to prove how free they are.
This all seems fair to me, you?
oh! the thing that's been bugging me....
no one is giving up their rights, they are just refusing to exercise them or contracting to not exercise them.
There definitely needs to be a lot of changes with this in the future. I see so much coming from this in the future if everything works out.
motorcycles for sale
Even given this generous interpretation, the minarchist is still dancing on the tip of a razor. This is because minarchy is unable to ensure social peace.
wholesale womens clothes