Posts in "Minarchism"

By Bonnie Kristian at 4:28PM

Aug 26, 2010

A libertarian technicality? Maybe. But regardless, here’s minarchism over anarchism.

I realize, of course, the debate this new post from my own blog will likely cause in the comments section -- and I probably won't join in. Also, to the anarchists in our readership: You know I like you and many of your ideas quite a lot. But nonetheless...

Q. You said you believe in minarchism. How do you reply to the claim that taxation is theft? And furthermore, since you believe in a free market, why would the market not be a good way to run things like the legal system and police forces? It works for everything else, what makes law or police any different? — logicallypositive, from tumblr.

A. Well, I’m not fond of taxation. The income tax is certainly abusive and unnecessary. Indeed, I’d prefer to have the government funded in as noncoercive a manner as possible. I kind of like Ron Paul’s idea of a low, uniform import tariff — or, even better, lottery (with private lotteries legalized, of course). That’s basically voluntary taxation, which I find completely acceptable.

That said, I’m not an anarchist and do want a nightwatchman state for the protection of person and property. I’m inclined to think persons smarter than I could figure out a way to fund it without taxation, but, assuming they were fairly applied (not progressive or regressive, for instance) I’m not against the very low taxes which would be required to support such a minimal regime.

Note: Taxation for unjust purposes (aggressive war, corporate or social welfare, etc.) is indeed theft. But I assume we agree on that point.

Practical Anarchy

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.

Re: Making Anarchy Look Crazy(er)

Bryan, that is why I advocate a politically radical and culturally mainstream libertarian movement. Anarchy (or even minarchy) sounds batsh*t crazy to average Americans. They will only hear us out if we are well-read, conservatively-dressed, and respectful of non-coercive bourgeois norms -- even when we disagree.

This doesn't mean excluding any of the fringe types who naturally gravitate to our movement. But it does mean being careful about who we choose to represent us. An unkempt gigolo who advocates "race consciousness" along with "9/11 Truth," spends his freetime "toking up," and considers a novelization of Star Wars Episode II high-brow literature is probably not the ideal.

Posted in:

2 comments

By Bonnie Kristian at 6:33AM

Apr 19, 2010

Hey An-Caps, I've got a question for you.

Those who've been reading my posts here for the year and a half or so that I've been making them (an impressive feat which I don't necessarily recommend) may have gleaned that I'm more of a minarchist libertarian than an anarcho-capitalist. Yes, I very much appreciate Rothbard et al. -- read and learn from their works, and agree with many of their ideas, etc. -- but I'm not totally on board. Nonetheless, YAL bloggers fortunately make up a broad spectrum of libertarianism, no doubt representing variations of anti-government thought on all sides of my own position, which is awesome and makes for a much, much better blog.

Anyway, enough prologue. This morning I read this article by Dan McCarthy on his blog at TAC. McCarthy (also not an an-cap) questions what he sees as some underlying egalitarian assumptions in anarcho-capitalism:

If the ghost of Murray Rothbard pressed a magic button and made the state disappear tomorrow, the result would not look like a Lockean state of nature, or even Nozick’s picture of a highly developed state of nature in which property and protective associations and whatnot exist....All the social power and leverage built up by groups that have benefited from or manipulated the state would still exist, and the reservoirs of wealth in these groups could readily be applied to creating a new justice system that would serve the same de facto ruling class as exists now.