I’m getting asked a certain question a lot lately. Why pick on minarchists? We’re on the same side! Why aren’t you picking on socialists more? I’m glad I was asked because it made me put some thought into best how to express this with words. What is it about the philosophy of minarchism that really gets up in my craw?
And then it occurred to me. Anarchists and minarchists in one key respect are polar opposites. I’ve said before that there is an ocean between an anarchist and a minarchist, but only a creek between a minarchist and a socialist and I can finally nail it down succinctly. An anarchist believes that a monopoly government is the source of our enslavement. A minarchist believes a monopoly government is crucial to protecting our liberties. Exact opposites! So why do people keep saying we’re on the same side? Presumably it’s because we have similar preferences. We both love liberty.
Here’s your chance to sell me on the notion so make it good. Bare in mind, however, that I’m a critical thinker and I’m looking for logical arguments without the usual presumptions like “It’s always been done this way.” If we invented really efficient and clean-running hovercrafts, it would be silly to cling to the idea of wheels just because that’s how it’s been done for thousands of years. I’m also tired of arguments from need which are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how much we need unicorns if they don’t exist or voodoo spells if they don’t work. There’s no point in having a discussion about the benefits of unicorns and their healing and purifying magical powers until someone convinces me they exist or they can create them. (Read On…)
I would just like to take a moment to clarify something since there seem to be a lot of different interpretations of what I mean when I poke fun at “minarchists”.
When I use the term “minarchism”, I’m referring to an individual belief system, someone who believes a small government is necessary, and perhaps evil. A minarchist believes that government has a role in protecting life, liberty, and property. By itself, that wouldn’t be worthy of ridicule, but where it falls apart is when they insist that it must be an authoritarian monopoly on violence, i.e. that it must exert a supreme authority over a certain geographic region and individuals cannot choose to act apart from it. By its very nature, such a thing will never protect life, liberty, and property. Such a thing is inherently contradictory to such values. If, on the other hand, you can let go of the idea of it being a monopoly, then it is subject to the controls of the free market and regains the accountability that’s essential for it to ever do more good than harm.
