Free Keene

Comment by anarchojessespalelkfart

June 29, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

…*BEAR* in mind…not “bare in mind”…who said critical thinking must be grammatically correct???…

Comment by George Donnelly

June 29, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

If you’ve got an argument for minarchy, please also let me know if you will allow me to opt-out of your government. After all, I respect your right to form, hold and act on preferences. I just want to know if you minarchists will reciprocate that respect.

Comment by Vix

June 29, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

George: I think that’s the next step many minarchists will take on the path to real liberty/freedom.

I wonder how many people will never move past the voluntary government stage, I have gotten some of my friends to that point, but in the end some of them want government in there lives.

Comment by Scott in Winnipeg

June 29, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

//please also let me know if you will allow me to opt-out of your government.//

Of course.

Comment by Paul

June 29, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

As far as I’m concerned, voluntary government is voluntarism, it’s not minarchism at all, and I’m perfectly fine with it.

If a bunch of people want to get together to pool resources for security, defense, courts, etc, that’s fine with me, as long as no agressive coersion is involved.

I always understood minarchism to imply a small, coersive government.

Comment by Lpviper

June 29, 2009 @ 9:08 pm

See, I love the minarchists, I do, really, but here’s the thing, and it’s mentioned repeatedly above. I want the minarchists to let me opt out, too. And I think when it really got down to it, the minarchists would feel like they had to respect that.

I strongly suspect that a real minarchist, when given ‘power’, would just feel morally compelled to relinquish it anyway in deference to individual liberty.

So, in summary, I think minarchism is a silly creation of pragmatists who want to ease the common folk into liberty real slow-like.

But I love you guys, K?

Comment by Paul

June 29, 2009 @ 9:43 pm

I have no problem with minarchism as a worthy road post, only as an end destination.

Comment by MinarchyInYourBrain

June 30, 2009 @ 1:20 am

The question itself must be corrected. Asking if Minarchy is possible portrays the belief that it has not already been proven possible. The more exact question is if anarchy is possible.

Both in physics and humanity, disorder leads to order. Anarchy, or lack of government, inevitably leads to some assemblage of a societal order and organization. This instinct is as common as putting your underwear in your underwear drawer. The human brain is constantly categorizing and making sense of the world around it. In any chaotic state concerning humans, inevitably they work together to achieve their common goals.

The mistake of the anarchist is to fight any assemblage of this organization, which has earned the name of government.

It’s naive to believe that military is not needed in some aspect. Humans are not nice animals. We are territorial monsters. To think that trait has now evaded humanity would lead to a country’s demise.

There are countries today that don’t have militaries. The only thing preventing invasion is that their economy and people are under the sphere of influence of more powerful countries. Hence, not having a military only sacrifices power to the super powers. We see this with Iran. Of course, Iran scares the hell out of the US, with a strong military, the US loses control over them.

I have drifted into militarism.

Let us address the police state. While I highly value freedom, I find it hard to believe a society will choose to no police force at any level. I highly disagree with regulations, taxes, mandates, and nearly every law. Let me make this crystal clear.

However, there are examples where a police force must protect rights. It’s great to think one man can defend himself. But what if one man is defending himself against a group of people with ill intentions? Who is to protect this man if the group chooses to exile, kill, maim, or enslave this man?

Are we really to think that humans cannot be this evil?

Comment by Lpviper

June 30, 2009 @ 1:31 am

Why do we need a coercive monopoly to accomplish these goals of order and peace? How shall peace and coercion coexist?

They shall not. There will either be one or the other.

Even if true minarchists came to ‘power’, the risk would always be very great that corrupt men would gradually erode those ideals away and infiltrate and destroy such a structure.

I still need to be convinced that there is a ‘need’ for coercive monopoly in an advanced technological society, and I will add that the idea of invasion by hostile government is nowhere near as feasible as it was 200 years ago.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 3:52 am

You’re not going to get too many solid responses what with seven paragraphs of restrictions and definitions that render the question pointless.

It’s like me asking “Is anarchy possible?” and restricting your pitch by saying “You cannot mention government in any way, shape or form, the non-aggression principle, self-ownership, liberty, freedom or force. Go!”.

Comment by George Donnelly

June 30, 2009 @ 5:16 am

Those who let me opt out: you’re not minarchists anymore. See http://georgedonnelly.com/opinion/minarchists-really-anarchists

Anarchy is not “disorder” or lack of an order, it is lack of government. Civil society has its own ways of ordering its affairs that don’t require aggression. Anarchy as chaos is a strawman.

Anarchists do not necessarily think that military services in their entirety are unneeded. And market anarchists certainly think we need police, we just want a free market in police services.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 6:05 am

Anarchy is not “disorder” or lack of an order, it is lack of government.

Technically, you are incorrect. The true definition is “a lack of rulers”, not necessarily government (or rules).

Of course, if you subscribe to the unyielding anarchist definition of what government is i.e. “a monopoly on force.”, then you’re not going to see any difference between the two.

Minarchists do.

Minarchists, however, suffer from the belief that they must have government as it currently functions in order to address their concerns regarding a full-blown anarchist society OR they aren’t making it clear enough to anarchist critics that what they really want is a “voluntary governance organization” or — for lack of a better term — “volgovorg” to handle the things they’re concerned about so they don’t have to.

Volgovorgs would be voluntary, subscripton-based organizations composed of property owners in an area (neighborhood, town, etc.) that don’t have a monopoly on force and do not “rule” over others.

I suppose a homeowners association would be the closest thing to the concept but not quite.

A volgovorg, for example, might make package deals with garbage collectors, energy providers, lawn care, security and so on for its participants in order to get them the best deal possible and handle the various day-to-day issues that governments tend to handle now (roads, security, etc.), only they’d be accountable to their subscribers.

If I don’t like something they’re doing, I end my subscription and either handle those things myself or find another volgovorg to do it for me.

To summarize, minarchists want a sense of security they currently get from government (regardless of how illusionary it might be) and which anarchy doesn’t provide. That’s why they fear taking the last step to free market anarchism. Telling them that “the market will handle it!” is akin to telling an atheist that their life “is in God’s hands now”. It’s a roll of the dice. It’s uncontrolled. It’s wild. It’s an unknown gamble, a cliffhanger.

And people have enough going on in their lives as it is. They don’t want to worry about sewage, water, roads, security or whatever.

The good news is that they *can* have that sense of security without infringing on the liberties of anarchists who want no part of it via “volgovorgs” or whatever you want to call them.

If only anarchists spent more of their time looking for potential free market solutions (ala volgovorgs) with which to sway minarchists forward instead of barking at them and screaming “Monopoly on force! Monopoly on force! You’re violent!” at them every time they mention the word “government”.

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Comment by George Donnelly

June 30, 2009 @ 6:17 am

Government presupposes that it is run by rulers.

Government as a monopoly on force (in a given geographic area) is not an anarchist definition! That’s a minarchist definition. See Ayn Rand.

Zeus, take a break from these mental contortions please before you get hurt. A homeowners association as a government – come on. Just admit that you’re an anarchist already and let’s get on with it.

Anarchy will provide you with your sense of security, it will simply be provided by the market and perhaps in a similar way as you just yourself described.

Have you read Molynuex’s stuff? “The Market for Liberty”? Lots of solutions there.

Seriously Zeus, all these strawman you use are giving me allergies.

Comment by Richard

June 30, 2009 @ 6:23 am

MinarchyInYourBrain, regarding the following:

However, there are examples where a police force must protect rights. It’s great to think one man can defend himself. But what if one man is defending himself against a group of people with ill intentions? Who is to protect this man if the group chooses to exile, kill, maim, or enslave this man?

A legitimate concern. But is your solution to it really a police force with monopoly power? What if those ill-intentioned people are themselves police?

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 6:52 am

Government presupposes that it is run by rulers.

You’re missing the forest for the trees, George. What minarchists want is governance of day to day stuff like roads and security, not government. That’s entirely my point. They are indeed anarchists, they just can’t let go of what people consider “government” and neither can anarchists trying to convince them.

Government as a monopoly on force (in a given geographic area) is not an anarchist definition! That’s a minarchist definition. See Ayn Rand.

It is the definition anarchists use, is it not? Its origins are irrelevant. It’s semantics and details.

There are 350 million Americans out there, George. Most of them are statists, a fraction are minarchists and a fraction of a fraction are anarchists. My point is that you are not going to persuade even minarchists by getting bogged down in semantics and details. What they want is the same sense of security that government gives them now, preferably the real deal rather than an illusion. Anarchists are not going to persuade them by launching into a recommended reading lists, turning red with anger and screaming about violence or screwing around with semantics and nitpicking details.

What might be more effective is to replace government in the minarchist equation with something similar but sans all the violence, stealing and so on.

Zeus, take a break from these mental contortions please before you get hurt.

Thank you for your concern.

A homeowners association as a government – come on.

I’m not talking about replacing federal government with a homeowner’s association. You can pretty much abolish that right away since most people, even statists, don’t give a crap about federal government. It doesn’t affect their day-to-day lives anywhere near as much as state and city government. The biggest concern they’re likely to have is the military question.

A volgovorg would be a reasonable replacement for local government in that it would give the minarchists the security they seek, is a free market solution and doesn’t effect those who have embraced anarchism.

So why do you fear it? Is it just because you *have* to convince minarchists to be anarchists come hell or high water or something else? Why can’t you just let go and accept an alternative solution that is reasonable and doesn’t affect you? Is it all about being right or is it about being free?

Just admit that you’re an anarchist already and let’s get on with it.

While I suppose that might be an appropriate description, I won’t subscribe to that label. I prefer voluntaryist or neo-abolitionist. But this isn’t about me. This is about providing an alternative to government for those who need that crutch.

Anarchy will provide you with your sense of security, it will simply be provided by the market and perhaps in a similar way as you just yourself described.

Did you read the part about “putting your life in God’s hands”? Because that’s what you just did there. You’re telling me (thinking I’m a minarchist) to have faith in the invisible and the unknown.

Have you read Molynuex’s stuff? “The Market for Liberty”? Lots of solutions there.

Indeed I have. In fact, I repackaged The Market for Liberty for FTL and put it up on Podiobooks.com so I’m very familiar with it. Again, this isn’t about me. This is about the average joe minarchists out there who aren’t going to read a bunch of books or take a leap of faith any more than I am to waste my time researching the temperature steel melts at and why Building 7 fell down.

Seriously Zeus, all these strawman you use are giving me allergies.

I hate to repeat myself but that particular word gets used a lot around here. Are you sure you’re using it right? If so, please point out my strawmen. I think the shoe is on the other foot.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 7:19 am

Holy crap.

I submit for your perusal, Exhibit A, an article by some bright guy named George Donnelly who says:

It was just another day of polite sparring with minarchists – those in favor of minimal government – when I realized that minarchists are actually anarchists! I was bowled over by the realization that limited government fans who won’t force me to participate in their government forfeit that organization’s claim to being a government.

Minarchists, to be clear, are those who think government is needed, but that it should be kept as minimal as possible. Many think government should be limited to just the protection of life, liberty and property. Minarchists don’t want their government interfering in economic matters and envision it as only consisting of police, courts and a national defense.

So this writer also recognizes as I do that minarchists want some kind of an organization that handles certain day-to-day functions like roads, security and so on.

He comes to some brilliant conclusions but, unfortunately, he veers off in a different direction by attempting to prove that minarchy will inevitably evolve into anarchy rather than attempting to directly address the perceived need of the minarchist masses.

Sure, you might be able to wear them down with well-reasoned arguments and enlighten some of them, but why not address their concerns directly and cut off their objections from the get-go by offering them a free-market alternative that provides the security blanket they think they need? Wouldn’t it be more effective and simpler to “swap the shell” for the majority of them rather than hoping a handful will read a bunch of books, listen to pro-liberty media every day, etc. and have a sudden eureka moment somewhere down the line?

After all, if anarchy is going to win in the end, why waste all sorts of time and effort trying to convince the most terrified of them to enter the haunted house of anarchy when you can just empty it of ghosts entirely?

Comment by dalebert

June 30, 2009 @ 7:59 am

“You’re not going to get too many solid responses what with seven paragraphs of restrictions and definitions that render the question pointless.”

Oh, come on. You’ll notice that I responded to the really tired old talking points in the post and then pointed out that I know people are going to ignore me and bring them up anyway. The point was to respond to all the tired old talking points that are built on fallacies, straw-men, and mistakes of semantics right away in hopes of moving the conversation forward. I’ve heard them all many times and responded to them many times and I simply anticipated them because it sounds like a broken record.

And Zeus, you just engaged in yet another mistake of semantics. The voluntary government you described is anarchy; not minarchy. I went to a fair amount of effort to make it clear what I meant by “minarchism”, and what you described isn’t it because it’s not a coercive monopoly on violence. Did you not notice that I took great pains to clarify that? Does that not make it clear why I went to the trouble of anticipating all the old talking points and addressing them?

Comment by dalebert

June 30, 2009 @ 8:07 am

Zeus, I will try to be open-minded here. What did I say which you would consider an unreasonable restriction? Is it not ridiculous to argue the need for something which cannot be provided? Is it unreasonable for me to want to know that something is possible before you argue why we need it? Is it unreasonable for me to ask you to avoid circular defense, e.g. “Yahweh exists because the Bible that he wrote says so”? Tell me specifically what I asked that was unreasonable.

Comment by dalebert

June 30, 2009 @ 8:09 am

“*BEAR* in mind not bare in mind”

I make that mistake a lot. At least I get my their / there / they’re right… usually.

Comment by dalebert

June 30, 2009 @ 8:14 am

@Minarchyinyourbrain
The whole point of the title was a sarcastic twist on that tired old “Is Anarchy Possible” which is full of fallacious presumptions, mistakes of semantic disagreement, and straw-men. I was trying to point those out. I get the impression that you did not bother to read the post below, as was suggested, which disputes the presumption that monopoly governments actually “work”. It also has a sarcastic title of “Anarchy Isn’t the Answer”.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/28/anarchy-isnt-the-answer/

Comment by George Donnelly

June 30, 2009 @ 8:32 am

Zeus, your arguments are loaded with counterproductive assumptions.

I do not fear your oxymoronic voluntary government. I reject it as a corruption of concepts.

Note I am not against the thing you describe, I am simply against calling it a government. The market will decide whether such a concept as you describe is viable or not, and some people may like it, but that’s tangential.

You’re a voluntaryist – then you’re also an anarchist, like it or not. Again, there is no point in pansying around the truth. It’s not a question of labels, it’s a question of facts.

The free market is invisible and unknown? The free market is your fellow human beings trading voluntarily and I see that daily; I know it very well. Don’t you?

I won’t bore readers with more than one of your strawmen, I leave the rest as an exercise for you.

If only anarchists spent more of their time looking for potential free market solutions (ala volgovorgs) with which to sway minarchists forward instead of barking at them and screaming “Monopoly on force! Monopoly on force! You’re violent!” at them every time they mention the word “government”.

You paint anarchists here as people who bark and scream at others and that is a straw man. It is a convenient extreme for you to attack that does not reflect reality.

Wouldn’t it be more effective and simpler to “swap the shell” for the majority of them rather than hoping a handful will read a bunch of books, listen pro-liberty media every day, etc.?

Because I seek equals, not slaves. I do not play to people’s weaknesses but their strengths. I seek to bring people out into the sunlight, not to strengthen their insulation from reality.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 8:40 am

Oh, come on. You’ll notice that I responded to the really tired old talking points in the post and then pointed out that I know people are going to ignore me and bring them up anyway. The point was to respond to all the tired old talking points that are built on fallacies, straw-men, and mistakes of semantics right away in hopes of moving the conversation forward. I’ve heard them all many times and responded to them many times and I simply anticipated them because it sounds like a broken record.

I understand your intention. Nevertheless, you’re restrictions are like saying “Okay, tell me the best drink in the world” and then restricting any responses to “It must be clear, contain no food coloring, carbonation or sugar and fish must be able to survive in it for prolonged periods of time. Go!”

And Zeus, you just engaged in yet another mistake of semantics. The voluntary government you described is anarchy; not minarchy.

It wasn’t a mistake. Let the minarchists figure that out after their replacement volgovorg security blanket is working out well for them and meeting their perceived needs. When they see the sky isn’t falling, their previous objections will already have been answered and be rendered moot.

I went to a fair amount of effort to make it clear what I meant by “minarchism”, and what you described isn’t it because it’s not a coercive monopoly on violence. Did you not notice that I took great pains to clarify that? Does that not make it clear why I went to the trouble of anticipating all the old talking points and addressing them?

Of course I noticed. It’s one of the things I disagreed with most. In a previous article, you compared minarchists to socialists. They are nothing alike. Minarchists are anarchists who need a better security blanket. Offer them a replacement and they might trade in that raggedy old thing in for the new one and you won’t have to waste time and effort trying to convince them to take a leap of faith into the great, scary abyss of anarchy. They’ll already be there.

Zeus, I will try to be open-minded here. What did I say which you would consider an unreasonable restriction?

As a minarchist, you are the one suggesting one magic pill that cures all ills.

I don’t think they’re suggesting any such thing. Statists, however, are.

what I am referring to is an authoritarian style monopoly on violence being presented as a means to achieving a more civilized society

This is statism, not minarchism. Minarchism is nothing more than incremental anarchism. But some people aren’t willing to take that final leap no matter how reasoned your argument is, how loudly one may shout it at them or how much recommended reading they do. They fear the unknown. Solution? Take away the unknown by presenting an alternative that satisfies their concerns. Non-solution? Feed their belief that the only solutions are to choose a teeny tiny bit of government or no government at all as if that won’t scare them away. Then argue that all government is force and that as long as they support any government they’re as bad as Stalin, then ridicule them as if that’s somehow going to be a positive reinforcement that you’re right and they’re wrong.

Comment by George Donnelly

June 30, 2009 @ 8:46 am

So your voluntary government is a kind of trick? One uses tricks to get people into the wrong and lesser, not the right and greater. Tactics and principles must be in alignment in order to achieve success.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 8:59 am

Zeus, your arguments are loaded with counterproductive assumptions.

As are most anarchist methods of trying to convince minarchists by trying to make them agree with the argument rather than addressing their concerns.

Typical Anarchist Argument: “4+4 = 8, right? So you should jump down that dark hole, right?”

Typical Minarchist Response: “Uhhh… no?”

Atypical Anarchist Solution: “Here’s a flashlight, a gun and a parachute. Ready now?”

Atypical Anarchist Solution: “How about we take the elevator instead? You okay with that?”

I do not fear your oxymoronic voluntary government. I reject it as a corruption of concepts. Note I am not against the thing you describe, I am simply against calling it a government. The market will decide whether such a concept as you describe is viable or not, and some people may like it, but that’s tangential.

Here is your strawman: I’ve kept to the definition of government that minarchists often get beat over the head with, George. I never called it government. I used the term “governance” and called the solution I described a “replacement for government.”

You’re a voluntaryist – then you’re also an anarchist, like it or not. Again, there is no point in pansying around the truth. It’s not a question of labels, it’s a question of facts.

You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. Again, is being right (i.e. arguing with them until they have that eureka moment and foreswear government forever) more important that helping others to become free?

The free market is invisible and unknown? The free market is your fellow human beings trading voluntarily and I see that daily; I know it very well. Don’t you?

I’m not the one you’re trying to convince. I already agree with the goal. It’s the methods I see used so often that I take issue with.

You paint anarchists here as people who bark and scream at others and that is a straw man. It is a convenient extreme for you to attack that does not reflect reality.

In my experience, this kind of anarchist has been the norm. If they cannot convince you to read the books and take that leap of faith, they viciously attack and/or ridicule you. That method is most prevalent and is what I oppose. Methods. Not goals.

Because I seek equals, not slaves. I do not play to people’s weaknesses but their strengths. I seek to bring people out into the sunlight, not to strengthen their insulation from reality.

Strawman. I’m simply suggesting that anarchists offer minarchists a possible alternative rather than spend their time cajoling, arguing, attacking or ridiculing them.

So your voluntary government is a kind of trick?

Nope. It’s simply filling a perceived need. The Law of Supply and Demand.

Comment by George Donnelly

June 30, 2009 @ 9:05 am

I don’t see anyone shouting or ridiculing here. Again, your favorite strawmen coming out.

governance: the act or manner of governing.

However you cut it, use of govern + suffix gets us back to government.

Isn’t having a eureka moment the same thing as becoming freer? I think so.

Zeus I was a minarchist for some time and was never ridiculed or attacked by anarchists. You are exaggerating.

Zeus, just saying strawman doesn’t make it so. I did not set up a strawman in that last quote.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 9:21 am

I don’t see anyone shouting or ridiculing here. Again, your favorite strawmen coming out.

governance: the act or manner of governing.

However you cut it, use of govern + suffix gets us back to government.

Again, you are arguing semantics instead of addressing the concerns of the minarchists. Would “Administration” work better for you?

the persons who make up an organizational body for the purpose of administering something

Are you opposed to allowing minarchists to get together and administer their lawns, garbage, roads and security instead of a coercive government? If so, why?

Isn’t having a eureka moment the same thing as becoming freer? I think so.

I suppose if you’re only looking to enlighten a handful of people and have a few decades to work on it, sure. One here and there is better than none but not very efficient.

Zeus I was a minarchist for some time and was never ridiculed or attacked by anarchists. You are exaggerating.

Nope, I’ve simply had different experiences than you have.

Zeus, just saying strawman doesn’t make it so. I did not set up a strawman in that last quote.

Then call it an untruth. Your entire sentence had nothing to do with what I was saying. It painted me as if I’m all about enslaving people and preying on their weaknesses and nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Comment by George Donnelly

June 30, 2009 @ 9:26 am

Zeus your contortions amaze.

It is you arguing semantics while I say that government is government and the market is the market and never the twain shall meet.

“Are you opposed to allowing minarchists …”

I already addressed this question. Are you even reading my posts?

What I said is true, and I described myself so you know me better than I do? If you don’t what basis do you have for calling it an untruth?

Comment by Richard

June 30, 2009 @ 9:40 am

Zeus, your use of “minarchy” seems to mean something like “a society in which fundamental services are provided by a single organization with no monopoly on those services”. The backlash against you is easily explained as rejection of this anti-concept. Unless you think that 100% of a population will voluntarily choose a single provider (which has never happened in all of human history), then you try to pass of the impossible as a valid philosophical position.

Good luck with that.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 9:44 am

It is you arguing semantics while I say that government is government and the market is the market and never the twain shall meet.

Which is entirely the problem. It’s like being a grocery store clerk who can’t get focus on anything else so long as the possibility of a cockroach (government) or anything that looks like it (volgovorg) might be running around. He is compelled to focus his attention on hunting it down and stomping on it. Meanwhile, his potential customers are walking out the door because there’s nothing compelling them to stay and they find his inattention disturbing.

What I said is true, and I described myself so you know me better than I do? If you don’t what basis do you have for calling it an untruth?

I’m suggesting that you said it for the purpose of contrast and comparison in an attempt to make it appear that if you aren’t like that, ergo I am. Otherwise, there is no valid reason to have included it. It has nothing else to do with the discussion.

Here’s a modified comparison of the discussion:

Wouldn’t it be more effective and simpler to give the customer what they want rather than handing them a list of books or arguing with them?

Because I don’t like to boil kittens in oil or stab people in the thigh with a thumbtack. I seek to convince customers I’m right, not give them what they want.

Comment by Lpviper

June 30, 2009 @ 9:50 am

Guys, I simply can’t read all that stuff. I’m sure it’s interesting and all, but no, can’t do it.

If this was an actual attempt to change somebody’s mind about something, it probably failed miserably.

I think ‘minarchists’ are basically pragmatists who are trying to make the transition to voluntary interaction among men more smooth.

Exposition of the ‘differences’ between minarchists and anarchists, to me, is like exposing the differences between the first baseman for the Tigers and the third baseman. Interesting to discuss, but not as interesting as discussing the Tigers’ chances against the opposition.

Is minarchy possible? Yes. Is it a flawed concept? Maybe. I still find it preferable to most mainstream politics. I’m not going to sit here and call out the minarchists for being pragmatic. I’m just going to let them know up front that when they get government down to where they want it, that I want out altogether. That’s when the discussion gets interesting, and when it will be shown whether or not Minarchists are more interested in Liberty or Power.

For now, we all move in the same general direction, away from statism and toward liberty. When we get closer to where we want to be, then this discussion will get big.

I consider myself an anarchist, but I can see the good that minarchists do in the world and I support them. Does that make me a pragmatist? Sure. But that’s life, folks, principles only go so far into the societal abyss, and then you need to find allies who are moving the same way that you are.

I’m rambling, so I’ll quit and let some others of you ramble on…

Comment by Paul

June 30, 2009 @ 10:02 am

I don’t think zeus is proposing one volgovorg, there could be many. What he’s proposing is simply to explain to minarchists how they could have much of the security they are looking for even in a free system, by voluntarily getting together in groups and subscribing to services. Who cares what you call it, it’s moral, because it’s voluntary. I wouldn’t call it government, but if we want to have a category of “voluntary government” which doesn’t really rule coercively at all, no harm no foul. It’s the concepts that are important, not the words, remember?

We all agree here, it’s just a discussion of tactics. And I think Zeus’s tactic is a good one — make people feel comfortable with the idea of real freedom, by explaining to them that voluntary organizations could provide them with many of the things government does.

I also agree with lp — for one thing, “minarchists” who are really only inside the system gradualists who believe in the NAP, are not minarchists at all. I consider even minarchists who really believe in a coercive government allies. I will try to convince them of real freedom, but I’m going to spend more time on socialists and neocons.

Say you were a full time chattel slave, and you had some friends who were working to make you completely free, others working to reduce your labor to one day a month, and a great huge number of people who want to keep you fully enslaved. Who are you going to take your time convincing? Surely the great mass of people that want you fully enslaved. And, in the context of being fully enslaved, those who want you enslaved only one day a month are tactical allies.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 10:03 am

Zeus, your use of “minarchy” seems to mean something like “a society in which fundamental services are provided by a single organization with no monopoly on those services”.

No, Richard. It’s more like “competing local organizations that contract with competing businesses to provide those services at the best possible price for their subscribers while leaving alone those who don’t subscribe”.

For most people on a day to day basis, that’s what their hometown governments do except they use coercion and force to do it and give monopoly power to their buddies in business.

Average Joe Minarchist just wants to know that after the momentous “Day of Anarchy” he’ll still have some kind of security force to keep the peace, that people will haul the trash away. The who and the how isn’t as important.

The backlash against you is easily explained as rejection of this anti-concept.

I’m certainly not afraid to stir up the pot from time to time. As long as it stays civil, there can be some interesting insights gained from the discussion.

But no, this isn’t about any rejection of an anti-concept. So far, it’s been about a need to convert minarchists by convincing them of the logic and reason behind the anarchist philosophy and avoiding other methods of conversion… like addressing their concerns directly and offering a solution that moots their objections.

Why that’s so upsetting, I have no idea.

Unless you think that 100% of a population will voluntarily choose a single provider (which has never happened in all of human history), then you try to pass of the impossible as a valid philosophical position.

No, I imagine there will be a few providers per town (depending on the size) and that many people will opt out. So you’ve completely misunderstood what I’ve said but thanks for opportunity to clarify.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 10:06 am

Paul, I knew there was I reason I liked you.

Comment by Lpviper

June 30, 2009 @ 10:06 am

I just had some ‘law enforcement’ people and Child Protection bureaucrats here this morning because of a story my daughter told her ‘friend’ about her brother getting naked and jumping on her every night at midnight. They were very nice people, but when I asserted my right to not have the sanctity of my home invaded by them, they very very nicely threatened me. One of them had a gun on his hip. I did not know either of them.

Point is, a society that held to the standards of minarchism would not be so apt to invade my life in this manner. So while I may think that minarchism is a bit silly, I understand that minarchist government would be less inclined to do such a thing to me and my family, and that if ever they presumed to, then they will have fallen to the same low that every government eventually falls to.

I know I don’t have to let them in, but they threatened me, and I know they will come back with a rubber stamp warrant from some asshole judge whom I also do not know from Adam, and they will steal my children.

It hurts me to let them do it, but I also know it will hurt more to not let them do it. This makes 3 times in 2 years that groundless complaints from busybody neighbors have brought violence to my doorstep.

I know how the voluntary society would protect me from violence like this. For one, it would not allow busybodies and jabberers to disrupt my life in such a manner.

What would a minarchist do? There was a COP here, minarchists. He had a weapon capable of killing me on his hip.

‘I’m here to help families’, he said.

Scared the hell out of me, that these strangers have this power to destroy everything I hold most dear, based on nothing more than he said, she said, from little kids, no less.

You minarchists want to have cops. I’ve met cops, and dealt with cops, and I know I definitely do NOT want them.

I’m rambling because I just had the shit scared out of me. Sorry

Comment by Richard

June 30, 2009 @ 10:11 am

No, Richard. It’s more like “competing local organizations that contract with competing businesses to provide those services at the best possible price for their subscribers while leaving alone those who don’t subscribe”.

So where’s the “archy” in your “minarchy”? If there is none, then Dale’s right to call you out for corrupting concepts.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 10:23 am

So where’s the “archy” in your “minarchy”? If it’s not there, then Dale’s right to call you out for corrupting concepts.

I prefer to think of it not as “corruption” but “evolution”. So far, we all agree on the goal: anarchy. There’s your archy.

What we don’t agree on is the method of converting minarchists to becoming anarchists. Judging from the responses on this board thus far, most prefer to try and convince a small number of minarchists that the philosophy is sound, to read some books or articles, listen to some anarchist podcasts and so on. And for the holdouts afraid to make the final leap of faith? Well, the answer to that is to a) keep working on them and hope they’ll come around, b) become hostile toward them or c) write them off.

I differ with them in that I recommend avoiding b) and c) entirely (save that stuff for the hardcore statists) and adding option d) Offer them a possible solution that addresses their concerns about a post-government, anarchist society. Give them an alternative we can all abide even if we wouldn’t necessarily choose it for ourselves. No harm, no foul.

It is my opinion that if you can do that, you will end most minarchist objections before they even have time to form, expend less effort in your attempts to enlighten others and will reach more people far more quickly.

Remember, it isn’t the semantics, definitions, details or proving that anarchy is the correct philosophy that matters. It’s about coming up with more convincing methods of persuasion toward the end goal and reaching it as quickly as possible.

Comment by Lpviper

June 30, 2009 @ 10:33 am

I just want to be left alone

Have any kind of archy you want, just don’t send armed men to my doorstep to ‘help’ me when I didn’t ask for any help

I’ve done some conversing with brainwashed statists, and this is the thing they don’t get. LEAVE ME ALONE. If I am not harming anyone with what I do, then what I am doing is no one else’s concern.

Leave me alone

I try to convince them, but the idea that gubment is supposed to protect people from themselves is pretty strongly ingrained, and we won’t have any kind of archy until we can shake this idea loose from people

Comment by Richard

June 30, 2009 @ 10:37 am

Remember, it isn’t the semantics, definitions, details or even being right that matters. It’s about coming up with more convincing methods of persuasion toward the end goal.

Fair enough. I agree with letting self-proclaimed minarchists hold onto all non-aggressive governments. But those folks are not actually minarchists, and I strongly disagree that equating them with people who believe in “minimal” aggression for courts & cops furthers the end goal.

So I guess what I’m saying is that you’ve convinced me to abandon yet more terms. R.I.P., “minarch~”.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 10:55 am

Fair enough. I agree with letting self-proclaimed minarchists hold onto all non-aggressive governments.

Before someone jumps in here and lambastes you on it, let’s all pretend you put quotes around “governments”.

But those folks are not actually minarchists, and I strongly disagree that equating them with people who believe in “minimal” aggression for courts & cops furthers the end goal.

There’s no harm in letting “minarchists” believe that’s what they are. If reason and logic fail to convince them, hostility isn’t going to do it either. Instead, let them have the right to hang on to their delusion but replace “small government” with something else, something that doesn’t have a monopoly on force, that doesn’t use coercion and violence to achieve its ends and which doesn’t affect those who want no part of it. When they realize they’ve been living in anarchy and see that the sky hasn’t fallen, their previous objections to taking the leap will have become moot.

So I guess what I’m saying is that you’ve convinced me to abandon yet more terms. R.I.P., “minarch~”.

I won’t take credit for that. George’s article was far more persuasive than I’ve been. I just took that ball at half-time and ran with it in another direction, what I hope will be the opposing team’s endzone.

Comment by George Donnelly

June 30, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

Minarchy is the belief that in order to prevent people from initiating force against each other we must create an organization which has the unquestionable right to initiate force against others.

It makes NO sense.

Minarchists are allies of anarchists only in the sense that we’re waiting for you to wake the hell up and start really using your noggin. Then you guys can join us in going against the opposition. Until then you are actually just more sheeple needing waking up.

Now wake up minarchists.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

Minarchy is the belief that in order to prevent people from initiating force against each other we must create an organization which has the unquestionable right to initiate force against others.

And all of a sudden we’re right back where we started.

George, so long as you continue to cling to that asphyxiating definition come hell or high water, (”By Odin’s beard, I shall imbue yon cranium with insight on the practicality of our anarchist philosophy!”) you’re going to be lucky to reach a handful of minarchists over a number of months and years.

I have done all I can to present to you that you can instead choose a more efficient and less argumentative path by offering up to minarchists a completely voluntary replacement for that whole “unquestionable right to initiate force against others” bit.

Let me try a metaphor you might be old enough to remember, the old Folger’s switcheroo.

“We’ve secretly replaced these coffee drinkers regular brand with Folgers Crystals. Let’s see if they can tell the difference.”

Now replace “regular brand” with “government” and “Folgers Crystals” with “volgovorg” or similar concept and voila!

Clear as mud.

Comment by George Donnelly

June 30, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

Zeus, the all-knowing, I have already “reached” several minarchists in just a few-months of part-time raving.

Zeus, again, I’m not interested in swapping out the shells as you say. I don’t think it’s market-feasible and I have no interest in coddling sheep. I want to wake up sheep. If you like coddling them, by all means, we’re not in conflict on that.

People are able to handle the dizzying array of choices at their local shopping malls. For example where I live there are about 6-8 major shopping malls within 15 minutes, most very big and most with multiple big stores full of probably thousands of different SKUs. It makes me dizzy but people don’t need to be coddled. They thrive.

It will work the same way for those services currently mandated by the government.

Comment by Zeus

June 30, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

Zeus, the all-knowing, I have already “reached” several minarchists in just a few-months of part-time raving.

If I were all-knowing, I wouldn’t need to have these discussions with other like-minded individuals such as yourself. Just because we have the same goals does not mean, however, that I will refrain from questioning the methods being used. Of course, that doesn’t mean you have to listen to or agree with me either.

Zeus, again, I’m not interested in swapping out the shells as you say. I don’t think it’s market-feasible and I have no interest in coddling sheep. I want to wake up sheep. If you like coddling them, by all means, we’re not in conflict on that.

Roger that. You do it your way, I’ll do it mine and one of us will be in Scotland before the other. Or something like that.

People are able to handle the dizzying array of choices at their local shopping malls. For example where I live there are about 6-8 major shopping malls within 15 minutes, most very big and most with multiple big stores full of probably thousands of different SKUs. It makes me dizzy but people don’t need to be coddled. They thrive.

It will work the same way for those services currently mandated by the government.

No doubt about that. Some will even choose to form something similar to the volgovorg concept to take care of The Roads! (the number one concern next to The Military!), security, lawn mowing, snow shoveling, and whatever else they don’t feel like dealing with on a day-to-day basis.

For them, the world will still keep spinning, the sun will keep shining and the only difference (but what a difference!) they’ll see is that they’re finally free of the parasite once known as government. And in the end, that’s all that really matters.

Comment by AnAmazedReader

June 30, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

LP,

I have no way of knowing if there is or isn’t behavior going on in your home that is harmful to a child; I can only imagine that to be falsely accused of such things (or even questioned about them) would be awful. On the other hand (and speaking in general terms), child abuse is not an uncommon phenomenon, and this abuse is often meted out by the very adults who are morally responsible for protecting these kids.

So, who protects the kids when the parents can’t, or won’t, or are in fact the abusers themselves?

Comment by Scott in Winnipeg

June 30, 2009 @ 10:58 pm

@ George //Minarchists are allies of anarchists only in the sense that we’re waiting for you to wake the hell up and start really using your noggin. Then you guys can join us in going against the opposition. Until then you are actually just more sheeple needing waking up.

Now wake up minarchists.//

Man I hate the “wake-up” term and attitude. I hated it in reference to religion, 911-truth, minarchism and anything else. Not only is it condesending (what a great way to lose your audience) but it makes 2 assumptions;

1. what you have is “the truth”
2. the people that are asleep don’t know “the truth”

You don’t factor in that perhaps you are wrong, or that perhaps your truth has been rejected. I’m not saying this about anarchism specifically, just in the term “wake-up” as it applies to anything.

Comment by George Donnelly

July 1, 2009 @ 7:33 am

Scott, if you don’t have the certainty that what you believe is the truth then you will not succeed. It’s a basic prerequisite.

Comment by Zeus

July 1, 2009 @ 8:29 am

Scott, if you don’t have the certainty that what you believe is the truth then you will not succeed. It’s a basic prerequisite.

Indeed, the same can be said for religion and government. Everyone wants to believe they’re both right and righteous. Few have the courage to vet their beliefs through empirical research, afraid of what they might find.

Those who do so often walk away stronger than they were regardless what the answers are.

Comment by George Donnelly

July 1, 2009 @ 8:35 am

empirical research … and debate. Debate is a good way to test beliefs.

Comment by Zeus

July 1, 2009 @ 8:42 am

Agreed.

Comment by Scott in Winnipeg

July 1, 2009 @ 8:46 am

Debate is fine, thinking you have “the truth is fine”, my critisism is of the term and attitude of “waking people up”, it bugs me and I said why.

Comment by dalebert

July 1, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

I’m still waiting for a good answer, Zeus. Your second analogy (water) also sux. So once again, tell me what’s unreasonable about saying that need is completely irrelevant in proving whether something is possible.

If I say prove unicorns exist and you come back with a list of reasons why we need unicorns, what’s so unreasonable about me saying that list of reasons is completely irrelevant to a discussion about whether or not they exist?

Pages and pages of “be nice and tactful, catch more bees with honey, etc.” –Zeus

Pfft. When I see old tactics failing repeatedly, the logical thing seems to me to try something new. Now, I hear a lot of old things being repeated, even from anarchists, like whipping out the old violence guilt trip and what not. However, you guys seem to forget most of the things I said early on to get past all of the old stuph.

I said I’m not a purist. I’m attempting to be pragmatic. I’m also a gradualist.

I said anarchy isn’t a state of society but a personal view, at least how I use it, and that we gradually improve society by changing individuals.

I said I’m not presenting solutions. I’m only questioning a magic pill catch-all fantasy solution so we can move on and find realistic solutions through the free market.

And that’s a good one to end on because I see so many anarchists fall into that trap. I insist that I am not presenting a utopia but it’s incredibly common for a minarchist to demand that we present them with exactly that. The problem is that the minarchist has a utopian society in their own mind which is based on their own vision of a limited and yet coercive government. In their minds, such a thing is achievable but I know it’s a unicorn. It’s that fantasy that we’re competing with when we use the tactics you present. That fallacious presumption must be addressed for the conversation to progress, and so I consider it worthy of my attention.

I can’t sell my realistic approach to problems to someone who has a fantasy approach to problems. I have to get them to abandon that fantasy first.

Comment by Zeus

July 1, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

As a minarchist, you are the one suggesting one magic pill that cures all ills.

I reject this statement as false at best and a strawman at worst. If anything, that statement fits anarchists more, since we’re the ones suggesting they abandon the devil they know for the angel they don’t. It’s the same thing most religions do. “Trust in a higher power, my son, and you shall have peace, success and eternal life”, etc. Except for the eternal life part, mind you.

You and I trust in the market to provide. We’ve done the research and the debate. We’re true believers hawking our philosophical “religion” on the statist sinners, looking for converts and punishing the filthy heathens with righteous invective or mockery.

“Cast out your statist demons! Cleanse your soul of the unholy violence you perpetuate with your actions!”

So no, I don’t believe at all that minarchists are suggesting that “a magic pill will cure all ills”. Minarchists simply fear the unknown and prefer to be pragmatic gradualists. Minarchism is a journey, not a state of being.

So that’s one statement I find unreasonable.

So to be clear on semantics, what I am referring to is an authoritarian style monopoly on violence being presented as a means to achieving a more civilized society than we could have if we withdrew our support from such things and began to individually but cooperatively oppose tyranny and mystical claims to authority in all its forms whenever it pops up its ugly head.

Well now you’ve just ruled out about 95% of minarchists. Very few minarchists subscribe to this restrictive definition you’ve laid out. It is statists that believe that “an authoritarian style monopoly on violence being presented as a means to achieving a more civilized society”. Minarchists understand the NAP but erroneously think they have to make some exceptions.

Minarchists understand the evil of government. What they tend to want, as you said before, is a security blanket/parachute/lifejacket before leaping into the unknown. They are, however, under the mistaken impression that a “small, limited government” can serve that function. Obviously, you and I know that no matter how small it gets, even if all that’s left of government is some old guy living in a shack who fills the potholes, so long as he can claim a monopoly on force, government will grow like a weed and begin the inevitable decay of any supposed restrictions on it.

So that’s the second restrictive statement I find unreasonable.

Is Minarchy Possible?

This is like asking someone “When did you stop beating your wife?”.

I object to the question posed because it’s a trick. Is minarchy possible? Sure — IF you believe that it’s simply a gradual reduction of government (which you don’t). Who doesn’t want government to shrink? Minarchists aren’t sure how small they want it to shrink and anarchists are determined to see it become so small it vanishes entirely.

The question posed, however, makes it sound as if minarchy is a state of being, a physical thing. You, I and most minarchists know this is untrue. It’s a journey, not a state of being.

For them, it’s a journey with an uncertain end. For you and I, we’ve taken the leap of faith that the market will provide and that all those things statists and minarchists fear when they picture an anarchist society will not happen. The sky will not fall, people won’t be murdering each other in the streets, we won’t be invaded by China, the roads will still be maintained, etc.

So there’s three reasons right there as to why I said: “You’re not going to get too many solid responses what with seven paragraphs of restrictions and definitions that render the question pointless.”

It’s not that I object to you setting up rules and definitions for debate or discussion, it’s that you’ve stacked the deck tremendously in your favor to weed out nearly every possible minarchist response. It’s shifty at best. Whether you did that unconsciously or just so you could say “See? Not a single response.” or “See? Only a couple of pathetic responses,”, I don’t know but I hope not.

Comment by anarchojessespalelkfart

July 1, 2009 @ 5:02 pm

…dalebert: thanks for noticing, & taking it in the friendly, helpful manner that I intended. I really like your cartoons, especially the “I’m OK, but you better watch *HIM*”… don’t tell me you don’t see the swastika(intentional or not…)…to most folks, I’m one of those 4 guys…& I know 1 or 2 of the others!…No easy answers here!…still, I return to *WHAT IS*, not “what if”…////….& LPVIPER, I’m so, so, so sorry for your latest trauma…I’ve been victimized by only-sometimes “well-meaning” busybodies, & rumor, & innuendo….AS FOR THE REST OF YOU, & all your arguments, AUGGGHHHH!!!…let me know who wins, OK???…it’s 4:19PM, but I can always wait another minute or 2!…*grin*…*SUBVERT THE DOMINANT PARADIGM, & DOMINATE THE SUBVERSIVE PARADIGM*…