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.

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.

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.

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.

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?