Anarchists & Minarchists & Socialists, oh, my!

June 30, 2009 by Dale Everett
Filed under: Anarchy in Your Head, Hypocrisy, Personal Freedom, Rant, Video

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.

(Read On…)

Zeus

Correction: Minarchists are statists transitioning into anarchists.

The catch is in finding an efficient method for accelerating that metamorphosis rather than culling the late-bloomers.
Jeff

Zeus, pushing a client out of a plane at 30,000' without a parachute would be murder. That's not an anarchist trick, that'd be a statist trick. A minarchist would have the plane fly at 5,000' and then push that client out without a chute. Closer to the ground, but murder still.
Zeus

You missed the point of my metaphor completely, Jeff.

Maybe I should have made it about a cave, a dark abyss and spelunking instead…

Anyway, I don't know where you get this idea that minarchists are pushing anyone. In my experience, most minarchists just want some assurance that once the government security blanket is gone, there won't be wild bloody chaos in the streets and those streets will be well-maintained by someone.

For them it's about fear, not about using coercive force as true statists are wont to use.
Lpviper

'btw if the minarchist lets you opt out, he’s no longer a minarchist.'

I know, George, but that's why it's funny to me, and besides, I want to keep them close so I can finish converting them. They can still pretend to be minarchists like FTL Mark if they want, I don't care.

Calling minarchists statists is akin to running your anarchist buddy down and screaming in his face because he bought cigarettes and all the money goes to the state. Conceptually, you are correct, but why be a dick?

If minarchy were the worst form of statism in existence, society would be wildly prosperous as compared to our current state of Caesar coin and bread and circuses.

I understand about principles, I do, but sheesh!
Rich

I responded on "Anarchy in Your Head", but I think you have a misunderstanding of where most minarchists are coming from.

The question has been raised as to "whether minarchists would let you opt out". My guess is that it would not be up to minarchists at all. My guess is that once the hardcore statists had been beaten back to a certain point, most of us would just find that fighting the government had become the answer to our second most urgent problem, which is known to economists as "The Road Not Traveled". In my case I have no idea whether a minimal state would be better or worse than no state. I've never seen either tried. But my prediction is that under a minimal state, things would be good enough that I would prefer to turn my hand to addressing some other problem.
Lpviper

What other problem?
Rich

I always wonder about the "magical legitimacy fairy dust" argument.

I do not consider the state under which we live legitimate. I think it does much damage. I would like it to do less damage. There are many actions I can take to mitigate the damage done by the state. One of these is voting. This has, for me, two effects:

1) It *may* reduce the size of or prevent the growth of government. This is a good thing, if it happens.

2) If I vote for Libertarian candidates, it sends a message to Libertarians all over the world that they are welcome in New Hampshire. What do you think would happen to the Free State Project if New Hampshire started getting twice the libertarian vote count than it does not? Do you think more people might move here? Do you think that this would benefit anarchists as well as minarchists or MinarchoRationalists (those who have no opinion on whether anarchism would be better than minarchism, but refuse to devote time to their second biggist problem)? I do!

If nothing else, any Statists who are occupied preventing us from chipping at their government are *not available* to try to prevent your revolution or whatever you're trying to do. By the same token, we owe you a debt, because your civil disobedience and demonstrations also distract Statists from the task of making it harder for us to chip away the state.

Just remember: if you shoot all the minarchists, you're leaving yourselves lots and lots of work to do all by yourselves, and you're guaranteeing a slower victory or, more likely, a faster defeat. If you help us, you strengthen another thorn in the side of the state, and distract it from fighting *YOU*.

That seems like a tactical no-brainer.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

I agree with Rich, tactically, although I don't think big "L" is necessarily the way to go.
http://doubleplushuman.com memenode

Anarchists using political action tactic are not necessarily minarchists.

I think means should be consistent with the ends though which political action makes hard to do. More than infiltrating the government seats with libertarians the goal should be removal of those seats altogether.

Oh and btw:

// Scott in Winnipeg said:

And sorry Dale, again, you are putting all minarchists into the same boat. We don’t all think government is “essential” to protect liberty, some of us think that since it’s here lets work on getting it to do that. //

It can't do that. You can't stop coercion with coercion. You *cannot* get the government to protect liberty.
http://freedommanitoba.blogspot.com Scott in Winnipeg

//You *cannot* get the government to protect liberty.//

It can do less harm than it's currently doing.
http://georgedonnelly.com George Donnelly

You HAVE read the "My Son: Klan Reformer" article right?
http://doubleplushuman.com memenode

And why exactly settle for "less harm" if you want no harm? All people ever do nowadays in a democracy is voting for the lesser evil. What kind of a fundamental departure from that mentality are you making by just going for "less harm"?

Because it's more efficient? If your goal truly is to remove all coercion, do no harm, how is instead settling on "less harm" a more efficient way of achieving the "no harm" goal?

If you're afraid that no government will result in more harm, please consider this. Every single act of violence that happens in an anarchy is NOT an anarchy. To take an anarchist, that is, a voluntaryist position is to take a position against all coercion, all violence. If some of it happens, all it means is that we've still got work to do, not that "anarchy" fails.

You cannot blame peace for war. You cannot blame anarchy for violence. You CAN blame a minarchist for what little violence he does support, however. Thus if you are a minarchist because you fear there would be more harm without government, you're your own worst nightmare. You support more harm because you fear more harm.

It's like supporting a little bit of war because you fear that there would be more harm in peace time.
sleepysleepysleepy..

…….*YAW-W-WWWW-NNN…..um, uh, OK, OK, I'm awake now…HEY! did you guys ever agree exactly what the heck "minarchy" is, & what *exactly* "minarchists" do, & do not, believe???…..yeah, I didn't really think so…HEY, LPVIPER, wanna go down to the Victimless Crime Party and celebrate our Natural responses???….(…just kidding. NOT!*grin*…
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

And why exactly settle for “less harm” if you want no harm?

Who said anything about settling? You try to reduce it, and end it — just as I'm sure abolitionists also supported improved slave rights and conditions.

It reminds me of the observation in Amistad by Morgan Freeman's character: "There are some men whose hatred of slavery is stronger than anything, except for the slave himself."

We must remember that we are trying to defend victims here, not ride on the highest horse. When trying to defend slaves (or government victims), one has the moral obligation to do everything possible both to try to end and try to reduce slavery (or government abuse).
http://georgedonnelly.com George Donnelly

"Trying to defend victims"? That's two steps away from the messianic statist idea that someone can know what's better for you than you do.

I think liberty-lovers should seek to liberate themselves first and foremost. By example and education the rest will follow.

How can you defend a willing victim anyway? That leads to self-sacrifice.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

I should add that I certainly do not think those who oppose political activities hate the victims — only that it illustrates an important point — we're trying to literally protect people from abuse, and we shouldn't loose sight of that.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Many victims are not willing at all, George, and others are brainwashed. It's absolutely right to defend victims — as I'm sure you would defend me from an armed assailant, and I you. Forceful defense is not an option in this case, but we should use whatever means we have at our disposal.
http://georgedonnelly.com George Donnelly

Yet, Paul, sadly, I have many "friends" who will not resist the armed assault of the govt gang, and if I tried to defend them I have no doubts they would turn on me.

If I saw you being assaulted I wouldn't consider you a victim in the same way. You're more of a defender that would be in need of some mutual aid.

We may be talking about the same thing using different words.
Zeus

I’m sure you would defend me from an armed assailant, and I you.

Not necessarily. First, he might want to confirm whether or not you're a minarchist. If so, you might be SOL since he'd consider you to be an accomplice to the statist assailant.
http://georgedonnelly.com George Donnelly

Very funny Zeus.
Zeus

"Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!"

"Would you cut that out and help me over here? This guy is bashing my face in!"