Libertarian Papers vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 37: “Minarchy Considered,” by Richard A Garner. This paper, a thorough and withering analysis of defects of minarchist theories, highlights one advantage of the online format of Libertarian Papers: the 62-page length of the article, necessary for the in-depth case the author makes, would have been rejected or arbitrarily pared down by most journals.
Abstract: Whilst some defenders of the minimal, limited state or government hold that the state is “a necessary evil,” others would consider that this claim that the state is evil concedes too much ground to anarchists. In this article I intend to discuss the views of some who believe that government is a good thing, and their arguments for supporting this position. My main conclusions will be that, in each case, the proponents of a minimal state, or “minarchy,” fail to justify as much as what they call government, and so fail to oppose anarchism, or absences of what they call government.
{ 34 comments }
My heart flutters.
I don’t know if happylee was being sarcastic, but I’m just happy there’s a political site on the web where people are intelligent enough to even know what a minarchy is.
I dabbled in anarchism (anarchocapitalism of course) many years ago, but gave it up as unworkable and unattainable. (I concede that it can work in theory, but I believe human nature presents formidable barriers to actually getting to that state, and preventing govt’s from re-forming once there.) I’ve been a minarchist ever since. I’ll have to find the time sometime to read this “withering” analysis and see if it changes my mind.
Mr. Kinsella I’m sure that you know there is a difference between State, and government. The anarcho-capitalist system is a minimal government, and not State. Anarcho-capitalism is not the same anarchy that is purely no-rule. It is also not the anarchy of the socialist ideal. The State uses the ‘political economic means’ whilst a limited government, prefers the ‘voluntary economic means’. Anarcho-capitalism proposes having a legal system, such rules must follow a systemization. I would respect your work Sir, and would like to hear a sound argument that claims anarcho-capitalism is not minimal government. My question, is this simply a debate on synonyms? What is the true theoretical difference between minarchy and anarcho-capitalism when neither supports State? Could this be, a my system is better than your system sort of planners sophistry?
Scott V,
Please define “State” and “government”. In your terms, what is a “limited government”. What is “minarchy” in your mind?
When you say “anarchy that is purely no-rule”, what do you mean by “rule”?
Andrew T,
If anarchism is “unattainable” outside theory, and that is why you have rejected it, please explain how minarchism is attainable and sustainable.
A world without murder is probably unattainable as well, so have you decided murder is morally acceptable at limited levels too? Are you for minimal homicide? How about minimal rape?
None of us have the individual power to change the world by fiat. Even if minarchy is “attainable”, you’d have to convince millions of people in order to achieve it. The likelihood of this anytime soon is quite improbable. So I wonder, what do you gain by compromising your philosophy?
Hello Mr. Drake. Those are good questions. What exactly is minarchy? Is there a definitive treatise on minarchy? In my mind I hate the State. I believe people who call themselves minarchists also hate the State. They must find it offensive to be called ‘little-statists’. Etatism is the enemy of all those who desire liberty.
Albert Jay Nock in Our Enemy the State, explains to the reader there is a very clear difference between State and government. It is a short work that should not go neglected. A poor paraphrase I can make is that the State is a subjugator, while proper government is in the nature of governance, such as self-governance.
Anarchy has been described as no ruler. I describe anarchy as no rule. Rule in terms of rules. A sane man rules himself, and has general rules of conduct.
I believe it is possible to have a government that is not the State. A government of the self governed. This sort of ideology I am led to believe is like that of Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty. I might be wrong.
I think government is simply a tool employed by men. I hope that some day men may find a better tool.
I have honestly given up on politics. I shall do my best to rule myself.
I am sorry I am a poor writer and lack clarity. I just think that anarcho-capitalism and minarchy are essentially synonymous terms. Someone help me understand why they can’t be.
Since I used to be a minarchist too but now am an anarcho-capitalist, allow me to try to clarify some things for minarchist posters (and anyone else that wishes to read). Maybe then they would be better able to appreciate the features of AC vs. minarchism.
In minarchism, some services are provided by a state (and, the state has a territorial monopoly on them). Typically, these are the creation of law, dispute resolution and protection of private property. In AC, these services are provided by the market (i.e. there is no monopoly).
Nowadays, law is created by the legislative, executive, and to a lesser extent (depending on country) by the judicative branch of government. In AC, these services would be provided by companies. Some of them might be provided by religious organisations (e.g. marriage & family law).
Same goes for protection (police & army vs. security & insurance companies) and courts (private courts).
The opinions about the exact structure and procedural aspects of this differ among AC proponents, but a lot of them agree that there is no way to forsee the exact outcome. However, there are good arguments that this is a more consistent ideology (e.g. in Hoppe’s “Democracy the God that Failed”) and this would decrease the amount of violence in the society.
Hoppe’s argument that persuaded me was essentially Hayek’s economic calculation argument applied to a minarchist state. Security is a service just like others. It has inputs and costs on one side, and outputs and revenue on the other side. There is no way for a monopolist without the price feedback to know the optimal level of services to provide and how to use the inputs. Should there be one police car per city block, or should everyone have a tank? Without a market in security, there is no way of determining customer’s preferences and satisfy them.
Have a nice day,
Peter
Anarcho-capitalism is not the same anarchy that is purely no-rule.
Depends how you interpret “rule”. The meaning of Greek á¼€Ïχή is not the same as κανών or νόμος, which I think is what you have in mind; they’re all “rule” in English. We usually say “anarchy” means “no rulers”, not “no rules”, to try to make the distinction (i.e., there’s still νόμος: customary law, rules of behaviour; but not á¼€Ïχή: rule dictated by a political power elite)
“Most think that there should be a state or a government to a
certain extent, but they do so on practical grounds, thinking the alternative,
no state, unworkable in some sense…..The views
of these libertarians are not examined here.”
*closes document reader*
Darn it.
I think hayek is right about security. There’s no way for the state to know how much to spend protecting property rights.
I believe this results in abandoning state security, though it does not result in abandonment of property rights.
Just because the state can provide for property rights it does not follow it is the only way to do so. It seems reasonable that the free market would be able to drive down the costs of security to make it near universal.
Furthermore, individuals would be free to decide how much and what type of security they would want.
Another point: I do not believe that statists can say “there will be violence without intervention therefore we need coercive power over everyone”, since state intervention does not eliminate all violence but can at best reduce it. If everyone smoked pot there would be less violence too. Does this mean that pot and state intervention are substitutes?
Scott V wrote:
“I am sorry I am a poor writer and lack clarity. I just think that anarcho-capitalism and minarchy are essentially synonymous terms. Someone help me understand why they can’t be.”
In your own words, minarchy involves a minimal state which “uses the ‘political economic means’”, and anarcho-capitalism “prefers the ‘voluntary economic means’”. Both prefer the voluntary means if possible, but the difference is that the anarcho-capitalist believes that the voluntary means can be used in all cases, whereas the minarchist does not.
Yes, Scott, it’s the “arch”. The minarchist believes that when a voluntary exchange breaks down because of the criminality of one party (or both parties) that only a State arbiter can resolve it. It is the great dream of the minarchist that this special arbiter will do or can somehow be made to do his job (meting out justice) and will be satisfied to limit himself to this one mystical power bestowed upon him by “The People” (no matter what “The People” may latter ask him to do, as he is obviously a very special man.)
to russ:
i’d put it that minarchists can abide an “end-justifies-means” approach, anarchists cannot.
For those who ponder differences between state and government, and also what definition I used for each, my answer is that, whether there are differences of not, I used the terms interchangeably because what some minarchists I considered called “government” others called “state.” Also, since all I was doing was considering the arguments of others, I simply took their definitions.
On the “ends justify means” thing, the minarchists considered clearly reject any such position. Meanwhile, some anarchists don’t – David Friedman, for instance.
newson wrote
“i’d put it that minarchists can abide an “end-justifies-means” approach, anarchists cannot.”
Well, at least minarchists consider ends.
to russ:
given that both minarchism and anarchism are not going to happen anytime soon, ends are less important than means.
if you’re never going to arrive at your destination, then it’s the trip itself that counts.
russ has now FORCED me to read the actual paper, proving that if minarchists didn’t exist we’d have to invent them.
I have a problem with this paper’s initial premise (i.e., that minarchists consider government a necessary evil). I would only agree with this from a similar view that I consider fire a necessary evil, but I really don’t have any intentions of banishing fire from life.
I don’t consider myself an anachist because I think the idea is utopian and only attainable under the extreme conditions that all utopian ideals require.
Geoih, “I don’t consider myself an anachist because I think the idea is utopian and only attainable under the extreme conditions that all utopian ideals require.”
As I explain in What It Means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist, to be an anarchist simply means you oppose aggression, and you realize the state necessarily commits aggression. If you are not an anarchist, it means you either condone aggression, or think the state does not necessarily commit aggression. As you say you are not an anarchist, can you please tell us which one describes you? Are you in favor of aggression (like socialists and criminals are)? Or, do you think the state does not commit aggression (like children brainwashed by government schools think)?
Kinsella,
I think there needs to be a way to distinguish between libertarians/anarchists who believe in the intrinsic value of human freedom and property rights, and the libertarians/anarchists who believe in the ends-based approach to anarchism. where they oppose massive states for consequential reasons.
Obviously both forms are compatible, but I believe that one has to express a preference for one justification over the other.
Any suggestions on how to distinguish these schools?
to blitzkrieg:
sorry, but where is is the mesh between those fixated on the means and those on the ends? they seem compatible like oil and water.
Geoih,
You say that a premise of my paper is that “minarchists consider government a necessary evil.” On the contrary, I clearly stated that minarchists that hold such a position were not minarchists I was considering. My paper discusses some of those minarchists who do not think that the state is a necessary evil, because they don’t think that a minimal state is an evil thing. I demonstrate that they fail to justify this position – I do not demonstrate that a minimal state is unnecessary (I think Bruce Benson did the best job of that).
Newson:
So if they are oil and water but both call themselves libertarian/anarchists… it seems there should be some qualifier like “ethical anarchists” or “deontological anarchists” to help distinguish them.
An anarcho-capitalist society presupposes that everybody within that society accepts the non-aggression principle. Suppose one of my neighbors within this anarcho-capitalist society changes his mind, and decides to rob and assault another one of my neighbors. I have no obligation to get involved. There’s been no aggression against me or my property. Suppose my assaulted neighbor doesn’t have the wealth to contract with a security firm to redress his grievances against the assaulting neighbor. Or suppose that the assaulting neighbor has enough wealth that he can withstand or ignore the grievances of the assaulted neighbor. Where does the assaulted neighbor get redress in an anarcho-capitalist society?
What about those living outside the anarcho-capitalist society? There will never be unanimous acceptance of the non-aggression principle across all of humanity. What happens to the anarcho-capitalist society if it is attacked from outside? What’s to keep the outsiders from slowly gobbling up individuals or small groups within the anarcho-capitalist society piece-meal until there are none left? Nobody within the anarcho-capitalist society has an obligation to help defend anybody else, and if nobody has aggressed against you or your property, then by what right do you have to get involved in defense of your neighbor? Who’s to say that a contract security firm will be capable or even interested in defending you or your property, especially against a strong outside entity that doesn’t recognize the anarcho-capitalist conventions?
I think the chances for getting unanimous acceptance of anarcho-capitalism without any dissention, internally or externally, are remote enough to make it an impossibility. Consequently, I consider anarcho-capitalism utopian. It may be a fine goal, but so is heaven, and I don’t expect that to arrive on Earth any time soon, either.
My analogy of the evil of government being similar to that of fire, I think is useful. It is a dangerous tool, which if allowed to be uncontained or out of control will destroy everything in its path, but it also has many effective uses which cannot be ignored. We could all live without government and fire, but I’m not sure it would be a life I would look forward to.
All of this discussion about minarchy versus anarchy is quite stimulating, but I think quite academic. It strikes me as being a bit like a heretic witch hunt against those who don’t accept anarchist doctrine. If we ever get close to having a minachist state, I think we would actually be discussing something that’s relevant. Perhaps we simply need to set a benchmark for the level of government where we think we’ve possibly attained minarchy, and we can decide if we should proceed to anarchy. I would suggest a benchmark for government equivalent to the level of the American colonies in the 1770′s or maybe the Pennsylvania or west New Jersey colonies in the early 1700′s.
Geoih: you spill a lot of ink and words, but don’t address my simple questions. I repeat them. If you answer, I’ll answer yours, if you can repeat them in a coherent manner:
As you say you are not an anarchist, can you please tell us which one describes you? Are you in favor of aggression (like socialists and criminals are)? Or, do you think the state does not commit aggression (like children brainwashed by government schools think)?
Quote from Stephan Kinsella: “As you say you are not an anarchist, can you please tell us which one describes you? Are you in favor of aggression (like socialists and criminals are)?
If you feel a driving need to categorize me into some collective, then you can call me a minarchist. I am in favor of non-aggression, as long as the other guy is also in favor of non-aggression.
geoih:
“Quote from Stephan Kinsella: “As you say you are not an anarchist, can you please tell us which one describes you? Are you in favor of aggression (like socialists and criminals are)?
“If you feel a driving need to categorize me into some collective,”
I have yet to understand why rational people are opposed to conceptual thinking and the use of … words.
“then you can call me a minarchist. I am in favor of non-aggression, as long as the other guy is also in favor of non-aggression.”
So, if you are a minarchist, but say you oppose aggression, you must think it’s possible to have a minimal state that does not itself commit aggression. Correct? Tell me, does your minimal state outlaw competing justice agencies? If so, how is that not aggression? If no, how is it a state?
to geioh:
i think you’re right about the long odds of either minarchism or anarchism happening anytime soon, but i think the anarchist argument would be that allowing the state any moral legitimacy whatsoever works against shrinking the state, even relatively.
Geioh
Even the state cannot protect against all illegitimate uses of force, it can only attempt to reduce them, just like the free market. It follows that since both entities can reduce rights violations, they are valid substitutes for one another.
In your example of someone being too poor to get protection, I can only say that security coverage would be much cheaper under the free market, with competition and innovation driving costs down to zero, approximating universal coverage.
The “what if” scenarios launched against freedom assume government would be able to solve the problem just because government can work however you want it to in your imagination.
Regardless, there are many more damning “what if” arguments against government, because the concentration and monopoly of power means that when things go wrong, they go reaally wrong.
Ex: What if people in the free market are racist vs what if government officials are racist…. Its “you can’t come to my birthday party” versus genocide.
One has virtually no recourse against the state. It must always be on the state’s terms. You have to sue in their courts which use their rules.
Conversely, recourse is a commodity in the free market, which as stated before, becomes cheaper and more widely distributed as long as the market is allowed to grow.
I never said I was against anarcho-capitalism. I said I think it’s a utopian dream with little hope of being attained or maintained.
One of the favorite examples of this Institute of a ‘better’ country in the past was the Confederacy. This more anarchic country was virtually destroyed by the less anarchic Union. Is there a claim that somehow the south would have fared better in the war with the north if it had been more anarchic? I think it’s fair to say that a more anarchic south would have been destroyed even faster by the north.
You can say that claiming to be a libertarian and a minarchist is illogical or hypocritical, but I think its realistic.
geoih,
What were you saying about collectives? This is much worse as you have invented this absurdly crude position for an imaginary collective. I have never heard anyone say that the CSA was a “better” country than these United States (as they called them before D.C. completely invalidated the spirit of the Constitutional signing). I think that most of the Southerners’ are felt by many around here to be really in the right in only one particular matter: the right of secession.
The barbaric practice of chattel slavery being the foundation of the South’s system vs. the North and the greatest instance of men living and working freely in the history of the world. You pick the South as being the “more anarchic”? Right. Ask Bastiat (well, read him) which side as a whole better embodied liberty. Slavery was a far greater abomination than the puny tarrifs at that time.
Digression: Ah, being “realistic”. I believe the human brain receives something like a shot of morphine when it tells itself its “being realistic.” My favorite realists in the world are the brilliant men and women of the Republican Party for the last half century or so. I love their pragmatism when they demand that we maintain the status quo; whatever and wherever that is the Dems have recently dragged them.
geoih:
“I never said I was against anarcho-capitalism. I said I think it’s a utopian dream with little hope of being attained or maintained.”
No, you said more than that. You said you think it “wouldn’t work”.
“One of the favorite examples of this Institute of a ‘better’ country in the past was the Confederacy. This more anarchic country was virtually destroyed by the less anarchic Union.”
It cannot be seriously argued that the CSA was anarchistic in the slightest.
“You can say that claiming to be a libertarian and a minarchist is illogical or hypocritical, but I think its realistic.”
No, the problem with it is that it is not libertarian–because libertarianism opposes aggression.
It is neither “realistic” nor “unrealistic” to favor aggression. It is just evil.
to geioh:
sure, anarchism may be unrealistic viewed from today’s perspective, but so too is the idea that the state will voluntarily limit its reach to the minarchist brief, justice and defense, alone.
Quote from Sephan Kinsella: “It is neither “realistic” nor “unrealistic” to favor aggression. It is just evil.”
So, everybody who isn’t an anarcho-capitalist is evil? What about parents who discipline their children, or even just make them eat their vegetables? Wouldn’t that make nearly all of biology inherently evil, since no species could survive without some enslavement of the parents (or at least the mother)?
Simply saying I don’t think something will work does not make me against it. I don’t think anti-gravity or faster-than-light travel will work either, but that doesn’t mean I’m against them.
And I never said the CSA were “anarchistic”. I said they were more anarchistic than the USA, then and now.
It seems to me you have a very black and white view of things.
n.b. there’s a typo in the paper. p.9, point (a).
Comments on this entry are closed.