Principled Minarchy

[Richard Garner]

Sure it can. But unless it stops other people from setting up similar organisations within the same geographic area, or similar organisations from different geographic areas from doing the same thing in its geographic area, then it isn't really a state, no matter what it calls itself.

Its just a name so why argue that? If it's voluntary it doesnt matter anyway.

I just don't think there is much point calling something that is not a state, a state. I also think that calling an organisation like this, which is not a state, a state obscures the inherently unjust nature of states.

[Hideaki769]

all great points but then again it's their decision to call themselves whatever they want

[markuzick]

Its just a name so why argue that? If it's voluntary it doesnt matter anyway.

How is the use or threat of violence to maintain a monopoly on civil government considered voluntary by you?

[markuzick]

all great points but then again it's their decision to call themselves whatever they want

So their state is voluntary if they say it is?

Well.......I guess that if the anarchists can redefine "government", then the statists can redefine "voluntary". Welcome to the world of "new-speak".

[Hideaki769]

I think that in a free society, a large group of people can form an organization, calling themselves 'The State of X', and using voluntary funding, establish themselves as a force to prevent smaller gangs from exerting tyranny over society.

Thoughts?

If they are voluntarily funded and are only using protective force then thats pretty much privatized police. Hows that using threat to maintain a monopoly. Now if the private organization tries to take liberties from others then thats a problem. Its also not there fault if no one is trying to compete in the market for protection if they became monopolized. They can call themselves the pink poodle brigade for all I care it's their decision.

[SnowDog]

You can also think of the principled minarchy as a transitional government. Unless you believe that large numbers of people are just going to stop obeying the government, (and I know there are some people who believe this), then the path to liberty lies in winning the hearts and minds of the people. This will lead to people dismantling the state, through the state. So, until the state reaches its end point, it will turn into a smaller government, then a minarchy, then the foundation will be laid for the voluntary society, then it will turn into the principled minarchy, which you might then want to call something else...

[markuzick]

then it will turn into the principled minarchy, which you might then want to call something else...

Well of course, since, as I explained, the concept of minarchy is the utilitarian advocacy of a "necessary evil", which is the opposite of principled approach.

[SnowDog]

No... the principled minarchy is not the result of a utilitiarian approach. It is the final resting state of the current government, as it approaches principle. The point is that we should guide the way for the state to achieve this goal. The principled minarchy is this way.

If we don't do this... if we don't provide a way for the state to morph into a voluntary organization, then we open the door to all the criticisisms that anarchy encompasses. We MUST show the way, and the principled minarchy is that way.

[markuzick]

No... the principled minarchy is not the result of a utilitiarian approach. It is the final resting state of the current government, as it approaches principle. The point is that we should guide the way for the state to achieve this goal. The principled minarchy is this way.

For reasons already stated, the term "principled minarchy" doesn't make any sense. I think that what you are attempting to say is that a pragmatic minarchy lies along the path toward principled civil government.

While principled people may accept minarchy as a step in the right direction, this doesn't make minarchy itself principled. That would be like saying that since a welfare state is an improvement over fascism, on an earlier section of this road toward liberty, that you could have a "principled welfare state".

If we don't do this... if we don't provide a way for the state to morph into a voluntary organization, then we open the door to all the criticisisms that anarchy encompasses. We MUST show the way, and the principled minarchy is that way.

There is no way for the state to morph into some kind of monolithic voluntary organization. The state must divest itself of its governmental agencies, freeing them to either compete with other enterprises in the market place or fail and die, and, in this way, shrink from big to small to smaller to minarchy and, finally, non-existence as the last state civil governmental agency becomes a private civil governmental agency that competes for clients with others of its type.

This is the beginning of truly unlimited principled government and the end of the anarchy of the state.

[Terror Australis]

In his 1860 article “Panarchy” de Puydt, who also expressed support for laissez-faire economics, applied the concept to the individual's right to choose any form of government without being forced to move from their current locale. This is sometimes described as "extra-territorial" (or "exterritorial") since governments often would serve non-contiguous parcels of land. De Puydt wrote:

    “The truth is that there is not enough of the right kind of freedom, the fundamental freedom to choose to be free or not to be free, according to one's preference....Thus I demand, for each and every member of human society, freedom of association according to inclination and of activity according to aptitude. In other words, the absolute right to choose the political surroundings in which to live, and to ask for nothing else.”[1]

De Puydt described how such a system would be administered:

    “In each community a new office is opened, a "Bureau of Political Membership". This office would send every responsible citizen a declaration form to fill in, just as for the income tax or dog registration: Question: What form of government would you desire? Quite freely you would answer, monarchy, or democracy, or any other... and once registered, unless you withdrew your declaration, respecting the legal forms and delays, you would thereby become either a royal subject or citizen of the republic. Thereafter you are in no way involved with anyone else's government—no more than a Prussian subject is with Belgian authorities.”[1]

Panarchy, a term devised to describe evolving hierarchical systems with multiple interrelated elements, offers an important new framework for understanding and resolving this dilemma. Panarchy is the structure in which systems, including those of nature (e.g., forests) and of humans (e.g., capitalism), as well as combined human-natural systems (e.g., institutions that govern natural resource use such as the Forest Service), are interlinked in continual adaptive cycles of growth, accumulation, restructuring, and renewal.


Involuntary anarchism is no different to totalitarianism.......whatever system people choose is unimportant it is the ability to freely leave the organisation that is the basis of a truly free society....

Minarchy is fine if you can choose to leave.....

I believe Ian is a panarchist.....

[markuzick]

Minarchy is fine if you can choose to leave.....Smile

Except that then it wouldn't be minarchy anymore. That's the problem of panarchy in a nut shell.

I love the name "panarchy", and I support non-territorial voluntary civil government. Beyond that, it gets wacky.

[Terror Australis]

Minarchy is fine if you can choose to leave.....Smile

Except that then it wouldn't be minarchy anymore. That's the problem of panarchy in a nut shell.

I love the name "panarchy", and I support non-territorial voluntary civil government. Beyond that, it gets wacky.

as opposed to the current system?lol

[markuzick]

Minarchy is fine if you can choose to leave.....Smile

Except that then it wouldn't be minarchy anymore. That's the problem of panarchy in a nut shell.

I love the name "panarchy", and I support non-territorial voluntary civil government. Beyond that, it gets wacky.

as opposed to the current system?lol

In a way, it is the current system, but without the results predicted by the panarchists.
We live in a world with a multitude of different systems, but they behave according to their nature, not according to some unenforceable panarchist rules and so they divide up the earth into territories

A slave that can choose to be a slave or switch to some other system was never really a slave to begin with. The ideologues of the various slave systems will never settle for some role playing game.

[Terror Australis]

Minarchy is fine if you can choose to leave.....Smile

Except that then it wouldn't be minarchy anymore. That's the problem of panarchy in a nut shell.

I love the name "panarchy", and I support non-territorial voluntary civil government. Beyond that, it gets wacky.

as opposed to the current system?lol

In a way, it is the current system, but without the results predicted by the panarchists.
We live in a world with a multitude of different systems, but they behave according to their nature, not according to some unenforceable panarchist rules and so they divide up the earth into territories

A slave that can choose to be a slave or switch to some other system was never really a slave to begin with. The ideologues of the various slave systems will never settle for some role playing game.

There is an argument that slavery is the default human condition....

[BobRobertson]

Has anyone else read Neil Stephenson's _Snow Crash_?

Multiple subscription "governments", each exercising territorial monopolies, but on what we call today "gated communities".

It's a fun book, too.