How important is this on the greater scheme of things?
Our thoughts about the proper goal will determine our methods of reaching it.
I agree with Nozick that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own nonaggression principles.
That's simply redefining words to suit your end.
This whole debate between Libs over the purity of sovereignty is ridiculous to me.
Is that because you disagree that there is objective truth?
Minarchy, although not as "free" from the constraints of governmental control, is far more practical as a solution, and the reason being that there can be far greater results from a small, decentralized government than simply casting off all forms of government in exchange for a completely uncontrolled population.
Why are the options either minarchism or an aggressive population? Why can't people be controlled by a system of voluntary interlocking agreements?
The fact remains that some freedoms are sufferable
Who gets to decide which ones?
I find no real contradiction in morality or fundamental beliefs so long as those who choose to be governed can create a sensible system and manage it appropriately.
How can you distinguish a fundamental difference between minarchy and totalitarianism?
It is also fair to conclude that the minarchist society only places as much control into the hands of government as is necessary for it to function and perform its basic duties.
It's easy to claim it's necessary when you are the one defining the "basic" duties.
A society without rules, without sensible restrictions, and without punishing those who prey upon others is a society full of despair and chaos.
Why must anarchy be this?
But alas, these functions do not have to reside in the hands of government, as the role of government in a common minarchist society will be responsible for building roads, establishing a sensible banking system, and promoting other general functions that do not use force or violate liberties.
As long this this entity is not stealing to pay for the system or maintaining a monopoly on legitimate force it
cannot be considered a government.
I believe anarchy to be ... destructive for many reasons, and it can only lead to complete societal breakdown and increased violence. I can explain in more detail if you wish, as I am not trying to just make blanket statements.
I look forward to it. I honestly seek the truth. I just hope you do as well.
As long as you can opt-out, then who cares?
You cannot opt-out of minarchism, or it wouldn't be minarchism.
I guess MobileDigit should explain what he means by "minarchism"...
Minimal statism.
I suppose a minarchism could be sustained soley on volountary donations and still have the government retain its monopolistic status. Would that be defying self-ownership?
Yes, because by agressively stopping newcomers in the security market it is denying the self-ownership of those newcomers.
Anarchy is an unsustainable period between governments, so this really is a pointless discussion.
Why is it unsustainable?
I'd rather have small government than facism, feudalism, or socialism, or Egyptianism, or Muslimism.
But you'd prefer minarchism to anarcho-capitalism?
No, but it doesn't matter.
Why not?
That's exactly why we can't trust these essential services to a monopoly who can raise prices at will, kill any potential competitors, and allow quality to suffer.
Sure we can. Just make any mismanagement punishable by death.
Why not simply have competing agencies?
The Free Talk Live BBS
Poll
14 (43.8%)
Author
Topic: The Morality of Minarchism (Read 14937 times)