New member: Question about the Viability of Anarchism vs Minarchism

jrodefeld · January 7, 2013

Hello everyone,

I am a new member here. I have been a long time libertarian. I supported Ron Paul both in 2008 and in 2012 and have studied a considerable amount of Austrian economics (Mises, Rothbard and the whole lot). I also have a great deal of respect for Stefan and I have watched his youtube videos and interviews and always found him engaging and enlightening,

My first post here concerns a question I have regarding the viability of true anarchism, i.e. no state whatsoever, private law and the outer edges of anarchist philosophy. I have heard Stefan claim that Minarchism or the desire to create a strictly limited government is a lost cause because, as history will show, a limited government and free market creates a tremendous amount of wealth and prosperity, thus creating the conditions for that government to grow and consume the wealth that was produced by the market.

So the argument goes that we must get rid of government entirely to prevent that unending cycle whereby a productive free economy becomes devoured by an established government that breaks free or circumvents any limits imposed upon it initially.

My problem with this is that there are always going to be people in society that do not want to behave in voluntary, peaceful ways with other individuals. The desire to create an organization with the monopolization on the use of force (which is essentially what government is) is so great that in the absense of any established government certain interests would collude to essentially create such a monopoly on force, and thus a "government", whether it is called that or not, will emerge regardless. And if wise and proactive libertarians have not thought ahead and established a highly minimal government, defined its legitimate functions with plenty of safeguards in restraining its growth, then the government that emerges out of conditions of anarchy will grow far faster because there are no explicit limits to prevent its growth.

I agree that no written constitutions or methods have been sufficient to limit government over long periods of time. But, with effective safeguards and separation of powers, I believe we can limit government for a considerable length of time. In the United States, despite the atrocious violations of the rights of women, blacks and Native Americans, the restraints that were imposed on government in the form of the Constitution allowed a market economy that propelled the rise of the worlds largest middle class and the acceleration in the rise of living standards was terrific.

And I believe that we could do far better in crafting a Constitution, improving the one we have and implementing additional safeguards that could effectively limit our government better than that which our founders gave to us.

I also think that a minarchist government, stripped to its essential functions, could exist and not violate the non aggression principle. For example, the income tax is horrific and clearly immoral. It is clearly theft and coercion against peaceful individuals. But I would suggest that a strictly limited government should run on revenues collected by Americans engaging in purely voluntary activities.

For example, importing certain products would come with a tax. But you can easily avoid that tax by not importing that product or buying it locally. Or you could have a government toll road, but you could choose to drive on a private road. Therefore, any American could easily avoid paying the government anything unless the convenience of doing whatever voluntary and unneccessary activity is worth the additional tax. This does not seem like tyranny.

Furthermore, if government did not engage in any wealth redistribution but used all revenues to fund its bare essential functions, defense of the country, maintaining a court system and so forth, and all these functions benefitted each person equally, I don't think this violates the non aggression principle.

Now, even if some of you are able to show that this is not the case, that the non aggression principle is being violated and some sort of inconsistency is being shown in my libertarian logic, I think that the reality is that in any society on the planet, at some point, a group of predators will organize to create a monopoly on the use of force, which will end up being a de facto government regardless. If we understand this to be inevitably true, then it would make sense to proactively establish the best kind of government that can possibly exist, with as many safeguards and limitations on the growth of its power as possible.

What is the problem with this logic? Do any of the Molyneux disciplines have any good refutations to my points?

ribuck · January 7, 2013

Hello, and welcome to the FDR forum.

... there are always going to be people in society that do not want to behave in voluntary, peaceful ways ...

For sure. Voluntaryists never deny this.

The desire to create an
organization with the monopolization on the use of force (which is
essentially what government is) is so great that in the absense of any
established government certain interests would collude to essentially
create such a monopoly on force, and thus a "government", whether it is
called that or not, will emerge regardless.

Maybe a "government" will emerge. Maybe not.

Current governments clearly have not solved (or even alleviated) the problem of the "people in society that do not want to behave in voluntary, peaceful ways with other individuals". As Stefan has been known to say, why avoid removing a cancer just because there's a possibility that it will grow back?

In the future I hope that the "certain interests" to which you refer will realise that it will work better to create a non-violent organization that will achieve vastly superior results through social exclusion of wrongdoers (ostracism), and removing the constraints currently imposed against those who want to behave in voluntary, peaceful ways.

TheRobin · January 7, 2013

My problem with this is that there are always going to be people in society that do not want to behave in voluntary, peaceful ways with other individuals. The desire to create an organization with the monopolization on the use of force (which is essentially what government is) is so great that in the absense of any established government certain interests would collude to essentially create such a monopoly on force, and thus a "government", whether it is called that or not, will emerge regardless. And if wise and proactive libertarians have not thought ahead and established a highly minimal government, defined its legitimate functions with plenty of safeguards in restraining its growth, then the government that emerges out of conditions of anarchy will grow far faster because there are no explicit limits to prevent its growth.

As one who is myself relatively new to these ideas I've always kind of wondered what the logic behind this scenario is. I heard people tossing it out as if it were fact, but I never quite understood how (logically or economically) this scenario could unfold.

Could you maybe (baby-)step my through it? cause I don't see how this would even be remotely possible

For example, importing certain products would come with a tax. But you can easily avoid that tax by not importing that product or buying it locally. Or you could have a government toll road, but you could choose to drive on a private road. Therefore, any American could easily avoid paying the government anything unless the convenience of doing whatever voluntary and unneccessary activity is worth the additional tax. This does not seem like tyranny.

Furthermore, if government did not engage in any wealth redistribution but used all revenues to fund its bare essential functions, defense of the country, maintaining a court system and so forth, and all these functions benefitted each person equally, I don't think this violates the non aggression principle.

Well, the NAP is not about determining that everyone benefits, but simply asking, do peopel initiate violence against others or not. So taxing imports is clearly the use of deadly force (or the thread thereof) to steal part of the profit ot the importers or producers, isn't it?

Also if you have a monopoly on justice (or dispute resolution), then people can't chose to go to another court or (dispute resolution organisation), which is also an initiation of deadly force or the thread thereof, right?

What is the problem with this logic? Do any of the Molyneux disciplines have any good refutations to my points?

I'm not sure what you mean with "the Molyneux disciplines", what we do here (or try as hard as we can

) is using reason and evidence in order to arrive at true conclusions.

Also if you want some more details about the first question regading the re-formation of a violent tyranny, there's a whole chapter in the free ebook "pracitcal anarchy" dedicated to that.

Libertus · January 7, 2013

Not trying to be overly harsh, this is just how it comes out.. only attacking the messages, with both fists and feet - not the messenger.

certain interests would collude to essentially create such a monopoly on force, and thus a "government", whether it is called that or not, will emerge regardless.

I'm not sure that's really a monopoly on force. Bad people will conspire and collude, and use force or threaten to use force, but how can they create a monopoly on force without the consent of the free, well-armed people that are protecting each other directly and indirectly through a network of defense and insurance agencies? How can bad people make sure they're the only ones (as in monopoly) with guns?

the government that emerges out of conditions of anarchy

You haven't yet established why that would happen at all.

I agree that no written constitutions or methods have been sufficient to limit government over long periods of time. But, with effective safeguards and separation of powers, I believe we can limit government for a considerable length of time.

Only to end up where we ended up the last time: warrantless searches and seizures, victimless crimes, millions of peaceful people in jail cells and thousands in torture camps, wiretapping, drone bombings, carpet bombings of cities, hundreds of millions starving ... no, thanks.

In the United States, despite the atrocious violations of the rights of women, blacks and Native Americans, the restraints that were imposed on government in the form of the Constitution allowed a market economy that propelled the rise of the worlds largest middle class and the acceleration in the rise of living standards was terrific.

The market economy wasn't allowed by there being a federal government. It has existed before there was a federal government, and since then it has managed to grow despite the fed getting involved. Not because.

And I believe that we could do far better in crafting a Constitution, improving the one we have and implementing additional safeguards that could effectively limit our government better than that which our founders gave to us.

They are not our founders. Show me the contract that is binding to me (pretending I was an American). What gives you the right to impose your government on me?

I also think that a minarchist government, stripped to its essential functions, could exist and not violate the non aggression principle.

Word games. It is, for all intents and purposes, not a government if it isn't a coercive monopoly against people within a geographical area. Let's call it a 'club' of people, or a 'group'. You can't call it government unless it's binding to everybody within a given area. If everybody could continue to use their own arbitration organizations, their own security firms and their own money, then your 'government' would be nothing but a competing organization and should not be called a government. But make it a monopoly on the services that 'minarchists' think are best to be managed by a government, it's not voluntary anymore (because it's not a monopoly if you can't stop others from getting their protection elsewhere). It's either or. Let's not mix the two together.

For example, the income tax is horrific and clearly immoral. It is clearly theft and coercion against peaceful individuals. But I would suggest that a strictly limited government should run on revenues collected by Americans engaging in purely voluntary activities.
For example, importing certain products would come with a tax.

Isn't working as a car salesman a voluntary activity, too? According to that definition, the income tax is OK after all, is it not?

Think about it. What makes taxes theft is not whether the activity that is being taxed is a voluntary or an involuntary one, but whether the payment of the tax itself is voluntary or not.

But you can easily avoid that tax by not importing that product or buying it locally. Or you could have a government toll road, but you could choose to drive on a private road. Therefore, any American could easily avoid paying the government anything unless the convenience of doing whatever voluntary and unneccessary activity is worth the additional tax.

Please explain how the government got ownership of said road?

This does not seem like tyranny.

How about I occupy your house and force you to pay a small fee for usage? Because that's what happens with roads, they were either stolen outright or built with stolen money. How is that not tyranny?

Furthermore, if government did not engage in any wealth redistribution but used all revenues to fund its bare essential functions, defense of the country, maintaining a court system and so forth, and all these functions benefitted each person equally, I don't think this violates the non aggression principle.

But I don't need a court system, all I need is the defense and arbitration services that I have chosen for myself. I don't want to pay for your 'essential functions'. Is that OK or should I go to jail if I refuse to pay my taxes / tariffs / fees?

Now, even if some of you are able to show that this is not the case, that the non aggression principle is being violated and some sort of inconsistency is being shown in my libertarian logic, I think that the reality is

Well, well. First we show you how what you're suggesting violates the NAP, and after all that you're telling us that it doesn't matter anyway, because of, ugh reality? Why did you go through all the trouble of demonstrating how minarchism doesn't violate the NAP when the NAP clearly doesn't matter anyway, because reality?

that in any society on the planet, at some point, a group of predators will organize to create a monopoly on the use of force, which will end up being a de facto government regardless. If we understand this to be inevitably true

No, we do not understand. They (the predators) can try. But you're saying, realistically, there is no way they could ever be stopped. So, let's say because people are fallible, so let's create a coercive monopoly on force, give a group of people all the guns and a heckload of money and a monopoly on force and authority to act in a given area and pretend they won't be overstepping, because of a piece of paper that says they may not violate our rights. Sure, that will work, it's totally reasonable to create a monopoly on force in order to prevent a monopoly on force from forming.

then it would make sense to proactively establish the best kind of government that can possibly exist, with as many safeguards and limitations on the growth of its power as possible. What is the problem with this logic?

The problem with your logic is that it has faulty premises that you seem to be taking for granted (a violent monopoly will always be built... taxes are not stealing if the activity is taxed is voluntary, and so on - I commented on your faulty premises) but are by no means demonstrable true and correct, and secondly that you don't appear to having thought through some of your points (the one about the roads, not understanding / misapplying what the NAP says, correctly pointing out that income taxes are immoral while - apparently - not understanding why they are, couple more)

Do any of the Molyneux disciplines have any good refutations to my points?

Did you mean "disciples"? I am not one of those, but I have applied some of the arguments I have heard on Stefan's show to your points, thank you.

Peace and love! At least you're asking question and not making accusations, that is highly commendable. I enjoyed picking your post apart. Salute!

jrodefeld · January 9, 2013

I feel like I kind of threw this post together without thinking too much about it. You are all correct that a limited government, government owned roads and any taxes at all are violations of the non aggression principle. I also agree that if one takes libertarianism to its logical and consistent conclusion, one embraces voluntary anarchy. I think that is the case and I feel that any minarchist must contradict his own principles in embracing even a minimum government. But let me clarify why I have a hard time going "all the way" and becoming a complete anarchist.

1. The first one is practical. The one area that I feel compelled to critique Stefan is that he has the enviable position of being completely philosophic and theoretical and thus able to be as consistant and logical as is possible. But by the same token, I don't see that effort, without the more practical and realist libertarians who actually engage in politics a little bit and attempt to move things in our direction, being successful in any practical sense. I mean, in a vacuum and isolated from all practical concerns about how things work, we can devise what would be the ideal society for liberty. And if that is Stefan's role to play, that is great and I appreciate his effort. But he seems intolerant of libertarians who make any "compromises" of what he sees as the consistent moral defense of liberty, as his philosophic work dictates.

He has criticized Ron Paul and those who worked in his presidential campaign as the whole effort being a waste of time because he thinks it is completely impossible to reform government, period, or get rid of it through the political process. Ultimately that is correct, and I understand the concept that even voting and participating lends a credibility to government, but without some efforts in that vein, like what Ron Paul has done, we will accomplish very little. If a person such as Ron Paul was to get elected and his only accomplishment was to stifle and veto and undermine the efforts of those who sought to use government to hurt people, that would be an accomplishment of sorts. Sometimes just throwing a wrench into the mechisms of tyrants is a small victory.

And if that person were able to also articulate a philosophy that is 90% close to what Stefan believes, promoting Austrian economics, an end to imperialism and war and a respect for philosophy and liberty, then that would be a significant victory. If a couple million people became exposed to Stefan Molyneux and his work, that would be a huge victory even if the mechnisms of government haven't changed that much.

My first concern is that if we haven't managed to keep any sort of limited government throughout all of human history, how can we practically achieve a society of no government whatsoever? How do we get from here to there?

2. Maybe I wasn't clear in my original OP, but it seems like a majority of people want some type of government. As you no doubt would agree, for whatever perverse reason, the propaganda that has convinced people of the necessity of the state is powerful and compelling to many as the same arguments have been put forth over and over again. So if we WERE able to achieve a voluntary anarchist society, how would we keep it that way? If a slim majority becomes convinced through propaganda that we need to establish a centralized State, even those who object will probably not be able to stop the force of a majority against the minority. Therefore, while a minarchist government WOULD be force and coercion, it would be a limited amount of evil.

If we establish a voluntary anarchist society and an ignorant majority are later convinced of the necessity of a central government and it is established, it might grow larger and become more abusive of the peoples rights quicker. I just don't know how a principled minority of voluntarists could protect themselves against an ignorant majority if they are deceived into buying into the neccesity of the creation of a government. The only way I could see is to establish a minarchist State, and put as many restrictions to its growth as possible.

It just seems that the majority will always be ignorant of philosophy and concepts like voluntarism and so forth. Maybe I don't understand. Could you tell me what methods would be in place to prevent or discourage the creation of a government in a voluntary anarchy society? The argument I hear from Stefan is that limited governments have always failed and governments grow regardless, that is why we have to get rid of government altogether. The idea is that to best limit government would be to eliminate government. I am just not convinced that will work because just as easily a new government could be established and grow as fast or faster than with no government. I don't know if I am explaining myself that well but I hope you get what I am getting at.

3. I am a little confuse about "dispute resolutions centers", or private law in an anarchist society. This seems to be a very difficult idea for people to grasp. How would they work? So each "center" would have a different set of laws? What if they contradict? What if one "resolution center" wants to outlaw drug use? Who would stop them from using force against me for the voluntary behavior of using a recreational drug?

I think most people see that there can be horribly unjust laws, as we are well aware. There are moral and just laws, but people feel like the law should apply equally to us all. Perhaps the government has no moral authority to be the arbitor of the law, but if we have multiple "private" laws and different standards for justice, how can that lead to a just society? Wouldn't a rich person be able to pay off a "dispute center" and get unequal justice? Or merely be able to resolve a dispute at a DRC that is farther away that has a legal code that favors him? I really have a hard time understanding how this would work.

And secondly, if these DRC's are completing for the justified use of force to punish criminals or make them pay damages to their victims, why wouldn't they seek to collude with one another and create one legal system and make it oppressive to some and beneficial to them and their friends. What about police? If there are competing private police, how would they dispense force against criminals?

It would seem to be highly tempting for any private groups dispensing laws or police force to begin to collude and merge and eventually create a large enough collusion to eventually transition to being a de-facto government. The concentrated benefits of a centralized monopoly on force and law is so tempting.

Sorry for asking so many questions. I would appreciate it if you could help to enlighten me on this subject.

jrodefeld · January 9, 2013