An open letter to Stefan Molyneux about Minarchism

[Markus FIN]

I am a Minarchist and I know some people here might hate me for it, but let me explain. This open letter is meant to be at least some point in history to be read by Stefan as I very much respect his opinion. Anyone else reading this please don't dislike the post if you think I am wrong, but rather state why by a reply. I am fully willing to change my views if someone can prove me wrong on this!

 

Minarchism in my opinion is a safe way to a totally free society. At the moment the societies we live in have state regulations and public sector companies growing everywhere around it. Some things are at the moment dependent on the state, because the previous generations thought it would be a good idea to build an infrastructure that is based on the existence of the state. If we went immediately from the current society to the Libertarian model of society, we would risk a chaos. Many people are so used to be living in a state that it would be impossible for them to deal in such a situation. A peaceful transaction from Statism to Libertarianism can only be achieved by taking it slow. Starting from privatizing public sector, reducing government regulations and decreasing the size of the army. It will take many decades until we reach a point where we can safely shut down the government and begin a completely free society.

 

An example of a government that is ready to be shut down would be a one that only provides basic legal system and the police. The only thing I am still wondering about is how can we transfer the legal system to the private sector? I mean there is a huge chance for it to become corrupt... But I believe it can all be figured out while we get there, the important thing right now is to get this started. I still believe that politics and voting are important because they are a way to change the world without causing panic or fear. Of course there are examples of peaceful revolutions but that is a huge risk to take. Also in Minarchism there is the option to stop and think again if everything goes to hell.

 

So before you judge Minarchists, let me tell you this: We both have the same goal, we just want to be VERY careful while getting there. And all out revolution is a big risk and risks cost lives. This is my question to Stefan (if he ever reads this): I know that what you want is freedom, but there is a big risk. So what are you willing to bet on it? Your life, your friends lives, your relatives lives or even your daughters life?

 

I do not mean to come out insulting this is just a question I SO DEEPLY want an answer to. I am yet to find a video on Stefan about this subject but if someone knows one then I would appreciate if you linked it to me. Again if you people think this question is insulting or too personal (I don't think it is but i have been wrong), then please tell me either via private message or via posting on the thread so I can take whatever actions are necessary. Thank you all for listening to me and I hope you do well.

 

Markus FIN

[ParaSait]

Be aware that Stefan's belief is nonrevolutionary. It's a multi-generational, peaceful removal of the state that starts with parenting.

 

Now, onto the minarchism...

Why would private justice/security be more prone corruption than public justice/police? Because surely that's an exception that needs to be explained.

Are you aware of the idea of DROs? (dispute resolution organizations)

 

Add: also, there's no need to be afraid or really careful to criticize ideas and beliefs around here... only the irrational react negatively to criticisms.

[tiepolo]

I am presently coming down as a minarchist/ libertarian nationalist, since I think a free society needs some national core, some focus of identity, some infrastructure, a legal system, and national defence. I think a minimal state might be a necessary evil. I also see a nation state, territorially speaking, as the common property of its citizens, and believe in national homelands. It seems to me only a minority of people are cut out for being individualists or for choosing their own tribe rather than their native one. The optimum political system should reflect this reality. 

 

I would be happy in principle to set aside some land and some settlements for the purist anarchists to show me they can make their ideas work, and I would wish them well. But until they produced any results to point to, I would keep my borders closed.

[Songbirdo]

Not sure if splitting hairs over that last 1% of government is worth it at this point when the other 99% of government is still in the way.

 

It reminds me of an earlier podcast call in show (mid 400's) where a caller asks whether or not shining a light in someone's face would violate the non-aggression principle. Who cares! We've got bigger evils to deal with.

 

And so, on a similar notion, minarchists, anarchists and wherever libertarians say they lay on that spectrum could really benefit the preferred direction of the growth of government (towards reduction) if they just banded together. Both sides agree on eliminating 99% of the government evils. Let's get that 99% out of the way first. If we can get it back to 1%, then we can begin the debates on whether shining a flashlight in someone else's face is a violation or not.

 

Yes, once the government is reduced to 1% the fundamental source of the evil (theft) is still in effect. However, when its role in our lives is nonexistent compared to what it is now, I think it will be a much easier step for the minarchists to see the remaining 1% isn't actually "needed". They will make the final push to anarchism with the knowledge that the now-tiny government was this small before and the beast grew out of control within the next couple succeeding generations.

[Markus FIN]

I am presently coming down as a minarchist/ libertarian nationalist, since I think a free society needs some national core, some focus of identity, some infrastructure, a legal system, and national defence. I think a minimal state might be a necessary evil. I also see a nation state, territorially speaking, as the common property of its citizens, and believe in national homelands. It seems to me only a minority of people are cut out for being individualists or for choosing their own tribe rather than their native one. The optimum political system should reflect this reality. I would be happy in principle to set aside some land and some settlements for the purist anarchists to show me they can make their ideas work, and I would wish them well. But until they produced any results to point to, I would keep my borders closed.

I see your point there, we should try Anarchism somewhere and see via testing where it would lead. The problem is that there is really no unclaimed land left. :/ But that was a good idea dude! Thank you.

Not sure if splitting hairs over that last 1% of government is worth it at this point when the other 99% of government is still in the way.It reminds me of an earlier podcast call in show (mid 400's) where a caller asks whether or not shining a light in someone's face would violate the non-aggression principle. Who cares! We've got bigger evils to deal with.And so, on a similar notion, minarchists, anarchists and wherever libertarians say they lay on that spectrum could really benefit the preferred direction of the growth of government (towards reduction) if they just banded together. Both sides agree on eliminating 99% of the government evils. Let's get that 99% out of the way first. If we can get it back to 1%, then we can begin the debates on whether shining a flashlight in someone else's face is a violation or not.Yes, once the government is reduced to 1% the fundamental source of the evil (theft) is still in effect. However, when its role in our lives is nonexistent compared to what it is now, I think it will be a much easier step for the minarchists to see the remaining 1% isn't actually "needed". They will make the final push to anarchism with the knowledge that the now-tiny government was this small before and the beast grew out of control within the next couple succeeding generations.

Excactly! Thank you everyone for such rational and polite comments. My first impressions on this community are outstanding! Also I thought he had a video were he talked about getting rid of the government in like 30 days or something and that seemed very risky to me. This idea of teaching children to think for themselves and parenting them well is just beautiful. I have rarely met people who are just... so... well... good. I mean people here are open to everything if it is not morally and rationally evil, and those are the kind of people I have spent my whole life looking for! :')Markus FIN

[Bulbasaur]

I am presently coming down as a minarchist/ libertarian nationalist, since I think a free society needs some national core, some focus of identity, some infrastructure, a legal system, and national defence. I think a minimal state might be a necessary evil. 

 

I don't doubt that you've given a lot of thought to your position with regards to minarchism, but I wonder if you've thought as carefully about the philosophical implications of accepting the necessity of evil? To me this is an extraordinary and extraordinarily troubling claim, and not a phrase to be used casually.

[Freedomain]

 

The initiation of the use of force is immoral and evil. Government is thus immoral and evil.

[tiepolo]

A necessary evil is one that prevents a greater evil. Having a state and a standing army is a lesser evil than being invaded by someone else's army, for example. This doesn't strike me as overly complicated. 

[dsayers]

I am a Minarchist and I know some people here might hate me for it

 

I'm glad others put the nail in the coffin for me. I didn't make it past this part since it came across as manipulative. I didn't believe that what followed would be of integrity.

 

If somebody "hates you" for having a view different from theirs, they're mirroring unprocessed trauma from their childhood. "You" never even enters into it for them. They only claim that it does so that they don't have to look to those actually responsible for their abuse.

 

If you want my advice, I wouldn't identify with any conclusion (Minarchist). Align yourself with sound methodology and the correct conclusions will come and even evolve as new information is gained.

 

A necessary evil is one that prevents a greater evil. Having a state and a standing army is a lesser evil than being invaded by someone else's army. This doesn't strike me as overly complicated. 

 

The complication comes in the form that once you think you've found the answer, you stop looking for the right answer. "Necessary evil" is a conclusion without sound methodology behind it. Somebody who was philosophically minded would at the very least be curious towards the very suggestion rather than accepting it outright and being party to the enslavement/murder of millions of human beings.

[Markus FIN]

 

The initiation of the use of force is immoral and evil. Government is thus immoral and evil.

I have seen that poster a hundred times and I took it in consideration when making this. If it was an argument then I am sorry but it is invalid in my opinion. :/ If you say that "government is always evil" thing then it makes me feel like you have not read my post. I said that Minarchism offers a way to reach the goals of Anarchists with minimum risks. I thought I was making it clear that the goal is to have no state... So what did I say wrong? :/

[...]

.

[Markus FIN]

I'm glad others put the nail in the coffin for me. I didn't make it past this part since it came across as manipulative. I didn't believe that what followed would be of integrity.If somebody "hates you" for having a view different from theirs, they're mirroring unprocessed trauma from their childhood. "You" never even enters into it for them. They only claim that it does so that they don't have to look to those actually responsible for their abuse.If you want my advice, I wouldn't identify with any conclusion (Minarchist). Align yourself with sound methodology and the correct conclusions will come and even evolve as new information is gained.The complication comes in the form that once you think you've found the answer, you stop looking for the right answer. "Necessary evil" is a conclusion without sound methodology behind it. Somebody who was philosophically minded would at the very least be curious towards the very suggestion rather than accepting it outright and being party to the enslavement/murder of millions of human beings.

Okay. Thank you and I will avoid coming out manipulative next time, I just wasn't sure what to excpect. This forum is just so much more mature than the rest of the Internet and getting prepared for hate mail is kind of a reflex. ;)Markus FIN

States have their own life cycles, which cannot be intervened by statist means to reach antistatist outcome. If could, the Libertarian political movement in the USA would have gained massive success which was not the case. They were an utter failure.

The "Democracy" in USA is not like it is elsewhere. The huge govermental power combined with corporations is enough to not allow any Libertarian movements to get anywhere. In Europe liberal (both economical and social) parties are actually very strong. Libertarians is still a bit of a taboo, but people will accept them by time. It is possible to move from a welfare state to a minimum state through national politics. My personal dream is to be able to prove that it works.Markus FIN

[...]

. 

[Magnus]

The government's legal system is corrupt.

 

Before the mid-19th century or so, any property owner could sue any other owner for a nuisance, which covered any sort of trespass of A's property onto B.

 

But by the later decades, industrial pollution was happening on a new scale. The US courts deliberately changed the law by refusing to prevent nuisances (including industrial pollution) whenever the courts thought that shutting down the polluters was "unreasonable." In other words, they gave the large and powerful a free pass to harm others. For the greater good, they said.

 

There are 100 other examples.

[Markus FIN]

What do you mean by in Europe being a very strong liberal, both economically and socially, party movement? I certainly don't see anything like that coming or even lurking behind the curtains. Do you have any examples on any of these cases you say is happening or is possible, like going from welfare to minimum state?

Yes I can. In the two previous elections the most liberal party in Finland (Kokoomus) has won the elections. They are cutting down the public sector (even though many people hate them for it) bit by bit. It's not much but it is a start. Basically in Europe there is a BIG inner conflict on whether we should get rid of the welfare state or keep it.Markus FIN

The government's legal system is corrupt. Before the mid-19th century or so, any property owner could sue any other owner for a nuisance, which covered any sort of trespass of A's property onto B. But by the later decades, industrial pollution was happening on a new scale. The US courts deliberately changed the law by refusing to prevent nuisances (including industrial pollution) whenever the courts thought that shutting down the polluters was "unreasonable." In other words, they gave the large and powerful a free pass to harm others. For the greater good, they said. There are 100 other examples.

I understand but I think using the USA as an example of the entire world is kind of overreacting. Things are not all that bad elsewhere. The problem is that the USA has been the dominant power in the world for almost a century now and countries like that usually are more corrupt. Any time in history when a dominant nation is born it is always based on some idea superior to others. But after defending this idea becomes more important than following it, the country starts to collapse. It has happened to every single empire in human history... :/

[Freedomain]

I have seen that poster a hundred times and I took it in consideration when making this. If it was an argument then I am sorry but it is invalid in my opinion. :/ If you say that "government is always evil" thing then it makes me feel like you have not read my post. I said that Minarchism offers a way to reach the goals of Anarchists with minimum risks. I thought I was making it clear that the goal is to have no state... So what did I say wrong? :/

 

Have you tried this experiment with other much much smaller organizations? As Stefan has said a many times, why don't you join your local KKK and try and turn it into an equal rights group...

[JamesP]

The state depends on the initiation of violence. That is why it is evil.

 

If you have some sort of concept for organizing a society that does not rely on the initiation of force, I'm all ears. The second you introduce coercion, you've lost The Game.

[...]

.

[Kevin Beal]

A counter argument would be the subject of Stef's debate with Michael Badnarik:

[Songbirdo]

Thanks Kevin. I hadn't come across that debate yet.

[Markus FIN]

Have you tried this experiment with other much much smaller organizations? As Stefan has said a many times, why don't you join your local KKK and try and turn it into an equal rights group...

That is not the same thing. In a KKK there are only racists so it would be impossible to change their opinion. In a Democracy all you need to do is convince the majority of the people to support your idea. In a Democracy there are all kinds of people, not just evil ones. So all you need to do is get the good people to your side and you will be on your way. The reason why the state is so evil and irrational is because the people who vote are so easily fed bullshit. We need to step forward and tell the truth. It is possible to change the state by joining it's ranks. It is like becoming the employee of an evil corporation. If you can climb up the ranks to become the president, you can fix everything. :)Markus FIN

 

A counter argument would be the subject of Stef's debate with Michael Badnarik:

Thank you! I will look into that and see if it has some new ideas to offer me. :)Markus FIN

 

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Shemhamforash" data-cid="365857" data-time="1399677916"><p><p>The Coalition Party, Kokoomus, is a member of this gang:

I don't agree fully on their views of the European Union but otherwise they are at least going the right direction. The further we get the more people will realize how much we really need the state. The fact that no-one has done it before does not mean it can't be done. Humanity has achieved some outstanding goals and this is a walk in the park compared to putting a man on the moon. ;)Markus FIN

The state depends on the initiation of violence. That is why it is evil.If you have some sort of concept for organizing a society that does not rely on the initiation of force, I'm all ears. The second you introduce coercion, you've lost The Game.

Why does everyone think I want there to be government? All I am offering here is a safe way to achieve an anarchy! I hate state just as much as you do. :/Markus FIN

[TheRobin]

I'm not quite sure you're aware of it, but all you're doing is repeating claims without any basis (like minarchism somehow being "safe" and actually achievable). There are good arguments why minarchism (even if you ignore the moral problems with it) is completely unsuited to a) stay small or b) end in anarchy or that the state c) can even BE downgraded to minarchism at all (without, say a lot of violence and deaths due to unpaid bills and peopel starving and such)

 

Also, just fyi Stef has been an Objectivist/Minarchist for I think more than a decade (iirc), so unless you think he's a complete buffoon those arguments are certainly nothing new to him, so IMO if you want to hear the reasons against minarchism, calling in might be more productive.

[Markus FIN]

I'm not quite sure you're aware of it, but all you're doing is repeating claims without any basis (like minarchism somehow being "safe" and actually achievable). There are good arguments why minarchism (even if you ignore the moral problems with it) is completely unsuited to a) stay small or b) end in anarchy or that the state c) can even BE downgraded to minarchism at all (without, say a lot of violence and deaths due to unpaid bills and peopel starving and such)Also, just fyi Stef has been an Objectivist/Minarchist for I think more than a decade (iirc), so unless you think he's a complete buffoon those arguments are certainly nothing new to him, so IMO if you want to hear the reasons against minarchism, calling in might be more productive.

Well I already booked myself a spot in the Sunday show 22.6.2014 where I'm going to discuss about this specific subject. :)PS: I know Stefan is smart but there are still things he doesn't know. If I get lucky I might just have an argument he has not heard before... ;)Markus FIN

[JamesP]

You introduced yourself as a minarchist. People usually put that out there by way of rejecting anarchism.

 

You can't fault people for misinterpreting you there. You did go on to talk about it being a gateway to a totally free society, but I gotta say, that was pretty confusing

[Alan C.]

"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." - William Lloyd Garrison

 

"Cleaving to principle means something more than holding high and not contradicting the ultimate libertarian ideal. It also means striving to achieve that ultimate goal as rapidly as is physically possible. In short, the libertarian must never advocate or prefer a gradual, as opposed to an immediate and rapid, approach to his goal. For by doing so, he undercuts the overriding importance of his own goals and principles. And if he himself values his own goals so lightly, how highly will others value them?" - Murray Rothbard

[Markus FIN]

"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." - William Lloyd Garrison"Cleaving to principle means something more than holding high and not contradicting the ultimate libertarian ideal. It also means striving to achieve that ultimate goal as rapidly as is physically possible. In short, the libertarian must never advocate or prefer a gradual, as opposed to an immediate and rapid, approach to his goal. For by doing so, he undercuts the overriding importance of his own goals and principles. And if he himself values his own goals so lightly, how highly will others value them?" - Murray Rothbard

Those sentences can lead to a lot of blood... Blind Idealism that your goal is flawless leads to a unavoidable failure. If you want to change the world, you need to remember to stop and think from time to time. Slow and steady wins the race. ;)Markus FIN

[dsayers]

Blind Idealism that your goal is flawless leads to a unavoidable failure. Uf you want to change the world, you need to remember to stop and think from time to time. Slow and steady wins the race.

 

These are just words. When you're hungry, you don't view eating as blind idealism. When you're sick, you don't find comfort in slow and steady wins the race. No, you eat. Or you get in there and eradicate the sickness. What purpose would allowing for a little bit of violence serve if your desire is peace? Why should you tolerate a little bit of dishonesty when what you seek is the truth?

 

You stated a conclusion and refuse to revise it amid legitimate challenge and correction. This is not philosophical, it's bigotry.

[Markus FIN]

These are just words. When you're hungry, you don't view eating as blind idealism. When you're sick, you don't find comfort in slow and steady wins the race. No, you eat. Or you get in there and eradicate the sickness. What purpose would allowing for a little bit of violence serve if your desire is peace? Why should you tolerate a little bit of dishonesty when what you seek is the truth?You stated a conclusion and refuse to revise it amid legitimate challenge and correction. This is not philosophical, it's bigotry.

But is it right to try and fix something that is wrong with actions that can cost lives? What is you only THINK you are sick and end up taking the hardest medicine in order to stop the disease immediately. You are going to end up way worse off than you originaly were. Going slowly means keeping the option to go back available, and if that means that I don't believe in the goal enough then fine. In my opinion it is smart to understand that you can be wrong, excpecially with choices that deside the fate of the entire world...Markus FIN

[...]

.

[Markus FIN]

I don't think the mankind needs to leave itself the gateway to go back in the gas chambers, gulags and mass graves - the historical default. The constant human sacrifice of statism must come to an end, and the only option is to outgrow its virus by raising children - not sacrificing them for their parents dysfunctions, which is the historical default.

I would always leave another option available, in case we have made a mistake. The raising of children to understand the that the state is not needed is the best idea I have ever heard, but I am offering also other ways which we can use to reach our goal, without endangering the original ones.

[...]

. 

[dsayers]

What is you only THINK you are sick and end up taking the hardest medicine in order to stop the disease immediately. You are going to end up way worse off than you originaly were.

 

You don't realize it, but you are making my case for me. Philosophy is how we can KNOW we are sick before taking action. The people who describe themselves as minarchists do not KNOW violence is the metaphorical disease. The initiation of the use of force is either immoral or it is not. If it is not, then there's no reason to pare down the State at all. If it is, there's no reason to allow for it on any scale.

[powder]

The reason why the state is so evil and irrational is because the people who vote are so easily fed bullshit. 

 

Really?  The state is evil because people are misled?  that is not an argument, it is a conclusion.  Can you walk us threw that argument?

 

 

 

That is not the same thing. In a KKK there are only racists so it would be impossible to change their opinion. In a Democracy all you need to do is convince the majority of the people to support your idea. In a Democracy there are all kinds of people, not just evil ones. So all you need to do is get the good people to your side and you will be on your way. The reason why the state is so evil and irrational is because the people who vote are so easily fed bullshit. We need to step forward and tell the truth. It is possible to change the state by joining it's ranks. It is like becoming the employee of an evil corporation. If you can climb up the ranks to become the president, you can fix everything. 

 

You seem to think that the people, in a democracy, are the government...  how do you figure?

 

Why can't you join the KKK, an evil organization, get to the top and fix everything?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

No. 

[Markus FIN]

 

The reason why the state is so evil and irrational is because the people who vote are so easily fed bullshit. Really? The state is evil because people are misled? that is not an argument, it is a conclusion. Can you walk us threw that argument?

That is not the same thing. In a KKK there are only racists so it would be impossible to change their opinion. In a Democracy all you need to do is convince the majority of the people to support your idea. In a Democracy there are all kinds of people, not just evil ones. So all you need to do is get the good people to your side and you will be on your way. The reason why the state is so evil and irrational is because the people who vote are so easily fed bullshit. We need to step forward and tell the truth. It is possible to change the state by joining it's ranks. It is like becoming the employee of an evil corporation. If you can climb up the ranks to become the president, you can fix everything. You seem to think that the people, in a democracy, are the government... how do you figure?Why can't you join the KKK, an evil organization, get to the top and fix everything?

If I was given enough time I bet I would. I would just need to get thr racist assholes out of the way and encourage "smarter" people to join the KKK by completely renewing the ideas that lay behind it. The problem in a modern society we are all part of the KKK and that way there is a lot of potential power to change it's views and principals.Markus FIN

You don't realize it, but you are making my case for me. Philosophy is how we can KNOW we are sick before taking action. The people who describe themselves as minarchists do not KNOW violence is the metaphorical disease. The initiation of the use of force is either immoral or it is not. If it is not, then there's no reason to pare down the State at all. If it is, there's no reason to allow for it on any scale.

That is a good point dude! You have a big chunck of truth right there... Like I said if someone can honestly prove me wrong then I accept it, and I think you just hit the nail on the spot. Thank you for all of your rational and polite comments, they really mean a lot to me. Take care everyone! :)Markus FIN