Anarchism vs Minarchism?
3,061 Views | 33 Replies
At 4/5/13 08:59 PM, AshtonW wrote: Which is the more workable philosophy in your opinion?
Minarchism isn't a term I have heard before. Please explain it.
At 4/5/13 10:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 4/5/13 08:59 PM, AshtonW wrote: Which is the more workable philosophy in your opinion?Minarchism isn't a term I have heard before. Please explain it.
Here's the Wikipedia entry:
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism?s=t
a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts.
In their most strict definitions I would say anarchism, because it is a general doctrine it doesn't easily trump other practical considerations, whereas in order to be minarchist the state must refrain from disaster relief and such things, or at the very least plow through some complicated legal process and confusing jargon to authorize it, for example redefining the purpose of the military to protect citizens from natural disasters.
I remember I was exploring minarchism when I first arrived at the Politics forum. At the time it sounded like a great idea: government is only what it needs to be, nothing more and nothing less. But as I looked deeper and became more experienced, I came to the realization that a minarchist government isn't all it espouses itself to be.
One of the biggest problems with minarchism, unfortunately, is not the system itself; it's the people who want to implement it, namely laissez-faire capitalists. These are the people who adhere to the philosophy that an economy left to its own devices will be inherently fair to everyone, and that the collective wealth of the people comes down from the most successful.
There is nothing wrong with wanting a free and fair economy, but to say that it will regulate itself through sheer consumer demand is ignorant of reality. This is the model that's been pushed in the United States since the days of Reagan, and frankly it's been the antithesis of everything it was hoped to be. Wealth is amassed and hoarded rather than shared; rising businesses are bought out or priced out by the well-established, leaving little room for opportunity; and the state-run institutions that are supposed to be keeping the industries in line with fair practice are populated with insiders and lobbied to look the other way.
In short, a laissez-faire minarchist state is economically unsound, and thus no more workable than an anarchic society. If you could implement a different economic system under a night watchman state, then it MIGHT have a better shot.
At 4/6/13 12:59 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:
There is nothing wrong with wanting a free and fair economy, but to say that it will regulate itself through sheer consumer demand is ignorant of reality. This is the model that's been pushed in the United States since the days of Reagan, and frankly it's been the antithesis of everything it was hoped to be. Wealth is amassed and hoarded rather than shared; rising businesses are bought out or priced out by the well-established, leaving little room for opportunity; and the state-run institutions that are supposed to be keeping the industries in line with fair practice are populated with insiders and lobbied to look the other way.
In short, a laissez-faire minarchist state is economically unsound, and thus no more workable than an anarchic society. If you could implement a different economic system under a night watchman state, then it MIGHT have a better shot.
Part of Minarchy means that the government will be there to resolve disputes between individuals who voluntarily seek a neutral judge, and protecting people from aggression. The market will CLEARLY be regulated by more than just consumer demand, it will be regulated by the law. When a market it regulated by laws that specifically protect people from other people, the only way to achieve success will be to find a way to improve the lives of others at a price that is worth less to the customer than the service you provide is.
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 4/6/13 01:17 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote:At 4/6/13 12:59 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: state-run institutions that are supposed to be keeping the industries in line with fair practice are populated with insiders and lobbied to look the other way.Part of Minarchy means that the government will be there to resolve disputes between individuals who voluntarily seek a neutral judge, and protecting people from aggression. The market will CLEARLY be regulated by more than just consumer demand, it will be regulated by the law. When a market is regulated by laws that specifically protect people from other people, the only way to achieve success will be to find a way to improve the lives of others at a price that is worth less to the customer than the service you provide is.
"It will be regulated by the law" does not counter an argument that "regulating by the law hasn't been working under comparable circumstances." As I said, it's not necessarily the system itself that's bad; it's how the advocates of the system expect it to work in contrast with the realities of life. Minarchism, contrary to what many of its advocates seem to believe, is not incorruptible; if the only branch of government you have is the courts, then it's even more corruptible than the system we have now, possibly even tyrannical. There has to be some distribution of power in order to maintain a just and fair society.
At 4/6/13 02:14 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: if the only branch of government you have is the courts, then it's even more corruptible than the system we have now, possibly even tyrannical.
This also completely misses one of the bggest problems of minarchism. Some people are so focused on corruption by the state that they completely forget about corruption by a private entity. Corruption is much harder for an entity that is held accountable by those whom its corruption harms. Because private entities have no obligation to anyone but their owners, they can easily become corrupt and harm society far quicker than the government can.
At 4/6/13 11:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote: This also completely misses one of the bggest problems of minarchism. Some people are so focused on corruption by the state that they completely forget about corruption by a private entity. Corruption is much harder for an entity that is held accountable by those whom its corruption harms. Because private entities have no obligation to anyone but their owners, they can easily become corrupt and harm society far quicker than the government can.
Private industries are held just as accountable as Government is, actually, if this day and age is any sort of indicator, they are held even MORE accountable. Problem is that corrupted government means it will just protect corrupt business. Like so:
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
I'm a huge proponent of minarchism. Under an idea minarchist system corporations would actually be less common seeing how the barriers of entry for small businesses would be minimal and those companies that would be big enough to be corporations would have to deal with more competition seeing how they wouldn't be able to lobby for regulations that would raise the barrier of entry because the government would not have that power. I also like the fact that under a minarchist system the government will let me be if I'm not harming others.
no anarchy has accured and lived to this day
muahahahahahahahaaaaa
At 4/6/13 01:39 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: Under an idea minarchist system corporations would actually be less common seeing how the barriers of entry for small businesses would be minimal
Just because you and other people say it, doesn't make this assertion true. Making government more impotent may remove some of the barriers that the government built up, but that doesn't mean that big business can't put their barriers of their own. They'll still use propaganda, price everyone out of the competition, reduce workers wages so they can't accumulate wealth to pose a threat, all without government intervention. I'm sure big businesses can innovate other ways to put up barriers to new entrants.
At 4/6/13 03:01 PM, MOSFET wrote:At 4/6/13 01:39 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: Under an idea minarchist system corporations would actually be less common seeing how the barriers of entry for small businesses would be minimalJust because you and other people say it, doesn't make this assertion true. Making government more impotent may remove some of the barriers that the government built up, but that doesn't mean that big business can't put their barriers of their own. They'll still use propaganda, price everyone out of the competition, reduce workers wages so they can't accumulate wealth to pose a threat, all without government intervention. I'm sure big businesses can innovate other ways to put up barriers to new entrants.
If they do reduce worker wages wouldn't the one who starts a small business siphon workers from the big business seeing how he'd likely be willing to pay them more
At 4/6/13 11:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 4/6/13 02:14 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: if the only branch of government you have is the courts,This also completely misses one of the bggest problems of minarchism. Some people are so focused on corruption by the state that they completely forget about corruption by a private entity.
I was under the impression I had covered this in my first post. Was I mistaken?
At 4/6/13 12:46 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Private industries are held just as accountable as Government is, actually, if this day and age is any sort of indicator, they are held even MORE accountable. Problem is that corrupted government means it will just protect corrupt business. Like so:
You kidding? What accountability do private entities have? A bunch of pot smoking showerless hippies camping out in their foyer? A bad PR campaign that doesn't hurt business? That is so comperable to having the top brass at constant risk of being voted out by the general public every couple years.
Private entities are only accountable to two groups: their shareholder and the government. Turn this into a minarchism and they become accountable only to their shareholders. How exactly is that better for the country? It's not.
At 4/6/13 03:21 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: If they do reduce worker wages wouldn't the one who starts a small business siphon workers from the big business seeing how he'd likely be willing to pay them more
Yes, because small businesses are made of money. They can just charge customers cheaper prices while paying their employees more. Sounds like perfect business sense to me.
At 4/6/13 04:07 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: I was under the impression I had covered this in my first post. Was I mistaken?
You did. You just didn't say the word "corruption" and since corruption is the buzz word to end all buzz words of the anti-government types, I wanted to point out that corruption isn't restricted to the government, and in fact it is a bigger problem in the private sector.
At 4/6/13 04:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You kidding? What accountability do private entities have? A bunch of pot smoking showerless hippies camping out in their foyer? A bad PR campaign that doesn't hurt business? That is so comperable to having the top brass at constant risk of being voted out by the general public every couple years.
actually, have you ever noticed that these companies are getting sued over some very trivial matters, while government gets away with breaking all of it's most important promises? On top of that, the Hippies camping out aren't even the real mechanic that holds companies accountable, its when the company pisses off the customer enough to switch to a different service provider (the competition). This is why when people threaten to cancel their cable or their phone or internet they find themselves being offered all sorts of nice things to stay on board.
Private entities are only accountable to two groups: their shareholder and the government. Turn this into a minarchism and they become accountable only to their shareholders. How exactly is that better for the country? It's not.
They would be held accountable to shareholders, the law, their customers, and everyone else's property rights. It's government intervention that allows them to only be held accountable to the first, and not the rest.
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 4/6/13 05:28 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: They would be held accountable to shareholders, the law, their customers, and everyone else's property rights. It's government intervention that allows them to only be held accountable to the first, and not the rest.
Who is enforcing the law and property rights without the government?
At 4/6/13 05:28 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: these companies are getting sued over some very trivial matters
when the company pisses off the customer enough to switch to a different service provider (the competition).
This true but what if the government is in the company's pocket and they are in a cartel with the competition?
You can't run to the government for help, obviously. This is where the hippies come in.
At 4/6/13 06:20 PM, Feoric wrote: Who is enforcing the law and property rights without the government?
Some kind of union for consumers. An alternate mode of business, maybe a cooperative like a building society.
At 4/6/13 06:20 PM, Feoric wrote: Who is enforcing the law and property rights without the government?
I'm arguing on behalf of Minarchy, not Anarchy.
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 4/6/13 06:30 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I'm arguing on behalf of Minarchy, not Anarchy.
Okay, but I'm still confused. Under a minarchy system who would be enforcing this?
At 4/6/13 06:44 PM, Feoric wrote:At 4/6/13 06:30 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I'm arguing on behalf of Minarchy, not Anarchy.Okay, but I'm still confused. Under a minarchy system who would be enforcing this?
Assuming it isn't an emergency, violent or life threatening, the courts. Any other time it would be handled by Police.
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 4/5/13 11:08 PM, AshtonW wrote: Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy.
I didn't know what that meant either, but I'm going to say I like this more.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
What is meant by Anarchism? getting rid of the State or getting rid of private property?
At any rate Minarchism *seems* more sensible to most people since it is farther down the rabbit hole of abstract craziness.
But if a sufficient majority [I'm thinking 80% minimum] of people living in a particular country were *fully* committed to the idea of a minimal state, why would they want a state to begin with?
It's hard to really separate these two things, but you have on the one hand the functioning of a society in the context of a given legal regime, and then the mentality of the citizens that brings it about.
And Minarchism in my mind is like a marble sitting on the crest of a frictionless hill. It's citizens will probably either come to want / accept the idea of more power being given to the state OR attempt to live without a state [monopoly on law] in the entirety.
In some sense Anarchy is also more likely outcome in a real life scenario, because it is more likely that an absence of what is called "Government" would come about by an unintended collapse than any government voluntarily minimizing its role and staying there.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
OI I forgot to add...
If you people are going to get into this Free market feasibility argument let me remind you. If you're going to talk about private entities versus state entities you ought to establish that some attributes [adjectives] which you acribe to one and not the other should not be arbitrarily asserted, but should be demonstrated to be necessarily prior attributes of that
For example It's not controversial to say that a Cheeta is faster than a human being, because a Cheeta is being defined as a particular animal with certain muscular and skeletal structures such that it can achieve maximum speeds above that of a human.
If you wish to speak of the accountability of a state or non-state institution, i.e. of one being more accountable than another. Why by the definition of a state, or a non-state institution must one be more accountable than another. -- Also this definition must coincide with reality. It's stupid to *define* one institution as whichever one is more accountable and then conclude from that that said institution is more accountable. Cheetas are not being defined as faster than humans, but rather defined as a particular type of animal which by it's nature [or defining features] is faster than a human. [The precise scientific reasons being difficult to explain but easy to grasp intuitively]
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 4/7/13 11:05 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: It's stupid to *define* one institution as whichever one is more accountable and then conclude from that that said institution is more accountable.
So, I shall repeat myelf, then.
Government is accountable to the voting public as the voting public has the power to remove the higher ups who both make the rules and dectate the cultures of the entities that execute those rules.
Businesses are not accountale to the general public as they are only accountable to a few groups in verying degrees. They are wholly accountable to shareholdes (if the officers themselves are not the shareholders) as the shareholders have the ame voting out rights They are accountable to the governmet as the governt grants their existence and can remove it for a variety of reaons (or for no reason if it really wishes to felx its muscles). They are somewhat accountable to customers and employees in that certain decisions may be able to overcome other factors to cause the employees and customers to go elsewhere, but this power is quite small and can easily be countered by other factors.
In short, government has a direct line of accountability to the people of the nation (or jurisdiction). Private entities have direct accountability to a very small group, and slight accountability to a larger group, but even this does not cover everybody, and in many cases covers a very small group, eben though both entities have the power to dramatically affect all within the jurisdiction/nation.
So government isn't more accountable because it's more accountable than a private entity. Government is accountable because its make up makes it very accountable whereas private entities have a very small group to which they are held accountable.
Anarchist here.
Minarchism, until it turns into Anarchism, it needs to happen gradually.
At 4/8/13 12:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
So, I shall repeat myelf, then.
The Election argument can hold true only of nominally democratic states [States which operate elections which pass certain minimum standards of lacking corruption or irrelevance] Just a reminder: States are not by definition democratic. In a majority of the history of states [We'll say from approximately 3000-4000 B.C.E. - 2013 A.D.] What we today call "Democracy" or "Representative Democracy" existed in at least less than half of the sovereign states in the world.
Yet the moral superiority of the state was still treated as a given at this time.
Regardless, assuming a completely non-democratic state lacks this feature you ascribe, would you personally view it as less accountable than a non-state entity? Or equally accountable? Keep in mind that non-state does not mean business. It *can* mean business and it *can* mean corporation. It could also mean someone you know personally who offers to do something for you. I donâEUTMt know what youâEUTMre going to say but I would hope your answer would be yes. Considering that the only difference between the two is that the former has a monopoly on law, the latter does not.
If you still view it as more accountable I would ask why. If you view it as less accountable then I have a different question:
Most democratic states started out with a limited franchise, say, âEUoeAll land holding malesâEU ïf Which eventually expanded to virtually everyone above a certain age threshold and who isnâEUTMt a criminal or insane. In some especially democratic countries the franchise is expanded to the deceased and non-existent. At what percentage franchise is a state more accountable than a *non state entity* -- which as a reminder may or may not a corporation and may or may not be a business.
Now the matter of Accountability is tricky since it is contextual. For example, Do I as a person any Accountability to a random family living in Pakistan? And by this I mean would that family be able to impose any sort of negative consequences upon me if I did them any wrong from the safety of my dorm room in the United States. You might say âEUoeNoâEU but itâEUTMs more accurate to say that the question itself is meaningless unless you can conceive of a situation where I intentionally or unintentionally did something negative to said family. Or if there was good reason to suppose I would pose such a threat.
So while we canâEUTMt really speak of SmilezâEUTM Accountability to the Pakistanis we *can* speak of the USFGâEUTMS Accountability to an individual Pakistani, or to Pakistan in general, or to any Middle Eastern country. This is because the USFG Has a military which it uses frequently, as well as funds which it uses to finance and train certain military groups within those countries.
**Side note 1*** Disassociation and deterrence are both theoretical ways to prevent harm being done to one party by another [And thereby solving accountability issues] So if someone does harm to you, you can either 1. Avoid them to as to make it so they cannot harm you further 2. Impose some *penalty* [social, legal, physical, financial, etc.] upon them. Suppose youâEUTMre in a public park and someone is being loud and obnoxious. You could move away from them to another area of the park, in which case âEUoeAccountabilityâEU is no longer an issue. Such disassociation could be inconvenient, and the inconvenience may be greater than the harm, in which case the alternative is to get the obnoxious person to stop by some means. If you are capable of getting them to stop, they are accountable to you in the context of the problem. If you are not capable of getting them to stop, they are unaccountable to you.
Notice though that I as a person donâEUTMt really *need* to be accountable to people living in other countries if what I do doesnâEUTMt affect them much at all.
Perhaps one can think of the 9-11 Bombings as a way that the Suicide bombers thought they could make the American public âEUoeAccountableâEU for the actions of their democratically represented government officials. Whether or not it succeeded is a different matter entirely.
A lack of accountability of Agency X against party Y occurs in one of two scenarios.
What IâEUTMll call a type 1 scenario is that party Y is completely outside the range of all parties which could in any given situation *influence* the decisions of Agency X as to whether or not it should. Pakistanis killed by US Drone Strikes are a good example of this. Of course a party Y can attempt to put itself inside *within* the range by various means. So suppose youâEUTMre on a bus and someone is creating a ruckus, supposing youâEUTMre big a muscular you could *make* him accountable to you by threatening physical violence to this person if he does not be quiet. In the case of individual interaction the issue of whether a particular method will make one person accountable to another would depend upon their psychology. If weâEUTMre dealing with an institution which tends to have similar behaviors - i.e. the profit seeking firm or the vote seeking office holder, then we can guess probabilistically whether such an attempt will succeed.
What IâEUTMll call a type 2 is when party Y is already within the range of all parties which in any given situation could influence the decisions of agency X, but the size or influence of Y relative to the size of the influence of all other parties in the range is such that the penalty Y imposes on X is less than the benefit X gets from harming Y. In some cases the benefit X gets from harming Y is due to the positive feedback it gets from another party in the range. [Example: Agricultural Subsidies]
Whether or not this scenario occurs depends on 1. Whether or not disassociation is feasible 2. If disassociation is not feasible, what the penalty mechanism is.
YouâEUTMre democratically represented government, Representative X, is made accountable through a mechanism whereby a mass of largely indifferent people are deciding whether X keeps his job. X loses his job if and only if a voting majority vote against him, the reasons for voting for or against him are different for each voter and voters may also find that penalizing X on one issue would, in theory, contribute to the rise of representative Q who would [or could] harm them on another issue.
For any given issue where accountability is relevant, it is possible that a harmed party would not be able to influence the decisions of an aggressor party or to disassociate from them *because* the range of relevant parties is large and their interests are *divergent*.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but an agency being âEUoeaccountableâEU in an abstract sense to a mass of people *all of the time* keeps it from being accountable to any one of them in situations where it would genuinely matter.
Now none of what I said demonstrates a non-state agency is *more* accountable than a nominally democratic state agency. What it shows is that being selected by the entirety of the voting populace [or in the case of US Elections, the whole of congress being elected by the whole of the voting populace] does not *increase* accountability in real life scenarios where a harmed party Y is trying to either disassociate from aggressor X or deter them.
So if you want to speak of accountability. Run the following thought experiment.
1. Pick a would be aggressor party X
2. Pick a would-be harmed party Y
3. Create a realistic scenario in which X would find it advantageous to harm party Y
4. Now establish whether or not the harm done to party Y can be ended through disassociation where the cost of such disassociation is worth the benefit of not being harmed. If disassociation is possible then the problem is solved
5. If disassociation is infeasible, what mechanism does party Y have to sufficiently deter party X.
6. If X can be deterred by Y, then X is accountable to Y in the context of this problem.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 4/8/13 01:15 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: So if you want to speak of accountability.
So, you have actually proven me right in your attempt to poke a hole in the argument, you just don't realize it.
You have essentially asked: "If a government is held accountable to its own citizens, then what about Pakistan?" EXACTLY.
When it comes to private entities, those who are not shareholders, and the direct consumers or employees are Pakistan. I don't shop at Shell. I don't work at Shell. I don't own Shell stock. So what obligation does Shell have to me? NONE. Just like the United States has no obligation to the Pakistani people. No one in Pakistan has even the slightest bit of influence on the US, just lie I don't have the lsightest bit of influence on Shell. Therefore, unlike my ability to vote out congressmen I don't like, and so on, I just have to grin and bear it when Shell does something I don't like that may directly effect me.
My inability to have any effect on Shell is textbook lack of accountability to me. Thing is, there are millions, possibly well over 100 million Americans to whom Shell hasn't the slightest bit of accountability, yet Shell can cause massive harm. Just look at BP. BP took a giant shit on the Gulf Coast. If it were not for the government acting upon the interests of those millions of Americans it's quite likely BP would have left their mess and moved on. BP would have likely had some small PR pangs from the incident,but overall they would have made out just fine. However, if those government fficials had let BP waltz away, boy you can believe they would have been kicked out and nailed to a cross. That is accountability.
Now, if you want to try and argue with that, without using wordy things you cut and pasted from somewhere that make little to no sense without a degree in statistics, go ahead. Don't use X, Y, or any of that. Just use English. If you can't make the point like that, then your point isn't a good one to be made.
Anarchy is just a result from a breakdown of society. So any sort of governance, even a dictatorship, is better.
Minarchism can work on a small scale, like in a small town. Unfortunately, it doesn't scale well to larger enterprises. It will fail to provide any economic security without increasing the scope and size of its powers, then it's not be Minarchism anymore. If the roles of the minarchist state do not increase, it'll just will be ineffective at performing it's job as a watchman.
Imagine you have a small town with roofers, manufactures, veterinarians, a local food market, etc. I can see a minarchism working here, because it can be self-regulating with unwritten rules. Everyone can know each other, and if you do something wrong you'll be ostracized and lose your business as a result. When you begin to increase scope to that of a nation, information becomes asymmetric, the human mind can not keep up with all these relationships to make an informed choice about a product to enforce these unwritten rules. For example I either don't know or don't care that some company caused a localized disaster in your town. I'll still buy their product based on the limited information I have at the time, or maybe I don't care because I want to take advantage of the lower prices. So, you need to empower the role of government to write down those unwritten rules and focus on the features that people think a free-market( but fails to scale) will bring.
- A fair competitive market.
- upward mobility
- opportunity to succeed.
