Objective law: Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Minarchism

The way I see it -- The Federal Government was envisioned to be the barrier between the states and the rest of the world. The states empowered it to both raise a defense for them as a whole (the military) and to arbitrate between them to make sure no one of them took advantage of the rest. Think how the economic might of Texas, for example, could overwhelm most of the rest of the states to its advantage. Well, the Fed was to prevent that.

We also had the COTUS to help make sure that whatever laws the states enacted, they did not infringe on certain basic rights. There was even a procedure whereby the COTUS could be amended, but it wasn't designed to be easy.

Within that over-arching loose framework, we were supposed to have the individual states be the real drivers of government in the lives of individuals for just exactly the reasons already mentioned -- smaller governments keep the damage done to a minimum. Also, with 50 different flavors of government, it increased the chances that viable solutions to sticky problems would be found. Instead of one solution to health care, you would theoretically have 50 different governments working to resolve the problem, each learning from what the others were doing and able to tailor those solutions in ways that would best fit their unique situations.

Not only that, but with smaller governmental entities wielding less power, there would be less incentive for lobbying in corporate firms. Sure, a business could buy Arkansas, but that doesn't do anything in the other 49 states. But of course now we have one Fed and a corporation only has to buy off one set of officials to get preferential treatment.

Not to mention, with their basic rights protected in 50 states, people could always move out of states whose governments screwed them over. If Cali and Illinois go too far to the socialist, then people can move where the opportunity is. Cali and Illinois may fail, but the damage is minimized to those states while the majority of the people in the country are insulated from it. Now, we are all going to feel it because the Fed will try to save those states when they go just like Michigan is going to bail Detroit.

a reply to: ketsuko

There is always the argument of what our government was "supposed" to be.

While I agree with you, there are many issues with the minarchist perspective.

One issue is the forgetfulness of future generations. When a generation of people have come not to fear government because they've never dealt with government tyranny--they slowly begin to turn more and more to government to solve private issues.

Another issue is democracy itself. Majority-rule is a horrible tool to use for government if your goal is individual liberty. Majority-rule turns us into an "us vs. them" mentality and sets the stage for the tyranny of the majority.

For our government to work, we have to have "our people" in office--and we have no guarantee that "our people" will be in office.

Even if we whittled our government down to what it was when it first came to be--I think we would be right back where we started in 100 years or so.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I agree with you about the issue of forgetfulness. The Founders knew it was an issue to. I believe it was Franklin who referenced "a Republic if you can keep it" which implies that the people are as much a part of the process as the government. We do not have an engaged populace partially by design.

And I think it was Jefferson who talked about the Tree of Liberty needing watering.

Things go in cycles. The question is how far down we will go and whether or not we will be able to preserve enough of our independent spirit to fight our way out when we hit rock bottom. We're being heavily colonized by people who have no tradition of personal independence at the moment.

Also, we were never designed as a pure Democracy although we have been slowly trended away from the Constitutional Republic we were designed to be. Like it or not, the Electoral College and the appointment of Federal Senators by the state governments were/are both checks on pure democracy and tyranny of the majority. If I could, I would repeal the 17th Amendment.

We also need to break the current tax system so that the Fed stops taking in the Lion's share of revenue. Then, the states could feel empowered to stand up to the Feds on occasion. The main reason you don't see them exercise the 9th and 10th now is because the Fed uses the 16th to rake in so much money and then hand it back out to the states and coerce them into line on what it wants. It took tremendous will for the governors to stand against the Medicaid expansion because that was fat government money. The only reason so many did was because of the relative unpopularity of the bill and because they know the government will leave them hanging for that money in a few years.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: ketsuko

There is always the argument of what our government was "supposed" to be.

While I agree with you, there are many issues with the minarchist perspective.

One issue is the forgetfulness of future generations. When a generation of people have come not to fear government because they've never dealt with government tyranny--they slowly begin to turn more and more to government to solve private issues.

Another issue is democracy itself. Majority-rule is a horrible tool to use for government if your goal is individual liberty. Majority-rule turns us into an "us vs. them" mentality and sets the stage for the tyranny of the majority.

For our government to work, we have to have "our people" in office--and we have no guarantee that "our people" will be in office.

Even if we whittled our government down to what it was when it first came to be--I think we would be right back where we started in 100 years or so.

One of the possible ways of dealing with this problem might be to gradually ceremonialize most offices. This would provide some comfort to those who desire a state apparatus while truly and actually limiting the capability to effect change in society through coercion and the use of state violence.

I should clarify that most of those experiments would be conducted at the state level. The federal government must be immediately constrained to its constitutional authority and no more.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I agree with you about the issue of forgetfulness. The Founders knew it was an issue to. I believe it was Franklin who referenced "a Republic if you can keep it" which implies that the people are as much a part of the process as the government. We do not have an engaged populace partially by design.

And I think it was Jefferson who talked about the Tree of Liberty needing watering.

Things go in cycles. The question is how far down we will go and whether or not we will be able to preserve enough of our independent spirit to fight our way out when we hit rock bottom. We're being heavily colonized by people who have no tradition of personal independence at the moment.

Also, we were never designed as a pure Democracy although we have been slowly trended away from the Constitutional Republic we were designed to be. Like it or not, the Electoral College and the appointment of Federal Senators by the state governments were/are both checks on pure democracy and tyranny of the majority. If I could, I would repeal the 17th Amendment.

We also need to break the current tax system so that the Fed stops taking in the Lion's share of revenue. Then, the states could feel empowered to stand up to the Feds on occasion. The main reason you don't see them exercise the 9th and 10th now is because the Fed uses the 16th to rake in so much money and then hand it back out to the states and coerce them into line on what it wants. It took tremendous will for the governors to stand against the Medicaid expansion because that was fat government money. The only reason so many did was because of the relative unpopularity of the bill and because they know the government will leave them hanging for that money in a few years.

Well said.

a reply to: greencmp

Ahhhh... minarchism vs anarcho-capitalism... the subject of sometimes fierce and sometimes funny debate and discussion among an email group of friends in which we discussed politics of all kinds. I couldn't help but laugh a little at myself when I read your title!

If I had to label myself, I guess I could be considered a minarchist, but I don't understand... and therefore do not trust... the effort to re-invent the wheel so to speak. As I understand it, the principles of minarchism are basically those of the Social Contract, as understood by the Founding Fathers, in the tradition of Locke and Rousseau, etc. We organize a "government" to protect the natural rights of the people, and to work in the best interests of the people with their consent. Remembering, of course, that the Federal government was only granted certain powers -- national security and regulating commerce between the states (strictly speaking, "making regular" as in a level playing field between the states) -- with all other rights, powers and privileges left to the states and the people.

Why the need to change the message? Why not stick with the founding principles and law of the land? What purpose does it serve except to confuse the message? Or is that the point?

But yes, I agree in principle with minarchism. The federal government is too big for its britches and needs to be cut down to its intended size and purposes; one-size-fits-all never fits the majority well, but that's exactly what happens when the feds try to impose their goodies upon us. But that means the states, counties and municipalities need to reclaim their authority and their responsibilities to their citizens, and I don't see that happening either -- they're the ones who relinquished it to begin with! And those who wouldn't, like Arizona Gov. Fife Symington, were taken down other ways. Now, with NSA spying what it is... nondisclosure clauses... gag orders... who even knows all the ways people are being silenced and paralyzed?

If anything is going to change, it's going to have to be the people who force change, but I'm wondering just how far we'll have to fall before we get our collective act together. We're so focused on our first-world problems that we've lost sight of the fundamental principles that made our first-world living possible.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, there are so few who can appreciate the value of constitutional republicanism alone. It is fair to say that it is a stretch to expect that minority to consider anarcho-capitalism.

Philosophically and economically, anarcho-capitalism is the true ethos of libertarianism but it is probably not practicable in a world dominated by militarized statist regimes. Still, all of the important ideas spring from it and again return to it for guidance.

a reply to: greencmp

anarcho-capitalism can work but you need a decentralized "government" fully ran by machine ai's. Its fully automated and self-regulating(and thus unhackable) and self sustaining.

Decentralized down to the district level.

Technically you would have anarchism because the government is no longer ruling over you. The state gains nothing (an ai does not have an ego) and exclusively serves the public. This machine state would be thousands of times more efficient than a government of people. It would be tiny. No judges. No kings. No presidents. No prime ministers. No congress. No nothing.

You can't have a capitalist anarchist society on a large scale due to fierce competition for limited resources and the human need to rule over other humans.

But you can have a anarchist machine regulated society on a large scale.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: greencmp

Central planning of complex systems is doomed from conception. It's logically and mathematically impossible.
On the other hand, anarchy has some very clear weaknesses.
Solutions are in-between somewhere and require thought, reasoning and participation. Make a decision to deserve to be free.

Which is why market socialism pisses Austrian Economists off so much. We need to also account for the leap in computing power since the 1990's. A decentralized planned economy was only attempted once, and we all know what happened in Chile, his name was General Pinochet. I don't think project Cybersyn would have worked long term, they didn't have enough computing power and information gathering capabilities which the internet and modern supercomputers offer. Even Hayek had to admit planned economies would be possible with "unthinkable computing power". This is in part why he backed the destruction of Project Cybersyn, because Chile was moving away from the USSR's undemocratic, centralized command economy.

en.wikipedia.org...

A decentralized planned economy would require much less stuff. Much less commodities. Much less useless bullcrap.

Market socialism on the other hand can function just like capitalism, simply without singular owners. Again, that REALLY pisses the Austrians off.

a reply to: JeanPaul

"Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly “reforming” their own handiwork? Education reform. Health-care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact they’re always busy “reforming” is an implicit admission that they didn’t get it right the first 50 times."

-Lawrence W. Reed

a reply to: greencmp

At the same time, I do see a small role for voluntary socialized systems at the small local level. You know, the local fire department or police department or dept. of education in a small to mid-size town. By keeping it small and local, you make it harder for the officials to be corrupt because they will almost certainly know, and know personally, many of the rest of the beneficiaries of the system. While you will still get corruption, it is much easier for someone to game the system and skim it, when the people whose money you are stealing are all faceless and you don't know them. It takes a special kind of low to steal from people you know.

Not to mention, smaller systems tend to reduce the mismanagement problem unlike the large, centralized and top heavy ones. There are fewer places for the money to go.

a reply to: ketsuko

Absolutely, I am not opposed to non-governmental voluntary associations.

Thanks for making that clear ketsuko!

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: ketsuko

Absolutely, I am not opposed to non-governmental voluntary associations.

Thanks for making that clear ketsuko!

Oh, but doesn't it annoy you though when you mention that you are opposed to monstrosities like a Single Payer system and the comeback is that you must also hate your very local police or fire department too?

Equating the two is like trying to put a mouse and an elephant in the same pair of shoes.

There are some things where the scale and scope of the thing really do make a difference as well as its voluntary nature.

a reply to: ketsuko

Indeed, I have been using this quote from Bastiat a lot but, once more can't hurt!

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

-Frédéric Bastiat

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

"Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly “reforming” their own handiwork? Education reform. Health-care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact they’re always busy “reforming” is an implicit admission that they didn’t get it right the first 50 times."

-Lawrence W. Reed

You're a statist if you advocate capitalism because the material reality is capitalism requires coercion/war/social programs to exist. If no social programs existed mass revolt would manifest, as began to happen in the late 19'th century. The conflict between labor and capital would be unmanageable without government/coercion. If no large military existed market expansion or "free trade" could not function. Capitalist property relations must be forced on non capitalist societies/nations. Case in point is pre WW1 Japan (amongst countless examples). The USA sent their Navy to Japan with the threat of "open up your markets or be destroyed". Capitalism requires perpetual growth. New markets, new sources of labor. New sources of land, oil, crops (resources). New customers/consumers to buy products. The USA threatened Japan because it was a systemic necessity. Before this Japan was feudal and somewhat isolationist, Japan wasn't interested in transforming its economy and overall society:

ocw.mit.edu...

The conflict between labor and capital also required/requires coercion. Capitalists sometimes used the government and sometimes used privatized military in order to force workers to accept low pay, unsafe working conditions and a lack of benefits. In a theoretical "anarcho" capitalist world capitalists would use a privatized government in order to subjugate labor as we have seen in our actual history.

en.wikipedia.org...

The "statists", by your definition, men such as FDR, advocated policies to save capitalism from itself. Even Keynes should be thanked by supporters of capitalism, although much of Keynes success was due to the destruction of WW2. The subsequent rebuilding and position it put America in. Without WW2 Keynes idea's put into action wouldn't have accomplished much.

You're a statist if you support capitalism because roads, bridges and all manner of publicly provided services are necessary for large scale commerce. The only way an "anarcho" capitalist society could work would be on a small local scale, and even then you need to address the question, "where do large scale sources of labor come from?".

It takes dispossession to create a working class. A class of people who have nothing but their labor to sell. Capitalism was made possible via a centuries long process of dispossession, facilitated by various governments. An example of this process is the English Enclosures:

www.youtube.com...

Without this sort of coercion, which goes far beyond the English Enclosures, large scale industrial capitalist societies and global trade would not be possible. Hence capitalism would not be possible.

Also, how do you think capital accumulated prior to industrialization? It was accumulated via colonialism, theft of vast amounts of land/resources and slavery. Coercion/violence on a massive scale. Facilitated by various governments controlled by the wealthy. The state is and always has been fused with the rise of capitalism and it's maintenance. The market and state have never and never will be separate entities. There has never been a "free market", "free trade" or a global source of labor/resources built on a voluntary basis (trade has taken place voluntarily between some nations, though not enough to support capitalism as a whole).

Capitalism without coercion/violence is impossible. Capitalism without social programs, regulations and taxes is impossible. Capitalism without dispossession, war and conflict is impossible. Capitalism without a state is impossible. "Anarcho" capitalists simply advocate a privatized state, run for profit, a privatized state capitalists directly control without the small amount of influence labor can as seen in today's market society. If the USA suddenly became "anarcho" capitalist the system would fail. Trade would fail. There wouldn't be a global labor source without military intervention (but I assume "anarcho" capitalists would just use private military to dispossess foreign peoples).

There is no "non aggression principle" that can be applied to capitalism. "Voluntarism" is impossible unless it was a small localized non industrial economy. Like the Quakers or Shakers. If you begin to expand beyond that, requiring industrialization, trade and large scale infrastructure etc then the state/coercion and taxes are needed.

At the end of the day "free market" ideology is an ideology meant to maximize profits at the expanse of the many.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Really?

So if I decide that I want to grow tomatoes and my neighbor wants to raise chickens and we work out an arrangement between us where I trade so many of my tomatoes for so many of his eggs ... the state had to do that for us?

I don't think so. That, btw, is capitalism.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JeanPaul

Really?

So if I decide that I want to grow tomatoes and my neighbor wants to raise chickens and we work out an arrangement between us where I trade so many of my tomatoes for so many of his eggs ... the state had to do that for us?

I don't think so. That, btw, is capitalism.

That's not capitalism. That's trade.

If you and a couple other people enclose the land in your county/state, claim it as your property in so making it impossible for others to grow tomatoes, then they'd have to sell their labor to you or another property owner in order to buy food. That's how capitalism works. It limits people access to the means of production or the means of sustenance to the point where millions of people must sell their labor to a capitalist in order to survive, .

Even Thomas Jefferson understood this and it's what attracted many to early America. People could escape the up and coming property based market system in Europe. They could go to America and live without people profiting from their labor. Dispossession is the coercive mechanism which limits peoples ability to independently survive directly via mixing their own labor with the earth. Mixing your own labor with the earth and trading what you make with your own labor is not capitalism.

"And with the laborers of England generally, does not the moral coercion of want subject their will as despotically to that of their employer, as the physical constraint does the soldier, the seaman, or the slave?" -Thomas Jefferson

The moral coercion of want.

How did this scenario manifest? This moral coercion of want? What does he mean? Why did so many flee Europe in order to come to America?

www.youtube.com...

Capitalism is an industrial property based market system which arose fully in the 19'th century yet dispossession was it's foundation. Anyhow, just growing tomatoes with your own labor and trading them for a chicken isn't capitalism. The thought of it is absurd. Capitalism is a mode of production. An economic system which defines our relation to the earth and each other. A system where a majority of people produce commodities for a capitalist/corporation who then sell the commodities for a profit.

The question you need to ask is, how were/are the majority of humans (in capitalist and developing countries) separated from having direct access to earths resources? Why can't we just grow tomatoes and trade them for chickens in order to survive?

What you describe (trade) transcends modes of production or economic systems. People within feudal societies traded. People within slave societies traded and people within capitalist societies trade. Trade/capitalism. Not trade=capitalism. People within "primitive" societies traded. A few pigs for your daughter or other livestock for goods not available in the region. Crops etc. From North Africa to the Middle East. It wasn't capitalism.

In slave societies, slave owners grew tomatoes with slave labor... do you not think the slave owners traded the tomatoes? Yet slavery is not a capitalist mode of production. The capitalist mode of production has to do with the relations at the point of production and the manner in which goods are distributed. People (the working class) selling their labor to a property (land/business) owner with the owner extracting profits from the labor is capitalism. Some guy growing tomatoes with his own hands and trading them for chickens is not capitalism. Some artisan making shoes with his own labor and trading them for a sword is not capitalism. If so, capitalism has existed for thousands of years! (laugh out loud)

How did a class of working people and a class of capitalists manifest? How did vast amounts of capital/wealth accumulate into the hands of a minority class? How did capitalism manifest?

Lets look at 21'st century India, it's a "developing country" which had more feudal relations for centuries prior to market reforms. How is a large working class population being created in India? They are dispossessing the rural population via the enclosure process. Much like the Dawes Act of 1887- what the USA did to Native Americans. Much like the English Enclosures.

Lets look to mid 19'th century Japan. Around 1850 Japan was a feudal society. Do you think nobody traded within Japan? of course they did, yet japan was not a capitalist nation. Japan became a capitalist nation because the USA forced them to. Prior to the US sending it's NAVY to Japan in 1853 it had a feudal mode of production, much like Europe before the rise of the property based market system. Royalty and feudal lords "owned" the land and charged serfs a fee to live on and cultivate the land. Any surplus was given to the kings and feudal lords. This is not capitalism. Do you not think people grew vegetables and traded for clothing or livestock? Of course they did.

a reply to: JeanPaul

I get the impression that you recognize the threat of state violence and coercion and attribute its use by governments over the course of history only to "capitalism" which you define as the seeking of "profit" which you define as "[stealing]" (I paraphrase, forgive me).

Catallaxy is derived from the Greek verb katalatto, which means “to exchange,” or “to become reconciled with,” or “to admit into the community,” or, “to change from an enemy into a friend.” The cognate catallaxy, therefore, refers to a pattern of mutually beneficial interaction ("friendship") that does not require that participants share the same ends.

In a free market with no interventionist "economic" policies imposed by one or more governments, the greatest proportion of productivity and transactional equitability has been achieved. The largest number of people have also been raised out of abject poverty.

In terms of best case scenario, there is no comparison to any other "economic" system.

As Mises pointed out, even the Soviet Union participated in the world economy as a capitalist enterprise but did so as a single unit with all of its eggs in the one basket against a world with interests differing from that of the Soviet Union's. Without global totalitarian control over every market, it cannot succeed.

Therefore, if the suggestion is that a little bit of that which did not work might somehow succeed, whereas a lot of it did not, I fail to fathom how that could be?

I think many people have a belief that some sort of behavioral police should invade our private lives and dictate non-violent non-criminal behavior and attitudes. This is a totalitarian idea, make no mistake.

All social engineering requires a political (by force) or an economic incentive.

You can't be a little totalitarian.

It doesn't mean you can't have government, it just means that government can't have that power.

In "third way" sophistry speak ("what about the roads, schools, children, etc.?"), they are all already local matters of concern so removing control over them by a federal government who should not have been in the first place does no harm.

Yes, because there is little reason for most laws, I believe they should mostly go away.

"The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better."

-Friedrich Hayek

a reply to: JeanPaul

well said....I agree, not because of the your outlined philosophy, but of the actual historical actions taken, that supports it.

a reply to: ketsuko

At the same time, I do see a small role for voluntary socialized systems at the small local level. You know, the local fire department or police department or dept. of education in a small to mid-size town. By keeping it small and local, you make it harder for the officials to be corrupt because they will almost certainly know, and know personally, many of the rest of the beneficiaries of the system.

You are spot-on with this, and I would also argue to not just keep it local, privatize it.

Aaaaaaaw yeeeeeeah