Minarchsim/Night Watchman state

[Felya]

The problem here, as is with most theories of government argued on these forums, is that people argue government, before understanding governance. Do you think that without government, you'd just be able to do what ever you want? You won't... that's narcissism exposing it self. Without government setting laws or taxes, those will be set by others who wield power. It can be military, money, natural resources, international ties... but, regardless of how, you will be governed by an entity out of your control.

In the end, the question is how you want to be governed. Do you want a democracy, where the will of the majority rules? A theocracy, where the rule is handed down by a deity? A plutocracy, where power is derived from wealth? Before discussing government, figure out how you want to be governed... because you are not a fucking cowboy that sets his own rules... you will be governed... which do you prefer?

[Cthulhu 2020]

The problem here, as is with most theories of government argued on these forums, is that people argue government, before understanding governance. Do you think that without government, you'd just be able to do what ever you want? You won't... that's narcissism exposing it self. Without government setting laws or taxes, those will be set by others who wield power. It can be military, money, natural resources, international ties... but, regardless of how, you will be governed by an entity out of your control.

In the end, the question is how you want to be governed. Do you want a democracy, where the will of the majority rules? A theocracy, where the rule is handed down by a deity? A plutocracy, where power is derived from wealth? Before discussing government, figure out how you want to be governed... because you are not a fucking cowboy that sets his own rules... you will be governed... which do you prefer?

This is pretty much the truest that it can ever be put. Anarchism/AnCap/Minarchism assume (Wrongfully) that nobody will step up to rule over everyone else. In reality, someone (or a few someones) will amass resources and become the power, and the magical "free market" will cease to exist.

[Felya]

So the historical development of the State as a larger entity with greater reach in our lives and role in socializing and conditioning society is in your view purely a coincidence that it emerged at the same time as Capitalism (Circa 1500 and beyond)?

Capitalism is an economic policy, that is predicated on private property. It is an answer to feudalism... think about it... Fedalism centralized property with a monarch. A simgular entity. That was what defined property. Capitalism expanded property ownership and thus control, to the producers. It expanded the singular nature of a monarchy, to include producers. Then you had socialism, which further expanded property ownership, by defining it with the state. It expanded property ownership, by diluting it. In aiming as state defined in the collective.

It's why a mix of socialism and cpatalism works best. You astablish a pathway to excellence, without removing a portion of the collective. Kind of like a democracy, that relies on the republic. You need representatives, because voting as a state on every topic, creates unmanageable gridlock.

How would one assert authority without the legal structure that insulates such people?

Fist, faith, famine...

- - - Updated - - -

This is pretty much the truest that it can ever be put. Anarchism/AnCap/Minarchism assume (Wrongfully) that nobody will step up to rule over everyone else. In reality, someone (or a few someones) will amass resources and become the power, and the magical "free market" will cease to exist.

I spit fire! Keeping it 100!

[Theodarzna]

The problem here, as is with most theories of government argued on these forums, is that people argue government, before understanding governance. Do you think that without government, you'd just be able to do what ever you want? You won't... that's narcissism exposing it self. Without government setting laws or taxes, those will be set by others who wield power. It can be military, money, natural resources, international ties... but, regardless of how, you will be governed by an entity out of your control.

In the end, the question is how you want to be governed. Do you want a democracy, where the will of the majority rules? A theocracy, where the rule is handed down by a deity? A plutocracy, where power is derived from wealth? Before discussing government, figure out how you want to be governed... because you are not a fucking cowboy that sets his own rules... you will be governed... which do you prefer?

I argue that without a specific type of State, legal regime or legal understanding, Capitalism doesn't actually work the way it does or at all. I would not say people could do whatever they want. How one is governed is determined likely by local custom and habit, as it was before. The community and its culture will determine what is and isn't a law and manage its resources as societies have always done.

But without the powerful, centralized, and socializing State, Capitalism will crumble away.

[Felya]

I argue that without a specific type of State, legal regime or legal understanding, Capitalism doesn't actually work the way it does or at all. I would not say people could do whatever they want. How one is governed is determined likely by local custom and habit, as it was before. The community and its culture will determine what is and isn't a law and manage its resources as societies have always done.

Customs and habits? No, natural resources and conquest. The sort of thing you are describing, was called the dark ages. For just about the remainder of history, on every continent. Rule was defined by conquest (fist), god (faith) or wealth (famine). From tin and copper, to orchids and the Nile... fist, faith, famine...

But without the powerful, centralized, and socializing State, Capitalism will crumble away.

Yes, you would result in fuedalism... you would be a serf and your property would belong to the state, the monarch.

[Sunseeker]

Small governments work in small societies. It's just that simple. It relies on fundamental principles of people being familiar with each other enough and interconnected and interdependent enough that should Bobby try to fuck someone over, the community will collectively react negatively enough to counter any gain Bobby may have been able to gain by fucking someone else over.

Ya know those "If someone offered you a million dollars in exchange for one random person you don't know dying, would you do it?" situations? Small government works in a society where people are close enough that "random people you don't know" don't exist.

Since we don't have a small society, small government won't work.

[Theodarzna]

Capitalism is an economic policy, that is predicated on private property. It is an answer to feudalism... think about it... Fedalism centralized property with a monarch. A simgular entity. That was what defined property. Capitalism expanded property ownership and thus control, to the producers. It expanded the singular nature of a monarchy, to include producers. Then you had socialism, which further expanded property ownership, by defining it with the state. It expanded property ownership, by diluting it. In aiming as state defined in the collective.

It's why a mix of socialism and cpatalism works best. You astablish a pathway to excellence, without removing a portion of the collective. Kind of like a democracy, that relies on the republic. You need representatives, because voting as a state on every topic, creates unmanageable gridlock.

Fist, faith, famine...

There is a great book called Crimes Against Nature by Karl Jacoby you may wish to read. A great thing about that work of historical research is it delved into how local rural communities managed their resources and governed themselves. Namely that what was considered Property and Commons was defined effectively by folk tradition and a Common Law understanding of the society.

Feudalism is not actually centralized authority, this statement by you reveals a common case of historical ignorance. Kings were dependent on their vassals, and their vassals might have a greater share of the actual countries land and crop production than the King. The essence of feudalism was that it was a diffused, local and small scale centralized form of governing a territory. Based entirely on a feudal relationship or Patron-Client relationship. Centralization did not kick off until the post 1500's which lead to the central governments we have today. Property has historically always been defined by the society; thus customary rights. The book I mentioned earlier went over one such lost right, such as the presumed Right to Subsist. I.E. these communities be they Native American, Rural White/Black or other had a presumed Right to Subsist and defended their resources jealously but did believe that as long as one did not try to make a profit from it, one had the right to say collect fire wood, building material or food from the land.

I get the sense that your knowledge of History is a bit defined by the American education system and High Schools, thus the simple neat Linear Progression, as if you played Civ 5 and that is how you assume it goes down.

These communities of-course enforce the rules of the land and resources via violence, as transgressions against tradition warrant reprisals. Another great book is The Art of Not Being Governed.

- - - Updated - - -

Customs and habits? No, natural resources and conquest. The sort of thing you are describing, was called the dark ages. For just about the remainder of history, on every continent. Rule was defined by conquest (fist), god (faith) or wealth (famine). From tin and copper, to orchids and the Nile... fist, faith, famine...

Yes, you would result in fuedalism... you would be a serf and your property would belong to the state, the monarch.

Was called the "Dark Ages" by Italians who did not like the Art or Cities. It is actually misnomer, the average life of the typical European actually went up in that time period due to the end Roman Imperialism.

Then again we have Imperialism, violence and death now so I am unsure what the difference is accept for a distinct lack of autonomy.

[Macaquerie]

Then again we have Imperialism, violence and death now so I am unsure what the difference is accept for a distinct lack of autonomy.

You are unsure of the difference between today and the Dark Ages? If that lifestyle really appeals to you, there are probably some places in Somalia or South Sudan where you could experience it. Just stay away from those pesky UN aid workers, prime directive violating globalist scum....

[Realitytrembles]

Interesting perspectives. Do continue.
@Skroe @TITAN308 @Adam Jensen

I'd like your take as well.

[Skroe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

I think these would be an absolutely bad idea, but I'm interested in hearing other opinions.

@Supporters: Why would this be a good way to organize a minimal state? How would it be better for its citizens? How do you address the common criticisms of such strict libertarianism?

@Opponents: Play this out; if such systems were faithfully 100% implemented, how would such a society develop over time and what would be its eventual fate? Why do you think it would be a bad idea?


This comes from a discussion in a D&D group I had while waiting for the DM to show up.

It's far to limited as a whole. Far far too limited. The country is too big, and some people simply do have no recourse than to rely on State Assistance. It is that or they die, and our society is not about that. There are other essential services that modern, economically successful states, must provide for its people.

But that being said, more broadly, moving many functions from the Federal Government to the State level is critical in my book. The Federal Government should be responsible certainly for what the "Night-Watchman" state espouses, plus many of the regulatory, commercial, foreign policy, and criminal justice aspects that the Federal Government takes care of now.

But beyond that (broadly speaking, because I wasnt at all comprehensive above)? States should be responsible for it. Chiefly healthcare and retirements, but also education, housing and that sort of thing

To put it very generally, with some crucial exceptions, the Federal Government sets minimum standards, and the States should be responsible for implementation of those minimum standards, plus whatever the people living in those States want to pay for on top of that.

This is not some kind of small-government paranoia. It is about democratic accountability and a reflection of what government actually effect Americans on a day to day basis. For all our focus on the Federal government, it is State and Local that rules our daily lives. Moving the spending onus (and with it taxation) from the Federal to State government would give the people living in the States far more granular control over the policies and outcomes that effect their every day lives.

A somewhat minimalist Federal Government is the natural partner of that, but it should still do much of the oversight and regulation it currently does. Again, this is not a free for all. But when politicans fail, people should be ready to go after the State house first, and Congress second. Because it is State law that already rules them more than anything else.

[Deletedaccount1]

The difference between no state and an arbitrarily small state with arbitrarily minimal powers is extremely academic.

Actually there are some major differences. Some minarchists like Rand and Peikoff want a powerful and interventionist military to "enforce" private property rights while AnCaps obviously want no military. Minarchism means the state is limited, not necessarily small and powerless.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough, but can we agree they're kissing cousins, if not fraternal twins? We're debating which is the marginally more extreme viewpoint, but they're both at the far end of that scale without much daylight between them.

Minarchism doesn't necessarily need to be too extreme since it doesn't have a very clear definition but I guess compared to a typical liberal or conservative it is a very minimalist view of government. Anarcho-capitalism is extreme but an extreme idea isn't necessarily wrong.

I've said it on here before but I subscribe to Huemer's argument for anarchy which basically makes the case in simple ethical terms that political authority is illegitimate. He poses the question: "What gives the government the right to behave in ways that would be wrong for any non-governmental agent? And why should the rest of us obey the government’s commands?"

He argues in his book that nothing gives the state authority and I have never heard a convincing rebuttal to his point. Bryan Caplan and David Friedman also make convincing arguments on consequentialist grounds for removing the state or at the very least making it smaller.

[Endus]

I've said it on here before but I subscribe to Huemer's argument for anarchy which basically makes the case in simple ethical terms that political authority is illegitimate. He poses the question: "What gives the government the right to behave in ways that would be wrong for any non-governmental agent? And why should the rest of us obey the government’s commands?"

He argues in his book that nothing gives the state authority and I have never heard a convincing rebuttal to his point. Bryan Caplan and David Friedman also make convincing arguments on consequentialist grounds for removing the state or at the very least making it smaller.

Before I delve in on a probably overly-simplistic such rebuttal (because this is a forum and I'm not writing dozens of pages of theory), I'd just like to note that my current ideological outlook has developed out from an earlier stage as a "rational anarchist", which follows similar lines as anarcho-capitalist theory (it's more of a socialist outlook than an economic one, in that it's predicated on people becoming rational actors, which isn't feasible which is why I evolved past it). So I'm not irrationally antagonistic to anarchist principles just for being anarchistic, like a lot of folks are.

The most telling passage, I'd say, is this one;

In this society, the services now provided by governmental police would instead be provided by competing protection agencies, hired either by individuals or by associations of property owners. Protection agencies, knowing that violence is the most expensive way of resolving disputes, would require their customers to seek peaceful resolutions of any disputes with other individuals. Agencies would decline to protect those who either willfully initiated conflicts with others or refused to seek peaceful resolutions; any agencies that acted otherwise would find themselves unable to compete in the marketplace due to the soaring costs created by their troublesome clients.

I believe this is overly-optimistic, for several reasons.

First, it expects that agencies/companies would be more-rational actors than people, and you just need to look at actual corporate behaviour to see that's not really true. Corporations make decisions for revenue-suboptimal reasons all the time, or make bad decisions. Especially if their revenue is enough to afford any costs that derive from such.

Second, without government keeping watch on these agencies, they're free to behave badly. Is it cheaper to assassinate the person accusing your client of wrongdoing, than to fight the case in "court" and lose? Then you'll have them assassinated. At this point, it comes down to a power struggle between opposing corporations. All this does is re-invent the State, under a corporate banner, with "borders" drawn based on client affiliations rather than physical property.

The biggest difference is that these agencies/corporations are beholden to profit, rather than their clients. If a client isn't "worth it", they'll get dropped. Their clients have no capacity to effect change, other than moving to a competitor (who has no real reason to be any better). It's not just a return to effective Statehood, it's a return to non-representative Statehoods.

This is the base problem with anarchist systems; they fundamentally rely on the idea that people are "better" than they've proven themselves to be. I see the attraction to that kind of utopia, but I also see how readily it would get challenged if it were put in place. And without a system of government, there's nothing preventing that challenge from occurring.

Statehood isn't perfect, but a representative State that is responsible unto its citizens is the best solution we've come up with thus far. Do the same issues above apply? Sure. But there's systems in place to mitigate them, here, and there can't be, in an anarchistic system, by design.

[Felya]

You are unsure of the difference between today and the Dark Ages? If that lifestyle really appeals to you, there are probably some places in Somalia or South Sudan where you could experience it. Just stay away from those pesky UN aid workers, prime directive violating globalist scum....

That's not even enough. There are few places on earth right now, where you can go, that no writing or any sort of records are kept. Somalia, probably indirectly due to international support, simply cannot match the dark ages. We went from complexity of trade, plumbing and even the written word, to nothing... absolutely nothing... in pop culture terms, we went from building the Sphinx to knights that say ni...

[Felya]

There is a great book called Crimes Against Nature by Karl Jacoby you may wish to read. A great thing about that work of historical research is it delved into how local rural communities managed their resources and governed themselves. Namely that what was considered Property and Commons was defined effectively by folk tradition and a Common Law understanding of the society.

By which you mean faith? Folk tradition is faith... you were not governed by reason, but by who ever could manipulate faith to their advantage.

Feudalism is not actually centralized authority, this statement by you reveals a common case of historical ignorance. Kings were dependent on their vassals, and their vassals might have a greater share of the actual countries land and crop production than the King.

Vessal - A person seen as the agent or embodiment, as of a quality: a vessel of mercy.

Vessal means the represented by he king. They were the embodiment of the king. You are not disagreeing with me, but seem to think that a vessal, had any authority, other than obedience to the king.

The essence of feudalism was that it was a diffused, local and small scale centralized form of governing a territory. Based entirely on a feudal relationship or Patron-Client relationship. Centralization did not kick off until the post 1500's which lead to the central governments we have today.

You cannot have it both ways. It has been centralized through every monarchy. There is no way it could be more centralized monarchy. That's why you contradict your self.

Property has historically always been defined by the society; thus customary rights. The book I mentioned earlier went over one such lost right, such as the presumed Right to Subsist. I.E. these communities be they Native American, Rural White/Black or other had a presumed Right to Subsist and defended their resources jealously but did believe that as long as one did not try to make a profit from it, one had the right to say collect fire wood, building material or food from the land.

Property rights have and will always, be defined by society. There is no one else to define it. You are not making any sense either, "rural white/black or other" literally means everyone.

Also, but saying rural, you are ignoring what that actually meant at the time. We have interstates, airplanes, cars and the internet. But, by even mentioning Native Americans, you are pointing to... faith, fist and famine...

I get the sense that your knowledge of History is a bit defined by the American education system and High Schools, thus the simple neat Linear Progression, as if you played Civ 5 and that is how you assume it goes down.

No, that's your bias. As I have said many times on this forum... I went to school in USSR, then as a refugee I went to school in Italy, then when we landed in US, I first went to a yeshiva, then got into public school. Where even though I started learning English just a couple of years prior, I was killing it in AP American history. Of the 12 years required in US for public education, I was there for 5.

But, yeah, denigrate US education, as you are about to call the dark ages, a machination of an Italian... where did you get your education?

Oh and I've played civ 1 through what ever the new one is. As well as alpha century and colonization. In fact, I played civ 1 without a manual of really knowing much English. It took me over a year to figure out how to build boats that can carry units. I still won a lot of games... because nukes were easy to build and you could use them as scouts, then blow up a city as a hello.

These communities of-course enforce the rules of the land and resources via violence, as transgressions against tradition warrant reprisals. Another great book is The Art of Not Being Governed.

You mean fist? It seems like I'm good on the reading...

Was called the "Dark Ages" by Italians who did not like the Art or Cities. It is actually misnomer, the average life of the typical European actually went up in that time period due to the end Roman Imperialism.

This isn't true or at least incredibly difficult to say as a fact. What we do know, is that in what seemed like no time at all, we went from sprawling cities and very well established society, to disappearing of the written word. Yes, an Italian did come up with the term, but it was literally to describe that there was little written word. It was dark, because you couldn't see what happened, because people didn't record what happened. What is obvious from history, is that people were running for their lives and a large portion, if not the majority of humanity died off. That's why everything turned to feudalism. Dark ages would have exterminated humanity, if it didn't end. We lost everything from medicine to plumbing, from writing to bronze working... we had to reinvent it a lot of shit, simply because people stopped writing.

Then again we have Imperialism, violence and death now so I am unsure what the difference is accept for a distinct lack of autonomy.

Then stop saying one is better than the other, if you cannot tell the difference? Because, I think you are simply spoiled, to think this way.

[Macaquerie]

That's not even enough. There are few places on earth right now, where you can go, that no writing or any sort of records are kept. Somalia, probably indirectly due to international support, simply cannot match the dark ages. We went from complexity of trade, plumbing and even the written word, to nothing... absolutely nothing... in pop culture terms, we went from building the Sphinx to knights that say ni...

If you think about, it was a remarkable stroke of luck that Western civilization got a second chance at all. It could easily have turned out like so many other civilizations around the world which rose, fell, and have simply been irrelevant ever since. Look at Egypt, Persia, or Mongolia, these places had their moment of glory come and go, and in the centuries since, they have accomplished practically nothing of note. You could easily imagine a world where Europe remained a backwater indefinitely and was populated by yokels who are constantly reminding everyone how WE WUZ KANGS back in the golden age of Rome.