Тег: Minarchism

Is a state necessary, what functions can (should) it perform, and why is minarchy not enough?

anonymous question

You know, one could trivially answer that the state is unnecessary because — and then follows a long list of problems it causes. One could refer to the fact that the smaller the scale of state intervention, the more the economy flourishes. But values are subjective, and one cannot answer for everyone that the state is unnecessary. There are plenty of people who love having a boot in their backside right now, and many demand that it be shoved even deeper. Minarchy isn’t enough for them; they want socialism; they were taught in school that under socialism there is liberty, equality, and fraternity, or at least order and security.

voluntarily and with a song!

Nevertheless, such an approach doesn’t work as an argument either. There is always a high percentage of conformists in society who will approve of the status quo, no matter how strange it is, so claiming that the majority sincerely and actively desires the state—to the point that they would come out to defend it—would also be rash.

Asking state representatives whether the state is necessary, and how about shifting a bit here to free up a small plot for ancap — well, that would be completely naive.

So, to get a correct answer to the question of whether the state is necessary, one must first achieve the appearance of a normally relatively pure ancap somewhere, and then let the market decide via migration and monetary flows. If people wishing “to make the state great again” consistently appear under ancap, then the state is necessary. For example, simply because one needs to have someone to grumble at. But if after a generation of living under ancap, the state is perceived as a strange, ancient, barbaric institution like trial by ordeal or some other omerta, then it means the state as such is not needed by humans; it’s just that it happens to exist now, and many put up with it.

Isn’t Switzerland the best example of successful minarchism?

anonymous question

Switzerland is the best example of a successful confederation, the successful operation of direct democracy, and the successful opposition to the expansion of state functions. However, even Switzerland is still not minarchism. Taxes instead of voluntary contributions, the existence of a central bank, and state economic and non-economic regulations are all beyond the minarchist ideal.

Nevertheless, Switzerland is an excellent benchmark for virtually any modern society desiring more freedom and less state.

Ancap or Minarchism?

Anonymous question

Minarchism is legal, so officially I cannot and do not put forward anything beyond minarchist demands. Ancap is more logically consistent, so in any theoretical studies it easily beats minarchism; however, I have to clarify every time that this is pure theory, comrade major, no extremism.

There are two points of view on the method of transition to ancap. One method is political, through minarchism. There are examples in the world of libertarians coming to power and implementing successful, albeit incomplete, minarchist reforms; all that remains is to ensure that this becomes mainstream, and then political pressure can be continued on minarchist states toward full ancap.

The second method is counter-cultural, bypassing minarchism. There is not a single example in the world where minarchist reforms were not followed by a rollback toward greater statism; therefore, it is postulated that the model of a limited state is by definition unstable, and there is no reason to hope that it will remain in this state, let alone voluntarily further cut its own powers. Instead, it is proposed to develop mechanisms of direct non-governmental interactions and to expel the state primarily from the mind. And once the viewpoint that the state in any of its manifestations is nothing more than a harmful parasite, and that people get along perfectly well without it, becomes mainstream, then this parasite will simply fall off because no one will feed it.

This is somewhat similar to two different approaches to fighting trolling in the comments: you can ban them, or you can stop feeding them.

You’d ban someone like that, yeah…

What criminal and civil courts would look like under libertarianism (taking into account that the state is assigned only the role of enforcing court decisions)?

Anonymous question

Everything is simple with civil courts: commercial arbitration already looks the way civil courts should look under libertarianism. The parties agree on whom to invite to adjudicate, that person adjudicates, and then the parties execute the decision. Whoever refuses bears reputational costs, and in a minarchist state, it wouldn’t end there; the state would send bailiffs to enforce the arbitration decision.

With criminal law, it is slightly more complicated.

When the person who used violence does not hide, the task is reduced to the previous one: they and the representatives of the victimized party agree on who will judge, then the court’s decision is executed—voluntarily or forcibly.
If the person who used violence is unknown, first the party interested in the investigation either investigates the matter independently or hires detectives, and only after the NAP violator is found, there may follow either a trial or retribution.

A court cannot be imposed on anyone, because a court decision whose jurisdiction is not recognized by all litigating parties is legally null and void. But if instead of a court, retribution simply took place, then the party that carried out the retribution will now have to prove itself that this was not a violation of the NAP. They will litigate with those who are ready to condemn them for the retribution, present the collected evidence of the NAP violation by the victim of the retribution in court, and will be acquitted. Or not, if the evidence proved insufficient.

Thus, if a criminal hiding from justice realizes that they are already breathing down their neck, they are extremely interested in reaching the nearest prison in time and buying refuge from retribution there while negotiations regarding a trial are underway.

And if you are in prison voluntarily, you would prefer to rent a comfortable room

Which industries/spheres will remain in the hands of the state in the Libertarian Russia of the Future? Or will everything be private?

Anonymous question

The question itself already contains part of the answer. Since we are talking specifically about a Libertarian Russia, this already implies a minarchist scenario. Within this scenario, diplomacy, the protection of citizens from external aggression, and the enforcement of court decisions remain in the hands of the state.

Why diplomacy is the easiest to explain. If there are states in the world, it means there can be interstate agreements, and therefore it is necessary to maintain a certain state structure that will prepare and sign these agreements.

In a similar way, one can understand why the protection of citizens from external aggression becomes a matter for the state. It is easy and pleasant when external aggression is carried out by some bandits who are not part of the privileged club of state bandits. A private company can handle them without any diplomatic consequences. However, it would be difficult for a private company to explain to someone like Kim Jong Un that he is wrong: to him, they would look like some terrorists with whom negotiations cannot be conducted, if only because there is no one to talk to: the state considers only another state as a counterpart.

The most questionable justification is why the state should be allowed into the sphere of enforcing court decisions. But even here, one can refer to possible incidents with foreign companies, who might perceive violence against them by private actors as lawlessness and run to complain to their own government.

In any case, this is how minarchists envision the desired future, and I, generally, am not against it — but only until non-state practices begin to be actively implemented in these three areas as well.

By the way, who under minarchism will decide how many migrants to let in and on what terms? The democratic majority? Whoever pays more?

Already(web)

Regarding state borders, under minarchism, the state retains the function of protecting borders from armed invasion, as well as negotiating with other states regarding where these borders actually lie. Therefore, if foreign armies are viewed as a type of migrant, their presence on the state’s territory will be determined by intergovernmental agreements, which, in turn, will be based on the opinion of those who hired that government. In a democratic minarchist state, this will be the democratic majority.

As for all other migrants, the regulation of their movements does not fall within the state’s sphere of competence at all. How many labor migrants, tourists, or refugees to let into a minarchist state is decided by the owners of the infrastructure used for their movement. How many to let across the threshold of an establishment is decided by the owner of the establishment. How many to hire is decided by the employer. And so on.

When libertarians come to power, will they immediately legalize sex with children and the sale of heroin?

Anonymous question

If we are considering the scenario where “libertarians come to power,” then the following picture emerges: in a more or less liberal state, a government has appeared through more or less democratic means that declares its goal to be the transition to a minarchist state.

It is difficult to say what such a government would do immediately and what it would do later. It is clear that reforms must be carried out as quickly as possible, but the speed will largely be determined by the level of trust granted to this minarchist government.

Since this trust is not absolute, it is important not to waste it on insignificant things, as someone like Yushchenko did after the Orange Revolution.

I would start with the following measures:

  • immediate decriminalization of the use and possession of all drugs, decriminalization of the sale of soft drugs, and the rehabilitation of all those convicted under the decriminalized articles. This would significantly reduce the burden on prisons, police, investigators, and courts, but would not give my opponents any serious leverage, as the decriminalization of soft drugs is a global trend approved by the UN.
  • dissolution of all organizations ending in “-nadzor” (oversight agencies).
  • abolition of a host of insignificant but administratively complex taxes and fees: transport tax, state duties, Platon, property tax, and all export and import duties.
  • immediate withdrawal of troops from Syria, Ukraine, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia.

And if my government manages not only to pull all this off quickly but also to remain in power, then it will be possible to deal with less urgent matters, such as abolishing the age of consent and decriminalizing the sale of hard drugs, but this would still be a lower priority than, for example, the abolition of VAT, judicial reform, and many other things.

Now, if we are talking not about a minarchist government, but about an evolutionary transition to ancap, bypassing the minarchism stage, then the term “come to power” is simply incorrect.

Babchenko is alive

Arkady Babchenko survived, the perpetrator has been detained and is cooperating with the investigation, and in general, life has suddenly taken a turn completely in the spirit of spy novels.

Is it feasible to pull off such special operations in a minarchist state or even under ancap? Theoretically – yes. You receive threats, the insurance company finds out about them, decides that conducting preventive work will not be too burdensome for the wallet and very useful for the reputation – and then comes an operational game for the sake of a loud promotional campaign: get insured with us, and it will give you a chance of salvation even from a contract killing. Practically, of course, for this you need to be a sufficiently famous and wealthy person, well, that’s how the market works, to provide both mass and premium services.

In any case, it turned out to be a good day. I don’t know about you, but I’m going to have a couple of cocktails.

Press conference