Why Minarchists Are the Enemy

I understand the article's overarching message, but I think it misses some of the benefits of a "union" between libertarian minarchists and libertarian anarchists. Practically speaking, the transition between a statist society and a stateless society will probably not occur within our lifetimes, and more likely than not it will be some sort of progressive transition (not necessarily peaceful, and not necessarily easily to track, but what I mean is that the transition will take time). In the meantime, I am ready to settle for smaller government, even if the eventual end that I strive for is a stateless society. Towards the intermediate end, smaller government, a union with libertarian minarchists is indispensable, because it provides a larger political front by which to express one's ideas.

It's also worthy to consider that libertarian minarchists are only one step from accepting anarchism. The anarchist movement today is largely educative, rather than an activist movement. Converting a libertarian anarchist is probably going to be easier than converting a socialist, or a convinced democrat or republican. It makes sense to include minarchists into your circle of friends, thus opening them to a much wider spectrum of ideology and literature.

This is why I like the current division of labor developed on the internet. You have online communities (let's say Cato) that are willing to open themselves up to all forms of libertarians, and even moderate Republicans. It opens these people up to a broader range of literature on libertarianism, and it readies them for more radical communities, including Strike the Root and the Mises Institute. The educational process of anarchism is not going to happen "all of a sudden", and the only way you can transition people into a different mindset is by being open to their ideas while feeding them yours. By shutting them out you are shutting out the opportunity to eventually have more people who agree completely with your political framework.

So, Per, what is your solution? Kill all the minarchists, as well as all the socialists, conservatives, liberals, and so forth?

You are making an implicit assumption here, that the only way to live is either within a completely minarchist state, or a completely anarchist un-state (or completely liberal state, etc.). This simply is not so:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/what-is-to-be-done-with-statists

Minarchists per se are not the enemy, and statists are not all the same. There are statists who will leave us be, and other statists who won't. The latter are our enemy, no matter what label they use for themselves, and the former are our allies. In fact, even anarchists, who insist the world must be completely free, are our enemies. People will come to accept freedom in their own good time, in their own way, not by having it imposed on them. They will do it when they see anarchism works. But that will never happen if anarchists turn everyone into enemies.

Stop whacking our natural allies. It is counterproductive to the cause of freedom. We should insist ONLY that people let us be, in our own free communities. Nothing more.

By taking the most extreme position possible and then rejecting any alliance or cooperation with anyone who doesn't agree with you, you are basically condemning your ideology and movement to utter failure. No one has ever succeeded in bringing their political thoughts into realization without some kind of compromise - There are just too many people who disagree with you. The only way a minority has ever held sway over a majority without compromise has been through brute force, and that's out of the picture, obviously. It's one thing to opine on the Internet about your beliefs, but if you make it impossible for you to make any progress toward their realization in the world, then all you're doing is engaging in mental masturbation.

Logic is mental masturbation. Ethics is mental masturbation. Truth is mental masturbation. If you cannot compromise your principles, you are stroking yourself.

Here's a wild idea... I'm picturing it now... a website designed to educate people so they can understand the principles of logic and ethics and truth. If enough people begin to be exposed to these good ideas, then eventually they may become the majority. Maybe the website could be called, I don't know, Strike The Root or something catchy like that.

Oh, wait, we already have one like that, but it is populated with losers who get their kicks through fruitless mental masturbation that ultimately will lead nowhere.

Teach the people to work within the system to change the system. Yeah, gotta keep the system. Put on your loud plaid suit and oversized political button and get in there and compromise, champ!

There's this little country called Egypt, perhaps you've read of something going on over there? It seems that the people's opinion seemed to change rather quickly in regard to their government. Where was the compromise? Did they violently strike down the government? No, they basically ignored it until it left. Perhaps they should have taken your council and compromised their way to a better life over a span of a couple more decades?

Now I doubt they will prevent another government from moving in, because as you said, most people still cannot imagine a government-less society, but one of these days in the not-too-distant future, enough people will understand not just that government-less society is possible, they will choose it because they understand WHY it is logical and ethical and proper. This wacky internet thing, through which you and I and others opine, is spreading ideas faster than anything that has ever come before. The good ideas are going to prevail, and the bad ideas will be put aside.

You see, we actually are doing something here, even as you epically fail to realize it, and it is going to be much more effective than pulling levers and making deals with sociopaths that promise to limit the body count to 10,000,000 instead of 100,000,000. You see, I don't see that kind of compromise as progressive or as being the realization of anything positive. I find it disgusting and revolting. The State is a killing machine, and I hate the State.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html

So, Michael, please outline the plan you have for your lovely government to pay for education, social security, welfare, infrastructure, or anything else after your bankrupt system has no money that anyone is bound to respect. This was the point of the post previous to yours.

And if you don't have a detailed answer, you are just engaging in mental masturbation.

And if you do have an answer, it is based on violence. And you are OK with that, it seems.

Funk dat.

As Albert Einstein so eloquently stated, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting a different result. The great "experiment" started by our founding fathers is coming to an end. Why? Because in practice and in principle it has been tried over and over, long before the inception of the United States, and has always ended in failure.

Governments, fiat currencies, and all of the things that make the world go around are doing just that, not unlike the vortex in a toilet sending human waste into oblivion. If only one idea here (like in the movie "Star Trek: First Contact" when Captain Piccard is explaining to Lily, a person from his past, that money, along with hunger and many other nasty things, no longer exist in the future) or one idea there (like the Christians that Gandhi said do not exist would actually start existing) could perhaps turn on lights in all people, regardless of personal beliefs and backgrounds, to facilitate a very real change. That is the day I hope for. It is the day where individuals learn that using competition as a tool to hone cooperation (instead of just competition alone) actually gets all people moving forward, yet each person gets to maintain his or her very own identity.

It will take time. It will happen. It takes people like those who immerse themselves into the articles on Strike the Root. It takes people who actually read all sides of an argument. It takes people willing to be pro-active and not re-active. As a species, we have not really changed much over the past few thousand years, if you only look at the DNA. But when we look at some of the technologies that have been around for a relatively short period of time, I hypothesize that we are the only creatures on the planet that can evolve by choice. The time to evolve out of petty politics is at hand. Just my opinion.

Nice column, Per, and you're making an important point about the non-aggression principle -- although you don't mention it by name. I believe that and other choices in wording impede your message.

What is "government"? Well, there is individual self-government -- freedom, in other words. That's the kind of government we want. Auberon Herbert, the classical liberal who wrote the excellent "The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State", advocated a government that did not tax, nor enforce its will on people in any way. Of course, that's not a "government" of any kind that people would recognize, but it does -- in classical liberal fashion -- acknowledge that there are things which need doing. We NEED air traffic control, roads, and garbage collection -- we just don't need to use a coercive mechanism to fund or operate them.

I use the word "coercive" as a modifier for that very reason. "Coercive government" is very different from individual self-government. "Coercive socialism" is nothing at all like the voluntary socialism you might find at a monastery or commune. And the "coercive elite" are definitely NOT in the same, RESPECTABLE category as a rich/powerful person who earned or inherited his/her money without coercion and who does not use State coercion to line his/her pockets or to otherwise coerce unearned priviledge or wealth from the people.

It is COERCION that is the problem, and until people get clear on this, confusion will reign. I would love to see abolitionists (see my "Call me an Abolitionist, Please" for why I don't use the word "anarchist" http://strike-the-root.com/62/allport/allport4.html ) start to regularly, consistently use the word "coercion" as a modifier whenever talking about the State or those who avail themselves of State coercion to achieve their goals. I don't think anything else gets the message across so clearly.

Thanks Per.
Great job stirring up lots of excellent commentary on the subject.
It's a raw nerve, obviously.
I agree with your sentiments. Minarchists can be the most rabid defenders of the state, when they are long-time defenders of that wheel-spinning paradigm.
I agree with those who say that we shouldn't be openly hostile to those who are "minarchists in motion", taking logical steps in our direction.
The trick is finding out who is a die-hard statist minarchist, and who is still moving. Not an easy thing to judge on the fly. But we must continue to insist on our right to opt out of their mini-state. That usually makes them show their true colors.
Minarchists who I am acquainted with like to say "I believe in non-coercion", but will continue to say "everyone has to participate to make the minimal state work". They haven't realized the basic principle that "the state is force". Even very intelligent (and very gentle) minarchists seem to have this blind spot in their psyche. I agree with Glenn and others who say we need to keep pointing out the coercion that a minarchist has to advocate in order to hold his logical position. Stir up that cognitive dissonance. Bring to boil. Stir continuously.

G'day everyone,

Can we all get along? ~ Rodney King

As a self-governing Individual Secessionist I say if any of you want a government, large or small, go ahead and have one, enjoy yourself, and as long as you don't try to force that government on me or mine, then we'll "get along" just fine.

Great article Per.

I think there's an important caveat:

Minarchists-for-the-moment, genuinely on the path to truth, are indeed fellow travelers that need an extended hand from us to help them make those few (but necessary, and often the hardest) remaining steps towards a coherent philosophy.

Minarchist philosophers are the WORST enemy, IMO, and deserve to be outed as the snakes they are.

As noted above by others, it is the minarchist philosophers that seem to be the most rabid apologists for the state when it really boils down to it. I have seen the most egregious examples of sliminess by the advocates of "limited government" as they praise "liberty" out of one side of their mouth, while screeching out the other fear and smug prediction about the doomed fate of an imagined dystopia should liberty ever be truly taken seriously.

It's sometimes hard to tell which is which (so I start with extending the benefit of the doubt to each person), but the metaphorical "digging in of the heels" is often a good indicator. The truth seeker, while perhaps uncomfortable with the idea of abolishing the state, will at least consider your arguments with some effort at intellectual honesty. The behavior and tactics of the hardened minarchist will usually show their true intent. I find such people despicable.

Minarchist philosophers are the enemy mostly because they're the evil sirens, luring those who are on their way to truth to an easier path. Siding with the statist-quo is the easy cop out. "The state isn't evil, it's just too big." "Any man (or group of men) having the final say over others isn't slavery, it's simply the necessity of an orderly society." "Turn back, stop here." "No need to look further. Only crazy/utopian anarchists in that direction."

Absolutely, many (most?) of us came through the minarchist path and still made it here. But how many more have turned back from the goal because of the soothing poison of the minarchist philosophers?

So as far as philosophy goes, minarchy is not the brother or even cousin of libertarianism. It's the runt offspring (same family) of the sworn enemy (statism - acceptance of aggression-ism). Minarchy is not a philosophy compatible with the philosophy of liberty. The term "libertarian minarchist" is a contradiction. No one can support liberty and the state (regardless of its desired size - fiat monopoly jurisdiction, the very minimal requirement for a state, inherently involves aggression).

As far as tactics go. Yeah, that's a little bit more unclear to most, so such strict "purity" is perhaps not necessary. However, once I read de la Boettie, it seems that the strategy for liberty is pretty clear cut, in the general scheme. The state only exists because it is perceived by enough people differently than other criminal organizations (like street gangs or the mafia). It is not force alone that sustains the state, it is legitimacy. With that in mind, it seems clear that the only true advances for liberty are steps that de-legitimize the state in the minds of the masses. Anything that contributes to the legitimacy of the state works contrary to that goal. To which end does the minarchist philosophy support? I think the answer is clear.

I'm not sure if Rothbard's political activism came before or after his realization of de la Boettie's insight. That might be interesting to find out, since I don't see how any political action can be productive in light of this [update; "The Political Thought of Étienne de La Boétie." was written in 1975 - hmmm...]. Of course, the libertarian is happy to see the state decrease. But engaging in the political process only serves to strengthen the idea that the state can be reformed, and that supports the legitimacy of statism. So while Rothbard was ultimately "pure" in his philosophy, perhaps he was flawed in his practice. I certainly don't think he was infallible (nor am I aware of any who make that claim).

And in that regard, look at the result of Rothbard's philosophy vs his activism. Looking at the US state now, can one honestly consider Rothbard's political activities as anything but an absolute failure? The state has only continued to metastasize at a rapid pace, showing no notice of the man ever existing. But look at his philosophical impact! Yes, it's small in the grand scheme, but there has been a steady, if not (recently) explosive growth in those who have embraced a coherent philosophy of liberty. Certainly Rothbard alone can't take full credit, but his contributions in pure philosophy seem to have paid off and continue to bear fruit. When/if ever a critical mass of people finally withdraw their consent (more accurately, acceptance) and the state dissolves, it will be Rothbard's philosophy that had a part to play. None of the votes he cast, alliances he made, or political parties he joined/formed will even be remembered.