?

Log in

eyes black and white

Minarchism beyond Anarchism

I decided that after all, I was a minarchist and not an anarchist. Let me explain.

A bigger government is where the proclaimed rulers have greater power, where public force is more positively correlated with their will, at their disposal to impose a less restricted subset of their commands, whims and desires on a wider set of topics and resources — compared to another (form of) government. A smaller government is that other comparative (form of) government where the proclaimed rulers have less power, where public force is less positively aligned with their will, and their cannot rely on it as much to impose it upon others, etc. A minimal government is thus such that there is no strictly lesser government — any comparable government is greater. A minarchist is a proponent of minimal government.

Now, anarchy is where the proclaimed rulers have no power at all, where public force is totally uncorrelated with their will, where they cannot use force to impose it upon anyone, etc. Proclaimed rulers are just laughed at, or ignored — they are ridiculous clowns whom no one takes seriously, except maybe a psychiatrist they pay to listen to them solemnly, and a few bored village idiots who aren't watched closely enough by their busy tutors. On my good days, I'm an anarchist, a proponent of anarchy.

But every time I hear a politician, I feel more like a minarchist. What's the difference? Well, in a true minimal state, rulers are not just ignored and laughed at, with public force uncorrelated to their will; rather, public force is negatively correlated to their will, and maximally so. In other words: all their belongings are forcefully taken away from them, and surrendered to their worst enemies, or dispersed to whichever charities are most outrageous to them; then they are put to death by being subjected to whatever is most horrific to them personally (just as in 1984's Room 101). Indeed, there is nothing more that a ruler can give than what he possesses, including his life, no way that things can go further against his will. And so this is truly minimal government, and that's what I support as a minarchist: fully dispossessing and horrifically putting to death anyone who claims to govern others.

When I feel optimistic I'm an anarchist and believe that the world will be fine without the need for violence. When I feel pessimistic I'm a minarchist and I understand that those who want to rule others will not be stopped by anything but extreme prejudice. Trying to establish a government is high treason against society, to be treated as such (and every government is foreign before it's established, and domestic after it is).

PS: My friend Charles summarizes: "Less than 0 government is negative government. The active criminalization of government."

Comments

Some say that there should be term limits for politicians: one term in office and one term in jail. I say there should be only one term, in jail — and even then, just long enough to erect the gallows.
Or maybe it's two terms indeed: a first one, as brief as possible, waiting for the gallows, and a second one, eternally long, in hell.
"Proclaimed rulers are just laughed at, or ignored — they are ridiculous clowns whom no one takes seriously"

Except for Joshua Norton the First, Emperor of the USA.

There are rulers in anarchy, indeed, just not everyone agrees on who they are at any given time. Bringing ethics to governance should focus onto reducing the encroachment between disagreeing views to zero.

As for negative incentives applied to actos of governing others... Marshall Sahlins made a career out of documenting the practices of "Big Men" in primitive societies, in which it is not the ordinary man who pays tribute to the big man, but rather the opposite: the Big Man is one who saves and then spends his own surplus of wealth to buy peaceful cooperation from others, as a method for funding public works (building communal houses, landscape forming, etc.).

So, there's subjective value in leading others. You'd criminalize that kind of mutually consensual transaction ?

Hey Fare, here you are not, to me, faring so well as you usually do?

Hey Fare, here you are not, to me, faring so well as you usually do?

I let it go to your having a bad day and able to laugh at yourself.

You would not initiate force against those who initiate force would you, seriously?

Your other writings so far as I have read are truly wonderful Free Friends proclamations and I am happy I have chanced upon you.

Come join my Free Friends Worldwide, love to have you, and also my Climbing Mount Maslow.
www.facebook.com/groups/ClimbingMountMaslow/
www.facebook.com/groups/FreeFriendsWorldwide/

I want to open a dialogue with you for it is so very very rare I meet a mind with values seemingly identical to mine.

Cheers, Jack in Santiago, Chile by end of this November to the New Land of Zeal for Liberty (aka New ZealLand, my dominain name!)

what?

Anarchy is where there are no "proclaimed rulers". Anyone that decides to proclaim such would be considered insane and/or ridiculous as you say.

A minarchy doesn't contain anything I know of that would take the belongs of would be rulers away. So I am a bit lost there.

A minarchy can only be kept minimal if the ethics which it is to embody in the government sphere is clear and well defined and its feet are always held to that fire.

I have some sympathy for the kind of minarchy that I think Jefferson wanted. The government has only the powers needed to protect the inalienable rights of the people that adopt it against all that aggress against them, foreign and domestic, and most especially including the government itself.

I agree with Jefferson that the people have the right to take up arms and seek to overthrow any government that goes beyond this.

What are these inalienable rights? It can be boiled down to (descriptive in simple terms not how it is derived) to the right to live one's life as one sees fits making and following one's own decisions without infringing on anyone else's right to do the same.

In short government is only justified if there is some minimal amount of it that better secures and protects individual inalienable rights than having nothing called "government" at all.



Edited at 2017-03-25 11:15 pm (UTC)
eyes black and white

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com