Are we actually minarchists?

[State-God]

So I've been thinking: why is it that governments couldn't continue to exist?

Mind you, not remotely in the sense that we have now. But the other day I was thinking back to a discussion we had about cities (i.e. whether or not they could exist under a strict interpretation of the NAP), and I came to the conclusion that even under a strict interpretation a city is possible, in the sense that a person(s) could own a huge tract of land and rent it out to people and businesses, perhaps providing electricity, roads, sewage, water and police services.

When we advocate for private defense agencies and communal militias, it still seems to come down to the same result; a small group has a (semi?)monopoly on violence within a given (tiny) territory.

So, in a sense, this owner(s) would be a government. It seems, to me, that we're not actually advocating anarchy; it seems we are/should be advocating minarchy, but at an extremely local level. Is this good, bad, or do y'all not care?

Personally, I don't see a problem. For a productive society, it seems to me, to exist, a measure of order is needed. That's not to say, of course, that one person/group should be creating this order.

[Syock]

When we advocate for private defense agencies and communal militias, it still seems to come down to the same result; a small group has a (semi?)monopoly on violence within a given (tiny) territory.

You lost me there.  Why would there only be one or a few?  Why would there be a monopoly? 

Look at existing private security companies.  You can even look at how they interact with emergency services.  Brinks is not the only company that moves money.  The security company that covers my home are a small local company that have a lot of big competition.  I do private security work from time to time, for only one non-security company.  I watch the stuff that belongs to their customers.  Private security is a web of companies and individuals.  At the end of the day stuff has to go to the police because of legal reasons, but I am fully within the law to hold someone until they arrive. 

Without a government, many private security firms would likely keep doing things as they are now to match what they are specialized in.  The difference is the police would be funded by them.  There would likely be more than a single police force for an area, with small and large players, just like Brinks vs the local guys (kind of like federal/state/local currently).  They would then be responsible and accountable for their actions, and suffer like any company would when they do something wrong with no state to back them up.  If one does something wrong, the competition will take their jobs. 

[State-God]

^ Fair point. I used the '(semi?)' for a reason.

[Hanzo]

This won't win me points, but yes. "interlocking arbitration agencies" or whatever is the same thing as a state. Its just a different kind than what we have now.

[Syock]

This won't win me points, but yes. "interlocking arbitration agencies" or whatever is the same thing as a state. Its just a different kind than what we have now.

Na, you can't ignore what makes a company different from a state.

They would then be responsible and accountable for their actions, and suffer like any company would when they do something wrong with no state to back them up.  If one does something wrong, the competition will take their jobs. 

[State-God]

This won't win me points, but yes. "interlocking arbitration agencies" or whatever is the same thing as a state. Its just a different kind than what we have now.

Na, you can't ignore what makes a company different from a state.

They would then be responsible and accountable for their actions, and suffer like any company would when they do something wrong with no state to back them up.  If one does something wrong, the competition will take their jobs.  

How is that different from a State?

If a State treats its citizens too cruelly, it can either suffer a revolution (hostile corporate takeover) or a foreign invasion (outside competitor) at some point.

[AgoristTeen1994]

State-God and Hanzo DO raise some interesting points. Hell if they're right and most ancaps are just minarchists, then the big difference between a government like existed in the U.S. at the national level during the Articles of Confederation, or just after the Constitution was ratified and went into effect, and what State-God brought up is that it is a LOT easier to move from one town to another, than to move from one state (as in Michigan, New Hampshire, Wyoming, or any of the 50 states of the U.S.) to another, which is a lot easier than moving from one country to another. This would keep competition quite effective. Plus with how local these mini-states I'll call them micro-governments, would be, if they tried to abuse the abilities they had it'd be very easy for the people in that area to revolt. Of course it is difficult to know for sure what form a truly free society would take until that society has arrived....until then we can only speculate based on current knowledge of human psychology/sociology and economics, what the forces of spontaneous order might bring.

[Syock]

How is that different from a State?

If a State treats its citizens too cruelly, it can either suffer a revolution (hostile corporate takeover) or a foreign invasion (outside competitor) at some point.

You are seriously asking that?   I don't think Wal Mart is threatening to kill you when you go shopping somewhere else. 

[State-God]

How is that different from a State?

If a State treats its citizens too cruelly, it can either suffer a revolution (hostile corporate takeover) or a foreign invasion (outside competitor) at some point.

You are seriously asking that?   I don't think Wal Mart is threatening to kill you when you go shopping somewhere else. 

But we're not talking about shopping centers. We're talking about companies that use violence to meet their goals; in the case of a free society, using violence to distribute legal justice and protection from crime as per social standards.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that these companies will all be Stalinist states. As you've pointed out- and I agree- there are various factors providing incentive for a company to not become a totalitarian warmongerer.

However, these incentives exist for current states as well- albeit at a lesser level given the rise of the nation-state- and the reality is that these companies are state's themselves, just with extremely small territories, a populace that pays them voluntarily and is much more likely to be overthrown than a modern government.

[Syock]

How is that different from a State?

If a State treats its citizens too cruelly, it can either suffer a revolution (hostile corporate takeover) or a foreign invasion (outside competitor) at some point.

You are seriously asking that?   I don't think Wal Mart is threatening to kill you when you go shopping somewhere else. 

But we're not talking about shopping centers. We're talking about companies that use violence to meet their goals; in the case of a free society, using violence to distribute legal justice and protection from crime as per social standards.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that these companies will all be Stalinist states. As you've pointed out- and I agree- there are various factors providing incentive for a company to not become a totalitarian warmongerer.

However, these incentives exist for current states as well- albeit at a lesser level given the rise of the nation-state- and the reality is that these companies are state's themselves, just with extremely small territories, a populace that pays them voluntarily and is much more likely to be overthrown than a modern government.

Ok, putting aside the parts I disagree on...

Why would you suggest that we advocate a minarchy, and the state protection that comes with it, when you just admitted that it would be less incentive for something to get out of control without the state?

[Hanzo]

Ok, putting aside the parts I disagree on...

Why would you suggest that we advocate a minarchy, and the state protection that comes with it, when you just admitted that it would be less incentive for something to get out of control without the state?

Who suggested advocating minarchy?

I think the more mini states there are the better. The ideal number would be 6 billion.

All I'm saying is just cause its less harsh than the current state, its still a state

[State-God]

Ok, putting aside the parts I disagree on...

Why would you suggest that we advocate a minarchy, and the state protection that comes with it, when you just admitted that it would be less incentive for something to get out of control without the state?

Who suggested advocating minarchy?

I think the more mini states there are the better. The ideal number would be 6 billion.

All I'm saying is just cause its less harsh than the current state, its still a state

^
Dat completing eachother's thoughts.

[Syock]

Who suggested advocating minarchy?

It seems, to me, that we're not actually advocating anarchy; it seems we are/should be advocating minarchy, but at an extremely local level. Is this good, bad, or do y'all not care?

[Hanzo]

Who suggested advocating minarchy?

It seems, to me, that we're not actually advocating anarchy; it seems we are/should be advocating minarchy, but at an extremely local level. Is this good, bad, or do y'all not care?

Must have missed that, but I have to disagree with state god (sort of). I don't think an anarchist "advocates" anything- instead, he merely opposes aggression.

In other words, I am an anarchist in principle.

See Stephan Kinsella, "The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism" for my view: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/the-irrelevance-of-the-impossibility-of-anarcho-libertarianism/

"The anarchist is not someone who has a belief about “what will work”. Rather, he is someone who opposes aggression in all its forms... Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t “work” or is not “practical” is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved – I for one don’t think it will. But that does not mean states are justified."

I oppose aggression. I also think that an anarchist society would have aggression. I don't see a conflict.

[Hanzo]

State-God and Hanzo DO raise some interesting points. Hell if they're right and most ancaps are just minarchists, then the big difference between a government like existed in the U.S. at the national level during the Articles of Confederation, or just after the Constitution was ratified and went into effect, and what State-God brought up is that it is a LOT easier to move from one town to another, than to move from one state (as in Michigan, New Hampshire, Wyoming, or any of the 50 states of the U.S.) to another, which is a lot easier than moving from one country to another. This would keep competition quite effective. Plus with how local these mini-states I'll call them micro-governments, would be, if they tried to abuse the abilities they had it'd be very easy for the people in that area to revolt. Of course it is difficult to know for sure what form a truly free society would take until that society has arrived....until then we can only speculate based on current knowledge of human psychology/sociology and economics, what the forces of spontaneous order might bring.

Excellent points friend, especially about how we don't really know what a truly free society would look like, or even if it could exist.