Advertisements
Opinion Society

Minarchy and the Defense of Society

Those that advocate for the abolition of the state fail to realize how essential the system is in defending the rights of those in society.

By Nate Galt | United States

Minarchy is the true protection of the inalienable rights granted to the populace. If the state ceased to exist tomorrow and an anarchist society stood in its place, there is a high possibility that two groups would be formed- the collectivists and non-collectivists. The collectivists would live in communes and would live off of their own work, similar to Kropotkin’s ideal visualization of anarcho-communism. The other group would try to live life as they did before. This society could potentially last, however; corporations could have their own military, police force, and justice system. This would be much worse than if these services were held in the public’s hands. 

There will always be some semblance of power in the real world. Ever since the dawn of time, hierarchies have dominated the social structure of the human race. Abolishing the state is possible, but a new authority will take its spot in the hierarchy. In an anarchic society, this could be the man with the most followers or money. This, in turn, would lead to an oligarchic or monarchic de facto state. The only thing that would differentiate this state from a dictatorship would be that it calls itself a corporation. Minarchy would keep liberty at a maximum and governance at a minimum while preventing any sort of takeover by private armies. A minarchic society would minimize the government to its basic functions while still protecting the public. 

Furthermore, it would support a much fairer justice system. A privatized system is not the true administration of proper justice. We need to reform the justice system and to move it forward, not push it back by means of privatization. This system would have an unfair bias against the poor and the interests of rivals. Those who cannot pay would fare much worse than those who could afford to do so. Therefore, the best system of administering fair justice should be in the hands of the public. It would make everyone equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of gender, race, or socio-economic status. 

Minarchy also prevents people from being sold like goods on the open market. In an anarcho-capitalistic society, the only way to help prevent the sale of living people without using force is a boycott.  A supporter of anarcho-capitalism might reply that the N.A.P., or Non-Aggression Principle, allows someone to step in to defend a person if their rights are infringed. However, the N.A.P. has no limits or extent to which someone could retaliate. I do not want to live in a society where someone who does minor damage to a home could be shot. 

I believe in the prevention of child slavery and other such vile acts. In a minarchic society, there are laws enforced by a public law enforcement agency which stops them from happening. This agency will be watched by the eye of the people and all their actions will be a public matter.

In all, I firmly believe that the concept of minarchy is the best way to preserve individual rights. The state will be shrunk to its minimal functions while still protecting the public from certain crimes. It prevents a complete takeover by corporations by having a certain set of laws in place. However, it does so while maximizing individual liberty. 


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

2 comments on “Minarchy and the Defense of Society

  1. Pingback: It's Time for All to Oppose the State Consistently · 71 Republic

  2. Manuel Martin

    Hello Nate

    I would like to disagree with your claims that an anarchist society would lead to the societal destruction you claim in your article. But first off I’d like to thank you for having the courage to express your view in a public forum, many people lack that courage.
    There is one thing you miss when discussing an anarchist state Vs a minarchist state, and that’s the culture of the people who reside in the imagined “states.” Who are the people you speak of that hold freedom so dear in their heart and understand the dangers of excessive government that they wisely limit government to a minarchist form? The minarchist culture which is capable of rejecting government education, sciences, consumer protection agencies, drug laws, borders, regulations, welfare, healthcare etc. is the same culture which would reject minarchism. A culture of minarchists is essentially a culture of anarchists, a people educated and principled enough to understand the advantages of a minarchist state over a socialists state would never stop at minarchism, they would eliminate the state.
    You claim if government disappeared tomorrow that two factions would emerge in society, the collectivists and the non-collectivists. While this may be true, speculating on what the American culture that is so in love with government that they regularly allow politicians to steal 40% of their paychecks and send their sons to foreign lands to get murdered is a speculation so grand one would be hard pressed to even make a rational projection of what welfare recipients, government employee’s, teachers, protected industries / professions, etc. would do if their government god were gone.
    But there are a few things we can discuss, you seem to have a distrust in corporations being able supply local / regional police services. Have you ever asked yourself who would fund a free market police force and what are they paying for? Will you write a check to a police agency which promises conquest and murder or to a police agency which promises peace and protection? Who will supply weapons to the police agency which is attempting to conquer free people? Who will supply electricity to warring police agencies headquarters and various properties? War is expensive, if voluntary paying customers aren’t willing to writes checks to a plundering police agency, what banking institution will lend murders money for the purpose of murder? What about the employees of the waring police agency, will they follow orders to kill? Will other police agencies sit silently and allow their paying customers to be killed?
    If a culture is progressed to the point of freeing itself of governmental coercion, how quickly do you think the customers, banks, electricity suppliers, weapons manufactures, employees, competitors and paying customers will move to shut down a rogue police agency? You need to remember if a people are paying for peace the market is not fund or incentivized for war. How often do you pay for an apple and the market gives you an orange? A culture advanced enough to understand the benefits of anarchism will quickly act to shut down a rouge organization.
    It’s clear to see minarchism and anarchism are long ways away, it will take individual and societal reflection upon which form of human interaction leads to more peace and prosperity, persuasion or coercion?
    Creating a culture with a conscious awareness and respect for the freedom and humanity of our fellow human beings, a culture which resolves to use persuasion as the default form of human interaction should be the goal of all libertarians.
    If there was ever a culture which is unlikely to exist, it is a minarchist culture. For within that culture you have a conundrum. Minarchism requires a people progressive enough to limit government to defense and justice yet regressive enough to extort and subjugate the property of others to fund their “ideal” version of a just society. Believing in minarchism is believing in injustice to force justice.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: