From: nskinsella@shsl.com Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:05:36 -0500 Subject: Minarchy A law review in which I have a forthcoming article is balking at my use of the word "minarchy," since they cannot find it in a standard dictionary. Does anyone know of any semi-respectable published reference work that defines minarchy, minarchists, or minarchism? _______________________________________________________________ N. Stephan Kinsella (215) 751-2157 voice Intellectual Property and High Tech Dept. (215) 972-7362 fax Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis (610) 325-3360 home 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 kinsella@shsl.com Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286 http://www.shsl.com ========================================================================= From: "Aeon Skoble" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 07:57:07 +0000 > A law review in which I have a forthcoming article is balking at my > use of the word "minarchy," since they cannot find it in a standard > dictionary. Does anyone know of any semi-respectable published > reference work that defines minarchy, minarchists, or minarchism? The only time I ever saw that word was in a novel by L. Neil Smith, _The Probability Broach_ (an excellent novel, BTW). Despite it's usefulness, no one seems to use it. Will the editors let you introduce it and define it? Then the rest of us could cite your article! Aeon ========================================================================= Date: 28 Jan 1997 10:52:25 -0500 From: "Robert Sade" RE>Minarchy 1/28/97 Could you let the rest of us in on it? What is minarchy? Other than Minnie's dominance over Mickey, of course. ;-) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:51:42 -0500 From: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca (Jan Narveson) I've seen it used, but where?? Maybe in on of the papers in my and Jack Sanders' anthology, For and Against the State. (Rowman & Littlefield, 1996) -- but I don't remember which one offhand. I could check it out with a finder, as I have the whole ms. on my disk, but it would take awhile. Let me know if it's worth doing. __________________________________________________________________________ Jan Narveson (Professor) Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1 (519) 888-4567-1-2780# (from touch-tone); or 885-1211, ext. 2780 (via switchboard); FAX (519) 746-3097 Home: (519) 886-1673 (answering machine) e-mail: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca ========================================================================= From: nskinsella@shsl.com Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:13:29 -0500 Oops. I thought the word was pretty well known, at least among libertarians. My bad. My understanding is that it is roughly synonmous with the concept "minimal state" or "night-watchman state". Or, perhaps, it is better considered to be like Nozick's "ultra-minimal" state. It is just one step above anarchy--just one small step away from not being a government at all. I suppose the minimalist state is a bit meatier. Off the top of my head, the spectrum of governments (ranked by their relative size & jurisdiction) seems to me to be something like this: 1. Anarcho-capitalism/anarchy 2. minarchy/ultraminimalist state (no taxes) 3. minimalist state/night watchman state (taxes) 4. classical liberal, constitutionally limited republic 5. welfare state 6. socialism/communism/totalitarianism/fascism/theocracies Most libertarians adhere to 1, 2, or 3 (but would be ecstatic to get no. 4 back!); I suppose Objectivists adhere either to 2 or 3--probably 2, since 3 might be said to allow taxes. Rothbard might be the paradigmatic Type 1; Rand no. 2; Charles Murray no. 3 (or is he 4). Stephan Kinsella ========================================================================= From: "Aeon Skoble" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:52:56 +0000 > My understanding is that it is roughly synonmous with the concept > "minimal state" or "night-watchman state". That's how it was used the one time I saw it, in Smith's novel. You might ask him where he got it. Whoops, big-can-of-worms alert! > 1. Anarcho-capitalism/anarchy > 2. minarchy/ultraminimalist state (no taxes) What's the difference here? I suspect even Rothbard would approve of what you seem to have in mind by 2 here. But this is exactly the dividing tension between minimal-state libertarians and anarcho-libertarians. Much ink (or rather, laser printer toner) spilled. ========================================================================= From: nskinsella@shsl.com Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:10:51 -0500 Skoble: > > 1. Anarcho-capitalism/anarchy > 2. minarchy/ultraminimalist state (no taxes) What's the difference here? I suspect even Rothbard would approve of what you seem to have in mind by 2 here. But this is exactly the dividing tension between minimal-state libertarians and anarcho-libertarians.< The difference, as I understand it, is that no. 2, even if it could not literally impose taxes, could still establish some form of coercive monopoly over its services within some area. Even if it could not force customers to become customers, it could outlaw competitors. (This, of course, amounts to taxation.) An anarcho-capitalist defense agency could do neither (but I do not mean to imply that a defense agency may not use force against any individauls who are not already its customers; it certainly would have the right to punish or defend against external aggressors, even if they had not agreed to the rules of the defense agency--assuming that it is a legitimate defense agency and is adhering to the libertarian conception of rights). BTW, I believe I have heard Rothbard or someone refer to non-anarchists as "archists". So the spectrum would roughly be: Anarchy; minarchy; archy. Stephan Kinsella ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:52:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Woolsey > Skoble: > > > > 1. Anarcho-capitalism/anarchy > > 2. minarchy/ultraminimalist state (no taxes) > What's the difference here? I suspect even Rothbard would approve of > what you seem to have in mind by 2 here. But this is exactly the > dividing tension between minimal-state libertarians and > anarcho-libertarians.< > The difference, as I understand it, is that no. 2, even if it could > not literally impose taxes, could still establish some form of > coercive monopoly over its services within some area. Even if it > could not force customers to become customers, it could outlaw > competitors. (This, of course, amounts to taxation.) Roy Child's argument, roughly, was that government must be a monopoly on the use of force. Enforcing that monopoly is an initiation of force. Libertarianism (no initiation of force) implies anarchism. The strict libertarians who describe themselves as minarchists claim that the government's monopoly on force would not need to be enforced by supressing competitors. > An anarcho-capitalist defense agency could do neither (but I do not > mean to imply that a defense agency may not use force against any > individauls who are not already its customers; it certainly would have > the right to punish or defend against external aggressors, even if > they had not agreed to the rules of the defense agency--assuming that > it is a legitimate defense agency and is adhering to the libertarian > conception of rights). Leaving aside the semantic business above (what does government mean?) the strict libertarians who are minarchist believe that something that looks like a goverment is desirable. You know, constitutions, voting, and so on. Its purpose should be law enforcement, defense against invaders, and the like. But that organization, like all others, may never initiation force. Its fianancing must be by user fee or voluntary contributions. I guess it can't just supress competitors because they are competitors. Strict libertarians who are anarchists (or others anarchists I guess) don't want anything that even looks like a traditional government. All the policing agencies and so on should look like private firms or at least friendly societies or something. By the way, leaving aside the notion of "most," I believe that those who Kinsella is calling classical liberals sometimes call themselves libertarians. Milton Friedman and James M. Buchanan are examples. Bill Woolsey Email: Bill.Woolsey@Citadel.edu Dept. of Business Administration Home: (803) 795-5062 The Citadel Office: (803) 953-5161 Charleston, South Carolina 29409 Fax: (803) 953-7084 U.S.A. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:01:30 -0500 From: holcombe@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Randall Holcombe) Bill Woolsey writes: > Roy Child's argument, roughly, was that government must be a monopoly >on the use of force. Where I live, I'm under the jurisdiction of the governments of the city of Tallahassee, Leon County, the State of Florida, and the United States. Their jurisdictions overlap not only geographically, but also with regard to the laws they enforce, so that our local crack dealer is violating the laws of all of the above-named governments. How can government be defined as a monopoly of anything, when there are so many of them? I thought a monopolist implied a single producer. Randy Holcombe ========================================================================= From: Pierre_Lemieux@UQAH.UQuebec.CA Date: Tue, 28 Jan 97 14:44:06 -0500 "How can government be defined as a monopoly of anything, when there are so many of them? I thought a monopolist implied a single producer." Sometimes, they form cartels, to share territories and/or jurisdiction. Most of the times, inferior governments are only creatures of the superior one. P.L. ========================================================================= From: "Aeon Skoble" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:51:16 +0000 Randy Holcombe writes: > How can government be defined as a monopoly of anything, when there > are so many of them? I thought a monopolist implied a single > producer. The government may still be defined as a monopoly because: (1) the hierarchy of authority - the Constitution is understood to be the supreme law of the land, hence no state government may make a law which violates federal law (and similarly between states and counties/cities). For instance, since kidnapping is a federal offense, the Florida legislature cannot legalize it. Now, it's true that because of separation-of-powers, some things are in the scope of one and not the other, e.g., there are no federal laws against, say, speeding, or shoplifting. Here's another way to think about it: university security guards are a separate "police force" from the government's, but that doesn't meant the state doesn't really monopolize authority: university "laws" cannot conflict with the state's laws. The university may "legislate" that no men be in the womens dorm, thus empowering the security guard to remove any who are found there, but he could not, say, castrate them. And, the university may not legalize heroin on campus. Elaborations are permitted, but basically, lesser jurisdictions cannot contradict higher jurisdictions. For instance, NY City has a higher driving age than the rest of the state, but they may not have a lower one. (2) the other reason it is correct to see the government as a monopoly is that all the "levels" of government you mention are parts of the whole. There is a unity of power throughout the branches of government, federal, state, and city, which explains _why_ the lesser jurisdiction cannot contradict the higher. The government os divided up into various segments, but it's power is univocal. NYC police have as much obligation to enforce federal law as city law and state law, it's just that this doesn't come up as often. So it's all one government, just intricately structured. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:47:09 -0500 From: holcombe@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Randall Holcombe) >Randy Holcombe writes: > >> How can government be defined as a monopoly of anything, when there >> are so many of them? I thought a monopolist implied a single >> producer. Aeon Skoble replies: >The government may still be defined as a monopoly because: >(2) the other reason it is correct to see the government as a >monopoly is that all the "levels" of government you mention are parts >of the whole. So, what you're implying is that when my local police department incarcerates me for drunk driving, they are really acting as a part of the federal government. Am I interpreting you correctly? (This interpretation would be plausible, but I don't think it would be correct because local police operate very autonomously from the federal government.) How about the U.S. intervention in Bosnia? Would the Bosnian government be the monopolist, or the U.S. government, or would they both be monopolists? With a multinational force, would the other participating governments be monopolists too? Randy Holcombe ========================================================================= From: "Aeon Skoble" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:56:01 +0000 > So, what you're implying is that when my local police department > incarcerates me for drunk driving, they are really acting as a part of the > federal government. Am I interpreting you correctly? No, that's not what I meant. I mean that there is a unity of law underlying the seeming "divisions" of government. The local authorities may elaborate on the laws of the broader authorities, but may not contradict them. Notice, for instance, in your example, that the local police are arresting you not for a violation of local law, but state law. (They're also empowered to arrest you for violations of federal law, this just doesn't come up as often.) It's one power structure, stratified and diffused to be sure, but with a hierarchy of authority clearly visible beneath. You said you were subject to federal, florida, county, and metro laws, but notice that florida laws are contradicted by your county, and no US laws are conradicted by fla. The layman's notion of "the man" is exactly right in this case - they are not different governments so much as different branches of "the government." > How about the U.S. intervention in Bosnia? That's not an example of ruling, it's simply a projection of force. That distinction given force by the lack of territorial claims. If the US government annexed Bosnia, it would be like (a more dangerous version of) Florida- the federal laws are supreme, but Bosnian laws would apply to all matters not spoken for by federal laws. Best, Aeon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:29:24 -0800 (PST) From: Fred Foldvary The word "minarchy" is used in *A Liberty Primer* by Alan Burris, 1983. The word will be in a dictionary by 1998. Fred Foldvary ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:43:57 -0800 From: jmlib (jmlib) I did a very brief Netsearch (on Yahoo) and didn't find "Minarchy" as a major topic, but I did find a decent Anarchist FAQ at http://www.princeton.edu/~bdcaplan/anarfaq.htm ... which has one section on "The minarchists' attack on anarcho-capitalism" ... complete with pictures of Rand, Nozick and Childs [pun unintended ;-)]. -- John McPherson (jmlib@lumina.ucsd.edu) * Host, Professors of Liberty Email Network (to post, send email to "libprofs@lumina.ucsd.edu" for admin functions, to "libprofs-request@lumina.ucsd.edu") * ftp://lumina.ucsd.edu/pub/.../libuniv_dir/libprofs.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:53:02 -0800 (PST) From: Fred Foldvary On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 nskinsella@shsl.com wrote: > the spectrum of governments (ranked by their > relative size & jurisdiction) seems to me to be something like this: > > 1. Anarcho-capitalism/anarchy > 2. minarchy/ultraminimalist state (no taxes) > 3. minimalist state/night watchman state (taxes) > 4. classical liberal, constitutionally limited republic > 5. welfare state > 6. socialism/communism/totalitarianism/fascism/theocracies We could also have a two-dimensional structure. Along one dimension is the size and scope of government. Another orthogonal dimension is the voluntariness of the government. One could have a thoroughly voluntary association that is big and performs many functions, and a network of these. Fred Foldvary ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:25:34 -0500 To: oppenheimer-soc-l@bu.edu, libprofs From: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca (Jan Narveson) Subject: anarchism site Let me second [John McPherson]'s pointer: Brian Caplan's work on anarchism is first-rate. He's very intelligent, very fair-minded, and extremely well versed in the relevant literature. To remind, it's at http://www.princeton.edu/~bdcaplan/anarfaq.htm __________________________________________________________________________ Jan Narveson (Professor) Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1 (519) 888-4567-1-2780# (from touch-tone); or 885-1211, ext. 2780 (via switchboard); FAX (519) 746-3097 Home: (519) 886-1673 (answering machine) e-mail: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca