I was reading this article in reason about the divisions between anarchists and minarchists. I think we all generally know how that goes, but here is a link:
http://reason.com/archives/2018/09/0...n-anarchist-no
I was out pondering this in the woods this weekend, and I was thinking the following about anarchists.
If we all agree that we should follow the non-aggression principle, then I think what both minarchists and anarchists can agree on is that government violates this principle. As things stand, government is the chief violator of this principle in the world.
However, we can also all probably agree it is not the only violator of the non-aggression principle. Individuals and gangs and other entities have been known to violate this as well.
It seems to me, for the pure anarchist, you could reduce the size and scope of government to a point where the greater violator of the non-aggression principle in the world are individuals and other non-government entities.
At that point, if you cannot erase violations of the non-aggression principle by individuals and other non-government entities, why struggle to stop this type of conduct in government before stopping it in individuals and non-government entities? At least government has the advantage of also providing a recourse against violators of the non-aggression principle?
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us