This doesn't need to become a debate thread, as we have several going on the topic; I'm just curious how the forum breaks down.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-01-2017 at 05:21 PM.
I'm a pretty big fan of both.
The biggest 'con' of minarchism seems to be that it eventually leads to bigger government since people who want power will gravitate toward running the government and expanding it - also should mention that it is not perfect under NAP or voluntarism, there is some coercion involved, although minimal.
The biggest 'pro' of minarchism as opposed to anarchy seems to be that minarchism has the goal and the power to impose a fair standard of law and order. Anarchy it would seem might have some complex issues in this department, although it doesn't mean there cannot be a fair standard of law and order under anarchy.. There certainly are a lot of ideas about how to do that.
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
Define the terms and I'll play.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Anarchist: "the state should be abolished and a free market in security should replace it"Originally Posted by otherone
Minarchist: "that would be nice, but it isn't actually possible, hence the goal should be to keep the state as small as possible, not abolish it."
Eh, minarchist with the ultimate goal of anarchy.
Is believing that one has the freedom to maintain their own security anarchy?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
I don't know what that means.
If you're asking whether belief in a right to self-defense qualifies one as an anarchist, no, it doesn't.
It's the quintessential "private" security force. Where you object is if I pay someone else to provide it on my behalf. Some people like to change their own oil. Some don't.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
It sounds like you can go ahead and check the "I'm an anarchist" box.
As should you, as you believe private self-defense is a right.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
To repeat myself..
It would be swell if people could secure their rights by hiring one of many freely competing private defense agencies.Anarchist: "the state should be abolished and a free market in security should replace it"
Minarchist: "that would be nice, but it isn't actually possible, hence the goal should be to keep the state as small as possible, not abolish it."
And such an arrangement is impossible.
Hence minarchism.
"Hire"? Huh? "Free Market" means simply "non-compulsory". That means you; without government, protecting your family with a shotgun. Or you and your cousins protecting your land, or MAYBE hiring help. This arrangement isn't possible?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
xxxxx
Last edited by Voluntarist; 07-27-2018 at 10:38 PM.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.
No
if that were really true sir... we would get along famously.
if I might point it out. (just in case you did not notice) you are VERY clearly "anti-Federalist"
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
I believe anarchy should be held as a option and a goal no matter what. It keeps the debate in the spectrum it should be. To surrender the idea that it is possible and something to be held up as a goal is simply implying you don't believe we can ever live without oversight. Therefore man cannot fly because he has no wings.
Whether or not it is achievable in our lifetime matters not, the desire for freedom from a central governing power should never be abandoned. We are not bees we are human.
And ya, poll needs more options is my vote.
Neither. I'm a Smallerist. I want government to be smaller than it is, and will probably ever be. I believe that both Anarchists and Minarchists should unite with all Smallerists so the government shrinks to the point that some of you start jumping ship. Until that happens these debates are a waste of time.
I went with anarchist , I could even do monarchy if I am King .
No REAL Smallerist want a coalition. You're a paid troll Embiggenist, aren't you?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
End goal and strategy are different things.
Both anarchists and minarchists should be "smallerists."
But that's not the question.
Recognizing reality is never a bad thing.
@specsaregood
You're not a libertarian?
No way, it sounds way too exhausting. I'm just an $#@!.
Epic derp.
Iambic potato
I'd like to see politics abolished, and I don't mean either the anarchist or goo-goo solution.
But that's another story.
Why do you keep harping on this?if that were really true sir... we would get along famously.
if I might point it out. (just in case you did not notice) you are VERY clearly "anti-Federalist"
We've been over it a million $#@!ing times.
I am an "Anti Federalist" in that, had I been there in 1787, I would have been opposed to the national CONstitution as presented, for the reasons that have all come true, a huge federal government that tramples the rights of citizens and a King/President and regulatory state issuing fatwas and edicts from on high.
Anti Federalism has nothing at all to do with opposition to a "federation" per se, other than to continue to point out that any federation, the larger it gets, the more likely it is to become tyrannical.
The "Federalists" were in favor of the Philadelphia counter revolution.
The "Anti Federalists" opposed them.
The Anti-Federalists
In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights. The Anti-Federalists weren't exactly a united group, but instead involved many elements.
One faction opposed the Constitution because they thought stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states. Others argued that a new centralized government would have all the characteristics of the despotism of Great Britain they had fought so hard to remove themselves from. And still others feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties.
During the push for ratification, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus," " Centinel", and "Federal Farmer," but some famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution.
Although the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in the prevention of the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of Rights.
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us...-great-debate/
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 11-01-2017 at 08:12 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us