# Minarchism: How "min" is too "min"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617 "2013-05-06T14:44:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/1 "2013-05-06T14:44:01Z")
In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=689112), **Der Trihs** wrote, in reference to the difference between anarchist and minarchist libertarianism: > [@Der Trihs](#): > > A government as limited as what minarchists want is a crippled government, incapable of doing anything useful. Anarchistic libertarianism and minarchism both end up in some form of neo-feudalism/warlordism, with the wealthy “lords” ruling over the “serfs”; the only real difference in real terms between them is that in the latter case the minarchists have government aid in suppressing any revolt by the serfs. This is a sentiment I’ve encountered before, so I thought it bore discussion. So, the question: What are the minimum powers a government needs so as to be functional and enduring? I would say: 1. **The power to tax**. Without it, the government either doesn’t exist or has no reliable source of funds, whomever controls the funds would control the state. 2. **The power to enforce laws** , meaning police and courts. Without it, the government’s laws are meaningless, and anyone capable of actually providing justice and order would win popular loyalty away from the state. 3. **The power to raise armies**. Without it, the government is easily toppled, as power ultimately is rooted in force. 4. **The power to legislate externalities**. Without it, the people would seek extralegal remedies for harm inflicted by others, and again, whomever was capable of providing such a remedy would be the de facto government. That seems to be the bare minimum to me. Essentially, the government has to be funded, and have a monopoly on force. This can be maintained so long as there is a functioning criminal-justice and civil court apparatus. Thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/2 "2013-05-06T14:58:00Z")
Disclaimer: ask twenty different people what they mean by anarchy/minarchy and you’ll get fifty different answers. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > the government has to \<\> have a monopoly on force. In the sense that the government’s #1 purpose is to insure that no one else imposes a government. Externally, it protects the country from invasion and internally smashes any would-be warlords; and otherwise leaves the people alone as much as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/3 "2013-05-06T15:10:31Z")
Should the government have the right to enforce free trade and/or open borders between the states? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/4 "2013-05-06T15:18:51Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > In the sense that the government’s #1 purpose is to insure that no one else imposes a government. Externally, it protects the country from invasion and internally smashes any would-be warlords; and otherwise leaves the people alone as much as possible. Agreed; and I argue that the powers a government needs to prevent warlords or other internal rivals to its authority, and thus a lords/serfs scenario, are quite modest. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/5 "2013-05-06T15:32:35Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Should the government have the right to enforce free trade and/or open borders between the states? I’d say yes to open borders, in that a national government only meaningfully exists if there’s a nation to govern. States or any other sub-national realm holding citizens captive, or turning away other citizens of the nation, is unacceptable in a sovereign nation. To free trade, that’s a more complex question. It would depend upon what form the restrictions took: a sales tax? Or the outright prohibition of goods from other states? ---
**Author:** ![CoastalMaineiac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@CoastalMaineiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoastalMaineiac)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/6 "2013-05-06T15:35:22Z")
I don’t know that I fit the bill of a minarchist (isn’t that just a new word for libertarian?), but were I to design a government, the thing I would want limited the most would be its ability to imprison people. We drastically overuse prisons in this country. Many offenses would be better suited to civil court and financial restitution. Many “offenses” are not offending anything but the sensibilities of some worthless stuffed suits who happen to hold positions in the legislature. Justice should be based on making whole (as nearly as possible) the wronged party. If there is no wronged party, then “Justice” should but out. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/7 "2013-05-06T15:35:59Z")
Most small-government types are okay with all functions of government that don’t bother them or cost them anything. But fail to pave their street in turn, and youse gotta fight. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/8 "2013-05-06T15:58:54Z")
What about the setting of minimum standards when it comes to wages and/or welfare? Can a nation remain strong if a race to the bottom takes place between the states? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/9 "2013-05-06T16:10:15Z")
> [@CoastalMaineiac](#): > > Justice should be based on making whole (as nearly as possible) the wronged party. If there is no wronged party, then “Justice” should but out. Let me see if I understand you correctly. I steal $1000 from you. If I am caught, I return $1000, you’re “made whole” and I go free. I I am not caught, I keep the $1000 and you’re out $1000. Is that the scenario you’re looking for? If so, please explain what the incentive is NOT to steal? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/10 "2013-05-06T16:11:37Z")
I’d like to inject this into the discussion: that government is not some third-party element, be it predator, parasite, or separate benign or beneficial entity; it is **us** , doing collectively what needs to be done for everyone who needs it. I absolutely loathe the current base for discussion, used by assumption by even by the smarmiest big-gummint libbrals, that it’s “us v. them” or even “us and them” and not just… us. No, it’s not “government’s” job to do these things; it’s ours. We form a government of the necessary size and complexity to achieve these goals, even though none of them has 100% approval by “us.” I have yet to meet a small- or min-government type who was willing to cut anything that benefited hir peculiar needs, no matter how self-serving and contradictory that stance was. ---
**Author:** ![Reno\_Nevada](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Reno\_Nevada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reno_Nevada)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/11 "2013-05-06T16:17:22Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 1. **The power to tax**. Without it, the government either doesn’t exist or has no reliable source of funds, whomever controls the funds would control the state. > 2. **The power to enforce laws** , meaning police and courts. Without it, the government’s laws are meaningless, and anyone capable of actually providing justice and order would win popular loyalty away from the state. > 3. **The power to raise armies**. Without it, the government is easily toppled, as power ultimately is rooted in force. > 4. **The power to legislate externalities**. Without it, the people would seek extralegal remedies for harm inflicted by others, and again, whomever was capable of providing such a remedy would be the de facto government. Does this minimal government have the power to \*\*pass \*\*laws? You don’t list it here, and seriously, do you think a government can be formed that doesn’t have that power? If the government does not have that power, how many generations will it last before new technologies create new problems that were not foreseen at the beginning? If the government DOES have the power to pass laws, you will see a steady parade of additional powers. Because, really, we WANT government to regulate things like air and water quality, food safety, highway safety, and so on. Evidence: pretty much every government on Earth in the 20th century. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/12 "2013-05-06T16:35:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What about the setting of minimum standards when it comes to wages and/or welfare? Can a nation remain strong if a race to the bottom takes place between the states? That’s not a power the government needs to continue to exist and function, no. Which, inelegantly stated, is what I was driving at: would a minarchist government of the type advocated for by minarchist libertarians inevitably result in a neofeudal, warlord-ruled nation? > [@Amateur Barbarian](#): > > I’d like to inject this into the discussion: that government is not some third-party element, be it predator, parasite, or separate benign or beneficial entity; it is **us** , doing collectively what needs to be done for everyone who needs it. I absolutely loathe the current base for discussion, used by assumption by even by the smarmiest big-gummint libbrals, that it’s “us v. them” or even “us and them” and not just… us. > > No, it’s not “government’s” job to do these things; it’s ours. We form a government of the necessary size and complexity to achieve these goals, even though none of them has 100% approval by “us.” This is true, but like all large, old, institutions, the government assumes a life and identity of its own, and serves its own needs first. It is accountable to its voters, but imperfectly so. To a very real degree, the government is a separate entity from the people. > [@Amateur Barbarian](#): > > I have yet to meet a small- or min-government type who was willing to cut anything that benefited hir peculiar needs, no matter how self-serving and contradictory that stance was. I have, so they do exist. > [@Reno Nevada](#): > > Does this minimal government have the power to **pass** laws? You don’t list it here, and seriously, do you think a government can be formed that doesn’t have that power? > > If the government does not have that power, how many generations will it last before new technologies create new problems that were not foreseen at the beginning? > > If the government DOES have the power to pass laws, you will see a steady parade of additional powers. Because, really, we WANT government to regulate things like air and water quality, food safety, highway safety, and so on. Evidence: pretty much every government on Earth in the 20th century. Yes, see #4. Air and water quality, food safety, and highway safety all fall under it. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/13 "2013-05-06T16:37:57Z")
The answers to the OP are likely to differ depending on whether we’re talking about a minarchist federal government above state governments that are not minarchist or a unitary minarchist polity (i.e., one without states as sub-sovereign entities). **Czarcasm** is assuming the former, but the OP seems to be postulating the latter. Maybe the OP can clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/14 "2013-05-06T17:04:08Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The answers to the OP are likely to differ depending on whether we’re talking about a minarchist federal government above state governments that are not minarchist or a unitary minarchist polity (i.e., one without states as sub-sovereign entities). > > **Czarcasm** is assuming the former, but the OP seems to be postulating the latter. Maybe the OP can clarify. I was trying to keep things general enough so as be to applicable to any nation, and not just the United States. That seems to be in keeping with the warlords-replace-minimal-government idea. So, I’ll clarify: assuming that sub-sovereign entities either don’t exist or are organized along similarly minarchist lines, what are the minimum powers a government needs so as to function and endure, and how well does that minimum match minarchist government proposals made by libertarians? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/15 "2013-05-06T17:06:09Z")
HA, I’ve met mins who SAID they were willing to take personal cuts, but the smallest amount of prodding revealed that they were unwilling to give up any governmental service of consequence. Maybe honest ones are out there; I still have yet to meet one. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/16 "2013-05-06T17:07:16Z")
I’ll reduce my OP further: to exist and keep existing, a government must be the sole provider of social order and justice that involves force. It can accomplish this by not giving people a reason to turn to a warlord or other extra-legal actor to solve their problems. ---
**Author:** ![CoastalMaineiac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@CoastalMaineiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoastalMaineiac)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/17 "2013-05-06T18:18:07Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Let me see if I understand you correctly. I steal $1000 from you. If I am caught, I return $1000, you’re “made whole” and I go free. I I am not caught, I keep the $1000 and you’re out $1000. Is that the scenario you’re looking for? > > If so, please explain what the incentive is NOT to steal? Well, in my hypothetical, fictitious society, a non-violent thief would be made to pay back double what he stole. Crimes of violence, on the other hand, are a very appropriate use of prisons. So if you pick my pocket and steal 1,000 dollars, you end up paying me back double. If you point a gun at me and demand the money, you pay me back double while in prison doing hard labor. The greater point I was trying to make is that we are far too eager in this country to mete out punishment that does not fit the crime. Someone flicks a booger on the sidewalk in this country, and we want to lock him up for 20 years. Life is far too valuable to allow the government to waste it over petty things. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/18 "2013-05-06T18:23:22Z")
> [@CoastalMaineiac](#): > > Well, in my hypothetical, fictitious society, a non-violent thief would be made to pay back double what he stole. But that’s not what “make whole” means… > [@](#): > > Crimes of violence, on the other hand, are a very appropriate use of prisons. So if you pick my pocket and steal 1,000 dollars, you end up paying me back double. If you point a gun at me and demand the money, you pay me back double while in prison doing hard labor. I can support that. The only problem I see is that holding someone prisoner (in modern, humane, conditions) costs a lot. And if you use that “hard labor” to pay for it, there is the slippery slope towards involuntary servitude. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/19 "2013-05-06T18:40:04Z")
The hole in the “The thief is made to pay back twice the amount” logic is that if the thief had that much money he likely might not have stolen it in the first place. If he can’t possibly pay it back does he go to jail anyway, or does this minimalist government provide him a job that will pay enough for him to live on _plus_ regular payments on the court-ordered debt? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617/20 "2013-05-06T18:54:02Z")
I don’t see why someone should make a profit from being the victim of theft. Being made whole is getting your money back plus whatever you might have lost because of the theft (bouncing checks. late fees, etc.) Make the thief compensate the victim fully and serve a sentence commeasurate with the crime. I’m not a fan of either minarchy or anarchy or libertarianism. There are certain things that government does a whole lot better than anyone (highways, TVA, etc), some regulations that nearly everybody agrees with (food inspections and the like). When your ideology says you have to throw out the sensible in search of the ideal, then I think your ideology is bunk. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minarchism-how-min-is-too-min/657617.md?page=2)