In civics, minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism or small government, is the view that the size, role and influence of government in a free society should be minimal - only large enough to protect the liberty of each and every individual, without violating the liberty of any individuals itself. Many minarchists consider themselves part of the libertarian tradition, and claim that what they call minarchy continues the traditions of classical liberal philosophy. The term is perhaps most often used to differentiate libertarians that believe it is possible to have a state that protects individual liberty without violating it itself, from the anarchists who believe that any state is inherently a violation of individual liberty. Minarchists believe some minimal government is necessary to preserve liberty (from invading non-minarchy based armies, if nothing else).

Minarchists agree that the guiding principle in determining what should or should not fall into the domain of the government is the maximization of individual liberty. Minarchists often disagree on exactly how to accomplish this. Many minarchists usually agree that government should be restricted to its "minimal" or "night watchman" state functions of government (e.g., courts, police, prisons, defense forces). Some minarchists include in the ideal role of government the management of essential common infrastructure (e.g., roads, money). In general, minarchists favor expansion of power in a government of a small jurisdiction (like a city or county) over a larger jurisdiction (like a state or nation). This leaves individuals who wish to avoid living or working under the expansion more options (it's easier to move to another city or county than to move to another state or country). Minarchists are generally opposed to government programs that either transfer wealth or subsidize certain sectors of the economy. However, many minarchists support taxation and/or monopolies of the minimal state and thus some redistribution of wealth and subsidies to the state.

Some minarchists explain their vision of the state by referring to basic principles rather than arguing in terms of pragmatic results. For example, in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia Robert Nozick defines the role of a minimal state as follows:

"Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection."

Other minarchists instead use utilitarian arguments. They might use theoretical economic arguments, like Ludwig von Mises's contribution to Austrian economics, or statistical economic research, like the Index of Economic Freedom.

Other arguments for minarchism are natural rights, contractarianism and egalitarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Sounds good? I belive more in this than simple anarchism. Any ideas about it?
Prominent minarchists include Benjamin Constant, Herbert Spencer, Leonard Read, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, James M. Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, John Hospers, Robert Nozick, George Reisman.

The problem is that some of those people you mentioned are horribly associated with Capitalism (Rand), the New Right (Nozick) and Neo-Liberalism (Friedman).

Yes, you may as well have promoted national socialism on the basis that it has the word "socialism" in it, ergo it is "good".

Just ignore the fact that it screws over the people.

If you actually look at the work of Rand or Mises, they're no better than Hitler or Mussolini. None care about the welfare of the people, and in all cases (theoretic and in practice) actually oppose a workers' democracy. It goes against the "economic freedom" to buy and sell people.

Minarchists are merely fascists with a mercenary force (rather than a "statist" one). How is this in any sense of the word "revolutionary"?

Maybe you were trying to say reactionary.

Reactionary? No I don't think so...

Just because they do not support what you believe is 'caring about the welfare of the people', does in no way make them as bad as Hitler or Mussolini. They supported things that was in the long run better for the people - freedom from oppression.

That's because democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.

Obviously not if people own themselves.

Icons of the neoliberal right, aggressively anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-trade-unions, etc.

More of the same; less theoretical, more "didatic".

The "phylosopher" of the movement, crazed, drooling anti-communist and anti-working class.

Like it or not, a very far-right team; their model would be XIX century capitalism, without unions and freedom of organisation for the working class.

Their State is "minimal" because it should include only the minimal set of functions of a bourgeois State: military aggression/defence against other States and political repression against the populace.

By "political repression of the populace", yes, I mean the death penalty for the crime of being unionised. And cavalry charges against unarmed workers on strike.

Luís Henrique

How much Rand or Mises have you actually read?

I'm by no means a Rand fan and I fully understand that she opposes this.

IT's obvious you didn't comprehend what you read (If your read anything at all) because it's one of her basic tenets.

And I don't think Mises ever said anything of the sort; you're projecting.

Anti-communist? Duh.

Anti-sociliast? But of course.

Anti-trade-union? How so?

More accessible.

I'll grant you this; Rand sucked.

Capitalism didn't even exist then.

They oppose trade unions ideologically, but would do nothing, READ: absolutely nothing to curtail or stop them.

A free market is a free market for unions as well.

No free marketer would ever deny freedom of organiszation for anyone, anywhere for any reason.

You're making this up as you go along and it shows.

Are the only indictments against capitalism that you have mere figmants of your imagination?

Political repression?

How so?

A minarchist state wouldn't have have the apperati to do such a thing.

A minarchist government would likely not have the death penalty at all, certainly wouldn't arrest anyone for unionization, and wouldn't own any horses.

The absurdity of your arguments is utterly hilarious. It's like me saying:

"I oppose Communism, because under communism Karl Marx and his zombie hoards will eat the brains of all the innocent men, women and children!"

It's totally a fabrication on your part, and a poor, poorly guised one at that.

"Freedom from oppression" from the "state"? Yes, but from the Mercenaries? No.

Is it really a priority to actually give people freedom according to these philistines? So long as they can afford it.

So thus the sheep has the "right" to be self-elected despot?

Oh wait, the wolves don't matter anyway. They don't have property, so they are de facto not important. They are just waiting to become property.

And sell themselves, philistine. If one cannot afford food, water, or shelter, one would willingly submit one's self to slavery to survive.

What is there to prevent the capitalists from doing this under your dystopia? It's an economic transition afterall, the government can't intervene.

There is freedom under laissez-faire...for the slave owners!

i thought Nozick was an anarcho-capitalist... though "anarchy, state, and utopia" has had some good stuff in it from what i've read

It's clear that continuing this debate is pointless.

No minarchist would support mercenaries and no minarchist has ever advocated or supported them, or would.

It's antithetical to minarchism's a priori assumptions and beliefs.

This isn't a cogent thought.

Please parse your syntax.

Again, you betray your ignorance of the subject.

They can be no elected despots under minarchism, just as there can be none under communism.

Is 'philistine' the Word of The Day or something?

One would not be allowed to sell one's self into slavery. Once you make yourself a slave, you lose the privilage of selling anything, thus you lose the privilage of selling yourself, thus you are no longer a slave.

Yet again, do you have any clue what a minarchist state is or does?

It only exists to protect individual rights.

THat's its sole job.

This must make a great argument in your head.

Your good intentions will not stop rich people from hiring mercenaries and thugs to brutalize working people. Ever hear of the Pinkertons?

Minarchism is more often called "libertarianism" in the U.S. A more accurate name would be "propertarianism."

Trade unions would be collusions; they hamper the free trade, by blocking the individual workers their "freedom" to rent themselves at the lowest possible price.

Yes.

hm, now I have an image stuck into my brains.

Capitalism didn't exist in the XIX century? Well, this is a new one... can you explain it to us?

Of course they would; they believe unions are "corporativist", remnants of medieval guilds, and should be outlawed. In their views, trade unions hamper free-trade. And of course free marketers would deny freedom of organisation, as long as they saw the goal of such organisation as illegal. And (at least some) free marketers would believe collusions should be illegal, and trade unions a form of collusion.

Hear, the OP was asking if Mises & Rand could possibly be some kind of ultra-leftists, not if capitalism was OK. I think you are as able as me to figure out that Hayek and Friedman aren't in any way radical socialists...

Police? Was't/isn't it used to break strikes?

Come on. Let's read again the OP:

The "night watchman" image is commonplace for the liberal-repressive bourgeois State of the XIX century. I fail to see what the opposition is between "minimal State" and death penalty, outlawing of unions, and mounted police.

Let's then review Rand's, Mises', and Hayek's texts, as well as XIX (and early XX) century history of bourgeois States?

Well well, if it isn't comrade red.

Wow. A lot of thought must have gone into that one. I don't see how you can possible venture an opinion on this one, seeing as you haven't read either Mises or Rand (apart from the odd snippet quoted on the internet. By the way, have you had any luck in finding that made up Ayn Rand book you were always quoting from?).

This whole paragraph is proof enough that you haven't read mises at all. I don't think minarchists (of which I am one) are interested in building a 'worker democracy', 'worker dictatorship' or anything else. I want a world for everyone, not a master race of so-called workers. Neither you, nor the rest of your political movement care about the welfare of the people nor 'economic freedom' (which you vehemently oppose) nor about people being bought and sold (although you do actually aggree with it, but only when it's called something else). The only people who have ever benifited from communism have been the tiny ruling elite. Before you start screaming at me that this wasn't supposed to happen and wasn't representative of 'true' communism, why does it happen in every case? Because there were no safeguards to prevent it. Our system has those safeguards.

Note to others: One thing you will learn about comrade red is that his arguments make little logical sense and frequently contradict themselves.

Livetrueordie

Anarcho capitalism is silly. It turns the governement into the mafia.

Pubilus

I'll admit that I didn't particualrly warm to it when I first read it, but if you can wade through the sometimes pointless repetitiveness, some of it is particuarly useful. Namely the ethical justification for laissez faire capitalism. The reds don't like it when someone puts a dent in their moral smugness. Stuff the aesthetics, though; I think that art is subjective, but I guess that is going off topic.

Severian

Wouldn't doing that be in breach of their individual rights? We don't have one rule for one group of people and one rule for another, you know.

My biggest question to minarchists and anacro-capitalists is how would you implement your system? Business seems to like the state since it buys all its politicians and writes all the laws (telecom laws or copyright laws are generally put together by orgs. paid for by companies in that industry and then given to lawmakers who introduce them to legislative bodies). In companies in the US feally felt repressed unduely by the government then the US would look like Venusuela did a few years ago with bosses strikes and companies would be pulling their money out. All capitalist governments are based on how best to allow the economy to function; when there are worker's movements which threaten business, then the government may put reforms in place but this is only to ease labor/capital tensions not because the government is somehow pro-worker.

My guess is that there is no plan for implementation because these "ideologies" are really just utopian-capitalism and a tale to tell to make it seem like capitalism could be run in a better way in theory. Most of these ideas were created after WWII to argue against Keensian capitalism (which was the accepted logic in capitalism at the time) but have since become some sort of capitalist cults for people who believe that if it wasn't for the government they could be business owners too and not have to work at shitty jobs like the rest of us.

The one where she prooves how Russians never smile? Every book by Ayn Rand is "made-up".

Master race of workers? That's like saying the American revolution's goal was a master race of American colonists. Or the French Revolution's goal was a master race of shop keepers.

Yeah, I oppose economic freedom of some over others and support economic democracy. What's this B.S. about slavery? I oppose private ownership, you are the one who supports it if it called slavery or by any other name.

In every modern society the world has ever known, it was only a tiny minorety of people who benifited. Socialism has only been attempted a handful times (whereas Stalinism has been implemented all over the place in the 20th century) and was defeated either externally or internally, so to say that Stalinism is the natural outcome of all attempts to build worker's power is like saying that Napoelon and wars are the inherent result if you try and overthrow a monarch in favor of a republic. How long did it take for Europe to transform from a feudal system to a capitalist one? How many revolutions were there inbetween?

How does minimalism safegaurd from the rule of a tiny eliete? Capitalism can't work if everyone has eough money and power. Additionally, Monopoly is one of the main drives in capitalism.

One set of rules for some people and another for everyone else? Well that describes capitalism pretty well. All you have to do is look at prisons and laws for corporate crooks vs. laws for petty crooks. If I stole the mdeical plans for 1000 people or stole the retirement money from 1000 people I would be locked up for a long time... capitalists never get locked up for runing the lives of 1000s of people by laying them off or gutting pensions or benifits: they get rewarded by their stockholders for such crimes.

Even when companies do something which is illegal as far as the laws, they arn't accountable! If I dumped some chemicals into a river, I'd get locked up, if a company does this systematically, they get a fine (after a lengthy court battle) and no one gets put in prison since corporations can't be held accountable like that.

Right. "The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges" as Anatole France put it.

And the law allows rich and poor alike to hire "security guards" to "protect their property." Of course, not everyone can afford that equally.

Only that big, bad, oppressive state can limit what those security guards can do to others.

Yes.

Were they mercenaries, or security gaurds?

Our opinions will be different.

Oversimplification at best.

Minarchsim is just one form of libertarianism.

Personally, I don't quite consider myself a minarchist.

So?

Minarchists are not anti-collusionist.

At all.

You have the freedom to associate with anyone for any reason, including hampering trade.

Minarchists aren't PRO-trade, their anti-government.

Apologies, I read your Roman numerals incorrectly.

No they don't.

They certainly oppose them as collectivist, but don't think they should be outlawed. Period.

They do. So what?

No 'free marketer' would make collusion illegal; then they wouldn't be FREE marketer.

The free-market isn't a goal to be achieved, it's a process to be allowed.

Wouldn't be.

The 'minimal' state may or may not have the death penalty, would have no power to outlaw unions (And wouldn't desire to) and would have police.

Let's.

I don't need her morality, I have my own.