Anarchism vs. Minarchism

[DavidOdden]

Are you saying that every rational person will be worse off if there is no government to enforce uniform and objective law? Why/how?

Absolutely every person. Law should be predictive -- it should say "In this context, this action (cause) has that consequence (effect)." It's like gravity, which you can count on. Imagine how things would be if some of the time, gravity just took a holiday. Nobody would be better off. Some people might be better able to accomodate to the unlawful violation of the law of gravity, but knowledge of gravity would not be something that you could use rationally. Same with law.

[Constans Augustus]

I'm going to ask a few questions here (Note: I am not an anarcho-capitalist).

1. How do you ensure that a small government stays small? Checks and balances haven't exactly worked.

2. How can a government be voluntarily funded and still have the capital to maintain an army, courts & security forces?

3. Should the government provide basic public services like roads & sea walls?

4. When do people have the right to change their form of government (AKA: rebel)?

Here's a bit from the Austrian Economics forum (Which I recommend you all join).

An example model of anarchist law-enforcement has recently been described, and cited on this forum. Namely, the victim's defense organization invites the accused perp into arbitration. If the accused refuses, then the defense organization makes the case to the arbitrator anyway. If the arbitrator declares the accused to be guilty, then the defense organization invokes its standing agreements with the owners of the roads, utilities, etc., and they ban the perp from use of the roads, cut off his utilities, refuse to sell him groceries, etc. At that point he has two choices: try to survive without any of the amenities of society, or capitulate to the terms set out by the defense organization.

Nobody claims that fraud will cease to exist if the state is outlawed. However, as illustrated above, powerful punishments are available. In the case of outright fraud, the defense organizations will be incented to do what law enforcement never will: to exact reparations from the perpetrator. If reparations are impossible, as is likely the case with Enron (assuming, arguendam, that all charges are true), then the convicts will live in penal colonies providing outsourced accounting in exchange for room and board for the rest of their lives. Or whatever "punishment" is invented by the market at work.

But without government, the biggest perpetrators of fraud will cease to exist. To be outraged at Enron, and not at social "security" and related programs, is laughable. There's no comparison between the two. One bilked a small segment of the public, who invested voluntarily at their own risk, of millions, while the other bilks everyone, at the point of a gun, of trillions. That's billions of millions. At gunpoint.

The assumption is that defense companies will find it in their interests to cooperate and work together to enforce their policies.

[~Sophia~]

I may not have a full answer but I do have few suggestions.

1. How do you ensure that a small government stays small? Checks and balances haven't exactly worked.

You can ensure that a government is going to stay small by restricting its purpose (to what we have discussed) and never allowing it to expand beyond that purpose.

You can keep government small by never allowing it to play a role of ensuring the economic welfare of its citizens. You have to keep it away from economy, health care, education, and the environment and the such.

2. How can a government be voluntarily funded and still have the capital to maintain an army, courts & security forces?

Personally, I do not think that a government can sustain itself from lotteries and donations. Some taxes are necessary, you just won’t go to jail for not paying them, thus the word voluntary. Limited government won’t be expensive, so those taxes would be minimal and not at all a hindrance to your economic prosperity.

3. Should the government provide basic public services like roads & sea walls?

No public services beyond the police, the army, and the courts.

[Inspector]

2. How can a government be voluntarily funded and still have the capital to maintain an army, courts & security forces?

The cost of a government like that would be so small, by today's standards, that it would blow your mind.

Even the costs of police, courts, and military would be smaller with a little more reason in play. (i.e., no self-sacrificial wars of altruism, no frivolous lawsuits, no war on drugs)

[DavidOdden]

1. How do you ensure that a small government stays small? Checks and balances haven't exactly worked.

You can't "guarantee" that other people will do anything. You can make it more likely, by explicitly recognizing the proper function of government in the founding documents, and restricting government to just those functions.

2. How can a government be voluntarily funded and still have the capital to maintain an army, courts & security forces?

Voluntary contributions by rational men who understand how a civilized society is in their interest.

3. Should the government provide basic public services like roads & sea walls?

Of course not.

4. When do people have the right to change their form of government (AKA: rebel)?

When the change results in greater respect for rights.

[Lathanar]

1. How do you ensure that a small government stays small? Checks and balances haven't exactly worked.

Checks and Balances are to control the abuse and concentration of power within the government structure, not to limit the size.