Many people here are self-professed pronents of limited governemnt or minarchy. But I wonder how many have the same definition of what kinds of governments fit that description. Do people envision a Constitutional Federal Government or a return to the Articles of Confederation? Or do they advocate for local governance only? Eg county or city-wide.
There seems to be a very big difference between the two. Local governance is based in populism and the idea of individual sovereignty. But a "limited" Federal Government, or even State Governors, envisions a benevolent elite uniting the population.
Peace
I'd say that, on one level, "limited government" or "minarchy" is only relative. A government can be limited in comparison to another one.
Minarchism encompasses a pretty broad spectrum of notions of limited government. Constitutionalism is one route. Another one is the notion of restricting government to the provision of police, courts and defense. Or one could take the route of advocating a decentralized federation of city-states or counties with no federal government. Then we have the objectivists who advocate voluntary funding of government, starting to get fairly close to anarchism (although they won't admit that), yet still allow it to maintain a territorial monopoly. Some minarchists seem to advocate a pretty strong national military. Others, like Hayek even, seem to actually be fairly close to being social democrats on economic policy. And some minarchists don't sound particularly different from paleo-conservatives to me. So it seems like minarchism is fairly arbitrary, without much of a set definition, if you ask me.
This is a great topic, I am hoping some minarchists will chime in on it.
From what I gather, the idea of limited government is just enough government to use force against an invading country, a criminal citizenship and enough jails to hold them all. My mind races with all the support stuff needed just for that. I wish we could come up with a list of everything that would entail. I think that if we ultimately came up with such a list, the minarchists could see that "limited" government, although it sounds like a worthy goal, isn't all that much less than we have now. If anyone wants to work on a list like that, this seems like a good thread for that too me. I don't think the minarchists are exactly sure what limited government is, other than a slogan.
(Yes, I am trying to engage them, LOL)
One that is limited to protecting people from aggression and fraud, and more specifically one that does not protect them from themselves. Also, one where the scope of powers diminishes the higher up the structure of the government you go.
If it involves anything more than the provision of law, defence, order and perhaps roads, it is not minarchism as far as I am concerned, it is something else.
xahrx: One that is limited to protecting people from aggression and fraud, and more specifically one that does not protect them from themselves. Also, one where the scope of powers diminishes the higher up the structure of the government you go.
While I'm certainly not opposed to decentralization, is it really that good of an idea to have powerful local governments? I've always thought that there was a loophole in the state's rights doctrine in that state's rights has been used in a manner to make the states more powerful or excuse interventions on the state level. Of course, I'm not exactly calling for the federal government to crack down on the states. But in principle, if something is wrong, shouldn't it not take place at any level of government at all? Also, I do think that there are certain specific downsides to local government in that you are more directly accessable by the government.
Granted, it is true that a more state's rights and decentralized approach to government gives one the option to "vote with your feet". But doesn't this still reduce to a "love it or leave it" arguement (I.E. either put up with the government or be forcibly exiled from your own home)? And for some people it is not so easy to just up and move. It requires planning and resources. I don't see how the "love it or leave it" approach is any less invalid on the local or state level then it would be for an entire nation-state. Why can't I just cancel my "subscription" to the "government", stop recieving its services and paying for them, while still keeping my home? Why should it work any differently then McDonalds? McDonalds doesn't claim a territorial monopoly or force payment.
I think a problem with minarchism is that it doesn't take decentralization to its logical conclusion (individual sovereignty, individual secession). And, on the other hand, proponents of centralization rarely take it to its logical conclusion (global government).
xahrx:One that is limited to protecting people from aggression and fraud, and more specifically one that does not protect them from themselves. Also, one where the scope of powers diminishes the higher up the structure of the government you go.
Care to estimate how much government that is? Is that one police force, one jail, and one court in each town? Does it include paying for the needs of prisoners, or are they liable for their own bills while they are locked up? Medical, dental, mental health? And what about military? Does it include defense contractors, weapons development, etc.? I think, for all our benefit, a list of agencies and services and support workers would be a good place to get an idea of what is meant by limited government.
And how do you plan to fund said monopoly?
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Inquisitor:If it involves anything more than the provision of law, defence, order and perhaps roads, it is not minarchism as far as I am concerned, it is something else.
Why the over-funded, over-used, wasteful amount of roads as an excuse?
Brainpolice:Minarchism encompasses a pretty broad spectrum of notions of limited government. ...So it seems like minarchism is fairly arbitrary, without much of a set definition, if you ask me.
This is dead on target, in my view. From Jefferson's 'township' approach to current Cato pro-national government approach, you will find lots of positions which can be said to fit under a minarchist umbrella.
The real question, I think, at least the question I have for the minarchists is, moving from the ideal, wave a magic wand realm to the realm of the practical, which of the various minarchist systems envisioned are truly sustainable for a large country (say, the size of America) over a long period of time (several centuries)? That is, what steel reinforced concrete barriers can be erected to prevent the seemingly ineluctable slide into democracy and what we have today? The very structure of that system would need to remain firm even against the inevitable weakening of the citizenry's resolve to maintain liberty and a minimal State. So-called 'checks and balances' are a joke.
For damned sure, if taxing authority exists at ANY level above local, the system will degrade into something resembling what we have today. In order to be at all effective, the national government would have to be a permanently starved beast, and this would have to be a feature which could NOT be changed even if desired, except by overthrow of the governing structure. I am unaware of anything that would ensure this at the structural level.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
Brainpolice:While I'm certainly not opposed to decentralization, is it really that good of an idea to have powerful local governments? I've always thought that there was a loophole in the state's rights doctrine in that state's rights has been used in a manner to make the states more powerful or excuse interventions on the state level. Of course, I'm not exactly calling for the federal government to crack down on the states. But in principle, if something is wrong, shouldn't it not take place at any level of government at all? Also, I do think that there are certain specific downsides to local government in that you are more directly accessable by the government.
We must address this issue from an Austrian perspective and asking "Will this policy have the desired effect?"
Would increasing the scope of Federal violence reduce the amount of State violence enough to reduce total violence? History and logic tell us it doesn't.
I find accessablity to be a benefit to local government. Citizens out number government officials. A main reason Washinton DC was built was to escape the reach of The People.
ozzy43:For damned sure, if taxing authority exists at ANY level above local, the system will degrade into something resembling what we have today. In order to be at all effective, the national government would have to be a permanently starved beast, and this would have to be a feature which could NOT be changed even if desired, except by overthrow of the governing structure. I am unaware of anything that would ensure this at the structural level.
How would you ensure that taxation remained local? We've seen that governments can not be trusted to enforce their own limits.
The only way to prevent "revolutions within the form" is to leave enforcement of the anti-governments regulations to the people. And any system where the people, and not the government, possess the ability to make violence is hardly a government at all.
Niccolo:Why the over-funded, over-used, wasteful amount of roads as an excuse?
It's simply something some minarchists include in their ideology, as they argue that it is akin to defence in its status as a 'public good'. Arguably defence is just as bloated, wasteful and messy as roads, and as I'm not a minarchist you won't really get me to evince much support for a State, even a minimal one. 'Public goods' are a horrible reason for being a minarchist, given how nebulous the very notion is.
JonBostwick: Brainpolice:While I'm certainly not opposed to decentralization, is it really that good of an idea to have powerful local governments? I've always thought that there was a loophole in the state's rights doctrine in that state's rights has been used in a manner to make the states more powerful or excuse interventions on the state level. Of course, I'm not exactly calling for the federal government to crack down on the states. But in principle, if something is wrong, shouldn't it not take place at any level of government at all? Also, I do think that there are certain specific downsides to local government in that you are more directly accessable by the government. We must address this issue from an Austrian perspective and asking "Will this policy have the desired effect?" Would increasing the scope of Federal violence reduce the amount of State violence enough to reduce total violence? History and logic tell us it doesn't. I find accessablity to be a benefit to local government. Citizens out number government officials. A main reason Washinton DC was built was to escape the reach of The People.
I never suggested increasing the scope of federal violence. Just that increasing the scope of local violence hardly sounds good either. And my point was about you, as in average joe citezen, being more easily or directly accessable by the government at the local level. And citezens outnumber government officials by an even larger ratio at the federal level, so I think that's beside the point. Of course the federal level is more of an ivory tower because of this. But by no means is the more local level, in which I actually directly experience the government and its police, particularly great either.
I think another question to ask is: is a state's rights approach to government really particularly efficient at holding back state violence? In terms of the actual states themselves, I say hell no. We run into the exact same problem of centralization, just at a different level (I.E. now the counties and cities would be co-opted). Have we decreased the size of the geographic territory to worry about? Yes. Have we done anything to eliminate the fundamental problem of centralization? No, we still have the problem of centralization, just over a smaller territory. If we apply the logic of decentralization consistantly, we should end up at the individual eventually.
The only alternative to state's rights is Federal dictation. The idea of federalism was never meant to limit the power of the several states. The state governments are deliberately much more powerful than the Constitution empowered the Federal government to be.
You have to remember that the states came first. The federal government was created solely to increase centralization.
State governments are more local than the Federal government but are not local governance.
Brainpolice:While I'm certainly not opposed to decentralization, is it really that good of an idea to have powerful local governments?
Maybe not, but that wasn't the question.
The only alternative to state's rights is Federal dictation.
I disagree. How about individual sovereignty? And state's rights is certainly not the only type of decentralization. It is quite "moderate" actually. Decentralization can go much further.
You have to remember that the states came first. The federal government was created solely to increase centralization
I don't disagree. I'm not argueing in favor of the federal government. I'm just argueing against government in general, and a critical view of local and state government is also implied in this.
Sure. I'm critisizing both state and local governance though. That does not necessarily equate to apologia for or advocation of federal or national government.