Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Minarchism or ministatism?

This post has 44 Replies | 11 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 523
Points 8,850
Solredime replied on Mon, Feb 18 2008 5:56 PM

It's a new anti-spam filter they're using here I think, and it's been giving funny results. Anyway, it's apparently still in the process of being "fine-tuned". 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 297
Points 4,060
macsnafu replied on Wed, Feb 20 2008 11:05 PM

Fred Furash:
Anarchy, means no government, where archos means ruler, and the prefix 'an' means none. Since the word min-archy no longer contains the prefix 'an', it effectively means a minimum of archos, or rulers

Exactly.  anarchy is an- [without} -archy [rulers].   Minarchy doesn't mean limited anarchy, it means minimal rulers or minimal government.

I still favor anarchism to minarchism, however (the ideology, not the word).

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 112
Points 1,460
TomG replied on Thu, Feb 21 2008 3:31 AM

a mutual understanding of rules (dare I say social contract) are inherent to any society (population greater than one) - therefore pure anarchy never exists, rather there's some compromise of personal autonomy to a higher state of cooperation - that is, for the sake of living together in peace.  The benefits of this arrangement must outweigh its costs for each individual, else he/she wouldn't bother staying (such are division of labor, security from without, for ex.).  And who guarantees that those rules are adhered to?  Well, in a two-person dwelling it would likely be either the stronger or smarter of them (depending of the level of civilization/enlightenment they've achieved - and one could well-argue the states of the world haven't gone beyond the 'stronger' category yet).  And so in any social existence there's an enforcer of its implicit/explicit rules, laws, etc.  So that a government of some sort always exists, and therefore anarchy does not - as always it shall be.  The best a 'free-market' can hope for is minimal interference, which must be maintained and constantly struggled for by the participants - via the legal system that exists in each case. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 14
Points 365
Eric replied on Tue, Oct 14 2008 7:18 PM

Fred Furash:
I agree, Minarchism seems to imply a minimum amount of anarchy....which is the opposite of what Minarchism is usually thought to mean. Ministatism would make more sense.

Your premise is incorrect.

The term "anarchy" comes from the Greek an- "without" and arkhos "chief, ruler"

Hence "minarchy" refers to minimal government, not minimal anarchy.

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I see you already caught this and corrected yourself in the second page of the thread.

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 523
Points 8,850
Solredime replied on Wed, Oct 15 2008 2:24 AM

Eric Simmons:

EDIT: Nevermind, I see you already caught this and corrected yourself in the second page of the thread.

Yeh :P

Btw, where did you dig up this thread? it's over half a year old lol.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (45 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS