If the minarchist position is that: a) aggression is undesirable, and b) governance is necessary for civil society, then it doesn't follow that coercive governance is the only solution. Voluntary, contractual governance could be a viable and even ideal solution: no aggression and you still get governance (and possibly better governance).
For example: everyone in a certain territory signs a contract with the governing agency. Or, everyone sells their land to the agency and leases it under the rules laid out by the agency. Or, the agency buys uninhabited land, builds a city and leases it out. These all appear to be realistic options.
Beyond solving the coercion problem, another huge advantage is that the role of the governing agency is precisely laid out in the contract, providing specific limits on its power. Enforcement of this contract would be a challenge (the solution might be too anarchistic for minarchist tastes), but constitutional government provides no mechanism of enforcing the constitution either.
Last, this private governance model is much more amenable to a secessionist strategy, and thus widens the scope for cooperation with secessionist anarchists.
Does this look plausible, or am I missing something here? Does the minarchist position require coercive governance or not?
I think there is a gray area here; a voluntary government isn't really a state, so the minarchist would actually be an "anarchist" (I hesitate to use that term at all) if contended that government coercion was unacceptable.
What you are describing is basically the original voluntaryist idea put forth by Auberon Herbert.
Appears sound in theory, but in practice, it shares similarities to the treaty system between the US and the aboriginal tribes, or between federal and state governments. Neither of those situations worked out so hot. Any ambitious and crafty bureaucrat could employ a "Divide and Conquer" strategy to consolidate supporting groups around them, while crushing dissenters.
Of course, if everyone listened to NAP and respected property rights, it would work perfectly, but if everyone was willing to work for free, communism would work perfectly too.
Voluntary secession would only be pheasable if the seceding party was able to support the secession by force, or the government was willing to accept their claim. Neither seems likely (for very long, anyways) with a central power of any sort.
Of course the minarchist disagrees that everything the state does is aggression.
toban:Does the minarchist position require coercive governance or not?
I'd like to see some minarchist responses to this. Why don't more minarchists opt for the proprietary community model?
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
I think this approach is promising, but needs to be further developed. Several things need to be worked out, for example, should the governing agency be for-profit, or non-profit?
I'm a bit confused as to why minarchists have overlooked this option. It offers a solution to the coercion problem, and it may be a better way to limit government power.
Couldn't a society that has a central for-profit or non for-profit agency that carries out the mechanisms of the state be possible? But one that wouldn't be coercive and would act like something of a business.
I don't know. I think the whole idea of the minarchist government is based on liberal philosophy and that it can be successful as long as people are willing to retain it. When people lose favor of having a limited government... it falls apart. That's the real problem with it. It's about permanence. I'm wondering how we could get around that.
That is not the problem with what philosophy?
SilentXtarian:I think the whole idea of the minarchist government is based on liberal philosophy and that it can be successful as long as people are willing to retain it. When people lose favor of having a limited government... it falls apart. That's the real problem with it. It's about permanence. I'm wondering how we could get around that.
Well on some level a minarchist nation relies on a static society. One in which all agree that government needs to be limited to a certain amount. So in a sense it takes a position in which everyone can be found in agreement with even the government itself.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael