Political Theory

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

Solredime — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:24:09 GMT

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.

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

Eric — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:18:12 GMT

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.

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

TomG — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:31:11 GMT

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.

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

macsnafu — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:05:46 GMT

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).

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

Solredime — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:56:38 GMT

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".

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

Dennis Lee Wilson — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:47:47 GMT

I do not understand why "suddenly"--and for the first time ever--my most recent reply--in a discussion thread that I started--needs to wait for approval.

(and apparently THIS message does NOT need to wait)?????????

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

Dennis Lee Wilson — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:19:44 GMT

According to Wikipedia, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism ) this 'minarchism" problem (as I stated it in message #1) started when the term was coined in 1970 or 1971 by Samuel Edward Konkin III, an anarchist.

Here is a sample showing WHY this term is not only unnecessarily confusing but also totally redundant with perfectly good ways of accurately saying exactly what is meant:

...minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism, "anarchist dictatorship" or small government, is the view that the size, role and influence of government in a free society should be minimal...

Minarchists believe some minimal government is necessary...

Not only is the continued use of "minarchy" unnecessary, it is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS--as in absurd, preposterous, ludicrous, even laughable that supposedly intelligent people would allow themselves to fall for and use such a deliberately obfuscating, meaningless, made-up word!

"Ministatism" and "ministatist" are each only 1 letter longer than "minarchism" and "minarchist".

Is that such a terrible price to pay for Truth in Labeling?.

Dennis Wilson

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

TomG — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:44:57 GMT

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/

In the above Econ site, in the lastest Assorted Links #1 - a related pdf file, study by one Morris Altman of U. of Saskatchewan - on Economic Freedom & GDP. A statement in the conclusion: "The level of economic freedom per se does not indicate if a particular economy has its economic freedom mix just right." This work expounds an Economic Freedom Index and the proper mix of economic freedoms that may be required to achieve optimal growth.

Cheers, TomG

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

TomG — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:14:54 GMT

Dennis - thanks for sharing that diagram, which is the most logical from a categorical perspective ... the reality being - as you've been saying - that once you've stepped into 'anarchy' it's the negation of any and all extra-authority, so that the diagram's blocks are scale identifiers and not equal in size ... with in fact 'anarchy' being but a line on the edge lowest edge of the 'authoritarian scale' (but yours puts the whole schema in correct positions, top-level. Thanks again

Fred Furash - I'd have to say your etymological breakdown seems cogent to me. And I contend that those using it do so over a term like 'ministatist' because it sounds more sophisticated and catchy (and let's face it, in this post-Austin Powers era 'mini-' anything just puts a laser-humping diminutive guy into one's head ;) Such a self-designation sounds very Jeffersonian - as in the least amoung of government necessary - which sounds like a practical club worth considering (as in, going in the right direction, one brick at a time)

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

Solredime — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:43:53 GMT

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.

Just thought of that. Seems to make sense to me.

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

Dennis Lee Wilson — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:48:17 GMT

TomG:
http://mises.com/forums/p/1412/19176.aspx#19176

take a look at the diagram here - with supposed degrees of Anarchism - Totalitarianism on one axis that's intersected by degrees of Socialism - Capitalism on another axis:

The diagram of "supposed degrees of Anarchism" suffers from the same nonsense as "minarchy". My criticism applies to the diagram as well.

You cannot have "degrees" of anarchy because you cannot have degrees of NO GOVERMENT!! Anarchy means NO RULERS!

If you must think in terms of diagrams, this one is more appropriate--if you locate Anarchy as a dot ABOVE the top point:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Dennis

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

TomG — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:31:46 GMT

http://mises.com/forums/p/1412/19176.aspx#19176

take a look at the diagram here - with supposed degrees of Anarchism - Totalitarianism on one axis that's intersected by degrees of Socialism - Capitalism on another axis:

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

Dennis Lee Wilson — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:54:09 GMT

libertarian:
But I think we need an organization that would punish disbehaving states by threatening them with nuclear missiles. That organization thus have a monopoly on land (a state), since they can fly the most powerful weapons to all places that would coerce the small competing states.

I think the current "Imperial Commander" in DC agrees with you and has already assumed that role.

libertarian:
I am a minarchist just because I think we need such organization. It is possible for a minarchist state to oppose taxes.

I make another appeal for Truth in Labeling (as called for in the original post of this discussion). And again, I am NOT disputing your view of government, only what you are (mis)calling it.

Statism exists on a continuum ranging from TOTAL STATE (Totalitarianism) thru Communism, Fascism, Democracy, "Limited" Republic, mini-statism, micro-statism, nano-statism...but there is no MINARCHY. It is a made-up word that is devoid of sensible meaning! You either have NO government (Anarchy) or you have some government of varying degrees of severity as described above.

The general usage of the made-up word "minarchy" refers to some unspecified, presumably small, amount of government. If it means "a few rulers", it means statism of some measure.

You cannot have "degrees" of anarchy (min-archy, max-archy, total-archy) because you cannot have degrees of NO GOVERMENT!! Anarchy means NO RULERS! ZERO, ZIP ZILCH.There is no "mini-zero" or "minzero" and there cannot be such.

Dennis

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

libertarian — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:14:14 GMT

hugonz:
Do they compete in the same geographical area? Or they expect people to vote with their feet, having each state exclusive jurisdiction over an area?

I prefer tiny dictatorial states competing against each other (when I mean tiny, I mean real tiny). That would have automatic check and balances. But I think we need an organization that would punish disbehaving states by threatening them with nuclear missiles. That organization thus have a monopoly on land (a state), since they can fly the most powerful weapons to all places that would coerce the small competing states. I am a minarchist just because I think we need such organization.

It is possible for a minarchist state to oppose taxes.

Re: Minarchism or ministatism?

hugonz — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:18:43 GMT

Do they compete in the same geographical area? Or they expect people to vote with their feet, having each state exclusive jurisdiction over an area?