Is Minarchism Naive?

[Denny Crane!]

Has the state ever truly shrank? Do people who propose endlessly that they can end hopeless regulation and red tape ever succeed in shrinking the state. I propose that in two examples, the USA and the UK the state has never been larger or more intrusive than at any point in the histories of democracy in these two countries.



The American experiment seems particularly concerned with liberty, more so than the English one. Yet we have seen that checks and balances have not prevented a massive expansion of government and beauracracy.

I am naive perhaps in hoping this thread will not turn into people slating my anarchistic views. I merely wish to discuss in what forms a state can exist and whether or not the minarchist philosophy is a fantasy.

The ideas I am questioning are not just extreme minarchist views but also the people who only loosely apply the theory to minor reductions in government beauracracy and red tape.

Edit~ I would say that I am working my way through some things JP pointed out that does stress that despite the obvious evidence to the contrary (that is misleading) economic freedom on a global scale does appear to be increasing, I wonder how this can be incorporated to analyse whether or not with economic freedom the fight for personal liberty with a state could indeed be won, and remain won not just for one term of a president or PM.

[Kiljan Arslan]

in theory it works but in practice how well will it work?

[Denny Crane!]

in theory it works but in practice how well will it work?

I don't think there is an example of successful state reduction yet, though that is not a condemnation.

[Fishy]

Impossible.

No matter how much I would like to see it, people ruin it for themselves. If beauracracy is cut down then people will start complaining about the unfair treatment, the difference in standards the lack of help in the first place. Now they are complaining that they need to fill in to many papers. And they do, but reducing the amount of paper work will also automatically reduce the fairness of the system and that isn't going to be liked by anybody in a democratic nation.

Reducing government influence on pretty much every other field will do the same thing. People will complain and ask for the government to stand up, sure there are things all governments could reduce their influence on. But they are pretty basic. We just can't expect a country to run itself without somebody higher up telling us exactly how to do it. The general population is just too stupid for it.

[Kiljan Arslan]

well the only suggestion I can provide is start small, starting big tends to not be a very good idea.

[Fishy]

well the only suggestion I can provide is start small, starting big tends to not be a very good idea.

If you start small then eventually you will still grow as more and more people will demand things from you. Stability comes with clear rules (at least for the people that execute them) unfortunally that requires a strong large government that is spending way to much money on worthless stuff. All governments could definitely be more effective, but it's incredibly difficult to find the right amount of interfearing while staying away the rest of the time.

[Denny Crane!]

well the only suggestion I can provide is start small, starting big tends to not be a very good idea.

Lets not consider this in a vacuum but we are where we are and we are big.

A good example is the conservatives in the UK. They say they'll cut red tape and reduce government spending. They might though its a slim hope and they will last 1-2 terms before the big spenders and expanders resume their crusade to expand government to bigger and bigger levels wiping out 4-8 years of work by the conservatives.

I don't see a solution being offered by David Cameron other than an elastoplast.

[S.L.I.G]

Lets not consider this in a vacuum but we are where we are and we are big.

A good example is the conservatives in the UK. They say they'll cut red tape and reduce government spending. They might though its a slim hope and they will last 1-2 terms before the big spenders and expanders resume their crusade to expand government to bigger and bigger levels wiping out 4-8 years of work by the conservatives.

I don't see a solution being offered by David Cameron other than an elastoplast.

There isn't a real solution. If big Government truly abuses the U.K, over the long term, it will be removed, and a constitution will force it to be small. It will then inevitably grow, and the same cycle shall be repeated. Nothing is permanent.

[JP226]

The state itself? Sure, there are plenty of examples. Most western european nations have shrunk incredibly. Hell, throw eastern Europe, the mid east, the old soviet union in to that mix. We typically know what works and what doesn't albeit we have hiccups in between the short and long run. The state is generally shrinking across the board. Unfortunately in the case of the US, we've state involvement is a new thing and we're on the up in up since our creation, but since the seventies? No, things are better than they were. Granted salary capping and state ownership of car companies and banks is definitely a step back. Will it last? Doubt it.

Keep in mind a government can't prevent progress, it can only delay it. And progress/ the realization and understanding of economics is for less government intervention. My favorite example being the communist faction during the angolan civil war essentially becoming capitalists in sectors that mattered, ie oil and daimonds. That way the leaders keep their heads longer.

[Denny Crane!]

There is a reason why I didn't pick Eastern European countries because they are in post transitional stages from authoritarian government, as was the USA when it started.

Britain is an example of a state that truly hasn't shrunk, but expanded grossly. JP would you say economic freedom is the primary catalyst that creates all other freedoms?

[Lee1026]

In many ways it is indeed horribly naive. At the core, all governmental policies (that people support, anyway), have three purposes - regulating away externalities between interpersonal relationships, giving money to worthy causes for whatever purposes (such as research, welfare, and the such), and defence/war. Lets look at them one at a time.

Regulations will only increase, as the number of ways in which people interact with each other increases with technology. Many of them will contain some externalities, requiring more laws and more agencies to enforce them. This is something that is simply not going away unless if technology takes a devastating fall, which is something that hopefully no one is hoping for.

As for worthy causes, there are two reasons for government to do it instead of industry. One is if it have an immense economy of scale, such that only government can afford it. NASA is a good example of that, as is the national highway administration. As technology advances, advancing it becomes harder and harder, and building it also becomes harder and harder. Which means that the economy of scale goes up with technology. Which means that government is going to get bigger there as well. The second reason is to redistribute wealth. As the poor almost always outnumber the rich, democracies tend to have strong welfare states. The only way for this to change is the disappearance of democracy, which is highly unlikely.

The third is defense. That is indeed going down in many nations, but it is small enough compared to the other two that government will essentially grow with technology.

[JP226]

Britain is an example of a state that truly hasn't shrunk, but expanded grossly. JP would you say economic freedom is the primary catalyst that creates all other freedoms?

In terms of economic freedom, I guess I should say. It seems the uk has gone a dual trasformation like two ships passing the night. When labor touts itself as thatcherites economically, you'd tend to think on that point progress has been made. However I understand the social aspects, atleast what I label as social. The nanny laws, the cameras, gun control and the rest of the kin. That is bigger state involvement, i'm not denying that. Yet I truly believe that economic freedom is the catalyst that opens up economies, it has done so in Eastern Europe, it is doing so in China, it has done so here. There are so many things we take for granted, such as us here even able to declare that any one government is wrong. COuld you imagine government troops being stationed in any one's house these days? Hell, torture is no longer even defined as physical pain, it's all progress.

Regulations will only increase, as the number of ways in which people interact with each other increases with technology.

elasticities son, elasticities.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

The American experiment seems particularly concerned with liberty, more so than the English one. Yet we have seen that checks and balances have not prevented a massive expansion of government and beauracracy.

Thats only because no one gives a rodents hind-quarters about checks, balances, and Constitutional authority anymore. The government would shrink if people actually read the Constitution instead of making up whatever they want.

But yes, governments have shrank before. American government was smaller than before after splitting from Britain, for example. Also, Theodore Roosevelt shrank the federal government back some while in office.

[Kjertesvein]

And yes yes, I know. I'm pulling the necro card here abit, but hold your horses cowboy - the question still stand in the cold.

I would say that I am working my way through some things JP pointed out that does stress that despite the obvious evidence to the contrary (that is misleading) economic freedom on a global scale does appear to be increasing, I wonder how this can be incorporated to analyse whether or not with economic freedom the fight for personal liberty with a state could indeed be won, and remain won not just for one term of a president or PM.

The answer to that would be monarchical minarchism...

Monarchies who build on the core ideas of democracy or religion have a habit of personally sticking to that principle. There are a loads of different issues with monarchy, and we can argue that bit, however. The idea that the monarch is personally responsible to him/herself can't easily be shunned under the carpet the way corporations and elected officials can do today. In this instance, I compare a president or a PM to public space, a no man's land or a place with no owner.

Now, I don't think this is a universal solution to minarchism in all cultures, nor do I think this is an everlasting idea, but Hans H. Hoppe slams an excellent punch on the puristic Anarchists who so up tightly hold the position of perfectionism, to the point of being a medieval philosopher. It's not perfect, but theoretically speaking, this might be one of the lesser evil in a practical step to wards minarchism.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/gregory/gregory6.html

~Wille