Another Ball Cartoon


Apparently this cartoonist is not an "anarchist" exactly, but something called a "minarchist."
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy and a form of libertarianism. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions. Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
That actually sounds pretty plausible. I tend to favor the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian approach that goes further, toward a state that uses its mechanisms to preference situations in which individuals own their own means of production, i.e., yeoman farmers or small businesses. I agree with their analysis, which is Aristotelian, that such a state avoids the chief problems of human politics.

However, I will state that this alternative doesn't sound so bad. Nozick is cited as a source for it, though, and he walked back his commitment to these principles later in life. I gather he felt that such a state didn't provide enough to ensure the protection of genuinely common goods, e.g., air quality or public education.

7 comments:

raven said...

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life. Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

Seems pretty clear to me, maybe those "minarchist's" have been around longer than we thought.

Grim said...

Yeah, but Jefferson wrote that. :)

MikeD said...

Frankly, I can't see a lot of daylight between this "minarchist" position and general libertarianism. But then again, "libertarianism" is a pretty big blanket that covers a lot of differing opinions. If you want an excellent example, there are libertarians that favor mandatory vaccinations and those who oppose that as a form of government overreach. Trust me, to many libertarians, I myself come across as some kind of evil "statist tyrant".

Grim said...

You have an interesting collection of friends, Mike. The ones who don't think you're a racist or a monster think you're a statist tyrant! :)

MikeD said...

One of the hazards of being "in the middle". They find my lack of ideological faith disturbing. And I will admit, on a purely ideological basis, I'm a slipshod "Easter and Christmas" libertarian sometimes. I believe that you have an inherent right to you and your body, but I am uncomfortable with abortion on demand. I believe that the free market regulated the least by government is the best source of the best outcomes for the most people, but I believe that anti-trust laws are an absolute necessity. I believe in the principle of free people to travel freely without interference, but I also believe in national sovereignty and the necessity of controlled immigration. I believe that there is no Constitutional mandate to be the world's policeman, and yet I favor a strong military and national security apparatus that acts to further our security proactively rather than reactively (which gets me labeled "interventionist" and "warmonger"). I also find the "gold standard" as a cure to financial woes to be charmingly naive (which gets the Paulians like five kinds of furious). I am no purist, though I do understand the purist argument. And "worst of all" I recognize the fallen nature of man such that a libertarian society will never work with the citizenry we have right now. It calls for far too much personal responsibility (the least of which is rejected by college students which says "only you are responsible for your own feelings").

Grim said...

I also have a community of friends who disagrees with me, in all directions, quite strongly. For some reason they are all very polite in their expressions of those disagreements, however.

MikeD said...

As are most of mine. But there's always the internet tough guy who thinks that shouting down opposition is somehow the same as "winning". The one in particular recently has a history of doing this then getting blocked and going back to his page crowing about how another "wingnut" blocked him for speaking the truth or some such. I didn't give him the satisfaction.