From minarchist to anarchist

Article by Colonel Nogov on Feb. 3.2015

I think it’s a reasonable assumption to say that the writers and readers of Reason magazine/ are mostly minarchists.  Although I think any level of statism is bad, I have only respect for the Reason writers and readers.

Minarchism is a critical step to reaching anarchism.  I would venture to say that most self describing anarchists passed through and possibly sat on the minarchist step for awhile.  I know I did.

The road to minarchism is a fairly easy one.  A fully indoctrinated red team/blue team statist begins to question one or more government policies.  Maybe they go to a couple of protest rallies.  They begin to think, maybe the government is over reaching a bit.  Maybe they begin to think that a little less government would be preferable.

Next they look to the constitution and realize, wow, the government is doing a whole lot more than it was originally intended to do.  They begin to question other government policies.  At this point they may even discover the libertarian party with their limited government message.  It’s a fairly easy stride towards minarchism at this point.

They soon reach the minarchist step.  They believe government is necessary, just in a limited way.  Maybe national defense, a court system, a police force to arrest violent offenders and thieves only.  And here’s the trap.  The next step, to anarchism, isn’t a step at all, but more like a leap over a small chasm.  To the minarchist, this leap seems to be a leap of faith.  It isn’t as I will show further down.

The minarchist sees the danger of government and wants to contain it.  He doesn’t realize that is impossible.  It is impossible to stop the growth of government.  You cannot keep the monster in the cage.  It only grows.  On rare occasions you can cut a small piece off, like ending prohibition, but the overall monster has already grown in different areas.

The minarchist is trapped.  He feels a need for a system.  He feels the need for a familiar structure.  It’s hard for him to imagine a system that works without the use of government force.  He wants the system, but not the monster.  He thinks it’s possible, somehow.  Elections, protests, educating the voters.  They’re all lessons in futility.  He spins his wheels.  He’s stuck on the minarchist step.

If this describes you, do not be ashamed.  Most, if not all, anarchists were there at one time.  You are being bombarded with propaganda constantly.  From the day you were born it began.  The propaganda is powerful.

The apparent leap of faith to anarchism is not a leap of faith at all, but can be reached easily with logic.  Logic, not faith, bridges the chasm.

It begins with a simple question.  Does this apply equally?

Do I have the right to commit violence against others? (other than self defense)
Do others have the right to commit violence against me? (other than self defense)

I’ll assume you answered no to the first question.  You can’t have a right to violate another’s right.  How about the second question?

If you answered no, government cannot exist.  Government claims the right to tax you(take your money/property by force).  Government claims the right to arrest you(violently if necessary should you resist) if you break it’s rules(legislation).

If you answered yes, government has the right, why the double standard?  Where did it get the right?

If an action cannot be applied equally or directly violates the rights of another, it is not a right. (go ahead and test this using any scenario you like, if you find a variant put it in the comments for scrutiny)

When the government claims it has the right to take your property by force it violates both principles of what makes something a right.  It doesn’t apply equally, obviously you can’t take the governments property by force.  It also violates your right to have and use your property as you see fit.

Something doesn’t magically become a right just because the entity called Government does it and not an individual.  Government is only a collection of individuals.  None of those individuals have the right to violate your rights.  Grouping those individuals into a collective and calling it government doesn’t somehow give them the right.  The same goes for voting.  Voters, individually, don’t have a right to violate your rights.  Just because they voted, it doesn’t create a right.

Ask the simple question, “can this be applied equally?” whenever you think of government and logic will move you off the minarchist step and on to the unassailable high ground of anarchy.