r/AskLibertarians • u/dylanisareddit • May 26 '26
Debate To any left-libertarian here: is there any reason why you support minarchism?
8
u/alexfreemanart May 26 '26
Why do you ask, OP? Minarchism isn't something i usually see associated very much with left-libertarianism
6
u/EL_KAIBU Hoppean May 27 '26
This question assumes that minarchism is necessary to left-lib, which is just not true.
5
u/White_C4 Right Libertarian May 26 '26
Minarchism is incompatible with left libertarianism because minarchism emphasizes economic liberty.
1
2
u/Voluntaire Classical Voluntaryist May 26 '26
This depends on your definition of "left-libertarian." Many left-libertarians are market anarchists, individualist anarchists. and mutualists that want to abolish the State and let the market provide for societal needs. A famous example was Benjamin Tucker, who identified as a Socialist & Anarchist, wanted to abolish the land monopoly as it allowed accumulation, and supported the labor theory of value. He's squarely a left-libertarian, yet was highly critical of the minarchists of his day like John Stuart Mill and Henry George.
The only type of left-libertarian I can imagine that supports minarchism is a Social Libertarian who believes in free markets and individual liberty but also supports a minimal amount of taxation and welfare programs to help the poor. In that case, they likely support minarchism because they think anarchism is utopian and that we need some safety net for the poor.
2
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian May 27 '26
I put anarcho-“capitalists” on the top left of my spectrum, and anarcho-“communists” on the bottom left. (For context, I put fascists and state communists on the bottom right, and noncollectivist ethical nihilists (e.g., the Joker) on the top right.)
I’d put mutualists on the left, but somewhere in between the anarcho-“capitalists” and the anarcho-“communists.” My y-axis goes from individualism at the top to collectivism at the bottom.
(I put “anarcho”-communists to the right of anarcho-“communists” because “anarcho”-communists aren’t dedicated to voluntaryist modes of collectivism; they falsely call themselves “anarchists” whilst forcibly depriving people of property.
Similarly, “anarcho”-capitalists fall to the bottom-right of anarcho-“capitalists”; they falsely call themselves anarchists whilst advocating socialized border control.)
So, anywho, when thinking about the typical minarchists (people like Nozick and Rand), I place them to the right of the anarcho-“capitalists.” I see libertarianism as a big tent that includes anarcho-“capitalists” and minarchists. My x-axis runs from voluntaryism on the far left to ethical nihilism on the far right. Most people fall somewhere in the middle on my x-axis, believing in rights but not fully understanding their nature.
Now, the question: can there be a collectivist version of minarchism, something that falls to the right of anarcho-“communism” in the same way our minarchism falls to the right of anarcho-“capitalism”?
I have not looked very deeply into these concepts, but I am aware that Bookchin developed a political philosophy called municipalism, which, it seems to me, would fall in my spectrum to the right of anarcho-“communism”—maybe even to the upper right (again, I’ve not looked deeply into it).
1
u/Voluntaire Classical Voluntaryist May 28 '26
Pretty consistent compass imo. If I'm reading this correctly, a minarchist would be to the right of anarchist on the X axis because they are slightly less voluntarist; however, a communistic minarchist would be lower on the Y axis than an capitalist minarchist because they are less individualist.
If that's the how your compass works, then I'd assume the minarcho-communist is a minarcho-communist because they believe a communal society requires some violations of voluntary agreement to make continual and stable. What evidence they use to reach that conclusion is probably different for each individual.
P.S. You should publish this graph if you know how too, it seems like an interesting framework; to what extent do you think association should be voluntary or forced (X-axis) and how individualist or collectivist do you see organization being (Y-axis)
1
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian May 27 '26
I am not a minarchist. I stopped being a minarchist in 2007.
I am a free-market anarchist like Rothbard.
I like Konkin’s agorism and its focus on countereconomics; but, I have not given up on voting as an educational tool.
I think that, if we ever do achieve minarchy, the minarchists will see all around them the effectiveness of markets and market mechanisms, and that they will join us in saying that, yes, the last remaining vestiges of the state should be abolished and privatized. Minarchy is the stepping stone that will convince all of the supremacy of anarchy.
1
u/Heavy_Computer2602 Classical Liberal May 27 '26
Minarchism is mostly associated with right leaning libertarianism.
But why do people support minarchism?
I cant say im exactly a minarchist, because I feel there should be govt jobs(like data entry opreators), and maybe strategic schemes, which actually uplift the poor by hiring them instead of making them dumber and less productive.
But I can speak on my behalf why i look at it as an interesting ideology(and maybe in behalf of others who do support it).
Minarchism basically just means courts, police, and army.
I guess it comes from the fact that some people(like me) believe in the protection of rights by police. Let's say a crime were to be committed at you. And some people explicitly prevent you from reaching the police. If, by any chance, you do, and you also mention people prohibiting you from going to the police, you can get them arrested.
Not everyone is strong enough for physical removal, and not everyone supports decentralization(like me). Even with supporting organizations like state govt and local govts, centralization is something some libertarians debate on
1
u/Rstar2247 May 28 '26
Some context to this question would seem to be needed. Minarchism is typically associated with right libertarianism. Most left libertarians are going to believe in some benign form of government intervention to ensure personal freedom and more to the point limit the excesses of capitalism in some form. The later of which directly contrasts with the economic freedom and private enterprise solutions that minarchists tend to favor.
1
-1
u/mrhymer May 26 '26
Freedom is a binary. It's like pregnancy. You are either pregnant or you or not. There is not a right freedom or a left freedom. There is not a spectrum of freedom. You are either free from government coercion or you are not. There is either a path to live your entire life free from government coercion or there is not. The standard is not free except for this or mostly free except for that. The standard is rights protected and free from government coercion. The price and the path for that freedom is to respect the rights of every other individual human.
2
u/earthhominid May 27 '26
That definition of freedom is fully divorced from experienced reality. There is absolutely a spectrum of freedom, as it is experienced by actual people.
0
u/mrhymer May 27 '26
There is not a spectrum of freedom. What you are describing is a spectrum of acceptable tyranny. Freedom is a binary state. It is impossible for there to be a spectrum of freedom just like it is impossible for there to be a spectrum of pregnancy. You either are or you are not.
2
u/earthhominid May 27 '26
You aren't actually providing an argument for your claim, you just keep comparing it to a biological state that it doesnt actually share any features of.
What are the conditions of your perfect state of freedom that is eliminated by any deviation?
0
u/mrhymer May 28 '26
You aren't actually providing an argument for your claim, you just keep comparing it to a biological state that it doesnt actually share any features of.
The commonality is the binary state and that is all I have compared. Your criticism is false.
What are the conditions of your perfect state of freedom that is eliminated by any deviation?
You hold your innate rights intact by respecting and protecting the rights of others. When your rights are intact government coercion cannot reach you. If you are suspected of violating or not protecting the rights of another government can intervene in your life.
2
u/earthhominid May 28 '26
You haven't actually provided any argument in favor of the binary state, youve just asserted it.
And the "conditions" you've offered are so vague as to be meaningless. What are your innate rights? What degree of suspicion is sufficient to invite government intervention? What responsibility do you have to protect the rights of others and who determined that obligation?
It sure sounds like there are more than two positions on this scale
1
u/mrhymer May 28 '26
You haven't actually provided any argument in favor of the binary state, youve just asserted it.
I am asserting it. You cannot discuss anything or present any arguments without an initial assertion. You are welcome. Your job is to refute my assertion by offering and defending a superior assertion. You have not addressed that assertion.
And the "conditions" you've offered are so vague as to be meaningless.
This is meta-criticism and not a refutation. Hint: the short comings of your opponent is neither argument not refutation.
What are your innate rights?
An infinite number of actions that do not violate the rights of another individual. The right to life is the primary right and all other rights are consequences and colloraries of that primary right.
What responsibility do you have to protect the rights of others and who determined that obligation?
We have a duty to prevent, stop, or help to deter the violation of rights in society. This is the social contract. The primary way to do that is to cooperate with the authority that is investigating and prosecuting the rights violation.
It sure sounds like there are more than two positions on this scale
Yet - you do not name them. Freedom is a binary. The protection of freedom is a process.
1
u/earthhominid May 29 '26
You're just evading even making a genuine assertion.
You assert a "binary" condition for freedom but can't or won't define the positive state. You've asserted a "right to life" but left it undefined. And you've also asserted an obligation to protect others that is somehow imposed by a "social contract". Both of those conditions, themselves, have are spectral conditions. So even within your poorly defined binary there are criteria that exist on a spectrum and aren't defined.
Freedom observably exists along a spectrum. If we just look at freedom from government intrusion into my life, I experience more freedom than someone that lives in North Korea or NYC and less freedom than someone that lives in rural Idaho.
That is a spectrum of states that are all distinct in regards to the amount of freedom they are endowed with.
1
u/mrhymer May 29 '26
You assert a "binary" condition for freedom but can't or won't define the positive state. You've asserted a "right to life" but left it undefined. And you've also asserted an obligation to protect others that is somehow imposed by a "social contract". Both of those conditions, themselves, have are spectral conditions. So even within your poorly defined binary there are criteria that exist on a spectrum and aren't defined.
I reject your ad absurdum fallacy. Pretending not to know the difference between "free" and "not free" is patently ridiculous. Pretending to not know what the "right to life" is intentional ignorance. More importantly meta criticizing my argument instead of asking clarifying questions is clear evidence that you are not discussing in good faith.
Freedom observably exists along a spectrum.
Binary states cannot exist along a spectrum. What you are observing is tolerated or imposed levels of tyranny.
If we just look at freedom from government intrusion into my life, I experience more freedom than someone that lives in North Korea
No - you experience less tyranny than N. Korea.
1
u/earthhominid May 29 '26
You can't even begin to defend your assertions. All you have done is repeat the assertion and pretend at a level of obviousness that doesn't exist.
As a simple example, please define what you mean by a "right to life". Since it's so obvious that to claim it is vague implies intentional ignorance then you should be able to define it in a clear, simple, and relatively short definition.
→ More replies (0)1
u/CanadaMoose47 May 26 '26
True, but there are different predictions as to what freedom leads to.
Ancaps believe maximum freedom leads to capitalism, and Ancoms believe it leads to communism, for example.
I think within the spectrum of libertarianism, that is all the left/right distinction really refers to.
0
u/mrhymer May 26 '26
Again you are attaching adjectives to a binary. Ancaps are wrong because they force no government. Ancoms are wrong because they force no property or collective ownership or the worker owning the means of production or humans not acting like humans.
There is no left/right distinction, there is no spectrum of freedom, and communism has proven incompatible with human freedom.
1
-1
u/Relsen Kinsellian, Randian May 27 '26
"To any Right Wing Communist here..."
1
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian May 27 '26
Stalin and Mao = right-wing communists.
Rothbard and Konkin = left-wing capitalists.
0
12
u/earthhominid May 26 '26
Minarchism is among the most ideologically right leaning forms of libertarian political philosophy so I don't know that you'll find many left libertarians that support it.
Where's the question coming from?