I understand the appeal of minarchy. After all, it's where I came from; what I used to advocate. Even though I knew I was an anarchist personally, I used to imagine minarchy as the most practical way to be as liberated as possible.
But minarchy-- keeping a little bit of cancer around and under control to prevent a different cancer from getting a foothold-- is an unsustainable Utopian fantasy. Much more so than anarchy could ever be.
And, it's confused.
As a minarchist, which "minimal government" would you pick? Only things such as government fire protection, government policing, military, government-controlled roads, and government courts? Other minarchists might have other preferences. Some would include "securing the borders" or other Big Government welfare programs. Any version includes the "taxation" to pay for it all, along with the bureaucracy to collect and distribute the money and find and punish the opt-outs.
Does every minarchist get to impose the particular flavor of "minimal government" they want? If so, it is no longer "minimal".
Do you use v*ting to decide which bits of government you get to impose on me? Then it's mob rule-- "might (through superior numbers) makes right".
Through v*ting and "taxation" you've cut the brake line on anything holding back government growth.
As I say, I understand, but a "little bit of statism" is still evil.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!