| | Robert,
Excellent post #85. I was considering writing an article on the topic before your post. I agree with the major premise, that the difference between anarchism and minarchism is relatively minor. Someone, I think Aaron, on a different thread said one wants to get rid of 100% and the other wants to get rid of 98%. That's only a 2% difference, isn't it (let's just pretend these numbers are fair)? That way of putting it is misleading, as Robert's post points out.
The issue is not just the 2% difference, but also the reasons for the 2% difference. The reasons people come to these conclusions will also change other results as well. Let me provide a couple examples.
First, there's a point Robert made in a previous article. Anarchists often accept the non-initiation of force principle to be a context-free rule, that you must obey regardless of it's consequences to your life. That has obvious effects, including essentially arguing against any war, including defensive wars, that may result in killing innocent civilians.
And a problem with viewing anything as a simple rule is that it make it difficult or impossible to weigh the costs of breaking it. A moral rule has the same effect as an intrinsic value, which is a value that has no purpose or use. The problem is, if it doesn't achieve anything, you can't weigh the costs of violating it. The point is that people who accept NIOF as a rule that must be obeyed, regardless of context, are unable to see different degrees of evil. So you get ridiculous statements like the US is just as bad as North Korea. The real consequence is that those who accept it can't take gradual steps towards freedom. Any violation of rights is as evil as any other. Someone on SOLO was arguing that China is more free than the US because they don't enforce safety belts rules there.
Part of the context dropped when accepting NIOF as a rule is the idea of moral responsibility. Objectivists assert the blame for the deaths of innocent civilians in a war goes to the rights-violator who made the war necessary. Anarchists tend to argue that it doesn't, that NIOF is NIOF, and there can't be a reason to violate it.
Anarchists sometimes believe that the only person who can use retaliatory force is the victim of the initiation of force. This helps them argue that the state can't legitimately involve itself in the affairs of others. The result is that a government can't come to the defense of allies or innocent victims.
Anarchists believe in free will for the US, but determinism for any despot. The dictators and terrorists only react to the US, they never act on their own. The US is the only moral agent (not moral as in good...cause it's evil, right...but moral in that it can be judged morally), and thus the root of all evil in the world.
Anarchists can't logically distinguish between legitimate functions of government and illegitimate functions of government, so they can't convincingly argue that the government should be focusing on the former. They can only hurl attacks at the government.
Despite common sense, anarchists think that foreign nations are sovereign and can do whatever they want to their own citizens, and that another country involving itself is "imperialistic" and "aggressive", "initiating force".
A focus on not violating NIOF can leave you ignoring life as the standard of morality, or the need to defend yourself against force. If not violating NIOF is the goal, pacifism is a possibility.
Anarchists focus on the rights that are violated, instead of the rights that are protected, always making it seem like we live in an absolute hell hole. Malevolent view of life follows.
And the list can go on and on. I realize that people can argue that these aren't all necessarily the case. The fact that they're so frequent tells us something, though. Whatever your reasons for being an anarchist, it will effect how you view the actions of the government and what kind of trade-offs you're willing to make in the process or reducing government. You can't just isolate the conclusions in one area and say "only a 2% difference". Whatever your reasons for accepting your political positions, they must have other effects on your thinking and actions. So despite what may seem like minor theoretical differences, there are good reasons why the practical differences are usually night and day apart.
|
|
