|>Minarchists believe that the state is necessary and acceptable.|
>Anarchists believe that the state is unnecessary and unacceptable.
Makes em sound diamectrically opposed, huh? There are often great philosophical differences between minarchists and anarchocapitalists, I agree. However, not always. And there are a great many other schisms we could get worked up about as well. Some, deservedly so.
Joseph Rowlands gave a big list of potential disagreements. He seems to be under the impression that for each of his questions, minis would neccessarily answer one way, and ancaps another. Not so! For instance, what, pray tell, is the ancap position on "Should there be a death penalty?". And how do all minarchists feel about "Can/should we form alliances?" And "What should be considered an act of war?"...where are you going to find an objective standard for that?
The point is, you're going to find people on both sides of many issues from both camps. Are you going to find minis who think Tim McVeigh was right on and it's about time more of us bombed some gov't buildings? You bet; probably more minis than ancaps, actually ... actually probably even more Constitutional types who aren't even so *philosophically* radical as to be minis, but are radical/militant in terms of *action*. Are you going to find ancaps who think all the illegal immigrants should be sent home? Yeah, you will. You'll find people claiming to be minis, yet saying the gov't needs to provide the roads, and people claiming to be ancaps, who vote in every election. Some of these positions are actually perfectly consistent; some are not. Sometimes the espousers of the most radical principles are in real life the wimpiest and whiniest. Objectivists are especially common in the ranks of do-nothing intellectuals who will preach about the Rights of Man, yet do not even own a gun.
So, on th An/Min debate, I will give you my position (as if anyone cares); my bridge of brotherly peace between the factions, to settle this ONCE AND FOR ALL (ha ha):
I believe in not violating other peoples' rights. If that means a purely voluntary minarchy funded by bake sales and telethons, Ayn Rand style, I would be all for it. So too, I think, would most ancaps. In principal. They may not think it highly probable, but if it were to come about, you'd hear no gripes from them. They just don't want coercion.
I believe in not violating other peoples' rights. If that means no state and I've got to shop around for a court, so be it, as long as libertarian principles are being respected in those courts. I've never been one much for litigation, so it won't really affect me none anyway. I'm sure none of the minis would really mind living in such a place, and I, for one, would love it! They may think it's a [insert adjective here; impossible, and contradictory are common] bunch of hogwash, but if a stable, rights-respecting, state-less place were to ever come about, the minis wouldn't complain. They just don't want coercion.
You see, IF you're coming from a point of view of sovereign individuals with rights to respect, the two schools, Miniaturizors and Cap-Heads, are really quite similar. I for one just don't want people to be trying to invade and agress against my liberty, at least not on a massive, institutionalized level. (Common criminals, well, they're good defense practice, so no use complaining about them.) If there's some group of people that want to call themselves "the government" and wear funny hats, well, bully for them, as long as they don't invade my right to live peacably and non-invasively, however I choose. Why should I care what they call themselves? Now, on the other hand, if having the special title of "the government" is supposed to endow these folks with magic fairy powers such that they somehow have the right to invade people's rights, in that scenario I will have to lodge an objection. As will the other ancaps. And, I think, any truly consistent minarchist will have to object as well.
Well, sorry this was rambling, but there you have it.