Talk:Minarchism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old comments

I would, as a classical liberal myself, also not consider either minarchism or anarcho-capitalism to be the purest modern expression of classical liberalism. I do not describe myself as a minarchist - I am in favor of whatever level of government maximizes individual liberty, not necessarily the smallest government that could do some defined set of tasks. I suspect that a relatively small government will be best in this regard, but this is not a necessary assumption - one, an adequately *constrained* government may well be what is required, and two, vs some threats to individual liberty (such as an invasion), a relatively large government may be necessary. Allens 07:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are a minarchist, since you are "in favor of whatever level of government maximizes individual liberty". That definition is the flip-side of the same libertarian coin. Whatever level that is, any less government would not be minarchist, since that level would not meet the minimum required to protect individual liberty. --Serge 05:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Fare I wouldn't say that Minarchism is the *purest* form of classical liberalism. Maybe the oldest (or at least oldest to have been openly spoken), most traditional, the most common, the most easily accepted, or the most usually taken as the target to reject. But many will claim that for better or worse, anarcho-capitalism has at least as much of a claim for being "purest" as minarchism does, for it goes to the logical consequence of the anti-statist tradition.

Minarchism is classical liberalism in it's original = purest form. Classical liberalism, from the beginning, included a night-watchman state. So does Minarchism, it just calls it minimal state. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't include a night-watchman state. It might be purer in some sence, but it is *not classical liberalism*. The classical liberals were no anarchist, so Anarcho-capitalism has no claim to classical liberalism what so ever.

There's also Gandhian anarchy which is minarchist eco-village type stuff. "A Green, a Sufi, and a Zen Master walk into a bar..."

There's also what Dan Sullivan calls geo-libertarian views which throw away the King's Deed To The Land (which amazingly libertarians seem to believe in). He's defined what seems to be close to the new tribalist vision of shared collective lands with privately-owned improvements - and there are parties on the fringe like the Canadian Marijuana Parties that seem to fit his definition nearly perfectly. It's truly great stuff.

Then there's "The Sovereign Individual" and "Natural Capitalism" which might combine very soon to arbitrage states off the map. But anyway...

Classical liberals? Adam Smith said they needed defense, infrastructure, the courts, education and a stable currency. As all that was understood in 1776.

One could argue that we just need more of those things today, because people are stupider thanks to reverse evolution (keeping absolute morons alive). or one could argue that Marx got it right and we implemented almost all of the Communist Manifesto except for abolishing private land rents: as geo-libertarians and Greens would do... thus finishing the job.

However, Marx and Smith can both be right. They don't really contradict each other.

Just wanted to remind about John Locke: State *will* rise from the state of nature.

I'm in the middle of a debate with a "minarchist". What I want to know is - WHY is big government a bad thing? It may well be - but why?

Exile

I guess they would say it's because it restricts liberty. The have authority as a government, something need to restrain its subjects's liberty.--Chealer 05:42, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Why is big government a bad thing?

Exile asks (above): "Why is big government a bad thing?" In no particular order, and one can probably write an essay if not an entire book on each of these points:

  1. Power corrupts. The bigger the government is, the more power those people who are in it have, the more potential for corruption. Inevitably, as government gets bigger and bigger, the potential becomes reality. The only antidote is to not give those in government enough power to make it worthwhile to others to corrupt them. That means small government, a minarchist government, if you will, that focuses only on preventing others from using power to violate the rights of others.
  2. Government is generally not very effective in causing humans to behave and use resources efficiently. Government is inherently wasteful. Outside of government there is a profit motive to be efficient (the more shoes the cobbler makes with the leather that he has, the more food he can buy for his family). The bigger the government for a given society, the less efficiently that society uses its resources. Therefore, the most efficient society is one with a minarchist government that only provides the functions for the society that absolutely must come from government, leaving other functions to be provided efficiently through supply and demand, thus minimizing waste in society. Note that an area most minarchists agree is a proper role for government is to manage unowned resources (which are not governed by supply and demand), like the air and the ocean, though finding a practical way to have those resources privately owned would probably be preferred by most minarchists.
  3. If you believe in the morality and/or the utility of the non-aggression principle, then most big government activity is immoral and/or non-utilitarian, since most big government activity cannot be effected without violating the NAP (like by collecting taxes to forcibly transfer wealth from people that earned it to people that did not). This is the point Chealer made above, that big government restricts liberty (defined as the right to do whatever one wants with him self and his property, except violate the right of anyone else to do the same). Thus, arguably, the only moral and/or most utilitarian government is a minarchist government which does not violate the NAP.

I believe those are the big three. Did I miss anything?

--Serge 28 June 2005 18:18 (UTC)


"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." - Thomas Jefferson

-- Formunknown

What about big corporations? I believe they are at least as bad as big government.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.34.52 (talk) 12:35, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Big corporations can indeed perform actions that are just as bad as big government. In that respect you are correct. Your relationship to a big corporation however, is generally much different than your relationship to your government. It is generally much easier to avoid dealing with and therefore supporting a corporation. You can do business with a company more suited to your ethics. Might it cost you more? Yes, it might. If you continue to do business with the 'bad' big company though to save the expense, you are just as culpable and just as 'bad' as the company. One may argue 'what about companies that enjoy a monopoly?'. There are very few true monopolies, and where they do exist, it is due to government intervention. A minarchist government almost by definition would prevent a monopoly as it would not be drafting laws that are related to business that are anti-competitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.211.160 (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Minarchism, does it exist?

I thought I'd mention that minarchism, although I do like the name and the idea compared to anarchism, seems to be an empty theory. I'm referring to what you'll get for Googleing it : 3040 results. In the first two pages, there is one site with as only content "nothing here yet", one unreachable site, one that has nothing but a link to a page about minarchism which brings to the same contentless page, and finally one site that seems to mention a more serious use in 2000-2001. The rest are Wikipedia mirrors. It seems that some people still succeeded to push 25 references to it in Wikipedia. I found Nothing about minarchism from non-libertarians...so I'm just saying this article might be overadvertised. In the 5 pages of French results for "Minarchisme" in Google, most non-Wikipedia references seemed related to the author of the Wikipedia article (Faré). Did WP invent minarchism, or is it just so good?--Chealer 05:42, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Perhaps the name is most widely used in libertarian circles, I don't know. But the concept of a minimum state would pre-date libertarian belief as we know it today, so it cannot really be considered a "new" notion. Lapafrax 21:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

'Minarchism' is not really a well known political phrase, but that's not to say that the minimal state theory is not widespread. Many people who do espouse this theory simply call themselves libertarians who believe in a minimal state (as opposed to the anarcho-capitalists who reject any form of state). For instance Robert Nozick argues for a minimal state in his book 'Anarchy, State and Utopia', but never mentions the word minarchism. Minimal state libertarianism only has substantial political espousal in the English-speaking world - mostly amongst fringe factions of major centre right parties such as the Tory/Conservative parties in the Britain and Canada, the Australian Liberal party and the US Republican party, but also minor parties such as the US Libertarian Party or New Zealand Libertarianz Party.

State ownership of schools and hospitals; rights of minors

The article states that some minarchists would advocate state ownership of hospitals and schools.

I've never heard of any libertarian minarchist who has ever called for such a thing. Libertarians in general oppose state ownership of educational institutions and healthcare. if you posted this, please replace this note with your signature using two dashes followed by four tildes

I think I'll remove the part containing government ownership of school and hospitals. As has been stated, I know of no libertarian writer or thinker who has advocated that schools and hospitals be state-owned. Governmental ownership of schools and hospitals generally is contrary to libertarian beliefs anyhow.
Healthcare/hospitals for sure. However, there is nothing non-libertarian about home owner associations, where owners voluntarily agree to agree to abide by the rules and regulations of the association, including paying any home owners' fee, prior to buying a home in a given home owner association governed area. It is conceivable that such a community be large enough to support a "public" school system for the resident children of the community, and I don't see how any minarchists would object to that (after all, no one would be forcing anyone to live in such a community). However, that's still a far cry from state ownership.
Having said that, libertarianism is much less clear regarding the rights of minors than adults. Does a child have the same rights as an adult? Of course not. Where are the lines? For example, in a minarchist/libertarian society would the state have the right to remove a child from an abusive home? Does a parent have the right to raise his child uneducated? These are questions currently not given much attention by libertarian or minarchist thought. It's easy to say that minarchists would not support state owned schools, but I think that presupposes that there is consensus on the whole child rights issue among libertarians and minarchists, which clearly there is not due to the dearth of thought and discussion on the topic. I am not convinced that libertarianism and minarchism, such as it is, will not evolve a recognition that mistreatment of minors is a type of coercion, that preventing children from getting an education is a type of mistreatment, that compulsion of educating minors is not an initiation of force, and therefore the state doing that is okay. As soon as the state takes responsibility for educating minors, then state owned schools becomes an issue to address (though vouchers alone might be sufficient to solve it). You could also say that a parent/guardian has an obligation to finance the education of a minor (in private schools), just as he has an obligation to finance the fulfillment of the shelter, clothing, nutritional and health needs of the child. --Serge 17:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Mises Institute — minarchist?

I've taken the liberty of removing the Ludwig von Mises Institute from the article's list of minarchist organizations. This is not in any way to denigrate the Institute, but simply to avoid confusion. The Institute simultaneously honors both Mises, a minarchist, and Murray Rothbard, an anarcho-capitalist. The "faculty" itself is also split: off the top of my head, I can think of two ancaps (Walter Block and Lew Rockwell -- the founder) and one minarchist (George Reisman); the rest are right on the border. --zenohockey 19:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, it's true that Mises is partly Ancap. But they are posting loads of materials, articles, and even complete books (freely downloadable in pdf format) by minarchists; as such, they are a serious source of infos for anyone interested in the topic. So, it wouldn't be bad to revert your change and list them on the main page. What does everybody here think about this? M-la-maudite 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When did this term arise?

Can someone provide a reference to some early use of the term "Minarchism"? It sounds to me like a new term.

--Gabi S. 11:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See "Minarchism, does it exist?" (No real answer yet) --Chealer 14:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

i think vo mise instute have 1. make redneck anti postmodernism ideas pilosophy good arguments 2make palo conervative milita maybe survalits ideas put it into a politcal reasoon and frame 3. religous rhigt maybe a littel like o relay show ideas good pilospphy agruments 3.make liberal version or rothblads think better by mr loong and like alle good idology mix your main idea abut goverment/economy whit 2-3 other ideas so it get a more border ideology

Samuel Edward Konkin III invented the term in 1970 [1] or 1971 [2] depending on which of these articles is correct. KleenupKrew 01:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Is there a difference between Minarchism and Philosophical Anarchism?

That government is best which governs least

"I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'" -- Henry David Thoreau quoting an unnamed source Ewlyahoocom 13:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Minarchy: Centralized or Decentralized?

In relation to this quote:

"In general, minarchists favor expansion of power in a government of a small jurisdiction (like a city or county) over a larger jurisdiction (like a state or nation)."

I would like to point out that the idea of many seperate (like a city or county) sovereign mini-governments makes little sense. Especially when you consider that they would carry legislative and judicial power with no one to answer to. In many cases (small towns for instance) this would place absolute power with only a few public officials. Additionally, with a lack of central control over them there is no way to reasonably expect them all to conform to libertarian tradition. Would these small seperate orginizations also be responsible for establishment of military (the police would not typicially have the force required to shoot down enemy planes or sink an invading navy for instance), and also weild the right to declare war? It just isn't logical.

I believe most libertarians who observe the need for some government structure and control recognize a need of a central governing body to oversee it (Federal or centralized Minarchy).

Favoring "expansion of power in a government of a small jurisdiction over a larger jurisdiction" does not preclude having centralized overseeing power, such as the Supreme Court in the U.S. There is no implication of sovereign mini-governments. I think the point is that minarchists generally prefer most government services to be funded and provided locally rather than federally on the basis that the "if you don't like it, or if you disagree with it, you can leave" choice that individuals have is more practical (and thus more powerful) at a small local level than a national level. It is the same idea, for the same reasons, that is shared with American conservatism. It does not mean that minarchists (or conservatives) would oppose a centralized overseeing judicial system to keep the local governments with the day-to-day power honest... --Serge 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Serge: I agree somewhat with your take on this, and would like to add to it. Specifically, I think that this is not meant to be understood as military forces, which more or less by definition must be controlled primarily on the nation-state level and not some lower level of government (otherwise you are pretty much devolving from the level of a nation-state into smaller political units, de facto). I think that rather it's the expansion of government in other ways that should occur on a very localized level--for example if Lakewood, New Jersey wants to enact very strict building codes, or tax their residents 20% of their property values a year, or mandate that free food is available at their city hall for all residents every night (and have to figure out how to pay for it), or do whatever they like, that less offensive than at a higher level, even if some residents might not like it, because people who don't like it can just move 10 miles and they are no longer in Lakewood. Combined with the greater law of the land, such as on the state and federal level, precluding Lakewood from restricting its residents from moving, the citizens of Lakewood can "vote with their feet." Therefore policies which might inhibit people's freedom, or economic growth, such as these, would also be impossible to impose if unpopular or simply economically unfeasible. Lakewood, having to pay for these ideas on its own, would abandon them if they aren't working.

On the other hand, when a policy which is either restrictive or economically unfeasible is adopted at a higher level of government, such as at the state or national level, it is much more difficult for people to simply escape from the area in which such a policy is effective--because it is everywhere! Now, as opposed to moving ten miles, people may have to move hundreds of miles or more, or they may be unable to move because they cannot obtain legal residency in another country, etc. And so public policies from which people cannot escape start to destroy a country's fabric in ways no one sees, because the effects are delayed or restrained from being seen immediately by what amounts to force, by increasing the pain and frustration one must be subject to in order to avoid the offending policy or policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.195.11 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do You want an answer?

I revert this [3] because there is nothing what could be a citation. Looks like a hoax. --Bbnsv 13:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your desired changes -- I'm more than happy to discuss this, and in fact I'd prefer to. Edit wars can be brutal, and rarely do any good. But, um. No offense, but did you not see the part where the site discusses minarchism? I can link you to plenty of sites within thirty seconds -- [4] [5] [6] [7]. "Minarchism" turns up 55,800 Ghits [8]. The Libertarian Wiki doesn't seem to think this is a hoax. All of those websites take the concept seriously. In the meantime, you're coming up on WP:3RR -- friendly warning, read that page before your next revert, or you may be blocked for violating policy. I look forward to discussing this with you. Luna Santin 13:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What are you doing? The cite should give a reference to the text. It should not dicuss minarchism. How old are you? --Bbnsv 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that mentioning an article's subject wasn't allowed, on reference pages. Luna Santin 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Or, to put it another way: see straw man -- since neither my use of the word "discusses" nor my age are of any remote importance to my argument as a whole, it makes little apparent sense to zero in on them as key issues. Thanks for your time. Luna Santin 01:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Your edit is unreasoned and will be reverted. What do you want to reference by this link? You are vandalizing. or very stupid. Something else is not possible. --Forget it. 21:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That's nice, but would you care to make any points? Ad hominem attacks prove little, so please remain civil. Bear in mind WP:3RR as well -- an important policy you would do very well to read. Luna Santin 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I protected this page and also Libertarianism because of Irgendwer who is using sockpuppets like crazy at the moment. I have a checkuser request up. If these are all proven to be him, he will be blocked. So this is a band aid to stop him from doing this. He's up to 3 socks and will continue to create them. This should just be for a day or two. Irgendwer, please stop. Serially creating new accounts so you can continue to attack people and revert war is totally against policy. Stop. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be said that User:Intangible is probably not Irgendwer. Most of its edits have been to remove "overbroad" Categories from political articles not closely linked to libertaria. That's a reasonable action imho: if article X is included in cat Y which is a subcat of Z, then article X need not be explicitly in Z. —Tamfang 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I belatedly agree; I'm pretty sure I've run into Intangible, before. At CfD or somewhere, I think. Either way, he doesn't fit the pattern. Thanks for pointing that out, though. :) Luna Santin 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea how to request un-protection, but I doubt this still needs it, since that ingerwer guy is apparently banned. So if somebody who knows what they're doing could request that, because I sure don't know how, and it needs to be done.Skywalkert65b 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dubious statements in the criticism section

I tagged the following statements as dubious :

  • All known governments in history have grown in size and scope.
  • The American Founding Fathers' approach of limiting the inherent force linked with government (in respect to the United States Constitution) has not worked.

The first statement could be true (but hardly verifiable I am afraid) if analyzed on a long scale, but on shorter scales, some governments have actually reduced their size and scope. A good example would be Great Britain's transition from monarchy to its early parliamantary democracy stages at a time where individual freedom was at the core of this society's restructuration. Some Asian countries have also experienced a reduction in the size of their governments during the last few decades, as did Ireland I would say.

The second statement is obviously not verifiable, although I would understand, and somewhat agree with, what is meant by it. But when we compare the success that the US have had in protecting individual freedom to other constitutional countries, it could be said that the Founding Fathers somewhat succeeded... The government's growth in the US has not been stopped by the Constitution that they drafted, indeed, but it at least has been slowed, and that is an achievement that few other constitutions in the world have matched. --Childhood's End 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I initially added the criticism section since I felt it would make a more balanced article. Still, I disagree with your points. Great Britain actually became more imperialist after its transition from absolute monarchy to a modern parliamentary system. Some countries may have liberalised their economies, but not necessarily for "libertarian" reasons. Ireland's Celtic Tiger phase largely arose because of competitive corporation taxes and EU subsidies and not because the Irish government felt that government undermines individual liberty. And the US Constitution's attempt to limit the growth of government has failed. The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit the federal government's power. Lapafrax 20:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. The main problem that I see with the statements is that they are not verifiable. Perhaps if you could find a reliable and notable source for what is said there, we could reformulate for something like "According to...".
Besides, the US Constitution has been quite successful until the 1930's and Roosevelt's actions towards the Supreme Court. And Great Britain may have become more "imperialist" then, it remains that its citizens were becoming more free at the very same time. Issues should not be mixed like this imho. --Childhood's End 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Consider the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire": it definitely didn't become an overarching bureaucracy, but degenerated into a loose confederation. Nyttend 19:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says this? - Criticism section

This is a standard criticism from opponents of minarchism. Many anarcho-capitalists/market anarchists would claim that minarchism is contradictory and logically inconsistent. Lapafrax 09:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

...it still has to be cited. — Demong talk 02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"In order for a state to fund itself, it would have to tax people, which requires coercion and thus an initiation of force. "
I removed this because it's false. The state does not have to tax people to fund itself. I challenge the writer to find me an example of a minarchist who believes/claims this. It (the state) could tax people, but many minarchists would prefer other means such as voluntary charity (which is mentioned further on in the article), a lottery, road tariffs, or other similar ideas.
One could surely reinsert the offending comment with mention that it's specifically critics who claim that the state "has to tax people to fund itself," but in all honesty the said critic would have to be utterly ignorant of the vast majority of minarchist writings (and arguments), and hence it'd be a straw man anyway.

Moonshinefe 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I accept that some minarchists don't believe that. Nonetheless there are a number of minarchists who still advocate taxation as a means of funding government. Surely there is a contradiction and logical discrepancy here, since you can't say taxation is theft, yet still feel it's necessary to finance the state. Lapafrax 14:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The statement could be toned down (perhaps something like "it might have to tax..."), and qualifiers could be added ("...although many minarchists believe that...") --Childhood's End 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


There is obviously a disconnect between the rights of the State and the rights of the Federal State. The Federal State should have limited power over taxes. The Constitution does, however, provide adequately for State level taxation. Perhaps this is a slight muddling of Constitutionalism with Libertarian Minarchism but I believe in the context of the United States they are not mutually exclusive. --JayVee

Leadership

I don't see anything on this page regarding the value that society places on leadership (in the sense of minarchism vs. anarchism). This can't be an original idea, but a cursory Google didn't come up with any immediately satisfying results. I'm citing this simply as a possible addition (I'm new to Wiki and have little talent in the editing department). One of the arguments for minarchism (and against anarcho-capitalism) is that people naturally gravitate toward charismatic and/or wise leadership, and that an elected representative group of leaders would be more conducive to individual liberty than leadership that is derived purely from the market (corporate or business leaders).

--IntrepidDemise 10:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable addition to the Criticism section. I'll add it if someone doesn't before me. Lapafrax 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Shouldn't there be a citation for including her as a "prominent miniarchist"? I can see how it might fit, given the broad definition of it, but since she never applied the term to herself it might be original research to refer to her (and maybe some others) as such.--Darkmusashi 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand is referred to as a minarchist by reliable authoritative sources. Here's one.
  • "... interpreting Rand, the explicit minarchist, as ..." - Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged By Edward Wayne Younkins, p. 194
--Born2cycle (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Question: ¿Did she ever call herself that? If so, she should be listed, but if not, then no. (I personally do not know- What little I know of her, she seems more like a misanthrope, and therefore more likely to be a purified anarchist.)Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Unsourced material removed from "Minarchism versus classical liberalism" - explanation

I just removed the following material from the end of the Minarchism versus classical liberalism section:

However, arguments over the similarities are made difficult by the large number of factions in both classical liberalism and minarchists. For example, minarchists are not necessarily in favor of complete economic deregulation in the first place and often support tax-funded provision of a select few public goods. Furthermore, classical liberals, unlike minarchists, may also prescribe culturally conservative lifestyles.

I removed this because I don't think it's true, but also because I don't see how it could ever be verified. To be clear, it's probably true that "minarchists are not necessarily in favor of complete economic deregulation" , but, then, neither are classic liberals (like Hayek was) necessarily in favor of complete economic deregulation. Such absolute terms normally only apply to the extremists of the respective group, be they libertarians, minarchists or classical liberals.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but the burden to find a source supporting their view is entirely that of those who wish to restore it, not the challenger. I won't object to it being restored, if it's sourced with an inline citation to reliable authoritive and verifiable source, per WP:V. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

what's the diff

What is the difference between a night watchman state and this? I'm thinking they might need to merged. There's probably a simple explanation. Anyone? E123 (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, my simple explanation would be that the former is a condition, whereas the latter is an ideology. Compare anarchism and anarchy.  Skomorokh  01:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I just checked out the night watchman state page; It’s first paragraph is a copy and past of the first paragraph of this page. A merger is absolutely justified.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Too much unreferenced WP:OR

Reference it soon or see article trimmed in half. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been a month, so I think I'll clean up some of this more dubious nonsourced WP:OR comments. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Logo?

The image is confusing. It looks like an image of a small government building becoming a big one? If there is some explanation, it should be in the caption. This search comes up with at least one symbol that probably is general enough to not be copyrighted, though you'd have to investigate. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's supposed to illustrate the concept of one government being smaller, or less than, another government. It's not perfect, but it sort of gets the point across, so I’m not convinced a caption is necessary. — Satori Son 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean small government being "more than" (better than) big government? That's obvious to a hard core libertarian but not to your average reader. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seemed obvious to average me, but some anon has removed it and I don't feel that strongly about it. — Satori Son 14:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Will "Minarchism: the idea that a minimal state will always be more efficient, and therefore more preferable, than a maximum state" work? Abel (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose we merge small government, limited government, and night watchman state into this article. Much of the content in the other articles is duplicated here. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also an archived discussion about this, here. --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussion in Archive 59. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously no one is interested, as they were not there. Removing tag. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need more on ideology, especially private protection/etc. agencies

Particularly central are private protection/consumer/legal/accounting/reputational agencies that people can hire that really protect them in ways governments only allege they do. A paragraph or two on various proposals would be great. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Let's try again. I propose we merge small government, limited government, and night watchman state into this article. Much of the content in the other articles is duplicated here. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. They are two different things and therefore deserve their own articles. byelf2007 (talk) 22 July 2011
The first paragraph of this article is a copied and pasted to Night watchman state; That’s a merger by default. (Just because everyone was wrong before doesn’t mean they will always be “malinformed.” After al, everyone “knew” the world was flat for millions of years.)Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
"The first paragraph of this article is a copy and paste of Minarchism; That’s a merger by default."
No it isn't.
Night watchmen state:
A night watchman state, or a minimal state, is a form of government in political philosophy where the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only governmental institutions would be the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons. Advocacy of a minimal state is known as minarchism.
Minarchism:
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism is a libertarian political philosophy which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only governmental institutions would be the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons. (Such states are sometimes called night watchman states.) Some minarchists support taxation. Minarchism is closely associated with classical liberalism.

So please read the paragraphs next time.
Anyway, about this issue, one thing is about a type of government, and another is about advocacy of that type of government.

Ex:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

byelf2007 (talk) 28 July 2011

I am Nethariously bad about being insult, lied to, or threatened.
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism[2]) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons.[2][3] Such states are sometimes called night watchman states.
A night watchman state, or a minimal state, is a capitalist form of government in political philosophy where the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons.[1][2] Advocacy of a minimal state is known as minarchism.
Insult me again. Call me a lair, illiterate, or both again. Please.
Night watchman state article IS a direct quote of the Minarchist article, with a few exctra words thrown in. It is merged by default.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
You said "The first paragraph of this article is a copy and paste of Minarchism; That’s a merger by default." And I pointed out that that wasn't true. Now you're telling me the paragraphs are similar. Yes, they are; they aren't a "copy and paste". I didn't call you a liar or illiterate. I said "So please read the paragraphs next time." Anyway, "minarchism" is advocacy of a "night watchmen state". So minarchism and a night watchmen state a two different things, and, therefore, they deserve two different articles. You claim that "It is merged by default." Where is the wikipedia standard which says something to the effect of "If there are two articles about similar things where much of their respective first paragraphs, are, by necessity, similar, they must be merged."?

There is a precendent already set for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_culture

byelf2007 (talk) 28 July 2011

  • Support The intros are essentially the same. I don't see a distinction of significance among the four topics - unless someone explains how any of them are significantly different, I support the merge proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose see above. byelf2007 (talk) 28 July 2011
  • Strongly Support Minarchism and NWS have the exact same (well largely so) opening paragraph; NWS has been (haphazardly) argued as “minarchism in action.” I submit that it’s just another name for the same thing (liquid water, ice, and steam are still forms of water, and do not require separate entries), and if you truly ‘must’ have a split then include a blurb on the Minarchism page of “Night Watchman State” with perhaps the line “Minarchism in action is generally referred to as “Night Watchman State.”” or something to that effect, and NWS redirecting here; Absolutely NOTHING of consequence has been presented to support the continued separation, other than fan-boyesque fact twisting; All that HAS been presented of consequence is to expose that the problem is wide-spread.
    The other two (or three maybe) subjects are similar, but to say all of them should be merged may (I say ‘may’ as in not necessarily ‘is’) premature. A REDDSON, who’s in a much better mood now than he was 2Ø minutes ago.
  • Oppose I think Small government could be merged into Limited government - and of course the article should mention both the libertarian and conservative varieties. But the Minarchism and Night watchman state are somewhat different concepts, with different histories. Just because one or both articles are not up to par, does not mean they should be merged together. Of course, if someone would write them properly we could stop having this debate every 10 months! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Directly from the article itself: “Such states are sometimes called night watchman states.” The diffrence: What they’re sometimes CALLED. I’m “sometimes called” (often actually) Andy, but my name is still Andering, no amount of fancy writing changes that.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Re. the picture

I don't see that the recently added/deleted/re-added picture adds value to this article. The caption, for one, strikes me as a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't think adding pictures just to add pictures necessarily improves an article. I think the picture in question is likely to confuse readers rather than elucidate the concept of minarchism. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Where is the wp:rule that says eliminating a picture without replacing it makes the article worse. Byelf2007 (talk) February 1 2012

Okay, so what kind of a picture would help readers quickly understand Minarchism‎? Abel (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure such a picture exists, but that's not my point. I just think this article is better without the particular picture you added. Adding pictures doesn't always improve an article–the pictures have to have appropriate context. If you're trying to add pictures to meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, remember that a featured article "has images and other media where appropriate." Textually, this article has a long way to go to become a good or featured article. I would focus on improving and expanding the written parts of the article, and then perhaps it will become clearer what types of pictures might work. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Tried that. Improved and expanded the article text with throughly supported secondary research, which was deleted because someone had an emotional attachment to "has been variously defined by sources." Would like to help, but everything I do to help gets deleted. Abel (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Example

I'm baffled by this inclusion: "An example that illustrates the concept comes during the Greek government debt crisis where the Greek government decided to expand a list of state-recognized disability categories to include pedophiles, exhibitionists and kleptomaniacs.[22] All minarchists, regardless of their level of devotion to minarchism, would be against such a policy change.[10]" Why? Presumably minarchists would not see the need for any "state-recognised disability categories" (what purpose could they serve?) but, even if they did expect such a list, I can't see the link to the state's role in preserving its citizens' rights. Perhaps this is obvious to someone else but at the least it needs rewording. Can anyone clarify? calr (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur that this sentence seems out of place, and unrelated to surrounding context. The sentence preceding this one discusses the scope of a mincarchist government in relation to individual rights. Then, the following sentence seeks to make an example out of Greek recognition of disabilities. I really have no idea where this sentence comes from, and suggest its removal entirely. Tetracide (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I took it out. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 September 2012

Expansion of the Objectivist Defense of the State

I would like to propose re-writing the "Ideology" section. The writing is choppy and does not flow well. I would also like to propose text dedicated to the Objectivist view of the state and its necessity. At present, a single sentence states that Ayn Rand advocated a court system, police, and military without discussing the justifications for her position (which in turn can add to the explanation of minarchy in general). Tetracide (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Have a go! Byelf2007 (talk) 15 September 2012

External links that should/could be sources

I removed the following links to sources that were listed under External links:

If these are useful to the article they should be integrated into it, not tacked on at the end. Jojalozzo 14:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think they should be sources, integrate them, don't delete them. I'm going to remove three as excessive/no link/less notable, but it's silly to have an external link section with nothing under it. CarolMooreDC 16:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Adding links to justify having the section doesn't make sense to me. I will remove the section to address your concern. None of these links should be included in external links since they do not comply with the MOS for external links. They could be sources and someone (you?) can integrate them but until then they do not belong in the external links section. That's why I moved them here rather than deleting them. Jojalozzo 19:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Redundant links and hat note location

My recent edit that removed redundant wikilinks and modified citation tags to comply with the MOS and citation template formatting was reverted without an explanation. The hat note I added to the top of the article (per WP:HNP) concerning citation style was moved to the References section, also without an explanation. All of my changes are in compliance with the MOS and our standard practice. Unless there is good reason for doing things differently in this article I propose we restore my changes. Jojalozzo 19:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see you did see my explanation above and there was an edit summary. I think you are being a bit nitpicky, but will keep a couple of them in mind and use as refs at my leisure. CarolMooreDC 02:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Misleading

People use the word "minarchist" to mean a libertarian who isn't an anarchist, i.e. someone who wants to reduce the power of government without abolishing it. This usually has no reference to natural rights or views on fraud or force; you can get to that view entirely with economic arguments. This article is currently too skewed in favor of the natural rights crowd and the things they consider important. J1812 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minarchism/Archive_1&oldid=1137012990"