Why I’ve Evolved Past Minarchism
It has been a long time since my last post. Life sometimes gets busy and sometimes extracurricular activities, such as blogging, can take a backseat. I feel like this topic would be a good way to restart regular posting in my blog, as it displays the evolution from where my views were when I first started this blog to where they are now. When I first began this blog, and throughout my original writings, I was what we consider a “Big L” Libertarian, meaning I was minarchist (I saw a need for a very small government) aligned with the Libertarian Party. Through my studies, research, debates, and trying to thoroughly apply outside critical thinking, discourse, logic, and reason to my own ideas, I have evolved more into an anarcho-capitalist school of thought–think Murray Rothbard and David D. Friedman. This writing idea originally stemmed from a poem I had written to make a point and also make fun of my centrist/minarchist friend who regularly writes poetry to make political points; here is that poem:
Minarchism The state is like a weed It will always grow On the citizens it will always feed Draining the sustenance from all below There is no such thing As a government that stays small It is either dead, dying, or growing Regardless of principled attempts to stall The larger this weed grows The more sustenance it needs Killing everything that slows This growth on you and I it feeds Sometimes you need poison or fire Because starving it is not enough 21 trillion and getting higher So large became this slough Faith in it is just a bandage For people who are afraid to face That main cause of this baggage On our shoulders all governments place
As you can see, the main approach to my explanation is that government in general is analogous of a plant, rather a weed. It seemed like a good way to explain the phenomena of governments failure to do anything but grow and cause harm. There is no such thing as a limited government that stays limited and no such thing as a small government that stays small. Originally, I deduced that the state is like a plant; as long as there is water, food, and sun it'll grow and grow. If you starve it, it dies off, but it'll always want to grow; it is either dead, dying, or growing.
Like said plant, a small state will always want to grow. A small state becomes a big state if you don't starve it and kill it off, but as long as it exists, it will always grow. Also like a plant, the larger it grows, the more food, water, and sun it will need to stay alive. Now in the context of the state, the larger it grows the more money it must extort, the more regulations and laws it will pass, the more it must extend its reach via unjust wars and interventionist policies, and the more tyrannical it will become; that is what is happening today and has been gradually happening since the creation of our—rather, all—government.
While I continued to ponder this analogy, based on the destructive nature of the state, I deduced that the state is really more like a weed, instead of a normal plant. It kills everything that gets in its’ way and leaches sustenance from everything underneath it and everything its roots touch. They grow and grow, and the larger they get the more they must leach and the more they destroy. Unlike a plant, pruning weeds does very little to keep their size under control and sometimes you need fire or poison to get rid of weeds as simply starving them doesn't always work. In the context of the US government, a $22+ trillion national debt and massive deficit spending is demonstrative of its growth despite being “starved.”
The founding fathers ousted a state and replaced it with another, small state, which grew and grew into this behemoth we have now. They had a noble idea of implementing a small state for the people, by the people, but failed to recognize that such a construct is and can only ever be temporary. The state will always create a power vacuum and because of that power vacuum it attracts the worst kind of people; career politicians (tyrants), always looking to grow their control and by using the monopoly on force inherent to governments to do so. As the late Lysander Spooner once stated, regarding the founding fathers and the Constitution of the United States:
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.”
Now, what is the benefit of complaining about a problem while not offering any solutions, right? This is where the evolution takes us; we can recognize that the Free Market can provide essentially all services currently provided by the government but, simultaneously, the Free Market contains mechanisms for preventing the severe problems always created by government. Competition ensures accountability to said market, while a governments monopoly on force ensures there is none. Remove the latter and free the former and only then can we build a solution to this weed we know as “government.”
Thanks for reading and sharing,
The Troubled Free Thinker