How would you answer this? (minarchy and strategy)

"Is minarchy between the current (statist) condition and full-fledged anarchy? And if this is true, why not start with getting closer to minarchy as a strategic means to achieving full-fledged market anarchism?" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston51.html)

I cant quite put my finger on it, but i think this question is flawed in some way(if you think it isn't please answer it).

I think the flaw is that you have to choose either or. You have to be going for "full-fledged" anarchy, or minarchy. You can't choose both. I on the other hand want to choose both. I think there's some bias against anarchy in that question.
In every situation I will choose whatever provides lesser government. I'm not sure if I want minarchy and I'm not sure if I want anarchy but I do know I want less government/more personal freedom in line with voluntaryism or the non-aggression principle.

I don't feel I can comprehend what those mean (or what it means to be in a minarchist or anarchist state/nonstate) till the moment I realize I (or we) are close to that point in time.

As said above I will choose whatever gets lesser government. My ultimate goal is to get lesser government until I feel the need to stop personally. So I may advocate minarchist things at one point and anarchist things at another, but my ultimate goal is to continually deconstruct or lessen governmental powers never to grow them.

There is one part I'm not sure about yet. Does it count as growing the government if I advocate for some governmental thing, that may be smaller than whatever it is that is replacing it? or Is it seen as a loss?

Say I dunno social security, If I advocate for a new program that is supposed to be drastically smaller, or it is only payed voluntarily, like some government signup form for it. Is it considered growing the government if say it was to replace Medicare/Medicad or is it considered lessening the government because its deconstructing a big program into a smaller one?

Someone probably will say though that even if you're replacing it with a smaller one , that small one will eventually grow just as big anyway.
I feel like if it was actively watched in mind that we want to reduce government spending each year instead of expanding, maybe it would reduce eventually to the point it could be totally voluntary or just disband.

Should I instead just advocate that the big program should not exist at all from the get go.

I see it as two ways to the same conclusion, but of course they are both hypothetical for now.

I think by that definition I would not be a minarchist because my ultimate goal is to continually lessen government where I think the majority of the minarchist term are for lessening government to a point where they want to stop, and never go further. Though one day I might go minarchist but I won't know that day till I come to it. I don't think I ever will, just because I think there's so much stuff to try and lessen I'll be dead of old age before I come to that decision.

Destination wrote:"Is minarchy between the current (statist) condition and full-fledged anarchy? And if this is true, why not start with getting closer to minarchy as a strategic means to achieving full-fledged market anarchism?" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston51.html)

I cant quite put my finger on it, but i think this question is flawed in some way(if you think it isn't please answer it).

The only way to truly explain and expose problems that exist today, is to understand and point out structural problems. The structural problem is that of monopoly, is that of violence, is that of a self-feeding mechanism of economic and social exploitation (and all the wars and corruption of culture and thought it brings with it).

If you understand that, only then you can really say no to abuse. And only when you can really say no to abuse, do you have a chance of getting rid of it.

The quick and easy answer to your first question is no. Not only do I think that minarchy is full-fledged statism but I don't think minarchy could even be a stepping stone to Anarchy. Here's why: People tend toward apathy. The less intrusive government is the less likely people will fight to overthrow it. I like to use the analogy of a tree. If you want to kill a tree do you start by trimming the branches periodically? Of course not that would cause it to grow more. You attack the root. When the root is dead the tree is dead. There is no middle ground between the living and dead. Furthermore statism always tends toward more power. The reason being is, as Lord Acton put it, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." So even if you could create a minarchist state (such as we had at the founding of this country) it would only give way to more and more power and corruption within the governmental sphere. The last thing I would say is this. In no other service market do we consider a monopoly beneficial why in government?

I not only agree with ThePsycopaticnut on everything he wrote but I would even add that monopolies exist because they are endorsed and supported by governments and vice versa.

JoseAlonsoLeon, I'm glad we agree on something. lol

Well I don't necessarily agree on that, I think we believe on more then something...we just haven't been able to express it yet...perhaps...

LOL you're probably right.

See...I knew it..I love the Simpsons tooooo...

We better stop this or we'll be moderated out of this discussion...

Thanks for your answers.