I'm interested in Minarchism and finding out about it. All

It's a pipedream therefore would never work.

To my knowledge, the government only serves to be a court for property right violations. It's the opposite of socialism and authoritarianism in that most of the functions of the state are left to the people and the free market and no actions are deemed unlawful unless they're are violating the established rights of others.

File: The_General.png (603KB, 500x900px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 500x900px

>>127904047
Well not being treaded on is pretty good, free markets make regular fucks wealthy and you got a sweet army too. I'm not a minarchist myself, but its a close second for me.

>>127904047
An ideal free market optimizes productivity in a way that state intervention never can. It also preserves all of our natural rights: you should be allowed to do anything you want, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

However, an ideal free market with no oversight would be unstable and would lead to oligarchy or tyranny. This is where minarchism comes from: a government should be set up to protect its citizens from coercion, and limit its function to that.

File: based.jpg (177KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1280x720px

>>127904047
Minarchism violates the NAP - why should I be taxed to pay for a military and police I don't consent to?

You shits will be thrown out of the choppers along with commies and all other statist shills

>>127904047
All authoritarian states consolidate power into the hands of very few people and then after that all it takes is a few bad decisions to break everything.

File: 1469219701070.jpg (40KB, 574x542px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 574x542px

>>127906103
Please Mr.Dapperton, you make us look like a bunch of fags. some statists are cool.

File: based hoppe.png (134KB, 853x1025px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 853x1025px

>>127906561
>some statists are cool.

Hello Gary Johnson, now go kill yourself

>>127906103
Because pure anarchism is unsustainable. Some level of taxation is a necessary evil.

>>127906103

Government can be voluntarily funded at a reasonable size shitlord. the revenue from state lottery tickets was over $75 billion last year.

File: 1486986898572.jpg (81KB, 563x768px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 563x768px

>>127907022
>he said while posting my OC.
Obviously they aren't as #enlightended as us but I could get a beer with some nazis and minarchists

>>127906542
>minarchism
>authoritarian

Doesn't have to be. Minarchism just defines what government should do. You can choose whatever government structure you feel is most stable.

>>127907393
>he said while posting my OC.
>believing in intellectual property

Spot the "libertarian" infiltraitor.

>>127907332
The lottery is not profitable enough to fund the enforcement of our rights. There are a multitude of corporations that could easily outspend the government if it relied on lottery profits to prevent an oligarchy.

I hate government funded police, but private security is legitimately worse. Don't love government funded armies, but private mercenaries are decidedly worse.

Thing my ideal gubment funds with voluntary taxes:

Standing army and navy
justice system including police, courts, prisons
definitely not roads

>>127907903

>to prevent an oligarchy

what kind of shittarded commie thinking is this? oligarchies are basically impossible without artificial government barriers. milton friedman urself faggot.

citizens are armed for domestic invaders. military is only for foreign invasion.

domestic threats*

>>127908405
Tyranny, then.

The point is that without regulation a free market collapses on itself. Someone becomes so successful that they can ignore the NAP.

File: you-sure-are-fuckin-stupid-read-a-book-nigger-4499904.png (91KB, 500x446px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 500x446px

how do you know what the NAP is and think unregulated capitalism is a bad thing? go read literally any non-keynesian economics.

Anyone can ignore the NAP. Guess what, they got shot.

>>127909218
Zero reading comprehension...

Shot by who? In ancapistan the most successful people are able to afford more hired thugs than anyone else. If you don't have a state with an army and police, they can effectively set up their own government.

Hence, you get tyranny. If anarchism was sustainable the world would still be anarchist.

>Shot by who?

Armed civilians and police. I think I've been pretty clear about that.

Somehow your argument against a government funded by voluntary taxation is that anarchism doesn't work?

File: absolutelyirrational.jpg (222KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 600x450px

>They don't know about ultraminarchism/atriocracy
On the one hand, you can't morally justify expropriation of some to provide any good or service to others. That principle includes the service of rights-protection and conflict arbitration - so taxation to support a minarchist state is not justified.
On the other hand, the chief problem with full anarcho-capitalism is the lack of an ultimate arbitrator. Individual law enforcement agencies, private police, etc, might reach a mutually acceptable agreement in a majority of cases, but not all. Some conflicts might be so ambiguous, or have such high stakes, that violence would become inevitable, ushering in the use of violence. A related issue with ancap is the lack of a unified, objective law. We all agree that the purpose of law is to uphold natural rights; however, though this sounds simple, it is actually a very difficult task to achieve in practice. This is the province of the philosophy of law, and ancient and intricate field. You have to decide on standards of evidence and proof, appeal procedures, punishments, proportionality, the definition of property, etc. If everyone is using different law, you will arrive at an impasse at literally every disagreement, and you might as well just give up and break out the recreational McNukes.
You can solve both problems at once by having a 'government' consisting of just two entities: a constitution and a Supreme Court. Within a geographical area (the nation), the constitution would be recognized as the supreme, unitary law, and the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbitrator of disputes. All actual law enforcement, all military action and almost all arbitration would be carried out by private agencies which compete in the free market. Naturally, they will police and arbitrate according to the constitution, if they want to get along with their competitors and keep their customers (if they do not, they will be treated as a criminal gang). (1/2)

>>127910757
My argument is that voluntary taxation won't allow you to outfund the people you're defending against. The police will be weaker than the people trying to ignore the NAP.

>>127910843
If a dispute is so controversial and/or difficult to decide that the private law agencies cannot reach a mutually acceptable agreement, there is an ultimate arbitrator they can turn to (and will be expected to turn to by general popular agreement - if the ultraminarchist government has done its job satisfactorily and earned the trust of the people, you can bet that refusing to submit to its decision would render any private association an outlaw). If the constitution is found to be inadequate in some respect, the Supreme Court will amend it in accordance with the strictest logical, philosophical and legal principles - NOT the democratic will of the people.
In this way, you can gain the benefit of an ultimate arbitrator and unitary, objective law, without risking statist tyranny. The state consists of perhaps as low as three people. They have no power to tax or otherwise enslave and oppress the population; it is in their economic interests - even if we take morality out of the equation - to arbitrate well and impartially. We also escape the risk of private tyranny, as in AnCap, as no private association can simply invent law arbitrarily in order to tyrannize - they must comply with the (virtually immutable) constitution or risk outlaw status, when every citizen or private agency with a Burger King® Tomahawk™ battery will have open season on them.

>>127910757
How do you fund the police and who organizes them?

>>127910757
I also don't appreciate you ignoring the literal first thing I said to you in favor of focusing on my rebuttal of your pants-on-head retarded defense of unregulated capitalism.

People won't obey the NAP unless it's enforced. It can only be enforced if there's a more powerful entity to enforce it.

A police force really isn't that expensive to fund, in the scheme of government. I don't see how you can argue that funding the police is impossible when lottery tickets are just a taste of how much voluntary tax revenue could exist.

>It can only be enforced if there's a more powerful entity to enforce it.

A city police department enforces the NAP against gangs much larger in size and funding....

>>127913059
>People won't obey the NAP unless it's enforced. It can only be enforced if there's a more powerful entity to enforce it.
and who keeps that more powerful entity in check

>>127915487
That's the question, isn't it. The US constitution was a good attempt, and it's been pretty stable.

The problem we have to deal with is that we're currently compromising with the leftist agenda for their ideal state. Remove the commies and we can all live in peace.