And this is why I am a minarchist ultimately, we know that there must be a monopoly on violence, preferably that would be held by a state of elected peers that can be impeached for transgressions against the public trust. I am 100% personally for protections and social safety nets, a strong system to protect and enrich the lives of citizens so that they can be productive and have better outputs in the long run benefits all of us. And it turns out it’s generally cheaper to fix problems then let them fester and rot.
Personally, I would love modern societies bring back banishment as a punishment for being a corrupt official. Imagine if election day lets you vote somebody out of the country for being a huge dick head and a detriment to your life and rights.
We know what the alternative looks like. pops open a stack of history books on various civil wars
I am 100% personally for protections and social safety nets, a strong system to protect and enrich the lives of citizens so that they can be productive and have better outputs in the long run benefits all of us.
I think that’s an easy idea to sell at the top line. But as soon as you get into the messy details, you’re going to run into disputes between rival ideologues. And when tensions flare, resources run short, and people panic, those disputes can turn violent… resulting in civil war.
I would argue that the number one job of a state government is to avoid civil war. When you go back to the Spanish Civil War (every ideology nerd’s favorite bone to pick) and you talk about the various sides, their ideologues, and their relative successes, what you are ultimately asking is which faction was most successful in ending the war and reestablishing a peaceful order.
Anarchists and Communists love to bicker over who screwed over whom. But the dirty bottom line of it all is that Franco’s highly authoritarian bloody-handed military, backed by a host of private profit-motivated interests, brought an end to the chronically unstable Republican Era.
it’s generally cheaper to fix problems then let them fester and rot.
When you’re working with limited resources and you have a variety of stakeholders at play, which problems get fixed and which are ignored can often come down to which stakeholders can form a lasting functional coalition.
The problem with authoritarianism as a system of government is that it does a great job of placating a coalition of powerful patrons, stabilizing an erratic popular system through a campaign of military terror. You win the support of capital by making a region profitable. And then you’ve got a ahem “virtuous” self-reinforcing cycle of profits expanding the scale of resources afforded to the authoritarian state.
Minarchy might be attractive ideologically. But if the system can’t stave of domestic conflicts by placating powerful opposed interests, it isn’t a system people can participate in safely or sustainably. Nobody wants the job of Minarchist Government Official if they’re just going to be the whipping boys for popular discontent.
I’m not clear how you have privatization without authoritarianism. Property claims without enforcement aren’t worth much.
And this is why I am a minarchist ultimately, we know that there must be a monopoly on violence, preferably that would be held by a state of elected peers that can be impeached for transgressions against the public trust. I am 100% personally for protections and social safety nets, a strong system to protect and enrich the lives of citizens so that they can be productive and have better outputs in the long run benefits all of us. And it turns out it’s generally cheaper to fix problems then let them fester and rot.
Personally, I would love modern societies bring back banishment as a punishment for being a corrupt official. Imagine if election day lets you vote somebody out of the country for being a huge dick head and a detriment to your life and rights.
We know what the alternative looks like. pops open a stack of history books on various civil wars
I think that’s an easy idea to sell at the top line. But as soon as you get into the messy details, you’re going to run into disputes between rival ideologues. And when tensions flare, resources run short, and people panic, those disputes can turn violent… resulting in civil war.
I would argue that the number one job of a state government is to avoid civil war. When you go back to the Spanish Civil War (every ideology nerd’s favorite bone to pick) and you talk about the various sides, their ideologues, and their relative successes, what you are ultimately asking is which faction was most successful in ending the war and reestablishing a peaceful order.
Anarchists and Communists love to bicker over who screwed over whom. But the dirty bottom line of it all is that Franco’s highly authoritarian bloody-handed military, backed by a host of private profit-motivated interests, brought an end to the chronically unstable Republican Era.
When you’re working with limited resources and you have a variety of stakeholders at play, which problems get fixed and which are ignored can often come down to which stakeholders can form a lasting functional coalition.
The problem with authoritarianism as a system of government is that it does a great job of placating a coalition of powerful patrons, stabilizing an erratic popular system through a campaign of military terror. You win the support of capital by making a region profitable. And then you’ve got a ahem “virtuous” self-reinforcing cycle of profits expanding the scale of resources afforded to the authoritarian state.
Minarchy might be attractive ideologically. But if the system can’t stave of domestic conflicts by placating powerful opposed interests, it isn’t a system people can participate in safely or sustainably. Nobody wants the job of Minarchist Government Official if they’re just going to be the whipping boys for popular discontent.