Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
Near Anarchy: A compromise between anarchists and minarchists
I propose a compromise. What if each town or each county in the U.S. had a monopoly on the use of force. That is, abolish the federal and state governments. Wouldn't this extreme decentralization be a pretty good approximation of anarchy? As an anarchist, I don't think I would have any complaints about living in a society where I had literally hundreds, if not thousands, of "governments" to choose from. With today's technology, people could be easily informed about which areas to avoid.
Of course, there is always a risk that some governments will get together and further centralize their power. But this risk is present in any system. Of course, the more decentralized the power is, the longer it will take to fully centralize power.
I think this is an area where libertarians/anarchists and patriot constitutionalists can get together without anyone feeling that they are sacrificing their principles.
Thoughts.
__________________
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
F.A. Harper
Hey Lysander -
Check out this article by Swiss economist Bruno Frey. He describe a system he calls Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions. In this system, a form of panarchy, each government provides a single function, such as education, fire protection, policing, defense, etc. People sign up for the government to which they want to belong. Some sorts of governments may be joined by individuals, but others (such as security and defense) are joined by communes (which I guess are equivilant to villages or hamlets in Switzerland.)
Anyway, I found it an interesting hybrid of minarchism and market anarchism. Check it out and see what you think.
Stevo
Interesting article! I was going to mention Switzerland, though the reality isn't completely analogous, of course. I think competing spheres of small control as a model is a good option, given freedom to move. It's close to a competitive market model. This will temper the cercion in the smaller governing bodies. I'm still in favor of total voluntary governance, but this comes close.
I'm still in favor of total voluntary governance, but this comes close.
As am I. But I think this model can bridge the gap between anarchists and minarchists. Or may act as a transition. I have always been of the mind that if libertarianism can be implimented on a small scale, it will become obvious that it is the best way to go. Contrast this with the typical conservative or socialist (did I repeat myself). They will never try their model on a small scale. They won't even leave people alone who live thousands of miles away, let alone their neighbors.
And GG, cut down on your podcast time. You eating up all of my valuable free time!!! :)
I've heard proposals of this sort are being bandied about in New Hampshire. I find this very interesting. However, I doubt if the voting masses will be able to accept proposals such as panarchy. I think that if enough people set up a competing 'government' system, and enough people adhere to the competition, then the idea will gain traction. It's worth trying, in my opinion.
Does leaving people alone include leaving them alone to set up a coercive government? People in the U.S. generally don't care if some population is being oppressed in some distant land. Should anarchists in NH really care if Vermonters are being oppressed?