Minarchy is objectively the best political philosophy

If you disagree, your perspective is bad and you should feel bad.

not sure what any of that means but i'm going to masturbate to that pic now

The problem with minarchy is that, like all other forms of statism, the government is the sole determiner and enforcer of the scope of its reach. Thus it is inevitable that the state will become larger and more intrusive over time.

BBRRRRRRRRTTTT

Literally everyone is a minarchist. No one believes there should be more government then necessary.

This, the state can only be contained through its total destruction

>the state will become larger and more intrusive over time.
That wouldn't be minarchy then.

>user points out a flaw
>well in my mind its perfect where that flaw couldnt happen

Who is this manmeat manhandler?

...

.

..

.

>Ancap pipedreams.

DIAMONDS I TELL YOU

If the state becomes larger, it isn't minarchy by definition.

>no justification for his belief
>feminine social shaming for those with differing belief

Alexis Ren

Libertarians are retards

stop masturbating to degeneracy

I'm not here to educate you, leaf. If you are of a different opinion know that you are wrong.

Yes but thats not the issue. The issue is that your system cant exist because its flawed. You're like a communist that when pointed out the corruption that comes hand in hand with communism, you say well thats not communism then. The issue is that your ideology isn't compatible with humans.

That's the kind of razor sharp wit that made your country what it is today.

Oh shit you just destroyed minarchism for me. Fuck. I thought it was perfect.

>your system cant exist because its flawed.
A system of minimal government can't exist?
Why not? Are you arguing that countless governmental bureaucracies are necessary?

>The problem with minarchy is that, like all other forms of statism, the government is the sole determiner and enforcer of the scope of its reach. Thus it is inevitable that the state will become larger and more intrusive over time.

That was the opening argument. Your rebuttal was simply "well then its not minarchy"

Historically your minarchy will just be conquered by one of the surrounding states. In the modern world it will be ruled by corporations.

A military is all a state needs to be! ;)

Yeah, because it isn't. The point is extremely limited government. The government doesn't have the power to become larger and more intrusive. If it does then you no longer have minarchism and probably didn't in the first place.

Yea so were going in circles, heres a flaw pointed out in your system, and the only response to it is "when the floor happens it stops being my system"

> I don't feel any need to justify or make a case for why I am right.

Because your "flaw" negates the term by definition.

The US constitution had the most specific protections from the expansion of the state and it failed utterly simply by perverting the Commerce clause. Any ideas on how you would prevent this from happening in your system?

The constitution as I would write it:

The government shall make no law that infringes on the life, liberty, property or privacy of any animal, mineral or vegetable in the universe, whether known or unknown.

I think that about covers it.

Eh no. Look at Switzerland. They tried and failed, it ended in a bloodbath that wiped out a couple of noble families. Minarchical society members have an interest to keep it that way, and will fight to the death for it.

I agree, but I believe in conservative minarchy, which would make certain things illegal, like pornography and homosexuality.

Private property rights are a spook.

the realpolitik of the situation is that libertarianism will just invite more shitskins into our midst, at which point we'll just wind up with socialism.

The function of government is only for protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud.

municipalities > states > federal

it's weird how people can claim that "private property doesn't exist" but if you ask them they own anything, or further, if you tried to steal something they own, they would say they do own things/try to prevent you from taking their things

I also loved that fucking commie on Molyneux's show who suggested that private property doesn't exist, and that if you claim to live somewhere but then leave that place (to go to work for instance) and thus are unable to actively guard that place, other people should be able to move in and live there

communists are simultaneously hilarious, completely retarded, and utterly horrifying

Making things illegal instead of addressing the problem works so well, good idea!

Why do Ancoms always take that part of Stirner literally and nothing else?

you're idea of "flaw" is

>yeah minarchy is great but what if it becomes not minarchy anymore lmao
>"well the point is to restrict the governments powers so it can't expand, and the populace prevents it from happening"
>LMAO but you didn't consider it from my a priori position that the government inevitably gets bigger because reasons and people have no agency

...

>Minarchists
Statists out REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Guess what, we're living in anarchy right now. Every day. It cannot be avoided.

Some day you will understand this, and drop this garbage.

>we're living in anarchy right now. Some day you will understand this
please explain. help me understand.

If god came down from heaven and revealed himself to you, it is still up to you to choose at every moment to follow his moral code.

We are radically free.

Government is an illusion in the mind of {the governed | the governors}. I'll leave you to choose which helps you understand better, though the choice is arbitrary.

You say you cannot fly, and that is why you will not jump off the cliff. But it is not that you cannot fly that you won't jump, it's that you don't want the consequences of jumping given that you cannot fly. You say you aren't free, and that's why you don't like the State. But you are free, you are radically free, you just don't want to accept the consequences of that freedom.

That is the point of minarchism, you might wish to object, to get rid of those consequences that we have today. What minarchist state can prevent people from enacting the very State we live in today? What mechanisms could possibly be in place, yet still qualify as Stateless-enough, to prevent the modern State from arising? And what would be the difference to your actual freedom? Are you really shackled right now, or just metaphorically?

You cannot eliminate anarchy without destroying the human brain, and you cannot eliminate the free market without destroying human wants and needs. There was a black market in the USSR. How could they prevent it? Humans are radically free.

You think your principles are worth dying for, should the society you envision be realized, but you won't die for them right now, you won't even risk going to jail. "The government is stopping me." Is it?