Minarchism and Government Protection

Minarchism: A state which is as limited as possible, only doing the bare minimum to protect individual liberties and property rights. It is also to protect from foreign invaders who may take away freedoms. Law and order would be run by the state and preferably the state would be funded through voluntary taxes.

Minarchism's funding: Voluntary or Not?

If the funding of a minarchist government was voluntary, then it would cease to be a government, and become a company. This minarchist company, let's say it is called MinProtection offers its services to protect people's rights. But since it is voluntarily funded, someone might buy a service from Royal Rights Protection. That's what capitalism is, voluntary transactions. The National Football League (NFL) is a company that has created a set of rules for its version of the game football. The Extreme Football League (XFL) is a company that has created a set of rules for its own version of the game football. For instance, the NFL rules state:

ARTICLE 1. GENERAL RULES

After a touchdown, a Try is an opportunity for either team to score one or two additional points during one scrimmage down.

The Try begins when the Referee sounds the whistle for play to start. The team that scored the touchdown shall put the ball in play:

• 1. anywhere on or between the inbound lines;

• 2. 15 yards from the defensive team’s goal line for a Try-kick; or

• 3. two yards from the defensive team’s goal line for a Try by pass or run. 

• 
  

While the XFL has a different rule on extra points: 

1. After a touchdown, the team has the option of running a play from the 2, 5, or 10-yard line, worth 1, 2, or 3 points respectively. The team must run an offensive play and no kicking plays are allowed. 

2. If the defense is able to cause a turnover and return the ball to the opponent’s end zone, the resulting score is equal to the number of points the offense was attempting to score on its PAT.

Both companies outline their rules (the laws), hire non-partial referees and replay officials (the judges), and enforce punishment for breaking the contract (fees & bans). Players, for American football, are not forced to play for one specific league, they have choices between the NFL, XFL, UFL, etc. You could even make your own league with your own set of rules! When teams come together on one field, they agree to the rules set forth by the league they are playing for. Both teams agree to the selection of referees and, based on previous rulings, that the referees are impartial. (If I made my own league that stated the New England Patriots should always win and the opposing team always loses, no opposing team would want to be in my league). And finally each player agreed to the rules and punishments set forth by the league. For example, if a player hit an official (referee) in the NFL, that player would have to pay a $38,349 fine for the first offense and a $76,702 fine for the second offense. The NFL enforces its rule either by charging a fee to the player or completely barring them from the league. The XFL and UFL both have similar arrangements. This shows that private institutions are enforcing agreed upon laws, something not only reserved for governments. 

Power Vacuums:

“I am the emperor of the world and the moon. I own everything and everyone in it!”

I have made a decree and I have a signed document verifying what I said to be true.

Everybody must follow my command because I said so!

This brings up the question of where power is derived from?

Is power derived from a decree, if so, I own the world and you have to pay me $1000 or I will imprison you. Is power derived from a piece of paper, if so, my signed paper says I own the world and you have to pay me $1000 or I will imprison you. Or is power derived from ownership, the power to control what you own.  

Ownership rightly belongs to whoever first possesses or controls an unclaimed resource. While the terms 'possession' and 'direction' might seem similar, I often prefer using 'direction' to emphasize the active control over an object. 

Say Alice and Bob are on a desert island. Alice finds a stone in the state of nature, previously unowned by anyone. She takes the stone and uses it to draw in the sand. At the same time, Bob wants to take the stone, sharpen it, and use it for rabbit hunting. This leads to a conflict, as both cannot use the rock simultaneously for their respective purposes. It’s intuitively clear that the conflict is initiated by Bob, who tries to claim what Alice has already taken possession of. It's important to recognize that there is a fundamental distinction between owning and merely using something, a distinction understood by both Alice and Bob as they each assert their own claims to direct the stick’s use (drawing in the sand or rabbit hunting), essentially claiming ownership. If ownership were simply about current control, then anyone could override previous claims by taking control, which would collapse the distinction between using and owning. This contradicts the shared understanding that ownership means rightful direction. Thus, we are left with the conclusion that the initial director has the only defensible claim to ownership—initial direction is the only just direction, and thus it is the homesteader who uniquely attains ownership status.

When someone has just direction, they have the power to control how something is used. This is the only way power can be derived. 

So how could there be a power vacuum if that power was fictitious to begin with?

Wouldn’t Corporations just launch wars on each other?

Yes, that could happen. But here's why it is highly unlikely. War is expensive and the only people who can afford it are the ones who spend other people's money. Lookup a Javelin surface-to-air missile launcher. One of those weapons cost $176,000 when purchased in bulk (Imagine purchasing only one!). Just one missile that those weapons fire cost $80,000. ONE MISSILE COSTS $80,000! If Apple was to launch even ten of these, they would lose more than a million dollars in a mere few seconds for a result that might not even be positive. Shareholders would not like that.  And let’s say that this mega-corporation was going after some small business, just because. Let me remind you that the US, the most powerful military in the world, with all its modern planes, missiles, humvees, and guns could not beat goat farmers which lived in caves using weapons from the 1970 soviet union. The US spent $2.7 trillion dollars to fight a war which they did not win. No company would jeopardize their entire business for such a minuscule gain. What companies would do is invest in what they do best. Apple wouldn't spend a trillion dollars to potentially gain some land in the middle of the desert, they would invest in improving their technology.

Even if corporations were to start a war with each other, a minarchist government would be the worst entity to stop them. Governments arbitrarily set a tax rate to fund their own projects. Companies set their prices at what the market demands. If Walmart was to try to sell  apple’s at $1000 a pound, probably no one would buy them, because the value of those apples are not worth $1000. A more realistic price for a pound of apples is 39 cents to $2.99, current (2024) market price. Companies don’t arbitrarily set the price of a service/ product, they have to accurately respond to the market's sentiment. Governments on the other hand don’t respond to the market's sentiment. They arbitrarily set a price for taxes, and force people to pay it.  How does the government know if they are charging too much or too little? How should this minarchist government (or any government at all) allocate resources to provide protection for individual rights? Should each person be given a military tank for protection? Should each person receive two bodyguards? Or should each person simply receive a metal rod to protect their own rights? In a centrally planned economy, the government or a central authority controls the means of production and decides what goods and services are produced, how much is produced, and at what price they are sold. Since there is no competitive market mechanism at play, prices are not determined by supply and demand but rather set randomly. There is an economic calculation problem because without market prices to guide production decisions, central planners lack the information needed to allocate resources efficiently. Prices in a market economy serve as signals of scarcity and demand, providing valuable information about relative costs and preferences. Entrepreneurs and firms use these signals to make decisions about what to produce, how much to produce, and where to allocate resources. If you live in a semi-capitalist country, just imagine voting or pleading with your representative to get more eggs into stores. With actual capitalism, the eggs just appear in the stores! All you have to do is pay for them! So why do we need to vote for someone to represent us to get what we want, why not just let the free market deliver that to us. 

So if you want someone to protect you, you should use the free market!