Dedicated to  Jeffrey Tucker and Murray Rothbard.


A definitive divide between anarchists and minarchists has always been present, but it is not a threshold so large and cavernous that no one can crossover to anarchism. My intentions with this article are to extend a hand out to minarchists, offering some pathways and bridges from minarchism to anarchism. I will be criticizing minarchism as an end, not as a means to an end. Once being a minarchist myself, as most anarchists once were, I can relate to rejecting anarchism because of many preconceived notions as to what anarchism is and isn’t, and the role of the state. Fundamentally, it is the role of the state where minarchists and anarchists find their greatest disagreements. These often lead to ideological standoffs, with neither party willing to budge. It often breaks down from an intellectual debate to a name-calling battle royal with anarchists calling minarchists statists and minarchists calling anarchists dogmatic purists. These name-calling contests are tedious to me. I am an outside-the-system kind of guy myself, and choose that path on my own, but I don’t offer a universal, prescriptive method on how the state should be reduced. I believe one of the core concepts of liberty is to allow for maximum innovation from as many actors as possible. Allow each individual to decide how he or she spreads freedom in the world. Since there are niches to be filled everywhere, it is counter-productive to dictate a one-size-fits-all solution, which is usually a tactic resorted to by the government, not one that should be present in a movement for liberty. Instead of getting involved in the petty bickering I actually want to get to the crux of the issue, share ideas, and, if possible, challenge someone’s position should I disagree with it.


The constant challenging of positions within differing libertarian circles is what separates libertarianism from any other ideology. Unlike modern liberalism and conservatism, libertarianism (classical liberalism) lacks solidarity and a cohesive ideology. Modern liberals and conservative may differ on a few issues within their respective ideologies, but all-in-all they agree with their own peers far more often than not. Libertarians, however, agree they want freedom and a less oppressive government, but that is really the full extent of their agreement. Liberals and conservatives of today, despite minor disagreements within their parties and ideologies, will, in the end, almost always stand together in their opposition to differing ideologies (i.e. The Tea Party vs. the Establishment Republicans), but not libertarians. This is no doubt a byproduct of individualism and a harsh opposition to collectivism which runs deep within libertarian thought, making it increasingly hard to organize a cohesive libertarian ideology. This becomes more and more evident in today’s libertarian circles than ever as we seem to see more and more “infighting” within them; particularly between Minarchists and Anarchists.


As I said in the first paragraph, I am an anarchist, and I will be challenging the position of minarchism in an effort to convince those minarchists who may be reading they should consider crossing the threshold to the side of anarchism. In many cases where I have opened up a dialogue between minarchists and myself, and fellow anarchist, I immediately hear objections. These objections often surround the premise that we (libertarians) should not be arguing with each other, and that we are on the same side. Some also assert it is counterproductive. I typically don’t get much of a response outside of these types of statements, but, while I see where they are coming from, I must respectfully disagree with them. Sure, things can get heated but if done with civil discourse they are nothing but the discussion of ideas. I like to believe that if your views aren’t being challenged at all then it likely means your views are not worth dignifying.


Now, minarchism has a number of philosophies within its ideology (much like anarchism has many different sects itself), but I aim to focus on one of the key traits of minarchism: A state, though minimal in size and scope, is necessary. As I said before I once was a minarchist, more specifically a constitutional-libertarian. I was one nearly all my life, not being anything else such as a democrat or republican. I supported the constitution and deified our founding fathers.[1] Early 2012 is when I started meeting newer people who offered new and fresh ideas, and started exposing me to other arguments I had never heard before. I was immersed in books, essays, journals, and ideas that were all new and foreign to me. I started reading more literature by authors I had never heard of; going further than Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and even Ron Paul was a great stepping stone for me at the time. After much self-hesitation, internal conflict, and further exploring, I deduced my more solidified beliefs in non-aggression and markets to a conclusion which led only to anarchist, thus the abolition of the State.


I began to see that a state, no matter how large or minimal, is intolerable. First, everything it does is immoral, since everything it does can only be done by coercion. Second, from an economic and utilitarian approach, everything it does produces worse results than had there been no state to begin with. The government has flooded itself into just about every sector of the economy making a free market non-existent.[2] Third, the state’s coercion, theft, violence, kidnapping, extortion, and moral impositions are not justifications for stopping all of those things in private society. Whether done by government or a private individual, those type of actions should always be intolerable. Despite all of this, most people, even if you can convince them the State is evil, are still going to advocate for its existence in some form or another as long as they believe getting rid of it will lead straight to an apocalyptic Hobbesian dystopia.


Now, are minarchists statists? This question is not an easy one to answer, even as an anarchist.  Statist – or an individual who advocates giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy – in its common usage, to me, usually falls under the umbrella of today’s liberals and conservatives, seeing as they fit the description of wanting a centralized, government planner for the economy, and even parts of our social life. So, no, based off that definition I would say that minarchists are not statists. They do not exhibit any real loyalty or trust in the state. You won’t hear minarchists saying, “Death before dishonor of the United States Government” by any means, or, “I stand behind the president and congress, right or wrong.” Call them what you want. As I said, I won’t dictate how individuals want to achieve liberty, which includes the terms they use, but the term statist, as it is commonly used, I would argue is not the most intellectually honest term to be using since what they advocate is nowhere close to the type of society today’s conservatives and liberals advocate.


That being said, minarchists are not out of the woods just yet.  Let’s look closer. Economist and historian Murray Rothbard has defined the State as a monopoly of force (within a given geographical area). This nicely describes what falls under minarchism. Most, if not all, minarchists are against government intervention in the economy, which includes government subsidies plus entitlement programs such as welfare and social security. In light of that, they do advocate a government in charge of law and military defense. I prefer the term “monopoly on law” as the State is now necessarily in charge of deciding what constitutes defensive versus aggressive force, and will of course consider all of its own violence to be defensive in nature, and that deployed by any would-be competitors (vigilantes) as aggressive and intolerable – a justification for “defensive” force used against them.


Economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe has defined the State as a monopoly of “ultimate decision-making power” over a given area. This works too, because once you have a monopoly on defense, and on the definition thereof, you have exactly what Hoppe is describing here. The State will put itself in charge of resolving all disputes, including disputes arising between itself and its subjects. It will of course resolve those disputes in favor of itself, and it will find that it has incentives to provoke conflicts in order to resolve them in its own favor.


But let’s say we define the State as an entity, which claims ownership of its ostensible territory. By virtue of its (inevitable, if not by-definition) assertion of final decision-making authority within the confines of its “property” it acts as owner, claims the same rights as an owner, treats anyone found disobeying as a trespasser, and so on. So this definition works as well, I would say.


So, while minarchists are not statists in the common definition, they do advocate a State nonetheless, and I would go as far as to argue they might be unaware of the long-term consequences of the ends they wish to achieve. One could ask why is this relevant, and an adequate response for our purposes here would be to say, obviously law and even defense are important but one contradiction with minarchism is the minarchists want to preserve the absolute worst part of the State, its monopoly over law and justice, and history vindicates these two sectors being abused in times of crises. Having that monopoly, the State has all the power it could ever want, it just doesn’t dare increase its exercise of it too quickly, just incrementally, which will allow it to spread elsewhere such as the economy- yet it was there from the get go with taxation and here you have a recipe for the government to grow beyond its means. In a nutshell, minarchists are against the State, yet want the State to have its hands on the most important things, which government will undoubtedly abuse, and essentially guarantees its growth.


Upon this description of the State, minarchists and classical liberals still tend to argue their preferred society would be a voluntary society. Well let’s look at this claim and I will pose some queries to those who support minarchism:


-If I choose not to pay for law and defense that is funded by the State, can I opt out (And I mean opt out as in choose not to pay, not the “if you don’t like it then just leave” argument)? .
-If I can opt out and not pay, can I do so without any “legal” repercussions such as imprisonment, seizing my property, or even death?
-If I choose to opt out can I then set up my own firms for defense and law to compete with what the State provides?


If you are a minarchist and answered yes to these questions then, truthfully, this sounds closer to an anarchist society, and sounds like you may be an anarchist already. And when one looks at this closer, they can see this as an underlying fatal flaw of minarchism. One of the major tenets of libertarianism is non-aggression, so when I ask minarchists if they would force me to pay for these “services”, most of them say no, while the remaining (few that there are) rush to the defense of these services such as a liberal or conservative would rush to the defense of the roads, EPA, and so on.[3]


If it’s a State, then by any sane definition of the word it’s not voluntary. If you can withhold your tax dollars and forego the State’s legal services as a consequence, it’s not a State – it’s no different from a cell phone company. If I opt out of these services, as a consenting adult, I am aware of what comes with not paying for a service. “Voluntarily-funded State” is a self-contradiction. If I don’t have to pay taxes, I can pay private security to protect my rights instead, or I can choose to do so myself, then you have anarchism. If a monopoly on force is imposed, “voluntary” funding goes out the window, and its funding wouldn’t be voluntary for long either. If government is not coercive, minarchists have anarchism, which many fear. You cannot have a monopoly on law without forcing competitors to stop competing. Thus, the State must, at a minimum, coerce people to use the State as the monopoly provider. Taxation is always coercion, and monopoly is always the banning of competition. The nature of imposing a monopoly and then not allowing “free riders” mandates this. Otherwise, I refuse to pay, and I refuse to allow you to override my natural rights to free association, including my right to defend myself and form an organization to do so. The result if you allow this? A stateless society. If you do not? Coercive state funded by taxation. This is a dire conflict of interests for minarchists to defend.


Now, how to reduce the State is a question that many anarchists and minarchists don’t know, but one thing for sure is that it is something that can be done as a joint effort. However, that is not what I am trying to shed light on. I am talking about once we get there, the ends. When all is said and done, at the end of the day, if one does not advocate a truly voluntary society, as elaborated above, it leaves the alternative of aggression being used. Whether small amounts with limited government or inevitable larger amounts down the road, both are based on a system of coercion.


I would argue that minarchism, or limited government, has failed. It could be said, and agreed upon by many, that the constitution has failed too. As 19th century Anarchist Lysander Spooner points out in his notable book of essays No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority:


But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.[4]


Is this not obvious? Is this really so controversial? Entitlement programs, Obamacare, NDAA, the Federal Reserve, or even the president taking unilateral authority to wage war- all passed under the guise of the “common good” or another groups broad interpretation of the welfare clause, the commerce clause, the Bill of Rights, and so on. Let it be clear though, I do acknowledge that if we had no constitution that our current state of affairs would be drastically worse. The State has shown it will take advantage of such a case as proven throughout history. The constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was established to protect my rights from an oppressive government. Yet those rights were there because I am an individual and are merely acknowledging them, not because of a constitution. If there is no State, then there is not a State to infringe on those rights or take them away.  I would even suggest that “limited government” is an oxymoron, a feat of impossibility.[5] If you read Jesús Huerta de Soto he summarizes it here :


The fatal error of classical liberals lies in their failure to realize that their ideal is theoretically impossible, as it contains the seed of its own destruction, precisely to the extent that it includes the necessary existence of a state (even a minimal one), understood as the sole agent of institutional coercion.

Therefore, classical liberals commit their great error in their approach: they view liberalism as a plan of political action and a set of economic principles, the goal of which is to limit the power of the state while accepting its existence and even deeming it necessary. However, today (in the first decade of the 21st century) economic science has already shown:
a. that the state is unnecessary;
b. that statism (even if minimal) is theoretically impossible; and
c. that, given human nature, once the state exists, it is impossible to limit its power.[6]


Sure, you can have limited government – only for a certain amount of time though. You can try different types of limited government structures, and set up different types of constitutions, but these things only slow the States progression at best. F.A. Hayek speaks of the flaws of central planning in The Fatal Conceit. He describes that planners suffer from a “pretense of knowledge”. One of the greatest fallacies of the minarchist is that he imagines he can control the State like a central planner can control the economy. All of history shows this is false. Democracy has a way of weaving illusions. Individuals want to feel like they are participating and making change, yet many, if not all, of these individuals just don’t seem to understand the State and how it works. The thing with politicians is their whole life is dedicated to winning within the world of Statecraft, the judge of who won is really the State. So all gravity is drawn to power and government, The State is the winning side, always.


Of course, a very small State is only a little bit worse than none, except for the consistent observation, which history thoroughly vindicates, that it’s guaranteed to grow and grow and grow. And even if, for the sake of argument, you even have a limited government with angels elected in power, it is still aggression. The problem with making political decisions, even with limited government, is that you are making choices for other people against their will. Let me choose what is right for me, so long as I don’t interfere with your life, and you do the same. The point is that nobody is competent to make those decisions for others, and since we are in the real world we know many politicians have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of power, thus are less qualified to make the decisions.


Once you put people in charge, you have very close to zero control over what they do, how much additional/unauthorized power will be seized, and more is always taken, the results of their previous handiwork not being very good. This applies to any government that has existed, including our own country where it should be even more proof. Our founders started a minimalist state that has been trending toward omnipotence ever since, and is currently the biggest State in the history of mankind. Our nation, to date, is one of the best examples of a nation that established a government with limited or even enumerated powers, and the founders didn’t advocate extra constitutional powers either. Each has his or her own pet issue that simply cannot be defunded. Could be veterans’ benefits or environmental protection, but it’s the same counterproductive thing going on and it all adds up to the State we have today after 300 million people each put in their pet program. As soon as you have an institution with the power to compel taxes, plus a constituency that think they benefit from the exercise of this power, this is another recipe for an endless series of excuses to incrementally expand that power.


The same is explicitly mentioned here, again, by Jesús Huerta de Soto:


Once the state exists, it is impossible to limit the expansion of its power. Granted, as Hoppe indicates, certain forms of government (like absolute monarchies, in which the king-owner will, ceteris paribus, be more careful in the long term to avoid “killing the goose that lays the golden eggs”) will tend to expand their power and intervene somewhat less than others (like democracies, in which there are no real incentives to worry about what will happen after the next elections). It is also true that in certain historical circumstances, the interventionist tide has appeared to have been dammed to a certain extent.

“Nevertheless, the historical analysis is irrefutable: the state has not ceased to grow. And it has not ceased to grow because the mixture of human nature and the state, as an institution with a monopoly on violence, is “explosive.” The state acts as an irresistibly powerful magnet which attracts and propels the basest passions, vices, and facets of human nature. People attempt to sidestep the state’s commands yet take advantage of its monopolistic power as much as possible.

Moreover, in democratic contexts particularly, the combined effect of the action of privileged interest groups, the phenomena of government shortsightedness and vote buying, the megalomaniacal nature of politicians, and the irresponsibility and blindness of bureaucracies amounts to a dangerously unstable and explosive cocktail. This mixture is continually shaken by social, economic, and political crises which, paradoxically, politicians and social “leaders” never fail to use as justification for subsequent doses of intervention, and these merely create new problems while exacerbating existing ones even further.”


In hindsight, as a minarchist, I remember arguing, “we need to have the right people in charge!”, and “if only we followed the constitution!” I must first point out that if your system is dependent on the right person or people being in charge, it is a bad system. To me this is as fallacious as other failed models not working, such as socialism. We point out actual implementations of socialism, for example, and the socialists complain that it wasn’t “real” socialism. But that’s just the problem: socialists were put in charge, their expected results did not appear, so they did unsocialist, but very totalitarian, things to fix/tweak it, plus whatever else they wanted to. You can’t set up an omnipotent state and then blame the right politician not being in charge or rules not being followed rather than your ideology when things go wrong. It just reaffirms why you don’t place people in charge in the first place.


As a minarchist I also used to content that people want to be ruled, and that anarchism won’t work because of human nature and greed. First, no doubt people may want to be ruled. However, I would argue that isn’t necessarily so, as they usually want others to be ruled because it is always the other person who is bad. To build more on human nature though, and wanting to be ruled, is human nature tends more towards seeking one’s own interest. Man has ends and utilizes means to achieve those ends. In certain cases violence presents itself as a suitable means to a certain end – such as the State many advocate. A point that needs to be made to minarchists that believe this is that I wonder if they would say, by nature, they are violent, and it’s only by a superhuman effort feat of meditation and self-control that they stop themselves from killing or robbing everyone you see. Regarding “wanting to be ruled” and human nature (which again is pursuing self-interests) is in this pursuit, man errs in supporting government as something erroneously believed to serve their purpose for them. All man needs to do is learn otherwise. This is no mystery. Man perceives, or rather has incorrectly surmised, that he is better off with the State than without it. To take a step back though, is it not conflicting to state that people are greedy and evil, then wanting to designate a group of people who are also greedy and evil to be in charge of a monopoly on law, money, and defense?

I would argue that it is circular logic when this objection is brought up as it is typically followed by reverting to even more circular logic stated above of “voting the right guy in.”


More so, why people obey rulers, when they do, is maybe a little more complex. If I keep my eye on the speedometer, it’s only to avoid punishment – otherwise I know from my non-speedometer surroundings whether I’m driving at a safe speed. And I think this is the case for most people – there are rules they object to, which they follow only to avoid punishment, and rules they don’t, which they would (mostly) follow even without the threat of punishment. But I think the really important distinction is that most people believe there absolutely must be rulers, because (erroneous logic here) without them there could not be rules, without which a Hobbesian dystopia seems like the inevitable result. That is, they don’t want to obey rulers, they don’t want to be ruled, they just see it as the necessary and acceptable price to pay to ensure that everyone else has to live by rules that make them feel safe.


Ultimately the point, then, is that these people are factually mistaken about the necessity of rulers for the maintenance of order, and that as long as most people suffer from this delusion, rulers are inevitable (their erroneous beliefs constitute a demand for which there will always be a supply); and that if this error were to be mass-corrected, the demand would evaporate and there would be no possibility of rulers.


If you think the state is an inevitability you have to be able to show one of two things: how someone will successfully rule a population that would not be ruled; or why everyone will necessarily prefer to be ruled, even if they believe it’s contrary to their interests. Technically you could also try to show that everyone will always find being ruled to be in their best interests and therefore always prefer it, but good luck with that.




In retrospect, again as a minarchist, I could have responded with “anarchism is a utopia”, or “we have always had government”. I must at first say that no anarchist worth their salt would claim that a stateless society would be “utopia”, so lets drop that caricature. Further,  not only do these responses fall under logical fallacies such as appeal to tradition and personal incredulity, they also fail to come off nothing more than mere acknowledgements the State exists, not justification for the State’s existence, thus the initiation of force.  I wonder what critics find idealistic about it. If one wants to discuss utopias, I myself cannot think of anything more utopian than the pertinacious faith, after centuries of democracy, that next time, or one of these days, the Right Person will be in charge and finally make good on the promise of political power, finally deliver the peace and prosperity that has been promised. This time, you won’t have to spend those years making excuses or finding scapegoats for all the failures and broken promises. He would have fulfilled that promise, or his legislative achievements would have worked, if not for the “Other Guys in Congress”, or greedy old “Big Whoever” jacking up their prices as all the economists said they would, or those damn lobbyists, voting for more guys like me, or whatever.


I know that many minarchists are still going to read this article believing the same thing they did before reading this. I know that many are scared of the uncertainties we could face in a stateless society as well. If anything though, this shows us how much the State has been to involved and illustrates how much more important it is to abolish it as a whole. As Rothbard states in For a New Liberty:


People tend to fall into habits and into unquestioned ruts, especially in the field of government. On the market, in society in general, we expect and accommodate rapidly to change, to the unending marvels and improvements of our civilization. New products, new life styles, new ideas are often embraced eagerly. But in the area of government we follow blindly in the path of centuries, content to believe that whatever has been must be right. In particular, government, in the United States and elsewhere, for centuries and seemingly from time immemorial has been supplying us with certain essential and necessary services, services which nearly everyone concedes are important: defense (including army, police, judicial, and legal), firefighting, streets and roads, water, sewage and garbage disposal, postal service, etc. So identified has the State become in the public mind with the provision of these services that an attack on State financing appears to many people as an attack on the service itself. Thus if one maintains that the State should not supply court services, and that private enterprise on the market could supply such service more efficiently as well as more morally, people tend to think of this as denying the importance of courts themselves.

The libertarian who wants to replace government by private enterprises in the above areas is thus treated in the same way as he would be if the government had, for various reasons, been supplying shoes as a tax-financed monopoly from time immemorial. If the government  and only the government had had a monopoly of the shoe manufacturing and retailing business, how would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business and throw it open to private enterprise? He would undoubtedly be treated as follows: people would cry, “How could you? You are opposed to the public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It’s easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town? How would the shoe firms be capitalized? How many brands would there be? What material would they use? What lasts? What would be the pricing arrangements for shoes? Wouldn’t regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that the product is sound? And who would supply the poor with shoes? Suppose a poor person didn’t have the money to buy a pair?”

These questions, ridiculous as they seem to be and are with regard to the shoe business, are just as absurd when applied to the libertarian who advocates a free market in fire, police, postal service, or any other government operation. The point is that the advocate of a free market in anything cannot provide a “constructive” blueprint of such a market in advance. The essence and the glory of the free market is that individual firms and businesses, competing on the market, provide an ever-changing orchestration of efficient and progressive goods and services: continually improving products and markets, advancing technology, cutting costs, and meeting changing consumer demands as swiftly and as efficiently as possible. The libertarian economist can try to offer a few guidelines on how markets might develop where they are now prevented or restricted from developing; but he can do little more than point the way toward freedom, to call for government to get out of the way of the productive and ever-inventive energies of the public as expressed in voluntary market activity. No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity. We just know — by economic theory and by historical insight — that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government.[7]


I read this book before becoming an anarchist, but even as one I still love this passage as it is very much true, even amongst libertarian-minarchists. Your concerns on what this society could look like are exactly like any other objection you could think of. Anything that worries you about how a free market might operate, in that your anxiety constitutes a consumer demand for which we can expect a supply to emerge.


I had the privilege to conduct an interview with Jeffrey Tucker in person in which he said to me:


Look, I know you reject anarchism, but when you wake up tomorrow just do me a favor, and from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to bed think about how many times in the day you really found real genuine productive use for the government in your life. How many times did that happen?


Even as an anarchist, this was a revelation to me. If one sits and ponders, few of us actually stop to think of how many times we do things despite the government in our daily routine. Grocery shopping, going to movies, restaurants, concerts, gardening, sporting games-even with the government meddling in those activities –all done despite the government, not because of it.[8] These daily routines of business and leisure are clear examples of anarchism happening. Did you wake up and do these things because government said so? No, you did them anyway and people did these things generations before you. Sure, we drive on roads, drink “clean water”, have sewage systems, and so on that government “provides”. However, many of these services are ones which the State have provided for as long as anyone can remember, and a complete lack of even trying to investigate whether these services have ever been provided by private enterprises, let alone whether the State actually outperforms them in terms of quality, efficiency, cost, etc. Are these technological marvels so complex that no private institution can create them? Doubt it. It is called spontaneous order. A system resulting from a bottom-up process of interaction among many individual agents, rather than from top-down control. As I have said elsewhere, “sentient humans all making decisions based on individual motivation; based on intricate systems of values and needs which is unique to THAT individual. A nexus of exchanges by humans, humans with rational thoughts about means and ends.”[9]


I find that when I look back on history and around the world, I don’t have to make excuses for being free. When I compare the cell phone industry that is relatively unregulated to industries such as health care, I don’t have to come up with ad hoc explanations for why one is characterized by abundance, lower prices and high quality while the healthcare industry keeps diminishing due to scarcity, becomes more expensive, and lousier in spite of uninterrupted and heroic attempts to fix it by political means. I don’t have to base solutions by their intent and overlook or dismiss their actual results in order to continue supporting them. I don’t have to keep pleading that Program X would have been successful now if only we pursued it even more ambitiously or spent more. I don’t have to justify means with ends, calling for what would be called kidnapping or theft, if done by anyone else, in order to bring about some ideal that never materializes no matter how many resources are coercively allocated to it, no matter how many people are caged, killed, intruded upon, or threatened with these actions if they disobey the edicts of a program that would surely achieve its intended objective if only everybody would “go along.”


As much as I would love to convert everyone that reads this into an anarchist overnight, I know that is highly unlikely. It is a long journey. In all honesty, if I could fit the NAP, praxeology, and polycentric law onto a bumper sticker I think we would all be anarchists. In the meantime, that is what further reading and investigation can help achieve. As libertarians we pride ourselves in being intellectuals, so in this age of information I would urge those who are not anarchists to do some further searching and spark some more critical thinking.[10] My goal is certainly to challenge your position on your views regarding a minimal state that you wish to achieve and illustrate that even minimal force is still force, and intolerable. The choice between a group who lashes you 50 times rather than 100 times still doesn’t make you free, it is only more tolerable. I hope to plant a seed that will eventually grow. I know that as libertarians we can all share a common goal in reducing the state, and once it is achieved, to completely end the state, or as the saying goes, “stop believing in authority and start believing in yourselves.”


In Liberty,

Jeff Peterson II

We the Individuals




[1] I still agree with many of them on a number of things, but not to the extend I did when I was a minarchist

[2] See “The Economic Butterfly Effect: and the Myth of Market Failure” by Thomas J. Michie VII

[3] Minarchists: You’re Really Anarchists! by George Donnelly

[4]No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority  by Lysander Spooner

[5]Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?


[6]Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism by Jesus Huerta de Soto

[7]For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard

Chapter 10: The Public Sector, I: Government in Business

[8]To Free One’s Mind by Jeffrey Tucker

[9] From my last article “Adversary of the State

[10]Courts, Police, and National Defense [in a free society]]